subreddit,text
business,"Hey everyone, I’ve recently sparked an interest in wanting to found a Logistics business. A little background, I’m a freshman in college, and the idea was planted by majoring in business and by playing the video game American Truck Simulator. 

I’m learning more about business everyday, and I’m trying to apply what I’m learning to what I’d like to get into. I know it’s better to hone in on one thing rather than branching out, but my vision is to have a multifaceted sort of company, if you will. I feel while this will be a longer, more expensive plan, it will make me more in the long run. 

A big question I have is, is this even a good idea?  One thing worth noting is, I plan on introducing everything in phases. Phase 1 would be just introducing the business, getting the proper licenses and everything and then I plan on starting by transporting exotic/luxury cars. I’d either be working with clients, or with dealers and foreseeing their day to day operations. I chose exotic car transport to start because I feel like startup costs are relatively low. I then plan on branching out into moving and/or towing/wrecker in phase 2, before moving onto heavy equipment/specialized transportation in phase 3. 

The hardest thing so far is finding a name. There are MANY logistics businesses, but not all of the plan on being as multifaceted as I plan on being. If anybody could help me find a name, that would be greatly appreciated. I’ve tried combining words, like Navigate+Away to form NavAway (unique, catchy) but that was taken. One thing I will note is that I’d like just a single word. As with the expansions, I’d like to keep everything short and concise. For example, ‘(company name) Exotic,’ or, ‘(company name) Heavy,’ if that helps you get a better idea. Any and all help is appreciated.

TL;DR: Starting a Logistics business, can’t find a name"
business,"It works though. At one of the companies I worked for, I helped a sales rep with a dating profile since he wasn't having great luck with the platform. I emphasized the need to stress that he was a sales manager at an international medical device firm (our HQ was in Asia and all sales reps who had passed probation were ""district managers""). He went from almost no matches to tons."
business,"What? This angry, bald old white man and his ridiculous beard analogy is meant to change my mind? The guy is a no body. 

I mean seriously, comparing this to Nike sponsoring a terrorist? Fuck off. KP is raising awareness about injustice and police brutality. Not enforce sharia law. Why do some white people get so butt hurt about black people to be treated equally and it be killed for doing nothing? 

Just know, the rest of the world is judging you. "
business,"I'm with you.  I actually got a (temporary, contract) job with Nike at the world HQ in Oregon not too long ago.  One of the ""not required, but strongly suggested"" things is to always wear Nike footwear.  

I bought a pair of $80 shoes, with the understanding that I wouldn't be wearing them more than really, the small walking distances a commute by car requires.  Basically, traversing the parking lot and walking around an office building a small bit.  They were ostensibly ""walking"" shoes.  

In the 3 months I was there, the topmost eyelet for laces broke.  One of the heel loops (for pulling the shoe on) broke, and the tread on the shoes was all but worn through at major pressure points in the shoe.  

It was the sort of shit I'd expect from a pair of Payless shoes that cost $10, not Nike.  Their quality has gone downhill _fast_ in the past few years.  "
business,"Wore my Nike Vapormax everyday for the whole summer because I was always at work, my job involves me being on foot going back and forth. They got dirty, tossed them in the washer and they look good as new, no problems with them. Granted, they were $190 vs the $80 shoes you bought. If you want something to last you while the shoe being comfortable, the Vapormax is well worth it. Don't get Roshes, but you can opt for the Vapor Street, epic react, or the Free Run. "
business,"Bought nike running shoes for 120 euro, 2 months of everyday use later the glue used had failed. Bought DC shoes for running again, 2 month later the glue had failed, same with addidas, buy shoes that were stitched together. Nikes 6.0 with a stitch have been going strong for 3 years now, my timberlands with a stitch have been good for 4 years, now I'm thinking of getting these cool new kicks from reebok cause they have a nice big stitch thru the entire bottom of the shoe, I'd wager they underside of the shoe will be the thing that gives. "
business,"I'm not sure if you're kidding ... but:

Literally 70% of those shoes you mentioned are old models with a slight tweak.

You think that the Airmax 91 is ""fresh"" but the NMD's are beaten to death? It's literally a model from 1991 ... it's in the name man.

React Element is literally also a re-design of another model. It says it in the damn description.

>Odyssey React.

It's literally a different model of the react shoe ...

How the hell are NMDs, a 3 year old shoe, beaten to death ... but Nike shoes that are 20+ years old are ""fresh releases""?

I'm not saying the shoes are ugly ... I'm just saying that if I already own 4 pair of Airmax, then the Wortherspoon model isn't gonna get me out of my chair.

It's probably the 300th iteration of the Airmax shoe.

Literally every single shoe you mentioned is a tweak of an old design, albeit 2 of them had larger tweaks - most of the others are practically just color alterations.

But hey ... don't take my word for it: Adidas has gone from 5-6% market share in 2016 to an estimated 14% in mid 2018.

Adidas stoke has gone up 22% from 2016 - 2017, Nike was flat, and Under Armor dropped.

Adidas is making moves, and consumers are responding. Nike is the comfortable giant, and they're losing, at least in the short game."
business,"Not the person you're replying to, but I can't help but to set some things straight:

>It's literally a different model of the react shoe

No it's not, that's like saying Yeezy Boosts are a redesign of UltraBoost. React is Nike's in-house cushioning technology/material. 

I agree that Adidas' marketshare will continue to grow, but what the original commenter was saying is that (in the sneakerhead/hypebeast community at least), it's generally agreed that Nike has been putting out better sneakers this year. [""Boost is dead""](https://www.reddit.com/r/Sneakers/search?q=boost+is+dead&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) is practically a meme on sneaker forums.

>if I already own 4 pair of Airmax, then the Wortherspoon model isn't gonna get me out of my chair.

Lol I know it's a bad example but that's one of the most sought after sneakers this year and despite constant restocks the [resale prices remain sky high.](https://stockx.com/nike-air-max-1-97-sean-wotherspoon)

Again, not disagreeing with you. Just providing some context."
business,"I think sneakerheads make up a relatively small amount of the market. I'm not sure how many new shoes they buy, but people hanging out in forums dedicated to a niche are probably not the only metric worth considering.

You could literally just look at market share, and see how it's dropping.

Sneaker-heads can say what they want. You literally just pointed out how they don't care if the only change to a new shoe is color, they covet it because it's rare.

Also, your link shows 12 posts over a 2 year period. Even in the niche what you're saying seems to be something a few fanboys have been pushing.

Time will tell, but the idea that models that are 1-3 years old are ""dead"", but the same shoe re-colored 500 times is ""fresh"" (hello Airmax, Airmax 97, Air Force 1) is an outright joke."
business,"> I think sneakerheads make up a relatively small amount of the market.

I was in agreement with you until now. Brand perception is important - especially in fashion. Ultraboost was not well received by runners, let alone the fashion world when it was first released in 2015. You could walk into any retail store and find the full range of colours. They were sitting on shelves until Kanye West wore them during a concert. 3 years on, it's known as Adidas' ""best sneakers"" to non-sneakerheads. 

Like it or not, we shouldn't belittle the effect that tastemakers and influencers have on fashion. It's no coincidence that Adidas footwear's marketshare which had been steadily declining since 2011 started picking up again in 2016.

You're right that Adidas is doing well this year, but cracks are starting to show. Ultraboost is no longer as desirable, and even the recent Yeezy releases which used to command resell prices of several hundred dollars have [lost their value.](https://imgur.com/rQcUGO8.png)

If that's not enough to convince you, [they're also losing a lawsuit against Puma and may lose the right to sell sneakers with Boost \(it's licensed from BASF, which manufactured Puma's original ""boost"" formula\).](http://www.thefashionlaw.com/home/adidas-puma-battling-over-a-chemical-compound-central-to-their-most-popular-shoes)

>your link shows 12 posts over a 2 year period.

Yeah, that's just Reddit's shitty search function that doesn't include comments. There're hundreds of results for boost+is+dead+site:www.reddit.com on Google.

>the idea that models that are 1-3 years old are ""dead"", but the same shoe re-colored 500 times is ""fresh"" (hello Airmax, Airmax 97, Air Force 1) is an outright joke.

It may seem counter-intuitive to you but it's true. They've always been classics which enjoyed strong sales, but it's more popular than ever this year because 90s ""dad shoes"" is now a thing in fashion. It's a matter of taste - just because it's different from yours, it doesn't mean it's wrong."
business,"The colabs are existing silhouettes, and they are the most desirable sneakers released in the last 2 years. Some commanding thousands.

Wotherspoons i got the name wrong. They’re 97/1 and are a new silhouette.

The rest are no less innovative than ultraboost.

NMDs are dead in that they are no longer desirable because of over saturation of low quality general releases. The nike silhouettes your comparing them to are timeless, like the Stan Smiths and Superstars of Adidas.

You’re also fundamentally misunderstanding the implication of gaining market share. Closing the gap on Nike does not mean they are beating them."
business,"When you gulp up 7% market share in 1 year you are definitely beating your competition.

It doesn't mean you will beat them next year, but you beat them this year.

If we go by your definition then nobody is beating anybody, unless they go bankrupt.

>Wotherspoons i got the name wrong. They’re 97/1 and are a new silhouette.

It's not a new silhouette, it's the same silhouette as before. The details have just changed a tiny bit.

Calling that a new silhouette is extremely disingenuous. The name is even the same, *airmax 91*.

>NMDs are dead in that they are no longer desirable because of over saturation of low quality general releases. The nike silhouettes your comparing them to are timeless, like the Stan Smiths and Superstars of Adidas.

Again, I guess time will tell. I'm sure plenty of people like you said the same about those shoes when they were a few years old, and here we are ... almost 30 years later and they are still just tweaking slight details and releasing them as ""new"" shoes."
business,">No, losing by less is not beating. Plus you’re referencing 2016 when adidas was ahead.

Actually the 7% increase was from 2016 - 2017, which I believe goes from summer > summer.

>What do you mean same as before?

A silhouette is the shape of a shoe.

If you make a B&W silhouette of the Airmax 91 and the Wortherspoon then you'll see that they look practically identical.

Tweaking a few details (like making the swoosh smaller and adding Airmax 97 features) is not the same as making a new Silhouette (Say Air Force 1 vs Airmax 91)

I'm not sure if this is simply terminology, but if so then you're using the word silhouette wrong.

>It’s a new shoe.

Yeah, it's a new shoe. But it's an old design that they took and tweaked.

Hence the name: Wotherspoon **air max 91**. It's literally in the name man.

>I don’t think you know what you’re talking about on this one.

It's quite literally in the name.

It's almost like you're arguing that the newest iteration of the Spiderman Origins is a brand new thing.

They've taken a story that's been beaten to death, with a character that's beaten to death, and then re-done it.

Yeah, it's a ""new movie"", but we've all seen it before. We know the story, we know the bad guy, we know the good guy. Applying new CGI doesn't make it ""brand new & fresh"". It doesn't make it bad, but it's definitely not a new concept or new brand ... hence the name."
business,"Oh sorry ... I meant the Air Max 97. Didn't realize I typed it wrong. I bought a pair when they released back in the late 90s, when they were all the rage among techno fans.

But the original 97s and the Wotherspoon are the same silhouette. It's literally minor details they have altered and released as a ""new"" shoe, again.

That's a 21 year old shoe that has been re-released with slight tweaks again, and again, and again, and again, and again ..."
business,"Do you have any data to back that up? I work in the industry and in area(e-commerce/online retail) Nike leads adidas pretty handedly in youth. This year, Adidas has made gains and had greater growth than Nike(when looking at percentage changes), however, Overall, Nike leads Adidas by a wide margin and had greater total growth. 

Granted, my perspective is limited. I just haven’t seen or heard anything that Adidas is “kicking Nike’s ass” in anything. Youth or otherwise. "
business,"Adidas has been stealing market share from Nike & Under Armor in 2015, 2016, 2017, and it seems it's continuing in 2018.

Check out Business Wars: Nike vs Adidas.

The trend definitely seems to be going towards Adidas. I'm on my phone so finding sources is difficult.

But Adidas have been way more aggressive, releasing new models, stealing Kanye West from Nike, their ocean plastic recycle program has been a huge success, especially amongst young people ...

Nike re-launched an Air-Jordan that looks like the models from the 80s. They re-launched the Air-Max ...

Those are literally the 2 models they are highlighting right now on their website.

Adidas has the Yeezy's, the NMD 1 & 2, as well as their Ultraboost.

It's a brand new lineup vs a recycled one."
business,"It's a newer lineup of shoes and a generally far more ""young"" outlook the company has.

They are recycling shoes, focusing on comfort as well as design, and they are actually releasing new models aggressively.

The NMD 1 & 2, Ultraboost & Yeezy are some of the most popular shoes on the market, and they were all released the past 3 years.

Nike has literally just recycled the same junk. Their main highlighted product is a pair of Air Jordans that resemble the ones from the 80s, as well as a pair of ""crazy"" colored Air-Max - which is also a design originating from the 80s."
business,"Lol, ok......  You guys are really out in force today.

Clinton was being impeached for lying about a consensual blowjob.  Unethical and shitty, and the only real crime was lying under oath about a non-crime anyway.

Regardless, the process happened....Why won't Trump go under oath about the dozens of various crimes he is accused of?  Clinton did it. Is he weaker than Clinton?  Must be.......  Not as strong as a Clinton is the only real answer."
business,">Clinton was being impeached for lying about a consensual blowjob. Unethical and shitty, and the only real crime was lying under oath about a non-crime anyway.

[What about all the other allegations?](https://www.vox.com/2016/1/6/10722580/bill-clinton-juanita-broaddrick) If you think Trump should have to answer for every allegation of questionable veracity, then surely Clinton should too. I personally don't give a fuck if the president cops a blowie in office, especially when he has the misfortune of being married to Hillary, I'm just trying to figure out what your standard is.

>Regardless, the process happened....Why won't Trump go under oath about the dozens of various crimes he is accused of? Clinton did it. Is he weaker than Clinton? Must be....... Not as strong as a Clinton is the only real answer.

Clinton went under oath and promptly got caught in a perjury trap. Trump's lawyers hopefully will continue to be smart enough to not let him anywhere near a sitdown with Mueller."
business,"Well there is the meeting with foreign governments to accept help, there’s the using campaign funds to pay off women and not declaring them, there’s the obstruction of justice (take your pick). That’s only what public. The jawline of Justice has no leaks so god knows how much he has.

There are the multiple guilty pleas and indictments Mueller has laid out in just a few months so he’s pretty successful.

It’s ironic because your so obsessed with the Clinton’s you ignore the years of republican led investigations into various phony accusations that ultimately led to zero indictments.

How sad it must be to realize you’ve been supporting a farce this whole time."
business,">Well there is the meeting with foreign governments to accept help, there’s the using campaign funds to pay off women and not declaring them, there’s the obstruction of justice (take your pick). That’s only what public. The jawline of Justice has no leaks so god knows how much he has.

Oh, so you're parroting this whole ""he has so much shit on Trump that it only SEEMS like he's come up with nothing"" line of wishful thinking. Out of all the unproven accusations you listed, the only one with even a shred of proof behind it is the campaign finance violation, and I'm sorry to disappoint you, but presidents don't get impeached over campaign finance violations.

>There are the multiple guilty pleas and indictments Mueller has laid out in just a few months so he’s pretty successful.

Yes, a handful of Russians running troll Facebook and twitter accounts will surely be the smoking gun Mueller needs. Or maybe Manafort's guilty plea for shit that happened a decade before Trump even thought about becoming president will be the final nail in the coffin. If only impeachments could be done on the basis of wishes and dreams, no?😂🤣😂

>It’s ironic because your so obsessed with the Clinton’s you ignore the years of republican led investigations into various phony accusations that ultimately led to zero indictments.

I'm not ""ignoring"" anything, why would I waste time typing about shit that has nothing to do with what we are talking about?

>How sad it must be to realize you’ve been supporting a farce this whole time.

This, from the party that nominated Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂"
business,">Just because you say Mueller has nothing doesn’t mean it’s true. How are you possibly ignoring all the guilty pleas, indictments and sentencing already happening. 

A handful of Russians running troll Facebook and Twitter Accounts. Paul Manafort doing sketchy shit in Ukraine over 10 years ago. Mike Flynn may have lied to the FBI about being in contact with the Russians before the transition to Trump's presidency, and was thusly fired after serving for a whopping 24 days. Cohen, campaign finance violation. In your expert legal opinion, which part of this is supposed to be the wrecking ball that brings Trump down? Because it doesn't look like much at all."
business,"This is a business sub. We should talk about the business aspect of it.

Though Kaepernick's protest was in response to race relations, I don't think the blowback against Nike has anything to do with being racist. 

Kaepernick's method of protest was seen as disrespectful to the National Anthem and the country as a whole to many people (don't argue this with me because I could care less, I'm just stating why it's a bad business move). 

Unless you're selling to a niche market, being political is never a good business practice."
business,"Of course there are plenty, but that doesn't mean any of the conservative arguments against Kaepernick are valid.

There's the simple argument of, ""What he's doing goes against all American principles/ law."" Which is a load of horseshit because this country was built on the principles that people have freedom of speech and expression given that they are not incurring harm to others or infringing on other people's rights. He has ever right to kneel during the anthem just like the butt hurt people that outrage over his actions have every right to voice their dissent with him. It's quite clear that the conservative side either doesn't understand American principles, or they're just using it as an excuse to rally against liberal actions."
business,"That's a fair question to ask.

I believe the issue comes down to ""implied"" vs. ""inferred"" protester intentions.

The protesters' implied message is that they believe a fundamental problem in how some non-white races are treated by systemic groups. For example, police violence against blacks. The protesters' intent is to point out this systemic violence with the hopes to draw more attention to the problem.

On the other side, some counter group of people are inferring a completely different message from the protesters. One such message is that the protesters are purposefully acting to disrespect some aspect of America (for example, the military). Because this group misinterprets the message of the protesters, this group's conclusions are disconnected from the truth.

The idea that the counter group is racist largely stems from not being able to see any other conclusion for how the counter group can come to their incorrect conclusions about the protesters and the protesters' message.

The express message is simple: police violence against ethnic minority groups is bad. However, counter groups not only refuse to acknowledge the express message, they also invent wildly different explanations for the protesters' message and heavily criticize the protesters based upon these ficticious strawman arguments.

Ultimately, the issue comes down to the subject of race. That's the core issue that is being protested. As is consistent in other aspects of life, racist people tend to avoid directly acknowledging their racist views and instead use other language to describe what is functionally a racist viewpoint.

The same thing is occurring with regard to the protesters and their message: counter groups seem to use language to describe racist viewpoints without actually coming out and directly acknowledging a racist perspective (except, of course, people like that congressman recently who resigned after calling the protesters ""baboons"").

So it's difficult to see a counter person's message as being anything other than veiled racism, particularly when the outcome of whatever their argument is indistinguishable from a racist viewpoint."
business,"No no. You misunderstand. Valid and exist are two differently defined words. The arguments do exist and they can be valid to the people arguing them, but when you apply logic along with evidence to them, they reveal that the motives and reasoning behind them are nothing more than petty inconsistent misinterpretations of American law and principles.

If YOU can find an argument from the conservative side that doesn't rely heavily on people's emotions and actually provides some solid interpretation of the law that shows that occupational retaliation, conviction, or threats of the aforementioned are fair decisions, then I would agree that there are some valid arguments."
business,"> The well paid executives get stock options and lost 3% (as of the writing of this comment) of that value.

yes - like I say in the grand scheme of their wealth nobody (of sound mind) would lose any sleep over that

> A public company's first responsibility is a fiduciary one to its shareholders. If this doesn't swing the other way that is a problem.

its a one day swing of less than 3% - thats really not going to matter 

my point was that the 'effect' of all this was so minimal - and likely temporary - that businesses really not need fret over this frothing. a business sub can still recognise people's & businesses behaviour is not only ever driven by the every dollar on the bottom line either. 

as for whether businesses should be political - Benetton of the 90s would like to have a word with you. "
business,"> while there's a continuous presumption that I'm worse, regardless of evidence to the contrary. ""Whatever, you wouldn't know,"" while they're buying Nike.
> 
> Fuck. That. Shit


No one has a free pass to be racist/sexist/exploitative, etc., but history shows white folks are the biggest offenders to minorities rights and suppression, especially in the United States (and still to this day). Failing to acknowledge that is just repeating mistakes again like we are currently witnessing. "
business,"> Kaepernick's method of protest was seen as disrespectful to the National Anthem and the country as a whole to many people (don't argue this with me because I could care less, I'm just stating why it's a bad business move).

Let's be honest here.  The only reason anyone sees it as disrespectful is because Fox News told them it was.  

> Unless you're selling to a niche market, being political is never a good business practice.  

I don't know if this is necessarily applicable, as Kaepernick's supporters outnumber the protesters by a large margin and may induce more sales from the supporters.  "
business,"So Kap sits at the bench during the anthem, and [one Green Beret](https://www.npr.org/2017/10/17/558390590/former-green-beret-and-nfl-player-talks-about-take-a-knee-protests) tells him that it's too disrespectful to the flag.  They agree that a kneel would be a better way to go about this.  Kap starts kneeling.

So now your marine buddy ""understands it but he thinks it should be done in a different way to not disrespect the flag"".  Will raising a fist up in the air work?  I recall a lot of [controversy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Olympics_Black_Power_salute#Aftermath) on that one, too.  "
business,"Is he aware that it was suggested to Kaepernick by a Green Beret that kneeling was more respectful than sitting? [Because Green Beret Nate Boyer is the one who suggested it.](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/veteran-kaepernick-take-a-knee-anthem/)

>So when I talked to them, it was mutual. Me, him, and Eric Reid [said] “I think maybe taking a knee would be a little more respectful. It’s still a demonstration. You’re still saying something but, people take a knee to pray. So for me it was a common ground, at least, to start from."
business,"The middle ground is you work as long as you are productive. Maybe it's 6pm. Maybe it's 10pm. If you are falling asleep and are so tired that you can't focus, you go home. It's clearly affecting his mental state as he has been saying ridiculous shit. There is also a limit to how far most employeed can push themselves. At some point you hire more people. Good managers know how to set reasonable expectations. If you want more, pay more. "
business,"> Which is stupid. Because study after study has shown that working consistently long hours reduces productivity and contributes to worker attrition.

Yes, yes it is -- at least if you're not doing manual labor.  But Musk has built a culture of workaholism and hopefully will come out of this with some pungent lessons about how bad an idea that is. 

If you're already pushing people as hard as you can, there's *nothing left* if you need even more to overcome an obstacle such as the ramp-up for the Model 3 launch. "
business,"'terrible' leader is a stretch. Some people are genuinely, truly brilliant and have incredible belief in their own vision. A lot of people just pretend to be that kind of person. Its really not that hard to spot a fake when you look at real-world accomplishments and dedication, instead of just words. Elon's words (eg. twitter) are not always the most helpful, but his work ethic is inspiring to a lot of people who feel solidarity when their leader takes a personal toll b/c of that ethic. Its not for everyone, and many people need their leaders to do other things to make them feel comfortable. A lot of people prefer to see their leader play golf instead of put some real sweat and tears into what they profess to care about, because winning or something."
business,"Engineers need to use their minds.
They can't use their minds at their full potential, their biggest asset, the thing that makes those companies work if they don't sleep well.

Same thing applies to Elon being a CEO, constantly in the public eye, constantly expected a lot from very smart people, etc. He needs to be at his best, and sleeping under desks, not sleeping at all some days is not exactly gonna do him any favors."
business,"Oh, he's plenty smart, but he's not wise lately and I think it's because he's a fellow manic depressive.  He usually is operating in the hypomanic range which some people can do their whole life almost.   He's burning his candle at both ends with a blowtorch.   He's trying to take on all comers by himself.  Running multiple companies, dad to kids, romantic complication, lots of enemies and lots of genuinely concerned investors.   So he starts getting less and less sleep and then he's destabilized.  He spirals and is all over the place.   I really wish somebody close to him could help him right now.  When you don't sleep right you do real damage and you risk a full break.   One example, if he's being found asleep in different places I know he's not resting well.   We know from sleep studies that your first night in a new sleep location is not good sleep because your brain stays on alert mode not trusting new surroundings.   He would do much better to sleep in a good bed where he's secure physically and mentally.  He can even have more than one of these locations, but falling asleep at a desk or on the floor, no, big red flag.

​

Back to smart and foolish, so many of these super driven successes build a myth around themselves that they are smarter, tougher, just cut from a different cloth.... and maybe sometimes it's even part true, but we all age.  Nobody escapes.   The all nighter that seemed doable at 21is not feasible at 47.   Then the really foolish refuse to accept any declines and turn to drugs and supposed performance enhancers, some of these might work for a bit, but I don't know of anything that can let you skip sleep long term.   Stimulants lead to psychosis, heart failure, lasting damage when done too much.   A wise leader sets the course and holds people accountable, inspires greatness.   Elon doesn't need to sleep on a floor to do this.

​

​"
business,"I'm not saying you're wrong but a lot of people, including myself, can perform fairly well without observing standard circadian rhythms. I will often sleep in 4-6 hour segments and prefer to sleep at work when I have a lot on my plate as I'm able to get restful sleep anywhere. Developing core strength and hip drive to promote good sleep posture removes a lot of the risk for physical side effects. 



I really enjoy my work doing technical design and find it engaging and challenging so sleeping at work to do a project isn't dedication pageantry. I wouldn't ask anyone under me to do the same, and I don't ask for more from the people over me. I don't lord it over anyone, but I'm far more comfortable getting a cycle on a concrete floor with a water bottle pillow than I am commuting home and back when I really just wanna kick ass at work."
business,"I upvoted you, but that really sounds like corporate propaganda for abusing employees and not hiring enough talent.   NASA certainly worked crazy hard back in the day, but I never heard of Tesla style erratic behavior from leadership.   Don't remember reading that people only stuck around a couple years on average.   In fact, some of the highest stress jobs at NASA were held for decades by key players.   

​

What I mean about money for talent and staffing might be easy to visualize if you think of a big custom house getting built.  There are lots of physical things that need doing and there are lots of bureaucratic things too.  And all of the tasks need to be coordinated and managed for quality and completion.   If you want great quality you don't want to rush too much, cause that's how corners get cut and honest inspectors shut you down.   But if you want the project to move at a respectable pace, you subcontract with firms who have the manpower needed.   Now if you simply put out calls to all the union halls for guys to show up and pay at the higher than market rate, things would go somewhat faster, but only to a point cause there's a natural progression to a home.  You can't have the drywallers show up before the framing is done, etc..   Or as Warren Buffett has said, ""You can get 9 women pregnant but you won't get a bay in a month.""  Or something like that...

​

Back to SpaceX, I think the reusable rocket with the landing itself is awesome.  Truly.   But putting something into orbit has been well understood and implemented since the 1950s.  What did you find amazing?  The PR Stunt with the car?   I thought it was cooler when there were cosmonauts and astronauts and they orbited and came back to earth."
business,"I agree with you in pretty much all circumstances. But I do think that Tesla and SpaceX are different in a few regards. For one people that work there know what they will be doing. And especially in this case these are very talented people that could get a job anywhere and choose this. To be part of it, to get it on their resume etc.

This is really different than Walmart squeezing retail workers or Amazon and their warehouse staff."
business,"Hard for me to know if the management culture at those places needs to be that way or if it evolved in the mirror image of the founder.  Plenty of cutting edge employers who are doing unprecedented tech work don't have this style of management.  Yes, I realize that Google and Apple do the seductive approach to really squeezing their new people by coddling and spoiling a bit.  The old, hey, it's okay that I'm here 6 days a week for at least 10 or 12 cause they buy me lunch and dinner....

We have other aerospace companies in the U.S. and you just don't hear about the same level of burnout and the CEO sleeping at random desks after ingesting various substances.   I really like Elon, but I hope he has some trusted friends or family to help him see the danger in what he's doing to himself (and his companies).   Tesla's success won't depend on Elon sleeping under desks more often, in fact I'd say the opposite.   And churning through people is inefficient use of most prized resources.  Hiring and firing and the fallout of firing or forcing to quit, all bad mojo."
business,">  The old, hey, it's okay that I'm here 6 days a week for at least 10 or 12 cause they buy me lunch and dinner....

I am not explaining my point right, I think. From what I understand most of these people are very young. They do this for fun for a couple of years and then move on for jobs at companies that are more ""stable""

But yes, what he's doing now is not healthy or helpful."
business,"Space X is a crap version of Boeing or Lockheed Martin. 

Tesla is not profitable so he hasn’t even created an actual company there yet. 

PayPal was good, but it was. A natural product of the time certainly not visionary. 

He’s done big stuff, but he’s not even a glimmer of what he could have been were he an actual lead instead of a just good hype man for raising capital. "
business,"If I say in short and sweet, you need to check earlier career of Elan. He has started his career in this type of situation and created a Paypal. After selling it, he has invested for Tesla and SpaceX. And after a long drive, he is here where his team did many unrealistic things.  


Innovation is never done by normal action. You need to do something different to stay away from crowd.  


And that Elan is doing !!  


Otherwise no one can think about car like model 3 under $40,000 !! Hope we support him to do such a innovations!"
business,"Anyone who could build just one company that did a fraction of the revenue that any of the companies Elon’s been directly involved with - would be considered impressive. No he’s not Jesus, Iron Man, the smartest business man who ever lived...you don’t even have to like or respect the guy.

However, to say he hasn’t accomplished anything impressive is ridiculous. 

I would even say that his ability to put pressure on the big automakers to shift their thinking on electric cars has been impressive. No he’s not the first, but he’s been a big factor in applying the pressure."
business,"but ..but.. but.. they reused a rocket?

I hate this stupid line of thinking. Reusing rockets has never been an issue, the issue is that the cost of doing so makes doing it impractical. Since Space X financials are not public, I seriously doubt that Space X is able to do it.

And Tesla sending a car into space is fucking retarded. Didn't we all agree that space advertising should not be allowed? Oh, that's right, ""Tesla doesn't advertise"". Instead now we get a car in space that has to be tracked forever (well until it crashes back into the Earth) and all the paint flecks, and other junk coming off the car only adds to the problem of Space trash, presenting very real barriers to, you know... actual science... But yes let's all listen to the science bros who tell us how super cool Elon is and how much better than NASA he is.

Fuck Elon, and fuck his shitty cult"
business,"He didn't start Tesla and it's not like he built rockets from scratch. Bezo being able to build a rocket company proved if you have enough money to throw at a problem, you can solve it.  Bezos didn't need to read tons of rocket textbooks to prove he's super smart either!

If any of us had the same starting amount without zero conscience about raping the government for funds, we could accomplish similar results.

I could start tons of companies that make no profits as well."
business,">He didn't start Tesla 

Tesla was nothing before him.

>and it's not like he built rockets from scratch. Bezo being able to build a rocket company proved if you have enough money to throw at a problem, you can solve it.  Bezos didn't need to read tons of rocket textbooks to prove he's super smart either!

Bezos is worth $165 billion. Musk was a failed rocket launch from going bankrupt back when SpaceX was starting out and is intimately involved in the engineering and design of the rockets, while Bezos is not.

You think Bezos doesn't read? Are you attempting to shame Musk for reading to better himself? Lol wow.

>If any of us had the same starting amount without zero conscience about raping the government for funds, we could accomplish similar results.

Absolutely garbage opinion. The opinion of someone that's probably never tried to accomplish anything significant in his life. Musk didn't start with anything. He was an immigrant that nearly went bankrupt multiple times. He is as self-made a billionaire as there ever was.

>I could start tons of companies that make no profits as well.

Companies worth billions? Laughable. No you couldn't."
business,"> Tesla was nothing before him.

And it still is with him. The output is laughable by even his own measure as he struggles to even hit his own arbitrary goals.

> Bezos is worth $165 billion. Musk was a failed rocket launch from going bankrupt back when SpaceX was starting out and is intimately involved in the engineering and design of the rockets, while Bezos is not.

>You think Bezos doesn't read? Are you attempting to shame Musk for reading to better himself? Lol wow.

Remember that part about raping government for funds - you're only pointing out using the Space X example. Space X hasn't done anything revolutionary. Reusing rockets was possible decades ago. Companies don't do it because it's not economically feasible. Also, it almost went bankrupted at his helm. How's solar city working out?

In terms of Bezos, of course he reads, but he doesn't brag about it like Elon does and think he has a hand in every engineering feat. He lets people who are actually has expertise do the work. You see Bezos holding a pity party at his warehouse pretending to pack Amazon shipments?

> Absolutely garbage opinion. The opinion of someone that's probably never tried to accomplish anything significant in his life. Musk didn't start with anything. He was an immigrant that nearly went bankrupt multiple times. He is as self-made a billionaire as there ever was.

Just like your opinionated statement. If Musk came from what I have, I doubt he would be a billionaire either. My parents weren't owners of diamond mines or even functionally literate. We all get dealt the cards we have. I don't need to jerk him off like you do.

> Companies worth billions? Laughable. No you couldn't.

Based on book value, Tesla is actually worth less than zero, so actually, yes I can. Only dummies like you want to keep propping him up while he burns your money through public offerings. Unfortunately, I don't have a choice since he likes to raid government funding. He's already on to the next scam, to build tunnels lol. Funding secure on that too?



"
business,">> Tesla was nothing before him.
>
>And it still is with him. The output is laughable by even his own measure as he struggles to even hit his own arbitrary goals.

They pulled in $4 billion in revenue last quarter. They are far from profitable, but you're really attempting to argue they're no better off than when Musk took over? They're a globally recognized brand worth $50 billion. I'm sure you could do that in your sleep though, right? Lol

>> Bezos is worth $165 billion. Musk was a failed rocket launch from going bankrupt back when SpaceX was starting out and is intimately involved in the engineering and design of the rockets, while Bezos is not.
>
>>You think Bezos doesn't read? Are you attempting to shame Musk for reading to better himself? Lol wow.
>
>Remember that part about raping government for funds - you're only pointing out using the Space X example. Space X hasn't done anything revolutionary. Reusing rockets was possible decades ago.

Bullshit. No one did it. Musk did it. Therefore it was revolutionary. How is he raping the government? You're using hyperbolic words intentionally because your argument sucks so you need to exaggerate to seem like you have a point. Does Lockheed Martin ""rape"" the government too with their government contracts? 

>Companies don't do it because it's not economically feasible. Also, it almost went bankrupted at his helm.

It is economically feasible, as shown by Musk. So at first you're saying any rich person can build a rocket company and now you're blaming Musk for not having enough money initially to start it up? You're just looking for stuff to be mad about. You arguments suck ass.

>How's solar city working out?

It was bought out by Tesla. What's your point?

>In terms of Bezos, of course he reads, but he doesn't brag about it like Elon does and think he has a hand in every engineering feat. He lets people who are actually has expertise do the work. You see Bezos holding a pity party at his warehouse pretending to pack Amazon shipments?

You're equating packing shipments to designing rockets? Do you know that Musk is also the Chief Designer at SpaceX? Another fucking dumbass point.

>> Absolutely garbage opinion. The opinion of someone that's probably never tried to accomplish anything significant in his life. Musk didn't start with anything. He was an immigrant that nearly went bankrupt multiple times. He is as self-made a billionaire as there ever was.
>
>Just like your opinionated statement. If Musk came from what I have, I doubt he would be a billionaire either. My parents weren't owners of diamond mines or even functionally literate. We all get dealt the cards we have. I don't need to jerk him off like you do.

I'm jerking him off for pointing out that it's absolutely retarded to think anyone could do what Musk has? No, it's not just like my statements, because my statements aren't fucking stupid.

>> Companies worth billions? Laughable. No you couldn't.
>
>Based on book value, his company is actually worth less than zero, so actually, yes I can. Only dummies like you want to keep propping him up while he burns your money through public offerings. Unfortunately, I don't have a choice since he likes to raid government funding. He's already on to the next scam, to build tunnels lol. Funding secure on that too?

I don't own any of his stock. Can't wait to see you start your multiple billion dollar company though. C'mon dude, you're just a temporarily embarrassed billionaire definitely not an insecure loser that has to criticize successful people to make himself feel better about his lack of accomplishments.

"
business,"The tweet is open to interpretation.  I can argue that the tweet was conditional, and that was established from the start where he used the words “thinking”.  Regardless of whether the funding was there or not, the implementation still hinged on the whim of his own decision, not just the state of the funding. But, that’s just my opinion.

Any buyer of stock needs to own up and beware of the possible consequences, just hold on and wait, or just take the loss as a tax write off and be done with it."
business,"They didn't test anything they're going to use. That is a boilerplate, not an actual Orion capsule. They needed some cheap mass to stick on top of the rocket.

Now the purpose of the Ares 1 was to launch the Orion capsule, so they were able to make their dummy payload similar to that. The Falcon Heavy will launch all kinds of payloads with different sizes, shapes, and masses, so it doesn't make as much sense to spend time and money designing and building a specific boilerplate. So what's wrong with just using Elon's old car? Apparently the engineers at SpaceX thought it would work fine."
business,"> They pulled in $4 billion in revenue last quarter. They are far from profitable, but you're really attempting to argue they're no better off than when Musk took over? They're a globally recognized brand worth $50 billion. I'm sure you could do that in your sleep though, right? Lol

And yet 0 profit? What good is it? I can walk down the street and find a penny and it would be more profits than Tesla has made the last 15 years. Don't worry, Tesla won't make it through the decade. It'll be a brand bought up in bankruptcy.

> Bullshit. No one did it. Musk did it. Therefore it was revolutionary. How is he raping the government? You're using hyperbolic words intentionally because your argument sucks so you need to exaggerate to seem like you have a point. Does Lockheed Martin ""rape"" the government too with their government contracts?

Both reusable rocket had been both invented and tested before SpaceX. How is he raping the government? Look at all his projects and even at Tesla itself. Tons of public funding from tax incentives from his factories to the car itself. Does Lockheed rape the government? Sometimes when they under deliver and out of budget which is synonymous with Musk. The point is that Musk only run to whatever industry has the public funding to pillage.

> It is economically feasible, as shown by Musk. So at first you're saying any rich person can build a rocket company and now you're blaming Musk for not having enough money initially to start it up? You're just looking for stuff to be made about. You're arguments suck ass.

Economically feasible for a reusable rocket? By what standard? He certainly hasn't proven it. And yes, anyone with enough money could build a rocket company. Not sure how you can't process that. Don't let your blindness chang that fact.

> It was bought out by Tesla. What's your point?

Another failed project that Musk got bored of after no more solar subsidizes.Also, his inability to make a profit.

> You're equating packing shipments to designing rockets? Do you know that Musk is also the Chief Designer at SpaceX? Another fucking dumbass point.

You're right. Bezos wouldn't do something so stupid like plop himself on the line since he know how to manage and relinquish control to people who actually know what they are doing. Carry on sleeping on the floor of the factory as if it'll change anything. Also, since he owns space X, he can give himself any title. He can be magical rocket wizard if he wants. Such a stupid point about his ""credentials"".

> I'm jerking him off for pointing out that it's absolutely retarded to think anyone could do what Musk has? No, it's not just like my statements, because my statements aren't fucking stupid.

Are you sure? Seems pretty stupid. No one else with the same standing does what Musk does because they don't have the ego and they like making money, not losing it. 

> I don't own any of his stock. 

Good? Such a believer!

> Can't wait to see you start your multiple billion dollar company though. C'mon dude, you're just a temporarily embarrassed billionaire definitely not an insecure loser that has to criticize successful people to make himself feel better about his lack of accomplishments.

I think point already has been proven that doesn't matter how you think overpriced projections may be worth. All that matters is profitability and that they have assets more than liabilities or at least enough income generated to continually fund operations. This requires a profit by the way or at least break even. They are failing on all accounts. 

Apparently, you need to be a billionaire to call bullshit nowadays and their stupid cult like believers. 

I could reverse your whole psychology bit and say that you worship snakeoil salesman like Musk because you haven't been able to accomplish anything significant  in your own life so you support him so that you will feel that you are a part of it and associate with him. Of course, virtue signaling to feel superiority when you didn't actually earn the right.

"
business,"!00% agree with you about people's personal decision to buy or not buy. 

However, you cannot be an executive of the company and put out false information leading to people think a certain action will take place. That is where Musk should be responsible for all damages. There are people who already had positions which lost money due to his word. 

Otherwise, you would just have people with huge stakes in a stock releasing false news to ramp up prices.

This can't be just seen as a ""just kidding"" situation. There is also intent and benefit for him to ramp up the price."
business,"
>And yet 0 profit? What good is it? I can walk down the street and find a penny and it would be more profits than Tesla has made the last 15 years. Don't worry, Tesla won't make it through the decade. It'll be a brand bought up in bankruptcy.

So you're arguing that a $50 billion dollar company that generates billions in revenue isn't better off than when Musk took over? Amazon didn't turn a profit for decades. I'm guessing you're not a businessman.

>Both reusable rocket had been both invented and tested before SpaceX. 

They didn't work. Elon's does. 

>How is he raping the government? Look at all his projects and even at Tesla itself. Tons of public funding from tax incentives from his factories to the car itself. Does Lockheed rape the government? Sometimes when they under deliver and out of budget which is synonymous with Musk. The point is that Musk only run to whatever industry has the public funding to pillage.

There's nothing wrong with contracting with the government to provide a public service. If the government felt like it was being ""raped"" these subsidies and contracts wouldn't exist. They exist because they're mutually beneficial. You need to use the word ""rape"" because your point is weak. You act like the US government is the weak party in this relationship lol

>Economically feasible for a reusable rocket? By what standard? He certainly hasn't proven it. 

Yes, he has, considering the federal government contracts with him to use his rockets.

>And yes, anyone with enough money could build a rocket company. Not sure how you can't process that. Don't let your blindness chang that fact.

Oh so now we're back to Elon had unlimited money to start up SpaceX? I thought you just said he almost went bankrupt? Elon used the money he made from PayPal to keep it afloat and it worked. He didn't have $165 billion and a $1 trillion company like Bezos to just throw at something until it sticks. 

""Anyone with enough money"" is such a dumbass answer since that could literally mean any amount of money. Yes, hypothetically, if ""anyone"" is gifted hundreds of billions of dollars ""anyone"" could start a rocket company. Too bad that's completely irrelevant to Elon.

>Another failed project that Musk got bored of after no more solar subsidizes.Also, his inability to make a profit.

Musk didn't start or operate Solar City until it was bought out. Dumbass.

>You're right. Bezos wouldn't do something so stupid like plop himself on the line since he know how to manage and relinquish control to people who actually know what they are doing. Carry on sleeping on the floor of the factory as if it'll change anything. Also, since he owns space X, he can give himself any title. He can be magical rocket wizard if he wants. Such a stupid point about his ""credentials"".

SpaceX is contracted by NASA. Seems like it worked pretty well.

>
>Are you sure? Seems pretty stupid. No one else with the same standing does what Musk does because they don't have the ego and they like making money, not losing it. 

Musk doesn't make money? He's worth $20 billion. One of the wealthiest people in the world. You're saying people with big egos don't do what Musk does... Because they don't want to be worth $20 billion? This might honestly be the dumbest point you've tried to make.

>I think point already has been proven that doesn't matter how you think overpriced projections may be worth. All that matters is profitability and that they have assets more than liabilities or at least enough income generated to continually fund operations. This requires a profit by the way or at least break even. They are failing on all accounts. 

Ahh ok so some random dumbass redditor that thinks he can be a CEO of a multi billion dollar company is giving his opinion on what ""matters."" Did you tell all the investors that put in millions into Tesla? I think they'd want to hear from a genius like yourself.

>Apparently, you need to be a billionaire to call bullshit nowadays and their stupid cult like believers. 

If you're going to say stupid shit like you could easily do what Elon Musk has done, than expect people to laugh in your face and ask why you aren't a billionaire yet. Quit crying.

>I could reverse your whole psychology bit and say that you worship snakeoil salesman like Musk because you haven't been able to accomplish anything significant  in your own life so you support him so that you will feel that you are a part of it and associate with him. Of course, virtue signaling to feel superiority when you didn't actually earn the right.

At what point did I worship him? I'm simply calling you out on your bullshit. Musk isn't perfect, but he's been more successful than 99.9% of people and has taken on incredibly risky ventures in the process. I'm still curious though, since doing what he does is so easy and you claim you can do it, why haven't you done it so you can make billions too? C'mon dude, it's as simple as selling snake oil. Because everyone knows millionaire investors are easily fooled. 

You can't even stay consistent in your arguments, so I think it's quite clear who is irrationally angry and desperately floundering to find any valid criticism they can of a successful person that puts most people's accomplishments to shame. It's okay though, what he does is easy so I'm sure you'll be a billionaire tomorrow. Good luck!

"
business,"> So you're arguing that a $50 billion dollar company that generates billions in revenue isn't better off than when Musk took over? Amazon didn't turn a profit for decades. I'm guessing you're not a businessman.

You don't need to be a businessman to understand the difference between revenue and profit. This is why you fail to realize how idiotic you sound. While you're at it, go understand what market cap is also.

>They didn't work. Elon's does.

Wtf is a space shuttle? They were also other companies that experimented with reusable rockets which landed vertically. It wasn't economically feasible to use and Space X still hasn't proven that could be. Just because the federal government is giving him money to based on his estimates doesn't mean it works. Government funds tons of stupid things.

> Musk didn't start or operate Solar City until it was bought out. Dumbass.

No, but it is run by his cousins and he owned a majority stake. Considering the size of his stake was on the board and had a big hand in it. He had to essentially bail out the company to save his stake. 

> SpaceX is contracted by NASA. Seems like it worked pretty well.

The race barely started. They have a long way to go to even match Boeing.

> Musk doesn't make money? He's worth $20 billion. One of the wealthiest people in the world. You're saying people with big egos don't do what Musk does... Because they don't want to be worth $20 billion? This might honestly be the dumbest point you've tried to make.

No idea wtf you're saying. I only mentioned that people that are that rich don't do stupid things like he does on Twitter and call actual heroes pedophiles. They don't have such egos to Even your peabrain could understand that.

> Ahh ok so some random dumbass redditor that thinks he can be a CEO of a multi billion dollar company is giving his opinion on what ""matters."" Did you tell all the investors that put in millions into Tesla? I think they'd want to hear from a genius like yourself.

Once again, being rich doesn't make you smart. He recently actions showned that you can still do dumbass things with above intelligence. Being rich doesn't give you a pass that you're automatically immune to criticism. No genius needed to understand that.

> If you're going to say stupid shit like you could easily do what Elon Musk has done, than expect people to laugh in your face and ask why you aren't a billionaire yet. Quit crying.

He honestly hasn't done much except reap benefits for himself while marketing to people like you to worship him. He's one of those salesman who overpromises and underdelivers every time. 


Once again, I know you'll go run back to that he's rich, so he's successful. In your mind, which means he's better than you. If you look at his personal life, I am mounds more successful than him. It depends on your measurement. You need to compare things with context. If I compare Musk with Buffet, Musk is a chump. 

Arguments are pretty basic - that most of what he does is purely based on subsizidies provided by taxpayers which he purposely exploits, he always overpromises and undeliveries, takes credit for others work, most of his projects are gimmicks which has are based off old ideas and that he is a broken, petty man which should not be worshipped. Oh that and you don't understand the difference between revenue and profit. I repeat for your sake that you do not need to have more money than the person to critcize actual faults. 

I don't need to be a billionaire. Look at Musk, he is and he's still a piece of shit with shitty fanboys. Maybe one day, he can actual generate a profit without getting kicked out like his previous ventures.

With enough money, ANYONE can build a rocket company - Bezos proved that. It's making it profitable that matters and sets it apart.

"
business,"I really like where your head is at. Instead of jumping onto negative reasons of who he is as a human, you have provided a list of very resonable and easy to follow steps that can lead any person to a negative outcome. I agree he is smart yet lacking in wisdom. I also think having a select one or two people very close to you that have the ability to let you know when you are heading down a path with some pretty existentially-negative outcomes is super important. It is so easy to get trapped in your own mind/world and when you succeed, you think you've done the right thing and need to keep pushing that. There are many forms of success and you can succeed in the same way with a different method that doesn't lead to a personal negative outcome, super hard though and I think very few people around the world accomplish such things, in such a positive way, to such a high a degree.


I'm a few months off 30 and the closer I get the more evident what you spoke about in your second paragraph becomes. The sleep thing is super important as well. I was homeless for a bit as a kid, and it's something I have noticed for a while that is super important to me; getting good sleep in a place your mind feels safe and comfortable. I feel the whole macho thing gets in the way a bit for some people (not wanting to admit any sort of weakness; I definitely still feel it on heaps of stuff), but I think it very necessary to admit these things to ourselves, especially when we have evidence based science indicating that safe and sound sleep is irreplacably good for you.

I apologise if not all of this makes sense, it's been a super long day at work, haha."
business,"IQ is the single greatest personality trait the correlates with success in the workplace. Measuring IQ is relatively easy and well understood compared to EQ. EQ is also difficult to measure cross culturally. IQ is not.

Some jobs will require EQ and some IQ but as a single predictor IQ is the best and accounts for something like 30-50% of causation based on the data available. Some people dispute this but among serious psychiatrists it’s pretty clear data."
business,"Dude, I read this entire chain and I can only say you are terribly misguided. The government contracts with SpaceX are extremely mutually beneficial. Just look at [this](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/amp28995/study-finds-spacex-a-bargain-for-nasa/) 


Also, all signs recently are pointing towards Tesla finally getting over their production hurdles. Admittedly now onto delivery hurdles, but I think it’s fair to say hurdles like these are expects when you’ve partially reinventing the wheel as Tesla has. Which is why their market cap is where it is. These facts are baked into that arguably bloated number. And it’s not uncommon in today’s world for a company to have a high value and not turn a profit, also why their market cap is where it is.

Idk why you think issues don’t get worked though and are instead grounds for total disaster. That’s as short sighted as one could be. "
business,"My favorite vacation policy was a company that offered 4 weeks of vacation and unlimited sick days.

It was the most fair policy I've seen so far because if you're sick you either worked from home or didn't work at all without using your vacation, but at the same time the company also expected you to actually go on vacation.

I worked at an unlimited PTO place and the underlying expectation was that you wouldn't take any. I ended up taking less PTO there than I ever did."
business,"Worked in one of those companies, like we didn't have no working hours, can come and leave whenever you want, and shit like that. Guess what? Wasn't paid overtime, and you always get to work overtime, and they think they can contact you whenever they want. Received mails on Saturday 3 in the morning from the boss. There was always that fear that you are doing something wrong, can't get peace of the mind. Luckily I stopped working in that toxic environment. On my current job I work for 8h, and thank you, goodbye!"
business,"Yeah, it's way too saturated. In college my degree was closely tied with the audio production degree, and I'm glad I didn't go that route because everyone wants to be the next producer or audio engineer. 

Anyway, we did 1 year of courses with them which was fun, and I got to learn a lot about sound design. As such, anytime a game dev/design group needed audio for their student games, I signed up to help out so I had a lot of friends in that department. 

And this is a big American University known for it's arts programs. So anyway, fast forward graduation, I picked a very unsaturated degree, and my class had a 96% hiring rate. Of the game students I worked with/made friends with, almost none found jobs. 

EA is hiring like crazy from what I've been told, and so is Ubisoft. But also, no one wants to work with them with how they've screwed themselves over, but if you're looking to break in, maybe try one of those two. "
business,"Yes this is most likely a sign of a problem that needs to be fixed, but most people aren’t aware of the sacrifice it takes to build a company to the levels that Elon has. Much less several. You can take problems, push them off to other people, and get a good nights rest. Or you can accept that it’s your problem, and become involved in the solution.  
  
Obsessive behavior about work ethic is fetishized in sports, Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant at the gym in a full sweat at 4am working to better their game. But in business, it becomes worrying behavior. Is there a difference between working at the office and at home?"
business,"I love your reply. I personally think Elon Musk is someone to look up to. I love the fact that he has such a high level of ambition and a hunger to create incredible products that change the world. If he goes home to sleep in his mansion each night, his competitors will still be up late trying to outdo him. Audi and Mercedes just unveiled new electric cars to compete against him, so he has no time to waste. He'll sleep when things are rolling along more solidly.  "
business,"Yes, he has options. I’m not defending that he needs to sleep under a desk. At the same time, using funds to build a sleeping room is also sure to gain attention and headlines. He’s damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t. Beyond that, I’m sure his intention is to not live in the office.  
  
But he’s aware that his company is at a critical crossroads. The Model 3 is the most hyped, most criticized and most polarizing car in history. He has said Tesla has bet the farm on it, and if it fails, so does Tesla. He’s doing everything in his power to help ensure it doesn’t fail.  
  
People that lament staying in the office until 6pm have trouble relating to someone that hasn’t taken a vacation in decades and has had many a sleepless night agonizing over minute details. He doesn’t stay awake because he wants to, but because he’s so invested in the success of the business that he feels it’s in the best interest of the business. If the ship goes down, he’s going down with it.  
  
Even with my small business, I can relate on some small scale at being so invested in the success that you make sacrifices most people haven’t experienced in their career. And I have no concept of how busy that man must be, it’s inconceivable to me.  
  
I believe Elon when he says he wants to help contribute to a world that has a future that people look forward to rather than fear. That simple goal is more than most corporations on earth stand for. And rather than attacking him for trying, I respect the effort and hope he’s able to succeed. Without Tesla, would the other car makers have been as quick to move towards a real effort at emission less vehicles?"
business,"I’m making an assumption here based on how he used his wealth to date, but I don’t think he sees wealth the way most will. Which is material purchases and freedom. He sees it as his ability to continue building difference making companies.  So rather opportunity. He may have several next companies planned that could be helping the greater good that will never see the light of day if Tesla fails.  
  
Of course I could be wrong, and at the end of the day he may be like every other billionaire. But the evidence I see doesn’t support that. And while altruism is great, we live in a commercial society. If you can make a better way reachable and affordable, and also something that’s cool, it will be more likely to succeed than attempting to speak at someone to change their ways. "
business,"I'm a former financial auditor who used to audit a pharma company so I have a bit of a different perspective.  Stealing from an old post of mine that I saved:
https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAskReddit/comments/5s1160/why_are_medications_so_much_cheaper_in_socialist/ddclxty/?context=3 

> [Drug patents only last for 20 years from the date a patent was filed. Exclusivity periods are even shorter than that but if a company releases a competing drug before the patent has expired they will owe royalties.](http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/ucm079031.htm) 

> Because drug development is so incredibly expensive ([estimated at $2.6 Billion for a successful drug, as of a 2014 study](http://csdd.tufts.edu/news/complete_story/pr_tufts_csdd_2014_cost_study)), drug companies need to file their patents very early in the process.  [This is a problem because drug development takes 12 years on average](http://www.ca-biomed.org/pdf/media-kit/fact-sheets/CBRADrugDevelop.pdf). So, over the course of a decade a pharmaceutical company needs to commit up to ~$2.5 Billion in development costs on a drug that might not even be successful, and then it only has 8 years to recoup those costs and actually make a profit (which they are obligated to do in accordance with stakeholder requirements) by building a brand from scratch. Thus, because they have such a small window to recoup their investment, they need to incur massive sales and marketing costs just to ensure that their new drug can even be competitive in the short time frame it can be sold before facing generic competition.

> Meanwhile, even though patents last for 20 years, a pharmaceutical company realistically only has a few years of exclusivity before another company will challenge their patent. These patent challenges typically result in a settlement in which the challenger receives the right to produce a competitor before the exclusivity period or patent has expired for established royalty charges (or sometimes no royalty at all). So now the drug company that funded this development has even less time to recoup its investment.

> That's why you see such exorbitant drug pricing - pharmaceutical companies incur a significant risk and have a very limited window with which to see a return. There is ample room to still develop safe drugs without the requiring so many hurdles that it takes 12+ years to develop. Alternatively, patent life could be extended to ensure pharmaceutical companies have more time to recoup their costs - thus they could justify lower pricing (but spread out over a longer period of time).

> As far as why they ""happily accept much lower prices from national healthcare systems"", that also relates to the points I've stated above.  They have a very limited window with which to make a return on their very significant investment.  During that time, they're better off taking whatever they can get and ""less money from Socialist countries"" is better than ""no money from Socialist countries"" in an industry where most of the drug's costs have already been incurred by that point.  The end result is that countries like America end up having to pick up the slack and get charged more.  Trust me on this, if America went to a single-payer system, you would see the leverage of all of these other socialist countries immediately eroded and they would be forced to pay significantly more.  

One other point I will add to this is that the ""Big Pharma"" companies are shifting toward an acquisition approach for R&D versus in-house R&D to offset the risk of failed development.  Thus a lot of R&D spend is now borne by small pharmaceutical companies hoping to hit the jackpot with a blockbuster product that they can then sell, at a premium, to a large pharmaceutical company that has the infrastructure and expertise to sell the product.  Big pharma companies get an almost ""sure thing"" to sell without bearing much of the R&D risk and small pharma companies get rewarded for innovation.  However, because of this approach the big pharma companies' financials will show significantly less R&D expense because that expense is now classified as Business Development.  "
business,"The new model makes so much sense I’m surprised that it took so long to become “mainstream”. It’s absolutely bonkers for a big company to spend billions on something that may not work. Big companies also are not made for cutting edge R&D. Too much overhead. 

The whole point of startups is to spread risk into smaller companies backed by VCs who are willing to take those risks.

The other reform that could possibly lower drug prices is to give “bonus” patent time for approved drugs. "
business,"Hi! I recall your last post too and appreciate the insight. I practice out of a primary care doctor’s office (I work on MSK injuries) and we have lunch provided by a drug/Pharma rep about 4/5 days per week. I suspect this is also coming from their marketing budget and I see a good benefit from this, as it helps the docs keep up on new research. 

But, the direct-to-patient advertising I find pretty shady. The rules are kind of funny on if they say some things, they must say others; but, if they avoid saying some things they don’t have to say other specific things. Often, this makes their marketing so vague, it could mean anything. Which, might be the intention, but I also don’t see the public benefit given all the issues with medications (upwards of 115 people per day die from opioid use, though I believe that stat has non-prescribed deaths associated with it). 

Would it hurt the pharma industry to have them unable to do (or limited) direct to consumer marketing, similar to other industries like alcohol   And tobacco? "
business,"UK is actually ahead, if you look at advances/capita. Japan is also way up there.

Most of those advances are paid for by the government too, also in the US. 
Government subsidies/funding towards health advances & R&D are the #1 funding channel, I believe it’s 2-3x that of private entities.

The rest of the world does a decent job, with some areas performing better than others, but a lot of those advances are directly carried by taxpayers, and the profits are usually held by private entities."
business,"If you ask me, the value of big companies is no longer worth the overhead cost. They have outsourced many of their key value adds (world wide distribution, research funding and production) The result is that a savvy small company can get their product manufactured and distributed without a huge corporation. If contracts could be standardized and made public, it could break the last advantage of the huge corporations. The last advantage of huge corporations is they have deep knowledge of the market and can maximize profit by pricing in each market based on existing contracts."
business,"> Because drug development is so incredibly expensive (estimated at $2.6 Billion for a successful drug, as of a 2014 study), drug companies need to file their patents very early in the process. 

This is dishonest as it uses economic costs (including *opportunity costs*) and not *accounting* costs; as an auditor know the difference. [Tufts itself is a pharma funded effort:](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/upshot/calculating-the-real-costs-of-developing-a-new-drug.html)

>""The Tufts Center is funded, to a large extent, by the pharmaceutical industry. It is in the pharmaceutical industry’s best interests to have the public believe that it is very expensive to develop a drug. This belief helps drug companies justify the high prices they often charge. As I’ve said before here at The Upshot, financial conflicts of interest can have a great deal of influence, and we would be remiss to ignore them in this case.""

Regardless at no point do you address how it can be such a burden to undertake R&D while spending *more* money on marketing. Pharma's not cash strapped.

>Thus a lot of R&D spend is now borne by small pharmaceutical companies hoping to hit the jackpot with a blockbuster product that they can then sell, at a premium, to a large pharmaceutical company that has the infrastructure and expertise to sell the product. 

[Not even.](https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/cutting-nih-budget-cripple-drug-development/)

>""Kinch said that for decades, pharmaceutical companies have been moving further away from the earliest stages of research. For years, he explained, that withdrawal of private-sector funding was less noticeable because new biotech companies were appearing on the scene, and those firms helped pay for the early research that pharma companies no longer funded. But in recent years, many biotech firms have disappeared, and the creation of new biotech companies has fallen by about 50 percent."""
business,"If by expenses, you mean the grant to conduct the research, then yes. No company would be paying 2.5bil. It would be the same way we discovered nuclear energy and invented microwaves. Suddenly medicine is no longer the property of an organization which holds it for ransom against people who are dying. The cost of a prescription is no longer thousands or tens of thousands of times more than the cost to produce. And finally, the government will always make their money back because they take their cut in sales tax."
business,"Companies bet based on the pay off, given the better odds and better returns, they are willing to bet more. My point is we would find more drugs if more bets were made with less money on each bet. 

Large companies also favor higher up front costs, complex rules and regulations because they can afford to dedicate the dollars and staff to compliance and it creates a barrier to entry for potential competitors.

The point is the pharma sky high Prices are not justified by the risk. Many companies risk greater odds for much less money. There is no need to reward drugs with high prices to get money invested in drug discovery!"
business,"Fashion is a high risk industry, especially for the designers. It's hard to predict demand for a new design/style product. That's why the fast fashion chains like Express can sell for much cheaper. They are building on successes of high fashion, reducing risk and increasing volume, which ultimately drives a lower price point. 

If Burberry, or other designers, don't have stock available for their items, they won't be able to capitalize on the successful items. If they produce less quantity of all items, they will have to raise prices, which affects demand and pushes them out of certain demographics that may be their key market. "
business,"I worked for a company that would sometimes needs to dispose of 10s of thousands of cloths.

You would be surprised at how hard it is to find a charity that can accept that kind of a donation.  They'd work hard to donate everything, but they couldn't always find someone that would accept the donation.  So they did throw them away sometimes.

These were unbranded bulk clothing.  like 10,000 green polos.

Burberry, i'm sure is also concerned with protecting their brands image.  My client didn't that that concern.  But donating at a large scale is hard.

FWIW"
business,"The rich buy anything and live lavishly so they wear what they want, the middle class buys out of season stuff on sale, and the cheaper products which mimic the trend setting rich lines. Ultimately in their head they don’t want to be associated with poor people. The poor buy whatever they can which is ultimately the middle classes hand me downs, extremely cheap knock offs, clearance racks in big box stores. So ultimately the riches taste in fashion trickles down. Fashion brands don’t want to be associated even with the middle class because that’s left overs, the rich want the newest exclusive stuff money can buy as long as they are the only ones and feel elite. Since fashion will and has always functioned that way the only way to keep your margins from shrinking and rich people from becoming disinterested you have to burn the shit so poor people aren’t associated with your brand. If you are an exclusive brand and a rich person hears about how some poor people wear your even 20 year outdated products on the reg that’s like a death sentence to that form of the company. Fashion comparatively to other industries is deeply driven by the upper classes tastes and wants, and just made up by the belief of its value like currency, it leads to understanding why trickle down economics can’t work imo. If your solution to not feeling exclusive enough is burning products that can help people that are just making ends meet, or mimicking your old style, or even make someone who needs warmth warm. Just because you want that feeling so bad. That shows a 100% guarantee that the ultra rich would just horde money so they feel more exclusive and exceptional in their elite club. "
business,"Not sure if it's worth replying here, but ...

​

I don't think a lot of people can afford to just quit their job, unless they happen to have a better one lined up. Bills are tight, what with car payments, and wow, is it almost the first of the month again? Rent's coming up.

​

So yes, no one is ""forcing"" them to work there, except *societal and economic pressures.*

​"
business,"Just that people making $12/hr might have kids at home, and there's degrees of uncertainty and risk when finding a new job. What if the new job is more stressful or has less benefits than the old job? What's the turnover rate like? If this new job doesn't work, will the old job take me back? Etc. 

All these questions and pressures really hold people back from moving from job to job. Sure some people can do it, but when a person has dependants there's a lot more ""worry"" that comes with it"
business,"That's an assumption about the value drivers though.

1) Without hourly workers, the shelves aren't stocked. No items on shleves, literally no product for shoppers to purchase. That's a pretty *pivotal* moment in the store's service.

2) What if x% of whole food customers prefer it because of the atmosphere? The support and service and mood of the hourly workers than  can become tantamount to a store barely making profits vs. performing well. Hourly employees' mood and efficacy then matters a ton.

This notion that hourly inherently means less valuable is a myth. So to is it a myth that we assign *wildly different* value to lower workers than to upper management. More expandable, sure. But imagine a company like a car. Would you want to drive your car without the front door on? What about without a windshield? No? Well the door and windshield are more expendable from a materials supply standpoint then the engine, despite the car still being able to run without either. So it's easy to say they aren't as valuable as the engine or the steering wheel, but they certainly have a ton of value towards the user experience of the vehicle.

Low wage workers are the doors, windshield, tires, and fuel of companies. The experience falls apart without them and we're being suckered by letting Executives extract as much from them as possible and keeping profits only for management.


"
business,"Not sure what the analysis was but it was well known that Whole Foods was in big trouble and in danger of going under before the merger

""And let's not forget: Whole Foods was a mess before Amazon bought it. Same-store sales had been declining. It had closed a small number of stores and [was cutting costs](https://www.wsj.com/articles/whole-foods-works-to-reduce-costs-and-boost-clout-with-suppliers-1455445803) to try to help its profitability. Activist investor Jana Partners [was breathing down its neck](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2017/04/12/whole-foods-has-a-big-basic-problem-it-desperately-needs-to-solve/?utm_term=.36481964550a), urging the chain to reassess everything from its labor scheduling to its procurement strategies. 

Amazon does not simply have to turbo-charge Whole Foods' shift toward e-commerce. It has to solve a number of more basic problems, and the chain's reputation as a wallet-buster is just one of them. ""

[https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2018-04-03/amazon-s-whole-foods-buy-no-grocery-game-changer-yet](https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2018-04-03/amazon-s-whole-foods-buy-no-grocery-game-changer-yet)"
business,"I agree.  I think it's pretty awful, and he seems like _such_ a driven person it's sad to see this meltdown happening in slow motion.  I'm pretty sure it's a meltdown, and we're going to learn a lot of really fucked up things about him, his personal life, and the opportunists that are fucking him over at his various companies in the aftermath.  

I hope these companies survive.  They're all doing amazing things.  SpaceX is one of those things that we, as a _species_ need to get right.  Getting off Earth sooner rather than later is pretty much the only way we're going to survive as a species.  

Tesla motors, despite the numerous and public fuckups, has done more for the electric car revolution than I ever thought possible.  I want to see more, and I want to see it succeed as a commercial venture.  We need to ditch oil almost as much as we need to get off this planet.  "
business,"You're describing every major person in history, the difference is now we have the internet and social media. Can you imagine the shit that would be said about the actual Tesla or Howard Hughes? In the old days you'd work in your lab or company all day and night and maybe a few bad articles would be written about you but the world at large was pretty unaware of every detail of your life, today you are front page news everyday with everyone trying to take you down over every little thing. "
business,"I don't know that I'd go as far as to say it appears there's something that could expose them to large-scale legal troubles, but...

> Musk has never been a detail guy. 

There is that.

I wouldn't say he's totally scattershot, he's not - he's incredibly smart and calculated.  I'm sure he's calculated where exactly his limit of ""spread too thin"" lies.  But, convincing Elon Musk of all people, his calculations may be inaccurate isn't a job I'd want...

I've always assumed, being the pessimist I am, that what I quoted would eventually be the downfall of everything he touches.  I'd have to imagine there are *very* few people he would listen to when they try to reign him in a bit or get him to focus on the minutia of in-progress ideas/projects when his mind's over there on the next thing he's excited about.  It's a recipe for either total disaster or at least a fair bit of legal ""gotchas"" when people start getting forensic on your businesses.  I don't blame a Chief Acct. for noping right out of that...plus, no doubt he's seen some shit.



Regardless, this doesn't look great."
business,"The problem with guys like this, as the previous responder alludes to, is that they become VERY accustomed to getting total support. Between that and the starry eyed people around them, no one is able to say hey this is NOT a good idea. This was apparently a major issue with George Lucas in his later years, with the ep 1,2,3 movies. George says “yes but I’m a cgi donkey dinosaur hybrid” and everyone claps and says well it must be a good idea right? One guy says you know I don’t think that’s going to fit well and is yelled down by the others. 
"
business,"I heard that some states like Utah require a service center to be present in order to allow telsa sell the car in the state.  So if there is a issue you can take it somewhere and interact with a person. The actual service stations themselves don't have to be functional b/c the cars are updated over the air and the services are minimal since there is no fluids and combustion motors to deal with.  Someone I know picked his car at a service shop and he said there was no power at the shop, which is ironic since Telsa is really a power company.  So his car couldn't be completely charged which is embarrassing for Telsa.   So i think these service stations aren't really a focus on them fixing as they got bigger fish to fry."
business,"Except for those poor lost neglected Chinese orphans who make the shoes.

Actually, whatever, they didn't have anything better to do anyway and it passes the time until they can be sold into sexual slavery to the Saudis.

Dang I need to revisit my ADHD prescription, this is a conversation about the suffering of BLACK Americans north of Mexico but south of Canada and I'm being *super* insensitive to their plight."
business,"Nike was almost at Nestle levels of hate on Reddit for years.  TIL and other subs were filled with anti-Nike posts that hit huge upvote numbers on the front page yearly, if not monthly.  Now that hate is excused or ignored completely in an effort to push the most recent temporary political circlejerk.

Maybe you haven’t been here long enough to see it, or you care too much about the current topic to be honest."
business,"That’s it. The manufactured outrage coming from the Kaep campaign will be forgotten in a month, if that. That’s why this is so funny to watch. People are losing their shit, but they’ll find something else a week later to lose their shit about. Sorry, about which to lose their shit. I went to college. But that’s when company performance will balance out the price drop. This whole outrage machine lasts 2 weeks at the most. Anyone remember that Campbell’s showed some humanity in support of “GaY AgENda”?!?! I’m pretty sure whatever dickhead that was “boycotting” them bought plenty of Cream of Mushroom that November. Ridiculous."
business,"Because it’s much harder to get a group of people to invest in funding someone’s vision before it’s an actual thing than it is if someone has the capital initially?

Do you really think someone was going to toss a couple billion on a whim at Bezos’ Blue Horizon had it not been for him having a lot of the initial funding? He was a billionaire in online retail going into space exploration. "
business,"That’s not how any of this works. A lot of very successful ventures have started out with an idea that no one would fund. 

Where do you draw the line with a salary cap? How much is too much? And then when that becomes the ceiling, do we keep dropping it because not everyone has 100 million until we all have the exact same amount of money and there is zero incentive to not work at McDonald’s?"
business,"Where do we draw the line? I don't know, I'm not a mathematician or a analyst, experts would have to figure out where a reasonable line is, but having no line is just ridiculous. Edit: Also, I never said pay everyone equally, I said salary cap, meaning the MAX you can make, not a minimum. We have minimum wage so the rich can exploit the poor, so why not a cap on the rich?"
business,"The folks who like Kaepernick are rushing to buy Nike products.  The folks who don't like Kaepernick will not buy Nike products when they otherwise would have.

The former materializes over the short term.  The latter materializes over the long term.  This surge is to be expected.  Whether this was a wise move from a business perspective is yet to be seen.  Let's see how sales are doing for Nike in 1 year and find out."
business,"> Mike brown deserved to be shot.

How about [Philando Castile](https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/20/us/philando-castile-shooting-dashcam/index.html)?

[Patrick Harmon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Patrick_Harmon)?

[Sandra Bland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Sandra_Bland)?

[Anthony Hill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Anthony_Hill)?

Tell me you think all these people should have been shot/arrested and I'll be happy to offer more, but I'll point out that even the police department determined that Castile's murder was wrong.

The cause isn't about fixing all the problems plaguing black Americans, it's a specific cause about a very specific documented problem. Should we not want to fix one problem because there's four, five, twenty other problems that also need to be dealt with? Are you so opposed to progress that if we can't make it perfect we shouldn't at least try to make it better?"
business,"Maybe he really thought that, and you're entitled to your opinion. But I'll point out that his partner at the scene doesn't agree with you. His police department didn't support him either. He was wrong and he's since been fired from the department. 

He also lied about why he thought the guy was a danger. He testified that Castile fit the description of a suspect from a robbery, but the officers didn't conduct the stop as though they suspected Castile of being the wanted suspect. This information comes from his trial.

Nevertheless, the officer* wasn't punished by a jury. This isn't the only case. Laquon McDonald in Chicago is another big case involving an officer just walking up and shooting a guy who wasn't an immediate danger. The officer is in prison now, but the other officers who filed false reports directly contradicted by video from the scene got off scot free.

There's an issue here that needs to be addressed and that's what the movement is about."
business,"It absolutely is a problem and our prison populations show how systemic it actually is. Just because they're not all being killed doesn't mean police conduct isn't an issue.

Chicago PD recently caught some shit for assisting in setting out a bait truck in front of a basketball court on the south side of Chicago. The purpose was to lure black kids, teens, etc. into stealing shoes out of a truck and then arrest them. 

So you have a policy in place to lure a kid into a trap, give them a record at a young age when they're far from fully matured, and you set them up for a life time of problems with the legal system. Not so easy to get a job when you're poor and have a record. Meanwhile, the kid, teen, etc. will be back out on the street in six months tops, so you haven't done anything to really solve the problem long term. Just continued the cycle of issues that plague the poorest parts of our cities. Great job, Chicago PD!"
business,">The vast majority of Trump's supporters are poor white Americans

I know a lot of people believe this, but personally I don't believe that it is true, nor a fair representation of well over 100 million people. My whole life I have worked around, and with small businesses, and small business owners. The majority of them in the last 2.5 - 3 years largely voted for Trump. And the majority of those Trump voters were afraid of ""coming out"" because they feared social/professional ostracization. I know someone will be like ""yea but they deserve that. Trump is a Nazi racist bigot homophobic sexist and by extension you are also if you voted for him."" But that line of thinking is still something I have witnessed to be more of a, lets say, moral panic than an accurate representation of reality. More people than I thought who voted for Trump, once voted for Obama too. I really think that there are millions of people, enough to sway an election, willing to forgo party lines in hopes of...hope and change, or in this case, something new.



"
business,"Our prison systems have more blacks because they’re committing more crimes. Just because the shoes happened to be cop’s shoes doesn’t make it not a crime.

Actions have consequences. If you really want to stop the cycle of African American imprisonment start with socioeconomics. Lack of jobs/opportunity, poverty, growing up in single parent households and this victim attitude where ‘every shortcoming of the community is due to white people or police.’

Do you know who I blame when shoes get stolen? The person stealing the fucking shoes. "
business,"> Our prison systems have more blacks because they’re committing more crimes

Maybe, but they're also being charged/prosecuted at an inordinate rate compared to other races. For example, bicycle related ticketing in Chicago. [The differences among neighborhoods are extreme — the majority-black and low-income community of North Lawndale had the most bike tickets, with 397, while just five tickets were issued in majority-white and affluent Lincoln Park, where cycling is very popular.](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/wisniewski/ct-met-bike-tickets-getting-around-20180211-story.html) I can tell you from experience that just as many people are riding on the sidewalk in Lincoln Park as anywhere else in the city.

> start with socioeconomics

That's a great place to start. One way to help is to stop putting out bait trucks in front of kids and trying to trick them into falling into the legal system. That's the socio part for you.

> Do you know who I blame when shoes get stolen?

Do you know who I blame when we're stuck in a never ending cycle of poverty > crime > poverty > crime? The people forcing the cycle to continue with shitty policy. 
 "
business,"I’m not familiar with the discrepancy in bike ticketing. There could be lots of reason why. Racism could be one of them, could not be. 

Have you ever had your shoes stolen? I have. It’s fucking annoying. Not enforcing crime laws doesn’t make crime ‘go away’ . It’s sad these kids end up in the system. The solution is to stop them from breaking the law, not to stop enforcing it.

Once again, people break the law and you blame the cops for doing their job and enforcing the rules that everyone knows."
business,"There are a lot of families with kids that won’t be buying the shoes. Yup, lots of hard working families with kids in grade school that will look at other brands. These are the middle America folks that watch a lot of football and baseball. I live in a small town. Nobody wants anything to do with Nike at the moment. They won’t forget for the next 5 years because it’s burned in their brains. Short term gains and long term downward trends. "
business,"> I’m not familiar with the discrepancy in bike ticketing. There could be lots of reason why. Racism could be one of them, could not be.

397 v. 5. There could be a number of reasons, but there's definitely a difference in enforcement of the same law in two different parts of the city. One happens to be vast majority white and the other happens to be vast majority black.

> Once again, people break the law and you blame the cops for doing their job and enforcing the rules that everyone knows.

Bait trucks aren't about stopping people from breaking the law though. They're specifically creating a condition where a law could be broken and trying to get the people to break the law so they can arrest them. It doesn't stop crime from happening because the people committing the small crime don't stay locked away where we'll never see them again. They'll be right back out in public and now it'll be hard from them to ever get out of the cycle of poverty that led them to want to steal shoes in the first place."
business,"I give a fuck.  I think Mr. Kaepernick is unjustly protesting, and I think he played a strong role in the politicization of the NFL.  Personally, I think the politicization of our sports is a terrible thing for America.  I think he was right to be collectively fired by the various NFL teams, and I don't support Nike using him as a spokesperson.

But they have every right to do this, as I have every right to stop buying Nike, stop watching the NFL, and stop watching ESPN."
business,"395-5 tickets for bike riding- ‘the cops and/white people’s fault’

500% more likely to get murdered by a black man than any other race- ‘the cops/ white people’s fault’

Black teens are getting arrested because they’re stealing shoes from a bait car- ‘cops/white people’s fault that they had shoes in the open.’


Honest question: Is there a single scenario to you where the black community is responsible for their actions? Or do you think the plight of the community is entirely the police and white people’s fault? 

Jobs. Education. Getting out of poverty and not having kids out of wedlock is going to go a hell of a lot farther than you calling police racist all day for enforcing the law. "
business,"> 395-5 tickets for bike riding- ‘the cops and/white people’s fault’

That's a crazy one to try to support your side with. 

> 500% more likely to get murdered by a black man than any other race

[That's not the case, you mixed up the number of people killed and the percentage of probability.](https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-29/race-and-homicide-in-america-by-the-numbers) In fact, white on white killings is far more common than black on white.

> Is there a single scenario to you where the black community is responsible for their actions? 

Absolutely. I agree that the kids shouldn't be stealing out of the truck. They're breaking the law. The people in North Lawndale shouldn't be riding on the sidewalk. They're breaking the law. Every time someone breaks the law knowingly they're at fault (ignorance of the law is no excuse, so I'm wrong, but at the same time I think my disagreement is sometimes warranted). 

It's the unequal treatment and excessive abuse that I take issue with.

> Jobs. Education. Getting out of poverty and not having kids out of wedlock is going to go a hell of a lot farther than you calling police racist all day for enforcing the law.

True again. But I've pointed out to you several times how the unequal treatment by the law has made it difficult for the youngest members of our poverty stricken communities to ever get a chance and avoid the cycle of violence/crime/poverty that's making life for everyone that much harder in cities like Chicago.

I've extended my hand across the aisle and agreed with you on obvious issues. Are you able to do the same?"
business,"The data doesn’t back up the argument that blacks are killed by cops at a higher rate than whites. 


“The new research offers some support for the narratives of American policemen and women, who maintain that in encounters with those suspected of wrongdoing, they do not discriminate by race or ethnicity. The new findings are also consistent with simulation studies, which show that police officers are no more likely to fire their weapons on an unarmed black person than they are on an unarmed white person.”
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-cops-race-injury-20160725-snap-story.html"
business,"In one year the protesters will have forgotten about the outrage when it’s no longer cool or too tiring to boycott the brand that sponsored the kneeling athlete, and they go back to wearing their Js and working out in Nike wear. Meanwhile, Nike would have gained quite a few fans for taking a popular but controversial stance and will have new loyal customers who remember them for their moral courage. Pretty sure it’s a net victory long run, but now we know it also worked in the short run. "
business,"I get that, but what I'm saying is that there is the possibility of two separate demographics of trump voters, and age May split that into something more granular.

If you have one old dude that makes 10mil/year and 99 cousin fucking inbreds of prime child rearing age making 10,000/year, that one old dude will still skew your median income quite high even though the circumstances of your average voter are still shit."
business,"You’re assuming that humans are perfectly rational people. 

In my opinion, customer experience trumps any boycott. As long as you have positive customer experience,  an advert won’t be enough to swap that positive experience for an unknown experience with another brand. 

People said they were going to boycott IPhones back when we discovered that these shiny babies were manufactured under something synonymous with slave labour in China.

Today apple is a trillion dollar company. 

Nike sales will fall when they stop satisfying consumer requirements, or when they push an Ad glorifying Hitler and the KKK. 

Until then, someone like Colin is not nearly hated enough to disrupt sales in my opinion. "
business,">You think only gay people

LOL you think a sexual orientation sets a political position?

Democrats are born that way?

Really hope you didn't hurt yourself tilting at that windmill at the speed you were going at it.

Now go back and read what I said again:

>>Your side doesn't even reproduce, so who exactly do you expect to write this history ""*Victor*""?

I said nothing about sex, orientation, gender, etc. I spoke only of birthrates. 

Go do a comparison of birthrates and fertility by Left and Right. It's not even close. The Left doesn't have any skin in the game. They have no investment in this future they expect vindication from.

Meanwhile those on the Right are the ones having families and raising the next generation. They are the ones whose progeny will inherit, will write the histories. The Right is putting their words to actions and creating the future.


That's the key: The future belongs to those who show up. "
business,"Ah okay, your initial position was as opaque as it was rude. So forgive my misunderstanding.

In any case, as long as your side's young continue to seek to become better informed and educated in this information age we find ourselves in, there'll be more of your young joining the left side than left children moving to the right side.

Church membership is dropping ya'll. Cities are growing. Texas is going to be majority blue in a few years, maybe a decade courtesy of California transplants."
business,"I gave an example in my comment (Communism). Liberals are for change, but not all change is good. Other examples are open borders policies in Europe which are creating significant ethnic tensions (just read /r/Europe).

​

You're also incorrect to conflate modern progressivism with classical liberalism. They are different beasts entirely, many modern progressives want to roll back traditional jurisprudence because it is ""patriarchy"" or ""white supremacist"" (just another example).

​

Centrists (like myself) want to prune the bad liberal ideas while keeping the good ones."
business,"Think you misread my comment. I’m saying that about the use of the media to pump the outrage side of it for political or economic reasons.

I’m not saying that about the ad campaign, though I will say with certainty was a very calculated move with eyes on dollar signs through increased volatility and pandering toward your target customer base. 

Though I do not blame them for pumping out an attempt at a positive and important message and in fact support that effort. Even if it seems to have made things worse because the consequences of the first paragraph outweigh any gains from the second paragraph."
business,"No need for insults when you’re trying to have a productive conversation - it’s also a bit off-brand and hypocritical with the points you’re trying to make considering I’ve done or said nothing inappropriate or offensive to anyone.

Anyone flocking to my comment because they think I’m promoting or validating racism is misinterpreting my statements and I shouldn’t be criticized for that.

I work in strategic consulting for major corporations and have sat in rooms where we’ve created strategies exactly like the one Nike has done here. If you think Nike’s decision to run this ad was even .01% based on being social heroes, then you are very naive. Nike cares about one thing here: their bottom line. This ad campaign was very calculated, very low-risk, and filled with upside.

As for Kaepernick, he may have great intentions. He also may have been someone who realized he was no longer going to be a starting QB anywhere (pre-kneeling) and wanted to do something to stay relevant. I have no idea what influenced his decisions or how involved he’s been on the strategic side of everything, either way he’s getting a very nice payout while most people in his shoes per-kneel would’ve been lost in the irrelevance after their professional careers completely fell off. And no, don’t try telling me that he was still a great player at the peak of his career like the picture that some people who have never watched an NFL game like to paint.

As for the media and the social influencers, I do indeed think that they have painted a very very inflated picture by pushing out the few videos of people burning Nike product in reaction to the campaign. They’ve managed to create a picture that “white people are against Nike because of this campaign.” Just because a couple of extremists decided to do something to get on camera themselves. That is my biggest issue with everything here. It’s not a fair representation of the reality of how 90%+ of people are thinking, yet it’s the only side of the white reaction that the media pumps out. This creates tension, hatred, and arguments against people who don’t share that thinking and it’s exclusively because of the picture that the media has decided to paint here. This is not the first time they’ve controlled a social narrative and it certainly won’t be the last. And they also have a motive to do exactly that: volatility. When society is more volatile, the people are more likely to track the news and give them clicks and reads to see what the latest thing or group of people to hate is.

To my original point, it’s time to wake up and smell the coffee here and stop letting ad campaigns, politicians, news outlets, or corporate strategies influence the way that people view others before they even have a chance to get to the table to have a conversation. You opening your responses with insults is certainly never going to help anyone have a productive conversation that actually can drive us all together forward. "
business,"The estimate part isn't what irks me. It's the fact that even if it was online and in store it's still such a short time frame.

This is an advertising campaign that will impact Nike for years to come. It's only been a few weeks.

The real proof in the pudding will be whether those who agree with the message continue to buy and will surpass those who will no longer buy and will boycott. "
business,"Reddit continues to selectively enforce their ToS, letting several hate groups operate while also providing them a legitimate gathering place.

This is not some free speech experiment. There are many, many vulnerable people: Elderly, young, learning disability ect. These individuals have a harder time with critical thinking, and are easily swayed with emotionally charged language, *especially fear and anger*.

Reddit absolutely needs to take a *proactive, engaged position in their community*. Instead, they are mostly as hands off as possible, delegating community standards to the mods.

*That's not good enough*. They need to have a team of actual people, willing to come forward, and move towards a more active approach."
business,"Yea you're missing how this works. Reddit is a website with a primarily young age group. That's an age group that skews left. If you come here expecting to not encounter a liberal bias - and in fact, are so affronted you bitch about it: You're the one that needs to be clued in. Just because a private entity does not echo you're positions doesn't make it biased. In this context you're the biased one because you're coming into a liberal space and acting surprised that everyone else doesn't agree with you. The world is a big place, and whatever tiny speck you come from is a minority view. The users and owners of this site have no obligation to make your views feel accepted, respected, or even fucking tolerated you silly racist."
business,"TD isn’t a debate sub. The reality is they need strict moderation. They exist on a very liberal platform so if they didn’t moderate it to ensure the community stayed on point the sub would be drowned out with debate all day and everything from a republican would be downvoted. They need some control. Which is why they are different than politics. 

However politics is an aggressive circle jerk. People get incredibly hostile at any nuanced position that isn’t strictly in line. I know when I disagree with conservatives in their other corners, they never come at me as hostile as the hoarde in the politics sub does. "
business,"You're being intentionally obtuse. If companies can and do buy upvotes and accounts to push their products, so can and do political organizations.

You're making the ridiculous assertion that popularity = correctness or validity, and you don't want to even discuss that that is not how things work. When I made a point, you downvoted me and made some snide, trolling comment. You are part of the problem, and there's no point in continuing this conversation with you. "
business,"It's well-documented fact that Putin has an inner circle of oligarchs that maintain their wealth and influence through being in his inner circle.    


It's equally well-documented fact that many of these industrial oligarchs are central figures in different facets of Russian organized crime.  It's also a well-documented fact that the Trump organization relied on these same figures (and their connected lieutenants) to finance their properties around the globe at obscenely inflated prices.   


The connection is indisputable if you're literate and expose yourself to anything outside of breitbart and fox news. "
business,"You are legitimately too stupid and ignorant to have a real conversation with.  Divisive ads placed by Russia to enflame the right-wing dipshits and misconstrue Black Lives Matter are supporting the case against Russia successfully influencing the election (by directly influencing the most stupid and gullible of our country). 

That aside, the real question is whether that Russian propaganda/misinformation support was due to Trump being a compromised asset in any number of ways.  It's looking pretty damn probable that he's been compromised from corrupt money laundering deals with Russian oligarch financiers since the 90's.

Educate yourself, you fucking fool."
business,"Wait so why would they need to buy ads if he is a compromised asset (redundant phrasing by the way, you emotionally unstable retard)

It's actually funny how you cling to this lie, oh yeah they bought ads to make BLM look bad! Everything that's bad is Russia!

The funnier thing is I've actually given you points to prove I've read this shit and all you can do is handwave them. I'm starting to think you haven't read any of this. Maybe you're a CNN bot.

Keep spazzing out by the way I'm loving this. I'm ignorant, I'm a fool! Yes of course Putin runs the mob, dictators who control everything love propping up subversive non government elements! Fucking idiot."
business,"Of course the BLM ads were designed to mis-characterize that movement, and they worked, in large part.  Do you really believe that BLM was _benefited_ in some way by those ads?  Your gullibility matches that of the other drooling morons swallowing Trump's load on a daily basis. 

Their entire approach around BLM was to create further division through identity politics around what was identified as Trump's base; primarily angry white men with limited education.  That's his core, and creating fake BLM ads to give them another identity-defining oppositional message was a picture-perfect example of manipulating those fools.  

I hope you realize what an idiot you are when Trump's traitorous ass gets run out of the White House, but it's pretty doubtful you'll ever have the mental capacity for self-reflection or the discernment of truth necessary to do so.  "
business,"Of course they were, are you kidding?

How would BLM as a movement possibly benefit from fake FB ads played up to give them a an over-exaggerated stance on anything that was an obviously counter-appeal?  

The real BLM was never trying to sell itself, it was just people showing up asking for justice and accountability in neighborhoods and communities where there was none.  At it's core it is something that should appeal to the vast majority of Americans; no one good wants injustice for ourselves, our kids, or our fellow Americans.  

It was turned into propaganda marketing by targeted FB ads designed to play into the most extreme stereotypes and portray an entire movement as something that was antithetical to the cultural group that was most vulnerable to this sort of bullshit propaganda.  The ads successfully turned BLM into a hostile caricature and something that, as portrayed, made a lot of older white people feel like there was a culture war going on.

As we saw, in many cases, identity politics and a manipulated sense of an ongoing cultural war played a huge part in Trump getting elected.  

I'm not making this shit up, man.  I'm a white guy over 40 who grew up in rural Oklahoma, with a lot of relatives that I love having been completely suckered by exactly these methods.  "
business,"> How would BLM as a movement possibly benefit from fake FB ads played up to give them a an over-exaggerated stance on anything that was an obviously counter-appeal? 

Where are the ads you saw? I haven't seen any that gave them an over-exaggerated (once again, redundant, you retard) stance. All the insane shit I've heard comes from BLM leaders. Explain to me how Russia made them look bad. 

>The real BLM was never trying to sell itself

It's funded by George Soros you fucking idiot, BLM takes money. Of course it sells itself. God damn you're insane."
business,"Reddit used to be a staunch supporter of free speech and had a rule that basically anything that wasn't illegal was allowed. Now Reddit is rife with censorship and heavy moderation. Accounts can be purchased, subs can be purchased, etc. It's gotten too big for its own good. My account is 7 years old I think, and I lurked before then. Way back in the day Reddit was a small community and took pride in being small. Before memes were a thing there was basically a secret meme you would say to someone to know if they were a redditer because ppl didn't want to talk about it in the open and dilute the content with garbage users like we have now."
business,"This site was heavy into programming and nerd stuff.  Hacking groups like anonymous were a popular source of news.  People cheered for open source and hacktivists.  

As the site grew it started to reflect more standard communities.  Reddit still has a strong nerd base and comments better than any site on the internet.  There is a lot of power in a site like this and many were optimistic about the impact it could make.  Since Reddit has become a powerhouse it seems new influences may be trying to steer Reddit away from activism.  Governments probably see Reddit as ground zero for information war and we are targeted with all sorts of radicalizing misinformation.  When it was a small community there was high quality control.  Now everyone sees stuff that is questionable and the source of misinformation is a frightening question."
business,"> I had a sticker on my binder for English in 8th grade that read:
> 
> 
> 
>     Knowledge is Power.
> 
> 
> 
>     Power Corrupts.
> 
> 
> 
>     Study Hard. Be Evil.
> 
> 
> 
> My heavily Christian teacher did not appreciate it as much as I did. She also didn't like my opinion that the Left Behind series wasn't the greatest book ever. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

you can't please everybody with your principle. we have different belief and ideas to have "
business,"Started my own company about 6 months ago. Currently making 15-25k/mo depending on my active contacts. Prior to that I was an employee making 150k plus bonus.

Current domain is IT Risk Management. Prior to that I did IT security; Network Management; and supported the back end of a help desk ticketing system, among other things.

I can program in Java, .Net, python, and ruby, can integrate data from different apps to present a single cognizant picture of an environment. I've designed a web app and data layer which scaled to hundreds of thousands of requests per second, migrated homegrown and COTS applications to the cloud, and administered pretty much any component on a network except for MPLS routers.

I would be soooo bored if I only had one thing that I could do in a day.

Like someone said above, quoting Heinlein, specialization is for insects."
business,"Good question.  Honestly, automation has been happening in IT for longer than I've been doing this job.  One of my main tasks earlier in my career was to automate and script parts of my daily tasks so that myself and other engineers could work on more 'interesting' tasks, and individuals and products have been doing it for decades now.  We're already seeing some of the effects of this in that jobs that were once done by entry level people as a way to get their foot in the door are now automated, making it much harder for entry level people to get their first job and move up the chain.

As for an AI that can take over the majority of IT tasks, I'm not really that worried.  Automation is slowly and steadily moving up the chain, but only to augment what an Admin or Engineer does, not to replace it. 

There's a \*\*lot\*\* of resistance from people if you try to implement a technology that will \*\*replace\*\* one of their tasks instead of \*\*augment\*\* it.  

Back when I was working on the network management tools, our team wanted to help the LAN/WAN guys by automatically trying to bring an interface up if a 'this link went down' alert was triggered, which is the first step in their SOP for dealing with a down interface, and then only alert them if this failed.  The LAN/WAN guys strongly and thoroughly rejected this, and would rather have the downtime until someone in the NOC could run through their playbook.  

They didn't want to give access to the tool, even if it was running predictable behavior and only doing the things that an engineer would do as part of triage.  Now imaging the resistance that would be generated if the tool didn't follow a playbook but acted 'intelligently'.  You'll never convince the WAN guys to allow it to touch their devices.

At the point if/when a truly general purpose comes along and can perform in such a way as to make the majority of IT staff obsolete then \*\*everyone\*\* is screwed, and I hope that by that point society has figured out a way to deal with it."
business,The key is to be the person who writes the automation scripts. We execute basic stuff now for disk expansion but the possibilities are endless. The problem some will see if refusing to learn the languages. And yes you nailed the wan rejection. Unless it’s Cisco they won’t even open the tool. Pisses me off. Some are embracing it but those are usually the ones who manage both servers and network. 
business,"With most businesses viewing IT as a cost that must ever be reduced, those tasks that CAN be automated to replace people will eventually come about though due to management pressure.

People gotta eat, even if it's working for Comcast or automating the jobs of others away.

I guess I should have phrased my question better.

At what level do you think it's not possible to automate IT jobs in the next 10 years? Obviously you're safe, but how much further down the talent ladder do you have to go until a rack mounted box takes a job?"
business,"

We downloaded a security automation tool called Phantom. It worked to integrate apps and create workbooks. It wouldn’t have replaced anyone. It just would have changed their duties. Automation while shape what we do as administrators but you won’t see us being replaced anytime soon. 

The people who write automation are programmers, the people who setup the servers for the automation tool to run on are administrators. They will repair it when shit breaks. We tried to move to a more cattle orientated server farm but couldn’t so we still treat our servers like pets. 

While I get what you’re saying it should be worded that IT roles will be shifting to meet automation needs. 

My dude if all we did was IT that would make our lives great. We literally have to organize every project meeting for this government otherwise nothing gets done, we are out locating fiber cables for diggers hotlines, we are running vulnerabilities scans and mitigating risks. We have to help people reboot their god damn computers. Lol. 

Anyways I say give it 30 years before we are automating jobs out of IT. Fuck some of these folks are still running server 2003! If they can’t upgrade a server to something this decade then I’m not stressing. "
business,">At what level do you think it's not possible to automate IT jobs in the next 10 years?

Y'know, I've been doing this work for 15 years now, and there's not a *whole* lot more capability today than there was when I started.  There's definitely more tools around now that automate the work (for a yearly license fee based on the number of hosts managed) that an engineer used to do, but it's incremental change, not pivotal.

Maybe we'll hit the hockey stick curve in the next 10 years, but I've got a feeling that the tool set that people use will still be focused on  the tactical problems of managing a network, but completely unable to deal with the strategic problems which at the end of the day are the high-value issues.

>how much further down the talent ladder do you have to go until a rack mounted box takes a job?

Another great question.  We've been replacing humans with machines for centuries.  As an individual you just need to find a way to ensure that the skills that you can provide are something that can't be replaced more efficiently by a machine.  As long as the rate of change is incremental it's not too hard to stay ahead of it, but if it turns into a hockey stick then we're all in trouble."
business,">And in reference to the budget model - its not come into existence yet because the demand for higher priced models is being met first.

I think it has more to do with making sure production is as profitable as possible for as long as possible while all the kinks get worked out. Basically, everyone running to order the higher end Model 3s are subsidizing the company and increasing the viability of the basic/budget model.
"
business,"Tesla can either sell tens of thousands $50k-$60k models with a $10k markup OR sell the budget model at $35k with a \~$3,500 markup.  


  
Investors really, really want to see them be profitable, so with a somewhat limited production capacity it makes craptons of sense for them to continue to sell the high-margin models instead of the low margin ones. When they can put out 10k cars a week, then totally release the low end models. As it stands right now though, they're still collecting phenomenal amounts of LR + AWD model orders, and with them being a relatively high-margin product, then why not? It makes the low end model a little more profitable as they continue to scale and fine-tune their production process. Battery tech keeps getting cheaper and cheaper, and studies have shown the base model 3 is a $20,000 car with a $10,000 battery. What happens to profitability when it becomes a $20,000 car with a $5,000 battery? Tesla wins, that's what."
business,"The 3 was announced as being a mid to high $30,000 electric car. That makes me and many other people the target demographic. That price point has not turned out to be realistic so perhaps that changes the target demographic after the fact? For financially sensible people that find the idea of gaining “prestige” from owning a rapidly depreciating asset the thought of the Model 3 as somehow indicating status is laughable."
business,"The biggest reason is the amount of money required to spend on specialized tools to work on them and the training requirements. Not to mention the precautions that have to be taken to go about servicing almost anything on the vehicle is an entirely different process then combustion engines, and change is not exactly something people love.

My family owns a Chevy dealership in a small area and we don’t sell them or service them, its simply not feasible to even try. "
business,"As an example - the service interval on my e-golf is about the same as on my Volvo, but the price of the service is about a third. There's also far less wear on the brakes (in fact, the e-golf got ""you've got to use the brakes more to avoid rust building up"" since it does regenerative braking most of the time), in addition to not requiring a transmission (and thus no parts or no fluids therein).

​"
business,"I am indeed vegan! Thanks for asking. I live life such that if everyone in my position made my decisions, the world would be alright, and top scientists and experts would not be sounding off alarm bells for readily preventable threats. Burn me at the stake! Can I ask what YOU are doing to make the world a better place? 

As to your other point, name me ONE company that you could easily see transitioning us to true sustainability, AFTER this big step-in-the-right-direction move of mass producing EVs? Is it your Chevrolet? Ford? Apple? Facebook? Netflix? Please name any company, and I will start supporting it with fervor. Hint: there is none, aside from Tesla. 

Elon Musk throws himself at his current EV mission because he knows all the baboons will not sacrifice too much to transition to more sustainable transportation. Can you see obese Joe or badass Steve riding a bicycle to work? No!  It doesn’t happen! He’d rather have a cool car, and Musk wants to provide that, as a good compromise. He needs to make EVs in vogue. Most baboons are led by their primal feelings, failing miserably at weighing the long term consequences of their actions, so we need a nice step in the right direction to minimize the negative effects of baboon’s short-term-gratifying decisions. "
business,"It isn't the lack of understanding. For example, if you have a rear view camera or blind spot indicator. When you start relying on those technological features you tend to lose the skill you had before. Habits of being a safe, knowledgeable and defensive driver diminishes. The moment when people start relying on a piece of technology to keep them from harm is the moment when bad habits start to form. "
business,"Power steering in an ICE gets its power from the engine. So that’s a belt that needs tightening, inspection, and replacement. Same for your A/C. Same for your alternator. The starter motor is another component that fails often in cars. 

For EVs with a CVT, it’s a completely sealed system. You change it’s fluid either 10 or 20 years. It’s a life of the car design, so to speak. The battery back is also sealed—you don’t change out or service it’s coolant for the life of the battery. Brakes last a ton longer on EVs because of regen braking. Tires wear out slightly faster because of the high torque. 

"
business,"Honest question and I don’t mean to attack your family’s business: How do you think that will dealership will change by 2025, when Chevy says it will be selling 1 million+ EVs a year? 

I say this because I just bought a 2018 PHEV from Chrysler, and it sat on the lot for a while. The 2019s are already shipping in some areas, or at least getting media attention. When they took me to the car I found out both of its on board batteries had died: The High Voltage Traction battery (HVT) and the 12 Volt started battery. We test drove it entirely on the gas engine... and when they plugged it into to charge... there were problems. They had to replace some circuit boards involved in charging. 

It might be a fluke, but I think it had to do with the fact that this dealership didn’t really take care of its hybrids. They need to rotate through the charger probably once every two months. There are a lot of changes coming if and when EVs disrupt the industry... and I don’t see BMW, Nissan, or Volvo having problems, in my experience, but I can absolutely see American dealerships dropping the ball and just being abandoned by consumers. I just don’t see dealerships pivoting fast enough to adapt to the change. "
business,"So THAT'S why my Chevy dealer was so comically inept at selling the Bolt. It was a month ago and the first thing he said was ""I really don't know anything about this car."".  Thanks dude!

I bought a Tesla that I pick up in two days.  

If you want to spend the same as a Bolt, and get a car that I think it's a lot better, wait six months and get the Tesla without the extended battery.   "
business,"Well when the volume inevitably increases we’ll have to adapt, it’s just not an immediate concern for us because there is no real demand for EV or HEVs in our area. We actually have FCA/GM products in the same dealership, and we don’t deal with the HEV Pacifica’s either, there is literally no interest for them and to even try to market them here may not even produce a sale to someone in our area. But I honestly welcome the change, I’m more concerned with reluctance on the part of consumers to make the change to electric if there are rising costs for us and the market not rising to meet expectations. I guess we’ll see when that happens.

But to your experience, I think that was just dealer complacency personally, too often vehicles sit on the lot after they’re checked in until they’re sold/dealer traded. And in our case being in a colder climate, batteries go dead during winter time even if vehicles are being rotated. So I can imagine dealing with fully electric vehicles, it’s just something you would have to deal with if your not careful about it. But with us being a smaller dealer, it’s easier to be conscious of our inventory. "
business,">**I thought the Model 3 was an excellent car, but less fun to drive than a BMW 340i**, which isn't exactly an exciting drive either.

I've already driven it. Actually spent a decent amount of time driving one around the city I live in. Used all the autopilot and adaptive cruise control features, played with the different steering weights and brake regen settings. It's definitely a fun car, just like how a BMW 340i is a fun car. Is the Tesla more interesting than the BMW? Probably, but I wouldn't say it's more fun from a driver engagement standpoint.  


""Fun to drive"" is a very subjective category, but I'm constantly shocked by people who say their Teslas are more ""fun"" than dedicated sports cars. This isn't a knock against the 3 at all since it's just a sedan, I just wonder how those people used their sports cars."
business,"What kind of backwards misconception is this ? Belt needs tightening? What is this the 1920s? All those components are on the same belt usually and those last a long time. A $20 belt is your argument?? A lot of gas cars have 10,000 mile oil changes and sealed transmissions these days, last the life of the car too. Why don’t you price out the cost to replace the battery pack, it’s more costly than a engine or trans rebuild on a 10yr + old car."
business,"That ‘lifetime’ transmission fluid is for the life of the transmission, not the life of your car. A wise man changes it anyways. 

Tesla battery packs that are hitting 200,000 miles (360k) are averaging 93% capacity left. They are public about all battery data. It looks like we are getting MUCH better life from electric car batteries than anticipated. The new tractor trailer hauler got a million mile battery warranty. Think about that for a minute. That is a LOT of fuel savings. "
business,"As an ex mechanic, I really like Tesla. However you are correct. A wise man never EVER buys a first model year production vehicle. Tesla is still learning a lot and still has teething problems. Waiting a year or two is simply being prudent.  

But hey, if you have the cash to burn on a risky gen 1 product then why the hell not.  

When tesla makes an astro van, I’ll be lined up to take a test drive. I need a new workhorse in a few years. "
business,"I have AP2, and while it doesn’t yet meet the feature promises like automatically changing lanes and merging, it works very well in lane keeping and TACC. It has exceeded the capabilities of AP1, and is no comparison to systems shipping in other production cars.

It was pretty bad a year ago when I first got my Model S, but it’s now good enough that I can easily go 100 miles without disengaging it on a road trip.

The only other system close is Cadillac Super Cruise, but it only works on specific roads."
business,"The number of cars they're delivering vs. number of order and the current production cost and mostly the fact that they just cancelled/delayed to an uncertain date the 35k version according to the article.

Also Tesla has been missing production targets by far for years and just last week the new CAO and CHRO quit, this is not a very robust company, the shares fall fast too, like 20% in the last 2 months."
business,"Google it, there is always a way. There are now kits that add things like dipstick tubes too. Because guess what? Remember what happens when you get a small leak on a transmission? You top up the oil. What do you do on a road trip right now when you get a small leak? Tow the car home?

THIS right here is why sealing transmissions was a totally retarded move. What do you do if shit happens? Cooler lines leak, radiators get changed (they have transmission fluid in the cooler)."
business,"Totally forgot about that aspect. It definitely fostered a sense of community within the college. But you’re right, for an app that was so widely used, it disappeared so quickly.

It was also cool because it wasn’t just limited to colleges either. I remember using it to get restaurant suggestions, and some advice from locals when I went on vacation. 

I think the model still has some viability, but the team that leads it needs to make sure not to stray away from the core model. "
business,"> I'm all in on the conspiracy theory for this.

Easy to do. Snapchat is headed for failure, and I'm sure noone thinks otherwise. Steady decline in users since Instagram stories. 

On the inside, there are people pumping and dumping, or something equally shady. Or they're deliberately running shit into the ground to be able to file for bankruptcy before their own salaries are unpayable. There's definitely something behind the change of the user interface and the not giving a shit about all of the complaints about it."
business,"This makes me incredibly happy. Let all other current & future social-media companies beware.

End game wise. It’d be nice if smart-phone centric social media was back in its golden-age.

Yik yak needs to comeback. 
&
Snapchat needs to revert to some of their old UI/features.

Facebook needs to be what it was back in 2009 - 2012, mixed with some of its features of today. 


Instagram is fine how it is but needs to improve their stories algorithm by order of importance of people to you. And a chronological feed *option*. "
business,"As a start: 

1. I’d avoid using illegal drugs while being filmed and acting as a representative for the company, it’s directors, employees, and major institutional investors

2. I wouldn’t attempt to defraud investors by claiming I’ve secured a deal to take the company private when I hadn’t 

3. I wouldn’t constantly engage in heated Twitter battles with the media

4. I wouldn’t publicly accuse someone of being a pedophile without offering some sort of evidence

5. I’d stop making grand promises about production volume, pricing, and product quality unless I knew I could deliver on them 
"
business,"A guy whose entire job is to evaluate companies and their future performance comes up with a negative outlook for Tesla, and you call the guy “uninspired, uncreative, and untalented”. Yet, [he’s had an average return of over 15% per rating in the past year and ranks 405 out of 11,497 in the listed Wall Street experts](https://www.tipranks.com/analysts/romit-shah). I think I’ll trust the advice of the expert over the Musk fan who uses Trumpesque insults to try to discredit anyone with a negative outlook on Tesla."
business,"literally first result in google: https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2018/08/15/1534305600000/Tesla--getting-to-Q3-profitability/

TLDR they think the Q3 results will be approx + or - 250 million.

which, taking the OPs comment into account, means that even if they aren't profitable, its not by ""A LONG SHOT"". Take the worse case -250 million, that's still a trivial amount to overcome to be profitable in the following quarter.

So you are welcome for doing what you could have done trivially yourself if you were at all interested in learning the real answer and not just trying to be a smarmy dick on the internet for no good reason. fuck off."
business,"What is your comment even trying to say? You’re in r/business, but it seems like you don’t even have the most basic understanding of how the stock market works. Without equity investment, there would be extremely limited growth opportunity for companies which include Tesla. Analysts like this guy do their best to make sure a company is accurately valued, which aids the stock holder looking for an investment on his/her return on the small-scale, and helps the efficiency of the market in accurately pricing the value of companies on a large-scale. It’s puzzling how you think this equates to sucking up value created by other people."
business,"And what is the actual point you are trying to make? That Colin Kapernick appearing in a non political ad is going to have some sort of appreciable effect on the overall business of Nike? 

This is what happens when alt right subs leak into places like r/business. What they wish and hope is reality gets mixed with objective and rational view of people who actually work in markets and don't overreact to meaningless daily ups and downs."
business,"Yea that’s a good point too the rise in sales due to the controversy raised the stock price back up to its previous level and even higher. Who knows what investors will do long term, it depends on how consumers are reacting long term to Nike as a brand. None of the data coming out of the past 5-6 days will tell you how Nike is going to be in a month or a year. "
business,"I suppose, but you might also argue that Tesla isn't really a Silicon Valley entity any longer.  They have offices in SV, sure, but they also have their Gigafactory in Vegas, and they sell cars globally.  They've broken out of SV, and are operating far wider.  

Whether you agree with that or not, what is absolutely true is that his behavior is *erratic* but not *mean*.  He does some patently dumb shit, and as a Tesla owner, and a dude without a neckbeard, I feel totally comfortable saying that.  :)     He needs to knock it off and focus on innovating more and talking less.   Like many people, he needs to get the hell off Twitter too -- it's making him stupid.  Dude comes up with some amazing tech, but none of that makes him a great spokesman or CEO.  He should realize that, and put a frontman / frontwoman into that spot and go back to making cool shit.  Unfortunately, events in his past have jaded him to him not being in the driver's seat, so I kinda get it.  It's a catch 22."
business,"All the top Tesla engineers are in the Valley.  There is no major engineering work going on at the Vegas factory. 

At a surface level what you say makes sense, but in reality Elon is kicking ass as an annoying nutcase and you are on reddit recommending he be more sensible.  There is an argument to be made that your need to get off reddit and go do something is far greater than Elon's need to conform to your comfort zone boundaries."
business,"Eh, in the end, I actually don't care as long as he keeps innovating.  Keep rattling the shitty auto industry that continues to make the same old same old.  Keep rattling the space industry that relies on rockets from Russia to make NASA fly.  Keep rattling the solar industry until panels are on every roof, but more importantly are radically more efficient than the 15-17% that is the norm, or the 22% at the top end for PV.  Keep making batteries that don't suck.  If being a complete nutbag gets it done, so be it.  I'll be over here driving my rainbow farting Model 3 in oil-addicted North Texas.  :)"
business,"Thank you! The one I was at, and other locations that I’ve heard about from friends also, are mismanaged by incompetent people, unsanitary and the food is all frozen and processed junk. I don’t mind junk food once in a while, but at least McDonalds doesn’t market their food as the healthy alternative. You’re are getting the same nutritional value in most footlongs as you are a Big Mac. They treat staff like shit with no real chance for upward mobility. Understaffed chaos factories. I’m sure I’m a little biased but obviously it was just my own experience and I’ve never worked in fast food other than this so I don’t know how it compares to the industry in general. All this, and not to mention the whole Jared thing..."
business,"Go ahead and eat terrible quality food. Eat literal garbage for all I care. But don't call the garbage good food. I've gotten in many arguments with people online and in real life over the quality of subway, I know what most people who eat it think about it. If you took the meat out of the sandwich and ate it independently you would realize it is literally the lowest quality meat you could ever get. Most people won't admit that though. It's like taco bell, if you like taco bell, that's cool, but it isn't high quality health food. The difference is that no one claims taco bell to be high quality healthy food like they do for subway. If they did, I would call them fucking idiots. Its not that people like subway that I have an issue with, its that they either don't realize, or actively argue against, what it really is. 

But whatever, downvote downvote, like I care, enjoy your garbage sandwiches. "
business,"This is my exact experience from working there a summer around 2002. Even back then it was all processed food and food-flavored mystery meats/sauces. The bread is what gets you the most calories, so it's almost impossible to eat healthy there unless you go all the fuck in on vegetables only, if only to compensate for the terrible bread.

They had the worst of the worst working there. My second day on the job, everyone got fired at once, except for me, the new guy. The new hires were awful. I learned no real skills, except for what items were fully tracked, thus which things you could steal for lunch."
business,"Well when I was poor and 19/20 I worked minimum at Home Depot and I could go across the street and get two soft tacos, rice and beans for $2.50 and mix the later into the tacos.  If I was splurging I'd get two 7 layer burritos w/ground beef added.  Heck, I kept a gallon milk-jug of fucking kool-aid in my truck just to cheap out.  I never drank that stuff growing up.  (Kind of like Chappelle's GRAPE DRINK bit.)

Sure, I made plenty of spag-bol and tuna sammies, etc. for work but that got tiresome on the ole shitty palate I had.

These days, I've worked up to having a Demeyer rivet-less heavy ass 10"" SS/aluminum core pan, been baking bread for 15 years, eventually get my hands on a pressure cooker and just recently a sous vide.  Lovin' it."
business,"I actually consider lack of money a very acceptable reason to get subway, I was a poor student once too, I have eaten subway because it was cheap/convenient. But I would never make the argument that its good food, I would make the argument that I'm poor and a 5$ footlong is a good deal. Some of the people I know who still eat subway are making shit loads of money, they just eat subway because they like it and think its good food. Like these people will buy whatever they want, 2000 keyboard, a new BMW, a pound of kush, whatever, then walk by three amazing (and cheap) restaurants and choose subway instead (???). Also I have sympathy for anyone in a small town, I've been in my fair share where there isn't a lot of choices, although that is not a factor to the people I know. Point being, eat whatever you want, but god damn, if you live in a big city and make good money subway is pretty much an objectively terrible choice. 
"
business,"While not defending Subway's ingredients, or arguing anything you've said as true or false, be wary of falling into the ""processed foods are bad"" fallacy.  

""Processed"" doesn't really mean shit nutritionally speaking.  It's all about the actual nutritional value.  You can get a nutritionally-complete ""meal"" in shake form, and that's all _heavily_ processed.  

The real danger, and biggest problem in the American diet isn't the presence of ""processed"" foods, it's the overabundance of calories and types of foods that, while calorically dense, aren't _filling_, leading most people to become fatty blob monsters if they aren't careful."
business,"
You've got a very good point here: ""processed"" isn't necessarily the issue.  Figure out what whole grains are, what low GI/GL foods are, and you'll be a healthier person.

> The real danger, and biggest problem in the American diet isn't the presence of ""processed"" foods, it's the overabundance of calories and types of foods that, while calorically dense, aren't  filling

One of the easiest ""processed"" foods to overlook is flour, where a slow-digesting material is made into a refined powder form that's more readily absorbed (kinda like Coca...).  A breaded pork-chop can look whole and healthy, but in the breading you have a calorie-dense nutrient-poor refined substance that's tailored to spike your insuline (which will match nicely with the a huge-ass soda, hrmmm).

Just cutting out refined flour and caloric beverages would make most fatty blob monsters into average DadBods..."
business,"The smell ... meh I guess. As for the tradition, I have three kids and taking them anywhere is a painful affair. I'm sure I can find other things to do rather than dirty my whole house with needles that turn up months after Christmas :)

Plus the fake trees are more ""green"" since I'm not harvesting them out of the ground for decorative purposes, nor do I have to mess with the stupid lights because they are built into my tree !"
business,"I was curious about the environmental claim, so I did some quick googling.

A ""real"" tree has obvious advantages -- it's removing carbon while growing, and sequestering and it's 100% renewable, obviously.

Downsides are all about harvesting and disposal.  It takes energy to cut down and transport trees from the farm to your home.  The best option appears to be the ""u pick"" farms when you go out in the field and dad tries to use a shitty hacksaw to cut the tree himself while you all stand around and pretend to not be bored out of your skull.

Artificial trees, on the other hand, are basically plastic.   

The break-even point on an artificial tree appears to be 4 - 10 years of use, depending on how you would have disposed of a real tree (burning versus composting).  

That said:  Artificial trees all the way.  If I want ""tree smell"", I'll get a can of something."
business,"There are always going to be people who pirate because they can, or who pirate because they refuse to pay for anything - nothing is going to make them go away. 

The group that digital merchants really should care about are the folks who *would* pay for things so long as it's easy and convenient to do so. When the impedance layer between usability and cost gets high enough that they're back on Pirate Bay, then the merchants are fucking things up. "
business,"That article stunk of the touch of an overly-opinionated vegan, but the basis of the article isn't wrong. Things like this are obviously a coordinated attack on vegan alternatives to meat by the meat/dairy industry. But this isn't a new development. Meat/dairy industries try to protect their business, after all.

That being said, I don't think this is exactly necessary. It isn't like anyone is being fooled into eating vegan hot dogs without knowing it's vegan."
business,">  It isn't like anyone is being fooled into eating vegan hot dogs without knowing it's vegan.

If you bought a hot dog from a street stall, what would you expect it to be made of?

I'll give you an example, Australia usually makes sausages from beef. So many hot dogs (or just a sausage in a bun) are made with beef sausages. Here in the UK, sausages are mostly pork, and many hot dogs are fried. They're just plain sausages, not a frankfurter.

In other countries, the sausage in a hot dog is a frankfurter, made from pork, and will be steamed or boiled.

Some European countries bulk up their sausages with chicken or even kangaroo meat (Russia). 

So what is a hot dog? is it beef, pork, chicken, kangaroo, mystery meat, or something else? 

Point is that ""hot dog"" can mean many things, and it's possible that some places will sell you a hot dog, and won't (or don't need to) tell you that it's made from something that isn't meat.
"
business,"And there's nothing wrong with that. If your food isn't tied to morals for you, then eat whatever you think tastes good. Nobody should ever be offended that they ate something that tasted good and it wasn't comprised of what they thought it was.

People like Oreos and Oreos are vegan, but if you tell people that you're going to recommend them a vegan cookie, people would automatically think it's to be avoided. So strange."
business,"Yes. This is one of the biggest arguments against commercial software that uses digital rights management too. Even if you buy it, you only have access to it for as long as the company seems fit.

For example if you buy a new apple iphone or samsung galaxy, your carrier can force over the air system updates that reduce functionality and there is nothing you can do to stop it. Nevermind that it's your device and you paid for it. 

DRM is literally the theft of your rights to do what you want with the things that you own. It's in everything, preventing your genetic lightning cable from charging your iPhone, stopping you from refilling your printer cartridges and allowing media publishers to remove your access rights to things you purchased whenever they feel like it."
business,"I just read so many reasons to pirate software and music/movies that it seems like a moral imperative to get as much for free as one can. 

Similar to big pharm argument that they have to raise prices because they morally and ethically are beholden to their shareholders to make as much profit as possible.

I seem to be beholden to my household to save as much capital. It is therefore the moral choice to pirate when companies do not let you “own” items paid for properly. "
business,"No, it isn't. To be clear I don't agree with what apple is doing, but what people need to understand is your aren't buying the song or movie or video game, you are buying a license to use it and that's it. There are nor property rights here. As a licensee, you are bound to whatever the terms of the license are, you know the EULAs that no one ever reads. It's bullshit, I agree. But people need stop pretending a class action lawsuit for property theft is ever going to happen. Legislation forcing particular terms equivalent to property rights are the only way this ever going to change."
business,"iPhones do get carrier setting updates directly from the carrier. iOS updates are from apple though so in this way apple really owns your device.

Android is different. Carriers all highly customize the android interface and your updates come from the carriers. I dont know about all of them but on my new samsung galaxy s8, even with the developer options enabled and system updates disabled I will periodically still see an OTA update installed.

It's too bad really because the spyware they install on the phones waste battery life and storage space. It's your device and you should have total control of it. "
business,"I don't think it ever really worked, I have never heard of a study that showed the blocking of the use of information results in an increase in innovation. It's just that until recently, the blocking effects weren't significant enough to severely retard natural innovation.

What it _did_ do, however, is create industries structured around the concept of controlling the flow of culture and inventions, right down to the creation of special-interest lobbies to prevent any loosening of the law back towards normal market-like conditions. I don't think this has been good for our society in the long run."
business,"We have a 4Tb hard drive with over 600 DVD movies plus several TV series. It took over a month to compress all of them, then we sold our DVD collection.

The quicker companies understand some of us don't want to go to the movies to put up with anti-social behaviour and poor manners, and we also don't want to put up with anti-piracy ads for stuff we paid for.

Now, we can watch anything anywhere in the house, on the phone, or laptop in bed, simply by raising a finger."
business,"They do that with music.  I don't know why movies is so different.  U2 released a massive collection of everything they did a while back (unreleased, promo mixes, etc), when iTunes was still 128kbps.  It was limited (can't remember if it coincided with the U2 iPod), but when they upgraded their quality to 256kbps they still allowed upgrades on the collection if you bought it previously, even though it had been pulled commercially.

Why movie collections are somehow different is so strange, especially with the power Apple has over studios.  Just force some type of agreement that anything sold can forever be distributed/streamed to people who purchase."
business,"Ah yes, but can you give them to someone else? Can the inherit them? In the end people are buying licenses, not the actual product and depending on the terms of the license the licensor can pretty much do whatever they want. 

I mention inheritance because a similar thing came up w/ Apple Music. Bruce Willis, yes that one, had amassed a collection of songs worth a $1 million purchase price. He wanted to give the collection to his kids when he died and well, yeah, he couldn't because he didn't own shit. Not sure what the result of that was."
business,"This is why I never switched from physical comics to comixology. I do digital on Hoopla through my library or I torrent if I can't find it there. Then I have regular issues I read monthly and buy from a shop, and then I buy collected editions of what I like that I've read on Hoopla or torrents that I want to own myself. As of now, I will never pay for digital because I'm afraid that even though I paid for it, comixology can still take it away. This has always been my concern since these services started existing."
business,"I use to pirate music extensively - I have over 100 GB of mp3's. But I haven't downloaded a song illegally in years now....because of Spotify. One central place that makes listening to music easily, downloadable for offline listening, ANY device, and is an extensive library.

There is no such service for movies. Some are decent. Some have limitations. Some have terrible selections. And from the looks of it...it won't be happening any time soon as everybody wants their own streaming service."
business,"Yes but the problem with movies is when companies like netflix start doing their own. Then HBO do their own. AMC do their own. And then other companies start buying exclusivity on anime. You end up having to pay huge amounts of money if you want EVERYTHING. Spotify may lack some artists (never happened to me though), but at least it's not because they're owned by someone else who won't allow you to stream it. (I do have a free Spotify account and still pirate music though)."
business,"I pay for Spotify and do not pirate (any more, I used to when I couldn't afford to pay for albums every week.).  I pay for Netflix.  I get it.  I really do.  I totally understand why people pirate and I hope they use the opportunity with that saved money to spend it directly toward the music (go to concerts and buy a shirt), the shows (buy some more certified merch), or the computer programs/games (give directly to the company, especially indie games).  Find the good reason to pirate.  Take out the middle man."
business,"Actually eat it everyone. The only winners are the Nike execs. They don’t give a fuck about whatever message they’re sending bro. They just want to make money. They knew this was a gamble with possibly huge upside.

For you to think this is a loss for trump voters and a win for the left is pretty naive bro. Nike wins. Big corporation wins. If you think that means “YEA HIGH FIVE TRUMP VOTERS ARE EMBARRASSED” that’s pretty dumb"
business,"The fact that you used ""bro"" and ""left"" in a comment you otherwise may have intended to be taken seriously tells me that you're part of the problem.

There aren't ""two parties"", there are the rich, and the rest of us.  To think otherwise is to be stuck just where you're wanted.

And yes, this was a calculated move intended to make Nike gobs of money, which it is doing.  But, if it calls attention to injustices in the world, it's still a win for us all."
business,"But it goes both ways right? Now you have the masses that are willing to ignore their work place conditions to stick it to the other guy.  I never bought Nike and now suddenly 9 get to be called a Trumper because lifelong boycott now intersects with their's 

It would be like Reddit promoting Nestle products because Nestle came out against Trump.  I'll be sickened if all these people flip again."
business,"No, honestly the ""typical"" MAGA hat wearing Trump voter I feel like is beneath me.  But not because I'm inherently more valuable than they are, but I had parents who brought me up correctly and didn't raise me to be a douche towards people who simply look differently than I do.

They could still change, there are reformed KKK members in the world who have gone on do to great things.  And I don't mean great in the MAGA sense, I mean actual value.

Thanks for the question!"
business,"“There are the rich, and the rest of us.” Only a sith deals in absolutes BRO. My wife and I make 6 figures each in New York mother fucking Citayyyyy. Does that mean we side with trump or with racist KKK white cops? You think we support Nike sweatshops and their fat cat execs? You think just because we make more money than you can imagine that we’re automatically backwards thinking climate change denying republicans? That we jerk off to the Bible and punch abortion workers in the face? You idiot. 

You may think you’re some smart recent college grad with that bitch ass mentality of “we the 99% fight for the poor share that wealth!!!” but you’re almost as dumb and naive as those trumpdump voters you’re referring to. 

What problem you referring to bro? Just because I say bro in my anonymous Reddit comments you automatically assume I’m part of some imaginary problem of You being poor? You whiny fucking loser? What problem are you referring to? Is it one big problem? A hundred small ones? You think that my calling out your bullshit for criticizing trump voters from a fucking Nike ad displaying Kaepernick makes me part of the problem? BRO? If the problem is I make more money than you because I worked my ass off to get to where I am then yea, I’m sorry your poor ass can’t make money because you didn’t do as well as you would’ve have liked in school.if it’s another problem you’re referring to, like racist white people doing racist white shit then suck it buddy I AINT WHITE"
business,"I imagine there are people against trump who are embarrassed to have you on their side. You are slightly more educated and progressive than a dumb fuck redneck but you’re pretty much as narrow minded.

You’re like a twitter troll, you see an ad for an NFL player by a big corporation and your mind automatically jumps to politicize the issue rather than thinking about what the message actually is. Except a twitter troll knows he’s stirring up bull shit to get ignorant people like you mad. You just get mad because you’re dumb "
business,">You're completely missing the point.  

No.  90% of Blacks are killed by Blacks (83% of Whites are killed by Whites).

So, if your issue is Blacks being killed, then it's the Black community that has to step up.  If your issue is people being killed by police, then Whites have a better reason to complain.  If your issue is Blacks shot by police, then it's actually Black police who are more likely to shoot Blacks.

What is your issue?  Divide, blame Whites, use statistics to manipulate?

Again, is it ok with you that more Whites are shot?  You didn't answer that question.  But, you don't have to, supporting BLM is the same as supporting the KKK.  It's a political horseshoe."
business,"It’s not just Trumpers  that we’re anti Kaepernick. My husband hates trump but for some unknown stupid reason he chose to side with the no kneeler team. He is ex military, so maybe that might be a reason. But it is a sore subject with me as he was a Broncos fan and watched football up until this fiasco. The problem I have,  is he can’t tell me exactly WHY he is boycotting specifically when confronted with the true story of how it started, and why. So I guess he might as well be a trumper. "
business,"This isn't news. Everyone has been saying the same thing you're saying since the ad was announced. It's not a win for ""the left"" and he never even said that. This is win for Nike (obviously) but a huge L for Trump and his supporters. These fucking idiots still think their boycotts work. Trump even tweeted it was a bad move and they where going to see big losses. Their protests never fucking work."
business,"You are presenting a ready made list that isn't directly connected to our conversation.  Essentially, you are shouting past me, without any intention of having an open mind.  Perhaps that's the education style you received, but it's obviously propaganda.

I use that word because what you have done is a textbook case of it.  If you are only going to shout ""you're part of the problem"" because you've been called out, then you are essentially a member of a political cult.  "
business,"1) What’s the issue with him having said “bro” and “left”? Bro is a harmless term and the left is a term that’s been used for decades that can objectively describe a group on the political spectrum. But that’s just a serious question. 

2) The idea that there’s a “rich” and a “rest of us” is absurd. That’s coming from someone well within the 99%. Shit, well below the poverty line. I grew up below that poverty line, but I’m about to move into that “rich” class. Why the need to separate an entire group solely based on income?

3) Yea OP who made the comment is a douche. I see that from his response. So I guess you’re right on the bro and left thing. But you didn’t know it when you made it, so that point was serious. Just seems so harmless to me. Why is it a flag?"
business,"Its not. But I definitely don't go out of my way to be upset about things I've made up in my head. You're saying that black people AS  A WHOLE, need to do what you think is best for them. Ignoring cultural diffeneces, you have all the answers. Or at least you definitely come off as you do. I would bet you definitely don't care, and you enjoy criticizing the black community. Gives you something to feel superior about"
business,"It's not just how Silicon Valley works ""now"" - it's EXACTLY the 'business model' that was used in the 90s in the first .com bubble.  Sites like [pets.com](https://pets.com), (RIP, 1999-2000) sold pet food for less than they paid for it, and incinerated $300M of investor money in something like 6mo before blowing up, [diapers.com](https://diapers.com) was sold for $500M, but was really just a front for paying retail for diapers, discounting them, and then selling them online.  The SV business plan is to: bilk customers with an ever increasing subscription-model price, bilk investors by burning their capital for ""customer acquisition"" while having no long term plan, and bilk developers with fake equity.  

That's why you hear them brag about the amount RAISED, not the amount that they're earning."
business,"Not necessarily - the market for pet supplies and diapers are both likely to be tightly controlled by existing wholesale deals, ones that require pricing to be higher than those sites sell products for.  Their only model was to ""acquire"" customers by advertising promo pricing as normal pricing...then slowly lose those customers as prices increase.  Not a surprise - these founders also started [jet.com](https://jet.com) more recently.  It also sold products at below wholesale sometimes.  Sold for $3B a couple years ago, so I'm guessing Wal-Mart is trying to copy Amazon in 2005? haha."
business,"Suppose refrigerators were $400 to buy at wholesale and they borrowed money to be able to buy them to re-sell, paying themselves a dividend on the ""profit"" of selling them, but still owing the original base cost and still paying back on those? Would they say ""the cost of refrigerators we financed are killing us"", as if perhaps they should be allowed to have the debt forgiven, or would they just owe the money.

When you hire people by offering a retirement program, that's part of the cost of hiring them. You owe it just as certainly as any other debt."
business,"Pensions are funded based on historical interest rates. When the plan was established, the liability was projected to be much lower than it actually ended up being because the economy crashed and the federal interest rate has been unusually low for a decade.

It's sort of like adjustable rate mortgages. The banker guy told you you'd have to pay one amount, you ended up having to pay almost twice as much and got in trouble with the loan. No one expected the rate to go to zero, or stay near zero for that long. It was unprecedented."
business,"I agree with and understand what you’re saying, but that’s horseshit. The economy is one of several unknowns in finance. You prepare for it. I’ll be sure to reach out to the electric company after I retire and tell them my investments didn’t perform as well as I expected. They’re going to need to help me out with my light bill.  Not arguing with you - just their idiotic argument. My company may face an unexpected 20% tariff on our products - literally nothing we can control and driven by bad policy and petulant children. None of our debtors has any pity."
business,"Heck no, I wasn't saying that their obligations should be forgiven. All I was saying was that keeping the federal interest rate so low for so long is having some knock on effects in some sectors of the economy, and defined benefits programs are getting hammered by it.

Like how everyone hated predatory mortgage companies, but the bad guys here were overly optimistic actuarial tables. Stick the benefits managers second against the wall, right after the bankers."
business,"It is indeed, in hindsight, horse shit.

I think with defined benefits programs being so tightly regulated, people got complacent and this caught everyone by surprise. My state's public pensions system is having the same problem, compounded by a governor who swept it under the rug and pushed payments into the future so they'd balloon well after she left office. And retired to Florida, to collect her badump ting! State employee pension benefits. Of fucking course she did.

How boomers fucked today's economy, issue 3,096."
business,"I simply don't agree. If the people who did this did something criminal, then go after them criminally. But otherwise it's just business as usual, and certainly not a surprise. There's been operation for years with someone pocketing money who knew this was a standing issue. If the company is still in business and cannot pay its obligations, it should settle by offering ownership and control of its assets to these people."
business,"I don't disagree with the only-cash thing for payment from businesses, though I do support Social Security and other safety nets. But I don't agree that it means that businesses can get out of obligations they made. Let the retirees own the business. We wouldn't be having this discussion if it was a chief executive who was promised a golden parachute. We'd be talking about how even though the company is ailing and needs not to have made such a deal, a promise is a promise."
business,"A company doesn't have incentives; legal personhood notwithstanding, companies are not people nor thinking entities. Employees have incentives. Companies have a responsibility to their owners, and at the point where the company can't pay the retirees, it should transfer control to the retirees and let them at least have the asset value (which they can sell to whomever they like, or operate for dividend value, or do whatever else stockholders do)."
business,"Social Security is the sort of thing that I'm talking about. it's not run by companies at all...

one solution could be to roll all of those pension plans into SS. No idea of the feasibility of such a program, but... the point being that we shouldn't be held hostage to the mistakes of the past. That, and we shouldn't let elderly people just wither away and (literally) die.

The big thing is what you mentioned. CEO's don't have anything other than the next quarter's stock price in mind. There's nothing wrong with that really, except when we're giving them responsibility for people's retirement. As you mentioned they're largely not going to be around to deal with the consequences of making decisions about people's retirement, so why in the world would we give them that decision making ability?"
business,"**Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation**

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is a United States ""federally chartered corporation"" created by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to encourage the continuation and maintenance of voluntary private defined benefit pension plans, provide timely and uninterrupted payment of pension benefits, and keep pension insurance premiums at the lowest level necessary to carry out its operations. Subject to other statutory limitations, PBGC's insurance program pays pension benefits up to the maximum guaranteed benefit set by law to participants who retire at 65 ($60,136 a year as of 2016). The benefits payable to insured retirees who start their benefits at ages other than 65 or elect survivor coverage are adjusted to be equivalent in value.

In fiscal year 2015, PBGC paid $5.6 billion in benefits to participants of failed single-employer pension plans.

***

^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/business/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot)   ^]
^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28"
business,"I think society should just agree it's reliably there for all seniors, in effect acting as a backstop here. But, that said, an agreement is an agreement. The same company would probably defend to the death the need to pay golden parachutes. The idea that the people who made this promise could just offload the responsibility to the government with no consequence to themselves is offensive to me.  That's why I'm saying they should give over corporate control to the people they are defaulting on. They shouldn't get to just continue in business-as-usual mode as if they hadn't just done something improper to others, continuing to profit normally.

It wouldn't be unreasonable to have a rule that says no one in a corporation can write a contract that promises anything that is not product-itself more than X period ahead in time. e.g., (as a conversational straw man, not something I've thought through super-carefully) 3 years. (For example, you might want to rent out property for 10 years, but then it's your product. If you instead want lease space for your company 10 years out or pay a life pension, maybe that's something we should phase out.)  But we still have to grandfather previous agreements or else we are doing an injustice to those having received and paid for previous promises."
business,"> And if you think about it, how crazy is it to expect individuals with their 401k’s to make sound investments and plan for retirement when multi million dollar corporations can’t seem to do it.

I don't agree with that. The right strategy for investing is literally a single Google search away.

I find that people don't manage their retirements much more due to negligence / writing off their own future / being scared of it. But if they are able to afford to save, and put some effort in, being successful is not hard at all. 

Agreed that they need to look into their firm. Those are abysmal results - talk about negligence."
business,"See that’s a bad way of thinking.  Yes a person can do very well picking a sector they think will do well and invest in it.  And everyone knows some uncle who did that and did well.

But the ones who tried the same thing and failed generally are going to be less chatty about it or merely talk about their successes.  

Otherwise every investing advice book would just say “ask your rich uncle and follow his advice” or “invest in industrial chemicals”

If you’re right, great.  But statistically you’re not likely to be the one who has the market all figured out."
business,"Except pension funds need a guaranteed rate of return, if you gamble it in stock funds and the market drops you have negative value. That was the whole point of separating funds like pensions and social security from investment funds like 401k. I knew people who retired in 1999, and had all their 401k in tech stocks. Two years later they had lost 40% of their retirement, not future funds, funds they were living on. One had to go back to work because he realized he would run out of money in 10 years instead of 30.  "
business,"I can speak for one business: mine. Unemployment will go up 100%. 4 people affected. 

We're barely breaking even as it is. I work a full time salaried job which allows me to sustain my retail shop at a $1k/month loss. I opened the store to help keep local folks employed and provide a shopping experience that otherwise would not exist in our community. With minimum wage going up from $10.50/he to $12/hr as of July, that increases salary by $600/month, and I probably won't be able to sustain this much longer. 

Not trying to get political here, just speaking from my own personal experience and I also hear the same from other small business owners in the area."
business,"You are aware that minimum wage isn’t sustainable for meeting basic needs in your locale even with the increase, correct? It sucks that you’re losing money, but if you can’t afford to pay the most basic salary the government has assessed your community members need to live, then perhaps find another line of work. 

I feel more sorry for your employees living hand to mouth and losing their compensation than your poor business sense. Running a business is a gamble, always. Perhaps next time consider a co-op?"
business,"If you really felt bad for them, you would be paying them enough to afford rent and food. At this point you feel bad for yourself and you are trying to transfer the blame to the labor force who is begging for scraps right now. You had the choice to open a business or not; most people who are working for minimum wage didn’t have much of a choice about that.

Maybe be mad about the laws that make it so easy for multinationals to fuck over cities and mold laws to their benefits which the local businesses do not have deep enough pockets to do. This isn’t the minimum wage workers’ fault."
business,"I actually don't feel bad for myself at all. I have a full time job that has afforded me to sustain a loss for the store over the past few years. Instead of spending my disposable income on useless luxury goods, I chose to open a specialty store in a community that was lacking one and employ a few people who are fans of and enjoy selling the product.

If I can barely pay them enough to keep the store open, how does it logically make sense to pay them even more? And how much pay do you think they need to afford rent and food?

I did have a choice to open the business, and when I opened it, minimum wage was just $9/hr. It went up by 33% in the past few years. I didn't have a choice about that. People applied to the store knowing it pays minimum wage, so yes they did have a choice about that.

Not sure what you read in the post that makes it sound like I'm mad or blaming the employees. Just sharing some insight based on experience and speaking with other small business owners. "
business,"I'm not even vegan but I try to purchase from the vegan section when I can for 3 reasons:



1. You can't feed 7B people on an 'American' animal-based diet. Eventually we'll have to switch to something else because dairy, poultry, meet, pork will be too expensive.   
  


2. The more we consume vegan foods, the cheaper (and better tasting) they get for everyone. It's like voting with your wallet for sustainable, cruelty-free foods to succeed.   
  


3. It's healthier and easier to digest.  
  


It's like renewables 8-10 years ago. Someone had to start using them when they weren't the cheapest, cleanest and most accessible source of energy (thanks Germany). They now are incredibly competitive. "
business,"Ironically because Americans are so fat and traditionally with unhealthy diets, it’s caused Americans to also be very educated on health beyond anywhere else I’ve ever seen. When I lived years in Europe while everyone was generally healthier I don’t think I met people who understood the science and reasonings as well as Americans do. People in america have to deal with so much garbage that those who want to be healthy have to get far more educated. 

I think that’s what’s fueling this vegan rise. It’s not so much because Americans like less meat but because Americans want to be healthier and are more confident with vegan product marketing claims. "
business,"Also from that same backdrop, I think it causes people to conflate the inherent healthiness of the diet (say, avoiding animal products or meat) with the effect of having to be so thoughtful of what you eat.

A non-vegan, non-vegetarian who took as much time to read and understand the ingredients of their food as a vegan or somebody who avoids gluten has to would generally see similarly substantial positive health effects. So, when people say that being vegan or vegetarian is inherently the slightest bit more healthy, I think it has to be noted that that's the primary reason why; it's not that you're vegan, it's that you're closer to understanding the origin of all of the things you eat and that can help you avoid excesses or lapses you don't even realize are happening.

I had somebody in my house be put on an elimination diet by their allergist. You start by eliminating all of the major culprits from your diet and gradually reintroduce them to find the one(s) that's causing your problem. So, it started with totally avoiding: dairy, gluten, soy, artificial, preservatives, artificial coloring, filler in things like ground meat, shellfish, nuts and more. We had to thoroughly read every ingredients list. We had to learn what a lot of the things we didn't know were. We had to ask weird questions (""is a coconut a nut?""). We realized things we didn't know about what was in a lot of our food. Even though we could still eat garbage throughout that whole process, the fact that we had to read every ingredients list and every ""may contain"" permanently changed the way we ate, even though the process is over and now we can eat basically all of those things."
business,"> You can't feed 7B people on an 'American' animal-based diet. Eventually we'll have to switch to something else because dairy, poultry, meet, pork will be too expensive.

I don't think there's any conclusive reasons on why this is the case. The population isn't fixed at 7 billion people with x amount of production in the world. As economies develop, what they are able to produce and how much they produce will also increase. For example, China is trying to modernize farming and ranching to increase pork productivity because farmers are still using old fashioned methods that are unable to keep up with increases in demand. Once production is modernized, demand for imported pork is expected to fall and prices will drop back down.

Coupled with the fact that we know that people in developed nations reproduce at lower rates than developing nations, there's a case to be made that as countries become wealthier and more able to afford meat and other animal byproducts, their populations will also be increasing at a slower rate before being even or decreasing. 

I think the premise of this kind of thinking is flawed like most Malthusianism notions because it's based on the idea that the population will always keep growing and never decrease and that production is linear and unable to scale with innovations. I personally don't believe the cost of animal-based products will ever reach a point where it's prohibitively expensive. If the cost of feed becomes too expensive because we run out of arable land, it'd become more cost-efficient to produce grains in area-dense facilities like the Netherlands or Japan. 

Again, if we're at the apex of efficiency in our practices today and this is as good as it is ever going to get, I'd agree with you that this is unsustainable. But the fact of the matter is that our productivity will continue to grow as demand grows, and every doom and gloom scenario in the past has failed to account for this."
business,"Make it taste better than meat, be healthier, and cost effective, and meat will be doomed. A lot of meat substitutes these days are already pretty good, and I've significantly reduced my meat consumption in the last 5 years. However I think vegan/vegetarian substitutes need to be more competitive on price to really overtake meat, because you can get actual meat for cheaper than the substitutes in many cases, especially the high quality substitutes. They will eventually get there, I think."
business,"I agree. For instance there can be endless debate on the paleo diet. If you go down that path you WILL become more healthy. No whether or not cutting out butter is necessary is sort of besides the point. It puts people on a path the be very observant and aware of what they are eating and what’s in their food. It forces people to cook their own food and become very aware of everything they are eating. Same with going gluten free. Is it necessary? What’s the degree difference between allergy and sensitivity? Who knows. But at the end of the day, just like the paleo diet, people end up being much healthier and aware of what they eat and how it impacts their body. 

People in places like France and Italy don’t need to do things like this. Their food is very established, fresh, and not processed. Which is why if there is the rare chance I met someone out there on the keto diet they wouldn’t even know the science behind it. Their knowledge would be limited to “I just know it makes me feel good and helps me with sports”. "
business,"> Yeah except your premise is flawed because for example there is no dietary cholesterol in plant-based diets

But dietary cholesterol isn't inherently bad. For example, Colorado State University extension [says](http://extension.colostate.edu/topic-areas/nutrition-food-safety-health/dietary-fat-and-cholesterol-9-319/):

> In healthy amounts, fat and cholesterol help our bodies function properly. 
> . . .
> While the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommended limiting consumption of dietary cholesterol to 300 mg per day, this recommendation is not included in the updated 2015-2020 edition of the Dietary Guidelines. This change reflects new research that suggests that dietary cholesterol, consumed in moderate amounts, does not affect health risks, including heart disease, for the majority of people unless a person has diabetes.
> . . .
> Keep in mind, however, that dietary cholesterol does not have as much of an effect on blood cholesterol as saturated fat.

So:

1. The thing that they say has the bigger impact on cholesterol (saturated fat) is available as an option when people form their diet regardless of whether they are vegan or not.
2. People who do consume dietary cholesterol don't inherently have any increased risk at all for negative outcomes.

There is literally nothing in the world that is okay in all amounts. Our problem is always that we consume too much of something (often without realizing it), not that we consume it at all. This is why, as my original point stated, making an effort to be thoughtful and informed of what is in what we eat is generally the important part. Often times, people consume excesses of things (ex: sodium, sugar, saturated fat) not only because they lack self-control but because they have no concept of how much of those things are in everything they eat. As you start to have to look at the label or recipe for everything you eat, it starts to become much more obvious even to the layperson when you're eating an excessive amount of something. In the end, whether you are a vegan, vegetarian or an omnivore, it is easy to eat in a way that will likely cause health problems and it is easy to eat in a way that likely will not cause health problems. But in the end, being aware of the contents of everything you eat (which is more likely to be the case if you choose to eliminate something like animal products from your diet), regardless of why, is a really good first step toward people realizing imbalances and therefore approaching a healthier balance."
business,"It is not easy to accidentally get saturated fat in a plant-based diet.  I use coconut MCT oil to get some saturated fat, but it doesn’t appear accidentally.  There is no doubt that non-vegan diets generally contain MUCH more saturated fat than vegan diets.

Putting that aside, you haven’t seemed to consider the fact that a non-vegan diet means that you’re taking away the life and liberty of other sentient beings.   Do you think it is important to also be thoughtful and informed about that?"
business,"The reason I use the word ""inherently"" is to get around the very biases that I mentioned initially. If the population of vegans is biased in some way compared to the population of omnivores for some reason, like due to the fact that they have to read the labels and due to the selection bias that they are almost all a subset of people who demonstrated the willpower to go against the grain with their dietary choices, then trends in what they consume will exist that are explained by those biases rather than the overarching dietary rules. Advocating for those biases in non-vegans could then lead to similar effects even without a vegan diet.

In other words, I'm not arguing whether on the whole omnivores are more likely to make certain dietary mistakes than vegans because that's an argument about demographics more than the merits of the rules that define the diet given the above and given the enormous variety of diets that can fit into those two labels. A vegan might eat fried dough and candy all day or they might eat a diverse, balanced diet in moderation. An omnivore might eat pork rinds and corned beef flat all day or they might eat a diverse, balanced diet in moderation. The scientific data suggests that one can construct healthy and unhealthy diets under both categories and that true indicators of healthy diet are going to be moderation and diversity, so that's what, in the context of health, we need to advocate for.

> Putting that aside, you haven’t seemed to consider the fact that a non-vegan diet means that you’re taking away the life and liberty of other sentient beings.

Yup. Because the topic is not whether one should be vegan."
business,"Again, this kind of analysis simply projects outwards by assuming constants like the fact land is a fixed constant. It doesn't take into account the possibility, say, that you could have a 5-story facility growing corn for feed so that you get 5x the produce yield from a single acre and reduce the growing cycle. The reason why we don't do this kind of densely consolidated agriculture is that arable land is not a limiting constraint yet. 

It's like someone saying in the 1800's that New York City could never house 8 million+ people, because they're ignoring the possibility of apartments and condos building upwards and projecting that every square foot of land will be used to build houses based on 1800 practices."
business,"Oxford dictionary lists ""diet"" as meaning ""the kinds of food that a person, animal, or community habitually eats"" and its example sentence/phrase is ""a vegetarian diet"". It's normal and common English usage to precede the word ""diet"" with an adjective describing a group of people or philosophy in the same way that we can say ""the Mayan calendar"" even though ""Mayan"" doesn't strictly mean calendar. That's how adjectives work. Saying ""a vegan diet"" doesn't make any claim on the breadth of the word ""vegan"" means, it just sets that as the context by which people understand the kind of diets we're talking about. When I say a vegan diet, it's completely clear especially in the context of this conversation, what I mean. And I think it's pedantic and not productive to suggest that any real improper communication happened there.

At best, ""plant-based"" conveys the exact same situation. Meanwhile, if the audience is as pedantic as you're being about the phrase ""vegan diet"" they might even yell at me about vegans eating fungi (ex: mushrooms, yeast), minerals (ex: salt), etc. Or they might start mentioning the thought experiments that allow a person of the vegan philosophy to have something identical in makeup to an animal product without coming from an animal.

In the end, I think it's easiest and most accurate and correct to say ""vegan diet"".
"
business,"Any kind of forecast analysis needs a base and variables to modify for future projections. That's obvious. 

In your case, you're just making shit up and 'forecasting' that in 10 years time we've solved every major issue with industrial livestock production: from CO2 emissions, to land, antibiotic and water issues. 

Your argument is more akin to people who continue smoking with the argument that concerned family members are not considering the declining costs of lung transplants, the development of lab-grown organs or the improvement in cancer treatments.

Sure, they're technically correct, but they're also idiots because they have no way of knowing if the solution will come before their death. 
"
business,"I'm not making any claim here. You're the one that proposed the claim that we can't feed the global population given continued growth, the burden of proof is on your end to prove this claim. I am refuting your limitations based on the existence of alternatives to current practices.

Saying that industrial dense indoor agriculture exists is not the same thing as it being a viable and replacement to current agriculture practices in 10 years, I don't foresee the global demand necessitating this for another century. 

Your forecasting is not taking into account costs, productivity, or anything remotely realistic, it's just drawing a straight line forward based on a regression which is incredibly inaccurate. Case in point again, if someone did this same kind of analysis back in the 1800's, NYC would not be able to support 1/10th of the current population that it ended up being able to."
business,"> Your link only focused on mortality from cardiovascular studies (and it actually states that there is modest improvement with a vegetarian diet) hence the selection and confirmation bias. 

It's all cause mortality, [Figure 2](http://imgur.com/WgSrBJa).

*Data from observational studies indicates that there is modest cardiovascular benefit, but no clear reduction in overall mortality associated with a vegetarian diet.*

> The link I posted analyzes other diseases such as diabetes and cancer where a vegetarian diet improves outcomes.

Your link is an article, not an actual study.

**Edit:**  
Included figure with all cause mortality, and relevant quote from the abstract."
business,"The only evidence provided from the link is purely backwards looking data, which again, only looks at current state and projects forward using it. The validity of forecasting with a static model on something that is dynamic is extremely flawed, which is why I've stated and will re-state that this is the same kind of flawed logic Thomas Malthus based his reasoning on. We've already been down this exact some path with Malthusian theory and we know that this flawed analysis doesn't work, to say that this suffices for evidence is irrational.

 [Technology that I'm referring to exists and works.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUmP8Tli-Mc) The reason why you don't see it widely used in countries like the US, is because there's literally no reason to when land scarcity is not a thing. "
business,"> Atherosclerosis affects only herbivores. Dogs, cats, tigers, and lions can be saturated with fat and cholesterol, and atherosclerotic plaques do not develop (1, 2). The only way to produce atherosclerosis in a carnivore is to take out the thyroid gland; then, for some reason, saturated fat and cholesterol have the same effect as in herbivores.


> > Although most of us conduct our lives as omnivores, in that we eat flesh as well as vegetables and fruits, human beings have characteristics of herbivores, not carnivores (2). The appendages of carnivores are claws; those of herbivores are hands or hooves. The teeth of carnivores are sharp; those of herbivores are mainly flat (for grinding). The intestinal tract of carnivores is short (3 times body length); that of herbivores, long (12 times body length). Body cooling of carnivores is done by panting; herbivores, by sweating. Carnivores drink fluids by lapping; herbivores, by sipping. Carnivores produce their own vitamin C, whereas herbivores obtain it from their diet. Thus, humans have characteristics of herbivores, not carnivores.




**CANCER**:

[Adolescents who consume dairy have a 3x increased risk of advanced prostate cancer.] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3249408/pdf/kwr289.pdf)

[The protein in animal foods raises IGF-1 hormone levels, which cancers feed on.] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16684388)

[Drinking milk raises estrogen levels.] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19496976)

[Source 2] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4524299/)

[Source 3, albeit a weak one. There haven't been many studies done on this topic; but all that have, show increased estrogen and lower testosterone.] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19496976)

Raised estrogen levels, combined with IGF-1 hormones, clearly demonstrate increased cancer risk.


8. Processed meat was classified as Group 1, carcinogenic to humans. What does this mean?
This category is used when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. In other words, there is convincing evidence that the agent causes cancer. The evaluation is usually based on epidemiological studies showing the development of cancer in exposed humans.

> In the case of processed meat, this classification is based on sufficient evidence from epidemiological studies that eating processed meat causes colorectal cancer.

> 7. Red meat was classified as Group 2A, probably carcinogenic to humans. What does this mean exactly?
In the case of red meat, the classification is based on limited evidence from epidemiological studies showing positive associations between eating red meat and developing colorectal cancer as well as strong mechanistic evidence.


(This is from a report by the WHO: http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/)

[Vegan blood halts the progression of cancer by up to 8 times in some instances.] (https://www.ornish.com/wp-content/uploads/Intensive_Lifestyle_Changes_and_Prostate_Cancer.pdf)

**ATHEROSCLEROSIS AND HEART DISEASE**:


[Total cholesterol is clearly increased by dietary cholesterol.] (https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article-abstract/55/6/1060/4715430?redirectedFrom=PDF)

[Heart disease is clearly linked to high cholesterol levels.] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2072886/)

[Cholesterol crystals activate NLRP3 inflammasomes, leading to atherogenesis.] (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature08938)

(Atherogenesis means the genesis of atherosclerosis, which is the clogging of arteries by fat and cholesterol.)

[Most children by age ten have signs of atherosclerosis in their arteries. We are clearly not supposed to consume animal products for optimal health if atherosclerosis begins at such a young age due to their consumption.] (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/72/5/1307s.full)

As you can guess, meat consumption raises blood cholesterol levels.


[There are at least 3 mechanisms in which a plant-based diet prevents and reverses cardiovascular disease.] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4315380/)

[The only clinically proven way to reverse heart disease is through a plant-based diet.] (http://dresselstyn.com/JFP_06307_Article1.pdf)


**DIABETES** 

[Vegans have a 78% lower risk of diabetes.] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4073139/)

[Meat consumption is a huge risk factor for diabetes.] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3942738/)

[A plant-based diet is effective at treating diabetes.] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2677007/)



[The longest lived populations on Earth are the Adventist Vegetarians and the Okinawans, and they both eat a predominantly high carb, low fat diet. They tend to have low rates of diabetes.] 
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4191896/)


[Dairy causes insulin resistance.] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4325471/)

Diabetes is caused by fat, not sugar:


[Mechanism of free fatty acid-induced insulin resistance in humans.] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC507380/)

[Excess intramyocellular lipid accumulation is correlated with insulin resistance.] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10027589)


[Free fatty acids and skeletal muscle insulin resistance.] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18460913)

[Insulin resistance caused by the dysregulation of intramyocellular lipids] (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa031314)

[Dietary intake of carbohydrates and risk of type 2 diabetes.] (https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/CA456C1DECFA93B083A153FE85076848/S0007114513002298a.pdf/div-class-title-dietary-intake-of-carbohydrates-and-risk-of-type-2-diabetes-the-european-prospective-investigation-into-cancer-norfolk-study-div.pdf)


[Vegans have a 78% lower risk of diabetes.] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4073139/)
[Source 2] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18924533)


**COMMON MYTHS**

[Vegans on average have higher protein levels.] (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065242309470070)

[Vegans on average have higher testosterone levels.] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2374537/pdf/83-6691152a.pdf)"
business,"All I said was that you can't feed 7B people on an American diet. That's today. That's true. 

Then you put on your ""smart cap""	and presented no evidence, trends or actual forecast whatsoever and said that in the future new technology will save us. 

It might. But then again it might not. We might solve land issues. But we still have issues with water, fertilizer, antibiotics and CO2/CH4 emissions. By the time livestock is expensive enough that we require vertical farming to grow feed, we probably ruined the planet already with emissions. 

Point is, we can't feed 7B people on a heavily meat-based diet with current infrastructure and technology and without sacrificing the future to global warming. 

We can feed everyone on the planet a healthy diet with current agricultural yield and infrastructure. We can't feed everyone if we use that to feed livestock. What the future holds is anybody's guess.

You're very free to keep screwing the planet betting on future technology to save us all. Based on your comments I wouldn't expect or even ask much of you anyways. "
business,"> All I said was that you can't feed 7B people on an American diet. That's today. That's true.

Either you look at today with current consumption + production, or you look at the future and scale up production accordingly. You can't create a hypothetical scenario where you suddenly have 7B people consuming like Americans without any change in production. You have to adjust both sides of the equation, otherwise you're just conveniently creating a scenario that fits your narrative.

> It might. But then again it might not. We might solve land issues. But we still have issues with water, fertilizer, antibiotics and CO2/CH4 emissions

So lets tackle this in two parts. The first is water scarcity. If water scarcity reaches a point where it becomes a resource constraint, then water desalinization will become cost effective. Whether or not this water treatment process will still be prohibitively high is unknown. If we manage to become more efficient, the cost might be lowered and the price impact on commodities that use water as part of production might be minimal or significant. This is the unknown part, but the means of producing the quantity is there.

In regards to antibiotic resistance, this is an issue that we're facing regardless and has no relation to scaling of production. Whether we stop increasing production and keeping at 2018 levels or scale it as demand increases, antibiotic resistance is an issue that society as a whole has to deal with regardless and increased production doesn't exacerbate the situation. 

When it comes to CO2 emissions, you're going to need to be more concrete. Now we're no longer looking at feasibility based on resource constraints, you're looking at an issue of how much can we push the planet's limits. My concern here is that you're using hyperbolic and intangible language here. My definition of ""ruining the planet"" and your definition of ""ruining the planet"" may vary drastically. For example, I have no qualms with shorelines disappearing and thousands of species of animals going extinct in the wild, but you might consider that ""ruined"". My idea of ruined would be the planet's temperature reaching a point where it becomes inhospitable for human beings even with man-made adaptions, which is probably much further along than your definition.

If we look at the world as something to optimize, the end goal should be to create something that is ultimately sustainable. The question now is how you balance the short and long run. If you only focus on the short-run, then the easiest solution is to shut down every factory, every vehicle, and mandate birth control. However, by limiting the resources you have and the population size, you're limiting the pool of scientific and engineering talent possible of making progress on solutions to, say, cold-fusion or a similar technology that could solve our energy needs. The opposite would be to allow countries like India and China to use cheap and polluting technologies to power their country and enable their economic development. This would allow their population to continue to grow and develop, and add a ton of scientists to the global population which contributes towards improving efficiencies and work on sustainable solutions. The question is which one is more effective in the long-term. Will we reach cold-fusion faster by capping current carbon emissions and progressing at current pace, or by allowing carbon emissions and also increasing the pace of research? I'm more inclined to believe in the latter.

> You're very free to keep screwing the planet betting on future technology to save us all. Based on your comments I wouldn't expect or even ask much of you anyways.

You're committing the logical fallacy of the chicken or the egg. You're saying that because we don't have the technology currently, we are unable to have it in the future. My rebuttal would be that we don't have the technology currently because there's no need for it. Humans are for the most part rational decision makers. It's unrealistic and contrary to human nature for us to all cut consumption and wait until technology has enabled us to consume in a sustainable manner. For example, if you outlaw beef in all forms today until it has been deemed sustainable, you'll raise 1-2 generations of people that never tasted beef and thus decrease the demand for beef to a non-significant level. Without a demand for beef, there's little incentive to make process on improving ranching efficiencies. The flip-side would be to allow people to consume and people will have to innovate to meet the demands, which creates the incentive for the technological progress to be made. The former is predicated on the assumption humans will altruistically develop technology for something they have no interest in, the latter is based on the assumption humans will develop technology that they benefit from. If I was a betting man, I'd pick the latter 100% of the time because it properly aligns incentives.

Compromising our diets to solve the problem of climate change is a lazy solution, just like saying abstinence is the solution to society's problems with STD's. You're ignoring alternatives and solutions that exist like contraception and medication in favor of the simplest solution that comes at the expense of satisfaction and warping of human nature. "
business,"> You’re attempting to refute the claim backed up by actual data 

Lets break this down because I'm not sure you understand how data works. I don't disagree with the existence of the data itself, I'm sure they did their due diligence in gathering the data.

My concern is with how they're using the data. In a hyperbolic example to make a point, it's like if someone told you they gathered the data of 100 coin tosses and it came out 60 heads and 40 tails, therefore the 101st coin toss MUST BE HEADS. Wait, that makes no sense. This is the kind of problem I have with the link, it's lazy regression without adapting the model. As someone who works with forecasting professionally, it's incredibly misleading and inaccurate. So when you say ""actual data"", I disagree, because the data itself is neutral, the analysis is rubbish."
business,"You're going to need to use more precise language and points if you want to talk about meat production's impact on the environment.

Yes, these are complex topics that span from land & water constraints, sulfur and nitrate degradation and scarcity, to greenhouse gases. Each of these issues can be tackled on an individual level, just like how a surgeon can mend individual bones if someone has injured their arm and hand.

What people are proposing here is equivalent to ""just amputate the whole damn arm."" Would it work? Probably yeah, if we just outlawed and enforced the ban on beef, pork, and poultry overnight. But the issue is that it's an excessive solution to a problem that can be approached at the tactical level. 

This is why language like ""destroying the environment"" is not very productive, because you're jumping to the conclusion that there's only one solution which is the nuclear option in every case."
business,"My point was that ignoring a common ingredient, whether rationally or not, forces you to be more aware of everything that you are eating, which is a major factor in whether you eat healthy. That awareness is what I mean by being ""educated"". They are educated by having to read and comprehend every ingredient list and ask questions to every chef and that makes them educated about what they're eating regardless of whether the underlying reasoning (e.g. avoiding meat, avoiding gluten) is sound or not.

But also, your black and white stance against the possibility that anything but celiac's can make gluten problematic is as irrational as the people who insist that all/most/many people should avoid gluten. Yes, gluten isn't an inherently unhealthy food. Yes, many/most people who say they are gluten intolerant aren't.
However, non-Celiac's gluten intolerance/sensitivity is a thing.[[1](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261561414002180)][[2](https://journals.lww.com/jcge/Abstract/2012/09000/Serological_Tests_in_Gluten_Sensitivity__Nonceliac.13.aspx)][[3](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12016-010-8223-1)][[4](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0148607111426276)] Avoiding gluten may produce tangible positive results even if gluten isn't the actual reason.[[1](https://www.vox.com/2017/11/21/16643816/gluten-bloated-carb-wheat-fructan-problem-fodmaps)][[2](https://journals.lww.com/co-allergy/Abstract/2009/06000/Wheat_allergy.12.aspx)][[3](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0148607111426276)] Those results may be due to widespread, well-understood matters or they may be due to something particular to one individual and their genetics, allergies, gut bacteria, etc. In the end, all of the people in these categories are harmed enormously by people like you who, despite scientific consensus, try to ""educate"" the public that Celiac's is the only valid reason to avoid gluten. In the end, the main message to pound home is that gluten is not bad for humans and stomach problems after consuming gluten might just be because it's dumb to eat a whole bucket of pasta at once, but that there are a handful rare, but valid reasons  why a person might want to reduce or avoid gluten and those reasons should be ultimately discovered with one's doctor. "
business,"This might sound a bit rude, but it's not meant as an insult: the studies are cherry picked and mostly looking at isolated biomarkers. I've linked some systematic reviews where available and tried to expand on the actual issues where possible.

**CANCER**:

> [Adolescents who consume dairy have a 3x increased risk of advanced prostate cancer.] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3249408/pdf/kwr289.pdf)

Observational study in a subgroup of Icelandic males (n=2,268), specifically results were statistically significant only in those born before 1920 so it's even less than that. These result doesn't show up in large scale observational studies which is why I linked a systematic review (n=72,598) ([Kwok, 2014](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25149402)).

> [The protein in animal foods raises IGF-1 hormone levels, which cancers feed on.] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16684388)

Cancers doesn't feed on IGF-1, it's an anabolic hormone (see [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin-like_growth_factor_1) if you want to read up on it). Plant proteins, e.g soy protein ([Messina, 2017](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28434035)), also increase levels of IGF-1. One study even noted higher IGF-1 levels from plant protein:

SP = Soy Protein  
MP = Milk Protein  

*Healthy men (59.2 +/- 17.6 y) were assigned to consume 40 g of either SP or milk-based protein (MP) daily for 3 mo in a double-blind, randomized, controlled, parallel design. Serum insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I), which is associated with higher rates of bone formation, was greater (P < 0.01) in men supplemented with SP than in those consuming MP.*

*Khalil DA, et al.* [""Soy protein supplementation increases serum insulin-like growth factor-I in young and old men but does not affect markers of bone metabolism""](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12221217) *J Nutr. 2002 Sep;132(9):2605-8.*

But again this type of study is only looking at a biomarker and not actual incidence, it's like looking at exercise and noting that it increases inflammation and tissue damage and then saying that exercise is bad.

> [Drinking milk raises estrogen levels.] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19496976)

> [Source 2] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4524299/)

> [Source 3, albeit a weak one. There haven't been many studies done on this topic; but all that have, show increased estrogen and lower testosterone.] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19496976)

> Raised estrogen levels, combined with IGF-1 hormones, clearly demonstrate increased cancer risk.

Again just speculation on biomarkers and we don't see any benefit in mortality from people going vegetarian.

> (This is from a report by the WHO: http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/)

I agree that it's possible that processing food (both plants and meat) can have some detrimental effects, but processing wasn't part of the argument I was making or responding to.

The IARC report actually noted that there was insufficient evidence to classify read meat as carcinogenic and poultry and fish tend to have no, or negative, association with cancer ([longer post here](https://www.reddit.com/r/keto/comments/3q9p70/the_who_has_ranked_processed_meats_in_the_same/cwfddvn/)).

> **ATHEROSCLEROSIS AND HEART DISEASE**:

> [Total cholesterol is clearly increased by dietary cholesterol.] (https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article-abstract/55/6/1060/4715430?redirectedFrom=PDF)

> [Heart disease is clearly linked to high cholesterol levels.] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2072886/)

> [Cholesterol crystals activate NLRP3 inflammasomes, leading to atherogenesis.] (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature08938)

> (Atherogenesis means the genesis of atherosclerosis, which is the clogging of arteries by fat and cholesterol.)

> [Most children by age ten have signs of atherosclerosis in their arteries. We are clearly not supposed to consume animal products for optimal health if atherosclerosis begins at such a young age due to their consumption.] (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/72/5/1307s.full)

> As you can guess, meat consumption raises blood cholesterol levels.

> [There are at least 3 mechanisms in which a plant-based diet prevents and reverses cardiovascular disease.] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4315380/)

Total cholesterol includes HDL, using the same logic as above then raising HDL would cause increased risk of heart disease. But studies show that in general higher HDL is associated with lower risk of heart disease and dietary cholesterol isn't relevant.

*Previously, the
Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommended that cholesterol intake be limited to no more than 300 mg/day. The 2015 DGAC will not bring forward this recommendation because available
evidence shows
no appreciable
relationship between consumption of dietary
cholesterol and serum cholesterol, consistent with the conclusions of the AHA/ACC report^2, ^35*

*Cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern for overconsumption*

*Health and Human Services, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion* [""Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee""](http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015-scientific-report/PDFs/Scientific-Report-of-the-2015-Dietary-Guidelines-Advisory-Committee.pdf) *Feb 2015*

> [The only clinically proven way to reverse heart disease is through a plant-based diet.] (http://dresselstyn.com/JFP_06307_Article1.pdf)

I addressed this in an earlier post, I'll just post that reply here.

As far as I know there are no good ""whole foods, plant based diet"" studies, as in randomized controlled trial with other ""healthy"" diets as controls, showing reversal of atherosclerosis. The problem with the existing studies ([Schuler, 1992](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1729343))([Ornish, 1998](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9863851))([Esselstyn, 1995](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7500065)) is that there are no other intervention groups and the intervention in the ""plant based"" group is also to stop smoking, exercising more, eating less processed food, etc. which means it's hard to measure if there's actually any effect from the ""plant based"" part

**DIABETES**

> [Vegans have a 78% lower risk of diabetes.] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4073139/)

> [Meat consumption is a huge risk factor for diabetes.] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3942738/)

> [A plant-based diet is effective at treating diabetes.] (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2677007/)

We have randomized controlled trials showing reduced risk of diabetes on a variety of diets ([Ajala, 2013](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23364002)) it's not limited to only vegans, and people see that regardless of eating meat or not.

> [The longest lived populations on Earth are the Adventist Vegetarians and the Okinawans, and they both eat a predominantly high carb, low fat diet. They tend to have low rates of diabetes.] 
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4191896/)

Among the Longevity Blue Zone groups you also have Sardinians which actually eat more meat than the surrounding populations, and they eat mostly red meat. You also have the Nicoya who have a diet relatively high in meat compared to neighboring populations:

*Up to a short time ago, the LBZ population depended mostly upon livestock rearing, and consumption of animal-derived foods was relatively higher than in the rest of the island.*

...

*In particular, the overall intake of meat was only 77% of the Italian average, although in the LBZ the figures were much higher owing to the consumption of sheep and goat meat not registered in official statistics. The same could be said about milk and its derivatives, as Tivaroni in 1921 estimated a 79% higher dairy intake in Sardinia as a whole compared with the Italian mainland*

*Pes GM, et al.* [""Male longevity in Sardinia, a review of historical sources supporting a causal link with dietary factors""](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25369832) *Eur J Clin Nutr. 2015 Apr;69(4):411-8. doi: 10.1038/ejcn.2014.230. Epub 2014 Nov 5.*

*The Nicoya diet is prosaic and abundant in traditional foods like rice, beans and animal protein, with low glycemic index and high fibre content.*

*Rosero-Bixby L, et al.* [""The Nicoya region of Costa Rica: a high longevity island for elderly males""](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25426140/) *Vienna Yearb Popul Res. 2013;11:109-136.*

> [Dairy causes insulin resistance.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4325471/)

There are two problems here, one is that you're just looking at a single study, and the second is that this is once again just an isolated biomarker.

Systematic reviews show that most studies actually report an increase in insulin sensitivity:

*In adults, four of the dairy interventions showed a positive effect on insulin sensitivity as assessed by Homeostasis Model Assessment (HOMA); one was negative and five had no effect.*

*Turner KM, et al.* [""Dairy consumption and insulin sensitivity: a systematic review of short- and long-term intervention studies""](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25156891) *Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2015 Jan;25(1):3-8. doi: 10.1016/j.numecd.2014.07.013. Epub 2014 Aug 7.*

> Diabetes is caused by fat, not sugar:

Ketogenic diets, where you eat mostly fat, is one of the most effective ways of reversing pre-diabetes and managing type 2 diabetes ([longer post](https://www.reddit.com/r/keto/comments/4blc8i/recently_was_told_i_was_prediabetic_my_wife_is/d1ajqjg/)).

For most cases of type 2 diabetes the problem is with total caloric intake:

[Figure 1](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3169796/figure/F1/).

*Boden G* [""Obesity, Insulin Resistance and Free Fatty Acids""](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3169796/) *Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes. 2011 Apr;18(2):139-43. doi: 10.1097/MED.0b013e3283444b09.*"
business,"If you want to dive into the analogy, I'd say it's fairly apt considering how the change would be about as reversible as attaching a prosthetic. You can re-apply something in place of the arm, but it's not going to be the same.

If you halt all beef production for 1-2 generations, the culture and dietary habits of people will fundamentally change. Look at how the short-term removal of a single ingredient alters the long-term culinary demand. For example, black currant. It used to be a common and popular flavor, but was outlawed due to fear of disease spread. We've since bred disease immune currant cultivars but in its absence grape and blackberry have now become the expected flavor for ""purple/black fruit"". So if you look at Skittles in the US and Skittles in the UK, the flavors will be different.

So if we outlaw beef today and only re-introduce it in 2200 when we have achieved enough scientific progress, by that point beef will no longer have the same level of demand because the American cultural diet has shifted from beef burgers to chicken sandwiches. This is akin to attaching a prosthetic arm because it's like having your old arm, but it's not quite the same. 

I'd advocate for allowing beef to be produced and humans to adapt accordingly with the right incentives. Lets say in 2100 beef prices have risen because most of Africa is now developed and wealthy enough to afford beef as part of their regular diet. The price of beef is now almost doubled, so if someone can find a way to produce beef more efficiently, they'd profit handsomely. Maybe in 1 decade's time, they'd come up with a revolutionary solution and beef prices return to the old equilibrium we're used to. This is because there's still a demand for beef. But in a world where beef has been outlawed, people in 2100 won't care about beef because they can't miss what they've never had, just like black & red currant."
business,"You can't tell me that they won't find a way to remove the bottleneck.   The traditional car makers are extremely good fixing inefficiencies in their manufacturing processes.  

They are also very efficient at responding to market demand.  They aren't ""planning"" large volumes, but if the market demands it you can bet they will move heaven and earth to get those vehicles out the door.

The fact of the matter is that the big boys are well established, have the funds available, and have institutionalized the exact abilities necessary to flood the market with vehicles that they can build, sell, and maintain.  

Lastly, a note on the last point, if for no other reason, Telsa is in no shape to be able to compete with the maintenance ability of the big boys.  There's just no way it can compete with the years of dealer saturation that the Big 3 and most of the major Japanese and Korean brands have attained."
business,"The solar roof tiles were just a trick to get shareholders to approve of the SolarCity bailout. In the two years since they have not installed any, have produced no test data to indicate that they are researching it, and have made no announcements about when they will start installing them.

But, in true Tesla fashion, you can go put a deposit on your non-existent solar tiles.

They bought a dying solar panel business that has continued to atrophy under Tesla's watch--look at the solar sales numbers and tell me that is a product they're interested in offering."
business,"> The solar roof tiles were just a trick to get shareholders to approve of the SolarCity bailout. In the two years since they have not installed any, have produced no test data to indicate that they are researching it, and have made no announcements about when they will start installing them.

Well this seems categorically false as per the article I posted.

> But, in true Tesla fashion, you can go put a deposit on your non-existent solar tiles.

They do exist, as per the article I posted. Maybe not in the volumes you want - but they’re now available and there are working ones in customers hands right now.

> They bought a dying solar panel business that has continued to atrophy under Tesla's watch--look at the solar sales numbers and tell me that is a product they're interested in offering.

Seems like Musk overpromised on delivery times. I’ve come to expect this - it doesn’t mean it’s not going to happen."
business,"What I am saying is if you had a perfectly designed vegan diet that brings together a host of different plants and food stuff's from all around the world then you can have close to a normal nutrient intake. 

But (as with normal diets) vegans tend to buy vegan stuff and not consider what nutrients they are or are not getting. As a result a significant number of vegans do not meet minimum requirements for nutrient intake in a number of areas. 

So to paint both diets with a broad brush a typical meat inclusive diet is far superior than a vegan diet. The main benefit of a vegan diet is most people eat crap from when they get up to when they go to bed, so there are initial benefits to a vegan diet including feeling better and more alert, but as I say this isn't because a vegan diet is good, rather the old diet they was on is really bad. 

Veganism seems a collection of serious flaws, sowed together with good intentions and presented as perfection. Going vegan maybe 6 days out of 7 might very well be a good thing, but a significant portion of our dietary needs are met with meat, that said not all meat is created equal either. It is best to have a solid all-round diet. "
business,"> Vitamin B12 is found naturally only in animal products.

This is 100% false. B12 does not come from animals or plants. It comes from bacteria. It's abundant in a lot of animal products because farm animals are typically fed supplements, which you can supplement yourself. Also pretty much every plant milk is fortified with B12. Silk soy milk for example has 50% of your daily requirement in a single cup.

>shall i keep going?

Yes, please do."
business,"**Plant milk**

Plant milk has been consumed for centuries in various cultures, both as a regular drink (such as the Spanish horchata) and as a substitute for dairy milk. The most popular varieties are soy milk, almond milk, rice milk and coconut milk. The protein content varies. It contains no lactose or cholesterol, and is usually sold with added calcium and vitamins, especially B12.

***

^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/business/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot)   ^]
^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28"
business,"The issue is that wages are socialized in capitalism because they are largely based on what your peers are earning/willing to accept not company demand (there are obviously exceptions, the article pointed out Google during a hiring boom). Capitalism applies to the product because its price is determined by demand, not the willingness of another product to sell itself for a lower price. 

Maybe the solution is everyone should be freelancers?"
business,"I mean freelancers to an even greater degree. Freelance from project to project so the value you specifically add (assuming your work is of a higher quality) creates more demand for yourself. The labor market for a very particular set of skills acquired over a long career, skills that make someone a nightmare for a project wouldn’t be as static as the widget market. 

Collective bargaining is the way to go though for the reason an actual freelancer pointed out."
business,"> You're going to have to charge more to account for the time you spend negotiating with clients

Websites like upwork.com display your project history on your profile & give employers access to your track record. Individuals have access to rate info of the tier (& all other tiers) filled with peers of similar skill sets which lowers the costs of wage negotiation. The threat of being undercut would be an issue but wouldn’t one still save on negotiation costs? What do you generally think about this? Also, I didn’t know the 2-3 times freelance rule. Any suggestions on how I could find out how much upwork.com would lower the freelance wage multiplier?

> Collective bargaining doesn't actually help when the other side is also collectively bargaining against you

I laughed at this & then felt ashamed."
business,"I'm one of those people. The reason is that increased competition is often more beneficial than regulation, and increased regulation often stunts competition.  In most situations where there are high prices, poor service, or shitty treatment, if you dig below the surface you'll find there is some legal barrier that limits competition in a given industry. I'd rather remove those existing barriers and harness the power of competition than layer new regulation on top of them."
business,"I see no problem with CEOs discussing wages & labor market with their peers in the community of CEOs. On the flip side of this coin, I also see no problem with employees sharing information about their salary with other employees, or with the community of others in the work force.

That being said, I have no problem with organized labor negotiating higher wages, aka Collective bargaining, or a union. On the flip side of the coin, I have no problem with CEOs organizing, to collectively bargain wages in their labor markets, and individual employees. 

If ti's fair one way, it's fair the other way, right?

That said, I would agree that CEO's conspiring to not hire one another's former employees, or to avoid ""poaching"" from one another is wrong. This constricts the labor market via conspiracy."
business,"I know my experience is not everyone's experience with freelancing, but I'm actually more scared of being employed full-time at one place and having all my eggs in one basket.

If you are willingly freelancing, and not just doing it between jobs, then it's a top priority to create a good service model.

You have to work on client acquisition, client retention and then be really good at managing yourself. If you are just swinging it as you go, then you will always be in trouble."
business,"Do you know Jack Ma?

​

He said many stuff but he act differently.

​

He said he would go philanthropy, but to avoid tax, he set up trust in Singapore and transfer 20+ billions worth of share tax free to tax heaven.

​

He said he don't like fame, but he made himself a movie as hero that defeat all famous stars.

​

He said if country need it, he will give the Alipay to the country.

​

He also said he will retire next year and do better than bill gates. 

​

US job loss mainly due to job transfer to oversea with cheaper labour cost. But since Tariff, investment and job start to flow back to US. Jack Ma 1 Million jobs are never there in US and will never happened. How would Jack Ma have the capabilities of creating 1 Millions job while the whole Alibaba only have 66000 employees? May be his idea is to get rid of all US productions and ship stuff all from China, creating 1M of delivery boys/girls."
business,"Yes, thats why standards of living has been in an all time high since China stole all those jobs. China does the goods, the US designs and sells them, idiot. Thats why there has been an increase in white collar jobs and in the service industry.

Not to mention that China manufactures globally, even if americans are willing to buy a 3k iphone,  there is no way that US can compete with european and asian companies that manufacture in China."
business,"Apple is one of the big companies that were explicltly exempted from most of these tariffs, so your theory doesn't really hold up: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/18/apples-tim-cook-says-its-not-really-great-to-tariff-apple-products.html

The tariffs have nothing to do with intentionally punishing American companies, Trump just wants to punish China because he doesn't understand how trade deficits work, and if Americans are harmed in the process he doesn't really care. 

Anyway, all that being said, businesses using the excess cash for stock buybacks is the logical thing to do, so you can't really blame them. It doesn't make sense for a company to hire a bunch of extra workers if there's not enough demand to justify doing so. It's not like these companies were strapped for cash prior to the tax bill, anyway, so if there was anything to be gained from hiring more people they would have done it already. 

So the only logical thing to do with the extra cash, for most companies, is to use it for stock buybacks."
business,"> Apple is one of the big companies that were explicltly exempted from most of these tariffs, so your theory doesn't really hold up:

The article says SOME not ALL apple products are exempt. Your statements are false. You didn't read the article, per usual.

>Trump just wants to punish China because he doesn't understand how trade deficits work,

As an nearly 75 /yo international businessman, he knows he knowns how international business works. Maybe, actually you don't or something.

> and if Americans are harmed in the process he doesn't really care.

That last statement was just an unfounded personal attack. Are you not doing better now than the year before?

Thank Trump and American leadership who understand protectionism as an economic model protecting us from unfair competition, so a ""communist"" country can continue to carry out human rights violations, cyber attacks, imperialism, and destroys the earth so you could have a cheap goods you toss in the trash a year from now.  

Chinese products are bad for the planet. American products made in china have no environmental regulations for manufacturing, AND no labor laws. 

You are selfish and heartless.
"
business,"I feel like Evernote fell into the trap of

1. experiencing success
2. drawing attention from investors
3. creating this massive vision that isn't exactly core to their product offering to get $ from said investors
4. hiring tons of people to try and realize that vision
5. not being able to execute and as a result moved away from what got them to be so great in the first place
6. and in that time, other alternatives, indirect competitors take their marketshare"
business,"Well, a vast majority of jobs -- especially in the tech industry -- are about creating new things, adding features, etc.  To support that, you need to.. create new features and add stuff to your product.  

If you have a stable product, and no need to adapt or add features.. you will eventually be replaced by the guy that comes behind you and does what you do, but better.  

If you have the ""perfect"" stable product, or some awesome vendor lock-in, you don't need a huge staff of developers, and suddenly, you're just a couple tech guys, an IT guy, and a giant sales / marketing team.... and you'll get crushed when the guy behind you comes up and breaks your vendor lock-in or does what you do better."
business,"This is what happens when companies keep raising money instead of going public earlier.  I believe Microsoft and Amazon went public when they had like a $5million valuation.  Now companies aren’t going public until they have a $20BN valuation, which means they somehow have to justify a future $100BN valuation in order to get their investors a return on their money which is absurd 

Winter is coming on this whole system "
business,"Not every app needs a ton of new features. Many apps just need to do what they do well and slowly improve things. Often, adding more features (read bloat) is negative, not positive.

I still use Notepad for many tasks because it does what it does well. I also use Notepad++ as it does other things well. If Notepad starts trying to become Notepad++, it won't do its job well and I'll have to find a replacement for Notepad.

* Paint doesn't need to become Gimp.

* Calc doesn't need to become Wolfram Alpha.

* Screen2Gif doesn't need to become OBS Studio."
business,"I can’t speak to other but I’m sure many have been inspired by his antics and because he basically asked the rest of the word to move on from the US. I know several of the EU trade deals have been in the works for years because everyone wants to get one in place. I know Canada and China have been working on a few for years. 

I think these sorts of deals are just very attractive and smart for countries right now, diversifying trading partners to reduce reliance on one major partner. A sort of governmental trend . "
business,"You keep the W9 and you fill out the 1099 and mail to them. 1099 forms come in duplicates with one copy going to the vendor, one to the IRS and you retain one copy. You also send the IRS a 1096 form which is a summary of all the 1099 details. 

These forms are available in all office supply stores starting around January. You have to get new forms every year."
business,"Thanks for referring me this.

.

But i am going to do all the transactions to freelancers via PayPal.

And I think that is for what paypal is made for.

The freelancers will directly request me for the payment via ""Invoice Paypal"" and then I will accept it and send the money directly. So in this way paying tax and concering about it will only be the responsibility of those freelancers if the threshold exceeds $600.

​

​"
business,"You are confusing him with the business. There have been presidents and chairmen of corporations who have served for free, and yet those organizations have brought m/billions. You need to separate out the person from the business. The title is theirs, the article is theirs, they both refer to the operation.

Edit: Now if it said the ""Fake Sneaker King made millions, and then it all fell apart,"" it might be a different matter. "
business,"> Like iPhone? 

No, like every other consumer packaged product, building material, and manufactured good. ""Made in China"" is not a stamp of success. I can't tell if you're actually dumb or just being disingenuous. 


>Japanese had the reputation for low quality at the start of the century

No, they did not. This is absolutely not true.

>High-quality stuff is not rocket science, you just have to pay for it.

Yeah, and China does not produce these things. They also do not innovate."
business,"Tax lawyer here. I'm sure the issue is the user's confusion with terms ""corporation"" and ""partnership."" Despite the words being the same, they're used for two completely different concepts.

One use is to refer to ""state registered entities for liability shielding purposes"" and another use is for ""federal tax classification.""

State registered limited liability partnerships have the option to be classified as corporation for federal tax purposes.

That partnership, from the IRS's perspective, is a corporation."
business,"Tax lawyer here. Sounds like the issue is a confusion with terms ""corporation"" and ""partnership."" Despite the words being the same, they're used for two completely different concepts.

One use is to refer to ""state registered entities for liability shielding purposes"" and another use is for ""federal tax classification.""

State registered limited liability partnerships have the option to be classified as corporation for federal tax purposes.

That partnership, from the IRS's perspective, is a corporation.

So when someone says ""I have an S-Corporation,"" that's a federal tax classification. The IRS will tell you that you are a corporation.

That in no way is an indication of what type of business entity they have registered in their home state. Their business entity could be a limited partnership, a limited liability partnership, a limited liability limited partnership, a limited liability company, or a corporation.

On the IRS's end, the only federal tax classifications for businesses (basically) are ""corporations (C-Corps and S-Corps),"" ""partnerships,"" and disregard entities (single owner businesses).

For federal tax purposes:

* State LLC's can be federally classified as disregarded (if one owner), a partnership (if at least two owners), or a corporation.

* State Partnerships can be federal classified as a partnership or corporation.

* State Corporations must be federally classified as a corporation.

The fact that the law flippantly uses the terms ""partnership"" and ""corporation"" to refer to two completely different concepts is confusing for a lot of ppl.

And the IRS doesn't recognize LLCs in the same way the IRS doesn't distinguish between general partnerships and limited liability limited partnerships. All of those are determined by state law. All the IRS cares about is ""are you federally classified as a partnership or a corporation?"""
business,"Tbh I'm not sure how the business side of doing that works exactly. You definitely keep it going as long as you're producing episodes of the show. It's done to shield the actual production company and producers and directors and such from any legal blowback. 

I am the writer/development idea guy. Not the paperwork/business guy. 

Usually the people doing that stuff are separate from us since the creatives are garbage at paperwork and managing that shit. 

So you get the boring business types who handle all that and we just smile and nod and hope we end up getting paid. "
business,"Technically you have to fill out a form to dissolve them once youve completed using the LLC. However I'm sure some folks just don't pay the renewal and as per the rules after a short while you no longer have rights to that company.  And you may owe the government money for those missed payments depending on who is the registered agent. 

But ive known people that just stopped renewing and nothing happened. For me when ill stop using a certain LLC, I'll disolve it just to not cause any issues down the road."
business,"I have no evidence to back this up, but I believe it would be the second one (transfer ownership).  The very nature of the LLC is to limit liability.  Once production is done, I’m going to assume the liability risk is drastically reduced, even though the residual value remains.  Therefore, there’s probably some short tail period where the LLC remains open, then the business is closed.   The rights to the residual value are transferred or sold, and the liability (I’m guessing) remains with the original entity."
business,"Business entities don’t expire. You have to keep paying taxes and fees, but typically aside from income tax, this is a few hundred bucks a year. If you want to shut down a company, even a shell, you need to file paperwork with the state. You should not just decide to stop paying the upkeep fees, as those are taxes, and though the state will shut down the company for you, they will also come after you for the money you owe them."
business,"I imagine they would keep it alive until the series ends it's tv run in case they get an order for more episodes, but keep in mind I worked development in reality pre-streaming (even though I told them it was the future and tried to get them to heavily invest in a streaming future in 2007 by working a deal with Microsoft to put their content in the Xbox Marketplace to start to gain a foothold but was told ""that's stupid."") so now in the steaming days where you can sell a show to a million new services and networks and a show is never truly canceled, I wonder what's up with dat?

I'm disorganized garbage with paperwork and hate dealing with legal shit so I was never involved with that nonsense. All that stuff tends to be handled by business people and accountants and UPMs and a lawyer and whatnot who are kinda segregated away to their calculators and stuff while we use crayons and cardboard paper with our tongue out our mouth like a small child that can't be trusted for important tasks. "
business,"This is the entire reason I haven't switched from Pandora. I just get in my car, my phone automatically syncs with my cars blue tooth, and then the car automatically tells my phone to launch Pandora. I do nothing. Plus, I can thumb up/down/view song/album details on my cars screen and the next song buttons on my steering wheel work on Pandora. Can even switch which station I'm on via the console screen. 

But that all being said, if I had this for Spotify? Yeah, I'd totally switch. Pandora premium is not as much value for my dollar as Spotify. "
business,"Since this is /r/business, I’ll cite business attire.

Gucci, Valentino, designer brands all make mens dress shoes, they’re usually at least $1000, but most are a bit more.  They are often finished in such a way that, to get the look the designers want, often have the edges of the soles trimmed in, and flashy shoe bottoms that actually wear out a bit faster than normal.  These shoes typically last 2 years with regular wear. 
Allen Edmonds are wildly considered THE mens dress shoe. They have the highest quality leather, very serious construction, and are made in a way that they can be resoled indefinitely. They are usually around $400 but there are often decent sales on them sometimes in the year.  These shoes can last 30 years with regular wear. 
Alden also exists for mens shoes. A SERIOUS luxury company. Constructed more heavily, they're best known for their shell cordovan. They cost closer to $6-800, but the shoes are indestructible. 

For suiting, most designer brands are in the $2500-$4000 for just the jackets. They’re often fitted in a particular way, they’re usually fused fabrics, and are fully finished not allowing for any tailoring.
A Brooks Brothers suit, still one of the best, are half canvas (full canvas available), are built to be tailored onto you, and around the $800 range for both jacket and trouser). They use much of the same fabric mills as the designers, (for real suit nerds, Brooks Brothers have some you’d vastly prefer, I’m big on the Vitali Barberis Canonico fabric mill). 
If Brooks Brothers is too stuffy for you, Ted Baker London is about the same price point and is pretty great quality and construction, though the fabric is fused. 


Those are just a couple items under the microscope. 

edit: Cleaning up my spelling and grammar"
business,"Quality is just a tiny part of the equation for a clothing brand.  Style and perceived image are orders of magnitude more important.  For a simple cotton T shirt, there's always going to be a bottom barrel version that fits weird and will fall apart after a few wash cycles, but go just slightly above that quality level, and you'll find fabric that'll fit great and last for years.  Still, price varies a ton from brand to brand despite no difference in quality.  [This three pack of white Hanes T shirts](https://www.amazon.com/Hanes-Mens-3-Pack-Tagless-T-Shirt/dp/B00O8MUQY6?th=1&psc=1) sells for $9 on Amazon. [This identical three pack of white Hanes T shirts](https://www.streetwearofficial.com/collections/supreme/products/supreme-hanes-tagless-tees-white-3-pack) sells for $95. The only difference? A tiny red ""Supreme"" logo is added to the second set.  That small logo brings the price from $9 to $95."
business,"I'll happily second Allen Edmonds.  I would be hard pressed to buy anything else.  They are incredibly durable.  I have some that are 15 years old and still look new.  A little polish occasionally, a re-sole if needed (1 in that time).  They are bulletproof.

The cut is considered more American (made in Wisconsin, I think) vs. a slimmer, more pointed Italian shoe, so depending on your style preference, that might make a difference, but they kick ass.  "
business,"I'm sorry but Bill Gates has tech that changes with every guest in his house. Wealth brings on different interests. The quality behind those fashion institutions is why they're famous. They're not famous because show offs bought them from videos, they're famous because Louis Vuitoon make a god damn bag that will last you 100 years because they use the best leather, hardware and processes. They're just playing the brand game because it helps generate 300 billion dollars a year in sales. 

And the fit? You won't know how good it is until you're wearing a Valentino jacket that was made for you by artisans with centuries old techniques. 

Complain all you want about the people who need validation from sporting logos, but never come after the quality and comfort of high end clothing. "
business,"I’d say there’s an obvious balance everyone wants. I say this as an owner of 8 or so pairs of AE. I have a few Gucci loafers as well though and they are by far the most stylish and complimented. AE, in my opinion, often lacks originality you’d expect 400 dollar shoes to cost while the Guccis are all of that. Alden is getting closer, but Italian brands other than Gucci is the right answer. "
business,"Wow. Fascinating, thanks for that glimpse into that world. One thing I'll say about Gucci is that what i noticed is lot of their stuff have the word ""GUCCI"" printed in huge letters right across the item and to me that screams attention rather than actual quality. Coming from China, I've seen lot of rich chinese/asian people in love with things like Gucci/Burberry and it's basically a way to show other people that they are so rich they can afford to spends thousands of USD on a Gucci purse.

But good to know there are actual high quality items without spending huge amounts of money. 

Of course just 5min ago, I thought my Macy's leather dress shoe at $120 was expensive and then I hear about shoes $500-1000 and suits in the thousands of dollars....certainly very different segments of society that people live in...."
business,"I destroy Levi jeans in months... I buy mostly 7 for All Mankind, PRPS, or artisanish japanese selvedge because of two reason: they're more durable and are substantially more comfortable. I did the math and they came slightly over Levi's on cost per wear, but the feel so much better.

Luxury items in general (not always, but mostly) are better made. That said, Gucci is shit quality compared to real luxury items. "
business,"> The quality behind those fashion institutions is why they're famous.

Bullshit. Nobody buys Gucci for the quality, in fact designer labels are generally specifically *not* designed with long wear life in mind for the simple reason that people who concern themselves with designer labels are the same people who concern themselves with wearing the latest fashions. What use would such people have for high quality when they won't even be wearing it that long anyway?"
business,"This is the correct answer, there are true high end brands that are of high quality.  They are almost never the well known brands you think of when you think of luxury brands.

I just wanted to add a few notes.  When you say last 30 years, that's 30 years with maintenance.  The soles will wear out, it is just the nature of how much pressure your foot puts down.  However, with their warrenty, they'll fix it for you.

High end brands turn to cheapening out all the time.  Louis Vuitton is famous for their decline in quality over the years.  They USED to only use the highest end leathers that you could sink them in the ocean and they'd come out fine, but just try to do that with a new bag.

The brands diversify.  While brookbrother suits are of the high end you talk about, their shirts are made in China like the lower end brands.  You need to know what the brand does well and ignore their knick knacks and add ons."
business,"Fashion is what they sell you - style is what you have. 

To think that the world collectively thinks according to your personal narrative is arrogant and gross. Here I am acknowledging that I believe that there are people who buy designer goods for the label while other buy for the quality of the goods and you're negating that by bullish tactics. 

Also I refuse to accept this opinion from anyone who doesn't own any luxury goods. That comes to cars, electronics, and anything else that isn't baseline. 

What kind of phone do you have?  "
business,"You can combine them in the order that they appear. It may, however, be a bit complex and hard for the market to identify with. People are more likely to remember and associate with brands that have appealing, short, memorable, and pronuncable names.

​

I am actually thinking that you can name your company  'logística,' the Spanish equivalent for logistics. From that, you can have any other sub-labels such as  logística luxury,  logística towing and  logística heavy commercial.

​

What do you think?"
business,"From the bank's perspective, they will keep savings as low as they can get away with. That money is ""free"" to them which massively inflates their net interest margin. They will only adjust when a significant portion of their customer base starts moving their money out of savings and into better yielding instruments.

If you have more than 4-6 months of bills worth of funds in a standard savings account, you should be looking to move it somewhere safe-ish that will at least keep up with inflation."
business,"All the major banks (eg Bank of America) are currently at 0.01% interest on their savings rate, so 0.1% in comparison is actually generous. Other than that, you're right. Other than an emergency fund, you shouldn't have any money in your savings account.

https://www.valuepenguin.com/average-savings-account-interest-rates

I'm just saying that I'm not going to turn down free money, no matter how small the amount. There's no downside in my online credit union, and I make an extra $400 per year. "
business,"I always heard in school that house prices are interesting because most people look at the equation as what can I afford on a monthly basis. The theory behind that being a gradual tick in interest rates would simply depress some of the long term increases in housing prices as more of a buyer’s monthly payment will now go to mortgage costs as opposed to principal. 

It’ll be interesting to see how housing prices react in a period of steady, anticipated rate increases. "
business,"yes, but we have a housing supply issue in this country, thats why the prices have been going nuts.

and the rich people buying out hundreds of houses to rent out via a property management companies don't care that much about mortgage rates because they are cash buyers

thats why for normal people, the time to buy is now because that $500K house will still be a $500K house. Even if there is a correction, you can never time it right, and if you are planning to own the home for 10 years, that correction will come and go and your house will still appreciate from the current price.

But that higher interest rate will mean you'll be paying much higher interest for the next 10-20 years(since interest rates are a long term policy, and the trend is now up). So if you don't buy now, you'll end up paying a million dollars for that $500K house. 

4% interest rate on a $500K loan means you spend $20,000 on interest a year before you start covering your principal. 

8% interest rate on a $500K loan means you'll have to spend $40,000 on interest a year before you start covering your principal...which essentially doubles your mortgage "
business,">and if you are planning to own the home for 10 years,

This is the real sticking point though. A lot of people are much more mobile so they're not in one area for a decade. 

​

If you're able to afford (e.g.) $500k and are planning to stay somewhere for a decade, you either have kids or want to live in a good job market area. And the latter (LA, NYC, etc) have ridiculous house prices above $500k. "
business,"Ok you're the second person to say that. No one thought housing prices were going to correct 5 years ago. The **bottom** of the housing market was 2012, not 2008. 5 years ago only crackpots were saying ""oh we've had a good 6 month run, guess this bubble about to pop!"" Everyone thought ""finally, we might be climbing out of this!"" I took a moment to search the NYT 2013 archives for housing market and found These 3 articles to refresh your memory on what people thought of the market 5 years ago. [1](https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/opinion/sunday/who-wants-to-buy-a-house.html) [2](https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/business/economy/gauges-of-home-prices-and-consumer-confidence-rise.html) [3](https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/business/economy/home-prices-still-rising-but-at-slower-pace.html)

 Housing prices are increasing at over double the rate of income, meaning these houses are debt not assets. Prices are now higher than their peak in 2006. In fact, over the last year alone median prices of existing homes has increased almost $20,000 while existing home sales have DROPPED.

This market HAS to correct. Prices are going up, demand is going down, income is almost stagnant, and debt to income is going up. Something has to give here, and I doubt it'll be wages - and if it's not wages then it won't be sales, it'll be price. "
business,"I'm in real estate and I remember this well. Many, many people were calling for ""Shadow Inventory"" to come hit the market and drop prices even worse than we saw in 2009-2010. I kept hearing ""the REAL drop is about to happen...any day now."" And prices still went up. Long term, I think real estate is fine...if you're buying now with the intention of flipping in 6-24 months, you might be SOL. "
business,">I suggest you learn a little economics.

Funny you say that because I have a degree in it, so let me teach you.

>The market doesn't have to do anything. Housing prices are all regional.

Really? Housing prices are regional, sure. But the overall market follows market trends, some cities may buck those trends but they're the outliers and not relevant to Macro discussion.  Overall market crashes happen everywhere. [Just look at how DC faired 2006-2008.](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WDXRSA) D.C. bucked the downtrend before the rest of the market, but that doesn't mean that in 2006 you should've been buying a home in DC. In fact, that up trend came back to bite them in the ass because housing prices in DC haven't caught up to the rest of the nation relative to their 2005-06 highs.

Speaking of 05-06 highs it's worth nothing that [we are well above those.](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CSUSHPINSA) But let's get into what you said.

​

>Prices are going up because demand is GOING UP. I suggest you learn a little economics. Supply is low. New construction cannot keep up.

Existing home sales are [DOWN](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/EXHOSLUSM495S) while existing home prices are [UP.](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOSMEDUSM052N) New home sales are [the same as Jul 2016](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HSN1F), the number of houses for sale is  [about 50% higher over that same time,](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HNFSEPUSSA) and as you can see from the link above (about the DC prices) prices are WAY up. Is the market up compared to 2012? Yes. Is the market booming, especially compared to any other timeframe, so much that it could justify having prices at historical highs? No way.

So you said demand is going up, I showed you it is not. You said supply is low, I showed you it is WAY up. Since you're claiming to know economics: What happens is demand is low, prices are high, and supply is high?

​

Edit: And just released: [Pending home sales fell for the 4th time in 5 months.](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/27/pending-home-sales-fall-1point8-percent-to-slowest-pace-since-january.html)"
business,"I agree with you, and that's my point. Prices are irrationally high. They will HAVE to drop. Prices cannot continue to rise as demand falls and supply increases. This guy is saying demand is increasing and supply can't keep up and that just flies in the face of every number out there except perhaps housing starts, which includes rental and multifamily properties that are very relevant to the conversation of the overall market, but not relevant to the conversation of ""should you buy a house right now?"" which is what started all of this.

When prices are high, demand is low, supply is high, and interest rates are rising, it's just not a good time to buy a house."
business,That’s the bullshit redneck propaganda those idiots like to dwell in. Those government subsidies were available to every car company - nothing unique about Tesla. Musk is in hot water because of securities law. Not because his company benefitted from subsidies. Yet the dumb fucks like to think somehow those subsidies and these new charges are related. America is going to shit more because of these dumb fucks and less because of those belligerent CEOs.
business,"I know that... I’m asking a legit question. Does no one know what a ? means? 

I feel like I’m in crazy land. 

How can you read my question and think it’s a statement? How can you read my question and think it’s pro or con for any position ? It’s a question lol. It means I don’t know but would like to. 

Based on the responses I’m guessing they were subsidized. Awesome. 

Government needs to fund and push innovation because private organizations won’t always do so if they don’t think it’ll pay off. Some of the best innovation has come from government funded research that didnt seem profitable at the time but ended up changing industries. 

I’m still not sure how anyone got I’m anti Tesla or anti government subsidies by my question. "
business,"Ah nice retort. How dumb do you feel right now. 

It was a question. I was literally asking a question. I didn’t know you knew my intent and decided the  question was rhetorical without any evidence. 

Please almighty wise one. Show me where I made a statement? Let’s start there. Now show me where I said that Tesla shouldn’t have received a subsidy. Now show me where I said subsidies are bad...

You can’t. Because I never said anything beyond asking if Tesla had received government funding. 

"
business,"I would argue slightly differently.  First I would say Tesla benefited more from govt subsidies than other car manufactures, simply because Tesla ONLY made electric vehicles, making subsidies a larger % of their budget.    

​

Second, artificial price adjustments (taxes, tariffs, output limits, subsides) affect way more than just the consumer and seller.  If the gov agrees to give anybody that buys an EV $5000, in theory, that will increase the quantity demanded.  Since supply is fixed in the short-term (especially with Tesla) , Tesla would just raise the price of their car $5000 so there isn't excess demand.  This still puts pressure on them to produce more cars since their profit margin just took a jump.  Tesla will request more lithium, aluminum, leather, ipads, etc. push up the price of raw materials until their suppliers can ramp up.  Everybody will push their prices up as much as consumers will allow with their new subsidies.  The subsidies ultimately get split between the consumer, Tesla, and every supplier of Tesla."
business,"> ""According to Musk, he calculated the $420 price per share based on a 20% premium over that day's closing share price because he thought 20% was a 'standard premium' in going-private transaction,"" the SEC alleged in its suit. ""This calculation resulted in a price of $419, and Musk stated that he rounded the price up to $420 because he had recently learned about the number's significance in marijuana culture and thought his girlfriend 'would find it funny, which admittedly is not a great reason to pick a price.'""

Wow he’s a meme "
business,"I think its annoying with people praise him as being some kind of a genius. I also think its equally annoying when people say hes outright dumb.

Its at least worth recognizing that if you're as rich as Elon, you dont really need to be a genius to do a lot of the stuff he has done. Any billionaire is perfectly capable of throwing money at the best engineers until a problem is solved or a solution is created.

In my opinion hes just a regular guy with terrible impulse control and good ideas."
business,"Technically he isnt an engineer as far as I know. I am fully aware many people say that he may as well be one due to his knowledge on the subject matter pertaining to SpaceX and Tesla, though.

I'm not saying hes a bumbling CEO who is clueless of the technical side of things. I just dont agree with people framing him as if he is some kind of super genius."
business,"Uhm. Maybe not super genius. But I’ve watched a lecture he gave on engineering processes and another on rockets. 

He has engineering degrees. And he coded zip2 and parts of PayPal. 

I work as an engineer rn. I don’t have a certificate that says “bayhack is certified engineer”. As long as you’re designing and building then your an engineer. 

He def didn’t build a rocket on his own nor did he build an electric car on his own. But he does lead design. 

Hyperloop another company he made, he planned and drew out in a short time period when he was dissatisfied with California’s plan of a hyper speed rail. 

A lot of my college career was actually based off Elon’s work. I was a programmer on the Electric Car Research department and even on the hyperloop team. 

Idk any geniuses, but he’s pretty damn close. 

He’s still human and has flaws. 

And yeah he was born rich. I mean how else do you think a lot of smart successful ppl are. It’s rare for someone to come from poor to even middle class in the entire world. 

He def has had his way pave for him. He’d prolly just be another smart engineer in some company in SA if he didn’t have rich family. 

I mean its a lot of luck and then smarts. 

I used to be a fanboy. I see his flaws. But I respect his knowledge in engineering before his weird business acts. "
business,"He is a very smart scientist and has goals set in stone which he hasn't really wavered on (he has three changes he wants to make, it's like colonize Mars, make all energy renewable (electric cars), and autonomous cars.  Something like that.

He's been a pretty good businessmen, earned one of his undergrad degrees in it in fact.

He's above average, at least in his work ethic.  I say that because he's made many successful companies and the beginning of that is a lot of work.  Who knows about his work ethic now a days though.  If you have a decent head on your shoulders, constantly working will get you surprisingly far even if you aren't a genius.  Which I don't think he is.

He doesn't do things for profit - he's stated that.  So his mentality is different than most other billionaires.  He's gotten very comfortable, too comfortable, and I'd say that's partially why he's acting like this.  

But like you said, he can be impulsive, and I'd say he's also a bit narcissistic.  I think he may have had a bit of that to begin with, and then the money and success multiplied all that and went to his head a bit.

He's really enjoyed being a celebrity and has leaned into that lifestyle a bit more in the public eye than is really appropriate for a multicoorporation billionaire CEO.  He seems to have forgotten a bit that he's not an artist but a CEO and the face of two companies.  Artists and those types of celebrities don't have big responsibilities like he has and their lifestyle is acceptable as it doesn't affect a huge company.  You know?"
business,"The money side of it all isn't really what drives him, so I can easily see him not really giving a shit and just playing around with the idea of getting rid of Wall Street breathing down his neck whatever Tesla was doing.  A major distraction.

Not that he surely isn't very good with the finance stuff too (you really have to be to have gotten where he is), but given how annoying he must find the whole thing it might make sense to hire someone to run that side of the org. Though given how dictatorial he likes to be (risk takers rather need to be), I can imagine that won't be an easy or a pleasant job.

Something of a Trumps spokesman role, except with 100 IQ more on the boss. But still, lots of the same downsides would be there."
business,"The fact 420 is considered code or slang for marijuana and marijuana related things is real. 

(Like many silly bits of slang, its origins are lost in time. It's a type of slang that is unusually prone to reverse-etymology: because it is made of numbers not words people think it must have some specific meaning.) Now you've heard about this you will experience the bader meinhoff effect and notice it in usernames all over this website.

Musk's choice of it because of its marijuana reference is real too.

The fact he intended that to be a joke is also real.

"
business,"If we want to assign him a sub-genius level IQ fine, it doesn’t matter (though I don’t agree).  He is an extremely unconventional business owner.  

The projects he chooses his companies to work on are almost always very challenging and with high risk.  I think his appetite for risk, his willingness to get into the details and contribute with sound engineering and his desire to keep doing more of these things, even though he’s made billions, makes him different."
business,"So much ignorance in this comment. Reddit truly shows it is a collection of ignorance time and time again. 

Here is a tip - try reading the history behind how and why Tesla was started. Have fun enjoying the part that Elon had little to do with the technology behind the car or the company except being a shrewed businessman and being approached by the original founders and inventors. Also, enjoy the part about what motivated them to create Tesla, the answer might surprise you.

Edit - seems like Elon's PR team is already on this thread downvoting any truth and facts. Good job lads you definitely are earning those 0.50 cents he generously gives you. Too bad on the unionizing."
business,"That's been the business plan from the beginning though. Tesla from the outset wanted to grow a new segment and then grab a small slice of the pie. It was always inevitable that BMW, Porsche, etc would have extremely high quality electrics and carry over their exemplary brand image. But Nissan is also worth 40 billion dollars. Mazda is nearly 10 billion. Those were the benchmarks for Tesla when they started this venture - make a new market, get a slice of it, and add value and margins by being a behemoth battery manufacturer."
business,"If all were that rosy, why would Musk send those tweets? Many serious investors are losing faith in Tesla's capability of delivering on its promises. Toyota already dumped all of their shares of Tesla.

Yes, Musk has proven the world wrong, but their staple product is an almost 10 year old car, that while pretty is starting to age and is mired with production issues.

A lot of Tesla's moxy comes from Musk "
business,"I call BS. Where is your proof you worked at your university's electric vehical research department and they used Tesla patents. Also, kind of defeats the entire purpose of, you know, research. Also, which patent did you use? You know there is a patent for the blinkers, windshield wipers, door handles. Let's get specific one electric engineer to perhaps another. 

Everyone in the tech industry knows that Elon released the patents to support his own ends towards an electric vehicle market not because he was benevolent. 

https://www.informs.org/Blogs/M-SOM-Blogs/M-SOM-Review/Why-did-Tesla-Give-Away-Patents-for-Free-An-Analysis-of-the-Open-Technology-Strategy-from-an-Operational-Perspective

Simply put Elon is scared hydrogen will win. The chance of hydrogen winning are significant because it can not only allow transport of people but goods as well. Planes, Ships, trucks, etc. Battery though efficient will never be able to provide the energy to mass scaling as fuel cells without significant material science research which Tesla doesn't even do and instead uses Samsung's R&D. "
business,"Toyota sold at $200 which was perfectly timed to miss $100 run up in stock Tesla stock to $300. Toyota has zero EVs on sale today in the USA market.  In other word Toyota is one of the worst examples understanding EV market trends. 

Tesla Model S shipped in 2012 so 6 years ago and has had multiple updates since. Model X started shipping in 2015 so 3 years old. Model S and Model X are shipping with no production delays. Model 3 has made it through production hell and was the number 5 selling sedan in August’s no longer mired in production issues. 

Elon has built something much bigger than himself. They may be able to take Elon out of Tesla, but Tesla has hit critical mass and has a product roadmap for the next ten years. "
business,"MIT used to use look at Tesla patents to help their students design prototype cars.

I specifically worked for the Plug-in Hybrid and Electric  Research Center - not telling you my Uni, you might be able to figure that out. Very few places with that name.  

His patents were ""good faith"" uses - so yes he's only hoping for his own end goal, duh. 

They were allowed for research only if I recall. 

Yeah maybe business wise he's scared of hydrogen - if his real dream is saving the plant then maybe not. I'm not him. 

 I know what I did at my job. I'm not an electric engineer. I'm a programmer. 

I actually used Raspberry Pis to interact and track data on the car - I probably broke a lot of warranties. 
But I'll say there were def electrical engineers and chemical engineers who read through the patents and conducted their own research. I know the chemical engineers were reverse engineering a lot of the batteries and were also using patents from other companies.
The electrical engineers were doing something similar and then trying to work their own research into the cars - I've seen the patents from Tesla sitting on the desk.
 
We had fleets of Teslas and Chevy Bolts we received data on. 
Research definitely looks at patents and other released research. You sorta have to read and keep up to do current trending research. 
"
business,"For someone who spends their time on Reddit reading nonsense and posting wrong information, you could, you know read the wiki first. 

Here, I will even link it to you. 


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla,_Inc.

The company was founded in 2003 by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning, who also financed the company until the Series A round of funding. Following a lawsuit and resolution, the company now lists Series A round investors[26] Elon Musk, JB Straubel and Ian Wright as co-founders.[2] The founders were influenced to start the company after GM recalled and destroyed its EV1 electric cars in 2003.[27]

But hey, attacking the person telling you to think and learn will surely get you far in life. 

Funny how Tesla cult forgets who actually founded the company and the technology behind it.

Here is a thought, prove me wrong that Elon Musk actually was the original founders and not just an investor. Go ahead. While you are at it. Prove that it was not inspired by GM's EV1. "
business,"Simple, so that they actually read it and learn more instead of living and basking in ignorance. It's obvious they like Tesla and Elon enough to defend their every action but not enough to actually learn about it's history. 

Also, why should I spoon feed them information that is freely available and a simple Google search away when they have the time to sit here arguing with me about factual information and why I can't spoon-feed them. "
business,"...it's like literally the first link on Google. 

Here is a thought, I ask them to Google something, they learn, understand, process the information and come back with a more informed position. Meanwhile, now you lot seems perfectly happy debating my approach instead of true purpose of this chain. Elon is not benevolent and did not push companies to invest in electric vehicles. The founders of Tesla infact were motivated by EV1 to invest in electric cars. Furthermore, Elon did not found Tesla, he invested in it. He has nothing to do with the technology behind the company. These are facts. Releasing the patents was a strategic business move. Nothing else. 

Instead you lot are the one being combative and trying to justify your ill-informed and ignorant position. 

Let's see if you will admit that Elon is not benevolent and just a shrewed businessman"
business,"Not really, just seeing how redditors bask in their collective ignorance. The user above lied about his experience. He isn't an engineer. He doesn't know how patents works. He doesn't even know that patents do not usually contain enough information to duplicate/reverse engineer. If it was that easy, China would simply open the US patent office website and copy each patent. 

The sheer ignorance of these redditors shows they are petty enough to not admit they do not know and proud enough to not even try to learn. "
business,"No. An impeachment is kind of like an indictment, it is the act of leveling formal charges against an official. The House has to sole power to impeach. The Senate then tries the impeachment and decides whether to convict and remove the official from office.

Bill Clinton was impeached. The House voted in favor of bringing formal charges against him. He was not, however, convicted. The Republicans did not have the 60 votes necessary to convict in the Senate at the time. 

Clinton and Johnson are the only presidents to be impeached. No president has yet been convicted. "
business,"Could Congress impeach me if I was a super unpopular President who was just trying my best, and I just got sick of everybody's shit so during the State of the Union in my last year I just dropped my pants and awkwardly backed up to the mic bare-ass until I got my butt carefully aligned with the podium and bare butt farted into it? 

Could they impeach me for that?

"
business,"**Libor scandal**

The Libor scandal was a series of fraudulent actions connected to the Libor (London Interbank Offered Rate) and also the resulting investigation and reaction. The Libor is an average interest rate calculated through submissions of interest rates by major banks across the world. The scandal arose when it was discovered that banks were falsely inflating or deflating their rates so as to profit from trades, or to give the impression that they were more creditworthy than they were. Libor underpins approximately $350 trillion in derivatives.

***

^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/business/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot)   ^]
^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28"
business,"He redirected X.com to focus exclusively on Paypal and was immediately replaced by the board, they didn't agree that the hard pivot of focus to the Paypal money exchange service was the right move. I'll give him credit for taking the chance and forcing the hand of the X and Confinity merger org into what eventually became the real juggernaut of Paypal.  They ripped control away from him immediately when he took the gamble. It was well known when it happened. "
business,"Well, loan companies use the libor rates as a reference. With falsified libor rates, mortgage companies were more confident than they should have been and giving rates far lower than than they should've been to home buyers. Thus, causing our housing market to bubble and eventually crash. This is just going off of the top of my head when we studied the issue in college. I'd have to really dig in for more detail, but the libor rates impact a ton of financial institutions. "
business,"That’s whataboutism.  While more should have been charged, the events of 2008 have zero relevance to Musk’s situation.  Prior to his announcement, he had spent weeks lamenting the short sellers of TSLA.  Then he announces he may take it private at a significant premium and the stock jumps up immediately.  It likely was a move done specificically to inflict maximum pain on those short sellers.  If that was the case, that’s highly illegal.

I have been a cheerleader for Elon since his PayPal days.  He has done an incredible amount of good things.  That doesn’t mean the law no longer applies to him.  What he did here was likely highly illegal and unethical. "
business,"He is playing 4D chess if he raises prices for the DoD and/or NASA when launching all their stuff into space. SpaceX is 2 to 3 times less expensive than ULA and has a good chance at being real cheap compared to the SLS. SpaceX can raise prices and still maintain a competitive price advantage. Heck if he is crazy as people are insinuating, he maybe even sells all his shares of SpaceX, moves to Europe/China/Russia, starts up a shop there and directly competes with USA for a Space Race 2.0. All to get back at the SEC. "
business,"He lost power with PayPal because he wouldn't let go of the idea of renaming the company X.com.

The entire purpose of a board is to preserve shareholder value, not coddle the CEO. If Elon was honest with himself, he would be thankful that the PayPal board removed him. The seed money for SpaceX and his Tesla investment (his PayPal shares) was protected from his own reckless impulses by the board."
business,"If I were Musk then I guess I would do what Musk did, but if I were myself in Musk's position, and my attorneys agreed with the general opinion that the SEC had a solid case against me, then I'd probably take the deal, get a little sleep, and focus on SpaceX for a while. It's not like there's insufficient challenge in getting the BFR to market.

Edit: I just read the deal would have let him stay as CEO, just step down as chairman. That really doesn't sound so bad."
business,"I will be messaging you on [**2019-09-28 16:11:35 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2019-09-28 16:11:35 UTC To Local Time) to remind you of [**this link.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/business/comments/9jm3p4/teslas_musk_pulled_plug_on_settlement_with_sec_at/)

[**CLICK THIS LINK**](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=[https://www.reddit.com/r/business/comments/9jm3p4/teslas_musk_pulled_plug_on_settlement_with_sec_at/]%0A%0ARemindMe!  1 year ) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.

^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete Comment&message=Delete! e6sxxng)

_____

|[^(FAQs)](http://np.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/24duzp/remindmebot_info/)|[^(Custom)](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=[LINK INSIDE SQUARE BRACKETS else default to FAQs]%0A%0ANOTE: Don't forget to add the time options after the command.%0A%0ARemindMe!)|[^(Your Reminders)](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List Of Reminders&message=MyReminders!)|[^(Feedback)](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBotWrangler&subject=Feedback)|[^(Code)](https://github.com/SIlver--/remindmebot-reddit)|[^(Browser Extensions)](https://np.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/4kldad/remindmebot_extensions/)
|-|-|-|-|-|-|"
business,"Well, what are the alternatives? Look at the facts: Musk went *way* out on a limb with that tweet, and it clearly had an effect on the stock price. It's pretty obvious he did not have ""funding secured"" because he had only come up with a price in his own fucking mind, without any actual guidance from the people who *might* have funding whether $420 would make sense to *them.*

The SEC is obviously going to be offering a penalty that is less than the worst outcome for Musk in a trial, to entice him to take it. The only way to get a better outcome is going to be to blow up their case in pre-trial motions or at trial.

That's a judgement you have to make by thinking about the facts as they are likely to come out. ""I think the government has a weak case/misconstrued the evidence/clearly overstepped/whatever and we will prevail at trial."" I.e., we have another take on the facts that will result in a not guilty verdict.

Not some mystical ""I must be true to myself"" or ""I have to fight or I will look like a chicken"". The government doesn't give a fuck. They will crush you either way."
business,It's a bit strong to say he fabricated a fictitious buyout. Maybe he had talked to some Middle Eastern entity about taking Tesla private (though it also apparently involved a facility in the Middle East.) These people might even have had the money to do it. What they almost certainly did *not* have was an agreement that a price of $420 (pulled out of Elon's ass) was a reasonable deal. I think that is an important condition Musk failed to mention.
business,"Last time I went there, I tried to buy a cheese grater, which they had on display and were marked as on sale. They scanned it, said they don't sell cheese graters. I'm like ""what? They're over there. You marked the price down"".

But they refused to sell it to me. They had accidentally stocked cheese graters, then accidentally marked the price down, and still made no effort to remove them from the sales floor, which is presumably chock full of stuff they don't sell."
business,"I think the distinction they make is important and valid.  Lots of companies are willing to innovate as long as it doesn't kill their main business line.  I would class bigger chickens, cheaper processing costs, etc in this category.  

Seriously committing to a new business line even if it cannibalizes from your existing business is true disruption, and seems to be what they're referencing here.

For example, one of the reasons companies like Borders couldn't fully commit to an online model and got disrupted by Amazon is because that would require them to completely change their strategy and abandon many brick & mortar stores for an as of yet unproved strategy of selling online."
business,"Funny how business schools must not be teaching this nowadays


All of the top businesses in America right now have worked double-time to put their old business model out and usher in a new one that they have basically a monopoly on since everyone's still playing catch up to the old one. Consider, for example, Apple (phasing out iPod for iPhones), Netflix (phasing out physical media delivery for streaming), Google and Amazon's constant diversification. Which is probably why Uber is trying so hard to make automated cars work -- it'd put their old business model to pasture for something that nobody could immediately compete with. "
business,"Honestly, I wonder if presentation is an issue.  It's not a drop in replacement for higher margin vertebrate protein.  You can't make a $20-per-pound ribeye simulation out of crickets or even a $4-per-pound ersatz chicken breast.

So you either need to sell consumers on completely new dishes, or push the protein in forms where it can be slipped into existing products, like the cricket flour people, where you're competing with 20-cent-per-pound wheat flour"
business,"Vegan thing I get.  

The animals being inefficient isn’t as applicable for insects.  They are actually incredibly efficient in terms of consumed calories vrs protein output, and produce less emissions and pollutants by an incredible amount.  

To your bugs are gross thing, thats my point.  They aren’t gross.  Healthy, tasty, cleaner, safer, kinder, ect.

I will eat them happily, I just wish they were more readily available and more mainstream.  

I want to see some tasty big dishes at my favorite restaurants, and be able to buy them in more grocery stores. "
politics,"Today is the first day of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings to replace Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court of the United States. The hearing is expected to last three to four days, beginning with opening statements.

Republicans, who control the Senate with a narrow 50-49 margin, hope to confirm Kavanaugh. John McCain’s replacement is expected to be named before the vote heads to the Senate floor. This thread serves to provide a place to discuss these proceedings.

* [C-Span Live Stream](https://www.c-span.org/event/?449704/supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-hearing-day-1)

Please remember to follow our commenting rules when discussing. Thank you!"
politics,"Today is the final day of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings to replace Judge Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court of the United States. 
Judge Brett Kavanaugh is set to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee where Senators, legal experts, and others will continue to question him under oath.
This thread serves to provide a place to discuss these proceedings. 

Please remember to follow our commenting rules when discussing. Thank you!

* [C-Span Live Stream](https://www.c-span.org/event/?449707/legal-experts-testify-final-day-brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-hearing&live)
* [PBS Newshour Stream](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/watch-live-day-4-of-brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-confirmation-hearings)
* Discussion Threads: [Day 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/9cvq4z/discussion_thread_supreme_court_nominee_brett/) and [Day 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/9d63v7/discussion_thread_supreme_court_nominee_brett/) and [Day 3](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/9dilid/discussion_thread_supreme_court_nominee_brett/)"
politics,"A third accuser of Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh on Wednesday publicly identified herself and alleged that Kavanaugh and others while in high school spiked the drinks of girls at parties to make it easier for them to be gang raped.

This is a consolidated meagathread. Note that low effort and off topic comments may be automatically removed.

---

##Submissions that may interest you

SUBMISSION | DOMAIN
---|----
[New allegations against Kavanaugh submitted to Senate committee](https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/09/26/politics/julie-swetnick-allegation-kavanaugh/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F) | www-m.cnn.com
[Kavanaugh denies allegations in prepared testimony](https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408525-kavanaugh-denies-allegations-in-prepared-testimony) | thehill.com
[Michael Avenatti’s client says she witnessed Kavanaugh sexually assault girls in high school](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/26/17905908/julie-swetnick-michael-avenatti-twitter-brett-kavanaugh) | vox.com
[Julie Swetnick Accuses Brett Kavanaugh Of Sexual Misconduct, Alleges He Was Present During 'Gang Rape'](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/michael-avenatti-third-kavanaugh-accuser_us_5ba8838ce4b069d5f9d43c72) | huffingtonpost.com
[New Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick details parties where girls allegedly were drugged and raped](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/26/michael-avenatti-identifies-kavanaugh-accuser-as-julie-swetnick.html) | cnbc.com
[Kavanaugh on latest accusations: 'I don't know who this is and this never happened'](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/26/kavanaugh-denies-allegation-this-is-ridiculous.html) | cnbc.com
[Third accuser Julie Swetnick alleges Kavanaugh was present at 1982 party where she was gang raped](http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-kavanaugh-avenatti-2018-story.html) | latimes.com
[Judiciary Committee Reviews New Sexual Misconduct Allegations Against Kavanaugh](https://www.npr.org/2018/09/26/651797758/judiciary-committee-review-new-sexual-misconduct-allegations-against-kavanaugh?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20180926) | npr.org
[Avenatti client says Brett Kavanaugh was present while she was ""gang raped"" during high school](https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/kavanaugh-accuser-michael-avenatti-reveals-julie-swetnick-today-2018-09-26/) | cbsnews.com
[Kavanaugh calendar appears to line up with third accuser’s ‘Beach Week’ claims](https://thinkprogress.org/beach-week-brett-kavanaugh-accuser-calendar-03cb36686c9d/) | thinkprogress.org
[Kavanaugh Regrets Some Choices in High School, but Again Denies Allegations of Sexual Assault](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/us/politics/kavanaugh-calendar.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes) | nytimes.com
[Kavanaugh calls third woman's accusations 'ridiculous'](https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/408530-kavanaugh-calls-third-womans-accusations-ridiculous) | thehill.com
[Kavanaugh calls new allegations against him 'ridiculous' and from 'Twilight Zone'](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/kavanaugh-calls-new-allegations-against-him-ridiculous-and-from-twilight-zone-2018-09-26?link=MW_latest_news) | marketwatch.com
[Michael Avenatti says his new client has allegations against Kavanaugh](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/michael-avenatti-client-allegations-kavanaugh/story?id=58097092) | abcnews.go.com
[Explosive new allegations against Kavanaugh demand a full investigation — now](https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/09/26/explosive-new-allegations-against-kavanaugh-demand-a-full-investigation-now/?noredirect=on) | washingtonpost.com
[Trump slams Avenatti over new Kavanaugh accusations: 'He is just looking for attention'](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/26/trump-slams-avenatti-over-new-kavanaugh-accusations-he-is-just-looking-for-attention.html) | cnbc.com
[Trump Goes After Avenatti Over Kavanaugh Accuser: ‘Total Low-Life!’](https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-goes-after-avenatti-low-life) | talkingpointsmemo.com
[The latest on Brett Kavanaugh: Trump berates ""low-life"" Avenatti after new woman's claims](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-latest-on-brett-kavanaugh-another-woman-comes-forward-today-2018-09-26-live-updates/) | cbsnews.com
[Michael Avenatti client Julie Swetnick is 3rd Brett Kavanaugh accuser](https://www.businessinsider.com/michael-avenatti-julie-swetnick-client-brett-kavanaugh-sexual-misconduct-2018-9) | businessinsider.com
[New Allegations Against Brett Kavanaugh Involve Drugs and Gang Rape](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/avenatti-kavanaugh-allegations-729477/) | rollingstone.com
[In Sworn Statement, New Accuser Julie Swetnick Says Kavanaugh Was 'Present' When She Was Gang Raped](https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/09/26/sworn-statement-new-accuser-julie-swetnick-says-kavanaugh-was-present-when-she-was) | commondreams.org
[New accuser claims Brett Kavanaugh was present during her 'gang' rape in early 1980s - NY Daily News](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny-news-brett-kavanaugh-julia-swetnick-gang-rape-allegation-20180926-story.html) | nydailynews.com
[The Latest: Trump, Kavanaugh accuser's lawyer trade insults](https://apnews.com/395f54541eb74766bda41de4c10e60eb?utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=SocialFlow&__twitter_impression=true) | apnews.com
[A Third Woman Has Accused Brett Kavanaugh Of Sexual Misconduct, And Said He Was Present When She Was Gang-Raped](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/maryanngeorgantopoulos/julie-swetnick-kavanaugh?ref=hpsplash&bfsource=ovthpvariant) | buzzfeednews.com
[Kavanaugh friend Judge denies allegations: MSNBC](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-kavanaugh-judge/kavanaugh-friend-judge-denies-allegations-msnbc-idUSKCN1M62HR?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews) | reuters.com
[Judicial Crisis Network On Kavanaugh Allegations: ‘We Have To Look Into This’](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/judicial-crisis-network-brett-kavanaugh-allegations_us_5babbc29e4b091df72ecbbcd) | huffingtonpost.com
[Kavanaugh: New Allegations Are ‘From the Twilight Zone’](https://www.thedailybeast.com/kavanaugh-new-allegations-are-from-the-twilight-zone) | thedailybeast.com
[Read: Brett Kavanaugh’s written testimony denying all allegations of sexual misconduct](https://www.vox.com/2018/9/26/17906226/brett-kavanaugh-written-testimony-sexual-assault) | vox.com
[Jeff Flake discusses allegations against Brett Kavanaugh on Senate floor](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jeff-flake-discusses-allegations-against-brett-kavanaugh-on-senate-floor/) | cbsnews.com
[New Accuser Says Kavanaugh Targeted Women for Sexual Assault, Was Present When She Was Raped](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/julie-swetnick-third-brett-kavanaugh-accuser.html) | slate.com
[Blumenthal: Democrats had 'nothing to do' with Kavanaugh accusers coming forward](https://itk.thehill.com/homenews/senate/408547-blumenthal-democrats-had-nothing-to-do-with-kavanaugh-accusers-coming-forward) | itk.thehill.com
[Flake rips Trump, lawmakers over handling of Kavanaugh allegations](https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408550-flake-rips-trump-lawmakers-over-handling-of-kavanaugh-allegations) | thehill.com
[Senate GOP Undeterred By New Allegations Against Brett Kavanaugh](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/senate-gop-new-allegations-against-brett-kavanaugh_us_5babbfcae4b082030e7786be?hq) | huffingtonpost.com
[Monica Lewinsky Was My Intern. Here’s Why the Women Making Accusations Against Brett Kavanaugh Give Me Hope](http://time.com/5406825/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-monica-lewinsky-anita-hill/) | time.com
[Latest Kavanaugh accusations put pressure on Senate to subpoena Mark Judge](https://thinkprogress.org/third-kavanaugh-accuser-senate-subpoena-mark-judge-a58d86497172/) | thinkprogress.org
[Hatch on new Kavanaugh accusations: 'I don't think we should put up with it'](https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408554-hatch-on-new-kavanaugh-accusations-i-dont-think-we-should-put-up-with-it) | thehill.com
[Senate Judiciary chairman: No delay to Kavanaugh hearing despite new allegations](https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/26/politics/kavanaugh-congress-reaction/index.html) | cnn.com
[Brett Kavanaugh's Accusers Are Being Treated Just Like Anita Hill Was. The Senate Has Learned Nothing.](https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/09/26/brett-kavanaughs-accusers-are-being-treated-just-anita-hill-was-senate-has-learned) | commondreams.org
[Explosive new allegations against Kavanaugh demand a full investigation — now](https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/09/26/explosive-new-allegations-against-kavanaugh-demand-a-full-investigation-now/?utm_term=.b89df23c4fe8) | washingtonpost.com
[Trump slams new Kavanaugh accuser as ""ridiculous""](https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/kavanaugh-second-sexual-allegation-latest/) | cnn.com
[Woman Says Kavanaugh Was ‘Present’ During Her Gang Rape in 1982](https://www.thedailybeast.com/avenatti-client-kavanaugh-was-involved-in-gang-rapeshttps://www.thedailybeast.com/avenatti-client-kavanaugh-was-involved-in-gang-rapes) | thedailybeast.com
[Conservative group says it will 'look into' latest Kavanaugh allegations](https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/408560-conservative-group-says-it-has-to-to-look-into-latest-kavanaugh) | thehill.com
[Republican Women Lose Faith in Kavanaugh — and Trump — After Week of Accusations](https://morningconsult.com/2018/09/26/republican-women-lose-faith-kavanaugh-trump-after-week-accusations/) | morningconsult.com
[As New Accusations Emerge, It's Time For Brett Kavanaugh to Sit His Ass Down Somewhere](https://www.theroot.com/as-new-accusations-emerge-its-time-for-brett-kavanaugh-1829331843?utm_source=theroot_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow) | theroot.com
['This Process Needs to Stop Right Now': Demand for Withdrawal of Kavanaugh Nomination After Swetnick Allegations](https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/09/26/process-needs-stop-right-now-demand-withdrawal-kavanaugh-nomination-after-swetnick) | commondreams.org
[Third Kavanaugh accuser submits allegation to Senate panel](https://apnews.com/amp/3b0c96afc41140929608ffc65847b62a?__twitter_impression=true) | apnews.com
[Judiciary Republicans Pushing For Sworn Statement From Latest Kavanaugh Accuser](https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/judiciary-republicans-pushing-for-sworn-statement-from-latest-kavanaugh-accuser) | talkingpointsmemo.com
[Trump attacks second Kavanaugh accuser: She 'has nothing' and 'admits that she was drunk'](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/25/trump-attacks-second-kavanaugh-accuser-she-has-nothing-and-admits-that-she-was-drunk.html) | cnbc.com
[At the Center of the Kavanaugh Accusations: Heavy Drinking](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/us/politics/kavanaugh-drinking-yale-high-school.html) | nytimes.com
[Kavanaugh Lawyer Blames New Accuser Julie Swetnick for Not Reporting Alleged Gang Rapes](https://www.thedailybeast.com/kavanaugh-lawyer-blames-new-accuser-julie-swetnick-for-not-reporting-alleged-gang-rapes?ref=wrap) | thedailybeast.com
[Third Kavanaugh accuser submits allegation to Senate panel](https://apnews.com/3b0c96afc41140929608ffc65847b62a/Third-Kavanaugh-accuser-submits-allegation-to-Senate-panel) | apnews.com
[With latest Kavanaugh allegations, Senate must hear more testimony](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/with-latest-kavanaugh-allegations-senate-must-hear-more-testimony) | washingtonexaminer.com
[Kavanaugh Denied Gang-Rape Allegation Under Oath Behind Closed Doors Tuesday](http://time.com/5407183/brett-kavanaugh-julie-swetnick-testimony/) | time.com
[Avenatti releases graphic Kavanaugh allegations, calls for new delay](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/26/avenatti-releases-graphic-kavanaugh-allegations-calls-for-new-delay.html) | foxnews.com
[Maryland Authorities Have No Choice But to Investigate the Latest Allegations Against Kavanaugh](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-julie-swetnick-maryland-investigation.html?via=homepage_taps_top) | slate.com
[Live Updates: Avenatti Circus Throws Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation into Chaos](https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/09/26/live-updates-avenatti-circus-throws-brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-into-chaos/) | breitbart.com
[Kavanaugh accuser's fellow alumnae from Holton-Arms School sign letter supporting her](http://www.fox5dc.com/news/kavanaugh-accuser-s-fellow-alumnae-from-holton-arms-school-sign-letter-supporting-her) | fox5dc.com
[Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell Will Question Brett Kavanaugh and One of His Accusers. Here’s What to Know](http://time.com/5406859/kavanaugh-prosecutor-rachel-mitchell/) | time.com
[Rep. Comstock declines to say if she believes her friend Kavanaugh’s accusers](https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/local/virginia-politics/rep-comstock-declines-to-say-if-she-believes-her-friend-kavanaughs-accusers/2018/09/26/237a91da-c023-11e8-9005-5104e9616c21_story.html) | washingtonpost.com
[Brett Kavanaugh accusations: Republicans are taking steps to avoid alienating women voters ahead of midterms](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-27/brett-kavanaugh-accusations-republicans-remain-undeterred/10310316) | abc.net.au
[Kavanaugh accuser Ford releases polygraph results showing 'no deception' in her account of assault](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/26/kavanaugh-accuser-ford-releases-polygraph-results-showing-no-deception.html) | cnbc.com
[Julie Swetnick’s Allegations Likely to Finish Off Brett Kavanaugh](http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/09/julie-swetnicks-allegations-brett-kavanaugh-withdraw.html) | nymag.com
[Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick alleges he 'spiked' punch at parties so intoxicated women could be raped](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/woman-alleges-kavanaugh-spiked-punch-parties-so-intoxicated-girls-could-n912491) | nbcnews.com
[Over 60 high school contemporaries of Kavanaugh rebut new allegations](https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408615-over-60-high-school-contemporaries-of-kavanaugh-rebut-new-allegations) | thehill.com
[Fact-checking internet rumors about Brett Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford](https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/sep/26/fact-checking-internet-rumors-about-brett-kavanaug/) | politifact.com
[Trump won't say if he believes Kavanaugh's accusers are lying](https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/408626-trump-wont-say-if-he-believes-kavanaughs-accusers-are-lying) | thehill.com
[Trump calls Kavanaugh allegations 'a big, fat con job'](https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/09/26/politics/donald-trump-news-conference-kavanaugh-un/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F) | www-m.cnn.com
[Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford's prepared remarks for Thursday hearing](https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408614-read-kavanaugh-accuser-christine-blasey-fords-prepared-remarks-for-thursday) | thehill.com
[Trump calls Kavanaugh allegations a ""big con job""](https://www.axios.com/trump-kavanaugh-allegations-con-job-4c0ea23f-7ea8-4743-80a1-620c0b403972.html) | axios.com
[Kavanaugh accuser to Senate committee: 'I believed he was going to rape me'](https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/408616-ford-gives-detailed-account-of-kavanaugh-incident-in-testimony) | thehill.com
[Republicans stand by Kavanaugh, fire back at Aventti as new allegations jolt court bid](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/26/republicans-stand-by-kavanaugh-fire-back-at-avenatti-as-new-allegations-jolt-court-bid.html) | foxnews.com
[Kavanaugh accuser: ‘My greatest fears have been realized](https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408627-ford-my-greatest-fears-have-been-realized) | thehill.com
[Collins privately raises concerns about new allegations, lack of subpoena for Kavanaugh friend](https://www.edition.cnn.com/2018/09/26/politics/susan-collins-brett-kavanaugh/index.html?no-st=1537998335) | edition.cnn.com
[Eight Trump Accusers Come Out In Support Of Kavanaugh's Accusers](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-accusers-kavanaugh-statement_us_5babe954e4b0353bd2d072aa) | huffingtonpost.com
[Trump says accusations of sexual misconduct against him affect his view of Kavanaugh accusers](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/09/26/trump-says-accusations-of-sexual-misconduct-against-him-affect-his-view-of-kavanaugh-accusers/) | washingtonpost.com
[Senate Judiciary Committee to ask Kavanaugh about third accuser](https://www.axios.com/senate-judiciary-kavanaugh-third-accuser-hearing-843e3058-72be-4fb2-b5fd-614224a9a829.html) | axios.com
[Rand Paul ""absolutely"" supports Kavanaugh following allegations](https://www.wbko.com/content/news/Rand-Paul-absolutely-supports-Kavanaugh-following-allegations-493904801.html) | wbko.com
[Trump Calls Kavanaugh Accusations ‘All False,’ but Says He Can Be Convinced by Testimony](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/us/politics/trump-press-conference.html) | nytimes.com
[Avenatti warns critics trying to discredit latest Kavanaugh accuser](https://nypost.com/2018/09/26/avenatti-warns-critics-trying-to-discredit-latest-kavanaugh-accuser/) | nypost.com
[Trump defends his own past as Kavanaugh faces allegations](https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/26/politics/donald-trump-brett-kavanaugh-allegations/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+CNN+-+Top+Stories%29) | cnn.com
[Kavanaugh accuser: Attack 'altered my life'](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45661291) | bbc.com
[Republican senators downplay new Kavanaugh accusations](https://thinkprogress.org/republican-sen-reactions-kavanaugh-allegations-76c0032a4eaf/) | thinkprogress.org
[Election Countdown: Kavanaugh allegations put GOP in tough spot - Republicans start to pull plug on candidates - Dems get early start in Iowa - O'Rourke defends Cruz after protesters interrupt dinner - Why Biden is the Democrat GOP most fears](https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/408646-election-countdown-kavanaugh-allegations-put-gop-in-tough-spot-republicans) | thehill.com
[Trump says 'false' sexual assault charges shape how he views Kavanaugh allegations](https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/09/26/trump-kavanaugh-allegations-false-845009?__twitter_impression=true) | politico.com
[GOP will still confirm Brett Kavanaugh — because of allegations, not in spite of them](https://www.salon.com/2018/09/26/gop-will-still-confirm-brett-kavanaugh-because-of-allegations-not-in-spite-of-them/) | salon.com
[Avenatti blasts Trump as a 'moron,' challenges him to debate over Kavanaugh sexual assault accusations](https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/408647-avenatti-blasts-trump-as-a-moron-challenges-him-to-debate-over) | thehill.com
[College girlfriend of Kavanaugh friend says she's willing to talk to FBI about explosive allegations](https://www.businessinsider.com/julie-swetnick-allegations-mark-judge-kavanaugh-elizabeth-rasor-2018-9) | businessinsider.com
[Kavanaugh Accuser Julie Swetnick Shows Why We Shouldn’t Automatically Trust Women](https://www.redstate.com/kimberly_ross/2018/09/26/kavanaugh-accuser-swetnick-trust-women/) | redstate.com
[60 former classmates of Kavanaugh sign letter in his defense of latest allegations.](https://www.nationalreview.com/news/classmates-defend-brett-kavanaugh-against-latest-charge/) | nationalreview.com
[‘Disaster’: Trumpworld Starting to Sweat Over Brett Kavanaugh’s Mounting Sexual Assault Allegations](https://www.thedailybeast.com/disaster-trumpworld-starting-to-sweat-over-brett-kavanaughs-mounting-sexual-assault-allegations) | thedailybeast.com
[Fox News airs conspiracy theories to debase Kavanaugh’s accusers](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-fix/fox-news-airs-conspiracy-theories-to-debase-kavanaughs-accusers/2018/09/26/332ce988-6c1e-4207-8826-2fc158468bac_story.html) | washingtonpost.com
[Omnibus Collection Of Brett Kavanaugh Allegations: 10 Character And Fitness Concerns](https://abovethelaw.com/2018/09/ten-brett-kavanaugh-character-and-fitness-concerns/) | abovethelaw.com
[No, Kavanaugh Shouldn't Withdraw. A Serious Look At The Allegations Against Him Shows Why.](https://www.dailywire.com/news/36373/no-kavanaugh-shouldnt-withdraw-serious-look-ben-shapiro?amp&__twitter_impression=true) | dailywire.com
[Anonymous, fourth accuser comes forward with allegation against Kavanaugh](http://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari-melber/watch/kavanaugh-hit-with-fourth-accusation-of-misconduct-from-anonymous-source-1330190403900) | msnbc.com
[Republicans push forward despite new Kavanaugh allegations](https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408664-republicans-push-forward-despite-new-kavanaugh-allegations) | thehill.com
[Ex-boyfriend filed restraining order against third Kavanaugh accuser](https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/26/ex-boyfriend-filed-restraining-order-against-kavanaugh-accuser-845348) | politico.com
[Rep. Swalwell: Mounting Kavanaugh allegations 'pointing' to guilt](https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari-melber/watch/rep-swalwell-mounting-kavanaugh-allegations-pointing-to-guilt-1330193475617?v=railb&) | msnbc.com
[Michael Avenatti: Brett Kavanaugh Accuser Client May Pursue Criminal Case](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK3DWWjlhaI) | youtube.com
[Debunking 5 (More) Viral Rumors About Kavanaugh’s Accusers](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/us/politics/kavanaugh-fact-check.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes) | nytimes.com
[Collins privately raises concerns about new allegations, lack of subpoena for Kavanaugh friend](https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/09/26/politics/susan-collins-brett-kavanaugh/index.html?__twitter_impression=true) | amp.cnn.com
[Christine Blasey Ford's attorneys release polygraph results on Kavanaugh allegations](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/christine-blasey-ford-attorneys-release-polygraph-results-on-kavanaugh-allegations/) | cbsnews.com
[4th and 5th accusations of Kavanaugh misconduct revealed in Senate transcripts](http://www.ktre.com/2018/09/27/th-woman-accuses-kavanaugh-misconduct/) | ktre.com
[Kavanaugh denies two additional accusations to Senate Judiciary Committee](https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/26/politics/brett-kavanaugh-allegations/) | cnn.com
[Ex-boyfriend filed restraining order against third Kavanaugh accuser](https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/09/26/ex-boyfriend-filed-restraining-order-against-kavanaugh-accuser-845348) | politico.com
[Senate Investigating Fourth and Fifth Misconduct Allegations Against Brett Kavanaugh](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/brett-kavanaugh-faces-fourth-misconduct-investigation-senate-investigating-report-1147304) | hollywoodreporter.com
[Sen. Joe Donnelly: FBI should investigate Brett Kavanaugh allegations](https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/26/donnelly-fbi-should-investigate-kavanaugh-allegations/1435339002/) | indystar.com
[Kavanaugh denies two additional accusations to Senate Judiciary Committee](https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/26/politics/brett-kavanaugh-allegations/index.html) | cnn.com
[I believe Kavanaugh's accusers because it happened to #MeToo. He should withdraw.](https://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2018/09/why_i_believe_kavanaughs_accusers_yes_metoo.html#incart_river_index) | nj.com
[Trump Says Kavanaugh Accusers Are Like His Own Accusers: Fraudulent](http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/09/trump-says-kavanaugh-accusers-are-like-his-own-accusers.html) | nymag.com
[GOP Sticking With Kavanaugh Game Plan Despite New Allegations](http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/09/republicans-stick-with-kavanaugh-game-plan.html) | nymag.com
[Brett Kavanaugh: what Julie Swetnick’s allegations say about his past](https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/9/26/17906130/brett-kavanaugh-julie-swetnick-renate-dolphin) | vox.com
[Third Kavanaugh accuser’s accusations riddled with holes](https://nypost.com/2018/09/26/third-kavanaugh-accusers-accusations-riddled-with-holes/) | nypost.com
[Avenatti: Third Kavanaugh accuser will prove credible against Kavanaugh, other ‘privileged white guys’ who defend him](https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/408674-michael-avenatti-julie-swetnick-will-prove-credible-against-brett-kavanaugh-and) | thehill.com
[New Kavanaugh accuser has tie to firm of Christine Blasey Ford's attorney](https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/26/politics/julie-swetnick-debra-katz-settlement/index.html) | cnn.com
[Progressive Christians Call Out Blatant Hypocrisy Of Dismissing Kavanaugh’s Accusers](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/progressive-christians-call-out-blatant-hypocrisy-of-dismissing-kavanaughs-accusers_us_5babe4f7e4b082030e77b712?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067&__twitter_impression=true) | huffingtonpost.com
[Who is Julie Swetnick, the third Kavanaugh accuser?](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/who-is-julie-swetnick-the-third-kavanaugh-accuser/2018/09/26/91e16ed8-c1bc-11e8-97a5-ab1e46bb3bc7_story.html) | washingtonpost.com
[President Trump Says His Own Sexual Misconduct Allegations Make Him Less Likely to Believe Kavanaugh Accusers](http://time.com/5407590/doanld-trump-less-likely-to-believe-kavanaugh-accusers/?xid=time_socialflow_twitter) | time.com
[Kavanaugh, accuser face scrutiny at Senate hearing - Reuters](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-kavanaugh/Kavanaugh-accuser-face-scrutiny-at-senate-hearing-idUSKCN1M70CY) | reuters.com
[Hoax? Fifth accuser recants story of Kavanaugh boat assault](https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/26/jeffrey-catalan-fifth-brett-kavanaugh-accuser-reca/) | m.washingtontimes.com
[On eve of hearing, Trump stands by Kavanaugh as third accuser comes forward](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-kavanaugh-confirmation-20180926-story.html) | chicagotribune.com
[Make-or-break Senate hearing day for Kavanaugh, accuser](https://apnews.com/5450e99af4714e8dbb240058d16fc84d/Make-or-break-Senate-hearing-day-for-Kavanaugh,-accuser) | apnews.com
[Kavanaugh Accuser Blasey Ford Testimony: I Thought Brett Was 'Going To Kill Me'](https://www.newsweek.com/kavanaugh-accuser-blasey-ford-testimony-i-thought-brett-was-going-kill-me-1140384) | newsweek.com
[The way Kavanaugh’s supporters are talking about sexual assault allegations can be dangerous, our new study finds.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/09/27/the-way-kavanaughs-supporters-are-talking-about-sexual-assault-allegations-can-be-dangerous-our-new-study-finds/?utm_term=.983783c0fb6a) | washingtonpost.com
[Kavanaugh, accuser face scrutiny at Senate hearing](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-kavanaugh/kavanaugh-accuser-face-scrutiny-at-senate-hearing-idUSKCN1M70CY) | reuters.com
[Third Kavanaugh accuser gives first TV interview](https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/408680-third-kavanaugh-accuser-gives-first-tv-interview) | thehill.com
[Third Kavanaugh accuser gives first TV interview](https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/408680-third-kavanaugh-accuser-gives-first-tv-interview) | thehill.com
[Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick: ""I don’t think he belongs on the Supreme Court""](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/brett-kavanaugh-julie-swetnick-he-doesnt-belong-on-the-supreme-court/) | cbsnews.com
[Kavanaugh Questioned About Fourth Accuser In Interview With GOP Staff](https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/kavanaugh-fourth-accuser) | talkingpointsmemo.com
[Kavanaugh Accuser's Ex-Boyfriend Filed Restraining Order Against Her, Says She's 'Not Credible At All'](https://www.dailywire.com/news/36374/kavanaugh-accusers-ex-boyfriend-filed-restraining-paul-bois) | dailywire.com
[Attorney: Second Kavanaugh accuser not going to cooperate with ‘political theater’](https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/408685-attorney-second-kavanaugh-accuser-not-going-to-cooperate-with) | thehill.com
[Anita Hill: Senate GOP handling of Kavanaugh accusations is ‘a real mockery’](https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/408689-anita-hill-senate-gop-handling-of-kavanaugh-accusations-is-a-real) | thehill.com
[Brett Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick gives first TV interview, says she wants Americans to 'judge for themselves'](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-news-swetnick-speaks-out-kavanaugh-20180927-story.html) | nydailynews.com
[Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick: 'I don't think he belongs on the Supreme Court'](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna913671) | nbcnews.com
[Brett Kavanaugh confirmation: Kavanaugh, Christine Blasey Ford testify on sex assault allegations -- live updates](https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/brett-kavanaugh-hearing-testimony-christine-blasey-ford-sexual-assault-allegations-today-live-stream/) | cbsnews.com"
politics,"The Senate Judiciary Committee — 11 Republicans, and 10 Democrats — will be hearing from two witnesses on Thursday: Brett Kavanaugh, a federal appeals court judge who has long been eyed for the Supreme Court, and Christine Blasey Ford, a California psychology professor who accuses him of attempting to rape her when they were teens.

After opening statements from Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the committee, Christine Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh will deliver their own opening statements.

The senators will question them separately, with Ford going first. Senators can also yield the five minutes they're each allotted to an independent counsel to have them ask the questions.

##Links to watch the hearing live starting at 10 a.m. ET:

[C-Span](https://www.c-span.org/event/?451895/judge-kavanaugh-professor-blasey-ford-testify-allegations&live)

[ABC News](https://abcnews.go.com/Live)

[CNN](https://go.cnn.com/)

[NBC](https://www.nbc.com/live)

Additionally, feel free to participate in our [reddit chat!](https://s.reddit.com/channel/879223_65087bb624eaf7dcf8dfd7e3114749e56276d1e0)"
politics,"*This is a continuation of our previous [megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/9jcub5/discussion_megathread_brett_kavanaugh_senate/) regarding the Kavanaugh Senate hearing. we have decided to make a second megathread as the previous had an extremely high volume of comments. Dr. Ford has testified, Brett Kavanaugh is currently offering testimony. 



The Senate Judiciary Committee — 11 Republicans, and 10 Democrats — will be hearing from two witnesses on Thursday: Brett Kavanaugh, a federal appeals court judge who has long been eyed for the Supreme Court, and Christine Blasey Ford, a California psychology professor who accuses him of attempting to rape her when they were teens.

After opening statements from Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the committee, Christine Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh will deliver their own opening statements.

The senators will question them separately, with Ford going first. Senators can also yield the five minutes they're each allotted to an independent counsel to have them ask the questions.

##Links to watch the hearing live starting at 10 a.m. ET:

[C-Span](https://www.c-span.org/event/?451895/judge-kavanaugh-professor-blasey-ford-testify-allegations&live)

[ABC News](https://abcnews.go.com/Live)

[CNN](https://go.cnn.com/)

[NBC](https://www.nbc.com/live)

Additionally, feel free to participate in our [reddit chat!](https://s.reddit.com/channel/879223_65087bb624eaf7dcf8dfd7e3114749e56276d1e0)"
politics,"*This is a continuation of our previous megathreads ([(Part 1)](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/9jcub5/discussion_megathread_brett_kavanaugh_senate/), [(Part 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/9jfa9a/discussion_megathread_brett_kavanaugh_senate/)) regarding the Kavanaugh Senate hearing. Dr. Ford has testified, Brett Kavanaugh is currently taking questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee.*

The Senate Judiciary Committee — 11 Republicans, and 10 Democrats — will be hearing from two witnesses on Thursday: Brett Kavanaugh, a federal appeals court judge who has long been eyed for the Supreme Court, and Christine Blasey Ford, a California psychology professor who accuses him of attempting to rape her when they were teens.

After opening statements from Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the committee, Christine Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh will deliver their own opening statements.

The senators will question them separately, with Ford going first. Senators can also yield the five minutes they're each allotted to an independent counsel to have them ask the questions.

##Links to watch the hearing live starting at 10 a.m. ET:

[C-Span](https://www.c-span.org/event/?451895/judge-kavanaugh-professor-blasey-ford-testify-allegations&live)

[ABC News](https://abcnews.go.com/Live)

[CNN](https://go.cnn.com/)

[NBC](https://www.nbc.com/live)

Additionally, feel free to participate in our [reddit chat!](https://s.reddit.com/channel/879223_65087bb624eaf7dcf8dfd7e3114749e56276d1e0)"
politics,"The Senate Judiciary Committee is holding an executive meeting to possibly vote on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. The vote is currently scheduled for 1:30 p.m. ET.

**Update: The Republican-led committee voted to recommend the nomination to the full Senate. The Senate holds a crucial procedural vote on Saturday, the first in a series of votes heading toward the GOP goal of confirming President Trump’s pick on Tuesday.**

[Watch here](https://www.c-span.org/video/?452084-1/senate-judiciary-committee-vote-brett-kavanaugh-nomination-130-pm&live)
"
politics,">I'm doing a pretty bad job then, aren't I?

Yes, you are, because I caught on to your little scheme.

You know you aren't likely to destroy it, so you do little things like this to pull people away from it.  Of course, you'll try to justify it by saying that you're just trying to make ""fun"" or introduce some variety.  But that's not your main goal.  You don't really care if anyone here has fun, you're here because you want to control them.  And this is a small way in which you are attempting to do so.

Are you going to ban me for being ""uncivil"" now?  

"
politics,">I do not give a shit about /r/PoliticalHumor

Which is *totally* why you're doing the exact same thing they are?

>But I am getting tired of people acting like they have some sort of monopoly of visual political content and attacking this thread with inane conspiracy theories.

Conservatives generally do get tired of people calling them out on their bullshit, so I'm not surprised.  It's also *not* a conspiracy theory, as this sub does things like make new rules when it starts impacting conservatives, and ignoring threats against liberals.
"
politics,">Um... this thread has been a weekly thing for... more than a year and a half but probably even longer than that.

Sounds about right.  That's about when the political purges of the mods around here started.

>No one has so much as implied such a thing before today,

I've seen it.  the comments might be gone now, though.

>and many people use both this thread and that sub.

Never implied you couldn't.

>Maybe you're just crazy.

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


"
politics,">Why are you so angry?

You're projecting.  You assume that I'm angry because I'm calling you out on your bullshit, because you get angry when you criticize people.

>I’m not sure what you mean about “action”. I welcome more political conversation, interaction, cartoon threads/subs on Reddit. We neither have nor want a monopoly on any of that.

You have no business being in it at all.  There's a place for stuff like that, and it's in r/PoliticalHumor.  This place is for serious discussion of politics, not some trashy comic ripoff thread, *OR* the stupid friday ""fun"" thread that ends up involving political discussion anyway.

"
politics,"> Anyone can use a corner of it for whatever they want,

There's certain things you shouldn't do.  You shouldn't try to take over what someone else is doing.  It's rude.  would you like it if another subreddit announced the same AMA that you were doing at the same time?  If they lurked on here and decided to pull people away when you planned events?  There's all kinds of ways to mess with people, and I don't think you're doing this by accident.  I never claimed to be part of the ""internet police"", either, I'm simply expressing my displeasure with your underhanded tactics."
politics,">I know some of the PH mods. I've never seen them complain. I've never seen them try to claim that this sub is trying to take something from them.

If they did, it's not like this place would listen.  They're good people and like to share, but the mods here aren't like that.  What I wouldn't give for actual fair-minded mods that enforce the rules when conservatives come in here to start fights."
politics,"Buddy I'm not even a mod here, so you've proven you can't even be arsed to click on a few links to back up your claims.

And AMAs are scheduled with the subject well in advance, it would be pretty hard for two subs to successfully book the same person at the same time. By the way, there's an entire sub for those, too. It's called /r/IAMA. And they don't try to shut down other subs that do AMAs or stop them. There's hundreds of various political and news subs hundreds of anime and manga and meme subs, and no one seems to have a problem with some other sub doing something they also do. There's plenty of users to go around, and no one's forced to stay on one sub. Hell, a lot of stuff is crossposted to all sorts of relevant subs by one person at the same time. You're arguing basically nothing than no one has an issue with but you, apparently."
politics,">Buddy I'm not even a mod here,

Sure you're not, Mr. Alt.

>so you've proven you can't even be arsed to click on a few links to back up your claims.

It's not like you would concede the point if I did.  It's just a fetch quest to assert dominance.

>By the way, there's an entire sub for those, too. It's called /r/IAMA. And they don't try to shut down other subs that do AMAs or stop them. 

Different people.  It's not like political figures are popular there, it's more like celebrity chat.

"
politics,"This is the only account I use. I have a couple of hardly touched alts, but you have your delusion so nothing I say will change that.

And there's AMAs everywhere. Of all sorts. IAMA doesn't have a monopoly on any AMA. And they don't complain when any other sub has any other person of note. 

This is manufactured outrage with so far zero evidence to back up anything you've said, and no one seems to remotely agree with you. You came here with a complaint, you've voiced it to death, and you've convinced no one."
politics,">  This place is for serious discussion of politics, 

This is actually a great point. Political cartoons (which this thread exclusively focuses on) are made with the explicit purpose of provoking conversation, discourse, criticism, etc of politics and current events. While many are humorous, their main point isn't necessarily to be ""funny"". Serious political discourse has been the purpose of these cartoons for hundreds of years. [Here is one of my favorite collections if you wish to learn more about the history of political cartoons](https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=11934781051&cm_mmc=gmc-_-nonisbn-_-PLA-_-v01) Their inclusion here is intended to do the same. Browse through this very thread, or any of our past political cartoon threads. I guarantee you will see plenty of serious political discussion. You're more than welcome to join in said conversation "
politics,">This is the only account I use.

(wink wink)

> Of all sorts. IAMA doesn't have a monopoly on any AMA. And they don't complain when any other sub has any other person of note.

Because the AMAs use different people.  What would happen if another subreddit stole one?

>This is manufactured outrage with so far zero evidence to back up anything you've said

[no evidence?] (https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/8d0r0u/haley_fires_back_at_white_house_i_dont_get/dxjwm24/?context=30)

Here's someone actively calling for violence, and not a single finger lifted because he isn't a liberal. I'm sure people could find other examples. I don't trust a single thing the mods do because of this.  As far as I'm concerned, it's all efforts to bully their perceived enemies into submission."
politics,"Avenatti is an adrenaline junkie addicted to competition and winning rather than being an attention whore. While some adrenaline junkies can be good leaders they often have difficulty shifting out of competitive mode when working through differences with friends and allies. This can hamper large scale organizational efforts.

We already know that Avenatti is great at trolling Trump and controlling the media narrative. However, Avenatti's Texas appearance will give us the first insight into how effective his organizational skills are in building support for Beto."
politics,"Avenatti is a successful trial lawyer who obviously knows a thing or two about how to strongly advocate for a client while destroying the opposition without alienating the jury. Also, Avenatti has been around the political scene for years and should well know that Beto needs to turn out Dems who typically don't vote without energizing the Republican base.

I'm much less concerned about Avenatti being able to find a good messaging balance than his ability to organize Dems, notoriously known as a cat herding exercise."
politics,"He said he would run if he sees no good opposition to trump. His thought is regular politicians can’t fight on his level and will lose the popularity/bully war against trump. I kind of agree with him if we don’t have any good candidates to get behind again. 

It’s my own opinion but I don’t want him to run because it kind of feels like we would be electing another ‘celebrity’ president and could further muddy the position but I mean he does seem articulate and smart I just don’t know if his lawyer practice translates to running a country. I just want a president that can reach both sides of the political spectrum to bing everyone back together and I’m not sure any republican will ever trust him. "
politics,"I like Michael as a gadfly, but I'm less enthusiastic about him as someone running for office. Did he coordinate this with Beto's campaign? I have a feeling he didn't, and my assumption is that Beto wouldn't want him to do this.

In order for Beto to win, he'll need to convince a fair number of Republican-leaning voters to go with him. There's a reason he's polling so much better than Greg Abbot's challenger. Something like this just plays up the tribal partisanship of the race. It feels less like this is a strategic play and more like this an attention whore move by Avenatti in preparation of a presidential run (he's already making stops in  Iowa)."
politics,"I just replied to the post above yours, but I think my reply fits well with what you're saying and you might appreciate it.

>I like Michael as a gadfly, but I'm less enthusiastic about him as someone running for office. Did he coordinate this with Beto's campaign? I have a feeling he didn't, and my assumption is that Beto wouldn't want him to do this.

>In order for Beto to win, he'll need to convince a fair number of Republican-leaning voters to go with him. There's a reason he's polling so much better than Greg Abbot's challenger. Something like this just plays up the tribal partisanship of the race. It feels less like this is a strategic play and more like this an attention whore move by Avenatti in preparation of a presidential run (he's already making stops in Iowa)."
politics,"Beto can use Avenatti as a foil if he's savvy. Cruz is embracing Trump after he denigrated his father, his wife and his family. Foil's are incredibly useful to be ""above the fray"" and I think Beto can capitalize on that.

As far as Avenatti, so far he's the only person to tease a run in 2020 that Trump is too afraid to respond to. That says something to me - Trump is a bully and I think he knows that he'll lose if he engages Avenatti, which is very interesting.

I don't necessarily think Avenatti is qualified for President, but holy crap Trump has removed all the norms. I would hope that he would instead be an attack dog for a qualified politician or even a VP slot candidate to verbally bitch slap Trump."
politics,"Yeah this seems like a bad idea to me.  Lots of potential downsides.  

- Doubt he coordinated with Beto, or asked for his blessing, the guy who is actually running in this race against Cruz.  
- Makes the race more about Trump and less about Beto/Cruz.  
- Energizes Republicans to support Cruz/Trump.  
  
Basically he is turning the race from Beto vs Cruz, into Libruls vs Trump.  Which has a very decent chance of being a bad outcome in Texas.  "
politics,"> While some adrenaline junkies can be good leaders they often have difficulty shifting out of competitive mode when working through differences with friends and allies.

I hear you on this, but have you heard how Avenatti speaks to opponents when they aren't in an argument? He's actually quite level headed, doesn't try to slip in subtle insults or self flattery. This leads me to believe that he is a reasonable, principled man, despite that twinkle in his eye. It reminds me of favorite leaders in the military, adrenaline junkies that would hound down legitimately bad behavior, would call things out regardless of civility, but were otherwise really chill and genuinely friendly people. I'm sure some as objectively intelligent as Avenatti could fake the outwards appearance of empathy and willingness to build bridges, but so far he seems genuine. "
politics,"I'm not hopeful from the [lawsuit funding](https://www.westernjournal.com/report-avenatti-asked-democrats-to-help-fund-his-lawsuit-against-trump/). That might be a different matter, though. He's known more widely, though I'd rather a politician with some experience in statesmanship and concrete policy platform. No sign of that from Avenatti, and we shouldn't support Avenatti just because he opposes Trump.

At this point it seems like everybody with a shred of moral fiber opposes Trump, so that's not much of a defining category."
politics,"I'm not saying spit in their face, but there is an opportunity cost in trying to sway traditional republican voters. Maybe the reasonable ones will find their way over, but that is such a tiny demographic. Time and money are limited resources and democratic organizations need to get the biggest return on whatever resource is spent. Energizing non-voters and making it as easy as possible for them to vote is just a better use of resources. "
politics,"No we don’t. If everyone who voted for Hillary Clinton voted for Beto it would be a stomp. Beto’s entire game is turnout and rooting out democrats in areas that haven’t seen a democratic candidate in decades. The reason he’s doing so well is precisely because he’s doing the opposite of what you think he is.

You’re thinking of Wendy Davis who tried to get republican voters and humiliated herself in the governors race.

Lupe Valdez is a whole other can of worms and despite winning the primary, everyone knew she was shit at campaigning and the governorship is really not that high priority of a target when it comes to resource allocation. It has nothing to do with Beto converting republicans. 

This is some random shit that I hear from random party people who are resentful of Beto quickly becoming a national democratic icon, that he’s fucking up other races which is completely not true.

Don’t take my word for it, read the plan to win on his website which lays out explicitly his path to victory: www.betofortexas.com/plan

Directly from his website:

There’s a common misconception that elections are mostly decided by so-called “swing voters” – voters who can be persuaded to vote for one candidate or the other – and that campaigns should focus all of their energy on people who make up their mind in the final weeks of an election.

We hear this argument a lot in Texas. You’ve probably heard it from someone you know or from some skeptical media pundit: “Sure, people are excited about Beto, but there just aren’t enough swing voters in Texas for him to win.”

But, if you do the math, it turns out that’s not true.

The truth is that Texas is not a red state. It’s a non-voting state. The key to winning this election is increasing voter turnout. Getting people off the sidelines, engaged, and in the game.

Now that definitely doesn’t mean writing anyone off – Beto is running to represent all Texans, and is making his case to everyone – but it means that, as volunteers, we have to focus our energy and resources responsibly.

Consider some recent election results:

In 2016, Donald Trump won Texas by a 9 point margin. Just under 60 percent of registered voters went to the polls. Only 31 percent of registered Texas voters voted for Trump.

And the situation is even worse in midterm elections like the one that’s about to happen in Texas. The one we absolutely have to win.

In 2014, Greg Abbott won by a 20 point landslide. Less than 32 percent of registered voters went to the polls. Less than 20 percent of registered Texas voters voted for Abbott.

This represents a major opportunity.

The truth is that most people aren’t trying to decide which party to vote for – they’re deciding whether to vote at all.

So if we can figure out who those likely non-voters are, and find some way to get them to the polls, we’ll be able to win.

We have a plan to do just that: Organize more volunteers to knock on more doors, make more phone calls, send more text messages, and talk to more voters than any campaign in the history of Texas.

It might not be rocket science – but it is what science says is the most effective way to increase voter turnout.

"
politics,"It's a simple thing, but it's true. Texas is gigantic, we have a huge population. Lots of things happen day to day. Unless some outrageous stunt happens it'll be a blip in the news cycle at best, and if Beto isn't around, there's no reason to think the two things are linked.  


More importantly why do you so badly believe that 2 political events happening on the same day in a state like Texas is so significant.   


My guess is you don't know how vast Texas is or how large the state population is."
politics,"I think I get where your head's at, but that equation would become a nightmare. 

Say an Irish company wants to start doing a little business in the US you either have to equate a ratio for every single transaction that may include multiple countries who wouldn't play ball with this scheme or you suddenly add a line item that asks the company to figure out and report that number without being able to prove it either way...

You generally have set capture points in tax schemes where the tax is easy and uniform otherwise you can't reasonably prove that you should or shouldn't have to pay a certain amount.

Personally, I think closing all loopholes could be a great way to make up some lost revenue and then ratchet down the overally rate a bit after a few fiscals. 

The little guys are paying much closer to the actual rate already, so you're really just flattening competition before giving everyone some relief."
politics,"It’s not that simple. 

What I’d say Apple basically transfers ownership to an Irish company - then what?
US has no jurisdiction over Ireland or Irish companies.

The loopholes around profit earned in country need to be looked at without causing a financial meltdown. If you make $10bn profit in the US you need to pay tax on that, with no transfers of profit to some offshore company via balance sheet manipulation.

One way to achieve that is through a flat sales tax on all but essential good and services, but some people don’t like it as it’s regressive. However many other countries manage. "
politics,"Rubbish.

It happens - look at Burger King. Relocated to Canada for the specific purpose of avoiding $300m in tax after buying Tim Hortons.

The US government has made inversion harder after the Pfizer deal, but it’s still absolutely possible, and it’s effectively happening now with tech companies with qasi-inversions where the IP is transferred to their overseas subsidiaries, which is a direct result of the US having one of the most expensive corporate tax systems in the developed world."
politics,">Okay, I count 8 economist there, tops, and all theoretical, based on assumptions.

Economists from all across the political spectrum all agreeing on a single issue, versus...

>Here's a study of the actual, empirical effects when corporate taxes were slashed back in the 80s:

Which only examines the relationship between wages and corporate income tax, this isn't about trickle down economics. I'm not stating that wages or GDP will go up, just that it is much more efficient to capture individual income than it is to capture corporate income. Corporations have a much easier time inverting their income to other countries than investors do and the money being taxed by corporate income tax is the exact same money that gets distributed out to investors, so why tax it at two different times, just tax it where the taxes are most progressive and easiest to collect.

As well, that primarily examines the Reagan tax cuts which cut both corporate income taxes as well as reworking personal income taxes, which is opposite to what is being proposed; personal income taxes should be raised and we should get rid of dividends and long-term capital gains being different than regular income.

Also, you should be cautious when it comes to EPI. They aren't so much a research group as they are a think tank that gets hired to support a predisposed position. They were one of the groups that were paid to find evidence to support Big Tobacco in the 80's and were used by union bosses to try to eliminate unionization secret ballots. Of note, is that the person writing the article you linked wasn't even close to being an economist."
politics,">The full C-corporations are actually taxed on their bottom line profits.

Which then get distributed out to investors in the form of dividends or stock-buybacks. The question is, why tax it at two different points? Especially when one of those points has a less progressive scale, is more difficult to collect, encourages businesses to invert to other countries, and ends up falling on smaller business more than larger ones. 

Why not just get rid of corporate income tax, qualified dividends, and special rates for capital gains and just tax everything with personal income tax rates? It's easy to collect, already progressive, and it's less likely that people will uproot their lives and move to another country to avoid taxation than it is that a company will invert or create structures to pass money around."
politics,"Why? He has nothing but contempt for you (see Sessions comments), he lies continuously to you, he is not delivering on his promises to you, he is not helping you, he is destroying your security, and making you as an American a laughingstock. Why on earth do want this silly, stupid person leading you? Why would you listen to such a man?

I don't know about you, but if Trump really did this shit, and if he were my boss, I'd tell him to shove it all up his ass. So would you, I bet. Why, then, submit to him now?"
politics,"> are democrats

And what do democrats believe? What do liberals think? You don't know, do you?

Comment: I know this is likely a you-know-what account, but I feel it is important to respond, even in simple snark, to attempts to demoralize the resistance. I do not let even obvious robo-comments go unanswered because I feel the negative stupidity, as here, needs to be slapped down whenever possible.

Besides, contrary to the whole ""librul tears"" thing, it's quite fun and relaxing."
politics,"> are democrats

And what do democrats believe? What do liberals think? You don't know, do you?

Comment: I know this is likely a you-know-what account, but I feel it is important to respond, even in simple snark, to attempts to demoralize the resistance. I do not let even obvious robo-comments go unanswered because I feel the negative stupidity, as here, needs to be slapped down whenever possible.

this is also straight ahead knuckle-dragging racism.

Besides, contrary to the whole ""librul tears"" thing, it's quite fun and relaxing."
politics,"Liberals and democrats think and believe a lot of stuff, and I agree with almost all of it. I agree with them on abortion, the environment, foreign policy, education, healthcare, and could probably get there on economy too.

But I'm sorry, I just won't support a party that wants to eliminate my people. I could never vote for a democrat as long as their position is to elevate their ""coalition of the ascendant"" above white people. I love white people and don't want them eliminated. The fact that you think that's racist is proof of just how bad the brainwashing is on that side of the aisle."
politics,"The bot farms.  The thing to watch for has been the bullshit #walkaway movement.  It is the new scheme being trotted out to sway voters before the midterms.  They are gonna be painting “the left” as violent, racist against whites, etc. the sad thing is all they have to do is trot this shit out for the idiots who already believe it, and they will spread it like wildfire.  I can 100% guarantee as the midterms approach you will be seeing a rise in sentiments like “dems want to eliminate white people” especially from “former dems” who have “#walkedaway.” "
politics,"1.  Again.  It's not an assumption.  This is someone that knew him better than those trying to exploit his death for political points.  Tillman's surviving loved ones support him representing Tillman.  But even just having a passing knowledge of Tillman's nature would show you that what he says is true.

2.  Whether you identify as a Republican or not, the narrow-minded bias resultant from your inability to recognize your own hypocrisy is still Republican ""logic."""
politics,"Which statement was that in response to Krakauer? 

Because the one that she's most famous for was in response to Trump tweeting about how kneeling athletes were disrespecting Trump. It was about Trump's politicizing of her husband that she said his service ""should never be politicized in a way that divides us."" (Note, she didn't condemn invoking his name in politics, she condemned the divisive way Trump used his name.) She went on to say how Pat had stood for freedom of expression and desire to speak from one's heart. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/pat-tillman-widow-donald-trump-taking-a-knee-nfl-players-national-anthem-us-president-respond-star-a7968021.html"
politics,"No, she said explicitly not to use Pat's name to silence others. Did you not even read the article you are commenting on?

>Last fall, Trump invoked Tillman's death to criticize Kaepernick for kneeling.

>Soon after, Tillman's widow, Marie, asked people not to use her husband's service to silence others.

>""The very action of self expression and the freedom to speak from one’s heart — no matter those views — is what Pat and so many other Americans have given their lives for,” she said in a statement."
politics,"Yes, I did read her entire statement. Why would you look only at the first part of that statement without taking the entire thing into context? It changes nothing about my argument and totally tears yours down.

>As a football player and soldier Pat inspired countless Americans to unify. It is my hope that his memory should always remind people that we must come together. Pat’s service, along with that of every man and woman’s service, should never be politicized in a way that divides us. We are too great of a country for that.

>Those that serve fight for the American ideals of freedom, justice and democracy. They and their families know the cost of that fight. I know the very personal costs in a way I feel acutely every day. The very action of self expression and the freedom to speak from one’s heart — no matter those views — is what Pat and so many other Americans have given their lives for. Even if they didn’t always agree with those views.”

>It is my sincere hope that our leaders both understand and learn from the lessons of Pat’s life and death, and also those of so many other brave Americans.

She is saying the exact same thing that Krakauer was saying about the man, that he would have supported what Kaepernick did. Besides that, Krakauer did not politicize Tillman's death. He attempted to set the record straight after his death was already being politicized. You have to respond to falsehoods or else they are prone to propagate.

>We can go around and around on this, we're going to disagree.

Yes, because you are wrong and you can't admit it. Don't try to give me this high-minded ""agree to disagree"" horseshit. I don't agree to anything, you're just wrong."
politics,"I think somewhere under the layers of putrescence there has to be some part of him that knows all of this. The rest of him spends every waking moment lashing out at anything that looks like criticism, because at his core he’s just fragile and sad. Don’t get me wrong, he’s still a vile person and I don’t think there’s any decency left to salvage, but he’s just so completely incompetent I can’t even bring myself to hate him anymore. When he talks I just cringe and want him to go away."
politics,"I was thinking about this during McCain’s funeral.

Eventually, Trump is going to die. In a scenario where he *isn’t* found guilty of a crime and sent to prison, how will the country respond? He will be an ex-president of the United States who died a free man, and as far as I’m aware tradition says he would get some kind of state funeral because of that.

Who’s going to show up? Who’s going to speak? What will they *say*? Can you imagine the things typically said at funerals being said about him...with sincerity?

I’m so very curious how we’re all going to handle that."
politics,"It was kinda accidental, he wanted to set up a political tv show for himself after the election, did you see the video of him finding out he won? He looks so pathetic and defeated.

I do feel a bit sad for him because not only is he clearly extremely stupid, but part of his awful personality was probably molded by his asshole father, I mean his brother drank himself to death. "
politics,"Well Trump doesn’t agree with due processes and he did say take the guns first. So that’s a kick against the 2nd and 14th. All Trump supporters I know personally were silent about that. Of course there was his quick walk back so they could pretend it never happened. 

About this article a single Trump supporter commented to me that “they don’t agree with most protests but they shouldn’t be illegal. That goes against freedom of speech”. "
politics,"Yeah, you’ve got a point there, but somehow that makes it worse. I don’t even think he’s senile, I think he’s just always been exactly the person he is now. Barely sentient, narcissistic and angry. The money that he made, other people made for him, and even that was only possible because he was born into wealth. There’s just nothing there but a suit and a spray tan, propped up and gibbering incoherently."
politics,"Some evidence points to the conclusion that he actually did. There were rumors that he planned to lose the election and he was ready to kick back and coast on his new popularity from the campaign (and maybe start a Trump TV network?).

Then again, if he conspired with Putin to swing the election, that mostly contradicts that idea. Maybe they thought their efforts wouldn’t be enough, and they were surprised at the voter reception to Trump?"
politics,"Truly I have felt emotions about various politicians before but nothing like this.  The day Trump dies I'm going to mark as a holiday on my calendar for the rest of my life as a day to celebrate life just a little bit more.  After the funeral I might organize a road trip with some friends to go visit the grave to piss on it.  Though with any luck, we won't be able to find it because the grave will be unmarked."
politics,"It is lucky for us that Trump is so incompetent.  People around him who technically work for him take every chance to ignore him, or publicly contradict him, or do things while he isn't looking, or while he is playing golf and not paying attention.  If he was more competent they would be more pressured to do everything he wants them to.  The more Trump can be distracted by the NFL and critical commentators on CNN and other trivial things, the more time other more competent people can get things done in the administration and in Congress."
politics,"It s bound to be something like this : the guy screams insecurity and need of validation. From the beginning and knowing the story of him being shipped to military school, I thought : the guy as a kid probably needed a hug he never received. 
That s the single speck of humanity I see in him and it s still a supposition.


With that being said, he s a 70 years old grown ass man. One cannot use his childhood as an excuse his whole life.
Specifically there are people with utterly shitty childhood who were able to rise above extremely difficult  
Background : recently the ManU star striker Lukaku explained how they didn’t have enough money for milk and he worked his ass off as a teenager to make it as a professional and get his family out of misery. 
  Even in difficult family some kid are able to metabolize the familial poison and stand as their own man: one is not fated to become his father/her mother. In Trump case he seems to have choosed to reproduce whatever misery he went through as he seems to treat his sons  like shit and they crave his respect.

"
politics,"That's probably the GOP's goal. Rush through the supreme court judges, pass a few more laws that make it legal to funnel money into tax havens/create tax exemptions for specific individuals and organisations, then allow Trump himself to pass the executive order to lift Russia's sanctions. Once that's done, they turn on him, get him impeached to remove him, so they can turn to voters and say ""see, we did the right thing all along"", while also telling his cult ""the dems made us do it"", and then fail to lift the sanctions. Hey presto, everyone got what they wanted, GOP brand is in recovery mode, and the judges are in place to ensure the tax benefit package for billionaires stays in place until long after they all die off."
politics,"Except that A) he fully brought it on himself and deserves it, and B) is so deluded that he probably has genuine happiness through his made-up version of reality, where he's the best businessman, best president, and everyone loves him. He's so narcissistic he genuinely believes what he says about him being great, and never doubts that people thinks he's amazing. 

He probably feels genuinely happy most days, because in his head he's got everything. Even if none of it's true, it doesn't stop him believing it. "
politics,"It is old news that Trump has consistently been pining for implementing a more authoritarian government in America. If anyone else remembers, I clearly recall Trump praising how both Erdogan and Kim Jong-un run their countries just a few months ago.

Despite the damage that has been done by this administration to America's status in international politics, if our Constitutional legislation was less restrictive the repercussion of this adminstration's actions could've been much MUCH worse.

I feel we are living with an administration in the executive office that would love to install a dictatorship here in the USA if they had the means.      "
politics,"Is that supposed to be an ""it'll never happen"" joke? Because it fucking could. In 2016 he *barely* lost the popular vote. Barely. And all this rhetoric isn't necessarily shrinking his base, no matter what approval polls say. At the end of the day angry conservatives are gonna vote their anger, and Trump is good at driving anger. 

Moreover, he's sorta keeping his campaign promises (to do terrible things) - in his supporters' eyes, he is actually relatively successful. Not every promise, mind you - Mexico is not gonna pay for that fucking wall unless we start bombing them, and dont let Trump get that idea because he'll do it - but enough that he can be seen by his supporters and uninformed voters as more effective than most/all other presidents.

And finally, I just can't understand why any liberal trusts the integrity of our elections at this point. That is scary as fuck to say, but we know that 

- Russian propaganda in the US was ridiculously effective, and people as a whole haven't really become more critical since 2016

- Evidence is pretty solid that actual voting systems were **successfully manipulated**, not just ""targeted"", in that election. Since then, we've seen the state of Georgia clearly destroy evidence of a wide-scale crime in their voting systems; run-of-the-mill domestic hackers demonstrating that they can do whatever they want to most voting systems from anywhere; and legislators refusing to enact any protections or upgrades to our election security.

So *even if* they don't suppress voting rights (happening), and *even if* they don't quash all dissenting speech with attacks on free press and protest (happening, in word and in physical violence), and *even if* they don't commit enough in-person voter fraud (happened), and *even if* they don't actually win enough legitimate voters through their populistic enthnoracial fearmongering (happening)... we *still know* that hostile actors can choose to manipulate the actual votes themselves at will, and that our representatives chose not to do anything about it.

I just feel like whatever happens next is what Putin decided was gonna happen next. We are no longer relevant variables in this equation.

(I guess this is what defeatism sounds like. I'm going to bed.)"
politics,"Apparently it’s from a new book by Bob Woodward (of Woodward and Bernstein fame, the WaPo reporters who broke Watergate)

Fear: Trump in the Whitehouse
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/41012533-fear

> With authoritative reporting honed through eight presidencies from Nixon to Obama, author Bob Woodward reveals in unprecedented detail the harrowing life inside President Donald Trump’s White House and precisely how he makes decisions on major foreign and domestic policies. Woodward draws from hundreds of hours of interviews with firsthand sources, meeting notes, personal diaries, files and documents. The focus is on the explosive debates and the decision-making in the Oval Office, the Situation Room, Air Force One and the White House residence.

> Fear is the most intimate portrait of a sitting president ever published during the president’s first years in office."
politics,"I think he did accidentally become president. This was supposed to be a publicity stunt to get a big name company going, not to become president. I wouldn't be surprised if someone came to him with ""an offer he couldn't refuse"" with a lot of cash to launder and what better way than Trump with a shitton of publicity? Trump tv could launder a lot of money through advertising paid through shell corporations.

Now that he's president he still has to nut up to the deal, hence all the fuckery with Russia. What we're living right now is plan B. Don't be surprised if we start selling weapons to Russia in spite of any sanctions. What better way to wash the money than through arms contracts that the president has a direct influence over."
politics,"At this point it's just better to assume that Trump doesn't read or watch anything that isn't on FOX. He's so far gone that its honestly embarrassing that the GOP hasn't done anything about it yet. And the protests should be bigger: There should be daily articles and worldwide media coverage over Trump. I remember seeing Occupy Wall Street on the news here, but I've never seen blip of Trump protests. That stuff needs to be ramped up."
politics,"The DOJ's current policy of not indicting a sitting president coupled with the complicity of a republican congress are the only things keeping him from being  thrown in prison for the rest of his life by the feds and/or new york...he no longer has the option of leaving, so the only way out of this for him is to stay in office and remove term limits, or at worst, hope for a pardon from the first republican in the chain of command that hasn't been found to have committed treason when the investigation finally comes to a head."
politics,"I could pity his being a pitiful person if he’d had the life to match it, but no. He’s had more advantage and more help from failure that he’s never seen how pitiful he is. 

The one wish I have for him is to be confronted with the truth that his life has been a massive negative contribution, for him to realize that humanity would only benefit from his never being born. He needs to learn that he deserves to be shat upon."
politics,"Flipping one House of Congress this year will make it really tough for him to get re-elected. There's so much evil shit in this guy's past, from fraud to money laundering. It is an endless supply of topics that will be subject to subpoena.

And wait till the tax returns get out and they show evasion and fraud like Manafort, not to mention Russian investments. 

The worst personally for him will be him being shown to not be as wealthy as he claims. His ego will explode "
politics,"Doesn't really matter. Protesting doesn't have to be made illegal because it has been rendered ineffective. Protestors are often required to have ""permits"" , are restricted to ""protest zones"" , groups limited to 5 people max, or just not allowed at all in many places. If the protest is achieving anything, it is usually broken up with violence by cops or infiltrating bad actors inciting violence. 

Look to Occupy for a good example of what the Govt will do when a protest picks up steam. Cops used illegal wiretaps/stingray cell interceptors against protesters. Savagely beat them, used pepper spray when unnecessary, and arrested many without good reason. Undercover cops pretended to be protesters to get intel, make them look bad, and start violence. The media spun everything against the protesters the whole time to prevent the public from sympathizing with them."
politics,"More about refusing to pay taxes they had no say in levying. Also the tea party was a last ditch effort, not the colonists first plan. Initially the idea was to just send the ships back to England with the tea still loaded, since the taxes would be due as soon as it was brought ashore, and that's exactly what happened in New York. The problem was that governor Hutchinson decided he wouldn't let the ships leave the harbor until the colonists bent over and paid the taxes, that's when the sons of liberty decided to dump the tea. "
politics,"He has, but his followers haven't, and this is calculated to rile them up and put the idea that the right to peacably assemble should be suspended because they're obnoxious.  

He's basically astroturfing an eventual suspension of that right, but in a way that he'll likely be dead before the damage is really done.  This is him leaving a big wet fart in our democracy, and walking out of the room before it spreads."
politics,"This will forever baffle me about this man. He was just handed more money than 99.9% of the planet will ever see. He could have invested it. He could have handed it off to staff and let them build hugely profitable businesses. Shit, he could have even run those businesses like an absolutely monarch. But instead, he chose to immediately start associating with the scum of the earth. 

I guess the scum really is just ""his people."""
politics,"They literally do this every damn day , claiming that their attempts to undermine the country are American and criticize anything the other side does as ""breaking norms"". People keep falling for their act of being hypocritical when really its maliciously using language to manipulate their base. Its only hypocrisy if they actually believe their criticisms of breaking norms, but they clearly just use it to manipulate the Democrats into backing down, as they know that they actually care about the protocols."
politics,"/r/UnexpectedPratchett

Related;

-----

> Do you believe justice exists? Is it ""imaginary?""

[It is both real and imaginary.](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mu)  Terry Pratchett has some insight on this;

* [***The little lies ... the big ones.*** --Terry Pratchett, Hogfather](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4oxrTSRkC0)

--------

[Susan] “Thank you. Now . . . tell me . . .”

[Death] WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF YOU HADN”T SAVED HIM?  A MERE BALL OF FLAMING GAS WOULD HAVE ILLUMINATED THE WORLD.

""Ah,"" said Susan dully. ""Trickery with words. I would have thought you'd have been more literal minded than that.""

I AM NOTHING IF NOT LITERAL MINDED. TRICKERY WITH WORDS IS WHERE HUMANS LIVE.

""All right,"" said Susan. ""I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable.""

REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.

""Tooth fairies? Hogsfathers? Little---""

YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.

""So we can believe the big ones?""

YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

""They're not the same at all!""

YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE ALL THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET--- Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME... SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

""Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point---""

MY POINT EXACTLY.

She tried to assemble her thoughts.

THERE IS A PLACE WHERE TWO GALAXIES HAVE BEEN COLLIDING FOR A MILLION YEARS, said Death, apropos of nothing. DON'T TRY TO TELL ME THAT'S RIGHT.

""Yes, but people don't think about that,"" said Susan. Somewhere there was a bed...

CORRECT. STARS EXPLODE, WORLD'S COLLIDE, THERE'S HARDLY ANYWHERE IN THE UNIVERSE WHERE HUMANS CAN LIVE WITHOUT BEING FROZEN OR FRIED, AND YET YOU BELIEVE THAT... A BED IS A NORMAL THING. IT IS THE MOST AMAZING TALENT.

""Talent?""

OH, YES. A VERY SPECIAL KIND OF STUPIDITY. YOU THINK THE WHOLE UNIVERSE IS INSIDE YOUR HEADS.

""You make us sound mad,"" said Susan. A nice warm bed...

NO. YOU NEED TO BELIEVE THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME? "
politics,"He got that by putting the boom under his pillow every night, and then paying women to read to him with the understanding that as long as they continued to read, they got paid and he wouldn't touch them.

Which he then went back on his word, because Trump is a lying sack of crap.

(I am pulling this out of the air, there is no evidence that I am aware of that Trump has ever had anyone read to him)."
politics,">Later, I spoke to a prominent attorney in Montgomery, who calls himself an Independent, and who asked to remain anonymous. He told me that, in his view, Trump was “destroying the position of the Presidency” and that he was “not surprised by anything he says.” He added, “But the fact that he would demean an area of the country that one hundred per cent supports him . . . ” Then he trailed off. After a pause, he added, “Maybe everything Trump says about Alabama is true, because only a dumbass would vote for that idiot.”

True true"
politics,"**Who gives a shit about roe v wade.  That's the least of the dangers that kavanaugh will bring.**  
  
Roe v Wade has served as a distraction for too long.  I'm tired of hearing about it.  So much time is wasted by that being used as the ""end all"".  It's a distraction tactic that the gop uses and the dems fall for it every time.  Enough with roe v wade.  Focus on the bigger picture.  "
politics,"It is part of the big picture.  I don't want my wife to die because the state doesn't allow me to have a medically necessary abortion.  Why does it matter why we oppose this guy...as long as we oppose them?  

It doesn't.  Just like it doesn't matter what stupid single issue a Republican voter votes for, it doesn't matter why a decent human being opposes Kavanaugh...as long as he is opposed."
politics,"Plenty of people give a pretty big shit about RvW because plenty of people are affected by it. Just because *you personally* are unaffected by it doesn't mean other people aren't. Access to abortion services is a pretty big picture thing for many people.

Just like how trans and gay rights may not affect you, but it *insanely* affects me and my life. I kinda like having equal rights and all and when someone comes forward who threatens that **I'm gonna get pretty fucking concerned**.

Kavanaugh is a threat to all the social progress that has been made."
politics,"Thank god Booker is willing to stand up in defense of the nation and its people.

​

If we can get some more Dems (Hirono and Durbin have already voiced support/that they would do similar) this might really be the start of something beautiful. I've desperately wanted to see the Dems fight harder against the tyrannical rule of a 51 seat majority party. This is exactly the type of thing that we need to see much more of in the coming weeks & months if we are going to be successful in the salvation of our ailing democracy."
politics,"Booker is the man. No doubt. Also this is win-win for him politically. He saw Harris getting all kinds of praise and speculation yesterday, and now he has straight stolen that thunder, and made himself a centerpiece of the Democrat resistance.

And let's say the unspeakable happens and he is kicked out of the Senate, that means 100% of his time is now on campaigning. He can say, ""I put the country before myself, and I'll do the same as President."" 

I'm not knocking him for doing it at all. This takes some serious cajones. Just pointing out another perspective."
politics,"So the consequences, whatever they actually turn out to be, are for publishing information that wasn't supposed to be published.

But now that it's out there, can anyone see why it was determined that it shouldn't be published?  Is there anything in there to defend the official decision to withhold this?  Because it is *that decision* that Booker went against and is at risk of consequences.  So if that decision was wrong, then perhaps the folks making that decision should *face consequences*."
politics,"Kinda related, [here's a 20+ minute video summing up George W Bush's foreign policy and the TV show 24 with a classic punchline from Calvin, ""I wish I was dead! ... Well, no, not really. I wish everyone *else* was dead!""](https://youtu.be/_P52G4Kyq5M)

Calvin can act like he does because he's a child and a cartoon character and has no authority over anyone, grown ass lawmaker adults who think they can behave like Calvin are evil"
politics,"Well hold up there a minute. While Calvinball is primarily about breaking free of the societal norms of defined rules and regulations at heart it is practice for unconventional, guerilla warfare. If you don't cheat at every opportunity when playing Calvinball you are essentially tying one or both hands behind your back. 

In Calvinball the last person standing wins. Score, rules, decorum etc... don't matter because the only goal is to win at all costs. "
politics,"Not a Senate parliamentarian or lawyer, so hopefully someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is there would have to be a trial/formal proceeding on his expulsion. Basically they would have to prove that they are ejecting him from the body with cause, and that would likely be very hard for them pull off on this particular issue. 

​

Again, someone feel free to add depth to this if I""m spouting bull shit lol. "
politics,"I can stop changing the oil in my car. But when my engine seizes up, it’s going to take more than an oil change to fix it. 

People not *participating* is how we got into this mess. It’s more than just voting. It’s getting out there. Paying attention to local issues. Meeting your fellow citizens. Paying attention to the small stuff, not just the big bi-annual elections. 

Sure, not voting is a big part of this. But it’s going to take a lot more than voting to fix it. 

"
politics,"I agree completely.  But this is the slipperiest of slopes, much like the slope encountered when the GOP played the nuclear option card when confirming Gorsuch. Setting these sorts of precedents, while absolutely necessary in the current situation, will likely come back to haunt both parties and thus hurt the country. 

Then again, maybe it is time for some paradigm shifts in the U.S. Government.  The playing field has changed dramatically in the past two decades alone. "
politics,He is though. Didn't he block a bill along with Senate Republicans that Bernie Sanders introduced that would allow for the importation of cheap prescription drugs? I wonder how much money he gets from Big Pharma??? Because if so I want to Thank Senator Booker and the Republicans for making one my MS medications $450 dollars! I am so glad big Pharma and those most esteemed Senators will make a great profit off me not wanting to shit and piss my pants!
politics,"There was a discussion on crafting a specific policy for airport security both long and short term.  While there were few specifics, there was discussions about certain procedures that could be used to craft a race-neutral security policy.  I would imagine that this was the basis for withholding these documents.  I believe they're allowed broad interpretation on what is and is not related to national security.  These discussions clearly involve policies that may still be relevant.  I'm not defending the decision, just providing their justification."
politics,"Here's what he said:

>  White
House Counsel objects and raises questions
about the constitutionality
of
this bill, including
but
not
limited
to
the portions
that
refer
to
Native Hawaiians.
See
Rice
v.
Cayetano.
We
believe
that
an
Office
of
Native American Affairs
within
SBA
triggers
both
policy and constitutional concerns.
If
the
Office
will
deal solely
with
tribes, members
of
tribes, and tribal activities,
it
is
appropriate. But
if
it
grants benefits
to
Native Americans because
of
their
race/ethnicity
alone,
that
raises serious problems
under
Rice
and
the
Constitution, which generally requires
that
all Americans be
treated
as
equal (absent a program
narrowly
tailored
to
serve a compelling
government
interest). The desire
to
remedy
societal discrimination
is
not
a compelling interest, however.
See
Croson

This is basically a widely held republican belief now, to end affirmative action programs, is it not?"
politics,"There's no double standard.

To begin with, no law has been broken. At most, Booker violated an internal Senate rule concerning committee confidential information (not classified info)—a rule Republicans have been abusing for political reasons by over-designating documents in this category simply because they are damaging to Kavanaugh. That's not the function of the rule and interferes with proper vetting for a lifetime appointment to our highest court. 

Just as importantly, Booker violated the rule openly and welcomed the consequences. If there were merit to the confidentiality designation, Republicans would be able to hold him accountable—if not by expulsion, then at least politically. They can't, of course, because the designation is partisan bullshit. 

"
politics,"Eh I’m still suspicious of him after he voted against cheap drugs from Canada (on the basis of the $$$ he gets from pharmaceutical lobby, and pharma is a HUGE industry in New Jersey). 

Something about Booker and Warren, I can’t put my finger on it, but it feels insincere. But if they were a ticket running up against Heffalump, without hesitation I would vote for them. So I guess my skepticism is moot."
politics,"Well he said that and then he was talking about airport security and said basically that he thought we should seperate people based on us vs non us passports then seperate criminal histories and have increased security on higher risk categories. Then he said that the government could racially profile people if that is showing results and we should keep doing it if it is because there is precedent via Korematsu v united states which was the government being challenged on Japanese internment. The government won even though it was found out years later that the military had falsified evidence that showed japanese citizens were at risk of helping the japanese government.

 Even though it was complete bullshit the government is still allowed to use Korematsu to racially discriminate in cases of national security"
politics,"To be fair, that’s probably because we’re a superpower...and that’s not necessarily a compliment to the United States.

We’re bloated because we stuck our hands in every situation post -WW2 in our efforts to fight the Soviets.  This led to many consequences around the world, whether it be wars like Vietnam or destabilization like South America.

We’re probably always focused outward on how the US can influence the world.  That could be a factor  on why Trump won because he seems to be more focused on domestic “America First” politics."
politics,"I think there’s quite a bit of mixed evidence on affirmative action in the first place. I think it’s clear that remedies should be taken to ameliorate the gap in outcomes and achievement for discriminated populations. Whether affirmative action is the correct remedy is open for debate and questionable. Since California ended affirmative action and the UC system implemented a more holistic review process, outcomes have actually improved beyond states and programs still using affirmative action. Forcing people into an academic climate and telling them to swim when many around them have had more tutoring, support, etc and then telling them too bad when they are unable to meet the standard isn’t the right strategy imo. I think policy here needs some rethinking

EDIT: I want to make clear that I am ambivalent about affirmative action— Neither pro not against. I just think it’s important to acknowledge the mixed evidence and that it’s not an open and shut case of whether affirmative action benefits those it seeks to help and who else it may hurt (e.g. Asian Americans)"
politics,"I'm a bit concerned about this. It took me a couple read throughs before I started to piece together what he was saying. I'm not very good at reading guarded, ass-covering emails. I fear others might not be either. Its really easy to get to the ""*... generally favor effective security measures that are race-neutral*"" line, but miss the nuance above and below where he argues that the government shouldn't tackle the wider problem of racial profiling because _that's hard_ and _potentially useful_."
politics,"Here's the holding from the *Croson* case:

>We, therefore, hold that the city has failed to demonstrate a compelling interest in apportioning public contracting opportunities on the basis of race. To accept Richmond's claim that past societal discrimination alone can serve as the basis for rigid racial preferences would be to open the door to competing claims for ""remedial relief"" for every disadvantaged group. The dream of a Nation of equal citizens in a society where race is irrelevant to personal opportunity and achievement would be lost in a mosaic of shifting preferences based on inherently unmeasurable claims of past wrongs. [Citing Regents of the University of California v. Bakke]. Courts would be asked to evaluate the extent of the prejudice and consequent harm suffered by various minority groups. Those whose societal injury is thought to exceed some arbitrary level of tolerability then would be entitled to preferential classification. We think such a result would be contrary to both the letter and the spirit of a constitutional provision whose central command is equality.

This was an O'Connor opinion with a classic Kennedy swing.

This really isn't a smoking gun, or even racist.  There are good arguments for *and* against affirmative action.  Whether it's ""good"" or ""bad"" really depends on the context - who's being treated preferentially, to what extent, for what purpose, etc.

I don't think there's much to these leaked documents..."
politics,"Yea, I think your last two sentences are the most important ones. The rules of the game have changed, if we're still playing off the old rule set, we're basically just asking to lose at this point. When we consider that we are competing against authoritarians, would be fascists, and literal oligarchs. I think it's probably time to start fighting a bit more outside of the lines if that is what it takes to preserve our nation. "
politics,"You’d have to ask him but a lot of libertarians say that it’s wrong but the government has no right to intervene in my business.

They think racist business will go out of business because of their discrimination. I’m not sure I buy that line. It ignores the fact that it may not be self correcting.

If the only employers in town refuse to hire black people their can be no market correction as the black minority will have no spending power. It’d require support from the rest of the community.

Letting businesses discriminate in this way is dangerous because it means people can be effectively excluded from participating in society with no real recourse as a minority maybe too small or too poor to support a competing business.

There’s also subtler issues related to where business funding goes snd toeht loan discrimination like loans. This is already an issue with out still highly segregated communities

Negative rights aren’t always sufficient  to ensure an equitable society. A minority group could be forced out of the economy and thus forced to resort to state intervention and even theft to survive further solidifying their position and validating racism as justifiable.

That’s a stark but it’s not far from what already happens with subtler forms of systemic racism that already exist. When black and unprofitable are synonymous there’s no difference between seeking profits and discrimination against black people irregardless of personal intent."
politics,"Or, I know this is hard for you to grasp. But doing something wrong to correct past wrongs is still wrong. Its the whole two wrongs dont make a right wisdom. Or an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. If you are going to discriminate to correct past discrimination, you are part of the problem. Sure. There are inequalities. Some of those may have something to do with historical events. Though most certainly do not upon a rigorous analysis of those situations. Either way, the law today is that everyone is equal (with some exceptions like affirmative action) and we ought to preserve the notion that all people are equal."
politics,"To bad someone fundamentally misappropriated and perverted what the filibuster was originally conceived to be in the first place. When it became clear that McConell was willing to metaphorically burn the house to the ground with the hopes of preventing some black people or women from coming into full possession of it, the Democrats had to resort to some admittedly and less than ideal measures if they want to accomplish literally anything on behalf of the country."
politics,"It ignores employers being racist and the trend of minorities being poorer. Basically, AA is supposed to allow minorities that have reached the same level of education/experience to have a leg up on white people with the same level of education/experience  because, statistically speaking, they are poorer and it is harder for them to reach that level. It also protects them from employers not hiring them because they are a minority, which is still prevalent where AA doesn’t exist or has been removed. "
politics,"If I recall correctly, enrollment has dropped but graduation rates and outcomes have improved. I would rather less freshmen enroll and excel than more freshmen enroll and more fail out because they are expected to thrive in a situation that they were not prepared for. I do not find this a satisfactory spot to be in but I personally think it’s better.

I will try to find data on this soon

Here’s one:
Better fit between minority students and university led to improved graduation rates
http://www.nber.org/papers/w18523"
politics,"You are ignoring the reality that:

1. Businesses are already not hiring the best people.
2. Studies have shown minorities get hired less, promoted less, paid less, even when controlling for relevant factors.
3. Minorities already start off on their back foot thanks to generational poverty caused by centuries of institutional racism. 

If we were dealing with a society where there was no racism widespread enough to distort society-wide aggregated statistics, then I'd agree we need to get rid of Affirmative Action. But that's not reality.

Affirmative Action will go away when racism is nothing more than isolated incidents. Not before then. If you really, truly, actually dislike Affirmative Action, first level the playing field and reduce racism to an aberration. "
politics,"Except it’s not in the past, it’s current. Native Americans are treated as second class citizens and treaties are still being broken regularly. That’s the problem, the constitution itself says that treaties are the supreme law of the land yet there is not a single treaty with a Native Tribe that is currently being adhered to by the US.

This isn’t some “past injustice” it’s injustice that’s happening RIGHT NOW and every single day. And ultimately if the treaties are nullified then a HUGE swath of the US isn’t actually the US.

So perhaps, before you talk about “the law today” you should realize just how seriously the US Federal Government is actively breaking legal and binding agreements that are on the same footing as the US constitution. The law means nothing if one side doesn’t follow it."
politics,"Not sure if that's funny so much as utterly horrifying...and the Dems only resorted to the nuclear option when they did because McConnell was abusing the filibuster in a way never seen in the history of our country to fundamentally gridlock the function of the United States congress. It was a dastardly and egregiously partisan action on his part that precipitated the Dems turning to a less than ideal form of recourse.

Then consider that McConnell refused to hold a hearing for Merrick Garland, destroying any semblance of a perception of fairness or adherence to rules & norms. It's almost like he knew that insane all in bet would pay off, it's almost like he had reason to suspect against all available evidence that Trump would somehow manage to win the election...remind me again who refused to come out and issue a bipartisan condemnation of the Russian attacks on our nation & election systems in 2016? Oh yea...that was Mitch McConnell too lol.

Almost like this Mitch guy has done everything in his power to subvert the proper function of American democracy and undermine the will of the American people. But yea, it's totally the Dems fault lol"
politics,"> No, those are not the stakes because that is not going to happen.

You aren't paying attention. You could have chosen to follow the law, vote, take over congress and pass your own agenda. Instead, your side has practically ripped down the rule of law, dehumanized conservatives and tried to subvert the peaceful transfer of power.

As far as I can see, we are already in a Civil war, in fact your side already tried to assassinate a group of Republican senators.

Whatever is coming down the pike, its completely on your heads. All we did was vote for someone you didn't like."
politics,">But the people (such as you and I) who generally favor effective security measures that are race-neutral in fact DO need to grapple -- and grapple now -- with the interim question of what to do before a truly effective and comprehensive race-neutral system is developed and implemented.  

I believe this excerpt is far worse. How can we have a Supreme Court Justice who is against, in his words, ""a truly effective and comprehensive race-neutral system?""

​

This is disgusting."
politics,"The comment you replied to,

>It is, under the premise that racism is no longer a limiting factor in the lives of minority citizens. A misguided belief that inequality is a thing of the past and no longer a problem we need to actively deal with in the early two thousands.

Is a direct reference to Kavanaugh's quote,

>The desire to remedy societal discrimination is not a compelling interest...

So it's a little weird when your response is ""I know this is hard for you to grasp"" as if they weren't describing what some people (including Kavanaugh, as we can see in this own words here) actually believe."
politics,"http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/impact-eliminating-affirmative-action-minority-and-female-employment-natural-experiment-approach

This shows what happens when it is removed and how diversity goes down. The way AA works is that, for it to even be considered, you need to be dealing with 2 or more people who are at the same level of education/training/experience. So when diversity goes down by a significant amount after it is repealed, it shows that either a, the minority’s suddenly have less education and experience (which is unlikely as something like that would take years to happen and would require substantial societal shifts through law) or b, employers tend to hire the majority over minorities (to point out this doesn’t mean they are racist, sexist, or anything else, just that there is a bias that they themselves are probably unaware of, though of course you could get some racist people).

"
politics,"As a moderate, I like seeing this type of talk coming from the left. I do feel that the rhetoric from the left has been pretty condescending since Bush, and has getting more and more hysterical over the last 2 years, to the point where many on this sub do seem to think that any Republican voters are evil, treasonous, stupid, etc. instead of acknowledging them as real people who have different ideas about how the country should be run.

Trump of course, rose up from this sort of rhetoric by casting himself as a bully who would finally stand up to the  and has certainly been a major factor in exacerbating it for the benefit of him and his people, but it doesn't change the fact that there are tons of people on the left who are getting played like a fiddle over it and playing right into the hands of the people they oppose the most strongly.  Like [this post](https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/9dj7f7/bring_it_cory_booker_says_hes_releasing_a/e5i134q/) which I use as an example only because it is immediately below mine.

Hopefully more people will be won over by the line of thinking you are espousing, and we can get back to something resembling civility in political discourse."
politics,"People like to claim all kinds of reasons for why Dems have been having trouble winning elections, but my theory is that it is because they always look so weak. It is refreshing to see Dems stand up for what is right and dare the Republicans to do anything about it. We need more Dems to show more strength and power, and go toe to toe with the treasonous Republican bullies."
politics,"I'm all for it, to be honest, as long as an alternative solution for racial income/societal inequality takes its place. I don't disagree that the use of affirmative is institutional racism, but you have to remember that without it, society would be *less* equal, not more, because our society does not treat minorities equally without some compelling reason to, such as AA.

Native Americans are a different case though. They do need special treatment insofar as their reservations and sovereignty in that. "
politics,"Always funny when they blame the minority over the unqualified legacy admit or the guy who's dad donated a bunch of money or the athlete who's definitely not there for school and is going to jet without even getting a degree as soon as he gets drafted. 

Like, there's so many ""undeserving"" applicants who get admitted for *nothing* to do with their qualifications as students but oh yes please, definitely blame the brown person. 

Though I guess we're talking about the same demographic that blames poor minority immigrants for why they can't live a middle class life while billionaires are getting away with massive tax cuts for themselves.

Conservatives really are just god-awful at cause and effect, aren't they?"
politics,"> to end affirmative action programs, is it not?

One thing that’s getting my goat and gets it hard is the fact that people who want affirmative action over turned are now turning to Asian American students who didn’t get into the school of their choosing because of affirmative action and diversity programs. 

The part of it that irks me the most is that the groups backing the cases with Asian American plaintiffs are doing so because the cases that had a white plaintiff never got anywhere. I mean, I feel for the kids who wanted to go to Harvard but didn’t get in because it seems there’s too many Asians in that class, but don’t these kids know that they are being played? That they are going to be doing more harm than good in the long run?"
politics,"> under the premise that racism is no longer a limiting factor in the lives of minority citizens

I think that's a commonly held belief, but not the premise. It's enough that they believe the government shouldn't be ""discriminatory"" even for sound scientific reasons, like cheaper vaccines for higher risk groups. Secondarily they just don't care about racism bring a problem, but it's not necessarily because they don't think a particular social intervention is justified they just disagree with the government intervening at all."
politics,"Republicans don't have legitimate beliefs on how democracy should operate. The entire belief system of that party is bigotry, discrimination, and decades of propaganda serving as a smoke screen for rich assholes looting and pillaging the country. Anyone who supports that is an idiot at best.

Centrists love to hold the Left to high standards of civility and reasoned discussion while ignoring the fact that Republicans abandoned both before Nixon.

Take some time to think about reality in concert with your beliefs instead of perpetually straddling the fence so you have a nice position to look down on everyone from.

Inb4 you reply ""tHiS jUSt PrOVeS mY pOInT"""
politics,"He will be the most impactful President in American History, on this we agree. And I believe he really will end up Making America Great Again, but just not at all in the way he or his cult members expected. 

I honestly believe that a large amount of sitting Republican congresspeople are going to be rolled up in federal prosecutions before all of this is said and done. The rampant corruption, criminality, and hypocrisy of the Republican party of the last few decades will finally be put on full display for all the public to see. I expect this will be the single greatest mistake they ever made. They bet it all on Donald Trump, and I don't think it's a gamble that is going to pay off for them in the long run at all.

Look up RICO predicates if you're unfamiliar with what I think Mueller's end game is. "
politics,"At one time, America was focused both outward *and* inward. Granted, our inward focus was mostly on white men, but there was still a lot of pride to be had in infrastructure, cheap college, affordable housing, good medical benefits, labor rights, income equality, scientific achievement, the arts, etc. 

Tho during that era, we were still actively suppressing the black vote and the rights of women. So that part hasn’t changed. But today we’ve also fucked over all the white folks, so now they’re snuggling up with the very same authoritarians who have hurt them.

You can find any excuse you want. The simple fact of the matter is that America today is a disgrace. Any single issue that causes you to feel pride in your country is most likely done better somewhere else."
politics,"Technically yes he did, just go look at one of the responses I wrote to all the other Republicans/Trump cult members who have written the exact same thing that you just did. 

It's a long story that involved Reid being left with literally no other option because McConnell was fundamentally abusing the Senate filibuster in a way that it was never intended to be used and hadn't been for 230 years. It was basically a nuclear option in response to the nuclear war that McConnell started. "
politics,"Okay, how about this: Dems with spine, but Alex Jones gets some kind of special investigator status (w/ subpoena power and everything), so that when the Dems inevitably become power-mad and try to lock up everyone who attempts to purchase private health insurance through a fake Jade Helm exercise, he'll be right there on the front lines to warn the people.

Seriously, we do this right, and even when we get rid of Trump, America can stay this entertaining for years to come."
politics,"Society will never be equal in outcome. Society should strive for equality before the law and no more. So I am not at all dissuaded by the society becoming less equal. In regards to the natives, naturally any binding agreement made should be honored. But outside of that, equal application of the law, no special privileges. If we want a solution to social inequalities, charities and other private endeavors are the way to alleviate those problems. 

In that regard, ill have to disagree that any other program replace affirmative action. Programs to help impoverished communities more broadly, irrespective of the racial make up of those communities is something that I could support, in as far as it isnt discrimination. However, in that regard the details of the program become important to evaluate the effectiveness of a proposed program. "
politics,"I'm not sure I'm fully grasping this. 

My interpretation is that they're basically saying that legally, all Americans need to be treated equally, and that an office would need to represent tribes and their members rather than providing assistance on the basis of race and ethnicity, save for a particular set of circumstances that define ""compelling interest"".

Isn't this just saying ""Hey, if we're going do this, it needs to be written such that it pertains to tribes and their members instead of their ethnicity, because taking action based on their ethnicity alone is legally questionable."""
politics,"Conservatives love to call themselves a ""silent majority,"" suggesting that the country is far more conservative than it seems and that they just don't bother telling anyone about it.  Of course, when you put this up against reality, where you see that conservatives tend to have higher turnout, their representatives represent fewer people, they constantly defend electoral schemes which give disproportionate power to the minority, they work to disenfranchise (silence) anyone who isn't them, they gerrymander themselves into a position which would require a 5-6 point national swing for their minority to actually be recognized as one, issue polls show that their issues are not supported by a majority of Americans, etc., then you realize, oh wait, they're actually a noisy, annoying minority who demand disproportionate power and are completely deluded and acting in direct contrast to what this country actually wants.

So this ""silent majority"" shit of theirs is completely backwards, like every other thing they say."
politics,"There is a good argument however, that affirmative action, while necessary, is not ideal. If his point is, that it is not the government's job to force decency upon society, that is entirely correct.

Affirmative action certainly should not continue forever, and will have to be phased out in favor of things that still address the issue, while not giving government favors to one color of skin or another.

Things like education for all, continuing education for the middle aged, health care, making them more accessible would impact those in poverty the most, and fulfill much of the purpose of affirmative action.

At this point, there are no blatantly racist laws left, so the effort must change from ""we have to give everyone equal rights,"" to ""we have to address the fallout from centuries of inequality,"" which is essentially generational poverty. If the left realized that they could go to war on poverty, not even mention race once, they'd get a lot more accomplished. 

My theory is that the left benefits from keeping a ton of people in poverty. They can promise a lot, deliver a little, and get a ton of votes. The second a guy or gal gets out of poverty, the whole ""the rich needs to pay more taxes"" thing gets a bit less attractive."
politics,"> The entire belief system of that party is bigotry, discrimination, and decades of propaganda

This is definitely not true.  These things 100% exist within the Republican party, but judging an entire group that consists of millions of people by the worst members of that group is the height of bigotry, ignorance, and stupidity.  It's also extremely reductive.  Political issues permeate every aspect of a person's life.  When you attempt to label (again, tens of millions of different) people in such a simplistic way, you show how little understanding you really are of why people vote the way that they do. I wonder what you'd think if someone applied your logic to any other group of people in the country, and judged the entire group according to the beliefs and actions of the worst subsection of that group?  

This is something the American right definitely does, too.  They view the entirety of the American left as though they are radicals leftists such as campus liberals, anticapitalists, antifa, etc. In my view it's the biggest problem in American political discourse today.

How do you ever expect to have a dialogue with someone across the aisle if you go into any conversation assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is either (a) a moron or (b) just evil?  That is without a doubt the absolute height of arrogance, and seems like the most toxic position I can possibly imagine from which to begin any discussion.

So, then, are you already set on abandoning any pretense of discussion, dialogue, or a return to American politics of the last hundred odd years?  What, then, is your solution, short of civil war?  This seems destined for failure for the left, as the right, by your own admission, is controlled by cutthroat people who have all of the money, who are controlling the people who have all of the guns.  Even in a best-case-scenario, the end result is likely the collapse of American society which paves the way for a global Chinese hegemony, which any supporter of enlightenment ideals should view as far, far worse than even the most corrupt of Republics.

>straddling the fence so you have a nice position to look down on everyone from.

I'm not straddling the fence, or looking down on everyone, any more than an adult straddles the fence/looks down on children when he sees them rolling around in the grass having a slap fight.

>Inb4 you reply ""tHiS jUSt PrOVeS mY pOInT""

Do you recognize that putting this at the end of your post doesn't make it any less true? I've been seeing this type of font a lot on this sub in the past few days.  Is this the new strategy of the left, to just dismiss opposing points of view, as though being condescending about obvious truths will distract people from the fact that they're obviously true?"
politics,"To be honest though, each president cares usually for their own sphere of influence.

Two examples: Herbert Bush, being the ex-head of the CIA, did a lot of good work in foreign policy, especially since the Soviets collapsed on his presidency.  That being said, the economy tanked during his era, which led to him losing the presidency to Clinton.

Clinton improved the economy, but he ignored a lot of foreign issues.  One notable event he didn’t acknowledge was the infamous Rwandan genocide - a big black mark on his reign.

I’m not white, but I do love the history of America as a country.  I believe you can love the country without necessarily loving the government all the time."
politics,"At the risk of defending Hillary, can you see why that’s a risky gamble? Leftists have almost completely turned their backs on Pelosi and Clinton who, for their respective faults, have been remarkably effective dems with backbones and largely stellar legislative records. 

Dems are fickle and have the tendency to view politiians they disagree with as more dangerous and unlikeable the more of a backbone they show, even if their interests align more often than not. "
politics,"No, you're right. This subreddit just has a chip on its shoulder about democrats. Dem presidents have done tons of horrible shit. They're not as bad as republicans, but they're not great either.

The way I look at it, America is a car approaching a cliff. The Democrats want to go 50 mph, and the Republicans want to go 100.

America sorely needs *some* kind of left-leaning political influence to recalibrate the political spectrum, which currently spans all the way from centre-right to scary far-right. As long as the Overton window remains such a narrow slit, you're going to continue to have bad presidents who do bad shit and get away with it."
politics,"Answered this like 5 times already today lol, find one of my other responses in this comment chain. They only did that because McConnell was holding a metaphorical gun to the head of the country. Complete & total government shutdown because McConnell perverted the use & function of the filibuster in contravention of hundreds of years of established president. 

So yea, it was the only option the Dems had left, and then predictably the Republicans took it and massively expanding it's corrupt potential as soon as they were able. As is their way. "
politics,"Yeah and I mean if you can promote yourself AND do what's right by the American people, why wouldn't you? It's not Booker's fault that doing the right thing might score him brownie points in a future election. The idea that the only reason Booker and company are standing up for what's fair is to ONLY further their own careers is asinine. I don't know what it is with people thinking it's impossible to do one thing for two reasons, even when that second reason (furthering careers) is an understandable consequence of acting on the first reason.
 "
politics,"America acknowledges it’s crappy history.  I studied and see documentaries about Revolutionary War prison camps run by the Continental Army, the annexation of Indian territory, slavery, the Civil War death camps run by both sides, the ultra-corrupt businessmen and politicians of the early 20th century, the Japanese internment camps, and the civilian massacres of the Vietnam War, to name a few.

We even have award-winning films that put America in a less favorable light, especially in the context of Vietnam.  Apocalypse Now has soldiers bombing civilians to Wagner while laughing the whole way and it wasn’t portrayed with pride for the flag."
politics,"Goddammit, we need to stop with the fucking purity tests. No candidate is ever going to be 100% amazing to every liberal voter. Some are going to have a controversial vote or two. It's just going to happen. Often (as is the case with Booker's vote here), it's a complicated situation boiled down to a simple, catchy headline that lets the average liberal voter write the person off completely. It breeds voter apathy, and voter apathy is the reason a minority of this country controls a majority of the government. 

If we keep this up, we will not win the next presidential election. The Republicans will push some moderate-seeming republican with a past full of shady horror stories, and Republicans will vote for them in droves. The Democrats will push a person who is 99% perfect and that 1% that isn't is going to lead to us getting fucked, probably forever. 

We need to get behind whatever democratic candidate gets floated. This is more important than a candidate having one bad vote on a bill that they later co-sponsored. This is the future of the country.

Cory Booker is standing up to a hoard of corrupt Republicans growing in our government like a cancer, and he's saying ""Fuck you. Fire me. The people have a right to know this information. I'll take the consequences."" Meanwhile, you're sitting here calling him the ""lesser of two evils."" Knock that shit off. "
politics,"Eh, those are the big ones. And it’s not really taught in high school. It’s not part of our shared consciousness. This is the kind of stuff you learn in college or on your own, and you’re content feeling like you got the *real* history, but America is still strong and noble and can move past dark spots.

The entire history is a dark spot. Not just the big isolated events, but all the time. In the shadows, in the corners. Sometimes in broad daylight. From big national scandals to small town corruption, America has been complete garbage, from the beginning. "
politics,"I don't understand what Kavanaugh means be ""See Croson"" in this context. That's not what Croson determined.

Croson (AKA City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., *488 U.S. 469*) did determine that past discriminations are not a basis for current legislation. It did establish a strict scrutiny test for discrimination. And a strict scrutiny test does require a compelling governmental interest.

But Croson did NOT determine that ""The desire to remedy societal discrimination is not a compelling interest"" 
What Croson said was that the particular plan under discussion was not a remedy, but Kavanaugh is apparently blowing that up to say that ALL plans are not a remedy and therefore not a government interest which is a separate matter altogether.

"
politics,">""we have to address the fallout from centuries of inequality"" which is essentially generational poverty.

You seem to think the active inequality is entirely behind us. It's not. The laws don't have to be racist if the justice system has it covered through disproportionate enforcement. And it's not like that's the only way the government is racist. Voter suppression efforts regularly target minorities, and you'd be hard pressed to convince me that's a coincidence."
politics,"Are you now aware that these documents were actually made public last night, and that Booker was well aware that they were no longer classified when he put on this big show?

I'm really disappointed in him. He was the one who argued for the docs to be released, so this was a win for him (and the public at large). Then he got greedy and dishonestly tried to turn it into fodder for his 2020 campaign, and now I worry that any revelations from the docs he won will be overshadowed by his playacting and fake drama."
politics,"I think people hold a lot of resentment for conservatives and Republicans because of how often they see glaring contradictions in their ideals and agendas, mainly between religious conservatives and economic conservatives. 

The economic conservatives don't always care about the rising deficit or overspending, and the religious conservatives don't care that the president is accused of adultery and sexual abuse, or that some of their other candidates are pedophiles. I'm not sure that I see a lot of cohesiveness within the conservative movement, either morally or intellectually. They will, however, band together in support of their party, seemingly blindly. You don't see this with Democrats. It's why Trump has such a high approval rating among Republicans, they tend to fall in line with whatever the rest of them are saying because that's their team."
politics,"You;ll have to explain a bit what you want when you ask how we should ""profile Asians"" but, with regards to:

> Should we move away from meritocracy?

Many equal opportunity programs are still based on meritocracy. They also take into account the fact that some people have an initial leg up from others and attempt to provide equalization for such advantages.

Do you not see a value in providing opportunities for those who may be just as capable but will be unable to realize that potential because of the color of their skin?

I understand the argument you are making. I am simply saying that, without these programs and legislations, higher education would be more of a Caucasian institution than it already is. As would many companies, elite fraternities, and others."
politics,"If Iran/Contra is enough of a reason to put both Reagan and Bush Sr in 'The Bad' category, I don't think any presidents are going to make the cut. Had the lying under oath + civilian targets in Kosovo under Clinton. Fast and Furious, Solyndra, Bengazi for Obama administration, etc.

Not saying either was one of the greatest presidents, just that your standard is pretty harsh if we apply it across the board."
politics,"That was a typo whilst using Swype on my phone. Please punish me for my transgression, oh superior being. 

Now that your petty comment is addressed, that is what he meant. It is not compelling because it is neither his job as a supreme court justice, nor is it in society's best interest to be legislating selectively based on race. We tried that before, it sucks. Quite frankly, all laws should be rewritten to not refer to race, gender or otherwise period. It is not the governments place. "
politics,"I think support this decision, but I'm not sure of the potential implication. When a document is rendered confidential, it's usually for a reason. The validity of that reason is generally indiscernible without the confidentiality of said document being violated. So this senator (apparently) disagrees with the confidentiality of  said documents. Cool. This senator deems it necessary to violate the confidentiality for seemingly valid reasons. Cool. This senator also acknowledges and accepts the personal consequences. Cool.  Cool. Cool. What happens when some document is confidential for #very valid and sensitive reasons. Are we gonna just support someone to violate that confidentiality because they ""feel like it's the right thing to do"", despite the fact that all of our knowledge about the contents of said documents are technically heresay and cannot be confirmed until such a violation happens? That seems like pretty dangerous reasoning to me... 

I mean sure this looks fine and aboveboard and seems to benefit the ""right people"" (which is subjective in itself, but the point of legal proceedings like this and the rules they follow are to be unbiased, and if we start just throwing out the rule book because ""it's worth it"", then what's the point of having rules at all. 

Of course I barely know anything about politics or how confidentiality works, so maybe I'm worrying about stuff that doesn't need to be worried about, and these documents are low enough on the scale of confidentiality that it's reasonable to violate their status regardless of consequence. Idk. 

TLDR: We live in a society right guys?
"
politics,"> Actually, it's based around the principle that Republicans tend to think of people as individuals

pUlL yOuRsElF uP bY tHe BoOtStRaPs

> and Democrats tend to think of people as groups.

Like anybody with a lick of sense does when talking about populations, despite conservatives thinking ""collectivist"" is some kind of boogeyman word. When you're talking one on one with somebody or hearing an anecdotal story, that's one thing, by all means, treat that person as an individual, but when you're dealing with systemic patterns within a population, it's better to start thinking of them as a group to actually get meaningful shit done policy wise. I much prefer the strategy of treating issues as they are and not as we would wish them to be in a perfect society."
politics,"> Do you not see a value in providing opportunities for those who may be just as capable but will be unable to realize that potential because of the color of their skin?

Many people - myself included - are ok with AA for education, but draw the line there. 

I understand the desire to correct for people's biases, but how far do you go? For instance, there are less fortune 500 CEOs that are under 5'6 than there are CEOs that are women, and they are already heavily under represented. Many studies have shown that every inch of height you add is worth several hundreds to thousands on your annual salary. 

What about people that were born in Orange County vs Appalachia? Does a black person born in Orange County have less privilege than a white person born in Appalachia?

Don't misunderstand me, being white does come with privileges. A white person in Appalachia has it better than a black person in Appalachia, and a white person in orange county has it better than a black person in orange county, but the equation is so much more complex than that.

"
politics,"> My theory is that the left benefits from keeping a ton of people in poverty. They can promise a lot, deliver a little, and get a ton of votes. The second a guy or gal gets out of poverty, the whole ""the rich needs to pay more taxes"" thing gets a bit less attractive.

Lol, that's a *massive* leap from ""getting out of poverty"" to ""multi-millionaire"". Somehow I doubt the people just barely scraping their way into the rapidly shrinking middle class are going to care all that much that we want the richest in society to pay more taxes."
politics,"This is all very true and I generally support affirmative action because of this.  However, as these policies are examples of institutional racism and racial discrimination because they disproportionately affect minorities, even though they don't specifically target them, then shouldn't our efforts be to provide aid to areas that disproportionately benefit minorities instead of specifically targeting them?  

Would there be a problem with giving the benefits to people from certain geographical areas or from certain income brackets or other such factors that would be disproportionately black, without specifically naming that only black people can benefit from the programs?"
politics,"I see value in people regardless of their skin. So why should an Asian then lose out to a Hispanic on the basis of their ethnicity?

There is strength in diversity but we shouldn’t have an ecosystem that forces diversity while sacrificing capable people and placing them by the wayside. 

All the work that asians have had to put in to get to where they are, they are being asked to let others pass them by? 

I mean the programs I have applied to have never taken into account my struggles. I have always made it through based on meritocracy. But I’ve also seen my hard work lose out to irrelevant factors. Would you want the most competent doctor or someone who made it into medical school based on the color of their skin? 

I have never seen a compelling argument for affirmative action."
politics,"I mean, it is. Unless you preferred the oppressive societies of the past?  And maybe you do. It would be altogether unsurprising to me that people are bored of their humdrum lives and march off to find tyrants or evil forces to slay, real or imaginary just to give their life meaning. In doing so, they inevitably create the very thing they sought to destroy. Nietzsche's line comes to mind, ""Beware when fighting monsters, that you do not become a monster...."""
politics,">Usually coupled with an add-on that in particular, Straight, White, Christian ~~men~~ *male gamers* face the worst of it.

FTFY.

Jokes aside though, the whole ""anti-SJW"" online thing was a *massive* gateway drug for a whole bunch of young men, mostly white but some minorities as well, to get radicalized into some pretty far-right wing politics. I enjoy some nerdy hobbies, and seeing just how reactionary much of video game and anime culture has gotten is a real bummer at times. I stopped going to certain online forums entirely and dumped a lot of youtubers I had previously enjoyed because I got tired of the low-effort and mean-spirited ""jokes"" that were more like deliberate jabs at various minorities.

I think some people really underestimate how seductive ""anti-SJW"" stuff can be to young men who have a surface level understanding of many hot-button political issues and who hate seeing outspoken protestors and the advancement of minority rights because they feel like it's a zero-sum game. I'm a trans man, so I've seen some particularly crappy upswells of reactionary ideology based around us *slowly* getting more rights and laws on our side with regards to healthcare and things like workplace harassment. Shit, the right's biggest ""intellectual"" Jordan Peterson became a multi-millionaire bestselling author and touring lecturer/youtube personality solely because of his incredibly disingenuous objections to the C-16 bill in Canada which had to do with harassment based on someone's gender identity being added to the already longstanding existing protections in Canadian law."
politics,"Eh they can go ahead and have an opinion, but having a publicly stated opinion means being ready to acknowledge when that opinion is objectively wrong based on new information. They've never seen or experienced racism? Sure, they can believe it doesn't exist. They don't know any better. It's like a blind person believing the sky is green. Cool.  But as soon as someone effectively disproves that opinion with legitimate facts, it should change.  If it doesn't, boom. No more opinion for you. "
politics,"I didn't call anyone anything.  I agree namecalling in general is childish and counterproductive. That's a conversation for someone else.

If my dad steals your dad's money and buys me a bike and neither parent is still around - that's your bike. Sure I didn't do anything wrong but I wrongly benefited from my father's wrongdoing and you were unjustly punished likewise. That's currently what we have as law in most states as it pertains to stolen goods.

We have **and still do** unjustly benefit from what we took from them. They are owed something because had we not unjustly have benefited from their sacrifice, we would not be where we are as a country today. 


"
politics,"I agree with most of what you say but draw a different conclusion. Equal opportunities programs might not be perfect but the country is certainly a better place with them than without them.

Should fortune 500s be able to discriminate based on height? I don't know. Is that really a problem? Do higher qualified short men lose out to lesser qualified tall men? I honestly have no idea. Without protections in place, however, someone with brown skin can (and, less now-a-days but also probably often enough, *will*) surely be passed over for a less qualified white guy.

So is the solution perfect? No. Does it make the country worse to have it in place? Absolutely not."
politics,"The civil unrest discussion is not a separate discussion. Its directly related. And I never said you were specifically a perpetrator of anything. I dont know you. Your argument from analogy falls flat in the sense that it is a much more direct example where we know exactly the value of what was taken and who specifically took it and specifically who was taken from. 

One of the issues with broad stroke attempts to remedy past injustice is that there is no way to measure what was taken. This contributes to a perpetual question of whether the injustice has been repaid. Which leads to a perpetual state of people feeling line they are entitled to something, and they demand more. 

Secondly, many minorities here today were not subject to these laws and still benefit. Black families that moved here after that period in history still benefit from policies like affirmative action. This contributes yet more to the lack of precision in the application of the law. 

Further, most white people didnt own slaves. I cant recall the exact percentage. However, it was single digit percentages. So to erroneously make the claim that whites more broadly need to accommodate these people for acts not committed by them or by anyone they were related to is even more malicious.

And ultimately, all this amounts to is creating resentment by treating people unfairly now that from every frame of reference they have, they have done nothing wrong to warrant said unequal treatment. 

As a final note, if your dad stole money from my dad and bought you a bike. I wouldn't make you return the bike, regardless of the law. I am a staunch advocate of the idea that doing something wrong does not remedy past wrongs. It only serves to breed further resentment.

I lived in Korea for a time. I loved the people there. I also loved visiting Japan. The Koreans and Japanese have a long standing dispute over the comfort women during the war. And quite frankly, I always felt like they were letting the past negatively affect the present. Any Japanese people old enough to have perpetrated those acts are exceptionally old by now and the younger generations somewhat rightly are reluctant to admit that they are to blame for the past.  Do I think the government should do more to apologize?  Sure, perhaps. But it isnt exactly like they dont have reason to consider the issue settled since they did pay a sum of money at one time for that purpose. Admittedly, a pittance. However, the Korean government accepted those terms at the time. Either way,  this is a long way of saying, the past belongs in the past. That is the only way we will ever move forward. "
politics,"THANK YOU. What's the phrase? Republicans fall in line, Democrats fall in love? Something like that.

No candidate is going to be perfect! And we should absolutely vote for the one we believe in the most during the primary. But when it comes to the general election, don't sit on your fucking hands because they only got a 95% on your personal purity test. The Republican you're helping to elect in that case probably scored under 10%."
politics,"> The support is that those laws are what made the societies oppressive in the first place.

Well that's reductive as fuck.  

>It is hard to be oppressive if your law simply states, ""people cant do x.""

No it's not and you must be incredibly naive to actually believe that.  I mean, what is *x* here?  Murder?  Yea, that's sensible and not oppressive.  Protest?  That's oppressive as hell on top of not referencing a protected class (a concept you seem to be against?)."
politics,"We have a law the says you cant protest? Or do I have to make a huge disclaimer every time I say something because you feel the need to bring up an unrelated point? If a law said, you can only murder black people. Clearly that is oppressive. Or if the law said, the punishment for murder is lessened for crimes committed against black people. This is the problem with making a law that references a group. As is the case with affirmative action, although obviously far less serious than the previous examples. Which ill have to clarify because you will undoubtedly say I am equating the two when I am not. Im simply saying that all laws referencing race are inherently oppressive. The degree of severity may vary, but they are still oppressive. "
politics,"It isn't that Bush had no power. It's that Cheney made sure he was the first one in and the last one out of every White House meeting. He had the ear of the President more than everyone else. He may have been one of the most hard working people in that building. He may have been controlling what people and which ideas got to the President. 

But ultimately he only had such power because the President relinquished it to him. Cheney's role in the second term was supposedly much smaller.

If there was ever a Prince of the ""Deep State"" it was Walker Bush, because his father was undoubtedly the King. I have no reason to believe that W Bush had anything other than the absolute loyalty of everyone in the Executive Branch. If not because of his father, then because of 9/11. 

Side note: I'm using ""deep state"" in it's proper academic usage, and not the absurd conspiracy theory used by Trump and his followers."
politics,"I mean thats kinda ridiculously simplistic world view that requires no actual work or accountability from privileged people. Treating people the same when they need different things isnt equality. 

I think a good litmus test is that equality is about ensuring that people have equal opportunity. But the system is FAR from ensuring that. Hell the entire pre-collegiate education system fucked. Schools are based on cities and counties. So rich kids have great schools and poor kids have shit schools. It's not surprising that a bandaid at the college level doesn't solve the problem.

I think that a lot is owed to minorities in America, and I dont think anyone thinks AA does that. Real solutions, like magnet schools, removing the local ""school district"" dichotomy, and universal basic income go a LONG way to solving the problems faced due to inequality and racism and remove the social stereotypes that racism feeds upon from the equation."
politics,">It is hard to be oppressive if your law simply states, ""people cant do x.""

Was what you said.  I felt the need to question it because it's wrong.

It's also telling that you ignored my comment on protected classes.

>Im simply saying that all laws referencing race are inherently oppressive.

And I'm saying you're wrong.  Every single successful government on the planet right now has laws referencing race and that's because equity and equality are not the same thing.

"
politics,"Those are hardly scandals for Obama, save F&F. Obama's true crimes are his assassinations program, his ""signature strike"" drone program, his reconstituted use of extrorfinaty renditions, his continuance of the NSA domestic spying program, and his aiding of the Saudi genocide in Yemen. 

From what I understand Carter was pretty squeaky clean. I absolutely believe we should hold all Presidents to these high standards of international law, or else the law only applies to those who lose wars. We executed the Nazis upon these standards."
politics,"He absolutely deserves criticism for his corporate votes. If it weren't for him Americans would he getting cheaper drugs from Canada. 

But he has been warming up to me lately. Not enough for me to support him for President, but enough that I am starting to like him. 

That being said, he could be the worst corporate democrat in the Senate and he would still be worth voting over a Republican."
politics,"Not even close, the only vaguely leftist ideal he had was international revolution which he quickly backed away from as the French revolution got out of hand. 

The left / right distinction comes from the Assembly in the French revolution and he would have been firmly on the right. For some reason I don't see TJ as getting on board with the abolition of slavery in 1794. 

And regardless the opposite of conservative isn't left it's progressive. There are left conservatives as well, conservative and progressive is relative to where you are currently."
politics,"I'm talking about his place on the political spectrum within his own country. When it came to slavery he was to the center, if not slightly left of center, because he at least made one or two weak gestures to oppose slavery in his state. 

Jefferson was a free speech absolutist, for democracy and democratic ideals, opposed to dogmatic religion, and he believed that government could be used positively to improve people's lives such as with the Post Office. 

He was a Liberal with some Progressive leanings. 

Also, did he actually back down from his support of international democratic revolutions?"
politics,"I’m not asking for a perfect candidate. I’m asking for one I can trust won’t be bought off by whatever dominant industry is able to sway him. And seeing as healthcare is one of the *most* important topics for me, and one that affects me directly, it’s not one I’m going to happily compromise on. I’m not going to apologize for that.

It’s wild that this is controversial, but that’s what happens in a post-Trump environment."
politics,"Sustained protests require a *lot* of resources, both personal and organizational.  Most people can't afford to take time off work and travel to DC more than once, so I think it's okay to save our energy for a truly massive protest when impeachment is near.  I want Republicans congresspeople to be trapped in their offices for days on end by millions of angry people surrounding them of all sides.  For now, single day and local protests are a good way of keeping energy up even if it's not enough to affect Republicans."
politics,"I'm not going to speak to your argument because I don't really care but comfort women is an awful example. The Japanese government to this day outright denies that they did any wrongdoings to Korean people (despite paying reparations), and in fact teaches to its children that they *civilized* Korean culture and society, and that their actions in WW2 were *beneficial* to Korea. You may have lived in Korea but clearly haven't studied much about it."
politics,"You’re saying there aren’t enough people in the DC area that could take one evening a week to protest? They don’t all have to be there on the same day.

No matter how bad things get, there’s always an excuse. There’s a book and an editorial saying that there’s basically a coup happening and the President is out of his mind. 

But I guess that’s not enough. 

The SCOTUS nomination is something that will affect the country for the better part of a century. 

But I guess that’s not enough. 

When y’all decide it’s enough, it will be far, far too late."
politics,"Yeah man I hear you.   After watching that interaction, I couldn't believe it.  If it were me, I would have punched Grassley in the face first chance I got.

This is why I am not a Senator and I cannot be in politics.  Too much mudslinging pussyfooting bullshit to deal with.

But hats off to Booker.  This was a great strategic move on his part.  And he's also in the right.  And he handled it really well.  Much respect.

"
politics,"The USA is a rare exception in the world when it comes to teaching its children the negative aspects of their history. Most countries don't, or minimally gloss over it. So I dont see Japan as much different in that regard. Also, I do know these things. I remain to this day very close to friends I have over there that hate Japan,  and we have spoken at length about it. I just disagree. But I get your point anyway. "
politics,"And also the documents themselves are embarrassing. It's clear as day they were withholding them so the American people don't get to see what kind of a monster they're voting into SCOTUS.

They would be idiots to push this any further.  It would make them look even worse in the eyes of the public.  It was an empty threat that he should be removed form the Senate. If they move to do that it would be a huge mistake.  And it will fail as they would never get the 2/3rds vote.

Total bluff.
"
politics,"Because treaties ARE THE LAW! If the HIGHEST LAW OF THE LAND isn’t followed in regards to a specific group of people simply because of the group they belong to then the law is applied in an unequal manner. Private individuals ALREADY suffer discrimination because the government refused to follow its own law.

How dense are you? Or are you just disingenuous?

Put simply, if the government tomorrow said “ok, the first amendment doesn’t apply to white people” and then maintained that for over 100 years would not there be a need to reverse that and then do something to fix the disparities that would undoubtedly arise in that 100 years? 

I don’t even fully disagree that affirmative action isn’t the right course (for vastly different reasons I’m sure). But that’s not what this conversation or these emails is really about. I personally think all economically disadvantaged people need a leg up to get a fair shake. The bigger problem though is the fact that affirmative action doesn’t really have the discriminatory effect you think does."
politics,"No, and in truth, this might address some ""collateral damage"" caused by implicit racism. It seems needlessly surreptitious and circuitous to target a group with positive policy with the same obfuscating tactics that were used to disadvantage them in the first place. It could also be seen as playing along with the narrative that the harmful policies weren't specifically racist in the first. If race is central to the problem at hand, we shouldn't be afraid of race being involved in the solutions. Indulging in a bit of hyperbole, it's a bit like saying ""sure, cancer is bad, but cancer treatments are also harmful, so let's just take antioxidants; I heard they can help prevent cancer."""
politics,"Sorry for the attitude. But yeah, Reddit does not need nor deserve money from its users.

It is ironic to say that and continue using the platform, I think, but it is undeniable that there is a lot of good conversation and access to timely news across the site. That said, Reddit itself facilitates none of that aside from the basic platform. All the content is user generated (or propagandist-generated, which Reddit has failed to act upon and, in some instances, appears to facilitate).

I have my own qualms with the platform but the least people can do is not waste their own money on it. Even if Reddit weren't complicit in shit, that money could be going to candidates or charities. Or savings for if / when this trade war really starts to hit back."
politics,">I'm talking about his place on the political spectrum within his own country. When it came to slavery he was to the center, if not slightly left of center, because he at least made one or two weak gestures to oppose slavery in his state.

He made token gestures that he knew would go nowhere, his, his constituency's, his state's, and his entire region's economies and livelihoods were completely based on slavery. They refused to sign the Constitution without a 25 year ban on the topic of slavery so they could ratchet it up even further and entrench themselves and their base. Their actions speak louder than their token words. 

>Jefferson was a free speech absolutist, for democracy and democratic ideals, opposed to dogmatic religion, and he believed that government could be used positively to improve people's lives such as with the Post Office.

Almost all of the Founding Fathers were Deist if not outright Atheist.

He was absolutely not a free speech absolutist he was the first person to argue for slander laws when people starting retaliating and turning the press towards him as he did to others. As with most things he was a monumental hypocrite. He did however argue that it was the states who reserved the right and not the Federal government. 

This is where I would argue his links to current Conservatism and Conservatism throughout our history are strongest, the state's rights vs federal rights argument. 

>He was a Liberal with some Progressive leanings.

He was an agrarian aristocrat that did not practice any of what he preached and used and said anything to gain power and hold it. Especially including his public image, Jefferson in France and Jefferson at home aren't even remotely the same person everything about him was a calculated political/power move. 

>Also, did he actually back down from his support of international democratic revolutions?

He wrote to Lafayette during the Haitian revolution to implore them to go and re-assert their authority because he feared the example a successful slave rebellion would be Although later on he started arming the rebels because he didn't want Napolean to have it when he came to power and started moving towards a French controlled Gulf of Mexico. 

As President Him and Monroe left Francisco de Miranda out to dry when he attempted an expedition to liberate Caracas, I'm sure I could find a few more if I go looking. 

The only other Revolution he really supported was the French one but he was a Francophile through and through so that's not really surprising at all. 

It could be argued he had a few progressive sentiments but on the whole not even close and absolutely not the furthest left of the founding fathers.
"
politics,"Haha, goes straight to assuming my news sources.  Yeah, I don't live on my pc either, i'm only on reddit on my phone.  Your statement is ignorant, which is why I pointed it out.  Keep calling him any name you want, that's one thing I love about this country is that we can say these things without being jailed.  It's still stupid, though, and you've given zero evidence as to why he is a ""fuhrer""."
politics,"They’re present issues currently happening. As I have said multiple times. Land rights and land use is a huge issue, not to mention large portions of the oil fields are actually on treaty lands that were stolen in violation of treaties or that the black hills and the gold taken from them are Lakota territory.

If you cared about equality and fairness under the law, if you cared about the constitution you’d demand full restoration and adherence to the treaties. But you don’t, because you only care that some brown person might possibly get a leg up (ignoring for a moment that affirmative action is almost entirely absent in the working world and only really in effect in parts of academia)."
politics,"The question is how much race is the central problem at hand.  Race clearly was a major issue for a long time and is still a big issue now, but in terms of company hiring practices and school acceptance rates, is race still a major factor in minorities not getting accepted or hired, as compared to poverty and other disadvantages that are the result of past racism?  Is the current problem still that they just don't accept people because of their race or do they not accept people because they're poor, underfunded, and undereducated?"
politics,"Unconscious bias is still bias. You don't have to be actively thinking like a racist to succumb to racist stereotypes that are unfortunately embedded in our culture without even realizing it.

Worse, underrepresentation is often a self-sustaining feedback loop. When minorities are explicitly barred from opportunities, the odds of them pursuing similar opportunities in the future may be diminished, even if the literal institutional policy in question is no longer in effect. This is why I think programs that proactively engage and encourage underrepresented demographics to pursue opportunities they might not otherwise consider are a great tool to have in our kit.

And of course, I don't deny there are other socioeconomic factors to opportunity and success, and many of them have significant (but not complete) overlap with race, largely due to history. Addressing those more broadly will obviously also help affected minorities with the added benefit of helping others, as well, but we shouldn't be afraid of targeted solutions either."
politics,"This is going way over your head. If a majority of assholes elects representatives to legislate their agenda, legality will undermine morality. Your point on force repeats but misses mine - laws are enforced, well, with force. You seem to want your opinion to overrule the asshole majority, which I was mocking. By what right would you claim dictatorship? It’s a self-defeating position.

With all your “breaking it” to me, you fail to understand that I am demonstrating that shitty governments are the manifestation of shitty humanity. I’m not endorsing the paradigm, but pointing out the obvious to the oblivious. We agree on some pillars, but you’re too dim to recognize it."
politics,"> doing something wrong to correct past wrongs is still wrong

Why?  This country was built on violence, something objectively ""wrong"", in resistance to past wrongs done to us by the King of England.

It only makes sense that if we have denied the inalienable rights of a person, that we restore those rights and compensate him for his endurance.  Similarly, if we have denied the inalienable rights of a person AND OF HIS COMMUNITY, that we restore those rights and compensate him and his community for their endurance.

> preserve the notion that all people are equal

This is a blatantly ridiculous statement.  What is the case is that they're created equal in the eyes of God and Man.  They're obviously not created equal in, lets say, the eyes of their parents or community.  And they certainly don't turn out equally when a community which has been denied its inalienable rights in the past proves unable to support its members.

>with some exceptions like affirmative action

Ok, I know this is hard for you to grasp, but affirmative action is what we're talking about here.  Members of a community that did not have its inalienable rights respected in the past (by the government and/or by the People), trying to recover some dignity."
politics,"Who's this we? I didn't do anything. That being the issue. I am not going to be discriminated against for something I have not had anything to do with.   


I'll ignore the rest of your post since it amounts to, ""You didn't say god at the end of your sentence, therefore you are wrong."" When we both know full well what I mean, whether you want to attach god to that is your own prerogative."
politics,"Huh? Well see, I don't know if you're being intentionally ignorant or if you really don't know any of our countries history. But basically, the filibuster was used one way for 240 years, and then Mitch McConnell came along and totally changed the way that parliamentary concept was used. He turned it into a weapon that allowed a tyranny of the minority. Literally crippling the function of the federal government all to appease his donors and his base. It was one of the most craven examples of party over country in the history of the nation. To counter that, the Dem majority had literally no option available to them but to alter the procedural rules around the filibuster. 

So yea, Mitch McConnell intentionally broke the United States Senate, and now he and his party are directly benefiting from the damage that he himself caused. 

You get the correct historical position now? "
politics,"If Thomas Paine counts probably him, Lafayette if he counts, Samuel Adams, John Hancock, Franklin, Hamilton was easily the most progressive although definitely more center than left in his politics. I don't think the left / right distinction is as clear in these times but the conservative / progressive fits very well.

TJ and the Democratic Republicans wanted to preserve the agrarian free society they saw as the American tradition. It's why he got along so well with John Adams and why the Federalists eventually imploded. John Adams was also a massive conservative although he was a Federalist. He looked down on anyone who didn't have a pedigree they could trace to the Nina, the Pinta, or the Santa Maria.

Thomas Paine's life is incredibly interesting and pretty sad he spent his entire life fighting for his radical beliefs, the only reason he wasn't executed by Robespierre in France during the purge of the Girondins was because they didn't get to him before Robespierre was killed and the reaction kicked in. He was also hated upon his return for his attacks on organized religion and he died poor and alone. So much so that someone stole his bones and scattered them."
politics,"The filibuster was always used one way.  It was a tool to force a slim majority to deal with and compromise with the minority.  The only thing that changed when McConnell was minority leader is that the majority party refused to deal with the minority party.  This decision was made because the majority party grossly misread the trajectory of American politics and thought it was heading towards a permanent, filibuster proof majority.  Obstructionism by the minority via filibuster is an old concept.

The funny bit is you clearly don't know the history that well.  It was Republicans under Bush2 that originally conceived of the maneuver that did away with filibusters and used the threat of it to get Democrats to stop blocking judicial appointments.  They didn't execute it because Republicans wanted to preserve the filibuster in the event they ever ended up as the minority party.  Basically this whole process is the consequence of Republican leadership playing hard ball a decade ago and Democratic leadership being colossally stupid 6 years ago."
politics,"Sorry for the caps...I just, I don't know, the way you speak so confidently about shit that you are just unequivocally provably wrong about. That shit messes with me, it used to scare me to see people lie so effortlessly or be so incredibly sure of themselves when they have literally no grounding in fact or reality...but now I guess it more just angers the hell out of me. Being gaslit by the POTUS for the last 2+ years has worn my patience for intentional misinformation down to basically 0 lol. 

Please, you seem to have a somewhat full functioning mind, use the damn thing. Actually educate yourself to what is really going on in the world, and make sure that you are on the right side of all of this for when history judges us all. 

Basically if you aren't really rich, or a bigoted person, you have literally no reason to support the modern Republican party, or defend any of their actions. 

I guess the response to this will tell me if you fit into either of those two categories..."
politics,"Booker asked for the documents to be cleared.
They were then cleared.
He then released them, thus letting us read them and see that there was no reason they should've been confidential in the first place. 

[The National Archives and Records Administration should've been handling this from the get go just like they did every other Supreme Court Justice](https://www.vox.com/2018/9/4/17819062/bill-burck-kavanaugh-explained), not some random lawyer who has a billion conflicts of interest in the matter."
politics,"Booker was hardly the only one talking about releasing the documents. Here's Sen Cornyn (a Republican, btw) freaking out about how irresponsible and outrageous Booker's desire to show the public these oh-so-confidential emails was. https://www.newsweek.com/cory-booker-releases-confidential-kavanaugh-emails-1109601


All this to say, the majority of Kavanaugh's past has not be released, the majority of the little that WAS released was done so while marked ""committee confidential"" by a guy who would not normally have the power to do so, rather than by the actual governmental body that's supposed to handle such things, and those documents were dumped on senators literally the night before hearings began. Every part of how these documents have been handled has been abnormal and counter to the Judicial Committee's ability to actually judge Kavanaugh's fitness for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land."
politics,"Booker made a big deal about releasing documents, and so did every single other senator on that committee.  And I'm glad he made a point about the documents, because regardless of whether or not Booker was actually potentially subject to expulsion for releasing the documents, they never should have been made committee confidential in the first place. 

Nearly all of Kavanaugh's past workings should be discussed and seen by the Judicial Committee, not just a tiny percentage. It's ridiculous that they're in such a rush to confirm someone to a court that he'll serve on for the rest of his life, with basically no way to get him off of it, without even looking at all his opinions. You cite Obama's nominations for SCJ, but Kagan and Sotomayor's records were available to the senators before their hearings began (and of course, Garland didn't even get a hearing for a year)."
politics,"It's like you have't read the article in question or paid any attention to what Tardacus did. He went well out of his way, to do what he thought was illegal, and release documents to the public, that were already cleared for release. 

And no not all of Kagan's or Sotomayor's records were made available. Obama used Executive Privilege to withhold thousands of documents for each of them. This is standard practice. "
politics,">""He went well out of his way, to do what he thought was illegal""

I thought you were claiming this was all showboating and Booker already knew the documents were cleared when he spoke?

>""And no not all of Kagan's or Sotomayor's records were made available.""

And I didn't say they were. (Although in point of fact, none of Kagan's records from working in the Clinton White House were withheld through executive privilege, and I don't believe there was anything that could've been, let alone actually was, withheld for Sotomayor.) Nor do I expect all of Kavanaugh's to be made available to senators. Some things really could be matters of national security. But c'mon, for Kagan they asked for and got: ""everything she had written, everything she had received"" https://www.npr.org/2018/07/31/634369343/democrats-push-for-more-records-on-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh

That is far, far more than anyone's seen from Kavanaugh. And why? Why are entire years of his record of opinions, thought process, and working documents just completely secret? That has not been the case for any other nominee, and no one should stand for it. The Judicial Committee should've just let the National Archives do their work of finding and vetting all the Kavanaugh documents, like they did for every other Supreme Court nominee. Putting someone on the Supreme Court without even looking at their full record is nonsensical."
politics,"> You aren’t going to reach closer to equality by systematically treating certain groups differently, regardless of intentions.

This is just laughable and naive. Do you know how much Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunities Programs have done for this country and the minorities who were just getting shit on as a fact of life?

You think these programs have damaged equality in America? Have they failed to ""reach closer to equality"" thus far?

Look at what happens the second they pretend we no longer need the Voting Rights Act because ""minorities no longer need protection."" You think other aspects of our society will just be safer after removing the equalizers simply because reasons?

In a perfect world, we would not need programs that help people who are generally targeted by racism and prejudice. America is far from a perfect world and saying that we should stop giving opportunities to people who are the target of powerful prejudices is just incorrect.

Is it perfect? No. Is it better? Absolutely."
politics,"This is a dumb argument.   It is well established that laws with general language that appear to apply to everyone actually target certain groups.  This is like first year philosophy stuff.

A common hypothetical is a law that prohibits anyone from sleeping under a bridge.  It applies to everyone, it says so right in the law.  

Yet, the rich will be unaffected by the law and the poor will affected by law. 

You should read up on Majestic Equality.  US courts have recognized this and refused to intervene but it is accepted that “good” laws can yield unequal and unfair distribution of compliance burdens."
politics,"So these emails seem to be sent after an internal meeting where a discussion was had on how to elevate airline security after 9/11, and that, due to legal requirements, their solution to that would have to be race-neutral, meaning no racial profiling. What they mean by the ""interim question"", is what are they going to do in between the time this meeting was held and the time the solution is in place; in the interim. It looks like Kavanaugh is suggesting, based on al Qaeda tactics in the past, in the interim, they need to be racially profiling in order to secure airline travel. "
politics,"It did not really read to me as if he was 'suggesting' racial profiling, simply discussing the legality of doing so and whether or not such an extreme measure was warranted in the interests of national security.  9/11 sparked MANY internal discussions and led to things such as the Patriot Act, during which the balance of freedom versus security was a common theme.

Looking at things within the context of what has happening at the time, simply discussing the merit of racial profiling as a temporary security measure while a race-neutral permanent solution was developed and implemented does not seem that unreasonable.  

There is a big difference between discussing whether or not something COULD be done within the boundaries of the law and actually advocating that something potentially illegal be implemented.

As far as withholding the document, internal discussions on matters of national security are often classified or marked confidential, not necessarily due to the content of the discussion, but to obfuscate the process by which those discussions take place to avoid potential threats gaining insight into proposed counter-measures and the methods by which such decisions are made.  A subtle but important element.

Unless I misread these documents or unless there are more damning pages not yet released, this hardly looks like a 'bombshell' to me unless you ignore the context of what was going on in all levels of government immediately following 9/11."
politics,"These other comments are cancer...

To actually answer your question, the 'interim question' was what to do about protecting national security from the perceived threat from Middle Eastern terrorists in the short term (interim) while developing a policy that did not discriminate based on race.

In other words, a fair and effective policy that was not discriminatory would take time to develop and implement, but there was concern that while that policy was being developed there was a potential security vulnerability.

Kavanaugh stated that he favored a racially neutral response and was participating in the conversation about whether or not a temporary policy that might be discriminatory would be legal/effective as a stop-gap while a better permanent policy was developed.

Nothing in these documents shows that he was advocating for the institution of discriminatory policy, but the simple fact that he was part of that conversation appears to be enough to convince people that he is evil."
politics,"Did BLM or the KKK commit a terrorist act killing 5000+ civilians in a few hours? No? Ok, so fuck off. That was literally the dumbest analogy I've ever seen. You can tell the average age in this sub when they can't remember 9/11 and how terrible it was and how we didn't even know how to react. Not only were we profiling Muslims, we signed away our own rights to privacy with the patriot act. Everybody was scared shitless and here Kavanaughs saying he understands the need for profiling atm, but we need to work away from it. Christ, this whole smear campaign is cringy and ignorant as hell."
politics,"So is this like a coordinated thing? Y’all are just all gonna find a way to say “it’s cool to be racist because 9/11”?

And I wonder why I thought that was scary and started thinking about other places you could say “it’s cool to be racist because _____”. Almost like there was some form of precedent.

Is it only terrorist attacks that make it okay to racially profile folks? Just wanna be clear where the line is."
politics,"This couldn't be more true. I've been getting into heated debates with my family and some co-workers who are right leaning or claim to be independents and it always comes down to methods with them. It's like, well if you view things that way then I guess the Allies in WW2 and the Nazi's were the same because at the end of the day they were all just using guns and tanks. It's why you get these people who view antifa and the neo-nazi's they protest against in the same light. "
politics,"Certified Psychiatric Rehabilitation Practitioner here.  I have seen hundreds of people be irrational, paranoid and angry until they took Clozaril or some other drug.  It's totally true that it is hard to tell what will work and what won't but there are even DNA tests now that help with dosing, and with fewer side effects in newer drugs it's easier to ""shop"" for the right one/mix.  

And I wonder what large swath of depression, anxiety, mood disorder, addiction, schizophrenia, or paraphilia/phobia you think is bullshit."
politics,"How is it that every single voter in this entire country didn't realize this from the very beginning? I knew it. Lots of people knew it. Hell, Putin knew it! What the fuck is wrong with the Evangelicals? What the fuck is wrong with Republicans in the congress? How can they stand by and facilitate a situation like this? Serious question. 

​

The fascists need to be voted out of power and kept out, permanently. Every life on this planet is on the line. "
politics,"I hate playing devil's advocate in this case, but simply observations based on news reports and general recordings is not going to yield a reliable and credible diagnosis. We could get 27 psychs to declare anything on anyone if we looked hard enough.

​

Now, if he were evaluate in person by a team of three and all three said that he was dangerously unfit, then yes, that would be intensely alarming because they would have been able to really dig in and properly gauge his reactions and condition. At that point, we'd have some serious traction on a more well defined case for usage of 25a."
politics,"I'm not pointing out that both sides do it to imply that it should be accepted. I'm trying to point at that both sides do it *and* both sides don't do it. It's not a uniquely conservative problem. I think that is important to consider, so as not to fall into the trap of assuming that someone is doing it just because they are expressing a viewpoint that is more conservative or liberal than yours."
politics,"I do and don't.

As things are, legally, right now they haven't done anything directly wrong (that we are aware of and that can be proven in court). They are operating to the extent that the law allows them. Lets pretend that democrats get the hail Mary and SWEEP all elections in november and now have full control of house and majority in senate. If they go after Fox then and there, it will be seen as political retribution and there will be an even worse uprising from the right than the tea party.

Also, the laws that protect free speech and journalism are super important. The same laws protecting Fox right *now* are the same ones protecting CNN, NBC, CBS, WaPo, NYT, and the others. Notably, they allow all of them to break major stories without fear of reprisal form the government (Watch: *The Post* , it's great. Main plot is Streep's character learning to be her own woman, but the sub plot is about the WH trying to take down print news to stop the pentagon papers from being published)

Right now, FNC's biggest thing is that they are legally being very grey as to what's news and what's commentary. The best way to fight that is to change the laws regarding how news and news stations operate. I don't mean to advocate for adding punishments. I mean to advocate for requiring ALL news sources to fully and clearly separate news and commentary/editorial. There should be no mistake in anyone's mind that O'Reily was commentary, not news. There should never be a question as to who is a real anchor/reporter and who is a pundit.

Do that and you will do a lot to stop this downward spiral of misinformation because while Fox is the most guilty of it, other stations still do it to a lesser degree. Also, when news sources like breitbart and townhall are allowed to sling propaganda and call it news, we slowly loose the ability to understand what is real and what is lies or spin.

​

[Here's some Jon Stewart taking down two pundits so hard that CNN had to cancel their show](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE&t=110s)"
politics,"Don't worry, they will be, telling everyone everything is fine and falling off the cliff is actually a feeling of exhilaration from how much winning Trump's presidency is doing.

In all honesty though I think even Fox News is realising. Fox & Friends recently had their legal expert on and he pretty blatantly told them about an instance of Republican corruption within the Trump administration with Chris Collins committing insider trading to call his son re an Australian biotech company during his visit to the White House. The C-SPAN camera picked up the phone call, so there's clear evidence.

Fox & Friends tried to play it off as not that big of a deal (despite the legal expert saying otherwise) but this contradicts Trump's tweet on the situation a few days ago, wherein he said authorities were investigating Chris Collins in an ""Obama-era investigation"", implication being it was partisan and pre-Trump.

The crime occurred on June 22, 2017."
politics,"Hi there, MS in pseudoscience guy. 

I assure I am in fact right, and nothing you said was even close to a refutation of my position. Notice how every response to my post shares that common theme? Denial and the complete absence of facts to back it up? Modern psychiatric ideas on personality disorders are no different from Freud's bullshit or Jung's fantasies in terms of their validity.

Sorry you devoted your life to psuedoscientific bullshit, it's not surprising to me that you would have some difficulty accepting that. Homeopaths feel the same way when they are questioned. All the best!"
politics,"Well, my family (and I'm sure lots of other Trump voters) all thought Trump was not fit for office, my dad even said ""he's a buffoon who shouldn't be in charge of anything"". But he still voted for him. 

They voted for him because they got convinced by the rest of the republicans and conservatives on the news that said things like ""he will have lots of smart and experienced people around him to make decisions and run things"" and ""it's just an act, he's not serious, don't take him literally"". And they believed that Hillary as president was the worst possible thing that could ever happen to the country, again, thanks to the Republican party drilling that into voters brains."
politics,"> I mean to advocate for requiring ALL news sources to fully and clearly separate news and commentary/editorial. There should be no mistake in anyone's mind that O'Reily was commentary, not news. There should never be a question as to who is a real anchor/reporter and who is a pundit.

This means nothing without a move toward civic responsibility from people who currently get their news from conspiracy theories on facebook and whichever talking head is yeehawing concentration camps the hardest. [PBS Newshour](https://www.youtube.com/user/PBSNewsHour) is already the most unbiased, newsiest news show in the country and they don't watch it because it doesn't have a fun death cult attached to it. 

The country is imploding because we're now two generations into the television turning 30-something percent of the country into rabid idiots and one generation into computers and them becoming rabid idiots with communities. No institutional change is going to bring those people back into the fold because we've spent the past century looting the rest of the world so that we could grow fat and stare without consequence into the abyss. Now it's staring back at us. "
politics,"> What the fuck is wrong with the Evangelicals?

They are taught/brainwashed to have blind faith since they were born.

>What the fuck is wrong with Republicans in the congress?

Money. Same thing that is wrong with Democrats in congress.

>How can they stand by and facilitate a situation like this?

Because ""their guy"" is in power. Same thing that Democrats would do if ""their guy"" was in power. The evidence that the Democrats would do the same thing if ""their guy"" was in power is that there is no talk from the Democrats about removing/revoking the extra powers Congress have given the president since the 9/11 attacks. They don't want to remove the powers because they know ""their guy"" will be in office eventually.


"
politics,">The country is imploding because we're now two generations into the television turning 30-something percent of the country into rabid idiots and one generation into computers and them becoming rabid idiots with communities.

That's conjecture. Plain and simple. The same was said about radio. Before that, the same was said about books and how kids spend all their time reading sensationalist stories and will never learn to face the real world (this was said in the late 1800's).

​

I'm not saying the internet is the greatest thing since sliced bread nor am I saying that it is infallible. You've taken my position and twisted it to make your own counter argument that was only tangentially related to the topic.

​

Next, just because YOU think milennials and generation z are complete losses and should be written off doesn't make them go away. They have a value and presence in society that is unique to their ages and approaches to issues. Those two generations currently make up about 151 MILLION people. That's about 40% of the US population. The rest is split between X's, Boomers, Silent, and Greatest. So regardless of how little you think of them and how much you hate them, you're going to have to accept that they're here and they have a different way of doing things. 

​

Our approach to how law works *has* to be updated. If you go and read through some of the old US Code, it's arcane. I'm not saying complex, I'm saying *arcane*. Title 17USC had to have a massive update in 2000 with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act because the laws never listed software or digital materials as copyright-able, nor did it say that downloading copies of movies/music/etc via digital systems was illegal. That's why it was the golden age of online piracy. The DMCA updated the laws to deal with a new form of law breaking that the government had never conceived of before. It found a problem and dealt with it. But, they could have taken your approach and just threw up their hands in angers and harrumphed and rabbled and did nothing. Luckily they changed and acted.

​

Stop throwing innocent people under the bus because YOU are choosing to be too short sighted to consider new and innovative ways to combat the rampant and blatant misuse of our mass communication systems."
politics,"“Assessed” my ass.  From article, they assessed based on “his public statements”. As an actual qualified Psychiatrist myself, I can say an assessment is not done via remote reading or listening to a person’s words.  It is extremely suspect and ethically ambiguous at best for this “professional” to come out with this and at this exact moment. 


Trump’s willful behavior and personality traits do not an illness make, regardless.  This is important as an illness would imply responsibility and ownership do not fall on Trump.  Yet, behavior and personality do. Trump acts this way volitionally; let’s not obfuscate his responsibility for his actions."
politics,"I'm not talking about a generational gap so much as a sourcing gap. Some people have a healthy intake of news- not news I agree with ideologically but news that is well-sourced, critically sound, and varied in its perspectives. That's why I come to this subreddit, it aggregates a lot of quality sources that add up to the common truth and that challenge my own biases. 

The people I'm describing aren't necessarily old or young or virtuous or deviant or belonging to any other group as a whole, they're just lazy. They jump on poorly sourced news, a handful of perspectives, heavy ideological biases on both sides of the aisle, and don't make any effort to take a critical look at the world or challenge their beliefs. 

We built a society that insulates these people and enables them. We underfund and make pariahs of the systems that combat them. I'm not being a luddite, professionally right now I provide the internet to many of these people and I'm a cyberneticist before I'm a socialist, but the consumption habits of media and social trends formed through technology are things that do have very real-world consequences. We're suffering the end result of people who only ever fed their base impulses as the society that rewards them for doing so. "
politics,"I live in the bay and I agree the housing situation here is absurd. I love california, and plan to get a huge California tattoo (lol) but I agree housing costs here are unethical and should be dealt with by the law. We need rent control. It should be illegal to pay rent in California to foreign companies. After 2008, we were colonized. I'm being succinct, not dramatic here. Thousands and thousands of people work everyday to pay more than half their salary to enrich China. I don't have beef with Chinese people but that situation is not ok. My work should enrich my local economy more than some CEO across an ocean."
politics,"LOL if you think housing in CA is a free market.

Progressives have banded together with NIMBYs to oppose density under the pretense of preventing gentrification. A shortage of new housing caused by obstructive planning policy is a real issue.

This in turn raises housing prices more than a city like Seattle, which faces similar demand increase but a shallower price curve. It actually worsens gentrification effects. It also has huge effects on the ability to build usable mass transit."
politics,"Nothing wrong with it, you're 100% right. The state hasn't done anything wrong in this regard, but also they need to make it cheaper/easier to build new housing. Homeowners allover have been riding the wave of their house prices increasing and fight against any new housing, and AirBnB has caused a lot of housing to be taken off the market in favor of rental. It's a supply and demand problem which needs to be solved with more housing, and better public transport. It's going to cause many people to groan, but this is the solution."
politics,"Dude, your middle class citizens are moving from environmentally places to live like the Bay Area and flooding the high mountains and low deserts where there simply is not enough water to sustain the population because the rich liberals of California don’t want anything with an elevator in their coastal community. They use police forces to drive away the poor, using the Golden Gate Bridge as the the entrance to their gated community. 

The environmentalists who fight all development in San Francisco mean millions of people must now be warmed in winter and cooled in summer. 

The fuckups of California export their problems to the rest of the mountain west, and everyone resents the fuck out of you for making their hometown too expensive to live because they didn’t have a house in Cali to sell. "
politics,"Housing situation is not exclusively greedy landlords but large scale NIMBYism from the boomers (surprise!). Outright refusal to build affordable large height apartments in literally any corner of the state.  

In all of California there are a few high rise offices in LA, SF, OC and SD. Chicago or Seattle must have more than all of California. 

Rich Californians don't want poor people to get housing in their area since it pushes down their property value."
politics,"Building high rises reduces competitive pressure of the people who would be living in those high rises with the people who live in existing housing.

Not building new housing results in:

1) Those people choosing not to move there resulting in stagnating job growth
2) The people who do move there being the richest who can outbid others, resulting in displacement of existing people.

They joined together because it is in their short-term self-interest. They don’t represent interests of people who are excluded from moving to the state who otherwise would help grow the economy."
politics,"Those home owners don’t own the land down the street which was sold by another home owner who wants to allow someone to build taller housing on their land.

You have a strange fascination with the use of the term capitalism. The existing system is an application of capitalism with regulation. It is not the definition of what capitalism is. All squares are shapes, not all shapes are squares.

Norway and China operate in capitalistic economies by your definition because many aspects of their economies are privately owned."
politics,"I hope you don't think I like this situation. This is just facts.

It would bee great if the state would step in. But serious question. Do you think they will make it retro-active, AKA lowering rents? I don't think so. In other words, if the state doesn't do something soon, it is really going to be fucked up here. Second serious question. Have you heard Dems in CA make any noise on this front, because I m not, although I will admit, I am behind the orange curtain down here."
politics,"Wait, are you saying China and Norway don’t operate under partial capitalistic societies because of course they do. Your understanding of what capitalism is needs some more in depth knowledge. 

Socialistic democracies still operate in a capitalistic system just more regulated. If you’re talking about only countries that don’t regulate their economies when you’re talking about capitalism then there are zero capitalist countries on earth. I’m really confused by your last statement. "
politics,"Affordable housing is low. Because everything is over priced thanks to foreign investors buying up houses for summer homes or to rent. Rents never same down during the recession. Home owner got to refinance or were foreclosed. The foreclosures were bought up by banks and sold to the lower bidders, who then turned them around and rented them at the current rate, not a lowered rate. The entire recession has fucked renters here."
politics,"Rent control is NOT the answer, it’s pretty much universally agreed upon by economists that rent control exacerbates rising housing costs. We need to BUILD. It’s simple supply and demand. There is not enough supply to meet demand, so we need more supply. We see this rule happening in places like downtown LA, where they’re building quickly and there are thousands of units in the pipeline, so you see deals down there like two months free rent, amenities, and slower rent growth than other areas of the city. Unfortunately the low-rise or single family home feel of many parts of CA’s cities is so deeply ingrained and defended by NIMBYs that we can’t create the infrastructure to support the high density needs of the population. And if this rent control measure is put into place, developers are going to be even more wary of building, making the problem 10x worse as rent supply continues to fail to meet demand. So rents will just keep going up. 

I get it though, really. I understand why people want and love rent control, it’s an incredibly alluring deal on a personal level even if it’s bad for a city as a whole. I’ve lived in a rent control unit for 4 years, and I always joke that I’ll die in this apartment before I move bc I pay south central prices to live in one of the wealthiest areas of the city. But my area is also incredibly expensive BECAUSE so much of it is rent controlled—go 2 miles east and prices drop precipitously. Any unit that isn’t rent controlled is like $3000! Which is insane! And you also see very little housing construction, which makes those units even more expensive. 

It’s a self defeating circle that ultimately favors the few who are locked in and rarely move (like myself) and pushes everyone else away who isn’t wealthy. "
politics,"Again, why is supply low? You haven’t answered. Because developers are not allowed to build.

If high rises were built some of the foreign investors would buy those condos instead of the existing houses. If they are buying up houses and leaving them empty, that’s a separate issue. I am 100% in favor of vacancy taxes like Vancouver and repealing Prop 13. Otherwise, a foreign landlord is functionally the same as a local one for someone looking to rent.

Rents didn’t come down much because supply was still not meeting demand. If rents were not lowered enough, they’d stay empty which loses investor money.

The number of people willing to invest is not infinite, but if you don’t satisfy demand prices go up."
politics,"I’m not. I’m saying nimbysm is a part of capitalism. You’re arguing for totally unregulated construction codes which California has resoundingly rejected. So what’s YOUR point?  You’re basically saying that anyone regulating anyone else’s land is anticapitalism or something but we already established through your rando sidetrack to China and Norway that regulation doesn’t make things not capitalism so really you’re trying to argue both sides of a situation now. 

Capitalism has regulation. Nimbysm is a part of that regulation as the people that own the land help craft regulations and laws on how things can and can’t be built in their neighborhood. That’s still capitalism which is what this entire stupid argument is about so unless you can refute that I’m not sure what you’re doing here. "
politics,"NIMBYism is a factor in the current housing market. It is not a capitalist concept. Squares are shapes and have 4 corners. Shapes don’t all have 4 corners.

I’m not arguing for 100% free market in housing. I’m arguing against describing the regulatory aspects of the CA housing market as capitalist. A capitalist economy  can include regulation, but regulation isn’t in the definition of capitalism.

Seattle and Vancouver are examples of housing markets that aren’t 100% capitalist that have less dysfunction than CA. No one claims those cities have poor or unsafe housing. They don’t allow neighborhood groups to endlessly appeal and delay projects that 100% follow zoning, environmental, and safety laws. In many CA cities they are allowed to ask for reviews on factors that aren’t written into law. This reduces the number of housing units built and increases costs and uncertainty."
politics,"Have you ever looked at a construction budget for multifamily housing in Southern California? Have you ever done the math and risk analysis on investment (time and effort and money to build) for these properties? 

It is not only unwise but nearly *impossible* for the builder to build housing with lower than market-rate rents. Land, labor and material costs are too high to support buildings that exclusively have affordable housing rental rates. They literally would not be able to pay back their lenders or contractors, let alone turn a profit that reflects the risk they’ve taken on throughout the construction process (which is the riskiest business plan in real estate). And I know you aren’t suggesting that developers build at a financial loss out of the kindness of their hearts.

This is the reality, and enforcing a higher concentration of affordable housing in new construction will simply mean that the numbers won’t pan out for a developer and they’ll decide not to build. You build for middle and upper class people who can afford to pay the rents that support construction costs and a risk-adjusted return on investment, then lower and other middle class people move into their old housing. Rent will never go down unless there is some catastrophic event, the goal *has to* be slow rental growth and increase wages. "
politics,"And how do you plan to do that? Reduce or cap construction worker wages? Have the state tell land or property owners that they cannot sell their property above a certain price? Tell materials sellers that they cannot sell their materials above a certain price? Tell banks that they’re not allowed to make a spread off of their loans?

What is the state going to do to change the fact that $2000 studios and $2500 1 bed rental rates are the only price that supports the costs of construction?"
politics,"I'm glad building works in LA, but you literally cannot build on the peninsula anymore. We are already mostly built on dangerous land fill. Most of San Francisco is built on literal garbage, so we can't even add more floors to the existing buildings because the foundation can't handle it. I have pondered the possibility of barge apartment complexes, basically gigantic houseboats. 

The bay area absolutely needs rent control. We cannot create more supply."
politics,"This is a good solution for places that physically can build more. Much of the bay area, and the San Francisco peninsula in particular, literally cannot build at greater density. Much of the peninsula is land fill. Someone dared to build a high rise condo where they shouldn't have, thinking exactly as you are, and it's tilting dangerously. It's already tilted enough that the city can't decide how to safely demolish it."
politics,"San Francisco is 1/3 the population density of Paris and half the density of Brooklyn. Neither of those cities are dominated by 40+ story buildings.

What they do have is plenty of 4-6 story multi-family dwellings. SF is dominated by 2-3 story buildings and planning processes that make each new project difficult. Therefore developers only choose to build the most profitable high rises. Fix that problem and build lots of 4-6 stories."
politics,">I hope you don't think I like this situation. This is just facts.

The way you framed it made it sound like you don't think CA's government bares responsibility for the problem. I think they do. ""The market did it"" just means the government hasn't been regulating the market like it should.

>But serious question. Do you think they will make it retro-active, AKA lowering rents? I don't think so. In other words, if the state doesn't do something soon, it is really going to be fucked up here.

I think they *could* make it retro-active, but they likely *won't*. Waiting for CA's government to act will mean it's too little, too late. It's unacceptable.

What we really need is a powerful tenants' union. One that could go to bat for ideas like rent control and affordable housing, provide legal protection for tenants from slumlords and abusive contracts that violate tenants' rights, and counter the powerful landlord and real-estate lobby in the state government. 

>Second serious question. Have you heard Dems in CA make any noise on this front, because I m not, although I will admit, I am behind the orange curtain down here.

Progressive Dems have been speaking out against rising rents and gentrification, but most Dems are content to ignore the issue. I think it's mostly a grass-roots thing at this point. "
politics,"Even if every building in the city was only 3 stories, increasing levels by 33 to 100% would not come close to fixing our economic problem. The buildings that are 3 stories are mostly short because they can't be built higher anyway. It's no small thing to add three stories to a building erected on a landfill. The marina shouldn't even have any one story buildings, and it's already an entire neighborhood with mostly 3 story buildings. We need rent control. Downvotes aren't going to change that. And just to be clear, I support building more housing anywhere it is safe. The peninsula has the somewhat unique problem of already being nearly maxed out."
politics,"Every building isn’t 3 stories. Many are 2 or less, especially on the west side.

The buildings that are 2-3 stories were mostly built before 1940 and construction techniques have long progressed. You cite problems with one 50 story building to shoot down 6-story buildings, while other tall buildings are doing fine.

There are seismic safety standards in the building codes for a reason. Seismic standards are not the reason 6-story buildings are hard to get built in the Bay Area. Bad zoning laws and NIMBYs increasing costs and uncertainty are the reason.

Rent control isn’t going to stop rich people from wanting to move to the area. It will just increase incentives for shady landlords to do underhanded things to screw renters and take money from people willing to pay lots more."
politics,"There are a TON of low density and single family homes in SF. Of course tearing all that down would change the character of the city dramatically, that’s what there is. There’s also Oakland, Marin, and other surrounding areas that could physically support significantly higher density but don’t allow it from what I can tell. 

The Bay Area is right fucked though. Silicon Valley wants it to be Manhattan while at the same time everyone else is trying to prevent it from becoming Manhattan, which has in turn backfired and made average prices HIGHER than Manhattan now. Idk, it seems to me like the cities should start city planning like NYC did before WW1. Tearing down homes and building as dense as possible. But I think we all know that won’t happen so shit will just get worse. "
politics,"The tall buildings that are doing fine are on better ground. You're acting like every square foot of the peninsula is the same when it is certainly not. Just because a high-rise in soma is safe doesn't mean we can build 6 stories in the marina. That's just not true. If it was even somewhat safe, it would be done by now.

(It is not true that most buildings in the city are 3 stories or less. That may be the case in Daly city, and the good news is that we can build more there.)

If we had rent control and legal protections from paying rent to foreign companies, we would be able to address the present and long-term problem you mention of fabulously wealthy people refusing to build more. There is money to be made in creating abundant housing. Just less money than the current unethical situation. And I'm fine with that. Let them see a cut in their profits. They will still make profit. I don't buy for a second their belly aching, and I don't see why their interests should rule over the rest of the population.


Edit for clarity: Even so, those new additions would not be able to be in the city proper. Which I am fine with. I just don't have a problem using rent control as a cudgel against greed."
politics,"> The tall buildings that are doing fine are on better ground

You mean the buildings right next to it? And all the tall buildings that survived the ‘89 quake built on landfill downtown where in there was water in the 1800s and at the exact spots where old ships have been dug up?

> If it was even somewhat safe, it would be done by now.

This is a blatantly ignorant assumption. You act like there are no barriers other than safety to the development process.

> If we had rent control and legal protections from paying rent to foreign companies, we would be able to address the present and long-term problem you mention of fabulously wealthy people refusing to build more. There is money to be made in creating abundant housing.

Why would fabulously wealthy investors build if they will lose money on rent? If there is money to be made in abundant housing why are they not building enough now? You seem to know the answers to these things. In what way would stricter rent control encourage more building than the little amount there is now?"
politics,"You don't want to listen, and funny enough you did not make any suggestions to address those problems yourself. 

I don't really have more time to donate to people who defend the rich over everybody else. They wouldn't lose money. They would still make money. But right now nothing is incentivizing them to change. I don't really see a point in arguing with you in circles. Have a nice, mad day."
politics,"> funny enough you did not make any suggestions to address those problems yourself.

Actually, I clearly stated the planning process and NIMBYs are the problem. Streamline the process to get 6-stories built and you get more housing.

I 100% agree rich investors won’t lose money. They’re rational people who will choose to build even less than they do now, and focus on only the most profitable. Their money will flow to places like Portland, Seattle, Denver, etc. They’re losing nothing.

The Bay Area economy loses because no one is willing to move there due to lack of housing. Either that or the rich people push existing people out. Either way, fewer people and fewer jobs.

It’s not a zero sum game. Allowing developers to build more housing is a win-win. They will make money in SF instead of Seattle, and SF gets more housing supply. Instead they will make money elsewhere and SF loses.
"
politics,"You can’t build a sustainable subway system without density. Cost per mile is too high if not enough people live within walking distance of stations.

The best subway system in the US is NYC.

Manhattan is 4x the density of SF and 8x of LA.

Brooklyn and the Bronx are 2x denser than SF and 4x LA.

Lack of new housing due to rent control stagnates growth and turns places into Detroit if industry decides to leave."
politics,"This is the only way the GOP is able to justify their racist agenda. False claims like this and the oft-repeated garbage ""Illegals are draining welfare"" are demonstrably false and showcases their bias against minorities and people of color.

The facts show that illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than American Citizens and that they are unable to draw any form of traditional welfare.

The GOP is the party of lies and racism and they need to go.

Libertarians such as myself advocate for drastically increasing legal immigration, if not calling for open borders directly. Immigration is what Made America Great in the First Place.

Sources:

https://www.cato.org/blog/white-houses-misleading-error-ridden-narrative-immigrants-crime

https://econofact.org/do-undocumented-immigrants-overuse-government-benefits"
politics,">But the problem of Mexican illegal immigration and Irish illegal immigration are not even in the same ballpark

You're right. Mexican illegal immigration is on the rapid decline while visa overstays currently make up the majority of new undocumented immigrants.

> The CMS report, written by Robert Warren, a former director of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service’s statistics division, says 65 percent of net arrivals — those joining the undocumented population — from 2008 to 2015 were visa overstays

And overall, they make up nearly half the undocumented population.

> A Center for Migration Studies report estimates that 44 percent of those in living in the U.S. illegally in 2015 were visa overstays. 

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/illegal-immigration-statistics/"
politics,"enh it's more that they're fine with the brown people *because* they'll do the work white citizens *wont* do. Both sides at this point are fine with the exploitation of labor. Thats the big issue for the Dems' they pulled themselves so far to the neoliberal right triangulating that to even try to call them commies or socialists is pathetic. 

Everyone loves to hate the unions but they kept the balance for a good long while, then they got fat and lazy and became a trope. But business is gonna exploit, maximize profits and try to bend the rules to their advantage; its just the nature of the game. We just cant have the foxes guarding the henhouse and expect things to get better.

"
politics,"Right because it’s Democrats who routinely fight against labor rights, collective bargaining, and minimum wage increases. 

You wouldn’t have to do both if you actually stopped businesses from exploiting undocumented workers. No ability to get a job means they don’t stay. 

Having a look the other way policy for decades and then turning around and acting like people just trying to have a better life are the real culprits is misplaced at best. It’s both immoral and bad policy. For a fraction of the price of building a wall and deporting millions you could get them to voluntarily leave by fining businesses through the roof for violations.

Gee, I wonder why the pro-business at any cost party wants to blame the individual minorities and not the businesses who create and exploit the demand for undocumented workers????????

Get. Real. "
politics,"> Why not do both? And stop with the exploitation thing, it's liberals who constantly talk about how we need these brown people to do labor Americans won't do. It's like the go to Talking Point, liberals not wanting to give up our free slave labor. 

Absolute utter bullshit. The argument is not that we need brown people to do those jobs, the argument is that we need to pay Americans a decent living wage to do these jobs and that corporations should be held accountable for paying people slave wages. 

​"
politics,"I don't really care if Elon smokes weed but he could have a fucking decency to come down from his ivory tower and enact a weed tolerant policy for all employees.

Of course since he's also taking government money he might end up fucking himself pretty hard; the feds love pulling contracts from pot heads.

But Elon has showed us that he is not a decent person. He is a thin skinned snowflake who baselessly accuses people of being pedos on twitter, and fires employees for smoking weed while he smokes weed."
politics,"It might even be difficult to do so at Tesla, because of things like liability and insurance.  I'm afraid that most companies will continue to enforce current marijuana restrictions until a reliable method is developed to determine if they are currently high.

The problem with current testing methods is that it only tells you if you have used marijuana in the last few weeks, not necessarily if you are high right now.  For an assembly line worker, or any other job, it is important you are not under the influence of drugs or alcohol, as you are working around machinery that could easily mangle or kill you if you lose your concentration.

"
politics,"That sounds an awful lot like some hand wringing type of bullshit. Marijuana is moving into prescription drug territory in most places, and beyond that in CA. We already have all sorts of protocols for legal prescription drugs, and over the counter ones as well, that would disturb your ability to operate machinery, and we have managed to have workers be able to use those with out disrupting  work hours. It is just demonizing weed because of heavily misguided federal policy. "
politics,"A policy that started as a means of making it legal to bust the head's of nixon's enemies.  


*""The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.""*

​

\~ John Ehrlichman, Domestic policy chief for President Richard Nixon "
politics,"There are many prescription drugs that warn you not to take if you operate heavy machinery.  If/when marijuana is actually prescribed by a doctor (which isn't how it's done right now with the medical community) I have no doubt it will include the same type of warning.

That being said, if you use these prescription drugs and then operate heavy machinery without pre-clearance from your employer, you will likely be fired for violating company policy. "
politics,"It doesn’t do any good to phrase this as him being the one firing people. It’s a broad corporate policy that likely has to be in place in his industry. I think a lot  people are ok with drug testing, when your job directly impacts the safety of others. His company likely has thousands of those types of employees. 

So what’s actually the problem here? It’s not flaming hypocrisy. It’s a policy that isn’t nuanced enough. But then again...if the people paying him say ALL staff needs to follow his policy, then his hands are tied. And these people don’t care if Musk smokes.  They do care, however, if his employees as a whole do.  This is how business works, unfortunately. Now...the respectful thing to do, then, would be for Musk to not break this rule in a public setting. That’s insensitive and bad optics. But it’s not the outrage people want it to be. "
politics,"I've always worked in nuclear power. I probably just have a high standard. A CEO of a company with a nuclear facility in the fleet who was seen smoking weed would lose their unescorted access forever. It's a permaban (with some exceptions like you jump through hoops for drug treatment ect) 

Ultimately, they couldn't set foot on site and would not be allowed certain decision making abilities. So, I typically think that if employees can't do it then neither can the leadership.

"
politics,"I understand the frustration that drawing districts have, and gerrymandering does exist, but getting rid of districts isn't the solution because districts are meant to separate a state: Senate officials represent each district. The House on the other hand represents proportionally.

The federal Congress is the same way. Each state is a district and the House is divided up proportionally.

That said, the President does not represent the people. Never has. Never will. Therefore the President represents the majority of *states* to the outside world; it's up to a state how EC votes are divided and nobody wants to switch to proportional. Yes, we do need to rebalance the amount of EC votes since it hasn't been done in like 80 years, but making the president a popular vote elected official isn't the solution. He represents the direction the country as a whole is going. That means all 50 states; each with different laws, regulations, needs, and wants.

All that said, it is my belief that the federal government is entirely too large. State governments need to make a resurgence so we rely less on hoping 49 other states think the same as we do."
politics,"Well, in a weird way he is right, other than congress controls spending.  The GOP wouldn't print enough money when we needed more money for the recovery, but they are fine with it now they are in power and can spend that money. A lot of times not borrowing when we need to is the bigger problem in America.

It's not that we borrow money so much as how we spend the borrowed money. If you spend it wisely it will often pay for itself in time. 

Deficit spending or not, an investment return is not based off your debt to asset ratio and with the US net worth being over 250 trillion, we aren't dangerously in debt. The big problem with the debt is we keep borrowing money and getting poor returns. It's true that in the long term the debt will probably wind up not mattering much. The value of debt, money and commodities is all going to decline as labor and commodity extraction get automated over the decades. 

Money is based off labor and commodities more than anything and those are going to be made less important. Buying power itself declines and the rich people wind up losing the most because they are sitting on the most stuff, most of which can now be created for a fraction of the original price. 

Land will wind up being one of the few things we can't lower prices on."
politics,"Well, ""printing money"" is what we did from 2008-2014*. The problem with Trump's idea is that it would lead to more inflation (much more than QE. QE mainly went to the already rich and ""just"" inflated the stock market), causing the Fed to raise interest rates faster (because they don't want profits of big corporations to go down even by a little), causing a lot more people and corporations to have trouble paying off their debts, which are much larger than they were in 2007. Causing the next financial crash to come sooner than it would otherwise. 

Not to mention all the emerging markets that have Dollar-denominated debt and are already having problems with current interest rates. "
politics,">Man as someone who's looking to buy a house, I'd love it if it came sooner.

There is no guarantee that housing prices will collapse. It is possible that a lot of rich people will decide that it is too risky for them to hold Dollars, so they will buy real estate instead. I am guessing that big equity firms like Blackstone will go on a buying spree because they are guaranteed to be bailed out by the government if something goes wrong anyway.

Of course, the opposite can happen as well."
politics,"As someone who tried to sell their house before the housing market started a recovery, THIS.... I had four buyers lined up, each within a week or (re-)listing.. and three of those failed to secure mortgages.. even after looking great on paper (pre-approval letters) prior to contracting with them.     My mother and sister each sold their house during the same time.. each lost the first buyers as well for the same cause."
politics,"That last housing bubble was 30 years in the making. Of course, it didn’t even really burst in a lot of places, and there is a lot of over-inflated property still out there. It’s possible that there could be a second wave of pretty much the same bubble bursting, but it won’t be anything like last time, I don’t think. More likely it’s still a good time to buy, especially if you’re not looking for an investment but rather somewhere to live."
politics,"We never really fully recovered from the last one. The rich did, but the rest of us are still in a poorer position than before the 2008 crash. With the Republicans already raiding the federal piggy bank, the next crash will be devastating. With Trump at the helm, we might be primed for a Great Depression 2.0. On a personal note, I'm worried I'll lose my house this time, and my mom on Social Security and Medicare might not survive the inevitable Republican austerity measures."
politics,"If I were you, I'd look into snapping up a foreclosed home now because interest rates are still fairly low. Foreclosures are still happening with some frequency (although not nearly to the same extent as they were in '08 to about '13). Depending on where you are, home buyers may not be over leveraged like they were back in the late aughts. 

In my city, many homes are being bought with cash over asking price. Meaning, if the home owners aren't over-leveraged (i.e. they have no home loan), there's no pressure for them to sell the house (or lose it to foreclosure) if there's a downturn in the economy.

Now, your city may be different. There may be lots of people who have taken out massive loans for a house, gambling that the house will appreciate beyond what they bought it at, and they can sell to come out on top. If that's the case, yes, wait for the crash. You'll be able to get a foreclosure at rock-bottom prices."
politics,"Your understanding of quantitative easing is not correct. It's not just printing money -- the government was buying, in addition to government bonds, substantial amounts of mortgage-backed securities to relieve *privately* held debt and increase liquidity in the system.

During the Great Recession, there was a huge liquidity problem and inflation was dropping dangerously because of the lack of economic activity. Quantitative easing was enacted to try and release the stranglehold of toxic securities on economic activity. Its correlation with increasing stock market gains has to do with other sectors of the economy absolutely collapsing and no alternatives for capital to be invested. You can see this in the absolutely abysmal increase in inflation for the half decade that QE was in effect. The economy was not growing at any appreciable speed.

You can argue all you want about why Wall Street was never prosecuted (they absolutely should have been), or why there was little financial intervention that directly benefited citizens (there should have been), but Ben Bernanke had the right idea with QE. I remember there being huge protests about the QE programs, but I would even argue that QE had a bigger impact on saving the economy than TARP (aside from the AIG-specific bailout)."
politics,"It does right now, because the Treasury/Congress choose to issue new debt in the amount identical to the deficit. But this is a self-imposed limit. The government could create $10 trillion and use it to pay off its debt, but not issue $10 trillion in new debt as it would right now. The question is if that is a smart idea. I say no, unless you also change a lot of other things, including how new money is created and doing something about huge private and corporate debt."
politics,"\[eyeroll\]  

If you think that ""printing money"" is a problem of 2008 to 2014 then you're clearly just another ill-informed republican fool. 

First, massive deficit spending post-WWII started with Reagan way back in 1984.  He managed to oversee the tripling of the national debt.

Second, printing money is what the government is SUPPOSED to do.  It's how you get dollars to spend.  We're about 4000 years past the barter system so money is the reality of the economic world.  

Third, printing money only becomes a problem when the money supply doesn't match the economy.  Too many dollars leads to inflation.  Too few dollars leads to recession.

Fourth, printing money does indeed lead to a reduced debt by reducing the value of the dollar through inflation.  It is, in effect, a hidden tax on everybody who earns or spends dollars."
politics,">Your understanding of quantitative easing is not correct. It's not just printing money -- the government was buying, in addition to government bonds, substantial amounts of mortgage-backed securities to relieve privately held debt and increase liquidity in the system.

Yes, that is what the Fed did with the money it created (""printed""). I wasn't arguing about what was done with the money, I was just stating that it was done.

>but Ben Bernanke had the right idea with QE

Nope. It was the wrong idea. On multiple levels. I am not saying that the banks shouldn't be saved, but how Bernanke did it wasn't the only option available. It was just the best option for him, his friends and his future employers. 

>but I would even argue that QE had a bigger impact on saving the economy than TARP (aside from the AIG-specific bailout).

Undoubtedly. "
politics,"Oh, you’re in Europe?! Yeah, never mind. I lived in Europe for a while and looked in to buying a house. Yikes!! 


Real-estate markets are very different from pretty much all other markets, they’re all on their own cycles, they don’t really impact each-other much at all. Maybe that’s changing in Europe with how much easier it is for y’all to move around, I don’t know. But your situation is going to be completely different from ours.


You might consider doing what I did, if you’re any good with tools. I built my own house on the weekends over the course of a year and a half. I was lucky in that I inherited some land, and I was lucky in that there is virtually zero building code out here in rural Texas. But the mark-up on housing is outrageous. Any way you can find to put a little sweat-equity in to the process can save you a bundle."
politics,">If you think that ""printing money"" is a problem of 2008 to 2014

Where did I even say that?

>First, massive deficit spending post-WWII started with Reagan way back in 1984. He managed to oversee the tripling of the national debt.

Indeed.

>Second, printing money is what the government is SUPPOSED to do. It's how you get dollars to spend. We're about 4000 years past the barter system so money is the reality of the economic world.

Indeed.

>Third, printing money only becomes a problem when the money supply doesn't match the economy. Too many dollars leads to inflation. Too few dollars leads to recession.

Indeed.

>Fourth, printing money does indeed lead to a reduced debt by reducing the value of the dollar through inflation

It depends on what you do with the money. Most of the QE money went into the stock market and inflated the value of stocks. Its effect on actual consumer prices was much lower than people expected. Because the money was mostly given to the already rich."
politics,"It will be started by a mass default on student loans. It will enter personal debt which will crash the major credit cards, who will then start restrictions people's limits, which leads to less buying power, which leads to fewer jobs, more bankruptcies, and more foreclosures. Then you have even fewer jobs, rinse repeat. This next crash will be awful. Or it wont, nobody actually knows. I'm sure  there are cheerier ways the next crash goes. "
politics,"Yep. Well, consider the fixing-up option. It’s not that hard. Well, I mean, it’s hard, but you don’t really need a ton of skills. Neighbors will lend you tools, give you way more advice than you want or need, and can frequently be put to work for beer. I know y’all like beer. Plus, you get to make things just how you like them and have something that you can take real pride in when you're done."
politics,"I remember asking my mom about this when I was in 5th grade and reading about the “deficit” in my current events class (this would’ve been 1991). All these years later, I remember her explanation of inflation: the rarer something is, the more valuable it is. If we print lots and lots of money, it’s no longer as valuable as it used to be and now it will require more to purchase the same thing.

I was in fifth grade. I understood this concept. 

Someone get the president a fifth grade teacher. Jesus Christ. "
politics,"When this all went down, I worked at a big US based white goods manufacture. Daily operations where/are funded out of carry trade - i.e., short term loans to provide ready cash to make payroll, buy steel, pay the electric bills, etc. Business is very seasonal, so there are times when cash flow out exceeds cashflow in. But the fundamentals of the company are sound. Multi Billion dollar revenue and they almost always made the street predictions on top line numbers. 

Our banks where principally out of the EU, but US banks basically shut all that down for a couple weeks / months (it's been a long time). If the Fed didn't start doing the QE, then a \*lot\* of US brick and mortar companies would have shut down.

\*I'm not going to excuse the lack of action on personal debt though, the Government really left people out to dry that one account. Thanks for nothing Tea Party hacks!"
politics,"Certain types of deficits can pay for themselves by creating enough productivity, but nothing Trump is doing is making that productivity climb enough and no way is he going to collect remotely close to enough to pay back the deficit. And gambling with the reliability of your credit by holding two shutdowns and threatening a third due at the end of the month will make the interest on the debt high enough to cancel out any gains."
politics,"> Its correlation with increasing stock market gains has to do with other sectors of the economy absolutely collapsing and no alternatives for capital to be invested. 

No, it's correlation with increasing stock market gains is because the Fed had a policy of low interest rates and QE, both of which contributed to higher bond prices and lower yield. Fixed income assets became less attractive and the balance of investment shifted to equities."
politics,"I think there are a lot of people who feel like when interest rates dropped to .25 QE was the quickest solution to the problem. People complain about inflation and how terrible it is, but if the dollar fell into deflation the results could have been far more disastrous.  
  
But it’s hard to know for sure, going back and trying to pick apart what helped or how things could have been different is incredibly difficult. "
politics,"This analogy actually doesn't work as well on a macro level. 

For one, the US Dollar is the world reserve currency. If you want to buy oil from the Saudis, for instance, you have to pay in US Dollars. This means that dozens of rich Nations around the world are forced to hold a US Dollar reserve fund.

The effect is that when the US prints money, that inflation is spread around the world. We can fuel spending with debt and print money to cover it, thereby forcing other nations to pay for a little bit of our spending.

It's not all bad. And the US is in a globally unique position due to their geopolitical strategy since WW2."
politics,">For one, the US Dollar is the world reserve currency. If you want to buy oil from the Saudis, for instance, you have to pay in US Dollars. This means that dozens of rich Nations around the world are forced to hold a US Dollar reserve fund.

I remember hearing that the reason the US invaded Iraq wasn't to secure Iraq's oil reserves for itself, it was because Saddam threatened to trade oil on the Euro instead of the USD, threatening everything you just said..."
politics,"The Middle East as I understand largely boils down to ensuring that the Saudis sell oil using the US dollar. Local cultural tensions is largely a result of decades of other countries making the large decisions: e.g. Britain drawing shitty borders.

This means the US is extremely economically incentivized to protect the Saudi government and appease them. 

This primarily means opposing Iran, because Iran overthrew their authoritarian government in 1978. It also means backing the existing government in Syria. Whereas Russia is funding the rebels.

The more democracy grows in the middle East, the more likely that the Saudi government will succumb to a revolution and the existing trade relationships are at risk. "
politics,"we're talking like 8th and quarters of a point- its nothing substantial, and like you say above, the Fed recently started raising interest- they have been, and continue to be at historic lows. The assertion that over decades long QE has caused the Fed to ***recently*** raise interest rates faster just when its 8th and quarter points doesnt make a lot of sense (no offense)   

I mean, of course they have to raise them- theyve been at historic lows are quite some time."
politics,"Well, we've also got a lot of people who are currently in debt, paying off homes or education. It would be good for them. We also have a lot of people who own homes that they want to sell in the future. It's a toss up for them. And we have many people waiting for pensions and social security. It will be terrible for them. 

You could ""fix"" the debt problem without ""reducing"" social security payments and pay pensions (based on 80% of highest wage earned while working) with a little inflationary-aroo time. Sure it will ruin a lot of people, but if we're at the all-ideas on the table stage..."
politics,"Sort of, except being able to teach is a skill in itself. Just knowing a thing does not make you able to teach it to someone else. 

In terms of a (fundamentally flawed) analogy to goods, it's like I have a shiny rock, I hand it to you, and it transforms into a dull rock. If you try to give someone your dull rock, it transforms into rock shards, so no one wants it. But if you polish the dull rock back into a shiny rock, then you can hand it to someone else and then they'd have a dull rock. Alternatively, you could just keep your own dull rock, fasten it to a stick, and now you have a hammer."
politics,"Nah not really. This is all it has. There's some comments from other students, but nothing concrete.

> Professor Kelley told me 100 times over three decades that “Donald Trump was the dumbest goddam student I ever had.”  I remember his emphasis and inflection — it went like this — “Donald Trump was the **dumbest goddam** student I **ever** had.”  Dr. Kelley told me this after Trump had become a celebrity but long before he was considered a political figure.  Dr. Kelley often referred to Trump’s arrogance when he told of this — that Trump came to Wharton thinking he already knew everything. 

"
politics,"I think 95% of the problem with modern economic understanding is that crap like is this seen as remotely accurate. That it's possible to quote a one line summary of Economics 101 and think you understand the first thing about how the economy works. 

There's nothing wrong with ""printing money"". Our economy requires that you do it. The trick is to ensure that you print the right amount. 

As an example, between November 2010 and June 2011, the Federal Reserve effectively increased the money supply in the US by $600b. Yes, billion. In less than a year. That's about $2000 per person in the US. 

Now, they didn't print $600b dollar bills and hand them out on the street and many will argue that quantative easing isn't the same as creating money and there is validity to these arguments but the fact is that banks had $600b more in their accounts than they did beforehand. There's little difference between what the Fed did and writing a $600b cheque and you don't get away from that with accounting tricks to make it acceptable. 

Claiming that you can't print money because it will cause inflation is up there with ""the country has maxed out its credit card"" for stupid things people believe make sense of incredibly complicated systems.

A couple of graduate courses on economics taught me that but it also taught me that I don't really understand how any of it works at any real level. Anyone who says economics 101 teaches you anything more than some simplified meaningless nonsense is talking out of their ass. "
politics,"I have been trying to figure out what the appeal of Trump is to his supporters, and I think they still get behind him because he makes it okay to be stupid--maybe even virtuous. Knowledgeable people are intimidating, and the intimidation leads to resentment. They didn't like Obama because he was smarter than them (i.e, ""elite""). They like Trump because he's not. 

Edit: Some of you seem to be having a problems with this. I'll put it this way--someone isn't ""arrogant"" for telling an anti-vaxxer or a flat-earther that they are ignorant; supporting ignorant positions IS ignorant. Getting defensive and accusing someone of ""arrogance"" when they have a logical, correct assessment when yours is wrong is EXACTLY what I am talking about--Trump supporters feel more secure with their ignorance than admitting their ignorance, and Trump congratulates them for their ignorance. And this is how we've gotten ourselves into this position, demonizing valid information, calling it ""elitism"" or ""arrogance,"" instead of standing up for the validity of that information and calling out the misinformation."
politics,"When its news that is reported on with extreme bias leaving out key details: Fake news

When the story is fabricated then reported on as fact without having any basis by the media as is the case with the woodward book its very fake news. 

When the FBI leaks fake news to the media who are paid to play along then the FBI uses those news stories as support for a FISA application to spy on an american citizen the media and FBI become the enemy of the people. "
politics,"> Ivy league educations are no better than any other. Math is Math. History is History. Economics is economics.

At the Ivies the professors are better, the TA's are some of the smartest graduate students in the world. Not to mention the fellow students who are, for the most part, incredibly talented. A lot of my friends from high school ended up getting into an Ivy - discussing homework with these guys made me feel smarter. Yes the Ivies don't have a monopoly on these characteristics but to say that the average student gets the same quality of education as at a typical public school or mid-tier private school is absurd.

They are a scam because they brand themselves as the only path to success. A student with the brains and ambition of *most* Ivy League students is going to succeed regardless of what university they go to. But a Harvard degree on your resume opens up way too many doors for the students who don't really deserve to be there."
politics,"Depends on how you look at it, but no. New money only enters circulation through bank loans. Because only the federal reserve can print money, and the federal reserve only gives money out to other banks, and banks only give money out in the form of loans. But loans by definition have interest, meaning no matter how much the bank gives out it's expected that more than that amount will be returned to the bank which I suppose you could consider money being removed from circulation. But that money doesn't disappear, which is why inflation happens. That money paid back in interest is just then sent out again as new loans. The federal reserve has the right to destroy the money it controls in order to definitively remove money from circulation, and it does, but never at a rate that matches how much it sends out. "
politics,">If you want to buy oil from the Saudis, for instance, you have to pay in US Dollars. This means that dozens of rich Nations around the world are forced to hold a US Dollar reserve fund.

Well no... Because you don't actually transfer physical money when ordering a oil tanker full of oil.

>We can fuel spending with debt and print money to cover it, thereby forcing other nations to pay for a little bit of our spending.

But... That inflation still hits home, and the devalued currency also increases consumer costs. 

And then the Euro becomes the currency that oil is traded in, and the US starts to look like Venezuala right now.

Paying off the debt isn't a problem. The US should have taken on far more debt early in the Obama administration, when the costs of borrowing were so incredibly low, since GDP growth since then has been exceeding the interest rates the economy would rapidly just outgrow that debt. 

Printing money to clear it... that's plain idiocy."
politics,"That’s true, and it’s really not their fault, student athletes are just pawns. A lot of them just end up after 4 years with no prospects of playing sports professionally, probably a traumatic brain injury or two, and a useless degree. And they don’t get paid for sacrificing their time and long term health for the benefit of the university’s fundraising department.

But there also is a culture of covering up crimes (esp sexual assault) committed by college sports players with teams often improperly influencing university investigations into accusations. Because bad press is bad for fundraising."
politics,"I agree, though (correct me if I'm wrong) I've only ever heard him say he went to Wharton, never explicitly stating that he went for an MBA. I think people are inferring that from his statements since most people dont know theres an undergrad program. I dont know If hes ever actually claimed that.

At least at Penn, people in the Wharton school like to say they're in Wharton - students dont make the distinction between undergrad and MBA either. "
politics,"If you want to think about it in more detail, you trade money for *allocation of resources*. Those resources can be time, effort, goods, services, whatever (""stuff"" for short).

​

Under a strict barter economy, if you want stuff, you must provide a similar level of different stuff in return on the spot at that time. Money is theoretically just a convenient way to keep score, so you can provide stuff to one person now, then request stuff from another person later, and transfer money so that it all comes out appropriately - which is obviously way more convenient."
politics,"Yea. Do you know what a complaint contains? Allegations. That’s all it is. Anyone can allege anything and file suit against anyone, and I do mean that literally. None of the allegations in any complaint should be taken as fact - in any suit, and this goes for civil as well as criminal complaints. At the complaint stage, nothing has been tested, let alone proven. Multiple attorneys have withdrawn as counsel for the woman making these claims (probably because they came to realize that she’s fuckin lying, and rather than state as much and violate their duty of confidentiality or continue to perpetuate a fraud upon the court by pressing forward - both of which subject them to bar discipline, they’ve withdrawn from the case) and the case has been dismissed at least once (maybe twice by now). 


Trump has done enough awful shit for which there’s abundant evidence. There’s no need to run around flailing about allegations as if they’re proven facts - it only gives him a reason to claim everyone’s out to get him with some made-up story. It’s unnecessary and detrimental to those who seek accountability for the very real crimes he’s committed. 


So enough with this. Stick to the facts. "
politics,"Sounds more like you're selection of those you hire is a problem more than their credentials. You don't hire them because of their degree, you hire them because they can do the job.

I value my degree, but it generally doesn't mean much and the value it provides me is it opens doors. I value the knowledge I gained and the life experience, but that doesn't mean all college grads are going to come out with the same skill set or capability."
politics,"Yeah, that's the thing.  The Laffer curve is a reality for an edge case in economics -- like quantum physics being applicable on the subatomic level.  Yet here we are trying to shove billiard balls around with rules meant for particles too small to even have chemical properties.  The introduction of this idea to American public policy is deeply objectionable, but some among the Chicago School were all too willing to give it the appearance of intellectual heft."
politics,"I'm not a Trump supporter by any stretch, but I was a Republican before he got the nomination. And I have friends and family who are pro-Trump.

The appeal is not intelligence vs lack of intelligence. It's the *perceived arrogance* of liberals always claiming that they *are* more intelligent (which, ironically, is present in your comment).

They feel pushed around and belittled, and they feel like Trump is the first person to come along and actually push back. Other Republicans have talked about pushing back, but then didn't. Trump doesn't back down (even when he should).

So yeah, most of them don't care about the nitty gritty of policy except for hot button topics like abortion, gun control, and immigration. But that's one of the reasons I left the party. Also I can't stand for his abuses against women and his caricature of Christianity, but that's another post."
politics,"> It's the perceived arrogance of liberals always claiming that they are more intelligent (which, ironically, is present in your comment).

Oh, fuck off. Knowledge, while extremely diverse, is still quantifiable. It's not ""arrogant"" to say someone is more intelligent than someone else in comparison--it's truth, not perception or bias. You're just another person who accuses people of ""arrogance"" if their vocabulary is broader than yours, or they talk about matters in which you are not well versed. You ARE the willfully ignorant, because you refuse to acknowledge the difference."
politics,"I can’t tell if you’re joking so I’ll just answer directly, NO. If you’re making claims against someone, regardless of whether they’re true, filing a document in court does not automatically convert your claims into facts. 


SHE herself literally writes the claims under the heading “Factual ALLEGATIONS” in the actual [complaint](https://www.scribd.com/doc/310835987/Donald-Trump-Lawsuit).


Here’s [Snopes](https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/) for good measure: 

> As of now, all of the information about this lawsuit comes solely from the complaint filed by “Katie Johnson,” and no one has as yet located, identified, or interviewed her. She was scheduled to appear at a press conference on 2 November 2016 but didn’t show up, claiming that threats to her life kept her away. She reportedly dropped the lawsuit again on 4 November 2016 for the same reason.

> A status conference for the lawsuit was scheduled to be held on 16 December 2016.


As I recall, I think the case was again dismissed but I’ve already wasted too much time on this idiotic bullshit. Why don’t you google it and update me? 


The biggest hint that the claims aren’t credible is that she can’t seem to keep an attorney on the case. Isn’t it curious that there are thousands of lawyers who would jump at the chance to nab to Trump on these salacious claims, free of charge, yet none of them are stepping up to represent Katie Johnson? And that the few who have then almost immediately moved to withdraw their representation? 


"
politics,"> I bet they don't want to give back the money that was needed to purchase it.

I wonder if paying the money back would be a better gesture. The univ could probably afford it and it would be good for their own publicity.

Also, as cheap as the Trumps are, I don't think they paid a whole lot. Maybe a few million in donations. Max. Probably lesser.

Or maybe the Trumps only made promises as usual... the money never changed hands.
"
politics,"This is actually not strictly true. 

The Federal reserve tries to keep inflation at a constant target. They do this by controlling interest rates. That in turns controls how easy it is for banks to make loans, and because of the reserve system banks have, they can loan out money they don't actually have, which is how the new money exists. 

That's it in a nutshell.

So they are printing new money, just the right amount to maximize investments, while keeping the dollar where they want it."
politics,"My hiring mentality is that the hiring process is predictive, not a guarantee.  We track our data for good hires and college degrees (and especially master degrees) are a slight negative for <30 year old hires.

IE, for my company / projects a degree will never help you. We still have good contractors / employees with degrees.

I also have data that says I hire and retain at a significantly better clip than my competitors indicating my process is above average."
politics,"Here's what's going on. Trump knows these things, either by experience of being told, that printing money is not the answer. However, he insists on this as an option because he will do anything to raise economic indicators not caring about long term consequences. This is because when the Mueller report is release, with a possibility of a Democratic house, he wants the base to think the report is a product of the deep state and in the meantime he has, with historical levels, improved the economy. This will cause the base to have even more of an emotional motivation to fight back, even violently, if he becomes close to being removed.
  "
politics,"It actually sounds like they are hiring for practical skills and folks who have been in the job market for about 5-7 years after going through formal training are less effective and more confident than kids who have been solving problems since their teens playing around with programming and building things in their spare time. 

It's a particular problem in CS because what a university wants to teach is theory, and how to re-invent the wheel. Those are great skills to keep alive, but they generally don't comport with what the marketplace needs, which is the fastest person to copy a working solution into the existing problem set of a company. 

I think the biggest problem is that we teach programming as a technical exercise and part of the CS in school, but in real life for most professional coders it's more like creative writing with very, VERY strict rules, and the science of it is used by maybe 5% or less of coders. 

The only realistic way to fix it is to make basic programming literacy as common as basic math literacy (and then make both as common as just plain literacy, pls). "
politics,"Part of me wants to say “it’s really complicated”, but so are a lot of other things that we learn. I took several econ courses and only learned about money supply from an internet video. 

A big part of any economics education is realizing that a lot of the teachers and professors have a specific political agenda they are pushing. It’s not that they teach things that are wrong, but they will avoid teaching anything that goes against their personal beliefs in the same way a christian biology teacher avoids teaching evolution. "
politics,"The Fed has a ""Discount Window"" from which banks can borrow new money that didn't exist before. This process can be accurately described as ""creating new money""

The Fed does not print physical dollar bills, but physical currency is a small and shrinking portion of the total money supply. 

late edit: The Fed can also engage in ""Quantitative Easing"" where it buys assets (mostly government debt) with newly created money, this can also be accurately described as ""creating new money"" . "
politics,">they don’t actually believe in any of that fiscal stuff

The deficits are going to erode his support. There will always be a certain number who support him because of his racism, or because they saw *The Apprentice* and believed that they were watchin a genius at work, or because they like the way he bullies people, or because or abortion, or because they will always vote Republican, etc.

But there were some who voted for him because of his attacks on deficits that he blamed on Obama, and because he promised to reduce those deficits. And those people are going to realize in 2020 that they've been duped.

I see a lot of discouraged people saying things like, ""nothing will ever turn Trump's supporters against him"". Remember, though, that he won with virtually no margin for error, at the height of his popularity. He's done nothing to reach out to people who didn't support him. If he loses ANY support, he's toast in 2020. 

One other thing: Trump won against a very divided Democratic party, and he's done everything imaginable to unify the opposition. He'll lose to any centrist Democrat who is willing to compromise and show a willingness to negotiate in good faith with the other side (perhaps by choosing someone like Sherrod Brown or Tammy Baldwin as a running mate, instead of someone like Tim Kaine), and he'll lose to any liberal Democrat who reaches out to the center."
politics,"no, undergrad is quite distinguished, I don't know where this myth about the undergrad being so much less meaningful than the MBA came from. Yes, I did go there for undergrad, so I am biased. But I took several classes with MBAs, and I heard professor after professor tell us that the MBAs are curved separately and more leniently. Are you familiar with MBA programs in general? It's barely about academics.

It's a popular saying that wharton undergrads don't go back for MBAs because they don't need them. I don't know how true it is, but it's definitely a common sentiment in certain circles.

Trump could have gone anywhere if he wanted. That's the privilege of the ultra-rich. He could have bought a seat at harvard, or any ivy/ivy-level school. Do you honestly think (before all of this negative publicity, of course) he couldn't have bought an MBA if he had wanted one?"
politics,"If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we shall fight them to the uttermost, having behind us the producing masses of the nation and the world. Having behind us the commercial interests and the laboring interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.

-William Jennings Bryan"
politics,"If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we shall fight them to the uttermost, having behind us the producing masses of the nation and the world. Having behind us the commercial interests and the laboring interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."
politics,"Men like Gary Cohn mock Trump for not understanding inflation while clawing as much money out of the hands of the middle class as possible. That's the context here. Republicans who scoff at this story and call Trump unwell and the lobbyists who will laugh about this behind closed doors tonight wrote the latest $1.5T tax giveaway.

So either these billionaires begging for more tax breaks *know* they're driving the economy to calamity and just don't care because they'd rather have more money today even if it means having nothing tomorrow, or they're so fucking dumb and greedy that they can't tell the difference between what they're doing and what Trump's proposing here."
politics,"Also, some older members of my family still hold grudges against the Southerners that hung Italians in Louisiana in the 1800's. Along with the Union Organizers/Civil Rights activist that some were Italian that got Lynched in the south from the 40's to the 60's. [Also, one of the reasons Hoover had links to the mafia was to use them and their anger at Southerners during those lynchings to get information on the KKK and Southern Lost Cause groups](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/oct/31/usa.international). 

The gay rights movement was a little more complicated. In that you had a diverse set of opinions within the Italian community but, they loved the money the Gay Demographic gave them through their bars. You had some gay mafia guys, some with just a ""This is America, why should I care who they're fucking"" and, others with the old world Catholic mentality. I'm Bisexual and Italian, and would love to say that the Mafia saw the gay Community's struggle as similar to how they saw the Black struggle but, it was way more complicated. "
politics,"""G. Edward Griffin (born November 7, 1931) is an American author and filmmaker. Griffin's writings promote a number of false views and conspiracy theories regarding various of his political, defense and health care interests. In his book World Without Cancer, he argues that cancer is a nutritional deficiency that can be cured by consuming amygdalin, a view regarded as quackery by the medical community.[2][3][4] He is the author of The Creature from Jekyll Island (1994), which promotes false theories about the motives behind the creation of the Federal Reserve System.[2][5] He is an HIV/AIDS denialist, supports the 9/11 Truth movement, and supports a specific John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory.[2] He also believes that the biblical Noah's Ark is located at the Durupınar site in Turkey.[6]""

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Edward_Griffin


Also:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-story-behind-the-creature-from-jekyll-island-the-anti-fed-conspiracy-theory-bible

Just because it is in a book doesn't make it true."
politics,"You are very condescending. 

QE is fundamentally different than “creating money” so don’t play coy and act like there is a controversy there. The Fed purposefully used QE and other measures to counteract deflation during the recession and shore up financial institutions to prevent a downward spiral. And it worked without resulting in a vast increase in circulating currency.  Your breakdown to monetary amount per person is very misleading in that regard.  Not to mention that QE wasn’t “free money” to the banks. 

The thing that matters is money in circulation not money in total.  Printing more money would not have been great to solve the problems at the time. 

Again, spurring inflation in a very directed fashion was what was needed at the time.  We don’t need that now which is why the Fed is tightening interest rates amongst other measures. "
politics,"I believe in his fiscal stuff. The thing about the US is we are in a unique position where we owe our debts in our own currency. Other countries tend to use USD for their debts as well. So if hypothetically France wants to borrow money from Spain, Spain will give them USD and be owed that in return. This means France can’t just print money to pay back the loan, they have  to acquire USD at the going exchange rate in order to pay their debt. If they print money, exchange rate plummets, and it doesn’t help them at all in acquiring the USD they owe.

When the United States borrows money, we borrow USD as well like every other country, and we do it by selling treasury bonds. When they come to term, we pay back the bonds in USD. So in actuality, we could with the flick of a pen print all the money we owe and pay all of our debts easily. 

This would have the effect of diluting the exchange value of our currency for our own citizens, and we’d end up with a smaller overall percent of USD that exists. Unless of course we print even more money and give it to our own citizen. So let’s say every dollar you have becomes a hundred dollars, and everything becomes 100 times more expensive. This would in effect dilute the USD that we just created to pay our debts back to a reasonable percentage of our entire money supply. 

We are in a unique position to do this. It would most certainly have repercussions and nobody would ever trust the USD again, but it is in fact true that we can print money to pay our debts. "
politics,">I have been trying to figure out what the appeal of Trump is to his supporters.

One reason you struggle is that you would likely disagree with any Republican President policies, he makes an easy target.


But don't be a stupid as some progressives and think stupidity is in play with most of the support he gets.


**Trump supporters and supporters of many of Trump's policies are two very different things. The % of the GOP that like Trump the person is very small. The percent that like his policies, huge**.

If Trump gets two or three SC appoints through that are remarkably different than H.Clinton would have appointed, then I can hold my nose, puke occasionally and say it was good.

If he can reduce the mass inflow of illegal immigrants that allows shortages in labor to drive up lower level incomes, then I can say, he is a buffoon, but with a Democrat, the illegal immigration and income gap would continue to grow.

If he is finally the President that forces China to open up their markets to the same degree ours are opened to them, I say it took a crazy person to make that happen.  (I notice when we put a 15-25% tariff on some products, China responds with 40% tariffs, because they were already at 25% to begin, to get a 15% increase they have to move to 40%).That has to stop. Forced technology transfer has to stop. Hillary, nor Jeb Bush would have pushed this hard for fair trade. I and the GOP love free trade, it does not exist equally today.

The tax reform bill was very important, not perfect, it may need to be adjusted to get revenues higher, but I am happy with the bill. Trump did nothing but sign it, but Hillary would not have signed it,


I want the US military to stop being the world's police. If Clinton or a Republican was elected would ISIS still hold territory? Probably we would still be as deep in that as we were when Obama left. I want to stop being the guys that stand between Russia and Europe, We can be in Nato from bases in America. I want South Korea to figure out how to defend (conventionally) their self against their much smaller and poorer neighbor without American troops. (We can remain their Nuclear umbrella)That idea seems foreign to our traditional politicians.

Trump is a buffoon. An idiot. Morally bankrupt as a family guy. A liar. Thank God there are traditional Republicans on his staff to temper his stupidity.

I can't wait until he is no longer The President, but only because of his character and his divisive statements. I am a 30 year Republican but didn't vote for him or Hillary in 2016, but I am not disappointed in his policy direction.
"
politics,"How then can I go through the entire lower division economics course without ever learning the basics of money supply? 

The professor chooses the textbook, and the textbook can be written by anyone with any agenda. I think you underestimate just how tied in the American economics discipline is with conservative politics. We are finally reaching a point where economics is becoming a true science instead of a pseudoscience, but that is only at the highest levels. It hasn't filtered down to the college coursework yet. "
politics,"My degree lacked programming languages that a lot of jobs require and threw in ones no one seems to be hiring for. I’ve had to keep on top and fill the gaps in my knowledge in my own time since graduating.

I think it’s the people who graduate and think they can take on the world when in reality their degree is simply a foundation that they must continually build on as their career progresses. Especially with the speed that new technologies come these days."
politics,"A few concepts are necessary to put it all together. 

First, the basic concept of credit spreads. If I borrow money at a rate x and I lend it out at another rate y, then y must be greater than x if I am to make money. So for a simple case, let's say I run a savings and loan. People make deposits with me, and I pay them a rate of 3%. I then take a portion of that money and lend it out to people who need loans at 5%. The spread would be 2%, and that is how I as a bank would make money. 

Now the concept of fractional reserves. What I just described above is the basics of how all banks work. Before banks were regulated by the government, the amount of money a bank could lend out was a matter of custom and tradition. The traditional fractional reserve ration was 1 to 5. So if I have $500,000 in deposits, I only need to keep $100,000 around for withdrawals, and I can lend the remaining $400,000 out. 

Since the people who have their deposits with my bank technically ""have"" their money, and the people I am lending it out to also ""have"" their money, I have basically made $900,000 out of $500,000. 

So the money supply extends far beyond the actual amount of dollars in circulation. 

Now back to the credit spreads thing, basically if there is a central bank governing the way money is lent out, they can raise the lowest possible interest rate there is, which ""squeezes"" the availability of credit. If they raise it a small amount. that means a small amount of loans cannot be made, because the risk exceeds the return. This is how the fed controls the growth of money supply. 

It's actually quite inaccurate to say that the Fed ""prints"" money, because non-intervention would be not controlling the interest rates at all, letting the money supply get out of control like it was in the late 70s and early 80s! Better to think of them turning the knob on the faucet to slow the flow of money through the economy. "
politics,"> I don't know where this myth about the undergrad being so much less meaningful than the MBA came from

From the fact that nearly all actual business teaching is done at the MBA level and a 4 year business degree is what frat boys who don't want to be in college get.

>Do you honestly think (before all of this negative publicity, of course) he couldn't have bought an MBA if he had wanted one?

I do, because he doesn't have one, but clearly wants one."
politics,"That is true.  You also don't want to make the dollar too rare, because it will start to appreciate in value over time which is bad for the economy.  People will sit on their cash instead of investing it.  That's why the Fed shoots for a 2-3% inflation rate.  Printing money isn't necessarily a bad thing (we did that to recover from the recession), but right now printing money would be disastrous. "
politics,"That's very well said. We find it online too. Watch videos by gold bugs like Mike Maloney or Peter Schiff and you get a wayyyy different economic education (Austrian school) than someone who believes in Keynesian economics. Supply side vs. Demand side, all that stuff, depending what you believe drives the economy will greatly influence how you perceive money and its role in the economy. As with most things, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. "
politics,"Nah dude, you’re correct. Kudos to you for beating out 85% or whatever it is of the other applicants. An MBA is great, but you always hear about people getting in. Every kid I know that went to an Ivy League straight out of high school had to have straight As, 2100-2400 on the SAT, do community service every weekend for all four  years, be class president on top of 5 other extracurriculars. "
politics,"Well here's a list of sources for you (from the bottom of the wikipedia page):

 Vinny Eastwood Show March 25, 2011

^ a b c d Easter, Sean (March 26, 2011). ""Who is G. Edward Griffin, Beck's Expert on The Federal Reserve?"". Media Matters for America. Retrieved 2015-03-10. On his Fox News show, Glenn Beck presented Griffin as an authority on the history of the Federal Reserve System. Griffin has a history of holding and promoting various conspiracy hypotheses, whether founded or unfounded, that include notions that question the very existence of HIV/AIDS, as well as the view that the origin of cancer has to do with a specific dietary deficiency, and correspondingly, that cancer can be effectively cured with an 'essential food compound'.

^ Herbert V (May 1979). ""Laetrile: the cult of cyanide. Promoting poison for profit"". Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 32 (5): 1121–58. PMID 219680.

^ Lerner IJ (February 1984). ""The whys of cancer quackery"". Cancer. 53 (3 Suppl): 815–9. doi:10.1002/1097-0142(19840201)53:3+<815::aid-cncr2820531334>3.0.co;2-u. PMID 6362828.

^ a b c d Suebsaeng, Asawin (26 November 2015). ""The Story Behind 'The Creature From Jekyll Island,' the Anti-Fed Conspiracy Theory Bible"". The Daily Beast.

^ a b ""The Discovery of Noah's Ark"". Reality Zone. Retrieved 2008-03-06. This program was written and narrated by G. Edward Griffin.

^ a b c Who's Who in America 1994 (48th ed.). Marquis Who's Who. December 1993.

^ ""G. Edward Griffin"". WorldCat. Retrieved 2015-03-11.

^ a b Giraud, Victoria (May 22, 1995). ""T.O.'s Griffin All Booked Up With Writing, Film Projects"". Daily News of Los Angeles. G. Edward Griffin, author and documentary film producer, calls himself 'a plain vanilla researcher and writer.' But the projects he has completed don't deal with 'vanilla' subjects. They concern the Federal Reserve, the Supreme Court, cancer and even Noah's ark. Perhaps a better description of Griffin is one he also admits to - 'Crusader Rabbit.' ...

^ Aune, James Arnt (2001). Selling the Free Market: The Rhetoric of Economic Correctness. Guilford Press. pp. 140–1. ISBN 1-57230-757-9.

^ Steele, Karen Dorn; Morlin, Bill (2000-09-02). ""Get-rich pitch 'bogus': Seven states have determined Global Prosperity is an illegal pyramid scheme"". The Spokesman Review. At age 65, 90 percent of Americans are broke, author G. Edward Griffin writes. He's a contributing editor of The New American Magazine, published by the John Birch Society. The United Nations, the Council on Foreign Relations and the World Bank are plotting a system of world military and financial control to destroy American sovereignty, he writes. The book warns about the dangers of the New World Order and preaches that the United States should get out of the United Nations....There's little that's accurate in Griffin's book, says journalist [David] Marchant.

^ Sayre, Nora (1996). Sixties Going on Seventies. Rutgers University Press. p. 98. ISBN 0-8135-2193-9. In a wonderful lecture by G. Edward Griffin, slides and diagrams of triangles and arrows and circles show how the Conspiracy learned its techniques from the 18th Century Freemasons of Europe. ...

^ Stone, Barbara S. (February 1974). ""The John Birch Society: A Profile"". The Journal of Politics. 36 (1): 184–197. doi:10.2307/2129115. JSTOR 2129115.

^ Bourgoin, Suzanne Michele; Byers, Paula K. (1998). Encyclopedia of World Biography. Gale. ISBN 0-7876-2556-6.

^ Thornton, James (1993-12-13). ""Remembering Robert Welch"". John Birch Society. Archived from the original on 2008-11-27. Retrieved 2008-03-06. We invite you to learn more about him by reading The Life and Words of Robert Welch by G. Edward Griffin. ...

^ a b c Heidi Beirich. ""Midwifing the Militias: Jekyll Island Gathering Recalls Another""(Spring 2010, Issue 137). Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved 2015-03-11. G. Edward Griffin, who helped organize the Jekyll Island gathering, may have been more revealing. Griffin, who wrote a scathing 1994 attack on the Fed published by the anti-communist John Birch Society and also a sympathetic biography of the group's founder, was the first to speak at the meeting. He told conferees that merely putting 'large numbers of people in the street' was not enough. 'We must,' he said, 'achieve power'.

^ Monares, Freddy (June 24, 2017). ""Activists: Convention in Bozeman is 'alt-right' recruitment effort"". Bozeman Daily Chronicle.

^ Hammett, Yvette C. (7 May 2008). ""'He Thought He Had To Do Some Hero Thing': Gunman Shot, Killed At St. Pete Courthouse"". Tampa Bay Times.

^ Thomas, Kenn (2002). Popular Paranoia: A Steamshovel Press Anthology. Adventures Unlimited Press. p. 298. ISBN 1-931882-06-1.

^ Ryssdal, Kai; Bodnar, Bridget (October 20, 2015). ""How a secret meeting on Jekyll Island led to the Fed"". MarketPlace.

^ ""Bestselling business books"". Calgary Herald. 2006-07-04. p. F5.

^ ""Best-selling business books, April 14"". Rocky Mountain News. 2007-04-14. Archived from the original on 2008-09-27. Retrieved 2008-02-29. 10. The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve: G. Edward Griffin. American Media. $24.50. ...

^ Paul listed Griffin's book on his ""Reading List for a Free and Prosperous America"". See: Paul, Ron (2007-04-30). The Revolution: A Manifesto. New York City, NY: Grand Central Publishing. pp. 169–70. ISBN 0-446-53751-9.

^ Flaherty, Edward. ""Debunking the Federal Reserve Conspiracy Theories: Myth #1: The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was crafted by Wall Street bankers and a few senators in a secret meeting"". Somerville, Massachusetts: Political Research Associates. Retrieved 2008-05-10. G. Edward Griffin lays out this conspiratorial version of history in his book The Creature from Jekyll Island. Mainstream-approved academics have viscerally criticized the very nature of his research as ""highly suspect"", his methods of research as ""amateurish, and his controversial historical conclusions by referring to them as ""utterly preposterous"" however. ... ...

^ a b c Lagnado, Lucette (2000-03-22). ""Laetrile Makes a Comeback Selling to Patients Online"". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2008-02-29.

^ ""Controversial Cancer Drug Laetrile Enters Political Realms"". Middlesboro Daily News. 1977-08-10. Retrieved 2008-02-29.

^ ""New Library Books"". Books. Grand Forks Herald. 2003-07-13. p. 4. Retrieved 2008-02-29.

^ Kenadjian, Berdj (2006). From Darkness to Light. Zakarian, Martin, illus. (2d ed.). Phenix & Phenix Literary Publicists. p. 94. ISBN 978-1-933538-24-2. Retrieved 2009-03-17.

^ Milazzo, Stefania; Horneber, Markus (2015-04-28). ""Laetrile treatment for cancer"". The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (4): CD005476. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005476.pub4. ISSN 1469-493X. PMID 25918920.

^ Nightingale SL (1984). ""Laetrile: the regulatory challenge of an unproven remedy"". Public Health Rep. 99 (4): 333–8. PMC 1424606 . PMID 6431478.

^ Landau, Emanuel (July 1976). ""World without Cancer; the Story of Vitamin B17"" (PDF). American Journal of Public Health. 66 (7): 696. doi:10.2105/AJPH.66.7.696-a. ISSN 0090-0036. PMC 1653400 . Retrieved 2008-03-05. The author maintains that the missing food nutrient is part of the nitriloside family which is found particularly in the seeds of the fruit family containing bitter almond ...

^ Jones, Marianna (1976-10-11). ""Cure or fraud?"". Walla Walla Union-Bulletin. Retrieved 2008-02-29.

^ ""The Cancer Cure Foundation"". The Cancer Cure Foundation. Retrieved 2015-03-11. This website provides an unbiased analysis of the major alternative-cancer clinics, treatments and therapies. It explains the theories of how these treatments work and where to locate doctors, practitioners and natural-health clinics. It also provides case histories of patients who have benefited from these non-conventional approaches.

^ ""Chemtrails - Conspiracy Theory?"". Australian Science. December 28, 2012. Retrieved 2015-03-11. The filmmakers bring in advocate and conspiracist G. Edward Griffin to join this chemtrail crusade. He talks about how chemtrails don't dissipate; that a permanent grid hangs over cities like Los Angeles.

"
politics,"Well in that light you're really just finding those who were motivated to learn before going to college. There are many who do this and continued during college to learn outside of class as well, just like there are many who never went to college and continued learning on their own.

There's in general a different level of expectations for hiring a college grad and someone who has a few years experience which is effectively what your comparison is. I agree there's a probl with a lack of skills coming out of college for software.

My company plans to invest in college students, convert them to full time employment and then retain them. They've got a great track record of doing so. There are places for degrees but I don't think that the only answer is a degree either."
politics,"I understand what you mean, I think, however I'm not sure that's really an accurate description either.

The Fed controls how much money is in circulation.  They have a bunch of it basically in a back room that the economy doesn't touch and they buy treasury bonds on the open market when they want to increase how much is in circulation.  They then sell the treasuries bonds that they have when they want to reduce how much is in circulation.

If that's what you meant then I agree, but I think the word ""create"" is wrong but I guess if the meaning is the same it doesn't really matter."
politics,"So I replied to a similar comment below in the same way but I'll leave the same response here as well.

​

I understand what you mean, I think, however I'm not sure that's really an accurate description either.

​

The Fed controls how much money is in circulation.  They have a bunch of it basically in a back room that the economy doesn't touch and they buy treasury bonds on the open market when they want to increase how much is in circulation.  They then sell the treasuries bonds that they have when they want to reduce how much is in circulation.

​

If that's what you meant then I agree, but I think the word ""create"" is wrong but I guess if the meaning is the same it doesn't really matter."
politics,"I think I agree with you then, but I'm curious what you would define as ""creating money"" that is different from 'increasing the amount of money in circulation'

It's not quite accurate to say the Fed has a bunch of money in a back room they can withdrawal from to put into the economy, or take out as they wish. It's largely not physical money. And there's no hard limit to the amount of money the Fed is capable of introducing into the economy if they decide to do so. "
politics,"Well this one is completely false.

A long time ago they were gifted a whole bunch of money.  This money sits in their vault either physically or digitally now.  It is not in circulation but it still exists.

They increase the money supply by buying treasury bonds with the money they have in their vault or ""back room"".  They don't print the money at that point in time.  That's where I think you're getting confused.  The money does exist its just not in circulation and so its not in the money supply.

This is straight from my Macroeconomics Professor."
politics,"Sure, I get that, but I asked what you would call it then.

​

Point being that we need two different terms to discuss the two different actions.  The terms themselves aren't really as important as the understanding of the two different actions.  I prefer to describe what the Fed does as increasing or decreasing the Money Supply and what the Treasury does as creating or printing money.

​

You don't necessarily have to agree but I do think you need to pose two new descriptions if you are to disagree with the ones that I have put forth.  Otherwise we can't actually discuss anything real and will be stuck in this debate over terminology which isn't as productive as we might otherwise be."
politics,">A long time ago they were gifted a whole bunch of money. This money sits in their vault either physically or digitally now. It is not in circulation but it still exists.

Lol, no, that's complete nonsense. The Fed directly increases the selling bank's reserve account at the Federal Reserve Bank without any corresponding decrease in any account anywhere else.

>They increase the money supply by buying treasury bonds with the money they have in their vault or ""back room"". They don't print the money at that point in time. That's where I think you're getting confused. The money does exist its just not in circulation and so its not in the money supply.

No, there is no back room or vault. There's no account for them to run out of money to buy securities. You are correct that they don't physically print the money at that point. The new money only exists electronically in the Reserve Bank. In fact, physically printing money never actually adds money to the money supply because it's always done in exchange for electronic money.

>This is straight from my Macroeconomics Professor.

Either you misunderstood what your professor was saying, or they were wrong. It's probably the first possibility."
politics,"First line 2nd paragraph in the Forbes article. ""The Fed, of course, does not literally print money.""

5th paragraph same article: ""My conversations lead me to believe that most people equate printing money or creating money (the term I’ll use from here on) with creating it out of thin air. They equate creating money with creating wealth—albeit paper wealth or false wealth with no corresponding real wealth production involved. **I’ve been sloppy myself in referring to creating money “out of thin air,” but that is simply not the case.**"" Emphasis mine.

First paragraph in The Balance article: ""What does it mean when someone says the Federal Reserve is printing money? It doesn't mean the Fed has a printing press that cranks out dollars. **Only the Treasury Department does that.**""  Emphasis mine.

Thanks for proving my point.  If you also notice most times when they say the Fed Prints Money they put quotation marks around ""Prints Money"".  Meaning that they don't actually print the money.

You're misunderstanding comes from the way these things are talked about in news articles and the like.  But again, I'm going to go with my own understanding and what my Macro prof, who may be a fed governor some day and who works alongside current fed governors and past governors, over your understanding.

Thanks"
politics,"Wow, so now you're cherry picking quotes to be intentionally misleading?

First line of the third paragraph from the Forbes article that you somehow skipped over:

> Open-market purchases by the Fed always create (print if you insist) new money. 

From the Balance article:

> The Fed’s other tool is open market operations. The Fed buys Treasurys and other securities from banks and replaces them with credit. All central banks have this unique ability to create credit out of thin air. That’s just like printing money.

From the PBS article:

> The two main forms of money created by the U.S. government are currency — about a trillion dollar’s worth out there at the moment — and “Federal Reserves:” electronic blips on the books of financial institutions — mainly banks. The Fed does indeed create these so-called reserves “out of thin air,” as you put it, when it buys securities to increase the money supply.

From the Investopedia article:

> Central banks have since become much more technologically creative. The Fed figured out that money doesn't have to be physically present to work in an exchange. Businesses and consumers could use checks, debit and credit cards, balance transfers and online transactions. Money creation doesn't have to be physical, either; the central bank can simply imagine up new dollar balances and credit them to other accounts."
politics,"I need to read more about this, but even what you describe is fundamentally different from printing money as Trump and his voters understand it. 

Trump wants the treasury to print money — create it out of nowhere — and use it to pay off the government’s debt. 

That is fundamentally different than *borrowing* money from a central bank or any other bank and needing to pay it back at a later time. "
politics,"The fact that newly created money is owed does not entirely discount the fact that it's still newly created money, getting transferred around the economy, meaning more dollars chasing the same amount of goods. 

The Fed is under no obligation to ever reduce its balance sheet and sell off assets it creates via quantitative easing. It can keep the new money in circulation forever. The discount window money does need to get paid back.

Whether either of these mechanisms for introducing new money into the economy results in hyperinflation depends on how much money is created. "
politics,"Really Trump has not changed much yet that was actually going to be implemented.  (we were never going to be able to hit the 54.5 MPG fleet average mandate by 2025, it was never a possibility. Half of the vehicles would have to average 75 mpg)

We have obligated to the tenants spelled out by Paris accord until November 2020. We are still involved but may (or may not) miss our aggressive 2025 reduction targets by a few percents.

Obama other major accomplishment was regarding regulations of existing coal plants. It is fortunate that the free market is actually going to ensure carbon emissions from coal plants is actually going to drop below the Obama EPA anticipated amount if the Clean Power Plan was fully enacted. (this is due to voluntary natural gas and diesel conversions of existing coal plants.)

https://www.hollandsentinel.com/news/20180831/coals-fate-is-sealed-trump-cant-change-it




"
politics,"First off I am not defending this idea or saying this is advisable or makes sense, only that it's within the Fed's legal power to do so. The Fed could buy all outstanding federal debt through quantitative easing. This would not require any laws to be passed or any action from Congress or the President, just a majority of the Federal Open Market Committee. 

This would likely result in hyperinflation and lots of people would end up dead in the aftermath."
politics,"No I mean legally, they are non-profits and therefore operate differently than private businesses. There is no bottom line or profit margin. If you have a billion dollars could you buy your way into Harvard? Sure, colleges are concerned about funding and their endowment but they bank on prestige in order to attact students who will go on to be high achieving, which means more donations from happy as well as successful alumni. If they deflate their prestige too much by letting in idiots then they will no longer attract the same caliber of student—remember they publish acceptance rates, average GPA, etc. So it’s much harder to buy your way in now because admissions are more competitive than they’ve ever been. 

Personally, when I was at my elite undergraduate college, I had some very wealthy friends and some very poor friends. But almost everyone I met was brilliant. Didn’t meet any sons or daughters of billionaires though. "
politics,"That’s exactly what I described. Except you went to (most likely like I did) a private school. I’m talking about state universities who use tax money to build football stadiums when our team is literally always buttcheeks (MN). Even when their sports teams profit RIDICULOUS amounts of money and then cannot stop raising tuition prices by 2-5% every year. 

Sincerely, just please take a second to either reread or just think about my statement. Nothing like that exists (besides churches) but it’s absurd. 

It is absolutely true that professors couldn’t fail Trump in college, logic tells you so. There’s an example of taking tax money, and then one of them being money making institutions. 

It’s not private, and it hurts every state, and therefore collectively the country. "
politics,"You would mean that monetizing debt is not equivalent to ending the debt (which is debatable.) Quantitative easing is definitely equivalent to printing/creating money. Look at M1 Money Supply around 2009-2010. The steep increase beginning then is money being rapidly created, primarily from Fed quantitative easing. 

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1

I am not 100 percent sure on this but I believe it is current policy that federal debt gets immediately reissued as it's paid off. The principal never really gets net paid down. "
politics,"I'll reiterate it again, this is literally the term my Graduate level Macroeconomics professor used.  He described it as literally a ""back room"".  Frankly they are limited by what they have in that they have to ask Treasury for more printed money if they run out of what they have on hand.  Now we don't know how much they do have but its safe to say that this isn't an issue.

Besides that, the ""back room"" is just to signify that these bills exists, either physically or digitally, yet they are not actually in the economy.

If you would like to suggest that my Professor is wrong I suggest you start showing some credentials because I'm going to take his PHD, 20+ years of experience, and that he works with politicians and central bankers of the highest levels over some random peoples comments on Reddit."
politics,"Forget about Obama, let's talk about what the US President should be doing in 2018, given everything we know about the existential threat to our species over the next 50-1000 years.

The President largely sets the scope of political discourse in the country... and you prefer the guy who calls global warming a ""Chinese hoax."" You want to wait 8 more years before we have a President willing to take environmental issues seriously.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/03/how-trump-is-changing-science-environment/"
politics,"I’m not sure you use the term “equivalent” in the same way I do. Equivalent means the results are exactly the same. It’s not debatable, because we just had a debate, and the end result is that there is no way for the Fed to do anything equivalent to the treasury printing money. 

Policy? I mean, we are running a deficit, so any bonds that come due *need* to be reissued. There is no other option. 

You are arguing that QE increases the money supply and printing money increases the money supply, therefore they are equivalent. That is not a rigorous application of the term “equivalent”. 

The principle of least action and Newton’s Laws are equivalent. QE and printing money have similarities. 

So, I hope we can both agree after this discussion that the all too common myth that the Fed prints money and pays down sovereign debt is incorrect. "
politics,"Right but they’re still non-profit entities. And while sportsteams like football generate millions, most of that money actually goes to coaching salaries and subsidizing other sports teams that don’t generate money but still cost money to run. Again, schools don’t have shareholders, the board of trustees don’t pay themselves millions. So no they aren’t businesses but still need funds to keep operating. I went to Amherst College, and while you had to be relatively brilliant to get an A you also had to majorly fuck up to fail, and no amount of wealth would keep you from failing. I went to school with the grandson of a professor and even he got kicked out. Also UPenn is a private school, so this is first you’re mentioning state schools.

Edit: a word"
politics,"I’m also from NC and lived the vast majority of my life on the coast. As someone who has witnessed the devastation of what a strong hurricane can do through my window, I’m way more concerned with what’s brewing off the coast right now than what some shadowy Latino boogeyman might be doing. 

I still remember Hugo, Emily and Fran... they were nasty. Even Matthew was pretty gross and it wasn’t even a hurricane anymore when it reached the Carolinas. FEMA may not be great, but at least they’re tasked with actually helping. "
politics,"Ill-prepared? I don’t mean to make assumptions, but I’m guessing you live inland and are also pretty ignorant as to the devastation a hurricane can leave in it’s path. I’ve been lucky, but nobody can prepare for their roof blowing off, a tree crushing their living room or even their house just being completely decimated. It doesn’t matter how much water you have, how good your generator is... or even if you evacuate. 

Be sure to tell the people with no homes or homes that are unlivable that FEMA can’t help them, but at least they don’t have to worry about that nasty Latino boogeyman getting them because ICE has that all under control. 

As an added factoid: we have had a net negative migration of Latinos for the past few years and ICE has had nothing to do with it. "
politics,"FEMA doesn’t stop your roof from flying off or your house from being decimated.

If you *must* live in an area that is prone to hurricanes (which I would advise against)... you better have insurance that covers hurricane damage.

Your town better charge extra taxes to cover for repairs after a Hurricane.

If you can’t afford all that, don’t live there.

Yes, I live inland... my folks live on the coast. They are coming to stay with me tonight. They have insurance, they do not have a need for FEMA.

But what is fun... look up Hurricane Sandy and the amount of fraud that came with that! There was likely a lot they didn’t catch as well.

No thanks.
"
politics,"> What about the things insurance doesn't pay for? Like rebuilding infrastructure including roads, sewers, water treatment, etc.?

What if my uncle had tits? 

> Also, would being charged extra taxes by the town for emergency necessities not be pretty much the same thing as FEMA?

Well.. no... that’s a local deal. 

I live in an area that doesn’t get natural disasters... I did so intentionally.
Why should I pay extra because other people live in dangerous places? Let the people who are submitting themselves to the risk be responsible for it!"
politics,"Try to come off a bit more pompous, you're not quite there yet. 

Not everyone can live in places with few natural disasters, and even if they did it doesn't mean that they'd be assured a natural disaster wouldn't happen.

Take yourself for example...

You have chosen to live in a place with few natural disasters, so you probably don't carry something like tornado insurance. You're going to sit there, and tell me that you'd be completely fine with your house being destroyed by a tornado? Just chalk it up to ""eh, it's my fault. I should have lived in a different place."" Yeah, right...

Part of living in a society means that you help take care of people in need. I would hate to live in the America you envision."
politics,"Do you think it’s lost on anyone that only the “law and order” party is upset to see Republican criminals going to prison? 

We understand why you guys want it wrapped up, it looks horrible for your party that so many criminals are being brought up on charges.  You’d want this to drag on for a decade if Dems were saying “guilty your honor”.  

Shouldn’t you guys blame Trump for hiring so many criminal thugs?  Since Nixon, has a modern president ever surrounded himself with so many felons?

Keep crying “that’s not fair!” and “but Hillary!” if it helps, it’s not going to change Mueller’s course or any of the guilty charges.  



"
politics,"It only ""looks horrible for our party"" because the MSM is hellbent on exploding every ""negative"" detail that hurts the party and ignoring everything else (like the FISA investigation).

Look, I know this has clearly gotten you worked up.

All I want to know is if Donald Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 Presidential Election. Why? Because the answer to that question will decide my vote in 2016. I live in a CD that swings. My vote is important.

If it turns out that the Democrats have been peddling evidence-less lies for 2 straight years, I will vote against them.

If it turns out Donald Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 Presidential Election I'll be voting for people that will impeach him (Democrats).

But I don't know what I don't know and I'm not a government process or legal expert of any sort, so I have to twiddle my thumbs and wait for news. So yes, it's very frustrating that I'm about to base my vote off the more convincing of two rumors, when this has had an investigation on it for a year and a half."
politics,"There’s already TONS of evidence that he did collude and absolutely iron clad proof that at the very, very least, multiple top ranking officials in his campaign colluded with Russia to help influence the election. 

Donald Jr himself released the evidence. It 100% happened, they don’t even deny it themselves. 

If you honestly think there’s even a chance that “the Democrats have been peddling evidence-less lies for 2 straight years,” you’ve already made up your mind and you’re not even close to being unbiased or open to trump being in the wrong."
politics,"There has been no evidence or convictions for collusion. 

Donald Trump colluding with Russia in 2016 is a much bigger issue to me than Paul Manafort laundering money in 2013.

I am happy to see Manafort caught. No one should get away with that. But why did Mueller have to prosecute? He couldve handed the findings and evidence off to another agency and kept his eye on the prize, the issue people care about"
politics,"As it became increasingly difficult to deny the reality that Trump is a terrible president who will probably be impeached, they invented an entirely new reality for themselves - that Trump isn't *really* being investigated by Mueller, and in fact Trump and Mueller were working together to prosecute a worldwide pedophilia ring operated by Obama, Bill & Hillary, George Soros, and all the other liberal bogeymen you can think of.

In other words, just a bunch of conspiracy nuts who can't handle real life."
politics,"The best explanation I have read was written on the sidebar of r/Qult_Headquarters. It's kinda long but it explains why the subreddit was so harmful and dangerous.  I have been seeing the Q_Twits on reddit for quite awhile on a few dedicated subreddits. Admin banned a couple awhile back but did not follow through and deal with GreatAwakening. 


It was frustrating. The subscribers  seemed very violent and delusional. It was getting harder and harder to credit why Admin would not do something about it. Let's hope from here on out they do better. This is certainly a step in the right direction. "
politics,"I don’t want this to sound like I’m defending the denizens of Donald’s favorite subreddit, because I’m 120% not defending them... but they do seem a little more self-aware. *Just* a little. They do believe quite a bit of nonsense, but a lot of them seem to be mostly in it for the memes and liberal bashing, and will even tell you as much.

But people who contributed to great awakening seemed fully committed to their conspiracy, to the point that they tried to paint it as biblical prophecy. Where you can laugh and dismiss the_dipshits because you know they’re just assholes, great awakening was full of people who you legitimately worry need medical attention."
politics,"I imagine you’re about to get downvoted into oblivion for this comment, but thank you. I’m glad Booker is fighting this nomination but he has a problematic history with big pharma and corporate campaign donations.

He’s angling for 2020 and that’s fine, but corporate money is one of the reasons that our representative democracy has become so flawed. 

Good on him for fighting, but Booker is far from the progressive hero that he’s been made out to be around these parts. 

"
politics,The better option is don't wait for or even look for a savior. I don't want a politician to lead us out of this wilderness. I want us to lead ourselves out of it. If someone can lead us somewhere then someone can lead us out of it. But if we can actually formulate a movement that goes somewhere without a leader then it might actually result in real and persistent change. If you think think voting every 2 or 4 years will fix things you are wrong. We need a movement based not on a person but ideas that requires on going action on a local level by many people. A functional democracy isn't just voting in elections when they happen it requires a population that is engaged in society every day whether it is an election year or not.
politics,"Seperating children permanently is new. 

And this is absolutely how genocide starts. Your already fucking commiting genocide according to the geneva convention. 

What do you think is cheaper: indefinite detainment, or a bullet and a body bag? Keep in mind, the original plan for the Jews was detainment and deportation, but apparently deporting 11 million people was too expensive. Oh wait, it was actually less then that they were planning on deporting, 11 million is the number of illegals in the USA. My bad."
politics,"Well, the Nazis didn't start off by killing people either. They started by putting them into camps and the plan was to deport the Jewish people to Madagascar. But hey, shocking I know, they found out that their plan would be way too expensive, I mean, who would've thought that removing millions of people from your country (especially if you try to do it in even marginally humane conditions) is expensive? Right?

Well keeping them locked up indefinitely is also quite expensive, even in these sickening conditions. So what's the plan? You know, they could have deported these kids, **with** their family, the moment they got caught crossing the border. They **chose** not to. On purpose. So what's the plan really? 

Nobody is saying kids are being killed (although IIRC there have been deaths among these kids). People are pointing out the similarities. If you don't think this is a legitimate comparison by now, I suggest you open a book about Nazis and start with the 1930's."
politics,"No, they're not ""literal"" concentration camps.

 ""a place in which large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labour or to await mass execution ""

​

>Large numbers of people

yes

>especially political prisoners 

No, they're detained because they're doing something illegal.

> members of persecuted minorities

Nope, again, you can be a legal mexican immigrant.

> in a relatively small area

Arguably.

>with inadequate facilities

No, not really. Those facilities are way better than not only the human traffickers, but the country they came from provided before.

>sometimes to provide forced labour or to await mass execution

Obviously not."
politics,"Copying my comment because you're full of shit.

​

No, they're not ""literal"" concentration camps.

""a place in which large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labour or to await mass execution ""

>Large numbers of people

yes

>especially political prisoners

No, they're detained because they're doing something illegal.

>members of persecuted minorities

Nope, again, you can be a legal mexican immigrant.

>in a relatively small area

Arguably.

>with inadequate facilities

No, not really. Those facilities are way better than not only the human traffickers, but the country they came from provided before.

>sometimes to provide forced labour or to await mass execution

Obviously not."
politics," 

No, they're not  concentration camps.

""a place in which large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labour or to await mass execution ""

>Large numbers of people

yes

>especially political prisoners

No, they're detained because they're doing something illegal.

>members of persecuted minorities

Nope, again, you can be a legal mexican immigrant.

>in a relatively small area

Arguably.

>with inadequate facilities

No, not really. Those facilities are way better than not only the human traffickers, but the country they came from provided before.

>sometimes to provide forced labour or to await mass execution

Obviously not."
politics,"I'm honestly astonished that people think this is true. I mean let's walk through this for a moment.

If you detain adults who have children, you have exactly two options:

1. Detain the children too.
2. Separate them from the adults.

So in order for it to be true that neither of these things happened before Trump, it must be the case that border agents *never* detained adults who crossed the border illegally so long as those adults had children with them. Which is obviously bullshit. It's like no one bothers to think through the implications of what they've been led to believe."
politics,"> No, they're detained because they're doing something illegal.

Seeking asylum is not illegal.

> > members of persecuted minorities
> 
> Nope, again, you can be a legal mexican immigrant.

Can, sure, but the very fact that you're calling everyone from South, Central, and a big part of North America ""Mexicans"" is awfully telling.

> > in a relatively small area
> 
> Arguably.

So there we go.

> with inadequate facilities
> 
> No, not really. Those facilities are way better than not only the human traffickers,

If that's the bar you've set for humane treatment, you've already conceded defeat.

> but the country they came from provided before.

That's an assumption on your part. Asylum seekers are not street urchins. Many had lives of privilege they saw evaporate due to unrest.

> > sometimes to provide forced labour or to await mass execution
> 
> Obviously not.

It said ""sometimes""."
politics,"Then I'll copy from mine to call you out on *your* bullshit.

> No, they're detained because they're doing something illegal.

Seeking asylum is not illegal.

> > members of persecuted minorities
> 
> Nope, again, you can be a legal mexican immigrant.

Can, sure, but the very fact that you're calling everyone from South, Central, and a big part of North America ""Mexicans"" is awfully telling.

> > in a relatively small area
> 
> Arguably.

So there we go.

> with inadequate facilities
> 
> No, not really. Those facilities are way better than not only the human traffickers,

If that's the bar you've set for humane treatment, you've already conceded defeat.

> but the country they came from provided before.

That's an assumption on your part. Asylum seekers are not street urchins. Many had lives of privilege they saw evaporate due to unrest.

> > sometimes to provide forced labour or to await mass execution
> 
> Obviously not.

It said ""sometimes""."
politics,"Asylum seekers are not kept in these detention facilities! Damn it I don't know how many times I need to say this, but you people keep spouting lies. 

If an asylum seeker goes to a designated entry point, they are kept with their families and housed while they are processed. 

If they cross the boarder illegally and try to claim asylum once they are caught, they ARE NOT asylum seekers. 

Stop spreading misinformation"
politics,"> Seeking asylum is not illegal. 

Lmao, crossing the border illegally and when you're caught saying that you were seeking Asylum is NOT how you seek asylum.

> Can, sure, but the very fact that you're calling everyone from South, Central, and a big part of North America ""Mexicans"" is awfully telling. 

When did I call everyone from South, Central and North America mexicans? I said, as an example, that you can be a legal mexican immigrant, and the problem is not whether or not you're mexican, it's whether or not you're illegal.

Also, pretty sure practically no Argentinians or chileans cross the border to U.S illegally lol.

> If that's the bar you've set for humane treatment, you've already conceded defeat. 

Education, Healthcare, Entertainment, Care, are all provided. What exactly do you think is inadequate?  


> That's an assumption on your part. Asylum seekers are not street urchins. Many had lives of privilege they saw evaporate due to unrest. 

Again, someone who crosses the border illegally and then says they are seeking asylum does not automatically save them from detention centres.

> It said ""sometimes"". 

So pretty much the only thing you think applies to this case is "" a place in which large numbers of people live in   
a relatively small area..."" and you haven't quite provided the evidence of why they are inadequate.."
politics,"> Seeking asylum is not illegal.

Then I suggest they seek asylum, not jump the border.

> So there we go.

There we go, what?  Relative to what? 

> If that's the bar you've set for humane treatment, you've already conceded defeat.

What's your bar?  Daily servings of Hennessy and caviar?

> That's an assumption on your part.

Claims based on assumptions, can be refuted with assumptions.

> It said ""sometimes"".

Really?  And what is your source that the US Government ""sometimes"" commits ""mass executions"" of illegal immigrants?

Finally, if you are below the age of 25, I forgive your ignorance.  Just ignore this post and move along."
politics,"> Lmao, crossing the border illegally and when you're caught saying that you were seeking Asylum is NOT how you seek asylum.

Except it is. Federal code allows for declaration at a port of entry OR in person to a federal agent. Those who have declared at ports of entry are routinely denied entry (which is illegal) and even when they are accepted, they still face family separation and indefinite detention. Courts have ruled this is illegal, but the practice continues.

> Also, pretty sure practically no Argentinians or chileans cross the border to U.S illegally lol.

[You'd be mistaken](https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/refugee-and-asylum-seeker-populations-country-origin-and-destination). Those countries have tiny populations and still produce refugees.
 
> Education, Healthcare, Entertainment, Care, are all provided. What exactly do you think is inadequate?

You don't know what the conditions are like, and neither do I. Trump carved out these concentration camps from the mandatory audits required of other facilities. You're making a very bold assumption that runs counter to a reasonable assessment. If they were up to standards, they would gladly allow someone to see. They won't even allow senators access.

> Again, someone who crosses the border illegally and then says they are seeking asylum does not automatically save them from detention centres.

The courts have ruled the practice illegal. If you actually care about the rule of law, why are you not outraged by this?

> So pretty much the only thing you think applies to this case is "" a place in which large numbers of people live in
> a relatively small area..."" and you haven't quite provided the evidence of why they are inadequate..

Man you're exhausting. You need to research the stuff you're stating as fact. [There IS forced labor in ICE camps](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/17/us-private-prisons-forced-labour-detainees-modern-slavery).

I'll await your apology. ;)"
politics,"> xcept it is. Federal code allows for declaration at a port of entry OR in person to a federal agent.  

"" **(1)In general**

Any [alien](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-92903111-1485256781&term_occur=380&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:I:section:1158) who is physically present in the [United States](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-2032517217-1201680101&term_occur=313&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:I:section:1158) or who arrives in the [United States](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-2032517217-1201680101&term_occur=314&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:I:section:1158) (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the [United States](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-2032517217-1201680101&term_occur=315&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:I:section:1158) after having been interdicted in international or [United States](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-2032517217-1201680101&term_occur=316&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:I:section:1158) waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, [section 1225(b) of this title](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1225#b)""

"" **(B)Time limit**

Subject to subparagraph (D), paragraph (1) shall not apply to an [alien](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-92903111-1485256781&term_occur=382&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:I:section:1158) unless the [alien](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-92903111-1485256781&term_occur=383&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:I:section:1158) demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the application has been filed within 1 year after the date of the [alien](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-92903111-1485256781&term_occur=384&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:I:section:1158)’s arrival in the [United States](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-2032517217-1201680101&term_occur=317&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:I:section:1158)""

You didn't even read what you sent me lmao

> Those who have declared at ports of entry are routinely denied entry (which is illegal) and even when they are accepted, they still face family separation and indefinite detention.  

Do you have evidence of this being a pattern?

> [You'd be mistaken](https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/refugee-and-asylum-seeker-populations-country-origin-and-destination). Those countries have tiny populations and still produce refugees. 

Ah yeah, the tiny population of 44 million argentinians. Of those 44 million, 214 refugees, which is practically nothing. Now compare that to 70 thousand mexicans.

> You don't know what the conditions are like, and neither do I 

You need to provide evidence that they are inadequate, not me that they aren't.

> If they were up to standards, they would gladly allow someone to see. They won't even allow senators access. 

You mean they won't let adults go into detention centres full of kids? Disgraceful!! ^(/s)

> The courts have ruled the practice illegal. If you actually care about the rule of law, why are you not outraged by this? 

Already explained this to you

> Man you're exhausting. You need to research the stuff you're stating as fact. [There IS forced labor in ICE camps](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/17/us-private-prisons-forced-labour-detainees-modern-slavery). 

"" Stewart is operated by the largest prison corporation in the US, CoreCivic (formerly Corrections Corporation of America), under a contract with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) ""

Do you even read what you link?

​"
politics,"1) How about you address all of the other non-sense you keep babbling about?

2) I never said they were.  But thank you for pointing to a federal law that proves my point: Illegal Aliens are not Asylum Seekers.  They are still required by law to follow the proper channels and actually **seek asylum**.  Just because you land with two feet on our soil, does not mean you get an automatic pass as you are implying.

Don't believe me?  Then how about you actually read U.S. Code § 1158 from top to bottom for all the conditions required, instead of using talking points from CNN and this sub."
politics,"I'm not being hyperbolic, you're just bought in. So, I'm not going to put a lot of work into this, because I doubt you're going to give it any thought -

He rose to power due to a fractured field, much like the NKVD did. He also consolodated his base by demonizing an ""other"". He's stripped passports at the border of legal citizens, like Hitler did to the jews. He's run on restoring the fatherland to a former glory. 

Also, his policies only _aren't dumb_ if you're into fascism
"
politics,"No they're wrong for other reasons. I get that conservatives feel like rules only matter if you get caught, but some of us actually respect the rules because we understand how they facilitate advancing the discussion.

Vote brigades are designed to silence opinions by pressuring users into deleting their posts, and when that fails, it at least has the effect of hiding them.

It's shitty and anyone who engages in it is a shitty person whose comments cannot stand on their own merit."
politics,"Potentially worse (for Americans):

Russia spreads propaganda that gives Red and Blue the impression a win is very likely, so both sides think they'll win. People go to the polls and on election night there's a power outage on the East coast ([like the Northeast Blackout of 2003](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_blackout_of_2003)) , for just enough time to seed doubt in the process. The following day no one would believe the results, and Trump can suspend elections until we ""figure out what the hell is going on"".  


 Russia has been infiltrating US power grids. PAPER BALLOTS are the MOST IMPORTANT issue concerning the midterms. Sure, register, vote, but if the system is laughably hackable physically and psychologically then what does it matter? People need to push very hard for Paper Ballots, and it's been very troubling trying to illustrate this point while being called delusional etc. This is a serious issue.

Hopefully Lawrence Mass wasn't a test run.

[""Election night will be very interesting indeed!"" - Donald J. Trump](https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1038602549971116032)"
politics,"I've been saying this for a year now. I think he will start a war.

Some of the only times the left wing media has praised Trump's actions are when he has bombed Syria. 

Trump is the basic knowledge of history to see or be told the pattern that wars = higher approval ratings. 


His only trouble will be coming up with a reason. 

Countries of likely invasion I would say are Iran then Syria then venzuela then north Korea. 

This will get worse before it gets better "
politics,"The power grid doesn’t really work that way. Depending on your degree of penetration, you could probably turn off the power in a few areas for a very short time, but a massive outage like you’re describing would be daunting, and probably impossible to accomplish without being physically in a bunch of rooms that are extremely secure. That 2003 blackout was a perfect storm, and a lot of redundancy has been added that would prevent that kind of cascading outage from occurring."
politics,"The movie Wag the Dog only gets more and more relevant over time.

People say Idiocracy is a documentary from the future, I think it's Wag the Dog.

You don't need a real war if you can just make one up on television, and it helps to have a news network that will run anything without facts even a consideration. No I don't think this will literally happen as it did in the movie, but they could pull off some elements of it."
politics,"Syria is unlikely because of Russia.

Iran has at least 20.000 US soldiers on its range of ballistic missiles (still they dont care about these things, the just want a goddamn war)

north korea has seoul at hostage with MLRS and artillery and would reduce the trust of US deals by a lot, also incentivizing other nations to produce and not give up their nukes)

venezuela can be a good call, i REALLY hope it doesnt happen because i dont want to see Brazil flooded with venezeulan reefuges"
politics,"As a hard liberal can I say that I don't like these kinds of doomsday assertions? They're no better than right wing nutjob conspiracies in that they have no evidence to back them and they're nothing more than, ""well, Trump is crazy, so this COULD happen!"" Let's focus on the problems we have now, of which there are plenty. If we remove Trump for his crimes, then this scenario won't even be a possibility."
politics,"I don't think Putin cares about his soldiers there and I also don't fully believe in the trump Putin connection. I'm sure there is something he did that is treasonous but I'm not sure putin is actually directly controlling him. He could be but I'm not fully convinced yet. 

Russia wouldn't mind America joining another prolonged war. I'm not really sure why Putin needs Syria that much. I think a dumb war for America would mean more to him. 

Iran would certainly be attacked without warning. If trump knew what he was doing he could elimate most of the Iranian air Force in a day. His generals do so I'm sure we could neuter Iran like we did to Iraq. But the engagement would be long. "
politics,"My prediction if we lose the mid-terms:

1. Trump, GOP, and Russia fixes 2020 presidential election. Trump ""wins"".
1. They fix the 2022 mid-terms. The Republicans ""win"" in an unprecedented landslide.
1. Trump pushes for a new bill eliminating presidential term limits.
1. The Republican super majority in Congress passes the bill.
1. Trump runs again in 2024 with one of his children as his VP.
1. Trump pushes new laws through Congress to limit the free press and expand presidential powers.
1. Trump passes away and control falls to his VP.

Welcome to the Trump kingdom. You can check your freedom at the door."
politics,"Syria is Russia`s only base in the ME and medditeranean and wont let Assad fall, however iran is a perfect trap for the US.

the thing is, Iran wont use his airforce in a combat role, it is going to use it to trick US planes into Iran´s multi-layered AA network.

Iran has way better and more AA than Iraq had and would be tricky for the US.

Long-term occupation would be a disaster for the US
"
politics,"Occupation would not work at all. America could probably find a resistance branch to supply and support. 

From a military stand point Iran would stand no chance as an actual country. Their only hope would be guerilla warfare.  I don't think people really appreciate the dominance America has created in any actual land engagement with a foreign power. 

To put it in perspective I think America could win any non nuclear war. Even the entire world without nukes would fall to America. The technology and doctrine that has been developed is unmatched. "
politics,"It's easier if you've managed to compromise personnel. It would have to be a massive operation, for sure, but it wouldn't be the first of its kind. Happens on a smaller scale more often than we know.

* Hack personnel roster
* Build profiles
* Phish key personnel
* Hack their accounts for compromising information
* Make contact and give them enough information to make them feel owned, like you know everything and hold their life in the balance; from their dick pics, to where their kids/nieces/nephews go to school
* Give them instructions to cover their tiny piece in the puzzle so they have nothing to run to feds with and if they do the trail can be easily covered because you've only made contact online, and only shown a tiny bit of what you have and what you're planning.

Now you have a shadow army.^(\*)

^(\*Don't do any of this.)

​"
politics,"What’s cute is our military could invade everyone of those countries at the same time, Syria - a well stocked brigade. NKorea - ROK Marines and the Army units there.  Venezuela would be the hard one as we haven’t been training jungle warfare to that extent in a while and tanks don’t generally work well in that environment. Iran would take a hefty amount of Air Force and Naval utilization with a MEU and the on coming MEU following closely with the 82nd and 101st rolling in as well."
politics,"That would fall under “being physically in a bunch of highly secure rooms”. Those people are getting constantly tested for phishing awareness and also not politicians who are so easily scandalized. If you phished me (admittedly not exactly “key personnel”) I’d just go to the police and/or fbi. I’m not risking my career because some guy is coming at me.

Would you actually do something in a professional setting because somebody randomly threatens you somehow? If so, remind not to hire you, because Jesus."
politics,">  I'm sure we could neuter Iran like we did to Iraq. 

Which Iraq conflict are you referencing because both Gulf Wars are not alike and there's the stark differences that had kinda different outcomes and problems of their own, in the end I wouldn't exactly call it mission accomplished. Iran is an incredibly different place than Iraq, do not confuse them for being similar just by way of location. 

The common lay person underestimates Iran's complex history, culture as well as geography(seriously look at a map with topographical layers on) , and tend to be unaware of the various  systematic things Iran has done in the past when on crunch time for the worst. Any conflict with them would be beyond asinine and it wouldn't be a situation like Desert Storm with bulldozers over trenches, hands down expect something worse than Vietnam.

Iran systematically kickstarted their own baby boom decades ago  by giving out plenty of incentives for people who had large families and spun it under the guise of ""keeping the tradition of Islam alive"" and all that when in actuality the government figured they'd be able to field a lot more bodies should they have to go to war with neighboring Iraq.

That's the major crucial element, young, warm, physically able bodies wouldn't be in short supply considering how large and young Iran's population is. Iran would easily unite to take on a conflict, they got the power and control to organize flat out, especially with how their military, paramilitary, auxiliary guards etc is structured and integrated in various facets of their society.  

Compare that to how [7 out of 10 Americans of military eligible age are unfit to serve](http://time.com/2938158/youth-fail-to-qualify-military-service) and any politician would be  in deeper shit trying to pull a draft out of their ass. You can only air strike so much.

Definitely wouldn't see anyone quick to join the side of the US in that one as well.

Either way, any conflict with Iran would be a bad idea at best especially considering there's already active conflicts going on and adding something like Iran into the equation would just be a bigger clusterfuck. You gotta be an absolute deluded  lunatic to think it'd be some panacea for bringing the country together, especially with how unpopular our current conflicts are. 


"
politics,"I'm not saying it would bring the us together. I'm not saying it's a smart war to fight. I'm just saying that we would destroy their country very easily. 

All the boots with rifles won't mean anything against fighter planes and aphaches. 

We would destroy their government quickly and then face the resistance which we would never be able to beat. But we would destroy their government easily. 

I don't think you understand the sort of feild advantage America would have over a country like china or Russia. Iran would be nothing but light resistance against our air support and tanks. We would take Tehran in a month. 

Their AA power would be crippled by stealth aircraft and then our dominant air power would overwhelm them. 

Iraq fought Iran to a standstill and with 30 years ago tech we defeated them with ease. 

I don't think Iran has progressed in military tech at the same rate we have over the past 30 years.  

Again and occupation would not go well for America. But a flat out war would go extremely well.

The American military has the doctrine to be able to fight multiple high intensity wars on multiple fronts. Our current engagements hardly count as wars in the grand scale. There is no doubt in my mind that Iran could be turned into a Syria within half a year at most, probably more like one month. 

Now that's not something I want or something I think is smart. But you can't deny that trump could do it if he wanted to. "
politics,"You are wrong on so many levels. The amount of over estimating our military might is ridiculous. We are a naval power with a great air force and precision bombing. Once it comes to real land operations, things get equalized pretty quick. We think because Iraq was easy everything else will be. Iraq never recovered from the first gulf war and they tried to fight us in ways we where clearly better than them.

"
politics,"American doctrine is based on air power and Iran's air defenses are way better than Iraq's. 
US hopes on trying to make the new Iranian government a functional ally would have to come with a extremely costly occupation.

Keep in mind that Iran has 2 military branches: a conventional branch and an non-conventional one.

The non-conventional (IRGC or Iranian revolutionary guard corps) work to further the government's policies (the revolution) abroad and to keep the idea of the revolution alive even if the government falls (guerilla)

You would be facing a religion united (Iraq's insurgents were divided between Sunni and shia) group that hates the  puppet state the US would put in ( MEK that help Saddam kills Iranians in the 80s), that is extremly organized and made out of members with plenty of experience group. Also Iran has plenty of militias around the ME, Hezbolla and other Shia militias would also join the fight."
politics,"I think people underestimate how hard a false flag attack would actually be. 

That would require a level of discipline and discretion Trump has proven to be able to manage from his team.

His inner circle secretly records him and thinks he's a lunatic. Who is he going to get to organize and attack on America that wouldn't immediately screw it up?

He'd be better served actually starting a war, but even that would be so painfully transparent that it wouldn't help him much.

"
politics,"> Trump pushes for a new bill eliminating presidential term limits.

Only issue is that passing a bill does nothing as the 22nd Admendment of the Constitution lays out the framework for Presidential Term limits.

Now, that point is mute because....the constitution is just a piece of paper with some writing on it. It only has power when the people in power believe in it, respect it and abide by it.

Now, instead of trying to get the constitution changed formally, martial law can be declared which suspends the constitution.. When that happens, only three things can bring us back.

The Executive Branch rescinds martial law, the military deposed the executive, or the people rise up.

"
politics,"You are *severely* overestimating your military abilities. War with Iran would be a neverending shitfest with massive casualties and no way of ensuring the completion of any serious objectives.  
  
First off, it's nearly four times larger than Iraq, with more than twice the population. Most of the borders are covered in mountains, leaving the quite defensible Persian Gulf as the most likely point of entry (given that Iran will instantly start pouring money into destabilizing Afghanistan and Iraq to make it difficult for the US to operate from there, if they are invaded).  
  
The Iraqi Armed Forces fielded 375k troops during the US invasion, with a few 100k reserves. Iran has 545k active troops, 350k reserve, and a paramilitary with 90k active-duty members which is estimated to be able to mobilize up to *one million men* relatively quickly, from a pool of 11 million members.  
  
They have far better and more modern equipment than Iraq ever did, higher unity, better supply and support systems (Iraq did not have any military hospitals during the US invasion, for example) and possibly better generals.  
  
Iran fields UAVs (that have been known to track US carriers for up to half an hour before being detected), ballistic missiles, sophisticated guided missiles, cluster warheads, submarines, and many things Iraq did not have.  
  
That's even *without* getting into the fact that the US invasion of Afghanistan had a large coalition to support it, and the Iraq one had British and Polish support (followed by more countries joining in pacification efforts *after* the invasion). Invasion of Iran would have zero support from US allies, other than possibly Israeli and Saudi. "
politics,"What do you mean intercepted. Do you understand American ballistics. They would avoid those attacks with ease. 

If America wanted to destroy Iran it would not be very hard. America could have 3 aircraft carrier groups within Iranian land in a week  .

The tech that the US military has is not understood by the public.

The Iranian republic gaurds are possibly on Match with the average American soldier. 

In a war America would obliterate Iran. 

Their air power would be dismantled in a day. 

An 80s mig stand no chance against an f22. 


America would destroy Iran in an easy fashion. "
politics,"People claim that Bush won in 2004 because of the war that he started, which I am pretty skeptical about anyway. So, then people make these claims that Donald will start a war as a way to get elected.

The problem with making that leap, even if we assume there is some truth to the war helping Bush in 2004, is that the Democrats helped start the war. Had Bush then or Donald in the future just go off and try to start his own war without help from both sides of Congress, it would backfire spectacularly IMO."
politics,">“Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.”

Sorry, that one never gets old for me."
politics,"He interrupts himself a lot, but.. honestly, actually hearing it, it's not too different from how a lot of my friends sound when they're super excited about something.

Now, obviously, my friends aren't running for President, and if they were they'd have a damned prepared statement. A candidate speech should be held to a higher standard than, say, trying to explain how cool some reference in the Iron Man movie to an event from the comics was.

What I'm trying to say is that it doesn't sound as insane as it seems when you read it. *Massively* underqualified, but not insane."
politics,"What's *so fucking badass about this guy* is that I'm sure when it's all said and done, the house of cards has fallen and the fradulant Trump dynasty has crumbled, we may *still* not hear much from Mueller. He will go quietly into the night, with his coffee in one hand and car keys jangling in the other, probably never to return to public spotlight again. I'm sure he'd be perfectly content with this.

If that's how this goes down, Mueller will be a living legend. "
politics,"Are you lying to yourself or just to me? He literally cuts off sentences and jumps paragraphs and articles. The whole second half of the video is clips from his show where he interjects in the middle of a point. Obvious hit piece to make him look like A RAGING FASCIST, and you're ok with it because you don't like Ben Shapiro. There are so many ways you can attack his beliefs with intellectual honesty but you can't because you don't understand the things you are talking about and you don't care about truth. [Actual fascists would love you by the way](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot)"
politics,"No. It can't possibly be rape because there wasn't penetration. And It's not *attempted* rape because Ford herself didn't believe the man was attempting to penetrate her. Or she at least hasn't disclosed that fear to us as of yet.

Again, I'm simply using Ford's own statements. I'm not the one that needs to defend what the victim is actually accusing their perpetrator of. You're the one imposing a new accusation that Ford hasn't specified.

You're misrepresenting her claim simply to create more public outrage. I find that truly despicable."
politics,">there’s no law that says a president can’t do something for personal reasons

First, a lawful order means an order issued for legal purposes. If an order isn't issued for lawful purposes, then it is invalid. Secondly, if the order is issued for the purpose of obstructing an investigation into the person issuing the order (here the President, but the same would apply to any administrative order), then the Order is unlawful and invalid - and it would be illegal to comply."
politics,"Well now you've moved the goalpost quite a bit.  Doing something for  ""personal reasons"" is quite a bit different than doing something in order to obstruct justice, which, by the way, is quite hard to prove.

The President has complete power over classification in the same way he has complete power to fire the FBI director.  Could his abuse of those powers be used as evidence in an obstruction case against him?  Sure, if you can prove intent.  But is it illegal to comply with those orders?  No.  It was not illegal for the FBI to complete the paperwork needed to fire Comey, nor is it illegal for DOJ to declassify stuff at the President's orders.  It's not their job to make an on-the-fly judgement on obstruction of justice."
politics,"If the President issued an Order to the IRS to conduct audits of every sitting Democrat US Senator, without any other explanation, that would be an unlawful order on its face.

Likewise if he were to order the Secret Service to assassinate his neighbor's entire family. It would be an unlawful order on its face.

Likewise, an Order to release classified documents relating to the Mueller investigation is an unlawful order on its face. So is the demand for those documents by Congress.

And, without a legal justification for the order, it would be illegal for the FBI/DOJ to comply."
politics,"If the President issued an Order to the IRS to conduct audits of every sitting Democrat US Senator, without any other explanation, that would be an unlawful order on its face.

Likewise if he were to order the Secret Service to assassinate his neighbor's entire family. It would be an unlawful order on its face.

Likewise, an Order to release classified documents relating to the Mueller investigation is an unlawful order on its face. So is the demand for those documents by Congress.

And, without a legal justification for the order, it would be illegal for the FBI/DOJ to comply."
politics,">Almost nothing can be considered OOJ prima facie.

That's just silly talk. Putting things in context easily makes the case. Were Trump to fire Mueller tonight without explanation, that would be obstruction on its face. Prima facie.

The background facts of the acts of Rep Nunes with regard to demanding documents relating to an ongoing investigation are clear. The President issuing an Order declassifying those documents relating to an investigation being conducted into him - is prima facie obstruction of justice UNLESS the President provides a valid justification for the directive/order.

Sure, without context, it is difficult to say any particular Order - in a total vacuum - is obstruction of justice. But, we don't practice law in a vacuum. We practice law with facts (actions) put into context. And the context here is very plain and very evident. Trump can try to clarify that if he wants - but any such attempt would almost certainly be legally laughable."
politics,"Right, but so far no one has made an argument how this material being released actually impairs the Mueller investigation. No one has detailed how it obstructs justice. I get that it's irresponsible and petty as far as intelligence gathering, but where's the illegality? Obstruction of justice is a specific claim that needs specific details backing it up, not some grand conspiracy on how Trump might use it to sway public opinion into maybe letting him fire the special counsel.

Someone just responded to me comparing the release of this info to Trump ordering the secret service to assassinate someone, for crying out loud. I don't like Trump, but this is delusional.

I'm all for reining in executive power across the board, but as it stands I haven't seen an argument that the investigation will be obstructed by this release. As fast as I can tell, the investigation will continue uninhibited as it has thus far."
politics,"The hysteria is annoying, but it’s a frustrating situation.

It’s not exactly a secret that Trump thinks the investigation is a witch hunt and wants it to end.

The material selection itself supports that his objective is to discredit the reputations of those that he thinks are harming him through this investigation.

The harm is that has the potential to taint a jury pool, like what we saw with the 10 deadlocked charges in the Manafort case.

It’s not a coincidence that he’s only releasing texts from his perceived “enemies.”

If he was really interested in transparency, let’s see all the correspondence between them and Nunes, or Gowdy, or DJT Jr, or him and Cohen, or his tax returns etc etc etc.

He only cares about transparency when it benefits him.  Everything else, we can go fuck ourselves, or we would have seen his taxes by now.  

"
politics,"> He only cares about transparency when it benefits him. Everything else, we can go fuck ourselves, or we would have seen his taxes by now.  
> 

  
I don't disagree with this at all, and at no point have I defended Trump here. Hasn't stopped me from being called stupid or idiotic, but hey.

> The harm is that has the potential to taint a jury pool, like what we saw with the 10 deadlocked charges in the Manafort case.  
> 

  
This is the only argument i've seen about potential obstruction if justice. I don't think, based on the case law i've read, that it's enough to call this obstruction of justice. But this is an extreme and unusual case that the is no real precedent for so it's hard to say. It's also kind of a tricky situation. Imagine you're innocent and details you can release can prove that the investigation into you is basically one big fruit of the poisonous tree exam fact pattern. I can see the argument to release it. The texts are between two of the biggest players in the early investigation, supposedly, and two people who have been used as ammunition by both sides. They aren't just ""enemies.""

I think it's a shitty move. I don't agree with it. I think how shitty it is entirely depends on how selective the release ends up being. I'm fine with Congress working to limit the president's ability to declassify information and otherwise strip the executive of power. I'm actually for them doing so. But I don't personally buy that it's obstruction of justice, or illegal, as the claim I responded to made.

Also, yeah, hysteria. I don't support Trump. Never claimed to support Trump. I only questioned the narrative a teency little bit. But that didn't stop someone from telling me I deserve ""dickishness"" on top of his other insults."
politics,"The other argument I’ve seen on OOJ is that he’s doing it knowing that Sessions is recused and can’t, and Rosenstein will say it’s part of an active investigation and won’t comply, and that will be Trump’s justification for firing them.  

Firing them would allow Trump to put someone else in who is undecided and who could shut down or stifle the investigation, and/or feed him information about the status.

That would be pretty clear OOJ, IMO.  Not a lawyer, just read a lot of news and analysis.

Sorry you were met with some hostility, I like the discussion personally."
politics,"OOJ aside, it’s a dangerous precedent, a POTUS overruling the Intelligence agencies determination that the redacted info being released could harm sources, so that he may benefit politically.

The DOJ is supposed to operate independent of the White House - we were supposed to have learned that lesson with Nixon - so whether or not it’s “illegal” I think there’s an argument to be made that it’s unethical and has the potential to set a really bad precedent of politicizing, undermining and negating the independence of the DOJ.  

IMHO.

"
politics,"The investigation will be impaired if the information paints the FBI as being biased against Trump thus providing congress with reason to either end the investigation or allow Trump to fire Rosenstein and put someone in charge who will fire Mueller.

And that's the only reason Trump is releasing this information. 

But if you have some other plausible explanation for why he is choosing to declassify this information besides discrediting the FBI in an attempt to derail the investigation, I'm all ears."
politics,"> Why would the information paint the FBI as biased against Trump? What if they really were biased, doesn't the public have the right to know?

Sure, the public has a right to know if they were biased. 

What the public doesn't have the right to know however is that an agent is going in for chemotherapy next week, the names of our spies overseas, the methods by which we tapped the Russian's communications between them and Trump tower, etc etc etc.

As for painting the FBI as biased, we already saw some texts from several FBI agents that the Republicans released out of context, in order to play them off as their being the tip of some huge conspiracy to steal the election for Clinton, which was patently absurd given the FBI's actual actions before the election. 

Also just because an agent does not like Trump, and says as much does not automatically mean the agency is biased against him. That would be absurd. Shall we allow every convicted criminal to examine the private messages between the arresting officers to determine if they had some bias against the individual when they decided to get a warrant? Is ""This guy is a real scumbag, and I want to nail him to the wall."" something that should enable a felon to escape charges, despite the actual evidence collected against them?

Evidence cannot be tainted by bias. All bias does is make an officer more motivated to find criminal activity. I mean, I suppose it could also motivate them to fabricate evidence, but that's a whole other kettle of fish and I highly doubt that these agents would incriminate themselves in their text messages fabricating evidence against Trump. 

And barring that, Trump's whole defense he's going for here is ""It's not fair! Hillary got away with her criminal activity, so I should too! They shoudn't even have been investigating me in the first place!""

And that ain't much of a defense. Ask any five year old that's ever tried to use that defense with mom and see if if got them anywhere!

> If the investigation is legitimate then there is nothing wrong with transparency. 

Sure, with the exceptions I outlined above where you're releasing information that is highly personal, or could put agents in jeopardy because you are reckless and don't care to have all the info reviewed before releasing it.

And with the exception where said information's release would enable Trump to learn what Mueller has on him and allow him to tailor his testimony to avoid perjuring himself, thus interfering with his own investigation.

See, if Mueller wants to have Trump testify under oath, and Trump doesn't want to plead the 5th because the mob pleads the 5th, and he knows what Mueller is going to ask in advance and what Mueller knows, then Trump can tailor his responses to avoid perjuring himself, while still lying. So in that case, transparency can be bad. Some of this information may be critical to upcoming trial. 

And not just for Trump. There's no telling how many people are involved here. What if these texts reveal that Sessions is also under investigation for talking to the Russians? What then? We could have a constitutional crisis of incredible proportions suddenly if we fund out members of congress who have the power to stop the investigation are themselves under investigation. "
politics,"The claims haven’t been materially substantiated. The public doesn’t know and cannot know whether Kav is guilty. Justice should be allowed to run its course, but it’s irresponsible to assume guilt or innocence based on the evidence that’s been presented so far. 

Also, nobody is really using the “but high school” defense (article doesn’t even have a direct quote using this). To me it looks like an attempt to cement the narrative for those who have already made up their minds that Kavanaugh is guilty

I’m not saying he did or didn’t do it. I’m saying we don’t know. I’m not dismissing the claims. 

"
politics,"No. The therapy notes never actually mention Kavs name, and actually get some other key details of that evening incorrect, including the actual number of people in the bedroom. 

Look into it a little more. Mainstream media is skimming over details like this. If the evidence was as strong as the media’s rhetoric seems to suggest, this whole situation would be open and shut. 

Just because he’s accused doesn’t mean he’s not clean and doesn’t mean we should move on. We should investigate thoroughly and make decisions based on facts.

To me, it seems your eager to move on because a part of you knows that if they were to investigate they would find nothing, and a person you don’t like would become a Supreme Court justice. 
"
politics,"That wasn't my point. My point was: why are the GOP wasting time trying to push this guy through? It's not like this woman is some junky off the street. I know she didn't name him by name in therapy and claims the therapist wrote down the wrong number of people. At this point, wouldn't it make sense for the GOP to distance themselves? I'm sure there is another judge without allegations. He isn't on trial for a crime, he's being considered for the highest court of the land. He's tainted at this point."
politics,"If you’re taking these allegations so seriously, wouldn’t the best thing to be to have the accuser come forward before a committee and have Kavanaugh there to rebut the claims so we can get to the bottom of this?

You’re saying he should be passed over just because there are allegations against him, regardless of whether they are proven? Seems like a dangerous precedent to set. Thankfully that’s just your opinion and not reality. 




"
politics,">I didn’t even say it’s absolutely happening in this case, please don’t put words in my mouth.

Well that's rich given you accused me of not willing to even consider this is the case here. Politics is a dirty game, but lets be frank: Republicans and Dems have both played the game dirty but blocking a sitting president's nominee for 9 months for no other reason other than he came from a Democrat president is particularly dirty.

You're right though--this isn't productive. I'm not putting any more words in your mouth than you are mine. To answer your question though-- I'd take a Gorsuch over a Kavanaugh any day of the week solely in light of this shit-show.
"
politics,"1. Trump has harmed our relationships with our greatest allies by throwing accusations and getting us mired in tariff wars. The tariffs are having a measurable impact on lower income citizens and business.
1. Trump has normalized criminal behavior.
1. Trump has normalized immorality.
1. Trump has normalized serial lying.
1. Trump has vilified the free press, which is a pillar of democracy.
1. Trump has embarrassed our nation with his bumbling, personal insults, and late night tweet storms.
1. Trump has strengthened Russia's standing.
1. Trump is doing nothing while we continue to be attacked by Russia.
1. Trump has set dangerous precedent by calling for the imprisonment of innocent citizens.
1. Trump has crippled the state department by firing experienced employees who held their positions for decades through both Republican and Democrat presidents.
1. Trump has elevated television pundits as a more credible source than our FBI, CIA, and larger intelligence community.
1. Trump has ruined the federal budget and saddled our children with even more debt with his trillion dollar giveaway to the ultra-wealthy.
1. Trump is opening up our precious wildlife refuges to mining and drilling operations.
1. Trump has denied climate change is real despite overwhelming solid evidence that it's a threat to human existence and then contributed to worsening climate change by rolling back necessary environment protections.
1. Trump claimed he would repeal and replace Obamacare, but all he has done is attempted to eliminate Obamacare and provided no replacement. His actions so far have increased rates on Obamacare recipients.
1. Trump has called for the separation and imprisonment of immigrant children. Not only has this harmed the children, but it has permanently harmed our foreign relations and position of moral superiority.
1. Trump signed a travel ban that disrupted both Americans and foreign nationals trying to conduct business.
1. Trump did next to nothing for the American citizens of Puerto Rico."
politics,"You're quite right, but none of this is about ""innocent vs guilty"". This is about whether Brett Kavanaugh is worthy of a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States. Kavanaugh is not entitled to or owed this SCOTUS seat, it's not 'his turn', and it's his job to prove to the American people that he is worthy.

So far he's done nothing but flip-flop and dodge questions concerning his judicial record as the Republicans tried to hide the facts and rush through his nomination. Kavanaugh needs to be thoroughly vetting, just as every SCOTUS appointee before him was, and it's clear that Republicans didn't want him to be vetted at all so that things like these recent allegations could slip through under the radar.

Now Kavanaugh will be vetted, and in order to do so we need to hear about this alleged attempted sexual assault/rape incident from the accuser (Ford), the accusee (Kavanaugh), and ALL credible witnesses. This isn't about ""guilt"", and Kavanaugh should only be given the immense privilege of a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court if he can convince the American public beyond any shadow of a doubt that he did not attempt to rape a woman.

There is no rush, and we should spend months or even years if needed, to get his *honest and dodge-free* testimony so we can get closer to the truth of the matter. Let's take the time to hear all sides of the story, and if there is any truth to it at all, the privilege should be given to someone who is actually worthy, like Merrick Garland, for example. "
politics,"Sure if there’s evidence. Of course, there’s not and the statute of limitations have long gone so idgaf and all you partisan hacks can downvote all day and it won’t matter because we get it now — we get the game. It’s 100% about power. No principles matter. And you all know that because a second grader could tell you that if we prevent judicial appointments because of “she-said” allegations that gives all power of obstruction forever to any woman who will tell a lie.

Oh... oh... but I know: you think women never would ever tell a lie, right? Especially not if they could be the new hero of *the resistance* and save a Supreme Court seat for Dems. No, nobody would ever lie in that situation. Especially not a *woman*. 

He’ll be confirmed by next Friday. Keep crying. "
politics,"I don’t have any hate in my heart at all — not sure where you’re getting that idea. Projection? Paranoia? I’m a university professor and almost all my colleagues disagree with me politically and I love them. My parents disagree with me and my brother disagrees with me — and I love them. My best friend from high school disagrees with me and although he stopped speaking to me for 8 months after Trump got elected because he knew I voted for Trump, I love him. 

Ask yourself this: do you trust Republican women so much that you can’t imagine one of them — picture an Ann Coulter type — ever lying to obstruct a Democrat appointment in the future? Do you really believe Republican women are so principled that they would never take advantage of this “believe the accuser” model? "
politics,"You’re incredibly biased in your assumption nothing happened. How about being open minded and waiting until the facts come out of the hearings before making the presumption a potential victim of sexual assault is a liar? I don’t know if that’s possible for you but can you try? I know you don’t think any of Trump’s accusers are honest even though he himself bragged about sexual assault. But please know, it’s not too late to wake up from your partisan blindness and start holding leaders accountable no matter their political affiliation. "
politics,"yawn.  If this was a magical tactic then they would have used it on Gorsuch too.  They didn't....because he didn't assault anybody.  See how that works?  Also, how is it backfiring...republicans postponed the vote...republicans have no shame so if they postponed the vote it is because they know they couldn't get him through which means he doesn't have rock solid support among republicans either and it would risk embarrassment by him not getting enough votes.  Use your head instead of choking out boring far-right fantasy garbage."
politics,"Do you know what is also incredibly dirty? 

Raping someone, then denying it when they come forward, then standing by while other people trash that persons character knowing theres nothing they can really do about it because its a Defense that requires no proof.

Jfc, let the process play out, have people interviewed, under oath, and see how this plays out.  


Just consider for one second about what it means if she is telling the truth, do you even care? Are you that desperate for a win?"
politics,"> this is an accusation in which there is no defense.
> 
> It is literally unprovable and also impossible to prove innocence as well.

You could not be a rapist and not be haunted your entire adult life about those actions coming back down on you.

But of course, your post is the one loaded with indefensible allegations about the sinister conspiracy of women who just want to bring down a man with impossible to defend scenarios, because that's just how they operate. "
politics,"Nonsense, literally. Where do you even get the idea that suddenly its people wanting an investigation into this thinking the ends justify the means. That is the Republican play. Just look at the reason Garland isn't a SCOTUS right now. Republicans love to twist everything so that nothing means anything. Its a fucking nightmare cause they can only get away with it because their supporters think that the ends justify the means. Mind blowing how easily projection fits into that pathology."
politics,"But Kavenaugh had been in the news as a part of the Bush administration. This is an impossible position to prove or defend.  She doesn't know the location, doesn't know the day, doesn't know who else was present aside from Judge who says he has no recollection of this incident nor this party.  Asking people to remember a party from over 35 years ago is asinine. Tell me about the parties you went to in high school? Who was at the parties you went to when you were 15? Is it possible he was a popular boy, and she is misremembering?"
politics,"I’ve been the victim of sexual assault twice. Once by a boyfriend, and the second time by someone I saw as a friend. I would NEVER come forward out of fear of being called a liar; people think not coming out immediately after means we “made it up.” I actually spoke to my (now former) boyfriend a while after it happened because the topic of partner sexual violence came up on a show were were watching. He said “Well if that were true, that would mean I technically raped you, haha,” to which I just thought to myself, “Yeah. You did.” He legitimately thought he had done no wrong. And if I had came out, I know he would have fully denied it. Same with the “friend.” 

People fail to realize that not pressing charges and not coming out immediately doesn’t mean that the assault didn’t happen. It means that we weighed the pros and cons of speaking out and determined it’s not worth it. Even if we live in a society where there are many people who would believe us survivors, there are just as many people who will not. "
politics,"Not trying to be a shit but if women and women's groups made a concerted effort to address the epidemic of false rape accusations and shamed women who did it.  Perhaps a PR campaign along the lines of ""Rape isn't a joke, Don't accuse your ex-partner of rape or molestation just to hurt him"" would go a long way in making it safer for people to come out and say what happened, when it happened.  As it is a good number of people fall to the automatic position of ""it's a lie"" because it's so prevalent.  Don't make false accusations prevalent, name and shame the women who do it and eventually public perceptions will change.  "
politics,"Yesterday I typed out a long reply in response to a post questioning why Dr. Ford did not come forward with her accusation sooner. 

I wrote about the ostracism I experienced following speaking up, and how devastating and damaging it was.

It's been a decade and my discomfort with even writing anonymously about it led me to delete the post twenty minutes later.

I'm sorry for your experiences. Know that you're not alone. <3"
politics,"I'm a victim as well, but I never told anyone.  It would have destroyed my mother and she had been through so much already in her life from abusive alcoholic husband, two time cancer survivor, loss of close family members, house fire....  I just didn't want to cause her more pain.  So I've kept it hidden.  My choice, whether it was the wrong choice or not.  However, if the scuzzwad was going to be running for the highest court in the land or president? I think that's one reason I'd have to swallow my fear and step forward.  No one knows these victim's stories.  Most of us that have been through it know damn good and well we wouldn't be believed or we would be told we are blowing it out of proportion,  or we somehow lead them on, etc. etc.  I know why so many victims have so many reasons to not come forward when it happens.  Now we all know why they also dont come forward many years down the road either.  "
politics,"Yep. This is why I hope she knows a lot of us know she’s a hero. I saw some encouraging threads where her school had a lot of people signing on their support for her. It is trauma all over again when the public scrutinizes you but I also can’t imagine what it’s like having a faction of the internet full on against you, with the kind of things internet users have done against people they target.

It’s cute when the likes of Reddit and 4chan locate a flag based on clouds and star positionings and shit - so much more frightening to think what they can do when a portion of them are all focused on you as an individual."
politics,"White nationalism is white nationalism, it is a very specific belief in the creation of a white nation.

> Any man — no matter his race or sexual-orientation — can join the fraternal organization as long as they “recognize that white men are not the problem.” Women have their own contingent called the Proud Boys’ Girls.

That is a quote from the link you didn't read. The link also doesn't say they are white nationalists or white supremacists...Many members are non white."
politics,"They are bad unfit parents.  We only know about the ones who illegally enter.  We have no idea how many have had their children killed, raped, or trafficked during the trip.  These are economic refugees who risk the lives of their children for money.  Horrible.

They are also criminals.  They shouldn't bring their children along with them when they commit a crime. 

If you are so concerned about them, give them money. "
politics,"> Enough not to trigger a constitutional crisis.

Have no idea what this means?  

> You're missing my point here though.

You ignored my simple question.  Ex. In previous elections 30% of people voted and this election 40% of people voted or was that reversed?

> Republicans are elected to Congress the same way that Democrats are,

Really, I can tell you water is wet.  Will repeat, this was a state election."
politics,"Because they think he can be doing a good job despite chaos. They see the government as something that doesn't need ""reform."" It needs *upending.* They have a ""burn it all down and start over"" mentality. They elected him *because* they wanted a wrecking ball. They are reveling in it, they are overjoyed at how ""the libruls"" are reacting, and they simply *don't care* about policy - they care about appearances, and the appearance to them is that Trump is wrecking everything they dislike, even though they can't articulate *why* they dislike it."
politics,"That's because they're uneducated and constantly watching propoganda. The only way this ever stops is if education for American citizens ever gets funding on the level of the DoD. That won't happen because any attempt to divert funding from the DoD will be met with shrieking and screaming about how ungrateful people are and how these ""heroes"" shouldn't have their budget slashed, despite the military's own admissions that they have more funding than they can feasibly use.

Oh, and any attempt to increase funding through taxes will face similar backlash from the dumb fucks who don't understand how taxation works and shrill about socialism while collecting welfare checks to supplement their free-market income from Walmart. All while blissfully unaware of what irony is."
politics,"Other nations take our currency in return for their goods, and they in turn use dollars to pay for their own imports. This is why our trade deficit is high.  The high trade deficit is a natural outcome of the dollar being the world's reserve currency.  The US is the only nation that's truly set up to be an intermediary in world trade, because we are in the best position to defend global supply chains.  In this respect, trade deficits are a symbol of strength and credibility in the US's financial system, especially versus other currencies. "
politics,"I think most of the Reddit readers were not yet born or too young to remember the way Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Linda Tripp and other women were treated when they accused Bill Clinton of sexual harassment. 

I recall James Carville on TV stating that these women are what you get when you “drag a $100 bill through a trailer park”. Paula Jones was imperfect in appearance and she was mocked and ridiculed for her looks. 

Kathleen WIlley was a Clinton supporter, and they turned on her when she came forward with her story. 

It really is amazing how politics color positions on things like this. "
politics,You forget there was a investigation under independent council and impeachment that he was ultimately acquitted in.  That was for sexual harassment before he was president (but governor of Arkansas).  He was found in contempt and was fined.  By that same standard shouldn't we be bringing impeachment proceedings against Trump for sexual assault (as admitted on the bus tape) and for walking in on teenagers in their dressing rooms which he admitted doing during the Ms Teen USA pageant?  Right now either wy it turns up for Kavanaugh and Ford there should be at the very least an investigation.  Not a day of a senate committee grilling the accused.  
politics,"Would “doing their jobs” mean reading through the private notes from therapy sessions of every classmate Kavanaugh ever had? Because that is the only way anyone would ever know this. Ford says she told no one except her therapist three decades later. She has told no one publicly until now, in the middle of confirmation hearings. The witness she named released a statement contradicting her account. She says she cannot remember the year or the place. 

How could they have missed something like that?"
politics,"They have 2 plans, really.  If the GOP retains control after the midterms, they are going to go full force for keeping power at all costs, and if they don't hold both houses, they will go along with impeacing trump, and then trying the ""well, we were forced to go along"" line they have used before.  They are partisan hacks, traitors, and criminals, and much of the GOP needs to be prosecuted for it.  "
politics,"Yeah that's pretty much horse shit. He stepped aside and handed the the mic. There was literally no other politicians in the planet at the time willing to give that kind of voice to racial justice. It still didn't pass your purity test. He did  a seat ed d interview with killer Mike. Still doesn't pass your purity test.

When is good good enough, or are we forever going to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good?"
politics,"It's really tough to say.  Bernie lost the primary for numerous reasons.  I think the white progressives absolutely cost Sanders votes (I was personally on the ground in the S. Carolina primary and saw first-hand the damage many of them caused), but Sanders was going to have a very hard time with minority voters, especially black voters, no matter what.  Some factors in that were Sanders fault, some were faults of his campaign.  Most, however, were to Hillary Clinton's credit, things she just did flat-out better than Sanders.  I don't think white progressives cost Bernie the primary, but contributed to him losing certain states, especially in the South, by more than he should have.  

I do think there have been improvements made since 2016.   White progressives have upped their game, perhaps not by as much as is necessary and perhaps not enough of them have upped their game, but there has been improvements.  If nothing else, I've noticed the number of expressions of disdain for ""Identity Politics"" has receded sharply since the primary.  White progressives are understanding intersectionality as a concept better than they did in 2016.

I'd also add that Bernie did do well with the black youth vote.  Those young progressives have had two years to talk to the older people in their communities.  That has helped.  It's also helped that people can see the number of minority candidates that the ""Bernie Wing"" have supported and championed since 2016, not just the victors, but the longshots as well.  I mean, if you just look at the [""Our Revolution endorsement page](https://ourrevolution.com/candidates/), it's not exactly a white male dominated list of candidates.

It still won't be enough to win Bernie the majority of the minority vote should he choose to run in 2020, but hopefully, it will be better."
politics,"Were you paired up with white progressive Floridians, or the bussed in organizers from New England?  

I found, at least in SC, the locals to be okay-ish with a bit of training/talking to, but the organizers brought in from outside the South to be completely awful, smug, and completely counter-productive to the cause.  

By the time the primaries got around to my home state of NC, the campaign just let the locals take the lead, (And we lost the state by less than pretty much any other southern state)"
politics,"Yeah, that sucks.  

I had to tell a lot of people during that primary something along the lines of ""Look at Bernie and judge Bernie as a candidate based on his own merits, and not on the merits of some of his supporters.""  It was somewhat successful.  Do you have any good ideas on how to bring back a voter who was turned off to Bernie by a bad encounter with one of his supporters?  I'd love the advice for the future."
politics,"Per the article, by... wait for it, making alternate types of burgers (such as artisinal burgers and/or burgers with meat substitutes) *available*

I want to believe it and the comments are satire, but I've seen a lot of Townhall readers who honestly think Beto wants to ban barbecue so...

Edit: It appears a couple of rightwingers have helpfully showed up and confirmed that no, this is not some crappy attempt at humor, they honestly believe there's a liberal plot to force people to eat healthy and have a pogrom against butchers (they bizarrely define pogrom as ""throwing blood""  at butchers - last I checked, while unethical, that's leagues away from a pogrom. Maybe it means something different in right-wing circles?)"
politics,"Basically teh libs are forcing everybody to eat all this gourmet non-realMurican fancypants food that's a grade better than the Big Mac that he's used to, and obviously everybody is required to eat just like this guy. 

Also, any creativity when making a burger is the same as Obamacare, liberal beef tastes like ""ruined dreams and the Deep Thoughts of Kamala Harris,"" and Obama is the only person in America who likes hot dogs. 

So there you go -- so you don't have to wade into the sewer of a diseased mind."
politics,">but I've seen a lot of Townhall readers who honestly think Beto wants to ban barbecue so... 

Is that so far fetched? Fucking asshole ""progressives"" have banned or tried to ban happy meals, soda refills, plastic bags, bottled water, and even the word ""welfare"" from government vocabulary. 

Face it, you ""progressives"" are the biggest bunch of assholes on the planet, and it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if Robert Francis O'Rourke did call for a ban on barbecue. 
"
politics,">Per the article, by... wait for it, making alternate types of burgers (such as artisinal burgers and/or burgers with meat substitutes) available

To be fair, most people on the right take the exact same approach with marriage. Their brains are wired to make false equivalencies between *other options are available* and *the default option is ruined*.

This is the same lazy thinking that results in spectacularly dumb proclamations like ""your gay marriage ruins it for the rest of us."""
politics,"The first article is about Finland feeding its own military forces ***two vegetarian meals per week***, not banning meat for two days. That's nothing extreme, and the only reason it made the news is because a Finnish minister who doesn't understand nutrition made a stink about it.

The second article is about butchers in an area of France complaining that vegan extremists are vandalizing their shops, i.e. spraypainting graffiti and once splashing fake blood on a cheese shop. That's not a *pogrom*, that's just PETA or a similar organization, which have been around for decades.

Stop exaggerating and spreading false information."
politics,">happy meals,

Because kids start to associate fast food with getting a new toy, and that encourages bad eating habits and leads to obesity.

>soda refills,

Because Americans drink far too much soda in one sitting already. And it's all just sugar water, anyway.

>plastic bags,

Terrible for the environment, and unnecessary.

>bottled water,

Terrible for the environment, unnecessary, and its just fucking tap water bottled by a company.

> and even the word ""welfare"" from government vocabulary.

Source? Haven't heard of this one.

>Face it, you ""progressives"" are the biggest bunch of assholes on the planet

Fuck you. At least someone is trying to do some good in the world. Not like conservatives who spend their days kidnapping kids and making sure poor people stay hungry and sick."
politics,"Yep! People who call themselves “libertarians” but support policies from individuals like Gary Johnson and Ron Paul are actually Anarcho-Capitalists (or AnCaps for short) and think the “free market” solves all problems. These are reactionaries who have no answers for what we do about things like “the spoils of the commons” and think taxation is “theft”

Libertarian Socialists are people who believe that individual freedom stops where it starts affecting other peoples’ and actually understand the need for a strong social safety net that promotes social mobility and encourages entrepreneurship due to not being tied to a job you hate for survival. It’s the political-ideological form of “Together Everyone Achieves More”"
politics,"How very off-topic and distracting of you to ask!

Let’s be clear about what your comment is doing:

- The story is about a Republican lawmaker

- No mention of Democrats whatsoever

- This is about a member of the Republican Party who is being accused (by his own daughter) of repeated sex crimes over a period of more than a decade

- The Republican Party has branded themselves as the [Party of Family Values](https://www.gop.com/issue/family-values/canonical/)

- The Republican Party has used this “Family Values” platform to justify everything from anti-choice legislation, opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment, opposition to marriage equality, cutbacks to social programs, opposition to comprehensive sexual education, and to attack Trans folks who have the audacity to want to use the bathroom of their expressed gender identity

When a political party claims to have a moral high ground on such issues, it is incumbent upon them to live by those standards. The fact that so often these same politicians cannot do so is a very strong indicator that these so-called “values” do not actually matter to them. It is just rhetoric as a means of control and nothing more.

This has nothing to do with Democrats. You brought that up for reasons I can only speculate. But here’s an offer: since this thread is about the sexual crimes committed by a Republican, let’s talk about that. When a Democrat does something comparable, we can talk about that also.

The wrongs of others is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Why are you trying to change the subject instead of engaging with it?"
politics,"You sure you wanna go down this road? It's going to be pretty embarrassing for you.

Here's a short list of Democrats recently convicted or credibly accused of by child sex crimes in the past five or so years:

* Anthony Weiner

Here's a short list of Republicans:

* Dennis Hastert (Convicted for sex abuse)
* Matt Pennell
* Jim Knoblach (Accused by his own daughter of sexual assault/rape)
* Brandon Hixon (Accused of sexual abuse of a minor; offed himself to avoid conviction)
* Dan Johnson (Accused of sexual abuse of a minor; offed himself to avoid conviction)
* Roy Moore (Accused of sexually assaulting and/or raping very young teen girls)
* Ralph Shortey (Convicted of child sex trafficking)
* Donald Trump (accused in federal court of violently raping a then-13-year-old girl)

Hm, so you're right. Not 1/10; guess it's closer to 1/8. My bad.

Here's the good news: if you broaden your criteria from child sex abuse to *any* sex abuse, Republicans are only about three times more likely to commit it compared to Democrats. Want to see examples of that, too?"
politics,">Also, this whole debacle is going to do nothing but ruin abuse victims' credibility in the future.

Absolutely. I say this as non-partisanly as possible, but this whole situation is just getting worse and worse for Ford, and Dems as a whole. 

When Fords accusations first arose, I had heard Feinstein sat on the letter since July. I chalked it up to perhaps Dems wanting to verify everything first and that with the supposed lie detector Ford took, Feinstein must've felt comfortable moving forward with the presentation of the letters content. I said that Ford must be heard.

Then the feet dragging started in conjunction with one denial after the other. 

Republicans were quick to point to the fact that it happened 36 years, and I thought that was tad disingenuous. 

In light of the feet dragging, and now all witnesses denying the event, all the other circumstantial oddities Republicans have been pointing out just really add up to what appears now to just have been a political ploy. 

You're absolutely right...the WORST thing about what Ford is doing and what Dems are allowing is just to ruin the credibility for all the women and men who have been sexually assaulted and abused. 

Shame on Ford and shame on the Democrats. "
politics,"Not at all.  

""What level of certainty about the nominee’s guilt should drive a senator to vote against that nominee? The standard to convict a defendant in criminal court is often understood as requiring anywhere from 95 to 100 percent certainty of the defendant’s guilt. In civil court, the ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard requires 51 percent certainty. As the economist Justin Wolfers asked on Twitter, ‘Would you appoint someone to the Supreme Court if you think there were a 25 percent chance they’ve done bad things? A 10 percent chance? A 5 percent chance? A 1 percent chance?’”

https://www.theatlantic.com/.../the-wrong.../570697/"
politics,"The right question is:  """"What level of certainty about the nominee’s guilt should drive a senator to vote against that nominee? The standard to convict a defendant in criminal court is often understood as requiring anywhere from 95 to 100 percent certainty of the defendant’s guilt. In civil court, the ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard requires 51 percent certainty. As the economist Justin Wolfers asked on Twitter, ‘Would you appoint someone to the Supreme Court if you think there were a 25 percent chance they’ve done bad things? A 10 percent chance? A 5 percent chance? A 1 percent chance?’”

https://www.theatlantic.com/.../the-wrong.../570697/"
politics,"In court yes but again this isn't a trial, it's an interview to determine whether or not someone is worthy of one of the most important positions on the planet.  

The question is: ""What level of certainty about the nominee’s guilt should drive a senator to vote against that nominee? The standard to convict a defendant in criminal court is often understood as requiring anywhere from 95 to 100 percent certainty of the defendant’s guilt. In civil court, the ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard requires 51 percent certainty. As the economist Justin Wolfers asked on Twitter, ‘Would you appoint someone to the Supreme Court if you think there were a 25 percent chance they’ve done bad things? A 10 percent chance? A 5 percent chance? A 1 percent chance?’”

https://www.theatlantic.com/.../the-wrong.../570697/"
politics,"""What level of certainty about the nominee’s guilt should drive a senator to vote against that nominee? The standard to convict a defendant in criminal court is often understood as requiring anywhere from 95 to 100 percent certainty of the defendant’s guilt. In civil court, the ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard requires 51 percent certainty. As the economist Justin Wolfers asked on Twitter, ‘Would you appoint someone to the Supreme Court if you think there were a 25 percent chance they’ve done bad things? A 10 percent chance? A 5 percent chance? A 1 percent chance?’”

https://www.theatlantic.com/.../the-wrong.../570697/"
politics,"I think it boils down to:

- What is the appropriate standard to use when determining whether or not someone is worthy of being appointed to the Supreme Court?  IMHO that standard should be virtual certainty.   

- Does her allegation (together with the rest of the evidence) create a reasonable doubt as to his worthiness?

I think we already know what the Senators will do, they'll vote along party lines.  But philosophically a person trying to assess her claim could decide that she's wrong (lying or mistaken) and irrelevant,  or that she's telling the truth but what he did does not impact his credibility/worthiness, or that she's telling the truth and what he did does damage his credibility.  

We'll see.  Interesting times. 


"
politics,"How does this in any way mean that they don't believe in due process?  Judge Kavanaugh is not on trial.  The concept of due process is completely irrelevant here, so I think you just don't know what it means.  This is a job interview and they're asking for issues that weigh on his character to be considered for whether he should receive this job, which is, by the way, a lifetime position where we all as taxpayers fund the salary."
politics,"Nobody is owed anything and you thinking that is the sad part here. This is a job interview not a court of law. He's already lied under oath this is just IN ADDITION to all the other shit they have on him. If I owned a business it's not up to me to decide beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty of something, all I have to have is a bad feeling about someone, or hear from his previous employer he was a schmuck who caused all kinds of drama. He can go get a job elsewhere.

You guys seriously act like cultists...""he's owed that seat"", Jesus Christ...

"
politics,"You mean like this number?

[1,488 U.S. Citizens Mistakenly Arrested, Detained by ICE Since 2012 - The Daily Beast](https://www.thedailybeast.com/1488-us-citizens-mistakenly-arrested-detained-by-ice-since-2012)

The article OP meant was this though:

[Feds say they lost track of 1,488 migrant children - CBS News](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/migrant-children-health-and-human-services-lost-track-1488-children-today-2018-09-19/)

14 words as in this?

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/02/15/we-must-secure-border-and-build-wall-make-america-safe-again

[Twitter Explodes After Homeland Security Headline Appears to Mimic ’14-Words’ Neo-Nazi Slogan - Law&Crime](https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/twitter-explodes-after-homeland-security-headline-appears-to-mimic-14-words-neo-nazi-slogan/)

There's even an 88 at the end. I guess they must really like numbers.

[(explanation of numbers)](https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/1488)"
politics,"I do often wonder what the world would be like in 100 years from now if humanity just got rid of religion.

My bias tells me we’d be a lot better, but I do contemplate the possibility of us being worse off in some regards.

I struggle to see that, though. So much of the bad  in the world only exists because of religion, or is accepted because religion excuses it.

It sure would be a different place, though, that’s for sure. "
politics,"If the GOP is going with _""What teenage boy hasn't tried to rape someone?""_ then the NEXT question should be _""What teenage girl hasn't been raped or have someone tried to rape them?""_; and if we're at the second question then the reality is that it is 2018 and the United States of America does not know how to educate people and cannot keep women in their country safe from their own inhabitants.

Up next with the GOP: How a women dresses is a direct reason for sexual assault. Introducing the ""American Burqa Act"" and instructions on how to ""keep your women home"".  "
politics,"Conservative women are often trapped.

If they are Christian Conservative types, they are trapped by a family who has raised them to be obedient and silent. They are often un- or undereduated and are unable to support themselves. They can be married off in the teen years at which point they will start having children and be ruled over by their husbands. Without any real means to escape and having been fed the ""virtuous women go to heaven"" lines their ENTIRE lives, that shit is hard to break. It is easier for them to simply accept it and plenty never question any of it in the first place.

If they are Rich Conservatives, they can also be trapped by their family. Often, a patriarch will threaten to cut off their lifestyle if they make waves and there is a LOT of financial and social incentive to go along with the rest of the family. They often marry other moneyed types who are conservative themselves and are fed not necessarily religious indoctrination, but social indoctrination, especially about how poor and minority people are dangerous, dirty, lazy, and violent. They are taught to fear everyone outside of their social class and they mostly keep to themselves anyway. They don't ""mingle"" with the rest of us and so are completely cut off from the stench of reality. They don't want it, they don't care, and there aren't any consequences in their world. They may not vote at all if young, and if older, they will always do what's ""good for the family.""

Now, that's not to say that there are some legitimate shithead women out there that want to oppress other women. There are plenty of them. A lot of them are middle class and white. THOSE are the ones you have to watch for. They can be real snakes. They are often married to some two-bit local Big Fish and they might run for local office themselves. They think of themselves as part of the elite and they look down on anyone they possibly can. These women get no sympathy from me whatsoever. They're shitty people."
politics,"Not true. People, especially women, are the opposite of ""meh"" on this topic.

>If there’s cause for hope in these horror-show days, it’s this: the Republican party has no idea what’s about to hit it this November.

>Even the dimmest and most misogynist of Republican operatives must realize, by this point, that the supreme court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh and the handling of the sexual assault allegations against him will hurt their chances, especially with women voters, in the upcoming midterm elections.

>What they don’t seem to realize, though, is that huge numbers of women aren’t just mad – they’re organized and mobilized politically in a way we’ve never quite seen before. The key story of the midterms is the large number of progressive women – and to a lesser extent, progressive men – who have been taking on the crucial, unglamorous work that swings elections: registering voters, canvassing door-to-door, preparing to get people to the polls. The disdain for women that the Republicans have shown by continuing to rally behind Kavanaugh is only energizing them further.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/25/republican-party-face-wrath-women"
politics,"> Since he's already lied before (provably) and the R's are determined to push him through anyway, I don't see how him lying now will make any difference, honestly

That's an implied point in the article. Many if not most of the Rs probably know he lying is about what the article calls ""his dissolute youth,"" but they think the punishment for what occurred 35 years ago -- being denied a Supreme Court seat, etc. -- justifies lying.

But lying to Congress is a crime under the U.S. Code. So by overlooking Kavanaugh's lying, the Rs could once again be subverting the rule of law to further their political agenda. And be putting a criminal -- a sexual predator and perjurer -- on the nation's highest court.   
"
politics,"At the table now and oh my GOD there are a ton of kids signing up! It's really encouraging.

edit: we've signed up 77 kids since the doors opened at 8 EST

edit2: we're  a non-partisan group, and we've been explaining to the kids that we are not here to discuss politics in any way, just to help them get registered to vote their own consciences. But the kids sure aren't non-partisan: I don't think a single one has said anything positive about Trump, but several of them have expressed their concerns about Kavanaugh. They are very well-informed about the political climate as far as I can tell. "
politics,"This is all supposing that the votes tallied are accurate and reliable anyway. The machines we use can be hacked by a 10 year old with a smartphone, we know at least one foreign country has directly and indirectly interfered with our elections...I don’t think a lot of people have much confidence in the voting system right now. 

The way EVERYTHING is a wedge issue now, it might goose some people and get them to the polls but...everyone thought that about the 2016 elections and turnout was abysmal. "
politics,"I mean, if someone asked me that question, I think the answer for me was yes one time, and it was when I was 18. I’ve never been “excited” to vote. It’s a thing I do. It’s the very least thing I can do. 

I also think we have to remember not to shame people who don’t vote, and rather impress upon them how it’s important and why it matters, even if you feel like nothing changes and your vote doesn’t matter. It’s also been researched before that talking about how low turnout is only depresses turnout further. Saying instead that energy is high and your voice matters more than ever is more effective. "
politics,"55.4% of American electors voted in 2016. That's not ""nuh uh,"" that's a cold, hard, depressing fact. There will undoubtedly be an uptick in November, but whether it will be enough or not remains to be seen. The data show that millions upon millions of Americans did not care enough to vote, and historical election turnouts (even though 2016 was a noteworthy low) say the same thing. Of an electorate of 235,248,000, the US barely managed to scrape a voter turnout of 130,327,400. That's 104,920,600 people who didn't give a shit, give or take. Even if half of those get off their asses for long enough to try to save the USA, that's still well over 50,000,000 people who won't bother. That's why I said millions and millions of Americans don't care; because millions and millions *don't care*. I'm all for action and optimism and getting out the vote and seeing light at the end of the tunnel, but you do yourself a disservice if you follow the Republican lead and begin to ignore reality in favour of something you find less threatening. "
politics,"That's excellent and I commend you (and those engaged kids), but please don't confuse your laudable personal ethic and your personal experience with the reality of modern US politics and a disturblingly disengaged, malinformed electorate. I quote from a post I made below: 

>55.4% of American electors voted in 2016. That's not ""nuh uh,"" that's a cold, hard, depressing fact. There will undoubtedly be an uptick in November, but whether it will be enough or not remains to be seen. The data show that millions upon millions of Americans did not care enough to vote, and historical election turnouts (even though 2016 was a noteworthy low) say the same thing. Of an electorate of 235,248,000, the US barely managed to scrape a voter turnout of 130,327,400. That's 104,920,600 people who didn't give a shit, give or take. Even if half of those get off their asses for long enough to try to save the USA, that's still well over 50,000,000 people who won't bother. That's why I said millions and millions of Americans don't care; because millions and millions don't care. I'm all for action and optimism and getting out the vote and seeing light at the end of the tunnel, but you do yourself a disservice if you follow the Republican lead and begin to ignore reality in favour of something you find less threatening.

That said, you are doing everything right and you're what more people ought to aspire to be. Well done, and good luck! 

Edit: *sigh* -- did you miss the bit where I said ""you do yourself a disservice if you follow the Republican lead and begin to ignore reality in favour of something you find less threatening""? Because you really seem to have. The numbers show that millions upon millions of Americans remain disengaged. You can stick your fingers in your ears and feel insulated and snug, or you can just accept that fact and continue to do your part to change it. You're on the right track, but America doesn't end at the border of your circle of friends. The truth is unpleasant, but it's the truth and you're going to have to deal with it one way or the other. 104,920,600 non-voting electors is, by anyone's definition, millions of people not giving a shit. "
politics,"anecdotal evidence is less than useful for achieving anything and often times is the reason used to support decisions that lead to the opposite of the desired outcome. see republican policy logic. 

I want what they are saying to be true nationwide but I will not get my hopes up about one anecdote. we all need to work towards the goal and look outside our comfort zones for real evidence based areas we can improve and reasonably make advancements towards our goals. "
politics,"Actually I would prefer a bigger cushion. Two separate pieces of legislation.  One expanding the court to 33 justices, and a separate piece of legislation allowing the court to meet and adjudicate cases in panels.  In the event that the latter is tossed out as unconstitutional, the former remains in place.  

33 justices prevents overt politicization of the court and also makes it very unlikely that there is ever a ""swing vote"" the way that Kennedy functioned for more than a decade.  That's just a totally unacceptable situation.  "
politics,"okay do you expect it or just really really want it to be true? look at the 538 article. gender is less a determining factor for kavanaugh support than party affiliation is. republican women still back him in high numbers. 

focusing the wave campaign on any bloc of voters without accurately and brutally honestly observing the increase in voter turn out from that message over the time and money spent delivering the message is how you make waves.

I want it to be true that highly progressive women are going to come out of the woodwork around the country in republican held districts. that would be amazing. but I want to actually see some evidence and polling before getting my hopes up or thinking our work is done with them. "
politics,"> but I want to actually see some evidence and polling before getting my hopes up or thinking our work is done with them.

That's your personal thing man. I'd like to know a lot more too but information is limited. I'm not saying the US is going to go hard blue overnight in November, but I do expect a significant shift. That's it. just enough to be noticeable on a national level.

Personally I've already gotten my hopes up and I won't consider my work done until Trump is gone and his existence shamed."
politics,"Perhaps not the 9th, as en banc decisions in the 9th do not require the full court (as I believe they do in most other circuits).  [Here](https://law.vanderbilt.edu/files/publications/George-Guthrie-The-Threes-Re-Imagining-Supreme-Court-Decisionmaking.pdf) is one law review article discussing the possibility, which examines some historical consideration of this possibility by Congress as well (intermediate appellate courts were the option ultimately selected to relieve the court's high caseload, but the minority position at the time, circa 1880, favored Supreme Court panels). "
politics,"There are 12 regional intermediate appellate courts, but in practice the DC Circuit is really less of a regional court and more of a specialized federal question court.  So instead we look at the 11 other regional courts and imagine a 3 member supreme court panel for each circuit.  That gives us 33 justices.  It is also an uneven number for when the ""full"" court meets, in the event that there are split decisions it makes it more likely there will still be a majority decision. 

Edit: Typos."
politics,"Ok, so I revised my claim to the exact situation we have at hand here(AND I still believe my initial claim that it is wrong to believe any one person's testimony without physical evidence). Everyone who was supposedly at this ""party"" said Kavenaugh was innocent. You are the one who drew the comparison to courts in the first place. You're right, it's not a court proceeding so we don't have to worry about the testimonies anyway. Anyone with common sense can determine that two thirty year old, weak testimonies can't beat out other one's calling him innocent ;). 

https://nypost.com/2018/09/25/eight-big-problems-for-christine-blasey-fords-story/

Read one article from the other side please."
politics,"You're just being disingenuous now.  If you weren't referring to evidence and testimony as it's applied in court then you're even more wrong.  Testimony is often accepted as fact in the context of Senate confirmation hearings.



> Everyone who was supposedly at this ""party"" said Kavenaugh was innocent.




This is also a lie.  ""I do not recall"" isn't a declaration of innocence.




The testimonies aren't weak.




There's nothing in the link that indicates she's lying.  It just outlines the difficulties of her situation."
politics,"She's not a victim of sexual assault. She was complicit in it. That's abundantly clear. 

You are being disengenious by believing a woman who was an adult attending parties with minors where alcohol and drugs were being used and where gang rapes were occurring, who waited 40 years to come forward (decided to miraculously come forward the week of his vote - great timing!), who has been sued for defamation before, who uses a porn lawyer as her counsel, who owes massive amounts to the IRS, etc. Please look at the facts and stop going off of emotion. "
politics,"So you condone gang rapes and drugging minors because it's politically expedient. Have you reported these frats to the police? If you know something you should say something, unless you're waiting 40 years for one of them to get famous? 

Since this accuser was an adult at the time and KNEW these things were going on and STILL attended these parties with minors, 
She is guilty of the following:

1. Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor 
2. Conspiracy to Commit Rape 
3. Rape 
4. Conspiracy to Conceal a Felony 
5. Obstruction of Justice

Its also important to note that she never says kavanaugh raped her. 

Facts are important. 

Movie franchises? Wtf? "
politics,"Yeah I dont beleive that, Ive been around a lot of shit and I dont believe lily white rich kids from georgetown were running gang-rape parties that girls kept going too. 

You arent talking about gang members in some horrible inner city crime ridden neighborhood with cultural fears of the police. 

This doesnt even pass the perception of activities young teenage boys would get into, most of them are affraid to talk to girls much less repetadly rape them. 

This story shatters my bullshit meter. "
politics,"The accusers seem to be successful, highly educated women with no criminal pasts, no prior allegations of improper statements made by them (perjury, slander, etc), and each have offered sworn affidavits as to their testimony, as well as testimony corroborating it. For example, Dr. Ford's allegation stems back to 2012, long before Kavanaugh was a nominee for the supreme court, with associated notes from a therapy session discussing it. Each woman is willing to testify before the senate and directly make these allegations under oath, and then be questioned about it by the Senate judiciary committee. 

None of this seems made up, at all. However, that makes you *feel* better, and that's what you *want* to think, so there ya go. Go for it dude. ""Fake news"" or whatever helps you not think critically."
politics,"> the media sued for liable

They would only be ""liable"" for libel (lol) if both of the following are true:

1. They reported Kavanaugh assaulted these women, as opposed to merely being alleged to have assaulted them.

2. They knew for a fact they were printing something they knew to be false, but did so anyway with reckless intent.

As neither of these are true, the reporting on these allegations thus far do not meet the legal definition of libel. "
politics,"> the media sued for liable

They would only be ""liable"" for libel (lol) if both of the following are true:

1. They reported Kavanaugh assaulted these women, as opposed to merely being alleged to have assaulted them.

2. They knew for a fact they were printing something they knew to be false, but did so anyway with reckless intent.

As neither of these are true, the reporting on these allegations thus far do not meet the legal definition of libel. "
politics,"> the media sued for liable

They would only be ""liable"" for libel (lol) if both of the following are true:

1. They reported Kavanaugh assaulted these women, as opposed to merely being alleged to have assaulted them.

2. They knew for a fact they were printing something they knew to be false, but did so anyway with reckless intent.

As neither of these are true, the reporting on these allegations thus far do not meet the legal definition of libel. "
politics,"1) the FBI doesnt investigate these types of crimes.

2)  what are they going to find, we are all publically witnessed to the eviddence available.  We dont know who, wehn, or where and the only people said to be witnesses other than the accusers say it didnt happen.

Unlike the fantasy world of the far left, male and female testimony holds the same wieght.  So the investigation will find that there is no way to know if it did or did not happen if Kavanaugh or Judge were involved at all or if it is even paritally true or untrue. 

Thats the point of these wild accusations,  You cant say it didnt happen, and you cant say it did.  Which is why its damaging for real casses because it breaks down our understanding of justice and it causes suspicion and skeptcism. 

Congradulations everybody lets see how insane this can get before the violence starts. "
politics,">the FBI doesnt investigate these types of crimes.

Lol, where you you goofballs getting this from? Hannity? You're not the first this week to mistakenly assert this like its some fact. I'm genuinely curious what snake oil saleslman is peddling you bullshit.

Yes, of course the FBI can investigate a rape claim lol. What on Earth are you talking about?

>We dont know who, wehn, or where and the only people said to be witnesses other than the accusers say it didnt happen.

This is why you investigate. The point is to gather knowledge as to potential witnesses, and they can confirm or corroborate or deny.

Boy, the wheels are really falling off the jalopy now. When you have to reach this desperately to avoid *a mere investigation*, you've got a major critical thought issue. You're not even making sense. ""The FBI can't investigate! And they wouldn't find out anything its impossible!"" Lol, what in the fuck are you on about. This is the spin now? Yikes, back to the drawing board dude.

>Congradulations everybody lets see how insane this can get before the violence starts.

Oh Jesus, settle down. If you can't handle a vexatious conversation, go sit at the kiddy table while the adults discuss. You sound like a nonsensical child. "
politics,"Then have the FBI investigate it. 

Edit:

>Oh please this entire charade is absurd and only being entertained becasue you want to delay Trumps nominee.

Gaslight 

Obstruct

**Project** 

Hello friend, you are at ""project"" in GOP. We merely want a *supreme court nominee* accused of rape investigated. no more, no less. It is you who is unable to view this outside of a lens of partisan politics. Your insistence that no investigation occur, despite no logical reason to deny it, is proof positive of that. 
"
politics,">It cant be proven true or false and thats the whole point, if you cant see taht then you must be willingly blind or exceedingly stupid

You can cross-examine witnesses, determine the status of alibis, subpoena testimony, corroborate dates, locations, and other witnesses, invalidate portions of the witness statement, etc.

The fact that you apparently have absolutely no working knowledge about how federal agencies perform investigations isn't my problem. 

Run the investigation and find out *what you can*. Not rocket science, though I do now feel like I'm explaining how an airplane works to a fucking neanderthal. Yikes."
politics,"Right and none of that is happening,  the accusers are refusing to do so, little to no witnesses have been named. 

The locations and timing of these events havent even been stated and they dont appear to be know, the attendents uncertain, the people there intoxicated.

This is impssible to determine truth, it is impossible to determine innocence or guilt in any way and its done that way on purpose. 

This is a poltiical stunt, playing on the current hysteria we have about sexual assaults to derail a fundemental function of the federal government. 

Its dispicable and you are foolish for not being outraged by it.

And before you claim im partisan if this was done to Keagan or Sotomeyor I would be just as angry about it. "
politics,"The GOP opperated within the rules of the congress and constitution to not hear Garlands case,  They didnt call into question the very notion of presumption of innosence and try to destroy a mans life to delay his vote. 

If the DNC was in control of the senate and postponed Kavanaugh like the GOP did Garland, I would be annoyed but its the way the process should work. 

These are not comparable situations. "
politics,"I'm not particularly conservative but I actually do kinda agree with your take on the Kavanaugh situation. I think it's a bit of a stretch to say the GOP operated within the rules of congress and the constitution to not even have a hearing for Garland, there was no precedent to deny it and was Mitch McConnell imo overstepping his authority. Also not how the way the process should work. That's why I bring it up. "
politics,"First, that's not true at all. There is a diminished right to free speech in schools. 

I think what the 11th circuit said was basically you have this tension between the parents rights to raise their child, and the childs right to free speech. But within this tension, the court couldn't say the government was the one infringing speech.  It's really the parent. And the school is merely enforcing the parents wishes.

I think the facts of this particular case make it a little different, and more problematic, because it doesnt seem like Texas is trying to defend parents who choose not to exempt their kids. But these types of statutes will likely withstand facial challenges."
politics,"The issue isnt what students are forced to do. I agree, a school cant force students to stand any more than it may force students to salute or recite the pledge.

The issue is who is forcing the student. In states, like Texas, that provide a parental exemption, the school isnt forcing the student to stand. The parent is. That's why these statutes have withstood first amendment challenges, because a student does not have a free speech right to disobey their parent at school.

It raises the question why, in this case, the parent didn't give permission. And it also appears there may have been political bias against the student. But these statutes have been upheld against facial challenges."
politics,"I am aware of the legal distinction but that is very distinct from what I said. 

Though, I do think the 11th circuit is wrong both legally and morally and anyone who supports reducing the rights of any US citizen should be impeached from any position they possess. A parent may reduce the rights of a child within their own home and at to a point where the child is under their control. But asking the government to enforce their tyranny or to prevent their child from expressing themselves? No. That is immoral and anti-American in the extreme."
politics,"You don't understand what word of mouth means... Testimony is evidence and if you try to say hearsay instead of word of mouth you still don't understand the terms you are using.

He is not being tried criminally so physical evidence and proof don't need to be provided.

FBI background checks aren't an FBI investigation. Yesterday when asked if he would welcome an FBI investigation Kavanaugh danced around the question.

You post in the donald which has been well documented to have been infiltrated by Putin's disinformation army. The Donald is Putin's propaganda arm hosted on reddit. 

Do you not have an answer to the ABA publicly asking for an FBI investigation?"
politics,"This is what candor looks like. You are used to presidents who are experienced lawyers, afraid of giving too much information, reading prepared remarks from a teleprompter. Everybody needs to chill.
EDIT: So I watched the entire press conference. I am floored at how many questions the president took. It must have been over 200. Obama never once stood before the media and exposed himself like this to pushing and prodding by the media. Imagine Bush trying to answer these questions. No past administration would ever do something like this. Trump is setting the bar very high folks. That's the honest truth."
politics,"Trump administration is not going to start a massive military conflict by empowering the Kurds to take a chunk of Turkey, Syria, and Iraq and form their own country. We don't need to use them as tools anymore since we aren't making war in the region anymore so they are on their own now. Should we give them a few Billion dollars for fun? I say no. That's the answer if you care. Trump isn't going to outright state that at a press conference. As far as North Korea? I notice they seem to be in line with the opinions expressed by the president of Japan Shinzō Abe.

As far as WW3? Yeah I think we were very close to another world war until Trump administration took over and pulled us back from the brink."
politics,"I don't get how people still find this okay.  There is literally nothing in this world I would pledge allegiance too.

If my parents decided to go out and murder people... they're dead to me.

If the Niners decide to hire a convicted rapist as their coach... dead to me.

If Disgaea 6 doesn't have Prinnies... dead to me.

There is nothing and no one out there that wouldn't lose my allegiance if they did something awful."
politics,"Yeah, probably they only time I could see using the pledge is for naturalized citizens a few seconds before handing them their papers. Even then it would just be a weird show without much meaning. I stopped saying the pledge around 16 years old I think. We were supposed to do it every day at the same time but every teacher I had during that time was just mad about the wasted class time."
politics,"I told my kids they didn't have to say it, but that they should stand respectfully because other people choose to say it. And that if anyone have them grief about not saying it, they should say it's their right not to say it, and then tell me and I would defend them.

I explained that I didn't think it was a good idea to say stuff you don't understand, and it was completely their choice what to do."
politics,"The anthem glorifies that one time we tried to take over Canada because we wanted to murder indigenous Americans for the arable land that they wouldn't give to us, and since their sovereignty was never acknowledged by the American government it made sense at the time to just go ahead and kill whoever had to be killed to get the land grow the 'conomy. In response, England told us to fuck off then burned down White House.

There's even a stanza in there (that you will never hear unless you look for it) that glorifies the massacring of slaves who had been conscripted by the British and offered their freedom in return. I would say that that the subject of the National Anthem should be a point of humiliation given today's general moral standards. 

TL;DR The National Anthem glorifies an aggressive war that was wildly unpopular, that we started (and sentiment was built using fabricated intelligence, even! Iraq wasn't the first time!) on home turf, where we drastically outnumbered the foreign defending force but still managed to take nearly twice as many soldiers KIA, and we achieved nothing for it. The best thing about the National Anthem is Colin Kaepernick pissing off stupid \[mostly white\] people."
politics,"The anthem glorifies that one time we tried to take over Canada because we wanted to murder indigenous Americans for the arable land that they wouldn't give to us, and since their sovereignty was never acknowledged by the American government it made sense at the time to just go ahead and kill whoever had to be killed to get the land grow the 'conomy. In response, England told us to fuck off then burned down White House.

There's even a stanza in there (that you will never hear unless you look for it) that glorifies the massacring of slaves who had been conscripted by the British and offered their freedom in return. I would say that that the subject of the National Anthem should be a point of humiliation given today's general moral standards. 

TL;DR The National Anthem glorifies an aggressive war that was wildly unpopular, that we started (and sentiment was built using fabricated intelligence, even! Iraq wasn't the first time!) on home turf, where we drastically outnumbered the foreign defending force but still managed to take nearly twice as many soldiers KIA, and we achieved nothing for it. The best thing about the National Anthem is Colin Kaepernick pissing off stupid \[mostly white\] people."
politics,"It's from the video game series Disgaea.  They're penguin looking slaves things in the under world that blow up when you throw them.  In Disgaea 4 the main character is a vampire that believes Sardines are the source of his strength, hence my username.

It's a turn based RPG.  The character design is very Animeih and that turns some people off, but tactically it's a great RPG.  It also doesn't take itself serious at all.  One character's weakness is sexy women and he will actually lose stats when he's on a tile next to one."
politics,"Democrats:  We want 10 days for an FBI investigation.
Republicans: Ok, you have 10 days. 
D: (9th day at midnight) We need another day to complete the investigation
R: No, you've has the 10 days you asked for.
D: YOU HATE WOMEN, YOU DON'T WANT THE TRUTH, YOU'RE HIDING SOMETHING AND PROTECTING A RAPIST. REEEESSSIIISSST.

You don't want an investigation.   You don't want facts. All you want is time...delay this confirmation. That's ok...just be honest about it. You don't care about this woman. You don't even care about Kavanaugh. We see it,  and even the moderates and independents are finally seeing it. "
politics,"If that was a possibility, you'd have no argument from ANYONE on the right.   Unfortunately, even if it was possible to put that on the table, it would be absolutely reneged on by the democrats. And if inducted into the supreme Court, there can STILL be an investigation and if he was untruthful or if any of these allegations can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt he absolutely can and SHOULD be impeached and removed. "
politics,"As a victim of a violent beating and gang rape in my teens that left me hospitalized for days I fully support Senator Graham's passionate speech against the horrific and grotesque charade of rape exploitation these past two weeks.

Nothing has upset me more in the past 20 years since my experience than to see rape being used as a political tool by the left. It is quite honestly one of the most soulless and disgusting displays of inhumanity I will ever witness. 

Shame on everyone who has debased and devalued victims of sexual assault the world over with this ridiculous display of political assassination.  I am beyond thankful that both Kavanaugh and Graham were there today to stand up and fight for us rape victims against this type of exploitation. 

Fuck your downvotes, fuck your dishonesty, everyone knows this is a bullhshit charade, everyone.  This inhumane debasement and exploitation of my rape and countless others is now on your souls. "
politics,"Why do you doubt her?  What makes yours real and hers not?  She's asked for an investigation and has testified, she's even submitted herself to questioning. Nothing about her, her story, or her requests make this seem bogus.

You accuse others of wielding tales of rape as a weapon, while doing exactly that. You want us to value your opinion more because of your own experience, or you wouldn't have shared it in this context.

I hope you find peace, but it alarms me that you don't want the same for other victims.  This is why these crimes go unreported, fear of being accused of lying, or worse yet, being blamed for being a victim.

If you truly doubt her story you'd want the same thing she does, a legitimate investigation."
politics,"I thought there was no statute of limitations for sex crimes in MD but there's no corroborating evidence for a prosecutor to indict. It would devolve into a he-said, she-said much like this hearing with the difference that there would be a higher burden of proof on the State's part in a criminal investigation. But since this is a job interview for a position which would have enormous consequences for the medical lives of women in this country, it ought to be disqualifying if Senators were concerned about the SC appearing to be neutral on the abortion issue."
politics,"> Based on Blasey Ford's account, prosecutors could have theoretically charged Kavanaugh with a crime like attempted rape or unwanted sexual touching over clothing. However, in 1982, those crimes had a one-year statute of limitations. In other words, Blasey Ford would have had to report the allegations to law enforcement by 1983. She did not.
> It is worth noting, Maryland has done away with statute of limitations on most sexual offense charges, including rape, attempted rape and sex abuse of a minor, however, Kavanaugh is grandfathered in, so to speak.

https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/kavanaugh-says-he-wont-let-false-accusations-push-him-out"
politics,"Let me preface my comment by saying that I don't think Kavanaugh should be confirmed -- because he's nakedly campaigned to anti-abortion groups and to the President for their support of his nomination.  

But what do people think is going to come from an FBI investigation?  What evidence can there be apart from the testimony of the people involved?  And what can be done about any of it?  More polygraphs?  Polygraphs have very widely been discredited.  I sincerely doubt there's a stained dress hiding in somebody's closet that the FBI is going to find.  I think best case scenario is the FBI does a whole bunch of interviews, and then they come back and say ""we think there are credible allegations against Mr. Kavanaugh, but we have no physical evidence, and we've uncovered nothing that hasn't already been uncovered.""  

I personally believe the accusers... but I just don't understand what else can be done about it.  Can somebody enlighten me?"
politics,"I don't know what will come of an investigation with the limited info we have and the allegations from 35 years ago.  But part of the process should be investigating credible allegations and Dr. Ford was every bit credible.  And I do find it suspicious that the GOP is against any investigation they do not control.
 
If there is a credible investigation that returns no new evidence then I will be satisfied.  I would otherwise question if the Senate could have done more and if they were knowingly covering up a crime."
politics,"There were always abortions and there will always be abortions.  Instead of a doctor’s office, it will be back down in the basement at the hands of non-medical people or a wire hanger.  But, throughout history, there have always been abortions.  

And, realize, the rich will always be able to afford a safe abortion, no matter the law.  It will be the poor who are forced to term.  So, how will they be able to raise these unwanted babies?  It will take a village.  I expect the Republicans to step up and lend help.  And they just don’t seem to want to contend with the result of this issue.  But they will learn what happens when they don’t."
politics,"Basically the republicans have been terrified of taking a close look at Kavanaugh. That’s why they won’t release his documents from the bush years and that’s why they won’t investigate now. 

Even Kavanaugh responded to a question today, “ask Mike Judge.”

The point is that everyone can see the senate Judiciary Committee is scared to call witnesses or actually investigate. 

The great thing about th Supreme Court is that you only need to find 9 people to be on it at a time. No one has a right to be on it and if your work for Ken Star or George Bush makes it hard for you to get confirmed, there’s another equally qualified judge right behind you. 

My takeaway from today is that Kavanaugh is far to partisan to be a good justice. He’ll never again be able to put the interests of every American above his desire for revenge. 

He even admitted it during his testimony. 

Sorry but judges need to be disinterested and Kavanaugh showed that he is not. "
politics,"Every rape case is like that. You don't have video evidence. What you'll have is character witness. Attesting gropy behaviour etc., Investigation leads to a lot more than you believe. Just asking the right questions to a bunch of different people can give you a fair understanding of th situation. That and it's not as easy to lie as you might think. Many witnesses will have the chance to come forward"
politics,"Honestly I think the whole thing is silly, because people skirt around the topic.  They talk about things like ""Oh, it's alive""/""It's not alive"" ""It's a bunch of cells""/""It's a human being!"" ""A heart beat starts at X time""/""It won't survive on it's own"" etc.

Look, in the end of the day, it boils down to ""Do we think it's ok to kill this thing?""  ""Is it moral?""  The exact semantics aren't important.  And unfortunately, since it's a moral argument, it *does* come down to 'feels'.  There's no science that can tell us if it's moral or not.  And we'll never be able to convince everyone one way or another."
politics,"Interesting indeed.  So, you are suggesting that mothers could opt to have an 'abortion' in which case we would transfer the fetus to an artificial womb and finish gestation there?  And what then of all the extra children born of this?  Who cares for them?  Who pays for all this?  The taxpayer, presumably.

Personally, I think people should be more responsible and not have so many kids they can't or don't want to care for, but in lieu of that, I am pro-abortion.  I really don't care about the unborn child at all.  But I'm willing to compromise, if say, some people want a certain point in development, where you can no longer carry out abortions, for example."
politics,"> I think people should be more responsible and not have so many kids they can't or don't want to care for

Agreed. Unfortunately, human activity is the product of both their individuality and their environment, neither of which can guarantee rationality. Education helps, but it can only go so far.

Cancer exists on both ends of the political / economic spectrum, monopolizing resources with exponential growth. It is only by taking the best of both outlooks, driven by their respective concerns over boundary conditions, that we may optimize for the living conditions most generally hospitable for civilization.

If humanity has any hope of surviving long-term, there will need to be a balance between safety nets and population management. Edit: To be clear, the left-right balance here is the simultaneous prevention of both public and private monopolization of the economy by linking baseline economic activity to individuals. It definitely ends up being authoritarian in a way, but ... the alternative is mortal conflict which threatens to topple the entire infrastructure of modern industrial life."
politics,"Even your awful scenario is too optimistic. We're fucked. The reality is that Kavanaugh will be seated and the blue wave won't happen. At best, we might pick up a majority in the House and even that is in question due to Russian election meddling, of which nothing is being done. The Rapepublicans hold all of the power and they won't give it up without a bloody fight. Too few people give a flying shit in this shithole of a country and I fear the only answer now is violence."
politics,Easy the answer to when violence is needed is when violence is invited upon you. We've been in a political existential crisis since Reagan that's not new but unless they start a civil war there is no reason to bring violence into it. Just get everyone you know to register and talk constantly about the issues. Win hearts and minds because the only thing that's ever been won at the end of a bayonet is less overall death it's never peace simply moderated death counts. Which is why it is and always should be a last resort
politics,"Well all I can say to that is pessimism has literally never solved anything. I'm glad you're voting because if it turns out we aren't counted you'll have a fucking sticker to prove you weren't part of the problem and you can have some righteous fury. I didnt like Hillary but I voted for her because it was the only option, view the midterms the same way. There is no choice you just have to do everything you can now because if we dont now, then you dont even have to be proven right we just lose. "
politics,"I understand the concern about she said/he said, but there’s also the fact he’s been constantly lying throughout these proceedings. Also the fact his roommates/classmates have mentioned he engaged in risky/bad behavior is already a red flag. He’s also shut down the idea of an investigation to get the facts. 

This is a life time appointment. It shouldn’t be a cake walk to get the position. It’s disgusting how the political right is normalizing sexual assault and saying things like “boys will be boys”."
politics,"Goes to a dead link. And it’s also the Washington Examiner which is the same publication I mentioned posted the opinion piece. You see where I’m going with this?

The claim you’re making isn’t credible and isn’t being reported on by reputable sources. Dr Ford is being assaulted by literal “fake news” from the right and this unsourced, frequently repeated claim that her four witnesses are **refuting** her testimony is not only unsubstantiated, it’s deliberately misleading. 

If you can find me an actual source that reports on the actual witnesses making such a statement, I will stand corrected. Otherwise, be careful making such salacious claims without checking AP or Reuters first. "
politics,"Privately I might be a little upset, but I wouldn't go yell at congress. He's a judge judges don't get to have winny crying outbursts in court. And your quest for evidence is weird, this is a job interview not a court case. He failed the interview portion by being an aggressive liar, it doesn't matter if he's also a rapist because he's already failed to meet the lowest of standards for character.   "
politics,"Yes, I've been noticing Sheldon's conduct through some hearings now and I find him to be of a most candid and honorable character who's never afraid to cut straight to the chase and state the root of the problem. I don't know his voting record but I bet he's got one of the best (according to my views of course). Thank you Rhode Island. 

Ps: Cruz is whining now and he's projecting so much about Dems obstructing (SUCH FUCKING HYPOCRISY) that i think the weasel community might finally excommunicate him."
politics,"Sen. Whitehouse is awesome, not my Senator but I think he's one of the best we have in the Senate right now.  Here's some info on him, he's generally left of center of the Democratic party, so more towards the progressive side of things and is real big on climate change.

https://voteview.com/person/40704/sheldon-whitehouse

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/sheldon_whitehouse/412247

https://ballotpedia.org/Sheldon_Whitehouse

Also, here's his time on Kavanaugh from the first hearing a few weeks ago, it's fantastic:

https://youtu.be/_XxHjM3lMDs
"
politics,"He's a human senator for the providence of Texas! It is among the largest of territories of U'SA: many of the humans of this state take great pride in its size. The human residents of Texas also enjoy a toasted meat dish called ""B'B'Q"": vote for human Senator Ted Cruz or B'B'Q may be outlawed by Ted's less desirable, less Texan opponent. Just remember this November: ""Ted Cruz is definitely one being and not several!"" "
politics,"From ""Please respect my privacy, I'm a victim too, but of alcohol, please leave me alone and dont let my life be ruined by this""

to

""I'll talk with FBI so long as its kept quiet"" 

in less than 24 hours. 

A thing I dont often say: Good work today Democrats and Jeff Flake. 

Edit: To the two women at the elevator, who exercised righteous and beautiful freedom of speech today, and to my Americans who champion the first amendment rights everywhere: Thank you. I owe you a meal, I'll buy it for you on the evening of November 6th. 

Bonus selected material, spoken with tears in the voice, while Flake felt his insides melt quietly in the corner of the elevator:

> ""Look at me when I’m talking to you! You’re telling me that my assault doesn’t matter, that what happened to me doesn’t matter and that you’re going to let people who do these things into power! That’s what you’re telling me when you vote for him! Don’t look away from me! Look at me and tell me that it doesn’t matter what happened to me — that you’ll let people like that go into the highest court in the land!"""
politics,"Sorry yes Judge. If Judge talks to the FBI and confesses to crimes and that evidence is made public, then it is plausible that Maryland LE could request that evidence and use it against Judge. Judge is then stuck between a rock in and a hard place. Admit the confession was true and he faces state criminal charges or claim the FBI evidence is false and he's open to federal perjury charges."
politics,"Hey I'm sure Kavanaugh believes in ""If you've got nothing to hide you have nothing to fear"" or that victims of police brutality should just ""cooperate"".

So surely he's totally fine with how this is playing out? He's a good beer drinking, totally didn't rape anyone on this day, calendar saving normal American. /s

More seriously, I can't wait for him to explain things like ""Reminders to everyone to be very, very vigilant w/r/t confidentiality on all issues and all fronts, including with spouses""to the FBI."
politics,"Yup, his ex-girlfriend from college said she would be willing to talk to the Senate and the FBI about things he had disclosed to her: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/09/26/mark-judges-girlfriend-is-ready-to-talk-to-fbi-and-judiciary-committee-her-lawyer-says/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/09/26/mark-judges-girlfriend-is-ready-to-talk-to-fbi-and-judiciary-committee-her-lawyer-says/?utm_term=.64f1ca4c3f34)

​

""Rasor recalled that Judge had told her ashamedly of an incident that  involved him and other boys taking turns having sex with a drunk woman.  Rasor said that Judge seemed to regard it as fully consensual. She said  that Judge did not name others involved in the incident, and she has no  knowledge that Kavanaugh participated in it.""  "
politics,"I think someone is going to tell him he won't have the votes, this will add another week to the media circus and protests, and at the end of the line he may not get the seat ... and Brett will withdraw. I believe if the FBI starts talking to Mark Judge we'll see an announcement that this is 'too much' for his family to endure and for his family he must withdraw. Fist in the air he'll shout ""Democratic witch hunt"" and tears in his eyes he'll slink away to the nearest craft brewery."
politics,"He should claim to be another victim of Kavanaugh's unchecked aggression. The near-rape he was involved in that summer caused him PTSD which he has attempted to self medicate with alcohol, from which spawned his alcoholism. It's all shame driving him since that horrible night of July 1st 1982. That's when it started.

He could plea out. Worst possible outcome: stop drinking, go through rehab. Wear an anklet for a while. He was a minor when it happened so he can probably avoid the sex offender database"
politics,"It's also been proven beyond any doubt that Trump has obstructed the special counsel's investigation.  Truth means nothing to these people.  Look how much has come out against Kavanaugh and R's are still almost unanimous in support of him.  As long as the FBI report doesn't clearly state that Ford's allegation are 100% verified (which is a nearly impossible burden), they'll sweep the little lies under the rug and vote to confirm. "
politics,"Especially if he can spin it as ""I was the one that actually stopped Kavanaugh from attacking her, after she left I was the one that got him out from in front of the door and helped her get away"".  Maybe he is sorry after all these years, sorry enough to do his 30 days probation and rehab and write another tell-all book that would sell more copies than the first."
politics,"He was jumping on the bed over and over again, eventually toppling everyone off the bed and giving Ford a chance to escape.

Maybe he wasn't jumping around? maybe he was trying to push his friend off the young lady in distress...

All that peer pressure to be seen as a cool guy and not some cock-blocking loser by his friends and partner in drug abuse, Bart O'Kavanaugh.

And the shame of not preventing it, of being part of it.. Then she started screaming in earnest and fighting like a desparate animal. It shocked him to his core and in that moment he knew he had no stomach for what was happening. He had to do something, anything.

In college, Judge tried to get over his fears and develop the tastes his friends had, but had no stomach for rape. Ultimately he was cast out for being a coward, for having some modicum of morality. For being a risk. Booze and drugs helped..for a while, but her screams and struggle still haunt him to this day.


----

There you go Judge. You slimy piece of shit. There's your way out of this mess. Your path back to morality. Now betray your supposed friend and start the healing process."
politics,"It's kind of moot. The current law for the statute of limitations was passed in 1996. What Kavanaugh and Judge did is likely pass the 1980's law defining the statute of limitation. 

But just as a thought experiment, immunity for a crime can only be granted by the governing body. Which means the feds couldn't grant immunity for state crimes and vise versa. The exception being if the state agrees to grant immunity if a witness meets some condition made by the feds."
politics,"He's going to say he doesn't recall because anything else opens him up to perjury charges. The obviously erroneous speculation in this sub is hilarious. It's not a criminal investigation and it's limited in scope. FBI agents will question him, write a summary report, and hand it back to the senate committee. That's it. There isn't going to be some bombshell because that would mean whoever dropped it would be committing a felony. No one will do that."
politics,"I don't understand this thinking, as much as I'd like it to happen judge is hardly going to implicate himself in anything when he really doesn't need to, and he has no real reason to implicate Kavanaugh These aren't people who tell the truth, and if the women are to be believed they are the type of characters that get involved in gang rape, I wouldn't rely of one of them becoming a shining beacon of hope. "
politics,"> There's no statute of limitation in Maryland. If he confesses to crimes, that could be used against him in state charges. If he denies those state charges that opens him up to federal perjury charges.

If he's smart, he shop for a plea deal in exchange for cooperation.

Because you know that everyone else at that party is now in a game of prisoners' dilemma:  If anyone talks, then anybody denying the party lied to the FBI and will have a helluva time in court.  So the right thing is to talk immediately and not try and cover up unless you REALLY trust everyone from 30 years ago to keep their mouth shut."
politics,"[It's all a show.](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/27/trump-rod-rosenstein-meeting-postponed). Rosenstein was supposed to be fired on Monday. The same day the original vote for Kavanaugh was supposed to be. Then they delayed both to Thursday, the same day as the trial. Then Trump moved the meeting with Rosenstein to next week, and low and behold, the Kavanaugh vote will now be held next week after the FBI investigation had ended.

Isn't it magical that both are being scheduled for the same day and then magically changing timelines to exactly the same day? I wonder why!"
politics,"Nope, not Bernie.  Not after he tried to overturn the popular vote with the superdelegates.  That is undemocratic bull.

Edit: I'm not sure why this is controversial.  That was his plan, right?  The whole argument that he polls better so the superdelegates should give him the nomination?

Here's an article from the time.

>Despite badly lagging in the delegate count, Bernie Sanders' campaign manager told NPR the campaign believes Sanders can and will be the Democratic nominee by winning over superdelegates at the 11th hour.

>""If we can substantially close the gap between Secretary Clinton and Sen. Sanders in terms of pledged delegates,"" Jeff Weaver told NPR's All Things Considered, ""he can go into the convention with a substantial momentum from having won the vast, vast majority of states at the end of the process.""

>It's a sharp contrast from earlier in the campaign when Sanders supporters called superdelegates ""undemocratic"" and petitioned for them to support the candidate who has the most votes by the Democratic convention this July.

>""When they get to the convention,"" Weaver continued, ""nobody has the delegates to win with pledged delegates. It's going to be the superdelegates who are going to have to decide this.""

https://www.npr.org/2016/05/19/478705022/sanders-campaign-now-says-superdelegates-are-key-to-winning-nomination"
politics,"He wasn't right.  Hillary faced non-stop Republician smears, attacks from Russians and Israelis, and there was the first ever large scale psych ops campaign against US citizens waged against her.  


She still got almost 4 million more votes with the press giving the most favorable coverage to Sanders and Russia backing his campaign.  


These head to head polls this far out are meaningless, even ignoring Russia, the Republician smear campaign against Sanders would be devastating.   He's faced absolutely no opposition yet.  "
politics,"I think you are misunderstanding what his campaign manager says in that article. He says that if neither candidate has the required 2,382 pledged delegates to win the primary that it would be up to the superdelegates as was required by the Democratic primary rules.

As the campaign manager he’s not exactly going to go out and say that superdelegates should just vote for the opponent if there was no winner. This was in May so there were several states still to vote in June.

I wouldn’t see anything nefarious about any campaign manager describing a path to victory in an interview during a primary."
politics,"Of course they would have. And the bread lines statement and everything else, but you act like the entire campaign and the entire party would have stood idly by, or that Sanders never would have had a chance to defend himself. He would have done so fervently, and toward an audience of people that already genuinely trusted his motives, even if they didn't like his politics. There's no proof that the public would've been as persuaded by those smears as his liberal detractors seem to be."
politics,"Is it? Political legitimacy can't challenge the norms without financial backing in modern society. Taking money from willing people is the primary job of representatives, and this has become especially-so since the citizens United ruling. 

Your political opinions don't gain traction if you don't have financial backing. Institutions will not take you seriously at all if you don't, and even if you do, if they are counter to establishment they will still belittle and talk to erroneous points to deflate them. The fact that Bernie gained capital had allowed him to push for progressive idealogies in other sectors. Universal health Care is a legitimate topic in the Democratic party, and that wouldn't have happened so soon without an idealogue like Bernie to push it. And please, Hillary didn't lose to a lack of capital.

And I do vaguely remember the Unqualified statement. I can't tell you what Bernie's internal thoughts are regarding that. I assume it was mostly politics, but if you remember after the convention Bernie dropped all of that rhetoric entirely and campaigned for her. I'm not sure what you're asking of progressives other than something extremely condescending."
politics,"He did go from being totally unknown to winning 45% of the Democratic primary against the most well-groomed, well-funded candidate in its history after all. Context is a bitch.

The pill that you can't seem to swallow here is that this isn't about Sanders, it's about HRC. Clinton was uniquely qualified to lose against Trump. Sanders wins against Trump just like Biden wins and nearly everyone else who runs against him."
politics,"I've referenced nothing but easily searchable facts to support my argument. For example, the poll which is the topic of the thread we're in right now, haha. Meanwhile, you're relying on yarns like ""the first ever psy-ops campaign run against a candidate by US citizens"" and suggesting that Dems wouldn't have rallied behind Sanders in the general. Not to mention your misunderstanding and misrepresentation of other items from the news like the Russians' actual effect on the election and the media ""favoring"" Sanders. Get off it, dude."
politics,"Here's Sanders praising Venezuela.   Bernie Sanders can not win, he's a shit candidate with tons of baggage

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/close-the-gaps-disparities-that-threaten-america


Here's a Harvard study proving that Sanders the most positive coverage of any candidate in the primaries


https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/06/14/harvard-study-confirms-refutes-bernie-sanderss-complaints-media


Here's Mueller's investigation stating Russia backed Sanders

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/17/indictment-russians-also-tried-help-bernie-sanders-jill-stein-presidential-campaigns/348051002/


Here's a study proving that Russian interference absolutely swayed the vote for trump.  Why it would be different for Sanders is beyond me.  You saw those crazy kooks holding a fart in at the DNC, how much you wanna bet that shit was spurred on by the Russians?  


https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/01/how-russia-helped-to-swing-the-election-for-trump


"
politics,">Here's Sanders praising Venezuela.

This has been addressed.

>Bernie Sanders can not win, he's a shit candidate with tons of baggage

This is your opinion.

>Here's a Harvard study proving that Sanders the most positive coverage of any candidate in the primaries

I am very familiar with the Shorenstein study. If you actually read it, it claims that Sanders and Trump benefited from a ""horserace narrative"" in the media, but does not qualify actual statements made by pundits regarding the candidates. To use this as proof that legacy media preferred Sanders over Clinton for the nomination is pure gaslghting and a feeble attempt to rewrite history.

>Here's Mueller's investigation stating Russia backed Sanders

Okay?

>Here's a study proving that Russian interference absolutely swayed the vote for trump.

The article doesn't prove your claim nor does it attest to. It lays out an argument that the author deems compelling, but offers nothing more concrete than anything else that has been previously discussed time and time again.

Dropping citations is not the same thing as using facts to back up your argument. You actually have to be telling the truth to do that."
politics,"Also:

>The down-to-the-wire 2017 tax act passed in late December contained a mix of permanent and temporary changes that had to result in a net increased cost that fell within a structural limit of $1.5 trillion that allowed the Senate to approve the bill with a simple majority

They made the corporate/rich person tax cuts perminant and the tax cuts for everyone else (such as they were) temporary.  So this is a bill to make those temporary tax cuts stick as well.  A bill which will never pass. Which they definitely knew last year.  "
politics,"Smash and grab operation. 

They'll grab as much cash as they can now, tanking the economy. During the downturn, they'll use the money that they grabbed to buy all the valuable assets now at fire-sale prices. 

The Dems then win the next few cycles, re-invest in infrastructure and the American people, and put the economy in order. All those assets bought at a discount are now extremely valuable. Sell those assets at over inflated prices, smash the economy again; rinse, repeat."
politics,"Don't misconstrue my original comment, I don't believe there is some massive top down directed conspiracy. There's no one ""bad guy"" or cabal of evil doers sitting in a room planning this out like in the movies. This is just the cyclical bear/bull nature of the markets and people just playing against that for maximum advantage. Buy low, sell high. Get as much as you can while the market is up, hold and look for deals when the market is down.  As I see it, there are those in this country that place a value on short term gains and those that value long term gains. The Republicans, as I see it, are very short term gain oriented and they somehow see this as being an advantage long term; and I see the Democrats as more long term, invest in the future and insure America's supremacy as being more valuable then some short term payoff."
politics,"I think that there are really too many to name. From the war on drugs to subsidizing tourism in Jordan, the federal government puts its hands into places it has no business being. I think there are very few things the government should be doing, and I think a flat income tax of 10-20% could take care of all of it. And I mean that would be the ONLY tax, no sales tax, no death tax, no capital gains tax, etc. When you're spending other people's money on other people, it's very easy to be wasteful. "
politics,"Why do you think that your ideal would bring about a better life for Americans? I mean literally all rich countries in the world spend a considerable share of their GDP publicly (I hope I phrased that correctly, otherwise I'll try and specify what I mean). Not only on security and justice, but social services, financial transfers (like child benefits etc.), education, housing etc.

Why do you think that is and actually the poorer countries spend only a small share of their GDP publicly? "
politics,"> I don't believe there is some massive top down directed conspiracy. There's no one ""bad guy"" or cabal of evil doers sitting in a room planning this out like in the movies.

I'm not entirely sure that's accurate. I mean, there's no ruthless fanatical organization that will stop at nothing to control the world, but there is a fairly small group of like-minded people (though maybe in the hundreds) who likely know each other or at least are in a loose network where they're all friends with the same people. They want to change the rules to benefit the ultra-rich. It's not just tax breaks; it's underfunding the IRS and the FBI financial divisions so they can't investigate white collar crimes; it's fighting transparency laws on corporations and donations; it's creating a system where offshore tax havens can launder money and still use it to chase investments in the US; it's endorsing and supporting politicians who will undercut education, infrastructure, policing, health care and justice reform; it's creating think tanks and news outlets that only exist to justify their actions. 

Their reason for doing all these things might just be basic greed, or they might actually believe in the trickle-down theory, or they're so insulated from the effects of their decisions that they really don't know how their wealth-making efforts are damaging the economy for everyone else. But even a loosely organized group with their money is capable of rewriting rules for their own benefit, which impact all of us. 

I think the image that a lot of people have of a conspiracy is that, if the world is a pinball machine, the conspirators want to control where the ball is going. Wouldn't you call the people who decide where the bumpers and walls are the ones who actually in control? Isn't that what they're doing? "
politics,"> I really wonder if Republicans hate bridges, infrastructure and clean energy or why else would they decrease government revenue that is needed to invest in these things?

Had this discussion with a Trump-touting family member this week who blames Obama for the failure of their shitty businesses (instead of that free market they love). Like, do you *really* want to personally pay absurd prices for your plethora of medical issues, not have your public transit channels maintained, and rely on the people you claim to hate in the Middle East for fuel? Really?

Oh, and the infuriating cherry on top: they just retired and are collecting Medicare and social security."
politics,"additinal tax revenue through tariffs on china $600B-$1.2T over the next decade

additional revenue through gdp growth.

additional revenue from higher wages

additional revenue from more employed

repatriation of offshore profits

I could go on for a while....

I'm going to withhold judgement until we see what happens. The federal government is allready seeing additional revenues from the first round of tax cuts, and I am seeing more money in my paycheck, thousands this year alone. 

Of course I care about hte national debt, frankly I'm glad democrats are starting to talk about it after 8 years of doing nothing but adding $9T+ to the debt under obama. 

It is the single greatest issue our government needs to solve. 
"
politics,"They do.  They want all roads and utilities to be privatized, so that they can own and invest in it with their billions, and make more billions for doing nothing but signing a check.  It also helps that they can then cut the tax burden even further (for themselves; not for anyone else, of course).  

Meanwhile your entire commute (which is 3 hours because you can't afford to live anywhere near a decent job anymore) is now a toll route and costs you a quarter of your day's pay to get there and back, and your electric bill is $800 a month instead of $100, but zoning laws conveniently outlaw micro wind turbines and solar panels because they're not owned and invested in by Republican backers (no, really, it's about 'curb appeal', sure it is).  This is the Republican ""ideal"" in the 21st century.  Everyone pays through the nose for everything, except them, who get paid for doing nothing."
politics,"My insurance just increased by a little over $2000 for 2019. That 2% cost of living raise I got this year isn't going to cover that.

The tariffs are going to trickel down to consumers. Walmart and Target et al will have to increase their prices to cover. Car and motorcycle companies have already said their vehicles will cost thousands more. Thanks to all the immigration issues, agriculture that depends on migrant workers have a labor shortage issue, thus certain fruit, vegetables and nuts will see price increases.

I'm glad you are seeing benefits. I am not."
politics,"The modern oligarchs. During FDR it was the Rockefeller’s and Carnegie’s, during 2008 and now it’s the investment bankers, Koch brothers, and Blue Brothers (funny name but they own the largest drone manufacturing business in the world)

If you really wanna know more, read Pay Any Price by James Rosen and/or Crash of 2016 by Thom Hartmann. Both do a great job of explaining who actually run the show around here and the latter explains how they profit from crashing the economy. "
politics,"I don't know what the solution to the health care debacle is. If the costs weren't so high, insurance wouldn't need to be so high. But the ""free market"" means it's perfectly fine that pharma companies jack up the price for things like insulin and the EpiPen. Or getting sick and requiring extended hospital stays drives people to bankruptcy.

The ACA is a mess because it never could pass into law with its full intensions. It's been gutted. I'd love to see a real bipartisan attempt at fixing insurance and health care costs. Probably never going to happen in my lifetime."
politics,"Deuteronomy 22:23-24 New International Version (NIV)

23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 New International Version (NIV)

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
"
politics,This is pretty fucking horrible for the women who are victims. In one case they are saying “you apparently didn’t fight hard enough to stop it so you deserve to die as much as the rapist” and in the other case they are forcing the girl to marry the dude who just fucking raped her! Because she is now worthless. God damn people are fucked up and so is the Bible.
politics,"Arm thy teachers with assault rifles, remove health care from the poor and non Caucasians. Gerrymander in the name of the lord, as the rich are entitled to the earth and heavens above. Never permit a football player to kneel, for moses wrote the anthem, god gave the arsenal of nukes to the United States of America for Putin to control. Also no abortions. May maga and the holy spirit bless us all."
politics,"In historical context it's actually pretty radical. Back then, a woman could not live on her own: she had to get married. Oftentimes, if a woman was not married, then she'd end up in a system of institutionalized prostitution and basically have to live life as a sex slave. That's the Ancient Near East.

The reason why this is actually pretty radical for those times is that a raped woman was considered soiled goods. She would not be able to find a husband. So basically, if a woman was raped, she was condemned to sexual slavery. Here, she instead gets a husband who has a legal obligation to provide for her and she can continue to live as part of society.

Obviously that's batshit crazy to us, but that was socially progressive for the time and place"
politics,"In principle you have a point. But the Bible is not just a book. It's a library of many books, some of which are poetry and some of which are history and some of which are theology, allegory, or even explicit fiction (Book of Job for instance). Your take it or leave it kind of presupposes biblical literalism, which is an absurdity that leads to contradictions.

In the 400s AD, Augustine of Hippo wrote a treatise about the literal reading of Genesis and noted how it lead to self-contradictions if taken literally. Leviticus is about the code of law for the Jewish nation—most of the Patristics considered it good for general principles, but bad as the actual code to live by even when they wrote in the 1st Century. 

Context and genre necessarily matters."
politics,"I agree that it is many books written by many men in many styles for many purposes.  It is a handbag of contradictory messages that is only embraced by Christians when it is convenient , and even then, not in its entirety.  

It is impossible to take anyone seriously when they claim that the Bible is the word of God and the source of truth, but you are just supposed to muck about in there deciding which parts are literal and which are allegorical - which are relevant and which are not.  This is especially hard when Christendom, over space and time, lacks consensus on...well all of it.  Over time, literalism has reigned.  And even in the snapshot of the present, Christians have failed to agree on which parts of the Bible matter and how they should be interpreted.

My argument is that you can't have it both ways."
politics,"It does though? They asked if he drank to excess. He denied it outright. If he did drink to excess, he's a liar. 

To your other point: You still keep doing things when you're blackout drunk. Your brain just stops with short term memory so you get a time gap. When you wake up, you have a gap in your memory and you're aware of that, usually because you wake up in a place that isn't where you last remember being and there's evidence you did stuff around you. That's the difference between blacking out and passing out. They didn't ask him what he remembers doing while blackout drunk or anything. They just asked if he had ever been in that state."
politics,"In this case, I'm not sure my personal definition matters. In the hearing, they defined excess as passing out or blacking out. They also asked him to give his personal definition of excess so that they could establish a common standard, and he couldn't answer beyond ""whatever the chart says."" It's not hard to infer that means he knows there is a limit legally and health risk-wise, but he doesn't recall what it is. 

Meanwhile, what the former classmates describe involves stumbling, incoherence, aggressive behavior, etc, which is consistent with blackout drinking or at the very least being drunk to the point of significant impairment. That means even by his own ""chart"" standard that he himself gave, he'd be lying."
politics,"[Here are the definitions of binge drinking and and heavy aka excessive alcohol use according to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.](https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/moderate-binge-drinking)

[Here is the CDC echoing the same standards.](https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/pdfs/excessive_alcohol_use.pdf) We can even be generous and ignore the ""any alcohol use under 21"" and assume it was legal for him to drink at the time. Also note that it specifically says 90% of excessive drinkers binge drink. Binge drinking is a big deal because that's the point of severe impairment and lasting health risks. It also sets up the habitual use that contributes to alcoholism.

These are likely the standards he was referring to when he mentioned a chart because they're the most wildly accepted among healthcare providers and in alcohol education. Again, you'll also notice that he wouldn't answer specifically how many beers he had. By these standards, the witnesses are describing binge drinking. There are also references to his excessive drinking in his year book and in his friends' entries like him being president of the 100 Keg Club, announcements about excessive partying from his school at the time, and his bff Mark Judge wrote a book about their behavior that included a character named Bart O'Kavanaugh who regularly got sloppy drunk. 

You do know all this, right? Like you know and you're just trolling, right? Because otherwise, that'd be incredibly sad."
politics,"I didn't know about the fictional book character who is based on judge kavanaugh. 

If you're clinging to the hope that he committed perjury when he said he didn't drink to excess then you really do have nothing because it's yet another unprovable claim. Just because someone on CNN says he got sloppy drunk sometimes does not mean he drank to excess. 

By democrat senator standards, drinking to ""excess"" means drinking enough to lose judgement to the point of attempted rape. Kavanaugh denies that. "
politics,"You can keep saying this, but this entire exchange has involved me repeating the actual testimony at the hearing and you moving goal posts as far and fast as possible. For instance:

>By democrat senator standards, drinking to ""excess"" means drinking enough to lose judgement to the point of attempted rape. 

At no point was this stated. This is a conclusion you have drawn that is not based on the actual line of questioning. I'm also not clinging to any particular hope. Only an idiot wouldn't take the GOP at their word that they'd ram this confirmation through even if the allegations were true. I'm quoting reality at you and watching you cover your ears and hum really loudly till it goes away. 

Which you're welcome to keep doing if it makes you feel better, by the way. Ultimately, you're just carrying water for an entitled prick who doesn't give a shit about you, openly admitted to a crazy conspiracy fueled partisan vendetta, and behaved in a manner disqualifying for any judge. And that's without the credible allegations and witnesses. The GOP could withdraw this shitstain and give you any of the other, presumably more qualified, Federalist Society judges, but they won't, in part because they know you guys will accept and embrace this bottom of the barrel circus. I guess what I'm saying is, we all know the GOP was going to fuck us over with SCOTUS. I just didn't expect them to needlessly lower your standards as much too in the process."
politics,"I don't like the term packing because increasing the size of the court isn't the only thing that should happen. I prefer to call it reform. Yes, we need to nullify the illegitimate advantage Republicans stole, and yes, that will involve  adding seats initially. But we also need to implement changes to improve SCOTUS and the nomination process going forward, regardless of who's in power. Simply adding justices is an invitation to add even more justices when the tables turn. What we need is a new norm. "
science,"But is essentially treating people as quotas to fill based on demographics not inherently racist? Ok, sure white peoole are terrible whatever but literally Harvard has been sued by Asian people who are discriminated against by affirmative action requiring them to have like a 600 point higher SAT score than other races to get it. Is it now racist if it's negatively affecting another minority group? It essentially comes down to ""on average these groups are more disadvantaged so we will now proceed to give benefits on an individual basis based on statistics that likely don't apply to a majority of the people that are actually benefiting while others still lie in squalor"""
science,First of all whites didn’t enslaved blacks there were plenty of free black men in fact the first legal slave owner in America was a black man. We did import black slaves from certain African regions. Also all races have enslaved other races at some point. Yes affirmative action is racist because the main qualification to benefit from this is based on skin color verses merit. You seem to have a very elementary understanding of these issues. Critical thinking is important even though it might make you rethink things. 
science,"So if you are an economically disadvantaged white person you're responsible for whites on average being advantaged due to having higher wealth, and thus should be penalized, while the majority of people taking advantage of affirmative action and benefiting will still be the small portion of minorities that already were more well off than you? Acting as if any blanket declaration about a person based on their demographic is fact is objectively biased if not outright racist, and the idea that this stolen goods metaphor is at all similar is objectively stupid. The people benefiting from AA are almost always those who were already well off and utilizing it is actually something that generally doesn't affect economic mobility of the majority of minorities it is allegedly designed to help while harming supposedly ""advantaged classes"" such as whites and Asians who come from poor social/economic standing by putting another barrier to entry into higher economic classes. "
science,"Socioeconomic status operates independently of race. Poor people of color exist too, and their lot is statistically even worse than poor white people. That’s why one of the things affirmative action also considers is family income. 

All white people did and continue to benefit from racist policies of the past and their legacies. This benefit isn’t equally distributed along wealth lines, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. 

Your perspective relies on ignoring all of US race history and viewing people as entitled to certain jobs or college admittance. "
science,"**Yes**, yes this is absolutely true, and you're correct.   


[https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e92a/f143699142759573938646ad6679f0740b89.pdf](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e92a/f143699142759573938646ad6679f0740b89.pdf)  


This concept is not even new either, there are many many heavily cited articles that cover this effect, and it is likely due to excessive stress. Think about this from an evolutionary point of view.  


A child who undergoes a chaotic period of growing up is likely to experience maladaptations to the environment. There is a good reason that a human being should develop depending upon environmental state so as to have an increased rate of survival. For example cold personality traits and indifference may develop as a result of expecting more abuse in adulthood.  


People become primed to respond to stress more than usual, leading to anxiety disorders. Learned helplessness can form as a result of not being able to change circumstances. In childhood you are weak and vulnerable, unable to do much at all to stave off parental abuse, this will mean you have the perfect environment to develop a sense that there is just no way to affect the outcome of further abuse in later years of life.  


In this PDF I've given for example, the article references this explicitly:  


\>Major functional consequences include increased electrical irritability in limbic structures, and reduced functional activity of the cerebellar vermis.  


These structures are commonly associated with anxiety disorders (for the limbic system) and clinical depression in the case of damage to the cerebellar vermis in the form of lesions. The abusive and toxic atmospheres that these people grow up in are literally giving them brain damage."
science,"You should rarely assume that your brain is *totally* unable to be treated for anything along these ""attitudinal"" lines.

Brains can change a lot even in adulthood. New connections can be made and reinforced to the point that they compete with and crowd out the old ones. But it takes time and effort to do that. It takes changing the environment that reinforces the old pathways.

EDIT: There are many injuries and disorders which are ""irreparable."" But what I'm talking about is treatment and/or improvement.  In many cases, there is a potential for those things."
science,"But the real question is, when you have severe mental illness to the point of disability, how do you prompt yourself to do things like exercise when getting out of bed itself feels impossible? Because of both physical and mental conditions, I am constantly exhausted -- but I do want to get better. I want to be better, but damn man. Sometimes it feels impossible; I regularly skip eating because I can't muster up the energy to make anything.

Also how does meditation work? I've tried that several times, but nothing happens. My therapist is trying a new type of therapy with me (its to do with following motions with your eyes to reprogram your brain) but due to my inability so see visuals in my head, its failing. "
science,"Yes. The orbito prefrontal cortex, the part of the pfc behind the eyes, is a key part of the entire pfc-limbic system emotional response. In cases of abuse there is excessive pruning of specific brain structures involved in the fight/flight response which includes the inhibitory properties of the pfc on the limbic system. So it would make sense that larger brain volume in the pfc particularly is correlated with resilient personality traits. This excessive pruning has been thought to be responsible for some of the impulsiveness seen in personality disorders, the worst of which appear to have significant trouble with their sympathetic and parasympathetic components communicating. So they can go from 0-100 instantly and then suddenly dissociate soon after. "
science,"Good questions, in my experience, an anti-depressant (Remeron in my case) gave me a boost in mood and motivation, which allowed me to develop enough strength to get out and exercise. I'm hesitant to advocate for anti-depressants because they are invasive, and every single one of them will have side effects (some temporary some long term). But if your conditions are severe, they can be helpful as a clutch to give you a jump start.

On meditation, the most well studied one is probably Mindfulness, you sit and focus on the sensations in your nostrils from breathing. The KEY is: whenever you notice an emotion arises, you simply acknowledge it without any negativity, and let it pass, and move your attention back to the breath.

Benefits of meditation takes time for you to notice, it requires consistent and long term commitment, just like you, for a short while I noticed I didn't noticed any improvements, and I gave up. But the whole point of meditation is to be mindful of ALL emotions, including when you feel frustrated at the fact that you aren't noticing benefits, and simply let it pass without any negativity. This will take time, patience, and consistent practice. "
science,"I have Aphantasia also. I've also dealt with depressions since my pre-teen years. I still struggle some, but I find counting helps motivate me enough to action. Need to get up for work? Count to 10, 20, maybe 30, then sit up. Count again, stand up. Count again, get dressed etc.

Counting and not thinking at the same time help me just auto-pilot through most chores like working out, cleaning and such. It helps me, but it isn't for everybody. "
science,"Something that's helped me is ""setting back the clock.""

My parents had no chill; everything that might affect them in even smaller ways was an opportunity to freak the fuck out. They also criticized and punished me for the smallest of things, and with bigger things they would talk about sending me away somewhere (by bigger things I mean they caught me lying to them or I got a bad grade, cause I *never* did drugs or had sex while living under their roof). 

Every time something upsets me, I stop and critically contemplate the seriousness of the matter. On a scale from one to death, how bad is this? Really, and am I sure I'm being honest?

If I rate something above a 3, I double check. If I rate something above a five, I check a third time, etc. There is a point on the clock around 8 or so where checking would be kind of worthless because you'd be in an emergency or just surviving.

But anyway, the point is this is helping me destress A LOT. The reason I was living such a stressful and pessimistic life is because I had learned from my parents to make a big deal out of everything. It was hard for me to see this as an adult because they would project on me and tell me that I was the dramatic and sensitive one, and that I has to make a big deal out of everything. Well maybe all that's true, but I was a child and I'd learned it from them. I have countless memories of them exploding, wailing, yelling, swearing, kicking things, because something happened or was going to happen that they thought was a big deal. I've already one upped then by not being in the practice of being physically or mentally violent.

These things have taken years and years of work, with and without help from others. Setting my clock back is constant work. I have to be thinking critically every time I'm stressing out, which is still quite often. The work is worth it though, and I promise I've seen great results. 

Ed: PS, LSD is a great way to gain perspective on how to set your clock, but I would caution anyone against doing party amounts especially if you're a bundle of nerves."
science,"I think it's an incorrect stretch, and asymmetric, to draw a comparison of optimism vs anxiety disorders. The proper state to compare to optimism is pessimism/skepticism. Anxiety disorders are on another spectrum entirely, one that, at the other extreme, is unrealistic faith/belief.

Optimism is associated with less accurate interpretations of reality & less updating of error tracking & estimation. Optimism doesn't necessarily entail being ""smarter"" in the pragmatic, intellectually accurate sense but actually ""dumber"" in those ways.

[How unrealistic optimism is maintained in the face of reality.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21983684)
Nature Neurosci. 2011 Oct 9;14(11):1475-9. doi: 10.1038/nn.2949.

However, optimism does facilitate social success, social integration & social networks, all of which are associated with some areas of the brain being larger due to the complexity of social behavior.

People who are not optimistic tend to have more accurate views of reality & update their associations due to error detection & tracking mechanisms. "
science,"It's terrible, right? I've had depression for about 15 years now and I feel like the last decade has flown by in a haze of... nothing. My depression used to be a lot more manageable when I was a teenager, but it feels like the older I get, the worse it becomes. 

I've been in an apathy hellscape (I'm not sure how else to describe it, I've just felt empty and nothing else for months now). Some days I wake up and I'm able to wash my clothes, brush my teeth, shower, and even eat. I call those good days even though they don't feel that different. 

I have to admit that, I prefer the vast emptiness to the misery. I lost my last job because I couldn't stop weeping at work. I was lucky that I worked night shift and there was only one other person there, but it likely got old watching some asshat weep and work at the same time.

The best coping mechanism I've developed is just... distracting myself. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. "
science,"I'm already on an anti-depressant. I take the maximum dose of Trintellix and Buspar on the side, but my doc is thinking about changing to a different type of anti-depressant again -- the third time in the last year. Sigh. Coming off the Sertaline was the worst though. )8 I've been taking anti-depressants off and on since I was young, but I don't know how much they actually help. Mind you, I also have OCD, PTSD, GAD, and ADHD so... I guess it complicates shit and all. 

Huh, that sounds interesting, but how do you do the other part -- letting emotion pass without negativity? I guess I've been doing the opposite my whole life. I've done my damndest to crowd out all my intrusive thoughts by not giving myself time to think -- which means constant stimulation and distraction. I don't even shower or drive without an audiobook on so I have something else to focus on. "
science,"Unfortunately you need to do regular meditation for at least 6-8 weeks to see results. Sessions should be a minimum of 20 minutes. Kabat-Zinn has some available that he used for his study, but there are lots of others. Dr. Laurie Santos said in her lecture ""The Science of Well-Being"" that the type of meditation doesn't matter, so if you can find a program you like, just keep trying to do that. I personally prefer the Headspace program, but that costs money eventually. Your local library might be a good resource for free.

As for the rest....kinda in the same boat, so I don't have much advice there. "
science,"> Also how does meditation work?

Repetition and acceptance/allowance are your best tools to move forward. I recommend you create a daily practice where you invest gradually more minutes practicing, and focus on developing this sort of patience over the days. If thoughts wander into your head and distract you, that's fine - let the thought happen and then let it pass. You are trying to dismantle the arguing going on in your head, so getting frustrated or stubbornly trying to ""silence"" your thoughts will dedicate energy in the wrong direction. If you do start to feel like its the hard kind of work, or your patience is wearing out - be finished with your practice for the day, and try again tomorrow.

If you are consistent I promise you will see progress, and this is the sort of practice where being gentle and compassionate with yourself will go further than ""discipline"" will. If you can only meditate for 60 seconds your first attempt, that's good. Congratulate yourself for taking the time to learn a new skill, and look forward to practicing again tomorrow."
science,"Thank you very much, I appreciate that! I hope the rest of your shift goes well. : D Yeah, I understand and agree though. I spend most of my spare time gaming, though I've found it frustrating to play games that require too much strategizing or quick reflexes. I think my brain might be a little too sluggish to respond adequately? I've largely been playing games like Stardew Valley, simulations, or games that have more focus on narratives (like Mass Effect, the Witcher, Walking Dead, etc). Escapism is nice if you're capable of maintaining interest long enough to get there! ♥"
science,"Have you been treated for ADHD? I'm asking because I also have ADHD, people with ADHD are more likely to develop other conditions because we tend to have emotional disregulation. So if something bad happens, we get angrier or sadder than the healthy person. I was treated for depression and PTSD first, but it was actually ADHD medication that really made me feel (almost) normal again. 

About meditation, like you mentioned you (and most people) have been doing the opposite all their lives, it's just going to take time and practice to eventually notice the benefits. Think of it as lifting weights, each time you let a emotion pass is one rep in the gym, when you do enough number of reps your brain will get stronger. The instructions are simple, but it's going to be hard to do day in and day out."
science,"Hnng, I don't think I could do 20 minutes at a time. I have a hard time sitting still and doing nothing for 5 minutes -- especially when my brain likes to mess with me. That's my ADHD and OCD though, I crave constant stimulation and it feels like torture to just sit there like that. The intrusive thoughts will set in then. I think I'd rather try and start with 60 seconds and see how well I can manage that first. 

I'll definitely try and check out the lecture though. I actually like listening to stuff like that while I'm showering and driving. Keeps my brain busy, which is... well, I guess kind of the opposite of what I'm trying to do here. 

Good luck to you with both the meditation and the rest! I hope we both manage to succeed. : D"
science,"This is a hard question. Theoretically, yes. I'll start with the philosophical view of it. The brain forms healthily in subjects who do not undergo abuse, therefore, it is feasible that the brain may grow into a healthier configuration at some future point.

It is technically possible, but is it possible right now? I don't know of any working examples of people fixing brain lesions, so I'll have a quick look.

The definition of a brain lesion is an area of abnormal tissue growth that appears 'different' than anticipated on MRI scans.

Then the problem is that the brain has been 'set' in a poor way. When you grow up as a child, and you have all of this growth going on, that affects your brain's development, toxic environments likely cause your brain to be 'set' and to learn that environment.

Then we have two problems, one is that these neural networks now exist. And would it be a good idea to remove them? We would likely prefer to 'reform' these neural networks rather than excise the cells.

The other is that we need a method to produce a positive growth affect. If it is true that the brain can develop healthily in a good environment then a strong support base would be necessary given that someone had 'new neurons' to grow a more appropriate brain structure in these areas.

I don't know how to make a neuron just right now but since we already create neurons naturally then yes I am very confident that it is possible for us to create neurons, glia, astrocytes, etc, in vivo. Consider adult neurogenesis for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_neurogenesis#Adult_Neurogenesis_and_Major_Depressive_Disorder

Many researchers today are interested in stimulating brain regrowth and repair, in many different diseases, I think there is a good chance that in the future we will have the capacity to 'heal' things like depression and even diseases that destroy the brain such as MS.

As you can see, anti-depressants specifically aim to try to stimulate neurogenesis in the hippocampus, and since this could technically be termed a 'lesion', the answer to your question is yes.

Edit; another important factor to think of is genetics. Genetics is a very actively, exploding industry, at the moment, things like CRISPR went mainstream and they even have alternatives today, it's steadily marching on and the future looks pretty bright for fixing things 'genetically'.

The problem I see in the future for that is that, cells with different genes to other cells might be rejected somehow. I'm not even sure how that integration works, but, I think given that some naturally occurring genetic differentiation exists in nature, that it isn't as reactive to new genetic alterations as people think.

Therefore, retroviral therapies may be pretty suitable for changing people's genetics at the core, and environmental cues may enable epigenetic 'switches' to be pressed that leads to recovery."
science,"I’ve been collecting research for a study, and the evidence on neuroplasticity (the ability of the brain to change shape/size, make new connections, etc.) is really growing fast. I’m a behavior scientist not a brain scientist, but it appears that there’s good reason to believe that repeated practice is a key factor in neuroplasticity. For my work with individuals with ADHD and Autism, which are both associated with less brain activity in the prefrontal cortex, we’re seeing some success in using behavioral therapy to create and reinforce neural pathways in that region. "
science,"What type of therapy are you doing? I've found ACT to be extremely beneficial for intrusive thoughts. Rather than attempting to avoid or counter them, it works off acceptance that a vast majority of the stuff going through our minds is garbage that you can just let pass without judgment. This has the effect of it being less distressing when these thoughts occur.

A good place to start is The Happiness Trap by Russ Harris. It also appears he has some audiobooks available."
science,"Hey, you are seeing a therapist--that's an awesome step you are already taking, so you should feel good about that. I have a loved one exactly in the state you are. We are looking at meds and other therapies for resistant cases with a specialist. [Here's a clinic](http://www.emoryhealthcare.org/centers-programs/treatment-resistant-depression-program/index.html) with examples of their approaches:

* Weekly cognitive behavioral therapy

* Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT)

* Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)

* Off-label trials of medication

* and/or Psychotherapy in our Adult Intensive Outpatient or Partial Hospitalization Program


Good luck and keep at it. You are not alone "
science,"The hardest part for me is getting started, I think. I have mild heart problems so I'm not supposed to do anything that's too strenuous to the heart (I was exempt from gym in high school), but I am allowed to exercise so long as I focus on my body and I don't overdo it. 

Quick bursts of exercise like this are probably the best way to go about it. I had a membership at Planet Fitness last year, but my social anxiety flared up and I only ever went 2-3 times. I know that, realistically, no one gives a shit that I'm there. I even chose that gym specifically because it has policies against antagonizing people for any reason, but the brain can be stupid. "
science,"My therapist is doing CBT and she's just started taking lessons on something called EMDR. That hasn't worked out for me at all so far because I'm unable to visualize anything in my head and that's the only way she seems to know how to do it so far. It's a shame because it seemed fairly interesting. 

I've never heard of ACT. What is that? It sounds like it'd be really helpful! I wrote down that book and I'm definitely going to give that a listen. I'm willing to try just about anything once -- especially if it sounds so promising. "
science,"You should put your abrasive opinionated subreddits into a multireddit so that you can access them, but they aren't in your face all the time.

Then you may wish to stop viewing the multi and unsub to some of them.

Reddit can be a very useful website. It can also be a harmless (in all ways except the obvious) timewaster. Or it can be a cesspool of soul-sucking bickering and hatred.

Make it into what you want."
science,"Thank you very much! I've heard of those different treatments, but the therapist (and psychiatrist) I'm seeing doesn't offer a lot of those. To be fair, I'm not exactly sure how helpful they are because my psychiatrist is pretty disaffected and my therapist seems to be kind of... I'm not sure how to say this without being insulting. She's very kind and I like her a lot, but sometimes I feel like she hasn't kept up to date on mental illness and I have to explain a lot of things to her that she's never heard of? My insurance just doesn't cover a lot of people. Come the new year, I'm going to switch back to Caresource. "
science,"The affect of abuse and poverty on the brain is fascinating from a legal standpoint. Basically, since there is proven damage to the brain, survivors of a traumatic childhood who go on to be crimals could arguably be said to not be as responsible for their actions as their brain was altered to make them predisposed to violence and making bad choices. Free will is one thing but life isn't fair."
science,"Have you tried Headspace app?  There are 3, 5, 10, and 20 minute meditations so you can work up to longer times or even stay at 3 minutes. The host helps you through when you think you aren’t doing it “right.” For me, first thing in the morning, right out of bed, is the most effective time to meditate. I still struggle with it after a year of doing it, but it has made a significant difference in my life. I do 10 minutes in the am, and 3 minute “rescue” ones when I get upset during the day. "
science,"Mindfulness meditation is like training your brain to do what you want, or rather, get better at it. To let go of a thought and refocus on what you want to focus on.

I struggle with pretty similar stuff as you. And yeah, constant intrusive thoughts and I distract myself from them, or try to anyway.

Remember, you can't fail at meditation because the goal is to simply try. If you're meditating, you're trying. It is training and you do what you can. You wouldn't say someone is failing just because they try and can't do even one pushup. They try, that's training. They're getting better at it.

Sit or lay comfortably with your eyes closed, preferrably in a quiet environment. Focus on the sensation of breath going in and out in your norstrils or upper lip or whatever. The thoughts will come. Don't push them away, instead, **let them go and refocus on your breath.** And just keep doing that. Let go, refocus, repeat.

I'm going to meditate now, haven't done it in a while."
science,"I've personally found tweaking the balance of what I'm consuming has helped shift my mental state away from one of agitation and aggravation and towards one of compassion and curiosity. For me, this meant less time on reddit (stuff like /r/Eyebleach is fine) and online gaming (HotS triggers me like nothing else). I replaced the news-aspect of reddit with media I found more positive and less superficial (for me this happened to be things like the Current Affairs podcast / magazine). 

My growing belief in a lack of free-will (non-dualism) also helps with this. I'm much less agitated by others when I consider that some non-zero percentage of people's thoughts and actions are influenced by things out of their control (see: this article and RoseElise's post)."
science,"Yeah, I've been wanting a new team for a while. I just feel like my psychiatrist doesn't really listen (or care) and my therapist does her best, but it's not effective. I feel like it's just as effective as venting to a friend and that's about what it feels like too. 

Unfortunately, I have no source of income right now, so I need to keep what I have until I finally manage to score a job. I would love a service that offers me more like that, though. There's a doc that's fairly well known that my family doctor wanted me to go to, but they don't accept my insurance. If I change to Caresource at the beginning of the year, though, I should be able to get them. "
science,"> once a subreddit hits a certain subscriber threshold (100,000 to 300,000), the content and enthusiasm of the average community tends to go down.

This has been my experience for some of the subs I was on that have ballooned in size over the years, with two categories of exceptions: subreddits that were originally intended for 'low effort'/easy to digest content / shitposting, or subs where most 'subscribers' are just there to get a feed of very specific content and don't participate (r/writingprompts, maybe r/polandball). There's a lot of overlap between those categories.

It seems a larger subscriber base (particularly when it's grown quickly) leads to a preference for lower common denominator content rising to the top, low-tier jokes and general reddit memes dominating comment threads, and higher rates of people bringing in social/political issues with little excuse (the 'X is leaking' effect).

It definitely gives larger subs a very different feel from smaller subs (which often feel a lot more like the forums of yore)."
science,"I don’t know about music specifically, but when I last studied the subject of violent media it seemed like, in general, the biggest/most reliably observed effect of consuming it was desensitization to other violent media, and it didn’t seem to substantially change aggression or responses to real life violence. I never saw anything suggesting long term changes to personality. However, this was three years ago, and I haven’t kept up with the new research on the subject (and even at the time a lot of the papers I was reading were a bit dated), so I don’t know if the scientific consensus has changed since then. "
science,"I think this is a very good example.  If you know there are things about yourself that are adaptations to things you think are not preferable, change your environment to one that you do prefer and make an effort to adapt to it.

Right now I work in an awful place.  I grew up around chaos/trauma and while it may or may not have been a choice to wind up where I work with all this chaos specifically, I know I do want to change that so I am looking for a new job.  I am looking into the environments of these potential jobs on, say, Glassdoor.  What do other employees think of it?  Who would my supervisor be and where have they worked in the past?  It's not a perfect system, but I have ruled out some places because the writing is on the wall in some cases."
science,"Lurk moar, talk less. If you really feel you have to post, then do, but read it over carefully. By breaking a negative cycle one should engage in positive habits, recognizing and acting on positive interactions helps increase overall health. 

That's why I like the big editor feature on desktop, I can see, read and discard at my nature, and truly ask myself if this is a positive action to make with only my words on the screen.

I can understand the gatekeeper effect, subs are ripe targets for social engineering, a hostile takeover can breed toxic effects, even the precieved threat of one. Trust is fundamental to the public good. "
science,"There is also body scan! From the top of your head, focus your entire attention on each body part, and notice a slight sensation in that part. As soon as you feel a sensation, any sensation, you move three inches down, keep repeating until you reach your toes. From there you scan back up to the top of your head. 

Two things that can be difficult with this:

1, How the hell do you feel any sensations in a body part where it's not touching anything? Well remember there's millions of nerve endings beneath your skin, you CAN feel it, but you have to really focus on that part, eventually you can actually feel the physical existence of each body part.

2, when you feel an itch or pain, don't scratch or move, just meditate on that sensation, ask yourself what it feels like, and what's your emotional response to it? Believe it or not, eventually the itch or pain actually goes away if you meditate long enough."
science," I have the opposite problem to what you describe in part 1. I feel my body *too much*. I'm hyper aware of every tiny little sensation at all times, and I have incredibly severe anxiety. If I focus on my body at all (with the exception of feeling pleasure), especially my breath or my heartbeat, I detect and magnify little quirks that make me think something is wrong and have a panic attack."
science,"Take this with a grain of salt because I'm no doctor and don't have any experience in anxiety, but are you able to mindfully observe your anxious feelings? That's really the key point in meditation, whenever negative emotions and feelings arise (in Buddhism they call it your 'monkey brain', we all have it), we have a higher consciousness that can observe and say 'OK I'm noticing I'm being anxious now, I will not react to this emotion in any way, I will simply observe and accept whatever is happening in the present moment.' "
science,">My therapist is doing CBT and she's just started taking lessons on something called EMDR. That hasn't worked out for me at all so far because I'm unable to visualize anything in my head and that's the only way she seems to know how to do it so far. It's a shame because it seemed fairly interesting.

Heres the thing. CBT is great, but it takes numerous sessions. Sticking to your daily routines and making micro adjustments to how you are living your life can be very effective. For example, wake up in the morning, MAKE YOUR BED, go for a run, THEN take a shower. Thats your routine... do it, and stick to it for like 3 weeks. While at the same time you're doing this, do your CBT once or twice a week, however much you usually do it. Micro-routines and CBT are similar to going to the gym and working out.

​Your mind is just like going to a gym. No one goes to a gym once and thinks ""okay well thats done and now I'll never need to workout again"", no. It takes work, and more over, it takes perseverance.

​Do not quit.

As for EMDR, one of the things that helped me with that was cannabis. Mindfulness meditation + cannabis, combined with CBT and EMDR -- I felt like a new person.

​

​"
science,"I don’t know about music specifically, but when I last studied the subject of violent media it seemed like, in general, the biggest/most reliably observed effect of consuming it was desensitization to other violent media, and it didn’t seem to substantially change aggression or responses to real life violence. I never saw anything suggesting long term changes to personality. However, this was three years ago, and I haven’t kept up with the new research on the subject (and even at the time a lot of the papers I was reading were a bit dated), so I don’t know if the scientific consensus has changed since then.

"
science,"I actually ended up at ACT after doing CBT and liking some parts a lot, but finding that challenging my thoughts constantly was exhausting and not terribly productive. Visualization was a problematic thing for me, as well, as I would either not be able to come up with anything or it'd be absurdly elaborate to a distracting point (""visualize putting your negative thoughts in a box"" ""ok, so I have this post-apocalyptic underground bunker, its contents barely visible by the dim light of a single bulb pentrating a dusty haze filling the air."").

While I haven't done much EMDR personally, my therapist's position is that it mainly works by distracting you while providing exposure to whatever distressing topic you're working on. Its efficacy is questionable in some respects such as for anxiety, but for some people it works really well, especially with PTSD. It may not be for you, but it's good you're open to trying things especially with how exhausting the process can be. 

ACT actually uses components of CBT, but the focus is more on disentagling yourself from your thoughts and feelings. Rather than assuming a healthy psychological state is one free of negative thoughts occuring, it posits that these thoughts are normal and that we can choose to act differently in spite of them. You might FEEL like garbage, but it doesn't mean you ARE garbage or have to act like garbage. For someone like me, this has been an extremely useful approach as I don't ever see being a huge fan of myself but I want to keep improving and be good to those with the questionable taste of liking me.

Essentially identify your values and goals, work on not judging your thoughts as good or bad and accepting that they will occur, and learning to act according to your values and goals rather than reacting to and attempting to control your thoughts and feelings.

Also, it may be worth examining what other things could be triggering anxiety. Sounds weird, but turned out I have a food allergy with a cardiovascular reaction that was causing constant anxiety along with panic attacks. I didn't take it seriously for a long time but once it progressed to anaphylaxis and I eliminated the offender completely, my GAD disappeared. Taking vitamin D without also taking magnesium also results in tachycardia and palpitations for me. 

Honestly I could go on more, but I'm wall of texting you already, haha. So definitely feel free to ask more questions if you have any!

*Edited for clarity regarding vitamin D and magnesium"
science,"Something I think a lot of people don’t account for properly is the fact that a lot of these people aren’t adults, they’re literally children. When you know you’re talking to a child you can easily compensate for that when gauging their reactions and how they view things. On reddit there’s really no way of knowing who you’re talking to. I’ve often had arguments on here and then finally realized after a few exchanges I was clearly talking to someone no older than 12. There are A LOT of angsty confused teens on reddit. "
science,"Not sure if you know anything about CBT (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy), but that type of therapy is based on breaking unhealthy pathways and forming new/healthy ones. Previous to the 6-month intensive work I did with a CBT therapist, I had spent pretty much all of my life in a state of anxiety. It peaked at age 24, where I stopped driving, was too afraid to leave the house, would only wear specific clothes and colors, and only left my bed to eat. Eventually even eating and going to the bathroom and showering caused such great anxiety that I barely did those things. My world was so limited that I spent much of my days thinking about death. I finally got help, doing online CBT skype therapy. In a short period of six months I was driving, got a full-time job as a designer, made a handful of new friends, got my own apartment and even went sky diving. 

I was raised in a chaotic, abusive environment by way of my violent alcoholic father. All the therapists I saw before either helped none or made things worse.

I will add that I never and still do not take medicine (I was always too scared), so my success was completely based on my changed thought patterns.

So, I'm not perfect by any means...but changing the brain pathways is absolutely, 100% attainable. I'm happy/lucky/blessed to be proof of that.

"
science,"Exactly. The brain is always changing and adapting quickly to the environment. It’s a fascinating organ that has enabled us to become on top of the food chain, even though we are not the strongest species, a bear or tiger could easily rip us to shreds without breaking a sweat. Eventually in evolution our bodies and brains realized that if we become smarter rather than stronger, we have a better chance at survival by outsmarting our predators. 

Doing things to promote new neural pathway growth is essential to changing your mindset and the way you think, or else your brain will just continue to use the same old pathways under the assumption that it is positively sustainable and necessary for survival. As you said it takes a lot of time and effort, actively observing the thoughts in order to send them in a different direction or to alter your internal conceptual framework of the way life is."
science,"Actually it takes much less time than two months to form new neural pathways, they grow very rapidly. I think what they were probably referring to was actually making the change of the brains preference in which neural pathways to utilize and how much less likely you are to use the old patterns.

Let’s say your brain uses pathway A, a negative electrical response to stimuli like police for instance, maybe because you had a bad experience with them once. Well if you actively try to alter your thinking and mindset to this newly formed pathway B, which let’s say is a detached neutral response, reminding yourself that they are here to protect and not to harm you, then it would take 2 months or more to fully make the switch over to the new pathway. 

The brain becomes so used to using the same pathways, up to a few months or several years, so it takes a while for it to become accustomed to using a different new neural pathway which evokes a different emotional response to a specific subject. This all depends on the severity of the response which indicates the strength of the pathway, and also how active the individual is at consciously trying to utilize a different mode of thinking, or pathway B."
science,"I'm not a mental health professional nor do I know the severity of your depression, but have you tried just scheduling active stuff and then just following through the motions? I understand that you have a severe lack of motivation but a rational will to get better, then perhaps forcing yourself to go through the motions in stuff like going for a walk in a park once a day might be doable. Don't do it because you want to, do it because you don't want to do anything so following your schedule is as good of an alternative as anything.

This might still be impossible for you, I understand that, I'm just trying to help and I really hope you get better. "
science,"I’m so happy that I could help! Just know that it is 100% possible at any age to change your mindset and ways of thinking. The brain is made to never stop learning and changing. The best thing to do is start small with babysteps to change your thinking, this will get you going and ultimately get your life in a perpetual motion of change and transformation. I imagine it kind of like pushing a car, it’s hard as hell at first to get it moving, but once you do it becomes easier and easier to *keep* it moving. There are rough times ofcourse where you want to just give up, but those are the most crucial points to persevere to create stronger and more positive thinking patterns.

I had a pretty stressful childhood as well. Both of my parents were alcoholics. I was never physically abused, but certainly mentally and emotionally, and also very neglected. Although it took a long time and a lot of effort with mental training, it is the best thing I could’ve done with my life. It was worth every second of trying to change myself. I think the best thing for me was when I went to California with a friend. It was so therapeutic and helpful to rehabilitate my mind since I was independent, away from any past stressors in the forms of people and places that once made me mentally in pain. 

It really helped me to find myself and eliminated any possibilities of negative energy from my past to find its way back into my life again. After a while I completely stopped using those destructive neural pathways that were so routine before, and created new healthy ones that were able to facilitate a constructive and positive mindset. Now when I go back to these things that previously stressed me out, I have no issue detaching myself or being positive. I even used to have horrible anxiety, now it’s virtually nonexistent and replaced with a healthy confidence. You don’t have to go to California for this, but anyway to free yourself or avoid these is helpful. 

Edit: my reddit door is always open if you have any questions or want any help or just to vent!"
science,"No problem! It’s certainly a healthy sign that you’re able to address it openly. And moving is just an example, DEFINITELY not necessary at all. Any type of temporary detachment from past stressors is therapeutic, this eliminates the need for using past neural pathways to deal with the stress, and encourages opportunities to create new ones, though again this isn’t necessary either. 

I wish the best for you and hope you have growth with the babysteps and your progress! Again if you have any questions or anything feel free to PM me, I have quite a bit of knowledge with neuroscience and psychology, and personal experience with trauma and mental illness. Good luck friend :)"
science,"I'm someone who suffers C-PTSD, from horrible physical, sexual, and emotional abuse in Foster Care, from 9 to 17, with most of the sexual stuff happening from 9 to 13. I had a lot of horrible things happen to me. Really bad. And while I am not a Doctor, or a Psychologist, I can assure you maladaptation is a very apt term. The thing is, unless you actively work at it, and consciously attempt to right it, and bumper your thoughts and actions into being normal, all the trauma peaks through. I'm pretty resilient, but everything for me is an extreme counter balance, and not just a bit of regulating my behaviour. You or anyone else would never know, unless you understood the tell tale signs, and really watched me, and put me under duress. My brain, I am absolutely sure, is a byproduct of my circumstances growing up. It tiring to try and right a ship that always pulls aft, but its the only choice I have. Its tiresome, but I refuse to give up. The key is to play the cards your dealt, the best you can, and accept that you're always going to be at a defect, that things are stacked against you. And not to look at losing as a personal loss, but as a valiant effort with the odds stacked against you. Have pride in your triumphs, no matter how infrequent, or how seemingly insignificant. Thats how I go about it at least. People who suffered far less, have my far poorer choices, which is proof positive that we all deal with trauma in very VERY subjective ways."
science,"I'm not sure that the prefrontal cortex sends inhibitory signals to areas responsible for stress, but I do know that stress has adverse consequences on the PFC. The most noticeable of these is cognitive performance. As you are more stressed, it is harder to think in some situations, and it also primes habitual behaviours when this happens (to the amygdala, which is responsible for fear and aggression).

The PFC also loses its capacity to handle stress as age increases, this means the elderly are more susceptible to the deleterious mental effects that stress will cause them.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352289514000101

For reference; noadrenergic neurotransmitters are things like norepinephrine, which is part of the fight-or-flight response. This means that under chronic stress, people can become habitually responsive to this stress by activation of fight-or-flight. This is anxiety disorder and possibly others. In this case, the study is checking out PTSD.

Though in the same article they are also proposing a solution which is to have noadrenergic agonists to act as a blockade during these episodes."
science,"First, let me preface by saying I am definitely NOT an expert. My background is in psych and I do a lot of reading in affective neuroscience and (borderline) personality disorder, but, again, I'm not a PhD level clinician by any means. 

With that disclaimer, my present belief is that anything in the cortex is malleable enough throughout the lifespan to be responsive to therapy. The deeper problem is with the older rostral limbic system function. It's not clear to me from what reading I've done just how plastic this system is, if it can, in adulthood anyway, be a good target for change vs management. I'm going to answer your question from that more conservative orientation.

Yes, there are treatments that can work. Your primary problem is likely a kind of learned helplessness writ large. Your problem is likely twofold: 1) your appraisal mechanisms (of social stimuli in particulary), which seem to be housed in the (right) cortex and therefore can definitely change, make you prone to misinterpreting (social) reality, e.g., thinking someone is angry at you when they're not, and 2) because of issues with the limbic system your physiology, your emotional response, is exaggerated, which ends up reinforcing your appraisal mechanisms. Very similar to OCD where a ritual may get rid of an unwanted thought but in its success, it reinforces the percieved reality/truth of the content of that thought, e.g., if avoiding cracks, avoids breaking my mothers back -> i avoid cracks and my mother's back never breaks -> therefore, it must be true that avoiding cracks avoids breaking my mother's back -> reinforcement of avoiding cracks behavior and the belief in the false relationship of cracks and my mother's back.  In your case, your appraisal mechanisms of social stimuli don't capture reality quite correctly, but your phsyiological response is exaggerated, reinforcing your exaggerated appraisal, keeping you stuck like an OCD patient. That's a rudamentary way of looking at it, problems like yours are more complicated (which is why CBT may work for OCD behaviors but it likely won't work for yours).

In my opinion the best treatment for this is DBT skills with a serious mindfulness component and schema focussed therapy. We can talk in PM, if you like, about what this is supposed to look like/entail. DBT is popular right now, so there are *a lot* of BS programs that market themselves as DBT-oriented/informed when they're pretty much garbage or just do a little skills training--nothing that will actually help you. But, in short, DBT with schema focussed therapy can potentially reduce the intensity of your felt affect, teach you how to regulate your affect earlier in the dysregulation chain, and give you the skills to reevaluate a situation and be more interpersonally effective, which should lead also to reduced frequency of dysregulation events. Once you're able to regulate affect well, you could likely work on the appraisal mechanism restructuring. If you can't regulate your affect, then in the face of recalling the abuse/neglect, you'll likely get dysregulated to the point of being unable to learn and take anything away from therapy, or get angry at the demands of therapy and quit. 

Anyway, there's a ton more to be said. Entire series of books have been written on this stuff, so, if you have any questions, just PM me."
science,"A well-balanced diet with fish rich in fatty acids like omega 3, plenty of sunlight and a bit of exercise. Try salmon every other day, really good. Barring that, supplements. Plenty of sleep, and a reduction in stress. I would also learn coping strategies for anxiety and consider therapy.

These should be good for you even if you are not cured but for some it might even remove their symptoms entirely.

For the rest antidepressants are getting better."
science,"I don't understand how it works though. My therapist is like: imagine that there is a light raining down on you. What does it feel like? 

Me: uhhh. The sun? 

Her: what color is it? How does it make you feel?

Me: increasingly more uncomfortable: yellow, like the sun? And I guess hot... 

Her: and why did you choose yellow? Is there something specific about it that draws you to the color?

Me: ...the sun is yellow...? "
science,"I really appreciate the thought! It's kind of circumstantial for me. Some days I have the energy to do this and some days it's entirely impossible. The issue then becomes anxiety because my OCD focuses on potential death and physical torment that *could* happen on my end thanks to my intrusive thoughts. I don't feel comfortable going to the park along because I live in a dangerous area. So I invitably end up stressing myself out and triggering a migraine. I think I need a friend to join me, but all of my friends have long since moved away. "
science,"I've found that I really like walks. My favorite thing is long, scenic trails with a friend. I love just getting to relax and talk to a friend. It's easier when you have someone there beside you, but nixing that, I found that using headphones and listening to an audio book while at the gym helps a little bit. At least for me, it helps distract my brain from stupid anxious thoughts that are trying to trip me up."
science,"Routines are also supposed to be really good for people with ADHD, like me! I struggle with them a lot, so I have to set alarms even for simple things like remembering to take my medicine. I would love to get a good routine going, though my knees are way too busted to run without dying. I should definitely keep up with other exercises though, my physical therapist would be mad at me for having stopped months ago. )8 

I do get CBT every week though and that's good. 

Aaaaa. Yeah, I've heard pot can be really good for anxiety and depression if you get the right strain! I've tried pot once (an edible a friend made), but it just made me conk out and sleep for like 6 hours so I must have gotten it wrong. I don't live in a state where it's legal yet, though, and now that I've moved I've no idea where to even find it. Aaaa, one day... : P"
science,"Hahahahaha. You should write a book, you've got some good details there! For me, visualization is just impossible. I don't know how and I can't even daydream. My therapist gets frustrated with me and, from the way people explain it, it kind of sounds like they're having a hallucination? I'm not sure, my brain just doesn't work like that. Pfft.

You're so knowledgeable about this stuff that I would love to talk to you in more detail about it. I'm fairly sure that I have more than one type of depression, for example, but not all the time. I think I get Seasonal Affective Disorder when my vitamin D levels hit deficiency (I worked night shift for 3 years and never saw the sun) because once that happens, my anxiety and depression spiral to critical and potentially suicidal levels of out of control. So it feels like I get SAD on top of my normal Depression for some kind of hellish double depression. It goes away eventually, though, once my doctor prescribes me Vitamin D supplements. 

I agree with you on CBT. I have a really hard time trying to challenge my thoughts like that. I spend so much time just trying to distract myself from negative or intrusive thoughts and I get them constantly and have since I was a little girl. I don't know of its possible to get rid of them, but I would love to be able to let them pass through me diaseffect by them instead of being paralyzed with irrational ""what if"" fears.

I have no idea what triggers the underlying anxiety/intrusive thoughts, but regularly all it takes is something like:

Me: -gets into a car-
My brain: what if there's someone hiding in the back seat waiting for you to sit down. They'll grab you from behind and you'll be raped and tortured and mudered.-

Me: -walking down the stairs-
My brain: you're going to trip and fall. You'll break your neck and die or end up paralyzed from the waist down.

Me: -walking by an open window-
My brain: a hand is gonna reach out and grab you as you walk by! You won't be able to get free! You'll be abducted and sold into human trafficking!!

Me: -at 12 years old waiting for the school bus to arrive-
My brain: -with every car that drives by- they're going to slow down and grab you when no one is looking! By the time your family finds out you're missing, you'll already be dead!!

It's stupid and irrational and I get it dozens of times a day over innocuous stuff. Logically, I know that not everyone is put to get me or anything like that, but I have these stupid mental ruminations and routines I have to go over and over with in my head to feel safe. Like bringing ""decoy"" water bottles with me to work just to be sure no one is going to try and poison me. No one is. I know that. But I'll still have a panic attack if I don't do it cause my brain loops on these thoughts. 

I'd love to be able to have them and just let them go so they can't bother me. Just like... Acknowledge that they're a thing, but they're ridiculous and not worth the emotional toll. ACT sounds really interesting and I definitely want to broach the topic with my therapist to see what she knows of it. I'd love to get started on that and see what happens. "
science,I have just come to realize I’ve suffered from abuse as a child and am learning to improve brain quality. After reading this I got scared because I’ve been unaware of the damage for a long time and I’m seeking help of any kind. I appreciate you all sharing this post to remind me of what I need to be focusing on. Improving my mind and learning what I am truly capable of. 
science,"You do right by accepting it and seeking help. That’s being responsible with yourself. Remember, many things can scar a child. I was physically beaten as a child, and in my culture (spanish) this used to be the norm. Spank your child to correct his behavior. But to me, as a child, I could only perceive it as violence by those who I looked up to and loved most in the world. Our goal is to disrupt the chain in our own lives. "
science,"On mobile but I highly recommend Behave by Robert Sapolski.

It directly addresses this and about a hundred other questions in this thread.

I understand that the amygdala is over developed while the frontal cortex (and other regions) are under.

The increased amygdala response can help improve survival chances in dangerous living conditions. 

But when the abuse ends, the young person's amygdala unfortunately doesn't just shrink back down.

So you have more paranoia, emotional overreaction, and less will power and self control later in life, unfortunately.

I'm no scientist so I'm sure I'm not perfectly characterizing that, but that's the gist I got from those chapters."
science,"I can understand your concern and it is certainly not for everyone so do a lot of research before trying if you decide to go down this path. 

With that said mushrooms have show great efficacy for treatment of depression and anxiety. I can personally attest to this and many friends can as well. In some cases they could be far more effective than antidepressants and come without side-effects outside of the potential for a bad trip. All classic psychedelics really show great potential for treatment of a range of mental illnesses. Along with that the addiction potential is ridiculously low and due to the effect they have mentally they can even help great addiction due to stripping away your ego and allowing you to see yourself clearer. 

If you decide to do this just have someone you trust completly with you to tripsit you and potentially some benzos present to kill anxiety if you get it during a trip.

Some places to get unbiased information include; erowid, psychonautwiki, psychedsubstance and drugslab"
science,"Yes, I am telling you how you felt. Im not a magician, I'm an addiction specialist/therapist, and a recovering addict that was on methadone for almost a decade. You don't understand the science behind the pharmacology. It's physically impossible to be on opiates long term and not build a tolerance. The very way they function on the brain creates tolerance. So yes, in that way, they do effect everyone the same.

The reason You might think you didn't develop a tolerance is methadone is not euphoric, and don't act on the same pleasure receptors as full agonist opiates. The bottom line is your body had to react differently to it the day you started vs the day you  last took it. "
science,">  It's physically impossible to be on opiates long term and not build a tolerance.

What counts as long term and how steep is the tolerance curve?

I had partial amputation of my ring finger and a bone fusion/pin in my middle finger due to an accident.  My surgeon put me on around 30 mg oxycodone a day.  This dose was reasonable for the first couple of days of recovery, but I found it made me way too sluggish and hazy so I began cutting my dose.  Two weeks post-surgery I was down to about 10 mg per day and held at 5-10 mg per day for the next 3 months.  I found on my own that 5 mg in the morning often brought durable all-day pain relief -- I had some pain spikes in the evening, but they weren't bad and only on days where I had overused my hand did I feel like a re-dose was worthwhile, often a half-pill or 2.5 mg was enough.  Waiting to dose until I had more acute pain later in the day meant less pain relief with less duration of relief, doing that would have been a sure 15 mg per day.

When I quit taking oxycodone I was actually expecting some withdrawal symptoms, but I never had any.  

I always wonder why my experience with tolerance seems so different.  I got the same relief with the same dose and found it pretty easy to cut back and manage dosing schedules.  I do think the euphoria part wore off quickly, by about week 3 my doses of oxycodone weren't really producing anywhere near the euphoric sensation but the pain relief stayed about the same.

I guess I wonder if the tolerance that builds up is less about decreased pain management and more about decreased euphoria, with addiction prone people chasing the euphoria.  I don't quite get how they put up with the hazy, sluggish long-term effect of large doses of opiates.  I found that to be quite unappealing, a mixture of low energy, sleepiness and sort of a depression."
science,"What happened with you is your tapered down over time to a low enough dose that you're brain was able to adjust to producing its own endorphins again. The word endorphins comes from ""endogenous morphine”, meaning morphine produced internally. When our body gets fed them and doesn't have to produce them naturally to help with pain it kinda forgets how for a while. The process of abruptly stopping the supply of the morphine/opiates that the body got used to not having to provide is why we feel withdrawal, and why it's extra painful until the brain can catch up. 

When you cut down you did exactly what everyone should do and what every Dr should push for and be more hands on about. Most Dr's are not and don't mind throwing a patient out after a few months or for a bad urine sample. That leads to inevitable extreme pain which leads to that person seeking other means to get opiates, just to get rid of the pain. That leads people to heroin or Dr shopping. Both usually lead to jail, which leads to more heroin. I'm not blaming just the Dr's, but a lot of heroin addicts could be avoided by a proper taper where the patient never has to experience any of that.

Another thing is yes, the tolerance build up definitely effects the euphoric aspect the most. If you noticed, that pleasure began to decrease quicker each day. One morning you decide to take two 30's instead. Feels great so you do it for a week. Now when you go back to one 30 you hardly fell it, and since your body started adjusting to the extra amount you don't even get the same pain killing effects from it anymore. Basically, once you start using it to get high it's a downward spiral.

Everyone can taper like you did though. Like in my instance I had to taper off methadone for a year, then switch to suboxone and continue tapering for it to finally not be Hell where I had to take off work for weeks to go to a rehab."
science,"There are a *lot* of highly intelligent people who are not particularly financially successful. Meanwhile, there are lots of people many would consider stupid and ignorant who have achieved substantial wealth.

My observation is that financial success depends more on factors like ambition, perseverance, and a willingness to take risks in pursuit of wealth than on a high IQ or perceived intelligence.

And of course, this is aside from the fact that most well-off people were lucky enough to be born wealthy, or at least not poor or members of a minority."
science,"I would agree that financial success depends on ambitions and perseverance.

My previous boss was Trump level narcisist, but unlike Trump, true workoholic. He owns small car carrier haulier company.

We frequantly went on business trips with him and his best friend a lawyer who's also devoted christian (almost everytime we were on business trip he would read bible and talk about stories, morals and implications of it). 

The lawyer often discussed my bosses workoholic practice as he had more easy approach towards work/life balance. Once he was reading bible or something about the siege of Jerusalem and gave my boss this example:

""Dorian(name of the boss), Imagine you are right now in Jerusalem, which is being sieged, diseases, starvation and hanibalism is all around you. No matter how hard or how much you will work, it wont be better, you are there sitting waiting to be massacared by the army outside the gates""

You know what his answer was?

He literally said ""if you work hard enough there's always a solution""

No matter that my boss never finished the highschool, this attitude brough him financial success."
science,"From the paper:

>	Dr. Hampton: Besides being limited to the US, we were also slightly limited by our online sample. **We did not test, for example cognitive ability or generalized intelligence, which are currently still best measured in-person**. We did however, collect education level, which has consistently been correlated with intelligence, so we don’t feel that this is a major flaw.

I would also be extremely surprised if a person’s ability to delay instant gratification did not correlate strongly with IQ."
science,"Yep, I'm not going to doubt the statistics, but this is my experience as well. In my experience people who were raised in rough backgrounds tended to grow up to be in that same socio-economic sphere, whereas people raised in more supportive and well-off homes tended to go on to be successful.

It would be ludicrous to say that poor people are naturally less intelligent. I know plenty of measured, well-rounded and bright people who are more than capable of working in a highly skilled occupation but have failed to reach their ceiling due to other factors."
science,">It's pretty well documented that being poor makes you less intelligent

How does this make sense? The number of zeroes in your bank account determines your mental capabilities?

Think of the billions of people who live in poverty around the world. Are they in that situation because they're all dumb?

I think pushing this idea that ""being poor = dumb"" is very dangerous and is the first step towards dehumanizing the worst off in our society. Now, that's straying into politics more than science, but it's important all the same."
science,"Many factors are correlated with financial success, with intelligence being only one of them. If you factor out the others, I trust you'd find that intelligence was a much smaller factor than most would have initially assumed.

For example, I've observed workplaces (in sales environments) where many of the better performing employees had striking deficiencies in areas one would normally associate with intelligence (grammar, spelling, math, and knowledge of history or technology.) Their strengths were ambition, tenacity, single-minded focus, certain social skills, and a strong work ethic. These folks would make terrible engineers, doctors, or analysts but they excelled in sales.

This also crosses into a related topic, which is that there are several distinct kinds of intelligence. "
science,"I agree, but I think ignoring/surpressing data because you think it might be dangerous is also dangerous. It feeds a sort of conspiratorial worldview by giving stupid people ammunition.

And yes, that's basically how it works. If you're poorer you are less able to solve complex problems, probably due to stress, nutrition, etc. You can literally test the same person's IQ after they've had major windfalls/setbacks and they tend to perform better when they've got more money.

I'm not saying it accounts for anywhere near the entire income disparity, obviously. Nobody would claim that. But it's burying your head on the sand to dispute that there's any correlation between intellect and wealth. A board room at a major company is overwhelmingly likely to contain cleverer people than a homeless shelter or a queue for people picking up their social security cheques. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

But that doesn't mean that some of the people in the homeless shelter could be cleverer than anyone in the board room - it just means that, on balance, it's more likely that they are less intelligent."
science,"Well our understanding of the brain will always be a limit.

Let me put it another way. I don’t think there is a single trait in your mind/body/whatever called intelligence. There are different kinds of intelligence. Someone with a natural ability to understand structures and physics may be utterly shit at understanding human facial expressions. Another person could be a mathematical genius but terrible at anything that would require spatial reasoning skills. Lots of musicians have trouble understanding math, even though they’re using it every time they write a song.

My original point was that “intelligence” is extremely complicated, multifaceted, culture/language dependent, and many other complexities. And as you pointed out, our understanding of the brain will always limit our understanding of the mind.

Having said all that, my basic point is that reducing these things all down to one number can give you some interesting correlations. Maybe even useful ones. But there is a difference between your score on a test, and your actual intelligence (whatever that is).

Does that make sense? I’m at work so I’m kind of rushing these responses. My problem isn’t with the notion of intelligence. My issue is the idea that a single number can really tell you everything you need to know about someone’s abilities."
science,"No idea, I'd think that to verify a correlation to 'conscientiousness' as in the big 5 personality construct, they'd technically need to give every person participating the actual test questions for it, which would add a lot to the work that needs to be done. I seems somewhat obvious that 'ability to delay  gratification' is at least an aspect of conscientiousness, but they chose to focus on just this one operationally identifiable aspect rather than that they went off a personality questionnaire as input data.

So my guess is that they just decided that the personality inventory was too broad a scope and maybe not the most suitable test (compared to a practical test, for example) to measure the specific metric of interest for the correlation they were checking for."
science,"> There are different kinds of intelligence. Someone with a natural ability to understand structures and physics may be utterly shit at understanding human facial expressions. [...]

Yes, that's true. And I don't think anyone's claiming that IQ, a single number, could explain *everything* about a person's strengths and weaknesses. Like you said, the data doesn't fit: there are people good at X but bad at Y, and those good at Y but bad at X.

At the same time, sometimes one person is better at X, Y, Z (etc.) and the other person is worse at all of them. Leonardo da Vinci was great at *everything*, and some people are bad at *everything*.

So it seems like you're deliberately ignoring a big part of why people study intelligence in the first place! If everyone was equally intelligent *but in different ways*, then the world would look much different than it does. You wouldn't find people good at everything. You wouldn't find people good at nothing. *But we do.*

> Lots of musicians have trouble understanding math, even though they’re using it every time they write a song.

To gratuitously expand upon my point: aren't you surprised that there are some people good at math *and* music, and some people who are bad at both (and also maybe need to be cared for their entire lives because they can't hold a job)? What do you think explains that? (Please don't say ""social factors"", because we can see these differences even when we control for social factors as hard as we can.)

> Having said all that, my basic point is that reducing these things all down to one number can give you some interesting correlations. 

Be careful to avoid a strawman: IQ ""realists"" are *not* claiming that IQ predicts ""everything"". It is not about reducing ""everything"" down to ""one number"".

It is more about observing that one number does seem, experimentally, to predict rather a lot. Almost as though some brains are different from others in ways other than just ""different zero-sum allocation of a similarly-sized pool of resources"".

Which isn't surprising: after all, humans are better than chimpanzees at *everything* (apart from ""being strong""), and that's uncontroversially caused by genetics.

> But there is a difference between your score on a test, and your actual intelligence (whatever that is).

If there is an ""actual intelligence"", presumably that would affect your life in many ways. Shouldn't it be possible to experimentally detect this?

> My issue is the idea that a single number can really tell you everything you need to know about someone’s abilities.

Again, I think that is a strawman. Nobody (well, nobody here) said anything about ""telling you everything you need to know""."
science,"One interesting observation that has come out of delayed gratification studies is that your willingness to delay gratification reflects, to a large extent, how trusting you are of the authority figure that is promising the future gratification. If you have had bad experiences with authority, you are more likely to take the reward now, and devalue a promise of a reward later.

What seems like impulsiveness can in fact be perfectly rational for someone who expects to be screwed over.

For this study, that would mean that people whose upbringings lead them to trust in authority tend to have higher income, which makes sense."
science,"It is not just about authority.  Exhibit A is people's ability to delay  the instant gratification of junk food/fast food now (and who among us has never faced the temptation of fries, potato chips, alcohol, etc.) versus being healthier and more attractive in the future.  There is no authority that will grant you better health and a better figure if you skip the beer; only your own ability to delay instant gratification."
science,"Yes, that’s real life. But the delayed gratification experiments are artificial situations involving authority figures (such as kids getting marshmallows). What I am saying is that the involvement in the experiment of an authority figure whose trust must be valued may make those experiments unreliable predictors of the ability to make lifestyle choices of the type you describe. Someone could have the ability in real life to work towards their own long-term goals, but still rationally take the immediate reward in an experiment due to distrust.

Also, there are parallels in real life — like believing your teachers when they say studying hard will pay off later. If your experience tells you the world is unfair, that may be harder to rely on.

There is learning on this:

http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=4622
"
science,"That delta between ""reliable"" and ""unreliable"" experimenters is remarkable; 12 vs 3 (mean) minutes to eating the marshmallow.  But I have to ask what they were testing.  You want to isolate a single variable in an experiment.  To me, these two experiments are probing two very different things.

What they showed here is that in an environment where reward is de-linked from effort, people pretty much say fukit; which sounds pretty reasonable.  

It would also suggest that a better variant of the marshmellow test is one where the kids were all first primed with a reliable experimenter bringing the crayons to calibrate the kids'  expectations."
science,"The delayed gratification experiments involved an authority figure, but much of the delayed gratification research nowadays uses things like the Kirby Delay Discounting Task:

https://expfactory-experiments.github.io/kirby

Or some other Intertemporal Choice (ITC) or Temporal Discounting task. These are generally computerized and self-administered. In these tasks, you're asked to make a series of choices between a smaller reward that comes sooner, or a larger reward that would come at a later time. Different types of rewards and time-frames can be used. I've built & used some of these in research myself.

This study used a task just like these, which you can read about in the methods section

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01545/full#h3"
science,"Thanks for that -- interesting. Though a choice between money today and money in the future is still really a choice about what you will receive today -- money or a promise from someone to pay you later. Also, the incentive specified on the first page references a bonus payment based on the choices. So making choices to delay in the test is itself an act of belief in the test-provider (a) not screwing you over in calculating the bonus and (b) actually paying the bonus. I'm sure all this is accounted for by the test providers, but just saying."
science,"I agree, there is still arguably some element of authority. Until such a time that these sorts of transactions are fully automated and totally reliable, there will be a human element and thus an element of trust. But the influence of an imagined authority is probably much less a factor in these experiments than it was in the original marshmallow tests, given the authority has no physical presence (and thus, no markers of ingroup / outgroup status, or other indicators that might lead one to feel they are more or less trustworthy, like the prototypical white lab coat of a scientist)."
science,"I think even in a ""fully automated"" version you will have an element of authority - the subject must trust that the program was written to treat them fairly. ""Presence of an authority"" does not necessarily mean a literal test administrator who is able to choose your outcome at that second, it can also mean the general system in which the test takes place.

An analogue in our laws would be the difference between ""are the laws written to treat everyone fairly?"" and ""are the laws enforced fairly?"" If you mistrust either the authors/interpreters or the enforcers then you don't trust the authority even if the whole thing is automated."
science,"I hear you. Honestly even most small business owners are anti-establishment and don’t trust anyone. I don’t think ambition and individualistic values based on trust issues mean overwhelming failure. I do however believe that instant gratification is counterproductive for anybody. That’s just a given. Nothing comes quick or easy if it’s of high value. Also, I would imagine that many poor, unsuccessful, instantly gratified, and anti-authority people probably became bitter, cynical, and against authority after their life had already played out and they realized their failures in life. There’s also way more people out there who do conform than not conform and get a cushy safe career and don’t ask for much else. "
science,"The marshmaallow study is very racist. 
It first started in trinidad where they tested Indians vs. blacks in trinidad.   the Indians were able to deprive themselves and able to postpone immediate gain for a bigger gain in the future. The black took the smaller reward if they could get it right away whereas the Indian waited if they could get a bigger reward in the future.

 

They have also done this test on blacks and whites in the Caribbean as well as the US multiple times and  the results are always the same when it comes to racial differences in the degree in which they delay  gratification..

This is left out of the wikipedia entries but not from the actual study itself.

http://www.grad.umn.edu/sites/grad.umn.edu/files/experimental_study_in_psycholo_0.pdf"
science,"> The marshmaallow study is very racist. It first started in trinidad where they tested Indians vs. blacks in trinidad. the Indians were able to deprive themselves and able to postpone immediate gain for a bigger gain in the future. The black took the smaller reward if they could get it right away whereas the Indian waited if they could get a bigger reward in the future.
> 
> They have also done this test on blacks and whites in the Caribbean as well as the US multiple times and the results are always the same when it comes to racial differences in the degree in which they delay gratification..

I'm not claiming it's not racist (I haven't read up enough on it to claim such a thing), but I don't see how the rest of your post would indicate that that is the case? Testing various demographics and noticing differences isn't necessarily making normative statements or arguing essentialism. A big difference between between e.g. black and white US habitants doesn't imply racial essentialism; there's other rather obvious reasons why black children might distrust authority more than white people on average."
science,"I don't think 'authority' is the key component here, but rather 'trust'. A person who has suffered misfortune or a lack of good fortune, who occupies the social position of poverty and experiences being treated accordingly, is less likely to be able to trust that a benefit deferred will ever be delivered. As such the calculation made between the immediate small reward and the deferred larger reward changes - the poor person is likelier to value a smaller realised gain over a larger unrealised one."
science,"Millennial here. I know some people who are seriously considering maxing out their debt to enjoy life before everything goes to hell. I'm on the older end of my generation (33 years old) so I can still remember a time when things weren't always on a slow decline, but some younger millennials have never known anything else.

From their perspective, maxing out their debt and ruining their credit forever is the rational choice because it will never get better in the future. For people like me, I have to constantly weigh whether something will pay off in the future or if I'm going to get screwed anyway so fuck it."
science,"I read about this as well, certainly significant but there are many more common scenarios that can be used gauge financial impulsivity. For example, the difference between window shopping and a shopping spree, choosing between an oil change and a night on the town, staying home because you're saving money even though your friends are going to a theme park. Driving your old faithful around for 10+ years though it looks like garbage you can afford a new car.

Most important choices are about having what you want now, or having much more later. "
science,"I don't know the answer to that, to be honest. There are demographic variables related to delay discounting, but these are characteristics that identify populations who in theory have problems with impulsivity -- i.e., people with addictions mostly (gambling, drugs, food). I don't know what credible hypothesis you could make for certain races being higher or lower on trait impulsivity. Socioeconomic status, maybe, and race might be indirectly related to that."
science,"> One interesting observation that has come out of delayed gratification studies is that your willingness to delay gratification reflects, to a large extent, how trusting you are of the authority figure that is promising the future gratification. If you have had bad experiences with authority, you are more likely to take the reward now, and devalue a promise of a reward later.

Well that certainly seems relevant to ethnic/racial minorities work a history and contemporary experiences of discrimination. "
science,"Our entire lives we've  been inundated with multiple ways the world could end in the next 50 years. Climate change, nuclear war, pandemics, asteroids, yellowstone volcano, etc. It's not rational, but a lot of young people really think the world, at least as we know it, will not be around in 50 years.

Edit: also,  the 2008 recession happened at a time many of us were first starting to think about money and economics. We grew up knowing that life savings can be wiped out after a few bad days. "
science,"I'll just chime in since I'm 23: I'm in my last semester of college and poor as dirt. I make enough to *get by* with tutoring in math and being a teaching assistant for a business class - thankfully they pay fairly well - but I'm living essentially on pasta and eggs every day and just barely making enough to pay rent and my bills. 

Now imagine I wasn't lucky enough to have jobs that can pay well on limited hours. I'd have to balance 40 hrs of studying a week with 20 hrs of a minimum wage job that wears out my body/health and potentially with a boss that'll treat me badly. 

I thankfully am in a position where I know that I'll make good money about a year down the line as an actuary, but for people who didn't go into lucrative majors or are stuck working minimum-wage jobs I can see how easy it is to develop a fatalist attitude and just say ""fuck all this shit. I work too hard to make this little progress."" Then after that moment, start smoking or spend what little money they do have on alcohol and drink heavily.

Fatalism doesn't develop from people being lazy, it develops when people work hard for years on end and are no further then when they started; when they look in the mirror 5 or 6 years into their dead-end job and the only thing they have to show for it is male-pattern baldness. It's at that point when you stop caring about your future, because you can't see one where you have the opportunity to be happy."
science,"Or that delayed gratification will make anything better. If the reward might be the same now as in the future, and I want it now, whereas I might not want it in the future, why wouldn't I take it now?

On the trust issue, I don't even think it's about trust in authority. I think it's about faith in general. I see the reward in front of me now. What if circumstances arise that don't allow me to benefit from the reward later?

We treat opportunism as a morally loaded character trait, when not only is it a coping mechanism, it is also a survival strategy."
science,"Yes you do. You need to trust yourself, and in order to do that you need to know you are safe and ok. You can't achieve your goals without believing in yourself, and a good authority figure grants you the ability to do that. If you are a father and Everytime you promise your kid that an achievement Will grant him ""x"" and then you screw them over, or give them ""x"" but take away ""z"" ( where ""z"" is equivalent or greater than ""x"") the kid will not only rationally decide to take the instant and safe reward, but will emotionally feel ""less"" or incapable, because somehow he has ""failed"" and is unable to achieve big goals, Wich require time and the ability to enjoy the small and slow coming rewards."
science,"I highly doubt this would be a factor.  I'll flip it around.  This experiment is normally performed on toddlers and four year olds.  That is an age where parents still exert maximum control over their kids' dietary intake and the kids least likely to have experienced food scarcity are the ones most likely to have a parent obsessing over their nutrition.  For those kids, a marshmallow is more likely to be a rare treat.  "
science,"This reminds me of when they redid the marshmallow experiment and actually tracked the children’s family income. In the original experiment they found that children who could wait for the second marshmallow had better long term outcomes. In the later experiment, they that found that poor kids where less likely to wait, positing that they had less of an ability to “delay gratification” because the poor kids were used to food scarcity and it was wiser, given their life circumstances, not to wait for food to be appear later. "
science,"That's what I'm thinking. One could also frame it as ""the authority of expected results"". Say in the case of eating unhealthily: the expected result of changing this behavior is becoming more fit. However if a person has had some sort of misfortune, like falling ill, heartbreak, theft, loss of a friend, etc. then it makes sense that they dont believe in the expected results for when they do something to better themselves. Even if these things aren't related, typically the tragedy of these losses outweigh the benefits of working to keep oneself alive and/or happy in the immediate. If enough of these happen when one is young, not even mentioning the human authorities that may fall short in ones lifetime, then it is understandable that people want to leave their endeavors with what they can get immediately."
science,"What are you talking about? I'm not talking about houses or all that luxury crap. I'm talking about choosing between investing or getting meds or getting food or getting fuel. Pick one. Two if you're lucky. Three if you have family you can rely on like me.

The people I was talking about are racking up debt so they can feed themselves and stay alive. Meanwhile, the rich get richer and bootlickers come into this thread to insist that the economy is great using cherry-picked stats."
science,"No.

I had used ""skipping the beer"", because the poster I was responding to had ""trust in authority"" as a possible explanation in the marshmallow test.  That did not seem right to me; because it assumes that the test subjects are automatons that respond solely to extrinsic forces and not intrinsic ones.  They posted a follow up reference to a variation of the test which did show that the results of the teat can strongly correspond to whether or not the experimenter has a history of being reliable ad following through with promises made to the subject. The experiment design was not strictly measuring the same thing as the raw marshmallow test.  It was more of an experiment about how people react to unreliable factors.

My original example was just to point out that ""not everything involves authority"" and somehow this subthread became about how food security might affect the experiment."
science,"Something like that wouldn't invalidate the study. It would just limit the external validity of its conclusions. Just like the arguments made above regarding trust in authority figures. 

An interesting second step to these studies would be to assess how anxiety or other forms of percieved threat hinder one's capacity to act with delayed gratification in mind. And it wouldn't be too difficult. Just determine a baseline with a threat free environment and then engage them in a sort of zero-sum game."
science,"I just experienced this 10 minutes ago.  I get 3 squares of dark chocolate a day, my ""ration.""  I just ate lunch.  I looked at the chocolate, and opted for some chewing gum instead so I could enjoy the chocolate later on as a treat, instead of right after I ate when my tummy is full of real food.

This is not an innate behavior for me.  I was raised on accessible Little Debbie cakes and learned to be an emotional eater as a teenager.  Took a lot of time to relearn the appropriate habits.  And data helps - by treating my own body with numbers, I was able to take control of it and slowly whittle it back down to size.  

Delayed gratification has helped me lose 90 lbs. "
science,"It's like when parents encourage their kids to not eat all their Halloween candy at once, and when the kid does this the parents steal a piece of the kid's candy from time to time...and when the kid decides to eat their candy they kid may notice the amount of candy is less than it was before:

""Wait, I used to have 100 pieces of candy, my parents told me to wait, now I have 90 pieces? Because I did what my parents told me to do, I now have less candy than before? I'd better eat all my candy now so I don't lose any more candy!""

So instead of a good ""teaching your child delayed gratification"" lesson, we are teaching our kids ""if you don't take the reward now, you will have less reward later"". Great job, parents!"
science,"Can you link a study with that sort of observation?

The reason I ask is because in my personal experiences, people with high incomes don't usually don't *expect* anything from anyone.  It seems like they have the attitude of ""I'm going to get what I want and you can't stop me.""


Also... If this observation is true (about people being raised to trust authority), then it seems that our message to the younger generations would be more important than ever.  We would want to he careful not to create biases within them and let them have an equal run at life. "
science,"The study I linked does specifically find that genetics is a big factor in time preference. We also know that genetics play a big role in IQ, conscientousness, violent criminality, and all kinds of traits that push people towards the lower or higher ends of the socioeconomic ladder.

I'm skeptical that ""social mobility"" is actually falling - at least for high IQ people. If you're right, then we should see a decreasing correllation between IQ and SES, as more and more bright but underprivileged kids can't escape poverty. But as I recall from reading Coming Apart, the reverse is actually the case. The smartest people get brain-drained out of poor communities, further impoverishing the communities but enriching the lucky few. For people without smarts or the ability to delay gratification, social mobility hurts more than it helps."
science,"Its probably just what the top poster said and it has to do with a distrust in authority figures (i.e. the government, corporations. Etc) everywhere we look it seems as if they're are screwing everyone over mainly financially but also in regards to climate change and other issues. I'm in my late twenties and in the middle of going back to school and part of me wonders whats the point sometimes and while I don't think I would ever do it sometimes I fantasize  about taking all my savings and spending it all on a vacation or quitting school and my job and just taking a roadtrip across the U.S."
science,"Yes, absolutely, I came here to say something along these lines. We know from extensive research that ability to delay gratification is strongly associated with having a safe, stable, middle-income or better home, where having one's needs met is pretty much a given. Trust in the ability to securely delay gratification is a prerequisite for developing the skills to delay gratification, so really, we're just back 'round to square one with this. "
science,"There is a school of thought which states that this is the foundation of ethical values in the individual, which becomes self-reinforcing as they interact with others.

In other words: If you can trust that your needs will be met you are more likely to respect others, which motivates them to in turn respect you. If you feel that your needs won't be met without being selfish then that perpetuates a hostile/dysfunctional instant-gratification environment."
science,"I think we're probably talking about the same thing, then.

>The just-world hypothesis or just-world fallacy is the cognitive bias (or assumption) that a person's actions are inherently inclined to bring morally fair and fitting consequences to that person, to the end of all noble actions being eventually rewarded and all evil actions eventually punished. In other words, the just-world hypothesis is the tendency to attribute consequences to—or expect consequences as the result of—a universal force that restores moral balance. This belief generally implies the existence of cosmic justice, destiny, divine providence, desert, stability, or order, and has high potential to result in fallacy, especially when used to rationalize people's misfortune on the grounds that they ""deserve"" it.

>The hypothesis popularly appears in the English language in various figures of speech that imply guaranteed negative reprisal, such as: ""you got what was coming to you"", ""what goes around comes around"", ""chickens come home to roost"", and ""you reap what you sow"". This hypothesis has been widely studied by social psychologists since Melvin J. Lerner conducted seminal work on the belief in a just world in the early 1960s. Research has continued since then, examining the predictive capacity of the hypothesis in various situations and across cultures, and clarifying and expanding the theoretical understandings of just-world beliefs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis"
science,"Absolutely, I came here to bring this up.

There are a lot of uncontrollable factors that are not controlled for.

In my house, for example, there were 6 kids. There is no such thing as delayed gratification. If there is one piece of cake left on the table, it is not going to be there the next day, this is a 100% fact. We all learned that we have to get while the getting's good, otherwise, you will not get shit. If you don't want that piece of pie tonight, because you are full, and put it in the refridgerator for tomorrow night, and you tell everyone NOT to eat it because it is *yours* and you want to eat it tomorrow night because you're full tonight....do you think that piece of pie is actually going to be there tomorrow night? No. Fuck no. And when you are indignant about it and feeling outraged, and demand to know which one of your 5 siblings ate your pie, do you think they are going to speak up and admit it? No. Fuck no.

Get while the getting's good. Maybe YOU were born an only child that got whatever you want handed to you on a silver tray, but for the rest of us out here, life's a jungle, you eat what you kill."
science,"When Boomers were born, the population of the world was less than half what it is today. Yes, everybody was worried about those problems 50 years ago, but they haven't gotten LESS likely (except maybe nuclear war). The planet is now groaning under the weight of so many people. There are likely to be major wars over basic resources like water within the next 30 years as population keeps growing in Africa and India and climate change and human overuse causes slow ecologic collapse. Hell, we've already caused ecologic collapse in what used to be be major sources of food - like the collapse of the Northwest Atlantic cod fishery."
science,">Driving your old faithful around for 10+ years though it looks like garbage you can afford a new car.

Except, if one is truly careful, as you seem to write, then there's no way a car should ever look like garbage, with the sole exception if someone hits your car or a tree falls over and crushes it. Or maybe if you have kids shitting and puking all over it, but then, that would be the exact same as a 1-year-old car, no difference between a 10-year -old pukemobile and a 1-year-old pukemobile, so same either way. But in the case of damage due to being hit, even then you have insurance, and because you're careful and frugal, you will easily have enough money saved to cover the $500 deductible if it is dented up, or have enough money to get a new used car if it is totalled.

If one is careful, there's no reason their car won't look just fine. Not like a one-day old car, but a 15-year-old car can look like a 1-year-old car."
science,"I had a very fast metabolism as a child and parents who were worried about providing too much food. 

I did accept and seek out free food like no other until my income increased. 

This didn't impact my savings rate too much. 

---

Also anecdotes do not define trends or overall patterns. If you focus on edge cases at the exclusion of the overall patterns you end up with flawed knowledge. "
science,"Good point. And if we go further, tying that into childhood experiences with one's primary caregiver, impulsiveness is seen also as a coping mechanism. A child is in a state where one's caregiver is really the ultimate authority not only over one's survival but also one's inherent sense of value and eventual self-esteem. If you were neglected as a child, then this would be understood as a form of abandonment, which is catastrophic to a child. It manifests as anxiety, the fear of abandonment, which morphs into self-hatred, what we call shame. Being screwed over during childhood leads to the expectation of being screwed over, which in turn makes you perceive yourself as unherently unworthy of having your needs met. By the time we develop our own self-concept and self-esteem, it is defined by the absence of value and an all too present anxiety and fear of loss. So instant gratification, consciously is met by the expectation of loss, is also a coping mechanism, a short term pleasure to deal with the anxiety of the fear of loss and abandonment. This is a traumatic state, and it's also what underpins addiction as well. "
science,"Not that the world is going to end in 20 years, but that they won't be able to get anywhere in 20 years. My grandmother was telling a story the other day about how she worked overtime, 10 hours a day, every Saturday and most Sundays because she was ""only"" making $15/hour as a paralegal in the 80s, and so that overtime really helped her out. She was saying that people today don't want to work for what they want, etc. What she doesn't understand is that paralegals in my area TODAY make $15/ hour, but that $15 went a HELL of a lot further in 1985 than it does in 2018. "
science,"I believe they also recently started disproving the instant gratification theory? There was a study recently that repeated the very well known marshmallow test among children and found that the original conclusions were drawn too broadly.

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/observer/obsonline/a-new-approach-to-the-marshmallow-test-yields-complex-findings.html

The TL;DR is that the whole situation is far more complicated than one factor and that, yes, our 'delaying gratification means more money in the long run' view does tend to look very (and unfairly) disparagingly on those from poverty."
science,"Yes, I agree that not all means of delayed gratification \*in life\* involve an authority figure, but it's hard to design a test that doesn't include one -- and thus, is testing the delay in gratification rather than trust in authority.  Later tests have tried by showing the authority figure to be reliable (or unreliable).

I guess you could have them choose between $20 now or $25 in a locked box with a countdown timer that will open in a week. But they still need to believe it will open in a week.

This study explores the topic: [http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=4622](http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=4622)"
science,"This is the sort of doom & gloom peddling people are on about though. 

Major wars over basic resources? How long have wars been fought over energy resources ? The supply of gas into europe has been the primary reason for all of the recent wars in the middle east with the interests of Iran/KSA/Qatar/Russia vying against each other. 

Cod was overfarmed in the North Sea by the UK (and Iceland when allowed), wiping out 90% of the population... we put strict quotas on it and now its recovered AND being ""sustainably harvested"". 

Lessons were learned from the Northwest Atlantic cod fishery

Population? Declining in 'first world' nations. The increases are coming in 'third world nations' and their emigration. Asian countries have a vastly larger population density than the west and are sustainable. "
science,"So, then, the black community at large that glorifies and encourages disrespect of authority figures and worships a culture of instant gratification ala drug dealing criminal rappers can actually be blamed for their own plight? Perhaps if this cycle stopped and the parents started encouraging their kids to trust police and authority figures? Or was this another way to say they still get a free pass because whitey is keeping them down? "
science,"Things aren't on a slow decline. You only think that because of perception bias. Things are actually better than they have ever been, and are continually getting better every day.  


Seriously. All evidence, all science, supports this. Things are getting much better. Its just, you don't know how bad things were a long time ago, and when you were a child you didn't know about bad things going on then. So it FEELS like there's a lot more shit now, but really really really there isn't.  


Have hope, be optimistic. We are trending ever upwards. Better standard of living, longer life, less murder, everything is getting better. It just takes a looooong time so its easy to make mistakes of perception bias."
science,"Chicken, meet egg. 

If the parents have learned that society and authority cannot be trusted to look after their best interest either from their own parents or by actual experience, how can they reasonably be expected to demonstrate anything different to their children.

I think people are ascribing a lot of causality to the correlation between wealth and delaying gratification, but a lot of studies have shown that the variables can change independently and targeting the ability to delay gratification doesn't appear to have a clear impact on social mobility, and when taking larger sample sizes and consideration for background factors the results are far less pronounced.
 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797618761661

And an article describing the above study:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/new-research-marshmallow-test-suggests-delayed-gratification-doesnt-equal-success-180969234/
"
science,"You are going to have to state source on that. I have always believed what this result says but I have always voiced it differently. Those who think with ration rather than emotion do better in life. Emotion should inform your rational decision making but you should never make a decision that primarily an emotional one. Emotional decisions lead you to make rash choices or decide for instant gratification. I firmly believe that instant gratification decisions are made because people believe someone else (the authority figure or government) will pull them out of the pickle they get themselves into. I think people who decide to make decisions geared to the long haul are the ones who decide to do it themselves, not the other way around."
science,"This, right here. I haven't stopped working since I was 16, between part time jobs, to full-time in the summer at an industrial paint hangar to pay for college, failing in Mechanical Engineering. Before I switched to business, I had this godawful lingering fear that I was going to fail out of college and end up working there for the rest of my life, and I absolutely hated it. Every day I drove across a bridge to get to work, and every day before and after work my only comfort was the thought that I would someday park my car on the bridge and jump off, because it was all downhill from here, and I was already deep in a valley.

For anyone who now feels the same way, you should know, it *did* get better, but that's because I worked hard *and* was lucky enough to have a path to success. Most people already have the first part of that down pat, but the second part is harder and harder to find these days, and even then, I've only achieved a limited measure of success, in that I have a job that pays decent money, but I'm still cranking on my student loans, and I will be for the next 20 years, which is going to keep me from being able to buy a house or have kids, possibly forever.

I look around sometimes and think, ""It wasn't supposed to be this way, I was supposed to graduate and get a great job and be able to afford to live"" and still sometimes I think that I'm going to be stuck like this for the rest of my life. But I try to keep it in perspective, that I thought that before, and it did get better."
science,"This works as more of a corelation than causation model, 
I agree but I would say it is far from fallacy. However delaying gratification without a goal where does that fit in a model. People who are scared to travel with money or scared to spend, or celebrate victories, achieved certification, got doctorate etc. I know money is the easy model here but there are lots of problematic scenarios that point to gross amounts of stress triggers and high anxiety. Even disorders like certain types of hoarding can be tied to this.
Basically a fear of scarcity can be tied to the same type of behavior. "
science,"I'd say it's worse with both authority figures teaming up on you. During childhood I'd get in trouble over extremely petty things, like talking during lunch time or not eating lunch and then getting complaints from my parents to the school of how I brought back lunch.so they both figured I should just eat lunch by myself and not talk to any of my classmates. It was so disheartening seeing my parents go off the advice of the teachers who didn't like me to just keep me out of their class and then my parents adding fuel to the fire by never fighting back on how I was being excluded. That's worse because you really trust no body."
science,">One interesting observation that has come out of delayed gratification studies is that your willingness to delay gratification reflects, to a large extent, how trusting you are of the authority figure that is promising the future gratification. If you have had bad experiences with authority, you are more likely to take the reward now

Reminds me of this post by Math Babe on the Marshmallow test ([something that's been in the news recently btw](https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jun/01/famed-impulse-control-marshmallow-test-fails-in-new-research)):

>[So, for example, I’ve long thought that the “marshmallow” experiment is nearly universally misunderstood: kids wait for the marshmallow for exactly as long as it makes sense to them to wait. If they’ve been brought up in an environment where delayed gratification pays off, and where the rules don’t change in the meantime, and where they trust a complete stranger to tell them the truth, they wait, and otherwise they don’t – why would they? But since the researchers grew up in places where it made sense to go to grad school, and where they respect authority and authority is watching out for them, and where the rules once explained didn’t change, they never think about those assumptions. They just conclude that these kids have no will power.](https://mathbabe.org/2014/11/03/hand-to-mouth-and-the-rationality-of-the-poor/)

Now the flip side of this is understanding just exactly how wealthy people come to obtain their wealth. Dean Baker:

>[This paper argues that the bulk of this upward redistribution comes from the growth of rents in the
economy in four major areas: patent and copyright protection, the financial sector, the pay of CEOs
and other top executives, and protectionist measures that have boosted the pay of doctors and other
highly educated professionals](http://cepr.net/documents/working-paper-upward-distribution-income-rents.pdf)

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that being successful doesn't oftentimes require taking the initiative to plan ahead and spending your time productively with your nose in the books. Only that these conservative types, who emphasis hard work and will power, often look the other way when it comes to the important issues being mentioned above."
science,"> Previous generations were not ""more able to combine incomes"", the two-income household has been a big, socially-relevant thing for like 35 years tops, dude.

Which encompasses all of Generation X and a significant portion of Baby Boomers. 


> And given how weddings are ridiculously expensive, as are divorces, not-getting-married is a perfectly fine financial decision.

I never said anything about weddings. I'm talking about marriage. You can get married for less than $50 in most places. But nowadays people want extravagant weddings, shown by the average wedding cost being in excess of $30,000. It's also important to note that even adjusting for inflation, the average wedding today is significantly more expensive than past decades."
science,"Except income doesn't always come by way of some promise from a higher authority. What about business entrepreneurs, who invest in their businesses, instead of squandering their capital on a new car or a bigger TV. 

People who make a lot of money are seldom just employees. They are business owners, independent consultants, and the like. Or if they are employed, they are people in managerial positions, or high performers. 

Either way, the ability to delay gratification appears to be the predictor."
science,"To further complicate matters, there's a lot more to making those choices than immediate vs. delayed gratification. Time, money, energy and convenience, peer pressure and other social forces, the advertising industry, the stories and other cultural artifacts we consume and the aggregate depiction of normality they project, and on and on. 

In some cases there's an authority; in some cases, not. But in no case is there ever ""only your own ability"" to do anything. If you think you've isolated all the variables, you haven't considered enough variables."
science,"Things are okay, I got kicked out of the house when my dad was drunk and he started a fight with me over the internet bill. Threw my clothes on the floor and now I'm just living with my friends. But I guess I've always known that my parents will blame me and never take my side. 

There was a time where I got assaulted and the police called my home phone and they picked up and shouted and yelled at me basically acting like the police wanted me when in reality they were helping me. I can't really love people like that who will assume guilt at the first sign."
science,"Yeah I gotta say, I’m a pretty hippie-ish tree hugger but I’m also in a really tough spot right now, we’ve always been paycheck to paycheck and the water is starting to creep up to my chin if prices on everything don’t stop going up. I care about climate change and stuff, I worry for my son and his kids and polar bears, but my only immediate concern is how cold Michigan is going to be when I’m homeless. "
science,"And of course you know when 'back then' was. Or where.

Dude, get a grip.

I am 40 years old and he died 3 years ago. 

From 1941 to 1975 he was literally just the tire guy on the south shore of Montreal and paid for what I am saying. In 1976 his boss got sick and gramps got a loan to buy the the tire shop. 

Then in 1994 he sold it to my father.

Everything in my post is 100% factual. Not sure why you think it isn't, but I am sure there are tons of examples exactly like this.

Anyone else care to share their story? Similar or polar opposite.

"
science,"Fewer words, 'monkey brain', the cerebellum.

Monkeys in the wild are constantly working because they have no ability to preserve and store food, besides there is massive inter-monkey competition, because they are dealing with a rapidly blooming then rotting food supply. 

Delayed gratification would be suicide.

Monkeys in the city are more circumspect. They will delay gratification while they puzzle out how to rob a bigger prize. Also they have become clever grifters, feeding off uncovered food, unsuspecting tourists and the temples.

Still, delayed gratification would mean eating out of dumpsters.

Monkeys in the zoo are overfed and masturbate all the time, (like government workers and religious leaders).  Delayed gratification is fine, because they will always be fed tomorrow, and the next day, and the next day.

Then there are the human monkeys: [http://pamelynferdin.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/monkey-chains.jpg](http://pamelynferdin.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/monkey-chains.jpg) 

Human monkeys delay gratification until they retire, then realize that their entire life was shackled to wage-slavery,  their bodies are wracked and ruined, and the meager savings they acquired will now be stolen by clever monkeys in the eldercare warehousing prison racket, where inmates are chemically strait-jacketed in front of The Price is Right.

Don't be a shackled wage-slave chemically strait-jacketed monkey. Gratify the shit out of your life. Just do it."
science,"Well you already contradicted yourself in just two posts.

>All that on the salary of a guy who fixed flat tires for 50 years...

>No exaggeration.

>From 1941 to 1975

34 years, not 50, and then we are to believe your grandpa went from being a ""tire guy"" to a full on business owner...?

Do you even know what owning and running a business entails? Your grandpa did not go from just fixing tires to owning a business. You are grossly selling him short for the actual work he would have been putting in because if he wasn't helping out with every other aspect of that business as soon as he took over it would have failed.

His official job when he was hired was to fix tires, but over the years I 100% guarantee you he had a hand in every single aspect of that business or he would have never been able to buy it.
"
science,">One interesting observation that has come out of delayed gratification studies is that your willingness to delay gratification reflects, to a large extent, how trusting you are of the authority figure that is promising the future gratification.


This is interesting. It would obviously apply to any given situation on a spectrum, right? For instance, it would be a heavy influence in a workplace situation where your manager is saying ""just do this and I promise you'll get a raise later."" 


However, you'd assume it would be nearly a non-factor when talking about trusting financial institutions to save and invest money.


The latter statement is what I immediately considered when reading the study - the ""Millionaire Next Door"" approach, where income level doesn't really matter as long as you are spending less than your income in observable reality."
science,"This mindset is infuriating. You can see it whenever a discussion around finding jobs comes up on reddit.

To some people, dropping everything you have right now, moving to a new place with ""better"" job prospects, cutting out your entire social network and safety nets, and burning away all of your savings for a chance at finding something marginally better is clearly the best solution.

Oh, and if you don't think that's a good idea, you're a slacker and a failure and should be accepting of your place in life. People who seem to treat others' circumstances as a failure of character reflects more on them than the ones they criticize."
science,"I don't think those friends are wealthy

What I find is those who spend often seem to be surprised when I say I can buy a new item for 600$ when I need it, instead of them who try to scrounge for second hand or renting one or owing people stuff later. I actually had a friend sell another friend a second hand item for 150$ and I said that's dumb, this thing is 15 years old and falling apart. Makes much more sense to buy a new unit, perfectly clean and under warranty, new features, new methods, etc. She was completely floored I could just come up and with that kind of money. By context she makes double what I do. She just lives way above her means. Her rent is 4x mine (and both her and her boyfriend work well paying jobs), place is smaller but affluent area, and she insists that's better because networking. I save half my paycheques though and I get to do whatever I want instead of constantly chasing more money though.

I just view it all as unneeded stress. Those who spend a lot seem to be really unhappy and stressed, and even if they make a lot more money, they somehow have less financial stability, less control, less time. It's just a silly rat race."
science,"I didn’t know I wouldn’t be approved by the financial aid department. I talked to the department numerous times along the way, each time hearing that I would receive the aid when the time came for it to be disbursed. The way the school works is that first time borrowers don’t receive their aid until the last day of the summer semester, which is when I enrolled. It’s not an expensive education, it’s a technical degree. 

I’m finishing my degree at the end of the year, so I will have a job by January of next year, but my only option before going to school was stocking shelves at a grocery store, which has no long term viability - I would have been accumulating even more debt. Also I am going to pay the debt off eventually, as I actually earn more money and am not living paycheck to paycheck.  

I’m just arguing with you because you make it seem like everything is black and white - like it MUST be my fault that I ended up with debt. I didn’t overlook anything - I’m just going to be paying off debt for a while I work.  I would have even more debt if I just tried to work in grocery for the entire year before starting college. At least I’ll be employable at the end of the year, in this case. "
science,"Because someone who is genetically predisposed to poverty cannot be helped out of it - welfare won't make them fare any better. Moreover, ascribing poverty to moral failure makes charity redundant, even self-defeating. You're essentially taking the position that there are no deserving poor, only people getting the just desserts of their poor character. And you aren't 'punishing' them. You're simply leaving them to their natural fate.

Note, I don't hold these views - I'm just illustrating how they form a self-sustaining rationale for selfishness."
science,"I read the abstract of your paper. You are operating under the flawed assumption that patience is always a virtue. It is not. Under many circumstances, given sufficient resources, taking the long view is beneficial. However, when resources are constrained, when conditions are unstable - then patience could be catastrophic. As such, attempting to take the long view in order to escape poverty could be a high risk strategy, and while there will be some who succeed, there will be others whose material position may be worsened by the attempt (for instance, taking on large amounts of debt to get an education can be extremely risky), that you are not considering."
science,"There was a study which revisited the Marshmallow study, specifically because the Marshmallow study wasn't very well controlled nor was the sample size very large. The replication of the study found the results significantly weaker than the original study, when using far larger and more diverse sample pools. In addition, when they corrected for the samples, the link between delayed gratification and success was far far less. 

It turns out that those children who came from economically successful families tended to do better on the delayed gratification test as well as had brighter futures than those children who came from poorer and less educated families.   
[The Study](http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797618761661?journalCode=pssa&)

Your final thought could equally be explained with: People who come from higher income families tend have financial stability, those with financial stability tend to trust in authority, and those with financial stability tend to have higher income. "
science,"Your original replies made it sound like you had totally given up on the concept of paying off your debt. You also made it sound like your income wasn't going to increase substantially in the near future. Given that neither of these is the case then it sounds like you are on a reasonable track to improve your life. I'd still recommend looking into someone like Dave Ramsey but it sounds like your future isn't nearly as bleak as you made it out to be originally. Again, best of luck to you with whatever you decide to do. Stay strong and stick to your plan and get of debt. 
"
science,"Well in my case, I don't mean truly ""wealthy. These were simply middle, upper middle class folks. I grew up in a teachers family of five and we were more properly positioned as lower middle class. Chasing my friend's way of life burned everything I could make.

Same could be said for someone who's poor and hangs with lower middle/middle class folks. My point was that its easy to get sucked into someone else's ""normal"" and never be able to achieve anything beyond the station one is born to."
science,"I think you're misunderstanding the concept of time preference. Having low time preference doesn't mean you're going to stupidly ignore a safe immediate windfall in favor of an uncertain and risky future gamble. It simply means that you are better able to delay instant gratification when and if there is a long term benefit to doing so. 

There's really not a question about which is the better trait to have in a modern society. Low time preference is correllated with better professional, educational, and family outcomes. High time preferences is correllated with criminality, illegitimacy, substance abuse, and unstable work life. This is corroborated by the OP's study."
science,"> She just lives way above her means

that is exactly my point. ftr, I said ""wealthier"" not ""wealthy"". It's a small distinction, but a critical one. It can be used to describe someone who is poor but hangs with middle class folk or middle class and hangs with literally rich folk. Hanging with those who are outside one's income level can easily lead one (and often does) to behaviors that *are* ""living above their means"", and that behavior almost inevitably leads to problems

As for expenditures, sometimes one can't purchase the $600 item and has to settle for the $150 item, simply because one doesn't have $600 to invest like you do. Sometimes it's best to simply go without instead of purchasing either the $600 or $150 item.

case in point: I really want a canoe. I used to love canoeing. I still  love canoeing. But I have no partner (ie GF/wife) and few friends who enjoy that kind of recreation. So why am I going to spend upwards of $700-$1000+ for a canoe I won't be using? (before you suggest a kayak,  note, part of what I love about canoeing is the partnership element. doing something with someone ) "
science,"\> Day trading 

​

Even short term investing is still delaying gratification compared to spending all earnings immediately.

​

\> Hyperinflation. 

​

Can have a number of causes, most of which have little or nothing to do with instant gratification, and can;t honestly be looked as a reasonable strategy for success for anyone.

​

\>  Casual or hire-and-fire employment 

...while generally not the most successful overall strategy, is part of a long term strategy. It does not result in immediate gain for anyone."
science,"There was a study like this quoted in the book, “The Power of Habit”. A group of kids were told they could eat a cookie now or wait 20 minutes and receive 2 cookies. Only a fraction of the kids were able to hold out and get the 2 cookies. The same group that did the study followed the kids about 15 years later and found that all of them were making a higher income than those that succumbed to the instant gratification."
science,"I suspect that you are on to something there. This would definitely jive with the ""data"" that allegedly shows a higher incidence of violence in ""African American communities"" which conveniently ignore other factors such as community income, education and upward mobility (or lack thereof). I try not to be too quick to lump these things together, but it is growing increasingly difficult to separate these days.

I do have to say that I was very convinced by the study for years after I heard about it, and I only started to question it after hearing about this 2018 study. I mean, the confounding factors seem really obvious to me when they are pointed out, so I should probably be cautious that I'm not being impacted by confirmation bias, but I would like to think that I would accept new evidence that refutes it."
science,"Your comments are passing glibly over huge arrays of variability. Not everyone assesses risk the same way. Not everyone has the resources to bear risk equally. All long term investments are 'risky' - and future returns are intrinsically less valuable than immediate ones, which is what discounting calculations are for. The rate at which an individual discounts investments is linked directly to the degree of risk they experience (greater for people in more poverty) and their ability to bear that risk (lower for people in more poverty). That's not to say that most people are consciously calculating the net present value of each decision!

Really, not being poor is the better trait to have in a modern society. With that relief from immediate pressures and the insulation from catastrophic risk that greater wealth provides, people are both freed to make better decisions and protected from the worst consequences of making bad ones.

Also, illegitimacy? Are you some 19th century eugenicist?"
science,"But the facts say that poor people do spend a much bigger portion of their income on instant gratification items.  

Of course there are underlying causes to the poor decision making but I’ll never understand why Reddit insists that poor people have zero responsibility for their lot in life.  

It’s certainly more difficult for poor children to develop good habits and move up the socioeconomic latter but it’s very doable.  There are literally millions of people (myself included) who grew up poor and went on to be successful.  

It’s honestly insulting in my mind that Reddit acts like poor people are completely helpless and incapable of improving their own lives...  "
science,"This phenomenon is likely behind a large number of cases where individuals decided not to invest whereby that investment had it been taken would have resulted in such individuals becoming independently wealthy. This also happened to me, specifically because trust had been previously lost due to a scam. Trust is the most important determining factor in delayed gratification. If an individual has difficulty trusting others then it is possible that individual will not delay gratification based upon the promises of others. Teachers, doctors, parents and significant others are the main sources of trust. Once trust is lost it is very hard to recover."
science,"The 150-600$ item was a dishwasher mind you. Which actually is a really good investment.

Want to save money? If I eat out it is 600-1200$ a month. If I do groceries some months me and my SO eat for 200$ a month. Holy hell that is so worth it monetarily. You also eat a lot healthier! However you are making a large time investment to plan meals, do groceries, learn to cook, to do the cooking, and to do the cleaning. Buying a dishwasher saves time on cleaning, it also makes cooking home made meals less of a pain now, and therefore more positively associated in your head, more likely for you to do."
science,"Passing a test is absolutely tied to authority.  Who decides you need a test?  Who creates the test?  Who decides if you passed?  Who rewards you for passing?  Everything about testing is about proving yourself to an authority so that you can be rewarded/punished accordingly.

And skill is a whole other mess.  For a start, skill isn't necessarily delayed gratification.  A lot of people learn their skills through repeated instant gratification (ie; drawing out of boredom and ending up being a skilled artist) while people who learn skills through delayed gratification will very often do so due to the influence of an authority--whether it's a parent forcing you to study, or an employer saying they'll only hire people with X skill.
Most people *aren't* going to spend more than a few weeks studying something they don't already enjoy unless they fully trust that they will be rewarded (by an authority) in the end."
science,"I'm talking about conditions under which short-termism is favoured.  Let me explain further using the examples that are easiest to articulate.

Instant gratification doesn't cause hyperinflation - but it's a good example of a situation under which short-termist strategies will outperform. This is because your money is literally worth more now than it will be tomorrow. Any delay in spending it results in you being able to buy less with it.

Living under casual employment or under hire-and-fire conditions, embarking upon a long-term investment in your future can easily be disincentivised because the uncertainty of employment means that you will be unlikely to reach your goal. Such a failure would waste the money, time and effort that you had put in up to the point of failure."
science,"Whether long-term investments are worth the risk in this or that situation is besides the point. Everyone deals with situations where they are better off taking 'one in the hand over two in the bush', and everyone deals with situations where they would benefit from delaying gratification. The point is that people who have an easier time delaying gratification will be better equipped to make the best decision in all of those situationns. Not just the ones that require years long risky investments. 

And again, it's not controversial that low time preference is a major advantage in today's world. It doesn't matter if there are some anecdotal cases where living by the seat of your pants pays off, because statistally we know that taking the long view and being prudent with your money is what pays off in the overwhelming majority of cases. 

And it also isn't controversial that there are genetic factors that predispose some people to being better or worse at delaying gratification. So it is simply false to assert that differences in ability to delay gratification is purely a learned behavior, inflicted on the poor by the Unjust World. Some people are worse at thinking ahead, this tends to keep them poor, and their children also inherit these traits genetically. There may be social causes as well, but I'm not seeing you cite any research supporting your theories. And coming up with a theory to explain something that is already fully explainable by established facts is bad science.

And finally, yes ""illegitimacy"" is the correct term. Being born to a single mother is one of the worst risk factors for poverty in adulthood, so it is a relevant data to look at in this conversation."
science,">Instant gratification doesn't cause hyperinflation - but it's a good example of a situation under which short-termist strategies will outperform.

Only as it related to possession of cash. Quickly investing the cash in commodities that will grow in value in a hyperinflation situation is still a more profitable long term strategy than immediate consumption.

> Living under casual employment or under hire-and-fire conditions, embarking upon a long-term investment in your future can easily be disincentivised because the uncertainty of employment means that you will be unlikely to reach your goal.

That simply isn't true long-term investment does not require remaining with a single employer, and is still a preferable long term strategy if one changes jobs frequently."
science,"It was an error regarding how the FAFSA was interpreted. I had always received financial aid up to that point. 

I put that at the beginning of the 2017-2018 school year I would be working on a professional degree, which is true because at the time I was in a professional graduate school. When I dropped out of grad school, they took half my financial aid back, and I had to reapply for FAFSA at the technical college. 

When I applied for FAFSA at the technical college (I even filled it out in front of a FAFSA counselor), they said to leave it as said answer because that was true, I just changed schools. I continued to check back with the financial aid department to make sure I would get my financial aid refund, and they said everything was fine.  

Fast forward to 3 days after the semester as well as the scheduled disbursement time and the school says they can’t honor my FAFSA because I’m not pursuing a professional degree - it’s only a diploma program. "
science,"Look i'm not even going to harp on why this was from you getting bad advice and bad decision making on your part. Bottom line is you're depressed and had some unfortuante events happen in your life. you're still in school and you still got a roof over your head.. is it really that bad?

You have a technical degree that can land you a nice job. You know what will prevent you from getting a job? A bad credit report (yes that matters). You're well on your way to getting a bad credit report because you think it's hopeless to even try to not spend $50 on yourself. You're not going to get a good job with a bad credit report and then you'll just continue the self-fulfilling prophecy. if you don't want to tough it out and literally eat ramen for the next 6-12 months and not have fun at all to save your credit then i don't know why you're trying so hard to get this degree to make it work. if you don't want to try anymore then just stop going school and just go back to stocking shelves or being a waiter."
science,"Okay. I just want to know. If you all of a sudden had $10,000 of credit card debt and $250 left after all bills have been paid, would you seriously just give up everything in your entire life just to pay off your credit card debt? Or would you, like me, budget $50 or so a month of that leftover money to spend on things that make you happy, instead of putting 100% of it toward your credit card bill.  Also, it’s not going to be 6-12 months before I pay off my credit. $250 is about how much disposable cash I’ll have left after paying the minimum on my credit card and all other monthly bills (electric, internet, etc), and that’s working 60-72 hours a week. 

Also, my credit score is above 750 right now, so I’m not too worried about having bad credit. I pay all of my bills, I just have the credit debt remaining. "
science,"Most people who say things like that have no idea of the history that manufactured much of our country's (edit: should have specified US before) poverty, and will feign knowledge when rebutted. I can't claim some special knowledge of all the world's history, but know enough of it, especially as it respects my country (the US) and the struggle of the working poor, to say that the just-world fallacy is that simply: a fallacy.

I am glad for the (extraordinarily tarnished) silver spoon I was given at birth, and, while, I neglected it in my youth, will ensure that my children understand the weight placed upon them by being born with so much."
science,"> Also, my credit score is above 750 right now, so I’m not too worried about having bad credit. I pay all of my bills, I just have the credit debt remaining.

And at the same time credit scores are supposed to be spent up to a certain point Having a high credit score but high interest rate debt that could be bankrupted is an interesting dilemma... one that oh wait a financial advisor could help you make decisions on.

>Or would you, like me, budget $50 or so a month of that leftover money to spend on things that make you happy

That's actually $60 after accounting for credit card interests of 22% and compounds every month... so....

>If you all of a sudden had $10,000 of credit card debt and $250 left after all bills have been paid, would you seriously just give up everything in your entire life just to pay off your credit card debt?

Obviously I'm not telling you to give everything.. including school for cc debt. All I'm saying is if you're spending money on school for a tech degree to better your future income... you should try your best to get there and minimize your expenses while there. Do you think your current decision is all-in? As in if it fails you're done or do you think you have a backup plan? Act accordingly based on this answer. If it's all-in... then go all-in and eat ramen. 

 >Also, it’s not going to be 6-12 months before I pay off my credit.

I said 8+ months months as in when you'll get a better job."
science,"I understand it's hard for a lot of people to achieve, but I think moving really is the best option in a scenario where you can't see the light in your future. It's really hard to start over far from your support system and from what you know, but if you believe your best option is jumping off a bridge anyway, it couldn't hurt to just press reset in a place with a better quality of life. Before social security was around to keep track of us, people did it all the time. They'd pretend they'd jumped off that bridge and run to Mexico.

edit: Staying seems to have worked out for you, and that's great--I just mean for those who get too close to the bridge idea. "
science,"yeah, a dishwasher is a good investment (if you can afford it and can either afford to have it installed or know how to yourself). I bought a ~$350 dishwasher about 15 years ago and knew how to install it. (I also maintain it, so it still works just fine) 

I also don't eat out or at least do so very infrequently. with the exception of the occasional fillet-o-fish or Chinese take out, I prefer home cooked meals to restaurant food (including sitdown restaturants) Same goes for coffee. At one point I was hitting up Starbucks every morning on the way to work and came to the realization that I was  spending well over a thousand dollars (with the foofy coffee and some stupid confection, I believe the number I came up with was around $1500 per year) every year, for what I could make at home for a fraction of that price. (FYI, last year's coffee bill was <$250, including coffee, creamer, and sugar, and I drink coffee all day)

I hope you understood my point though. Not everyone has $600 even if something's a good investment. And some don't even have $150.  

My own experience with wealthier friends was that if I couldn't pay my way, I'd get cajoled almost to the point of bullying into allowing someone else pay my way, which slowly resulted in me becoming ingratiated at to them and subject to their whims and choices. Meanwhile, I was blowing every bit of my own money trying to keep up. I advise others to avoid that situation."
science,"I didn't say anything about begging anyone for money. I agree.

I was indicating throughout this thread that when you hang with wealthier people, there's a tendency for them to push the 'poor' guy/girl into accepting effective handouts (being invited for a vacation when you can't afford it and being pushed in to ""don't worry, we'll cover it"", dinners, going to a bar, etc), or causing a scene for refusing them. I've been there myself.  And I won't go there again. Ever. I'd rather be alone than effectively indentured..And meanwhile, even when they don't foist these embarrassing situations upon the poorer member, hanging with them and trying to keep up with the Jonesinskis burns holes in the pockets of the poorer member of the group. Meaning that they'll never get ahead enough to be at peer level economically.

Perhaps you're a teenager or something and naive. I'm not. I'm 59 and have been around the block many many times
"
science,"Nah man. Sounds to me like you just didn't have real friends. 

I mean, yeah quid pro quo is pretty common with rich people. I have a rich buddy and he has to deal with that shit with a lot of his family members. Especially when we were kids. His mom would make these huge purchases for him like a new car or whatnot and she'd hold it over him to do all these favors for her. Usually making him spend time with her over his father or friends."
science,">Nah man. Sounds to me like you just didn't have real friends.

yeah right bud. move on. we're not going to come to any agreement. My experience and that of others I've spoken with in real life and online don't match that of you and your rich buddy. I can accept that you live the exception. I didn't (on more than one occasion) and others haven't.

Maybe it's time for *you* to learn to read."
science,"Not massively. All that seems to show is that the ability to delay gratification is either strongly correlated to the factors they controlled for ( a massive danger when controlling for x is that you can control away the real effect at the same time, things can be correlated and also causative )  or that it's not causative at all but is strongly correlated to something that is causative. For example perhaps people with parents who simply keep their promises are more likely to turn out better in general.


>“Our findings suggest that an intervention that **alters a child’s ability to delay, but fails to change more general cognitive and behavioral capacities,** will probably have very small effects on later outcomes,” "
science,"It is not California only or US only problem though (so possibly not about ag conglomerates, just lazy farmers worldwide).

Still building concrete and asphalt surfaces, instead of planting trees and making retention areas, in addition to poor soil management, huge fields, plowing downhill instead around the hill (by the contours), no anti-erosion elements like tree alleys or bounds.. all those things are why there is less and less groundwater every year. We suck at water retention."
science,"It still gets me that we have sewer systems all over the place where all the buildings with hard roofs drain into storm drains along with the massive road surfaces hurry off all the water.

How could we NOT be having a negative impact on the biom when we do this over and over again? There need to be cisterns so people can capture rainfall and use it at their house.

I foresee that one day every house will have a solar panel and a cistern. We take for granted the way we live and there is a lot that we do that is crazy. We just don't see it.

I kind of gave up noticing because I gotta make money. And we are all busy just getting by, not living in harmony."
science,Cisterns!!  HA!  I live in SoCal and we get a mist a few times a year.  We had rain maybe three times in the last 12 months.  There is no way even draining my entire property into storage would cover even two days worth of use here.  This state is in serious trouble.  There needs to be a massive investment in desalination with emphasis on peak solar and wind hour water production.  There just is no other way.  Unfortunately the government is mainly interested in cracking down on pollution from just passenger cars rather than looking forward and predicting the water shortfalls that are going to occur.  Heck even Texas is building desal plants to pump water inland and it actually still rains there.
science,">Cisterns!! Ha!

Admittedly, doesn't work everywhere. I live in Georgia and there's a lot of run-off. MOST places, putting cisterns everywhere would prevent drought problems. And we are going to run into that more and more; either floods or droughts. Climate change will have an impact.

>  There needs to be a massive investment in desalination with emphasis on peak solar and wind hour water production. 

The technology is getting better for that.

They just had a major breakthrough engineering a strain of plant to convert solar energy into splitting H2O atoms. That means super cheap storage for energy (well, if you have the hydrogen tanks) -- but it also means much more efficient solar energy. The by-product is pure water. No reason they couldn't use salty water or waste water.

Of course, that would be a LOT of energy conversion to water a garden.

It's kind of weird having Texas be ahead of California on something -- you guys are supposed to be living the problems we all will get 10 years in the future. Probably because regulations are very lax there, and you can basically just stockpile a million kilos of explosive nitrogen next to a school in Texas. It's the ""see what happens"" state."
science,"> Mainly because of the lax government. 

I could definitely go for NOT dealing with all the building codes and regulations that California has -- but they've got a unique problem of an unwieldy government, creating propositions for everything, and they HAVE to regulate more, often by necessity. You can't have your huge store of nitrates on a non-fault tolerant platform -- right? Lost Angeles people lost a lot of life points and had to cut emissions or die. As much as it sucks to contend with all those pollution regulations -- they had to do something.

I mean, I'd prefer to be carefree and I hate paperwork. If everyone just chose to do the right thing, we wouldn't have to deal with these hassles."
science,"If you're cheating, sure. If you're trying to reach understanding with someone else where complex words or processes are used, the definitions need to be crystal clear and agreed upon before you can argue higher points. Most scientific papers include a definitions section for exactly that purpose.

Or are you going to say the evolution is ""just a theory"" even though the definition of theory in the context of science is far different, stricter, and far more demanding to satisfy than the colloquial definition?

The chicken and egg problem is a problem of definitions and/or requirements. Is a chicken egg an egg that has the potential to hatch a chicken? Or is it an egg a chicken lays? Or is it a chicken egg in both scenarios (so an inclusive OR)? Is fertilization a necessary component? These are the things that need to be agreed upon for the question ""which came first, the chicken or the egg?"" to be answerable.

Making a snarky comment about fertilization as if everyone else was assuming it necessary for an egg to be considered a chicken egg was silly. You could have simply asked whether fertilization is a necessary requirement for a chicken laying an egg for it to be considered a chicken egg if you wanted a serious answer /discussion and not an argument."
science,"I’m not sure of what you are saying relates either..

But to answer your question:  you can work BACKWARDS.. (that’s allowed).

If a chicken pops out of the egg, and you saw the egg before hand, you can actually say, with scientific certainty, that the chicken was in the egg.

But now we’re off the philosophical tract.

It’s not NECESSARY to know where the first chicken lived.

It’s not NECESSARY to know the genealogy of said chicken.

It’s not NECESSARY to know where the egg was.

At some point in the past, there was, what biologists consider the “first chicken”. That “first chicken”’s parents, weren’t actually chickens, by the biologists definition.

That “first chicken” existed as an egg. There was no chicken before THAT chicken’s egg.

In Biology terms, the buzz-kill phrasing of the paradox is “which came first, adult you or baby you”."
science,"Speciation isn’t well defined because organisms are kind of messy and evolution is generally slow.

Inability to crossbreed due to genetic, behavioral, anatomical, etc. differences is extremely helpful in delineating species, but there are species like the mallard duck and black duck or coyotes and wolves that can and often do hybridize with viable offspring that can themselves reproduce. With a lot of lineages you could probably watch them for a million years and not be able to pinpoint when a new species emerged. "
science,"There's an awful lot of fools that don't understand basic science in here.

1. The Moon's phases are just its position relative to the Sun and Earth. One phase is not one orbit. The cycle simply predicts what the Moon will *look like.*

2. The water in our bodies isn't in a giant bucket in our chests. The water in us is locked away in cells, veins, etc. Furthermore, *mass* is affected by gravity, not just water. The Moon is constantly pulling on all of you, not just your water and not just when you can see a full Moon. If the effect they claim is due to the Moon's gravity affecting bodily fluids, it should be replicated by simply hanging a person upside-down for some time. Not only that, but if we are so affected, when the Moon on the opposite side of Earth as you, there would be another, potentially opposite, effect as when the Moon is directly above.

People have tried for generations to link the Moon to some facet of human behavior. 99.99% of the time there's no correlation, and of course that one time a study *did* report a correlation is the one these gullible folks tout. Constellations light years away don't have any impact on our births whatsoever, but we still have multitudes of fools that assume the relative positions of certain stars affect the child's personality."
science,"Then can you offer an possible explanation, using scientific fact, for the opposition (those who believe in astrology)? For example, how other celestial bodies could possibly factor into gravity and temperament? 

And another argument to show the facts as to why there is no scientifically plausible way that any celestial activities could affect human temperament? 

Just curious to see both of those arguments side by side from one with more scientific knowledge than I. "
science,"So everybody should spend all of their time researching things that are clearly not real just to be certain that they are not real? That doesn't make any sense at all. There an infinite number of things that are clearly not real. people come up with hundreds of new pseudoscientific, not real ideas every single day. It would be *literally* impossible to come even close to keeping up.

There are lots of things that don't have to be thoroughly research to be discredited. Flat Earth for example. You don't need to debunk Flat Earth theory, you just have to prove the Earth is round.

Also, burden of proof always lies with the person *making the claim.* It's generally almost impossible to prove a negative, or that something is false, which is why burden of proof works that way. But if something is actually real, it should possible to prove that it is or at least find a good amount of credible evidence to support it."
science,"the burden of proof lies with a person making a claim. There is no reason to think that celestial bodies could affect personality or temperament. There's absolutely no valid scientific basis for it whatsoever. That's why burden of proof works that way. Asking someone to prove that something couldn't cause something to happen doesn't make sense, especially when there is no reason to believe that it happened in the first place. If I asked you to prove to me that you aren't a Super Android clone sent from the future with the memories and personality of a normal human being, where would you even start? It's a stupid question to ask. I would need to have to have a reason to think that you were an Android in the first place for it to make any senss, and if I did you would then be able to refute my reason. Asking somebody to disprove something ridiculous, that has no sound reasoning behind it to begin with, just doesn't really make sense."
science,"Okay then why don't you get started on studying the complete history of human mythology, too? After all, how can you say that the ancient Aztecs and Egyptians weren't right about their God's and superstitions unless you dissect all of their works?

you should also get started on researching the whole of ancient Eastern philosophy, unicorns, dragons, sun gazing, and every other ridiculous idea mankind has ever come up with. Good luck."
science,"You DID argue that someone shouldn't discount something without learning about it thoroighly first. Meaning nobody should say dragons or unicorns aren't real without thorough research. The truth is, you don't need thorough research for something that doesn't have a factual basis to begin with.

I stand by the fact that you don't need to know all the ins and outs of an idea to learn that is has absolutely no factual, scientific basis. I don't know what the different astrological signs are supposed to mean, but I do know the premise on which they are based, and that there is literally no plausible scientific basis for it. Why would I need to know more than that? You're being pedantic."
science,"move to base 12, and the standard system wins out over the metric system (most things in standard are based on 8,12,16,etc because 12 is so divisible, divides evenly by 2,3,4, and 6. 10 divides evenly by 2 and 5. so there are 12 inches in a foot, 3 teaspoons in a tablespoon, 2 tablespoons in an ounce, 4 ounces in a cup, 2 cups in a quart, 2 quarts in a pint, 2 pints in a gallon and so on ) metric just wins out because we do all our things in base 10, the only thing metric has going for it is it's newer so it doesn't have the gaps left by units falling out of use (like the jack or the gill)"
science,"“This research follows a previous laboratory-based study led by the same team, _which found that jet-air dryers were much worse than paper towels or traditional warm air hand dryers when it came to spreading germs._”

From the article with added emphasis.  It seems the problem is Dyson airblade style driers as the warm air driers weren’t associated with the problem.  a paper towel manufacturer funding the study might not be a substantial factor. "
science,"^ Yep, same here, common knowledge in labs and I have a med student friend that got taught this too.

Quick google led me to [this 2012 review of 12 studies](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3538484/). There were conflicting results due to different methodologies but the authors are still confident enough to claim this: 

> Most studies have found that paper towels can dry hands efficiently, remove bacteria effectively, and cause less contamination of the washroom environment. From a hygiene standpoint, paper towels are superior to air dryers; therefore, paper towels should be recommended for use in locations in which hygiene is paramount, such as hospitals and clinics. "
science,"Gloves are used in the medical setting not specifically for ""sanitary"" reasons in the layman's sense, but for protection from bodily fluids that may carry transmissible pathogens. Gloves should never be worn from one encounter to the next, so whether or not they are soiled is irrelevant.

Also, healthcare worker's are often required to sanitize hands when going in and out of patient rooms even if they wore gloves. Compliance with these policies depends on the hospital.

​

Edit: erroneous to irrelevant

​"
science,"I mean, the issue is 'who is going to to take the time to replicate this'. In terms decreasing infections in a hospital, there are more interesting/important questions to ask. (Namely, how to make sure doctors wash their hands properly all the time).  So the only people interested in questions like this (that are kinda important, but not as important as others) are people who have vested interests in having them addressed.  And because of the way research like this is structured, you don't really ever prove a null result, you just fail to prove your hypothesis, which isn't really notworthy for publishing.

That is to say, the only studies that get done are paid for by people with interests in a given outcome. And the only papers that are publishable are ones that confirm those outcomes."
science," The air in a bathroom is full of fecal matter, so it's just blowing the bathroom air around... Does it increase the density or inhaled particulate value of the person breathing, does it increase the occupants exposure to fecal matter? All data can be manipulated.

I dont have the information, but perhaps the other studies you are referencing were also published by the paper towel tycoons? I honestly have no idea, I'm just skeptical."
science,"Feudalism breeds constant threat of death, starvation, lack of freedom of expression. Major unhappiness.

Often in times past people would. Literally just leave and never speak again. True that communities were tighter but they lived in bubbles with no connection to the outside world. I can talk to a stranger on the internet across the world or a batista the next town over.

What evidence do. You have to support this ""individual mindset"" or lack of community? And if it's just a feeling, you. May not be wrong but that no more than maybe 15 - 20 years old (advent of pocket tech and internet)

Now, do we need to list off all the gains humanity has made? All the reasons for reduced stress?"
science,"So what they found was that a one-sized fits all approach to a relatively new field of gastrointestinal medicine wasn't ideal. Amazing. 

A few factoids about your GI flora:

* Your gut has over 6000 unique species of bacteria indigenously living along its walls.

* Most (freeze-dried) probiotic capsule mixes contain only a handful of different species.

* Cultured items such as yogurt are just a concentration of a few strains.

* Ingested bacteria has to survive the digestion process. The digestion process also happens to be designed to prevent such bacteria from thriving (although those defense mechanisms can be overwhelmed).

* After surviving the digestion process, the bacteria still have to make it to the ""river's edge"" and find a hand hold. It's no guarantee and most will be swept along the chocolate current.

* Sometimes it's your indigenous bacteria that IS the problem, so the fact that some people's normal GI bacteria give way to the probiotic strains isn't always indicative of a bad thing.

Basically, probiotic supplementation is a really primitive approach to something that we're only beginning to understand is a very complex ecosystem. It is the literal application of the saying ""let's throw things against this guy's colon to see what sticks."" But before we throw the baby out with the bath water, know that probiotic therapy, especially following dysbiosis (that's the equivalent of napalming your native villages of GI flora with antibiotics) is one of the best quick fixes we have.

This is the same comment I posted yesterday to the press release of the same study. I find it's still relevant today."
science,"Another important factor about probiotics that unfortunately nobody will tell you: most of them are going to be transitional strains that you must continue to supplement rather than strains that will take up residence properly. 

I say this is unfortunate, but nobody wants to have to tell their customers that they HAVE to keep taking the product for it to continue to work, even if they WANT THEM to make it part of their regimen long term. "
science,"Unless you're using it as a stop gap, that is. 

If I've decimated my indigenous population through Abx usage and have created an ecological vacuum, I can use the probiotics as a place holder to prevent pathogenic populations from taking up real estate. If the adherent probiotic strains wane to be replaced gradually with indigenous strains, that's fine. 

If you're using the probiotic species as a permanent replacement for the indigenous bacteria, I would think there would be better ways to make that transition (aka fecal transplant)."
science,"Hmm. I think the analogy to the flu vaccine would prove problematic. Here's why...

The flu vaccine works by introducing a small amount of inactivated flu virus to the body's immune system to encourage an immune response. The vaccine needs to be changed yearly because the virus alters the components that are recognized by the immune system over time so that an immune response won't be mounted and it can take effectively use the human as a host for replication and delivery.  That's vaccines.

Probiotics are actually the opposite. Throughout your intestines are a native and diverse population of bacteria which are largely symbiotic to your normal physiologic state. So we give them something (room and board) and they give us something (to be determined). When that population gets disturbed or the benign bacteria is replaced with pathogenic bacteria (or bacteria that would cause adverse effect or disease), gastrointestinal health is diminished. Probiotics are a means by which we ""wash"" the inside of the gut with the ""benign bacteria"" in hopes that they out number and push out the offending bacteria and perhaps even give us some of the good things that might be offered in a symbiotic relationship (which we're still working out). So instead of trying to activate our immune response, in many ways, we're introducing bacteria to the system to reduce an immune response (which all too often is the cause of the clinical symptoms of the disease). 

So we're trying to get live bacteria, of the correct genetic makeup, through the upper gastrointestinal tract to seed the lower gastrointestinal tract as somewhat of a no look hail Mary. We've got some gimmicks and tweaks that help the journey, but it's still not a targeted approach. "
science,"Hope the following question is allowed. Based on this study and your expertise. Is it or isn't it a good idea to feed a kid probiotics (capsules or yoghurts) after a particularly heavy round of antibiotics? Our pediatrician for some reason will not anwer this question either way and just says things like 'that's up to you to decide'. Not helpful, I'm not looking to sue the guy if it's not working, just want to know of it's generally better or not. (also kids don't get heavy rounds of antibiotics often in case that worries anyone, just once for both of them, once for a bad case of impetigo and once for a tick bite with a red circle). "
science,"If you have the money to buy them, then yes it *could* be a good idea. it *may* or may not prevent problems following antibiotic usage. It should cause little to no harm and their normal flora will return eventually. If they have no problems (diarrhea/bloatlyness) then you can save some money by not buying them (that is totally upto you). 

As others have said, this area of research is kinda new so hence why you got the answer you did."
science,"This isn't directly on target, but it's close.  I'll see if I can dig up some more literature that's a closer match later...

[Bin-Nun, Alona, et al. ""Oral probiotics prevent necrotizing enterocolitis in very low birth weight neonates."" The Journal of pediatrics 147.2 \(2005\): 192-196.](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d34c/32a8ff94c9f6f327e4ed82f5b03d0500aa81.pdf)

EDIT: Found some better ones...

[Bermudez-Brito, Miriam, et al. ""Probiotic mechanisms of action."" Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism 61.2 (2012): 160-174.](https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/342079)

and a review (although it's a bit dated now)

[Ohland, Christina L., and Wallace K. MacNaughton. ""Probiotic bacteria and intestinal epithelial barrier function."" American Journal of Physiology-Gastrointestinal and Liver Physiology 298.6 (2010): G807-G819.](https://www.physiology.org/doi/pdf/10.1152/ajpgi.00243.2009)"
science,"I'm not entirely sure what marks the difference between transient and colonizing species or strains, to be honest with you. My understanding is that bacteria from environments dissimilar to our guts tend to not do well there, but then there's some spore-forming strains that still do okay and are still transient. My job makes me an oddly educated layman at best and honestly biology is super complex. My eyes cross when I see enzyme names or three letter abbreviations with numbers in general because chem was so more my bag and organic chemistry is devil hybrid of chemistry and biology. (tbh physics is devil hybrid of chemistry and math, but with the perspective messed up!, and forces.)

All that to say u haven't the slightest idea and it's really beyond my reading level to try to figure it out because of the biology involved."
science,"I do too, I have been following the increase in its use for about 10 ears now, it is truly amazing to see someone so sick with C.diff restored to a healthy gut state. I love telling my students about it just to see the look on their faces! Yes it is icky, but it can be life saving. I have tried to get a student to research it for their independent research project but so far not takers. I did get one to do quorum sensing in bacteria though, which is particularly interesting. "
science,"it definitely could have.  eat your normal diet or a overall healthy diet and give it time, your gut microbiome will replenish itself.  alternatively, you could try to ""starve out"" the burp-creating microbes which may be flourishing in your gut right now (antibiotics likely killed off many microbes) by adapting a diet like the keto diet, which typically will shift your gut microbiome.  but if I were you, I'd just eat healthy foods and give it time, maybe try to avoid gas producing foods for a while like dairy"
science,This is the biggest thing IMO.  By best friend's parents started smoking again when we did because they had access to it again. Their friends had stopped selling years before and finding new dealers was a huge pain.  On top of that everytime I walk into the dispensary I hear some older person telling someone how amazing it is that they can walk into a store and buy it without having to deal with finding and working with a shady dealer.  
science,"That's not true at all. Sure, you can look at it and eyeball that it probably is cannabis. Will you know what strain you are buying? Is it a sativa, an indica, a hybrid, or a CBD specific strain? Do you know what the THC percentage is? Do you know who grew it? 

If you've never been to a dispensary, that is all information you can get and more.

This is assuming you are buying something that is still in plant form and not a type of edible, oil, dab, prerolled cig, or any of dozens of other cannabis products that have been processed. "
science,"Hybridoma's are only really useful for monoclonal antibodies. Most immune responses are polyclonal in nature, which is why you need to sub-clone if you want to isolate the monoclonal. Monoclonals are VERY useful in research, which is why they are so desirable. The ability to drill down to single epitope expression is very valuable when trying to research biological processes. 

In this case though, you WANT a polyclonal response for a number of reasons. First and foremost being it reduces the chance for the development of resistance. With a monoclonal, there is a single epitope being targeted. If the virus mutates the protein/component responsible for that epitope, then binding of the antibody is dramatically impacted. If there is a second, third, or fourth epitope on the virus also targeted it because statistically less and less likely that this mutated virus survives. Second off, it increases the applicability of the treatment across the population. Natural variation in the population means that not all epitopes found in the polyclonal will be present across ALL members of the population (which is evident by the authors saying most strains). Some members of the population might only have one or two epitopes present and these one or two would be different from member to member. As such, a polyclonal response provides a lot of value but also means that hybridoma is much less likely than usual. "
science,"The other replies to this are somewhat technically correct but don't actually answer your question properly. Hybridomas are unnecessary at this point to produce monoclonal antibodies since we can now do single B cell sorting and cloning of the CDR regions of the antibodies we want. There are much better mammalian protein production systems out there currently than hybridoma technology. 

To go towards your question of why the antibodies aren't produced as therapeutics currently. The answer is simply that ARTs currently do a very good job of controlling viremia and progression of the disease, so antibodies cannot compete on the same price point for that function. Neither monoclonals nor ARTs have shown any efficacy against viral reservoirs, which are the holy grail for curing HIV at this point, however that's not to say that future therapies won't use a combination of the two. The most beneficial use of anti-HIV monoclonals at this point would be to generate sterilizing immunity in patients with a high likelyhood of acquiring the disease. However monoclonals are expensive to generate and require cold chains for deployment, so it's unfeasible currently to passively transfuse every single susceptible person."
science,"They have. People don't even need hybridomas at this point--these antibodies are sequenced and you can now crank them out in all sorts of piecemeal products and frankenstein antibodies as you wish. 

If you want rare antibodies, you look at someone who is exposed to the virus or antigen of interest. Make the antigen attached to a fluorescent reporter. Take blood from said patient, purify the blood for B cells, and co-incubate them with your fluorescent antigen. Grab all the fluorescent B cells, sequence them, boom. You can now make that antibody as much as you want."
science,"The basis of your argument though is that our government is despotic. If it was despotic, why would they even allow this much data to go through main media channels and cover it up the result?  There would be no benefit.  In fact if they are despotic then we may never have even received signals and it's all made up.

If it is not despotic, then what reason would the government have to hide it? To avoid hysteria?  Hysteria about radio signals that have traveled so far that if they were sent by an intelligent source would be long dead by now?

Nah, they haven't told us cause they don't know if it is intelligent or not.  This is not the first time we received signals like this.  Last time a supernova was to blame."
science,"I tried it for 3 days once (without being fat-adapted). The first 1,5 days were very easy and nice, then I started getting progressively more restless and tense. No headaches, dizziness or irritability and my focus was even too sharp, but I couldn’t sleep at all.

It seems great for emergency situations when you need to stay sharp and alert for extended periods of time, but I think my body did perceive it as an emergency and felt stressed, it was a sort of high-strung energy.

However, I haven’t tried fasting on keto, I think it would be different."
science,"Ive experienced the same. Ive done several 7 day fasts and felt like I could run a marathon every night. I started doing heavy cardio when I would typically eat dinner and Id be able to fall fast asleep. 5 hours later my eyes would pop open and I was wide awake.   Come to think of it every morning person Ive ever known seemed youthful, healthy and thin. I bet they all had a healthy relationships with food and without knowing it were frequently intermittently fasting. "
science,"I recently went through a very hard economic time during which I'd eat only once every other day. First week or so was incredibly bad, I'd be hungry all the time even after eating a meal. Next three months of doing this weren't actually bad at all, I'd get hungry specially before bed but I'd wake up feeling just fine.

I'm now eating once a day and having occasional snacks because I just don't feel like I need to eat three or even two meals a day.

I have to admit though. Other than walking for an hour daily. I live a very sedentary life, work from home, I'm 5'7 and weigh 152 pounds (That's been my average since I was 23, I'm 30 now). But I do drink a lot of soda so I can see how those sugars are keeping my calories up there. 

I'm not saying this is healthy and I'm not advocating for it. But in my experience it hasn't been bad at all. I can't say I feel better than when I had a regular diet, but I don't feel worse either"
science,"I can see how ""common sense"" would lead you to believe that but hudreds of hours worth of research has lead me to disagree. Your body acts like a battery storing energy in the form of fat and theres nothing unhealthy about utilizing that resource and giving your digestive system a break. In fact, one man lived for over a year without eating and he was much healthier for it. People have cured their diabetes with extended fasts, stabilized their blood pressure, the list goes on for days. Its ok to disagree even if you havnt read the first book or medical journal. Were taught to eat three times a day and most tired, unhealthy, medicated people would look at extended fasting as bananas but knowing what I do now I think it's the other way around. One meal a day, extended fast twice a year and I havnt been more healthy and energetic since adolescence.  Dyor "
science,"I did a similar thing at some point. I had some economic troubles, but rather than alternating days I just went with 1 footlong subway sandwich a day (about 4000KJ which is half the daily req). I know it sounds weird that I'm eating takeout during economic troubles but I literally had no time or space to prep and store food etc. so this really want the best way for me to get food with meat and a bunch of vegetables.

In that sense I was doing the 'one meal a day' style intermittent fasting, and yeah after the first day or so you get significantly less hungry and you're fine with one meal a day and then maybe drinking a lot of water.

It worked quite well for me, but I couldn't do it long term.

That said, I was always getting some carbs so I never went into keto flu or anything like that. Doing a water only fast would only work for me if I did it for multiple weeks. Not spending 2-3 days of keto flu for 4-5 days of fast."
science,"Yeah. You're not doing any good to your body when depriving it of all the resources it needs (vitamins, minerals, proteins, fats etc). You're only doing harm to it. You don't see other animals similar to us going for such long fasts, that is because it's suicide.

Also ketamine (not sure what it's called) is highly acidic and demineralises the skeleton. 

Just because a study shows it is effective in rats doesn't mean it applies to us. Rats have much shorter life spans so you can more easily see the changes. They are still different and how they react is different to us. "
science,"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment

>Among the conclusions from the study was the confirmation that prolonged semi-starvation produces significant increases in depression, hysteria and hypochondriasis as measured using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Indeed, most of the subjects experienced periods of severe emotional distress and depression.[1]:161 There were extreme reactions to the psychological effects during the experiment including self-mutilation (one subject amputated three fingers of his hand with an axe, though the subject was unsure if he had done so intentionally or accidentally).[6] Participants exhibited a preoccupation with food, both during the starvation period and the rehabilitation phase. Sexual interest was drastically reduced, and the volunteers showed signs of social withdrawal and isolation.[1]:123–124 The participants reported a decline in concentration, comprehension and judgment capabilities, although the standardized tests administered showed no actual signs of diminished capacity. This ought not, however, to be taken as an indication that capacity to work, study and learn will not be affected by starvation or intensive dieting. There were marked declines in physiological processes indicative of decreases in each subject's basal metabolic rate (the energy required by the body in a state of rest), reflected in reduced body temperature, respiration and heart rate. Some of the subjects exhibited edema in their extremities, presumably due to decreased levels of plasma proteins given that the body's ability to construct key proteins like albumin is based on available energy sources.[citation needed]

And this is with 1550 calories per day (but keep in mind these people had little body fat to begin with), about the caloric restriction used in mice and primate models that show the lifespan increase. 

Alternatively, if you have fat, and simply don't eat anything at all, you can lose your weight without these side effects. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495396/"
science,"I've tried fasting once out of pure necessity - had an extremely busy day and couldn't grab a bite until 8 pm. Felt very exhausted and out of breath during the whole day. I suppose it's entirely different person to person, but I personally feel very energy-starved if I haven't had a proper meal in the morning and noon. 

Edit: not sure if skipping meals counts as actual ""fasting"". I'm not at all familiar with what fasting is all about, it could be completely different to what I imagine it. "
science,"So type 1 diabetic here, fasting would undoubtfully lead to hunger, when i get that feeling my blood sugar lowers and seems like it goes into conservation mode. Having lower A1Cs (3 month count of your blood glucose levels averaged out) would seem to have a similiar benefit, so if you cant fast like me, would it be out of bounds to assume having a lower A1C would also be beneficial to kickstarting a similiar response?
"
science,"The difficulty with human studies is that you can't lock humans in a cage for their entire natural lifespans and ensure they are complying with your diet regiment. From what I've read, they are mostly surveys, and interestingly, a meta-study was done which showed people, even anonymously, heavily over-counted exercise and heavily discounted how much they had eaten, and while that's not directly related to fasting, I'd assume people would over-estimate how ""good"" they were in general."
science,"Semiautomatic rifles may have a high average number of deaths and injuries per shooting than handguns. However, according to the FBI 18.997 times as many people were killed by handguns than rifles of any kind in 2016. Also 4.289 times as many people were killed by knives than rifles of any kind that year. So, while rifles may be used in instances with high fatality rates and press coverage, they are generally not the weapon of choice for violent crime.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls

So, here are my questions: 

How many lives potential could be saved by a semiautomatic rifle ban?

What other options do we have that could save more lives?

Please keep the discussion civil and logical : )"
science,"
Then why are you posting? 

From wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

>In 2003, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services, an independent, non-federal task force, examined an assortment of firearms laws, including the AWB, and found ""insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.""[30] A 2004 critical review of firearms research by a National Research Council committee said that an academic study of the assault weapon ban ""did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes."" The committee noted that the study's authors said the guns were relatively rarely used criminally before the ban and that its maximum potential effect on gun violence outcomes would be very small.[31]

>In 2004, a research report commissioned by the National Institute of Justice found that if the ban was renewed, the effects on gun violence would likely be small and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as ""assault rifles"" or ""assault weapons"", are rarely used in gun crimes. That study, by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania, found no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders. The authors also report that ""there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury."" [32]

So either there is no correlation between these laws and the rate of violence or there is insufficient data. Hardly a"" tired"" discussion. 

Or are you just tired of people questioning your biases? 



"
science,"Yeah. The question isn't whether they have dropped during the ban, but have they dropped at a _higher_ rate during the ban.

From what I have studied, this is a pretty nuanced topic. And like many complex topics, most people like to over simplify it.

Conversations usually end up something like this:

""You're wrong, more guns means less crime!""

""No! You're wrong! If we ban assault weapons we'll have less mass shootings""

And I'm sitting here saying ""the data we have doesnt indicate either of those things. Maybe we should use that science to make informed decisions""

But hey, it's not like there is a whole field dedicated to this sort of thing (_cough_ criminology _cough_) "
science,"> How many lives potential could be saved by a semiautomatic rifle ban?

Just using the numbers from the OP, 1.75 people per “active shooter” event. Probably closer to 1.5 people per shooting because there are still going to be some rifles out there. But over time as rifles became more rare they’d be used less and the number of lives saved per shooting would go up. 

Even if it was as low as 1 person per shooting, if I’m that person, or the relative or friend of that one person, that’s worth it to me. "
science,"One thing we Americans seem to forget, as it doesn't make our news often, is the mass stabbings that occur at a similar rate as our mass shootings in other parts of the world, and are very rare here. Another one occurred in China yesterday after the assailant drove his SUV into a crowd.
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/9ff826/nine_killed_46_injured_as_man_goes_on_stabbing/?utm_source=reddit-android

So, does the chosen weapon really make a significant difference in the number of victims?

How do we prevent such tragedies from occurring?"
science,"I mean, just think of the earth and the magnificent conflux of very unlikely circumstances that led to humanity.

Think about the fact that the earth has been around for billions of years, and humanity has only existed for a few thousand of those billions.  Less than 1% of earth's timeline.

Now consider that potentially ""viable"" planets are millions to billions of light years away. 

Even if there has been sentient/sapient life elsewhere in the universe, the likelihood that we would be able to observe it would be incredibly low, and even the likelihood that it would exist in the right time frame to be observed by us is also extremely low.

And even if Any other life form was observing earth, it would likely be observing earth as it was long ago, likely long before humans existed.  Even the closest galaxy is 2.5 million light years away.

Long way of saying, I agree."
science,"Anything outside of our galaxy is ridiculously far away even for an advanced civilization. Limits our reach for answers about the greater universe.

To me, it’s obvious the earth has a huge list of characteristics needed for life to have reached this point, it’s astounding we are here. I’d be incredibly surprised if we ever found evidence of civilization anywhere in our galaxy. Not that I don’t have faith in the future."
science,"Now this is interesting. When I look at wider faces, I always think back to my animal behavior class where we learned that predatory animals have eyes forward facing, in front of the face, to allow them to have better depth perception when hunting. This is in contrast to prey animals that tend to have their eyes on the side of their face, allowing them a better range of vision to see if there is a predator coming toward them. I wonder if humans are instinctively doing some kind of mental math to distinguish predator v. prey here. But then, how does that relate to behavior? Are these people products of a lifetime of stereotyping or do that have evolutionary predator-prey histories which drove their facial structure? Hmm, very interesting indeed."
science,"Afaik broad faces (at least in men) have been linked to both high testosterone and lower percieved trustworthiness before. In the articles that I've read those two werr implied to have somewhat of a causal link, so we trust people with higher testosterone less. So I don't think you're prey theory makes sense since the broad face is just a hormonal thing.

I'm no expert though and haven't read the actual studies just atricles so I might be wrong."
science,"I thought it was strange how they tried to focus this study on politicians. I can see the point but a politician is just a person, so any one person could judge whether another person is corrupt or likely to be deceitful. Going off what you said about predator-prey traits in humans it leads me to wonder how people in general can identify someone who is corrupt in a study but that person can still successfully deceive enough people to get elected to a public office.   My guess is that enough people in the public don't have a predatory instinct. Also the people taking the study itself are in a certain group, they themselves have proactively looked for this study to make a little extra money. The study participants  themselves may not be a good example of a an average member of the public."
science,"Well yes could give you an edge in hunting but the much more simple explanation is that people with high testosterone simply are less trustworthy in some situations. Simply because they tend to be more aggresive and risk taking. I don't think we differentiate between predator and prey like that, if we do then it would probably be in favour of the predator because we identify with them. Pets for example tend to be predators."
science,"I'm honestly not comfortable with that assumption that high levels of testosterone make a person less trustworthy. That would imply that men, on the whole, are less trustworthy than women, simply because they have more testosterone. Just because it correlates with face width does not imply causation, and as we know, testosterone levels are somewhat malleable with exercise, social status, etc. And how does that correlate with racial differences. Do Asian people with wider faces, on average, have more testosterone? I don't think so."
science,"Well overall, if you look at violent crime, the prison population, serial killers etc. you'll find womeb severly underrepresented. So yes I would say men as a whole are less trustworthy in that regard and testosterone likely plays a role in it. I don't really get the point about the asians, I don't think they have wider faces but even if they had you could just adjust what you consider wide.

Also the changes to testosterone brought by exercise etc. are temporary. If meassured under the same conditions (eg. fastet, no exercise 2 days prior) the test will most likely be relatively accurate."
science,"Testosterone is directly linked to willingness to engage in risky behavior. Violating the trust of people is a risky behavior, so testosterone levels have a direct correlation here.  It's not saying testosterone makes you an asshole, but a guy who might consider cheating in some way and decide it's too risky will be more likely to cheat if given a higher testosterone level. The same with violent crime. I did all kinds of risky, illegal, assholish things when I was a teen and in my early twenties, that I can't imagine deciding to do now as a 46 year old"
science,"Fans and tv on pretty much all the time for me personally, distraction is the only relief I get. 

Have you tried the “snapping your fingers” against the base of your skull trick yet? Found it on YouTube awhile ago and the relatively brief relief it offers was mindblowing...the drone rushes back in pretty quickly but the moment of “oh, this is what it’s like when my ears aren’t ringing” is pretty amazing."
science,"I am unsure of the brand but it was generally 200mg per day, and around a week to start seeing results. It may not get rid of your symptoms entirely but in my case it drastically improved the tinnitus as long as I took it, and strangely it’s remained gone since then. I had a minor case from loud music damaging my hearing to be fair, but my mother had a serious case and it helped her significantly. "
science,"Tinnitus masking has been shown to work in research, the pitch doesn't matter though.  The reason is most tinnitus is caused by a change in hearing and lack of sound stimulation in the brain.

Without the stimulation the neurons in the auditory cortex fire randomly and you perceive that as tinnitus.  Re-introduce more sound and you give those neurons something to do.

Many people find hearing aids help their tinnitus.  Hearing aids often have optional tinnitus maskers build right in.

Source: I'm an Audiologist "
science,"Interesting. I do grind my teeth - my wife has had to nudge me awake a few times because she’s worried I’ll break something. I’ll look into this, thanks. 

Although since my wife pointed it out I have made a conscious effort not to clamp my jaw (which I seemed to do a lot without realising, but I’ve also suffered general anxiety among other things for years and years, which I think is probably why I do it), but it hasn’t made any difference to the tinnitus. Definitely worth a second look methinks. "
science,"If you press behind your jaw, just under your ears you will probably feel pain, because you probably have TMJ inflammation. This inflammation is likely exacerbating your tinnitus. Also, if you go to an ear doctor you can ask him to flush out your inner ear wax. Sometimes that stuff can harden and clog up your ears. Getting it out feels like picking a booger you didn't know was there for years."
science,"I find it interesting that people use statistics like this to imply that such policies are good.

In any professional environment, would you allow somebody's relative to look at the facts objectively and decide what is best for society as a whole? No, they'd be classed as emotionally compromised and more likely to act in a manner of appeasement rather than in a logical and balanced manner.

This conclusion is merely demonstrating the same thing but applied to policy instead of say, being on a jury or being an employer.

Very interesting that such bias seems to manifest only if the daughter is firstborn, though! Perhaps this implies a man can be more objective towards gender equity if his firstborn is the same gender as him, which is much less of a paradigm-shifting experience I'd think (you're sort of having another ""you"", whereas a daughter is entirely ""other"")."
science,"Why the assumption that someone’s original paradigm would be more objective than the new one they moved to after a “paradigm-shifting experience”? People’s concern for their own welfare is basic to the way they live their lives; meanwhile, you often hear people say that even though they already loved their spouse, siblings, etc, having a child was what gave them a gut-level realization of valuing another person’s welfare at the same instinctive level as their own. Since nobody starts out without personal interests, having a child of the opposite sex might be the most effective way to balance out the ones you have already."
science,"So there is no difference at all between the experiences of a female and the experiences of a male? That seems dubious. Of course there are going to be certain things about raising a child that is subject to a completely different set of societal expectations and bilogical developments than the father, that are confusing and new. Raising a boy, a father has experienced first hand the stages of development and many of the cultural expectations that his son will experience.  This makes men have an easier time understanding boys and a more difficult time understanding girls ***IN GENERAL***. Nothing controversial here.

He's not saying that the female child is an alien. Not what he said at all, but you have one ot those hair trigger offense guns that just blasts first and asks questions later.  "
science,"That's not true. In an idealised vacuum it is. But in reality where the past achievements (or lack of achievement) of relatable role models has an impact on the outcome, regardless how equal the opportunity.

I like to use an less inflammatory example than gender. Sports. Certain countries excel at certain sports (in before casual racism), well beyond the statistical expectations based on population etc. This is solely down to the cultural role models which lead to children aspiring to match their heroes. Be is something like Belgium at football or Iran in weight lifting etc. Tiny countries with a strong history of singular sporting success continue to produce world stars in that field. Despite the fact other countries have similar football academies or weight lifting coaches. 

This is also true of wider society. "
science,"Equity and equality mean different things in this space.    


Please don't attack the messenger, I find this line of argument ridiculous, but here's a simplified summary:  


**Equity** and **equality** are two strategies we can use in an effort to produce fairness. **Equity** is giving everyone what they need to be successful. **Equality** is treating everyone the same. **Equality** aims to promote fairness, but it can only work if everyone starts from the same place and needs the same help  


[https://everydayfeminism.com/2014/09/equality-is-not-enough/](https://everydayfeminism.com/2014/09/equality-is-not-enough/)"
science,"> That's not true.

Are you telling them what matters *to them*?

> Tiny countries with a strong history of singular sporting success continue to produce world stars in that field.

So, people in Belgium don't much care for weight lifting. Why do we need to balance out the outcomes so that in the future, every country has an equal amount of people involved in each sport? To me, that makes no sense at all. And to accomplish it would require you force people to compete in events in which they have no interest, while also forcing them to do things they don't want to do. It's not enough, in your opinion, that they can choose to become a weight lifter instead of a soccer player."
science,"By giving a desired outcome to someone who may not be as skilled/deserving of a position, you’re not giving it to someone who is more skilled/deserving, regardless of gender or race. 

Let’s say I want to be an NFL quarterback. I demand my equal outcome. I get the job. Which means someone else who has been working their whole life towards it and would be really good at it gets left off *because I said I want to do it and I deserve it because equality*"
science,">Also known as ""anyone can enter the sprint but you all get different starting lines.""

More like ""some run faster than others so we'll shoot them in the knee to make it fair""

Life is not fair; some people are more beautiful, more intelligent, had better parents, happened to be born in a richer country. You can't close these gaps; you can try to lift up people as much as possible but if someone was neglected as a child for 15 years, you can't make it up. And harming those who were better off for the sake of fairness is not going to create a better world."
science,"I don't really understand how your sports example supports the equal outcomes. You say Iran is excellent in weight lifting because they have a strong history of success in that sport. I don't follow weight lifting but I'm assuming then that other countries don't have as much success in weight lifting despite having world class coaches & facilities. 

So are you saying there should be equal outcomes in weightlifting then? Like what would that mean, the Olympic committee preordaining which country gets the gold medal in weightlifting (and it wouldn't be Iran since they already have so many medals in it) despite how much training and passion the Iranian athlete has devoted to weightlifing?"
science,"Can't you see that person is arguing minorities, in reality, do not have equal opportunity because of systemic problems? Any policies appearing to give them a boost, what would be equity in your eyes, is really mending problems that prevent minorities from having equal opportunity. A good example is affirmative action. It looks like companies are pushed to hire minorities solely for being minorities, not because of perceived merit that makes them better employees than their competitors. But there have been studies showing that on resumes where only the name is changed to either sound of European or African origin, people tend to pick the white sounding names over the black. Affirmative action works against employer's negative bias against hiring blacks, effectively giving them equal opportunity in getting jobs. Nobody is arguing equal outcome is what we should base social programs around; it's that equal opportunity isn't always truly equal.

here's an article I found in a quick google search regarding the study I referred to: https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/9/18/16307782/study-racism-jobs"
science,"I am not saying there should be equal outcomes in sport. I am using sport as an example of how simply providing equal opportunities can and does lead so unequal outcomes.

In the case of sexual equality, we do need to appreciate that past outcome (men being the boss) will have an impact on the future outcome, even if we make it just as easy for a woman to be the boss, simply because both men and women are used to seeing that as something a man does.

The past is important. "
science,"People who end up benefiting from affirmative action are middle / upper class minority kids. It doesn't actually help people it purports to help (disadvantaged) and it discriminates against poor white kids, making their life doubly hard. 

And it also doesn't solve the problem. The dropout rate for minority kids is much higher because they're placed in college programs they're not ready for. I bet similar thing happen in work environment. You can't fix inequality of outcome, best thing you can do is enable next generation better opportunities."
science,"I don't see how affirmative action mostly helping the middle class is a bad thing. They'd be perfectly capable of fulfilling the jobs they apply for, but would be less likely to obtain because they're a minority. Your point that affirmative action doesn't help poor white kids is something I've never thought about before, and it sounds important. Of course they deserve just as much help, but I'm not sure how much it takes away from affirmative action being overall effective. "
science,"If you take that perspective then it's a bit debatable, though, since the underlying goal isn't ""to be read"" but ""to spread information"" (hence why it's under a license that allows mirrors.)

In that respect, Reddit and StackOverflow posts that rely on Wikipedia as a source aren't exploiting Wikipedia, they're using Wikipedia the way it is meant to be used.  To the extent that Wikipedia as a whole ""wants"" something, that would be the sort of thing they want - to be used as a useful source of information.

(And if you step back and look at it from the position of the Wikimedia board of trustees, which is the only real group with a vested interest in this aside from Wikipedia editors themselves... that sort of usage, as long as it's credited, reinforces Wikipedia's reputation and makes it easier for them to raise the money they need to keep the project going, even if not everyone is visiting Wikipedia directly.)"
science,"From a business standpoint, you'd maximize profit centers and minimize cost centers. Since the entire website other than the donation nag is a cost driver, you'd have an incentive to drive down pageviews to decrease server cost. Optimally, you'd want to find a balance between driving down pageviews and maintaining incoming donations. 

From a following the website's mission standpoint, they'd probably want more people to read pages, since that's likely to generate useful additions, corrections, and citations that would improve the page or related pages that get surfed. Or just feel good about watching the pageviews go up because that means more information is getting shared."
science,"> Without donations I'm pretty sure Wikipedia wouldn't be possible.

Actually not true at all.

The Wikimedia Foundation and Fandom (previously called Wikia or Wikicities) are both controlled by Jimmy Wales. He used donations for Wikipedia hosting servers and the software technology to create the more niche commercialized sites, and in many cases content submitted to Wikipedia articles are repopulated over to make the spinoff Wikia site pages, too. 

Fandom owns pretty much every popular wikia site, like Wowwiki and Uncylopedia which generate significant ad revenue. Enough that they have been able to acquire other companies like Screen Junkies from Defy Media.

Ya'll should stop donating to Wikipedia. It's nonprofit status has been used to fund a commercial enterprise. "
science,"this is obviously anecdotal but because of reddit traffic driving me to Wikipedia I have donated more often than I normally would have.  I see those banner ads asking for donations, take a second to acknowledge that they are cataloging all human knowledge to such a degree that it's almost as if we have assembled our own God, go holy fuck, and throw them fifty bucks out of pure wonder.

I had donated previously, but the frequency that I visit is most definitely correlated to the frequency of my donations. "
science,"Have you read one of their notices? 
 
It is a guilt trip. 
 
“Hey there. Yeah, you sir. Surfing the net. Could you just spare a dollar sir?
 
No? Well you know if everyone seeing this page right now donated one dollar we could wrap up the fundraiser in 1 hour, so please reconsider?”
 
What I’d rather hear is the emo shit ripped out and a simple:
 
“Hey, we cost $10m to run. Our Execs are making $130k/yr, very small for nonprofit work. The rest of our expenses are infrastructure costs making sure we’re around and able to handle capacity. 
 
Chip in whatever you can, and we’ll keep the lights on, but the day we run out of donations we’re going to have to close shop - we’d rather do that than run ads.”
 
So, the way they present it makes me curious. 
 
How much do they pull in a year? 
 
How much are the people at the top skimming off?
 
Aren’t the editors/moderators all volunteer?
 
"
science,"Yes, but with the internet there is so much more information available. Something in the past we would half-ass we can now be sure of instantly. Even in conversation, if you can’t think of a specific event or a fact about a specific thing, you can just look it up on Wikipedia. And sure a lot of people use Google, but on every google search the first answer is on Wikipedia. "
science,"Think back even 10 years. You could be talking about any number of things you were not familiar with:

*Cancer, bridge construction, Vietnam war, astrophysics, NBA records,* whatever.

Someone could tell you something and because you didn't know any better, you might believe it and spread that false information.

Now, we literally have an encyclopedia of just about anything you can possibly imagine right in our pockets. False information can be shut down instantly. That's impressive.

I've since learned from Wikipedia that some shit even my teachers taught me in school was wrong."
science,"Current income is approx $90M, spending 70$M. See [2 charts here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Expenses).

In 2005, even if a little in jest, [Jimmy Wales said](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2017-02-27/Op-ed):

>So, we're doing around 1.4 billion page views monthly. So, it's really gotten to be a huge thing. And everything is managed by the volunteers and the total monthly cost for our bandwidth is about US$5,000, and that's essentially our main cost. We could actually do without the employee …

The donations support the entire Wikimedia Foundation, of which Wikipedia is only a part. They have many other projects (although including structural undertakings that can indirectly benefit wikipedia) that don't seem to take off all that much - especially from the point of view of laymen readership. A large part of the spending increases are salaries to support these projects.

As far as I can tell, their financials don\`t split cost by project so we can't tell how much Wikipedia alone costs.

I don't donate."
science,"Actually, someone else argues $5 per Month first. I made the argument to be more realistic for $5/year and not per month. Someone jumped in and suggested $5/mo is reasonable. Why is that reasonable for for the average user? With hundred of millions of unique visitors per month, you’re arguing that users should be paying $100 billion per year 

If someone says that average penis size is 14 inches in China and I say it’s more likely it to be 5-6 inches, why would believe the 14 inch chain and ask me to proce my estimate?


Like, what is even reasonable to believe that $5/mo is the average use for a Wikipedia user? 


"
science,"> False information can be shut down instantly.

Totally true for a lot of topics, but there are still tons of data voids (specific topics where no good content is avaliable) where false information can still masquerade as truth.

Edit: just going to add a [reference](https://datasociety.net/output/data-voids-where-missing-data-can-easily-be-exploited/) here to an interesting paper from data and society and a interesting passage from this reference

> Consider searching for “Harrold-Oklaunion.” Both Bing and Google promise you tens of thousands of results, but the front page of each is pretty barren. Most of it is algorithmically generated content by services like Accuweather.com, City-Data.com, Yellowpages.com, and Acrevalue.com. These are services that produce a unique page for every town in the country. There’s a smattering of links to Wikipedia entries, news stories, and court records. But all told, the results associated with this small Texas town of roughly 500 people are limited. Most likely, few people search for this town. Over the month of February 2018, there were so few queries run on Bing for this search term we could only find a very small number, likely from us. Given both limited data and limited searches, it would not be hard to radically alter the results. By creating new content with the town’s name and engaging in a small amount of search engine optimization, someone could with relative ease get search engines to return their website on the front page of results."
science,"There are things to improve even on Wikipedia. The power struggles that happen behind the scenes between editors can seem completely puzzling to outsiders. A dedicated and established editor can hold a niche article hostage just because of their stature and knowledge of the bureaucracy. Wikipedia has a rule for everything and this editor can always claim (for example) that certain edits are ""in bad faith"".

Some fun to be had reading through the cases settled by Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee."
science,"Yeah it's actually pretty interesting to look over the internal politics of Wikipedia. I'd say that Wikipedia's objectivity is just as substantial of an accomplishment as its vast amount of information. The editor wars are probably its biggest threat, and the framework set in place to give established editors more power(as they are ideally the ones who have proven themselves to their peers) unfortunately doesn't seem to be perfect in preventing these types of situations. I just hope that no ill-meaning or self-serving groups or individuals find a way to take advantage of these flaws in the system."
science,"So we’re all in agreement that Wikipedia is the greatest innovation in the proliferation of knowledge since either the printing press or public circulating library?

The printing press did wonders. Instead of commissioning a master penman to copy a book you want, you could purchase it. Still not, cheap, but a literate person could have a small library of relevant books he needed. 

The public circulating library gave access to a wide variety of books. You could read whatever you need, including printed encyclopedias. 

Wikipedia makes access as close as your nearest computer or smartphone."
science,"Not for profits rely on generating a surplus in order to upgrade their equipment and have a slush fund for when bad things happen. A flood in your building cause of a cracked water pipe might cause damage not covered by insurance. Someone might accidentally delete a copy of a file someone needs and it has to be forensically recovered. They may need to hire specifically skilled contractors to investigate cloud computing algorithms that fail but uncover interesting promising data for the future. 

Nobody plans a perfect watertight budget for years in advance, there is always an “overrun” budget or what people call slush funds. Does buying every executive an iPad improve their efficiency by 20%?

I do management in a university and our IT budget is split into break/fix maintence, projects, research and “other”. The “other” is like 10-20% of the budget and gets drained constantly. Think of donations as needing to be 10-20% more than they need in order to have them survive. If wikipedia needs to grow, it can’t grow with a static forecasted budget."
science,"In this case it's good that it's not a democracy.

If it were, with enough people, they could validate the anti-vax movement, despite all evidence showing that Vaccinations are good and cause no problems.

To be clear, from the source it says they are a site that promotes *concensus*.

They reach a consensus following their *Five Pillars*.

1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

2. It must have a neutral voice.

3. It must be free to use and distribute.

4. Editors must be civil with each other.

5. There are guidelines, but no harsh rules since it's a work in progress and mistakes can/do happen.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars"
science,"It’s a massive free open source encyclopedia that has never charged anyone a dime for access. I would say it’s hands down but he greatest thing on the internet and probably the greatest thing at spreading information ever. I read Wikipedia basically every single day, usually multiple pages. I’ve learned so much because of that site, just yesterday I learned about the Japanese Paleolithic and a tribe native to the kurill islands called the Ainu I never knew existed, and I just randomly happened upon those topics after googling something completely unrelated. "
science,">I just hope that no ill-meaning or self-serving groups or individuals find a way to take advantage of these flaws in the system.

I keep getting surprised by how uninvolved the various interest groups are when it comes to Wikipedia's behind-the-scenes. It takes years to build a name for each editor so it's a lot of effort (or you need to find and hire existing editors), but the PR value is there. The way the rules work allow for a group of editors to effectively shut out unwanted sources and even unwanted editors, while at the same time allowing their own. "
science,"I donated to them a few years ago (whenever their donation banner first went balls-to-the-wall on the ""gradual tiny line -> full page sob story"" strategy), and while I was happy to send a bit of cash towards a good cause, I was later quite upset to learn that they apparently already have [*buttloads* of cash.](https://i.imgur.com/kfzxIlD.png)

I understand that they have all sorts of other projects under their umbrella, but the tone and increasing urgency / final full-page coverage of the plea banner gave me the strong impression (although it was probably quite carefully worded to not specifically *say*) that they were genuinely desperate and *struggling to survive* because the hosting fees for such a large and frequently-used ad-free database of information were simply too much to bear.

[They do good things,](https://wikimediafoundation.org/) and I'm sure my money wasn't wasted... but I still feel conned, somehow, even if it *was* for a good cause. But at least I can feel perfectly comfortable just shamelessly ignoring that banner without a second thought every year now, though, so I suppose that that in and of itself has made the donation worth it (despite my still bearing a grudge.)

Edit: Made butts white."
science,"I think Wikipedia is an amazing and essential resource, but Joe Schmo working a 8-5 (1 hour mandatory lunch) who is barely making ends meet can't really help. I've donated to wiki several times and due to tax laws couldn't even write it off. 

Most of us are barely scraping by, we don't have the resources to help wiki.

I have to keep my rent paid and my car loan paid first."
science,">The power struggles that happen behind the scenes between editors can seem completely puzzling to outsiders. A dedicated and established editor can hold a niché article hostage just because of their stature and knowledge of the bureaucracy. Wikipedia has a rule for everything and this editor can always claim (for example) that certain edits are ""in bad faith"".

This is a good thing. It keeps articles factually correct and up to date"
science,"Pillar 5: they will make mistakes.

I think they do that when you're a brand new user; from my last exploration of their system, they have to review your edit before it goes public. Obviously, sources matter, depending on the subject.

Also, depending on the subject, it may take time before someone can come around to fixing it or letting it be published.

When Chris Benoit (profession US wrestler) commited suicide, his Wiki was changed the same day it occurred--though it didn't become public knowledge until 3 days later.  I think that part was passed on the investigators, but I don't know how far it got them.

It's also to prevent the website from changing every other hour--imagine what a nightmare that would be. I don't want Wikipedia to become a meme of a website or to become encyclopediadramatica (though I enjoy the latter for the lulz)."
science,"Unless I'm forgetting something or something has changed, people don't own pages. You can protect pages such that new users or non ""moderators"" (called sysops) can't edit them, though. That's only done for preventing edit wars or for certain high value pages (like the main page and heavily used templates).

The exception being your user page, although I don't recall there being any protections against others editing it, but simply that it's uncouth to edit. "
science,">'m sure my money wasn't wasted... but I still feel conned, somehow, even if it was for a good cause. But at least I can feel perfectly comfortable just shamelessly ignoring that banner without a second thought every year now, 

I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong.

So even though Wiki does great things, you're upset that they use banner ads (you can X out of) and that you're donation wasn't essential to the point your money kept the lights on, even though you acknowledge they do amazing things.

If I'm understanding your words correctly...thats a really weird way to look at it.

Also, wtf is that graph???? There is absolutely zero information other than green and red bars. "
science,"Around 2006-2008 or so there was this whole discussion about ""Web 2.0"" and what it meant. In 2006 TIME Magazine recognized ""you"" as person of the year, with various web 2.0 properties like Facebook and MySpace as the paragons of the new social internet. 

Well, we all know what happened to MySpace and how facebook perhaps isn't an uncomplicated force for good today.

I do, however, remember an article from a few years later that took a sober look at Web 2.0 and what it brought. It acknowledged facebook and gmail and all that new stuff that was gaining a greater audience at the time. 

It also argued that Wikipedia was the jewel of the internet and that it was the thing that realized the potential of the internet and in particular the thing that leveraged the power of ""web 2.0"" to do good.

And it was *god damned right*. For all its faults, Wikipedia is an absolute treasure and a singular achievement of mankind. I have a hard time imagining the world without it. I even get teared up about it, when I *really think about it*. 

Turns out mankind can do *something* right. "
science,"I know professionals that used to write for ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITTANICA (EB). I was told by them that if EB could be taken seriously and used for a source, then WIKIPEDIA (WP), without a doubt, should definitely be able to be used as a source as well. WP is scrutinized so much more than EB ever was apparently. However with WP, just like with EB, primary sources should be double checked and cited alongside WP. Any teacher or professor who says, ""Don't use WP, use real sources!,"" is just mad that kids nowadays have such quick and easy access to the information they need. They're the ones who don't think calculators should be used either. They probably secretly wish you still had to use a card catalog and the Dewey decimal system! "
science,"At first I was credulous. Then I paused to reflect upon how bizzare it is that people can learn at entirely different paces, in entirely different directions. I was reminded of an xkcd sketch on the subject. 

All I know is that I've known of the Ainu for longer than I can recall, and I assumed that everyone knew of the sensitive history the Japanese had with the natives of Okinawa and Hokaido, but I cannot recall exactly from what point I knew. 

All I do know, is that wikipedia is perhaps one of the most extraordinary products of mankind, and I value it for it's existance, insofar as it has remained steady against all of those who frequently sought to undermine it and enter into editing struggles to push their version of fact. Like a tool, wikipedia can be used ineptly, irresponsibly, or sometimes it serves no purpose at all, and more refined, specialised, even antiquated tools are needed instead, but it's one incredible tool nevertheless."
science,"I've written quite a few highly-voted posts on SU with Wikipedia links, but most of those links are there for the definition of a specific term (and therefore a bit of a tangent). Most links could be left out without much difference to the answer.

It's also natural for longer posts (as many highly-voted ones are) to include more links to references.

So, while there's a correlation, I'm not sure to what extent you can say the Wikipedia link itself influences votes."
science,"The poorer folks who didn't own encyclopedias would have to journey to the library, hope the volume they wanted wasn't already in someone else's hands, and spend a great deal more time on the research.

Now someone way out in the North Woods, 50 miles from the nearest library, can find that same information in his pocket for a fraction of the time for free. No cellular data and no fixed wireless or satellite internet? That's okay, Wikipedia is fairly usable on dialup.

Sure, it's not life or death, but it makes us a great deal more knowledgeable very quickly and easily."
science,"Original response said users should pay $5/mo. I said we that is over shooting and $5/yr is realistIf goal. Another individual said it was worth it to them. 

So then my question to you:

1. Why not attack the first guy saying $5/mo? 
2. Why would you think $5/mo is something the average Wikipedia user would pay or is using it the equivalent of $5/mo?
3. Guy with his anecdote is indirectly supporting the original argument for $5/mo. I just told him that isn’t the typical user. If you disagree, go back to #2. 

I get it...these posts bring in people like you that want to CJ all over Wikipedia. Reality doesn’t matter to you "
science,"Brittanica is slightly more accurate. 

>For its study, Nature chose articles from both sites in a wide range of topics and sent them to what it called ""relevant"" field experts for peer review. The experts then compared the competing articles--one from each site on a given topic--side by side, but were not told which article came from which site. Nature got back 42 usable reviews from its field of experts.
In the end, the journal found just eight serious errors, such as general misunderstandings of vital concepts, in the articles. Of those, four came from each site. They did, however, discover a series of factual errors, omissions or misleading statements. All told, Wikipedia had 162 such problems, while Britannica had 123.
That averages out to 2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia.


[Sauce.](https://www.cnet.com/news/study-wikipedia-as-accurate-as-britannica/)"
science,"Exactly. I read a random Wikipedia page a day on average too. I especially love history, and any time I wonder something specific about something I just open up the app and have the info instantly. I also add articles to the reading list as if they are books I plan on reading. It's so incredible and I feel like some people take for granted just how awesome it is that it's free and so accessible. "
science,"yea. but lets face it, like other ""new"" creations on the internet, back in the day, it needed a few corners cut, to begin with. Today it's on the same scale of quality like Britannica. :)

however it has other issues. that could be helped by having educated people fact checking it, etc. to avoid power struggles..

​

plus, wikipedia has links to the references. that can be followed too.... for more knowledge....."
science,"I’m also a teacher who loves Wikipedia. I’m young enough to have had access to Wikipedia in school and to have parroted the “Wikipedia is a bad source” nonsense before the understanding of its value evolved. Now I regularly reference it in class and talk about how I use it to get a feel for a topic and get details from the sources. I want to teach them to use their resources and to be critical thinkers. Wikipedia is a great tool to support that. They all have access to it from their pockets, so why not spend just as much time teaching them to use that effectively as searching academic databases that they might use through college, if they go, and never see again. "
science,"But the problem is that academic papers arent approachable to the common reader. It's just academics writing for fellow academics. Wikipedia skips the jargon and just writes what these articles say in far more approachable ways. There is nothing more frustrating than having an article that has a great point, but is written in such a way that even with a degree and a passion for the field I can't get through it all in an enjoyable way. 


So yeah, while papers are great most are written for academics only. Which defeats the whole purpose of academic work. "
science,">I would argue Wikipedia is the greatest thing on the internet. Think about how uneducated we’d be without it. 

So before Wikipedia everyone was a dumb fuck?  Ever heard of a library or books?  Wikipedia is a tool to spread misinformation, it is easily manipulated, people need to stop using as a 1 stop shop for *knowledge* in the same way we should avoid using google or Yahoo as our primary sources of information."
science,"This came up a while back in a minor part of the scandal that caused Bryan Colangelo, GM of the 76ers, to lose his job because his wife was tweeting defensively about him from a series of burner accounts and revealing confidential information in the process. A few of her tweets used the European method for denoting money (something like ""That player is not worth 10$ million per year""), which was one of the clues that Twitter sleuths used to determine that they were written by a non-native English speaker—and even to link them specifically to Colangelo's wife, who is Italian."
science,"As a gray hair person, you are correct. The whole thing started by founding by the US government, more specially the department of defense (DARPA). They were looking for a communication system that would be resilient to attacks. 

Researchers in US envisioned communication protocols and started connecting computers across universities.  More specially inter connecting their networks, hence the name: inter + net = internet. You can find maps of the early connections.

What researchers did with that? They send each others jokes, pranks and research papers.  That made knowledge a bit faster to spread among universities and students started using it as well (no cats gifts yet).   Eventually connections have been allowed with for profit companies and from there a snowball effect connected pretty much everything together.

The early days (1980's) had users mostly over educated (PhD and engineers) who were eager to share their knowledge and most importantly learn from others.

The hypertext markup started late in the 1980's at CERN, a European research center. The person was looking for an interface to easily navigate between content.

Fast forward we end up with a foundation that is willing to gather all human knowledge. It definitely has its roots in the early days of internet and stick to the original version of internet creators.  The only concern I have with wikipedia is that is entirely centralized and US biased, but that is surely better than a company selling your profile for advertisements.

TLDR: bunch of geeks with 150 IQ started connecting their computers to exchange everything they knew. Internet was born."
science,"I wouldn't say targeting a specialist audience defeats the purpose of academic work. If each academic paper were written to be accessible to a wide (layman) audience, each 5-page publication would turn into a 500-page book, detailing all the concepts that are expected to be well known among fellow researchers. Most researchers have very little time (80 hour workweeks are not uncommon in academia), so a report needs to cut to the chase and be concise. Also, ""intermediate"" results presented in most studies are only of interest to specialists. If a study yields results that are of greater societal interest or have a direct application, it is quite often accompanied by a press release summarising the main findings and take-home messages. These press releases find their way to popular science journalists and editors who can interpret them and convey the message in an understandable way (which is an art in itself)."
science,">I keep getting surprised by how uninvolved 

I don't have the source right now, but I've definitely come across some studies that tend to prove otherwise. Corporations, PR team, politics, all have infested wikipedia since quite some time, and they have established editors in the lot. It's quite logical, considering the importance of looking good on wikipedia given it's usually the only thing the average joe will look at to get a general idea of something he just heard about. There are even online services you can hire that guarantee you established editors."
science,And many fewer people are actually capable of comprehending what’s in that paper when they lack the background.  I see techbros on this site consistently misinterpreting studies because they have zero formal education in anything relevant to the paper’s field.  To a lesser extent I see this with people whose education is in hard sciences when they look at political science studies and don’t seem to understand why p values are so high.  No matter how smart or educated you may be sometimes the wiki summary is more comprehensible than the actual paper unless you have a relevant degree. 
science,"Just a sidenote but I've always thought that the problem with Wikipedia as a source is less to do with its reliability per se, and more to do with its inherently temporary nature.  When taught to students citation is usually framed in the context of giving due credit for somebody else's work, but *really* the point of citation is to give your readers a way to refer to the source material that you're using to underpin whatever argument you're putting forward.  That's trickier with a source like Wikipedia that can change at a moment's notice, as compared to a traditional encyclopedia where once a particular edition is published the information will exist in exactly that form for as long as a copy of that edition can be tracked down.  I suppose Wikipedia could probably get around that problem by letting you view a snapshot of an article from a particular time?  But honestly I don't know if such a feature exists."
science,"It's just general knowledge of the world. Same goes for regional minorities in countries all around the world. History, Geography, Politics. All subjects it is a duty for all conscientious citizens to acquaint themselves with as much as they are capable, or so my old German teacher used to tell me. It seemed so sensible as to be universal, or so I thought as a child. 

I've never cared more for Japan than any other country, although I've never met anyone with whom I discussed the matter who wasn't at least familiar with the Ainu and Ryukyuans. Maybe they don't know about the haplogroup anomalies, or the ethnic replacement of the neolithic inhabitants closely related to the Ainu, but they know the expected minimum."
science,"Very true. I think it might be cool if somehow someone made a version that was more like a classic encyclopedia for putting on flash drives and such. Like, skip all the pages about the drummer in an indie band from Switzerland. While it's cool to have that kind of thing, I feel like a large amount of space goes to things like people, specific cities and places, other general stuff that very few people will look at. So having a curated version would be cool. Would be a lot of work though."
science,"I really wish that wikipedia articles made it easier to view ideas/materials that were eliminated,discarded and/or decided against...

I'm aware there are talk pages with archives, but they usually don't seem to provide the the amount of detail I'd hope for.

It seems like articles could possibly maintain more detailed changelogs or even ""forking"" within individual articles... i.e. the articles would still look identical as they do today but you could view the forks in same way that you view the talk pages..

"
science,"Okay here is the rub. There is NO way to have any sort of platform wide accounting regarding any measurement of how rampant any abuse is. Due to factors too numerous to mention, most problems do not come to the surface, and the variations of abuse that fall of the radar can be so minor as involving only two or three people that nothing gets registered anywhere, at all.

[Censorship, Suppression, The Shining Light of Wikipedia, and other disappointments.](http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/2017/06/censorship-suppression-the-shining-light-of-wikipedia-and-other-disappointments/)"
science,"He is entirely unsure of what he is even saying. ""Dont give them any more ideas"" this is 2018 - those who had the idea to abuse the platform for agenda based editing happened years and years ago, Larry Sanger, the co-founder, quit over many of these abuses.

The problem is twofold on Wikipedia. One is the software design flaw, which increases competition while community rules and guidelines foister collaboration. Second issue is, by the standards of Wikipedia's own community, a ""honeypot"" for those on the spectrum. [This group tends to lack social empathy, increasing the tensions in these flaws.](http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/2018/09/oliver-d-smith-mediawiki-poster-boy/)

​"
science,"I totally get why most papers are written at a higher level. 100% agree with you on that. However, I do feel that this keeps things from spreading to the general public as easily. I'm not saying we need to work better at writing ""dumber"", but perhaps writing in a more engaging way? I have a book about a region in europe that I have zero experience in, and a book related to my own archaeological research. The one on Europe was a far better read because the author did an excellent job painting a picture of the world these people lived in, which made it far more enjoyable. The one on my own area of research didn't do this at all. Both were written recently and both by respected researchers who did the needed stats, but one was far better simply because the author didnt make it as sterile. "
science,"This was my feeling also. There's a lot of reasons why SO links to Wikipedia but not the other way around. Theres lots of issues with measuring ""value"". So im not exactly confident the results can be known from what data I think exists out there to collect.

And while I think Wikipedia is great, I think Reddit and StackExchange are great too. They're all just different data structures. There are some graph-based ones out there now that communities build trees together rather than strings. Interesting times! But to say objects have more value than arrays, because arrays appear in more objects than objects in arrays... is... I just think the whole thing starts from a weird place. I think it's due to the fetishization of big data. I mean, website analysis in itself is not science. It's journalism with numbers. I like that. I think it's cool. But when the awards start coming out and the main findings are that a company, albeit Wikipedia, are awesome. Meh. "
science,"All authors are equal, but some are more equal than others... I have seen many publications that were dry as bone and remained undigested even after a second pass. So yes, the trick is to write an easily readable and well structured paper, regardless of your audience. For science communication to the public, I'd say peer-reviewed publications are not the right medium. So that's where Wikipedia and Reddit come in :)"
science,">I would argue Wikipedia is the greatest thing on the internet.

I agree, I wish I had an offline backup of it all :/

It sucks being Swedish though, the Swedish articles are pretty crap usually and I have to choose between a Swedish article with very limited information or an English one that I might not fully comprehend. It's usually fine in English but I like reading about science-heavy things that use a lot of advanced terminology, it can get confusing."
science,"When I was in high school, some teachers also stressed no Wikipedia so we could learn the value of finding different sources and opinions. Her belief was that one conglomerate source from multiple sources tensed towards the same opinion and tone and without seeing different point of views, you don't get the full picture since it was primarily American written and run. 

Obviously not always the case, but she was really stressing their may be a time when wikipedia doesn't have enough information for you and you need to dig it up.

Really help me in college since Wikipedia has very little information on advanced engineering and work flow modeling. And yes... I went to a library to get more information.

I would say Wikipedia is amazing to start research on anything. But, to get to the finer details, that takes time. I've actually found using the internet time machine to be helpful to find old archived sites for information that have since been taken down. "
science,"Well in the beginning this was true. Back in the early 90s, top level domain names used to be reserved for specific uses. Com used to reserved for commercial ventures,. Org used to be open for non profits,. Net used to reserved for websites who acted as index of sorts and lastly. Edu is obviously limited to facilities of education.

So essentially, specific domain names used to have specific purposes and based on who created the site it may or. May not be trustworthy. Obviously this has changed over the years where domain extensions have allowed almost anyone to use. Com, org, net, etc. "
science,"For me, it was bordom doing tech support, and something to put my eng/his degree toward. I supplied a lot of content in History (a lot of the Tudor Kings info and Roman Emporers past 7 years is mine, unless its been changed) before getitng into Sports, and then the deep bias/stupidity I had to fight.  I also put in a lot of content into Fannation as well, until SI screwed that site over. 
So I created my own site, might as well do something with my time. 
"
science,"I’m a scientist. This is the equivalent of me giving you shit for not understanding the difference between CAM and C4 photosynthesis or something. Why would you study that if it’s not something you’re interested in? Knowing about a tiny obscure tribe is not general history of the world at all, and the vast majority of people do not research random tribes and histories of countries they aren’t from, that’s why there are professions called “historian” and “anthropologist”. There is an endless list of things you have no idea exist and many others do"
science,"Well I thank you for that. I've been having a blast building my own moss terrariums recently. I'll have to do some studying on categories of photosynthesis some time. 

My point all along was to do with how strange it feels to have somebody clearly outline the discovery of new knowledge to them, which has for oneself been common and relegated trivia for some time. 

My follow-up point to that in a later comment, was how it was a key element to my education, that I had teachers instill in me the importance in the accumulation of knowledge for it's own sake, and of subjects defined under the canopy of the humanities in particular as being valuable towards the achieving higher and higher degrees of conscientious citizenship. Fields of interest that branch off into more technical subjects are of course, where the true veil between trivial and esoteric begin. I don't speak on the matter of epistemology, philology, or maritime logistics, and expect that anyone has the faintest idea of what I'm discussing, but I have an expectation of myself - as I do for others - that individuals could or ought to be able to identify various nations, and have some rudimentary understanding of their recent history. "
science,"everyone can be racist 

im more concern with racism rooted in ideas of supremacy, eugenics, etc. than i am due to anger and resentment caused by historical injustices

if a native american hates white people who are pro-colonialism and pro-Manifest Destiny (and these sorts of white people today are the kinds who accept NO form of protest from minorities, i.e. no kneeling during the national anthem), im less concerned

if a jew hates nazi, im less concerned

"
science,"I mean, given that white people continue to hold the vast majority of political and economic power (in the US), racism against white people is probably assumed to be less consequential than racism against minority groups. Many of the sociological problems faced by ethnic minorities is very much tied to racial bias against them, so it should be no surprise that more focus is given those forms of racism. Literally no one is saying minorities cannot be racist."
science,"sounds like you're an all-lives-matter proponent

the question is whether *you* are a racist

diluting the issue of racism by removing historical context is exactly what racists do

do you support the anthem protests?
who did you vote for president?
do you understand what BLM means? do you support it?

etc.

context always matters. racism isn't unique to white people. but i'm more concerned when its white ppl being racists versus aboriginals being racists

i dont live under a power structure whose every strata is populated by aboriginals. it's mostly populated by white people

hence, white racism > all other racism in America

this is not difficult to understand unless you're a racist yourself

you should read the article on 'white fragility' as well"
science,"> i dont live under a power structure whose every strata is populated by aboriginals. it's mostly populated by white people

> hence, white racism > all other racism in America

Rise up, you are strong and empowered show the white man on the battlefield, in the classroom and the boardroom how equal you are. Equality is an invention of man not nature, if your struggle is just and your hand diligent, victory is assured over the racist white power structures.  "
science,"Again, I have not. Those are your assumptions as opposed to the meanings of the actual words I've used. Also, while I'm sure that last part sounded super smart and relevant in your mind, it's literally impossible to be a human and not 'deal in subjectivism'. Humans all have emotions. Emotions are subjective in nature. If you don't acknowledge and accept the part your emotions play in your opinions and overall worldview, you're even more likely to come to irrational/inaccurate opinions because you're not doing anything to address or compensate for your inherent biases."
science,"These mice also live in these enclosures and they say that they are cleaned with “harsh detergent” which caused bpa to be released. 

Not saying we shouldn’t look into this but these mice have a significantly higher exposure than any humans. 

I’m also curious how they know it’s bpa or its replacement and not something else in the plastic, the detergents, food, etc. did they literally find bpa molecules interfering with sperm production?

Also.  

> Other investigators in my facility don’t see it but it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t impact their research."
science,"Bias is a possible confounder on the results, and that should be objectively assessed in the discussion; but ultimately the motive of any research is a hypothesis (an “opinion” until proven), so to argue that results may be false due to someone having a hypothesis is to argue against the scientific method, which is a dangerous road to start going down, and demonstrably unreasonable. 

There’s a litany of research already that indicates these experiments are of sound conjecture, and not a logical leap in any sense. "
science,"To be fair, there are lots of problems with mouse housing that pop up that researchers don’t notice unless they’re studying something it directly interferes with. For example I worked on mouse stress behavior, so stuff like the room being too cold, the dark cycle being off a bit, loud noises, cage change day, etc would fuck up all my experiments. Stuff that someone working on, say, lipid cell metabolism probably wouldn’t notice. "
science,"You seem confused about what science is and how it works.

Hypotheses are not opinions nor the motive of research. They're statements that the researcher can empirically test, regardless of their personal opinion. The motive of a scientific experiment is to test a hypothesis, not to prove a hypothesis right or wrong. You actually do not even prove anything, you just collect and analyze evidence which may or may not support the hypothesis.

Bias, on the other hand, may lead a researcher to make certain methodological design choices consistent with their prior beliefs or collect the data in a biased way. It may also cause them to reach conclusions during the discussion section that are not well substantiated by the evidence. For example, they may choose a strange hypothesis due to their personal bias, or they may inadvertently bias their data by smiling more at white participants during a survey, or they might overstate their findings in the final paragraph of the paper because they really want to rake in those citations."
science,"You are missing the entire point of what I was conveying, and instead arguing an alternative (but related)point which I agree with and stated as such. I would suggest you re-read what I wrote with a little less confrontational perspective and a bit more of an open mind. 

Science is about transforming subjective assertions into objective conclusions that can be built upon. Because the original hypothesis comes from a human brain, it is by definition subject to some personal biases. That hypothesis is an extrapolation of currently available data. Any time you work on the frontier of emerging research, the entire purpose of the work is to define the new frontier in an objective way, but you have to use previous data and subjective critical thinking to try to ascertain where to shine the light next, then critically test your theory. "
science,"You have to look at it in terms of the food chain, not just the direct effect of human exposure.  The environment is full of plastic waste, and those break down over time, releasing those chemicals into the environment.  They bioaccumulate, and then you end up having massive problems with the food chain, particularly in animals with very short lifespan, and animals which are high on the food chain.  It's not as much about the direct impact of you keeping your food in a ziplock bag, it's about where that ziplock bag, and the billions of others end up, and how they effect delicate ecosystems."
science,"Fun fact about plastics: Prior to the 1960's, petroleum refineries were paying to dispose of the toxic byproducts that were made when extracting gasoline from crude oil. They were paying a lot of money to get rid of the stuff. Until one day, a wondrous person figured out they could shape the petrol-waste into a cup, and sell it to you to drink water out of.

And that's the story of where plastic came from. It's literally industrial waste. Now BPA Free! Still industrial waste."
science,"The 'research' had only really been popular among 'mothers groups' and the Internet, and has been a bit of an ongoing joke along those who actually understand it. The FDA's reply to ""Is BPA safe?"" was literally ""Yes"" until politicians that read this kind of garbage forces them to change it. At MDM East in I think it was 2013 we had the FDA and experts panel literally laughing about how overly complex it was being made when the only evidence of danger required directly injecting syringes into mice that we're the equivalent of several lifetimes worth of exposure multiple times a day. Like you said, this study from 20 years ago isn't even considered worth real discussion as their methodology is so bad they have no clue what they're actually evaluating.

Edit: For perspective, we're talking literally lifetimes of crap being put in all at once. Do that with literally ANYTHING and you'll cause a lethal reaction. Most things the volume would be so high the subject wouldn't even be able to contain it."
science,"I design scientific equipment for use with mice and material selection is a nightmare. Glass breaks, acrylic can’t be autoclaved, polysulfone is expensive as hell and can only be machined, polycarbonate is good but might have BPA issues. Stainless steel is fantastic but either restricts geometry (laser cut and folded) or is expensive as hell (machined). 

Some advances in 3D printing show a lot of promise because they are cost effective at our volumes but can really be customized to fit our geometry needs.

In general, everyone in my field is with you in theory, but “just find a better material” is an ongoing battle. "
science,"Did you read the methods? For such a high profile study the number of mice was very low. They mention in the methods that they had difficulties with stability of the female mice before any treatment. You're discounting the possibility that cage positions, caretaker differences, and other technical differences, may be at play. It's plausible the original hypothesis is the truth, and some other studies support that notion, but it's not beyond concern.  Others have found no effects from BPA, although negative data usually goes unreported. Don't discount the Delta bias in papers -- the fact that differences, and often those that stand out, are the data that make their way into press, while experiments that don't are learned from but retained internally as a lesson learned."
science,"We were laughing at the fact people gave any credence to what some people are passing off as science. It's hilarious that anyone that calls themselves a 'researcher' or 'scientist' does this poor of work and has no shame putting it to the public. It's essentially the equivalent of watching slapstickor self-deprecating humor from a comedian. Turns out, humans work for the government too and they are capable of laughing at comedy as well.

I'd like to know, who's boots am I licking exactly?"
science,"Thanks! Here’s more!

Aluminum is good and lightweight but has corrosion issues. You can anodize it to protect it but a scratch to the anodized coating reintroduces the corrosion issues. This is why you shouldn’t use metal utensils with cheap aluminum cook wear like the Walmart $50 turkey fryer gas burner and 7 gallon pot set. 

Injection molding and metal stamping are useful manufacturing techniques with some massive limitations. The marginal (per unit) cost is amazing but the tooling (one time set up) is crazy. Like $0.80 marginal with a $100,000 tooling. So that only works if you have high enough volumes to amortize that tooling into the marginal and only add $1 or so. Or if you are so confident in your design that you expect it to be unchanged and market viable for decades. Otherwise you’re paying hundreds per part just on the product enclosure. 

Enclosures can be made with one way snap fittings to make production faster and lower the labor hours and product cost of goods sold (COGS) but this makes them impossible to reopen and so the product needs to be cheap enough to be willing to trash non conforming products rather than repair. "
science,"I am curious as to why you used ""to be fair"" in this context?

Is it normal in your profession or in research in general to not be cognizant of mitigating factors?  Is that somehow excusable?

Laymen like me expect those in research, serious professional life altering research anyway, to consider and be aware of all factors. I don't really think that qualifies for standard assumptions, miscues or ignoring not immediately obvious (to a layman) mitigating circumstances."
science,"But that wouldn't give the researcher the plastic-implicating result she was going for. So instead she has to inject several lifetimes' worth of plastic exposure into their brains multiple times per day.

If she's so convinced that plastics are doing damage to mammal lifespans, she needs to investigate the mechanism by which it allegedly occurs. If it's actually happening, that shouldn't be too difficult. Mouse metabolism is pretty well understood. If she can isolate the biochemistry and show *how* plastic leaching causes the effects she claims it does, she'll get one or several high-impact publications out of it. She'll be set for life.

There's literally no reason not to pursue the research unless you know ahead of time it won't pan out. For example, if you know the premise is baseless."
science,"If that's so, then she has even less reason to avoid doing the further work necessary to show how bis-phenols affect reproductive biology. Surely if she's so well-known, established, and respected, it should be easy for her to get funding for such an important continuation to her seminal research (no pun intended).

She's had 20 years to do something that shouldn't take more than a few at most. Why would she avoid it unless she already knew it would go nowhere?"
science,"The post above seemed to be implying that other labs not being sensitive to the abnormalities was a sign that this study was flawed. I’m just saying that it’s not uncommon for researchers to not notice every single detail about their animals unless they’re specifically looking for them. I do believe that’s something mouse researchers need to be doing better at, but to be totally aware all the tine would be nearly impossible. "
science,"Can I ask what kind of corrosion you’re worried about with aluminum? Galvanic? Or is it chemical contact induced? I’m just curious, as I know other industries have played around with balancing alloying elements to reduce galvanic corrosion and to preserve the oxide layer. Alloys with super low magnesium content might be particularly promising for you, depending on the application. 


(I’m a materials engineer and I’ve done a bit of work with aluminum, facing similar problems. Unfortunately, I can’t talk much because of NDAs.)"
science,"I just did a Google search and came across a write up that had what seemed to be credible sources and pretty much said exactly this. The levels of BPA that we're typically exposed to is thousands of times less than the lowest equivalent amount in studies on animals that showed any health effects. Even microwaving food in a container that has BPA won't put you over the amount determined to be safe. 

I thought it was fact that BPA is dangerous and that's why you see ""BPA free"" labels but apparently they're just catering to the popular belief. Similar to how they label organic food.

With that being said, I would still definitely avoid it if pregnant because I have no idea how much of a small amount of ingested BPA makes it into the fetus and what the effect would be. "
science,"Yep! The crazy part, is that we've replaced BPA containing plastics with copolyesters (Tritan/Trilliant being a large one. Same material made by Eastman, just a matter of Tritan is sold by Eastman and Trilliant is relabeled and sold by PolyOne) that we know much less about. Copolyesters and SAN (next most common alternative) do appear to be safe from the limited studies that have been done, but I'm less comfortable with it than PC due to the overwhelming amount of testing proving PC is safe.

Also, yes. We switched our products to Trilliant HC only due to marketing. It increased our manufacturing costs and the cost of the product substantially. It's literally providing a lower quality product at higher costs, but that's what patients and doctors wanted."
science,"Wait, what? You can have plastic vs not plastic cages at first and keep everything else the same. Additionally, a lot of things can have plastics introduced into them, like water bottles and food and bedding if we're doing no plastic cages at all. Injections don't have to be in the brain (why do they have to be in the brain?) and instead IV given that absorption goes through the blood and not the CSF.

>If she can isolate the biochemistry and show how plastic leaching causes the effects she claims it does, she'll get one or several high-impact publications out of it. She'll be set for life.

Sure, but only if she knows the molecular phenotype. Besides, is she the only one to have shown anything? Cause if other people replicated her results, her claims have backing. Furthermore, you have to show correlation and be sure of it before looking for the mechanism. 

>that shouldn't be too difficult

Yeah, no. Even with how well we understand mouse metabolism, it's pretty difficult still to guess the mechanism of something with subtle effects.

I don't know why you're so eager to question the integrity of the researcher. Did you find something like a conflict of interest anywhere?"
science,">You can have plastic vs not plastic cages

What I'm saying is she would have done plastic vs metal cages by now if her original research were legitimate. It's such an obvious confounding factor with such a simple way to get around it that any serious researcher would have immediately recognized it and taken the appropriate steps to get around it. She didn't.

>Why do they have to be in the brain?

Injections to the brain were how she delivered the bis-phenol A in her original research.

>Is she the only one to have shown anything?

She's inspired several methodological copycats, but if the methodology is flawed, then duplication means nothing.

>It's pretty difficult still to guess the mechanism of something with subtle effects.

She claims it causes specific, repeatable effects on mouse ova. That's not subtle, and it shouldn't be difficult for a specialist in reproductive biology to identify chemical mechanisms that cause specific, repeatable effects.

>I don't know why you're so eager to question the integrity of the researcher

Because her hypotheses, methodologies, and conclusions have a particular theme. Her methodologies don't fit her hypotheses, and have glaring errors which are consistently pointed out by other scientists and ignored by her research group. Her conclusions are touted by biased anti-plastics advocates who don't look at the integrity of the research itself.

I question her integrity because she doesn't seem to care about the scientific method, on which the rest of the scientific community relies."
science,"Let me clarify. The steel is not the expensive part but machining it is. It’s not a process that scales well into high volume. So it’s not always a good idea. 

And in the adult world, we are actually “selling” our products to our customers with the goal of paying employee salaries. If we use a higher cost part, we have to charge more for it. And that’s just telling the customer that we are too lazy or incompetent to come up with a creative and cost effective solution to their problem that is within their budget. And we want our customers to get the most research done with their budgets and try to avoid unnecessary expenses that we have to pass on to them. "
science,"That's an utterly unhelpful post.  

I skimmed the paper, but it's not written to be readable by laymen.  Potential conflating factors are always a risk in biology experiments like this though.  And it's even more suspect when researcher is one that was studying BPA previously and says ""Other investigators in my facility don’t see it"".  

Again, controlling for stuff is hard.  I'm not saying she definitely screwed up, just saying that it can't be ruled out that she missed controlling for something.  "
science,"The plastic cages issue could be a factor and it could be nothing, mainly depending on how much of it leeches into the mouse when it's not in the food or the water (depending on what the water bottle is made of). Additionally, there are claims that plasticizers don't leech out in any significant quantities unless the plastics are messed with via heat cycles and/or mechanical abrasion. Mice in cages have no access to that with plastics holding water.

As for the process they're claiming to be problematic here, it's crossover during meiosis, at least according to this article. This could be affected by any one of a whole host of things and have all sorts of effects. It's especially problematic if it has downstream effects on the development of the affected follicles because people know very little about the mechanisms that determine which follicle gets activated and which ones are allowed to develop vs the ones that go aetretic. In fact, them being able to show any defects specifically in corssover is already looking at the specific mechanism and investigating it. There also have been studies *ex-vivo* that shows BPS to cause disruption of estrogen signaling, which is a more targeted study that looks at something very specific instead of going around the same block with the *in-vivo* experiments again."
science,"Even if it's just a one off, it's still interesting information for the medical community. That seems to work for her, but we don't know why. If we don't tell each other about the weird shit we see, we'll never learn. 

Also, it may not help everyone with depression, but there are some people who can teach recovery this way, which is great! It's no different than trying each and every drug in turn and far less expensive (unless you have to start replacing joints or something). 

It's more valuable than it seems, especially when we have such a dearth of information about our brains. "
science,"In psychology/social work/nursing/health, our publishing philosophy is that science should be open, shared, and accessible to everyone, and we should all work on building upon it together. Sort of like open-access software, we believe that you can learn more and build better theories by allowing everyone to contribute what they can to the project. 

I mean, we quietly curse people who publish our ideas before us because despite our open-source orientation, our entire academic and career structure is publication-driven, but philosophically, it's the former. Hahahah."
science,"There's a difference between publishing in academic resources for other professionals and publishing a case study for laymen to gawk at. You and I and many others know that this case study has pretty much no significance for most people beyond anecdote. But a lot of people will look at a case study on the internet and think, ""science said this, it's always true all the time!"" And that makes for a lot of misinformation. "
science,"It's not perfect, because ultimately, people are self-serving and the *system* is built in a self-serving way, but we still strive for that openness as much as possible given the constraints of human ethics and the fact that, at the end of the day, we need to put food on our tables in a field that is overpopulated and highly competitive. One day I'd love to see the field trend back towards its philosophical roots, but it would require a systemic-overhaul of the way we publish articles and let scientists progress in their fields. "
science,"There's actually a lot of studies on cold water immersion for alleviation of depressive symptoms. 

And I disagree about restricting information to the public because they might misinterpret the results. People misinterpret all sorts of studies as well and we do not restrict access (except for financially). 

Members of the public after viewing this might go about researching it further and finding that cold water immersion might help alleviate their symptoms. They also might go into the ocean and drowned but providing the freedom of information to base choices on is important imo."
science,"This is what they were saying with “quasicrystals” and x-Ray crystallography; an area of study I’m interested in if I can ever afford grad school. I have taken a couple classes about it at the undergraduate level though, so let’s see if I can help. 

Crystals are definitionally taught as being a periodic structure, but that’s not always what we mean when we call real-life shapes “crystals.” It is possible, under the right conditions, for crystals to form in very irregular ways in the real world. These irregular crystals are fundamentally how we’re able to determine 3D constructs of proteins as an example.

Seriously go look at resources about X-ray crystallography. It’s AMAZING. My professor once told me it’s the perfect field for anyone interested in “a perfect three way split between biology, chemistry, and math.” 
It is possible to get non-periodic molecules into a crystalline structure, shine light through it, and look at the non-uniform distribution of light diffraction to back-calculate the original molecule’s 3D structure. "
science,"A crystal that doesn’t repeat its molecular structure... wouldn’t that just be a quasi-crystal then? I only have an undergrad in chemistry, so I’ve only dealt with crystals with a unit cell, whether it be face centered cubic... Uh, wow, I already forgot the rest of them. Anyways. Part of what gives a crystal its properties is the periodic cells that connect to each other and provide order over a large scale (relatively). There are many materials that don’t really show order on a small scale, like glass, but show similar properties on a large scale."
science,"So, as I understand it, when you refer to a crystal it means it atleast has translational symmetry (apart from other symmetries like rotational symmetry). So if you take one unit cell of the crystal, it is possible to find a direction and move it (without rotating it) in that direction so that you can superimpose the unit cell on a neighbouring unit cell. But in quasicrystals, it is not possible to superimpose the unit cell by just moving it. You will need to rotate it as well. So, it has no translational symmetry but it does have rotational symmetry. Hence, it is crystal-like in that it has rotational symmetry but it is not quite a crystal because of absence of translational symmetry. [Penrose tilings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_tiling) are a good example of such aperiodic patterns."
science,"There are two types of Masters degrees. You can get a Masters by doing coursework, which is just two additional years of courses. You should definitely have to pay for *that*, because you are offering no additional value to a research group or the university.

You can also get a Masters by writing a thesis after two years of research, on top of a smaller courseload. At most places, thesis Masters have programs that are identical to new PhD students, with the PhD's qualifying exam set just before a normal Masters student would graduate. This is so that if a PhD student fails the exam, they don't ""lose"" much time when they leave with a Master degree.

My argument is that, if you are a thesis Masters student, you have the same responsibilities and workload as a PhD student. With no difference other than the fact that you plan to leave three years earlier, you should get equal pay for equal work."
science,"More or less. It also depends greatly on the field of study and the school. Thesis master's students, in my experience, do not really have the same set of expectations from the faculty perspective. Junior and senior research faculty can pretty quickly discern and sort through grad students and determine who they want to work with. The ""consolation Master's degree"" in program's I am personally familiar with were weak students who taught a lot of labs and classes, but we're not invited to work on faculty research."
science,"In the future maybe. hHw exactly is hard to say.

A lot of encryption methods (mainly the [RSA](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_(cryptosystem)) ) would implode. If, and it’s a huge if, it was possible to have an algorithm that told you in a reasonable amount of time and energy invested what the n-th prime number is, a lot bank accounts and transactions on the internet would be unsafe and thus temporarily inaccessible. However, each scientific discovery has ramifications that are hardly predictable, see Galileo and his impact on the church, or how Einstein’s work was necessary to build atomic bombs.

To get to this point it’s still a long, long way. I doubt the impact of this paper would affect your life unless you’re a scientist or maybe closely related to one.

But that’s just my opinion, I’d be happily corrected by an expert of the field."
science,"It is pretty hard not to take them all the time. I limit myself to one a week at the most, and maybe one phenibut dose once per week (one works on GABAa, one on GABAb), and I avoid addiction or any long term issues, but there have been a lot of times where I stare at them for a couple minutes thinking...dam I wish I could just take one and sleep right now. 


Takes a shitload of willpower to use them without going over the edge, and all it takes is one bad week to start the downward spiral. 


Be careful everyone, shit is no joke!"
science,I had seizures during benzo withdrawal. I know a few other former benzo users with similar experience. Most memorable seizures: 1 during sleep. I came to as my girlfriend is informing me i just had a seizure in my sleep. 2nd seizure a few days later while i was riding my bike. Started having trouble making my legs push the pedals then i got whats referred to as an 'aura' and stopped my bike. I layed it on the ground then went black. I came to with people standing all around me telling me an ambulance was on the way. Scary shit.
science,"Yes it is excellent stuff. You have to be so very careful with it though...it is more recreational and therefore the abuse and addiction potential is through the roof. People that use it daily above 1g get themselves into serious trouble and hospitalization when they try and stop. I think it's the easiest to fall into trouble with out of all of them to be honest...1.5g's is such a nice feeling, but do that a few days in a row and uhohhhh watch out!!! The warning was more for everyone else, not you :D"
science,"I’ve been prescribed Ativan since I was 17. I’m 25 now. My doctor gives me max 15 pills at a time but they’ll last me for months. I’m a manic depressive so there are times where I get extreme anxiety, agitation, and insomnia or full blown mania. It’s good to have the benzo on hand in case things get to be too much but I am generally responsible with them and limit my use to when I really need it, not just feel like taking it. I have antipsychotics that are the first line of defense so the Ativan is like a last resort kind of thing. "
science,"She’s been my doctor since I was 14. We have a large degree of trust so she knows she can give me the Ativan and I won’t go off and get addicted. I’ve never run through a bottle quickly or sold it so I think I’ve proven that I’m not a liability with it. Most times I don’t even take the full pill, I’ll just half it and it usually does the job. Worst case I take the other half after I see how the first does he job. She’d rather me take an extra dose of the antipsychotic first if I’m having an issue though. "
science,"I agree, I think I'm likely managing to be pretty proactive with the harm reduction.


That is a long time to be on them and at this point it would take months of suffering for him to even attempt to taper down low enough to get off them, if he even could cope at this point. There is so much behavioral therapy involved, changes to living and work environment required, and financial stability/low stress living, to even have a hope of succeeding after such a long term use.


Never say never though!"
science,"On one hand, straight men prefer bisexual women. On the other hand, bisexual women are suffering a lot from being overly sexualised and treated like sex toys on legs by straight men (with the usual ""you're bi so you must love threesomes !"" that all bi people keep on hearing) and probably some lesbians too (but I've heard a lot of stories about bi woman treated by lesbians like they're traitors because they don't hate dicks to think that this would be as much of a problem than the straight men side).

​

Maybe we should... I don't know... stop thinking with our dicks ?"
science,"I know that this happens and I don't want to minimize it or ""not all men"" you, because I bet it really sucks to have one's sexuality turned into a prop that way.

That said, I'm a straight guy and a huge chunk of the women I've been head-over-heels for in my life have turned out to be bi- or lesbian, and I usually only find out after I crush. As nearly as I can guess, I just naturally confuse cues that a woman is into women for comforting signs that she and I have a lot in common. I guess in a way, we do.

As for treating bi- women like sex toys, the idea of a threesome induces horrific anxiety in me. I sometimes work myself up in conversations with multiple people with fears that I'm not making sure everyone is having the best time possible, that I've personally failed if anyone comes out of it feeling bad for any reason, even if objectively speaking one person feels bad because of something another did. In my mind, threesome invitations belong in the same category as doing a pentathlon at the same time as doing calculus homework in my underwear."
science,Men are biologically driven to objectify women on their appearance and women are biologically adapted to this by painting their faces and fastidious personal grooming. It is perfectly natural for a man to be attracted to a woman or for a man to prefer women who are attracted to women as well. Men are biologically driven to spread their seed wide and women are driven to nest. This is basic shit. 
science,"First of all, where are the studies proving that make-up is a biologically woman thing (may I remind you of the Middle Age's men make-up ?), second of all... ""basic shit"" ?  If it was just ""all men are uncontrollable monkeys that want to rape anything women-y that they see"", it would be the norm in every human societies, it isn't the case. The way women were seen and treated changed with time (Emmanuel Todd's work on the subject is super interesting) and isn't even the same everywhere today. There is of course a drive towards reproduction, like there is for every animal, but history prove that this isn't the entire picture."
science,"> Men are biologically driven to spread their seed wide

Many men are gay, and have no such desires when it comes to women. Other men are bi, like myself, and are honestly quite flexible when it comes to where we ""spread our seed"".

> It is perfectly natural for a man to be attracted to a woman or for a man to prefer women who are attracted to women as well. 

That's where this gets complicated and murky. Why? Why would men prefer partners who are bi? Keep in mind that in the past there was a popular (and faulty) assumption that same-sex attraction was some kind of aberration rather than a fixture of our species, and we're still trying to figure out the role that it plays in social species like our own.

"
science,"Aquafina is owned by PepsiCo.

Edit: interesting note on the two; Pepsi let's their bottlers produce and bottle the water and charge them a licensing fee. It has a consistent taste because they all use the same filtered water that would otherwise become a soda. On the other hand, Coca-Cola sells their water to the bottlers. They ""make"" the water by putting trace amounts of minerals into it and then shipping it by trucks to the local bottling plants."
science,"While you might be right, you might also be wrong. (EDIT: You were apparently talking about chemicals in plastic dust. To clarify, clearly dust is everywhere: organic, metal, plastic. I personally have likely sampled multiple types of dust just this morning. As for whether the chemicals in that dust might harm us...)

I'm not going to live my entire life in constant fear that someone may have perhaps possibly have left a bottle of water sitting out in the sun for a couple of hours based off of a single study linked only to BPA and extrapolate that out to any other chemical in existence.

Thats the same mentality that leads to antivaxxers. 

""Mercury is poison! Preservatives in vaccines use Mercury in their compounds! Vaccines are poison!""

""Plastic contains BPA! BPA might be slightly poisonous! Plastic is poison! Okay, we changed to a different kind of plastic. But it's still plastic, so you're still a merchant of death!""

Until you can actually point to a similar body of research in to PET supplemented with plant material, as well as all other plastic types, you can't just declare all plastic to be poison.

The bigger concern is plastic garbage anyway."
science,"For one, as mentioned, the BPS that replaced BPA was already suspected to be an estrogen mimic, so following through on findings like that in more rigorous animal studies would be a good place to start. Currently it seems that our ""testing"" consists of ignoring preliminary data and letting the public and environment be our big experiment.

Edit: [The American Academy of Pediatrics cites regulation inadequacy as a major concern regarding the effect of food additives on children](http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/142/2/e20181408)"
science,"No, I don't work for a plastic manufacturer. I date a PhD and have great respect for well done science, not fear mongering.

Just because some plastics have bad chemicals does not mean all plastics necessarily have bad chemicals.

[Here](https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-069X-13-103) is a later study showing several plastic types that don't contain EA. From the same researcher.

But, again, the real issue is plastic garbage. Think about how often we throw away a plastic bag that could have been paper, or a straw, or a plastic lid.

We're so concerned about a chemical that *might* be a problem we're not paying attention to the enormous pile of garbage. Microscopic fears magnified to mountains, while the actual mountains of garbage get ignored."
science,"Aka a 'precautionary approach' - i.e. we're not conclusively sure it's safe yet, so we'll regulate more strictly until we do. Something more prevalent in the EU.

Traditionally, US policy follows the 'sound science' approach - i.e. conclusively prove it's bad, then we'll ban/regulate.

This is generalized, of course, but it's the gist of it.

Internationally these two 'rationalities' clash in various domains, cf. some of the cases before the WTO appelate body.

I'm firmly in the precautionary camp, btw."
science,">Just because some plastics have bad chemicals does not mean all plastics necessarily have bad chemicals.

No one's saying 'all', but if the ones we use to store liquids/foods do that's obviously an immediate concern. If they're leeching out chemicals that can do damage to us, then they're leeching it into the environment and affecting animals there as well, on top of being garbage. Two birds, one stone.

You know we can address *both* harm reduction the the plastics we do use and reduce its use/increase recycling, it doesn't have to be a either/or scenario as you keep alluding to."
science,"I used to be of the just drink tap water crowd.  Flint happened, more than that, it came out that our water was testing poorly all over the country.  Then we got an administration that has gutted environmental protections as well was utilities oversight.

  Pardon me if I have a healthy doubt of my tap water.  And before you spout off about testing it, I already budgeted a nice extensive one for next month.  Until then, no drinking tap water.

  I advise everyone in America to do the same.  Don't trust those reports your utilities send you saying it's all ok.  There maybe was a time we could trust those reports, but not anymore.  Get it tested by a third party with no vested interest one way or another."
science,"We know that plastics generally aren't great for our bodies. We know even more about the overall effects that vaccines have on the body and the general safety of their usage. I'm not one to exercise that level of caution either, but I don't think it's fair to compare taking caution to limit ingestion of plastics with fully denouncing the practice of vaccination. One is mostly based in reality and may actually do a little to minimize harm to the body. The other is an active denial of any and all scientific evidence that shows vaccines to be safe and effective in preventing disease and places people at risk of contracting and spreading preventable illness. It's ""guilty until proven innocent"" vs. ""guilty despite any evidence to the contrary."" I do agree that plastic garbage is a much more imminent threat to our species as a whole than occasionally consuming things contaminated with it though."
science,"> No one's saying 'all',

Uhm...

*looks at this Reddit post*

Are you sure?

Likewise, I'm not putting this forward as an either/or, I'm saying that most people don't have their facts straight and are panicked about things that flat out aren't true in some cases, and haven't been proven in others, all while sucking down exhaust fumes on the highway and ignoring the mountains of garbage.

There are degrees of concern, and a limited amount of energy to devote to problems.

Instead of bitching about BPA-free bottles sitting out in the sun at a grocery store somehow magically generating BPA, maybe we need to worry more about the fact that someone is even purchasing single-user bottled water at all."
science,"I used to drink a lot of single use water bottles but I more or less stopped completely after getting my metal canteen. It cost a decent amount so I don't really misplace it at home or at an event. But I'm curious how much of an impact switching to this canteen has made on my plastic consumption (in terms of water bottles). At what point could I lose this and have the net impact still be positive? 

I still use paper cups at work though. But I'm starting to eliminate that as well. The nice part is that this canteen has *definitely* has saved me money. "
science,"We just moved so just to be safe we ran a bunch of water quality tests, also out of curiosity since our water smells weird. It was cool to see the all the qualities of our water because we assumed it was safe anyway but to see how hard it soft it was. As it turns out ours is much higher quality than average tap water, ours is “filtered water quality” which is the same as bottled. Most tap water is lower quality than bottled but not in a harmful way. "
science,"Just because you don't perceive BPA as a risk doesn't mean other people shouldn't. Even if seems illogical to you, it may not to other people. Some take ""you are what you eat"" very seriously and the idea that chemicals like BPA are in their body can  be a really creepy, uncomfortable thought. Personally, I don't have an opinion. But its important to understand that when people make moral or ethical decisions about their diets and what they put into their bodies, science isn't always applicable. As long as no one is hurt (like in the case of anti-vaxxers harming children and herd immunity at large) applying rationale to something moral is not equatable. "
science,"By the researcher who did a study on BPA that was later discredited, don't take it too seriously until we get a few more studies in. I'm not saying one side is correct or the other, just that we need more data.

Link to largest and most recent study that was made.

http://vdri-ev.de/download/abpkasao4qvi60m8gitcvm03ca4/18_04_12_Plastic_Europe_CLARITY_BPA_report_26_2_2018.pdf

https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/rrprp/2018/april/rr09peerdraft.pdf

I'm linking a report and the study because for some reason the pdf is slow to open"
science,"> Only study that showed estrogen mimicking was with levels that no ordinary person will be exposed to.

Daily exposure to BPA in amounts that are FDA-approved to be “safe” may still be altering insulin release and be enough to have implications for the development of Type 2 diabetes and other metabolic diseases, finds the first study of its kind. 

I'm not hit in the head by a meteor every day, but I am exposed to BPA and other endocrine disruptors on a daily basis. I think it's worth considering what that might do to a person, much in the way that I might take pause at eating ice cream for every meal."
science,"Klean Kanteen saw this as a problem about 13 years ago, and released the original 18-8 stainless bottle.  Even new lids will fit on old bottles, the company is super cool in design - they will never make a product that becomes obsolete, because that adds to waste.

Lids are polypropylene, gaskets FDA-approved food service silicone, even the coatings are tested to make sure there are no harmful chemicals anywhere in the process."
science,"Not to disagree with your general point on fear mongering, but it is plastic. Not like omfg you will die if you ingest it however I can't imagine even some nontoxic/plant based plastic is good for the human body to process. That said it may only be as bad as alcohol or something in the end but not wanting anything to leach into your water is a fair worry.

Some theorize part of Roman's fall was related to chemical leaching. And, in this case it is as simple as not keeping water you plan to drink at overly high temps or exposed to elemental extremes like full sun in mid summer or even completely freezing."
science,"Working on it. There are half-gal for now, insulated and non.  The big project for the last couple years was an assessment and sourcing a new GreenScreen developed and approved powder coat.  Spring sees a classic coffee/soup Thermal Kanteen Pro.

International meeting is in Oct, no word on new products, but they’ve had some concept in the works for a while on a lunchbox/bento box, and takeout container (insulated).  They don’t make things which aren’t for a solution.

Small company, family owned, and I appreciate they run smart - and are very serious about their ethics.

Full disclosure; I’m an independent sales representative, Klean Kanteen is one of my vendors."
science,"I would hope that a PhD in a non-hard science would still respect science, reproducibility, testing methodology, etc, but I concede that may not be the case.

Geology-related, if that helps.

And I wasn't relying on her expertise in geology for my respect for science, I was explaining why I have a critical eye towards claims that aren't backed up by science. Because my girlfriend frequently asks me to back shit up with studies. It's rubbed off."
science,"Your tap water quality can vary substantially from the reported quality from your water provider depending on the age, material of construction and condition of the plumbing from the last supply node to your tap.  I lived in a small town north of Boston in ‘97 that was doing significant municipal plumbing upgrades because many of the old cast iron mains had disintegrated.  Even though we were being supplied by lovely, soft water from Quabbin reservoir, what was coming from the tap was brown and dirty and smelly and gross (from being delivered effectively through dirt pipes)."
science,"I'm not a water filtration expert, and this comment will probably be deleted for being a personal anecdote, but a good quality (hint: not Brita) water filter on your tap and storage in glass are the route that I have taken. Unfortunately though, water filters are not regulated by the FDA so you really have to take their word for it that they're doing what they claim, or send them for testing by 3rd party labs, though even then who knows what the consistency is. "
science,"I think the major key is the idea of a diminishing return - 50 years ago, it was smoking, which literally kills half the people who don't die of something else before the cancer can get them. Before that we had coal factories and heat in the city, or straight up malnourishment, or workplace safety plans consisting of a door to hit you in the ass. 

BPA is almost certainly harmful. But people have been drinking from polycarbonate for 30 years, and studies seem to be showing a general maybe towards changing hormones to probably cause diabetes. We think. 

Try that with smokers of 30 years, or even people who are 50 lbs overweight for 30 years. We're getting to a point where we have to look a lot harder to find the effects of dangerous things. "
science,"I receive a commission from product sold to retailers within my region, within my market category.  

I’m an independent contractor, and get a little leeway in choosing who I can work with.  It’s been about 10 years, and I finally have a mix of family-owned, ecologically and socially concerned, quality brands to offer my clients.

My philosophy is this: If you are using a durable reusable bottle, cup - I don’t care what it is.  The most important thing is done already - you’ve committed to eliminating your production of single use waste.

It’s weird for a sales guy to wrap my head around: my job is literally to “sell more stuff”.  But that philosophy above?  That’s Klean’s, and it’s a good one that helps me sleep at night knowing that as a successful salesperson I’m both filling my role in the job, but also part of encouraging change, positively.

Edit: Check out [B Corporations](https://bcorporation.net/about-b-lab) "
science,"That’s easy to say if you’re healthy. Also, this is about long term health issues more so than just dying. 

Try dealing with a hormonal issue or infertility or anything else that BPA might have caused. These things are major problems for some people that cause a lot of suffering. If I can spare myself and my kids decades of misery by avoid a particular type of plastic I will do so. It’s not like it majorly affects our lives to do that. 

"
science,"BPA does a specific thing in plastic. It’s not a huge leap to imagine that a BPA alternative that behaves in a similar way in terms of chemical properties in the plastic might well be just as bad in your body as BPA. 

BPA alternatives lack evidence of safety, vaccines do not. Where there is a lack of evidence for safety it’s pretty stupid not to at least pause for thought. 

Consider:
Tobacco
Sugar
Thalidomide
Fracking
Pesticides
Early IUDs
 



"
science,"I used to work for a company that bottled water and you'd be surprised how many regulations there are with that business.  The government didn't care about our flavored products but we had to file constant reports on bottled water.  That always confused me as our soda surely caused more harm but I'm sure it was due to a law passed at some point.  Watchdog groups are also constantly checking bottled water for purity.

FWIW, the water's source wasn't exotic, it came from a local reservoir.  It's then put through a series of chemical processes and a reverse osmosis unit which removes more impurities than you'd find in any other water source.  Every run of bottled water is continually tested every few hundred bottles and sent to quality control to make sure it meets standards.  We had to keep records that could be checked at any time going back years.

No company that sells lots of bottled water is going to skimp on purity.  It's relatively cheap to do and none of them want to risk a scandal as it would kill sales of an cheap yet ridiculously profitable business.  There's more to worry about from brands of less known companies but I'd bet they're safe too.  If you're worried get a known brand.

Of course all of them have the issue with plastic bottles themselves like mentioned in the OP post.  The key there is to look for a date of manufacture.  The older it is the more that's released.  If you buy it in a grocery store with lots of traffic it's likely to have been produced in the last month.  Anything produced in plastic has issues with small microscopic plastic particles that break free when the cap is tightened during the manufacturing process."
science,"You've misunderstood. My point was that the effect size is apparently \*so\* small that the literature is still ambiguous. This study had 8 men in one arm, five men and three women in the other, among other deficiencies. Forgive me for not being blown away by the statistical robustness of this finding.   


The literature is not ambiguous about diet and exercise, which are \*massively\* more influential and people actually have agency to control those things. But a doctor telling you to eat healthier and less doesn't fit the ""silver bullet"" narrative that most people intuitively have about advancements in health. "
science,"Eh, your use of the pharmaceutical industry isn't a good one for your argument. The thalidomide crisis ultimately lead to passing the Kefauver-Harris Drug Amendments Act, which requires that drugs are proven both safe and effective before being marketed. This process takes about 8-12 years on average, and there is a whole system for reporting new side effects. This kind of regulation isn't really applied to food storage plastics, and many other consumer products -- at least not here in the US."
science,"The EPA and the FDA are different agencies. FDA regs are way more strict and cover bottled water. The EPA covers municipal clean water regs. 

This isn't always true, for what it's worth, it's simply true when it comes to water. As a farmer, the EPA is far more concerned with our chemical applications than the FDA, since our chemicals break down to safe levels before they are harvested(as long as they're applied by the label, which is the law, which we are inspected randomly to ensure), but the EPA is concerned that runoff, drift and overspray can have detrimental impacts on the environment in the intermediate timeframe before they break down."
science,">aluminum>plastic

Well uh, actually...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium

>aluminium in drinking water cause significant cognitive deficits.[132] Orally ingested aluminium salts can deposit in the brain. There is research on correlation between neurological disorders, including Alzheimer's disease,[f] and aluminium levels, but it has been inconclusive so far.[132]
>
>Aluminium increases estrogen-related gene expression in human breast cancer cells cultured in the laboratory.[139] In very high doses, aluminium is associated with altered function of the blood–brain barrier"
science,"There's more to be concerned about I think for dermal absorbtion through materials like thermal paper than for oral.

My wife did a post grad paper on this.  And while there is a ton of work on oral absorbtion which gets broken down in the gut, there's no study at all on dermal.  Biggest issue here is for long term exposure by people who work in retail everyday handing over thermal paper receipts."
science,"yes, the metal lids have BPA (they are lined with a coating). Most canned goods have BPA coating in the cans.

I don't know much of anything about PUR. Water filters aren't regulated by the FDA, so you can only really take their word for it that they do what they claim to do, or find 3rd party testing for them. I have a countertop Aquasana filter which from what I have read is much more effective at filtering more things than some of the other filters out there, but I haven't done a lot of reading on it since it was gifted to me a couple years ago."
science,"Yes, I am aware of how drugs are developed and tested (Ph.D biochemist who works in industry).

Drug development takes \~10 years from basic science observation to use in the clinic for many reasons. Clinical testing for safety and efficacy is a huge component of that, which takes a few years to perform, but my point was that they do not do \*long-term\* safety testing; subjects aren't followed for 30 years after administration, their children aren't studied, etc. because it would make an extremely expensive process \*much\* more expensive and infeasible -- companies can't wait a generation to recoup their costs, which would be significantly higher if many decades of follow-up were performed, and bring a drug to market. 

So it not only isn't \*long-term\* safety testing \*not\* applied to drugs, it isn't applied to anything. We don't test anything that thoroughly.   


Which was my point."
science,"Eh, thats not a big deal. I cant think of any rn because I just got up but we use other “waste products” all the time. 

Its like when people complain about Vitamin C being “lab made and fake”. Whether you get ascorbic acid from a tomato or you make it in a lab using a variety of reactions, at the end up the day its the bloody same barring stereochemistry/enantiomers. "
science,">wouldn't it be just as cheap...

No. Not even close. 

It's heavier, so it costs more to ship and releases more CO2. It breaks *way* more, so it's more expensive and again, releases more CO2. Sand of the appropriate quality to make glass is also becoming harder to source. 

Plastic is way, way cheaper to everyone involved. It's also not significantly more dangerous, despite what these articles would have you believe."
science,"We use the lowest effort sand. Look around you at all the sand on the ground and actually say ""we are running out of sand"" and try to keep a straight face.

Also a major factor is that sand is hard to move, so you use local sand. Which means the densest cities that use the most sand use up their local sand the fastest. This all the "" running out of sand"" problems."
science,"It all comes down to how much unforeseen risk you're willing to take on. Like, we know that cooking food produces toxins which accumulate in our bodies over time, but most people continue to cook food at least some of the time. That said, it's probably not a bad idea in this case to examine how much plastic you use in your day-to-day life and see if you can use less."
science,"You're not wrong, but the word does have a scientific meaning. A [toxin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxin) is a substance which is known to be poisonous to the individual/individuals/species to whom one is referring.

""Detox"" is just a fancy way of saying you're actively trying to avoid/help your body be rid of even the minor toxins. Mind you, most people who use that term don't realize that drinking cayenne-spiked lemon water for a week isn't going to hasten their livers' abilities to process those toxins. Don't confuse the ""new age"" pseudoscience with actual science.

Cooking food produces a variety of compounds, [including toxins](http://americannutritionassociation.org/newsletter/hidden-toxins-cooked-foods). BPA is [known to leach pseudo-hormones](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1382668914000313). Everything we do as individuals is a calculated risk, and it's largely up to us as individuals to decide how much risk we're willing to take on."
science,"Plastic leaches more when it is old, damaged, heated, or exposed to UV. You are exposed to more plastic when you eat from it (vs touch it). Certain types of plastic leach more & leach more nasty things. Polypropelyne (PP) and LDPE/HDPE seem to be the best choices.

​

So we avoid eating or drinking from plastic, and when we do, we use PP/LDPE/HDPE, protect the plastic from heat & abuse, and recycle it after a few years.

​

It's still possible no level of exposure is really safe- but you can do a lot to minimize your exposure.

​

Oh, and avoid vinyl & PVC entirely, as best you can. Especially when it comes to children."
science,"I'm just interested in the specific toxins mentioned, and find it curious that the studies showing the decreased all-cause mortality and lower cancer incidence among vegetarians and vegans mention essentially none of them, including things like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heterocyclic amines.

It kind of suggests to me that the increased nutrient/antioxidant intake (like fiber and vitamin C) and the decreased caloric density (leading to lower BMI/less obesity) are the driving forces, not things like heat generated compounds/maillard products."
science,"Maybe not one of the very worst, but one of the things to avoid. If the microwave heated things gently & evenly it might not matter, but due to the tendency to form hotspots, microwaving your food in plastic will tend to expose the plastic to high temperatures

Note, I'm not talking about microwaves-are-scary-magic-voodoo, this is just about uneven heating & plastics.

We use pyrex & friends; they wash clean easier anyway."
science,"“Our evidence suggests that makeup is perceived to signal sociosexuality but does not actually signal sociosexuality”
Both men and women perceive it this way.  
They put the makeup on, knowing that’s the perception and choose to foster it. 

So you are saying women want to be perceived as ready for casual sex, for themselves? 
You mean they want attention of a sort without any follow through? 
How is that not sexualizing themselves?"
science,"The study wasn’t on pretty- it was on perceived casual sex by makeup use. Where men and women both agreed on the perception. So if you think being pretty and being perceived for casual sex are the same, then ok? 

Id have to read again, but I don’t think it says any makeup. Meaning a woman wearing some makeup isn’t the same. Unless you are saying pretty when you mean hot?"
science,"Did you not read what I said? 
I didn’t say a woman is more sexually inclined from makeup. I said the opposite, as the article stated, and drew an interesting conclusion from it.

Yes, the perception of you is specific to one you want- working out. The perception with the makeup is that you would be more sexually inclined - women and men both agree on that- perception wise. So if women agree with that, and they wear makeup, how is it any different than just saying some woman wear makeup a certain way for attention?

I’m not saying that makes them bad. It’s FASCINATING, because women proceed to do something which contradicts their own intention, even though they perceive it sexually the way a man would. "
science,"> But if women also believe this about makeup, and they put it on, doesn’t that mean that’s how they want to be perceived?

This would be a good conclusion if social science would follow mathematical logic. But as it is, ""illogical"" behaviour is pretty common in social science. People can and often do judge people more ""unethical"" for the same action. 

> Maybe the title should be, women who wear a lot of makeup want attention by sexualizing themselves- but don’t want casual sex?

Whats up with /r/science's early-in comments often being so hellbent on saying something sexist and getting away with it as ""being scientific""?"
science,"> Please, tell me how that title I said would be inaccurate instead of calling me sexist. 

Starting from the back up: It's vulgarly phrased and accuses women of sexualising themselves. An accusation commonly and consistenly used by people who engage in victim shaming. Its in no regard a superior title because it's disrespectful and speculative. I don't care about calling you a sexist. But the title you suggested is, whatever your intentions.

> That, if the study really does hold water, its not illogical but extremely logical??

If the study ""hold water"" as you say this is still only your interpretation of the findings since the women have not disclosed their own perspective on their self reported judgment.

> They put the makeup on, knowing that’s the perception (in their own mind at least) and choose to foster it.

Another speculation which assumes perception of others is the same as self-perception. 

>  It’s FASCINATING, because women proceed to do something which contradicts their own intention, 

This is not a ""womens habit"" it's a well known human habit that people do/can not always consider the enitre scope of their actions. It's not huge at all."
science,"I'd be interested in seeing studies looking at women's motivations for wearing makeup. Sure it would be subject to the same flaws all self-reporting is, but it would at least give us somewhere to start with regards to how many women do what for what purpose.

Just personal preference, but if it were up to me, girls wouldn't wear hardly any makeup. I understand the art form behind some of it, and I understand wanting to hide blemishes, but some girls put so much on it's like they're wearing a mask...."
science,"We might actually have an answer to that if the photos were available :)

If I'm doing a ['no makeup'](https://gabrielcosmeticsinc.com/media/2018/04/GC-No-Makeup-Tips.jpg) look, for instance -- man, I'm going to be wearing a *lot* of makeup.  That's not a photo of me, but it *is* a look which took considerable time and required seven individual makeup products. Would men and women feel that such a look signals 'gimme some casual sex', though? Are most guys even going to think she's wearing makeup at all?

I imagine that when most men think of makeup, they're picturing something more like [this](https://images-production.freetls.fastly.net/uploads/posts/image/161636/what-happened-to-nikkie-tutorial-brother.jpg) -- and I strongly suspect the dividing lines between those photographs involved how *evident* the makeup was ... not necessarily how much of it was being worn."
science,"I'm not saying that anyone's dumb. I'm saying that most men can't, for instance, tell whether I'm wearing brow pencil and a spot of concealer today unless they've seen me wearing none of either. 

That's not stupidity. It's just unfamiliarity.  A lot of people wear makeup in a manner designed to appear absolutely, indistinguishably natural. There's no reason to expect that someone completely unfamiliar with that stuff would notice a thing that's designed not to be noticed :)"
science,"We won’t get any traction if we keep using words like “could” or “brink” as we will always assume the next generation will fix the problem. We need to make sure we get enough scientists in one room from every nation to agree to the same point so we can move forward with the solution. We need to always remember there is a solution to the problem but are we willing to do what it is going to take to accomplish it.  

"
science,"Most of the scientists DO agree, but just because they agree on it, and tell people about it, and urge governments to make changes, and try to get companies to change their practices, doesnt mean they're going to change anything.

We've known about this problem for a VERY long time, at first it was controversial, but even now that most scientists agree, almost nothing is happening.

And the reason, is because businesses exist to, provide a product, and make a profit off it. And changing their ways to help the planet would reduce profit margins. 

And governments dont want to make large changes, because it would upset a LOT of people, despite the evidence that it needs to happen, and it would cost a LOT of money to implement the changes. Not to mention, even if a few countries do decide to change their ways on the level that is required, what is going to make the rest of them care? If renewable energy wasnt actually cheaper than things like coal, it wouldnt be getting the attention it currently is..

And now that the permafrost is melting? We would have to put in 3-4x the amount of work we thought we needed to put in, and wern't even putting in enough for THAT.

It's so bad that even if everything changed overnight, and there was almost no co2 production, we would have to go PAST that, and start sequestering it, because of that melting permafrost. The amount of methane stored there is STAGGERING, and puts everything that humans have done EVER to shame."
science,"This isn't true at all. Globally, ~~21%~~ *23%* of CO2 emissions are from transportation, and it's a rising share that will only grow bigger as emissions growth in other sectors (e.g. electricity) decline. 

Edit: 21% was 2010, [the 2014 IPCC report says 23%](https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter8.pdf) - proving my point.

Edit 2: Because people keep bringing up air and sea transport, I'll reiterate my response to them here: [road transportation is 72% of that 23% (Figure 8.1)](https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter8.pdf), so even taking that into account, we're still talking about 16.6% of the total. And again, that share is growing. And sea transport's share will likely decrease with the IMO phasing out bunker fuels. Sorry, you're all getting electric cars. :P"
science,"We're a long way off being able to drastically reduce the pollution due to the internal combustion engine.

But you know what you can do right now that has a much greater effect on your personal carbon footprint that what car you drive? Stop eating animal products as the livestock industry accounts for more greenhouse gases than all the cars, ships, planes etc combined. Not to mention the number one cause of extinctions, ocean deadzones, deforestation, and many health issues."
science,"I'm not trying to deny that those other gases are problems, just disputing the notion that transportation isn't important. Methane, for what it's worth, really depends on the time horizon, since it has a much higher warming potential but a much shorter atmospheric lifespan. NOx is really potent, but not nearly as much is emitted. For example, [in 2016 in the US, 81% of effective GHG emissions were CO2, 10% methane, and only 6% NOx](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#colorbox-hidden). But again, that all depends on the time horizon you use to compare CO2 with other gases."
science,"This is sort of right.

Diesel vs. gasoline is actually pretty complex. Diesel engines naturally give off more NOx however modern diesels in developed markets have aftertreatment systems to remove these gases. This makes them more expensive, but actually cleaner than gasoline. 

The same goes for particulates, which are suspected carcinogens within cities. Diesel exhaust naturally contains more particulates but modern diesels are required to have filters which actually makes them cleaner than gasoline in this regard. Gasoline particulate filters are on their way in the EU and perhaps the US, political-situation depending. Particulates also contribute to smogs.

Sulphurous gases are a chief cause of smogs and these have largely been eliminated in both diesel and gasoline; ultra-low sulfur diesel came later hence the misconception that modern diesels still cause smog.

Another problem with pollution is that trains and shipping in coastal cities are also a contributor."
science,"Cars are still a big issue with respect to air quality, even if their contribution to climate forcing maybe isn't as big as other sectors. From a public health perspective the ideal is that people walk, cycle, or take public transport, but that isn't always an option if you live somewhere with bad city planning (e.g. a lot of places in the US I'm told have no options other than driving, which is sad and ironically anti-freedom/choice)."
science,"> Honestly, cars are a small fraction of the issue, factories, power plants, agriculture, all dwarf the impact that cars have, not to say that cards dont contribute, but even if they were all converted to electric in a snap of a finger doesnt mean that suddenly all the electricity they now require are from non-polluting means.
> 
> It also doesnt change much at all.


Clearly you have never lived directly adjacent to a major interstate highway.  

Having lived for two years right next to a super busy highway, I cannot believe how dirty things got around the house.  Even more amazing was the negative effect it had on my lungs and sinuses after two years living/working right next to the road.  

I never considered automobiles to be a major contributor of pollution until I experienced life next to it.  

Not saying factories and power plants aren't a major contribution to pollution.  But I seriously believe converting to electric cars will have a noticeable quantifiable affect on the people living near highways within several years of the switchover. "
science,">	or as a side effect of the games they played

This is so underrated. Dancing, sports and other physically active playful activities have existed ever since humans became conscious. That’s why I can’t understand why repeatedly picking up heavy stuff and putting it down or getting on the human equivalent of a rat wheel has become the default suggestion of getting some movement into one’s life, when most people hate it and only do it as a means to and end, while there are tons of genuinely fun activities that you can actually want to do, and getting fit is a pleasant side effect."
science,"Said by a man who needed tools to build his ""perfect"" shed. Tools to farm his ""perfect"" food. And tools to use, understand, and write the maths he was so good at. He'd never have had his manifest in any form if everyone decided to live his lifestyle because he'd be too dumb to even formulate the thoughts. He'd also have been dead in his 30s. If he survived childbirth.

I don't disagree with the basic premise that a person with a car has to work harder to maintain the car so he can get to work. I don't agree with the premise that having the car creates the bad cycle. It's the person's bad choices using that car by getting a job too far away. Or that pays too poorly causing extra hours or another job. You can say, ""well, society should pay a living wage, yadda, yadda."" But none of that is the car's fault.

Technology isn't bad for people. People's choices are bad for people."
science,"I pretty sure most the research says otherwise. When Europeans came over to North America, they thought the natives where lazy and did nothing all day. 

American Colonies, by Bob Sour covers this extensively. 

Guns Germs and Steel, by Jared Diamond covers many old human societies and cultures as far back as we have data on. 

Sex at Dawn covers many modern day hunter gathers societies as well as old ones and Bonobos and Chimp societies to compare evolutionary traits across the board. 

Peoples natural state is to conserve energy. Do nothing until some driving factor compels one to move; ie sex, food, danger. 

Many societies never had a need to develop much advanced technology because resources where so plentiful. Only those who were struggling, were forced to be innovative in order to overcome challenges. Then resort back to default lazy mode. 

 "
science,"I wonder if something like what you’re saying (and many others are saying) relates to war veterans and how they feel when they come back to civilian life. I know a handful of veterans who saw combat and while they said it was the scariest thing ever, they all would love to go back.

None of them have ever been able to explain it, but they talk about struggling so hard to adjust to civilian life, not being happy and that they were actually happy when in the war zone. I’m sure it’s not all soldiers obviously, but I would be curious if they are related."
science,">How do we know if hunter gatherers suffered from depression and anxiety? 

There are still plenty of people living on this Earth who are pretty far removed from what we perceive as normal, living mostly without electricity or any of the modern things we have that we can communicate with. 

Most of the people that live in that type of environment all have a purpose in their community that is meaningful. They have to be productive because they will suffer in some way if they don’t, just by making it more difficult for their people by not pulling their weight. 

Their lives aren’t like ours where one person can work 40 hours a week and make $400 while another can work 10 hours and make $10,000

They all must put in their work fairly equally. I’m sure someone can find the interview it but basically they laugh at the idea of depression because they have no room for it in the way they live their lives.

 Our modern lives allow us to continue on living with very little effort with very little risk and nothing really forces us to get through it because we can sustain it even though it isn’t emotionally healthy 

Their lives are much more at risk every day just encountering random animals or a small cut getting infected because of their very limited health care. So I think they have a lot of more respect for each other and sense of purpose for themselves 

We’re competing, they’re surviving "
science,"It tends to be less that they're happy in combat but more that they're uncomfortable regardless of where they are and being in a combat zone gives you something to focus on and a reason for feeling paranoid. If you are always looking for a threat and always primed to react you are an asset in the field and a liability back home. It's not a normal human condition, more of a symptom of PTSD, and eventually the pressure and stress will get to them in other ways. The solution isn't going back to combat, it's relearning how to relax so you don't need constant simulation to not feel uncomfortable."
science,"> they thought the natives where lazy and did nothing all day.

Lots of people think lots of things. That doesn’t mean anything. No civilization survives being lazy. Even in the modern age. 

>Peoples natural state is to conserve energy. Do nothing until some driving factor compels one to move; ie sex, food, danger.

My point being this state of energy conservation was rarely common.  When it did happen, it occurred during times of famine. 

"
science,"no, you're talking out of you ass.  what makes you claim any more legit?  because you're being insulting and condescending?

even in times of plenty, you had to spend large portions of the day foraging.  in addition to that was the constant need to keep a look out for threats, like from rival tribes or predators.  and then not to mention the social responsibilities the tribe members have to each other."
science,"your books were not related to the topic.

>American Colonies, by Bob Sour covers this extensively.
>When Europeans came over to North America, they thought the natives where lazy and did nothing all day. 

the opinion of Europeans is not a fact.  especially considering the Europeans intended to purge the region of Natives.

>Guns Germs and Steel, by Jared Diamond covers many old human societies and cultures as far back as we have data on. 

and says nothing on the risks and downtime of pre-settles cultures.  it's a vague book that covers many topics, and does not focus on paleolithic lifestyles in which humanity evolved.  

>Sex at Dawn covers many modern day hunter gathers societies as well as old ones and Bonobos and Chimp societies to compare evolutionary traits across the board. 

this one may be valid, but I haven't read it, and simply pointing a book doesn't mean the book agrees with your point of view.  you'd need an excerpt, page number, and source the book refers to in order to have a valid point.

anyone can point to any book and say it says anything they want.  "
science,"...I'm trying to not brag here, but I'm not sure how to give my perspective otherwise.

I have pretty severe depression. I also got screened for autism a few years ago. When I was screened, the doctor screening me told me that while I scored extremely high on the screener, ultimately whether you're autistic or not depends on how well you function, and because I function well enough, I'm not autistic (and apparently they're trying to get rid of the high functioning designation).

​

That obviously doesn't make me neurotypical, but it's at least kind of relevant where functioning can be high enough that you actually aren't even autistic."
science,"Yes, I think so, I believe they just wouldn't feel as comfortable with that. For a neurotypical person, it's comfortable to be that way. For an autistic person, it would involve a lot of pretending and conscious effort all the time, resulting in an exhaustion. Of course, you can just deal with that exhaustion somehow and have a ""normal life"".
But it would just be more comfortable if things could be more acommodating for their needs.

(I'm not a professional in the area or anything, just someone who believes has aspergers and is seeking for professional help)"
science,"No.  They are orthogonal.  Both my son and I are autistic.  We both have high IQs, we both suffer from depression.  While we are intelligent, we are impaired socially.  We are ""high functioning"" in that we are smart enough to get through school, learn all of the necessary life skills, and be gainfully employed.  However, socially we are on the outside looking in.  

Being autistic means that things such as  tone, non-verbal communication, boundaries, situational awareness (to name a few) are different.  We interpret (or miss) these things differently from neuro-typical people.  This often results in a feeling of isolation which can lead to depression.

My wife is neuro-typical and coaches me.  Over time, I have learned to function pretty well socially.  I still miss cues and make mistakes, but I do much better now than 30 years ago.  We are proactively teaching my son these things as well, so he can be ahead of where I was."
science,"We used to identify different subsets of a wide range of symptoms of autism and diagnose Asperger's, classic autism, PDD-NOS, etc. All those symptoms together are 'the spectrum', like all colors together can form a spectrum. This is also why people sometimes refer to one's 'place on the spectrum', meaning what 'area' of symptoms that person falls into. The autism spectrum is not a scale or something that you can indicate with a percentage. That doesn't mean autism doesn't come in varying degrees, just that the spectrum and the severity are different things."
science,"I disagree. The primary measures used to evaluate autism symptoms all use a continuum, with a score of 35 and a score of 42 both meaning ""autistic"" while a score of 19 and a score of 4 are both ""neurotypical."" But those are four totally different people, and they don't even represent autistic people who are unable to even complete the test. 35, 42, and Untestable might all have autism, but at entirely different levels. And 26 may be labeled autistic by one clinician but considered neurotypical by another. "
science,"The other answers to this are skirting around the issue. High functioning refers to your ability to function in society. Someone with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (aspergers was absorbed into this diagnosis) may 'pass' for neurotypical but it's like playing a role in a play. A good method actor will look like, sound like and may even believe they are a doctor or soldier, for example, but they are still an actor. 
'Passing' requires a lot of mental effort and is exhausting. Someone who only has one or two mild traits associated with autism doesn't have ASD.
I hope that helps. "
science,"I am in the same boat except I only have the one son. He is 18 months old and is showing some of the early signs. I don't see autism as a disease but as an extremely valuable genetic trait, with a few negative side effects.

That said I want to do the most to help him cope. Do you have any advice? Did you try anything that helped? Did you try anything that was a waste?"
science,"I agree that autism is not a disease or a disability.  In some ways, it is a positive.  My son refers to it as ""The gift of autism"".

That said, we still have to live in a neuro-typical world.  In our case, we got my son involve in social skills groups (in school and out) when he was in elementary school.  He also had occupational therapy for years (although not all of this was due to his autism).  I believe it all helped, although it took time for him to apply what he learned.

As a parent, you will have to be patient.  If you are not autistic, communication can be challenging.  For a long time, my wife had a hard time communicating with our son.  Expect to be surprised when he does stuff in public that seems out of place.  Be prepared to offer guidance.  If you can anticipate situations where you think he may be unprepared socially, offer strategies that he can try.  Explain propriety.  When he is missing cues, wait for an appropriate opportunity, and explain to him what he missed.

What was a waste?  When he was finishing elementary school, he was given the opportunity to go into a special program for autistic kids that was offered at a different middle school than the one he would have attended.  It was highly recommended so we put him in it.  Properly run, the program may have been a help.  In our case, his case manager did nothing but warehouse him.  They treated him like he had a low IQ and just tried to move him along with as little work as they could do.  I had to push to get him into the normal math and science classes (which he did fine in).  They did nothing to help him with regards to executive functioning (in which he was severely behind).  He was bullied relentlessly for being in special ed and the administration did nothing about it.  So be careful about those kinds of programs.  If you do put your son in one, pull him out if it's not a good fit.  We didn't and I regret it."
science,"You're confused about what's being measured. Individual symptoms can be evaluated and given a score, which is what RAADS for example does in the form of a questionnaire. But the actual diagnose for autism is just based on suffering from a certain amount of symptoms, no matter how severe. Like I said, there is a severity scale, you're not wrong about that, but that's a very different thing from the spectrum. The spectrum is nothing more than an arrangement of symptoms and the place in the spectrum says nothing about severity or amount of symptoms. It's not even really defined what the spectrum looks like or which symptoms go where, it's definitely not a scale ranging from normal to Rain Man and beyond. So in short, yes you can say that someone is a little bit autistic (few symptoms or low severity) or very autistic (many symptoms or very severe), but that has nothing to do with that person's place on the spectrum.  
  
To give an example, I have what we used to call Asperger's syndrome, it means I have trouble with taking things literally, planning, giving my life structure (and trouble dealing with no structure) and one on one social situations, I have great eye for details, but seeing the bigger picture takes a lot of effort, I'm also intelligent enough to compensate for a lot of things so I'm not weird until you get to know me. All these things are autistic symptoms, they belong with each other on the spectrum. Many autistic people have this specific set of symptoms, which is why we used to have a name for it. I've lived in group homes and attended special needs education where I met many other autists, some of which had the same set of symptoms I have in varying degrees of severity, those people were on the same spot on the spectrum, but some of them were more autistic then me and others less.  
  
It's becoming more and more silly to talk about the spectrum at all anyway, it's much more useful to look at what a person has trouble with, rather than try to fit them into a definition. You either suffer from one or more symptoms of autism or you don't, and if you do there are people who can help with your specific needs. DSM-V made a huge push towards this by getting rid of the old categories and just calling it ASD, meaning literally nothing more that ""you have some autistic symptoms"". This also brings the diagnosis more in line with other disorders that have an effect on personality and behaviour like BPD and BD. Finding out what exactly makes your life harder and how severe that is relative to neurotypical folks is up to you and the psychiatrist treating you and has nothing to do with how severe your autism is."
science,"Yes!  But there isn't.  We'd know if there was.

That said, it might be possible, with stupidly unimaginable advances in tech, to *make it* a binary system.  Jupiter is just sitting there, all hydrogen, and a bit (a lot) more mass in its atmosphere could make that collapse and start burning as a star...  Certainly make its moons a nicer place to colonize if they orbited their own little space-heater star."
science,"It's theorized that Jupiter is the ""second star"" that just didn't gather enough mass, and there's a theory that there is a second star that makes a like billion-some year long trek to the edge of the Sun's gravitational influence and we just can't see it cause it's a brown dwarf or similar, which may be on it's way back to mess up the solar system in some millions of years

(Of course my source is an almost 10 year documentary that I can't remember the fairly generic name of)"
science,"I'm pretty sure at that point and when nuclear fission takes over it produces extra pressure which pushes the outer bits of the planet/dwarf  towards the vaccum of space. 

Also the fact that Jupiter did not form into a star yet is as massive as it and in combination with the precise size of our moon plus us being in the Goldilocks zone is why we have a stable axis for the Earth's rotation, and not so many asteroid impacts, and generally why life has become the way it is throughout the seasons here on Earth. 

TBH I recently watched a TED talk by Stephen Webb and his argument went along the lines of the fact that even if there are a hundred billion planets in the habitable zone of their stars that there are so many incredible barriers to entry for an advanced civilization to form that it is almost impossible how low the odds are that we would see civilizations out there in space which are advanced enough to colonize or otherwise leave observable evidence of their existence."
science,"That website is mistaken. The 85% statistic is actually the percentage of stars *that we can see with the naked eye* that are at least binary. However, the vast majority of stars are low mass (K and M) dwarfs, and low mass stars are much more likely to be single. But since low mass stars are so dim, we cannot see many of them from Earth. 

So the majority of all star systems are single, but the majority of all star systems we can see without a telescope are binary."
science,"Not an astronomer, but from what I read in another article the main star behaves more or less like our sun would whereas the other stars orbit each other much further out in space.  I am welcome to any correction.  When I read about astronomy I always try to reconstruct things like this three dimensionally in my head and this was what I thought I was going on.  

EDIT:  Re-reading your question, you were asking about the planet itself.  I am not sure of the effect on the nature of a potentially habitable planet's orbit.  Again, using my brain to try and visually make sense of it; I would think the planet orbits 40 Eridani A more or less like we orbit our sun whereas the dwarf stars 40 Eridani B and C orbit the main sequence star (A) much further out in space.  I am sure they have some gravitational effects on any planet in the system, but since they are smaller and much further away it may be negligible?  "
science,"That's hard to do because it very heavily depends on distances and masses of the planets and stars and how they move with respect to each other. The planet could be weaving all over the place; or it could primarily orbit one star with a bit of a wobble; or in theory, if the stars were rotating around each other in exactly the right way, you could have the planet sitting apparently stationary in between the three of them. I'm sure possibility of that happening is astronomically low, but it goes to show that any visual representation would only be specific to that arrangement of stars."
science,"The only information we have is dips in brightness. Basically, if there is a small dip, a planet is enough, if there is a dip, then there’s another star. I assume what happened was they found 2 big dips and 1 small dip every couple of days, so now they think it’s a three star system with a planet.

You can’t really get their movement from just knowing they are there, kind of like if you heard 3 different car horns outside, you know there are 3 cars, and some are further than others, but the precise location and arrangements are unknown until you look at it, and no technology can zoom onto another solar system so far."
science,"It means that there's no easy formula to spit out where things will be at a later time, like you can do with 2-body systems. A common approach is to instead perform simulations.

Basically, if you know where everything is and how fast everything is going, you can approximate how far they'll all move in a tiny timeframe *dt*. It's not perfectly accurate, because as it's moving during that *dt* the gravitational forces change, but the smaller you make your *dt* the more accurate your simulation becomes. There are also formulas to determine a range for how far off you might be-- so you can say things like ""it'll be at location x at time y with error R."""
science,"Sir you are very wrong. A three body problem is a chaotic system meaning that small errors will propagate over time leading to large scale errors. Computers by nature will store values as discrete numbers leading to rounding errors. I’m sure this is the very least of such an example of small errors within the model. Also, there will be small errors even in measuring the initial conditions of such a system which is one of the reasons the trisolarians give up the game of predicting the motion of their own planet. At best, the simulation will only be accurate for a small period of time"
science,"Yeah, except that the way I learned it the original was actually supposed to be a weather model. It got plugged into a supercomputer, ran for a few days, and spit out a string of numbers showing the system over time. Then the researcher wanted to study one part more carefully, plugged in the conditions at that time as the initial conditions, and got totally different results because of the rounding errors. It's like balancing a ball on top of a hill, except almost every point is the same."
science,"You may find topics such as [Perturbation theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perturbation_theory), [Taylor series](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_series#First_example), and [Numerical Analysis of Differentials](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_analysis#Interpolation,_extrapolation,_and_regression) interesting; we have much better tools than just first-degree iteration. Chaos in initial conditions is not as much of a brick wall as people think it is, and neither is [error buildup](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_of_significance), especially when dealing with only a handful of celestial bodies. It has its imprecisions, but a good scientist is [aware of such problems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_accuracy) and can understand when numerical approximation is appropriate.

​

Also, the discrete values encountered with [float imprecision](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating-point_arithmetic#Accuracy_problems) can be easily avoided through [alternative numerical representations](https://www.daniweb.com/programming/software-development/code/216587/python-can-handle-very-large-numbers), and there's no reason to assume they're only storing the iterative approximations and not dozens of other useful values like approximations of the first few derivatives of position, empirically derived Taylor initialization constants, error bounds and many more, nor that they aren't running the numerical analysis multiple times with slightly varying initial conditions to account for the error inherent in our observations of celestial bodies' properties and building a more statistically significant prediction from statistical treatments of the data. 

​

So while yes, n-body problems do exhibit chaos from varying initial conditions, it's nowhere near as dreadful as you make it out to be.

​

Source: degrees in both Mathematics and Computer Science"
science,"Based on some other comment I saw linked on this thread, it might not be that hard for a planet to be “stationary” in a triple star system.

The only way a triple star system can really be stable is where two stars orbit each other, and the third orbits their collective center of mass at a greater distance. Since you basically have two masses in this system I don’t see why you couldn’t have a planet sit of one of the systems Lagrange points. I’m not an expert so maybe it’s possible a planet would be too large to ever realistically be in a stable orbit at a Lagrange point but it seems like it should work."
science,"The planet is in an ordinary elliptical orbit around the primary star in the system (40 Eri A), 0.22 AU from its sun. This is closer than Mercury is to our Sun.

The other two stars are a white dwarf (40 Eri B) and red dwarf (40 Eri C) that orbit each other 400 AU away. They don't have any significant effect on this planet, and would look just like a pair of bright stars in the sky from the planet's surface.

40 Eridani B, by the way, is the first white dwarf ever discovered. William Herschel discovered it in 1783, but it wasn't until the early 20th century that we knew what it was. "
science,Oh shit dude you got me. So if you haven’t read the three body problem they are trying to predict the course of their home planet in a system with three stars so that they can determine how long their planet will be in a stable orbit so they know when to emerge and return to their bunkers essentially. Would it be possible for them to predict that they are about to enter into a stable period where they are only orbiting a single star and that this period will last for a hundred years?
science,"Not just with religion. Many of the civic, social and fraternal organizations that adults used to join are dead or rapidly dying. There used to be large dinner clubs that people would join. There were numerous social groups for women, often involved in various philanthropic pursuits. For men, there were dozens of civic organizations. Freemasons, Odd Fellows, Kiwanis, Knights of Columbus, Eagles, Moose’s, etc... many of which are now extinct or very close to it. All of these things used to provide a sense of community for their members (not to mention that, with fraternal organizations, they used to provide a way to get group life or group health insurance without having it tied to your job). "
science,"Sounds like a job for the local Park District to be honest. Child, family, and adult activity programs. Fundraisers, drives, etc. A park district can be like a church to the community in that way, minus specific group identification. Park districts aren’t run on crazy amounts of donations and a seemingly endless budget though, most are taxpayer driven, but volunteers can make up the difference. Much like how church programs are volunteer driven."
science,"This is probably where religions have greater value than anything that might replace it.  It gives people regardless of status or wealth an excuse to get together and interact with each other, if they want to.  It’s a lifeline for at risk people.  

To replace it you would need something that was essentially religion. Otherwise you end up with small isolated communities that live and die by the charisma of a few people - the people who most need attention from others or who may be undesirable or difficult might be discarded or shunned altogether by a society that doesn’t teach moral obligation. Religion obligates you to gather, to look after the poor, the weak, ill and disagreeable in a way that civil government does not, however well run. "
science,"They’ve been on a steady decline since the 1970s. Basically, the parents of the Baby Boomers were the last generation to be involved. The Boomers largely eschewed these things. And GenX and Millenials are eschewing them even further. 

I have no doubt the economics play into it for some.  But there are a lot of people who, financially, are doing well that aren’t joining such groups. And it’s been that way for decades. And, especially prior to the growth of the social welfare state post-1930, those groups still had rapid growth and strong membership, even those times were economically tough for many, many people. "
science,"You’re kidding right? Not everyone has family and close friends nearby, not by a long shot.  There are tons of older folks whose favorite support networks have simply died or just aren’t close.  When you work and have good mental health, you have a social network built in. But once you retire, if you aren’t good at making friends and getting people to care about you, you can get totally shut out and no one is going to come looking for you when you need it.  The local church can be a great support network. "
science,"That's true... I am not religious and I actually very much dislike the role that religion plays in politics, but as with all things there's nuance... I remember as a kid going to a very liberal church where I learned a lot about acceptance (particularly LGBTQ as there were a few openly gay people on staff at the church), we had a community theatre program running out of the church, and I got to play bass in the band when we put on performances of Godspell and other musicals... I played in the handbell choir... it was actually a positive part of my childhood even though I turned out to be non-religious. "
science,"I don't believe in putting this on government. A community is built by people who have the drive to rally others and get things done. It seems this has become a much more rare quality as the necessities of life have become easier.

Only decades ago, the struggles to survive were much greater and that created opportunities for a lot of people to find their leadership ability. As easy as life is now, people just frown at lifting a finger to get anything meaningful done.

How can we get people to wake their capacity for leadership, passion for organizing events and getting others enthusiastic about participating in them. That's become much harder too since everyone has such an abundance of entertainment at their fingertips, you have to somehow make community events more attractive than staying home with Netflix."
science,"Many of those organizations you mentioned had religious affiliations which is partly the reason they're dying.

They also have weird membership rules, and if the membership is dying out, it's a sign of their failure to adapt to modern society as well.  If they're unable to recruit new members, it is absolutely the fault of the organization for not adjusting their recruiting methods.

A few of those groups are thriving - I see advertisements for the Rotary Club and Toastmasters around here all the time."
science,">The whole social dynamic of our society is totally different 

I mean, yeah. For those not in church it's pretty much nonexistent

Sure, I'm ""socializing"" online right now but it's cold, calculated, and I'm prepared to be attacked by the nearest person who disagrees with me. 

Reddit will, and always has been ""arguing for sport"" rather than socializing (i.e. It's probably not healthy for it to be a staple of how you communicate with others)"
science,"Besides cost, it probably has something to do with how many activities people's kids are doing now versus the last generation and how involved parents are in those activities.

That takes a lot of time that might have previously been spent with those organizations. Not that spending more time with you kids versus random people is a bad thing.

Probably there's some sense of community with the soccer parents, hockey parents, etc, but it's not so formalized.

Then if you don't have kids, you're kind of shut out of those groups and your options for community are way more limited. "
science,"I mean even basic stuff like how people text rather than make phone calls. We shop online instead of going into stores. We bury ourselves in the huge variety of streaming services and video games instead of going outside. In general I think our face to face communication and engagement with the outside world has decreased quite a bit. Not for everyone of course, but on a pretty wide scale I'd say that's probably the case."
science,"It's not the only way to get people with privilege to care for the marginalized, but I hear your point. And I mean ""care for"" in both senses: care about, and help meet needs in some material way. Also, not all service springs from duty or obligation. Ask anyone who volunteers a lot or works in a ""helping"" profession. ""Rewarding"" is too transactional a term for my liking, but helping helps the helpers, too."
science,"Because segregation causes divergence, and divergence leads to disagreement, and disagreement leads to resentment, and resentment leads to conflict and the break-down of society.

People tend to reject full integration because that means they lose their other group identities, but people often forget that they can still be a part of multiple groups or that they already share a greater grouping with other communities.

The ultimate goal is that we should all integrate slightly because we all identify as members of the group, the human race, and therefore should treat our fellow members with a basic level of respect. Too often we allow smaller inter-group conflicts overrule that.

I’m not saying segregation is a bad thing though. It creates social resilience for humanity. If everyone mindlessly integrated into a group that believed in ritual suicide that wouldn’t end particularity well for humanity. 

Also, beneath all these groupings you should always strive to remain an individual and not let your grouping define who you are. That’s how you avoid getting trapped in one group and ending up as an enforcer for segregation."
science,"it was just as bad in the 90s when we all flocked to ""Places -Chat"" on AOL .

todays ""pro trolls"" and ""social media managers"" are the folks with deep internet arguing experience stretching back before most of todays internet users were alive.

Trolling has been a thing since day 1.. and back then it was trivial to track down a user and ""pay a visit"", there's a reason reddit launched with a no doxxing rule."
science,"I think a lot of those are being replaced by different kinds of clubs and circles though.

Like, what benefit does any of these organizations:

> Freemasons, Odd Fellows, Kiwanis, Knights of Columbus, Eagles, Moose’s

Actually give me? A group of people to hang out with? 

I already have sport clubs, friends, and special interest events that I can socialize and engage with others over shared interests. My favorite local dive bar feels more like a brotherhood than anything I've ever seen going on a Knights of Columbus or Kiwanis event.

I bet a lot of these older organizations sprang up out of sheer boredom.

Now? Things are accessible, both physically and digitally, so much much more."
science,"I guess it would depend on the religion, ... and whether you care. Plenty of people get dragged to church who don’t want to be there as well as the reverse. 

In any case, if deity worship was the more important factor, then you could worship at home and never set foot in a community church and that should be adequate for the heretic set. Belief and faith is independent from location. 

Having a physical church at all is a definite community construct, and an expensive one at that.  "
science,"Churches were started as a way to support and be in community with other believers.  When you look at the demographics of many churches you see people of all walks of life with often only their common faith bringing them together.

You can be religious without church.

You can have a faith in God without church.

It just won't be very good without other people to share your highs and lows with as you grow and develop your faith."
science,"What's the deal with this American obsession with communities? Isn't the goal to become more united? Then why are you so quick in dividing every single damn thing into small communities that hate each other? The intention could be good, but whenever you isolate a group of people into a ""closed club"" it's a way of saying ""we're not like others"". It was so bizarre when I met an American girl at the climbing gym in a major European city and her first question was: ""Is it a community gym or for everybody?"". Like, the fuck that even means? Sounded so out of place, you buy a ticket, you go in, you climb. People will be friendly regardless, nobody cares about your stupid community or fake ""club"" badges or whatever you invent to convince yourself that you need this segregation."
science,"I'm an atheist as well, and I have a few close friends who regularly go to a community atheism meetup thing. It's a once a week deal with monthly cookouts and stuff, I'm sure there's something like it near you. Now I did go to a few meets back a year ago, and honestly it came off as a ""religion for the areligious"" at least in this case, there were sit down talks that were reminiscent of sunday school except insert atheism instead of catholicism/etc. Personally it wasn't for me since I'm atheist as the definition states, I don't believe in any of the above, nor would I enjoy trying to convert others to my cause. So YMMV with these communities, but I'd check around and see, they can't all be like the one I experienced. "
science,"The good thing is that kids tend to be anarchist with established social habits and I am optimistic that some new generation will make it popular to put down the devices and spend actual time with people.

My 3 year old son will straight up tell me he doesn't want to watch TV, and I take that as a sign to teach him to interact with the world. And also to reteach me to do so as well. It's humbling. "
science,"That's most likely a result of parenting and education systems failing. 

Every kid was taught they were special and the smartest, bestest whateverthefuckest and that can get everything they want. 

What kids didn't learn was how to deal with pressure/stress, losing,
how to force themselves, how to take criticism, how to work towards a long term goal.

Add social media and self esteem is flushed right down the shitter. 

Depression and anxieties galore. 


These kids are now grown up millenials."
science,trolling was far more innocent id blame the new arrivals verses old internet users. we never saw any reason for it to be malevolent which is why people my age (40) poured our hearts into livejournal and facebook never thinking we had anything to fear until they turned it into a tool for evil. my younger brother and his wife were warned in school about social media. conversely my generation was writing the first websites in the era that links on yahoo were picked by hand.
science,"Summed it up perfectly, I'm a young guy who's a developer but when I get home I socialiseon line in a VoIP channel with some irl and none irl mixed friends because it's easier and cheaper than just meeting up. Less anxious, no bad feelings about leaving whenever etc, online is just easier and nicer day to day and do the cool stuff when you have the time.

Calling Reddit socialising is obviously odd, to me it's just my favourite curation system with some funny comments in it that I usually like to lurk in."
science,"I don't want to get into the same long argument that always comes after I share what I'm going to share now.


I have zero problem with most Freemasons. They are truly kind, great people that want community and serve their neighbors so to speak.  It's certain ones 32nd degree or higher that are troubling. 
People normally don't believe me yet I've learned not to care about the disbelief. I was Satanically Ritually Abused by my Worshipful Master grandfather and his Freemasonry ""friends"". I have Polyfragmented Dissociative Identity Disorder. 
They split me on purpose. Same thing happened to my sister. "
science,"Learning about the different belief systems practiced around the world can be a valuable element in a child's education. However, instructing a child that one way is right and all others are wrong is indoctrination and inhibits the individual's ability to make an informed choice about which, if any, is right for them. 

Hence why the use of the word ""failure"" in the title is problematic, as it intrinsically assigns a value to the indoctrination of children by religious parents, as opposed to a secular religious education."
science,"Pagan parent in the UK here. Came here to say the same, and to laugh at the similarities between the the term used to spread religion and viruses.

I’m not forcing my beliefs down my children’s necks, unlike my experience of Christianity as a child. I am also not actively suppressing their awareness of any other religion either.

When we talk about the big questions like life and death and creation, we discuss different viewpoints and I encourage them to see it however they want to see it.

If my kids came to me one day and said they wanted to be officially introduced to a given religion, I would make sure we support their choice to do so, after all it just saves them the bother of doing it later in life after having resented a set of beliefs they have had given to them"
science,"If you teach your child that one religion is right and one is wrong, you've missed the whole point of religious values no matter what you call them. Don't be ignorant towards the fact that the whole point of religion is to accept others and all your doing is point out those that follow their religion blindly. Half of the science we see today is taken at face value, it takes courage to trust and put faith in something that you cannot see, but feel. I applaud those who see through the politics we've placed on religion. Only those people can appreciate what it is to love a God based on faith alone. One cannot argue on faith because there is no factual evidence to place on the table. People get scared and run to science for answers, where they do not find any, then proceed turn away from faith."
science,"> If I type slower maybe you'll understand better.

Certainly doesn't seem as though you are practicing love and compassion and understanding, nor reason.

 

> People get scared and run to science for answers, where they do not find any, then proceed turn away from faith.

What makes you believe that the scientific method cannot produce answers to the questions that people ask?

 

> there's good religions and BAD religions

Care to provide examples?

 

> We all have something called a brain which allows us to be able to decipher between the two. 

Are you sure?  
Tried cracking your skull open to check?"
science,"> I'm glad you learned how to break it down into paragraphs, makes it easier to grasp huh? Go live your life get off reddit and be happy kid 😂

Perhaps you ought to try answering the questions instead of resorting to pitiful ad-hominem.

1. What makes you believe that the scientific method cannot produce answers to the questions that people ask?

2. Care to provide examples of ""good"" and ""bad"" religions?

3. Can you confirm that you actually have a brain? Have you seen it? Touched it? Taken a photograph?

Seems like you respond to a request for evidence and argument with an immature defensiveness."
science,"from the article: 
> ""The findings of the new study add evidence to the idea that social behaviors have a long evolutionary history — going back much farther than we ever believed. The electrifying results could significantly impact what we know about the evolution of brains and why MDMA-assisted therapy seems to be such a useful tool in treating post-traumatic stress disorder and anxiety."" 

The use of MDMA in a controlled setting continues to impress me but I wonder, and this isn't in the paper, were the octopuses depressed for a month after the study like humans are, because there was no more feel-good brain juice (serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine) left in the proverbial tank?"
science,"That's outdated. It comes from old research which gave a very rough estimate, which was reported with caution, the best they could do at the time. This is from the ""chemical imbalance"" days. We know a lot more now. You don't need all of your serotonin to feel normal again, and it comes back much quicker than previously thought. Your mood is fixed quicker than your gut, and those last bits don't matter much anyways. "
science,"you're forgetting that the serotonin system is a LOT more delicate than any other neurotransmitter in your brain. this is why antidepressants affect the serotonin system differently to how stimulants affect the dopamine system despite the medications functioning very similarly on the systems they manipulate (i.e SSRIs and DRIs both just being reuptake inhibitors).

there's the phrases ""blue Mondays"" and ""suicide Tuesdays"" that refers to the delayed (latent) crash that happens days after consumption. this is because you ""run out"" of serotonin after getting through the little serotonin you had left after the MDMA high. like I said serotonin takes longer to build in your body so you kind of ""catch up"" to your serotonin reserves and run on what you can produce in that moment. while dopamine on the other hand can be quickly and easily produced, which is why the day after a coke or adderrall binge you're mostly back to normal."
science,"I like how you question my statement but not the parent that flippantly claims you'd ""have to have AIDS"" to not recover in a day.

There's not a great deal of research to cite on MDMA given its absurd Schedule 1 status, but ALL of the research that you will be able to find indicates that it takes far more than a day for the brain to come back to baseline."
science,"There's a series of vitamins and such you can take 20 minutes prior to the MDMA that are precursors for building serotonin.  You'll also want to take something afterwords to stop the serotonin burn as well, since that continues past the part where you ""feel high"".

Here's a good link on the topic:  https://thedea.org/mdma-ecstasy-molly-users-guide/mdma-molly-preloading-and-supplements/

Personally, I think it's fine to use them right before, though that link suggests a day before."
science,"Drink 50 litres of water two nights in a row and call me in a month. 

​

Your example is silly so I made up my own. You can turn mere water into something deadly at ridiculous dosage.

​

Take a normal 100mg dose recommended by people who advise on recreational use, or less, recommended by therapists when MDMA was still a medical drug, and you certainly won't have a month long depression like OperaDonor seemed to imply humans do."
science,"I'll respond to this one. Very interesting, assuming you tested your Mdma and took sensible dosis etc. You're not the first anecdotal report I've seen of stuff like this, some people seem to be able to solve the problem with supplements etc, but it could just be that your brain chemistry is slightly different from the norm that mdma combines well with. Wish there was more research available to discover what it is exactly that make up these changes. "
science,"All tested, sensible doses, and I took supplements like Vitamin C and anti-oxidants. I think it just depends on individual brain chemistry, like you said. Every person I know who also did it had different reactions. Some had afterglows, some had just a hang over the next day or next few days, some had nothing. It did seem that my hangover lasted the longest out of people I knew. The last time I rolled I felt out of whack for 3 months after. That was when I said ""no more"". "
science,"I'm convinced a proponent of the after-effects is just a psychological placebo. 

Basically, people tell you you're going to have a comedown, so you expect a comedown, and then you treat simple exhaustion as a comedown. Wallowing in self-imposed emotion.

Once I realised this, I stopped having any comedowns at all and just felt sort of Spacey and tired the next day.

I suppose it could just be me though. I've not conducted any experiments on others to test my theory obviously."
science,Post MDMA depression is a very real thing that is documented in scientific literature. Maybe it was more placebo in your case but I can guarantee you it is very real for lots of people. I had experienced it before I even knew it was a thing and the effects are so profound that it simply could not be placebo. I'm talking about this indescribable feeling where simply existing feels so horribly empty and painful. Luckily the worst of it only lasts for a day. Then it's just moderate depression and a feeling of being frazzled for a week or two after.
science,"MDMA is most notable for serotonin but it also produces a brief but powerful dopamine high with a long afterglow.

However the pills that were popular in the late 90-early 2000s in my area were a mix of several substances including MDA, MBDB and MDEA, sometimes with ketamine, and there were rumours of traces of heroin.  Depending on how long or hard you went for you got different effects and different pills had different blends.  Almost always however the initial 'come-up' was quite intense, like getting ready for and doing a sky-dive.  You get that rush only from amps, of which MDMA is one.

I haven't touched pure MDMA in years and branded pills for even longer but I know that Ecstasy left me better than it found me.

​

​"
science,"That's not what they mean - they mean that drugs that *should* be predominantly being used in non-white populations are being tested in white populations, with the effect that efficacy and adverse effect profiles in non-whites aren't well-known - even though they might end up receiving it. 

Conversely, a drug that fails in whites could be more effective in non-whites - but the negative trial would probably stop or pause development."
science,"Not really. The reason why scientists overwhelmingly reject the idea of inherent intelligence or temperament differences between races is that those traits are some of the most complex traits you could possibly pick at- they are controlled by a huge number of genes. Meaning that it'd take a very long time for two populations to develop different mean levels of say, intelligence or extraversion, even *if* we assume that there was an evolutionary pressure towards a higher IQ or a more excitable temperament.

On the contrary, things like metabolic processes can often be massively influenced by only a few gene changes- and with the example of metabolic differences, there's already quite the evidence for racial differences. I. e., inuit's metabolic system has adapted to get along with a diet high in animal protein, asian people are more prone to diabetes than white people due to having a lower proportion of muscle tissue (even when controlling for BMI of course). "
science,"“Race” is a social construct. There are no Asian genes or African or European genes. There are only variations of genes within groups. Basically, it’s like every group has dish soap, it’s just that one group has lavender scented soap where another has coconut or honey scented soap. 

Biology does not recognize race, so when sociologists talk about “disproportionately affected ethnic groups” they are actually referencing socio-economic status; in other words, poor folks with larger amounts of melanin. 

RACE IS IRRELEVANT TO CANCER. The economic class in which we find ourselves influences cancer rates. 

I have a degree in biology and have discussed this topic with several academic folks. Race is fiction and if you think someone has a higher chance of illness bc they’re ethnic, that is the very definition of racism. 

It’s class that determines risk of cancer, not skin color or accent. Things like the foods we eat and how we choose to live, traditions that are taught, these affect cancer rates. 

Get it right, you racists. God damn but y’all are frustrating in your ignorance. "
science,"Race was defined in terms of what we would now call phenotype, and those phenotypes associated with race are from constellations of genes that respond to evolution at the broad geographic level. Those genes are present within all humans at the genomic level, and we all have variations on these genes due to geographic history. We all have the genes for skin color, for instance. What differs is the level of expression of these genes, and these are a response to environment over time. 

To clarify, there is no single gene that makes anyone any particular race, and those traits stereotypically used to classify folks into “races” are more reflective of historical circumstances and thus class, not the presence or absence of genes. That is to say, in general a Native American person has the same genes as an African person; their racial identity is now understood to be a narrative instead of a biological fact. 

Because racial identity is rooted now in social narratives and not biological facts, it is misleading to group folks into racial groups. Instead, geneticists use the concept of haplotypes to make sense of those broad level genetic similarities between groups of people. Haplotype is different from race; race is a concept used to create a class-based world view. Haplotypes simply classify genes by how often they congregate with other genes. 

This article has a misleading headline. "
science,"Yes, actually it is very well established that serotonin plays a pivotal role in the social interactions and sexual functions of humans; so much so that they've formed the basis of an entire class of drugs known as Selective Serotonin Re-uptake Inhibitors.

Even if you want to remain skeptical of *Serotonin's* specific role in the formation of human heirarchy, Peterson's overarching point is that the formation of social heirarchy in sexually selective animals is largely the norm for the vast majority of species and that humans are no exception."
science,"He doesn't try to make hierarchies feel ""kewl"". He argues that they have been present in our ancestors since the Cambrian explosion and are deeply engrained not only in our society but in the chemical substance of our physical brain and are conserved by evolution to such an extent that things as different as lobsters and octopuses function in basically the same way as humans. They cannot be overridden with just a few centuries of mere human thought, no matter how smug or snarky the biologically illiterate left becomes.

How best to deal with hierarchy and social organization, that's a question he leaves pretty wide open. As a clinical psychologist he's most concerned with the individual level but he's also pointed out that high income inequality drives crime more than does poverty, for example.

Maybe you're a smart kid but dismissive wordplay is no substitute for knowing what you're talking about."
science,"I mean this is coming from a JP fan, but he does say that rooting them out of society often hurts people. 
Like he said it’s bad when people are told that rising up in the hierarchy is a form of oppression. 

I mean he obviously thinks people need purpose, and he’s repeatedly said having values means forming a hierarchy. In this way if JP saw a society of humans without hierarchies he’d probably think something was wrong. "
science,"I'm saying we should take into account that society is already very much organized similarly to that of the lobster, at least in terms of our neurochemical response to social stimuli.

The main take-away for humans is to recognize that competition is innate to our species - like the lobster. Certain philosophical or political groups would have you believe that competitive heirarchy is simply the result of trends in Western Society, and that if we were to develop a perfect social system, we would embody a being with no innate propensity for climbing heirarchies - like an ant, or a [Borg](http://www.abetterinterview.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/borg.jpg), or something."
science,"No, of course not? We know that humans with low serotonin activity experience depression with its accompanying feelings of defeat and behave similarly to lobsters who lose fights. We know that bullying, ostracism and social failure in general causes depression. And now we know that a serotenergic drug acting in the opposite direction has the same prosocial effect in octopuses as in humans, and octopuses are distant from lobsters on the tree of life as humans are. It really looks like the same system doing the same thing all across the animal kingdom which is cool but not at all surprising. Most if what we know about the nervous system we learned by studying invertebrates.

And none of this justifies anything or even explains much at higher scales of organization."
science,">The ridicule is of JBP making up unobserved insinuations about humans and serotonin. Stop handwaving that garbage with ""overarching point"" apologism.

I'm glad you've apparently learned the FIRST three things about serotonin. If you'd like to expand your knowledge, instead of getting upset with psychologists who understand things that you don't, spend 5 seconds googling your question.

I promise it'll make more sense if you take the time to research ""serotonin role social status apes.""

I think the confusion is that you think you're entitled to JBP literally citing studies for you when he says things like ""human dominance structure acts similarly to lobster dominance structures and the apparent link is the serotonergic system."" It isn't his job, nor the job of any professor, to READ for you. You can do that yourself. Stop acting like things you don't understand and haven't researched are fantastical handwaving.

>Hierarchies in lobsters are regulated in part by serotonin = science. **Thus serotonin does a similar thing in humans = not science. Thus human predilection toward hierarchies is explained by biological evolution = not science.**

You realize this comment reads like you're blissfully unaware of the massive berth of research on the human serotonergic system, right...? Are you under the presumption that we've only studied the effects of serotonin on lobsters (and octopodes) but not actual *humans*...?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310586509_Serotonin_and_Dominance"
science,"It's interesting to see that the evolutionary history of Serotonine goes back this far.

One thing to keep in mind though (considering what a lot of comments here imply) is that just because humans and octopuses share a common neurotransmitter this doesn't mean that their functions are identical or even similar - Serotonine is probably being used by the different species because it's a simple organic molecular structure to snythesize for most life forms so evolution held on to it. Serotonine's species specific function evolved is likely mostly corresponding to the evolution of the species itself rather than having a ""superordinate"" function that is the same in all species with Serotonine."
science,"> But two chemicals that are the exact same will act the same, correct?

They will, assuming the organism they’re in has the exact same biology. But the post says:

>“We performed phylogenetic tree mapping and found that, even though their whole serotonin transporter gene is only 50 to 60 percent similar to humans, the gene was still conserved. That told us that MDMA would have a place to go in the octopus brain and suggested it could encode sociality as it does in a human brain.”

The gene is conserved but not identical. "
science,"> In addition to vertebrate animals including cyclostomes

But why this oddly specific verbosity? Who questions them being vertebrate?!

Btw, formally you'd want to cite Article 1 (3) (b), as the locus you cited is in the preamble, which is not legally binding (even for the member states to implement).

On the other hand, while the details might differ, the fact that cephalopods must be included in the protection is a hard necessity for the member states, or else they are in violation and the commission can start a process against them."
science,"Scribes are great, though the current model is somewhat exploitive of students.  Few others are willing to put in the leg work and continue developing for minimum wage (which is what many scribes are paid, despite the companies they're contracting through charging some $30 an hour). 

That said, a tool that makes $200,000 p.a. doctors more efficient is a useful tool, and even more useful in the context of our coming shortage of doctors as boomers age."
science,"Yeah, I kinda do. I never said it was a requirement. I said they like to see it. They like to see it because it shows clinical experience but in reality, you can scribe remotely and get almost zero clinical experience. I have volunteered at free clinics for experience too. However, if you're pulling down a full time job, it's hard to commit to regular volunteering which doesn't pay, or scribing which doesn't pay enough.

As a non-traditional applicant, I am familiar with the struggles of other non-trads, and I know several who have voiced this concern."
science,"Sure, but did you do that while in college and also working a full time job? Because my point is that neither scribing nor getting volunteer/shadowing hours are easy while you're trying to pay bills. It is another instance of how access is stratified. You said somewhere below that I don't know what I'm talking about but failed to really account for other perspectives. I'm not trying to single you out. This is a persistent problem with lack of empathy that is unfortunately very common among young premeds. I hope you gain a better understanding of the issues as you grow in your career."
science,"Financial assistance isn't available to everyone. Once again, it's a different situation when you're self-dependent and non-traditional. I didn't say you were premed. I said that you're displaying an attitude that is prevalent among premeds but I can see how that can be an implication. 
I've volunteered a lot in college, especially with the impoverished, and it's a lot harder to do so with a research career but I still find time to do that. I'm pretty sensitive and aware of the ripple effect of the lack of access when it comes to students wanting to pursue medicine. So, I'm speaking from first hand experience. 

Anyway, I suppose we can disagree. However, It is a little disappointing to see that the attitude that I disklike in some of my peers has really not faded in someone who is probably a physician or faculty member. I sincerely hope that the mindset is changing. "
science,"Promote scarcity and drive up prices/ensure that doctors all have jobs. It's not the worst idea in the world because it also has the intended benefit of ensuring quality. 

A great comparison is the LSAT/Bar versus the MCAT/Boards. If you get an okay score on the LSAT, you're guaranteed to go to law school *somewhere*. However, the true test is the Bar, which comes after law school and is the weeding out process. Meanwhile, you need a high MCAT score to go to most med schools and as long as you get an okay score on the Boards, you will eventually match with a residency program *somewhere*, even if it's not your desired specialty. The weeding out has already happened and the market exists. "
science,"That's just pure supply and demand.  In the 80s and 90s, the ratio was like 1.3 to 1, applicants to spots.  Now it's closert to 2 to 1.

The spots are limited by the number of medical seats which is set by the accrediting body LCME.  Opening a medical school is tough, you need quality educators as well as clinical sites that expose students to large amounts of varied pathology.  That can't heppen just anywhere.  It's why medical schools are in very established schools with affiliated medical centers.

Finally, there is probably a doctor shortage, but it's overblown by concentrating physicians in cities.  The real moral of the story should be that small town America isn't sustainable and in the modern era, a city of 10,000 just can't provide a 21st century lifestyle."
science,"Well, the results in the US are not surprising given that many people suffering from chronic conditions can't afford the expensive healthcare. 

The results for UK are a bit disappointing, because the country has good public healthcare, but weirdly lagging ten years behind other European countries in terms of cancer survival rates. 

In China, health insurance covers only a low proportion of healthcare costs, which makes expensive treatments like chronic diseases not affordable for many people."
science,"I don't think it's necessarily because of other interests but the amount of spending is a bit misleading. A lot of waste is on admin. For instance, the government wanted to introduce an IT system that would link everyone together but rather than telling GPs (technically a private enterprise!) To use specific software, they tried to incorporate every type of software available, wasting a lot of money and resulting in failure of the project. I often feel that the management of the NHS is appalling, sure it could always do with more money but it certainly needs better Management"
science,"I’m from Wales...lived there for 36 years and we certainly didn’t have a poor diet or stay indoors a lot.  We ate fresh fruit, veg and grass-fed meat everyday and actually did a lot of walking.  The weather doesn’t bother the welsh.  As for frozen veggies...we didn’t even have a freezer and the nearest takeaway was a few miles down the road.  Where’s the Wales you are talking about?  You make us sound lazy, dumb and poor!  "
science,"What about prevention and cure rather than treatment? Most of these diseases can be prevented. Much are due to bad diet, lack of exercise, poor air quality and lack of sunlight for vitamin D. If ""treatment"" includes helping people change their lifestyle to effectively eliminate chronic diseases, then treatment will actually have a substantial impact. Also the toxic industries making people ill need to change and stop putting all the blame on the ""individual""."
science,"I've no idea why this is in response to my post but I'll respond none the less. There are things you can do to statistically reduce cancers occurring but fundamentally, a lot of them are bad luck or genetics. There are tight environmental controls and a shift in policies around climate and air quality going on in Europe. But you can't just stop. Industry makes the world go around currently and although I'd love to have a utopia where there's no pollution but it's a price being paid to keep civilisation ticking along. Well.. almost. It's a price we pay for the comfort we live in.

Long story short - efforts are ongoing, at least in Europe, to stop externalising the costs of industry and to reduce avoidable illnesses."
science,"It’s more effective to think of the cause of causes with respect to populations and problems that appear across it. 

>One summer in the village, the people in the town gathered for a picnic. As they leisurely shared food and conversation, someone noticed a baby in the river, struggling and crying. The baby was going to drown!

>Someone rushed to save the baby. Then, they noticed another screaming baby in the river, and they pulled that baby out. Soon, more babies were seen drowning in the river, and the townspeople were pulling them out as fast as they could. It took great effort, and they began to organize their activities in order to save the babies as they came down the river. As everyone else was busy in the rescue efforts to save the babies, two of the townspeople started to run away along the shore of the river.

>""Where are you going?"" shouted one of the rescuers. ""We need you here to help us save these babies!""

>""We are going upstream to stop whoever is throwing them in!"""
science,"Fantastic! This is great! I'm very pleased that we have established this common ground! Too often when people encounter each other on the internet who have different opinions it rapidly descended into petty name calling etc. This is in my opinion a very bad thing.

So do you also agree that changes in atmospheric chemistry can and have in the past changed the earths climate? Causing raising/falling sea levels and such?

Edit: words."
science,"Yeah volcanos can and do release a shit ton of it.

I personally don't think that their has been a significant increase in the amount of volcanic activity since the 1800. I think it's burning coal and oil. My reasons for thinking this is that we do actually keep a very good record of how much coal and oil we mine/drill for. And the output has increased exponentially, what with more people and vehicles etc.

However I would encourage you to research this for yourself. You are obviously not stupid and capable of doing your own research and drawing your own conclusions.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you identify as a conservative? Whether or not you do I will say this: The greatest failing of the modern environmental movement is its lack of inclusivity. Particularly with respect for people who hold conservative points of view. This hostility has led to a total breakdown of any rational discourse, like we're having now. Why would you believe anything anyone said of half they time they were calling you racist/stupid?"
science,"Just so everyone is aware.

> ""gender"" as a word is meaningless in the same way as ""detox"" or ""natural"" when divorced from biological sex.


>A fetus's brain doesn't start functioning until about 8 weeks (1), so any argument past that must be based on religious doctrine, which is inherently lacking in falsifiability and therefore meaningless.

>(1): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4078859


Is a stealth edit made after the first lines and after my original reply. I also want to point out it ignores my original points. "
science,"I believe that’s a strawman. I’m 100% atheist and I participate heavily in the Libertarian sub, a group also largely atheistic, where they seem split about 50/50 on whether or not the fetus has rights with regards to the NAP. 

And as far as the religious crowd is concerned, I think it would be a violation of their rights to force them to pay taxes towards something they consider to be a mortal sin. Just like your argument that their religious views shouldn’t trump other people’s rights, other people’s personal moralities shouldn’t trump theirs. "
science,"How does legalizing a substance that a huge percentage of the population consumes create another crutch? They are already using it. All that happens with criminalization is the punishment of innocent people for an act that hurts no one but the person making the decision, and in many cases actively benefits the person.

Also, would you rather people lean on alcohol or marijuana? This is not a frivolous question. People WILL choose to use some state altering substance. That is a fact. Marijuana causes fat less harm than alcohol, hands down. Hell, marijuana is safe than opioids and in many cases a better fit for pain management strategies. "
science,"For medicinal uses, I’m all for. But to purchase for recreational use I’m not. 

The same argument your stating was used for every other drug at one point. The only drug that was legal and removed was cocaine and even heroine.  

And getting facts from a study is nothing compared to real world exposure, living in Neighborhoods that have been completely taken over by marijuana, You have no clue. Keep reading your case studies, making marijuana federally legal will never happen. "
science,"Because ""fun"" (as long as it's reasonably safe) **is** a good enough reason.

It's great that CBD shows promise for use in a wide array of hard-to-treat conditions; but *so what*?  Not everything legally available to us needs to be both functional and boring; conversely, not everything fun for its own sake needs to be illegal.

Why do you listen to music?  It's completely useless, causes your brain to dump dopamine, and many people use it as an emotional crutch during hard times."
science,"> The only drug that was legal and removed was cocaine and even heroine.

If you're from the US/Canada, you have no excuse for not knowing about Prohibition in the early 20th century - as well as the fallout. And that was for a drug (alcohol) that to this day is more harmful than marijuana by most measures.

> And getting facts from a study is nothing compared to real world exposure

Pot, meet kettle.

As someone who's lived in Colorado for most of my life, and has had *actual* real world exposure to the effects of legalization, you have no idea what you're talking about.

And for the record, I don't use marijuana, I barely even drink alcohol. I still strongly support legalization."
science,"I don't think that would work. Sure you can clone him, but you'd have to do a lot of brain washing to change that clones personality to be like Hitler's, plus you would need to do more brain washing to implant Nazi ideology into the clone as well. If I had to choose what would be cheaper, I'd say just kidnapping a random person and brain washing them would be cheaper."
science,"I'm speaking as someone who lived in one of the poorest countries in the world. Nearly any life in America is better than a life where you're at risk of getting malaria, or cholera, or an infected wound you can't treat, or losing your job and dying of starvation every single day. 


My point is that even when you're living in a developed country with protections against explicit discrimination, you still have the right to speak out against injustice when you experience it, even if it's not drastic enough to make you flee the country. "
science,"Those people you refer to that “built better nations” did it a the ethical cost of souls, livelihoods and by fostering slavery. 

It’s not as though America found its way to being a leading nation through high morals and the considerations of the people they stole, bought, auctioned, raped, traded and enslaved for centuries. 

You don’t have to “appease” people seeking a better opportunity to not be a racist fuck that psychologically damages the children of immigrants. They have enough tension in their lives acclimating between two cultures without the additional burden of being stereotyped and heinously judged. 

And then to tackle your question as to why other nations struggle to build the sort of “wealth” and status that America achieves ignores a rich history of imperialism, capitalism, and social issues that often times have led to the corruption of nations trying desperately to work their way to earn the sort of privileges Americans possess. Privileges bestowed upon them on the backs of ancestors and more often that not slaves or impoverished citizens and the fortune of being born in such a locale. "
science,"So if people suddenly started being mean to you due to no fault of your own, as happened to comment OP after 9/11, you would just move somewhere you haven't lived in years / have never lived in. My parents are from Poland and I was born in America - if suddenly plenty of people started being racist to Poles you think the best thing to do would he for me to leave the country where I've spent my whole life making friends and a hard-fought career? Think about that before you type asinine ideas."
science,"For the first part - I know no one is racist to Poles. Ever heard of a hypothetical?

For the second part - you do you but that's a ridiculous solution. Most people can't just up and leave. My family is decently well off but I'm a med student - even I couldn't just up and leave without completely derailing my career. Your oversimplifications are astounding and frankly your comments to OP smack of racism."
science,"I've mentioned it before but the same honestly applies to everyone. I personally was labeled ""not a team player"" because I refused to break safety laws while everyone else was. I heard my co-workers and boss complaining about one chick who had to call in sick because they felt she should have just ""toughed it out"".  


This is a universal problem that needs to be dealt with. People need to have time to themselves and be payed for work they do."
science,"He did end up sending the email on his own, but only because I successfully convinced him that I had no idea what he was talking about - 

HIM: hey, can you send an email to Bob in Purchasing and ask him about *legal mumbo jumbo that might as well be Greek to me* for our *technical mumbo jumbo that might as well be Greek to me* order?

ME: Well, I don't really know what any of that stuff means, I can try to repeat it, but I'll probably get it wrong so wouldn't it just be easier for you to type that up and send it to him yourself?

This went on for several minutes, it was ridiculous how hard this guy was trying to get out of sending a simple email on his first day at our location. 

He did this kind of thing to me *a lot* for the first few weeks, but he's gotten the picture. "
science,"The title of the post is a copy and paste from the title, subtitle and second paragraph of the linked popular press article here :

> Man paralysed from waist down makes history by walking again using mind-controlled implant to power his legs


> ‘The reason why this is important is because the patient's own mind, thought, was able to drive movement in his legs,' scientist says


> Doctors in the US state of Minnesota implanted a remote-controlled electrode in his back to stimulate surviving nerves in the patient’s spinal cord.


Journal Reference:

Megan L. Gill, Peter J. Grahn, Jonathan S. Calvert, Margaux B. Linde, Igor A. Lavrov, Jeffrey A. Strommen, Lisa A. Beck, Dimitry G. Sayenko, Meegan G. Van Straaten, Dina I. Drubach, Daniel D. Veith, Andrew R. Thoreson, Cesar Lopez, Yury P. Gerasimenko, V. Reggie Edgerton, Kendall H. Lee, Kristin D. Zhao. 

Neuromodulation of lumbosacral spinal networks enables independent stepping after complete paraplegia. 

Nature Medicine, 2018; 

DOI: 10.1038/s41591-018-0175-7

Link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-018-0175-7

Abstract:

Spinal sensorimotor networks that are functionally disconnected from the brain because of spinal cord injury (SCI) can be facilitated via epidural electrical stimulation (EES) to restore robust, coordinated motor activity in humans with paralysis1,2,3. Previously, we reported a clinical case of complete sensorimotor paralysis of the lower extremities in which EES restored the ability to stand and the ability to control step-like activity while side-lying or suspended vertically in a body-weight support system (BWS)4. Since then, dynamic task-specific training in the presence of EES, termed multimodal rehabilitation (MMR), was performed for 43 weeks and resulted in bilateral stepping on a treadmill, independent from trainer assistance or BWS. Additionally, MMR enabled independent stepping over ground while using a front-wheeled walker with trainer assistance at the hips to maintain balance. Furthermore, MMR engaged sensorimotor networks to achieve dynamic performance of standing and stepping. To our knowledge, this is the first report of independent stepping enabled by task-specific training in the presence of EES by a human with complete loss of lower extremity sensorimotor function due to SCI."
science,"That's not entirely accurate, is it? I've only spent about 5 minutes skimming this article (being lazy), so I very well could be wrong. But it seems like they are ""facilitating"" transmission ... meaning that there is no closed-loop or jump. In that case, they would not pick up a signal in one part of the nervous system and transfer it to another. Rather, they make the target region of the nervous system -- the more peripheral part -- more sensitive to the natural-but-disrupted signals from the controlling region. I think this is really awesome -- and could be supremely meaningful for this particular patient population -- but the tech seems a lot less sophisticated than the sorts of brain interfaces that are out there. Will appreciate any corrections.

​

EDIT: When I say ""less sophisticated"", I mean in the sense of the computation required to translate signals. I don't mean to diminish this contribution in any way. It's very cool.

EDIT 2: Took a stab at [explaining what I mean](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/9ir7g9/man_paralysed_from_waist_down_since_2013_makes/e6nhliy)."
science,"The only thing I can think to add is this isn't a *brain* interface as much as a *nerve* interface. You mention other ""brain interfaces"" which I'm concerned some may interpret as meaning other brain-machine interfaces like controlling a drone via EEG or a mouse on a computer via EEG. Granted, the module isn't likely receiving a very simple signal, but it should need far less bandwidth and computing power than EEG."
science,"Yeah. That's what I'm saying. It seems like the interpretation in these comments is that there is a gap being bridged via hardware (i.e., a signal being routed around a lesion via electronics). As far as I can tell, that's not the case. The clinical contribution is potentially big, but the technology itself doesn't seem like it would need to be much more sophisticated than a pacemaker. I'll check out the article later when I have full access to be sure."
science,"Just judging by the amount of therapist-mediated help he needs, it looks like this is still very early in development. He's unable to lock his knees without help and they are helping him make other minute adjustments that are required to maintain a proper gait. It's still exciting, but it looks like a lot of additional signal processing is required to help him and others become independently capable of walking/movement. 

That said, it's crazy that the kind of stuff as featured in that movie ""Upgrade"" is coming closer and closer to being reality, even if only in broad strokes. Imagine in the future normal people being able to 'download' skillsets of expert-level tennis players, or martial artists like the Matrix, but with your own body as the recipient, and not some digital avatar. "
science,"That's a really good point. My understanding is that muscle tone is in part due to maintaining signal connection with the brain, in addition to the normal effects of exertion and exercise. There will need to be some kind of preventive or work-around mechanism to act as a substitute when people suffer catastrophic spinal injuries until they can be treated with these tools. I had nerve damage in my arm and I remember how the muscles shrank and became atrophied very quickly, even though most of my range of motion was still there. It was really scary. "
science,"Sadly no, I don't have specific knowledge of neuronal recovery. I know a bit of the basics vis-a-vis the dead neuronal scaffolding promoting directional growth for the regenerating neuron, but as far as targeted growth factors go I got nothing. This is actually a question I've been incessantly asking professors and PIs but never received an answer on, as my interest lies specifically in electrode-nerve interfaces, and targeted growth factors could improve nerve growth towards the electrodes.   


I just happened to understand the bio-physiology of this particular obstacle and the electrical workaround. I'm majoring in Electrical Engineering and Neurobiology, so it's no accident, but my knowledge base is not 'wide' yet."
science,"Well, I do appreciate the information you've been able to give! I love running into redditors that have such interesting backgrounds. If you have time to kill I'd be stoked to hear about your research area or even your dreams for the future of the field. How far can we push the limits of stimulating growth after sustained long-term atrophy - and/or how can we stave off the inevitable? I have heard that many desperate or inquisitive (depending on their relationship with their research subjects) scientists or research meddocs will attempt to stimulate the wasting nerves using different methods of electric stimulation protocols to no result. No pressure to respond, that sounds like a behemoth course load!

I wonder why your PIs are keeping it so close to the chest. This months issue of Scientific American takes a deep dive into the aspects of academia ripe for reform, using the real scenario of scientists attempting to obtain more detailed methods to replicate studies.  Or, if they wish to try an older drug in a new context after small tweaking but cannot access any useful information on the compounds that failed in trials for a specific disease and subsequently buried under redtape to protect Company Interests. "
science,"Context and a bit of simplifying for the layman's answer. Our legs carry 100s of pounds thousands of times per day. That kind of work simply cannot be replicated. You can use ems to slow the atrophy of muscle and with, progressive loading, maybe minimize it. It can even be a useful adjunct for athletes. However the answer is more complex than that. Things like neuromuscular tone and rhythm require an actual task to be developed.  I've not heard of an EMS protocol that is able to replicate the stimulus of a gait cycle.

Long story short anyone who has been unable to walk for years will not be able to just stand up and do so even if you could perfectly provide innervation."
science,"I'm fried for the day, so I've abandoned any hope of making academic progress. I'm more than happy to talk about my passion, it is an unfortunate field for me in that most people quickly tap out when I build up steam talking about it.

Unfortunately I cannot answer your direct questions, my interests and limited experience do not lie in the field of stimulating growth, but in bypassing the damaged neurological systems altogether. I'm interested in the nerve-electrode interface, the analog-digital conversion. Right from the start both systems operate with different currencies, analog with positively charged ions (mostly Sodium, Potassium, Calcium), whereas electrical circuitry utilizes electrons. The interaction on that level of the interface alone fascinates me. Refining the interaction on that level could lead to solutions where the organic nervous system can send and receive information to a digital neuroprosthetic. (Of course there are many other avenues of progress to be investigated, my knowledge and time limited I'll stick to the one I'm most excited about.) To my knowledge we have seen limited success with sending signals, I am hoping to train up and contribute to the receiving, or input to the brain, of digital-analog signals, or, ""is my super powerful robot hand about to crush this wineglass and cause a scene?"" I've been pretty lucky, and managed to get into my local dream lab. They are working on peripheral nervous system stimulation and recording, and we are experimenting with new stabilization/neural growth techniques. 

As to getting my questions answered I am beginning to think that it is less 'close to the chest' and more 'a young chaotic field'. I'm coming from a very different position than most of the researchers I interact with. While the field is quite a bit older than I knew before I got involved, it is very much experiencing rapid growth. As a result many of the researchers I encounter have stumbled into or found passion for the field later in life, and are bringing tangentially related skill sets. My PI is a surgeon, my lab manager an endocrinologist. I'm an Army veteran who worked with the bomb squad that, as a result, laser focused on Electrical Engineering and Neurobiology for the express purpose of this exact field. Not to knock my seniors, to the contrary, I have the advantage of tooling my skill set for this specialization while they are frequently having to step far out of their specialized knowledge.

If you have any questions please ask, it is good for me to practice relating my research passions for the inevitable upcoming grad school interviews, and it is fun to think about your prompts."
science,"NJEM: Supported by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, University of Louisville Hospital, and Medtronic.

NATURE: (Competing Interests) “V.R.E. and Y.G. are shareholders in NeuroRecovery Technologies and hold inventorship rights on intellectual property licensed by the regents of the University of California to NeuroRecovery Technologies and its subsidiaries. K.H.L. previously served as a consultant to Medtronic’s Department of Technology Development focused on deep brain stimulation.”

Could not get full article on mobile Rn for NATURE. 

But looks like they both share Medtronics as a common source."
science,"Thanks. The way that I am looking on it, is that at least it isn't more serious health issue, I mean it doesn't really bother me and affect my day to day life. At this point I am already pain free and got used to the weak thumb (well but sadly I can't hit the gym until it is sorted out). But I will might need to have a surgery in the upcoming months to fix that.

And also after that injury I somehow got sensory nerve injury at the same area which is going to take months to heal, with no explanation of how it happened (no trauma, only had emg test before that, but I am pretty sure that they didn't even insert needle at that point, and even if they did, it shouldn't cause such damage)
But at this point it only causes very mild discomfort for brief periods, and getting better. So it doesn't affect my QOL a lot too.

So I assume your nerve injury already healed?"
science,"Another fun fact: a woman named Eva Saxl who was trapped in Japan occupied China in WWII was able to make insulin out of water buffalo pancreases. There was strict rationing and there was no insulin coming in. She had exactly zero chemistry experience and got a chemist to lend her his lab. Ended up saving a couple hundred peoples lives. 

No one should die from not having access to insulin. It’s idiotic. "
science,"===8< cut and pasted from last time ======

Why doesn't someone crowdfund some opposition if it's so easy to make? Perhaps a bunch of people that have diabetes and will not put the company on the stockmarket or have a board of greedy corrupt directors? Perhaps it can have online orders so it can go nationwide immediately.

What am I missing? Is it just a case of people with the money to do it don't have any issues getting their insulin so they dont care?
"
science,"The pharmaceutical industry is very heavily regulated. It’s an extremely expensive, lengthy, and difficult process to get approval to produce these kinds of drugs and establish yourself as a competitor. Special interests work to keep these regulations in place. It would be great if people could come together and fund a competitor and it would certainly force companies to lower their prices, but it’s not as easy as it should be."
science,"I mean... from what I understand, if you REALLY WANTED TO anyone could probably make it. However... you’d need a lab, and materials and tools. There’s steps you’d have to learn that I don’t want to go into here. You’d have to figure out a way to ensure you’re getting the correct dosage. Eva Saxl tested hers on fluffy little bunnies for example. 

Like... it would be difficult. But it’s not impossible, as evinced by Eva Saxl’s case. I wouldn’t do it unless civilization broke down. "
science,"Right, it'd be really hard for /u/Elrox's idea to work (as much as I'd love for some more competition to occur). As I see it, if you want quick change in this area, you either start importing (or smuggling, if they won't let you import) in cheaper stuff from abroad, or straight-up robbing the pharma companies (like Robin Hood, but with drugs). While I'm not advocating for that, it seems like that's the point society is being pushed toward. Something has got to stop the madness."
science,"It's good to know but folks reading shouldn't think insulin is insulin. Head on over to r/diabetes to read how, while that insulin will _save your life_ it does not provide nearly the quality of life that the newer stuff does. Walmart insulin makes blood sugar very difficult to manage and makes an already _very difficult to control condition_ much more difficult.

Healthcare is a right. Especially when you live in the richest country the world has ever known.

Please vote."
science,"I'm a type 1 diabetic. Old school insulin vs what's made now is waaaaay different.  First you have to know that insulin is what the FDA considers a ""biologic"":

https://www.fda.gov/aboutfda/centersoffices/officeofmedicalproductsandtobacco/cber/ucm133077.htm

Here is my best ELIA5: 
Say you wanted to make aspirin, you have a chemical  recipe to follow you add a little of this and that in a chemical process and them poof you made aspirin. 

Insulin is made by using living things to produce the product either by using humans,  animals, or microorganisms. Add a little this and that in a very specific process in concert with your very specific organic growing process.

So everything from the final composition to the process is patented. Insulins made now are better and work in different ways to help the individual.  

We have fast acting insulins now that you take 15 minutes before you eat.  15 years ago you would have had to take it 30 min before you eat. 

There are a variety of long acting insulins out there too. Take Soliqua it's a long acting that you take in the morning that has a GLP1 blocker in it.  Means it helps you not be hungry.  This insulin works for 24 ish hours and peaks its effectiveness at the 12 to 16 hour mark.  Or take Tresiba, a different long acting insulin that slowly works over 3 days!  

Different People need different insulins to suite their needs.  That all being said man I wish it was cheaper.  "
science,"First off, the choice isn’t either heavily regulated or not regulated at all, I didn’t say that. But do we need to make it difficult for a company to produce a substance that’s already been well tested and used for almost a century like insulin? I don’t think we do. Also, pharmaceutical companies have enormous sums of money and have proven they can influence government regulatory bodies anyway. 

If you want the laissez faire capitalist position: In a theoretical free market, several private companies would come about to provide testing for drugs. The entire value of their service would rest on their credibility, so they would have an enormous financial incentive to provide accurate testing. If one didn’t and people were hurt, they would likely fail. The same can’t be said about government-monopoly run testing. If people are harmed or they are found to be unethical, they would not be accountable to the market because companies are required to go through them."
science,"That isn’t necessarily true that Walmart offers long acting and fast acting. Walmart offers Regular and NPH, which are completely different insulin’s from the generally prescribed long acting and short actings. The Walmart insulins are not steady and require a completely different schedule in regards to eating that the newer, better insulin’s (that cost more) do not require. while an option if faced with huge bills, the Walmart insulin’s are vastly inferior and it is not fair that this “Walmart insulin” concept is perpetuated as an equal to the newer insulin’s that the majority of type one diabetics use. "
science,"Diabetic in the US here.... extremely envious. Three vials even with GOOD insurance runs me between $200-270 since for some reason it fluctuates.

Also to clarify, it’s annoying to pay money for an Endo just to “see” me just to write a script. I had one Endo refuse to write because I wasn’t seeing him every 60 days; screw that guy and all his money grubbing. To add insult to injury, he would frequently be late (in excess of an hour) and not because he was seeing other patients.

People ask if being a diabetic is really a strain since I have comparably good insurance. Well between insulin and associated insulin pump supplies I easily spend an extra 2-3k a year and that’s out of pocket so..... YES."
science,"I help numerous patients who are well-managed on NPH and insulin regular.  Frankly, the cost and OTC status may well outweigh other factors for contributing to quality of life, and frankly diet and exercise outweigh insulin kinetics when it comes to managing diabetes (which is itself complicated and difficult). 

I think it’s more individualized than you make it out to be, and many people get good results from affordable insulin products. If you’re diabetic, you shouldn’t write them off as “Walmart insulin”. Healthcare is a societal priority, but I would argue, not a right. "
science,"Oh, right, I forgot you can't critique something that dramatically affects you daily unless you have a complete, kinks ironed out, fully functional plan ready to implement.

How about we can just all agree that shareholders and CEO's are allowed to manipulate the economy and therefore the whole of society unchecked. That seems like a basic starting point. Then we can voice our overwhelming condemnation to the politicians that have sworn to serve us by creating productive solutions. "
science,"How the hell are people more happy to fund the military industrial complex because of a credit system instead of the gold standard? I'm dying to know. Legal tender is still legal tender. We are still paying similar taxes. I am so damn confused by your comment.

 Like, ""oh, I'm so fine to pour the majority of my taxes into the military. At least it's not tender for my gold! Oh and forget healthcare because we are on a credit system, but I'd pay for that if I had gold!"" Is that how it goes? "
science,"From what I hear, there's more empty homes than homeless people. More food gets thrown out than is needed to keep people from going hungry. More lifesaving drugs than people that need them to survive.

From what I hear, those in power of such resources are not interested in making the choice that would save so many from so much suffering and hardship... And I don't know if it's our place to make them.

What a world it would be if those in power and of extreme wealth would be much more into destroying these ancient societal ills that could be eradicated with proper changes in priorities... [What a single wealthy man did with 2 decades and $11 million for the socioeconomic welfare of a Florida neighborhood](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/26/us/tangelo-park-orlando-florida.html) is a small peek into a more ideal world where education, child care/tutoring, and proper use of economic/administration/political power is used with only the wellbeing of a community in mind... But ideals are hardly ever reached. And what he did is probably harder to replicate than I make it sound...

All in all. I think I'll be able to do a small part at reducing suffering and hardship. I will happy to. "
science,"One of the interesting things from the Toronto discovery is that they started isolating insulin using an alcohol precipitation for purification of insulin.  However, when they scaled it up it didn't work.  They got nothing.

There were thousands of people clamoring for insulin, but the Toronto group suddenly couldn't make it.  

When they partnered with Eli Lilly, a really smart engineer (George Walden) figured out the problem.  pH was  new then.  Toronto wasn't controlling the pH.  When they scaled up the purification process, the pH changed drastically.  

The Eli Lilly group figured out that they could get a much more efficient purification of insulin using pH (isoelectric purification).  Eli Lilly then made enough insulin for everyone.

There's a great book ""The discovery of insulin"" by Michael Bliss that tells the story."
science,"Dude? Voting *failed*. Voting is how we got here. Our system was rigged from the start to advantage the cruel and the vicious who held power in the slave states and were able to seize it out west. We've been fighting them since the end of the Civil War and by and large *we lost*. 

If you're going to solve this by voting you need to register every single person in a one block radius and come election day go *door to door* and drag every single person in your neighborhood with a pulse to the ballot box. And because of GOP gerrymandering and voter purges and voter disenfranchisement that *might not be enough* because they're working really, really hard to rig the polls to make sure they can't lose. "
science,"Well, also so people don't die. Most of the testing the FDA requires is there because it's been a problem in the past.

It's like how a new sign saying ""yield to pedestrians"" suddenly appeared at an intersection near my parents' house. I don't think the city or whatever just randomly decided to spend money putting a sign up just in case a pedestrian gets run over. I think a pedestrian got run over and then they put up the sign. 

Drug companies have and continue to try to get away with whatever they can, amd sometimes that's harmful, so the FDA steps in and says *useless stuff* like ""you have to prove that your drugs work,"" or ""you have to identify what's actually in your pills before you give them to people."" That's why it's expensive to make drugs. It's not busywork to create a barrier to entry for the most part."
science,">do we need to make it difficult for a company to produce a substance that’s already been well tested and used for almost a century like insulin?

Yes. We do need strict controls on everything, including things that have been around for a while.

I worked on a bioequivalence study that *barely* passed acceptance. It was very borderline. Bioequivalence is an expensive study that tests if the exposure of drugs produced at two different facilities are close enough. You'd think that it would be pretty easy to produce the same thing at the second facility since the first one's been running for a while and the same company and same people were in charge of setting up both facilities. Well, turns out that it's not so easy to just repeat things like that, and I'm pretty sure corporations wouldn't do all this verification if the FDA didn't force them to.

Going back to the capitalism angle, I think the biggest problem is the lack of true markets in drug purchasing. No one is negotiating on behalf of the end user, who generally doesn't get much say in which insurance company they use but would pay anything to avoid dying."
science,"I agree. It totally skews the numbers by not including all the money spent on research and development. especially when you consider it could take a drug 7 years of research and development across several areas besides the chemical development, like toxicology and testing it in animals then humans and years all the fda trials not to mention the labor costs for salaries of very educated people, or even the research and development on marketing

edit* all before the drug hits the market."
science,"An ounce of gold is worth whatever the fuck people think gold is, which fluctuates to the point where advertising affects its value, before crashing. A dollar is a lot more stable than an oz. of gold relative to the averaged price of goods and services by design. Read a book here and there. You can peg a currency to a single metal, or you can peg it to the average value of goods and services."
science,"> Is it slave labor when a state appointed attourney defends someone convicted of a crime because they cannot afford to pay for an attourney (something which we all have a right to)?

Your example is of a contingent right and thus doesn't apply. An indigent defendant only has the right to demand the State provide an attorney when the State has chosen to exercise it's right to prosecute them. No prosecution, no right to a free attorney. The free attorney is a right - and a cost to the State - only because of the State's action.

On the other hand, the idea of a ""right"" to free health care is predicated on someone else paying not because of something the state (or anyone) did but on the desire of an individual to obtain access to goods and services s/he can't/won't pay for. When the State uses the threat of force to make the doctor or the nurse or pharma - or another taxpayer - pay for your care, it's not you exercising a right, it's an improper taking for your private benefit.

The definition stands: forcibly taking someone's labor for the benefit of another is called slavery. "
science,"> What would you prefer? Tyranny? Should America become a monarchy?

Last time we revolted against the monarchy and installed an aristocracy. This time we need to revolt against the aristocracy and install a democracy. 

Also; Congress doesn't do what voters want. Your vote has *no* influence on government policy. This has been demonstrated with evidence. We are not a democracy. We are an oligarchy and the oligarchs do what the oligarchs want without consideration for the plebians. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy#United_States

"
science,"Money is just a medium of exchange and what allows people to tell the market what to produce and how much with limited resources.  The issue with fiat currency is it completely overrides the people voting in the market with a loss of  purchasing power. That leads to the misplace of capital and overconsumption of goods. Then it rise the question on how should benefit from the ""printed money"" 1st. Cause overtime that printed money loss value(higher prices) while it trickles down the market."
science,"Humalog which is a standard of care ""new"" insulin does not have any patents encumbering it, the last one expired in 2014.

Lantus (which is the less concentrated version of Toujeo, either of which could be considered standard of care for long acting insulins) had its last patent expire in 2015. Toujeo has a patent that doesn't expire until 2032 and many more for 2024 and everywhere between, but none of those patents affect the key differentiator between Lantus and Toujeo which is only a difference of 100u vs 300u concentrations respectively.

That's a long acting and fast acting Insulin which are both considered standard of care ""new"" insulins, and neither is patent encumbered for at least the last 3 years. There are still some patents out there for certain aspects of some of the newer so called ""Biosimilars"" of these drugs, but the fact remains that patent encumberment is not a concern if you want to make a standard of care insulin today in the USA."
science,"I'm type 1.  One of my novolog pens used to last me about a week...give or take..depending on the week. 

Started keto a few years ago now I'm at about a pen per month. Levemir handles the heavy work at this point. And even that, I've cut my usage of levemir to about 40% of what it was before  because I'm just more insulin sensitive now.

It's possible to make a short amount last a very long time.  You just have to have a very atypical lifestyle to make it work. "
science,"Healthcare is not really a thing. There is a broad spectrum of things that are ""healthcare"" from soap and water to fluoridated water to penicillin to chemotherapy invented in 1980 to chemo from 2015 to Solvadi (Hep C cure). 

Every country has to balance who gets what based on scarcity. If we made Solvdi free it would improve our Hep C situation, but if the company knew it would be free it wouldn't exist at all. I picked Sovaldi because it is a drug that still isn't provided by some EU health services, and also is a perfect example of a drug that would not exist without the US market. So, calling healthcare a right is kind of a misnomer. The state of the art of anything can never be a right."
science,"Which I find confusing since just about every American values The Declaration of Independence. Specifically, the statement of ""We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"" and that the government is endowed to protect these rights.

It should be an easy argument to make that Americans have a right to Life and therefore should have the right to Healthcare just by association. But instead, it's the hardest thing to convince the American Government to do."
science,"Water is a right. Doesn't mean your water can't be cut off. Food is a right, but you still have to pay for it. If emergency services is a right, what does that mean? That you have a right to be saved? At what cost? If you get stuck on Mars, do emergency services have to rescue you? If you're in a burning house, do they have to risk their lives to save you? 

Police don't have to do shit, the courts already ruled on that. They don't *have* to protect and serve you. "
science,"As a type 1 diabetic, I am *very* curious to know what the current hurdles are for transplanting stem cell grown beta cells. The main one I am aware of is to successfully encapsulate them so that the immune system does not kill them off again. Are there any other ones? And has the been any research on ""remodulating"" or ""retraining"" the immune system to no longer attack beta cells? I suppose that if this is successfully done, then stem-cell grown beta cells could be transplanted into the patient, who would no longer be insulin deficient as a result, and all of this without having to take immunosuppressive drugs."
science,"It is actually worse than that. It would be simple if there were a few bad guys that are responsible for all this. The reality is that this injustice is spread diffusely across society. The faults in the system that lead to this madness are not concentrated in one spot that can be easily made responsible. Instead, it is a ""sum of all parts"" situation. This is why it is so difficult to fix it."
science,"The Declaration enumerates rights that cannot be taken by governments or other individuals. The right to life, liberty, etc. Means that someone cannot deprive you of your life, not that they are obligated to save it. That would infringe on their liberty.
There is an idea that things like Healthcare is a human right. This idea cannot coexist with the right to liberty, as someone else's right to Healthcare would come into conflict with the right to liberty. If we had a right to Healthcare, then it would be necessary for all citizens to learn medical skills, because you not knowing cpr or first aid and being unable to render it would violate a person's right to Healthcare.

My rule of thumb for figuring out human rights is, if you are alone on a deserted island, do you still have those rights? In the case of life liberty, freedom of speech, expression, etc. all of those are a yes. In the case of Healthcare, no. "
science,"I concur, 1 vial of the insulin I used to use which was a brand ""Apidra"" is $300 without insurance, and it was covered by insurance for years. One day, they stopped covering it...Had to switch to generic insulin and the transition wasn't the best..It's taken me a few years to control, but with the help of the CGM and change of lifestyle, insulin intake has gone down. I just wish insulin was more widely accessible at a lower cost, people's lives depend on it. "
science,"First, I looked at a peer reviewed double blind study of mnemonic creation and propagation, published in N4TUR3 magazine, then I made a hypothesis. I then checked The Internet Reference Book to see if someone had already created a similar hypothesis. Luckily, no one had, so I gathered my data. After controlling for variables, I sent it to my friends, who agreed my methodology was sound and the conclusions I drew were accurate. After that I published it. "
science,"The original discovery used dogs. I know porcine insulin was a thing at one point too. These days, animal insulin’s have mostly been phased out in favor of bacteria grown insulin. 

Which they do by inserting the gene for human insulin into E.coli bacteria and letting it proliferate in a tank. 

I don’t know the full range of animals that have been used in insulin production, or the side effects of the different kinds, but in a world wide catastrophe situation, you don’t NEED water buffalo in specific. "
science,"Because that's what the US was designed for- the entire federalization of American under Madison was to fix the horrible philosophy behind free and open economics. While laborers labor, the aristocratic elites prefer to value themselves in terms of property, so which ever economy that replaced ""listen to what the king says,"" would have to have room for both.

 The idea is that by having a monopoly on money, and anchoring that money by democracy, you'd allow the Aristocrats to run their system via capitalism and have private property be maintained, and you'd allow the work force/commoners input in the governing process to keep them consenting to that government process.

The money has value because it has a scarce production stabilized by the might and power of a state with a monopoly over it's production. In this sense, as long as America continues the circular flow of Let Money Out to supply the work force, work force spends money on products that leads to the aristocrats getting that money for their corporations, for those aristocrats to give that money back in taxes to let the cycle continue. Otherwise, a lack in taxes or government programs will stall out the market and cause the whole cycle to collapse.

Now, I don't trust 3rd generation aristocrats to have more cunning than would be needed from a privileged upbringing, so they usually just decide the ""Taxation"" part is unfair and see about damming up that leak, which causes a doom spiral for the country, usually resulting in a lot of working class and minority deaths. It's happened about 3-5 times in American history, and will likely continue while we continue to use capitalism as our main economic system."
science,"The modern synthetic ""rapid-acting"" insulins, Novolog (insulin aspart) and Humalog (insulin lispro), are no longer covered by patents.

The reason why there aren't generics is because both drugs are biologics which can't have generics in the traditional sense, they can only have biosimilars which require FDA approval and trials.

Humalog has a ""generic"" (biosimilars) that was approved and launched in the U.S. earlier this year called Admelog (insulin lispro). There isn't a **huge** savings in price, but it is a little cheaper. At Walgreens, a 10mL vial of Humalog is $300; a 10mL vial of Admelog is $250. Now, $50 is $50 and that could add up to $300-$600 savings over the course of a year for a T1 diabetic however, as an American, I can buy mail order Humalog from Canada for as low as $46/vial **shipped** and if I actually go to Canada I can get it even cheaper. So that means I can get 6.5 months of insulin shipped from Canada shipped to my house for the price of the a single months insulin in the U.S. That has nothing to do with patents and generics and everything to do with price gouging and greed."
science,">Special interests work to keep these regulations in place.

>but it’s not as easy as it should be.

I strenuously disagree, I'm generally anti regulation, but there are certain spaces where it's nessecary and there's no real room to cut corners.

Small molecule chemistry tends to be pretty easy in terms of recreating a generic in your own lab. The structures of the molecules themselves are relatively simple and generics are usually a perfect copy.

Large molecule Biologic drugs are on the order of 100,000x larger than their small molecule brethren, and far more complex. It's not enough to slap x amino acids in a series, the chains wrap and fold on themselves to form complex 3 dimensional structures that dictate function.

The product is the process, and even for the patent owner there's a larger burden to track lot to lot variability and ensure that the final Biologic remains in-spec compared to the original. It's an order of magnitude harder to reverse engineering it and make an Biosimilar which is functionally the same, but not exactly. (Note how it's in the name, because perfect reproduction is functionally impossible)"
science,"You have a right to keep and bear arms (2nd am), and a right to defend yourself (general human right), but not a right to be provided a weapon. Healthcare is something you consume, and unlike other things we consider rights, you then have to ask “how much”? 

How much insulin is it your right to consume? How much ER time? How many doctors visits per year, how many consultations can you demand? And if you refuse to change your lifestyle on the advice of your doctor, are your fellow citizens on the hook? 

The answer is that you don’t have right to as much medicine as you can consume, just as much as you can buy. We should work towards a more equitable society together where medicine is affordable and safe, and that has some characteristics of a right. But it’s not a right. "
science,"Poor choice of words on my part. I'm not correct by saying Healthcare is a self-evident human right.

My argument/stance is that Healthcare protects your right to Life. Maybe protects is a poor word choice too. But, the right to Life and Healthcare can be correlated as an argument. That was the association I should have clearly made. In the same way that local police services helps prevent someone from depriving your life. Not, that Healthcare itself is necessarily a human right. It's a service the state/federal government should be providing to its society. But, that's my opinion.

So, essentially, I believe if you can argue that you have a human right to life, as it's  known/agreed by most United States citizens in The Declaration of the Independence, than it should be easily argued that the state/federal government should be providing the healthcare to protect it. In the same way towns/cities/state have police or any other services that are reasonably expected such as road work."
science,"I can take my kid to a hospital and they'll do their best to help out with whatever might be wrong and not won't have to pay anything. 

I can do the same for myself and pay 30 euros for eligibility to visit the entire year or 15 euros for just that one visit.

No other costs. Fuck your system americans, it's inhumane, greedy and cruel. Vote and fight for a better tomorrow, don't give up."
science,"Just for some background: Your body makes insulin naturally throughout the day at a small rate. When you eat, your body will create more insulin to handle the increase in blood glucose from the amount of carbohydrates that you eat. An ideal form of insulin replacement mimics this pattern of basal production through the day and enough bolus insulin to cover meals. 

This chart (scroll a bit down) shows the activity profile of different types of insulin: https://dtc.ucsf.edu/types-of-diabetes/type2/treatment-of-type-2-diabetes/medications-and-therapies/type-2-insulin-rx/types-of-insulin/

Walmart brand insulin is called Relion and is just a brand of Novolin (it's not off patent, just branded as a Walmart insulin by Novolin through a deal with Walmart). Walmart does not manufacture it's own insulin. The insulin is called 70/30 which is usually given twice daily. It's called 70/30 because it contains 70 percent NPH (an intermediate acting insulin used for basal coverage) and 30 percent regular insulin (a quick acting insulin used for meals)

It is not really different from the 70/30 insulin made by Novalin. 

The problem with using 70/30 strategy is that there is a theoretical higher risk of hypoglycemia (low blood sugar). Why? because the insulin activity profile has ""peaks"" and hangs out longer in the body then needed which can cause someone to become dizzy or faint. 

I say theoretical risk of hypoglycemia because recent studies are showing that basal insulin with NPH doesn't cause more hospitalizations or ED visits for hypoglycemia compared to more flatter activity profile basal insulins (insulin glargine or insulin degludec)

The strategy now most clinicians are comfortable using is putting people on a basal insulin (Lantus, Tresiba, Tujeo, Levamir) + a rapid acting insulin (Novolog, Humalog, Apidra) because it's easy to titrate the individual doses to the patient's carb intake. They are also usually in pen delivery devices which is pretty easy for people to take compared to vial and syringes. 

Here is a good argument that states that these older insulin products are just as effective and cost less, especially for type 2 diabetes (it's behind a paywall, but you get the idea in the first page posted): 
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2632299
"
science,"As a hypothetical, imagine that all the doctors on earth just went poof, except for one. Now, if healthcare is a human right, and if this this doctor does not do everything they can to provide Healthcare to people, then they are violating their human rights. 


Okay, so what happens if there are not enough doctors or Healthcare professionals? What if the doctors don't like the wage they are paid and strike?

The issue is that the doctors have the right to  decide to render care. The right to Healthcare cannot coexist with individual rights. "
science,"No, of course you as a person isn't richer than a whole country. But you as a person is probably richer than the average Nigerian, the same way that an average person from Luxembourg is way richer than an average person from China.

So based on that, US also isn't the richest country in the world. And I feel that claiming it is is deliberately misleading, especially in this context.

The argument was that US should have free healthcare, because it's the richest country in the world. So if there's proportionality between this definition of richest and healthcare, then you must also think that it'd be more reasonable for China to have free healthcare than Luxembourg, because ""China is richer""."
science,"So there is something called biosimilars for insulin. You can't technically create generics for biological hormones via FDA regulations, but you can create similar products. Google biosimilars if you want to learn more because it's a complicated topic.

Examples for insulin (the product on the right is usually cheaper by 10-20%).

Lantus (brand insulin glargine) - Basaglar (Different brand insulin gargine allowed to be made by a different company which technically makes it not technically a biosimilar but effectively it is)

Humalog (Brand insulin lispro) - Admelog (insulin lispro biosimilar)

"
science,"Bullshit. Yet another pharma talking point that attempts to spin the issue. Drug development is only arguably expensive due to the rate of failure and the fact that Pharma companies desire to cover losses in their R&D budget. However, current Pharma profits are obscenely well and above beyond that. That's like a cocaine dealer saying he sells crack rocks because he needs to pay his mortgage and his kids' expenses while buying himself a brand new car and a bunch of jewelry. Don't even try that goddamned, shit-for-brained argument that ""profits drive innovation in the form of new drugs."" That's not how it works. Researchers in underfunded labs attempting to claw their way into grant money and a chance at a patent drive innovation in new drugs - all in order to keep their lab afloat.

The ideal socialized health care system gives a big, fat, fucking finger to Pharma and nationalizes the entire clinical trial process (through nationalization of the hospital system) while putting price ceilings on drugs."
science,"19.5 yr type 1 diabetic here.  Walmart generic insulin saved my life for 18 years due to not being able to afford insurance because I have a preexisting chronic illness. Since I found out I was pregnant in April I've had access to Medicaid and the insulin I'm on now is MUCH better. Yes, the Walmart generic will serve the purpose, but it will not stabilize your blood sugars as well as newer forms. Over time the constant ups and downs on the dated insulins can do significant damage. Thank you for pointing this out. Yes, there is one place I'm aware of to get affordable insulin, but it's years behind compared to what's out there now. IF you have insurance or can afford $1200+ a month out of pocket not including endocrinologist visits to get the required prescription in the first place. "
science,"Capitalism only decides where money goes, it isn't the only system that can deal with money.. I could decide to spend many times the resources on something that Capitalism could ignore and the progress could be huge as a result changing society for the better in the process. The whole risk vs reward of investment and how that determines our standards of living is ridiculous. We can and should determine where our resources are used by the people.. Not by profit. "
science,"Just in case you aren’t joking, no one needs an iPhone to live

I, and many like me, either pay whatever it costs for insulin or we die. 

I’ll acknowledge that there is cheaper (I.e. less effective) insulin available to people just like there’s budget smartphones. The contrast is that life saving medication for a fairly common condition shouldn’t be considered a luxury where your income or access to good health insurance acts as a gatekeeper to living a healthy life. "
science,">Just in case you aren’t joking, no one needs an iPhone to live    
    
One would argue that decent living without a smartphone is not possible e anymore.  
Moreover wallmart sell 25$ insulin. Annoying part is that you have to plan your intakes like a dietetician instead of the effortless fast action pumped one. Expensive fast insulin is a comfort drug, hence the prices.   
Regulation for health insurance are the key to this emerging behavior."
science,"How much is much lower? AAPL nets a 20% margin after all is said and done.  [https://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/profit\_margin](https://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/profit_margin) 

For comparison, the total average profit margin of all industries is about 7%. [http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/\~adamodar/New\_Home\_Page/datafile/margin.html](http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/margin.html)

This means that AAPL could cut the cost of a $1,000 phone to just under $900 to keep in step with the average or they could sell their $1,000 phone for $800 and make no money at all!

​

A 13% price cut is not insignificant but is it really much lower, and is 7% really a healthy profit?"
science,"I think you touched on something important that a lot of people ignore in these threads about insulin costs when folks say “nuh uh, you can get insulin from Walmart for $20!”

What that is true and I’m sure many people feel fortunate it’s available, the level of effort that goes into safely managing your diabetes that way on top of the more difficult requirements to transport it compared to the pens or ideally a pump would make an already challenging condition even worse to manage. 

I’ll be getting a pump this year thanks to my boss’s extremely generous increase to my medical benefits as well as his financial contribution. I’m excited, but can’t help but feel badly that a friend of mine has had type 1 for over 40 years and is unable to afford a pump due to his low income and his employer’s poor health insurance. I’ve considered a fundraiser among our friends to help him afford his pump because it’ll break my heart to manage my diabetes with an artificial pancreas while he carries around vials and syringes. He’s too proud to let me just give him the money he needs, which I certainly respect. Does anyone have any experience with these situations? I’d love some advice"
science,"It’s sad but low income people do need a “iPhone” to survive. The idea of a “paperless” world is increasing the divide between the well off and poor. People with the luxury of technology don’t seem to understand this. The increase of efficiency in the market is parallel to the technology innovation. My personal experience is someone on the street asking me if I had spare change, I didn’t have any physical money but my bank account sure did. This isn’t just on a personal level. As medical technology and hospitals keep updating their systems not only is a huge population left out because of innovation but is making them poorer. Yes an iPhone is a luxury but the majority of median and high income earners possess this meanwhile leaving a whole class of people behind. Now imagine that most political debates are online and a huge population is left out because of it. People don’t need an iPhone to live but the way things are going if you don’t have one or even access to one you will get left behind struggling against a system designed for those well off. "
science,">You are able to browse reddit because of capitalism.
The very fact that life saving drugs exist in the first place despite the prices is due to capitalism.

This is tired nonsense. Capitalism holds us back so much. The problem is that profit comes at the cost of lives. Private health companies are immoral and should not exist in any form. Capitalism and the government are the same, that's why it won't work. 
"
science,"Can you name some life saving drugs invented and commercialized by non-capitalist countries?

Even China knows capitalism moves countries forward and slowly shifted from a full communist nation to being more capitalistic. 

It isn't tired nonsense. All the products you use today like smart phones, video game consoles, drugs, consumer products,...all product of capitalism. 

SpaceX? Capitalism
EV/Tesla? Capitalism 

How exactly is capitalism holding is back? 

Capitalism and government aren't the same. You can have capitalism with government keeping an eye on any particular industry to protect the consumers "
science,"Hmm I'm not sure how to explain this to you. Bit too early for me haha, but basically capitalism holds central power. It is the government. Yes we have shiny toys while we plunge into extinction. Wonderful. The people who got us hooked on opiates are happy to sell us a cure as well. It is tired nonsense. Technology and capitalism are not the same. Because of the inherent contradiction of the capitalist mode of production we lose out on advancement. It's hard to explain to someone who is deeply seated in capitalist ideology. Seems to me pretty obvious that capitalism has failed. Our future has been canceled. "
science,"Private schools funded by a private entity that has a known and vested interest in hiding child molesters, and a bank account that could buy several small countries.

You say they are the best schools. I say they are just well funded. 

It's insane to me that religious schools aren't like orphanages. I.e left-overs for when you have nowhere left to go.

In a sane world people would place a priority on public schooling and the futures of their children."
science,"I would be ok with it for the reasons the central population has very poor hygiene and has a hard time dealing with MERS and other communicable disease, not to mention not as well educated and skills to be fit for the American workforce. You Can't just let people into the country without having something to contribute. No developing country does that either but the USA has the most lax laws for immigration for people with less skills and education allowed in."
science,"now i am really critical of the US's stance on environmental policies, healthcare, and so on. But you can't just say we're complete garbage...

We're the world's center when it comes to military strength and more importantly, economics. We have an incredibly high GDP and many countries aspire to have a GDP like ours, as a high GDP means so much more for our country.

Does our capitalist system also lead to crazy poverty levels, a huge wealth inequality, and a failure to lead the world to an eco-friendly planet? yes, and those problems should be fixed... but we can't discredit what we've done so far."
science,"> now i am really critical of the US's stance on environmental policies, healthcare, and so on. But you can't just say **we're complete garbage**...

*Your* words, not mine.

> We're the world's center when it comes to military strength and more importantly, economics. We have an incredibly high GDP and many countries aspire to have a GDP like ours, as a high GDP means so much more for our country.

You did see me mention military in the short list of things you excel at right?

As for GDP, historically sure. But your sitting government is actively sabotaging your economy. 
seriously think the rest of the world is just going to forget do you?

Every nation is currently working towards separating itself from any america reliance, because it's clear now that you aren't reliable. All it takes is 1 bad election, and you're back to raving lunatics being in charge, and you know it.

> Does our capitalist system also lead to crazy poverty levels, a huge wealth inequality, and a failure to lead the world to an eco-friendly planet? yes, and those problems should be fixed... but we can't discredit what we've done so far.

Yes, you/we can.

You know what they say... You fuck *one* goat..."
science,"See this is the issue, you’re looking at the US as if it’s a business that has stock holders, and hooray we’re rich and make them happy at the expense of the employees. While your opposition would rather see the benefits go to the people. 

While other counties teach their children multiple languages and have high expectations, provide universal healthcare, have child care, give the ability for everyone to get a higher education, the us is sitting here dumb, sick, and soaked with undeserved pride, manipulated by the rich that our neighbor deserves nothing and they’re all criminals, while the rich take that money for themselves and are the real crooks. 

 But yeah, let’s keep thinking we’re on top."
science,"Different person, but:

I’ve not read the original BMJ article, but this summary seems to make no reference to morbid obesity or ridiculously high BMI; just increased BMI. It’s simply factual that in different societies, increased BMI to the extent that some would refer to it as “fat” is perceived differently: in poorer societies or those with limited access to fattening foods, it is/was a status symbol; it meant that you were wealthier and could afford it. They’re not looking in the mirror and thinking “I’m ugly and I hate it”; they’re thinking “look at me; I’m a status symbol!”. Whereas at present in the west, fattening foods are abundant and easier to access than a well-balanced diet, so the situation is reversed. 

I guess it’s vaguely similar to how in the west, a tan is attractive (perhaps because it gives a certain air of status; “I’ve been able to go on holiday to a sunny place”), whereas in nations like India, skin-lightening treatments are a big industry. In some places that’s because it means you’re rich enough to stay inside and not tan from performing manual labour, while in others it’s probably because there’s a history of light-skinned individuals being of higher status for more controversial reasons. 

So the perception of fat as ugly and undesirable definitely isn’t intrinsic; various aspects of appearance that are at best unnatural and at worst unhealthy have been considered attractive throughout different times and cultures. It’s surely a contributing factor towards mental health that being fat is presently stigmatised rather than envied. "
science,"As it stands no person’s behaviour is unique. If it was then we wouldn’t have Psychology as a science in the first place.  

So that means people’s behaviour is usually typical of a certain scenario or mindset.  

I would say in this situation it’s the mindset of being a victim of society and thus blaming all your problems on society. While being critical of oneself is something that every human is, simply because it’s an impulse to improve your life and limit suffering.  "
science,yes it is. Look at paintings from the Renaissance times. Wide hips and slightly chubby was the way to be. I have now a healthy BMI and look about the same as these women and yet I'd still call myself too heavy. I am not being called that. I judge myself to be too heavy because I see all around me that that is expected of me. It wasn't taught to me per se but it is what you learn anyway. 
science,"Well science teaches us that being fat is unhealthy in many ways. Just because people realistically painted rich women to be fat in the renaissance, doesn't mean they found it attractive.  
Of course having a little extra doesn't make you fat necessarily, and a lot of men like their women FULL, (not fat though).  
Let me put it this way, I'm not fat but I am unhealthy because I don't eat enough healthy things, and have an injury which limits my movement. I feel so much worse than when I used to be able to sport intensively on a regular basis. Too much fat is simply an indication of the fact you take in more than your body needs, OR that you're sitting on your behind too much.  
Of course if you have a healthy BMI and a little extra fullness that doesn't make you unhealthy or fat. It's your own insecurity, which I'm sure will be taken away if you read the studies on what men actually find attractive looking.  "
science,"The myth that people back in the day found obesity attractive is... Well a myth. Surely people of status sometimes ate a little bit too much because they had such great access to it. But that doesn't mean they found it attractive.  

Of course a little bit extra wasn't seen as ugly (and neither is it today, quite the contrary), but actual obesity and overweight was never a beauty standard because even then people could tell it wasn't making people healthy.  
Also, status symbol != beauty standard.  
https://www.quora.com/Would-a-medieval-king-find-a-present-day-supermodel-attractive"
science,"I am not disagreeing that being highly overweight is unhealthy. I am disagreeing with the idea, that judging oneself is not taught behaviour. 
The Renaissance portraits are drawn that way because that was the beauty standart. They aren't all portraits of rich ladies. They often had a mystical or biblical background and used women that fit the beautystandart. Hell even the goddess of beauty, Venus, was drawn with wide hips and a little bit of a [belly](https://www.topalski.com/2016/original-paintings-fine-art-for-sale/venus-after-cabanel-oil-painting/) and nowadays she gets painted like [this](https://lindsayrappgallery.com/products/venus-original-painting) still gorgeous mind you but that's nearly half of what she used to be...

I agree that it is not alright to just blame society for beeing to heavy or unhealthy. But saying that society has no influence in obesity is plain wrong as well. 

And no. Knowing that some men would find me hot will not fix my insecurities. It doesn not just magically heal all the times that I felt less attractive or less of a person because of my weight. 
I wish you a speedy recovery with your injury. "
science,"Couple of quick quotes:
#
>Ethnographically, the thin body ideal and stigmatization of fatness that characterizes many Western societies has not been found to be universal; rather, plumpness is considered more attractive, more marriageable, higher status, or healthier in many traditional cultures (Anderson et al. 1992; Brown and Konner 1987). In their examination of the cross-cultural standards of ideal body type based on the Human Relation Area Files (HRAF), Brown and Konner (1987) found that in the majority (p. 74) (81 percent) of the 38 societies with available data, a plump to moderately fat
body was preferred, with only 19 percent preferring thinness. While none of the societies favored an extremely obese body type, available evidence suggested that a moderately fat body type was associated with health, wealth, and fecundity. In a famous ethnographic example, elite pubescent girls of the Efik of Nigeria spent up to two years before marriage in fattening huts, putting on weight as one of the symbols of womanhood and marriageability (Brown and Konner 1987). Similarly, Fellahin Arabs of Egypt were said to describe the proper woman as fat because fatness was associated with maternity and nurturance (Brown 1991).
#
The Oxford Handbook of the Social Science of Obesity, Anthropology of Obesity. So not only back in the day, but in modern studies, various cultures have preferred ""plump to moderately fat"" bodies, explicitly in terms of attractiveness: indeed not obese (which was not claimed), but perhaps more than you would regard as a little bit extra from a western perspective.
#
>In their work with ethnic Fijian schoolgirls, Becker et al. (2002, 2004) observed an increase in disordered eating attitudes and behaviors over the three years following introduction of Western television. Within this context of rapid social change in a culture that did not traditionally value thinness, girls’ comments indicated a desire to emulate television characters.
#
The Oxford Handbook of the Social Science of Obesity, Socioeconomic status and obesity. So considering that the western model has the capacity to essentially infiltrate a culture and induce eating disorders in its youth, I would have trouble considering our perspective as one to be particularly proud of."
science,"""Plump"" means how thick exactly? I never argued that having a little bit extra is considered ugly.  
And I also never said that society doesn't have an influence. But just by taking away society, doesn't make you more healthy or less fat or happier at all.  
If that's really true for you then you need to think about why you value the opinion of others higher than your own.  

What I was arguing is that people are so quick to lay blame at the feet of society, while they're straight up unhealthy and they KNOW it. And how do they know? Because they don't just have ""a little extra"", they can barely run and get injured really quickly if they do. They feel awful also because they're unhealthy and NOT BECAUSE OF THE WAY THEY LOOK. It's because their bodies are not getting what they need, or getting too much of what they don't want."
science,"In the study cited, ""plumpness to moderate fatness"" ""includes the clinical categories of overweight and mild obesity"" (https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1987.tb36195.x).
#
Taking away societal influence won't make you less fat, but for some it might actually remove the entire context for why it feels bad to be fat: eg, you're metabolically healthy and don't really have any terrible risk factors (no more than most anyone does with whatever vices, environmental factors or genetic predispositions they have), so the stigmatisation and shame that is imposed on you, not intrinsic, is all you have to care about. 
#
Or maybe you're not metabolically healthy but you don't care. People harm their health in lots of ways that aren't stigmatised: voluntary overwork and lack of sleep, for example, is often admired. Obesity status is conflated with some kind of moral flaw far more than many other forms of unhealthy behaviour are. 
#
I think it's unrealistic to suggest that people exist in a society and somehow filter out absolutely pervasive societal messages. It's not ""the opinion of others"" in the way that your mother-in-law thinks you should have different wallpaper; it's pretty much the fabric of your social reality telling you that you are unhealthy (not necessarily true and other forms of unhealthiness are ignored) and ugly (a societal value) and implying that you are in some sense immoral. That would understandably have an adverse influence on mental health, I'd think."
science,"Except people that overwork and lack sleep still feel awful about themselves, which means it's a great example of which to say: ""Look people don't judge you badly for it, but it still makes you feel awful"".  

And that's my point, I already said it. Of course it makes you feel worse if people think badly of you. But I've personally found that even when that goes away, you'll realize it's not ""society"" that's making you feel bad. It's your own consciousness telling you ""this is making me feel bad and unhealthy"", because your body always signals when it's not doing well.   
"
science,">Another depressing factor was knowing it was making me unattractive, but that wasn’t “bullying,” it was just reality imho. (Obesity really is inherently unattractive imho - it usually indicates unfitness, poor mobility, poor health and lack of discipline, and those traits are never going to be seen as attractive). Nobody was mean to me about it, but nobody was interested in me either.


This is so true for me right now. The women I find attractive find me unappealing. It hurts, and it sucks. I tell myself that I don't want a relationship and that it's the result of a painful divorce, but my body image definitely plays a large part in that as well."
science,"I agree that The Birth of Venus is a realistic and healthy depiction of a woman...it's still not todays beauty standart and that's the whole point. People today would look at her and say that she looks so nice if only she lost those few extra pounds, yadda yadda. 


> ...people will say you look unattractive because of the way you look (did they though?).

You're actually doubting my experience with people calling me names?... Cheers for that, I'm done. "
science,"I said ""did they though"", because you never claimed that they did but I simply assumed it.  
And I would disagree that she doesn't fall into what men these days think is beautiful. Like I said before, if you'd seen the polls on these kind of things you'd know that.  
But then you suddenly changed your mind and claimed you didn't care about the opinion of men (aka 50 % of society) on beauty. So which is it?  "
science,"Look at homosexuality. It was only 2 decades ago that many gay people felt ashamed of themselves because the rest of society looked down at them. Felt they were perverse. You’re seeing that a lot less now when people become more accepting. Obesity is a huge health issue, but people shouldn’t be pushed by shame, but rather wanting to be the healthiest person they can be. Shame doesn’t work. A different approach needs to be taken. "
science,"I was only 25-30 pounds over what I consider my ideal weight and barely into what they consider overweight (my bmi was 25). I wasn't really in the realm of where you start to see social consequences I don't think, but I still felt bad both physically and mentally. I almost felt sick especially when compared to how I feel when I'm my much more normal much healthier 20-21 bmi. I'm sure the social side effects contribute but I bet much of it is intrinsic."
science,"Lots of people eat more when they are stressed, overworking could lead to poor diet choices or no time to cook, again for exercising, unhealthy food is often cheaper and I'd say theirs a link between negative mental health and lower income. 

Definitely a lot of factors to consider as well as the negative perception of overweight people in the media and from peers. Provide people the tools and resources to live a healthy life (physically and mentally) regardless of their income or background."
science,"I am in great shape, in the sense that I can casually run half marathons a few times a week and always maintain a pretty intense weight lifting routine.

Despite this, my weight fluctuates 10-20 lbs on the time scale of months and there have been times in my adult life where I’ve been a lean 160 and times where I’ve been a chubby 225. 

When I get depressed or anxious, my weight swings upward. I’ve noticed that as the weight comes on, I’m treated differently by both women and men. Every time my weight swings down, I notice the change in people’s behavior towards me first, before I kick my own funk. I think there’s some synergy - when you’re depressed or anxious, people tend to be less excited to be around you, and being overweight amplifies that somewhat. As you lose the weight, people loosen up again and its easier for you to be open and confident with them, which helps you get over your own problems.

When I was younger and gained the weight, I really resent people for the way the treated me, thinking they were all so shallow. Now I realize my attitude played a significant role and I think being conscious of that had made the swings a a lot easier."
science,"Thanks. The divorce definitely sucked and sent me into pretty hard depression. I'm back to living on my own now after living with my parents for the last 3 years. The responsibility of being a homeowner is helping, and I've got some business opportunities that are going to change my life completely. Those things are definitely helping. I've also got some great friends I've shared my goals with and they're keeping me motivated to do good.

Long story short... Thanks for caring, internet stranger! It means more than you know."
science,"Its not that simple. Look at Nicaragua as an example. Run by a dictator until 1979, overthrown the Sandinista revolution who's leader then became a dictator (Daniel Ortega). Supposed to be a 'democracy' but I would be very nervous running in opposition to the ruling party in an election there. This year, massive protests to try and force Daniel Ortega out of power (as he attempts to take even more money from a repressed populace). And the people just got shot down by a well armed and organized military and police force.

"
science,"Most foreign students I knew in college come from wealth, and are essentially buying their way into the American dream. Those that return to their countries have no reason to change anything given that the way things are have made them rich. So long as the people who actually possess the means to effect meaningful change are so self-indulgent, nothing will change. America is one big marshmallow , and they are failing the test."
science,"Alright, so first off; a couple of decades isn't much when we're talking about the formation of governments. If all the people who were capable of running a properly democratic country were purged back then, where are the new people supposed to come from? You need 18 years just for a kid to become an adult, that adult then needs access to the kind of education that will allow them to learn the things they need to know to become part of a functioning government.

Secondly, El Salvador and Honduras are in disarray because of MS-13, which was created on the streets of LA after refugees from the civil war found themselves crammed into the worst areas of America, caught between violent American gangs (during the worst periods of gang trouble in the US) and thrown into American prisons. Then, after giving all of these former refugees crash courses in ""how to do crime American style"", the US ships them all back to El Salvador, which was horrendously unprepared to deal with organized crime on that level (because they're still recovering from American meddling and a massive civil war). It shouldn't be any surprise that those gang members would overrun those areas. And *that* has happened over the last ten-fifteen years, so in a way, yes, the US has manipulated Honduras and El Salvador in decades."
science,"> so in a way, yes, the US has manipulated Honduras and El Salvador in decades.

I don't think you can compare criminals and a rampant culture of criminality to some kind of deliberate US intervention. The alternative was keeping those people in the US, where they could inflict this kind of violence on Americans. Their criminality is not America's fault. 

I suppose the alternative was throwing all the MS-13 members out of the plane on the flight south. Hindsight 20/20. They had to go somewhere, they weren't US citizens and they couldn't stay here."
science,"> In Mexico the locals got tired of the gangs sh*t and were run out of town (including corrupt police)

Are you talking about Totolapan? ['Cause they tried that in 2015 and it isn't going great for them.](https://translate.google.ca/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fvanguardia.com.mx%2Farticulo%2Fen-totolapan-guerrero-denuncian-ataque-balazos-de-100-sicarios-se-reportan-siete-muertos&edit-text=)

A handful of armed civilians aren't going to be able to deal with the cartels so long as American guns and American money are fueling them, dude. These are people who have made entire towns vanish by incinerating them or dissolving the people in barrels of acid, then bulldozed the ruins of the town just because."
science,"I know. Deep down they love socialism, Venezuelan, Cuban, East German, or the USSR. They just all made mistakes and didn’t do *real* socialism.

But I don’t see a way to make people give up private property without a coercive dictatorship of some sort. And as soon as you have a ruling class, equality has always gone out the window.

Perhaps someday we will have a utopia run by incorruptible computers and it really is equal. But I suspect those who program and run those computers, and enforce the results, will eat better and live better than the masses.

If no one has two pairs of shoes until everyone has one, it will take a long time. On the other hand, it doesn’t take long to make three pairs for the 1% nomenklatura. In almost every human society there’s a 1%that lives much better. The only question is: do you get there by merit, or by cunning and naked force (Lenin)."
science,"I agree that it sucks, but....if you don't think that some of the founders of MS-13 went back to el Salvador voluntarily to expand the gang then you're out of your mind. The way you argue it sounds like all the gang members got caught and the US just shipped them all back. The gang would've spread with or without deportation. I don't claim to be an expert, but I lived in Honduras for 2 years and learned a lot about it. I was a missionary so I was out and about in various types of areas in and outside of Teguc and saw a lot of stuff"
science,"Well... it wasn't a democratically elected government when the US was involving itself (a fight against communism at the time). The Sandinistas were ruling in a Junta. Ortega won the first election after the Iran/Contra meddling (in 1984). And to be fair, they have had a semblance of democracy after that, the Sandinistas have have lost power in elections since. The current state of affairs appears much closer to a dictatorship, based on how they treat protestors and freedom of speech.
 "
science,"Their comment was unnecessarily snarky, but I was in your position not gonna convert units but I was ~8.5st (sometimes quite a bit less) for as long as I could remember. And could eat so much junk food and most people under the table without really putting on any weight. 

I got up to 10st in 3 or 4 months by eating quite a bit more (but not overkill) and protein shakes. The trick to not feeling sick is to work out, I went to the gym 3-5 times a week and started running again. All the exercise helps the weight stay on by building muscle mass and your appetite increases because of the exercise so you don't feel sick on a daily basis.

I've go to the gym very occasionally now, do some body weight exercises here and there and do lots or running but I stay around the 9.5st mark. Still smaller than most but I've got low body fat, pretty lean and toned to an extent, and way fitter than most people I know. 

Completely agree with you on the other side of the obesity spectrum, but with that effort my happiness increased and self confidence has increased by miles and my anxiety is pretty much non existent. 

I didn't think it would make a difference and I was built that way but obese or underweight the solution is eating more (or less) preferably healthy and full of nutrition and exercise."
science,"I wonder if they meant it more comically or as a joke, but yeah, I feel you here. It's incredibly insensitive and shows ignorance of the issue.

I myself am consistently underweight for being 6'3'', so I get these types of comments from time to time too. People don't think before they answer, but to me irl it shows that the person isn't actually that interested in helping, and there's some underlying issue for them that causes them to outburst like this. 

​

Alternatively I've had lovely conversations with clueless people who will ask questions instead of make statements and even if they have nothing to offer, they walk away not determining that I must be this or that. These people are nice. I like these people"
science,"This is the topic to a long series of anxiety but to put it in short.

A lot of processed foods, stuff you throw in an oven that comes prepackaged. A lot of potatoes. French fries, hashbrowns, mashed potatoes. The only meat I eat is chicken basically.

Trying new foods is an anxiety filled process that when I even think about my heart rate goes up and I tend to not even look at unfamiliar food as edible.

I've looked it up and SED (Selective Eating Disorder) seems like the closest thing to what I go through with a name.

I don't live in a big city and I have no clue if my USA insurance would cover a ""food therapist"" or dietician or whatever, even though this is truly an awful anxiety ridden process.

Sometimes, I know what I eat isn't healthy and I just don't eat all day because I rather not eat than put more pre-processed, high saturated fats, into my arties."
science,"I mean technically yeah thats about it.  That said food can be expensive, you could be a picky eater, or you could have allergies.  
All 3 of these are reasons I have for being at 165lbs at my heaviest (healthy weight is like 190-230lbs).  

If the allergy wasn't milk it would be 100x easier.  But right there you lose whey powder and the magic cure GOMAD.  I did Hemp/Pea Protein for awhile but it's a lot more expensive than whey.  If I could use whole milk instead of almond milk it might have actually done something.  Milk is basically ""get fat"" in liquid form.  An increase in mucous production would be a small side effect to getting rid of these noodle arms."
science,"Count your calories (even an estimate is better than nothing) and it will make it much easier.

When you have a structured and objective goal to reach (i.e, must hit 3000 calories per day) it makes it more doable than just constantly eating throughout the day blindly trying to gain weight.


I struggle to gain weight too, but at least I know it's my fault when I'm in bed and I've only consumed 1800-2000 calories for the day. "
science,"There's a great deal of research on this topic, but your starting point is visiting your physician for medical tests and advice.

When I was 19 years old, I also had trouble achieving a healthy weight and experienced depression - I was 40 lbs underweight, even though I consumed a great amount of food each day.  It took many visits to the doctor and several blood tests to determine the exact cause (imbalanced liver enzymes). With treatment, I got up to a healthy weight and the pervasive depression went away."
science,How do you feel about peanut butter sandwiches and chocolate milk? A friend of mine in college was super skinny and verrrry picky. He started eating a lot of those two things (and mixed nuts as snacks) which are pretty calorically dense and he put on quite a bit of weight in six months. Overall I think those things are healthier than processed/fried stuff so you may not feel as guilty eating them.
science,"Counting calories is a great way to stay at a healthy weight either way... it reduces everything to a math problem. Figuring out I could eat a 1200 calorie meal every day, so long as I didnt exceed 800 calories total elsewhere, made it soooooo much easier to not eat like a fatass (was previously eating almost 4000 calories a day without even thinking about it). And I'm only 2 months in and down 30 pounds already."
science,"Why lift weights? Wouldn't that make you burn more calories?

I struggled with weight gain (well, stopping weight loss) when breastfeeding and ended up underweight. More calories out than in apparently. Lifting weights would have made me burn even more calories I assume and divert the little energy I had towards muscles instead of lactation and my own energy. I just sat on my butt, lactating and eating hehe. Only thing that helped eventually was weaning my kiddo. "
science,"The likelihood is low but I want to pass this on anyway.  My son always was crazy skinny but had no other significant health issues.   He's 23 and now has been diagnosed with autoimmune hepatitis.   In hindsight I wish we had some kind of ""red flag"" to check for it.  His doctor said that it's not typically done.   I don't want anyone reading this to overreact but if it's easy to check, it's best done before your liver fails and you need a transplant :/"
science,"Yeah, a postpartum, lactating woman is a different case than an avergage skinny guy. Generally though, lifting weights actually  doesn't burn a ton of calories compared to other types of activity, like running. And you want to offset that burn by eating a caloric surplus above your TDEE. The resulting surplus is necessary for your body to add muscle mass as an adaptation to the increased stress. The benefits of lifting cannot be overstated. You feel better, you look better, you have increased stamina and bone density (osteoporosis is a calcium loss disorder, not a calcium deficiency disorder), it improves  your posture, etc etc etc. 

Muscle also weighs more than fat does so there's  that too. But at the end of the day,  if someone wants to add weight, they can add fat or muscle. Which would you rather have?"
science,"I remember being at a weight loss program and sitting with a woman who was very thin. She was there as support for her husband. While talking, she remarked on how difficult it was for her to gain weight, and how she needed to force herself to eat enough to just maintain her weight. I always thought that if you were thin, weight was just easier to deal with. I’d honestly never thought about it until that day, but I realized that her struggle was just as hard as my own. "
science,"Don’t buy weight gainers...they’re overpriced and full of sugar. Make your own: 

2% milk, olive oil, protein powder and oats (I personally used around 3 cups, .25 cup, 1 scoop and 1-1.25cup, respectively). All the oats and oil might be a bit tough on the gut at first so maybe start with a bit less and work up. 

Easily over 1000 calories but still pretty healthy and with a good ratio of protein, carbs and fats. Really cheap and you know exactly what’s in it and can adjust each ingredient as needed. 
Can blend it but now I just make 2 shakes the night before and leave them in the fridge to soften the oats more. Drink 2 a day plus a couple solid meals and you’ll definitely put on weight fast (will be mainly fat of course unless you workout regularly). I had to scale back once I reached 245lbs at 6’2’."
science,"No, you're absolutely right.  A certain amount of fat is healthy and depending on your ideal body, even desirable. I've gone to very low body fat before and while it's cool to see abs, I don't look healthy overall so I keep a certain amount of fat on me now. It's about finding and maintaining the right balance. If you were underweight and on a lifting/weight gain plan, I'd say you'd want to calculate your TDEE and try to eat about 500 kcal above that (gotta log your food though) and stick with that a good 6 months or so. You'll  definitely add some fat and that's ok. After adding some bulk, you want to cut down by eating below your  TDEE while continuing to work out. Your body will burn the excess fat first, leaving muscle behind (as long as you keep protein up and continue lifting). You just keep at this until you get to the point where you are comfortable with your looks. You can maintain from there or change your plans."
science,"Sounds good. I never counted a calorie in my life though ... I forced myself to eat when I wasn't hungry and ate whole fat diary and such, but yeah apparently it all wasn't enough. I'm in my third trimester of pregnancy now so heading towards andother  breastfeeding journey if all goes well. Maybe I'll let a dietician check my diet if it plummets again. I weigh 20 kilo more now than at my lowest point last year. It's crazy what a body can handle!"
science,"I've been underweight and prone to anxiety my whole life, so maybe? I was 6'1"" and 145lbs until my mid twenties, where I gained 20lbs from quitting smoking (anxiety got worse at this point).

Now in my mid 30s and I weigh about 205 and workout regularly and have much much less anxiety, but that may be due to many factors (especially quitting drinking, if you drink regularly it is highly likely to cause anxiety).

Drinking milk works if you can tolerate it. It is cheap and regularly available. I worked up to about 1/4 gal or so of milk a day on top of everything I was already eating. Gained fat, but lost it later when I got my squat up to 275 and decided to cut down on the flab. Gained 30lbs or so this way. 

It takes time so you have to consistently eat more calories every day. Aim for about a pound a week if you are lifting and bulking. Do this for a while and watch the strength gains roll in!"
science,"Those calorie numbers seem low for the height and weight measurements. If it works though great news.

For reference, I'm 5 foot 10 inches 155 lbs and I need 3100 per day to gain 2-3 lbs of muscle and fat per month when I exercise 3 days in a week. However, I need 2300 per day to maintain my weight if I just sit in bed for several months (surgery down time)
 
These numbers come from 2 years of strict calorie tracking and trial and error."
science,"I honestly used to think it was impossible. I'm probably on record somewhere on Reddit saying as much. Trying to do the three meals was impossible for me without going over, and the whole 6 micro-meal thing for me was even harder.

But you know what worked? Concentrating almost 60% of my daily caloric intake into a single sitting. There I am, eating a 1200 calorie meal like I would have before going on this diet. But rather than doing it twice or three times a day, I do it once. I still get that food coma feeling and the corresponding rush of dopamine, all whilst working the math equation. The other 800 calories are either a second meal of 700ish calories, split 500/200 amongst two other micro-meals with room for some fruits and veggie snacking, 

After a couple of weeks, my body got used to not eating much outside of this one large meal, but I didn't have to subvert what my body felt was a ""full meal"" entirely. I guess if i'm too weak to fight my habits, make use of them."
science,"Do you have stomach issues? 

I am 6'2 and was 130-140 lbs all through high school and till my late 20s when I was hospitalized then diagnosed with Crohn's disease. 

Saw a gastro doctor and got put on meds immediately started feeling better. Lifting weights and gaining weights. Got to 175 lbs in a year and healthier than ever. 

I also suffered from anxiety and depression all through high school up until I started getting healthy. Now I take no medicine and feel great.

Your guy effects your mental health a lot "
science,"Visit more therapists until you find one that suits you.

If youre not willing to seek therapy, as trivial as this might sound, learn to eat.

Make it mechanical. Create a schedule where you eat a doable portion. You are a normal human being so eating a normal meal with around 700 kcal every 4 hours is fully doable. Add some snacks and you will be at 3 meals = 2100 kcal and some which should lead to weight gain. Making it not about emotion is the best thing you can do as you seem to have trouble with that."
science,"Food security, metabolic rates, ""expendable"" energy (no fat = no energy storage), substance habits, etc.

On top of all that, for chronically thin people you need an absurd amount of daily calories to gain weight. I'm 6'5'' (196~ cm) and I just weighed in at ~175. Even on a pretty heavy diet of 2800-3000 calories daily (with healthy food, just high calories), I've *lost* 5 pounds since my last weigh in. "
science,I've had the same problem but what helped for me was the realisation that I just have a fast metabolism and any food that just gives energy doesn't give me gains. So I gave up on just calorie intake and cut out sugar and carbs. I train twice a week and then eat what improves muscle growth/repair and I've gained 10 kilos (I think 20 lbs) in half a year. Which I never in my life had happen.
science,"People tend to blame external factors for their own problems, but blame the individual when other people experience difficulty in their lives.

Humans are not logical creatures that operate on consistent rules, but instead some system of emotional weighting. The notion of ""cheating"" requires a system of rules to be violated in the first place, but in most cases, it's people's expectations that have been violated, rather than an agreed-upon set of rules."
science,">Tribalism, team victory is more important than anything else, regardless how they win, as long as they did. 

Elected **represent**atives aren't elected to be scientists (people devoted to truth) or judges (people devoted to fairness)… if they were, then elections by the general populace wouldn't be how they were selected, now would it?  No, they are elected to as **represent**atives so that they will **represent** the people who elected them… that's what **represent**atives are for.  It strikes me as odd that people even find this noteworthy.  What else did they expect?  "
science,"Can I piggyback on this a bit?

I think the overarching idea is an ""ends justify the means"" kind of thing. When people are part of a group and they believe, in their bones, that the group's goals are what needs to be done, then transgressions along the way are acceptable because they serve the greater cause.

If someone lies to benefit their team, but the team is doing something positive, then that can seem more ""ethical"" than telling the truth and torpedoing the group's aims. 

The issue is the lack of self-reflection, I think. Not enough people out there are willing to go ""hey, if we need to lie and cheat in order to further our agenda, maybe the problem is our agenda."""
science,"The thing is that winning or losing in politics translates to actual changes in your quality of life and material existence. Having one team win means your family that is here illegally gets hunted and harassed by ice and detained indefinitely. Having one team win means your union will be weakened and your quality of life will decline as a result. Having one team win means the difference between being able to go to the doctor or not, literally life or death. Having one team win means a better or worse quality of air and water.


Cheating, lying, and generally doing illegal shit is alright as long as the ends justify the means. Slave revolts were illegal, union activity was illegal, anti-war activity was illegal, etc."
science,"Because we are pack and social animals. Many would rather die than live in complete isolation. 

In fact, to live in isolation is to die. Back in a more primitive time we relied on each other for survival. 
If I was a farmer and you were a hunter, you could provide meat and I could provide wheat/corn and our neighbor who has a talent for building shelter, built our homes. We all contribute to our well being and we mutually gain from each other. 

Not long ago when someone was banished from a society, they died, they couldn’t survive the wilderness on their own. They would succumb to the elements, starvation and become prey. Those who are also thrown out can’t reproduce. 

So it was literal life and death so it makes sense that a sense of belonging is priority 1. It’s a instinct implanted in our minds from evolution, an instinctual social behavior. Facts, truth, or being “fair”, is irrelevant, those are technically “higher level” functions. "
science,"I feel like the issue with this idea is, when we're talking politics, is it loyalty to party or simply loyalty to the ideals one personally holds which in effect becomes loyalty to the party that holds them?

Because when i think ""team loyalty"" I think of loyalty to a sports team, which is just an arbitrary choice, usually stemming from where you live. You don't have to believe in what that team stands for.

Politics is different, and it goes to the core of our beliefs."
science,"> People tend to blame external factors for their own problems, but blame the individual when other people experience difficulty in their lives.

I feel like this is an over-generalization.

Maybe at first people will blame the individual for their difficulties, but often when they actually learn about those difficulties, they can change their minds. Blaming the individual for their difficulties or blaming others for one's own difficulties may be the knee-jerk response, but in both cases they are often just a product of ignorance.

Now, if we're talking about people who refuse to acknowledge that maybe their point of view is skewed or ignorant, and they actively reject any information presented to them that might change their perspective, that's different.

Humans are not *inherently* logical creatures but we can and often do make best efforts to be."
science,">I think the overarching idea is an ""ends justify the means"" kind of thing.

That's just opportunism and not very noteworthy in itself.

> When people are part of a group and they believe, in their bones, that the group's goals are what needs to be done, then transgressions along the way are acceptable because they serve the greater cause.

The interesting part is that in politics people consider themselves part of a group for reasons other than their political goals.

A political group may openly work towards goals that are opposed to the interests of their voters and the voters don't walk away. That's a problem of both the left and the right."
science,"> When people are part of a group and they believe, in their bones, that the group's goals are what needs to be done, then transgressions along the way are acceptable because they serve the greater cause.

This is the point I think is being missed by a lot of the comments here. The tribalism is being spoken of like it's a simple in-group/out-group thing, like you might see in chimps or something. But when it comes to tribalism in politics, it isn't so much loyalty to the group as it is loyalty to one's own personal beliefs and therefore loyalty to the party that best represents them. It's a tribalism that stems from a personal belief system, not just because ""it's the group I've always been in""."
science,"Ideally yes. My point is, if someone is on a team like that, they think if someone hurt them, it's ok to hurt the other person back equally, if not worse. If they accept the enemy as a fellow human being, with feelings and family, etc, then it's harder to be cruel in return. Also they think it's better to lower themselves to the enemies level than it is to hold themselves to a higher standard. When really all or does perpetuate the cruelty."
science,"> I feel like this is an over-generalization.

What they spoke about is two things called the Actor-Observer Bias and the Fundamental Attribution Error respectively. It is no more an over-generalization than saying ""Humans have lungs"" might be considered the same. The latter effect, of which the former is just an extension, is literally so pervasive in our species, that they decided to name it the **Fundamental** error. 

>Humans are not inherently logical creatures but we can and often do make best efforts to be.

A humans best effort is still not logical. This is a binary consideration. You don't get extra points for trying really hard. Either you behave logically, or you do not. Bounded logic, which is the best approximation of logic available to humans, is not logic in any absolute sense, and more often we lean on heuristics and biases. "
science,">You say that, but how did they arrive to that group? Why do they believe the group is right? It's ideological.

Ideology being a collections of a person's beliefs and values, it is hardly surprising that they associate themselves with a political group because of ideology.

The purpose of a political group is to work towards goals that correspond with the ideology of the people they represent.

The issue is when a group is voted into office because of their ideology, then act against it and nothing happens."
science,"What does ""ethical"" mean? Most people don't really know, and for them, it's just synonymous with ""good"" or ""moral"". If their actions help ""good"" people, then those actions must have been ""good"", even if someone else performing the same action would have been ""bad"".

Logic requires more ""mental gymnastics"", or at least mental activity, than simultaneously holding contradictory beliefs. Holding a belief is simply a matter of memory, examining your own beliefs and checking them against each other to ensure they aren't contradictory requires actually thinking about them."
science,"Perhaps I should have repeated or emphasized the word ""tend"". By default, people don't know much of anything about the situations of others, and so blame the only factor of which they're aware: the other person. Given more knowledge, they may form a more complex opinion. However, becoming less ignorant requires an expenditure of limited resources: time and effort, and people will tend to remain ignorant about many things unless motivated to inform themselves.

I would argue that not only are humans not inherently logical, they're inherently illogical, but that doesn't prevent them from building a logical framework on top of the inherently illogical one they're born with. It just tends to break down around the edges and under duress."
science,">The issue is the lack of self-reflection, I think. Not enough people out there are willing to go ""hey, if we need to lie and cheat in order to further our agenda, maybe the problem is our agenda.""

You were very reasonable right up until this point, where you painted this as an issue of a failure of character, of ability, or of morality. 

Anyway, up until that point, you were essentially paraphrasing Alan Jacobs' book *How to Think*. Here's a relevant excerpt. 

>When you believe that the brokenness of this world can be not just ameliorated but fixed, once and for all, then people who don’t share your optimism, or who do share it but invest it in a different system, are adversaries of Utopia. (An “adversary” is literally one who has turned against you, one who blocks your path.) Whole classes of people can by this logic become expendable—indeed, it can become the optimist’s perceived duty to eliminate the adversaries. 

The important thing to distinguish here is a difference between believing in a solution to all problems and a belief that we should use available solutions to extant problems. No one levies this sort of critique against people that, rightfully, treat anti-vaxxers as a threat to the ongoing survival of the species. It's only when you move to a less obviously causal activity and system fault that people start getting testy about things like rights. "
science,"> Hell of a way to extend what I said far beyond the scope of it but hey, nice job I suppose.

I'm sorry you don't know the necessary consequences of saying

>Not enough people out there are willing to go ""hey, if we need to lie and cheat in order to further our agenda, maybe the problem is our agenda.""

It is unfortunate that you think that I did anything in characterizing that as painting ""this as an issue of a failure of character, of ability, or of morality"" other than give all of the potential explanations for your argument that are available. Are you going to be disingenuous now and pretend that failure to exercise that self-reflection is **not** either a failure of character (I can and don't want to because it's difficult or otherwise undesireable), ability (I couldn't even if I wanted to), or morality (I can and maybe even want to but won't because I believe it's directly or indirectly wrong)? 

If so, let's get that out of the way so I can know whether you're worth continuing a conversation with."
science,"On the contrary, I would say that tribal dynamics demand extreme consequences for harming another member of your in-group. I think this is still evident today in the disproportionate vitriol directed towards people who had identified as part of a particular political tribe in media and later capitulated to the other side. Nothing is more despicable than an apostate.

I do think there are other ways that tribalism is easily exploitable, however, most notably in its ability to fragment a larger social order along easily identifiable lines of temperament, race, gender etc."
science,"Politics is not really so different from sports in that sports is an obvious metaphor/substitute/relief valve for politics. Team sports are tribalism in a nutshell, but with the concept of ""sportsmanship"" which is more or less respected. Some sports take this even a step further, like American football which is obviously and unapologetically a re-enacment of traditional warfare. Every week the two tribes battle it out on a conventional battlefield but no matter what, America wins. Sprinkle some cheerleaders for extra nationalism.

Thinking that sports is unrelated to politics is like saying that popular media are just entertainment with no messages to absorb, IE ""don't think about it too much""."
science,"But even when you expose them publicly with that sweet burn, they still don't admit defeat. And I saw sweet burn because a logically constructed arguments are always responded to with an ad hominem or a whatabout. 

Twatter's character limit and facebook's lack of clear formatting (enter is to post; you need to shift+enter for a new parragraph) don't help. In fact, reddit right now is giving me a tiny-ass square to type. I have to scroll to see what I was on about when I started writing this. And wtf is up with having to leave two spaces to get a parragraph going? "
science,"Between this comment and the OP, I am really reflecting and wondering about my political stance, and how others end up on the ""team"" they are on.

I was raised in a Republican household, rather conservative in many aspects and really big on ""small government."" Over the years we drifted apart, due to personal issues. Nothing to do with politics. Up until the last few years I maintained that conservative opinion in life but have definitely become more centrist, and as of 2016 been more left as I feel the conservative ""values"" do not mesh with my ideology, and with what I felt the party was supposed to stand for. 

I wonder if my political opinion only changed because I am no longer in touch with my family. Would I still want to be apart of that team on the sole basis that my family is on that team. Would I agree unequivocally on all of the current policies? Would I condone and defend them regardless of what they said, or whatever scandal they are trying to cover up/pretend is no big deal?

Without being too cliched, it really makes you think about how one choice in life can really change your future."
science,"There is also the problem of ""just cause"". If you truly believe you actually hold the moral and ethical highground, it enables us to deviate from those exact same moral and ethical values if it advances our ""cause"". Pacifist can kill if it prevents wars and still think their actions overall were ethical.

Team victory is one ""just cause"". It is even more that if you think your team is also morally and ethically better. Not allowing criticism is one sign, doubling down despite facts, silencing opposition by shouting (not via arguments or civil debate, not even talking about censorship), deflection, projection... 

When it is ""the moon is made of cheese"" level of nonsense and the person is still loyal: they are not in it to find the best solution, they are in the game to implement their solution. And if that solution is ""anything that is opposite what the other guy thinks"", that is not about trying to fix anything."
science,"So I did this just because I was curious. Started with the Wikipedia article on philosophy, then it brought me to “problem solving” which then brought me to “artificial intelligence” then it brought me to “intelligence” after that “logic” then “truth” then “fact” and then after that “reality” after which it puts me into a feedback loop for the pages of “fact” and “reality.” Is that what you meant or no?"
science,"This isn't a great example.  Incisions aren't inherently wrong, any more/less than a tattoo is.  If no force is involved, it needs no justification, per se.

The phrase means that you _can't convert bad into good_.

To twist your scenario a bit: assume that the doctor did the surgery against your will.  Nothing will make that ""good"".  It isn't the incision that is bad, it is the _force_ employed by the doctor.  It will always be wrong.

"
science,"Believe it or not, most journalists really are in it because they care about the work and are trying to get it right.  After all, nobody goes into journalism to get rich.  There's a very long list of much less competitive and much better-paying fields for people who care about money.  That said, broadcast and cable journalism, because it's so visible and at the highest levels does involve big money, gives the public a skewed view of what journalists are about, even though it employs only a small minority of working journalists.  As a result, it's often a pretty thankless profession."
science,"To ""justify"" something doesn't necessarily mean to make just -- not in a moral sense, anyway. Something can be justified when it was simply the most reasonable thing to do. I don't want to get bogged down in semantics, but I think your attributing too much subjective philosophy to it. 

With that in mind, look at the sayings this way: 1) The end results never make the means to that end reasonable. 2) The means to an end are always the most reasonable. 

I feel that this illustrates the problem with absolutes, either way you feel about it. And it applies even if you consider the ""ends"" morally right. "
science,"Real journalism is not the same thing as “the news” today, and perhaps it never was. But thanks for giving credit to those who still hold to their values, especially considering the things they must go through in this anti-media climate. I just wish calling out immoral shenanigans would put an end to them.. which kinda what we expect the news to be responsable for in the first place :/
So what do we do, now that this tool is causing the very thing it’s supposed to prevent?"
science,"Mathematics isn’t philosophy. It’s science. I’ll never understand the ardent desire for people to give such vast importance to philosophy alone. Philosophy is a tool we use to build other tools. A screwdriver isn’t a hammer even if I use a hammer to build a screwdriver. Even if I use a screwdriver *as* a hammer, it’s still not a hammer. It’s always a screwdriver. 

Nobody goes around insisting that screwdrivers are a subset of hammers. But everyday I see people trying to insist that literally everything is philosophy. The kitchen sink? Philosophy. That chair? Philosophy. Imagination? Philosophy. Quarks? Purely philosophic. Nothing is real. It’s all philosophy. "
science,"Lying is by no means even covert apostasy if it is in service to the group objectives of the tribe.

I'm not defending lying, mind you (I think it's terrible!) but working against the tribe you are manipulating is quite difficult, I would say, since people have a very keen sense of fair play. At the scale of political parties, this sort of sense is severely limited by the sheer scope of the situation, so I suppose it is easier at that level."
technology,"They aren't even tech jerks.

They are just jerks.

Steve Jobs was a brilliant marketer, salesperson and manipulator. All perfect qualities for a CEO position. His tech skills pretty much died in the garage the first Mac was built in.

Elon Musk on the other hand, is literally just a giant walking checkbook (chequebook) that just signs money away in exchange for things getting done that he gets to take all the credit for.

"
technology,"
>Elon Musk on the other hand, is literally just a giant walking checkbook (chequebook) that just signs money away in exchange for things getting done that he gets to take all the credit for.

I'm gonna be honest with you, if you're heavily investing in things that certain people believe is important, those certain people will give him praise for it.   
For example, people who are in favour of further space exploration and/or potentially working towards a base on another planet might appreciate that Elon Musk put the money in the right place for progress in this department.     
And people who want to reduce climate change might be excited about his electric cars, and the competition of electric cars that his company brought along. Without Elon Musk('s money invested in the right places) we possibly wouldn't be as far.     
     
"
technology,"> I'm gonna be honest with you, if you're heavily investing in things that certain people believe is important, those certain people will give him praise for it.

You clearly didn't grasp fully the meaning of my statement. It's not about the fact that he pays other people to do it, it's about the fact that *he likes to take credit himself after the fact.*

This is most easily demonstrated by asking a simple question:

Can you name anyone other than Elon Musk employed by SpaceX or Tesla without google searching? Probably not.

> And people who want to reduce climate change might be excited about his electric cars, and the competition of electric cars that his company brought along.

Hahahahaha, I'll tell you this right now, he's not trying to solve climate change by selling $80,000 electric cars to the 5% of the people that can afford it. And to be honest, he's not even doing a good job at that.

"
technology,">> I'm gonna be honest with you, if you're heavily investing in things that certain people believe is important, those certain people will give him praise for it.
>
>You clearly didn't grasp fully the meaning of my statement. It's not about the fact that he pays other people to do it, it's about the fact that *he likes to take credit himself after the fact.*
>
>This is most easily demonstrated by asking a simple question:
>
>Can you name anyone other than Elon Musk employed by SpaceX or Tesla without google searching? Probably not.

No. But... Why would I need to? If I want to say that Google did a good job with their search engine, I'll say ""Google did a good job"", not ""<FirstName>  <SirNamed>  did a good job with the backend query parsing at Google."" 

>>people who want to reduce climate change might be excited about his electric cars, and the competition of electric cars that his company brought along.
>
>Hahahahaha, I'll tell you this right now, he's not trying to solve climate change by selling $80,000 electric cars to the 5% of the people that can afford it. And to be honest, he's not even doing a good job at that.

Who cares? He's heavily influenced the trend of electric cars becoming mainstream with his company Tesla.    
     
He seems to be good at creating companies that spark competition. If that field is something people care for, they will generally be happy with the new interest he, and his competitors, will bring to the field.     
     
For the record, I don't give a fuck about if he takes credit for it or not. For all I know he's a massive cunt irl. But he still promoted space travel in a way that hasn't been done in decades."
technology,"> 
> Elon Musk on the other hand, is literally just a giant walking checkbook (chequebook) that just signs money away in exchange for things getting done that he gets to take all the credit for.


eh...he's definitely an idiot socially and his labor practices are suspect but by all accounts i've read he's heavily involved in very minute details of all of his projects. if you have ever seen any of his presentations for spacex you would know that he definitely knows what he's talking about when it comes to the specifics of how the rockets work, for example.
"
technology,"> No. But... Why would I need to?

Have you ever seen an *attempt* at giving out credit where it's due from Musk? Have you ever seen him react humbly to mass media coverage? Have you ever seen him attempt to correct misinformation?

""Musk launches spaceship!"" - No, Musk and probably thousands of other people did.

> If I want to say that Google did a good job with their search engine, I'll say ""Google did a good job"", not ""<FirstName> <SirNamed> did a good job with the backend query parsing at Google.""

Well, Google is a company and not a single person, and when you mention it in that context, you're giving credit the *entirety* of the company, and that also includes it's employees.

Using your same analogy, if you wanted to give credit to google for doing well on it's search results, you would say ""google did a good job here."" you wouldn't say ""larry page did a good job here.""

That's the difference.

> Who cares? He's heavily influenced the trend of electric cars becoming mainstream with his company Tesla.

Uh, hate to break it to you, but EVs are still not mainstream. Furthermore, the way to making EVs mainstream isn't by offering an $80,000 unit cost to 5% of the population. This of course is negating the low production numbers and goals. This also is ignoring the fact they lost $13k per unit, and have never once operated a quarter with more revenue than expenses.

> He seems to be good at creating companies that spark competition.

Yes, that part I can agree with. I would also like to further add that said competition will absolutely *bury* him in the coming 5-10 years. Europe last year produced and sold over 1m EV's that aren't a Tesla. Musk can't even produce 25% in the last 5-6 years. And you know what else? The competition is far cheaper and you don't have to wait 2 years to take delivery. 

> For all I know he's a massive cunt irl.

He called the guy who saved kids a pedophile because he was salty his plan wasn't used or worked. He's totally a cunt.

>  But he still promoted space travel in a way that hasn't been done in decades.

One day people will realize that he didn't actually do all the promoting, all the people on the internet did. A hype train that could have been easily ran on pretty much anything. It wasn't musk that promoted space, it was the people. 

"
technology,"Just tossing this consideration there about the $80k electric car comment. I've heard game theory ideas when it comes to climate change that there are several strategies when it comes to incentivizing the switch to renewables. Obviously, shaming people over the decades hasn't been enough to get people invested in the technology. You have to make the technology sexy or a status symbol if you can't shift the market otherwise. Not to mention, you can't make the technology affordable if you can't start producing at some level (demand+low production=high cost). So, outside of relying on governmental policies to change the culture and ""save the world"" (which might change as soon as an opposing party steps in), you change the game and create a scenario in which the ""5%"" you mentioned are just willing to hand over their money and they indirectly help cheapen the technology for the rest of us. I could be wrong but I see the Model 3 as a step in the direction of pushing the technology to the greater public. Only time will tell. I'm not crediting this thought to Musk alone though. I think there are many in the science field that are looking into this type of strategy as an alternative to failed taxes and regulations."
technology,"Elon Musk opened up commercial space flight. He is a bit more then a walking check book. If you have every bothered to listen to him speak out of sensational personal slap fights on Twitter, it's pretty clear that he is deeply and intimately involved in running SpaceX.  

You don't have to personally like Elon Musk as a human being to realize that he has had a major, world changing contribution to our civilization. I'm pretty happy he exists because the world is a better place because of his contributions to our civilization. He might also be a jerk in real life that I wouldn't enjoy hanging with, but who cares? There are a few billion other people who I probably also wouldn't want to personally be bff's with."
technology,"> I've heard game theory ideas when it comes to climate change that there are several strategies when it comes to incentivizing the switch to renewables. 

I don't think incentives are the issue. I think the issue is classical, and has always been there. It's a manufacturing issue. Let me explain.

The easiest way to say this is that the difference in emissions between an EV and the gasoline car that it's replacing over the course of their lifespans is actually **not offset** due to the emissions released during the manufacture of that automobile.

Do some research on how those battery packs are made and how the materials have to be mined and produced by fossil fuel guzzling machinery.

The whole thing is really smoke and mirrors. 

Does anyone else also see the irony between this and his plan to stick a fleet of BFR transports in space spewing millions of tons of greenhouse gasses directly into the atmosphere?

> Obviously, shaming people over the decades hasn't been enough to get people invested in the technology.

Shaming people never works for anything, you should know that..

> Not to mention, you can't make the technology affordable if you can't start producing at some level 

Yes, but at some point your margins need to start narrowing in on each other, but at Tesla, it's the opposite. Every quarter they have on the books follows this format:

""Highest Revenue quarter ever, but also highest expense quarter ever.""

Sure, their revenue keeps climbing, but their expenses are also climbing, at a rate higher than the Revenue is.

You want the lines to look like this: > 

You do not want the lines to look like this: <

"
technology,">> No. But... Why would I need to?
>
>Have you ever seen an *attempt* at giving out credit where it's due from Musk? Have you ever seen him react humbly to mass media coverage? Have you ever seen him attempt to correct misinformation?

I don't pay attention to what he says on twitter or wherever he communicates. I couldn't care less what he says.     

>""Musk launches spaceship!"" - No, Musk and probably thousands of other people did.
>
>> If I want to say that Google did a good job with their search engine, I'll say ""Google did a good job"", not ""<FirstName> <SirNamed> did a good job with the backend query parsing at Google.""
>
>Well, Google is a company and not a single person, and when you mention it in that context, you're giving credit the *entirety* of the company, and that also includes it's employees.

Yes, when I'm giving credit to the work of Tesla I am indeed giving credit to Tesla.     

>Using your same analogy, if you wanted to give credit to google for doing well on it's search results, you would say ""google did a good job here."" you wouldn't say ""larry page did a good job here.""
>
>That's the difference.

I think the actual difference here is that when Elon Musk is credited for being influential or whatever, he is given this credit because of not just one company, or else that company would get the credit.    
People say 'Elon Musk is ...' instead of 'Tesla, SpaceX, Boring Company, PayPal, etc. etc. are ...' as that's more convenient.   

>> Who cares? He's heavily influenced the trend of electric cars becoming mainstream with his company Tesla.
>
>Uh, hate to break it to you, but EVs are still not mainstream. 

Uh, hate to break it to you, but nowhere in the sentence
>He's heavily influenced the trend of electric cars becoming mainstream with his company Tesla.

did I proclaim that electric cars ARE mainstream, just that they are BECOMING mainstream.     

>Furthermore, the way to making EVs mainstream isn't by offering an $80,000 unit cost to 5% of the population. This of course is negating the low production numbers and goals. This also is ignoring the fact they lost $13k per unit, and have never once operated a quarter with more revenue than expenses.

I don't care how he handles the finances in his business. That's up to him. If he can afford to lose money then so be it.    

>> He seems to be good at creating companies that spark competition.
>
>Yes, that part I can agree with. I would also like to further add that said competition will absolutely *bury* him in the coming 5-10 years. 

Um, okay? Who cares? Look, nobody actually cares about the dude, just what his companies have done to help their respective fields. If Tesla is shut down in 3 years and becomes a MySpace, a company once the largest, only to eventually kickstart competition so large it becomes 100x as large as what was once the largest in the field.    

>Europe last year produced and sold over 1m EV's that aren't a Tesla. 

Cool, right? I wonder where that number would be without Tesla's existence.     

>Musk can't even produce 25% in the last 5-6 years.

So? 
>And you know what else? The competition is far cheaper and you don't have to wait 2 years to take delivery. 

Yeah, sweet right? The free market is a lovely thing.     

>> For all I know he's a massive cunt irl.
>
>He called the guy who saved kids a pedophile because he was salty his plan wasn't used or worked. He's totally a cunt.

Oh yeah I think I heard something about that. Sounds like a dick thing to say.    

>>  But he still promoted space travel in a way that hasn't been done in decades.
>
>One day people will realize that he didn't actually do all the promoting, all the people on the internet did. 

That's like saying a billboard doesn't promote a product, the people who read the billboard do.    
Look, I do agree that the internet is a big part of why it blew up so much, but he put it out there. He was heavily involved. 

>A hype train that could have been easily ran on pretty much anything. It wasn't musk that promoted space, it was the people. 

Without the internet hype Musk would have promoted space travel, except less efficiently.     
Without Musk there would have been no promotion.    
     
"
technology,"No, it is literally never occurred to me that maybe we are ""not ready"" for commercial space flight. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the feeling I've had is that it's about time.  The whole point of commercial space flight is that people will only pay if it's worthwhile. If this was the proverbial empty highway, people wouldn't be paying SpaceX tens of millions of dollars to get on, and booking all the rockets years in advance. If no one actually wants it, SpaceX will just go under. 

People really want it, and are willing to pay."
technology,"Ok, lets analyze this.

What are the possible destinations for this commercial spaceflight?

ISS? That's about it.

Literally, there's nothing else. It's not like there's a whole network of space stations that need supplies up there. Does 4 commercial launches a year really even signal a breakthrough in commercial travel?

Again, back to the road analogy. It's like building a road for a car that only one person has, and the road only has on destination.

So great, now we have a shuttle to the ISS for supplies and garbage. That's about all we have in the commercial realm right now. 

In order to give the commercial shuttle more destinations, that's going to need some more things to happen from NASA and the rest of the international space community.

"
technology,"> did I proclaim that electric cars ARE mainstream, just that they are BECOMING mainstream.

So much backpedal. ""Mainstream"" is sort of like a light bulb. It's either on or off. It's not ""becoming illuminated"" it exists in either of those two states.

Electric cars are either ""mainstream"" or they aren't. Seeing as how they account for less than 2% of vehicles on the road, I will say they are NOT mainstream.

"
technology,">> did I proclaim that electric cars ARE mainstream, just that they are BECOMING mainstream.
>
>So much backpedal. ""Mainstream"" is sort of like a light bulb. It's either on or off. It's not ""becoming illuminated"" it exists in either of those two states.

There's no backpedaling at all. It's literally what I said. I even quoted myself.     
It's not on or off. Progress doesn't go from 0 to 100 in an instant. Rome wasn't built in a day.    

>Electric cars are either ""mainstream"" or they aren't. Seeing as how they account for less than 2% of vehicles on the road, I will say they are NOT mainstream.

They are, just like I said, becoming mainstream.    
At least 50% of the car commercials I see are about electric or hybrid cars. We're definitely moving forward. You can't deny this.
"
technology,"Holy fuck are you wrong about, uh, everything.  Where to even start?

>What are the possible destinations for this commercial spaceflight?

>ISS? That's about it.t?

No.  The other destinations are literally anywhere else in orbit, to say nothing of exploration beyond orbit that is suddenly enabled when getting to space is cheap.

>Literally, there's nothing else. It's not like there's a whole network of space stations that need supplies up there. Does 4 commercial launches a year really even signal a breakthrough in commercial travel?

You don't know what you are talking about. You are verifiable wrong.  [SpaceX has made 13 launches this year, and has another 14 planned.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches#2018)  That is the fastest launch cadence in history, by a large margin.

>Again, back to the road analogy. It's like building a road for a car that only one person has, and the road only has on destination.

>So great, now we have a shuttle to the ISS for supplies and garbage. That's about all we have in the commercial realm right now.

This is so wrong, it almost physically hurts.  Google has already given SpaceX a billion (with a B) dollars to launch 4000 low earth orbit satellites so that the entire world can be blanketed with what is the equivalent both in terms of speed and capacity as a world wide wi-fi network that covers every part of the planet with the exception of the poles.

>In order to give the commercial shuttle more destinations, that's going to need some more things to happen from NASA and the rest of the international space community.

No, they don't.  NASA doesn't have to do a single thing.  NASA could drop dead, and SpaceX wouldn't change anything.  You appear to be under the deeply mistaken impression that only NASA has an interest in being in space, ignoring the endless commercial potential.

What makes SpaceX unique is that they DON'T do cost plus contracts.  You tell them that you want to get something into space in a certain orbit, and they just give you a price, and that price is rapidly dropping.  As it rapidly drops, it opens up space to more possibilities. 

Not that any of this should matter to you.  If your (delusional) view  that no one is interested in paying money to go to space is correct, then SpaceX should quickly fold when people don't give them money.  

SpaceX is expanding.  Reality very strongly disagrees with you."
technology,"> There's no backpedaling at all. It's literally what I said.

I know. And I explained in great detail why it's backpedaling.

There's no such thing as ""becoming mainstream"" 

You're either ""mainstream"" or you're not. It's as simple as that. Just like a lightbulb can't ""almost be on."" The light can only exist in two possible states: On or Off. There no way for it to ""becoming on"" or ""becoming off.""

It's either in the mainstream or it's not. 

Don't get that confused with me saying ""it's never going to be mainstream."" That's not what I am saying.

> He's heavily influenced the trend of electric cars becoming mainstream

You also wrote the entire sentence in past-tense, so that could be part of the problem as well.

> Progress doesn't go from 0 to 100 in an instant. 

I didn't say progress. I said mainstream. It's either mainstream or it isn't. Progress has dick to do with it. There's no middle ground to the word ""mainstream."" If there were, it would defeat the entire purpose for the word to even exist.

> They are, just like I said, becoming mainstream.

You're making assumptions about trends in the future that have yet to be determined. If you had phrased it as ""It's my opinion that in the future, these cars will be mainstream"" then we wouldn't be having this discussion. When you say ""becoming mainstream"" it instantly generates a slew of false assumptions. 

> At least 50% of the car commercials I see are about electric or hybrid cars.

Marketing campaigns to sell more cars is now the sole quantifier of mainstream products? Shit, Nintendo put $50 million into marketing ROB the robot for the NES, why isn't that mainstream?^/s

> We're definitely moving forward. You can't deny this.

Moving forward =/= mainstream.

Also, moving forward =/= elon musk."
technology,"> What are the possible destinations for this commercial spaceflight?
> 
> ISS? That's about it.
> 
> Literally, there's nothing else. It's not like there's a whole network of space stations that need supplies up there. Does 4 commercial launches a year really even signal a breakthrough in commercial travel?

ISS flights make up 20% of SpaceX's schedule. The rest are companies, foreign governments and the US Airforce.

Commercial flights are absolutely a thing now, and it has saved customers a good deal of money."
technology,"> Commercial flights are absolutely a thing now, and it has saved customers a good deal of money.

You are aware NASA and other international agencies have been doing this for decades now? Sure SpaceX is cheaper, but they aren't the first and they aren't the only ones.

I just want to make sure whenever ""commercial spaceflight"" gets mentioned as if it were some revolutionary new thing that only SpaceX has done, that it gets put into perspective. It seems all too often ""commercial spaceflight"" gets used as some sort of buzzword to generate hype, when in reality it's basically glorified UPS or FedEx and has been around forever."
technology,">> There's no backpedaling at all. It's literally what I said.
>
>I know. And I explained in great detail why it's backpedaling.
>
>There's no such thing as ""becoming mainstream"" 
>
>You're either ""mainstream"" or you're not. It's as simple as that. Just like a lightbulb can't ""almost be on."" The light can only exist in two possible states: On or Off. There no way for it to ""becoming on"" or ""becoming off.""
>
>It's either in the mainstream or it's not. 
>
>Don't get that confused with me saying ""it's never going to be mainstream."" That's not what I am saying.

""Becoming mainstream"" is possible. Don't deny it... 
>> He's heavily influenced the trend of electric cars becoming mainstream
>
>You also wrote the entire sentence in past-tense, so that could be part of the problem as well.

He indeed influenced the trend. The trend of electric cars becoming mainstream. This trend isn't over yet. It's slowly growing to larger numbers.    

>> Progress doesn't go from 0 to 100 in an instant. 
>
>I didn't say progress. I said mainstream. It's either mainstream or it isn't. Progress has dick to do with it. There's no middle ground to the word ""mainstream."" If there were, it would defeat the entire purpose for the word to even exist.

So, let's for a second pretend it's not possible to ""become mainstream"", what are you even arguing for? Is your entire argument here that you disagree with my usage of the word ""mainstream"" (even though my usage was perfectly normal), or do you have a point or deeper argument here?     

>> They are, just like I said, becoming mainstream.
>
>You're making assumptions about trends in the future that have yet to be determined. If you had phrased it as ""It's my opinion that in the future, these cars will be mainstream"" then we wouldn't be having this discussion. When you say ""becoming mainstream"" it instantly generates a slew of false assumptions. 

There is a trend. This trend is that the amount of electric cars relative to the amount of non-electric cars has been increasing. This trend will slowly make electric cars mainstream. This trend has been going on for a while now, and may or may not continue in the future.   
Whether it does or not is irrelevant for the accuracy of that sentence.     
If your company is moving from -2% loss a month up to -0.5% loss a month, you are, as a company, slowly becoming profitable. This is a perfectly reasonable sentence, and a very common usage of these terms.    
I'm shocked anyone is bothered by my usage here.     

>> At least 50% of the car commercials I see are about electric or hybrid cars.
>
>Marketing campaigns to sell more cars is now the sole quantifier of mainstream products? 

-Gives an argument of a real world scenario that could indicate that my trend is a reality outside of just statistics as well.    
-Other person immediately assumes that's the sole reason.    
     
Fuck off. You've seen the statistics, you've seen the growing trend of electric cars, what are you even arguing against. You know this trend is real.     

>Shit, Nintendo put $50 million into marketing ROB the robot for the NES, why isn't that mainstream?^/s
>
>> We're definitely moving forward. You can't deny this.
>
>Moving forward =/= mainstream.

My god, you're really stuck with my usage of this word huh?    
Becoming more common == Moving forward (in this context) == becoming more mainstream.
>Also, moving forward =/= elon musk.

What does he have to do with this now? Are you trying to deny that he had done anything to move the world forward in fields such as space exploration, colonisation of planets, electric cars, solar power, etc?"
technology,"> You are aware NASA and other international agencies have been doing this for decades now?

I'm not sure we understand the term ""commercial space flight"" the same. 

Commercial space flight is about asking a private company to launch a thing for you *without any dictated specs, operations or requiring ownership of the launch rocket*.

Essentially, the company that built the rocket, owns and operates the rocket and decide what to do with it afterwards.

SpaceX is currently the only business in the world doing this actively.

What NASA, ESA and other agencies have done is have companies build a rocket to their specs, then hand it over to said space agency and have them operate it with either their own or some customer's payload.

That is not commercial space flight."
technology,">> This is factual.
>
>As factual as a concept such as ""almost mainstream"" lmao
>
>Look, the light is ALMOST on!
>
>What a joke.

You know what's a joke? That you think it's impossible for something to become mainstream.      
I don't think I've heard anything more absurd this entire week.
>> If you don't think so, give it a Google, and be amazed at the thousands of mainstream articles using the phrase in their title.
>
>Oh, you must have meant ""mainstream media"" not ""these cars are mainstream"" they are totally the same thing....

They are. Those words, in their respective contexts, mean the same thing.     
I've noticed you seem to try and pick at anything I send your way.    
    
Once you noticed you couldn't argue my arguments, you started arguing my usage of 2 words in a random sentence in one of my arguments, and now that you can't argue that anymore, as we are both aware your argument was madness, you're trying to argue against my usage of mainstream in the phrase 'mainstream media'?    
Are you just a troll? Is that it?"
technology,"You want the best way to sell electric cars? Pay Faux News and Alex Jones to talk about how the government is in the pockets of big oil and that’s why the taxes on gasoline and diesel are so high. Your hard earned dollars are funding the government to buy weapons, which they turn around and sell to the saudis for a profit. Buying gasoline and diesel is literally funding terrorists.

Want to take your money back from the government? Buy electric. The taxes on electricity are much less than the taxes on gasoline and diesel, so that’s more money in your pocket, and less money in the hands of ISIS.

I know this works because I live in a red state and I’ve convinced five coworkers to switch to electric so far, and one even had solar panels installed on his roof."
technology,"> That you think it's impossible for something to become mainstream.

You dense motherfucker, me saying ""the tesla cars aren't mainstream right now"" is not the same as me saying ""They will never be mainstream.""

Also, the inverse is true, if you think they will eventually be mainstream vehicles, that doesn't mean *they are currently mainstream* or *on the way to being mainstream.*

You people are taking a word designed for a very specific purpose and to make a very specific point, and then adding a modifier in front of it to change the meaning around to what you *feel* it should be. That's now how language works. You can just as easily say ""It's my opinion that in the future, these cars will become mainstream."" and guess what? I don't have a single fucking problem with that phrase. But when the whole sentence gets put into past-tense, modifier or not, it give the impression that *you feel these cars have already become mainstream* because of that tense.

The easy solution here is to actually type what you mean clearly and with purpose to avoid any confusion. Also avoid re-purposing very specific words that aren't meant to be employed in that role.

 > I don't think I've heard anything more absurd this entire week.

That's because I didn't say what you said I did. That's called spin.

https://old.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/9c343o/stop_treating_tech_jerks_like_gods/e58dlge/

> Don't get that confused with me saying ""it's never going to be mainstream."" That's not what I am saying.

See? I said it prior to this also.

> They are. Those words, in their respective contexts, mean the same thing.

No. Media coverage of tesla being mainstream is not the same as tesla's product being mainstream. Two completely different contexts and two completely different meanings.

> Once you noticed you couldn't argue my arguments, you started arguing my usage of 2 words in a random sentence in one of my arguments

Argue your arguments? You aren't making any arguments. You're just regurgitating Tesla marketing material.

Bottom line is this: Their cars aren't mainstream. They aren't turning a profit. They keep making record revenue, but at the costs of record expenses which keep growing in disparity quarter over quarter. They take deposits from people which essentially act like interest free business capital, their product has a two-year wait list, they sell each unit at a loss and has a massive disparity between market cap and coverage (can someone say stock bubble, PRIVATE FUNDING SECURED!) They are getting passed over in almost every measurable metric by every other auto manufacturer. 

Argue those facts, motherfucker. The reason I am not taking the bait on your fanboy bullshit is because I simply don't need to with facts like that in my back pocket. You can think ""becoming mainstream"" all you want, but it doesn't change the fact they are slowly dying.

> you're trying to argue against my usage of mainstream in the phrase 'mainstream media'?

You clearly wrote the entire phrase in the past tense giving credit to to elon musk for being the reason the cars (you think) are mainstream. Then you backpedaled. 

I already told you seven different times, the way out of it is to just say ""I actually meant that my opinion was that Tesla cars will be mainstream in the future""

That's all it takes, it's not hard. But instead of admitting you were wrong, you made several attempts to spin it. At first they were mainstream, then they were ""becoming mainstream"" now you're actually trying to say you were referring the whole time to the media coverage being mainstream.

If you're going to backpedal that hard, just pick one story and stick to it. There's no way it can be all three versions.

"
technology,"I'm not sure what that means.

Blue Origin haven't launched anything noteworthy and aren't doing any commercial launches.

New Glenn won't launch until 2020-2021.

SpaceX are literally the only and the first company doing commercial flights for businesses and governments globally. They are sitting heavily on the global launch market and are in direct competition with space agencies around the world:

https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/sacex1.jpg

They've launch 192 tonnes into space and have by far the highest launch frequency of any company or agency in the world."
technology,"I'm curious, and not in an argumentative way, are you saying the pollution output of the creation battery never has a break even point for the lifespan of the product where it surpasses that of a combustion engine after X amount of miles? Is this seen as a production process issue or is it a necessary byproduct of battery material itself that's the issue? Do you think electric is the way to go or do you think time would be better spent furthering something like hydrogen or micro nuclear power for smaller applications? Or do you think it's a lost cause and we should just keep on with fossil fuels?"
technology,">> That you think it's impossible for something to become mainstream.
>
>You dense motherfucker, me saying ""the tesla cars aren't mainstream right now"" is not the same as me saying ""They will never be mainstream.""
>
>Also, the inverse is true, if you think they will eventually be mainstream vehicles, that doesn't mean *they are currently mainstream* or *on the way to being mainstream.*
>
>You people are taking a word designed for a very specific purpose and to make a very specific point, and then adding a modifier in front of it to change the meaning around to what you *feel* it should be. That's now how language works. You can just as easily say ""It's my opinion that in the future, these cars will become mainstream."" and guess what? I don't have a single fucking problem with that phrase. But when the whole sentence gets put into past-tense, modifier or not, it give the impression that *you feel these cars have already become mainstream* because of that tense.
>
>The easy solution here is to actually type what you mean clearly and with purpose to avoid any confusion. Also avoid re-purposing very specific words that aren't meant to be employed in that role.
>
> > I don't think I've heard anything more absurd this entire week.
>
>That's because I didn't say what you said I did. That's called spin.
>
>https://old.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/9c343o/stop_treating_tech_jerks_like_gods/e58dlge/

False. You said, clearly, that you disagree with the phrase ""becoming mainstream"", which is absurd to me.     

>> Don't get that confused with me saying ""it's never going to be mainstream."" That's not what I am saying.
>
>See? I said it prior to this also.
>
>> They are. Those words, in their respective contexts, mean the same thing.
>
>No. Media coverage of tesla being mainstream is not the same as tesla's product being mainstream. Two completely different contexts and two completely different meanings.

That's not what I said. Not once did I mention that media portrayed Tesla as mainstream. All I did was put a qualified in front of ""media"" to indicate that the media themselves are mainstream.     
In the two phrases:
""Mainstream media"" and ""a mainstream product"", the word ""mainstream"" means the same thing. Exactly like I said before.    

>> Once you noticed you couldn't argue my arguments, you started arguing my usage of 2 words in a random sentence in one of my arguments
>
>Argue your arguments? You aren't making any arguments. You're just regurgitating Tesla marketing material.

How so? In the last 4 posts here or some shit I haven't even mentioned Tesla. All I've done is defended the phrase ""becoming mainstream"", because you're so adamant that it's wrong.     

>Bottom line is this: Their cars aren't mainstream. 

YES, well spotted. Tesla's cars aren't mainstream. Just like I've mentioned. Many times over. I've also never mentioned otherwise.    
>They aren't turning a profit. They keep making record revenue, but at the costs of record expenses which keep growing in disparity quarter over quarter. 

Who cares. If they want to ruin their business I couldn't care less. They've already done all the positive impact necessary by showing people that electric cars aren't by default slow and bulky, and by sparking so much competition on multiple levels.     

>They take deposits from people which essentially act like interest free business capital, their product has a two-year wait list, they sell each unit at a loss and has a massive disparity between market cap and coverage (can someone say stock bubble, PRIVATE FUNDING SECURED!) They are getting passed over in almost every measurable metric by every other auto manufacturer. 

Who the fuck cares.    
>Argue those facts, motherfucker. The reason I am not taking the bait on your fanboy bullshit is because I simply don't need to with facts like that in my back pocket. You can think ""becoming mainstream"" all you want, but it doesn't change the fact they are slowly dying.

I'm sorry dude, but when have I argued anything other than ""I don't care"" when you mentioned how they handle their business? Don't you see that I don't give a fuck about their company, just about their effect on the field.    
Subsequently, I've never argued that Tesla cars are becoming mainstream. Never. Only that electric cars are.     
I can't even comprehend how you can look at everything I've posted here and come to the conclusion that I'm a fanboy.
>> you're trying to argue against my usage of mainstream in the phrase 'mainstream media'?
>
>You clearly wrote the entire phrase in the past tense giving credit to to elon musk for being the reason the cars (you think) are mainstream. Then you backpedaled. 

1) No, that sentence is perfectly reasonable and not purposefully written in a devious way. The phrase is very common.    
2) I'm not giving credit to Elon Musk for anything but putting his money where his mouth is.    
3) I don't think electric cars, or Tesla cars, are mainstream.     
4) I did not backpedal.    
I don't understand how you still think otherwise.     

>I already told you seven different times, the way out of it is to just say ""I actually meant that my opinion was that Tesla cars will be mainstream in the future""

Why? My sentence was perfectly fine. I'm not going to change what I say because someone online disagreed with my usage of some words in a sentence that was grammatically correct.     

>That's all it takes, it's not hard. But instead of admitting you were wrong, you made several attempts to spin it. At first they were mainstream, then they were ""becoming mainstream"" now you're actually trying to say you were referring the whole time to the media coverage being mainstream.

But... I'm not wrong. I never said they were mainstream.    
I've always said they (electric cars, not Tesla's. Idk what Tesla as a company will do) are becoming mainstream.    
And no, I'm not trying to say that the media coverage was mainstream.    
I don't understand how you even concluded that last bit, as I said:.    

>If you don't think so, give it a Google, and be amazed at the thousands of mainstream articles using the phrase in their title. 


In this sentence, the usage of mainstream indicates that the media using them was mainstream. I used it to indicate that there are notable and respectable outlets using the phrase, not just bloggers.    
Beyond that, never did I mention this was related to Tesla. I just told you to Google ""Becoming mainstream"", to find out the phrase is *perfectly fine*.    

>If you're going to backpedal that hard, just pick one story and stick to it. There's no way it can be all three versions.

I understand it might be easy to pretend I have three stories when you're putting these words in my mouth.     
    
You're too stuck up to realise you're wrong, it seems.
"
technology,"Musk isn't a walking chequebook. He has a very deep understanding of technical matters - go read his biography and study the part where he immersed himself in rocket science and physics textbooks for months on end until he had essentially completed a career change from software engineer to engine specialist. Then he went and tracked down the best and most obscure engine designers in the industry, convinced them he was competent enough to want to work for and *only then* did he write a cheque."
technology,"TIL that Trump desperately clawing to get automobile manufacturers back in the U.S. = ""gotdang, dem gib-me-dat Mexicoons 'r payin fer muh Daddy Dumps wahl."" 

The ever so effective and impenetrable wall that has cured this country of all hardship brought on by ""muh dirty immgrants."" Is it even done yet? Will it ever be? You should probably do a scrutinous walk along the border just to make sure you can fill in all of daddy's holes for him. I mean, you owe him after all he's done to make you feel safe despite being a scared little snowflake, terrified of the big bad brown people coming to step on you.

Are you glad that they put an Orangutan with Alzheimer's (trained by a Russian handler) in charge of a country with hundreds of billions invested into military and weapons of mass destruction?

The man literally thinks that tariffs are a better end to meet than is reaching a trade deal with an ally. Do you know what a tariff is, or are you one of those imbeciles that thinks it means that another country gives us money in order to be allowed to sell stuff? The man is an opponent to free trade. Literally anti-capitalist in a way that could never be viable."
technology,That reminds me of graduation when they shook down kids at the school before we left to the stadium and we had to come back after to get them. SO many people couldn't meet up with their parents after the ceremony ended because they couldn't contact them. Just imagine hundreds of graduates having to return back to the high school instead of immediately going to graduation parties. The principals' cars all got vandalized that night.
technology,"I only went off once when a teacher tried to take my phone. Lady, I text my mum throughout the day about important things. I have a special needs younger sibling, and I had two regular kids I looked after, like actual fuck if you think you're saying something more important than the duty of care I have over those kids and receiving updates regarding them, or hearing that arrangements at home have changed or I'm needed. Get your head out of your actual entire ass. 

I'm all for paying attention in school and respecting educators and stuff but an authoritarian approach and a pedagogy of poverty isn't conducive to anyone's best interests. And sometimes there are just more important things going on than you. The vapid gape when I'd take a call from home and step outside quietly, it was like I'd spat in her face. 


Kids aren't always just hurrr durr Instagram. They work, they have extenuating home circumstances, they *exist in a world where interpersonal connection and accessibility are an integral part of their fucking lives*. "
technology,"We weren't allowed electronics either but if they were found during a search (we were never directly searched FOR them, it was only if the search was being done for other reasons) then teachers ignored the fact they were there. That is because they technically didn't catch you with it or found it by accident. 

Otherwise if they saw it because of your own fault then you got a 3 hour Saturday detention."
technology,"The school I teach at have a blanket ban on mobile phones. Students can either leave them at home or deposit them in the office on their way in, the sanctions for having a phone on you at any time during the day are harsh. 

Conversely, I trained at a school that not only allows students to have their phones on them all day, but actively encourages teachers to use them as an educational tool for research and as a mechanism for praise, allowing students who are working on longer tasks to listen to music while they worked quietly, for example. 

During my PGCE, I developed a system using QR codes that link to school-hosted files which students scanned using Snapchat from the projector. Rather than having to print hand outs each lesson students would read the information from their phones. The printing budget for the department effectively halved.

I'm currently working on an Augmented Reality solution I can use to embed homework and other reminders into an image unique to each class, allowing parents and students the ability to see class requirements by pointing and clicking on an app. As well as this, I'm working on a set of lessons that *heavily* use AR to embed videos, images and other interactive media into the classroom walls themselves. I'm hoping to use this to influence school policy on technology by either allowing phones in class (cheaper, but could cause behavioural issues), or invest in a tablet programme where families can ""pay off"" the tablet over a number of years (more expensive but grants far more control).

Technology is the future of education and instead of stiffling a teacher's ability to bring these programs into place just to avoid possible behavioural issues, we should be teaching students to be responsible with their technology. 

Don't punish kids for using technology, punish them for using it unwisely.   "
technology,"Listen, it doesn't have to be a fight between arts and other shit. This teacher is clearly making use of a tool that students already have anyways, and in the process reducing their departments expenses. If more teachers impliment this sort of thing, it might help to free up some money for arts. It isn't a dichotomy. Of ""give arts money or give everyone else money."" And if you're angry, be angry at administrators. "
technology,"> Technology is the future of education and instead of stiffling a teacher's ability to bring these programs into place just to avoid possible behavioural issues, we should be teaching students to be responsible with their technology.Don't punish kids for using technology, punish them for using it unwisely.

This is the way forward, and it's unfortunate that older teachers are bringing about changes like this. The education system is still stuck in the colonial age, this will just make things worse before they get better. Not many people understand this, however."
technology,"This this this this.

This ban is regressive. When I was in school there was a no phones policy, but since then the head of the IT and Computing department did a lot of work to encourage the use of phones in learning. It’s like banning gum - if you ban gum kids just sneak it and stick it under the table rather than being honest with it and spitting into the bin. With phones, it just means they’ll use them on the down-low rather than utilising them to learn"
technology,"Sounds very cool, and I agree. Punishing people for using tech just makes them less able to use it intelligently in the future. Schools really do need to understand how to move away from the black/whiteboard when they are archaic for certain subjects. 

Why teach music theory or mathematics entirely on a board when there are now interactive tools (like Desmos for math) online that take a lot of the guessing and memorization out of things. "
technology,"Disclaimer: I am a developer myself and the furthest thing from a Luddite.

However, I feel your augmented reality thing is a perfect example of people trying to shoehorn technology into the classroom because it's ""the future"" without there being any actual benefit.

How is embedding videos and images into the walls better than just providing a website? One drains battery and requires the kids to point their phone at a wall, and the other doesn't. Now, what *would* be a good use of AR is in a physics classroom where students could adjust variables of a 3D catapult and watch the equations and behavior change in real-time to better understand the relationships between the variables.

My younger brother's high school gave them all rental iPads and he said it became an excuse for the teachers not to teach more than anything else."
technology,"This is a bit idealistic, we were told nonstop to not use our phones for distracting things or at all, and it never stopped anyone. Just think of this if it were applied:

""Your phone can do Excel! Your phone can be a calculator!"" A phone is made for communication and games/social media, no way this whole ""teach them how to use it wisely"" will work.

Everytime tech has been used to enhance a class, it has been awkward or useless (like Smartboards, where half my classes just became frigging PowerPoint presentations). Education has worked analog for hundreds of years, and if the teachers and education system is good, it will be better. Not to sound old (im in my twenties and graduated just as tablets and Smartboards were being installed in class), but tech in class has only been a distraction throughout all my education. But I respect your initiative to include it in new ways, hopefully it works out. I just believe class should be an escape from tech like phones and tablets, since our lives are saturated by then outside the classroom."
technology,"Why?

I own over one hundred kindle books. I have had two spine surgeries. The most painful thing to move are books. So I don’t move physical books anymore.

Plus I’m usually reading three or four books at once. I have Kindle app on my phone, so I can read if I have a few minutes of downtime here and there. Oil change? Read a book. Subway? Read a book. Airport? Read a book.

Plus instant delivery of a great many amazing works of literature almost anywhere that I can get an internet connection.

I don’t understand the paper book snobbery. The divide isn’t between people who read paper and people who read E, but between people who read books and people who don’t.

Stop being pretentious."
technology,"In one scenario, students are provided a link to a video and watch it.

In the other, students have to point their phone camera at a specific marker on a wall, which pops up the video and they stand there and watch it.

How does the second ""foster imagination and creativity"" more than the first? You're using the same buzzwords people use to justify letting  kids play Fortnite for eight hours a day, when reading a book can provide the same imaginative benefits without the risk of addiction. Like I said, there are real applications that actually do provide benefits, but just saying ""it's technology! It's good for creativity!"" does nothing."
technology,"You say it's idealistic, but I've seen it in action. Students who are distracted by their phones are just as distracted by everything else in their environment. I'm not claiming it's the answer to everything, but I'm absolutely claiming behaviour doesn't get worse, it's just different. 

You seem to think I'd expect students to use their phones every lesson? That's just not true. They're allowed to use them as stopwatches during experiments, take photos of their homework deadlines, take photos of their lab setup to remind them when doing write up's as homework, scan QR codes to download documents or open specific links I want them to read, manipulate 3D models of molecules they would otherwise never be able to see... Each of these activities are fit for purpose and students enjoy having their own personal device to do it with. It's about giving them the ability to explore, rather than being fed information. 

As to your point about smartboards, that's entirely down to teaching practices. A poor teacher with a smartboard and PowerPoint is no better than a teacher who throws a textbook and a page number to their students, but a great teacher can use technology to inspire and grow intrest. 

"
technology,"It's tricky. 

The main driving force behind students not messing around on their phones was almost self-driven. As every student had their phone all day, and breaking the rules about phone use meant your phone was confiscated for the entire day, students didn't want to be the only one without a phone at break and lunch.  

When I have students on laptops or on the PCs, we had an incredible peice of software called Imperio. It would give me a live feed of everyone's desktop and I could remotely take over their computer, switch off their internet access, log them off, send them messages... a whole bunch of things. Since they knew they were being watched, they just got on with it most of the time. 

As for keeping them focused it was basically down to training. They'd open the document, then they wouldn't need to touch their phones except to slide the page up... A student was messing around? I confiscated their phone. Problem solved. We used them for a lot of novel things too that they enjoyed, Kahoot was a MASSIVE motivator that we used a lot, (and since you can print off results afterwards it looks awesome in your record keeping!), we used Mel for molecular models, some simple AR stuff from time to time... If the kids didn't have their phones, they didn't take part. 

"
technology,"Give me an affordable option where students can do more complicated things like that and I'm an instant customer. The only options that I know of are very simple, I can embed small files, youtube videos, some 3D animations onto a unique background, but that's about it. 

The way I see it, without support for these technologies when theyre budding, the companies that devlop it will have less resources to grow and provide more powerful tools for an affordable price. 

What people don't seem to understand about teaching is that novelty goes a long way in keeping students intrested. Yes, I could show the classroom a video about a topic on the projector then work through a series of tasks with them, or I could embed those tasks and videos in different locations around the room, get the students mobile and let them explore the tasks on their own at their own pace. 

I can embed very simple 3D models of certain molecules (water, ammonia, salt) onto a picture printed on a playing card size peice of paper, and give a small deck of these cards to each student to take home. 

Instead of printing 30 A4 copies of the homework for a class, I can embed the Word document into a small card that they can take home and download their work from. I could issue the class with a unique logo at the start of the year, and simply update the embedded document when their new homework is set. 

As with any new technology or innovation in the classroom bad teachers will use it to teach lazily, but this has always been the case. Before technology, crappy teachers gave out textbooks and a page number from which you worked for an hour... Bad teachers will always find ways to be bad. 

These tools aren't for them, they're for those of us who want to make teaching cheaper, interactive and inspiring. "
technology,"My favourite online tool I've found so far is this [interactive circuit building simulator](https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/circuit-construction-kit-dc/latest/circuit-construction-kit-dc_en.html). I teach the students the basics of what series and parallel circuits are then order the school tablets and give them an entire lesson to explore using that simulation tool. They need to report back the next lesson about what they learned about voltage, current and resistance. 

It would honestly blow most peoples god damn minds what 11-14 year olds can figure out on their own when you give them an environment where they can safely set stuff on fire haha!"
technology,"Honestly, this isn't an age thing, it's a symptom of the educational system being fucked up (UK perspective btw, but likely similar for the rest of the world). 

Budgets are minimal, staffing is typically the bare minimum, time is limited and the job is exhausting. With this in mind, there's 3 kinds of teachers. 

The first just want to teach their kids and go home. These guys know the curriculum well and will teach like the National Curriculum is a checklist rather than a foundation. They'll use standard pedagogical practises to get the message across and pray for a snow day. These are your typical ""Teaching for 20 years"" kind of teachers in their 40's-50's. 

The second kind are carear focused. These guys are obsessed with the ladder and payscale, jumping at any opportunity to appease the hierarchy for a chance at that department head, head of year or house manager position. They're usually in their early 30's and have been blocking anyone else from climing the ladder for a good few years. 

The third love to teach. They fucking live it and far too many burn out INSANELY fast. There's so many people in this catagory that had to quit the profession after 3 to 5 years because they gave everything, but the profession gave nothing back. If the system didn't absolutely choak the life out of people until they're ready to cut corners and do the minimum to stay sane, the entire education system would be drowning in this kind of teacher, and it would be infinitely better for it. Unfortunately, too many of these teachers who stay in the profession, become the first kind of teacher after time. 

Most people think it's the first type that stiffle innovation, but that's simply not true. If you have a new method that's simpler and less work, they'll jump on it in an instant. It's the SECOND kind of teacher that stiffle things. They have the Governers to answer too and league tables to consider and can't take risks as it could reflect badly on their careers. The guys fucking it up aren't the oldies, it's the careerists. "
technology,"Well, you're the teacher so I suppose you'd know what works. I was mostly speaking from my own experience where I just wanted to get through the class and haaaaated when teachers added interactive shit like this because it just made an activity that should have taken 5 minutes take three times as long for no real gain in knowledge.

> Give me an affordable option where students can do more complicated things like that and I'm an instant customer

Working on it :P"
technology,"That's the way I see things going, but as it stands, some students still aren't able to access technology or the internet at home, so it's not quite time for a complete transfer to digital just yet. But there's hope...

A school near mine has an absolutely brilliant scheme in place whereby families can pay off the cost of a brand new tablet over the 5 year period that students attend the school, reducing an up front cost of hundreds of pounds to a few pound a month. Once they leave school, the tablet is theirs to keep. The uptake is roughly 85% last time I enquired, and that's been growing over the years.

Teaching will always involve writing, it's an incredibly important skill we need to ensure students have, but I absolutely agree, it'll be a great time when students no longer need to take anything physical home with them from school (Well... for most subjects anyway).  "
technology,"Just off the top of my head:

- cloud-based resources like textbooks or notes can be accessed from anywhere, cannot be lost or destroyed, can be more easily searched through, can include audio and video files, and are even easier to adapt for students with visual impairments

- services like Kahoot encourage students to compete for a high score (hijacking human nature to drive classroom engagement), and by giving rewards to the highest scorers, teachers can use it to incentivize students to study

- technology-based teaching tools can determine a student's weak points and automatically gear their content to better suit different learning profiles (*and* can inform the teacher about these things so they better know what needs to be focused on in class)

- technology exists in the real world in a way it never used to, and to deny students the opportunity to gain experience using it in their day-to-day life for the sake of tradition would be really fucking stupid (example: focusing on memorizing information rather than gathering and processing it, in a world where information is never far)

- gamification in schools emphasizes perseverance and the importance of failure in learning, while the traditional school model punishes failure and directly focuses on getting it right the first time

- even subjects like music can benefit from technology, where students could use MIDI tracks to explore how changing the instruments can make the same music sound totally different, or how a key change can impact a song's mood, or hell, even let a kid who lacks the dexterity to play an instrument the ability to explore and experiment with songwriting (as someone with terrible finger independence who can only play the drums competently, I literally could not write music if not for technology in my life)

Long story short: technology is a tool. If you don't use it effectively, of course you get nothing out of it. But it can (AND DOES) do so much to help people learn, so long as you find the right way to incorporate it. One of the most important ways it does this is through interactivity. As Ben Franklin said, “Tell me and I forget, teach me and I may remember, involve me and I learn.” "
technology,"Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is a vast difference between ""Buy everyone tablets and cut another departments budget"", which you clearly suffered, and ""let me use a students own mobile phone as a teaching tool"", which I advocated for. 

The system of helping to finance families purchasing a tablet through the school did focus on cheap android tablets and was a scheme which targeted Pupil Premium (financially disadvanted) students, thereby granting them access to technology that they don't have at home. Other students either brought their tablet outright, which were cheaper through the school as they were sourced in bulk, or they brought in their own. 

As for an evidence base for bringing technology into the classroom, I ensure you that anyone could make a research based argument for or against its use, as could someone researching additional funding to the arts over STEM subjects. "
technology,"Nooot really the case in EU
Unless their guardians ban internet at home (which doesn't even sound 100% legal in the long run, as it can be considered to hinder their development), pretty much everyone in the richer countries of EU has access to the internet. 

Even here, one of the least developed EU members, only kids without internet access are from families with serious issues (alcoholism, drugs, violence, the usual) and from small villages (which are kind of full of religious extremists atm, so beware)"
technology,"Because I'm not sure what the ""different perspective"" you're providing is. It's the same information but in a less accessible medium.

In poster form, a student can look at a clearly visible 5' x 3' periodic table all class if they want to. Hell, I memorized the entire thing during chemistry.

In AR form, a student needs to have their phone out, aim it at the wall, and then squint at it on their 6"" x 3"" screen, possibly while it jitters around depending on how well it was coded.

There is no benefit from such a thing. ""Different ways/perspective"" != ""different medium"". If the period table was interactive and let you tap on each element to view a 3D representation of the element and see the elements it most frequently bonds with and what those relationships look like, then that is something I am very much behind. But 99% of the time, a teacher implementing something like this is not a developer who knows how to do any of that and so the end result is literally just a worse periodic table that does nothing but waste class time."
technology,"No like you don't understand. Single parent working at McDonald's for minimum wage, paying off a house and feeding two kids with no help because dad disappeared. Our food options were canned soup, bluegill caught from the nearby lake, or crawfish from the neighbor's creek. No welfare because the nearest office was two hours away. It does not get any poorer than that.

*We still had the 30 bucks a month that internet costed.*"
technology,"Really fair answer. I must say the uses the you put forth though didnt seem as educational as they seemed practical, like a QR code scanner or taking pictures of homework deadlines. That to me is totally normal and reasonable in today's age. 

I get what you're saying about kids being distracted either way, but I do think tech is distracting by nature, so including it is, to me, always going to cause more of a distraction and allow kids who already have problems focusing have even more difficulty listening.

But I think we've totally found common ground! Thanks for the discussion and I wish you the best in your teaching!"
technology,"I personally use my phone in biology to research whatever random point that comes up, do past paper questions after I'm done writing notes, looking at the syllabus. I wish my other teachers were as receptive as it would help with the dullness of classes. 

If I was a teacher, though, I would not let them use phones as most of my peers just end up texting, browsing instagram, and I browse reddit sometimes as well. It's really hard to moderate this. They take less issue with computers so I've been considering saving up for a ultrabook."
technology,"11-15 year Olds are never going to get responsible with technology. If you trained as a teacher you know that their brains simply aren't developed enough to consider long term consequence and ignore short term gratification.

Obviously technology is the future of education, but there's no reason to allow phones over laptops or tablets. Laptops are widely used, can be 'rented' out by the school for minimal money, can be wiped at the end of the day and accessed by cloud and we have control over what's on them.

Not to mention in college they'll use a laptop anyway to take notes and whatnot.

We can never make AR widespread in class unless teachers become coders or people teach the same lessons. Though it'd be interesting as a tool. "
technology,"You can be. I failed my pre-ap bio class freshman year because the teacher made a majority of our homework internet/computer dependent. She assumed that everyone had a computer at home and internet. She also said that we could go to the school library before class or the public library and that if we couldn't complete the assignments then it was our fault. 

My didn't have a computer or a car. I would've had to walked around 6 miles from my home to the library multiple times a week to finish the assignments. This is ignoring times when my mom would flip and not allow us to go to certain places because"" God told her."" 

Tldr: Not everyone can go to a library often. Accessibility to a public library is also a problem for people who can't afford internet access at home. Not everyone can travel to a library multiple times a week for assignments. It can be a burden on working parent(s) and it could put students in a situation where they either fail or are forced to take many steps that other students wouldn't have to take in order to do complete the same assignments. "
technology,"Not everyone can afford 30 bucks a month internet. Also, why punish the children? Their academic success would be even more hindered if they're in a household where internet is inaccessible. 

I grew up in a single mother household too. My mother didn't work though. She received a monthly check from the government because of her disability. She suffered from schizophrenia and other mental illnesses. She couldn't budget to save her life and had a severe addiction to cigarettes. We had no car, barely any food at times, and no access to internet besides ""having a cellphone"" at times. 

You're assuming that your form of poverty was and is the same to everyone else's. I'm not claiming that everyone can't afford internet if they're poor, I'm just bringing up how my family couldn't when I was younger. I'm moreso saying that you shouldn't scoff at the idea of someone's family not being able to have internet at home because your family did. Those $30s could be a significant amount of money to others in poverty. "
technology,"There's services online that make AR pretty accessible, check out Layar.

In a perfect world (for me at least) , students would have tablets they could dock into keyboards to do long form typing tasks, laptops are clunky for a lot of use cases in the classroom. Phones, for me, are a stop gap until tablets/laptops/PCs are standard in classrooms. They're absolutely not the best option, but they're an affordable option that most students have.

As for behaviour, in my experience, having them in class doesn't make behaviour worse, it's just changes the way in which bad students misbehave. "
technology,"You aren't really arguing against anything said in the prior comment. The comment focused on how your experience in poverty isn't the same as everyone else's experience in poverty. It was meant to try to show you a different perspective. 

You instead went on a rant that started by saying something about a 10 yo with free time and a will to live should be able to afford a $30 internet service. Its not clear what you're trying to get across to the rest. Are you saying that the kid should work to get money for the internet plan? 

You also say that if the situation is that bad that the child(Ren) should be removed from the household. This is a quick, simple ""solution"" to a complex problem. Simply removing the child from the situation doesn't fix the problem. It creates new ones. Like, how to manage the child after it's in the custody of the state, whether to give the child to a relative, and what to do with the parent(s). $30 might break the bank but the parent(s) may be able to feed their child using SNAP/TANF. Also, some people in poverty would view internet access as a non-necessity. If they're really poor, they wouldn't have a computer at home. They also might not want to spend extra money on home internet when they likely have a cellphone with internet connection. 

You're oversimplifying a complex problem and suggesting rather drastic measures as solutions. Would you feel the same way if someone suggested that your mom should've lost custody of you and your siblings because you lived in poverty. You brought up how you are an extremely limited diet in a prior post. You said that your mom worked at McDonald's. If someone suggested that because your mom worked, what I can assume, a low paying job and that you had a diet that wasn't balanced that you should be removed from her home, would you support that statement? "
technology,"I'm saying that thirty dollars ain't shit. I'm saying that thirty dollars can only actually feed a child for like three days tops, so if your money is that tight you shouldn't have children. Thirty dollars will buy one and a half pair of cheap shoes that wear out in a month.

We caught our own dinner because we lived in the country. We weren't forced to, we did it to help our mom out because she taught us the importance of saving. The 8-year-old logic we followed was ""food is expensive, so if we get our own food = better christmas.""

Yeah if our mom actually couldn't feed us there would have been a problem, but it was never that dire."
technology,"No. The teacher just shrugged it off. I ended up with an F in the class and a 5 on the EOC(5 being the highest one can score on the EOC and a 1 being the lowest). She called the parents of students who missed assignments periodically but she only called my mom once. The call went horribly wrong. She never brought it up but my mom probably had a moment on the phone. She said that she told the the lady that God had some weird ass purpose for me in the class and she also tried converting her Christianity. My teacher was  an atheist. I don't know what exactly went down but I never got another call home because of missing assignments after that. It was a pretty crappy year that was followed by a crazy sophomore year and summer. 

What happened to me wouldn't likely happen now. The school district now supplies every student with Chromebooks and most assignment allow for them to complete it offline. Also, I believe that there's a free internet service available to those who are in government benefits in my area too. 

"
technology,"It was a regular, public school. added the part about my mom trying to convert to Christianity as one of the potential reasons why she hadn't called her or tried talking to her. 

This story sort of reminds me of how my history teacher refused to believe me when I said I have no baby picture or practically any photos from my childhood during that time. It was for some bs project and she said that she was going to give anyone who didn't bring one in a bad grade for it. "
technology,"I didn't have easy access to a computer from around 3rd/4th grade to 11th grade. We ""moved"" around(our city) and the places that we did stay at weren't close to the library. It was a couple mile walk most of the time. I used to ride to the library on a bike when I had one. I would say that the crappiness of the school depends on the area. The school that I attended for my freshman year was pretty far from my house and in a pretty well off community. They likely didn't have students who suffered with problems like that as much as schools in low income areas. I knew how to use a computer during middle and high school. In middle school, we had a couple computer centered classes. There were portable laptop carts. Most of the work we did on computers would be completed in class either on that day or it would be spread across multiple days. The middle school was an F school and filled with over 90% minority students. It did have some nice programs. I remember building stuff in woodshop, we had to design our own homes in AutoCAD and print it out and make the 3d design in real life. 

In highschool(freshman year), I got my office specialist certification (don't have the physical certificates with me now though). Other classes used computers but most didn't allow students to work on work for other classes. 

We moved and I ended up in a highschool in a pretty poor area( different county). The area only had one high school and a significant amount of the students had parents who were either farm workers or farm migrant workers. The quality of the education wasn't the best but the teachers were far more understanding of the situation that many students were in. The library was still a couple miles away but most of the time we didn't have to do internet heavy things. I also had a phone during the time and I used to just use it for looking at videos, writing word documents, and etc when I needed to. 

I wasn't technologically illiterate. I just didn't have any at home."
technology,"Hello, french guy here.

While it has indeed been widely reported by some media outlets (even french ones), this really needs some nuances !

First of all, here's the law in french modified yesterday (the infamous ""new law"") ([source](https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006071191&idArticle=LEGIARTI000022494861)) :

>L'utilisation d'un téléphone mobile ou de tout autre équipement terminal de communications électroniques par un élève est interdite dans les écoles maternelles, les écoles élémentaires et les collèges et pendant toute activité liée à l'enseignement qui se déroule à l'extérieur de leur enceinte, à l'exception des circonstances, notamment les usages pédagogiques, et des lieux dans lesquels le règlement intérieur l'autorise expressément.

>Dans les lycées, le règlement intérieur peut interdire l'utilisation par un élève des appareils mentionnés au premier alinéa dans tout ou partie de l'enceinte de l'établissement ainsi que pendant les activités se déroulant à l'extérieur de celle-ci.
>Le présent article n'est pas applicable aux équipements que les élèves présentant un handicap ou un trouble de santé invalidant sont autorisés à utiliser dans les conditions prévues au chapitre Ier du titre V du livre III de la présente partie.
>La méconnaissance des règles fixées en application du présent article peut entraîner la confiscation de l'appareil par un personnel de direction, d'enseignement, d'éducation ou de surveillance. Le règlement intérieur fixe les modalités de sa confiscation et de sa restitution.

Translated to the best of my abilities, and with some online help (mostly [Linguee](https://www.linguee.com/english-french)) :

>The use of mobile phone or other communication device by a student is forbidden in preschool/kindergarten, primary/elementary school, secondary/middle school and during all educational activities outside the school, except for cases and places where internal rules expressively allow it, chiefly educational uses.
>In high school, internal regulations can ban student from using such devices in all or parts of the school, as well as during activities outside of the school.
>This article is not applicable to the authorized devices of disabled students on conditions provided by the Chapter 1, Title 5 of the Book 3 of this part.
>Ignorance of this rule may lead to the confiscation of the device by a member of the direction, educational team, or supervisor staff. Internal rules shall set out in greater details modalities of confiscation and restitution.

All right, so that's the ""new law"".

Previously and since 2010, the law said this ([source](https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do;jsessionid=4EC0D5E4C1DB575809A42328B3E8B86F.tplgfr28s_1?idArticle=LEGIARTI000022494861&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006071191&categorieLien=id&dateTexte=20180805)) : 

>Dans les écoles maternelles, les écoles élémentaires et les collèges, l'utilisation durant toute activité d'enseignement et dans les lieux prévus par le règlement intérieur, par un élève, d'un téléphone mobile est interdite.

>In preschool, primary and secondary school, during all educational activities and in all places stated by the school's internal regulations, student's mobile phone use is forbidden.

And I can remember that even before that, teachers were already confiscating phones because well... It was their classroom, their rules you know ? So the ""new law"" doesn't change anything really, beside expressively stating that teachers are allowed to confiscate the phones like they were already doing anyway. We french people just enjoy having convoluted law about everything :)

This story really isn't one. It's the story of a inreasingly rejected government masterfully using the back-to-school season and the media to make us forget that our reasonably popular Environment Minister (previous journalist, writer and environmentalist TV host) [Nicolas Hulot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Hulot) just resigned during a moving [speech](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJZa90g9WSk), live on the national radio France Inter. He said he felt like he failed at his mission, that he couldn't possibly win that fight alone against the industrials lobbies. Criticized by other environmentalist for participating in a ultra-liberal government, unsupported by the people, and of course with no help from his own government and colleagues (naming the Minister of Agriculture for example),who are, indeed, strongly in favor of an unchecked capitalist economy no matter the cost to the environment.

So *that's* uncomfortable for everyone right ? In the country who was so proud of hosting the COP21, our own Envirenment Minister just gave up, and it's because of every single one of us. I guess I'love to talk about phones at school too if I was french, maybe even writing a way too long comment on the subject ?



(Massive edit after someone asked for sources, and I figured I might as well do thing properly)"
technology,"Larger schools in the UK have them (mine didn't - you were sent to the head of year, deputy headteacher, or headteacher if you did something particularly bad) - I think a decent translation would be 'pastoral staff'. 

[For example](https://www.tes.com/jobs/vacancy/pastoral-support-assistant-bakewell-1107314?utm_campaign=google_jobs_apply&utm_source=google_jobs_apply&utm_medium=organic)

Smaller schools may have a senior teacher who is also head of pastoral care or discipline. 

Edit: And you're right! That pay is horrendously low, and is only paid term-time (so starts at £16k!) - teachers are normally paid for the whole year."
technology,"I don't remember exactly, it's been a long time since I attended elementary school. We had pretty short breaks (5-15 minutes). I think every day there was one teacher chosen to walk into classes during breaks to check if everything is OK, but not everyone was that responsible. Parents could optionally pay for kind of after school care (I don't know how to explain it in english. Basically there were people paid specifically to supervise children after school (or before school).) I don't remember how lunch breaks worked, but it would probably differ from school to school."
technology,"You are probably right, especially in the case of Spencer. However after the initial fervor on the left over the victory of getting Jones and Spencer removed quiets down some right wing figure would rise up to take their place in the cycle of twitter bullshit.

What it's going to take to kill off twitter is getting to the point where either side wins. They wouldn't know what to do with themselves."
technology,"That movie was a bit of a mess in that sense. They took two different characters - Joe Chill; the thug who killed Thomas and Martha Wayne and the nameless schlubb who would become the Joker - and mashed them together. In the version of the Joker's origin story which that movie borrowed from, he wasn't even a career criminal; just a guy who owed some money to the mob. They told him ""We're robbing this chemical plant's safe after hours. We're going to dress you up like a super villain so that if any cops or anyone sees us, they'll assume you're the real threat and go after you instead of us."" He was repaying his debt to the mob by acting as a hapless decoy. The young and inexperienced Batman took the bait and chased the guy in the costume until he tripped and fell into the chemical vat, whereupon he became absurdly disfigured. Batman would spend the rest of his life cursing himself for that rookie mistake on his part and all the lives it would ultimately cost. 



"
technology,"This is true. Notice I actually didn't list Spencer in my original comment nor did I edit my comment.

/u/Knappsterbot is absolutely correct that Twitter would be fine if Spencer was removed. I'd think it would be a better place.

However it should be acknowledged that most right-wing Americans are not Nazis or white supremacists. While they are often targeted by these groups for recruitment, one affiliation does not imply the other. Twitter was a failing social network before 2016 came around and the Trump craze began. If it wasn't for Trump and the various anti-Trump influencers on Twitter the site would have died out long ago.

My point is, Twitter has to try to pander to the losing side to keep both sides on their website, because it's purpose as a universal battleground is the only thing keeping it alive. I'm not trying to imply opposing Nazis is a partisan issue."
technology,"I guess to actually establish your theory in any way, you'd have to use some kind of third party that demonstrates the numbers of people who are anti-Trump, pro-Trump, then correlate their posts with some kind of vector of hostility and toxicity and relate it in very strict terms to the monetary value of twitter stock, whilst also taking into account the fact that there's not an insignificant amount  of bots and trolls which only exist to amplify the negative opinions of other people and don't really use the site in an authentic way. 

Do you have that kind of data?"
technology,"No one is saying that every right wing person should be taken off Twitter. If you espouse white nationalist views and rhetoric then you should get kicked off. If you're just right wing then you're fine. The fact that you automatically conflate calls for removing white nationalist with removal of right wing figures is telling though, because it's not insane to say that the two are inextricably linked at the moment."
technology,"Oh, yeah, in the years since, it's haunted him constantly. He considers it his first truly unforgiveable error as Batman, and has at times obsessed over it. I remember an issue where he was just poring over the chemical composition of the stuff in that vat for what was reportedly the hundredth time, observing that there was no chemical way it ought to have had the effects that it did; that it ought just to have killed the man. Just one more unaccountable detail of that night that he can't let go of. "
technology,"The Joker is a really unreliable narrator, he could simply be lying in these versions of the story. 

The comic in-question that this origin story came from was a one-shot, not an official canon story. So the events that happened during this comic are also only true for the series, The Killing Joke. In the comic, the Riddler calls in a favor from the Joker and reveals that he witnessed a murder that is important to the joker's past and true identity. Later we get a flashback narrated by the Joker. The Joker could be lying about the events and the information the Riddler has is only revealed to the Joker and not the reader. So we don't know for sure. 

But this story, even though its just a one-shot, is the inspriation for many other iterations of the Joker. In Batman, the Brave and the Bold Cartoon, Batman travels to a parallel reality where the villains are the heroes and the heroes are the villains and has to help Lex Luthor and The Red Hood stop the Injustice League. The Red Hood is highly implied to be their universe's version of The Joker who underwent the same accident that made him look like Batman's Universe's Joker (The Next Episode was a continuation of the story in which Batman has to team up with the Joker to clear his name in his home universe when evil-batman has been commiting crimes using his identity). The Red Hood has made it's way into Detective Comics and the DC animated series canon as well was an old identity that may or may not have been the Joker's that gets taken up by the original Robin who's returned from the dead, pissed off and super edgey. "
technology,"I think the right-wing is fine in terms of platforms. In America, they control all levels of government, most of the major media corporations, the police and the military. Whatever they want to say, they say it.

My general rebuttal to this is, if you think that allowing someone to just speak their mind is the best way of combatting bad ideas, why do bad ideas exist in the first place?"
technology,"I guess my answer would be ""kind of"". There are opinions that mislead and take people in wrong directions that can still have data behind them, purely because the opinion infers things from the data that aren't supported. 

For example, your opinion is that the price of twitter stock is a reflection of public sentiment toward the ""battleground"" nature of twitter as it is currently--that it started higher at 2015 and got lower until 2018 when it surged up again due to being more toxic or something. Now, the data does accord with the broad timeline of  the price you've put out, but that doesn't affirm your position in anything more than a superficial way; it lends your opinion credibility, but your actual conclusion about *why* the stock price is lowered is completely unsubstantiated.

 People who did a cursory look at your initial post would think that you had some kind of knowledge, but it was only after I asked you a few questions that you conceded that your opinion is essentially meaningless in that it's just one person's. But the superficial reading implies that your statement is truthful, and that's adequate for people who consume media completely uncritically to absorb and incorporate into their knowledge. That's enough to qualify as misinformation, in my mind: a statement with the veneer of truth that leads people to believe something that doesn't reflect reality based on one person's personal beliefs. "
technology,"What an interesting sounding question. First of all, I just want to tackle your first sentence.

I don't care how long you've been on twitter. What you're providing me with here is just some anecdote about time spent on a platform and how it's informed you, but I have no idea how you actually use it, nor is your sample size of how you use it ever going to be more than one. If I told you that I'd been using twitter since 2006 and that I had the exact opposite experience to you, who's right? It's a trick question, because it doesn't matter--one person on a platform of approximately 336 million monthly users doesn't provide any kind of useful information at all. The site has more monthly users than the entire US population. Would I ask a random person who's lived in America their entire lives to give me their opinion on the entire country and expect their opinion to be informed and fair? Of course not. I'd go to a number of experts and hear what they have to say. 

But yeah, I think a lot of what people say on reddit could probably be classified as misinformation. I generally stick to the articles and then read the comments to see what people have to say about the issue, see if they have something interesting to add that I can read about that's part of the topic. It's when I see people like you, who are just saying whatever for some reason, that I get frustrated. "
technology,"> Samhallsnytt often publishes articles saying Sweden is under threat from Islam. In June, for example, it said a youth soccer tournament in the second-biggest city had banned pork as “haram” - or forbidden under Islamic law. The article is still online with the headline: “Islam is the new foundation of the Gothia Cup - pork proclaimed ‘haram’”.

Fact; The cup did in fact determine that it was better to not serve any pork at the event because of all the muslims attending. And pork is in fact ""haram"" for muslims. The mainstream media just doesn't appreciate the slant in which the articles are written in, but they are for the most part technically correct.

> A tournament organizer told the Dagens Nyheter newspaper that caterers had not served pork for more than 10 years for practical reasons

The practical reasons in this case are all the muslims attending.

/am Swedish."
technology,"

Gothia is an international competition with teams from all over the world. Its simply easier to focus on food most can eat. Not some ""Sweden is under threat from Islam"". Its not forbidden.

>The mainstream media just doesn't appreciate the slant in which the articles are written in, but they are for the most part technically correct.

Serious media fact checked the fake news. They were not technically correct, and they rarely are."
technology,"**only checked 1 site to see if my observations were correct, might be wrong**

Also I believe Canada has a higher agriculture per capital than the US. Around double said one site, which might be wrong. 

My step family is from Canada, and lived in a small city in Ontario. To get there we would pass all kind of farm land. So this doesn’t really surprise me all that much. Though, my own antidotal evidence is extremely limited and only speaks to a small part of a large country.  "
technology,"I feel like it's more of a cultural thing. I've visited all the provinces in Canada. I was amazed at how many trucks there were in Alberta. I didn't find any new data, but I found that in 2006, 64% of all auto sales in Alberta were trucks! (http://www.moto123.com/imprimer_article.spy?artid=78694) It's almost over 6/10 vehicles. There are plenty of people there that work in the oil fields and on farms, but I really don't think it's 6.4/10 people. Other people buy big trucks, so you should get a big truck too. That's kind of the mentality. Manitoba is at 55% and Saskatchewan is at 64% too, by the way. In Quebec, for example, it's only 34%."
technology,"That’s a bullshit way of defining Rural.  Follow your link for the US and they define any thing not in an urban area as rural.  But the urban areas they define are MSAs that go out for hours past the city itself.  

According to the way they measure, almost every part of NC is “Urban” but in reality the vast majority of the state is actually rural, by any realistic measure.  

https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/metroarea/stcbsa_pg/Feb2013/cbsa2013_NC.pdf

Everything in that map in green is considered urban - there are huge huge swaths of that area that are extremely rural.  "
technology,"Are you totally devoid of right and wrong? Doing a thing and being called evil for it is circular reasoning? Alex Jones pushed a gigantic lie and [his idiot supporters acted on it and harassed newtown families](http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-sandy-hook-conspiracy-20170203-story.html) and [Alex Jones never apologized, never told his supporters to not do that, he just kept up the charade and never backed down from it](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/alex-jones-megyn-kelly-interview-infowars-sandy-hook-parents-response-conspiracy-theories-a7786656.html). [He even denied he made those statements](https://www.politifact.com/texas/article/2018/apr/18/true-alex-jones-said-no-one-died-sandy-hook-elemen/). [He is now currently being sued by those families, which he is still defending](https://people.com/crime/sandy-hook-alex-jones-lawsuit-hearing/). 

​"
technology,"Evil is either morally reprehensible, or a reflection of bad character.

Utilitarian ethical theory tell us that if your action causes more suffering than happiness, then it's immoral/unethical. Jones put more weight on his personal gains from controversy and limelight than the suffering caused to these victims by spreading these conspiracies. 

Altruism gives a similar result, but is harsher since that ethical doctrine omits personal gain.

Even in consequentialism, the ends must justify the means. We have yet to see good come out of this. 

You could also say Jones is evil by his character. He instills fear for personal gain. When he was pushing ""Pizzagate,"" [he persuaded a North Carolina man to show up at a Washington, DC pizza restaurant with an AR-15](https://www.businessinsider.com/httpsmiccomarticles180640pizzagate-shooter-gets-4-year-prison-sentence-lawyers-urged-judge-to-deter-vigilantism8nvrpa14b). 

When he lies about evidence, he tries to cause people to doubt their reality, trading journalism for dogma. This is considered bad in society because it causes unnecessary suffering. Also, cognitive dissonance caused by conflicting ""realities"" is suffering.

Tl;dr I would call him evil on all counts.

Edit: Added the gun to the link."
technology,"Alright I looked it up.  I also found this landmark case in my cursory search;  Yates v. United States 1957, which concluded that to violate the Smith Act, one must encourage others to take some action, not simply hold or assert beliefs.

As far as I know Alex Jones was doing more than just asserting his beliefs, but also encouraging violent and/or seditious acts, which would not be protected under the first amendment.  This is not my field of expertise so someone please correct me if I'm mistaken!

It's a fine line I'm sure, but these are companies that I'm sure have it reserved in their TOS to remove those they deem break the rules."
technology,"Please link to OED as it contradicts you.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/toilet

toilet
NOUN

1. A fixed receptacle into which a person may urinate or defecate, typically consisting of a large bowl connected to a system for flushing away the waste into a sewer.

‘Liz heard the toilet flush’
‘he got up to go to the toilet’
as modifier ‘a toilet seat’

1.1 A room, building, or cubicle containing a toilet or toilets.
‘a public toilet’
as modifier ‘someone pushed at the toilet door’"
technology,"Yes, I would “waste” time arguing with anybody. These are human beings bro, these are people with families, they were children once, they have dreams and struggle just like the rest of us. This people have done nothing to you, they just see the world differently than you and because of that you cast them from society?  YOU are the problem with society, you segregate and disown entire segments of the population because they have different experiences. You are everything that you claim to be fighting against. You are a bigot. "
technology,">These are human beings bro, these are people with families, they were children once, they have dreams and struggle just like the rest of us.

Sorry, I thought right here you were referring to the families of the Newtown victims who have been harassed by Jones and his followers to the point where they have filed a federal lawsuit against him, and many of which had to change names and move because Jones repeatedly called into question the validity of their own children dying.

My bad."
technology,"That’s where I disagree. These platforms are so large that exclusion from them can result in economic burden and obviously silencing of ones voice. These forums are so large that they will undoubtedly be recognized as “public squares” in the coming years. That’s the argument I make. 

And why would we want anybody banned from these places when it’s as easy as just blocking them if you don’t want to hear what they have to say?"
technology,"Letting kicked out of a restaurant isn’t the same as getting kicked off twitter. A restaurant means you go to the next restaurant to eat. 
Getting kicked off of twitter can pose economic hardship and the loss of ones platform. Twitter serves hundreds of millions of people (Facebook as well and others) and removing somebody’s presence on one of these is sure to go against the Sherman act in coming years. "
technology,"Because they violated twitters’ ToS. That alone will get anyone banned. 

They may be large enough and widely used enough that anyone not able to use it is at a severe disadvantage. The fact remains these aren’t government regulated sites. If in a few years they are then yea, banning people would be considered a violation of rights. But for now, Twitter has every right to block someone from their site, much like you and I have a right to not allow certain people on our property."
technology,"The example you provided in no way touches upon the economic loss or the platform that I illustrated.  My argument is that twitter and other large platforms are public squares which we have specific laws regarding. 

Once something gets as big as twitter and Facebook they need to play by different rules. I am in no way saying they are currently violating laws- I am saying thats where I see this going once law catches up to technology. "
technology,"That’s twitter’s decision to enforce it though. Why would you want the government to control all social media? That sounds super dangerous. What you’re talking about is more in line with allowing censorship than the current model.

Since we’re getting into the “what if” territory, imagine the us government run by a predominately conservative christian body. Now imagine they have control over every piece of social media, reddit included. Think about that for a second.

That’s honestly more likely to happen than the government swooping in to save its citizens from being banned “unlawfully” by twitter."
technology,"It's a perfect analogy. Go to a different Twitter that will accept you. Like Breitbart or Fox News. Twitter is just 1 platform. There are thousands of other platforms. But guess what those platforms have rules too. Oh and guess what, INFOWARS has their own forums that they also ban users from all the time. Where's your outrage there?

Twitter is under no obligation to serve you. No matter how large or small your audience. Want to use Twitter? Follow their rules. Same with YouTube, Facebook, practically every other private business "
technology,"Okay, maybe we’re just approaching this from two completely different mind sets.

What I’m saying is I do not believe the government would take control of a social media platform and NOT enforce some form of censorship to it. That’s literally all I’m saying. 

I understand that you think the government making twitter a public platform would result in no one getting banned for anything thoughts they’d want to share.

My bottom line though, if we allow the government to overtake business and regulate them like that then what else will we allow them to do? I don’t like the idea of the government interfering with anything. If they want, let them create their own social media platform.
"
technology,"love when stocks are at a discount because of idioticly reactionary traders. Revenues keep growing and their only problem so far is they are _too_ popular and have had trouble keeping up with demand for existing cars let alone all the fleets of trucks and hundreds of grid storage batteries theyre poised to sell to transit and utility companies that like low operating costs. There is solid demand for products, and they have solid infastructure in place to grow, so I see no reason to be worried they wont figure it out regardless of whatever Musk does. There are _other_ people at Tesla after all and they are fairly capable themselves."
technology,"There's not really any scandal, though.  The company's very clearly presented itself as a dumpster fire in every one of their financial statements.

""People just don't like Elon Musk"" isn't the reason it's the most widely shorted stock on the market.  It's the most widely shorted stock on the market because people who can do math simply have to look at their valuation and look at their 10-Qs; and understand the discrepancy between fantasy and reality can't last forever."
technology,"thats not even remotely comparable... I have no idea why people believed Theranos when they had proved nothing and had no products. I can buy a Tesla tomorrow, and see them all over town. They actually make stuff and deliver on that stuff they promise to make, and aside from some arbitrary numbers that people in finance think is the be all and end all of running companies, Musks ventures have all succeeded and continue to be successful because he doesnt give a damn about meaningless corporate nonsense and is more interested in actually getting shit done, even if he has to personally throw his own money on the table like I've seen no other corporate leaders do. I think hes an ass sometimes but hes not stupid, and has a pretty good track record."
technology,"This post is a great example of why need to have mandatory classes teaching finance in K-12 studies. These are not just some made up numbers by some guy in Goldman Sachs. Tesla is $10 billion dollars in debt. $10 billion. They are burning cash at a rate of almost $7,000 a minute and still not turning a profit.

They have almost two billion dollars maturing within the next twelve months and if they do not find a way to raise that capital they will default on that debt. This wouldn’t be a problem except for the fact that their current bonding rating is rivaling junk bonds, so simply issuing more bonds (as Elon has done previously) is out of the question. The vast majority of Elon’s wealth is tied up in his equity in his companies. The thing is if he tries to sell his equity to raise capital the share price will drop dramatically since he will be dramatically increasing the amount of available shares on the market. This means he would need to sell an even larger amount of his own equity to get the same amount of cash. 

There are very few investors in the market who are willing to drop the billions of dollars needed to save Tesla, most of them would be foreign sovereign wealth funds. That’s why Tesla’s share price got so volatile when Elon announced that he was in talks with the saudis. They are literally some of the only people who can save him. Of course this was only Elon spouting off on Twitter as per usual and these talks went nowhere. 

Musks ventures have not all succeeded. By any account Solar City was on the verge of going under before Elon merged them with Tesla and gave some spiel about “synergy.” Never mind the fact that Tesla inherited all of Solar City’s debt. Pushing this obligation off has only delayed the inevitable malestrom that will be hitting Tesla within the next year. "
technology,"Best comment in the thread. I root for Tesla, but man it’s gotta be an epic pressure cooker. Also gratifying to hear him reiterate our stupid experiment with carbon dioxide so definitively. Yeah yeah it’s in his best interest, but that’s not what motivates that comment, it’s motivated by rational thought from a guy who is almost a robot. Humanity would be in a better place if more people internalized that warning. Sorry for rambling."
technology,"I could give a shit if Alex Jones dies in a fire, but wasn't the idea about net neutrality that private corporations with massive influence (in that case, ISPs) shouldn't be limiting access to information?

I really don't see how this is different. Facebook/youtube/twitter/app-store aren't exactly mom and pop outfits. If ISPs should be held to that standard for the sake of an open internet, I don't see why goliaths like them shouldn't be as well.  

"
technology,">If ISPs should be held to that standard for the sake of an open internet, I don't see why goliaths like them shouldn't be as well.

There's are huge difference between an ISP and a company hosting a website. ISP's aren't platforms, they're networks that provide access to data. ISPs' networks were built using public funds. They're regulated differently because their purpose is to provide a public service.

To continue the brink and mortar analogy that /u/Enovlid made, Facebook banning Jones for his crazy rants is like getting banned from a building, but he's free to buy a piece of property elsewhere, or find someone willing to rent to him.

Getting censored by an ISP is like getting banned from roads. Doesn't matter where you move, where you go, you can't ""connect"" to anything. It's the difference between getting told ""You can't go here."" and ""You can't go *anywhere*.""

>wasn't the idea about net neutrality that private corporations with massive influence (in that case, ISPs) shouldn't be limiting access to information?

...and that's the difference. Facebook isn't ""limiting access to information"", they're saying ""you're not allowed to post that *here*."" Jones' website is still active. He'll doubtlessly get countless, conservatively-aligned, outlets to act as his new platform. An ISP could *actually* deny access to that information by simply refusing to serve content from any site associated with Jones, and since that's a public utility censoring speech it's against the rules. "
technology,"Not even *remotely* the same thing. Alex Jones is a fuckhead, but let's not pretend like Reddit wouldn't be up in arms if someone they liked was banned simply because Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Apple, etc, didn't like their opinion or the uprise of supporting their free speech.

There is a social obligation in social media, these empire have taken control of our day-to-day lives. How many teenagers, young adults and elderly do you know that could live a *normal* life without social media? The answer's probably 1%.

Social media is a part of our lives now, they've forced that on us. 

They've replaced our legs with their bionic legs, and now they're choosing who walks. That's not fair.

The part where this is really bad is that they're not banning people solely for having a different opinion; you know how many people are advocating for the death of cops or anti-vaxxing that AREN'T being removed? You can start an anti-vax group on facebook RIGHT NOW, and not be removed.

Alex Jones is being banned because of the pressure being put on my predominantly anti-rights who A) don't agree with him and B) want a witch hunt.

Saying social media companies should have the same rights as small business is like saying Wal-Mart should be allowed to take over all produce stores... then stop selling produce simply because they feel like it.

Tech companies are nothing like any other businesses and should NOT be treated the same."
technology,"Does Reddit support anyone that makes people show up to and harrass mass shooting victims? Or show up and yell in people's faces for 20 minutes like with Marco Rubio and the CNN correspondent?

Alex Jones is extreme and brings no real value to anything. Regardless of his politics. If you act like him on any point of the political spectrum, you'll probably get banned. It just happenes that he's a conservative being banned at a time that political differences are extreme."
technology,"It's significantly different. And quite easy to understand. 

There are hundreds/thousands/millions of sites you could use and get whatever information you wanted. There is no single source of information on the internet. So just because you can't say something on Facebook or Twitter, it doesn't prevent you from saying things elsewhere. Or you are very welcome to setup your own server and let others connect to see whatever it is you want to say.

ISPs on the other hand, have the ability to prevent access to all sites in their entirety, if they so choose. If Comcast wanted to prevent all of their users from being able to get to Facebook, they have that ability. If they only wanted you to view certain sites, they could do that as well.

A private company is under no-obligation to let you use their service, esp. when you look at what is being said. The vitrol being thrown around, inciting violence against others, etc is going to get you thrown out. Just as it would if you started doing in Starbucks. 

The reason NN was such a big deal for ISPs was due to the fact that many have no secondary option. And the internet is pretty much a necessity to survive and participate in today's society. At least for developed countries. 

The difference is being shut out of 1 place, instead of being shut out of every place and having no other options."
technology,"This is a fine rant, but what exactly do you want? The removal of moderation once a business gets to a threshold? What’s the penalty and who enforces it? Are we limiting this to only the USA and therefore need ways for the government to regulate content similar to China? What made this the straw that broke the camels back when the internet has been closed off and censored by governments for years?

Social media is a choice we make and isn’t required or forced on you. This isn’t an essential need and you want to treat it stricter than any other form of media?"
technology,"Only problem is the constitutional right. Looks like trump is next. I don’t support his ‘stance’ but the right to say stupid stuff is the difference between countries without the constitution and the US. Something we all have to out up with opinions we don’t agree with. I am guessing this will be overturned once it makes it to the supreme court. 

As you kindly downvote, I encourage a discussion and invite you to put down the pitchforks. "
technology,"Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and any other social media platform have not just the right but the responsibility to police their platforms and user bases. These exist for profit, not for Alex Jones to make a name for himself. There are millions of other users beyond Alex Jones that they need to cater to. If Alex Jones is driving away users and advertisers, and drawing negative publicity to the platforms through his conduct (which he most definitely was), then they have a financial and business incentive and duty to ban him.

If he wasn’t such a piece of shit, he could have just uprooted and moved to another platform. That he’s been banned from any of them that matter says everything about him and almost nothing about the platforms themselves. 

Keep in mind that to have access, you must abide by the Terms of Service. He broke the rules, so he suffered the consequences. If he can’t “walk” to use your analogy, he should have thought about that before he blew his fucking legs off. It’s that simple."
technology,"The Constitution protects your poltical speech from government censorship. Private entities can absolutely choose not to listen to or support your bullshit. If someone knocks on your door from the Church of Latter Day Saints, or Baptists, do you keep the door open or let them in, or do you effectively censor their speech to you but telling them you're not interested and shutting the door?


Apple, Twitter, ect are shutting the door. He's free to find a company or start his own servers that can host and stream his content. But he doesn't have a right to freely use Apple's, or Twitter's, or YouTube's services and resources as a platform for his speech."
technology,">Facebook

The problem with this specific company is that they're actively trying to be a telecommunication oriented company. Examples are the Facebook chat and Facebook voice. I've faced red flags with Facebook chat where I cannot send certain links to my friends. The fact Facebook can dictate what I can say to my friends in private is very concerning. 

edit: Facebook message has become a main form of communication for many people. All signs point that the trend will continue in that direction rather than the other way. My main point is that its concerning that a communication platform is proactively censoring information. This to me is similar to a phone provider restricting who you can call or what you can text. "
technology,"The only problem I have is that if the shoe were ever on the other foot, it could be bad. There's only a few tech companies that control a lot of what people see online. Google/YT, Reddit, Twitter, Facebook...so much internet traffic is directed there, they're the main platforms and they control so much information, and are known to manipulate it. Imagine if instead, they favored alt-right viewpoints, and banned progressives? In fact, some leftists are ALREADY being censored.

Now, I'm not saying Alex Jones shouldn't be kicked out, there's a certain line of decency you can't cross...but I have a general problem with big, multinational corporations controlling the information we can and cannot see. The government, and companies, are becoming more and more aware of the fact that everything is concentrated together and are learning to manipulate it."
technology,"Nothing blurred about it. The First Amendment is pretty clear:

>	Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nowhere does it say in the Constitution that others have to put up with, share, or otherwise publish whatever someone says."
technology,"This is exact word. But as we know this has some legal precedent. Can’t scream fire in a crowd and etc. Twitter and the like are in the business of elevating your speech. Would it be ok for T-Mobile to turn off your phone because you were a jerk to someone? I don’t have a constitutional law degree, but it feels like limiting speech this way is not the intent of the first amendment. If we can argue that money is speech, and I spend money to get to Twitter, seems like I should have the right to speak. I am open to your interpretation. One thing we really need is a vigorous public debate. "
technology,"There's a whole doctrine of thought and philosophy justifying the existence of ""protected classes"" and what we choose to categorize as a protected class. As an example, most people would agree that it *should* be illegal to refuse to serve someone because of the color of their skin. Those laws apply to Twitter, Facebook, and google as much as any other company. To use your specific example, if twitter was banning people for posting photos of said cake, they could get sued, because sexual orientation is now considered a ""protected class"". 

At the federal level political affiliation is not a protected class, though it is my understanding that some states do protect it. Regardless, the bans coming down are for 'terms of use' violations, and invariably framed in completely legal ways (billion dollar corporations here).

So yeah, it is illegal to serve someone because they're black, gay, a woman, a man, old, catholic, etc. It is not illegal to serve someone because they're a conspiracy theory spewing crazy person making threats online."
technology,"This is the most pathetic thing I've ever seen. I have no social media other than reddit. Most of the time I don't even participate. I just read shit. If anyone got banned from reddit for any reason I wouldn't give a shit. If I disagreed enough I would stop using reddit. But you won't stop using social media and you'll make excuses for everyone else' crazy addiction to it because you think social media is a fucking utility (you don't really, you're just virtue signaling) when really you just can't stop using it. Grow the fuck up."
technology,"Well, Is facebook/twitter a public platform, that can host whatever and not get in trouble, and instead pass the legal responsibility on to the host, or is it a publisher, who is responsible for all content that is hosted on their servers... meaning twitter/facebook/etc is responsible for all legal breeches of content.  

The first category is what phone companies and such fall under.  They have a communication platform than anyone can use. The content doesn't matter. They only collaborate/monitor for national security concerns typically.

The second category is what a newspaper organization is.  If CNN or Fox news publishes/hosts an image without following the copyright specifications, then CNN/Fox can be sued for damages.  They are also responsible for any libel coming from their platform.

So, it's a matter of how much responisbility for user policing these websites want to burden themselves with.  If they wish to be a private platform, then they can be responsible and ban as they please.  But if they want to be a public platform, then they ought to absolve themselves of responsibility for the content on their platform.

And then the third option is they claim to be a public platform, but they ban and curate according to a private agenda. That's how they are currently treating it, but it's also without precedent, and kind of scummy.

Ultimately, I believe that platforms should stick to 1 of the two outlines.  My political siding is liberal left, and I do not trust these companies with the responsibility of policing world morality."
technology,"Alex Jones is free to pay for his own servers and start his own competitor to Twitter - there's even free source code out there to do it. Nobody is stopping him. He can go right ahead and to that right now. And then he can ban anyone he wants to, for any reason at all.

That's how the internet is like a public utility. He's free to start whatever kind of service he wants. So are you. So is Twitter. "
technology,"We were unhappy when a few gigantic telecom companies tried to gain the right to throttle our ability to access certain websites because those telecom companies didn't approve of those websites. Now we have a few big websites trying group together so they could shut down access to Infowars and Reddit is going hands off saying ""Its a business, and businesses have freedom of association."" 

I understand his views are very controversial and that he's an unlikable figure but this is actually ridiculous. It's a clear attempt by gigantic internet companies to take down a smaller news org. Problem is that this certainly won't be the last time they do it. 

It won't be long until all these internet companies band together and create a list of people who would basically be banned from the internet."
technology,"It's the phone company's service that let's you call and say anything you want. Instant messaging should fall under the same rules.

Interestingly, I'm fairly sure that the Marsh V Alabama ruling from 1946 makes all of this moot. Supreme Court has already ruled that a company which opens parts of itself to the public may not suppress free speech in those areas. Allowing anyone to create a profile and join arguably makes those platforms ""public areas"" of the company, and thus places where companies cannot tell you what you my and may not say."
technology,"Hell, I think when we live in an ever increasing “privatized” world the 1st amendment isn’t really doing what it was intended. That’s just America so says nothing about the rest of the world, but while people are generally supportive of this move now what about in 20 years? 100 or 200 years from now information will have been controlled by multinational companies (even more than now) and the continued rise of inverted totalitarianism will only worsen. "
technology,"> You have full permission from me to discriminate on the basis of religion

so...no problem with people discriminating against you on the basis of your irreligion? feel like if you were denied employment, housing, and entry into most establishments based on your professed religion you would a: lie about your religion, and/or b: be very pissed about it.

there is a good reason we don't allow discrimination based on religion."
technology,"It's very different than an apartment building owner refusing to rent to someone for no substantive reason (ie the amount of pigment in their skin) or a restaurant refusing to serve people, also, for no substantive reason.

In the simplest sense, it's more like a bookstore owner refusing to stock and sell books they don't like.  I'm not going to complain that a bookstore that claims to be ""religious"" won't stock *Fifty Shades of Gray* for example.

But more specifically, all these platforms initially allowed Jones and his hateful, false garbage on their platforms, having made the rules clear.  And then Jones violated those rules repeatedly, so they banned him."
technology,"> they're actively trying to be a telecommunication oriented company

That's the thing though; they aren't that. Until they are, they don't have to act like one.

> The fact Facebook can dictate what I can say to my friends in private is very concerning.

The fact that you're saying it on Facebook (even in a private message) means it isn't private. The only private way to say something to someone is in person. If you're talking on a phone or over the internet, you've got to accept that privacy is no longer a guarantee (unless you're using an encrypted service, which Facebook is not),"
technology,"No double standard.

The Colorado case addressed a specific anti-discrimination law that prevented businesses from refusing service based on someone's sexual orientation. The issue in that case concerned whether refusing service on religious grounds could insulate a business from such a law. The answer is *unclear* since SCOTUS kicked the can (or cake) down the road by ruling in favor of the baker on very narrow grounds.

I'd say it'd be more comparable if Twitter kicked someone off specifically for being ""white"" or ""straight."" Kicking someone off for personal characteristics, like gender or race, as opposed to ""what they say and do on Twitter."" "
technology,"Or maybe it's because he's a crazed conspiracy theorist that pushes a series of barely intelligible lies to get clicks and sell snake oil pills?

How do you justify Alex Jones' behavior, like repeatedly asserting that Sandy Hook and other mass shooting events were fake? The families of dead children are harassed because of idiots who believe those conspiracies. So what the fuck is wrong with you that you managed to shift the blame of this to gays?"
technology,"If they do that, their platforms die. Social media stops being social when you stop being able to interact. Any of them that have gone public would like you not be allowed to by their board members. 

I'm really not worried. In the long term, all this censorship crap will fail. People will go to far and alienate too many people and this knee-jerk reaction will go away. That, or someone will just come along and make some new network that allows people to say what they want and not cause the problems that Facebook and Twitter cause and they'll turn Facebook into Myspace on their way to the top."
technology,"No. It takes the narrative that they can ban those who cause problems for them, or someone else. Today it’s alex Jones, a guy who is pretty universally hated, tomorrow it might be someone else.

This is no different than when the government tries to strong arm a certain large tech company into handing over keys to its encryption on its mobile devices, under the guise of beating terrorists. They’re using a target that is universally despised. If you resist then you’re supporting the inhuman monster.

I don’t like Alex Jones, but people need to learn to ignore things they don’t like instead of calling for heavy handed bans. This is exactly how we end up with ‘morality police’."
technology,"There's no requirement that we fit them into one of two existing regulatory frameworks. They do not fit the profile of common carriers or publishers\broadcasters, which is not surprising considering nothing like Twitter was even imagined when those frameworks were established. I know the current political climate doesn't give one much hope for creative solutions, but I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest we look for novel regulatory approaches to a novel market.

I do think we should have a public conversation about regulating access and privacy, but Alex Jones' ban really shouldn't be this controversial. He wasn't banned because his ideas were controversial, he was banned because he was consistently uncivil, aggressive and abusive. That's no more a form of censorship than arresting a bullhorn blasting lunatic on a street corner.

Now if they ever start banning perfectly civil flat-earthers and moon-landing deniers then I'll stand up for nutjob's speech, but this isn't that."
technology,"Nah man. You have to understand that entities like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are now forms of media. This is a direct violation of Alex Jones's 1st amendment right, and the only reason why everyone is clapping and cheering for this is because he is a crazy person.


I don't agree with what he says, but I sure as hell do NOT agree with companies being able to run roughshod over an American citizen exercising his first amendment right. I know I'll be downvoted to hell, but the truth hurts, and the truth is that we can NOT allow companies like Facebook, like YouTube to just shut people down because it goes against THEIR narrative. 


Companies are NOT people. So if you really want to stick it to capitalist America then exercise your wallet and do your best to protect our first amendment rights. 


Twitter has already started censoring frog memes. That's the same thing as censoring the depiction of mohammed. You have to sit back an observe here and THINK. Don't let these companies manipulate you. "
technology,"I think that at a time, government was the mode of control for everything and I don't think anyone expected singular businesses to have as much clout as government. Something needs to get done to ensure that in a digital world, voices aren't being over policed or biasedly policed. I think there will have to be a lot of nuance if companies want to be banning large voices and that they do it carefully."
technology,"I think that at a time, government was the mode of control for everything and I don't think anyone expected singular businesses to have as much clout as government. Something needs to get done to ensure that in a digital world, voices aren't being over policed or biasedly policed. I think there will have to be a lot of nuance if companies want to be banning large voices and that they do it carefully."
technology,">If CNN or Fox news publishes/hosts an image without following the copyright specifications, then CNN/Fox can be sued for damages. They are also responsible for any libel coming from their platform.

[The DMCA protects Facebook from this responsibility already.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act) 

So yes, Facebook is legally allowed to have the best of both worlds. They claim to be a public platform one minute and a publisher the next, [as it suits them.](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/02/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-platform-publisher-lawsuit) Is that scummy? Probably.. but that's how practically every single tech company on the internet operates already, so it's certainly not exclusive to Facebook."
technology,"> The problem with this specific company is that they're actively trying to be a telecommunication oriented company. 

Skype doesn't make Microsoft a telecom. Having a messenger app doesn't make you a telecom. If they started selling you an internet service then they are a telecom. 

> I've faced red flags with Facebook chat where I cannot send certain links to my friends.

That's because they do scans on links for security validation. I've built similar systems into other websites. It's not nefarious.

> The fact Facebook can dictate what I can say to my friends in private is very concerning.

Facebook is 100% allowed to determine how you use their platform. You are very welcome to go use something else. Something more secure even: because facebook sure as shit is not.


"
technology,"Because that would be impossible for business owners. They'd have to serve everyone, without ever distinguishing between people - whether they were rude, caught on fire, wearing obscene clothing to a family restaurant. Discrimination really just means treating people different because of a characteristic they have.

If I own a professional hockey team, I should be allowed to discriminate against those who can't play hockey when it comes to hiring players for me team."
technology,"Because that would be impossible for business owners. They'd have to serve everyone, without ever distinguishing between people - whether they were rude, caught on fire, wearing obscene clothing to a family restaurant. Discrimination really just means treating people different because of a characteristic they have.

If I own a professional hockey team, I should be allowed to discriminate against those who can't play hockey when it comes to hiring players for me team."
technology,"> The problem with this specific company is that they're actively trying to be a telecommunication oriented company. 

Skype doesn't make Microsoft a telecom. Having a messenger app doesn't make you a telecom. If they started selling you an internet service then they are a telecom. 

> I've faced red flags with Facebook chat where I cannot send certain links to my friends.

That's because they do scans on links for security validation. I've built similar systems into other websites. It's not nefarious.

> The fact Facebook can dictate what I can say to my friends in private is very concerning.

Facebook is 100% allowed to determine how you use their platform. You are very welcome to go use something else. Something more secure even: because facebook sure as shit is not.


"
technology,"> The problem with this specific company is that they're actively trying to be a telecommunication oriented company. 

Skype doesn't make Microsoft a telecom. Having a messenger app doesn't make you a telecom. If they started selling you an internet service then they are a telecom. 

> I've faced red flags with Facebook chat where I cannot send certain links to my friends.

That's because they do scans on links for security validation. I've built similar systems into other websites. It's not nefarious.

> The fact Facebook can dictate what I can say to my friends in private is very concerning.

Facebook is 100% allowed to determine how you use their platform. You are very welcome to go use something else. Something more secure even: because facebook sure as shit is not.


"
technology,"THIS THIS THIS.

The amount of redditors who never paid attention in civics class and cry, ""censorship! Violation of First Amendment Rights!"" every time their hero gets shut down by private citizens and businesses is too damn high.

A private business refusing service to for reasons apart from being part of a protected class is not censorship.

Censorship is when the government, government officials, or government institutions prevents you from expressing your opinion. If the FBI cut off internet service to Alex Jones's house so he couldn't tweet or broadcast anything, that would be censorship. If the Supreme Court issued an order for Facebook to ban Alex Jones, that's censorship. If the NSA constructed nationwide firewalls preventing anyone from accessing Alex Jones's social media feeds... you get it.

Apple making an independent decision to pander to the majority of its audience who don't like Alex Jones, in an effort to avoid the Apple brand from being associated with a much hated public figure, is Apple's right as an free, independent entity."
technology,"> The problem with this specific company is that they're actively trying to be a telecommunication oriented company. 

Skype doesn't make Microsoft a telecom. Having a messenger app doesn't make you a telecom. If they started selling you an internet service then they are a telecom. 

> I've faced red flags with Facebook chat where I cannot send certain links to my friends.

That's because they do scans on links for security validation. I've built similar systems into other websites. It's not nefarious.

> The fact Facebook can dictate what I can say to my friends in private is very concerning.

Facebook is 100% allowed to determine how you use their platform. You are very welcome to go use something else. Something more secure even: because facebook sure as shit is not.


"
technology,"> The problem with this specific company is that they're actively trying to be a telecommunication oriented company. 

Skype doesn't make Microsoft a telecom. Having a messenger app doesn't make you a telecom. If they started selling you an internet service then they are a telecom. 

> I've faced red flags with Facebook chat where I cannot send certain links to my friends.

That's because they do scans on links for security validation. I've built similar systems into other websites. It's not nefarious.

> The fact Facebook can dictate what I can say to my friends in private is very concerning.

Facebook is 100% allowed to determine how you use their platform. You are very welcome to go use something else. Something more secure even: because facebook sure as shit is not.
"
technology,"There’s no free speech issue here. This is just business. Alex Jones isn’t some guy with a personal account, he’s running a business, mostly selling supplements, and using the Facebook platform to do it. He agreed to terms of service prior to setting up his business on that platform, he has violated those terms and his business was removed from the platform. There’s no free speech element to this at all."
technology,"Well, not excactly true. While you Can get away with refusing service to any individual, if you exclude an entire Class of people, and the class you pick happens to be a protected one you can come up against federal law. The federally protected classes include:

Race   
National origin  
Religion  
Sex   
Age    
Disability  
Pregnancy  
Genetic information  
Veteran status  


You're fine to discriminate against not protected classes however. For example, a common discrimination target is: people who are not wearing a shirt and shoes (""No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service""). Since clothing is not a protected class, this is legal."
technology,"Well, not excactly true. While you Can get away with refusing service to any individual, if you exclude an entire Class of people, and the class you pick happens to be a protected one you can come up against federal law. The federally protected classes include:

Race   
National origin  
Religion  
Sex   
Age    
Disability  
Pregnancy  
Genetic information  
Veteran status  


You're fine to discriminate against not protected classes however. For example, a common discrimination target is: people who are not wearing a shirt and shoes (""No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service""). Since clothing is not a protected class, this is legal."
technology,"There’s no free speech issue here. This is just business. Alex Jones isn’t some guy with a personal account, he’s running a business, mostly selling supplements, and using the Facebook platform to do it. He agreed to terms of service prior to setting up his business on that platform, he has violated those terms and his business was removed from the platform. There’s no free speech element to this at all."
technology,"There’s no free speech issue here. This is just business. Alex Jones isn’t some guy with a personal account, he’s running a business, mostly selling supplements, and using the Facebook platform to do it. He agreed to terms of service prior to setting up his business on that platform, he has violated those terms and his business was removed from the platform. There’s no free speech element to this at all."
technology,"There’s no free speech issue here. This is just business. Alex Jones isn’t some guy with a personal account, he’s running a business, mostly selling supplements, and using the Facebook platform to do it. He agreed to terms of service prior to setting up his business on that platform, he has violated those terms and his business was removed from the platform. There’s no free speech element to this at all."
technology,"There’s no free speech issue here. This is just business. Alex Jones isn’t some guy with a personal account, he’s running a business, mostly selling supplements, and using the Facebook platform to do it. He agreed to terms of service prior to setting up his business on that platform, he has violated those terms and his business was removed from the platform. There’s no free speech element to this at all."
technology,"Well, not excactly true. While you Can get away with refusing service to any individual, if you exclude an entire Class of people, and the class you pick happens to be a protected one you can come up against federal law. The federally protected classes include:

Race   
National origin  
Religion  
Sex   
Age    
Disability  
Pregnancy  
Genetic information  
Veteran status  


You're fine to discriminate against not protected classes however. For example, a common discrimination target is: people who are not wearing a shirt and shoes (""No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service""). Since clothing is not a protected class, this is legal!"
technology,"I've heard arguments from some that the bigger tech companies like Google or Facebook are be becoming so important and overbearing through their services that at some point we need to considered whether they become public spaces, and as such need to be maintained. The reach and centrality of these social media service in our lives is not comparable to a restaurant...it's more like a telephone service or a public square. At some point we have to consider legally determining these places to be public commons. "
technology,"There’s no free speech issue here. This is just business. Alex Jones isn’t some guy with a personal account, he’s running a business, mostly selling supplements, and using the Facebook platform to do it. He agreed to terms of service prior to setting up his business on that platform, he has violated those terms and his business was removed from the platform. There’s no free speech element to this at all."
technology,"I've heard arguments from some that the bigger tech companies like Google or Facebook are be becoming so important and overbearing through their services that at some point we need to considered whether they become public spaces, and as such need to be maintained. The reach and centrality of these social media service in our lives is not comparable to a restaurant...it's more like a telephone service or a public square. At some point we have to consider legally determining these places to be public commons. "
technology,"> While the Marsh holding at first appears somewhat narrow and inapplicable to the present day due to the disappearance of company towns from the United States, it was raised in the somewhat high-profile 1996 cyberlaw case, Cyber Promotions v. America Online, 948 F. Supp. 436, 442 (E.D. Pa. 1996).[1] Cyber Promotions wished to send out ""mass email advertisements"" to AOL customers. AOL installed software to block those emails. Cyber Promotions sued on free speech grounds and cited the Marsh case as authority for the proposition that even though AOL's servers were private property, AOL had opened them to the public to a degree sufficient that constitutional free speech protections could be applied.
>     The federal district court disagreed, thereby paving the way for spam filters at the Internet service provider level.

Nope. "
technology,"> While the Marsh holding at first appears somewhat narrow and inapplicable to the present day due to the disappearance of company towns from the United States, it was raised in the somewhat high-profile 1996 cyberlaw case, Cyber Promotions v. America Online, 948 F. Supp. 436, 442 (E.D. Pa. 1996).[1] Cyber Promotions wished to send out ""mass email advertisements"" to AOL customers. AOL installed software to block those emails. Cyber Promotions sued on free speech grounds and cited the Marsh case as authority for the proposition that even though AOL's servers were private property, AOL had opened them to the public to a degree sufficient that constitutional free speech protections could be applied.
>     The federal district court disagreed, thereby paving the way for spam filters at the Internet service provider level.

Nope. "
technology,"Well, not excactly true. While you Can get away with refusing service to any individual, if you exclude an entire Class of people, and the class you pick happens to be a protected one you can come up against federal law. The federally protected classes include:

Race   
National origin  
Religion  
Sex   
Age    
Disability  
Pregnancy  
Genetic information  
Veteran status  


You're fine to discriminate against not protected classes however. For example, a common discrimination target is: people who are not wearing a shirt and shoes (""No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service""). Since clothing is not a protected class, this is legal!"
technology,"That and only being able to be found by these same giant tech companies that run the search algorithms. Twitter and YouTube allow pedophilia on their platforms without ban, and give blue checkmark to people who make death threats to the president, but they banned this guy because they don't like what he said. People really need to wake up. Celebrating his removal may fit your agenda today, but if/when the shoe is on the other foot and it's what you love being banned, you'll cry foul. This is a nasty precedent that's been set. "
technology,"That and only being able to be found by these same giant tech companies that run the search algorithms. Twitter and YouTube allow pedophilia on their platforms without ban, and give blue checkmark to people who make death threats to the president, but they banned this guy because they don't like what he said. People really need to wake up. Celebrating his removal may fit your agenda today, but if/when the shoe is on the other foot and it's what you love being banned, you'll cry foul. This is a nasty precedent that's been set. "
technology,"That and only being able to be found by these same giant tech companies that run the search algorithms. Twitter and YouTube allow pedophilia on their platforms without ban, and give blue checkmark to people who make death threats to the president, but they banned this guy because they don't like what he said. People really need to wake up. Celebrating his removal may fit your agenda today, but if/when the shoe is on the other foot and it's what you love being banned, you'll cry foul. This is a nasty precedent that's been set. "
technology,"So if tech companies decide to tomorrow, they could just ban all Republican-leaning discussion because political belief isn’t a protected class? Of course they *won’t*, because it’d be an idiotic business move, but I really don’t like the fact that they *could*. Hell, are you noticing how all these tech companies are banning him from their platforms within a couple days, if not *hours* of each other? That’s not a coincidence - as soon as one decides to ban him for what they deem hate speech, the rest have to dogpile on or face the PR nightmare of appearing to harbor bigots.  He probably is one, but they’re clearly not all deciding that independently for themselves, and I don’t like that corporate fear of bad PR is the primary driver of what I can and can’t say on the internet. "
technology,"I pay for a service from my ISP.  That is a utility.  I do not pay for twitter, I am the product, they are selling.  Whether as ad space or as meta data. 

In this situation, you have a private market space.  Apple doesn’t want a dildo salesman with a booth next to educational or newsworthy products.  

Do you see the difference here?  The ISP, the internet provider can’t filter what I can and can’t see, but the content providers are under no obligation to provide a certain type of content.  "
technology,"Facebook main business model is to be a communication platform and their goals are to Facebook a fixture of daily life. For some its already become their main method of communication. Facebook is also restricting what can be sent over their messaging platform. There are two big things that makes Facebook stand out: 1) It's showing signs of being an essential tool for modern society and 2) It is proactively restricting what information can be sent (aka censorship). 

At its core, this wouldn't be different from Verizon restricting who you can call or what you can text. "
technology,"This still is not a 1A issue and never has been, even if the companies are ""forms of media"" since the fairness doctrine was overturned that still doesn't mean they would have to allow him to participate.  If he wants he is perfectly capable of hosting his videos on his own website. Ironically, if net neutrality had been upheld he would have been further protected from discrimination by isps lol.  He can also print a newspaper, books, leaflets to his heart's content and disseminate them. "
technology,"Someone literally went into that pizza place with a gun because they were convinced by this fucking lunatic that Hillary Clinton was running a child sex ring there. Remember when that other dude went and murdered those journalists? Don't know if he was encouraged by Trump or Jones or a combination of both, but at some point you draw the line because there are consequences to giving a platform to assholes like Alex Jones. Everyone who uses these sites agree to their TOS and Alex Jones pushed the boundaries a LOT and got away with a lot more than an ordinary person would. They are not obligated to provide a platform for hate speech. There is a difference between censoring something and not enabling it. He had plenty of chances and warnings and he kept on spewing hate speech so it's his own fault they banned him. "
technology,"Someone literally went into that pizza place with a gun because they were convinced by this fucking lunatic that Hillary Clinton was running a child sex ring there. Remember when that other dude went and murdered those journalists? Don't know if he was encouraged by Trump or Jones or a combination of both, but at some point you draw the line because there are consequences to giving a platform to assholes like Alex Jones. Everyone who uses these sites agree to their TOS and Alex Jones pushed the boundaries a LOT and got away with a lot more than an ordinary person would. They are not obligated to provide a platform for hate speech. There is a difference between censoring something and not enabling it. He had plenty of chances and warnings and he kept on spewing hate speech so it's his own fault they banned him. "
technology,"Someone literally went into that pizza place with a gun because they were convinced by this fucking lunatic that Hillary Clinton was running a child sex ring there. Remember when that other dude went and murdered those journalists? Don't know if he was encouraged by Trump or Jones or a combination of both, but at some point you draw the line because there are consequences to giving a platform to assholes like Alex Jones. Everyone who uses these sites agree to their TOS and Alex Jones pushed the boundaries a LOT and got away with a lot more than an ordinary person would. They are not obligated to provide a platform for hate speech. There is a difference between censoring something and not enabling it. He had plenty of chances and warnings and he kept on spewing hate speech so it's his own fault they banned him. "
technology,"Someone literally went into that pizza place with a gun because they were convinced by this fucking lunatic that Hillary Clinton was running a child sex ring there. Remember when that other dude went and murdered those journalists? Don't know if he was encouraged by Trump or Jones or a combination of both, but at some point you draw the line because there are consequences to giving a platform to assholes like Alex Jones. Everyone who uses these sites agree to their TOS and Alex Jones pushed the boundaries a LOT and got away with a lot more than an ordinary person would. They are not obligated to provide a platform for hate speech. There is a difference between censoring something and not enabling it. He had plenty of chances and warnings and he kept on spewing hate speech so it's his own fault they banned him. "
technology,"Of course you can’t force them, and that was supposed to be one of the biggest advantages of the internet: an open and decentralized platform for anyone to cheaply and freely share their views. But what we’ve seen in the last 15 years is the rise of a handful of companies that control a huge amount of the main distribution channels on the internet, to the point where they’re acting as quasi-public infrastructure. Remember, a lot of the Arab Spring was coordinated through Twitter... the fact of the matter is that these companies are deliberately trying to position themselves as the backbone of the Internet, but a handful of technocrats whose interests don’t necessarily align with those of their users or those of society get to call all the shots on what content is and isn’t allowed. Imagine if there were a company that got to decide what information could be shared through the medium of speech, or paper?"
technology,">Interestingly, I'm fairly sure that the Marsh V Alabama ruling from 1946 makes all of this moot.

[Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Corp._v._Tanner) from 1972 is the counterpoint to that. To wit-

>Here, on the other hand, the Court concluded that the respondents could have distributed their handbills on ""any public street, on any public sidewalk, in any public park, or in any public building."" Therefore, respondents were not entitled to exercise their free-speech rights on the privately owned shopping-center property."
technology,">Interestingly, I'm fairly sure that the Marsh V Alabama ruling from 1946 makes all of this moot.

[Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Corp._v._Tanner) from 1972 is the counterpoint to that. To wit-

>Here, on the other hand, the Court concluded that the respondents could have distributed their handbills on ""any public street, on any public sidewalk, in any public park, or in any public building."" Therefore, respondents were not entitled to exercise their free-speech rights on the privately owned shopping-center property."
technology,">If Buisness owners can refuse service to people, tech companies should also be able to refuse service to people. 
>
>If Alex Jones walked into a physical establishment and went on one of his crazy rants, they have the right to kick him out. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc can do the same.

This worked in the past. There is always somewhere to go, a public square, for the crazys with pencils in cups. But on the web, we are dominated by monopolies, platforms that journalists and united states presidents alike use to communicate can control the range of acceptable conversation."
technology,">If Buisness owners can refuse service to people, tech companies should also be able to refuse service to people. 
>
>If Alex Jones walked into a physical establishment and went on one of his crazy rants, they have the right to kick him out. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc can do the same.

This worked in the past. There is always somewhere to go, a public square, for the crazys with pencils in cups. But on the web, we are dominated by monopolies, platforms that journalists and united states presidents alike use to communicate can control the range of acceptable conversation."
technology,">Interestingly, I'm fairly sure that the Marsh V Alabama ruling from 1946 makes all of this moot.

[Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Corp._v._Tanner) from 1972 is the counterpoint to that. To wit-

>Here, on the other hand, the Court concluded that the respondents could have distributed their handbills on ""any public street, on any public sidewalk, in any public park, or in any public building."" Therefore, respondents were not entitled to exercise their free-speech rights on the privately owned shopping-center property."
technology,"It's not really private though. Facebook has given device makers [a lot of access to users' data.](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/03/technology/facebook-device-partners-users-friends-data.html). This includes your messages.

Facebook allows you to download 'all' the info from your Facebook profile. This includes all your pictures, status updates, IP addresses you've accessed Facebook from, messages, etc. You can read every line from every message with every Facebook friend you've had. And Facebook had given device makers access to this. I wouldn't use Facebook messenger for deeply private conversations."
technology,"It's not really private though. Facebook has given device makers [a lot of access to users' data.](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/03/technology/facebook-device-partners-users-friends-data.html). This includes your messages.

Facebook allows you to download 'all' the info from your Facebook profile. This includes all your pictures, status updates, IP addresses you've accessed Facebook from, messages, etc. You can read every line from every message with every Facebook friend you've had. And Facebook had given device makers access to this. I wouldn't use Facebook messenger for deeply private conversations."
technology,"It's not really private though. Facebook has given device makers [a lot of access to users' data.](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/03/technology/facebook-device-partners-users-friends-data.html). This includes your messages.

Facebook allows you to download 'all' the info from your Facebook profile. This includes all your pictures, status updates, IP addresses you've accessed Facebook from, messages, etc. You can read every line from every message with every Facebook friend you've had. And Facebook had given device makers access to this. I wouldn't use Facebook messenger for deeply private conversations."
technology,"The reality is that there are more consequences to not enforcing standards of conduct than there is of some ominous slippery slope. Remember when everyone ignored T_D and it went away? Except it didn't.

The Internet is the great aggregate, and unfortunately it has the power the aggregate the most stupid, hateful viewpoints to the point of empowering them. To the point of foreign powers utilizing them as social weapons. 

We can discuss all we want about the philosophical what ifs... I'm game. But Alex Jones getting booted off private services that want to enforce the bare minimum of candor won't cause me to lose sleep over ""who is next!?"" "
technology,"The reality is that there are more consequences to not enforcing standards of conduct than there is of some ominous slippery slope. Remember when everyone ignored T_D and it went away? Except it didn't.

The Internet is the great aggregate, and unfortunately it has the power the aggregate the most stupid, hateful viewpoints to the point of empowering them. To the point of foreign powers utilizing them as social weapons. 

We can discuss all we want about the philosophical what ifs... I'm game. But Alex Jones getting booted off private services that want to enforce the bare minimum of candor won't cause me to lose sleep over ""who is next!?"" "
technology,"Network effects and near-free marginal costs for adding users. Facebook is useful and valuable because most of your friends have an account there. Lots of these services are natural monopolies in this way; if you cloned facebook and split half the users over to facebook2, each half of the network would be less valuable than half of the combined network.

Hell, this is why Facebook bought Instagram, on a fundamental level. "
technology,">Now, I'm not saying Alex Jones shouldn't be kicked out, there's a certain line of decency you can't cross...but I have a general problem with big, multinational corporations controlling the information we can and cannot see.

These points are sort of odds at each other, but the latter definitely rings true. I mean, imagine they banned antifa protestors instead of Alex Jones? Would people be so happy about it on the ""left""? I guarantee you not."
technology,"> Hell, I think when we live in an ever increasing “privatized” world the 1st amendment isn’t really doing what it was intended. That’s just America so says nothing about the rest of the world, but while people are generally supportive of this move now what about in 20 years? 

Remember when GWB asked VISA and Mastercard to stop allowing 
 fetish websites to use their services?  That was fucking hell.  I wish more millennials had hit puberty by then.  A LOT more people would care about this."
technology,">Now, I'm not saying Alex Jones shouldn't be kicked out, there's a certain line of decency you can't cross...but I have a general problem with big, multinational corporations controlling the information we can and cannot see.

These points are sort of odds at each other, but the latter definitely rings true. I mean, imagine they banned antifa protestors instead of Alex Jones? Would people be so happy about it on the ""left""? I guarantee you not."
technology,"He incites violence which shouldn't be allowed at all because if I go out and incite violence out in public I'd go to jail.

People need to understand though that if you set a precedent that something is okay then it opens the door for other things. I know that's sorta the argument used by people against gay marriage but it doesn't really equate there because gay marriage doesn't affect anyone else where pedophilia does. A bit side tracked but that argument can be used in other cases, like vaccines. If you make vaccines mandatory you set the precedent that you HAVE to have procedures or medications according to a law, but right now as long as you don't harm anyone else you're free to make your own choices with YOUR body, and that's how it should be but I do think vaccinations should be encouraged and expected.

If Alex Jones breaks terms of service and I believe inciting violence is, then he should be removed, not just because he's a jerk."
technology,"> I have a general problem with big, multinational corporations controlling the information we can and cannot see.

Hasn’t this ship already sailed decades ago ?
Traditional news platform were all owned by huge multinational corporations. Part of it is because it costs a lot to keep a huge crew of reporters and journalists. Part of it because  they wanted a control of what and how the public would get information about."
technology,"I agree with some of what your saying, censorship can be a slippery slope.  but you implied a bias in favor of political opinion (“...if the shoe was on the other foot...”.  “Imagine if instead, they favored alt right viewpoints...”).  I don’t know why you chose that example, as the implications of censorship based on political beliefs in this scenario is inaccurate and irresponsible.  You could acknowledge that Alex Jones appeals more toward one side of the political spectrum, but he wasn’t penalized for his political bend.  He was penalized for inciting violence as a means of profit.  No one is stifling responsible right leaning content.  I see idiots on reddit clamoring all the time about  “conservative” opinions not getting more positive attention.  The reality is, “hard line conservative opinions” just aren’t as popular as they once were, especially on Reddit’s platform that appeals to a particular demographic.  "
technology,"I agree whole heartedly. I also think there needs to be a level of consistency. What is the “line”. People are pointing to literal terrorist groups (some verified) that are still operating on Twitter. Apparently recruiting terrorists are okay, but making outlandish claims and arguing with Darcy Oliver crosses that line?

For the record, I don’t watch Alex jones or infowars. But I think it’s a slippery slope and a dangerous precedent to set without clear guidelines. "
technology,"Marsh v. Alabama does not apply here—that one has been interpreted narrowly to apply to company towns only. In 1997, CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc., the judge wrote:
> In the present case, plaintiff is physically the recipient of the defendants' messages and is the owner of the property upon which the transgression is occurring. As has been discussed, plaintiff is not a government agency or state actor which seeks to preempt defendants' ability to communicate but is instead a private actor trying to tailor the nuances of its service to provide the maximum utility to its customers.

>Defendants' intentional use of plaintiff's proprietary computer equipment exceeds plaintiff's consent and, indeed, continued after repeated demands that defendants cease. Such use is an actionable trespass to plaintiff's chattel. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides no defense for such conduct.

And later

>Plaintiff has made a business decision to forbid Cyber Promotions and Mr. Wallace from using its computers to transmit messages to CompuServe subscribers. If CompuServe subscribers are unhappy with that decision, then they may make that known, perhaps by terminating their accounts and transferring to an Internet service provider which accepts unsolicited e-mail advertisements. That is a business risk which plaintiff has assumed.

This was one of the first trespass of chattels cases applied to the internet, and most of them went this way—in favor of the tech company."
technology,"I’m glad someone has a voice of reason here other than echoing the same sentiment that most of the subreddits in general have here. This isn’t some Christian mom and pop bake shop refusing to make a cake for an LGBT wedding. This is what’s supposed to be a neutral platform for exercise your 1st amendment.

I’ve never listened to Alex Jones, nor do I agree with a lot of what I’ve heard about him, but I’ve exercised my adult decision to NOT listen to him. Why is Apple, Twitter, Google, FB, etc. the arbiters of all that is good and moral, now?"
technology,"Just curious because you said it. Verizon is technically a tech company. Should they be allowed to block access to websites (maybe something like infowars) because they dont like the message as well? Maybe this isn't for you specifically but I hear people say the same thing you did but will then Defend Net Neutrality and it seems hypocritical to me.

Maybe I'm wrong, I'm for net neutrality but its hard for me to see how one is ok but the other isn't."
technology,">  but I have a general problem with big, multinational corporations controlling the information we can and cannot see

If the tech companies start banning people purely for stating political views then I'll agree with you.  Alex Jones crossed that line of decency multiple times, he pantomimed shooting Mueller, a government official and saying how much he'd enjoy shooting him.  He called on his listeners to basically arm themselves and go out and start a civil war.

Don't want to get banned?  Don't incite violence and make death threats.  You can then rant as much as you want about frog people and democrats eating babies in the bohemian grove while forcibly giving teenagers abortions."
technology,"Yes there is, the sheer numbers of it now.  There are billions of us.  YOU would never just stumble across MY personal site.  You'd never know where to find it, and I'd never see anything of yours.   

We have to go somewhere common to connect. Fortunately, reddit is a prime example of somewhere common which can remain fairly free.  I trust humanity to keep some form of this.  But I also fear it won't be enough. "
technology,"This is why Net Neutrality is so important. Alex Jones’ website still exists and people can still go to it. I’m all for that. If it came out that Twitter started heavily promoting a certain viewpoint, I’d simply stop using the platform and either build one of my own or hop on one of the others that can pop up.

The problem becomes when a service provider can start censoring or limiting content in any way (as they can in the absence of NN) then Comcast can ban infowars and now huge swaths of the country can’t get there and have no real alternative.

If you start making websites accountable for giving all content a voice, where do you draw the line? Is promoting bestiality OK? How about self defense that might lean a little more proactive? Inciting violence against certain groups? If a site is responsible for content and someone uploads a stash of CP, is the site partially to share the legal blame?"
technology,"For some of us, the shoe is already on the other foot.  For me, I don’t want this to flip back and forth.  I don’t want for “you guys to see what we had to go through.”  I want free speech.  Period.

Let me put this a different way.  Free speech is hate speech.  If it were not considered hate speech by someone, then there would not be a law.  There just wouldn’t be a need and no one would even think about the concept.

The only value of freedom of speech is to protect someone else’s right to express something that you do not like."
technology,"Here's the thing about /r/the_donald (your favorite subreddit) - it makes inane false equivalencies, like calling Alex Jones' opinions ""conservative values"" -- or hell, using his ""conservative values"", if you'd like to call them that, as a shield for all his atrocious behavior. 

A moron that harasses numerous individuals in public (often implying threats of violence) and claims the government is turning frogs gay or that sandy hook was a hoax -- all so he can advertise his literal pills -- is not a voice that an online platform needs to serve.

Conservative voices should be protected online. Threatening and manipulating others? Well, a platform's going to protect other living humans."
technology,"Just curious what you mean? I’m a web developer and web security is not really that hard if you follow reasonable guidelines. With any decent web framework and a strong password and an aggressive firewall to lock out intruders you’re fine. 

Where things get more interesting is when you start talking about DDOS attacks which are pretty difficult for even large companies to effectively stop if the attacker really wants to fuck with you. If you’re someone that nobody likes, it can then be hard to find a service or people to work for you to help stop those DDOS attacks. 

If ISIS could keep websites up with reasonable amounts of uptime, I see no reason why Alex Jones couldn’t either if he wanted to dedicate resources to it. God knows his sycophants give him enough money to keep a server online already. "
technology,">It's not a left/right issue

No it isn't, but it's still an issue. I'm not arguing whether or not he should be banned, I'm not American and I really don't care to keep up on the shit show down there (though seemingly impossible to avoid). There seems to be something everyone is forgetting.

>First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a socialist.

>Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a trade unionist.

>Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a Jew.

>Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
technology,"I think there's a very big difference from a company blocking a website(s) from being accessed from any internet usage and a ISP not delivering content. The latter is first party release, the other is third.

In other words, it's the difference between a restaurant saying they won't serve meat and the only shipping company saying they won't deliver it to town anymore.

InfoWars is no more banned from the internet now as they were before this. Their domain still exists. Sites have just chosen not to use their platforms as a launching point to access his own site."
technology,"I'm curious. You seem like you might have read a thing or two before.

​

What in the 1st makes you think that a private company has any obligation to uphold free speech? You know what the first amendment is, right? No? 

What in god's green fuck makes you think that Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube are beholden to the first amendment? Why do you think just because social media is now considered a form of media; that it would have anything to do with the government interfering with his ability to speak freely?

You know that the freedoms outlined in the first amendment protect us from the government, not private corporations? Of course you do.......n't.

> Companies are NOT people. 

Ok? They are also not the government. 

​"
technology,"The thing is, the internet is limitless though. Literally. You are upset that your infowars is being censored? Nothing stopping you from developing your own platform. Hell. Literally on the twitter safety post outlining this github was promoting saying “you’re not banned here”. 

People can find what they want online. It’s not any companies directive to adhere to our norms. It’s on us to direct that as a consumer. Whether it’s right or left. It’s a consumer consensus to use those platforms. 

Infowars mad? Go to MySpace. It’s on PEOPLE giving a shit about how they use their time. Same shit as voat. The people who complain about censorship have their own ways of finding their content. FPH or the Fappening didn’t end cause Reddit said “nah fam”. "
technology,"No.  It's not, really.  

Corporations have a right to have opinions as much as anyone, and everyone in America *should* be getting political by now.  The only way to prevent manipulation of information is to ensure that they don't hold a monopoly on information; Apple should very much be able to choose who they want to give access to their platform/audience so long as they aren't the sole proprietors of that audience.  It's the *government* that shouldn't be doing it any capacity.

Also (and this IS really important), creating blanket rules on the grounds of principle is pointless, futile and destructive; you take it on a case-by-case basis.  Saying 'hey we should let the crazy man talk now because it's his turn now and we need to be equal' is ridiculous.

America, you really need to start talking about this whole freedom of speech thing cause it doesn't sound like you understand what it's about."
technology,"No one is stopping you from consuming Jones's content. I'm sure it's hosted at his own website. Twitter just decided they did not wish to act as a platform for his content. It's the same if you are a guest in my home: your right to ""free speech"" ends when you enter my home. I wholly control what speech is allowed there, and you either must conform to my wishes or you will be shown the door."
technology,"Receiving or not receiving government money has nothing to do with this matter. It's an argument on the basis of the first amendment, someone's right to speak and their ability to do so. 

A primary argument for net neutrality was that the flow of information would be throttled and controlled by a few big corporations that hold lots of power, money, and are currently unrivaled. 

My point is we see that in Twitter, in Facebook, in Youtube, and in many other big companies these days. If you want to keep up with a celebrity or a company you go to Facebook or Twitter. If you want to watch a video on something informative or if you just want to watch something in general you typically search for Youtube. If you want to download an app on Apple the first thing you click is the apple store. Alex Jones in the past few weeks has been banned from all of these major platforms. He is literally a few steps away from being completely de-platformed and shut down. 

At this point in time unless you already know about Alex Jones's name and website or hear about it through the grapevine you are very unlikely to find it yourself. His visibility right now and for the future has been flushed down the shitter. This is actually censorship of him and his comapny's ideals. I want you to imagine how any start up journalist could survive or make a name for themselves without using any of the platforms Alex Jones has currently been banned from.

All of those platforms currently have no viable rivals or alternatives which is incredibly trouble in our day and age. I'm also of the belief that even if something truly jarring happened with any of these companies they'd still survive. I mean hell, we saw the whole verification tag debacle with Twitter and it's still going strong."
technology,"This isn’t exactly a new debate though. Free speech is great but there has to be a line drawn somewhere. The guy who yells fire in a crowded theater as a joke and results in people dying? Is that ok? What about threatening someone with physical violence or lying to cheat someone out of money?

The line we’ve sort of drawn over the centuries just runs parallel with general decency and common sense in the form of laws/ social taboos. Only new twist now is that the internet is anonymous and there is no repercussion for what’s said which is why it feels so new and weird "
technology,Unfortunately people are too busy celebrating this to comprehend how dangerous this will end up becoming. I could care less about Alex Jones content but social media as a whole just effectively cut his Internet presence. What they *don't* see is that several big corporations have now realized just how easily it is to censor and remove people from their platforms. When this becomes a problem in reverse - *and it will someday* - it'll be too late to reverse.
technology,"You act like that hasn't happened already. /r/conservative, r/the_donald, and any other number of other subs that silence dissent and counter arguments, and it's fully supported by the admins. 

Not to mention the time Reddit fired Ellen Pao because she made a call that made the entire fucking site riot for a week.

Funny how all these people are crying about ""Yeah but imagine if it was a liberal being-"" when it's Alex Jones, but say nothing in other instances."
technology,"Ok this argument is good and all, if the reason the app was pulled from the store was a newly added addendum to its Apple store rules. But it’s not - it’s been there forever.   I see many people are arguing “hey, i don’t like AJ, but censorship is bad”.  In a public forum censorship is bad - however, you should not assume the same applies when utilizing infrastructure that isn’t yours and when rules that are clearly outlined are broken.  There isn’t anything in the rules that states “no apps shall have differing opinions on politics than our CEO”.  No, the rules are in place to help ensure safety of its users. This is much different than censorship. "
technology,"> Now if they ever start banning perfectly civil flat-earthers and moon-landing deniers then I'll stand up for nutjob's free-speech, but this isn't that.

Defense Distributed and similar. Perfectly civil, perfectly legal, perfectly open, and even backed by some really nifty philosophy. But try posting a link to codeisfreespeech.com on facebook and see what happens. Go look on youtube for their fundraising video, then look on bitchute. Then tell me that you're not still concerned."
technology,"The thing is, theres no reason to expect these companies to put up with toxic content only because it represents a certain percentage of peoples point of view. Its not just about opinions you may agree or disagree with, hell just show any amount of a woman's nipple on any of these sites and see what happens. Its not like he was paying to be on Youtube or these other platforms with a contract to let him do or say anything he liked. Like everyone else, he's using these companies platforms to take advantage of their large audiences, but with that comes their rules, simple as that. Hes more than welcome to say or do what he pleases on his own website. "
technology,"When is Sarah Jeong getting banned from twitter? Or even fired? She tweets about her support for literal white genocide and she doesn't even lose her job with the NYT.

A couple had to go into hiding because Spike Lee tweeted out their address because he thought it belonged to George Zimmerman. Tech companies weren't tripping over themselves to remove him.

What Alex Jones did was wrong and you can believe he deserves to be banned. But you are kidding yourself if you think he wasn't a target because of his politics. "
technology,"You have a very valid point and its always worth the time to imagine it happening from the opposite side of the aisle. Lets imagine that your scenario happened, a generally fact /science based entertainlent show that doesn't intentionally misinform people. tech firms just ban them due to them telling the truth and no public support. What is wrong with that?

Nothing, the situation that there they were banned for telling the truth and not misleading people and that there was no support for them is enough to tell me that the world  already has a larger systemic problem with the truth.

If the world tolerates falsehoods rather than the truth then we deserve whatever we get coming. The most vulnerable people on being misinformed are the ones without/ have limited access to the truth. You do not improve them and their progeny by tolerating the spread blatant misinformation, you teach them the truth of the world at the moment. You get them used to hard science based facts. 

In the end if what the general population believes is wrong then we all deserve to go extinct

"
technology,"The term whataboutism is so played out it is losing any meaning that it might have had, why dont you guys come up with something new? As far as the the sandy hook thing, I would say it was deplorable and in very bad taste. Gun control on the other hand, I will say that people need to learn about guns before they can comment, saying “This is a ghost gun,” de Leon begins, holding an unloaded rifle in his hands. “This right here has the ability with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Thirty magazine clip in half a second.” that is from a state senator from California."
technology,"Fuck off. Nobody is trying to ""shut off access"" to infowars. 

If you go to the website, do you get a message saying it's blocked by your ISP? No. Right to free speech is not the right to unlimited access. If I want to rant on a street corner about a controversial topic, that's free speech. It doesn't, however, give me a right to walk into someone's house and give the same speech without being prevented from doing so.

They put their App in Apple's house, they posted their rants in Twitter's house. And the two companies tolerated them, but once that tolerance runs out, they have every right to kick them out."
technology,"When you think about it, private moral policing of users means that not only are they subject to the law of the nation, but the law of the website, but wait, not only that but the laws of the services that the website utilises too, because the web host or payment provider could threaten to shut down the site if a user is posting content against THEIR codes of conduct. This can layer as deep or as wide as whatever is required to allow the user to operate.

Ultimately, the end user needs to abide by so many demands on their behaviour, that they might actually have more freedom on a system created entirely by the nation."
technology,"Can AT&T refuse to complete his phone calls? Or, to make the question even more similar, can AT&T sit down with Verizon and both agree not to complete his phone calls? Can First Energy refuse to provide electricity to the servers hosting his podcast?

Reason people are uncomfortable with anything done to Jones is that big tech have begun to blur the line between conference hall and utility company. Looked at as a conference Hall, they just refused to rent to him, which most anyone would agree is at their discretion. But looked at as utilities, what's just happened is that guys like Zuckerberg have seized the power to deny private citizens access to them. That really ought to make everyone uncomfortable, even though Jones is ridiculous."
technology,"Here's a counter: I want to know how any independent journalist out there could make a name for themselves in this day and age without using any of the companies Alex Jones has currently been banned from. 

There are no true viable alternatives to Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc. If we want to keep up with a celebrity or a company we got to twitter and facebook. When we want to watch a video we go to Youtube. A primary argument for net neutrality was that the flow of information would be throttled and controlled by a few big corporations that hold lots of power, money, and are currently unrivaled. I'm of the belief that this is what we see here.

Sure InfoWars hasn't been taken off the internet, but it's been significantly throttled in it's ability to get new viewers. Because of these giant companies you know about InfoWars because you knew about them before it got taken down from all these sites or you learned about it through the grape vine. Also the only way to keep up with InfoWars is from the InfoWars site itself, so if that were to go down you truly would have no idea what happened until a report by a third party came out on the subject.

I would be a lot more understanding if Alex Jones got himself banned from each individual site over the course of his career due to some extreme controversy, but what we see here is basically a hit orchestrated by a group of gigantic websites on a single news org. These bans have all come out within the span of a few weeks, something that's unheard of to me. I personally feel like at this point we're not that far from a literal internet black list."
technology,"The difference is these companies are kicking Alex out of their house. He’s free to make his own website and buy advertisements, go to other message boards, etc. These companies aren’t trying to ‘stop’ him, he’s not a victim. It’s like if you invited an acquaintance  into your house and he started tearing down paintings and throwing plates, then invited more of his buddies to party in your backyard. Would you be ‘censoring’ him by ordering them out of your house?"
technology,"Hate speech isn't just speech that some people don't like...

Hate speech aims to incite violence towards specific groups of people.

Alex Jones regularly encouraged his supporters to harass and threaten victims of school shootings.

This has nothing to do with free speech, which only ensures that the government won't lock up Alex Jones for what he says. This has everything to do with private corporations deciding that they don't want to let a violent man advertise his spewings on their site."
technology,"They don’t control what you can and cannot see - they only control what you can and cannot see on their site. 

It’s like posting porn links on a Disney site and having it taken down. It violates the terms that you agreed to in order to engage with their site. 

Is it illegal? No.  

Is it in appropriate? Of course. 

If people think hate speech is inappropriate for the platform it’s on then it absolutely should be taken down. There are plenty of alt-right forums and sites for him to engage on just like you can save the porn links for 4chan. "
technology,"Fuck off. Nobody is trying to ""shut off access"" to the internet.

If you go to the website, do you get a message saying it's blocked by your ISP? No. Right to free speech is not the right to unhampered access. If I want to rant on a street corner about a controversial topic, that's free speech. It doesn't, however, give me a right to walk into someone's house and give the same speech without being prevented from doing so.

They put their website in Verison's house, they posted their content in AT&T's house. And the two companies tolerated them, but once that tolerance runs out, they have every right to kick them out."
technology,"Let's not strawman journalism into this. Alex Jones is not one.

And this was driven by his actions and people finally standing up to him being a toxic bully and not a witch hunt. The witch hunt was when he directed people after Sandy Hook families.

If an independent journalist wants to make a name for themselves, they do it through using the tools at hand to build credibility and value, two things InfoWars has a stark lack of.

And there are many smaller sites that go through the bigger sites to build following on, same as any other medium before the internet. You start small and work up the ladder."
technology,"I don’t buy this neoliberal “it’s just a business, like any other” argument for a second, but I definitely think banning Alex Jones is long overdue. And not even because he’s conservative. As others have pointed out, his disinformation campaign—intentional or not—has led to plenty of material, real-world harm to people. If that’s not grounds for at least SUSPENSION on an ideal social media platform, I don’t know what is.

With that all being said, it’s *entirely* ridiculous that this decision was left to a handful of corporate executives. This isn’t a coffee shop banning you for you to just pick another, this is the majority of your means to communicate with other people. Which yeah, email, phones, just plain talking—that’s a lot of communication for most of human history. *But it’s seriously disadvantaged relative to everyone else right now, and that’s the problem.*

But yeah, fuck Alex Jones. He got way more chances to get his shit in order than most people, and he pissed that away."
technology,">It won't be long until all these internet companies band together and create a list of people who would basically be banned from the internet.

Or until they sell exclusive access to the customer base to other conglomerates. Arguably, Google already does this.

If CNN and Joe McFace both upload a video to Youtube talking about something on CSPAN, Joe McFace is likely to be demonetized, no matter what he says (though he might win an appeal). CNN won't, no matter what *they* say. I assume the reason for that is that CNN has provided some sort of financial incentive to Alphabet to avoid that fate."
technology,"> but I have a general problem with big, multinational corporations controlling the information we can and cannot see

I don't necessarily disagree with that, but I don't know what the alternative is beyond working to add more competition to the internet.  YouTube, Apple, etc have the right to determine what they want to be associated with.  It's like Television in that respect.  A TV channel can chose what they air.  It's not only a matter of it being their right, it's a matter of good business.  Being associated with certain people can hurt them financially through what ad deals are available to them."
technology,"I didn’t say anything about Alex Jones. You said “Conservative voices shouldn’t be respected in the first place”. I disagree with that. Alex Jones is not Conservative and i don’t think he should be censored simply by virtue of the fact that YouTube and Twitter are selectively banning users who violate the TOS. 

But I’m glad you assume T_D is my favorite sub. Personally, my favorite sub is AskReddit, with my 2nd place being r/dankmemes because my sense of humor is stupid. Oh but right ohhh yeah Trump is my personal God and my favorite website in the world is the Trump website because I’m an evil Nazi. Your assumptions are fantastic."
technology,"This really feels like a strange instance to make a stand on, though. The problems you guys are talking about certainly exist, but these companies sat idly by while Jones did this shit for years. They aren’t attempting to control information with this instance, they’re doing it to cover their asses and made a calculated “risk”. I thought that was clear given the domino cascade of bans he received once these companies realized that they wouldn’t receive PR (and therefore monetary) backlash for banning him. People have been banned for far less; the issue those people had, though, is that they attracted too much negative attention. For Jones, that negative attention was always there and people got used to it. I get that this plays into the fallibility of mob-mentality that you’re talking about, but there are much better examples of the frightening power that a collective conscious has to bully people and entities into submitting to their will than Alex Jones. Companies will certainly take advantage of a seeming universal agreement with their banning of particular content or persons, but that doesn’t mean the agreement is without warrant. The issue there lies along the same lines that compel people to agree with the ban: a lot of people simply aren’t cognizant of what they consume or agree with and it’s negative implications. In short, don’t champion this instance to attempt to draw attention to this very real issue, use the vast amount of other shady actions that these same companies get away with because it flies under the radar. Broken clocks are right twice a day, but they still need fixing."
technology,"> Ultimately, the end user needs to abide by so many demands on their behaviour, that they might actually have more freedom on a system created entirely by the nation.

The thing is, those ""so many demands"" usually boil down to: Don't spread hate speech/lies, don't do or promote illegal activity, and don't be a total cock. 

If you think the government wouldn't have a longer list of rules that would never boil down as concisely, you're kidding yourself."
technology,"It's not a disagreement tho because at least in your simplified explanation your trying to mix freedom of being able to say what you want without government interfo, which is guranteed with freedom to hear?  And now it seems like you're saying ability to actually make a comment to the government. Which again doesn't hold water. A private company is not bound by the first amendment, if you found someone who trained carrier pigeons they have no obligation to let you use their service to send a message to the white house.  There are dozens of avenues by which you can make your voice heard.  I do believe the government has to have avenues through which the public can reach out but that doesn't extend to a private company. You can walk into a senators office, you can send mail through the postage system, you can call, you can email, you can start petitions.

But again I have to comes back to the simplest explanation, the freedom of speech does not apply to private companies like Reddit, Twitter, FB, Google etc.  

The text is 

>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The key word there is Congress. Twitter is not Congress. Congress is making now laws here. Trump can't block people because he is part of the government and thus bound to these rules. Twitter is not.  It's very specific language that's not really up to debate in the judicial system, it's very much settled. Now there are some things with protected classes and when private companies clash with other laws/amendments but in this case no Twitter is not infringing on your first amendment rights. "
technology,"They aren't removing your internet access or banning your ability to write on other mediums. As long as these companies have clear Terms of Service, the only issue should be people who are abusive/violent, not any sort of political affiliation.

If a Democrat were calling school shootings hoaxes and harrassing parents of slain children, while directing animus at minorities and all other sorts of incitements to violence...you're damn right I'd want them the fuck off my platform.

It just so happens that conspiracy theorists tend to be conservative these days, with all the cognitive dissonance going on in Trumpland.

TL;DR: Saying insane/stupid shit shouldn't be bannable. Saying stuff that puts people's lives in physical danger should be punished no matter your politics."
technology,">Do you think they should be regulated and get rid of anti-doxxing rules?

  Do I think reddit should be regulated? No, not really. The mods are already making it a shit show. I think the old reddit system before everything just got banned/deleted/locked of down voting/burying disliked content worked. Users should decide what they like to see; not mods controlling what you can/cannot see.


> I can force ABC, CBS, Fox or other major channels to broadcast my SHOW...

  Yes, you practically can if you have enough money to give the Rupert Murdoch types. Sinclair Broadcast Group did this and everyone conveniently forgot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo  The local news stations were dictated on what to say. But that is just a little side note.
  
  There is an important distinction between the major internet based companies and other companies such as news. TV/legacy news has many equally strong political bases from BBC, Breitbart to Al Jazeera and a number of alternatives if one outlet refuses to cover a certain story with integrity. For example older conservative baby boomers keep conservative legacy news media like Fox alive. Fox will always have a different approach to CNN on how it covers the same piece of news. These same people keeping legacy media alive are befuddled by the internet. There is no monopoly on news and there is no huge moral obligation on one news outlet to be impartial because of this. This is different to big tech.

   Google/social media platforms are dominantly left wing (based in Silicon Valley) and have made virtual monopolies on the most influential source of media consumption the coming generations will use; the internet. For example Google conducting %90 of internet searches means that advertising companies will always favour keeping Google in business versus taking a financial risk on another platform with less regulation. Running a server for any website with real usage is prohibitively expensive for most. This means that a small handful of companies will have the most political influence on the planet in the coming decades. It is in good faith to allow conservatives and conspiracy theorists access to your platform if that platform has been monopolized. By disallowing these people Google/FB/Twitter have broken good faith and must be treated as a monopoly and regulated as such.    
"
technology,"I do. If you read my comment and took a second to consider the arguments then you would understand that. The sole point of my comment is that these two situations are very similar.

Net Neutrality is saying big telecom companies should not be able to hamper the ability of people to access certain kinds of information just because they may not like it or they disagree with it.

Here we have Alex Jones who in a collaborative effort has been simultaneously banned by the biggest websites on the internet at this exact moment. 

I believe you are a hypocrite if you supported net neutrality because big companies shouldn't have control that much control over the free flow of information and if you also support the collaborative and conscious choice to simultaneously ban Alex Jones and infowars from their sites."
technology,"I kind of agree with this, but for Alex Jones, the line of decency has been crossed far too many times for it to be a problem considering free speech. I truly feel like the major information providers you’ve mentioned (and others) have been doing an amazing job at trying to monitor bias selection in their platforms. That’s not to say that mistakes haven’t been made like with Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, but they all try their best to not be pulled in a partisan direction."
technology,"As an adult I find little comfort in people telling me I'm not allowed to listen to someone for my own good.

>The line we’ve sort of drawn over the centuries just runs parallel with general decency and common sense in the form of laws/ social taboos.

I think if you delve into those lines you would find many of them to be quite horrifying today.  Let's not forget those social taboos were things like interracial relationships and homosexuality.  

>The guy who yells fire in a crowded theater as a joke and results in people dying?

And in particular that supreme court case was an analogy used to destroy the free speech rights of anti-war activists against WWI.  Who by the way, turned out to be the ones correctly pointing out the real fire."
technology,"You're totally right. If you consider Alex Jones some rightwing messiah, you need to do some soul searching. I don't know, is Alex Jones rightwing? Maybe I'm the one losing touch. Cause I always thought he was just insane. Further, he definitely wasn't banned for his political views, but for much worse. If a leftwinger was banned after doxxing people, harassing terrorist attack victims, veiled death threats, disinformation, incitement, etc- I wouldn't pretend it was because of their political views.

However, OP's point still stands. We cannot allow already near monopolies to get too trigger happy. Because we all know pulling ads off certain politically driven content is already an issue these companies are practicing- and it is a form of censorship.

We need to make it known to these multibillion dollar mega corporations that while we understand purging him was a necessary evil... we weren't necessarily happy about it. And we are deeply concerned about the practice becoming a new norm."
technology,"Inciting violence is not protected speech.  There is no useful reason for the term “hate speech”, if that is what is truly meant.

Re: your points about private companies can do what they want - when the shoe is on the other foot...

We are near a point where the courts will have to decide when and if a social media company is a medium of free speech.

I don’t know how that will play out, but it is time to find out."
technology,"If that is the case why are the bans coming out now so many years afterwards? Why not ban him at the time of him doing all those atrocious things? Why wait and why make a collaborative effort to de-platform him?

I wouldn't hold this belief if he got banned after harassing and doxxing those people when it happened or soon after, but Sandy Hook was 6 years ago. Alex Jones has since tried to cover up that dark part of his past and now accepts the shooting is real. If this banning was really because of that, why the extremely delayed reaction? I just don't believe it, but it's a lot easier to see and believe that he's being hit because he's the easier target."
technology,"If a small business owner got connections with the federal government for domestic spying cooperation in exchange for not getting regulated, and whatever other connections that aren't blatantly obvious, I probably wouldn't want that small business owner being able to infringe on someone's speech either.

To say these companies aren't monopolies is absurd, and to say ""this isn't suppression of free speech because it's a private company"" just because it's someone you don't like is a bad road to go down. These companies are multi billion dollar international conglomerates that have shown they're willing to deal behind closed doors with multiple governments. To give them the right to take away the best form of having a voice just because you don't like the person who is being suppressed is a terrible idea.

Also, nothing Alex Jones has done is nearly as bad as NBC, CNN, and Fox being propaganda arms to push false narratives to allow us to go commit war crimes in the middle east, and none of them are banned from contributing to the media."
technology,"Wait, I've been told for years that America is superior to to the rest of the Western world because it's Constitution protects freedom of speech from **government** suppression. And that places like Germany and the UK are literally dystopian hellscapes straight out of the pages of 1984 because their governments occasional give people nominal fines for hate speech. 

But now you are telling me that private corporations can be just as suppressive of freedom of speech, since they control the public spaces in which people actually communicate with each other in the modern world?

And perhaps that the massive concentration of media ownership in America means that it isn't the free-speechiest country in the world after all?

Nah, that would be going way too far.
"
technology,"Depends on the government. But I know of words that I can't even mention, not use, mention, that are legal to mention, but will be punished on most platforms. There are concepts and questions that one may express that are fully legal to express, but will absolutely get punished on most platforms. 

So yeah, you have less freedom on private platforms. I'm not even coming to the conclusion that this is a good or a bad thing. We're just lucky that this era of communication is done under secular companies and our morality roughly lines up with theirs. At most your mention of cock would get you banned from a Christian minecraft server, rather than having the site host sending the admins a demand to take down your comment."
technology,">He's free to start whatever kind of service he wants. So are you.

Right, but how do you think people will access your service? Maybe, just maybe through Google search which processes %90 of search requests each year. Because of Googles prevalence wouldn't you say that almost have become a quasi public utility? They could manipulate search results so my service couldn't be found until page 10 of results, safely hidden away from %90 of internet users. Big Tech could make it so I couldn't get the actual url to my followers that easily because I was banned from FB, Twitter, Youtube etc. 

I know you can start a basic website. My point is that since Google/Twitter/FB has a virtual monopoly shouldn't they either act in good will on behalf of all legal content creators or be regulated by the government as a monopoly? "
technology,"I also know that in some of these cases what happens is that CNN already has advertisements ready to roll. So now instead of Youtube fetching ads, CNN runs their own on youtube for their own videos. 

I also wouldn't be surprised if a lot of these companies just have like ""get out of jail free cards"" that makes them basically untouchable to youtube. I remember the Vegas shooting incident where Caisey Nicestat or whatever his name his got demonitized for saying the add rev would be donated to the vegas shooting while a CNN report got monetized. Their response to Caisey at the time was that shootings get demonetized no exceptions. Such a clownfest"
technology,">1st amendment isn’t really doing what it was intended

The 1st amendment was never intended to apply to anything but government. No one has ever had 1st amendment rights working for a private business. This is why people get fired all the time for saying stupid shit on social media.

A perfect example of this was during the funeral of a NYPD officer, some guy blasted ""Fuck the Police"" from his apartment window overlooking where the funeral ceremony was. The police went to his apartment to **ask him** to turn it off but he didn't, and that was it. They didn't and couldn't do anything more because of the 1st amendment. However, the landlord evicted him afterwards because of his actions. 1st amendment doesn't protect him from his landlord who was simply disgusted by his bullshit."
technology,"Yeah but when someone defrauds you you’re happy when the police arrest them. Rules aren’t perfect because humans make rules. Just because we’ve made some mistakes over the last 4 thousand years doesn’t mean anarchy is the answer. 

In this case we’re talking about a privately owned and run business that is completely optional for people to use. They have the right to deny service just like any other business because Twitter isn’t a utility "
technology,"> It's a clear attempt by gigantic internet companies to take down a smaller news org. 

I guess it's important we make a clear distinction between news and disinformation. There is a clear difference. Maybe we should ask them to make the distinction.

> Problem is that this certainly won't be the last time they do it. 

I too am concerned about this. We all are. There are actual substantive debates to be had about who they should be able to ban/deny access to ad dollars. Particularly since they are effectively the front door to the modern Internet. But this current crop of extremists really aren't making that debate easy when it's nothing but spin/mudslinging/alternate reality nonsense whenever the issue is brought up. They force us to pick a side and this shouldn't be a ""pick a side"" issue. With the vocal minority of extremists like Alex Jones gone, hopefully we can begin to have that debate."
technology,"We live in a world of smartphones and apps. Make no mistake, the internet will be borderline unrecognizable in two decades - it'll be nothing but a communications protocol for Snapchat v5 and Zuckbook v9. Your kids won't know what a webring is, assuming that even you do. Your grandkids will grow up barely understanding what a browser is. It's going to be apps and app stores and advertisement CDNs, and nothing else. "
technology,"They should catch more murderers and rapists, and YouTube should catch more people who violate their TOS, and ban them. But they won’t, because they selectively ban based on political ideologies. Though Alex Jones isn’t a classical Conservative, the particular people who like his conspiracies are Conservatives, so Twitter FB and YT made a lateral move to ban him on all 3 sites. They literally colluded and made a joint effort to take Jones off of their sites to show his followers they aren’t welcome. But I don’t see them do the same for conspiracy theorists who leftists enjoy, such as the people who think 9/11 was an inside job, or conspiracy theorists who harass political constituents about a baseless Russia accusation. 

Face it; it was an ideological move and nothing more. And now that they show that they ban people in that fashion, these companies will never recover. Either they apply the rules fairly, or not at all."
technology,"My brain actually hurt reading that. Please stop making these strawman arguments and analogies. You're being very intellectually dishonest with them and with your arguments.

Netflix is a streaming service that provides access to premium copyrighted content from other companies. It charges a fee to use their service, and if you don't want to use it you have plenty of other viable alternatives like the library, hulu, amazoninstantvideo, etc. 

Your ISP also charges you for accessing the internet. Youtube only doesn't charge you because they stay afloat by charging advertisers to advertise on their website. Facebook and Twitter do the same. 

The main difference between Netflix's content and Youtube's content is that the people who create the content for Netflix create it with the intent of making money by charging you in some way to see it which they do through netflix. In Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter's case Alex Jones creates the content with the intent of having it be seen by anyone free of charge. He wants to freely spread information, but his ability to do so is being throttled by these websites which is why I connect this to the way Netflix would want to give content to you but they are being throttled by an ISP."
technology,"The ""charge"" of twitter is obeying the rules. He did not, he got shitcanned.

And besides that, they *gave* him a chance. They gave him multiple warnings, temporary suspensions, etc. After that it's on him to fucking obey the rules or get punished for it.

The only hypocrisy here is all these alt-righters who suddenly *really* think the market needs regulating. All the people crying ""censorship"" who gleefully attempt to silence those they agree with through harassment."
technology,"Maybe you just need more friends, kiddo

How do you and your friends share funny content? How do you talk to your friends as a whole? How do you share your pictures with your friends? Where you do you keep everyone in your life updated? Is YouTube, Reddit, Instagram, Twitter, etc... not a major form of entertainment you enjoy?

As for profit businesses, they've forced their ways into our lives, your opinion doesn't matter, this is a fact. You think facebook is petitioning for less users? Come on man, you can't be that dull.

If social media wasn't a social necessity, people would opt out, but that doesn't happen."
technology,"Oh stop with this technocratic fearmongering horse shit.

Alex Jones had a Twitter account for over 10 years. Over that time he said every crazy thing he could think of, harassed someone damn near everyday, and made a fake news platform which encouraged trolls to spread their misery among the internet. He was only ever banned once he livestreamed himself screaming and panting insults at another man's face for ten straight minutes.

These companies' policies are not that hard to follow. You're on reddit and you know tonight you're not going to get banned unless you pull some real outlandish crazy shit. To pretend like any service owes Alex Jones anything is hilarious and ridiculous."
technology,"Oh shut the fuck up. If Alex Jones want to post rants and dox people, he can go to Gab.ai. He can go on Tumblr, he can come here and make his own fucking subreddit. Reddit supports both video, photo, and text posting. So tell me again how he has been left with 0 way of communicating because he got banned from twitter and youtube?

Being the biggest most popular sites doesn't make them the *only* sites. So what you're saying is tantamount to whining not that you have no platform, but that you don't have a platform that give you a wide enough audience to support your frail yet strangely inflated ego."
technology,"> If the tech companies start banning people purely for stating political views then I'll agree with you.

Defense Distributed. Everything they did was legal, they've gone out of their way to defer to every unconstitutional ruling handed down to them. They abide by every site's TOS. And yet you can't link their products (CNC and 3D printer instructions for firearm parts) on facebook. And their fundraising videos were taken down by youtube, as well as a shitload of videos talking about them. No TOS violations - it was purely arbitrary. Every appeal ignored. 

That's fucking censorship right there, because for some reason, the same silicon valley elites who were willing to ""disrupt"" every other aspect of modern life ended up in a mad panic about the thought of someone ""disrupting"" the balance of physical power, even if its nothing but a 3d printed plastic pistol that's in every way inferior to a slamfire shotgun you can make with $10 of materials from home depot and 20 minutes of effort. As opposed to a $500 3d printer, God only knows how much of X specific filament, a shitload of printing knowledge - just to print a single-shot .380 pistol that'll explode on the second shot like something you'd expect in a poorly-coded Borderlands clone. "
technology,"It's amazing how ridiculous what you're saying is about a word you clearly haven't bothered to even look up. Was the implementation of the 8 hour workday, abolition of child labor, and woman's suffrage tyrannical implementations of morality? Is Theodore Roosevelt's America right up there with Mao's China? The distortion of language is incredible - now everything from Nazis to European socialism to American progressivism to neoliberal centrists like Obama are all the same as Soviet communism."
technology,"I have no idea what a storesecond is.

Also, why the fuck would a store let back in someone caught shoplifting, or someone who shoplifted in a store next to theirs? It's not discrimination to deny entry to CRIMINALS... Unless you're also fine with criminals teaching at schools or working with the elderly.

>Discrimination is literally just ""treating someone differently""

No? You don't know what you're even talking about.

>the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

This is discrimination. UNJUST or PREJUDICIAL. It's not prejudice if you judge someone based on his actions and crimes, it's just logic."
technology,"In a way, we've been lucky our politicians were old and didn't understand how to manipulate the online media.

The new generation of politicians are keenly aware of how to get to the top of someone's Instagram feed and get their vote.

The only benefit is they know they are under constant surveillance. It might make them fear breaking the rules so much. Well the smart ones that rise to the top maybe.

Each generation, politicians become a little less corrupt on average but politics moves slowly. Usually the older guy doesn't mind closing the loop holes he exploited before leaving office as his final act to seem good to the people."
technology,"This is basically my concern in a nutshell.

I do not weep for Alex Jones, but I weep for what *might* happen when this kind of behavior becomes normalized.

Some of the richest and most powerful people in the world (Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, etc) could just buy Facebook, Reddit, and other major social media outlets and do exactly to the left as they're doing to the right.

Is this wise? Do we really want to open Pandora's Box in this way?"
technology,"Walmart is one retailer and not even the largest. Furthermore, I know of no incident in which Walmart and Amazon sat down together and decided that they'd both agree to stop selling Kenmore Vacuums (or whatever). In fact, I think that's illegal.

Most of Big Tech banned Jones *on the same day*. He hadn't even said anything particularly offensive on that day, to my knowledge. I think it was a Monday morning.

Edit: that explicit lyrics example is really bad. There was a third party rating service which determined explicit content and there were clear guidelines for what an artist could or couldn't say. To my knowledge, nobody ever argued ""bias"" in enforcement, because there was very little room for interpretation in the rules.

Big Tech is behaving nothing like the recording industry, music retailers and rating agencies were with the explicit content labels."
technology,"That's an interesting issue and also deserves public discussion but a link to a production file for a functioning weapon is and should be treated as distinct from freedom of expression of ideas in the form of words and images.

I don't have any problem with censoring production methods for bombs or explosives, so I don't see why I should be that concerned about efforts to limit dissemination of an impractical and unreliable weapon that no reasonable person would want to entrust their personal defense to. 

We do need to address the issues that come with increasing ease of fabricating weapons because the technology will only expand, but I don't see this as a fundamentally related to the first amendment, it's much more a question of how we chose to interpret the second."
technology,"Uh huh.

And criminals aren't a ""group, class or category to which the person belongs"". You aren't being discriminated against if you broke the law and people distrust you based on your history.

If a teacher is caught molesting a kid and his license gets revoked, he isn't being discriminated against.

If a bankrupt person goes to a new bank to get a loan and is denied, he's not being discriminated against.

If your friend breaks your DVD and wants to borrow something again, you aren't discriminating against him if you know he's not trustworthy.

the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex."
technology,"> Though Alex Jones isn’t a classical Conservative, the particular people who like his conspiracies are Conservatives, so Twitter FB and YT made a lateral move to ban him on all 3 sites. 

Ah yes! That's precisely the reason he was banned, and not because the guy was, I repeat: a moron that harasses numerous individuals in public (often implying threats of violence) and claims the government is turning frogs gay or that sandy hook was a hoax -- all so he can advertise his literal pills. Yes, 

Sorry, but if AWS is hosting child porn or a website that incites violence, they should take that shit down. Same goes with youtube, fb, twitter, etc. This isn't really fucking complicated - it's totally fine to be a conservative and to have conservative views. It's really not okay to be inciting violence or manipulating viewers.

If I have ""ItzWarty's wall of put any shitty drawing here"" on my house and you put your profane bullshit, i'm ripping it down. The people who run large corporations can do the same, I don't give a shit about your ideology - I'm not going to enable your profane shit. 

You're so hell bent on this being some anti-convervative conspiracy it's hilarious.

> They literally colluded and made a joint effort to take Jones off of their sites to show his followers they aren’t welcome. 

Collusion! I love that word. Let's reappropriate it to take the focus away from Trump. This isn't really complicated, it's not really a conspiracy though I could see how a nutjob might see things that way. Jones starts going out of his way to become notorious nationwide for inciting violence and harassing people. It gives him boatloads of money after all. All of a sudden he's in the spotlight and the public knows YouTube/Twitter are hosting that and KKK bullshit, so the public wants that off because, you know, they're literally shooting up pizza restaurants or some shit and the huge voice behind crap like charlotesville (which our PResident also has a part in). 

It's really not complicated: don't incite fucking murder and maybe you won't get banned from the site. If you start doing that everywhere, you shouldn't be surprised if that happens everywhere.

And dear god, private corporations aren't subject to your freeze peaches - if you want that, you can go to voat or child porn websites that probably (though maybe not) won't be in favor of your vitriol. Unfortunately it seems every community that accepts the far-right descends into batshit crazies and racism, and it seems the not-so-batshit crazy conservatives and right-leaning independents (of which I once considered myself idealistically) haven't been able to build a space that doesn't tolerate that hate.

> But I don’t see them do the same for conspiracy theorists who leftists enjoy, such as the people who think 9/11 was an inside job, or conspiracy theorists who harass political constituents about a baseless Russia accusation.

That's not a fucking leftist conspiracy. Like, what prominent leftists believe 9/11 was an inside job? Holy fuck, I've literally just gotten brain cancer reading your shit. You came across as somewhat educated in your previous comments but holy fuck I was wrong.

Russia isn't a fucking conspiracy either, I don't know how you can ignore the many independent agencies who have uncovered the same trail from various angles, like dear god I don't know how you can have your head so far up your ass. On either side of the political spectrum, the narrative isn't even whether Russia as a conspiracy happened - it's about what happened and who was involved. I'm done talking with you, I can't convince a conspiracy theorist that their batshit views are insane."
technology,"Criminal is definitely a class to which one may belong.

Cambridge:
the treatment of a person or particular group of people differently, in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated:
Some immigrants were victims of discrimination.
The law made racial discrimination in employment a serious crime.
She claims she is a victim of age discrimination.
​
politics & government Discrimination is also prejudice against people and a refusal to give them their rights.

discrimination noun [ U ] (SEEING A DIFFERENCE)

​
the ability to judge the quality of something based on its difference from other, similar things:
He showed discrimination in his reading habits.
(Definition of “discrimination” from the Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary © Cambridge University Press)

English
  Contents
“discrimination” in English

 See all translations
discrimination
noun [ U ] UK ​ /dɪˌskrɪm.ɪˈneɪ.ʃən/ US ​ /dɪˌskrɪm.əˈneɪ.ʃən/
discrimination noun [ U ] (DIFFERENT TREATMENT)

​
C1 treating a person or particular group of people differently, especially in a worse way from the way in which you treat other people, because of their skin colour, sex, sexuality, etc.:
racial/sex/age discrimination
Until 1986 most companies would not even allow women to take the exams, but such blatant discrimination is now disappearing.
More examples

AIDS victims often experience social ostracism and discrimination.
There should be no discrimination on the grounds of colour.
She believes the research understates the amount of discrimination women suffer.
She will be remembered as an unrelenting opponent of racial discrimination.
The law has done little to prevent racial discrimination and inequality.
Thesaurus: synonyms and related words

discrimination noun [ U ] (SEEING A DIFFERENCE)

​
formal the ability to see the difference between two things or people
Thesaurus: synonyms and related words


(Definition of “discrimination” from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus © Cambridge University Press)

Business
“discrimination” in Business English

 See all translations
discrimination
noun [ U ] UK ​ /dɪˌskrɪmɪˈneɪʃən/ US ​  
​
the practice of treating particular people, companies, or products differently from others, especially in an unfair way:
He will work in partnership with a range of organizations to help eliminate discrimination against disabled people.
victims/targets of discrimination People sometimes have difficulty perceiving themselves as victims of discrimination.
discrimination on the basis of/grounds of sth Federal law bans discrimination on the basis of gender.
discrimination between sth (and sth) The new laws reduce the possibility of unfair discrimination between companies seeking to list on the Exchange.
racial/sex/age discrimination
fight/prohibit/tackle discrimination
The commission was created to address issues of discrimination in the workplace.
allegations/claims/complaints of discrimination
a discrimination case/lawsuit
See also"
technology,">I'm not sure I agree that providing files for building your own guns comes under ""political views"". You can link to pro 2nd amendment websites all day long and no one will censor you.

You sure as fuck can't link to codeisfreespeech[dot]com, a pro-2A site that legally allows for the download of firearm component schematics and machine instruction sets. Not even here on reddit. Even Google censors it. Go try posting the full link here, enjoy that 3-day ban. You're objectively and provably wrong. 

>Anyway there was several lawsuits about this

And the end result was that Defense Distributed cannot freely hand out blueprints. So they sell them. For $0.00, if you want. Anyone else can hand them out, though. So it remains until the remaining suits resolve, although it's pretty obvious how it'll turn out given that it's been cleared by the feds and it's states that are trying to block it. Although I'd love to see it go to the supreme court because the precedents THAT would set will be absolutely fucking glorious. 

edit: Come on, you censorious, freedom-hating fucksticks. Downvote me more. Provide no arguments. Sound off, silently. Tell us how much you hate freedom of speech. I assure you - if Defense Distributed goes down, every decision that allows you to encrypt your traffic will suddenly die, and the CIA will be demanding that every major site remove HTTPS within a few years. The only risk I face is dying of laughter as I sniff your plaintext credentials at Starbucks. "
technology,">I'm personally fine with leaving it there

Not sure if maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but thats not the line that these social media websites are using. Alex Jones is not illiciting any immediate danger. If somebody tried to arrest Alex Jones for dangerous speech, and took it to court, Alex Jones would win. So currently the social media websites are setting their own line. And yeah it's easy to say ""just don't use facebook"" but honestly, what alternative is there? As the comments were saying earlier, imagine if the shoe was on the other foot. Imagine if youtube started censoring opinions that you care about. Would you move to vimeo? Or just deal with it and continue watching youtube, letting their biases influence your content? "
technology,"I love how you start every reply with some form of ""shut the fuck up"". It makes having a conversation with such a pleasant person so nice.

He's already going to tumblr, I've never heard of gabai until now, and I doubt he'd come here. I know he's on one for now, but the other two I'm fairly certain he doesn't have a reddit or gab.ai. That really doesn't change the fact that he just got hit in a collaborative move by a group of the biggest platforms on the internet at this moment in order to deplatform him and reduce his influence on the internet.

And again I go back to my point on Net Neutrality. People didn't like it when their ability to access information could be throttled and hampered. Here we have the throttling and hampering of information put out by infowars and Alex Jones. 

When your ability to access info is hampered, at some point you stop trying to seek it out like a youtube video that keeps stuttering from a slow internet connection. Eventually you would just close the window and do something else.

I'm going to make this my last comment to you because it's clear that you hold some vitrol in regard to this subject and that you have no intention of having your mind changed by our conversation."
technology,"The fuck is this example? Who said anything about free of charge? ISPs charge for internet, that's how utilities work. Beyond that, Netflix isn't a social network. Netflix, like an ISP, charges for its content. Conversely, mainstream social networks don't have a use fee.

Furthermore, the house thing is a poor example. Comparing someone browsing the internet to a multi-million user website as similar 'houses' is absolutely disingenuous.

Consider instead, you are a car on the road and, for arguments sake, the social networks are the only supermarkets in town. If every supermarket refused to serve particular people, that would certainly be objectionable... If you don't like the supermarket example, it's analogous to just about any other business.

If your business is designed to facilitate communication (telecom, ISP, reddit), especially when it is as integral to the modern culture as Twitter, Facebook, etc. are, it is morally objectionable to a degree surpassing the right of a non-being to freely associate. For the same reason that a bakery has to provide basic service to all customers equally, so should a SMC be required to provide basic service to all of *theirs*."
technology,"I read both of your replies. I didn't know I was commenting to the same person. And I'm not a Reddit stalker, so I don't look at people's old posts. That shit is lame and I bash Reddit stalking whenever it happens. It's sad, really, but those people just don't get it because they are sad. Anyway, aren't you suddenly really thinking the market *doesn't* need regulating? Aren't you normally crying ""freedom of speech"" while now being gleeful that one you disagree with is being silenced?"
technology,"> That's an interesting issue and also deserves public discussion but a link to a production file for a functioning weapon is and should be treated as distinct from freedom of expression of ideas in the form of words and images.

It's computer code. It's the same stuff that allows you to use HTTPS. You can thank the Crypto Wars of the 90s for that - encryption is no longer a munition under ITAR. And now, neither are semi-automatic firearms under .50 caliber. 

Trust me here, this is crypto wars 2.0. Any justification used to ban firearm instruction sets will result in the collapse of the internet. Like, all of it. No encryption, at all. Have fun on your open wifi networks with no SSL! 

>I don't have any problem with censoring production methods for bombs or explosives

I do. How about blueprints for bulldozers? They're incredibly dangerous and destructive. What about model rockets? Is stump remover now illegal? What about general petrochemical knowledge? 

>We do need to address the issues that come with increasing ease of fabricating weapons because the technology will only expand

Happily, we have an entire constitutional amendment that basically says ""no, you can't"". Now fuck off and let me have my 80% lowers. If you disagree, I'll serialize one of them with your name and a picture of a dick. 

>it's much more a question of how we chose to interpret the second.

There's only one way to ""interpret"" it. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. 

"
technology,"> Re: your points about private companies can do what they want - when the shoe is on the other foot...

You're framing this as a left/right thing, and that's the issue. Ignore politics here, all we have is media platforms refusing to host a violent man's ramblings.

It only just so happens that Alex Jones' supporters tend to be fringe right, but I wouldn't want to associate him with conservatives as a whole.

I wouldn't feel any different if Twitter banned some fringe leftist that was telling their supporters to attack NRA members or some shit."
technology,"Twitter is a business that deal directly in communication. Anything that deals directly with mass communication is vital to society. 


And I understand the ""difference"", I just don't see it being as big of a ""difference"". That's a difference of opinion, not a lack of understanding. Disagreeing with you does not mean I don't understand. That is something we all need to stop doing. Respect people's opinions instead of dismissing them as coming from a place of ignorance. You are essentially saying anyone who disagrees is ignorant and dumb. Come on, you can do better than that. "
technology,"As if Facebook, Google, and fucking Apple don’t have the cash...

And I don’t know about that. This seems very much in the realm of “not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good”. In case, it’d better than the half-assed algorithms we have now by a damn sight.

And I’ll reiterate, it’s *really* not that fuckin hard to tell fabricated bullshit from reality. Even from disputed, statistical-gray-area reality. The fact that goddamn Alex Jones is the straw that broke the camel’s back is evidence enough of that. We don’t need ethics experts and formal logicians here, we just need some fairly pedestrian critical thinking skills. The kinda shit you learn from a middle school science class is more than enough to debunk and pull some of the worst shit out there now."
technology,"And there's the bakery argument.

Guess what, bakeries *don't* need to provide service to all customers. If I walked into a baker's and decided to take a shit on the floor, do they legally have the obligation to still serve me? Even if they were the only bakery in town, they'd stop me from shopping there. 

I'd like to remind you that Alex Jones has only recently been banned, after years on the site, after years on the app store. *He was allowed to be there, but violated their rules, and as a result is no longer allowed there.*

If he'd tried to join up, and was told that he is not welcome there before he even had a chance to create an account or make a post, then yeah, your argument might hold water. But he wasn't prevented from posting.

Again, just because they're the only 'supermarket' in town, doesn't mean they can't ban someone for violating their rules. I can't just walk into the only walmart in town and set fire to the displays, *and* retain the right to return whenever I feel like it. You can't have your cake and eat it too."
technology,">If you're talking on a phone or over the internet, you've got to accept that privacy is no longer a guarantee (unless you're using an encrypted service, which Facebook is not),

I disagree.  If I use the phone, I should be able to know that my conversation is private.and uncensored.  This should be guaranteed by law.  It puts no undue burden on the company but has a huge positive influence on society.  This should be regulated and should be law.  I don't see any reason for it not to be."
technology,"And pray tell me, Sir Webdev, what should a humble sysadmin when his registrar seizes you domain a day after a transfer, redirecting it? ICANN says you can't transfer it again for 30 days. Your domain, something that's a fundamental cornerstone of the internet, is no longer in your control because a company changed their TOS specifically to make it ok for them to take it. What then, Mr. Webdev? How's your web framework and firewall going to stop that? 

>If ISIS could keep websites up with reasonable amounts of uptime

It helps that Twitter doesn't ban their accounts, which get far more reach than the actual sites. Neither does Facebook, for that matter, unless they get tons of attention from the west. 

>God knows his sycophants give him enough money to keep a server online already.

Which will do lots of good when he gets delisted by Google when they next change their TOS. "
technology,"The thing is, it’s not physically impossible to recreate these services.  Tech is already there, information (on creating these services) is abundant, and creating a server and coding a search engine/social media, while not easy, is not an impossible task (not to mention existing smaller competition).

Now problem is the user base, but unless these tech companies (note plural) all conspire together to block all info on one subject simultaneously (to censor new service), government monoplay law will (or should...) come into play.  Information about new service will get out, and one way or another, a specific censorship will fail.  Market does have power to influence these services, like we are seeing with decline of Facebook now.

For crude analogy/real example, quite literally all of South Korea’s mainstream media were (are) conservative and pretty biased, think Fox News around Bush Jr. era level, in terms of politics sometimes.  When shit started hitting the fan after President Lee MB stole m(b?)illions of tax through corruption and lying, some people started getting sick of MSM not covering all these wrongdoings.  Some journalists left or got fired for trying to expose it, and they created podcast stations to spread their news.

However, Pres. Lee is pretty smart and was excellent at appearing like nothing wrong or bad was happening, so these podcasts didn’t take off really, only having listeners on far progressives.

But then came impeached-president Park GH.  She managed to fuck things up to tremendous scales (300~ high schoolers were drowned, while nation waited and watched, there were last words of students sent to their prents via text...) and the podcasts took off, since MSM still refused to investigate for truth.  Now the podcasts have their own share of media, pulling a non-trivial amount of viewership, enough to be recognized by MSM and force them to be more neutral (or risk losing viewership)."
technology,"> There's only a few tech companies that control a lot of what people see online. Google/YT, Reddit, Twitter, Facebook...so much internet traffic is directed there, they're the main platforms and they control so much information, and are known to manipulate it. Imagine if instead, they favored alt-right viewpoints, and banned progressives? In fact, some leftists are ALREADY being censored.

This is completely true, but the entire reason they are the most popular sites is because they, generally, cater to the most popular viewpoints (of a younger generation), which tend to be progressive. Were the entirety of society to shift authoritatively, perhaps this could be an issue, but it would be a sign of the issue and not the cause. If Trump took over Google by force tomorrow, people would just stop using Google."
technology,"Anything that deals directly with mass communication is vital to society.

By that logic, if I wanted to rent a billboard with the sole intention of posting a big photo of a diseased dick across it, legally they aren't allowed to refuse me, because it's mass communication and therefore my right to do so.

If I wanted to purchase an ad block on Fox News to read out Sean Hannity slashfics, legally they aren't allowed to refuse, because they're mass communication and therefore vital to society, and so have a legal obligation to sell me that ad space. 

If I were to break into a news studio, and tell the whole country to rise up in revolt, legally they wouldn't be allowed to stop the broadcast, prevent me from talking, or remove me from the premises, because that would be a violation of my free speech?"
technology,"My only issue with the fake news topic is on the issue of what gets classified as actual fake news and what gets classified as fake news because perhaps it's debatable and doesn't fit the narative or what have you. I'm never a fan of giving the government the ability to proctor what kind of speech is acceptable and what kind of speech isn't, but I do believe that actual fake news is something that shouldn't be on the internet. At this moment I believe the best way to counteract it is to let people decide for themselves through critical thinking. I've personally seen that method being fairly effective.

I don't think the conversation should be started after the purge, but before. Then again I am a bit of a free speech absolutist (minus yelling fire in a crowded theatre, violence, etc.). I think we shouldn't make it acceptable for extremists to be ousted for their speech because that's always where the death of free speech starts. I just hate that every time you argue it you not only argue on the side of speech but the opposition also tries to push you into a corner where you argue on the side of the person you try defending. Idc about Alex Jones, I obviously don't agree with a lot of what he says, and I don't even keep up with all his antics but people still try to push me into his corner on the issues then proudly say ""he's had it coming"" when that's not even what this is about.

I'm not saying Alex Jones shouldn't be banned. Perhaps he should and perhaps he should even face more consequences for his actions, but that's not what any of this is about. It's about the collaborative attack on an individual and a news org by a group of the most powerful internet websites on this planet. I don't think he should be banned like this and like I said before I very much oppose the direction this whole issue is going in. 

As the wise Kanye once said, ""No one man should have all that power.""

It'll likely get ignored though since most conservatives are free market and most liberals support the banning of Alex Jones."
technology,"I mean for me it all comes back to that it’s a business. If I go on sprite.com and write fuck sprite, I think it’s they’re prerogative to delete that and control the narrative since it’s their space. Especially so I think with social media companies because it’s their actual product. I think they’re totally in the right to decide what they do and and don’t want on their site because it’s an opt in service that is unessential. I don’t have to agree with their decisions but I also don’t have to use their product. When this gets complicated though is when we start talking about something a little more like an “entity” like google. Is an unbiased internet search a human right? Should it be if not? A case could certainly be made that many people need google just as much as they need utilities. Nuking net neutrality has ironically blown up in the faces of the very same conservatives that where paid off to get rid of it "
technology," that's far from the first time somebody has started a harassment movement. One immediate example that comes to mind was [this ""art"" project](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattress_Performance_(Carry_That_Weight)), where a girl pretended to have been raped and carried a mattress around. The boy she accused was harassed by many. Maybe this girl should have been banned from social media? If I remember correctly, I believe the MeToo movement had a lot of witch hunts, false allegations, and harassment as well. There are definitely tons of other witch hunts I've heard of over the years, and I'm definitely not saying its a good thing, but never have I seen anybody get banned for it

Edit: [here's another example](http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/05/transracialism-article-controversy.html). This one is probably better because it actually started from social media"
technology,"Their ubiquity makes them borderline mandatory for the purposes of any meaningful degree of communication in the modern world. They are the medium just like air is for direct verbal communication. That is what I find concerning. The situation is not conducive to an individuals liberty. If someone could just get removed from effectively communicating, does that mean that terms of service become another layer of law, decided outside of public influence, that we are beholden to?"
technology,"Domain names are trickier and I don’t have a concrete answer for that particular question. I imagine there is a free speech registrar somewhere that will let you say literally whatever you want. If not, a sympathetic government will likely let you use their state owned registrar. 

Past that, IP addresses still work fine for direct access and since you’re convinced they’ll be kicked off Google entirely, might as well embrace the IP address.

I see your point but it’s easy to get around. You’re right, someone might lose a few domain names until they find a friendly registrar and that is unfortunate. My personal belief would be for a registrar to inform those accounts that they have 90 days to move the domain or they will release it back to the domain authority. "
technology,"This is ridiculous slippery slope argument.

There is a baseline that vast majority can agree on, which is human rights.  As in, rights everyone have regardless of skin color, gender, sexual orientation, and other characteristics of which a person cannot control.

And these rights include, but not limited to, life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (outlined by one of US’a founding documents), which includes things like not being murdered, assaulted, harassed, robbed, etc.

And yes, speech is a part of it, but here’s the kicker.  Your right to free speech *ends* where it violates others’ rights.

Alex Jones clearly and numerously crossed these lines, and his ban is justified.  If you can’t see that he hasn’t crossed the line, then you are legitimately brainwashed by a fucking cult."
technology,"They shut down news reporting to their base to keep them manageable. They are 100 steps past obviously trackable evil and simply disabling critical thought. This has effectively helped the right and foreign governments sow chaos, disrupt checks and balances and delayed justice for treason. Bans must intensify to restore the value of facts to those who are less able to reason and who carry traditions of subjugation and hatred in their upbringing."
technology,"However it does seem to be a cleansing of right leaning views. Dennis Prager was recently silenced on one of these platforms (Facebook?) and I can't imagine he ever used hate speech or doxed anyone. Also Ron Paul's co-host had his channel removed from YouTube. I don't know much about him except what I hear on Ron's podcast but he seems reasonable.

The point is if these platforms take the extreme measure of censoring viewpoints they need to be very clear on what specific policy violations led to the censorship, when it happened and why it is justified. It needs to be done publicly and transparently. That way we can all understand the rules and abide by them and also determine if they're fair. "
technology,">There's some basic stuff that I see as a baseline.
>
>Nazi are not people we want around.

I do. I'd like to debate them. If you can't defeat someone's opinion with words then maybe they're right.

>Black people are not inferior to white people.

Is this a policy or a fact? They are clearly inferior at generating vitamin D compared to white people.

>Women are not inferior to men.

They are on average strength-wise and height-wise, they have 20 times fewer geniuses, are on average not as good at systemizing problems. Should I be censored for that?

>Human rights are inalienable. 

Including the right to free speech?

>Peaceful, law-abiding dissenters are not criminals.

Yet we should shut the ones who say the wrong things!

>Anyone who is still arguing these things can fuck off.

I'd say the same about horrible ignorant authoritarians with a hard on for censorship, but I'm not that intolerant."
technology,"> The whole point is these services are as critical for free speech as utilities are for health.

So Ceaușescu is still in power right? Because no one was able to communicate and coordinate as there was no twitter or facebook back then.

> These companies do not get to define what free speech is.

But they do get to ban people who contravene their terms of service.

You seem confused as to what freedom of speech actually is, have a read of this :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

and pay particular attention to this paragraph:

> Legal systems sometimes recognize certain limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other rights and freedoms, such as in the cases of libel, slander, pornography, obscenity, fighting words, and intellectual property. Justifications for limitations to freedom of speech often reference the ""harm principle"" or the ""offense principle"". Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction or social disapprobation, or both."
technology,"> Domain names are trickier and I don’t have a concrete answer for that particular question. I imagine there is a free speech registrar somewhere that will let you say literally whatever you want.

There was. Their CEO decided that while ISIS was ok, neo-nazis were not. Again, virtue signaling. I spent a week going back and forth with him over email, he had no rational justification at the end. Just arguing that neo-nazis were bad. Somehow worse than ISIS, those guys that put people in cages and burn them to death, or wrap detcord around their necks to behead them, and enslave hundreds of women as sex slaves. 

>Past that, IP addresses still work fine for direct access

If we're using direct IPs for websites it's a sign that the internet has utterly failed. 

>I see your point but it’s easy to get around.

It's simply not. 

>My personal belief would be for a registrar to inform those accounts that they have 90 days to move the domain or they will release it back to the domain authority.

It'd be nice if that was the case, but it's not. Even registrars keep TOS that allows them to take domains back. 
"
technology,"You are missing the point. Alex Jones didn't get banned because his content was deemed ""unfit for the masses"". He got banned because he unleashes mobs on grieving families while slandering them. THAT IS NOT PROTECTED SPEECH.

> In fact, some leftists are ALREADY being censored

What are you even talking about? Also, If the shoe was on the other foot and some liberals were being kicked off facebook for inciting a mob to harass and send death threats to a grieving family then good fucking riddence. They would have deserved to get banned."
technology,"An STL or even gcode isn't directly comparable to a crypto algorithm such as PGP. That's like comparing a JPG to C++, they are distinct in that one is software- a set of instructions to perform operations to actually do something (like a machine) where the other is simply structured data. Yes, the Zimmerman thing was an interesting chapter and required some redefinition of what constitutes a weapon for export, but extending that to this discussion of printing physical weapons in an individuals home is quite a stretch.

And I don't share your concern about a slippery slope into banning bulldozer plans and chemistry. Censoring production methods isn't a wholesale ban on knowledge- it just raises the bar for skills required to individually fabricate certain items.

Interesting you mention model rockets. I did recently see a guy 3d print a gimbal for thrust vectoring. I think he's still good as long as he doesn't have any kind of active guidance but that's the kind of thing we have to decide on as a society- is it cool if that guy creates a functioning missile and pops all the code, schematics, and structural files on the github? I think the answer needs to be more deeply considered than just SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. I can't incite a riot or yell fire in a theater because Congress shall make no law ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH."
technology,"I come from a country where we hold no constitution nor any democratic foundations so that can be the pretext to my statement for the sake of transparency. 

I do genuinely believe that every individual has the right to speak their mind as we are all born as free beings with the right to individualistic  thoughts and views; and moreover, are allowed to speak against any injustice we see taking place anywhere in the world, for it is the only way we will improve as human beings. Now even though that may be an oversimplification of the concept of “freedom of speech” I do believe that the points I stated are key pillars. 

Now we fast forward to the modern day and age where you have a political spectrum under the concept of democracy that is so wide and also so very polarized at the same time, so much so that one of the spectrum may at times even accuse the other end of being “Un-democratic” as if to say so means that you are accusing the individual of sacrilege. Individuals in Europe and the US have been born in so called “liberal countries” with democratic values and believe it is a privilege so sacred that you must do everything in your power to preserve it. When in truth, and here’s the controversial part, there’s very little that individuals in democratic countries can change since so much power lies in the hands of the corporations and lobbyists, it’s almost like democracy has become a fallacy for Western counties that’s used as a tool to win over the hearts and minds of the masses in the elections. 

The only part where things begin to get really messy is where people start becoming so defensive that they’re just downright aggressive and abrasive to other people when protecting their so-called democracy, and then you’ve got another concept where people have embraced the concept of freedom of speech so dearly that they are willing to go to radical lengths to stand up for what they believe is right. That is where the line should be drawn, when all sensibility and decorum is thrown out of the window to maintain a concept that turned into a facade over the years.

Now feel free to clarify my understanding of the concept and I’m more than happy to see a more well-articulated wording of my understanding of democracy. "
technology,"If you think the government should regulate speech on modern forms of communication then I'll be more than happy to discuss the intricacies of it. 

So how do we force websites like this one to do away with their anti-doxxing policies which clearly stifle free speech. If you want all subs on here to be forced to follow government regulations, will the_donald be forced to reverse all their bans and censorship? "
technology,"> An STL or even gcode isn't directly comparable to a crypto algorithm such as PGP. That's like comparing a JPG to C++, they are distinct in that one is software

[Fuck off with that shit.](http://puu.sh/BrBHJ/ef3d08f79a.png) CAUTION, PREVIOUSLY ILLEGAL JPEG LINKED, REDDIT ADMINS MAY BAN FOR ITAR VIOLATION, BUT /u/spez CAN SUCK MY FAT BLACK COCK ANYWAY BECAUSE HE HATES FREEDOM IF IT DOESN'T BRING IN MONEY FOR HIM

>a set of instructions to perform operations to actually do something 

Woah, so like, three lines of Perl code? 

>Yes, the Zimmerman thing was an interesting chapter and required some redefinition of what constitutes a weapon for export, but extending that to this discussion of printing physical weapons in an individuals home is quite a stretch.

It's code. Either fuck off, or stop using every form of encryption known to man. 

>And I don't share your concern about a slippery slope into banning bulldozer plans and chemistry.

You should. 

>Censoring production methods isn't a wholesale ban on knowledge- it just raises the bar for skills required to individually fabricate certain items.

Then why were manuals on constructing AR-15s banned as well? There's a lot more to a functioning firearm than just the lower receiver. 

>Interesting you mention model rockets. I did recently see a guy 3d print a gimbal for thrust vectoring. I think he's still good as long as he doesn't have any kind of active guidance but that's the kind of thing we have to decide on as a society- is it cool if that guy creates a functioning missile and pops all the code, schematics, and structural files on the github?

Yes. It is. Shall not be infringed. Go back to ""the facebook"" if you don't like it, Zuckerbot will ensure that you have a nice, clean experience free of any dangerous information. 

> I think the answer needs to be more deeply considered than just SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Then change the constitution. If you don't want to, then fuck off and stop bothering the rest of us. 

>I can't incite a riot or yell fire in a theater because Congress shall make no law ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

Old case law, and invalid. You can, and it is constitutionally protected, you're just responsible for any damages that ensue as a result. Just like how you'd be tried for murder if you used a 3d printed gun to murder someone. 
"
technology,">	that’s far from the first time somebody has started a harassment movement.

Irrelevant. This is called moving the goalposts. 

Alex Jones doxxed a family who had their child murdered at their elementary school. That harassment of those parents isn’t literally the first example of harassment doesn’t matter, you’re initial statement is inarguably false. And it’s also pretty telling that not only did you know you were lying, you’re trying to justify it with this absolute bullshit response. "
technology,"I still find this all so odd and the solution absurd. The burden of responsibility on what you consume is on you. What does it say of the current state of people? That we are unable to distinguish that Alex Jones is a fool and we need to be protected from the bad man? Rather than learn the lesson to not take things as is on the web, we get coddled because we need people both open to suggestion and consuming content at the end of the day. 

Alex Jones is a troll, just like those silly magazines in the checkout line are. Problem is the media trolls too and is competing for the same thing, eyeballs and on the internet they are struggling at that. The primary goal is not to inform you, but the goal is to get your engagement then sell YOU to advertisers, you are the product not just by the news but any platform that sells ads. 

On these platforms the most effective strategy is often trolling as it requires little content but large return which is the most efficient way to get viewership in many cases. The media has become very trolly in its delivery but they cant out troll, trolls on the web and maintain its legitimacy.
 
Rather than adapt models just change the platforms of delivery as a whole to fit the interest of established sources.  Because advertisers do not like all of the ideas that can grow out of an open system then you can not have those ideas period. And they are here to save you from Alex Jones when in reality its about profits and investments. 

-edit* did not mean to post so much  

"
technology,"> Harassment, threats, and doxxing might be the reasons given

Good, then we're done.

>but you'd be a fool to believe those are really the reasons Jones is being banned, especially when most of the harassment, threats, and doxxing in question happened at least a few months ago.

Yeah it's much more likely that THE GLOBALIST DEEP STATE GAY FROGS BANNED HIM.

Oh, wait, maybe it's because he threatened to ""kill Mueller politically"" while mimicking a handgun. Or maybe it was another lawsuit for Sandy Hook bullshit. Or maybe someone grew a spine and decided to make a stand. Or maybe a prominent ad company threatened to pull back if he's not banned for constantly breaking ToS. Or maybe it's his stalking of political figures and livestreaming himself harassing them.

Defense of ""I've done it before, why punish me now"" is just borderline idiotic. It assumes some kind of expiration date on being an asshole."
technology,">	As an adult I find little comfort in people telling me I’m not allowed to listen to someone for my own good.

In what way has anyone stopped you from accessing Alex Jones’ content and literally not made it possible for you to listen to him? No one is telling you that you can’t listen to him, they’re just not going to host his content. It’s amazing you can’t make that distinction. "
technology,"Meh. It sucks if you’re an asshole of a human being who hates people for traits they can’t control. If those people don’t like it, they can go back to gathering in their basements screaming about black people and wearing silly hoods or praising Hitler. 

At the end of the day, “the internet” will still work for those jerks, but it’s a connection of servers; servers owned by private entities. If some of those companies don’t like certain messages, they are free to not enable that content. It’s on the people signing up for these services to understand the terms before they sign up. If you don’t like the terms, go somewhere else. If nobody else wants you, then that should be a clue. "
technology,"> private companies

And yet you are arguing that private companies should not be able to ban hateful speech from their own platform - by using  government / legal  intervention to allow these users to continue their hateful speech, the very intervention which you seem to be against as well - this is why your points make no sense.

> word salad

I know English isn't your first language, but really, what I have written is not hard to comprehend."
technology,">The only problem I have is that if the shoe were ever on the other foot, it could be bad.

The shoe couldn't be on the other foot because the 'other foot' is the vast majority of the population.

>Imagine if instead, they favored alt-right viewpoints, and banned progressives? In fact, some leftists are ALREADY being censored.

Imagine if they banned all white skinned people, or banned everyone who's surname started with a letter A-Z, that would BE EVEN WORSE OHE NOE.

For anyone not aware of what's going on this is a reply to a comment saying businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anyone. I'll add 'within the bounds of the law' but that should go without saying.

This response is an attempt to change the groupings of people. At the moment the groups are as they've always been. People in the ball park of Alex Jones abusing other people in a manner he can only get away with because he has enough money for expensive lawyers. Then people who stay within the bounds of nice, to normal, all the up to just 'pretty disgusting'.

This isn't a political divide."
technology,"I don't see much point in arguing with someone who evidently thinks SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED was intended to protect your right to bear IED's. I just think it's a bad idea and not remotely what the founders intended- maybe you should try and convince me why such a liberal interpretation of the 2nd is beneficial.

Or if you want to tell me to fuck off eight more times or rant at spez some more I'll probably watch."
technology,">Hell, I think when we live in an ever increasing “privatized” world the 1st amendment isn’t really doing what it was intended.

The intention was never to do with citizens and private companies. It was good, is good and will still be good. If we want something similar for citizens interacting with private companies it'll have to be bringing back the bill nicknamed net neutrality.

>That’s just America so says nothing about the rest of the world, but while people are generally supportive of this move now what about in 20 years? 100 or 200 years from now information will have been controlled by multinational companies (even more than now) and the continued rise of inverted totalitarianism will only worsen.

There isn't any worsening of having a ToS that prohibits the kind of behaviour Alex Jones displays. If you're envisioning a future where companies ToS are politically slanted to censor people then that is in an entirely different direction we aren't headed in."
technology,"You are arguing about mechanics on an analogy.  The issue here is *actions have consequences*, where Jones did shit deserving of “being put on no-fly no-sail list”, so he has proven to be potentially dangerous and should be restricted in setting where those potentials can be realized, which would be travelling in this analogy.

Whether or not those lists are perfect are not our concern.  The assumption is that “it is good enough to be a common sense policy”."
technology,"> it seem like one side has more of the fringe nuts

On the other hand, maybe one side does have more fringe nuts? (eg people directly calling for violence)  In which case nothing the tech company does would satisfy the side with the ""fringe nuts"".  They'll scream bias no matter what criteria is applied.  I'm in favour of letting the market sort this out, there are plenty of outlets for all kinds of views.  You don't have a right for any specific platform to carry your views.  If you think social media platform XXXX is biased, then boycott them and use something else and urge everyone else to do the same."
technology,"If all these tech companies target one company (infowars) at the same time, with coordination, not only they are defying Senate but they are sending a strong message: ""yep , we're a service, we dictate the terms, you are not above us and this is our grandstanding for the future to come"".

They could have easily, one by one, done it discreetly, the coordination is more than obvious. The tech companies are weaker alone so they are standing together, loudly.

2nd amendment and monopoly law play rolls here. This is a sticky mess.

I miss 2000's internet.

"
technology,">General decency/social taboos aren’t out of bounds, and probably shouldn’t be. 

They are on some platforms, like Facebook. In particular: On Facebook you need to stay inside of American social standards when it comes to depictions of nudity. On this particular point the American standards are more restrictive than European ones, and this has let to some incidents were things have been, in my opinion, wrongly censored. One case was some historical photos of hippies."
technology,"I agree, ISPs should be common carrier.  And that would have literally 0 effect on these bans.

If you’re arguing that private services like Facebook or even Google shouldn’t be able to police their own server, protecting their own interests and profits, I’m just going to stop wasting my effort here, since they cannot meet criteria for common carriers due to replicable nature of their service.

If you want to go further deeper into the slope and worry about these media platforms censoring topics that actually can be contested in good faith, rest assured that market force can and will correct the issue."
technology,"Now that all the tech companies and all the people on their platforms can slander him and he can’t respond his first amendment rights have been violated so good luck to the tech companies keeping that power for much longer. If the government won’t do it Google, Facebook, Twitter etc will meet the blunt end of 600 million legally owned firearms.

And yes, I’m saying if big tech takes our speech rights through monopoly people will die and if you’re too stupid and cowardly to get that, you’ll probably be one of them if you push this childish bullshit too much further.

The first and second amendment shall not be infringed and we don’t mind killing a generation of “everyone gets a trophy” to get it back."
technology,"It has nothing to do with any political veiwpoints either way. Alex Jones has used their platform in a manner that has brought him to court several times over defamation and disparagement. In fact, it was probably hard call, considering that it's a net loss for them. But when something becomes a liability, it's not worth keeping around, which is why it was removed. If you can show me a single instance from either side that could be viewed as censorship and not at all a violation of their terms of service, I'll certainly stand corrected."
technology,"> I don't see Twitter or any of these platforms banning random conservatives who simply espouse their conservative views.

Thats because you refuse to look. Loads got under the hammer for completly random reasons. Not super High profile folks like Jones, because banning someone that known creates waves.

But smallers ones? Medium sized ones? Twitter, FB, YT etc are banning people left right and center. Not nessesarily because the Companys intend the ban, but because they created the tools that the Radical Left, and some Radical right, groups use to mass flag.

Youtube has an issue where random gun channels got nuked in wake of the last few shootings. None of these channels even touched those topics, the mere fact that they were gun channels was enough to get a radical left mass flag event going.

Twitter got an issue with random people getting suspended for completly tame tweets, even retweets. Remember That racist Sarah Jeong that got hired by the NYT? People quoted her, changed whatever racist shit she said by replacing ""white"" with anything, like black, jew, asian or whatever. Those folks got banned from twitter.


Its the same on most of the big Social Media platforms. Reddit is gladly still okay on the admin level, but holy fuck look at the mods of some places. The mere fact that I post on KIA got me banned from a bunch of other subs, even tho that actually breaks sidewide rules (banning users from other subs because they post on said sub).


This shit is going on for a while, we keep pointing out that this shit is insane, and every time we do we have idiots like you show up going ""Well I dont see XYZ"".

Yes, you dont see, because you are blind. AJ is just the latest target of this insanity. He is not the first, and not the last. Once all the super crazies on the right have been dealt with, they go for everyone else.

Oh, wait. shit. I forgot that everyone and their mom gets labeled a nazi racist or whatever these days, so if you allow Twitter and co to ""Take out the trash"", then you literally give them a free pass for fucking everything up, while also supporting the people who label everybody and their mom a nazi. 



TL;DR: Doesnt matter if AJ busts your party to shit on your floor, because this is not a party. This is a global discussion, and you keep  kicking out people who say shit you dont like, completly ignoring your ability to just ignore them. YOU try to tell US what we can read, listen or watch. With You I mean Twitter, YT, FB etc and everyone supporting this shitshow of cencorship, with US i mean US; means US, so everyone, everywhere. "
technology,"That is a lie. You know full well hosts, payment processors and entire registrars are banning people for what they perceive as unacceptable speech. The Daily Stormer, regardless of what you think of the content, has a right to run a website and they were for a time pushed completely into the dark web and still can only process bitcoin because hosts and payment processors merely adjust their terms of service to justify banning them.

Millennials are so weak-minded they need nannies to protect them from all the “baddies” and they never grew up and grew out of the need for their precious Net-Nanny program protecting them from all the things their damaged brains can’t process.

As soon as an entire generation seems ok with limiting free speech because of their feelings that’s when they need to learn what it feels like to bleed."
technology,"Jesus, for your analogy to work, select few restaurants have monopolies on entire food industry, you literally require internet attention to survive, and harassing people is same as being born black.  Fuck, you’re dense.

If, for this argument’s sake, race wasn’t a protected status, then yes, segregated restaurants still can exist.  People can and will still choose not to go to those fucking restaurants, because most people now realize racism is bad.  Those restaurants fail, and new ones accomodating market’s will will take place.  Or if there is no restaurant that is not segregated, someone will sooner or later make one that isn’t segregated, *because you can open your own restaurants*.  And it will do better, because of market pressure.

I’m sure your (very hard to find) point is somewhere along the lines of society not changing (still being racist and wanting segregation), which is fucking asinine because you’re comparing acceptance of a protected status with being an asshole and harassing others.

I’m done with trying to converse with a brick.  Go fucking sea lion somewhere else."
technology,"And how about mail companies?  Should UPS, Fed-Ex, and USPS be able to ban people whose views they disagree with? How about banks? Should he just be banned from being able to have a credit or debit card? How long until he's unpersoned in so many ways that he can't operate in society and is out on the street just because you disagree with what he says? And what happens when one day he stumbles across a real conspiracy, like the time the US government [secretly infected](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment) 400 poverty-stricken black guys with syphilis as a deranged experiment? Does everyone else who repeats what he says get the same treatment?

This problem has been solved since the middle-ages. The solution is called [Common Carriage](http://wpressutexas.net/cs378h/index.php?title=History_of_the_term_%E2%80%9Ccommon_carrier%E2%80%9D). It originally said that companies which offer mail service can't refuse service to people just because they don't like the other person. They must serve everyone equally. The same should apply to the tech companies which now provide the modern public square."
technology,"You

>If you want to go further deeper into the slope and worry about these media platforms censoring topics that actually can be contested in good faith, rest assured that market force can and will correct the issue.

Also you:

>Restaurants can't be trusted to not segregate blacks without federal intervention. 

So is the invisible hand of the market too busy holding a big mac to punish restaurants for being racist?

Can we deal away with having people+ (or protected groups as you like to call them)?"
technology,"> When is Sarah Jeong getting banned from twitter? Or even fired? She tweets about her support for literal white genocide and she doesn't even lose her job with the NYT.

Like, we both know that you're lying and that isn't a real thing, but even if that were true, you don't see the difference between some 24 year old who writes reviews about iPhone headphones privately tweeting mean things back at people calling her racial slurs and *Alex Jones?*

>A couple had to go into hiding because Spike Lee tweeted out their address because he thought it belonged to George Zimmerman. Tech companies weren't tripping over themselves to remove him.

Ooh, deep cuts -- that happened closer to Twitter's founding than to today... And Lee publicly apologized, was sued and didn't contest the trial, and paid restitution. Even if he hadn't, that was one tweet -- by all accounts an honest mistake, by the way -- and not a pattern of... doxxing elderly couples? 

>What Alex Jones did was wrong and you can believe he deserves to be banned. But you are kidding yourself if you think he wasn't a target because of his politics.

He deserves to be banned from a lot more than Twitter, but he wasn't banned because of his politics, he was banned because Twitter thought it was a good financial move. The ridiculous ""but what if they do it to the left, huh?"" is an oxymoron: Capital protects capital."
technology,"No you're right, its not the same as censorship.  I'm more referring to the gleeful way people are celebrating their inability to hear alex jones on twitter and on you-tube.  People are linking to his twitter account, joking, haha I can't read his tweets anymore, isn't that great?

They're happy they can't hear what he has to say on twitter.  On a platform where they could literally just not follow him.  That's literally so foreign to me I have a hard time understanding it.

My guess is this is either a result of hatred of trump blinding people to right vs wrong.  Or a generational change in the education system that doesn't emphasis how terrible systems like this (yes even consensual ones) have ended up in the past."
technology,"> Can AT&T refuse to complete his phone calls? 

Yes.

> Or, to make the question even more similar, can AT&T sit down with Verizon and both agree not to complete his phone calls? 

No, because collusion actually *is* a crime, just not the one people seem to think.

>Can First Energy refuse to provide electricity to the servers hosting his podcast?

Depends on where the servers are located. If they're in Ohio, they can't refuse or even effectively delay. If they're outside of the country they can certainly refuse.

The problem here though is that whether you love or hate Alex Jones, those are some pretty shitty (accurate, but shitty) answers I just gave, and if you want better ones you basically end up at ""nationalize pretty much everything."" That's not an option, so we're stuck in the shit zone."
technology,"Strongly disagree with this notion that information is so centralized right now that people should be able to say whatever they want on all of them

Imo there’s MUCH more variety now than there was 20 or more years ago.

Back a couple generations ago you literally got news from like 2 or 3 sources

Now there’s like 500,000 sources you can access. You can literally make your own website today talking about almost anything you want. 

This idea that YouTube or any site needs to allow whoever to say whatever on their platform is completely ridiculous. You might as well say that because Ellen Degeneres show is so popular and widespread that she should be forced to have any random idiot on there.

No, sorry this is one of the dumbest reddit circle jerks I’ve ever seen. Good for YouTube / Twitter / FB they can do whatever the fuck they want. Don’t use them if you don’t like them, they aren’t necessities for life. Not by a long shot. "
technology,"You know that quote... 

First they punched the Neo-Nazis, and I didn't speak out because fuck those assholes...

...Then they banned the dude who organized harassment campaigns on grieving parents whose young children had been murdered, and I didn't speak out because I don't make a living terrorizing people in order to sell dick pills to impotent obese MAGA hat wearing conspiracy theorists...

...Actually I forget how the rest of it goes."
technology,"I agree with most of what you said, but I find posting someone’s home address to be so far over the line that “it was an honest mistake” doesn’t quite cover it. And that’s without it turning out to be the wrong person. 

I do agree that there is a key difference in the pattern of behavior. Jones has repeatedly violated the TOS for multiple platforms. He had been suspended for it. Lee had not, and but he answered for what he did in court. 

Jones likely assumed what most people here seem to have— that the companies had more to gain by keeping him than cutting him off. "
technology,Yeah but it is. The gov't isn't stopping anyone from saying anything or punishing them for doing so. That's the 1st amendment. By using their platform you're abiding by their rules. Is it wrong to censor some stuff and let others by? Sure. The problem we'll be facing is the fact that the ones that make the rules on this stuff were born long before the intention of the internet. Their lives aren't as technologically driven as most everyone under 35 today. That's why the FB Zuck hearing was such a shit show because it seemed like half of them didn't know what a MyFace even was. 
technology,"I did a quick search and the sandy hook incident is the only one I can find where Alex Jones doxxed anybody. Maybe it's because it's dominating search results. Do you have any other examples?

And the way the legal system works, people should be punished for every offense. Otherwise people start wondering how many times they can get away with it. I want to know what are the exact rules these social platforms are using to ban people, or are they just banning people willy nilly based on their own political opinions. "
technology,"might want to save this slippery slope stuff for when it’s somebody other than Alex fucking Jones being banned lmao. this isn’t a sincere conservative being banned for loving The Troops or some shit, the guy is a sociopath per his own lawyers - he’s knowingly pretending to be a lunatic to convince other lunatics to threaten innocent people’s lives because it helps pay his bills. him and any hypothetical liberal equivalent can eat shit and enjoy their Internet forum ban"
technology,"So he was permabanned for harassing people on video? Like that hasn't happened before, by tons of other people? I just want to know exactly what rule Alex Jones broke that nobody else before him didn't break. Because otherwise, it just seems like the business is just banning him to save face, like you said. Which goes back to the original comment that Kamaria made. Which is, if you had a minority opinion on some political issue, how would you feel if a huge social media platform started censoring and banning people with that same minority opinion, just to save face to their shareholders? And this is not just an Alex Jones issue. Recently twitter [banned people who took offensive tweets against white people and made them about black/jewish people](https://www.zerohedge.com/comment/12132410). This is clearly turning political"
technology,"I feel like we’re emphasizing too much of his political perspective in this debate. He didn’t get banned because of his perspective, he got banned because he is using the platform in bad  faith with language that borderlines sedition and inciting violence. If we’re having this conversation as if he’s the victim for violating ToS as a bad faith actor, he’s already winning his argument. That being said, thousands of political viewpoints are said every single day on Twitter. None of them are actively being suppressed that don’t contain language that violates the ToS. In whatever scenario we might think voicing political opinions *need* to incite any sort of violence or potential illegal acts, becomes an opinion that crosses a line away from protected speech. This is what Twitter is avoiding."
technology,"You are referring to American progressivism. I was referring to modern **progressives** , which has co-opted the term and morphed into something different.


The usage stems from the word progress—>move forward. And the usage connotes using a government/power structure to enforce the change for societies supposed benefit. A modern progressive policy would be affirmative action. 

Liberal, at least stemming from the root of someone believing in liberalism In general, is the belief that it is the aim of politics to preserve individual rights and to maximize freedom of choice.

So, perhaps you should go read your newspapers more, pay attention to the last 60 years, and at least understand I was being facetious and exaggeratory in order to  wedge the inherent difference between liberal being of the individual, and progressive being of the state. (Granted i probably did a shitty job of making that clear)(Communist nations always claim to be progressing humanity and social good. And they do so through the state. I have the most familiarity with communist regimes and implementations so I use those as an example)."
technology,"And this is why net neutrality is important. These companies have every right to ban content they don't like and censor people. With net neutrality if the censorship moved from fringe things like Alex Jones to more popular media a new company would move into the market that wasn't censoring that stuff and they would dominate due to the free market. But without net neutrality these big companies can pay to have all the bandwidth. ISPs that want to censor could charge absorbent rates to new companies trying to move into the space essentially forcing us to get all our media from a handful of established companies with no practical hope of a new company offering something different. 

And as with most really bad things in our country we have Republicans bending over backwards for corporations to thank for the repeal of net neutrality."
technology,"Then we shouldn't be talking about whether behavior's acceptable because of its commonality, we should be discussing how to disperse some of the power and authority of these enormous tech companies and promote competition so public discourse isn't controlled by the whims of a few. People will always be biased one way or another and be willing to ignore their own company's policies based on their beliefs (as we've seen Twitter do again and again regarding Jones, Trump, etc)"
technology,"Can you please point me to the constitutional right to hearing? I can't seem to find it.  I'm pretty sure it does not exist, but its possible that I missed something, so please direct me to where this thing exists.




Free speech is the right to speak freely from constraints by the government.  The word hearing isn't even in the constitution.  


Trump cannot block people because right now, he is the government and has to abide by the constitution.  The big C Is why, for right now, his twitter feed is called a town square and he is not allowed to block anyone.  It's an official government feed right now.  Had he used the POTUS account like Obama did, he could still block people on his personal twitter freely, but since he's using his personal for government, that's why he can't. 

The constitution does not allow Trump to silence people due to freedom of speech.

Once Trump is no longer president, that will no longer apply as he will no longer be speaking on behalf of the government, and as such can block anyone he wants.


Twitter is a private company.  They can ban whoever they want.  The constitution does not apply because they aren't the government.  They aren't stopping anyone from interacting with the president or going to listen to his speeches on other platforms, or seeing news.  

It's just like if you got kicked out of a business and the president was giving a speech there, you would not magically be allowed to go back in citing the right to hear.

Have you perchance talked to an attorney about your theory?  What did they tell you when you said this?"
technology,"You're acting like Jones has been unfairly painted as a bad guy, or that the only reason people are okay with this is because they disagree with him. That's not the case. What I see is the bar for human decency online getting bumped up ever so slightly. The man caused the victims of a tragedy where their child was murdered to go into hiding because he'd convinced his followers that it was all fake. That's the kind of person that we should all be able to agree doesn't deserve a free megaphone by way of social media. Any hand wringing about a slippery slope is just ignorant, corporations have always had this power and we need to react to how they use it, but sometimes it will be appropriate to exercise this power, and that doesn't mean that it's always okay. It should be a case by case basis, and when corporations cross a real line then that's when we give them a real backlash. "
technology,">yes they should be more transparent

Totally agree. How many rule violations? I want to know what that threshold is, so I can compare it to other people who make similar harassment campaigns. Otherwise they are just free to censor whatever they want. These are social platforms, they aren't the same as newspapers or publishers. There was a post elsewhere on Reddit concerning this exact issue. A publisher should be responsible for their posts (aka get sued for libel, etc). A platform stays neutral but claims no responsibility. Right now people view these websites as platforms. But if these websites want to become like publishers, and have influence over their content, then they should say so. Otherwise the users have a false perception of the website. If these ""platforms"" are becoming political mouthpieces of their owner companies, then people need to be aware of that. And even if they are just appeasing shareholders, if they are giving into the political bias of shareholders, then people need to be aware of that too. And just a related note, here's [some context on what I'm talking about when I say these platforms are becoming politically biased](https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-05/twitter-suspends-black-conservative-changing-nyt-bigots-tweets-white-jewish-and). "
technology,"When the telecommunications act was created, starting a new phone company required massive outlays of capital and created providers with natural monopoly statuses. It is predominantly these reasons why it was deemed important to regulate them as common carriers and have them be neutral in carrying phone calls.

These days, those companies are most similar to ISPs. It can take hundreds of millions of dollars and years of work and your ISP may still not have much of a deployment (see Google Fiber). Most Americans only have the choice of one or two ISPs.

There are literally free (as in freedom, open source) competitors to Facebook, so the barrier to creating a chat platform to challenge Facebook chat is incredibly tiny. If you don't like the rules Facebook chat wants to enforce, don't use Facebook chat. It costs almost nothing to switch chat platforms. I've switched most of my messaging to Signal and convinced most of my friends and family to join.

If Facebook is banning people, people can just go to a different website. If ISPs restrict your access on the internet, you have no place else to go except to sell your house and move to a different part of the country served by an ISP not blocking things."
technology,">What would the regulation look like?

Simple: You cannot ban the official account of a person or organization if you are a new public forum. A new public forum would be defined as a forum with a set amount of public members, public members being people like Alex Jones not PenisDestroyer9000.

>You can't ban harassment until it's illegal?

Harassment is already regulated by law.

>Can't ban spam until you've proven it's a spammer?

People can often be ignored on those platforms if the spammer is a public account. If it is an anonymous account then ban freely."
technology,"The other thing I don't get is if this is legit and not another outrage where every company has to follow suit then why is Sarah jeong not gone? Candace Owens got temporarily suspended simply for copying what she said. Why does Richard Spencer have a Twitter account if everyone hates white supremacists so much? Why does Farrakhan? Etc...

On on your other point about companies, it cracks me up that companies are piggy backing on these social justice warrior issues to try to market themselves to people that also apparently hate capitalism... Lol"
technology,"I understand that its legal to ban whoever you want. But redditor kamaria was commenting earlier whether or not its morally right for huge social media companies to insert their own political views into their platform. As I said earlier, imagine if your minority opinions on certain issues were being silenced by these companies. Where would you go? What reasonable alternative is there to facebook or twitter? I'm guessing your answer is ""tough luck"" but I don't think social platforms should work that way. I think if people are against certain content, they should downvote, or voice criticism. Every person has equal say. That way it's clear how the public feels about these issues. But if you, say, censor everything about the holocaust, then people will start wondering what was so bad about it, and why it was censored in the first place. "
technology,"> Then everybody will pretend to be non public niche forums, or cap their user count, or split up in a network of smaller sites.

Good. 

>So you can't ban anything until a court ruled you get to remove it?

*Anyone.* 

>How do you even define public account, 

Like I told you. It needs to be along the lines of ""My name is Hillary Clinton, bla bla bla.."" essentially a facebook page. If it is an anonymous account, like mine on Reddit, it would have no protection since no citizen is associated with it. Likewise companies would need to be protected along the same lines (only registered ones).

>why wouldn't spammers hack them?

They might, but security is a whole different concern."
technology,"So you still took away all the big public forums, and Jones is in the exact same position as today - running a niche forum, being limited to speaking there since others won't let him in. You just *reduced* speech. 

But I can delete all their content even if I don't ban them, as long as I believe it's illegal? Or not that either, until ruled by court? 

Also, are topical forums prohibited from removing bad advice even if it's legal?

What about impersonation? Can I require high security standards like ID verification + U2F hardware token for logging in?

A spammer posting malware links I'm not allowed to remove until a court agrees is a major problem"
technology,"The question I have for you though is, what exactly in our rules and regulations today is causing this oligopoly of sorts? Because I don't really know if a 'non free market' is the problem. It isn't as if Youtube did anything -wrong- to get where it is, they simply grew popular, and then Google bought them, and now they're so enshrined in the public mindset that it's detrimental for content creators to go anywhere else. If anything, the fact that Google was able to buy themselves into power so easily is the problem.

I say we should be enforcing anti-trust a lot more. The problem is that the market is -too- free, for corporations to just buy and merge until they own everything. The rules for this aren't good enough!"
technology,"> So you still took away all the big public forums, and Jones is in the exact same position as today - running a niche forum, being limited to speaking there since others won't let him in. You just reduced speech. 

No, because the idea that they'll split out on a thousand sites is nonsense, but if it does happen it's fine. That's how the Internet used to be and it was good for competition.

>But I can delete all their content even if I don't ban them, as long as I believe it's illegal? Or not that either, until ruled by court? 

There will probably be some things you are allowed to shadowban right away, like child porn. Regulations are rarely written on a single page you know.

>Also, are topical forums prohibited from removing bad advice even if it's legal?

In a ""slice your tires if you want to drive well"" kind of way? Depends on their size and how political they are.

>What about impersonation? Can I require high security standards like ID verification + U2F hardware token for logging in?

As someone that works in the industry: I wish.

>A spammer posting malware links I'm not allowed to remove until a court agrees is a major problem

Again, there would have to be instances where things need to be hidden or whatever until a judgement is made. A spammer would be unlikely to always be a public account so it could easily be banned without issue."
technology,"At some point, social media can craft what the majority wants, instead of serving what the majority wants.  That's the nature of the real concern, not them serving their customers better.

The very nature of what they do leads to incredible power over national opinion.  It's too bad this issue has become a partisan divide, because while these companies appear to be on the ""side"" of democrats/progressives, they won't be for long or forever.  They will serve their own interests.

I could easily see these companies suppress articles or speakers trying to address strong privacy protections for US citizens, like GDPR, for example."
technology,"Wow ok maybe you should just start with the dictionary you simpleton. The American right wing is the conservative party who are very anti-big government. Fascism is just a flavor of autocracy, Nazi is literally short for nationalist socialist.

The American ""right"" is fundamentally different than in europe. What in the hell lead you to believe that you can fit all political thought on a one dimensional axis, and everyone is either left or right."
technology,"Yes, but the problem is it's an oligopoly. Anti-trust was supposed to stop corporations from gaining this level of power. It didn't. Content creators are practically shoehorned into using these sites because they are the most popular. If (for some weird reason) you were an Alex Jones watcher, would you even think to go to dailymotion to watch his show?

It is EXCEEDINGLY difficult to create alternatives to a market that is already largely captured. "
technology,"But this has always been a thing. Newspapers and TV had certain things they wouldnt publish for decades. Imagine going to a newspaper in the 80s, and trying to start a campaign to harrass victims who escaped the soviets, claiming it was a government cpver up. To the point where the survivors would get death threats. Newspapers wouldnt publish that garbage in general.

Truth is, media has always chosen what to put out there, and what not to. That is a fact of life that will never change. Just like there will be other outlets for people to search for and release their view points on."
technology,">if I took a shit on the floor

The bakery business model isn't facilitating floorshit, its baking. The social media business model is facilitating speech.

>Some more stuff that basically comes back to their rules

Well that really is the issue here, isn't it? Rules used arbitrarily and inconsistently that allow defacto social media monopolies to restrict discussion to what fits their corporate morality are bullshit. It's certainly not something that needs to be regulate or whatever, but I certainly think consumers should raise a fuss over it. It's not about what they can and can't do - I'm sure their legal team has their ass covered, it's about whether the public should be complicit in their own censorship.

For the part that my own post was misleading before, I apologize, I wasn't trying to suggest there are legal issues with their decision."
technology,"> it's about whether the public should be complicit in their own censorship.

What, exactly, do you want here? A situation where the public must be forced to listen to everything, no matter how ridiculous? The idea that because social media involves talking to others, that they must be stalwarts of free speech is laughably dumb. And just because something is the most popular doesn't mean they have an obligation to be impartial. 

I wonder how you'd feel if I, say, went on info wars and started talking shit about Jones? Would they be obligated to give me a platform to say such things? No, I'd get banned. Because their site, their rules. But I bet you wouldn't say boo about that. "
technology,"How is it nonsense? Forcing them to not delete anything would turn everything into 4chan.

Have you read up about adpocalypse? It's not profitable to host objectionable material on that scale, because you can't make money from ads on it, these not enough paying subscribers, and they still have to pay hosting and bandwidth.

Best we can hope for is a federated web, making everything work like email. 

I don't even know how 4chan is funded.

How would those regulations mesh with the first amendment? The government would literally be making laws about acceptable speech.

Imagine somebody in my sub /r/crypto (cryptography) advocating short passwords and insecure cryptography algorithms. Or dangerous batteries on any electronics sub, or even straight up lying on /r/legaladvice. 

Or even posting off topic material and insisting it's relevant."
technology,"But those sites he was thrown off of generate a large amount of visibility. Can you honestly say he would have been nearly as known if he didn't start putting shit out on social media? Again, not shedding any tears for him, but they helped him A LOT. 

The thing I'm trying to get you and other posters to take away from this is how much four or so companies have influence on the public mind and flow of information. Kicking someone off may not censor them completely, but it'll affect their voice in today's society A LOT. "
technology,"Well, not excactly true. While you Can get away with refusing service to any individual, if you exclude an entire Class of people, and the class you pick happens to be a protected one you can come up against federal law. The federally protected classes include:

Race   
National origin  
Religion  
Sex   
Age    
Disability  
Pregnancy  
Genetic information  
Veteran status  


You're fine to discriminate against not protected classes however. For example, a common discrimination target is: people who are not wearing a shirt and shoes (""No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service""). Since clothing is not a protected class, this is legal!"
technology,"Like, saying things like #cancelwhitepeople and hoping that they go extinct, like, totally isn't support for genocide. Attempting to get  someone murdered was an honest mistake. That is moronic.

And Spike Lee DID contest the trial. He paid the couple $10K prior to the lawsuit and filed for a motion to dismiss when the couple later sued. That motion was granted because the couple had already accepted the money. While accepting that money was dumb on their part, I highly doubt they anticipated receiving death threats over a year afterwards and the inability to sell their home. 

>but he wasn't banned because of his politics, he was banned because Twitter thought it was a good financial move. The ridiculous ""but what if they do it to the left, huh?"" is an oxymoron: Capital protects capital.

What do you think makes it a good financial move. "
technology,"For the record, I would have a lot less problem if we didn't have such an oligopoly of social media. 

It's like if you could only go to 5 restaurant chains country-wide, if you piss one of them off and get banned, you just lost 1 out of 5 choices for going out to eat. Maybe you did something really bad to deserve it, and that's fine, but what if the owner happened to be around and didn't like the way you dressed or something?

A lack of competition is the real problem. "
technology,"That is your opinion, and that is great.  I respect that.

There are leftists who are espousing white genocide, as an example.  This enrages me.  But, it is my opinion that this is free speech.  Twitter is not banning these people, and I think that in a free speech society, this is proper, as uncomfortable as it makes me.  As soon as it is personal, against a person, that is not protected speech.

As far as Alex Jones goes, I am not commenting specifically.  I can't because I don't watch his shows.  I know of him.  I am not aware that he has called for violence against people.  If he has, then I would need to know more about that in order to have an opinion.

If he has told people to harass someone, then boohoo.  Free speech.  This is the line that, in my lifetime, I have witnessed being encroached upon, slowly but surely.  We collectively have defined more and more things as being hate speech.  And hate speech is a new term used to ban free speech."
technology,"> there's a certain line of decency you can't cross...

50 years ago, conservatives fought to maintain censorship of material they didn’t like. Being gay, or trans, or distributing porn was over that line.

> I have a general problem with big, multinational corporations controlling the information we can and cannot see.

50 years ago Liberals fought to make sure that didn’t happen. Now that it’s in their favor, Liberals fight to maintain censorship against opinions they don’t like."
technology,">	So you think its the first time somebody was doxxed?

No. Nothing in what I wrote would lead you to that conclusion. 

>	Not true either.

Irrelevant. 

>	Where am I moving the goal posts? 

By saying bullshit shit like “you think that’s the first time someone has had X done to them?”

Your initial statement was a complete lie and you knew it. Now you’re trying to justify that outright lie by saying it’s no big deal because other people have been harassed. 

>	Clearly all the previous times people were doxxed, it wasnt considered “immediate danger” enough for them to get banned on social media.

**Irrelevant**. Your first statement WAS A LIE and you know it. This is moving the goalposts. Alex Jones doxxed the parents of a murdered child and publicly told people to go harass them. It doesn’t matter if it was done before, Twitter had enough and banned him."
technology,"> How is it nonsense? Forcing them to not delete anything would turn everything into 4chan.

No, it would not. 4chan is anonymous.

>Have you read up about adpocalypse? It's not profitable to host objectionable material on that scale, because you can't make money from ads on it, these not enough paying subscribers, and they still have to pay hosting and bandwidth.

The adpocalypse was a giant clusterfuck of advertisers that went into a panic because Google did not curate which videos got advertisements.

>How would those regulations mesh with the first amendment? The government would literally be making laws about acceptable speech.

I live in the EU so I am not really sure.

>Imagine somebody in my sub /r/crypto (cryptography) advocating short passwords and insecure cryptography algorithms. Or dangerous batteries on any electronics sub, or even straight up lying on /r/legaladvice. 

Reddit is anonymous. If they don't do the whole ""I am Hillary Clinton"" thing then you can freely remove them. If they do that whole routine... Well then you can call them out publicly.

>Or even posting off topic material and insisting it's relevant.

Personally I think the law should only take political subreddits into account."
technology,"It's not like Facebook is known for high quality despite supposedly real names.

It's not like big name advertisers would touch even the clean sections of 4chan. Also, some of the complaints even from FCC's Ajit Pai explicitly targets monetization, implying it's unfair that some people can't get ad revenue - even if it's because the advertisers are the ones refusing, not the host. 

Not to mention, forcing them to host material that can't get ads means you're forcing them to subsidize the distribution objectionable material. 

Even in EU I don't think such regulations would work well. Especially since it's so hard just to figure out in which jurisdiction you even should report bad moderation.

The Donald is political. Would be ironic to see them unable to ban dissenters."
technology,">shit talking Jones on infowars

Nah, I'd be pissed too if they banned you. I wouldn't think as pressing an issue because it's a niche audience compared to the market share of the other sites we've mentioned, but that's an equally shitty move. If people didn't already have *enough* reason to be mad at him, his complicence with censoring others while he is presumably whining about others doing the same should infuriate everyone.

Now, if you were shit posting in a forum dedicated to a particular topic, I'd be fine if your post were deleted. Heck, if you kept trolling with off-topic posts, I don't really care what you're posting, that's fine for a ban too. But, if there is an area that's supposedly open for general discussion, you can theorize that Jones is a crisis actor all day long and I'll back you up against a ban. Twitter doesn't have different forums for different things.

>Their site their rules

I'll reiterate - I have a problem with their rules, not with them enforcing them. I'm glad they are enforcing them in Jones' case so people will discuss why these rules are concerning.

How far do you take freedom of association? Do you go so far as allowing racial discrimination? If not, why? There is precedent for thoughts as a protected class in religious protections - shouldn't political opinion also be protected?"
technology,"There's nothing hypocritical about a private organization choosing to kick out someone who violates their rules, which is the cheered on by everyone else present. He has a clear history of harassment and threats against others. If this was any other private setting, like an office or a bar, he'd have been kicked out a lot sooner. I'm not sure why you think Twitter owes him a platform. The reason why people were pissed at gays getting kicked out for getting a cake is because they didn't behave in any disruptive way, it was about who they were, even though they're not a protected class and I believe the owner should have the right to not serve at will. Others like Kim Davis tried that too, but don't get that right as they were serving as public officials."
technology,"Missing the point.

An ISP blocking you prevents their entire customer base from reaching you, many of which have no options. If your ISP blocks a site, you have to switch ISP. If no alternative exists, somebody must dig down cables and get permits so they can carry that traffic. 

If a site blocks you, you click a link to get to another site. Or you buy a computer as a server to run your own website, so other people can reach you there.

"
technology,"That isn't an argument against what I've said. That is an argument against these small number of social centers that have evolved over the last 15 years. 

It's not going to change. We do see new companies breaking into the tech space, and usually if they're good enough to stick around they are either purchased or copied until they are indeed part of the centralized internet.

I would be curious what part of that comment you thought made any kind of argument against mine. "
technology,"No. 

I literally don’t understand what the hell is wrong with you people. This man **doxxed the parents of a murdered child and told people to harass them.** Publicly. Using a platform that explicitly states you’re not allowed to do that shit under the threat of being banned. You act like twitter/Facebook/YouTube just didn’t agree with his politics and decided they didn’t want contrarian opinions on their platform. 

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you people where you think this is a logical comparison to base and argument on?"
technology,"Should everyone be given a free phone as well? Since you need a phone to manage anything? 

There are tons of alternatives. He can make his own website and people can listen to him there. It sound like you just think everyone should be forced to listen to everyone, even people like AJ. 

Should a grocery store or gas station not be allowed to ban anyone from their store if the next one is an hour away? What about Wal Mart? If you are banned from Wal Mart and the next one is 1.5 hrs away what do you do?

Just Google ""listen to Alex Jones"". You'll find a lot of ways to hear his voice."
technology,"> It's not like Facebook is known for high quality despite supposedly real names.

'course not.

>Not to mention, forcing them to host material that can't get ads means you're forcing them to subsidize the distribution objectionable material. 

They're doing it for freely today. 

>Even in EU I don't think such regulations would work well. Especially since it's so hard just to figure out in which jurisdiction you even should report bad moderation.

Local court -> Regional court -> National high court -> European court.

>The Donald is political. Would be ironic to see them unable to ban dissenters.

It would, wouldn't it? :)"
technology,">should everyone be given a free phone

Don’t see the relevancy to the conversation

>there are tons of alternatives

Not any that reach the mass majority 

>it sounds like you think everyone should be forced to listen to everyone

Nice strawman. Never once hinted at that viewpoint. I think everyone (who doesn’t incite violence or break the law) should be given a platform and the people should be allowed to make their own intelligent decisions on what they want to watch. They shouldn’t be told what is “correct” and “incorrect” to watch. 

>Should a grocery store or gas station not be allowed to ban anyone from their store if the next one is an hour away? What about Wal Mart? If you are banned from Wal Mart and the next one is 1.5 hrs away what do you do?

Another irrelevant argument that contributes nothing to the conversation 
"
technology,"Corporations are basically their own little government dictatorships. The irony that we love the freedom to run our own businesses is that we then go and run it like a dictator and give no freedoms to your subordinates. Granted, you can move freely between private governments, that doesn't stop these governments from doing shady or illegal activities. 

Imagine if you wanted to change the world in your image and you were also a good busueiness man. The business you create is secondary to your primary goal of influencing the world. Your private government is just a tool to empower yourself to unlimited heights. Jeff Bezo's likely doesn't care that he's delivering products that people want/need, but that doing so makes him wealthy and powerful. His american dream is to become a king and rule over his subjects.

And that's why they will always fight tooth and nail to keep it that way. If bezos is treating his workers like slaves he likely has contempt for the underprivileged and people like him, when push come to shove, will unleash a fury we have never seen before.

This is literally history repeating itself. The revolution in Russia after WWI is eerily similar to today's circumstances, albeit us lay people have better material conditions. If you read that history you know how it devolved into a civil war. Ever since then, the communist party was relentlessly attacked by by its diametric opposition and the capitalist class. Initially it had nothing to do with building a totalitarian oppressive society. But the constant threats and attacks by the capitalist class caused a guy like Stalin come in and take extreme measures. Unfortunately, the capitalist class was able to use that against the entire ideal of workers owning the means of production to wage a full on war. The American capitalist class seized the opportunity to attack anyone who was against privatization, with impunity, up until the Vietnam fiasco where people started asking questions. That's why a lot of our corporations helped Nazis until they got out of hand. The Nazi's made capitalism look bad and so they had to go.

And if you wonder why anarchists and modern communists want violent revolution its because they know that the Bezo's, Tumps, DeVos's and Clinton's will never back down without expending all their resources. And their resources are Private Paramilitaries, Gangsters, CIA, NSA, law enforcement agencies, weapons manufacturers and a whole army of right wingers who will fight along their side because they won't understand how everything is orchestrated at a higher level.
"
technology,"Is there any proof of this besides the lawsuit?

I read the same group that had made a lawsuit before against another ""conspiracy theorist"" mysteriously dropped it after it made the news. Since the conspiracy theorist was basically shamed into hiding for questioning the wrong things.

Anyways I hear a lot about Alex jones and sandy hook and I sort of go a long with it bevause how dare he, yet when I stop to question things it gets messy"
technology,"> Also taking down the most objectionable material.

They really aren't. Alex Jones is not the most questionable material on Youtube or Twitter by a long shot. They only took him down for PR.

>Comparable to newspapers, just because they sometimes allow it, that doesn't mean it's reasonable to force them to always do it.

Again, shouldn't we force newspapers to tell the truth or at the very least correct their lies? Fake news was not something Trump invented. 

>What would the local court even do if the website doesn't host in your country?

They'd be bound by EU regulation. Usually they would be forced to comply or force extreme penalties. GDPR scares companies for good reason."
technology,"This analogy is not appropriate. To be more accurate would be ""now imagine if you are banned from delta and United and 3 other airlines"". You would still be able to get across the country, it would just be harder. Do you think airlines should be *forced* to allow someone to travel if they are often drunk and disruptive? 

There are plenty of ways for AJ to spread his message without Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc.  "
technology,"*objectionable to advertisers

The also take down things like ISIS propaganda, even the ones that's technically legal.

Jones made himself a liability. He's both breaking their rules and hurting their profits via advertisers that leave, and making for bad PR and much more.

Freedom of speech goes very far. It's very very hard to force a newspaper to do *anything*, they often aren't required to correct anything unless damages can be proven. I'm from Sweden myself, and even here that process is 99% voluntary, and there's extremely few things that ever goes to court (mostly defamation claims). 

https://www.mprt.se/en/broadcasting-radio-and-tv/online-publication/

https://www.mprt.se/en/broadcasting-radio-and-tv/requirements-and-regulations/ - note the restrictions on who is bound by the various rules (most of them apply almost exclusively organizations that rely on public infrastructure or government funding)

Also, forcing you to speak the truth would destroy satirical papers"
technology,">speech is protected from the government, not business

Of course, but I think we should consider freedom of speech for social media platforms because the entire point of these platforms is to speak to each other. Say we reach a future where people rarely go outside and social media becomes the only real way to speak to anyone. At that point, no real freedom of speech exists. Im suggesting we consider ways to counter any possibility of this. It is also important for the present day simply because these social media platforms dominant anyone’s ability to speak. 

Consider this, cell services are businesses, yet they are treated as a public service, allowing you to txt anyone anything you want without repercussions. Why should social media be treated any differently?  "
technology,"There should be laws and government agencies (with 100% transparency) to ensure that information censorship only happens when it is a function of misinformation and hate speech.

In today's age, we can no longer protect lies under the First Amendment. I'm not talking about opinions, I'm talking about verifiably false statements of fact. All claims should be accompanied by sources or reasoning. Then for statements which aren't black and white, but there is a consensus, the government should mandate that the consensus is presented alongside the claim (parenthetically). Having to equivocate when they lie and produce sources would slow down these astroturfers, conspiracy-theorists, and fake-news sites a considerable amount."
technology,"Google ""listen to Alex Jones"". He is far from being silenced. Some platforms banned him, so he can just use other ones that are just as easily accessible. Anyone who listened to him before can still listen to him. He can make his own social media website and anyone who followed him before can still follow him. He can hold his own events. The internet is massive, it always will be."
technology,"Going with your conspiracy, Google may have a cookie tracker somewhere in the mix, but the only way that they could prevent you from going anywhere on the Web is if:

a) info wars uses Google hosting services, and they refuse service to them (which they might). Solution: IW uses a different host (or self hosts) 

b) Google blocks IW on search (Possible). Solution: Navigate directly to the site. 

c) you use Google DNS to connect to the Internet, and Google unlinks them (pretty unlikely unless they get forced to). Solution: Use a different DNS.

d) Google blocks access on chrome (possible, but unlikely). Solution: Use a different browser.

So if Google does decide to block IW, then all you need to do is type i n f o w a r s . c o m directly into Firefox, safari, opera, Edge, or let's be honest and remember the target audience, internet explorer 6 with half a dozen toolbars. "
technology,">*objectionable to advertisers

I know, there's still plenty of stuff out there that makes Alex Jones seem quite civilized.

> Freedom of speech goes very far. 

And that's a good thing.

>It's very very hard to force a newspaper to do anything

It is. But they should have some responsibility shouldn't they? 

>Also, forcing you to speak the truth would destroy satirical papers

It really would not. Typically satire is obvious."
technology,"Did you read it? How was I lying? My first statement was that he didn't illicit immediate danger. I don't consider doxxing putting people in immediate danger because it has never been considered that way before. There have been tons of cases where people have doxxed and literally told their followers to harass them, yet faced no legal ramifications. It's clear that in the legal sense, it often isn't considered ""immediate danger"""
technology,"> Free speech is great but there has to be a line drawn somewhere.

Never, Draw a line and someone will figure out how to move it. In the end you'll end up like the UK, with people being sent to court over offensive jokes and rap lyrics, or even simply *singing* certain American songs in private that have the 'N word' in them.

Never give an inch. Either you have full freedom of speech, or you don't have freedom of speech at all. It's a zero sum game."
technology,"Some people make it sound like if there's ever any time or place or venue in which they aren't allowed to say *anything* they want, any *way* they want, to any *one* they want, then it's some sort of censorship. They tend to think ""Free Speech"" means no restrictions ever, for any reason, by anyone. 

The story this guy you're replying to is trying to spin makes it sound like it's a form of oppression that Apple will kick a hate-speech-pushing, sandy-hook-denying blowhard off their platform because they don't feel like making room for him in their store. And people like you are seeing through the argument for one simple reason: It doesn't make sense."
technology,"Yes there is. When every hosting company refuses to host your content, when nobody will act as the ISP for your own webserver, when nobody will act as the registrar for your domain, you're stuffed.

It's all ok - for now - but only because the companies are only using this power against literal nazis. Just you wait until it's used against websites promoting _your_ political views. The world has changed, everyone forgot why some forms of censorship were made illegal, and history will repeat itself in a slightly altered form."
technology,"So you're not all for treating this on a case by case basis.

>Would you feel the same way about the hypothetical idea of rounding up and executing all 'bad' people, without due process?

What the fuck obviously fucking not.

>if we don't have confidence in the logic of ""most people are smart enough to know the truth"" for executing people, why should we consider that same logic robust enough with consideration to the matter at hand?

Because it's not the same fucking thing. Different assertions require different degrees of evidence for reasonable things anyway but since getting deplatformed is nowhere near as dire or serious as fucking executions it's super fucking simple to see that this is an absolutely moronic false equivalence. "
technology,"So if I doxxed and you had to move seven times because of it, you wouldn’t consider that immediate danger? AFTER your child had been murdered and some asshole encouraging violent and mentally ill followers to harass you doesn’t constitute dangerous people following you? That doesn’t equal immediate danger to you? 

Are you an Alex Jones follower? Because the bullshit falling out of your ignorant mouth puts you squarely in line with the kind of mentally ill people who excuse his behavior. Why are you enabling Alex Jones to harass the families of murder victims? And child murder victims at that. "
technology,"Oh, don't get me wrong, Alex Jones was in the wrong here. I think private businesses should have the right to kick people out. You don't get to just do whatever you want and threaten people. If anybody earned it, it's him. I wouldn't entirely refer to that as censorship in the strictest sense. What I DO have a problem with is everything being consolidated into a few tech companies. If you lose your voice on all of them, it can severely hurt you. 

I think what it's going to come down to is breaking everything up or starting up enough alternatives, so if some of them start to get too tight with the rules for one's taste, we can move to others. I think that's a better solution than demanding that everyone must have a platform on every site no matter what. "
technology,"But as it currently stands they are both private companies who can choose their customers and what they will allow their infrastructure to be used for. If you use the internet to check your emails or tweet or upload a video to youtube you are using someone else's hardware infrastructure. If those companies control the majority of traffic through the hardware and algorithms then they intentionally or not hold a monopoly on content distribution. 

>ISP's should be public utility. Search engines, websites and hosting platforms should not.

It's amazing you can't provide ample arguments and just think your take on it is final.

It's also amazing that you didn't actually read what I said. I said, I didn't state that Google or FB should be a utility, just that they should act in good faith or be regulated somewhat. If big tech wants to censor lawful content let them be regulated. 

  The internet is the single most powerful source of education the upcoming generations will have access to. It is not like big tech can be compared to any other business like a bakery or a sports store when they are influencing billions at some level."
technology,">But as it currently stands they are both private companies who can choose their customers and what they will allow their infrastructure to be used for. If you use the internet to check your emails or tweet or upload a video to youtube you are using someone else's hardware infrastructure. 

Of course.

>If those companies control the majority of traffic through the hardware and algorithms then they intentionally or not hold a monopoly on content distribution.

All it takes is 51%? What do you mean by traffic? Total bits? Persons? How are you measuring this?

>It's amazing you can't provide ample arguments and just think your take on it is final.


I don't. I was pointing out the OBVIOUS difference between an ISP and a private company.

>It's also amazing that you didn't actually read what I said. I said, I didn't state that Google or FB should be a utility, just that they should act in good faith or be regulated somewhat. If big tech wants to censor lawful content let them be regulated.

They are regulated, you just want compelled speech.

>The internet is the single most powerful source of education the upcoming generations will have access to. It is not like big tech can be compared to any other business like a bakery or a sports store when they are influencing billions at some level.

Agreed.
"
technology,"Yeah, they can tell where you're going, but that doesn't stop other vendors from dealing with you (unless said vendors also do not want to deal with you).

Even so, you can build your own car, and draw your own map (since you can build your own servers, host your own stuff, and DNS is handled through IANA, which is ICAAN).

Again, Google will see where you go, since in this increasingly tortured analogy, they have built cameras all along the trail. That's kind of shitty, and I would prefer they didn't, but ultimately if they're refusing to deal with you, they're gathering advertising data for someone they wouldn't even be selling to."
technology,"Since you do not consider exploiting some ones ignorance a form of harassment then hell, lets play ball. =)

When I checked your post history I didnt see any complaints about the lies that lead to the war in Iraq and the 109,000 dead humans those lies lead too (66k civilian). At least be consistent. I dont have time for silly false outrage bs. Yeah it may be in fashion these days but so too were crocs at one point and really you can only look silly in those things objectively too. 

Alex Jones is an idiot and what you pointed out is a matter of civility. It is not a reason to censor and start walking free speech back or placing it in the hands of corporations once they monopolize technology, that virtualizes natural occurrences, such as human interaction. 

There is a particular reason in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 it grants immunity to internet companies for the actions of their users. Which is strange they now use the same argument you just did because their corporate rights don't extend to Jones under the law and are holding him accountable for his viewers/""users"" actions. Why do you think they pressed to have such protections under the law? 

Even if every ounce of me disagree's with Alex Jones, as I strongly do. I have watched with my own eyes what happens to dissenting voices, I know where it goes from here. I understand deeply the value of free speech and what an open and free internet mean's to the possibilities of the future. Some will say this is not an open internet issue it is about corporate rights which is correct. However these sites are built on top of a foundation which has fundamental principles that must be changed in order for these companies to be granted such powers that supersede a persons rights as a citizen as the technology they create blends into the society as a whole.   

This is a very complex issue and not as simple as you wish to believe. Your arguments are not even your own its simply a regurgitation of the justification that has been given which to me isnt that far away from believing in the headline ""UFO hits wind turnbine"" void of both logic and reason.  
      "
technology,">They are regulated, you just want compelled speech.

I want compelled free speech regulations so that content not violating the law cannot be hidden deceptively or removed without evidence of breaking the TOS of the platform. I want the TOS for content to be made clear so that hate sdpeech cannot be used as a means to remove any non-conforming content. But good luck getting any law through senate which favours the consumer and gives protections.  "
technology,"They are able to do it, it doesn't mean they aren't censoring you or stifling your ability to freely express yourself if they decide to do it for political reasons, instead of for financial reasons like a public company typically does. Infowars was making FB ad money, kicking them was ideological.

The constitution cannot grant you rights you already had, it prevents the government from violating them. Rights are inherent and self evident. The government here theoretically protects them if the it follows that committment to respect your rights. Currently the US does not respect the rights of companies to do business or freely associate as they please, they hold them to a series of legal commitments. I believe companies ultimately should be able to freely associate, but Facebook only believes that when it lets them censor people they find distasteful."
technology,"First- calling his bizarre conspiracy theories 'dangerous lies' seems is a bit odd.  Is he crazy?  Sure.  But he is essentially a non-interventionist to the point of near pacifism.  So I assume what you mean by dangerous is that he isn't warlike enough against our enemies which makes us unsafe?  That he doesn't want to kill enough people?  Like Hillary, McCain, George Bush, etc?

Second, listening to crazy people is so entertaining.  You're taking that joy away from people to make the world a worse place."
technology,"No it won't.

> Alright, so if everybody starts banning people the free market allows a provider who won't ban people to thrive.

You don't realize the capital needed for that today. Nor the terrible reputation it would get for housing controversial banned figures/communities. That's why tech sites are all following suit and banning this guy, *none* of them wants to be ""that site"" hosting controversy.

PR is a huge deal now more than ever, and sites catering to the banned communities will never ""thrive"". They will at best survive, because the majority of people will avoid them like the plague due to said reputation."
technology,"Yelling fire in a crowded theater can cause a panic which can lead directly to death.  It's specifically a situation in which action must be taken before thought because if there is a fire you don't have time to ask questions.  Normally people are responsible for their own decisions, but yelling fire in a crowded theater doesn't give people time to think so it undermines their own responsibility for their actions.  Just like holding a gun to someone's head gives them some reprieve from punishment if you
make them hack into a bank vault or whatever.  A loss or blurring of autonomy is involved.  

Jones did nothing like that.  He didn't endanger people, he didn't cheat people out of money (as far as I know, who knows about these pills), and he didn't threaten anyone with physical violence.  

So yes there's a line.  We've discussed and established that as a society.  Jones didn't cross that line.  

What's happening here is a redrawing of the line.  Perhaps we think that's okay because these are private corporations and not the government, but that's different than saying Jones violated the few speech limitations we already have established as a country."
technology,">Like, saying things like #cancelwhitepeople and hoping that they go extinct, like, totally isn't support for genocide. 

Link me whatever tweet you're talking about. Let's see what she was responding to, and in what tone! I'm sure it'd be very educational. Still not quite sure why you find some random comments made years ago by an intern on social media so threatening. White fragility, I guess?

> Attempting to get someone murdered was an honest mistake. That is moronic.

It *was* (presumably) an honest mistake.  A stupid one, sure, but well-intentioned. Unless you have some evidence showing that he actually *was* trying to give out the address of that random couple? That seems like a ridiculous assertion.

>What do you think makes it a good financial move.

That he did it? I've got an MBA, but I'm not the CEO of one of the most influential companies in the world, nor do I have access to their internal research, so I could only make uninformed guesses."
technology,">Link me whatever tweet you're talking about. Let's see what she was responding to, and in what tone! I'm sure it'd be very educational.

No. This stuff isn't obscure or hard to find. You called me a liar for stating a fact and then proceeded to just make some bullshit up about Spike Lee. 

There is no honest mistake about. He attempted to tweet out out the address of the most hated man in America at that time. His entire feed blew up with people talking about showing up and killing Zimmerman. It was clamoring about that before he even tweeted the address. The couple had to flee. He knew what he was doing and that is why he did it. He wanted to bring harm against Zimmerman. There is nothing good in that. 

Furthermore, Lee himself has literally stated ""I don't know what my intention was"". So what the fuck are you talking about, ""well-intention""

The last part was rhetorical. It's a good PR move because of Jones's politics. 

I pointed out hypocrisy. You then proceeded to blabber about things you have no idea about while calling me a liar. Now apparently I have ""white fragility"". Listen to yourself. You won't even expend the minimal amount of effort it takes read and have a coherent opinion."
technology,"> No. This stuff isn't obscure or hard to find. You called me a liar for stating a fact and then proceeded to just make some bullshit up about Spike Lee.

Yeah, didn’t think so. This is what happens when your primary news sources are InfoWars and The Gateway Pundit. 

>He knew what he was doing and that is why he did it. He wanted to bring harm against Zimmerman.

Yes, *Zimmerman,* not the random couple. That’s why I called it a mistake. And come the fuck on with nothing good in that... he’s not at the top of the list of people who have it coming, but he’s definitely in the upper five percent or so. Whatever someone might have done with his address wouldn’t be anything he didn’t deserve. 

>I pointed out hypocrisy. You then proceeded to blabber about things you have no idea about while calling me a liar. Now apparently I have ""white fragility"". Listen to yourself. You won't even expend the minimal amount of effort it takes read and have a coherent opinion.

You look ridiculous, could you at least try to stop being sooo emotional? Not a single link, no evidence, just your hurt feelings about poor mister Zimmerman and white genocide. Like how can someone get through life being that defensive? I can’t imagine being so upset and threatened by five-year-old tweets from a random person in their early twenties who reviewed iPhones."
technology,"Because I have the time:

>Like, we both know that you're lying and that isn't a real thing

Wrong.

https://twitchy.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Sarah.jpg

This one is just from google images, there are a shit ton of tweet compilations if you just google her name. This one just has two of the tweets I alluded to. There is much much more.

>And Lee publicly apologized, was sued and didn't contest the trial, and paid restitution.

Wrong.

""Lee’s attorneys filed a motion Tuesday to dismiss the lawsuit brought by Elaine and David McClain. Lee’s attorneys argue the lawsuit should be dismissed since the couple reached a $10,000 settlement with Lee last year.""

https://www.apnews.com/a72307b852fb4352a08c7065686528ed

> A stupid one, sure, but well-intentioned

Wrong.

“I did a stupid thing,” Lee says. “I don’t know what my intention was.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/12/spike-lee-tweet-trayvon-martin-twitter_n_4256158.html

>Yes, Zimmerman, not the random couple. That’s why I called it a mistake. And come the fuck on with nothing good in that... he’s not at the top of the list of people who have it coming, but he’s definitely in the upper five percent or so. 

Murder is bad. I don't even.

>This is what happens when your primary news sources are InfoWars and The Gateway Pundit.

I don't go to InfoWars and I do not even know what Gateway Pundit is.

>You look ridiculous, could you at least try to stop being sooo emotional? Not a single link, no evidence, just your hurt feelings about poor mister Zimmerman and white genocide. Like how can someone get through life being that defensive? I can’t imagine being so upset and threatened by five-year-old tweets from a random person in their early twenties who reviewed iPhones.

I'm not being emotional. I've been more civil than I should be.  Nothing about Sarah Jeong is threatening to me. I chose her because she was recently in the news for those tweets. Most people know at least some of the things she has said. It makes for an easy example of political bias in Twitter's (and others) banning process. Anti-white racism and tweeting out addresses is tolerated.

I more or less agree that banning Jones is a good business/PR move. It's a good move because of his politics though. 

All of that was about my statement of:

>What Alex Jones did was wrong and you can believe he deserves to be banned. But you are kidding yourself if you think he wasn't a target because of his politics.

None of that is about some fear of Sarah Jeong. And just for the record, I wouldn't want her banned for saying those things. I'd prefer that the government pass legislation to make speech on big media platforms protected within reason."
technology,"This is actually a good thing.

In the past to get security updates to legacy systems MS had an large-enterprise-only paradigm.

Now small companies can A) get in on legacy updates, B) provide some financial incentive to MS to keep updating.

Really smart and consumer friendly approach to extending the life of legacy systems. What makes it better is sometimes huge flaws are found in past OSes that affect newer ones as well. This is going to put money straight into the security pipeline."
technology,"Okay well, home users should be on Windows 10 already.

This is /r/Technology so I’m not expecting a lot of love for this point of view but ultimately support was already supposed to end and Microsoft has no obligation to support a 10 year old OS.

Apple only supports the most recent version (silently updating older ones)

Canocial only updates the last few LTS releases which come out every 18 months.

In fact, Microsoft has actually been pretty decent at patching XP, etc, after the fact when the vulnerability could be widespread and devastating. I know of no other vendor that goes back this far to correct vulnerabilities. At best you might get 3-4 versions back of OSX/macOS getting an update.

On the other hand businesses who need time getting off 7 may have a much easier time by paying for updates. Budgets are a lot easier to set for updating as the options are out there to upgrade or face update costs. With this Microsoft will help further shed their “vulnerable” reputation, which has always been more about market share and improper updates for years now."
technology,"Not at all. When a convict gets out of prison, You do not see a sign on him saying that he was in prison. When you meet him he does not look much different than any other person. This allows the ex-convicts to be rehabilitated and integrate back to society and have their lives back.

But imagine if they'd have this giant sign on top of their head ""I was in jail for robbery"" anywhere they'd go. Would they ever be able to get a normal life? to get a job? to build a family?

They already served their sentence. Why punish them for the eternity?

This is what ""right to be forgotten"" means.

Unfortunately politicians and corporations take this concept and apply to themselves, which was never the original intent of this concept. It should not apply to politicians and corporations. We should never ever forget the terrible things they did.

"
technology,"Again though, the problem isn't that other people are remembering, it's that the publications are being informed about ongoing investigations and trials. That's not something that gets addressed by 'right to be forgotten', instead it just lets you scrub things that mention your name from the Internet, but that doesn't really prevent someone from looking you up with effort. After all, if something gets printed in a local paper that stuff gets archived in a library somewhere usually... it's just hard to search for.

But less so than it used to be since such records tend to be scanned digitally these days."
technology,"Almost no one, apparently. Every time I argue that ""right to be forgotten"" will only be a right for those entities that can afford the lawyers to enforce it, I get downvoted into oblivion.

*Of course* this new ""right"" won't apply to the little people. Who is going to enforce it?

It will be enforced exclusively through the courts, which is an enforcement mechanism that will exclusively be used by the wealthy. "
technology,"Funny you say this.  Monticello, a medium sized town just north of Minneapolis voted to put municipal broadband in back in 2006ish.  TimeWarner(?), the at the time monopoly for the city sued saying it was a waste of taxpayer dollars.  They were able to get a court order halting the roll out of municipal broadband while they upgraded their network to hand the speed municipal was going to offer.

Eventually the city won and rolled out their fiber network but they were delayed about a year in doing so.  I hope the entire town switched over as a huge FU to TimeWarner.

If I had access to Google Fiber, Municipal, and the SpaceX version coming in the mid 20s I'd pay for all 3 just so I could give comcast the finger.


*Edit for spelling"
technology,"I think OP mean literal Garbage service?

The reason places get a general contract for an entire neighborhood is to cut down on massive/heavy vehicles doing damage to the roads.

A fully loaded semi does more harm to a highway than 9,000 cars do.  I'm sure side streets are even worse.

Having 1 garbage truck a week vs. 4 or 5 driving on the roads means your 'normal' car wear and tear numbers are lowered by the equivalent of about 1.9 million cars per year. "
technology,"When I went to drop off my cable boxes to Time Warner there was a huge line of people paying and I just dropped them off next to the counter and said I cancelled. The dude behind the counter pointed to the line and asked me to wait, I laughed in his face and walked away.

This was about 10 years ago, I assume the guy behind the counter understood how shitty of a company they were because I never had an issue but after reading all the horror stories here I probably would have made sure they scanned everything in."
technology,"I live in an area with municipal broadband. The entire project looked like a total failure because of Comcast's ability to tie up funds and stall with litigation. It took about 10 years for the project to break even, but it's all worth it to see the look on a Comcast salesman's face when I tell them what they have to compete with (I get gig up and down for $48/mo, no data caps). I can even get 10 gig speeds for $179/mo. I will advocate for municipal broadband and competition until it is everywhere. "
technology,"Yes, perhaps, but he's is screwing people in a generational way, he's not rich enough to insulate himself from public scorn, he still lives in a regular house, among the general public and he is a pariah wherever he goes.  It's one thing to be a billionaire like the Koch brothers that rarely if ever see the people who despise them, but he's not rich like that and will have to eat public crow for some time to come.  Even his coworkers think he's corrupt.

There's no way people who lost their homes in california and had firefighters unable to communicate because of throttling will be able to avoid spitting on him if they see him in public."
technology,"Competition and right-of-way are most important. If the leaders of a municipality are blocking either of those, at least you can vote them out.

>Ultimately, fixing any of these problems will require local, state, and federal leaders to stand up up to big telcos and do what's right for the public. And that means they need to hear from the public. You might not be able to vote for better internet with your wallet. But if your representatives won't enable the internet market, you can always still vote at the ballot box.

https://www.wired.com/2017/04/want-real-choice-broadband-make-three-things-happen/"
technology,"I used to own and run an ISP and I currently work for a utility and the problems with that article are more than I can get into. It's someone from the outside whose heard a couple buzzwords putting an article together. I'll address this:

> The problem? Local governments and their public utilities charge ISPs far more than these things actually cost. For example, rights of way and pole attachments fees can double the cost of network construction.

1. It's totally correct for the government to charge a markup to an external company for the use and wear off their property. The author is confused: government isn't charity. But the revenue from such charges reduce the overall costs to the individual consumers. That's *if* there really is that kind of markup which I've never encountered. But that's probably because I know the costs on such things. It's not just the material but also the maintenance and legal issues and agreements with law enforcement to help keep our right of ways and easements accessible. A lot of homeowners will bar access to their backyard when their neighbors are having a problem and then the sheriff has to help -- that's not free. There's also inspections and depending on the equipment they're may be preventive maintenance like cutting back vegetation or spraying for bugs. 

At any rate, laying that off on local government is stupidly rediculous... At least in central California. Other markets may be more susceptible to this but most markets have a ""last mile"" charge from ISPs because that last mile is owned by the local Telco and they're the ones driving up the costs. I've seen that a lot and they government isn't responsible for that. "
technology,"I genuinely think that these people believe that anyone in the same position would be doing the same thing.

That's why we see so much protection from the GOP, and why you see the Trumpers so vehemently following him. They genuinely don't see a world in which people fight for what's right over what's good for them. That and honestly believing that wins must come at someone else's cost.

So you have this group that's essentially built around screwing over as many others because then they must be improving their own odds, and feeling good about it because anyone would do it."
technology,"Been trying to resolve constant disconnects for over a year with cuntcast.

After all my home troubleshooting I determinded it was either the drop, or the node.

Well, 9 months of bullshit, cunts telling me to power cycle and ""I'll send a high priority refresh signal,"" non-sense, and multiple modem changes they finally send out a senior tech (2 had come previously).

Sure enough, it was the node.

But guess what?  ""We'll have to keep an eye on it, there's some interference coming from a house up the road.""

Ok?  So here I am over a month later with no change at all.

I really wish there was some other ISP in my area."
technology,"That's pretty tin foil hat. But the result is the same: Access to high speed internet is a better predictor of economic growth in a country than level of education, average income, access to health care and social services, or vehicle ownership. Anyone who knows a goddamned thing about economics knows fast internet is essential to economic development. 


Pai isn't selling is out to foreign powers, but the result is the same: We've lost our competitive edge and our economic future. "
technology,"fuck those ISP-funded fucking political pieces of shit. I wish ISP's could just fuck right off and be outlawed completely - at this point it's like charging extortionist prices for clean water or food. Everyone needs it at this point, and it's _really easy_ for the government or local municipalities or states or whatever to provide it (even saves government money, AND makes them money at the same time!), it makes citizens happier and more educated in general.

The U.S. and Canada are so fucked up right now."
technology,"Telstra owns the network but has to resell it to any ISP at cost. Anyway the government built the copper network Telstra was using in the 20s before it was privatised. You can only get ADSL2+ out of the majority of it which is like maximum speeds of 20/8Mbps. Those speeds aren't really viable in the real world and that's with new copper not 100 year old copper Telstra didn't bother maintaining because the knee the government would pay if they let it break. 

The network is almost 100 years old and needs to be replaced so the government paid Telstra to decommission their network and sell them access to the hatches to build a new network that was going to be fibre to the premise for 92% of Australians. Anyway we switched parties and the new government said that was too expensive so switched to a technologically inferior multi technology mix which ended up being even more expensive and now we need to build it over again before it's finished because it's all fucked.

Then one of our ISP tried to build their own fibre network in our capital cities to just apartments because that's the most profitable way to build a network but the government needs those to make the new network closer to profitable so they outlawed that.

They plan to privatise the new network so we can enjoy rebuilding at tax payer expense when the new owners don't maintain it."
technology,"Telstra owns the network but has to resell it to any ISP at cost. Anyway the government built the copper network Telstra was using in the 20s before it was privatised. You can only get ADSL2+ out of the majority of it which is like maximum speeds of 20/8Mbps. Those speeds aren't really viable in the real world and that's with new copper not 100 year old copper Telstra didn't bother maintaining because the knee the government would pay if they let it break. 

The network is almost 100 years old and needs to be replaced so the government paid Telstra to decommission their network and sell them access to the hatches to build a new network that was going to be fibre to the premise for 92% of Australians. Anyway we switched parties and the new government said that was too expensive so switched to a technologically inferior multi technology mix which ended up being even more expensive and now we need to build it over again before it's finished because it's all fucked.

Then one of our ISP tried to build their own fibre network in our capital cities to just apartments because that's the most profitable way to build a network but the government needs those to make the new network closer to profitable so they outlawed that.

They plan to privatise the new network so we can enjoy rebuilding at tax payer expense when the new owners don't maintain it."
technology,"They compartmentalize it. 

They are just doing a job. If they didn't do it, someone else might. They aren't doing anything illegal (yet...or that we know of). 

And he's on his ways to earning ""Fuck you"" money. It's for his family, it's for their future, etc.

Also,  I suspect he isn't faced with with actually seeing the lives he ruining. It's easy for people to shit on other people when you don't have to see or interact with them on a daily basis. 



"
technology,"You're not trying to engage in proper, mature discourse. Immediately attacking people without question is always bad, and only serves to consolidate the perception of an ideological division between the attacked and the attacker(s).  

Consider that /u/Grumpieroldman knows what he means (Grumpier, I hope you do read this. What you have to say, and your experiences DO matter, despite what some may say) in his comment, and that we know what the discussion in this thread is all about.

I agree with him, the municipal service for picking up/transporting garbage/trash in some towns is of the utmost shit quality, often pushing things too far. This is his personal anecdote of how a public service can be bad for the consumer. Based off of this experience, I can understand why he might be aggravated by the idea of municipal ISP.

Starting off your response to him by explaining why this doesn't mean public = bad would have been a better, constructive reaction. He might not have come to the conclusion that the quality of a municipal service is determined by votes on a local level, and that he DOES have a voice in whether it'll improve or not. If you don't like how a municipal service is going, your vote matters when it comes to how that service is run. 

If he already knew this, he may have just made the connection. In which case, a polite reminder or hint at how this works can go a long way."
technology,"And smaller Fiber companies that are being blocked by big cable companies that lobby the laws to block them...

'US Internet' a fiber based ISP, is working with Verizon on a project to attach signal amplifiers all over the city and surrounding suburbs. These things would make it possible to get a good wifi connection literally anywhere in and around the city. Why are they doing this? Because cable companies haven't established a monopoly on it yet and it's a good idea."
technology,"Yes. Fire fighters couldn't communicate because they were throttling their service.  People rely on the internet to make phones work and get information to families and emergency personnel when their phones don't work during large scale emergencies. So yes,  this does affect people's life and property. If he's putting money over people's lives it's very much similar to a greedy company choosing diamonds over people. People will likely die in the future if we let this continue.  It's not all about Facebook and Netflix. "
technology,"yes and no.

We started to build a fibre NBN, then the right wing government came in and decided that instead of going all fibre, we would instead spend the same amount of money on making our DSL and cable internet better.  (They literally bought the cable internet off the incumbent - telstra - and started spending billions of dollars upgrading it, they have abandoned that plan now but I digress).

The initial plan was basically replace Telstra owning all the wires (and subleasing to other ISPs) the government effectively bought-back all the copper pairs, bought out the cable internet and in a small number of cases is building a fibre network.

Then that company (NBN Co) is only allowed to wholesale out connections.

So ultimately we are following the model that was described.  We haven't completed the network yet though, so there are still many homes and businesses on DSL (partially) over telstra equipment.

NewZealand on the other hand had their Fibre NBN and stuck with it and are now doing great things.

(Its worth noting, that about 50% of people buying internet from vendors on the NBN go with Telstra still - incumbents got some pretty good mind share)"
technology,"I don't think you realize that ""blood money"" doesn't mean ""blood diamond money"". It CAN mean that I suppose,  but it just means compensation for someone's untimely death.  

It's only a matter of time before people die from lack of communication. It happens in every natural disaster. No deaths have been tied to throttling yet,  but it will,  because it's already proven to be very dangerous for the Santa Clara Fire Dept. At least a couple people tend to die in every major fire we have. 

The second Pai realized that these policies have real world consequences, he should have changed his tune, but no,  he still cares more about money than people's lives and homes. "
technology,"I really want to but I've seen it go sideways. Town I used to live in years ago was small and they tried to pull it off. They had to charge something like $150-200 per month and they never got enough subscribers for it to be sustainable. It didn't last long at all. 

That little town was successful at sustaining itself on so many fronts and keeping the big guys from corrupting what they had. They even got rid of the police traffic cam that was screwing people left and right, and fought against the local police when their corruption and laziness came to light. But when it came to fighting the ISPs monopolizing their lines, it was an impossible feat. Smaller towns that can't afford it are going to remain in the clutches of these greedy ISPs."
technology,"Not to discount how great your internet is, but I feel the need to point out that ping isn't really the best metric. A fiber-optic cable run directly from NYC to LA will only get you 50ms at best, and when you consider that a real connection would literally never be run over a single cable you're actually looking at several times that as a best-case. You have 15ms ping because those games have datacenters nearby, not because your connection is good, and ISPs only do the last mile of service anyway; if your connection is traveling any significant distance it's doing it on lines that all the ISPs in your area share."
technology,"I lived in Monticello for a couple years and subscribed to the municipal broadband.  It was awesome, internet only for $45/month, 100mb up and down.  Option to go up to gigabit, but it was more than I needed and more than I wanted to spend.  Not sure about TimeWarner suing, I thought Monticello had been monopolized by TDS Metrocom (a regional cable company) but when I got there Monticello Fibernet, TDS and Charter were the options.  Both Municipal and TDS had fiber to the house.  Now I live elsewhere and have only Charter to choose from."
technology,"One stopped by my house about 3 days after I moved in. He left with a look of dread as I told him all my neighbors are switching too.

I live in Utah, look up UTOPIA utah. There are some caveats: pay $2750 up front, or pay a roughly $30/mo connection fee. So that $48 becomes $78. If you look at the link (if I can post them) you'll see pricing. Competition is good. 

https://www.utopiafiber.com/residential-pricing/"
technology,">If Corporations want to be viewed as citizens with the argument that they're made up of people, then they should allow the people that make them up to have equal say in what the company does.

Sounds fair.

>Instead, they want it both ways, to be viewed as a private citizen and to not be held to the same standards that private citizens are.

Pretty much. It's basically the executives who want to be seen as people and be given those rights on a company-wide basis, but they don't want anyone below them to get to make decisions that would hurt their money."
technology,"I'm happy for you guys and glad your local government sorted itself out and represented it's constituents. 

I live near Rochester, NY, they tried to do the same thing (passed a regulation that all city/road works would lay fiber optic any time the ground was opened). Time Warner sued to prevent them from offering it to the public as being ""unfair"" and they would be unable to compete and won. So now the city has tons of fiber underground, but only government/police/fire/libraries can use it. Real infuriating."
technology,"I'm actually with you. Everyone else replying to you seems to be riding the sociopath train just because Pai is verifiably a puppet/asshole. 

But I doubt that. He probably loves his family and has things he cares deeply about, and denies that his actions are harmful to vast numbers of people (even though they are). 

There really aren't that many bureaucrats who drink tears. I'm reminded of Eichmann. Yes, that Eichmann. The one who pushed the paper that kept the death camps running, but who nearly fainted and had to leave when he actually visited one.

So I'm with you: what's his justification? It doesn't actually justify, but surely he has one."
technology,"NZ was pretty bad before too (still pretty bad the further you get out of a city) then we started getting fibre directly into each home. No BS copper cables halfway. New suburbs a going straight fibre now, no copper at all so everyone can get ~900mbs if they buy the correct plans.

~~I believe AU is rolling this plan out as well, you have more land and population so the project will definitely be significantly more intensive and time consuming.~~ Nope, sorry,  your Govt has it's own budgeting/being cheap problems...


Either way, the current lack of quality internet is due to dated infrastructure. While the USA also has dated infrastructure, they also have ISP's that monopolize districts and refuse to upgrade (even if the tax payers pay them billions to do so).
"
technology,"Sortof, now you contact your retail service provider, who then contacts NBNCo to fix faults.

I had a fault that took 3 months and 4 site visits before I pointed at my HFC lead-in and the tech jumped on my roof and found that it had been scraping on my roof and after 7 years had worn through the sheath.

All in all I was dealing with the worst game of poor customer-service broken-telephone.

Before the last tech came out my RSP was almost trying to reset me back to the beginning.  ""Theres nothing we can do to help you - its your computer"" (despite the dropouts happening on the NBN provided device before my devices were even involved!).

TLDR; we have replaced Telstra with NBN Co, the only benefit being they aren't competing with the ISPs asking them to fix their shit.  If the technology had been better then the issues I experienced (and many others) just wouldn't have been so hard to fix."
technology,"Apparently, they had a plan.  Guess it didn't pan out.

The most outrageous bit is that a company like Google, with their deep pockets, is getting pushed out and held up by Comcast, ATT, and company. 

I remember seeing a map that showed Comcast offering gigabit in mostly places Google managed to roll out their fiber gigabit.  Ironic eh?  What isn't gamed by these fuckers these days.  Lobbying to prevent municipal in multiple areas as well.  So much money to prevent others, but not increase their own infrastructures that was already supported with taxpayer money....  Nothing to see here.  Move along..."
technology,"We had such restrictions that Comcast and CenturyLink helped put in place, but thanks to a devoted group of citizens, it was overturned in local elections and then eventually we ended up with the nation's fastest broadband. $50/month flat for 1Gbps fiber. :)  

Comcast and CenturyLink tried hard to prevent it, and _now_ they've finally upgraded their services, just not enough. Hopefully nobody's giving in and going back to them, though."
technology,"How are they not the same thing? Crony capitalism is the end game of unregulated capitalism, and of regulated capitalism in any market with corruption, including lobbying. The only place that ""free market"" capitalism doesn't devolve into crony capitalism is a strongly regulated state with strict anti-corruption measures, and that's an unstable equilibrium. Ultimately, like so many things, capitalist economies only really work with periodic renewal or replacement when the rot gets too deep."
technology,"You are put into a room with a button. You are told that every time you push the button you would get $1m USD worth of currency that can be freely exchanged to whatever currency you want. The stipulation is that every time you push the button someone else dies. For every time you push the button there is a greater chance that the authorities will immediately be directed that you murdered people, and you will be immediately throw into jail for homicide. This can happen on the first button press, or it could happen on the 1,000th, but it will happen eventually if you push the button enough.

​

What do you do? If you push the button, how many times?  


Does this change if the button has a greater chance to kill people in your state?  What about your city? Now what about your neighborhood?"
technology,"You don't understand what Municipal run broadband is.  

> USI Wireless funded, built, and manages the wireless network.  The City allows USI Wireless to use its light poles, traffic signals, and facilities to mount wireless network equipment throughout the City’s 59 square miles.

Compare this to what Chattanooga has:

>EPB, also known as the Electric Power Board of Chattanooga, is an American electric power distribution and telecommunications company owned by the city of Chattanooga, Tennessee. In 2010, EPB was the first company in the United States to offer 1 Gbit/s high-speed internet.

Unless the City of Minneapolis owns USI, it's not municipal broadband."
technology,"Basically what happened is Verizon is such a shit company, they sold some Cali fire depts shitty plans. THe depts were told they were unlimited. But it's the consumer ""unlimited"" after X amount of gigs, hard throttle. When called about the issue, instead of saying, oh emergency services? yeah lets fix that right away, Verizon had them upgrade their data plan before they could un-throttle, fires raging, and they want to upsell their fucking data plans."
technology,"> You don't understand what Municipal run broadband is.

I really do.  You just don't understand what the Minneapolis program is.  Despite the cute sound of ""US Internet paid for it"" that you copied, it really did not.  The city of Minneapolis paid a large sum up front for the cost of setting up the network along with the million plus dollars a year the city spends for their roughly 100k internet bill.  The city is paying for and subsidizing this internet service and it doesn't even offer competitive internet for anyone.

>Unless the City of Minneapolis owns USI, it's not municipal broadband.

The city of minneapolis is paying for the broadband, which makes it municipal.  Without the city payments it wouldn't exist."
technology,"Spam the button tens of thousands of times, by the time the cops get there I can pay bail and buy multiple tropical paradises to luxuriate on while waiting for the team of lawyers to exonerate me as a victim on circumstance.  

Bonus, take 50% of my earnings (which still leaves me one of the richest men on earth) and do a huge PR/ philanthropy campaign a la Bill Gates.  By the end of this I would be a fucking hero. "
technology,"The city is paying USI for their own bandwidth, to serve city government needs such as wifi for the police and city hall.  Municipal broadband, by definition is owned and operated by the city (usually through a city owned business).  Without city ownership of the ISP, it IS NOT municipal broadband.  By your definition, comcast is municipal broadband because cities offer them tax breaks to develop their market, sign exclusive licenses with them to be the sole provider of cable in their city, and city buildings are wired to a comcast connection.

What we have is like if the city had a contract to buy liquor from a privately owned liquor store for all of their holiday parties.  Municipal broadband would be if the city owned the liquor store."
technology,"> The city is paying USI for their own bandwidth, to serve city government needs such as wifi for the police and city hall.

Well, no, they aren't.  Because they city hall doesn't even get the wifi.  Also, the amount they are paying FAR exceeds the amount of their usage.  The Star Trib did a report on this which was the link I meant to provide originally.  The estimates of the cost of usage are 100k annually, not 1 million.

>Without city ownership of the ISP, it IS NOT municipal broadband.

Per the terms of their contract, Minneapolis can kick out USI any time and retain the rights to bring in another vendor to use the equipment strung up.  Just because they subcontrcted the service doesn't make it any less municipal broadband.

>By your definition, comcast is municipal broadband because cities offer them tax breaks to develop their market

At no point did I put tax breaks as a definition of municipal broadband.  Why are you trying to argue something I didn't say?

>sign exclusive licenses with them to be the sole provider of cable in their city

This is a misrepresentation of how that system works, you should go to your local franchise board meetings and see that there isn't any signed agreements.  These rights are provided wholly with no agreements from the providers.

"
technology,"I agree for the most part, but the smaller companies using newer technology can transmit ~100X100 Mbps.
I found a WISP in Wisconsin of all places that offers rural customers 25 X 5 Mbps without a data cap or contract. I would say that this one company might be something to look for if you don’t have the option of Shitrum or ATT.

Granted this will probably cost you $50/mo in urban areas vs $300+ in rural areas...

Honestly I prefer the density and stability of fiber :)"
technology,"That's interesting.  I dont think anyone has asked me in quite a while about religion, haha.  I think there are higher powers, things more elegant or simply deeper or larger than humans.  Many of them are emergent properties of the basic laws of the universe.  Complexities that are far larger than any one human can understand.  Don't know if philosophy or mathematics would count as a religion to you however. 

For the record the last post of mine was completely tongue-in-cheek.  But for real, the logic of pressing the button either very few times and being scared, or a lot of times confidently checks out.  Things are what they are and we need room to make them better. If someone has the confidence and ability to gather many resources to themselves you (the observer) are left with two options, to hope they are sane and doing larger things for good, or to fear they are insane and growing like cancer.  The trick is that no person sees their own actions as ""bad"", so anyone with the will to press the button a thousand times would enact great changes.  They either simply align with your interests, or your abstraction of self interests you term society, and you like those actions.  Or they don't, and you don't.

Regardless of one's religion (what's yours by the way?) the rule of the earth is expediency. "
technology,"I'm an agnostic atheist that uses rationality and skepticism to form my beliefs. Basically my ""religion"" in the loosest sense of the term is, ""I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.""

Among the things I believe are: magic likely doesn't exist, god likely doesn't exist, a higher power likely doesn't exist or at least functionally does not exist, and quite a lot more. All of those are worded as they are because I am not sure we can be absolutely sure about anything. We have no way to test anything beyond the natural world, and anything that doesn't interact with the natural world has no bearing on us. So while I cannot be sure a god doesn't exist, I can be sure the interactive gods that are presented do not exist because there is no evidence for their interactions."
technology,"There have been more than one instance of major telecoms lobbying state legislatures to either outright outlaw or put in major barriers to entry to prevent municipalities entering the ISP game.

Another big one is screwing around to slow competitors down by things such as since they own the telephone poles, they dick around on getting them ready for a competitor's equipment installed (they legeally can't say no, as part of the terms of them being allowed to install the power poles on both public and private land they don't owe) because there isn't often a requirement on how fast they must do it.,"
technology,"hence the parentheses ""(in the long run)"". yes, Comcast and Spectrum will probably be toppled in the near future, but some other set of assholes will gladly take their places. as long as humans vote with their pocketbooks - and that's unlikely to change in our lifetimes - then there will always be a push toward consolidation, toward giving people less and less of a choice for better ""value"".

you want cheaper <anything>? companies will ruthlessly cater to that need by consolidating and destroying competition.

were you or anybody else consulted about nearly every company outsourcing their phone support to India? or getting rid of salaried, secure jobs in favor of a disposable, contingent workforce? or <pick some negative economic outcome from the past however-many-years>?

no, but we all collectively voted by paying less for everything, which brought those companies into power and kept them there.

whatever tech is involved won't matter, whatever paradigms are shifted won't matter. consumers choose low prices and convenience, and the result is sociopathic corporations which will fuck you every which way they can.

in a perfect world, governments would do what people themselves can't (organize to stop predatory capitalism), but that's a whole other can of worms that's ultimately related to the same phenomenon: in the absence of a central coordinating mechanism, humans act in their individual self-interest which is fundamentally short-sighted. it's an invisible form of planetary pollution which nobody recognizes."
technology,"> that's when it will finally end for human ~~labor~~

If machines can do every job better then humans can then why would society need humans around? My guess is you won't see anything like what movies tries to show, instead it becomes a slow death of less and less money available to afford shelter. We already see lobbyist use the names of people who are dead or even don't exist at all. I've also seen companies use names of people who don't actually work there to make it looks like the company has more workers then they actually have."
technology,"That is something that sounds like a movie script and I guess I have to repeat that it wouldn't be something you see out of a movie. I'm also guessing the issue is a missed view as to what an AI is.  Companies as they are currently is an AI and the economy is the environment that they live in. What will happen is less people will be in charge of decision making for companies until eventually it will be shown that a fully automated company makes more money then one that has human decision makers, so investors will invest in that type of company instead. When every single square acre of land on the planet is owned by companies, there will be no cave to hide in, it would be a repeat process of being sent to jail for trespassing then released but no where to stay so by the next day the person is already being sent back to jail again for trespassing on a company's property."
technology,"The smug attitude of people while suggesting to get some 'decent' wireless headphones. Never mind the cost and/or the fact that you have perfectly fine wired earphones already. 

Get something which is easier to lose.

Get something where the battery will deteriorate over time.

Get something where you consistently keep a tab of charge its left with

Get something which is not as easily and widely available in case you lose it

Get something which blocks an essential port on the device.

Get something which needs pairing once you shared it with somebody. 

The number and attitude of sheeps is mind boggling."
technology,"Must clarify that I am not referring to everybody using the wireless as sheep. My reply here is for the scenario where people blindly advocate the usage of the wireless earphones while dissing everything the wired counterparts have to offer.

Say, a fellow using the wireless variant at a place like a gym is abs fine. The wires can actually be distracting, leading to serious mishaps due to the environment. But to claim all of a sudden and baselessly that wired ones are a pain and pedestrian, that is ridiculous.  "
technology,"There are many good bluetooth headset on sale, and its actually addressing those issues. 
for example the AirPods 

>Get something which is easier to lose.

You can use your iPhone to search/track your headset. even if it slip under the couch, you can find it.
>Get something where the battery will deteriorate over time.

As long as you can service/change the battery, it shouldn't be problem. 

>Get something where you consistently keep a tab of charge its left with

15 minutes charge on AirPods give you 3 hours of usage. No need to consistently check its charge


>Get something which blocks an essential port on the device.

Bluetooth.

>Get something which needs pairing once you shared it with somebody.

AirPods pairing is so easy, literally just open the case next to your iPhone 


Have you try using any recent bluetooth headset? unless you're an audiophile, bluetooth headset audio quality is good enough to satisfy most people. "
technology,"Yeah many of us do have Bluetooth headphones (and a number of other devices) and like them just fine. I get that it's not for everybody, but calling those people ""sheep"" doesn't make sense. Technology despite people bitching about it on Reddit, is still moving towards wireless tech. We aren't there yet and the loss of the 3.5 when Bluetooth tech of any quality was still outside of the average users price range, was probably a bit misguided at that time. That being said, 3.5 and wires for many are a pain in the ass. I don't want cables all over the place it's annoying, so I actively switched. Bluetooth and wireless technology are all my kids know at this point. I get this a westerners view for sure, but it's a part of the everyday. "
technology,"Spending money while I have the reg option PLUS on something which ll keep asking for battery replacement after X yrs, while I can save myself from the whole vicious circle? I prefer not to take tim cook's bait hook line and sinker. Thank you.

Never gonna get any device associated with apple.

Do not want the 'service/charge' the battery routine.

The whole idea of charge your earphones sounds annoying. As it is, to keep a tab on charging a phone is bearable cuz it offers loads of functionality. Here, I am to be bothered about something as simple as plug and play? Laughable.

Sorry, bluetooth option has lag unless going with AptX HD iirc. And can't really justify the whole battery powered + charge your headset before you can use them concept.

Again, plug in the simple 3.5 mm while rushing out even, and I won't be bothered to devote time for something as simple as to be listening to the music."
technology,"> Never gonna get any device associated with apple.


You call other people smug and sheep. 

But you're attitude is just as bad. 

>The whole idea of charge your earphones sounds annoying. 

Store the headset in its case, and it will charge. It's neither difficult nor inconvenient. 

>Sorry, bluetooth option has lag unless going with AptX HD iirc

Are you some kind of MLG esport player that need 0.000001 ms audio lag?. You won't notice the lag when watching movie. 

"
technology,"I feel like the hatred comes from the idea that wireless is not a universal solution and is being treated as such by both advocates and the industry.  

The current state of wireless audio is series of trade-offs with wired audio. They both have their place and uses but the idea that wireless is a universal solution is what is getting so much flak.  

There is a real (and possibly sensationalized fear) that the audio jack will be removed and we won't have real solution to check the same boxes in its place. USB C audio isn't really universal yet and wireless has the same trade offs. "
technology,"> But you're attitude is just as bad.

Sure. :D

>It's neither difficult nor inconvenient.

Guess trying to tell people who are not willing to be on the same book, leave alone the page, gonna do anything good.

>You won't notice the lag when watching movie.

Oh ho ho. We gotta clueless fella here then. :D

Should have mentioned this right at the beginning of your post/reply.. would have saved both of us time n effort. Sigh.

And  3600CCH6WRX, try to read upon you're Vs your.
"
technology,"Meanwhile companies like Apple, Facebook, Google and Twitter are working overtime to dismantle our 1st Amendment with Orwellian 'hate speech' functions that favor Chinese style dictatorships over the freedom that our Founding Fathers envisioned for this country. Quite a bit of cognitive dissonance going on in the tech world right now. If you're a keyboard cowboy railing against Ajit Pai while simultaneously supporting censorship then go fuck your mother. Also, contact the mod to have my comment removed because it threatens your safe space."
technology,"i didn't watch alex jones, but from what i heard he posted conspiracy theories, not racist stuff.

When the first amendment was made, the most effective way to reach out to people was to stand in the city preaching to people. nowadays, that's not effective at all compared to social media. if social media gets to choose what you can and can't say, there's no good alternative if you wanna reach out to the masses. It's alright that you don't like alex jones or his opinions, but one day it might be someone you like that gets banned. what will you do then?

Being fine with twitter banning people you don't like is a slippery slope to them banning people for going against twitters interests. if that's not orwellian i don't know what is."
technology,"Seriously a ton of users could make the switch without issue. Look at Chrome books, where most things are done through the web. The only real downside to most end users a system like Ubuntu or Mint has is the lack of MS Office. Whatever your opinions on Libre/Open Office may be, at a minimum there are massive formatting issues when translating between the formats, which would force many to use the web-based versions of Microsoft's product, or Google docs when collaborating with other people. These are the same issues chromebooks face. I think a big barrier to a lot of people is the stigma around Linux, and it's sad but a lot of the Linux community actively contribute to the stigma by going off on rants about FOSS, when most users just want a system that works. "
technology,">But then they'd have to run Linux.


And that attitude is part of the stigma. It's not like I'm advocating moving grandma to Arch here. A distro like Mint is going to be fairly easy to adjust to for people used to Windows and is trivial to install. There's a different underlying architecture and different debug steps, but for your average user that's all a black box anyway. Specialized software will always be an issue though unfortunately "
technology,"> And that attitude is part of the stigma. 

The attitude is justified, especially if you're not a techie.

> Specialized software will always be an issue though unfortunately 

And commodity software, as well.  If someone can't run a specific program that they want/need then that's going to kill the experience.  Just look at what the ""app gap"" did with Windows Phone.  There were credible alternatives to nearly all of the most popular apps, including third-party apps that connected to first-party services.  But if people couldn't get the app that they wanted then they weren't interested."
technology,"Valve just shipped a new compatibility layer that's brought hundreds of Windows games up on Linux. (Ubuntu specifically, although others can work too, I understand.  I imagine SteamOS is probably included, although I haven't tested with that.)  

They're using a modified version of WINE with some other compatibility/glue layers that they've provided and (I believe) open sourced, and the early reports I've seen is that it works quite well.  It doesn't work with every game, obviously, but the officially supported ones are nearly flawless, and apparently many other games are running now, too. 
"
technology,"Google docs and office web apps do mitigate a lot of this, but of course there's the VBA issue. They work perfectly fine though for general documents and spreadsheets. And yeah, Libre is there and fine for regular stuff, but after using it for a while I'll admit to missing my _absolutely proprietary_ ms office products. They're more polished and some of the stuff in Libre/Open are just not intuitive.

If you're super cool though you clearly use vim/emacs to write your documents in LaTeX. This is clearly a reasonable workflow to roll out to your organization as well, because training your office staff how to use vim is like, what, 3 hours? And LaTeX formatting  is completely intuitive and should be easy for Betty and Fred in sales to pick up"
technology,"
>>But then they'd have to run Linux.


>A distro like Mint is going to be fairly easy to adjust to for people used to Windows and is *trivial to install*. 

You are literally are comedian. You should post this on r/funny. You think the people who don't know what a start menu is, who think their operating system is HP or Dell, or who have all kinds of  malware/spyware browser extensions and software on their computers can install Linux. "
technology,">You are literally are comedian. You should post this on r/funny.

Why do people on the internet have to be cunts when they disagree? 

The only reason people like that are using windows is because it came with the computer. I'm not saying they should install it themselves any more than they installed their current OS. I'm saying that it is easy to install, and after a brief ""this is the magic icon to go to Google"" explanation they can be equally functional and incompetent regardless of OS. Same applies to having them transition to a Mac. Hell they'd even have a nice ""App Store"" where they could download things safely and easily without getting maleware. Linux meets the functional needs of these users and many others. "
technology,"look at savetheinternet.info, those people actually confronted Axel Voss with a petition of over a million people, which I actively followed, signed and donated to. They are the people working with Martin Sonneborn and Julia Reda (Pirate Party) to turn this over.
He dismissed them as ""alt right trolls"" and ""fake accounts"" because ""nobody would have a reason to oppose this""

There are a lot of people trying to stop this, but money > common sense."
technology,"Microsoft continues to roll out nag-ware damaging to their brand.

Sure, you can roll it out and annoy customers into submission. Freeware turned crapware was prolific because it was effective means to cash out quickly.

I assume Microsoft intends to stay in the industry for the long-term. Under that constraint, brand matters. The reputation of the product matters. It's much more difficult to build up trust in the brand than it is to quickly cash out by turning to the nagging crapware model.

Futures on Microsoft are probably not so high for the decision. I predict earnings fall short in future years. In the long-run the pool of customers willing to spend energy to get into an alternative, any alternative, grows when trust is burned.

Deploy golden parachutes and good luck to those left holding the brand."
technology,"We need a button that rolls clip of Elon Musk stating Valve is a good company on Joe Rogan.

This demonstrates the point perfectly. We see over and over again that given a sufficiently annoying hurdle for inconvenience, a talented builder creates an alternative solution.

In the tech sphere, when the product has been placed at a price too high or becomes sufficiently obnoxious to use, it becomes less convenient to invest time in the replacement.

We see this play out so frequently that it should have a formerly defined law or naming such as 'Streisand Effect'."
technology,">Deploy golden parachutes and good luck to those left holding the brand.

Right, but before you do that let's consider three things. First, their target customers. From the way they hold your hand and the kind of nagware they employ its obvious they're going after technological illiterate masses that can't tell the difference between safari and firefox. A browser is a browser so if they find out they already have one installed why install another.

Second, the major PC operating systems. Correct me if I'm wrong but right now that's macOS, Windows and a few Linux forks. And let's just leave Linux out of this because it's an almost pure developer and programming OS that requires so much knowledge to operate your average PC user isnt going to want to bother with it. So Windows and macOS But macOS is exclusive to the Mac and theres cheaper alternatives to a Mac, the kind of thing the people I mentioned earlier might take into consideration. Mac, HP, Dell, its all computers in the end right?

Third, and maybe the most important, windows comes basically preinstalled on almost every retail PC. It's easy, it's there and your average person isnt gonna go about uninstalling windows to switch to Ubuntu or Amazon Fire (or whatever they were gonna name their OS). More than likely nagware is going to work on them, or at the very least it's not gonna bother them. I know it doesn't bother me: it's just an extra button to click, it's not forcing me to do anything.

My point is, this is simply an ad aimed at a specific group of people that isn't you. Now if it's enough to make you wanna jump to a different OS, good on you. But damaging their brand? Breaking customer trust? If they lose all the tech savy people it'll hardly be more than a minor dent in their operations. Microsoft is basically everywhere, as I mentioned earlier.

And even then they won't lose all of them, or even most of them, because things like this aren't much to kick a fuss up over. If they haven't lost them with the almost arbitrary update restarts, turning security essentials into a non-negotiable feature or the almost impossibility of creating a User account on windows 10 without a microsoft account, I'm willing to bet there's a lot of petty shit they can get away with, definitly nagware.

Know how I know I'm right? Because of how many people still put up with WinRAR despite the constant purchase reminder. Because the end-product is still there. Its just an extra button press away"
technology,"It really doesn't take much to game on Linux. The real problem is developers ignoring the platform. If there are no Linux binaries for a given game, the only way you can play it is via emulation. And emulation is really a toss up. Sometimes it works really well. In my experience, most of the time it doesn't. Additionally, emulation always comes with a performance penalty, and most gamers aren't at all interested in sacrificing performance for fucking anything. 

There is hope though. Most modern third party game engines support Linux as a build target. Developers just need to use that option."
technology,"Pretty sure just themes, appearance options, and background pictures. And a nifty bootlogo. I'm actually not even completely sure what's built in to gnome and what's from this. It has a macOS style dock which is optional as well as windows and traditional Linux style appearance profiles. If I'm honest it should probably just be a PPA and set of packages, but, then again, that might be what it is under the hood while images are being created. Maybe I misunderstand what's changed. Have to say your question will have me installing Ubuntu later on. I run a MAAS server so getting a fresh gnome shell and ub desktop image up won't take long in a VM.

Frankly it just looked better than Ubuntu did to my eyes and had way more options for changing the positions of UI elements which can't always be fixed in theming."
technology,"I think they're taking a calculated risk with this ad: They're going after the majority of consumers by targeting the technologically illiterate, but at the same time betting that something like an ad in an instalation wont drive away the more tech-savy crowd, if purely only because it doesn't make their OS less convenient to lose. They're not taking away anything, agressively pushing their product and making alternatives harder to get. It's just an ad during instalation. Chances are it wont even register to you at some point."
technology,"Apple and Google have moved there corporate offices to  China. In other words , hand in hand. Both corporations have  bent over backwards to restrict access to  the wide internet in China.  Now they share all that they have mined from us in the last 20 years with a country that has for a long time declared war on  us. Look it up. There is lots of YouTube on their top general  talking about crushing us as a country.  If the USA doesn't wake up. We are in trouble. The youth today are some whinny little bitches. Wait till they live under Chinese law and order.  We find we should have fought for our country. "
technology,"Yikes.

Well there’s a lot to unpack here. In order for you to sell in China, you have to have some level of operations *in China*. That’s their law. Now Apple just spent a tremendous amount of money building a new HQ in Mountain View, CA. Not sure why you’d think they would toss away their new pride and joy.

Manufacturing jobs are never coming back to the US. Ever. Manufacturing, however is being automated in the US where output has actually increased since the 90s. The US Economy has fully shifted to a services-based enployment market, and Apple is prime example of this shift. I don’t want to have to spend $350 for a pair of Nike’s. The US still dominates the influx of cash globally.

Nice of you to trash your own people , btw. In their defense, they probably understand economics better than you do and can discern fact from fiction."
technology,"Which is hilarious since I paid $1499 for a 512gb Note 9.

I justified that price since my phone has become my main screen, I dont use my laptop anymore and turn on the desktop maybe twice a month for games.

Prevously it was $500 phone, $2500 laptop. now I can get by just fine with a single device that splits the difference in price.

Pretty sure thats how apple are justifying this strategy themselves. laptop and desktop sales are stagnant while phones are constantly increasing. they are becoming the main device for a lot of people, rather than the secondary device which is now the smartwatch in apples plan."
technology,"It isnt, but it's undeniably getting there.

a couple of years ago I would fire up the laptop to do things like buy movie tickets, book a flight or download a document. These days I can do that just fine on a phone.

Still lots of things a full Pc is needed for, but I use my Note9 on an external monitor with a keyboard and mouse at work for documents and emails.

Sure a $300 laptop can do that, but having a single device is really convenient to me.
"
technology,"I have been thinking of revolution as of late. Something which serves the masses. Not like communism, because communism is genocidal and violent.   Not like Fascism or nazism because that also can be very oppressive.  Not like democracy because it can be inefficient and it is usually spineless bean counting vermin that end up populating important positions.

This new thing would be something which takes the best aspects of nazism, communism, democracy.  I just think about it on my free time.  How could I make a governmental system where the incentives and standards and processes are setup with such perfection that everybody does exactly the right things and the North Star is to increase the size of the middle class and raising wages. You could go full privatization Nazi style, but that also has issues without proper controls. The Soviet centrally planned economies are the most incompetent thing ever. But somewhere on the middle there is the perfect combination of controls and privatization.

You wanna talk?"
technology,"[A tiny fraction of costs go to research.](https://web.archive.org/web/20060421235800/http://www.chcf.org/documents/insurance/HealthCostsSnapshot04.pdf)

Even if you could say these medicines definitely wouldn't exist if we'd covered everybody - is treating those rare illnesses worth the millions of Americans killed or bankrupted by mundane and preventable bullshit? If it was a clean trade between un-inventing antiretroviral therapy and bringing back everyone who'd died because they 'hoped it would get better on its own,' are you *sure* you wouldn't take it?"
technology,"a circlejerking echo chamber of people who legitimately believe they know more about the deep-down, backdoor dealings of deep state politicians than scientists, political analysts, and a vast majority of other far-more-qualified people.

Did you ever have that one uncle who was weird, probably harmless, and had rock solid (in his mind) proof that the illuminati controlled every aspect of peoples lives all over the globe?  

Imagine a couple thousand of him in a big gymnasium all shouting at the top of his lungs."
technology,">It's unclear. 

No it's not. ""Q"" linked to a satirical Twitter account about a month ago. The person behind it started getting death threats, people on that sub posted his picture, name, address etc. He reported it to the mods, they put him on mute and banned him. They posted threads saying he was raping and eating three year olds.

And then got banned. 

I mean... What the fuck did they think would happen. "
technology,"You mean where those posts are a very small minority, deleted promptly, and both the community and moderators are in total agreement that it's unacceptable behavior?  Yes, please continue comparing that to open doxing and threats from an order of magnitude larger percentage of their community if not more, left unchecked by the moderators.  Let's wait until another lunatic shoots up another public venue in their name and sit around saying there was nothing we could have done to prevent it."
technology,"Not just a gun, he walked in with an assault rifle and pointed it at people.

~~And didn't get charged.~~ Caught 4 years of prison, guess the justice system works once in a while.

They constantly bitch and complain about being persecuted, yet they get away with shit like that.

[Like that one group of fucknuts that literally got into an armed face-off with federal officers, and just sort of got away with it.](http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-bundy-mistrial-2018-story.html)"
technology,">they're being deplatformed because they literally pushed people to make death threats, talked about it publicly, and continued to deny it.

Hopefully there's some sort of summary in /r/outoftheloop when it's all done so I can read up on it. As someone who uses this site mostly to post on /r/the_donald I know we do not do those same things yet we're always at risk of being on the chopping block."
technology,"Reddit is a private site, not a public forum, as you say. This isn’t censorship, it’s Reddit adhering to the law, lest they be abetting people who break the law. This is no different from a company shutting down child porn distribution on their site. 

You’ve made a really great equivalence fallacy (and a nice strawman by bringing censorship into this), between following the law and the nebulous concept of censorship (which you clearly don’t understand what censorship means, fear or not). Being scared simply proves you’re afraid of censorship, but that isn’t what happened to these people.

They did some terrible shit and got their just rewards...which you admit... So your fear of censorship hits at least two, if not three of the classic cognitive distortions: https://psychcentral.com/lib/15-common-cognitive-distortions/"
technology,"No, Pizzagate came from John Podesta's hacked (phished) emails in which he made several cryptic messages with commonly used pedopohilic terminology. Pizzagate came from September/October 2016, leading up to the election.

Q Anon start posting in Late October 2017. While Q Anon hasn't personally mentioned Pizzagate, it's a safe assumption, given the overall nature of his drops, that he would believe that Pizzagate is just scratching the surface of the Globalist's Pedo and Human/Child Trafficking Network"
technology,"Sure, check out the controversial comments in this thread after the Unite the Right 2 march failed:

https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/96s4qf/the_white_supremacist_rally_in_washington_thats/?ref=share&ref_source=link

Hundreds of people all pouring in to /r/pics all repeating the exact same talking point. ""It's almost like..."" ""It's almost as if..."" ""And yet the media....""

They clearly all got a few phrases to use in Discord somewhere and went to town. I wonder if there's any similarity in their posting history?

Narrator: There was."
technology,"https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/courts/suspect-in-hoover-dam-standoff-writes-trump-cites-conspiracy-in-letters/

> KINGMAN, Ariz. — A Henderson man facing terrorism charges in Arizona for using an armored vehicle to block traffic on the bridge near Hoover Dam has written letters from jail to President Donald Trump and other elected officials bearing the motto of a right-wing conspiracy group known as QAnon.

> The letters do not explain Matthew Wright’s motive for the 90-minute incident on the Mike O’Callaghan-Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge on June 15, but they do contain an intriguing clue. Both include the signoff “For where we go one, we go all.”

> That phrase is popular among followers of QAnon, a murky plot unfolding online that casts Trump as the shrewd hero in a secret campaign to expose evil, left-wing global elites responsible for everything from child sex trafficking to the Oct. 1 massacre in Las Vegas.

> In his letter to Trump, Wright called himself a “humble Patriot” and makes what seems to be a winking reference to the “Great Awakening,” a nickname for the “coming storm” that QAnon conspiracy buffs believe will soon bring down the mythical globalist cabal.

 > “My name is Matthew Wright and I wish to apologize for the disrespectful manner in which I have recently addressed you,” the letter to Trump stated, possibly in reference to a sign he held up during the bridge blockade demanding the release of the inspector general’s report on the Hillary Clinton email probe.

> According to court records, the unemployed Marine veteran was armed with an AR-15 rifle, a handgun, multiple magazines of ammunition and a “flash bang” device when he parked a black armored truck on the bridge.

Yeah.. harmless. "
technology,">They clearly all got a few phrases to use in Discord somewhere and went to town. I wonder if there's any similarity in their posting history?

That's interesting, I can see where you're coming from however I don't think limited cases like that which can't really be tied to leadership at /r/the_donald should be a basis for shutting them down. There are 600,000+ subscribers, if a couple of groups on discord coordinate I don't think that should be means for censoring the most pro-Trump subreddit on the site."
technology,"You dont see the pattern emerging from the growing list of banned subs? Hell, we had to fight to get 1 sub unbanned that was about AIRSOFT (because - guns are evil!). Take a look at the subs trying to ban more subreddits, its all just more banning of right winged ideas, yet the communism subs, anti-capitalist subs, all continue to be allowed. Its disgusting. Socialism is economic pedophilia, perfectly ok to discuss (all on a site that wants to make money). Hilarious. "
technology,"Everyone is thier own leader in a way with these movements. Its also so vague that they all believe pretty different things, sorta like a group schizophrenia. What it could do though is push 2 or 3 people to a violent outburst towards innocent people. All this banning of hatespeech makes me uncomfortable from a freespeech perspective, but violent threats are no joke. Humanity cant keep up with the information it is creating because we arnt allowing our brains to digest it. Rather than having to debate these things at a coffee shop in the comradery of free thinking, we do it here. People dont seem to read as many books either. "
technology,"I don't see it happening.  

Too big, too soon.  For something like that to occur you need to be like the game Pandemic.  You put on your points into infection and don't dump any into being obvious.  That way you get global reach without anyone realizing the potential for toxicity.  After you reach criticality, then you start dumping into the visible traits.

The point is, if you don't start in Madagascar you gotta be stealthy."
technology,"Are they hurting you by having discussions about the possibility we are being played as a country... ‘Cause “trust the media to tell us the truth”. Gtfo. So tired of people like you attempting to tell us facts when you’re getting Bs info just like everyone else. I prefer free thinkers, not ABC trusters.

No censorship is ok unless the subject is physically harming someone, or spewing hate... like politics sub and all of the trump hate subs that show far more derangement.

Reddit is not my moral compass, so they should stay out of attempting to control what we see. Banning only makes the issues more well known and focused on. Streisand effect 101."
technology,"Hey my dude. While the illuminati, roths, etc. make it seem really stupid it's actually not. I think you have to pretty close minded to think that there aren't some people who have huge volumes of wealth who use it to control things. ""Hey X company. I'll support you more if you do such and such"" ""Hey aspiring president/prime minister/governer I'll back your campaign and give you great PR if you'll cut such and such tax or change such and such law.""

I mean it's pretty easily Google-able that the amount of money put into campaigns pretty much aligns with how much it's voted for.

So I do agree with you about uncle crack pot that believes in crazy shit and no moonlandings or a flat earth but if you are really trying to tell me that people that believe there are bigger things going on behind the scenes are wrong then you are the crazy one. "
technology,"Private company = private site

Not sure where you got the public forum bit, didn't say that.

I'm scared of censorship in the way that Iranian women are scared of the police coming for them for showing their faces. I'm frightened of corporations in the future having the ability to exert power over citizens for speaking out, like an employee coming forward with human rights violations committed by a company and having legal action brought against him. That's frightening.

My fear of censorship has nothing to do with this situation, I was just pointing out that censorship itself is a frightening aspect associated with the future of humanity.

I'm on your side though, this is what they deserved. I wasn't defending their actions in any way... not sure why you're coming at me like this.

I **do** understand what censorship is, I didn't allude to a misunderstanding of censorship in any way. "
technology,"Ad revenue is ad revenue, 600,000+ impressions on a daily basis is a lot of money.

Doesn't change the fact that r/the_donald has clearly evaded the rules and punishments for breaking the Reddit ToS.

I'm sure you're a great dude, dude. But Trump is on the wrong side of history, and so are his supporters.

He is an **unindicted co-conspirator**. If he wasn't the president he would've already been arrested and charged with crimes. 

I'm not saying you're a conspiracy theorist, but if you want to follow the actual conspiracy, go ahead and check out [/r/Keep_Track](https://www.reddit.com/r/Keep_Track/comments/7zfiwu/megathread_chronicles_timelines_overviews/) and you might be able to wrap your head around exactly why this is such a big deal."
technology,"> Ad revenue is ad revenue, 600,000+ impressions on a daily basis is a lot of money.

I'm just not seeing that as being the case, although if we're in conspiracy theory territory there's evidence that the subscriber numbers are a lie and are more in the range of 6,000,000

>Doesn't change the fact that r/the_donald has clearly evaded the rules and punishments for breaking the Reddit ToS.

Similarly to how everybody commits 7 felonies in the average day. If r/the_donald could be shut down for independent actors then any sub could have that done to it. I could start a discord right now and get people to the same with r/technology , what's the standard?

>If he wasn't the president he would've already been arrested and charged with crimes.

Only because he goes against the establishment. If we lived in an objective government then Hillary Clinton would've already been arrested and charged with crimes but we live in a trying time in politics. 

>I'm not saying you're a conspiracy theorist, but if you want to follow the actual conspiracy, go ahead and check out /r/Keep_Track and you might be able to wrap your head around exactly why this is such a big deal.

Similarly, if you don't think the FBI and DOJ have been caught in the largest political scandal to ever hit the US I recommend [reading this](https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/01/05/operation-condor-how-nsa-director-mike-rogers-saved-the-u-s-from-a-massive-constitutional-crisis/) and [give this a listen](https://www.bongino.com/january-8-2018-ep-628-the-biggest-scandal-in-american-history-is-unfolding/)"
technology,">*goes against the establishment*

And launders money for international gangsters, and is an alleged rapist and pedophile, and a traitor, and a niggardly asshole incapable of following through with payments to **literally** hundreds of small-time businessman, a thief who wouldn't bat an eye at taking money from people who assumed he could give them an education, a racist dickhead who blames the problems of his base on Mexicans and other shades of brown people *(further enabling the divide amongst the citizens of the country)* as if that hasn't backfired tremendously throughout history

Whataboutism is a nice color, conservatives wear it well.

Have a good day dude."
technology,">And launders money for international gangsters, and is an alleged rapist and pedophile, and a traitor, and a niggardly asshole incapable of following through with payments to literally hundreds of small-time businessman, a thief who wouldn't bat an eye at taking money from people who assumed he could give them an education, a racist dickhead who blames the problems of his base on Mexicans and other shades of brown people (further enabling the divide amongst the citizens of the country) as if that hasn't backfired tremendously throughout history

You are so deep in the hole of being wrong I don't think there's a way to get you out of it. You've been told Trump is a villain for so long and I imagine you don't have anybody in your group of friends who supports him so you've never been given the other side. If anybody is dividing this country it is the people who, after chastising Trump for saying he might refute the results of the election, have been whipped in to a frenzy and led by a desperate-to-get-Trump media that he is the worst thing that has ever happened which you have fallen for hook line and sinker.

>Whataboutism is a nice color, conservatives wear it well

Whataboutism is a nice new buzzword, leftists use it to dis-spell criticisms very well

>Have a good day dude.

You too"
technology,"Can't keep up with the news for you man. Hope you figure this shit out for yourself, but I am not wrong. The writing on the wall is plain to see. I already linked you the keep_track page with a list of sources and dates and arrests and indictments and charges and guilty pleas. 

You linked me some nebulous unsourced garbage, which I took a look at and was entirely unconvinced because it unsourced fearmongering garbage.

If Hillary had done **any** of the things Trump has been accused of the country would've ground to a halt.

He is the worst thing to happen to this country in a very long time. He hires sycophants who are hellbent on destroying the institutions they've been put in charge of. Scott Pruit literally fired every single scientist from the EPA and filled the positions with people beholden to corporate interests. 

I can't put it plainly enough. You are wrong, and misinformed. I hope you find the answers you're looking for, but they won't be given to you by Trump.

There's a reason he has the lowest approval ratings of any president ever.

Covering your eyes and ears doesn't change the facts or reality of what's happening."
technology,">You linked me some nebulous unsourced garbage, which I took a look at and was entirely unconvinced because it unsourced fearmongering garbage.

Ah, in that case I'll just do the same thing to your link, no skin off my back.

>If Hillary had done any of the things Trump has been accused of the country would've ground to a halt.

No because there's enough people like you who don't question the media or the narrative that it didn't matter. That's why the person who chanted ""lock her up"" was elected president but you must think they're all just imagining things.

>He is the worst thing to happen to this country in a very long time. He hires sycophants who are hellbent on destroying the institutions they've been put in charge of. 

You're thinking of the last guy.

>I can't put it plainly enough. You are wrong, and misinformed. I hope you find the answers you're looking for, but they won't be given to you by Trump.

Neither can I, you are on the exact same side as the media, the corporate interests, and all of the establishment politicians who were able to get together when the outsider threatened what they had going. You are on the side of King George. Covering your eyes and ears doesn't change the facts or reality of what's happening.

"
technology,"Can we be more reasonable plz?

Can we stop using “they” like all 70 000 users of the sub are one person that we think we know everything about?

Can we be more honest when we talk about a handful of individual extremist users, and contextualise the discussion by highlighting the fact that only a fraction of one percent of those users are as violent and unhinged as you would have us believe?"
technology,"Washington Examiner? New York Post? Literal tabloid garbage owned by American Media Inc.

Please, you might as well link me TheOnion for how much bullshit nonsense you're trying to feed me.

You're literally linking me fabricated nonsense stories and trying to pass it off as serious journalism. 

Edit: 

>[Bongino has downplayed the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections investigation, calling it a ""total scam.""](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Bongino) 

So you're saying he's somehow more informed than the special investigator literally assigned to the case?

['He is a paid contributor to NRATV.'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Bongino) An organization of which has already been implicated in several serious allegations, including laundering money, facilitating illegal payments, and working through a back channel with a literal Russian spy?

Opposes Obamacare and socialized healthcare in general, what a fucking surprise.

Dan Bongino is a political hack, you're ridiculous."
technology,"Sure dude, let's roast some marshmallows over a fire while we watch Trump's meltdown after being charged with a litany of crimes in the state of New York once he's out.

Remember, you can't pardon state crimes. So even if he did pardon himself, he'd still end up in handcuffs.

He's already **admitted** to several felonies. Campaign finance impropriety is a felony offense, and he admitted to it multiple times, even though he's too fucking stupid to realize what he did."
technology,"Yep. Not for agriculture. Not for greenhouses. Tell me technology will fix it till you’re blue in the face, but who is paying for this tech at the small and mid size and non profit agriculture/horticulture spots where, you know, things have to stay alive and there’s not enough people or enough pay?

Or health care, where you have to show up and keep people alive. There’s that. Flipping tech megalomaniacs. "
technology,">Yep. Not for agriculture. Not for greenhouses. Tell me technology will fix it till you’re blue in the face, but who is paying for this tech at the small and mid size and non profit agriculture/horticulture spots where, you know, things have to stay alive and there’s not enough people or enough pay?


Pretty sure there are a number of products in various stages of done that range from ""fully automatic / remote controlled machines that can harvest massive fields and plant them after fixing up the soil"" to ""small robot designed to roll around a small field to remove weeds and general maintenance such as fertilizing and wasting plants"".


So I guess the answer is whoever owns the farm saves up enough money to order one of those machines which can replace a few people's wages of expenses for the low cost of power (and in some cases not even that thanks to solar).


>Or health care, where you have to show up and keep people alive. There’s that.


Actually, there's a few projects for remote healthcare going from a screen to talk to a doctor to robotic surgery. As for hospitals, there'll probably always be some nurses on staff, but IBM's Watson was originally set up to be a virtual doctor iirc.


> Flipping tech megalomaniacs. 


It's more like you just haven't done any research into it, or just don't understand how stuff like this works."
technology,"Notice op said “small to medium sized farms”  to get the technology to entirely replace a worker all year you’d need an automated tractor these are incredibly expensive and you need someone to operate one and monitor it anyway (another worker could do that whilst working themselves but it’s not ideal. A small farmer would need to save up for decades to buy something like that in this current situation so replacing a worker is not a feasible solution. In the future I fully expect to see much more automated equipment but in the next 50 years you won’t see them on small to medium sized farms and they’ll only serve specific roles on livestock farms.

With regard to the tech megalomaniacs I’d watch a documentary about farmers who are hacking tractors https://youtu.be/F8JCh0owT4w . The gist is that John Deere and other companies withhold access to their vehicles computers so you cannot replace existing parts without going to a John Deere dealer who will access the computer and let the new piece work with the tractor for a very high price naturally. The other issue is that dealerships aren’t very common so during harvest if they breakdown (which is more common at this time than other periods) you cannot use that tractor the dealerships are too far away and you can’t afford to spend an entire day just to repair a tractor because the window for harvesting can be very small, callout costs are very high/they don’t do call outs at short notice."
technology,">Notice op said “small to medium sized farms”  to get the technology to entirely replace a worker all year you’d need an automated tractor these are incredibly expensive and you need someone to operate one and monitor it anyway (another worker could do that whilst working themselves but it’s not ideal. A small farmer would need to save up for decades to buy something like that in this current situation so replacing a worker is not a feasible solution.


I never said they'd have to totally replace labor on small farms: one of the examples I gave was one designed to do weeding and watering, and while I can't recall the name it's designed for personal sized plots. That alone is a huge help, which saves time and money, which would allow you to save up for another robot designed for tilling and planting, which saves more time, etc.


> In the future I fully expect to see much more automated equipment but in the next 50 years you won’t see them on small to medium sized farms and they’ll only serve specific roles on livestock farms.


50 years is a long ass time for computers and automation. That's more along the lines of ""we solved the problems with vertical farming and now farms are just largish buildings in a city that are 100% automated"".


It's also the kind of time frame for lab-grown meat, so livestock farms aren't really going to be much of a thing either: or rather, livestock farms and small farms are more likely to avoid heavy automation so they can charge a premium for being ""natural"" and/or ""traditionally harvested"".


>With regard to the tech megalomaniacs I’d watch a documentary about farmers who are hacking tractors https://youtu.be/F8JCh0owT4w . The gist is that John Deere and other companies withhold access to their vehicles computers so you cannot replace existing parts without going to a John Deere dealer who will access the computer and let the new piece work with the tractor for a very high price naturally.


Yeah, I support right to repair for stuff like that. I'm kind of hoping for more open-source projects to help combat that as well: it'd be neat if when the tractor or whatever breaks, it can figure out what's broken and you could have the part delivered by drone or even just 3D print it yourself. Or even just the last two alone for that matter.


>The other issue is that dealerships aren’t very common so during harvest if they breakdown (which is more common at this time than other periods) you cannot use that tractor the dealerships are too far away and you can’t afford to spend an entire day just to repair a tractor because the window for harvesting can be very small, callout costs are very high/they don’t do call outs at short notice.


I feel that even in this case you could have robots designed to repair tractors, even if just remote controlled. Callout could be cheap and much faster then. It might even be worth it to have a warranty service where one of those robots is stationed (offline) at the farm, along with a 3d printer, so repairs (even if only temporary) can be done in under an hour. (Farmer calls support, robot diagnoses, 3d printer prints off replacement part, robot installs and confirms working state, real part ordered, machine back online)"
technology,"If you need a body to turn it around, it's only partially automated.


That said, doing light reading about turf grass harvesting doesn't give off anything that can't be automated: prepare and level soil, seed, place netting, water, mow, harvest, roll, pack, ship. If it wasn't for the fact it'd be hideously expensive, turf grass seems like it'd fit right in for vertical farming too: which would make it considerably easier (no worries about weather, could probably grow it faster, likely use CNC style harvesting and planting)."
technology,"Until any of that machinery runs into mud after a 1/2 inch of rain, or makes ruts from automatic mowers running into wet spots, or you need to adjust mowing height. Also you need guys to rebuild pallets, dig runoff trenches when a field floods or an automatic machine hits irrigation lines. Then the automatic harvesters get jammed up or some sensor reads wrong. Also all upkeep on mowers, harvesters and tractors. You’re still gonna have the same amount of guys to keep things running. Until that all can have a computer fix issues like that, you’re still gonna need people in the seats for when something goes wrong "
technology,">Until any of that machinery runs into mud after a 1/2 inch of rain, or makes ruts from automatic mowers running into wet spots, 


Wouldn't extra wide and soft tires almost entirely prevent that?


>or you need to adjust mowing height. Also you need guys to rebuild pallets, dig runoff trenches when a field floods


I don't think those are particularly hard jobs to automate... Particularly runoff trenches, you could have sensors in the field for monitoring how wet it is and deploy robots almost instantly.


> or an automatic machine hits irrigation lines. Then the automatic harvesters get jammed up or some sensor reads wrong. Also all upkeep on mowers, harvesters and tractors. You’re still gonna have the same amount of guys to keep things running. Until that all can have a computer fix issues like that, you’re still gonna need people in the seats for when something goes wrong 


I'd be surprised if a fully automated commercial machine wouldn't have redundant sensors considering how cheap they are. And I don't think you'd need the same number of people, at least not on-site at all times. If a machine gets stuck (and if they are designed right they never should) they could be set up to call for someone. Same for sensors failing. Maintenance can be partially automated, but it's more likely to just have weekly checkups scheduled."
technology,">There are, I believe, perfectly good surveillance drones that don't need to be reapers

Which ones? Specifically? 

There is virtually no competition in long loiter, medium speed, surveillance aircraft (the type you would want for patrolling a long border). The only direct competition for the Predator B (reaper), is the Predator A (MQ-1 and the Army's Gray Eagle).

>whose main claim to fame is their effectiveness at killing (usually unknown and unidentified, faceless) people from a distance

Actually their primary claim to fame is the aforementioned attributes of medium speed and long loiter time (for those in the aerospace industry). The ""unidentified and unknown killing"" is an outcropping of a specific usage case that those capabilities create, and how the governments/customers use them."
technology,"The MQ-9 is absolute overkill for this application.  At $17M per drone, operating costs soar above thousands of dollars per MINUTE.  Add in the cost of building out the secure network require to support additional capacity and endless testing and this just became a $200M waste of money, much like the proposed wall.  

Could easily replace that with a few dozen commercial drones for a couple thousand a piece and then write software to automate reporting for under $500k.  Out the door for way less than $1M and nobody has to fear for their lives.   

...Plus Trump could then continue to spend 3/4 of the time at his golf course pouring the gov't money saved back into his bank account.  Or maybe he'll just give Putin a direct video feed to see if there are any sexy immigrants coming across the border to add to his human trafficking rings. 

"
technology,"I don't know what i'm talking about since i have never encountered what you describe on reddit, mods are quick to react. Not one link has been provided that would indicate anything wrong, and i won't go on a blind goose chase. Funny how you recommend to me what you criticize qanon cultists for doing.

How about you provide one link where something illegal is ongoing, and it was not acted upon? Prove me wrong."
technology," Look, I'm sorry that you got sucked into this nonsense, it's not your fault. Things like Qanon are specifically designed to target people who want to believe that the world makes more sense than it does. That there are still heroes to save the day and villains to be defeated. It sucks, but in the real world there aren't heroes and villains, there are only people. 

​

All that said though, you're not doing yourself any favors. You're down to your last technicality in the face of fairly overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing. Just let these people go. They're not your friends, they're not even a real community. All Qanon and their ilk are, are assholes abusing people's search for answers to further their own political agenda, or for their personal amusement. Let them go, they don't have anything to offer."
technology,"I see “proof” for banning one sub. 20 subs got banned. Did they all do something wrong? Did all of those subs incite violence?  Mods of all 20 subs committed foul play? 

The proof that Q incites violence would be easy to track down since all the “drops” are publicly available outside of Reddit. Except nobody ever wants to link to that, outside of the banned subreddits.

Having followed the Q phenomenon on Reddit until its demise, I can say categorically that I have not read any incitement to violence from the Q source, in fact quite the opposite.

Users on the other hand can post whatever they like on any sub. I agree that moderation is very important here, in which case I would appreciate the Reddit supremo admins to cite a post specifically inciting violence and mod inaction from each of the banned subreddits.

Without such, it appears clearly to me as a censorship carpet-bombing of all Q related discourse, rather than the selective targeting of the incitement of violence.

A statement on whether new subs can be created for users to discuss Q would also go far as to clarifying the position on whether Reddit has effectively banned a subject of discussion."
technology,"You, like many, assume that everyone questioning the apparent censorship buys into Q. It’s possible to find things interesting without believing they are real. Marvel movies for instance.

Interested does not mean invested. Just look at the Q ban related upvotes. MANY Reddit users are interested in this subject. But it seems anyone with any interest in the Q phenomenon for any reason must follow the story and talk about it, now, off of this platform."
technology,"Totally agree with this. Especially when many journals still charge the author to publish the article (typically just online). 

The move of several granting agencies to force authors to publish in Open Access journals or with Open Access for their paper is an important step to acknowledging that science (funded largely by the public purse) should be accessible to those that have paid for it (the average taxpayer). This will shift the cost burden onto the grant and off of the audience. "
technology,"Exactly! Where's all this money going? Taxpayers fund it, writers fund it, readers fund it... nothing is going to the people who work for the actual information. This is just a circle of gatekeeping that is out of most people's price range. 

No wonder they are getting stuck in loops. That's what happens when you try to restrict the flow of information. Open the doors and watch the creativity and innovation flow in. The only way science can progress is if people can helping each other to further innovation."
technology,"There could be a weak argument for charging for access if the journals funded strict and transparent peer review and occasional replication studies. As it is now, many journals are just asking everyone to ""trust us"" that they are professional in peer review on what they see as products. ""You pay us to give us your product, and then we sell your product, don't worry... we will definitely be objective and have high standards""."
technology,"At least within the biological sciences (my personal field) the review process is very rigorous. A paper will be reviewed by at least three other researchers who have an expertise in the area, possibly not exactly on the what the paper is on but enough to judge how good the research is. Each reviewer does this independently and these all go to the editor or the publishing house who then judges if the reviews are good enough to allow the paper to be published. It lies on the reviewers to put forth the good faith effort to honestly review the research, and, by and large from what I've seen, the vast majority of reviewers are VERY thorough in their reviews."
technology,"> nothing is going to the people who work for the actual information.

Yup... As a scientist, you pay absurd fees to publish the paper (often per page).  You (freely) volunteer your time to be an editor / peer reviewer for the journal.  You (or your institution) then has to pay (crazy expensive subscription costs) to download those papers from behind the same publishers paywall.

This economic model may have made *some* sense when the method of distribution involved printing/binding actual physical copies of that paper and then coordinating shipping them to libraries around the planet (who of course still paid for that subscription).  It DOES NOT make any goddamn sense whatsoever when the publisher just coordinates a volunteer army that does all of the actual work and then hosts the PDF on AWS at fractions of a penny per download [1] while extorting tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars per year from each university and scientific institute on this planet in perpetuity.

[1] Which is something the US government could trivially fund, or hell, Google, Amazon, Microsoft or dozens of other companies would freely host if given the opportunity."
technology,"Pain, psychiatry, anxiety, neuroscience here.

I've only paid once to submit, $250...

Never paid less than $1000 upon acceptance. My most recent one was to a Nature family journal with an impact factor of ~13 and it cost about $3000 I think.

So your original post that good journals don't charge is just completely wrong.

Edit: You said non-predatory, my mistake about what you said... I guess my point can be changed then... A vast majority of journals are predatory businesses."
technology,"I believe in and want open access as well. I'm spoiled by what I have had access to and believe in public access. There is more than the cost of the research.

As it is now journals do have costs of organizing and keeping the journal. Defending it when something blows up on them. They have to recruit (almost sucker) someone into peer reviewing a paper for little money. And you need more than one peer review.

These things are real costs after the research. And they should be done professionally and well to keep a journal ongoing. If you want public release of info who pays to defend anything?

I don't have an answer just pointing out part of the problem that needs addressing. I think we have undervalued work and expertise and expect it for free. The poor slubs who get suckered into peer review endanger their reputations for hardly enough money to cover their time at minimum wage."
technology,"Makes me think of the process for this regional conference I attend and present at for my field. Every year you have to pay a fee to be a member, and membership allows you to register for their yearly conference and it allows you access to an academic journal. The journal is nice, but many of us recieve access via our academic institutions, so it's really not something I'd spend money on normally. The ridiculous part is the fee only allows me to register, which in itself has a fee regardless of whether I'm presenting or not. One would argue that we all come to this conference to present and to see other presentations, so basically I'm paying a fee that allows me to pay another fee, all to give a 15 minute presentation. "
technology,"> nothing is going to the people who work for the actual information.

Yes, right now authors are not paid for submitting papers to journals. But if they are required to submit to open access journals, then they will actually have to pay the journal to publish their work. And getting nothing is still better than getting a bill.

These proposals sound good in principle, but ultimately they make science more expensive. Scientists will be forced to pick up costs formerly shouldered by libraries. And more expensive science inevitably means less science."
technology,"> Scientific magazines contribute jack shit while getting paid to publish and keep the rights to publicly funded research. The work they should do (peer review, quality check, the actual goddamn papers and studies) is done for them for free by other people. 

Ok wait a second. I believe all journals should be open access, but let's keep the melodrama to a reasonable level. Scientific magazines require administrative and editorial staff to do what they do. There is actually a publishing process that goes on. More importantly, you're saying that the magazines SHOULD do the peer review? Who is ""the magazines"", exactly? I *guarantee* you don't want them doing the peer review, because then it would just be a review, and the ""peer"" part is soooort of important. If you write a manuscript and someone is going to tell you what's wrong with it and how you need to improve it, YOU WANT IT TO BE A PEER.   "
technology,"That is what they all say they do. Unfortunately, there is still a replication problem in *all* the fields (some more than others). That very well may be due to factors outside the control of journals, but how is anyone supposed to dig down to the root causes when many of the publications have anonymous reviewers and opaque decision making?

It seems like the first variable you would want to eliminate as a possible failure point would be the review and publication process. "
technology,"I mean, that argument doesn't really hold water. If their standards are low, then they publish crap. If they publish crap, their impact factor drops, and everything else is downhill from there. If they didn't have high standards, many more of my publications would be accepted on the first try, but the body of my published work would be *weaker*.  

And course that's all largely beside the point because the standards aren't theirs, the standards largely belong to the peer reviewers, and the problem there is often with standards being too high."
technology,">Where is the money going?

I have a PhD in Nutrition, earned by doing immunology research on influenza vaccine and obesity. I currently do research on HIV vaccine as a postdoc. I have published papers in for-profit journals, reviewed papers for open access and for-profit journals, and have more publications planned.

Here's where that money goes: Seniormost Editors of prestigious journals like Nature are typically people who had a successful career publishing in the journals. These people typically have medical degrees, and were poached from academic institutions with the promise of high salaries and lots of discretion to control the journal, and influence the scientific fields. They collect 6 figure salaries, while hiring junior editors who typically also have doctorates. These people have to be enticed to leave academic and industry jobs: they are highly specialized, and command fairly high wages to begin with: And they are necessary.

A Journalism undergrad major cannot vet these papers: You need Scientists to conduct the editorial process, as well as control the review process: Otherwise the science deosn't get thoroughly vetted.

Journals with open access typically (though not always) have higher publication fees because the revenue stream is more limited."
technology,"Google, Amazon, and microsoft would not freely host.

And I don't trust those data mining assholes destroyers of privacy to do a god damn thing right anymore.

BTW those companies work for the shareholders, not their customers, and not this country.

Until shareholders no longer get priority when it comes to how a company operates, and until the stock market is no longer a thing, private companies should never be trusted at all whatsoever to do the right thing. EVER.  History has proven they never do and never will."
technology,"> Google, Amazon, and microsoft would not freely host.

Google has been scanning/preserving books for decades now, and is storing petabytes of data that they can never truly monetize and currently only partially serve to end-users.  Microsoft paid outright for rights to the Feynman lectures so they could host them for free.  Bezos is a huge science/tech nerd who literally burns billions of his own cash on rockets each year.  You are out of your goddamn mind if you think one (or all) of them wouldn't immediately jump at the opportunity to freely host a few terabytes (i.e. even if every single paper was downloaded every single minute, this is still a popcorn far compared to Youtube or AWS traffic) of PDF's containing the sum-total of humanities scientific knowledge.  Hell, a bunch of rando russians are currently running kolhoz, libgen, scihub, etc. without any trouble.  The *only* barrier here isn't technical or monetary.  It's copyright.  Once you stop assigning copyright to parasitic publishers the rest sorts itself out.

> Until shareholders no longer get priority when it comes to how a company operates, and until the stock market is no longer a thing

Calm down Stalin


"
technology,"> Especially when many journals still charge the author to publish the article (typically just online).

**Every** journal (that I know or care about) charges authors to publish the article. Usually the cost is on the order of $1000-$3000 dollars. They usually charge extra for color figures, even if they will only be printed online ( on the  order of ~$200-300 per figure).

Many journals will offer an option to pay extra to allow your paper to be published open source. This usually costs the author $3000-5000 dollars. 

The last paper I published cost me (read: the American taxpayer) around $8000 in publication and open-access fees. 
"
technology,"The NSF is a body that funds research. If it has a new expense, such as direct payments to journals, then there will be less money for research.

It would be nice if libraries would pay publication fees for authors. And some do. But there isn't really any way to enforce this. A journal could force the payment to come from a library, but they can't stop the library from turning around and asking the scientist to reimburse it from a grant. 

Scientists already pay their institutions ""overhead"" to cover various administrative costs, and nothing stops an institution from tacking on publication fees. Even worse, this policy might lock someone out of publishing if they are not affiliated with an institution that supports research."
technology,">But there isn't really any way to enforce this.

Sure there is, a publisher can simply refuse to allow a University affiliated academic from publishing unless their institution pays a subscription fee. If they're feeling generous, they could have special policies for unaffiliated researchers.

>The NSF is a body that funds research. If it has a new expense, such as direct payments to journals, then there will be less money for research.

Universities already have to pay subscription fees, money that those Universities could have used to fund PhD students or buy new lab equipment. We're already using precious research money. If we flipped to fees to publish vs fees to view we could keep University spending the same whilst allowing anyone to view the articles."
technology,"OK, if the peer review process is so great, then why is there a replication crisis?

I'm not meaning to be confrontational, but you have to admit that it could look fishy to a layperson...

*Some journals charge money for submissions, and then also charge readers to access. Many reviewers are anonymous, and criteria is subjective.*

> 70% of researchers (all fields) were unable to reproduce another's results. 2% admitted to falsifying data. 14% said they had personal knowledge of a colleague who did

That is just the broad Wikipedia summary. There have been a ton of studies that have dug deeper and looked at the problem more specifically.

While I think ""crisis"" may be too strong of a term (70% does cover any single instance over a career), I would think it enough to actively look for solutions.

If there isnt sloppy science passing peer review, that adds an insinuation of *active* attempts to dodge rigor by the researchers themselves.

Personally, I am more inclined to be suspicious of a successful, for profit industry than the research science community. "
technology,"> Many reviewers are anonymous

Of course reviewers are anonymous. Can you imagine the opposite?

>70% of researchers (all fields) were unable to reproduce another's results.

This doesn't really say as much as it sounds like it does. A paper's results not being replicable does not mean the paper should not have been published. In many fields, 95% confidence interval is that chosen for statistical significance: in other words, about one in twenty published papers is likely wrong, even though everything was done correctly."
technology,"> Sure there is, a publisher can simply refuse to allow a University affiliated academic from publishing unless their institution pays a subscription fee. 

That's a good way to discourage scientific publications. Here's why:

Current model

Scientist: Our institution needs to subscribe to Journal of Flightless Birds! 
Librarian: That's expensive, and we already have the Journal of Birds.
Scientist: Look at all these very high quality papers recently published in the Journal of Flightless Birds. We need access to them! You're a librarian, your job is to provide me access to knowledge.
Librarian: Ok.

Your model:

Scientist: I want to publish in the Journal of Flightless Birds. Please subscribe!
Librarian: That's expensive, and we already subscribe to the Journal of Birds. Go publish there.
Scientist: I tried, but they weren't interested my work.
Librarian: Hahaha, too bad. Here's a book on how to write papers on more popular topics, like eagles. Better read it, because we're going to cancel 50 subscriptions next semester."
technology,"Scientist: Alright, well, University XYZ will pay for my research to be published, so I'm going to leave this University. 

University President: We're losing a lot of high impact scholars and we're not publishing in any prestigious journals. This is hurting our University ranking, which is hurting our ability to attract students, which is hurting our ability to collect tuition.

We can construct scenarios ad nauseum. At the end of the day, I'm not willing to fund public research if the results aren't open to the public. So I'm either going to vote for politicians who will mandate Open Access Only publishing by institutions that take public funding, or ones who will slash public funding. I believe research is worthless if the public can't access it. May as well save the money and not do it at all."
technology,"In the articles and comments over the replication problem, I have not seen a consensus saying ""normal, nothing to see here"". If someone can make a fact driven argument that there is no replication problem (over statistical expectations), I will be exuberant and on board.

I find it hard to reconcile that position with the amount of effort that has gone into the subject. One would think researchers wouldn't waste their time over statistically obvious explanations.

As for reviewers being anonymous? Yes... I can imagine the alternative. Most other professional fields have regulatory forces without a layer of anonymity. "
technology,"As far as I know (work in a medical library), all articles using NIH funding are required to be made publicly available through PubMed Central. Other government agencies use PubMed Central for making biomedical publications available as well. Of course, there are plenty of hoops for publishers to jump through to get the articles into PMC, so I can’t speak to how effective this policy is. I can say there is a lot in there, though, including articles here and there from the heavy hitters like JAMA."
technology,"Authors (or their institutions) already pay to publish papers. Typically there's an extra charge for making a paper open-access (which offsets the loss of pay-per-view). It seems reasonable to me that the cost of publishing research should be part of the research budget, just like the cost of test tubes and lab coats. 

My objection is that science publishing is hugely profitable, typically with higher profit margins than tech companies that actually innovate. The high prices they demand make science publishing inefficient by definition. I think this is a very good reason for governments or philanthropic foundations to step in and provide this service at cost as a public utility. "
technology,"> research is worthless if the public can't access it

That's an unsupportable claim. Lots of research is performed by private organizations, e.g. drug companies, and the public can't access it. If it's worthless, why are drug companies paying for it?

Now, you could argue that research would be more valuable if the public could access it. But that added value should be balanced against the added costs to researchers.

Or you could argue that the public has a right to see the results of public research, even if there were minimal added value, because they paid for it. I'm sympathetic to the argument, but the fact is that the public generally *does* have access to public research. Just email the authors, they generally can and will send you a PDF of whatever paper you ask for. 

True, that's not as convenient as an anonymous download. But I'm not so sympathetic to the argument that the public has a right to convenience - most government documents are freely available but not conveniently available. Particularly when public convenience infringes on scientific effectiveness."
technology,">Lots of research is performed by private organizations, e.g. drug companies., and the public can't access it.

Yes it is. A patent is a government granted (temporary) monopoly in exchange for the research. We pay extraordinary amounts of money for brand name drugs before the patent expires in order to pay for that research. When the patent expires, anyone can make a generic. Not to mention the drug trial data submitted to the FDA is public.

The author is not required to present me with a copy of their paper even if I ask nicely. The government is required to hand me a copy of public record even if I'm rude. I can then make a million copies of that document and hand them out to everyone I know. It would be a crime (violation of Copyright) to distribute copies of the author given PDF.

I suppose we'll just have to wait and see what the effects of mandatory Open Access will be in the EU. Perhaps it will lead to a research apocalypse across the Atlantic."
technology,"> circle of gatekeeping 

At least some of the money does indeed go to those gatekeepers, who act as a prestige/impact sorting mechanism for research. A lot of academic hiring and status is based on what journals you are publishing in, and the editorial staff of those journals must be qualified to judge the merits of the work generally, even if they can use peer review to get to the validity of the technical details.

If you don't want your research to go into an established journal with a large readership and high reputation that they work to uphold, you can always just publish your work on your blog."
technology,"The peer-reviewers aren't paid. Nor do the editors receive much more than a small honoraria (if anything, as it is a CV builder to be an editor and they maintain their institutional appointments while they serve - some may decline the honoraria because of their institutional requirements). The journals might have a small number of science-trained administrators on staff but not more than 4-5. Open access journals have also begun to stop physical printing, so the only costs are content hosting and layout. So basically, the money goes to the pockets of the publishers. Probably something like 85% of it."
technology,"They can collect tons of data with all those articles as well. Aiming ads for thousand dollar drugs at doctors and researchers based on their search criteria alone would be well worth it.   


With all articles on 1 site, you can get really good scientific research done as well. Pubmed searches are crap in comparison to the accuracy you get on google. Meta-data would be much easier to search and analyses. "
technology,Having the researchers pay to publish isn't as terrible an idea as it appears. If there is no cost (or if there is compensation) scientists will take the heavy incentive to publish and start throwing all sorts of sub par research at the wall to see what sticks. You will also see increased amounts of salami slicing of single experiments into several papers (often researchers are evaluated on quantity of research published and not the quality). Having a cost to publish incentivizes the researcher to create fewer high quality papers so they have more money to devote to research. Adding a small fee (when compared to the total cost of research) is likely saving more money in the system than it costs. 
technology,"It's practically impossible to do 'real' peer review because you must take the authors at their word that they indeed did what they said, performed the analyses correctly, listed 100% of the relevant things needed to reproduce etc. It's very hard to compensate for fraud, incompetence, and unknown unknowns by just reading a manuscript.

Without actually redoing the entire experiment independently a reviewer can't really know if something is wrong. All you can do is see whether everything makes sense on paper, in comparison to previous experiments and in principle. If a scientist submits a paper that could be true, and they say it is true, how can you prove them wrong without doing your own experiments?

Replication crises have less to do with the quality of review than the quality of the research in terms of understanding what is required to replicate and sharing that information. Journals can insist on some best practices that must be followed, but they're always going to be followers of the scientific community rather than trendsetters. "
technology,">A Journalism undergrad major cannot vet these papers: You need Scientists to conduct the editorial process, as well as control the review process: Otherwise the science deosn't get thoroughly vetted.

Maybe it's different in other fields, and Nature and Science are a different beast altogether, but peer reviewers in Agriculture aren't paid. And the editors are barely paid.

Journalism majors don't touch these papers.

So at least for my field, the only people who make money are the publishers."
technology,"> As for reviewers being anonymous? Yes... I can imagine the alternative. Most other professional fields have regulatory forces without a layer of anonymity.

Are you kidding? I recently got a paper authored by many senior, well-renowned scientists, all of whom have tremendous power to influence my career trajectory. I rejected the article, and said in no uncertain terms why I felt it was unworthy of publication. You can see how important the anonymity is here, right?"
technology,"> OK, if the peer review process is so great, then why is there a replication crisis?

You're going to have to explain to me why my point that other experts in the field are better able to provide scientifically rigorous review than laypersons led to any discussion of the replication crisis. Are there problems with the peer review process? Sure. Is there a replication crisis? Maybe, although I'm unsure if 'crisis' is the appropriate word. But regardless, what's your point? You think reviews should be done by... who, if not other experts in the field?"
technology,"> who is actually making the money?

Publishers... but that alone is a bit of a red-herring.  The problem here isn't that someone is profiting for providing a service.  It's that those profits are derived entirely from depriving the public access to scientific research that their taxes funded.

You *should* be able to go find a scientist and offer to pay their salary + equipment + facilities + benefits, etc. as long as you then get to exclusively monetize/sell that research however you want (even if it's a $15 PDF on the website, or a $10k/year subscription service to a library, etc).  That's fine.  That's just how regular employment works in every industry.  You **SHOULD NOT** be allowed to just be a parasite on publicly-funded research where you use copyright to squirrel-away knowledge everyone has already paid for behind a paywall."
technology,"I'm not sure if you just skimmed my comments, or are purposely ignoring parts of them. I think I specifically mentioned I thought ""crisis"" might be too hard, although it isn't like *I* coined it. 

Peer review should be done by *peers*. Just like most other regulator bodies are made up of current and past professionals (bar association being the easy example, if not a perfect comparison). I was questioning the anonymous and hidden aspects of peer review. Again, without transparency, the public is just told to ""trust us"", by a for profit corporation no less. All my suspicion would go away if this article never happened because all journals were NPOs or ran by universities.

The arguments for maintaining the status quo are all based on some very ""free market forces"" theories. ""a journal has to be rigorous, otherwise it's readership and impact rating will go down, leading to less submissions""

Do I really have to get into how laughably simplistic that theory is? Even if there are no other variables at play, free markets have corrections. Many times those corrections are pretty catastrophic. "
technology,">probably not as bad as it sounds

If a study can't be replicated, it might just be complete horse shit and with the proper agenda, you'll find peers that give it a nice little ""review"". Good studies are hard enough to find with unclear financial incentives on multiple layers involved and ideology driving way too many of them, just believing them because someone put together a PDF, does that sound smart?"
technology,"I think it's pretty self-evident that some very valuable research is not available to the public.  Stealth aircraft design. Cryptographic methods. Nuclear submarine optimization. And so on.

As for surly researchers who won't send you a PDF: I suppose they might exist, but like a lot of things that angers the public it's more of a theoretical problem than an actual one. It's very rare for a researcher to get a PDF request from the public in the first place, and I suspect the vast majority of people who demand open access have never actually asked anyone for a PDF.  But if you want to write a law that requires researchers to email pdfs to anyone who asks for one, I wouldn't object. It's certainly easier on them than the proposed solution. 

And I don't think open access would lead to scientific ""apocalypse"", but it would be yet another strain on already thin research budgets, and yet another factor in ceding future scientific leadership to China. "
technology,"Ok, so basically you don't trust that the peer review process is actually occurring. As someone who does tons of peer reviewing, and who has submitted to dozens of different journals and received informed (usually) and constructive (usually) criticism every single time, let me assure you that no one in academia is concerned that some guy in a publisher's office is pretending to be several different experts in the field, just for the purpose of nefariously rejecting their manuscript."
technology,"Where are you getting this $?  We put publication costs in our grants, but need to cover the actual research, so the funds don’t  cover a bit of it.  We hope the department has mercy and finds money.

One issue at the moment is that open access means other scientists can easily access and cite your work.  Publishing in a journal without paying these fees means your work is far less likely to be seen.  


"
technology,"One thing many people don’t realize is that part of this “replication crisis” is because not all scientific instruments are created equal. We work in different parts of the world, different environments and use different tools. I read a paper that says “we made this material using conditions x, y and z, then I go down to the lab and I make it using conditions a, b, and c, completely different from what they published. Does that mean they lied about their conditions? Or the reviewers were passing sloppy science? No it just means my thermocouple reads differently than theirs. 

Similarly there are things that make experiments work that you may not even be aware of. Labs tend to develop their own set of protocols that might not make it into the details of the paper, like how they clean glassware. When you’re doing highly sensitive science, these things matter, but people don’t include them in papers. 

At the end of the day, do you think Intel cares if their results are exactly repeatable in academic labs or vice versa? No because it doesn’t matter. If they can build fast microprocessors using their own equipment based on their own understanding than why would it matter? It’s not as if the science is false.

This isn’t to say I don’t think there are problems with the publication culture. But the replication crisis is something people tend to use to suggest that scientists’ work is false, when really I think many people not in the field don’t quite understand how research is carried out. "
technology,"Scientific Journals are one of the most profitable businesses out there.  That’s why you constantly see people starting new journals and spamming scientists to ask them to publish with them.  I’m talking about daily emails with new journals.  It’s insane. 

When I worked on a journal, there was:

-Editor in chief, a scientist.  Sometimes paid an honorarium, but not a salary.  Primarily responsible for choosing appropriate scientists to review the papers for free.

-Managing editor: organized incoming manuscripts and mailed them to reviewers, then back to authors, etc - basically a position that became obsolete pretty quickly because internet.

-Journal publishing company representatives: 1-2 people who process articles from your journal as well as several others.  Basically convert the document into a prettier PDF and send out for publishing.  Also host the website for the journal.  

-Associate editors - either help finding reviewers or review papers for free.

Money:

- Research funded by grant

- Institution pays journals for access (if an author publishes in a journal their institution doesn’t have access to, they theoretically couldn’t access their own article without paying.  But there are some ways around this).

- Reviews done for free by scientists

- People also can subscribe to the journal for paper versions. 

So the money just goes to a publisher like LWW.

EDIT:  looked it up.  Profit margins of Elsevier are 36% - higher than Apple, Google, or Amazon the same year (2010)."
technology,"Yeah, the first comment about internet peer review is just silly and I'm going to assume a /s there.

Not every university is a big name university. Some researchers from smaller universities will do amazing work and will gain recognition for their work being in Nature or Science. Then, they'll be able to move to a big name university.   

But yeah, every university name is the same /s. New studies published from Trump University! Steaks are best eaten when burnt to a crisp with ketchup!"
technology,"> you do it for ladder climbing

Peer reviews are generally anonymous.  Being an editor of a journal might bring some prestige with it, but there's only one of those for hundreds to thousands of (anonymous) peer-reviewers that donate their time during that editor's tenure.

Either way, NONE of this requires a for-profit entity at the helm whose only purpose (today) is to gobble up the copyright and re-sell all of that tax-funded + volunteer work for profit."
technology,"This is how it already works -- you can submit to open access journals or pay for open access in every major journal. Academics who won't pay $3-5k for the option are either (1) cheap, (2) poorly funded, or (3) trying to squeeze more papers than appropriate out of a grant. Every major grant I've worked on already involves publishing costs for several papers.

Paying per paper is actually an excellent model because it will cut down on people trying to publish crap to boost their CV."
technology,">  I was under the impression this is where part of the money went

Yeah, and you also don't want to pay peer-reviewers for exactly the same reasons you don't want to pay professional jurors.  It would set up a very perverse system of incentives for all sorts of shenanigans.

> proper peer review is extremely important

Correct... It's basically sort of like seeding in bit torrent... for every paper I publish I also review a few out of civic duty (because as you mention, monetary/publisher issues aside, peer review is the only way we can keep doing good science as a species).  "
technology,"Don't twist my comments into an extreme position. I was only saying that I would *start* at the peer review and publication layer when trying to figure out how to improve rigor. Assuming an acknowledgment of a replication problem, everything deeper than peer review leads to much more uncomfortable and abstract possibilities. Since scientists seem to take the issue seriously, I'm not going to deny there is an issue just because it makes me a little uncomfortable. I *will* look to possible procedural solutions before assuming it is the fault of the research scientists themselves, and they do not deserve to be on the pedestal I put them on.

You said yourself, most of your peer critique has been reasonable and fair. Would you *really* get all petty to a colleague if you knew it was them that did the review? Would it be so horrible if you *knew* reviewers had a transparent process, able to be evaluated by everyone? Maybe I'm naive, but I refuse to believe people with that many letters after their names can't do fair and objective critique without anonymity. Remember, not all journals *are* anonymous with the review process. "
technology,"Honestly I would be ok with paying for articles if I thought I was helping fund further research, or reimbursing costs of the scientists.

I'd also endorse free distribution, if it's truly free, e.g. operated by an ad-free nonprofit organization similar to wikimedia. What I think we want to avoid is a free, albeit ad-funded, or for-profit platform, as that would make the publication highly suspect to bias from the interests of the advertisers."
technology,"Private equity firms own these scientific publishing companies.  Companies like Elsevier in 2010 had higher profit margins (36%) than companies like Apple, Google, or Amazon.

Money currently comes from scientists (paying to be published), scientists (paying to access), and libraries (paying for access for their scientists).   Generally, the money authors use to pay for publishing comes from grants funded by taxes.  Paying for open access is important for the papers to get read and cited by scientists without access.

PubMed, which is funded by the government, could simply host PDFs of articles.  Including publication costs, it would be cheaper than what the government pays right now in publishing costs through grants.
"
technology,"> i'm not into the rat-race of esteem and fame

cool cool cool... but if you are on an academic track you WILL just be passed over for someone who is into that rat-race.  So good luck with that.

I was fortunate enough to end up in a field where there is huge industry demand.  I could leave all of that academic fuckery behind well over a decade ago and just pack up that big brain to go work for any of the dozens of companies routinely offering to send Brinks trucks full of cash to my house.  I publish very few things now, and since I don't give two shits about impact factor, almost nothing in for-profit journals / conferences.  Very few people in academia on the publish-or-perish treadmill have the kind of luxury to take that kind of principled stand w.r.t. publishers without seriously risking their careers."
technology,"[Elsevier](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier) et al

​

\> Elsevier's high profit margins (37% in 2017)[\[1\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier#cite_note-RELX_2017_Report-1)[\[6\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier#cite_note-relx-group-results-press-release-2017-6) and its [copyright practices](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_policies_of_academic_publishers) have subjected it to criticism by researchers. 

​

\> In 2013, the five editorial groups Elsevier, [Springer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springer_Nature), [Wiley-Blackwell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiley-Blackwell), [Taylor & Francis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_%26_Francis) and [SAGE Publications](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAGE_Publications) published more than half of all academic papers in the peer-reviewed literature.[\[16\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier#cite_note-16)[\[17\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier#cite_note-17) At that time, Elsevier accounted for 16% of the world market in science, technology, and medical publishing. 

​

\> In 2017, Elsevier accounted for 33% of the revenues of RELX group (₤2.478 billion of ₤7.355 billion). In [operating profits](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earnings_before_interest_and_taxes),  it represented 40% (₤913 million of ₤2,284 million). Adjusted operating  profits (with constant currency) rose by 3% from 2016 to 2017. "
technology,"Keep in mind that some of that “other” research is commercial (eg whether a supplement or product works or not so it can be sold).  Or the basic science is funded by the NIH, but as soon as there is a potential commercial application, for-profit companies will come in and do research to bring it to market.  So much of that research is pretty specific and isn’t really of interest to the broader community."
technology,"It is either a legitimate problem, put forth by legitimate studies, or you are calling it ""junk science"". It isn't some political hit by pop-media. If you have a comprehensive source that dismisses it as easily as you just did, please share. I would *love* to go back to unreserved trust in published work. 

I see lots of dismissals, but none of them backed up by more than boisterous confidence that either there is no problem, or it is tiny and can obviously be explained away by things the researchers were too dumb to take into account. 



"
technology,"> I will look to possible procedural solutions before assuming it is the fault of the research scientists themselves, and they do not deserve to be on the pedestal I put them on.  

They (we) don't deserve any pedestal.  

> Maybe I'm naive, but I refuse to believe people with that many letters after their names can't do fair and objective critique without anonymity.  

You are naive. I won't ever submit my manuscripts to journals that don't do anonymous reviews, nor will I review for them. Honesty is paramount.

> to believe people with that many letters after their names  

If you think letters after a name means that person is any better, more mature, more ethical, or more honest, I have some bad news for you.


"
technology,"[https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/pricing](https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/pricing)

Just the first thing that came up in a google search.  My understanding is that many journals have gone to an either-or model today (i.e. you pay a lot upfront for some level of open-access -or- pay substantially less to nothing for closed-access).  But it used to be extremely common to pay on both ends for almost ever single journal in physics.  Per page + per figure + per submission AND then also have the resulting published product also be closed-access."
technology,"That argument can be used for the opposite conclusion, though.  In the real, non-hypothetical world, there are tons of journals accepting mediocre articles because of the publishing fees. In fact, there's a whole category of shitty journals that pretty much just solicit articles to extract these fees.  

The issue of bad articles being published isn't a big deal in the scheme of things - people just don't read them.

Scientists should be paid, just like other content creators. Right now everything is wrong - accessibility to the public is drastically lower compared to other forms of media and the content creators also pay.  Academic institutions give these journals incredible amounts of money for access.

It's just a racket. The journals are being run for profit and they can do so because of historical factors, not because we actually have an optimized and rational system"
technology,"The problem is not the fee. The fee is often quite reasonable and may well be higher to cover costs. The paywall is the problem because this limits access to the people actually funding the research in the first place, the taxpayers. It creates boundaries for less funded institutes to conduct research and educate students. It is just a parasitical chain in the acquisition of knowledge. Also the fact that there is a copyright on the content of the article, owned by a commercial entity. Scientific journals are a cancer of science.

What should be done is have some renown institutes come together and stop publishing in these for profit journals all together. Take a top-down approach because individual scientist cannot avoid these journals without jeopardising their careers. If MIT, Max Planck, Harvard and the likes stop using them the value of these journals will drop quickly. This can only happen with a large group of institutes because single entities will result in a massive drop in the rankings for the respected institutes."
technology,"Instead of having a big company host this and potentially use some sort of lock in techniques at some point what if we moved to a github style journal. You could have a hierarchy of fields to tag each paper with making it easy to find papers in your area of study. And using some sort of anonymous star system coupled with linking on social media would naturally bring the better papers to the top. 

It would be free to view and if you want to publish papers you can pay like a $5/yr fee or something to help cover the costs of a server. If everyone used LaTeX...

(which I know some people are against but I think it’s difficulty is over-exaggerated and if we just learned it in a freshman class everyone would be able to use it.)

Then we could have the rendered pdf for online viewing or download and host the source files along with it. Then using git, in a similar way as github, people could make suggestions for fixes or clarification which would open up a thread where it could be discussed further or open up an issue to talk about a potential fault in logic or whatever. These request would of course notify all the authors of the original paper simplifying communication between them and their peers all while having the discussion up for everyone to view so you don’t have multiple people emailing them about the same thing and more people can join in the forum.

This would also bring in a way to track changes overtime marked with git diff making it easy to see what’s changed since you referenced the work and for those learning, to see the process going behind peer review. 

And of course there could be some cool features like following your colleagues to see when they’ve submitted papers, easy citation generators that could be pulled into a .bib file or even a way to mark sets of papers then download .bib with citations for all of them, and since everything would be hosted on this site it would be easy to view references with a click. Plus maybe some system to determine whether a work is trusted or still pending approval (maybe a certain number of high ranking members in the field approve it or something). 

"
technology,">I think it's pretty self-evident that some very valuable research is not available to the public. Stealth aircraft design. Cryptographic methods. Nuclear submarine optimization. And so on.

Let's take cryptographic research. RSA was invented by some British Mathematicians and supressed by the British government. This was an enormous mistake. When American mathematicians devised the same thing and patented it, RSA became a billion dollar company and allowed for the rise of online banking and shopping. Meanwhile, military communications are still secure. The beauty of cryptography is that even though you may know the method of encryption, without the key you have nothing. 

So the British delayed the public benefit of online banking, shopping, etc. They deprived the British taxpayer of the possibility of the corporate tax income of a billion dollar company. And British National Defense gained absolutely nothing that they wouldn't have gotten if the research was public. British funding of said research was therefore worthless. The British taxpayer would have been better off not paying for it in the first place and just waiting for the Americans to publish it."
technology,"Then please clarify. I found your last phrase silly. I was under the impression researchers would be *less* likely to allow emotion or preference in making judgements.

Plenty of people manage to navigate the problems of executing authority, and accepting authority, even within flexible hierarchies.

I have both governmental and private experts evaluating and critiquing my work. While it isn't always perfect, there is no disaster of pettiness in my field. People move back and between from government and private. Nobody has to have anonymity to be able to say ""can you do that differently?"". We are all grown ups and professionals.

If we can do it, why can't a group who's profession *requires* objectivity? "
technology,"

>The issue of bad articles being published isn't a big deal in the scheme of things - people just don't read them.

Published work can have far reaching effects and retraction is not always effective when bad research is published and starts having negative impacts on society. People still think vaccines cause autism.

Researchers are compensated for their work. Published work gets researchers positions in universities and research organizations. It allows them to acquire larger grants. Any revenue driven by the distribution of research (even in the current system) is dwarfed by the cost of those systems "
technology,"> ""you did not do your job correctly. You failed here, here, and here. Your job is not approved. You are required to bring to my subjective approval, regardless of resources or time already invested.""  

Oh I see. This might be something said about your work, without anonymity? You're right, that is closer to the review process. So, how soon until you get a chance to judge HIS work (or hers) and tell HIM he has failed?"
technology,"A lot of these journals are international and so are the papers published in them.  A great example is the recent gravitational waves paper from LIGO that won the Nobel for Physics this year.  It had hundreds of collaborators form many countries.  Which nations publication would it go to if they were nationalized?  What if they have competing standards and methods. (Bonus shoutout to LIGO, they published in a lower impact journal than they could have because it had published their smaller papers throughout the years while the higher impact journals denied them)"
technology,">OK, if the peer review process is so great, then why is there a replication crisis?

Because peer review =/= replication. When you peer review a paper, your job is to make sure that the reported methodology makes sense and the conclusions they give make sense given the result, and that there are no alternative (sensible) explanations that would fit the results, and that the results are actually novel.

Replication is done in replication studies after a paper is published. The reason the replication crisis exists is that there isn't a strong incentive for scientists to do replication studies. After all, you only get a novel result if your replication study refutes the original study. If you confirm the results of the study, then you don't have anything worth publishing. "
technology,"If or when I moved laterally in my career. Also having the possibility of them moving back to private work and being hired by me. That was just one example of several different situations where someone in my field could excersize discretion over my work. If you are looking for an exact situational match, sorry... It is an analogy not a perfect comparison. The point was that I have lots of different people, with power, critiquing my work 50-100 times a year.

Sometimes I agree with their criticism, sometimes I don't, rarely do I think it capricious. I have enough faith in my professionalism, and their professionalism, that I still respect and sometimes even like them. They would be *more* likely to get hired by me if they moved to private work because of their experience. Someone who critiques work, especially strictly, is more likely to know the rules, and be conscientious in their own work. "
technology,">This economic model may have made *some* sense when the method of distribution involved printing/binding actual physical copies of that paper and then coordinating shipping them to libraries around the planet (who of course still paid for that subscription).  
  
Honestly hadn't thought of this before. It *does* make a lot of sense when you consider ""publishing"" in the traditional sense of churning out tens if not hundreds of thousands of copies and ensuring distribution. In the same vein as book sales. So an interesting question is; if we sell e-books at a slightly discounted rate (instead of for literal pennies as all printing / shipping / stocking fees are null) it would drive the demand for real paper books almost completely out. Sure, there will be hipsters like me who prefer a physical book to read, but we will likely have to pay a premium for what will be seen as an outdated technology.  
  
Do you think removing the same barriers of entry to digital scientific publications will kill the desire to be subscribed to actual paper-printed scientific publications? Would it be a bad thing if it did for anyone but printing companies?"
technology,"> If or when I moved laterally in my career. Also having the possibility of them moving back to private work and being hired by me.

Right, so it's not like today they reject your work, next week you'll review theirs, and the week after they'll review yours again. Do you see the issue? Even in a make-believe world where everyone was actually acting completely objectively, you can't understand why it would *feel* like the person who just rejected your work was maybe just a liiiittle biased by the fact that last week you wrote ""the statistical methods and design in this experiment are completely inappropriate""? And by the way, the person you said that about? She sits on the study section which will decide whether the new grant you've proposed, worth millions of dollars and guaranteeing you gainful employment for the next 5 years, will be funded. Better hope she's a saint, or has some sort of humiliation fetish.

I'm sorry, but if you can't immediately see why small group of people who routinely need to provide objective criticisms of one another's work, in the context of unbalanced power dynamics, need anonymity to remain functional, then ok. I guess we'll just disagree, and I'll be happy you're not a scientist."
technology,"Its the only way to judge, across disciplines, whether the science a given professor is doing is any good.  If they’re publishing a lot in a lot of good journals, it is a sign that the scientific community respects and appreciates their work.  If not, it may mean they’re putting out crap no one cares about that has little real world value or implication.  In theory, anyway.

But that was back when everything was paper-based and these things were literally mailed.  Some aspects of this could be maintained (peer review and publishing) without the BS (having a publisher and not paying for reviews)"
technology,"Setting aside your last barb, I think perhaps you are too pessimistic about your colleagues.

You will never prevent all acts of pettiness or bias. However, having accepted standards of work, and transparent processes of arbitration on the subjective parts, does not devolve into back biting pettiness the majority of the time.

Maybe that lady does sit on the grant board. Maybe she does capriciously deny you (nobody else cares?). That situation is called ""life"". All the rest of the world has to deal with it. You seem to be under the impression the scientific fields are the only place with fluid hierarchies. They aren't. "
technology,"... or anyone.  Like I said, some rando russians are currently pulling this off under the table without any legit source of funding.  

Computer resources and bandwidth are so cheap relative to the volume of information we are talking about, that if the copyright issue went away entirely, I (as an individual) could conceivably pay for hosting the few dozen terabytes of PDF's that comprise of all published scientific work in the past century myself.  Multiple organizations would undoubtedly step up to host this stuff the same way linux distros work and wikipedia freely hosts content.  The point is that no single publisher would have the right to exclusively distribute/paywall this research, so any combination of entities (or maybe even multiple parallel efforts) could provide this information to whoever was looking for it.  Hell, google could just directly hotlink these from multiple sources on scholar results."
technology,"> However, in the general case, we fund public research for public benefit and that research is most valuable when it's public. Keeping public research under wraps

Sure, but ""available to the public"" does not mean ""available for free"". And not available for free does not mean ""under wraps"".

For instance, the New York Times is available to the public and is meant to be consumed by the public, but it costs money to read. Would society be better off if the New York Times were forced to publish its work for free? Maybe, but not necessarily.

The relevant question is ""Who can't access X due to financial constraints, and how would society benefit if access to X were broader?"" And I suspect that nearly all of the people who could provide a benefit to society with access to public research are people who already have access to it or could trivially obtain access."
technology,"Sure... but for people in academic fields it doesn't really *count* for their career unless it's published in an established journal with sufficient impact factor  (i.e. some of this is legacy BS, but some of it stems from the fact that everyone knows the peer review and selection criteria are much tougher for more prestigious and established journals).  So if your paper is selected for publishing in Nature and your work makes it past the Nature peer review process, then everyone immediately knows that the thing you did was new/interesting/impactful, etc., and that alone is worth far more for your career than uploading a non-reviewed PDF to your website that nobody might ever really read."
technology,"Paying peer reviewers wouldn’t change anything unless the payment was made based on their recommendation to accept/reject.  Ultimately, PhDs spend years making close to nothing to build up their expertise.  In any other field, asking someone’s professional opinion is compensated (regardless of outcome).  If anything, payment would improve review quality - because reviewers are more invested - and other factors in the process (many people refuse to review, or agree but don’t finish it, so they have to find someone else, etc, etc)"
technology,"> You seem to be under the impression the scientific fields are the only place with fluid hierarchies.

Again, comments like these reflect that you have no basic understanding of the context we're discussing. It's not a heirarchy, but you seem hellbent on not understanding that.  

> I think perhaps you are too pessimistic about your colleagues.  

Then all my colleagues are too pessimistic about themselves, because the anonymous peer review process might as well be sacred to most scientists.  

You've said things like ""back-biting"" and ""petty"" several times, implying I've suggested something of the sort. You're completely misrepresenting what I've said, and I don't have the patience to argue with someone doing that. I'm sorry you don't understand how science works, but you'll have to find someone with more patience than me to spell it out for you. I highly recommend that if and when you can find such a person, you listen instead of putting words into their mouth. Have a nice day."
technology,"Well, arguably not.  The scientists are the ones who put hundreds of hours creating and submitting grants until one is funded, years running the study, and the time it takes to write the paper.  The vetting is done by other scientists for free.  

The publisher’s role is strictly running the approved paper through a program to put it in the right final layout, then hosting it online with pay walls.  They work on several journals at a time and collect the funds.

So if hosting a website is considered the means of production, sure; but again, the profit margins alone suggest that their business model is anything but ordinary"
technology,">For instance, the New York Times is available to the public and is meant to be consumed by the public, but it costs money to read.

It sure does. You know what doesn't cost money to read/listen to/watch? PBS and NPR. Difference is that PBS and NPR receive public money (via the CPB) while the NYT doesn't.

PBS and NPR exist to provide the public an accessible source of news. NYT exists to provide value to shareholders. The fact that there exists a public benefit is a pleasant side effect."
technology,"Don’t assume that’s what it is about.  Being a professor is like running a business - you need to get your name out there as a reputable, trustworthy manufacturer who puts out a solid product.  That’s why they have to get out the first-author pubs.

There are definitely egos in science.  But I also know plenty of people out there who are just passionate about their work and want the world to see it.  They’re working away, night and day, to get the results out because they know they’ll have an impact on the world.  You can’t reduce an entire profession down to ego."
technology,"> Paying peer reviewers wouldn’t change anything unless the payment was made based on their recommendation to accept/reject.

Not necessarily.  Again, these are the same arguments made for/against various levels of jury compensation.  Regardless of whether or not anyone is paying for a particular verdict, you never want your ""jury of peers"" to turn into a ""jury of paid professionals roving around looking for more trials to pay their bills""

So right now, if you accept a review, it's purely out of civic responsibility to the scientific community, individual availability, and because you + the editor (or whoever recommended you) believes that you credibly do have the expertise to provide informed input on that particular topic/paper.  So even as a poor grad student, I often passed on review requests for papers that were a little too outside of my specific area of expertise.  Or I accepted papers that were obviously plagiarized and then recommended rejection outright after 3 minutes of ""work"".  Regardless of outcome, both of those extremes are entirely predicated on the premise that there was no money changing hands between myself and publisher for services rendered  (i.e. if reviewing one more paper meant my girlfriend and I could have steak tonight instead of mac&cheese I might just ""review"" that paper on a topic I wasn't really qualified to review.  I might also be compelled to write up corrections + detailed moderate comments on the obviously plagiarized POS paper because the publisher paid me and now expected an hours worth of work out of me instead of immediately bashing that ""do not recommend for publication"" button, etc. etc.)  

Money ALWAYS sets up perverse incentives."
technology,"I’d also argue that if the costs don’t come from one place, they come from another, and they still end up being covered by tax payers.

Example: every grant has “indirects” - basically a percentage of the grant that goes to the host institution for overhead.  Indirects are often about 50%, so a grant with 100k of science ends up being 150.  But that’s another story.

So if authors don’t pay through the grant, the institution will take up the slack.  That money will likely come from indirects.

So again - it comes back to the taxpayer each time."
technology,"I don't think it follows that receiving public funding is incompatible with charging an audience. For instance, public universities receive public funds, but they also charge tuition to their students. 

Furthermore, while you don't pay money to listen to NPR programs on your local radio station, your local public radio station *has to pay NPR* for the right to broadcast NPR programs. Likewise, if you want to access NPR content, under some circumstances you will be charged or outright denied.

NPR relies on that licensing revenue. If NPR programs were forced to be in the public domain, then NPR as we know it would cease to exist.

Same is true of PBS. Taxpayers funded the creation of Sesame Street, but try to sell Big Bird merchandise and you will likely be sued.

In fact, as broadcast dies off many people find that they can only access PBS via cable or internet. How is paying for a Verizon subscription for access to Sesame Street any different from paying for a journal subscription for access to research?"
technology,"Well, not really; they are basically fulfilling a contract to the government to do work.  You wouldn’t call up a construction worker to complain about bridges, right?

And they explain how the money is spent right upfront in the grant application.  Those grant applications are rigorously scrutinized, right down to the budget.  If the budget seems at all fishy, it won’t get funded.

Many scientists are really stretching the dollars - employing “20 hour per week” graduate assistants who are in the lab 50-80 hours a week, buying supplies themselves, building equipment when they can.  Unpaid internships, the whole thing."
technology,"Also research already costs a shit ton of money. Spending tax money on a public journal means taking money from research. There is also no reason for a public journal to be committed to quality science since they get paid either way. But the number of subscriptions a commercial journal gets is primarily based on how good they are. 

If this was a simple, obvious fix it would have been done by now. Most professors and postdocs I know, while cognizant that it the are some problems with the system are still supportive of it overall."
technology,"'Where's all this money going?'

Second commenter from parent poses this question. Hmm, good question! After miles of scrolling and reading through reams of back and forth: I am certainly aware of where it ISN'T going: 

* Reviewers? Not usually or a pittance. 

* Editors? Not really, a pittance. 

* Presentation, hosting, formatting and delivery? Pennies. 

* The process as a whole? Hmmm, Pennies to the dollar. 

More scrolling and reading when FINALLY! 

'The people who make out are the venture capitalist who regularly buy and sell these publishing companies.'

Now we're on to something!"
technology,"And that local public radio station receives money from the local taxpayer, the State taxpayer, the Federal government (CPB), and donations.

As for public Universities charging tuition to students, yeah we've got a big student loan problem in the US that doesn't exist in Europe. Maybe not your strongest counterpoint.

If you're going to be private, by all means, be private. Charge money, make a profit, do what you must. But the moment that public money gets involved, every restriction to access becomes suspect. We pay for a public service. I'm not opposed to showering money on public services, but they better be public and serve the public interest. I'm unconvinced that charging for access to publically funded research serves the public interest.

Note that it's not good enough to say that restricting access doesn't hurt that much. If you're going to take public money, I must be convinced that restricting access is in the public benefit and superior to no restrictions.

The EU S-Plan (when it rolls out in 2020ish), will settle this. I'm content to wait until 2025 to see how this plays out. 

====================
I think I've said all I want to say. You may have the last word if you like."
technology,"Some universities already pay for open access publications. Fees are paid for individual publications. They are not paid for publications in packages of journals like in the current subscription process. These packages bundle popular journal with unpopular ones, forcing the libraries to pay outrageous subscription fees for journals nobody cars about. Your example does not apply.

Costs incurred for publication and hosting are neglegible, that's why publisher's margins are so high. In this day and age, access to publicly funded knowledge should be free."
technology,"You are discounting p-hacking, HARKing and publication bias. p-values mean nothing if scientists perform dozens of experiments until they happen to find an effect, then publish only these positive results. This undermines the whole basis of your confidence intervals. Which undermines the whole point of scientific publications in the first place. If scientists are fishing for these coincidences, the science stops reflecting the truth.

That's why peer-review is not enough to guarantee solid science. It needs pre-registration and replication. Please inform yourself about the replication crisis instead of discarding it willy nilly."
technology,"The reason the replication crisis exists is because scientists have published science that cannot be replicated by others, either because they did not document their experiments well enough or because their findings are not true. If the studies to be replicated were valid, similar results should be able to be obtained by other scientists. In many replication studies, original authors help developing the experimental setups because they want their studies to replicate. Still, many of these studies fail."
technology,"Open access publications in reputable journal costs money, no matter how good your study is. There is no point in disagreeing with facts.

http://www.pnas.org/page/subscriptions/open-access

> Corresponding authors from institutions with current-year site licenses will receive a discounted open access fee of $1,100, compared to our regular fee of $1,450, to make their articles immediately free online.

https://www.nature.com/openresearch/publishing-with-npg/nature-journals/

>  Nature Communications        $5200

>   Scientific Data        $1675

>    Scientific Reports        $1760

You also can't really disagree that open access becomes expectation, because funding agencies already start to require it:
https://www.openaire.eu/h2020openaccess/
"
technology,"How do they address the overall lack of quality inherent in journals that don't charge their readers money so can't afford to hire competent editorial staff?

Does part of the research grant cover cost in publishing? That would be a terrible idea that would only serve to invite a landslide of utter shite research to 'fund' what will amount to a tabloid journal.

/Angrily deletes the next 50 spam emails from journals begging me for a submission while I'm not even a fucking researcher."
technology,"I think that's a recurring theme throughout the transition into an all-digital economy- All of the old fees and processing charges are still there even though the cost to the business that originally warranted their use is gone. This just becomes a higher potential profit for the businesses, who probably already allocated it to something else (rejustifying the cost).

They won't budge on that until either a major competitor eliminates the fees/charges and forces the rest of them to follow suit, or a government entity forces the practice through regulation. "
technology,"That’s an interesting take!  I can see your point there.  On the whole, though, I think the benefits would outweigh the costs.  It might get the best scientists to start reviewing papers that they wouldn’t otherwise because they’re so busy, for example.  There are a lot of pros.

I know someone who messes with his buddy by sending him reviews to do all the time.  His buddy ended up getting an award for reviewing so many papers :)"
technology,"The author offers papers for free to publish while putting any editing responsibilities on that author. They get all the review furnished for free from reviewers. And then charge and arm and leg to publish when they have essentially nothing invested in the content.

Early in history peer review was something that happened organically after publication. It's also understandable that serious readers want some kind of filter before they invest too much time in what my be a crackpot, or generally self serving mush. But publishers have coopted it as if their creation handed to them on a silver platter."
technology,"You really seem to be trying very hard to twist and contort everything that's said in this thread in such a way that it puts scientists in the worst possible light. It's almost like rhetorical origami.

The odds of facing any sort of retribution for an open review are exceedingly low, but people tend to be irrationally afraid of it. Low odds, high danger events scare people. That's why people can be so afraid of airplane crashes and yet not bat an eye about speeding in a car. Furthermore, even if reviewers aren't concerned about any sort of retribution, people just tend to be more blunt and honest in general when they know that they are under the cover of anonymity. That is why reviews are anonymous. It's not because science is an evil field full of bullying and cronyism."
technology,"Of course, I understand that. But why are we cycling public money meant for the common good through private enterprise? If fees are what keep poor quality publications from staying bloated, that can be done regardless of whether the publisher is private or public. I don't see the point of introducing private middle-men to shuffle around and skim off government research money when most of the work is volunteer-based by academic editors and reviewers that have a lot of public funding in the first place. The value-add is in the reviewers, who aren't really paid for most journals, rather than in the mechanical publishing process.

I think my fundamental point is that most of what separates journal ranking is based on the prestige and rigor of the peer review process, not anything that is related to the economics of publishing. It's fundamentally not a profit-maximizing market (and shouldn't be), which is why I'd advocate to keep it government-run (or government funded in some form of public-private partnership) and free to access for the public."
technology,"I don’t quite understand what you think I’m calling junk science. I was not trying to say there is no such thing as a replication crisis, just offering up one source of error that leads to difficulty in replicating the results of others. You also should never have unreserved trust in published work, as has been mentioned elsewhere there are plenty of bad journals out there where the peer review process is much less rigorous or nonexistent.   

It also has nothing to do with scientists being too dumb... like I said instruments are not created equal. Even the most careful, rigorous scientist can’t help that their thermocouple reads 500 degree Celsius while their colleagues reads 525 when measuring the same environment. There is always error in manufacturing, calibration, etc.

All I meant to say is that articles are written about a replication crisis, and the general public reads it and thinks scientists must be bullshitting their work. Then you talk to an active researcher and the problem is acknowledged but it doesn’t prevent them from progressing in their work. It can be a legitimate problem that is still somewhat overblown. 
"
technology,"If you ignore things like blatant plagiarism and  bad English, at bare minimum when I review a paper I make sure that the premise makes sense from first principle (e.g. some jabroni isn't trying to just sneak a perpetual motion machine past us), that the experiment/data collection was set up correctly (e.g.  was a control group/measurement warranted but not performed, etc.  was the science scientific kinda stuff), and that the conclusions are actually supported by that data presented in the paper.  Then I decide whether those results are important/original enough to meet the criteria for that particular journal.

Beyond that I most often only accept reviews for papers on topics in which I'm already an expert.  So like anything else in life, if you spend enough time on a particular subject you start to develop rules of thumb and various intuitions on how things work in that domain, what is or isn't possible, methods for quickly cross checking things, etc...    so those are very specific and hard to describe but as a simpler example, I was judging a science fair the other year where a kid did some calculations on this sliding rail setup and told me that he had a 30 Tesla magnet at the end.  I didn't have to check his calculations or replicate his experiment to know he is wrong because I already know that the superconducting magnet in an MRI is only in the 1.5-3 Tesla range.  As another example in this [paper](https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.08572) the authors were reporting evidence of superconductivity at a temperature far higher than anything observed before.  Someone reading that paper then noticed that the noise in two separate plots appear to be correlated when there was no reason for this to be the case, which obviously calls into question the entire result, etc.

Sadly there is almost never enough time/money to actually replicate experiments unless they truly are groundbreaking.   So even a a lot of peer-reviewed, published science is still just bad."
technology,"I think my comments have been fairly calm and reasonable about the issue. I haven't been banging on the research community. In fact, I've been pretty clear I'd like the peer review and publication system looked at before we assume some fundamental issue with the fields. If peer review is too lax on descriptions of methodology or process, it is reasonable to expect researchers might not be as descriptive or specific. That would be a completely innocent explanation for replication issues.

I know you are just tossing out an example, but I really don't like the connotations. Accurate measuring equipment should be expected. A noticeable variance on thermocouple readings shows a lack of attention to detail and rigor. 

Coincidentally, I did some ""layman science"" dealing with air temperature measurement last summer. Even I knew that for my results to be relevant, measurements had to be as accurate as reasonably possible. I had over 150 temperature measurements over 90 days. I used high end thermocouples, and checked calibration daily. I even designed a hand held styrofoam air tunnel to enclose the thermocouple to shade it from the sun, or any other IR sources to make sure I was *only* measuring air temperature. Now this was just research to satisfy my own curiosity (work related). If I were doing that data collection as a professional scientist, I would have spent far more effort making sure my measurements were solid."
technology,"I believe free access, especially for publicly funded research, is 100% the right thing to do, but lets be factual: there are people on the payroll. Its not a zero-cost endeavor. We have not identified an alternative funding system and believe me, our institutions are not going to pick up the tab. My Uni already tries to push every expense on to research budgets. ""Oh you want paperclips? Look at you Mister-sitting-on-$50k-of-research-funds..."" They'll be perfectly happy to not have to pay journals and pass the problem on to the researchers."
technology,"I don’t want to insinuate that you are being unreasonable at all. I’m only trying to bring the perspective of someone who is active in the lab. 

Back to your air temperature measurement: the focus of your study was temperature, whereas for someone working in synthesis for example, temperature accuracy is not as critical as temperature precision.  So as long as you can count on it reading the same way on Tuesday as it did on Monday and stay that way over a long period of time, then you don’t really care if it’s absolute temperature reading is 20 degrees off. Research operations with huge budgets can of course have the best instruments for everything but that’s not how academic labs are so you have to save your money for the instruments that matter most and go cheaper on things that aren’t make or break it for the science."
technology,"Yeah. But they require insane publishing fees for open access which puts a burden on authors. Some funding agencies do not cover those fees, despite asking for open access.
I may be wrong but I published with IEEE transactions on nanotechnology recently and open access was like 1200 or 1500 Canadian dollars. It came out of our research money. That money could go to actual research.
Someone needs to keep these fees in check. "
technology,"This is a wonderful perspective and I'm very glad that I read your comment this morning. I'm a young scientist and it's always astounded me that my mentors would review all these papers and submit one only every two years or so (I went to a small liberal arts college where publishing wasn't their primary responsibility). I just published my first paper and it cost ~$3,000! I was blown away by how expensive the whole process was (especially given that we had no institutional help ☹️) and wondered who was the ultimate benefactor of all this money.

I read a really great book as an undergraduate in a philosophy class called ""What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets"" by Michael Sandel. It's all about how the introduction of market forces into an area of life previously untouched by capitalism degrades the intrinsic value of whatever you're doing. Examples include the naming of sports stadiums after corporate donors, paying people to stand in line for ""Shakespeare in Central Park"" tickets, political lobbying, and selling organs. Highly recommended if you have a free weekend or two!"
technology,"Yeah I have, ya dick. Each journal has a extensive style guide that has to be followed before it will be accepted including formatting, this is done by the writers. Images are sized to fit the columns with required standards, sections, references and title page are also already done all by the writers. The flow of the paper is looked at by all the authors and anyone else who volunteers to critique it before submission. 

What is the publisher doing other than making the text 2/3 columns and inserting images where the text says images need to be. Where does all this extensive work come in for the publisher?"
technology,"They seem to think that their lofty publication will elevate your reputation and further your career as a research scientist. Open the door to new opportunities and give you the way to the future.

This is what virtue signaling has devolved into. Now that reputation is so critical in the field, the ones who do absolutely nothing substantial to improve the quality of work itself are profiting off of selling one scientist's reputation to another. It's become a commodity that is available on the open market for whoever want to seize the opportunity to trade it."
technology,"So just mandate that all public grants be used only for open access journals with <5% profit margin (instead of the current 40% profit meta). Since noone is allowed to publish in extrotionate journals, they will die and the price of science doesn't rise. 

The issue is two-fold, firstly, morally taxpayers should have free access to the research they funded. If that makes it more expensive, so be it, if the public don't get to access what they are paying for, why the hell should they pay in the first place? Secondly, since the journals outsource most of the real work of what they do to free labour, their service isn't worth their price, but since scientists have yet to unionize against them they remain in a position of power. 

It's like rents in my home country, I wouldn't even be able to afford university (despite the government literally paying me to go) unless the renters' union kept rents from inflating. The prices in publishing are set by what the scientists can possibly afford, and not by the cost of performing the service+reasonable margin because competition on the market of scientific journals is mucked up."
technology,"> morally taxpayers should have free access to the research they funded. 

Taxpayers spend millions on defense research. Morally, should they have free access to it?

Scientists usually present their latest findings at scientific conferences. Should taxpayers get free admission?

Scientists often summarize their work in university courses and seminars. Must they also be free to attend?

Scientists aren't the only people who receive grants. Doctors and artists also receive them. If a doctor gets a grant, say for serving in a rural clinic, must her care be free? Does the artist need to give away her art?"
technology,"I think in part we have different opinions on the purpose of research grants. A popular view is that the government supports research because it wants to contribute to human knowledge for its own sake. But I don't think that's true. 

The NIH supports medical research as a means to a practical end: improving health. Likewise, DoD research is not funded for its own sake, but as a means to the end of improving national defense. In that context, scientific publication is not supported for its own sake, but as a means to accelerate progress towards these goals. Thus, the only moral obligation is that research funds are spent as effectively as possible to improve our health, defense, agriculture, etc.

With those ends in mind, would the benefits of sharing defense research with the public outweigh the risks? In most cases I doubt it, even in peacetime. I'm sure we can think of anecdotes where it would have helped (RSA), but I think a general policy of open access would be net detrimental to security.

What about medical research, agricultural research, etc? Perhaps it would be beneficial, but I think the benefits would be quite minimal. I think the people who are capable of improving health already have access to the literature they need. Ultimately this proposal is not really motivated by improving health, but by satisfying the curiosity of non-experts. And even if this would lead to an improvement in health, the gains would very likely be outweighed by those foregone due to the additional burden on research budgets. If so, it is inappropriate.

Perhaps the only exception is space exploration, especially manned spaceflight. The goal here really is to stimulate the public imagination and scientific curiosity, so perhaps this field really is obligated to make its work as accessible as possible.
"
technology,">jury of paid professionals

Actually, they are picked for jury duty and perform at random and are reviewed for personal conflict. Also, I agree that no one needs to get paid for it. Work must be dictated similarly. It must be considered as part of their duty within their fields.

>So even as a poor grad student, I often passed on review requests for papers that were a little too outside of my specific area of expertise.

If the writer is lazy and cannot communicate effectively then reject it; They need to have good communication skills.  And the ""Jury pool"" would consist of a ""Reviewer pool"" with pre-selected areas of expertise that the submitter would attribute to their paper for the review process. This should not be difficult accept making people who are use to the old ways change the way they work, but that can be changed through time. Those new need to be a part of it. Those within the field for 10 years need to sign up for ""reviewer duty"" and those within their field over 10 years are voluntary or required if they are to peer review papers from the previous two circumstances.

The details of how many need to approve can have waited values. It can depend upon the reviewer's time in field, the number of previous reviews, the correlation of agreement with other colleagues. Heck, the selection process could be carried out through an AI program with an agreed set of rules without bias and with transparency.

I think this would only be possible by establishing a new department, Department of Scientific Reviews; DSR maybe? It would need to be required through legislation and have a public website for all reviewed, pending reviews AND rejected journals all available for public consumption. It would also establish registration field experts for the the ""review pool"". The creation of DSR would also outlaw profit for tax-funded research. If a company receives money to research a cure for cancer, they have to share it then. This would prevent duplicate trials and waste of resources. The positives go on and on.

​"
technology,"Once you know that you really truly desperately want to read a particular article, and just can't get it any other way, then sure. The challenge is getting to that point, and ultimately the ""email the author"" approach isn't sustainable as a model for academia in general.

You figure the average student diving into a new topic starts with a few dozen articles based on a keyword search, or citations from the source their advisor gave them, and then expands that to what might be a list of hundreds of relevant papers... most of which won't be terribly helpful or pertinent.

Is it worth the students time to try and find the author's current email address, and then compose an email to them asking for a specific paper, and then wait for a response, if there is only a 5% chance that the paper is really ""on topic?"" Is it worth the authors time to field requests for papers from these individuals if the recipient might not even use the paper? Of course not. It would be a massive waste for both parties. So this ""email the author"" (or find the authors personal website) thing isn't really a sustainable and useful model for academic publishing.

There absolutely is a place for some kind of archive of published papers. The biggest challenge is figuring out how to curate such an archive and ensure that the papers in it aren't all crap.

--------------

As for the $20 per article costs you see on the major websites when you try and pull an article mentioned somewhere online: I imagine that very few people ever pay those fees for one-off access to articles from the major publishers. Rather those fees are a way of ""demonstrate the value"" of the unlimited access subscriptions services they sell to libraries and other institutions. 

A good comparison would be music streaming services like Apple Music. 45 million songs for $10/mo, so that's $120 a year. In theory that is great, at only 0.0003 cents per song, but of course the vast majority of the back catalog is virtually never listed to. At best the average individual will probably listen to a couple hundred songs in a year all by the biggest artists. Even if songs were priced at 10cents (which is really high relative to subscription ""cost""), I would likely do better to purchase them individually.

So in order for a subscription service like Apple Music to be viable (and not be undercut by iTunes) the price for individual songs has to be at bat-shit crazy high >$1 levels."
technology,"> This is why people should continue to buy physical media.

Do you think you're buying that blue ray?

See, that blue ray disk comes with encryption built in. If you get a new disk, you might have to get an update for your player to play that new disk. But therein lies the danger. What updates giveth, updates could also taketh away. 

I've not seen an example of that happening yet, but don't believe for a moment it couldn't. "
technology,"I can't tell what your point is. Are you arguing for or against physical media for movies?

Even if movie quality is improving over time, the improved versions are sold at retail price even if you have an older version. I don't see any online service serving you a 4K movie at no additional price if you've previously bought a 1080p version. Even if they did, I don't see a big market for such ""small step"" quality remakes. "
technology,"But you can channel and attenuate its progression. You can prevent the new hot thing from burning the house down when there’s still people inside. Thats stewardship and its vital to sustained prosperity for a nation. 

People think that supporting coal and natural gas production is anathema to progress, but its not. We just have massive amounts of it that we can still sell — but not if we destroyed those markets prematurely in favor of what’s obviously the future. 

There is no good reason to disenfranchise a large section of the working population as sacrafice to the new god. Give these people an opportunity to transition out of these fields instead of cutting them off at the knees and decimating local economies, or worse, like the Obama Administrations policies which served to punish those communities and treat them like villains standing in the way of progress. 

Stewardship. There is a reason that “the writing is on the wall”. Its to give you an opportunity to change direction before you smash into it head first. "
technology,"Trump isn't stopping progress here, he's merely forcing it to be American. Even though I don't like Trump for other reasons, this specific policy is good because one of the biggest criticisms of solar power on the far right is that it's (supposedly) Chinese. Specifically this was the claim lodged against Obama and Harry Ried during the Bundy Ranch standoff, who (supposedly) wanted to build a Chinese solar farm on his land (note: this wasn't ever true).

"
technology,"You seem to think that it can only be one way, your way, and that's it. The OP didn't say coal was clean. They said there are lots of things that are damaging but you, and others like you, point to one thing, coal, and ignore all else. 

Think of the waste and by-products that goes into what ever you use to read and comment on Reddit. There's toxic shit at every stage from manufacturing the components to delivery. There's your use, then there is disposal--even electronic recycling is damaging but it doens't happen in *your* back yard, does it? You don't see it and don't think about it, therefor you don't care about it. If you knew, would you give up your electronics? Or your shrimp (just look into the ecological damage of shrimp farming). Hell, look into the damage of solar panel manufacturing and recycling!

The point is, coal pollution is bad, but it is sypotomatic of a cause--which is inattention to managing waste--waste of all kinds. 

You want to solve world problems? *Stop being distracted by symptoms*.  "
technology,"the first words in their comment was ""Burning coal is not killing us.""  That is simply not true.  Even without considering implications of climate change, literally thousands of americans die each year from causes related to air pollution from fossil fuel use, of which coal is a meaningful contributor.  [example source](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-other-reason-to-shift-away-from-coal-air-pollution-that-kills-thousands-every-year/)

I never said that coal was the only wrong in the world.  That was purely their whataboutism... i literally gave zero comment on anything other than the impact of coal."
technology,">  but those have been used so much that it just flatlines it

yes, that is the point.  

> The point being though is that the word wasn't in wide at all use until it recently and I've already stated it's standard use.

If it was in standard use, it wouldn't be flatlined by other words. ""Compact disc"", ""Fortran"" and ""Brady Bunch"" are used more frequently than ""whataboutism""... and it is effectively tied with ""cabbage patch kid"".

>Just know calling something 'whataboutism' isn't an argument

Comment: Coal is killing people.

Response: No coal is not killing people.  Plastics are what is killing people.

that is a classic whataboutism.  whether or not plastics are killing people is irrelevant to whether or not coal is killing people. "
technology,">If it was in standard use, it wouldn't be flatlined by other words. ""Compact disc"", ""Fortran"" and ""Brady Bunch"" are used more frequently than ""whataboutism""... and it is effectively tied with ""cabbage patch kid"".

My claim was that it was a recent buzzword, not that it was a popular word. The fact that by itself it completely flatlines until 2016 and John Oliver is the top related search I'm pretty confident in my initial assumption"
technology,"More stuff produced domestically is good for economy.  But higher prices on stuff generally is bad for people & the economy.  net-net, tariffs are bad for the economy (like most forms of taxation, bad except for providing funds for other programs)

Tariffs don't help the economy, which is why western economies have been working to reduce barriers to trade since the end of WW2... and until recently, the right were overwhelming advocates of free trade."
technology,"“Solar is Chinese, oil is American” is exactly the kind of moronic bullshit I’d expect from the far-right.

Solar is (a) the sun and (b) technology to collect that energy. Neither one belongs to any country on Earth. The only reason that one country might be associated with it is by *choosing to prioritize it*.

Want to make solar “American,” rather than binding America’s energy economy to a finite supply of dirty gunk from dead dinosaurs? Here’s the recipe:

1) Research it. Invest enormously in both the basic science and the engineering technology of solar power collection, storage, and distribution.

2) Invest heavily in building a market for manufacturing all of the components. Sell them widely both here and abroad.

3) Adapt government to support it. Regulate it so that parts from different companies work together. Develop industry standards bodies to share and license patent rights - so that valuable research is financially rewarded **and** the industry has access to the full spectrum of innovation. Create government subsidies to fund development. Remove archaic legal obstacles and pass new ones to expedite the safe deployment of solar technology throughout the country.

4) Build the shit out of it. Push industry and consumers to replace gas with electric, and to supply electric power via solar. Push electric cars and trucks and trains. Push charging stations. Push neighborhood solar collection and the injection of collected solar energy input into the grid.

That’s how you make solar “American,” if you can’t break this idiotic habit of looking at the world through a lens of nationalism. For more pragmatically-minded people, this is just ordinary technological progress. Exciting and important and impactful, yes - but one of many such emerging trends in the big picture of the technology of the world. (And everybody else is ahead of us.)

And ffs, stop voting for politicians who think 1950 was some kind of golden age and want to take America back there."
technology,"Not if other countries have a comparative advantage in producing target good.  Demanding that we produce solar panels or whatever at a loss vs importing them is a net negative for our economy. We’ve got opportunity costs to consider. Trade isn’t a zero sum game you play once.  Also taxes don’t fund government programs. The perennial plumage ruffling over the debt ceiling should be evidence enough.

I don’t know anything about the solar industry but it seems to me that the primary thing the US contributes to the industry is research and design while the manufacturing is outsourced. Willing to be corrected by someone in the know."
technology,"But in the short term, tariffs on product that aren't available here suppress supply. Prices go up; availability goes down. Solar becomes less appealing, more cost-effective, and more difficult to deploy today. The friction delays some projects and promotes keeping existing infrastructure.

This isn't an merely incidental disadvantage: it's the objective. Look at how much time the administration has spent plugging oil and ""clean coal"" since he thinks they're popular with his base.

There are many other paths to the ostensible purpose of tariffs. For instance: Expand funding for university science projects in solar technology. Offer funding and tax credits for startups in the solar industry. Pass regulations that reduce barriers to entry for states that want to start rolling out an electric infrastructure.

Apparently those aren't options because Obama backed Solyndra, and Fox News manufactured a scandal out of it, and because Elon Musk said some mean things about Trump, and because ridiculing ""environmentalism"" is a reliable source of amusement and political capital in conservative circles.

This is why we can't have nice things."
technology,"The only thing that Apple contributes to the mobile phone industry is ""research and design."" All of the manufacturing is done overseas.

Apple is one of the most profitable companies in America, and the first company in the world to pass the $1 trillion capitalization mark.

If you think that the story of Apple is a tragedy for America simply because China has a comparative advantage in *manufacturing* all of Apple's products, then I suggest you broaden your understanding of international trade.
"
technology,"Basic macroeconomics includes the principle that trade benefits both parties. That should be obvious, since it is a voluntary transaction, and we presume that entities act in their own self-interest.

There's also the basic principle that prices are a signal of resource allocation, and that monkeying with pricing distorts those signals. Typically, when somebody has a fever, their body temperature isn't the problem, and cooling them down to reduce the fever isn't the cure - in fact, it tends to exacerbate their condition. Instead, we identify what's wrong and address the cause.

Tariffs distort the signaling value of pricing. They are a misguided, counterproductive mechanism for addressing the underlying problem. Yes, America has a problem with participating in the solar economy - and there are many other, better solutions to address it than slapping tariffs on imports.
"
technology,"I agreed, 100%, with the part of your earlier post about comparative advantage. But your comment seemed to slide off-track, suggesting that *because* the comparative advantage existed and all we contribute is the R&D, this isn’t a profitable endeavor for us and we shouldn’t prioritize it - or, at least, that we’re at an unresolvable disadvantage here, and tariffs are a reasonable response. (I may be misinterpreting, because there are some loose ends in your comment where I had to infer your meaning.) 

I disagree with that, because I regard basic research, design, and development as *the most important* parts of this process - the top of the food chain, if you will. We should encourage this disparity, and leverage it to our benefit... in part because of comparative advantage."
technology,"Hillary who? What base? No one is arguing that fossil fuels are not going the way of the fossil. However currently there are many productive sources and those sources will be sold until they cant be, or are depleted. Expecting that anything else would be done is self delusion. Its a sweet thought, but lets be realistic.  You cant “re-assign” people. This is not Communist China. People in the United States have the right to pursue whatever they wish, whether or not you or anyone else agrees. Having the freedom to make intelligent choices means allowing others the freedom to make poor ones. Im all for offering a horse a drink, but i’ll be damned if I make him do it. "
technology,"The big issue is that China doesn't give a crap about intellectual property. If company A in the US spends millions to research and develop solar panels or any other tech, and then contracts it out to a Chinese factory, how long do you think it will be until other Chinese factories not contracted will be producing the same thing? Chinese industry is largely state controlled and if they can get an advantage by ripping us off, they will. China is playing the long game here, they want to be the supreme world power. You need to play more CivRev."
technology,"Yeah tell that to the early 1900s Japanese. They ripped stuff off, and in some cases improved on things. And then they tried to take over half the world. ""One of the costs of outsourcing"" my ass. It shouldn't be implicit and it shouldn't be accepted. Hell, the Chinese are constantly trying to rip stuff off that's not being outsourced. Their industrial/technological espionage is probably one of their most important programs. Being ok with that is not in America's best interest"
technology,"Don’t moralize over whose time period/empire was justified and righteous. They didn’t win the day in the end. Neither did the Soviet Union and their reverse engineering efforts. Prior to the invention of the modern patent office how was progress ever made? Oh man the dark ages of ship, sail and high finance on the seven seas! This business is being done because American companies are tacitly ok with it as they can reap the short term gains. The distant future is scary and full of spiders. The now and near are comforting and almost knowable."
technology,"And I like how you argue without making a single valid point there. You know the ship and sail, along with all of the navigation techniques employed to use them were huge advances in human history right? And we beat Japan with a technology that had they been able to copy before we used it, would've been disastrous for us? Funny you mention the USSR, they survived for so long explicitly because they stole nuclear weapons technology from the US. Ignorance abounds...."
technology,"In fact, in hard drives it is a bit of a misnomer. The motherboard chipset was the master on the ATA line, and both drives were slaves. At least according to the interface bus terminology, which seems the most relevant here. A master is a central node which initiates communication with potentially many slaves. Master/Slave is pretty much the opposite of Client/Server, where the many nodes initiate communication with the central node."
technology,"Bayaaaa racism....

That's an incredibly reductive in one-dimensional view on the matter.

The fact is that the more enthusiatic people on the left are so vitriolic that you don't even have to say that you support Trump or even vote Republican. The mere fact that you would question Hillary or the Democratic party would be enough to make you an enemy of the world, racist, sexist, child-killer who offends with every word.

It's asinine, and this comment crystallizes it. That is exactly why the left was totally surprised when Trump won the election.

Nobody wants to engage with zealots like that. It's getting old. Get a new message, or you going to put us in a position where we get someone like Trump in power again."
technology,"""Trolling"" is what the ""ladies"" of that sub call anyone who demonstrates what professional victims/hypocrites/idiots they are.

They're so afraid of any conflicting opinions/thoughts/ideas, they auto ban people who go to subs they don't approve of.

That's how incredibly pathetic and afraid they are.

I can call a slice of pizza, a thermonuclear weapon, but that doesn't mean it's true.

It's the same thing when you girls call people sexist.

You use that word to dismiss everyone who disagrees with you, whether they're right or not is completely irrelevant.

That sub is a perfect example of what happens to women (or anyone really) when they sit in an echo chamber whose entire purpose is to confirm their own biases while purposely censoring anything contradicts it.

It pumps out nothing but professional victims that reek of hypocrisy and bigotry."
technology,"Who said I gave up my friends I went to war with, moved out of The South, quit talking to my family, or stopped going to family reunions? 

None of these things are true. Hell, one of my current team members is a retired cav scout.

What is true, is that I don't talk to racist sexist pieces of shit like you. There are plenty of good conservatives out there. You're not one."
technology,"Do you have some kind of disability? Where the fuck did I say I was a cav scout?

>Your entire comment history is one whiny piss ant comment calling people racist and misogynistic after the other. 

You read the wrong comment history. >95% of my comment history is programming or technology related.

>nothing I’ve said is ... sexist

Bullshit. You want on pro-life rant putting down all women in a thread where women were supporting each other. 

>racist 

Since you were proving the person you were originally replying to right with the ""racist sexist"" comment, I figured both were true.

>You live in a echo chamber because you proclaim everything you don’t agree with is sexist racist or whatever else you piss and moan about. 

I've literally never done this in my life. Calling out very obvious sexists who trolls women's subs is not the same as randomly calling anyone I disagree with racist or sexist.

>you sound whiney ass pog to me

I had to pull this from your post history and that you'll probably never figure out that it got caught in autofilter.... So first I was a cav scout, now I was a pog? God damn, you just can't get anything right, can you? I was 11B."
technology,"Someone comes up with a network that actually addresses this issue instead of relying upon government-protected oligopolies that don’t give a shit because you’re a captive customer. Then they become rich as people flock to it. Then they also become shit. Then a new company comes along. Ad infinitum. Companies are shitty because they buy protections for their oligopolies in the form of expensive taxes, regulation, and licensing all sold to the masses as ways to ‘protect the consumer’ or some bullshit but actually just protect the status quo. Like how GM should have collapsed in ‘08 but the government stepped in and saved them because the US is about as capitalist as China is communist."
technology,"Yeah, that's why people justifying censorship are short-sighted. They assume they would always be in charge of the censorship machine. It sucks finding yourself on the wrong end of the weapon you've created.

Establishment parties across Europe are shitting their pants from the rise of populist movements, yet they create legal tools of censorship that will fall in the hands of the same populists in case they do get in power. Surely, they can't be *this* stupid."
technology,"Censorship is not always problematic. What is problematic is ill-defined censorship.

For instance - censoring blatant calls to kill, murder or maim fellow members of society is pretty reasonable. But we can also highlight or devalue the post through means of reducing it's visibility, or pointing to it's call to illegal or immoral action and by this extent we can make an appeal to authority or an appeal to morality to detract people from seeing it rather then outright removal.

Another aspect to the problem with ""remove extreme content"" is the fact that as what is considered extreme grows and what is considered the norm narrows, more content will be labeled as extreme and censored by broad rules. However, if we have a list of very specific rules then what is considered extreme is well defined and one can easily categorize a statement and even have the option for flagging it for review by the author or be flagged by the company and given some editing suggestions to the author - in this way, what is being done is focusing on clarifying intent, and ensuring that the discussion is had in a civil manner while deterring the call to illegal activity (ex. murdering a person do to protected class or membership in an organization).

In a very real way, the problem is not the censorship itself. But the broad, ill-defined censorship that is typically implemented."
technology,"Honestly, I used to think that removing the headphone jack was dumb as hell, but I never looked back once I switched to Bluetooth headphones. Wires get in the way far too often IMO. Especially at places like the gym where they can get caught on something and get painfully ripped out of your ear.

Still no reason to completely remove the jack, though. Not everyone can dish out the extra money for decent Bluetooth headphones on the spot."
technology,"ARM SoC CPUs use what is known as Reduced Instruction Set Computing (RISC). RISC instruction sets are smaller, require less energy to process, and complete quickly, freeing up system resources or allowing the device to “idle” to save battery.
    
Intel x86 CPUs use what is known as Complex Instruction Set Computing (CISC). CISC instruction sets are vastly more complex, adding together strings containing multiple instructions.

One is designed for mobility and energy conservation, the other is designed to do complex instructions. You can run iOS and Android on an x86 chip and they will run fine. They other way around not so much."
technology,"I have three points.

1. While RISC does less complex instructions, it does them faster. So, there's no clear win, just a choice. RISC is faster for simple operations but you need to build complex operations out of simple ones. CISC is slower but complex instructions are encapsulated in one instruction.

2. While ARMv8 is ""reduced"" is it not a small instruction set. It has 14 multiplication instructions for various situations and integer types, as well as some involving additional arithmetic (For example, UMADDL will multiply two unsigned 32 bit integers and add a 64 bit one). It also includes both bitwise shifting and rotation, arithmetic shifting and bitfield instructions to extend smaller numbers to register size in various ways. It also has a wide selection of memory access instructions, including support for prefetching, storing and retrieving variable length floating point numbers, storing and loading pairs of data and exclusive locks for synchronisation purposes. Finally, A64 includes support for cryptography (supporting AES, SHA-1 and SHA-256), exception handling, debugging, hints (that is, letting the CPU know what is probably going to be happening soon, such as prefetching), floating point instructions, vector operations and type conversion (specifically, between floating point numbers and integers).

3. If CISC is truly faster... Then why are fan-less iPhone chips backed by a tiny battery benchmarking faster than some of Intel's laptop chips?
"
technology,"> You are comparing apples to oranges. There is no true comparison.

That's a cop out. They're both chips with registers, cores, cache and so on. One of the main differences is the instruction set but you say that should make the Intel chips faster. So, what other factors are countering that and dragging down Intel chips in benchmarks?

Comparing a push bike to a car is apples and oranges but I can still explain why the car is faster.

>Now answer this. If ARM processors were truly faster than x86 or x64 than why cant you run full fledged adobe products on them?

Two answers: Adobe's software is old and very powerful. To get that level of power back when it was first created required low level code tied to the specific instruction set they were targeting. In short, they wrote it specifically for Intel and converting it is a massive amount of work. Nonetheless, [they are](https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/13/17567886/ipad-photoshop-release-date-apple-photo-editing-adobe).

Second, I *do* use such software professionally on my iPad. Not Adobe, for the reasons above, but the Affinity apps which I find better, smoother, faster and easier to use. I haven't touched Photoshop for months (except to load old documents and do something quick) and do not intend to ever go back, iPad version or not."
technology,"I'm not sure what Amazon stands to gain, there have been many reports both from workers and from the media who have looked into allegations regarding the terrible working conditions at Amazon. This isn't an allegation anymore, its just fact and has been for the past few years.

Especially with the winter rush coming up, it would be nice and proper of Amazon to admit to their problems and explain changes, they have more then enough money to make changes. Hire more people to share work!! Automate some things to help workers. Give some extra breaks. Pay them better.

Amazon just can't win this one without actually doing something. They have NO reason not to do something. Unlike other companies that are making minimal profit, Amazon has the resources. "
technology,"Yeah I'm learning electronics so buying raw components and a lot of stuff is 1/10th the price, so I get 10 and if one is a dud (rare from 5 star vendors) I'm still way ahead, and I blew up 3 chips myself the other day trying to solder cause I'm a newb...

I had one vendor would only sell 1 motor per order because he was sending them as a ""gift"" to get around tariffs/import fees. "
technology,"I might dabble a little bit in 'green' trading. Lots of cannabis companies are going public and though some are only worth maybe a tenth of a cent per share, if it becomes federally legal, the stocks are going to explode and being at ground zero when that day comes might set you up for major success. - Of course acquisitions and mergers will happen as the market consolidates, and that's only good for your cheap stocks."
technology,"It's just an example and no you won't be going to prison for buying a 6k camera, putting a brick in the box, and sending it back.

Sure you could go to prison if you continuously do it, make thousands of alt-accounts, attempt to hide what you're doing, and then get caught by the FBI.

I'm not ripping $6k cameras from boxes but you could do it without any negative repercussions. Maybe a ban from Amazon, really depends on how much you spend, how many orders you make etc.

http://fortune.com/2018/06/05/amazon-tech-scam/

Maybe Jeff will go to prison for his shitty worker conditions? Bahah, just kidding. "
technology,"56,310 employees at Amazon, per google search.

Let's take the Net Worth and distribute it...

That's ~213k/year per each of the 56k+ employees.

Subtract that by one, assuming the number doesn't include head honcho. He can keep 213k/year -- maybe even more.

So could he pay his employees more? Absolutely, to the tune of 150k+ more per each employee!

Are they worth it?

FUCK no -- no pick/pack job I do not care what it is how hard the work it what you're moving, etc....no forklift operator, truck loader, is worth more than AT MOST 30$ an hour. Even that is outlandishly ridiculous. 

Just because they CAN pay more, doesn't mean they SHOULD.

Would you pay someone 500k to mow your lawn, just because you're a billionaire?

And don't say yes because you can afford it -- that's charity, not pay.

Business is not charity. You get paid what you're worth -- if you think you're worth more, you find another job.

"
technology,"Nowhere in my post did I advocate 'evening out' the salaries.  

However, since you want to tow the capitalist psychopath line today, I'll bite.  Internationally, Amazon has been accused of near sweatshop quality labor conditions.  Absurd policies regarding productivity and bathroom use are not unusual in the UK or the US.  I'm not saying the floor level employees need $500k, but they should, at the very least, meet minimal labor standards.  They should, at the very least, be paid at such a level that the governing body in the country the business is operating very profitably within, does not have to step in to provide offsetting welfare benefits because the pay scale offered by one of the largest employers internationally has opted to pay sub-poverty levels and benefits to full-time employees.  It is not charity to pay a living wage.  It is responsible business ownership.  Take your faux-socialism outrage elsewhere."
technology,"Seems like if there were better employment opportunities, they would be taken instead, no?

So a shit job with shit pay is better than no job with no pay, right?

I would wager the economies of the sweatshop areas would be markedly worse without these deplorable business coming in and giving people terrible opportunities like awful jobs with more pay.

Not saying Amazon isn't necessarily deplorable because they could do better for workers but don't--but that's their prerogative. Dont support them, dont work for them, but leave their business to them.

If it was bad enough, they would have no employees
 Nobody is forcing anyone to work there. "
technology,"Your premise falls flat when it comes to there being better opportunities everywhere.  The city I live near probably has plenty of upward mobility opportunities, but if you're not near a city, you don't have the same flexibility.  

For example, during the 4 years I lived in a rural area, WalMart replaced one location, and added 3 others, with full-sized stores.  The county is home to under 150k people, and over the years following, non-WalMart business evaporated.  WalMart became one of the few employers to work for, unless you had the capital to start up on your own.  What you end up with is the largest employers paying the lowest wages, dodging taxes on the local, state, and federal level, and then expecting welfare programs to offset the poverty-level pay they're offering.  If you work a full-time job, you should be above poverty levels.

If there WERE a better option, I'm sure many would choose it.  But, that does not excuse full time employers from paying a wage that is above the poverty level."
technology,"Why do you think liberals seek to raise it?  Why do you think conservatives talk of abolishing it?  It is absolutely the fault of the company's greed if they opt to tiptoe along the minimums required.

>Would you pay 15$ for something you could get for 2$?
>Absolutely not. That's just dumb economics.

If you're pretending the welfare and wage of your employee is in any way comparable to the cost of a good, you've already lost.  You're paying your $2 wage, losing out in lost training time as you repeatedly have to re-train new resources for the position, while billing the government to offset what you should've paid in the first place.
"
technology,"Mississippi was the first to do this, I think, so at least we aren't the only ones fighting this dumb battle. I'm a sysadmin for a school district and we are no longer allowed to use Google Apps for Education, so I was given about 3 months to move our entire online presence (including email) to Exchange Online. It was a shit show and no one really catches the irony of moving to another online juggernaut that's going to sell our data. "
technology,"You can get a mint condition year-old iPhone 8 for $450, and a mint two-year-old iPhone 7 for $300. Both processors compete with or blow away competing Qualcomm products. IOS famously does not need as much RAM as android does to run smoothly. You being a rooted user gives you access to updates, but 99% of the android population will receive 0-1 OS updates in the lifetime of their phone. 100% of the iOS population will receive 5. Crunch the numbers on what one year of OS support vs 5 years of OS support is worth. 

You’re still locked into Google’s App Store and services. "
technology,"Apple handed ALL China user data to the government

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/apple-privacy-betrayal-for-chinese-icloud-users/
Campaign targets Apple over privacy betrayal for Chinese iCloud ...

China tried to hack Gmail accounts and Google chose to leave walking away from billions.

Then we have

https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/29/apple-removes-vpn-apps-from-the-app-store-in-china/
Apple removes VPN apps from the App Store in China | TechCrunch

Versus Google

https://www.androidauthority.com/using-google-fi-in-china-850456/
Using Project Fi in China: Say goodbye to VPNs - Android Authority

Guess marketing works by Apple."
technology,"What?  Apple for a buck handed all their user data to the China government versus Google chose to leave.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/apple-privacy-betrayal-for-chinese-icloud-users/
Campaign targets Apple over privacy betrayal for Chinese iCloud ...

But even worse by Apple

https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/29/apple-removes-vpn-apps-from-the-app-store-in-china/
Apple removes VPN apps from the App Store in China | TechCrunch

Versus Google

https://www.androidauthority.com/using-google-fi-in-china-850456/
Using Project Fi in China: Say goodbye to VPNs - Android Authority

Let's work on actual facts instead of marketing."
technology,">	New Chinese legislation enacted in 2017 requires cloud services to be operated by Chinese companies, meaning companies like Apple must either lease server space inside China or establish joint ventures with Chinese partners. 
Chinese domestic law gives the government virtually unrestricted access to user data stored inside China without adequate protection for users’ rights to privacy, freedom of expression or other basic human rights.
As a result, Chinese internet users can face arrest and imprisonment for merely expressing, communicating or accessing information and ideas the authorities do not approve of. 
Amnesty’s online campaign urges consumers to tell Tim Cook to reject double standards when it comes to privacy for Apple’s Chinese customers, whose personal data is now at risk of ending up in the hands of the government.

Sounds like a case of the Chinese government enacting insane laws and screwing its citizens over. Care to elaborate on Apple “ha[ving] their user[‘s] data”"
technology,">	New Chinese legislation enacted in 2017 requires cloud services to be operated by Chinese companies, meaning companies like Apple must either lease server space inside China or establish joint ventures with Chinese partners. 
Chinese domestic law gives the government virtually unrestricted access to user data stored inside China without adequate protection for users’ rights to privacy, freedom of expression or other basic human rights.
As a result, Chinese internet users can face arrest and imprisonment for merely expressing, communicating or accessing information and ideas the authorities do not approve of. 
Amnesty’s online campaign urges consumers to tell Tim Cook to reject double standards when it comes to privacy for Apple’s Chinese customers, whose personal data is now at risk of ending up in the hands of the government.

Sounds like a case of the Chinese government enacting insane laws and screwing its citizens over. "
technology,">	New Chinese legislation enacted in 2017 requires cloud services to be operated by Chinese companies, meaning companies like Apple must either lease server space inside China or establish joint ventures with Chinese partners. 
Chinese domestic law gives the government virtually unrestricted access to user data stored inside China without adequate protection for users’ rights to privacy, freedom of expression or other basic human rights.
As a result, Chinese internet users can face arrest and imprisonment for merely expressing, communicating or accessing information and ideas the authorities do not approve of. 
Amnesty’s online campaign urges consumers to tell Tim Cook to reject double standards when it comes to privacy for Apple’s Chinese customers, whose personal data is now at risk of ending up in the hands of the government.

Sounds like a case of the Chinese government enacting insane laws and screwing its citizens over. "
technology,"Yes and Google chose asking too much and left over making billions.  But not Apple and instead gave up all their user data for a buck.

Removing the VPN software even worse as cutting off users at the knees.  Versus Google provides a VPN that is so easy to use.

https://www.androidauthority.com/using-google-fi-in-china-850456/
Using Project Fi in China: Say goodbye to VPNs - Android Authority

Apple gave up way more private data than Cambridge analytics got from FB.  More users and far more private."
technology,"Yes and Google chose asking too much and chose to leave China walking away from billions.

Versus Apple gave all their user private data for a buck.

But even worse

https://www.ft.com/content/ad42e536-cf36-11e7-b781-794ce08b24dc
Apple drops hundreds of VPN apps at Beijing's request

Versus google doing the ultimate FU.

https://www.androidauthority.com/using-google-fi-in-china-850456/
Using Project Fi in China: Say goodbye to VPNs - Android Authority

I like looking at actual actions instead of marketing.  Apple hypocrisy is unmatched."
technology,"Yes same for Google.  But Google chose to leave as some things more important versus Apple gave up all their uses private data for a buck.

But love the FU from Google

https://www.androidauthority.com/using-google-fi-in-china-850456/
Using Project Fi in China: Say goodbye to VPNs - Android Authority

But sad to see Apple

https://www.ft.com/content/ad42e536-cf36-11e7-b781-794ce08b24dc
Apple drops hundreds of VPN apps at Beijing's request

I care about actual actions and not marketing.

Apple hypocrisy is unmatched.

My biggest issue is the hypocrisy.

I am also thank full that Google did the right thing and shame on Apple.

Apple gave up more data and far more private then FB with Cambridge analytics.

I am not aware of Google ever doing something similar to either?  Are you?"
technology,"Yes same for Google.  But Google chose to leave as some things more important versus Apple gave up all their uses privete data for a buck.

But love the FU from Google

https://www.androidauthority.com/using-google-fi-in-china-850456/
Using Project Fi in China: Say goodbye to VPNs - Android Authority

But sad to see Apple

https://www.ft.com/content/ad42e536-cf36-11e7-b781-794ce08b24dc
Apple drops hundreds of VPN apps at Beijing's request

I care about actual actions and not marketing.

Apple hypocrisy is unmatched.

The Apple hypocrisy is what most bugs me.  Apple gave away way more data and far more private then FB with Cambridge analytics.  Not aware of Google ever doing anything like either company.

Plus I thank Google for doing the right thing and shame on. Apple.

Do you have an example of Google doing anything similar?

I mean actually doing it and NOT marketing.

Please share if you do?"
technology,"The comment was in response.

I am not aware of any US tech company that has done any thing worse than Apple in the name of privacy.  Do you have an example?

Even FB Cambridge analytics which was really, really bad is no where near as bad as what Apple has done.  I mean Apple shared far more data and then shared with the government and far more private data.

I am not aware of Google ever doing anything like FB or Apple.  Do you know of an example?

Not marketing but real life?"
technology,"I am actually a pretty big Apple fanboi.  But way, way before it was cool.  I never used MS technology.

But just because I have been a fan of the company in the past does not give them a pass for the actions we have seen from Apple.

I also HATE hypocrisy.   It is mind blowing the hypocrisy that is coming out of Apple.

Tim Cook to even mention privacy when NO US tech company in all of the history of tech has ever abused customer privacy worse than Apple.

I mean NONE!!!

You name one case where any tech company has done anything as bad as Apple?

Name one?

I am NOT aware of Google ever doing anything like Apple and we can see Google do the EXACT opposite.  They chose to leave China.

Even FB with Cambridge Analytics which was a horrible thing is no where near as bad as what Apple has done.

I get marketing works and it is easy to fool people with words.  But look at the actions.

Google does NOT share private data.  Apple has been far worse than any tech company I am aware of?



"
technology,"No they have been.

But not nearly as much if the top companies would be trying to get the top talent.

Say I get a 3% raise yearly.

If I go to a new company they must really want me and they'll give me much larger increases.  If my original company wants to keep me they can pay maybe 8-9% and it's worth staying for me to not have that hassle to change jobs.

Since neither company is recruiting me... And no one will interview me. I'm stuck with that 3% no matter what."
technology,"Voting machines aren't phones, there's no need to replace them every 48 months like people do with phones because the voting process itself (filling out a form them sealing it) doesn't change. There's not much newer technology can offer here, except more security holes. Consider that before 2016 there were serious proposals to do away with IRL voting entirely and just let people vote over the Internet because it's the latest and greatest thing.

Also if you were to fact check the GOP *didn't* vote against election security. They voted against more bloc grants for election security because:

1. The most recent claims of election fraud are being investigated by Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller whose investigation is incomplete, therefore it's wrong to throw more money at the problem when we don't even know if states (who'd be issued the grants) are the problem or if the companies they'd spend the grant money on are trustworthy. This has special significance given accusations that Kaspersky Lab, who provides anti-malware software, is a front for the Russian government.

2. The intelligence community and Mueller himself all agree that election machines were not themselves hacked or ever potentially compromised, a fact which President Obama himself stated before he left office. All of the ""hacking"" is focused on the 2016 DNC server hack and purported ad fraud/nondisclosure between Russians and Facebook.

3. The GOP's core platform is all about election security, in the form of Voter IDs and restricting peoples' ability to vote by mail. Notice how nobody ever talks about this anymore because now it's just accepted that people should have to show an ID to exercise their basic constitutional rights.

So no, it's not intentional. What's happening is that everyone in the government (from former SoS Hilary Clinton down to local elections officials) doesn't know how to use technology. And the GOP itself don't otherwise they'd require e-balloting machines to require ID swipes in order to operate. Everyone here is just stupid and most choose to continue to remain stupid."
technology,"The only person who ever knew anything about ""these issues"" was the President at the time, Barrack Obama, who was the commander of the intelligence agencies who were supposedly telling him of an imminent attack on America's democracy. Obama, before and after the election, repeatedly asserted that the 2016 election machines were not hacked and could not be hacked. 

If you're looking for a potential conspiracy, this is where it would begin. Which is why the current President started his own conspiracy theory about Obama trying to have Russia hack him (or some other nonsense, I stopped reading Twitter long ago) because Obama is ultimately the person who would know. Either him or Jim Comey, hence the original firing which spawned the Mueller investigation in the first place."
technology,"The 2016 election is evidence against you: the *entire* DNC server was hacked because Hilary Clinton's campaign manager misplaced her phone, meanwhile there was not a single instance of any voting machine (or vote tallying machine) that was ever hacked or under threat of hacking. This is what the intelligence community has said and agreed upon, including two Presidents (of which one of whom, Barrack Obama, is not a habitual liar). All evidence says that election machines are more secure than any device that can connect to the Internet.

Hence why there's talk of having 3FA authentication using a USB security dongle or plastic card for email accounts in general, *much like how a Voter ID system works in the states that have them*."
technology,"> , meanwhile there was not a single instance of any voting machine (or vote tallying machine) that was ever hacked or under threat of hacking. 

bwahaha my naive little friend. our electronic voting machines are ridiculously easy to hack

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2142428-hacking-a-us-electronic-voting-booth-takes-less-than-90-minutes/

http://time.com/5366171/11-year-old-hacked-into-us-voting-system-10-minutes/

the reason that there is no evidence has to do more with lack of security measures that would cause tampering to leave a fingerprint than any real security.

> All evidence says that election machines are more secure than any device that can connect to the Internet.

that's straight up bullshit, that no intelligence agency has stated as all the evidence says the opposite.



btw: i'm a distributed systems software engineer. don't try to blow smoke up the ass of an ACTUAL expert
"
technology,">bwahaha my naive little friend. our electronic voting machines are ridiculously easy to hack

The second link you posted is wrong and ProPublica thoroughly explains why [here](https://www.propublica.org/article/defcon-teen-did-not-hack-a-state-election). Additionally, the intelligence community itself came out and said no election machines were hacked or were ever in danger of hacking, all of this hysteria over hacked ballot machines comes from the media not the government. 

>the reason that there is no evidence has to do more with lack of security measures that would cause tampering to leave a fingerprint than any real security.

Wrong, ffs the FBI blames Russia's government for the DNC hack based upon the most generic nonsecurity information available; IP addresses they got right from telecom companies that routed the hacks.

>that's straight up bullshit, that no intelligence agency has stated as all the evidence says the opposite.

You're wrong, to quote the actual [Intelligence Community Assessment](https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf): *Russian intelligence obtained and maintained access to elements of multiple US state or local electoral boards. DHS assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying.*

>btw: i'm a distributed systems software engineer. don't try to blow smoke up the ass of an ACTUAL expert

Cool, I'm an actual telecom engineer with 35 years experience in the field and was even paid to consult on election machines after the 2000 election. You mine bitcoin."
technology,">  intelligence community itself came out and said no election machines were hacked or were ever in danger of hacking

no, they said there was no evidence any were hacked.   that does not mean they were not at risk. every independent security analysis says they absolutely are.  just because you want to misread reports to confirm your foolishness doesn't mean they say that.

> Wrong, ffs the FBI blames Russia's government for the DNC hack based upon the most generic nonsecurity information available; IP addresses they got right from telecom companies that routed the hacks.

I was talking about voting machines, not the DNC hack you blathering moron.

> Cool, I'm an actual telecom engineer with 35 years experience in the field and was even paid to consult on election machines after the 2000 election. You mine bitcoin.

you hook phone lines together, and maybe splice some fiber and copper connections.  I write distributed systems at the operating system level that are mission critical to thousands of commercial and government entities.  Security and networking are my area in distributed systems.

bitcoin is a scam that some fools fell for.  one i wish I would have had the foresight to exploit and be retired.

you don't know 1/1000000th of what you think you know.  so kindly piss off"
technology,">no, they said there was no evidence any were hacked. that does not mean they were not at risk.

But they weren't at risk. They weren't targets in the first place, did you even read my post?

>you hook phone lines together

Yes, do you know what that entails? One of my jobs was to splice into phone lines to setup wire taps so the government could record conversations they had gotten warrants for. Another was to get into phone lines to send a signal to security systems to reprogram them using custom code I had to write on the fly. This is known as ""hacking"". Clearly, you're inexperienced at this and don't have much room to talk about it to others."
technology,"> But they weren't at risk. They weren't targets in the first place, did you even read my post?

if you really think they're not at risk then i have ocean front properly in montana to sell you

> Yes, do you know what that entails? One of my jobs was to splice into phone lines to setup wire taps so the government could record conversations they had gotten warrants for. Another was to get into phone lines to send a signal to security systems to reprogram them using custom code I had to write on the fly. This is known as ""hacking"". Clearly, you're inexperienced at this and don't have much room to talk about it to others.

no, tapping unecrypted channels is not hacking.  and you weren't even doing that, you were tapping analog lines.  "
technology,"> bwahaha my naive little friend. our electronic voting machines are ridiculously easy to hack

Did you not read either article?  The first is about voting machines bought on ebay with absolutely nothing to suggest that they run the same software that's currently running on voting machines in active use.  The second is about a kid hacking **an imitation voting website**.  They created the site just for the event with intentionally placed vulnerabilities."
technology,"http://fortune.com/2017/07/31/defcon-hackers-us-voting-machines/  (easily broken into)

https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/evt07/tech/full_papers/feldman/feldman_html/index.html (utter lack of security)

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/2016-elections-russia-hack-how-to-hack-an-election-in-seven-minutes-214144 (oh look mom, we can pick the lock and replace the ROM EEPROMs in minutes!)

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/21/magazine/the-myth-of-the-hacker-proof-voting-machine.html  (REMOTE ACCESS SOFTWARE PRESENT)

https://www.wired.com/2016/08/americas-voting-machines-arent-ready-election/ 


(tag /u/bitfriend2, ignoramus) 


Seriously guys, computer security is part of my fucking job - and it's not just me saying these systems are insecure. It's the world's leading computer security experts. it's everyone in the field who doesn't have their head up their ass.  it's so one sided that [there is an XKCD about it](https://xkcd.com/2030/)  

#Why do you persist in trying to claim that the current electronic voting machine designs are not a goddamn security disaster?
"
technology,"I'm not.  I'm saying that the two links that you provided above were both pretty useless as neither proved anything.  The first link that you provided here is similar.  Hacking something at defcon and hacking something at an actual voting location are two **very** different things.  Where's the news report about it actually happening to an in-use voting machine on voting day?

Your second link requires taking the machine apart.  Is there any evidence of someone doing this to any voting machine that was actually being used?

Third link, once again, is someone breaking into a **decommissioned** voting machine that was likely extremely out of date.  They also claim that you could replace the ROM chips with hacked ones, but that requires getting the source code first.  Is there any evidence of anyone doing that?

The fourth link talks about one machine with a calibration error, and another machine that had remote access software that had only been accessed by authorized personnel.  A problem, but still not evidence of any wrongdoing.  It proves the opposite, in fact.

The fifth article was about recalled voting machines from a company that had gone out of business years before.  Yes, that one was pretty bad.  Someone really should have replaced them sooner.

Basically, everything that you've posed is nothing but conjecture and hacking **similar** machines and software but **not identical**.  It proves absolutely nothing.  Yes, there's probably a big issue that needs to be addressed.  But as was already pointed out to you, that's currently under investigation and **nothing** should be done until that investigation is complete as we still don't know what exactly needs fixing.

If you work in security, you should know better.  Essentially what you're saying is that ""My cousin heard from his friend that your software is vulnerable"" is actionable evidence.  Which software?  Vulnerable how?  Until those questions are answered, it would be stupid to start changing things blindly.  That's exactly what's being done right now.  The answers to those questions are being investigated.  Right now anyone claiming to have those answers is making it up, as **there is absolutely no evidence of any elections actually being hacked, despite ""experts"" claiming over and over how easy it is**.  If it's so easy, why aren't we seeing it happen?  It should be pretty obvious.  Sure, some will be smart about it and make the numbers look believable.  Many wouldn't.  And if it really can be done by absolutely anyone, where are those obvious cases?"
technology,"Why are you so invested in defending electronic voting machines? we know their security is shit.

Have you ever considered some of us may be privy to information that we cannot link you?

Have you ever considered that some of the best links are buried under pages and pages of infotainment links?

fuck dude, Diebold Voting Systems (ran by two guys who were felons related to election tampering!) thought that an unencrypted microsoft access database file was a secure audit!"
technology,"I'm not defending anything except the need for facts, which you seem to lack.  Yes, there seems to be a problem.  But you don't go redoing the entire country's voting systems based on the assumption that something is wrong somewhere.  You first investigate what's wrong, and then you act on it.  So far, most of the evidence has ranged from anecdotal to completely made up.  Your own posts offering a fictional web site made up specifically for a hacking challenge as evidence just goes to show how little is actually known and how much bad information is being thrown around.

I'm not defending the electronic voting machines.  I'm saying that we need to proceed with caution and base all actions on actual data, not opinions about what might have happened if things were different."
technology,"Do you understand computing at all?  Do you hold a degree in Computational Science?  

Everyone, EVERYONE, in the field knows that computers are fundamentally insecure.  It isn't ""prove this system is insecure"" it's ""prove this system is secure"" in our world, and almost always you cannot - it is essentially impossible to prove it is secure.  

We can exclude systems from the possibility of being secure by demonstrating that their design fundamentally cannot be secured.  Electronic voting machines without a voter-verified-paper-audit (all purely electronic systems in use in the united states) are fundamentally incapable of being secured and verified.

You're trying to hold this to a ""smoking gun"" standard of evidence, which nobody in reality should need to know a system is insecure.   You're trying to handwave away all the evidence that they're insecure ""oh it's an old version"" [that rarely makes a difference - even the world's best shops have tons of unknown vulnerabilities in their latest editions], ""oh it's just a mock up not the real thing [nevermind it's running the same software]"", etc.   Demonstrating attacks on the machines (replacing the EEPROMs in minutes, and without leaving a trace).   **The kind of vulnerabilities you're dismissing off handedly should have never been present in any version of the software and demonstrate a fundamentally insecure design**, and demonstrate that the 'engineers' working on them are fundamentally not capable of writing secure code.  That isn't surprisingly because writing secure code is a monumentally difficult thing, and the electronic voting machine manufacturers don't pay enough to attract software engineers who even know how to think about code security.

To someone who is an actual expert, who does hold degrees in the field and who has more than a decade of experience, you simply appear to be putting your hands over your ears and humming REAL LOUD.  
"
technology,"Being able to rewrite code from the ground up when needed is the wet dream of most good software engineers and computational scientists.    

Recently when talking to a company i might go work for i literally asked them if they did this when needed, and was pleasantly surprised when they did.  

There is way too much unupdated, unmainted legacy code in the world.   Where do you think most vulnerabilities in major operating systems come from?  it's usually the old code."
technology,"Ok seriously, lets be real: The majority of people DON'T CARE ANYMORE! As long as they get their entertainment and instant amusement, all people will sacrifice their privacy. You have, I have...I think everyone has. So what CAN we do to fight back against it BESIDES unplugging? The big tech folks have planned this out for YEARS.... they use words to BS us saying they will respect privacy while at the same time installing spyware...and yet no one complains. They might have a brief moment of anger, but its only temporary...kind of like Orwell's 2 minutes of anger. "
technology,"> So what CAN we do to fight back against it BESIDES unplugging?

Use Linux. Use a decent VPN service. Use ad and script blockers. Pirate your entertainment. There still are people and businesses who will treat you fairly and with respect, you can still be ""plugged in"" to most things without having to give up every shred of your privacy. You absolutely can fight back, but it means you have to put some effort in on your own. Nobody will take your hand and help you over to the other side, especially not if you are the kind of person who will slam their heels into the ground and fight against your own liberation kicking and screaming.

""This is hard, I don't know how to do this and I don't want to spend any time learning, the other side isn't as convenient as this side and does not have all of the toys that this side has""…alright then, by all means, stay on your side. Just stop complaining to me and for fucks sake don't do anything to hold people back who actually decide to make the journey to my side."
technology,"What do you mean, my own network and server? Do you mean networking hardware that I own? Then yes, I do have that. Do you mean a NAS? Don't have that, don't need it. I don't have that many devices, so traditional storage is convenient enough for me. Do you mean my own VPN so I can SSH into my machines from the outside? Working on it, but have been pretty much stuck at home for the last couple of months anyway so I didn't need it yet.

On the other hand…can you explain why I would need ""my own server""? What would I want to serve? I honestly don't need the devices I own to be connected to each other or some outside devices all the time. So no, I don't have my own server, because I don't have any use for a server. Can you demonstrate how having your own server is in any way meaningful when it comes to getting away from corporate control and making your devices your own?"
technology,"You're one of those folks that always deny everything until you see it on TV, huh? Think for yourself for a minute. People who use VPN obviously have a reason to do so, and often the case is they have something to hide, something illegal, so it's concentrated interest for the government/s to keep track of it. US government spends billions on IT every year(that they tell us about), they have over 10k data centers already(that we know of), so what's additional 100 million dollars, hell, another 500 to fund VPN services? They're not expensive. It's not cutting edge, high altitude invisible bombers. It's servers with code in them. That's it. Information is everything in this age. And US spare no resources to get every bit they possibly can. And all countries are following the same path, it's just they're not at the same level as US. "
technology,"That still doesn't explain ""the government"" you are talking about (because if different countries run different VPN services then what's to stop me from getting my VPN based in a country that doesn't play nice with my particular government) and also ignores the simple fact that pretty much everybody can just go and start their own VPN service on the free market. It's not witchcraft, there is very little any particular government can do to actually stop a company from setting up a VPN service in whatever country it likes.

Furthermore, this discussion was mostly about shitty companies collecting people's data. A VPN service at least ensures that companies like Facebook, Google or your ISP have a much harder time identifying your activity online.

Do you think that not running a VPN will offer you better protection from government agencies than running one? Based on what information? If all of your online activity is already recorded by your ISP and your government can just force them to hand it over to them, then even in your ""every VPN is controlled by *the* government"" scenario you lose nothing by using a VPN."
technology,Democrats can push for more than one issue at the same time.  Medicare for all is a far more important issue and most Americans support it.  The republicans will call the democrats socialists no matter what they do.  Obama was a capitalist president and he still got called a socialist.  We should not act based on what we think the republicans will say.  They lie all the time.  We cannot let their words control us.  We can support the right to repair and Medicare for all at the same time.
technology,"How many farmers are disgruntled at not being able to repair their own equipment?  

How many people want actual healthcare?  

It irks me when people blame the Democratic party in a manner like you did.  It's like blaming the victim of a serial bully.

Edit: oh yeah lemme pour some out for my tariff-loving farmer homeboys. They’ll get enough money from federal bailouts to repair their tractors, so we don’t need to worry"
technology,"I love the delusional view that one issue is magically going to make Republicans shift parties as well. Yeah, the people buying the idea that Climate Change is fake and that all the Media is liberally owned and lying regularly to us but Fox news or Youtube tell it like it is are totally going to flip closer to sanity over one issue.

The entire Republican voter base is ""If a Democrat did it, it is bad no matter what."" ""If a Republican does it, who cares?"" or ""They are lying to smear him!"" Literally every criticism ever thrown against Democrats has been applicable to most Republicans yet they are still regularly voted for. Republicans don't care about policy unless you have an R in front of your name and do the opposite of what Democrats currently want."
technology,"This. I have a super conservative family and grew up in NC all my life. The only thing you will get is ""It is the Dems fault"" out of anything they concede. I have swayed my parents on issues over the years, but it literally took kid gloves and careful explaining of nuance to every single issue that came up relentlessly dozens of times over those several years. Even now, they still defend Trump every now and then and only MIGHT consider someone like Bernie over him because of healthcare. It is insanely difficult to undo the southern brainwashing that goes on.

I've had several people unironically tell me to check the history books when they argued that the Civil War was fought over states rights. Which History book would that be? Since it clearly wasn't in mine and their reasons for succession sure mentioned slavery a lot as their primary concern for people who didn't care about slavery."
technology,"> Medicare for all is a far more important issue and most Americans support it.

Problem is, taking the steps nessicariy to actually implement this is far more difficult than people seem to believe; hence why you get half-measures like Obama's healthcare plan.  What the US's healthcare system needs is to be redesigned from the ground up, with no vestiges of the past system remaining.  The majority of the issue centers around the status quo of insurance and hospital administration as well as a long history of neglecting the implementation of system and organization improvements.  This is by no means not the only issue either.
  
The reason why universal healthcare isn't a thing isn't because of hospital administration, or republicans, or insurance companies, or the government regulations.  It's a long list of things that would take time and coordination far exceeding the term limit of a single president.  "
technology,"The reason for that is because a major portion of the data input/gathering jobs in the US is outsourced to third party companies usually in India and Bangladesh, and or the visa system is abused to hire incredibly unqualified individuals from other nations for significantly less money. This causes pay in the market to drop which causes skilled people to look elsewhere in order to survive. This trend, which was mostly started by HP and their first female CEO, needs to end or even more companies will be permanently damaged by the side effects just like HP experienced."
technology,"The difference would be that this is something that would have an immediate noticeable effect for farmers and it'll cost them nothing, whereas Medicare for all is something that costs them and they might not benefit from it directly, or at least they don't think they will. Trust me, the second they have to wait longer than normal to schedule an appointment with their doctors, they will lose their shit and demand it be repealed. They have no patience once so ever for any slight inconvenience.

People call Republicans stupid but here's the other side of it: they're selfish and short-sighted. They don't give a shit about anyone but themselves and their loved ones. If it makes their lives a little more difficult but helps others, they rally against it with absolutely zero appreciation for the net benefit to society (which includes them). Most don't even appreciate societal benefits or how much they gain from having a strong one.

The only things they understand are what's directly in front of them and what Fox News tells them they should be mad about. If there is more than 2 degrees of separation from ""thing politician did"" to ""positive effects on my life"", they can't see the connection. Complex ideas about cause and effects elude them unless it's literally so simple they can't miss it like ""Congress passes law that all farmers get free blowjobs.""

This is why you'll never get them to commit to better education standards. The benefits from it are far too many degrees of separation from the proposed laws being passed. Climate change is the same.

That's why right to repair is an easy win in that regard. It helps them, costs them nothing, and will be immediately noticable. Law passes, restrictions lifted, positive effect is immediate.

*That said*, what would happen is the Dems would get the law passed but the Republicans would take credit, and the voters will believe it because Fox News tells them too."
technology,"The ones that have had to deal with John Deer likely are. Which is a ton of people in middle America. My point is they have a framing issue. Republicans just fling bullshit because is takes an order of magnitude more energy to refute it. Taking very popular bipartisan issues and running on those, which it would be hard for republicans to defend, like right to repair and marijuana legislation, could flip a lot of republican voters. "
technology,"This is not even slightly correct. The union did not even recognize the confederacy as a valid state. 

From wikipedia: 

The Proclamation applied only to slaves in Confederate-held lands; it did not apply to those in the four slave states that were not in rebellion (Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri, which were unnamed), nor to Tennessee (unnamed but occupied by Union troops since 1862) and lower Louisiana (also under occupation), and specifically excluded those counties of Virginia soon to form the state of West Virginia"
technology,"The Dixiecrats were beholden to party loyalty though and never aligned with civil rights. The reason they took so long to flip was exactly what Republicans have today, party loyalty.

I have no doubt Republicans might start flipping if Democrats swapped their opinions on something as insanely large as civil rights though as that is kind of the entire reason Republicans even have votes today. Guns, racist policies, nationalism, and religion are all they have and if another party started advocating for voter ID and tax cuts sure, but that is hardly a single issue vote, that is more a foundation for the entire party itself. Republicans would barely exist if it weren't for racial tensions and Civil war grudges, they would just be a small party of libertarians then."
technology,"Yeah good luck! I wish someone actually paid attention in politics, but nowadays everyone's so busy stuffing their nose up the other's ass that they don't give a shit anymore. There are too many greasy lobbyists running around DC throwing money at anyone with a title to hope for any kind of progress that's not in the name of corporate interests. They'll sell everything they can get their hands on. If they can find a law to capitalize on the air we breathe, that will be next!

At least someone is speaking up about net neutrality, but I'm not that hopeful it will make a big difference."
technology,"[Some states do effectively do that.](https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/who-needs-tickets-is-ticket-scalping-legal)

> another seven states (Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania) that require a seller to have license to broker tickets, and many limit the allowable markup to $3 or less

 

I recently saw Stone Sour & Ozzy. The ticket had some legal text about New York and how the ticket price couldn't be above $X of the price listed on the ticket.

Great show. The venue (PNC Bank Arts Center) blew ass, tho."
technology,"No, that seems fine to me.  


The issue is that regular tickets should be bought with a credit card with a billing address, and each billing address should only be allowed a limited number of tickets.  


It used to be illegal to scalp tickets in Canada, then 3 years ago they changed the law, and now you can just buy expensive resold tickets, there are websites that come up when you google search the event center that are sham sites that only contain resold tickets, the scalpers buy hundreds of tickets to every show and sell them at a markup."
technology,">but I really wish they would just make it illegal to sell tickets above face value

Why would I buy season tickets for my local NBA team then?

Some games sell way below face value. If I can't make it to that game and need to unload the tickets I end up losing money. Which is fine right now, because I can make up that loss on a game when the Warriors or another team that commands higher prices are in town. You're suggesting I just eat the cost of bad games and then get face value for good games?

I'd just stop buying season tickets. I'm not doing this to make money, but life gets in the way of going to 41 games a year. A policy like the one you're suggesting ends up not just attacking scalpers but random fans too."
technology,">Some games sell way below face value. If I can't make it to that game and need to unload the tickets I end up losing money.

So you want season ticket holders to always come out worse off. Not ever to be made whole. Why would anyone ever buy season tickets then?

So instead of tickets being in the hands of fans, you want it in ticketmasters purview. 

You're making no sense, just being blindly indignant."
technology,"Agree and i have even watch the youtube video of unbox therapy and he even compared it with the iphone 4 having the same ppi... note older version of iphone has 3.5 inches to 4.0 inch so that ppi is still good, but i doubt when it is on a 6.1 inch LCD. Its a large screen already so you will notice a big difference between a full HD and a Hd resolution only. Hahaha"
technology,"Still more pixels than an iPhone 6-8, and those screens still look fantastic. By the numbers they're a fair way behind the highest DPI screens out there, but in practice they're great screens, at a resolution which doesn't tax the GPU/battery excessively as some of the highest resolution screens can.

Remember that most people are still happy with 1920x1080 or so for a 24"" PC monitor at maybe 50cm-1m distance. Most 'lower res' phone still exceed that even when taking the closer viewing distance into account. Beyond a certain point (passed a while back), phone screen resolutions are becoming like camera megapixels, they're more of a marketing number than a practical improvement

Also remember that OLED phones tend to have [PenTile matrix](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PenTile_matrix_family) screens, so the 'pixels' aren't complete pixels with independent R, G and B subpixels - you're not quite getting the advertised resolution anyway."
technology,"I think the best way to summarise all of this is as follows:

​

1. There are a small number of people (myself included) who will not want such a low density screen because we are used to higher density screens
2. The rest of the world who doesn't care.

People in the first bucket trying to convince people in bucket 2 to avoid this phone because of the screen are just idiots in my opinion.  Who cares!"
technology,"I had an iPhone 8 and iPhone X side by side the other day. I was actively looking for the difference that the resolution makes, but really struggled to see it.

On text, from a normal viewing distance, I could see no difference. On fine diagonal lines (e.g. the Safari icon), I could just about make out improved sharpness, but it was barely noticable.

My eyesight is OK, but it must take significantly better eyesight to make the difference really clear. But I also suspect that the PenTile Matrix tech is reducing the benefits of adding more (partial) pixels.

My eyes however, are *very* sensitive to poor framerates... I also acknowledge that the Retina screens on Macbook Pros are a huge step forward, and an 'average' 1080p-ish PC monitor does look fairly poor in comparison. Just a shame that high-DPI on Windows doesn't really work well (unless you have fantastic eyesight and can manage without any scaling...)


"
technology,"For low detail video? No. For small text and other sharp details in media in high quality 1080p format? Yes.

Edit: 828p vs 1080p is a 23% loss in horizontal resolution. It's absolutely trivial to notice that loss in quality when reading small and scaled down text.

Edit: this is why you are wrong

http://www.glennchan.info/broadcast-monitors/scaling-artifacts/scaling-artifacts.htm

https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/a/110251

https://stackoverflow.com/a/13243833/2537478

http://www.idownloadblog.com/2014/11/20/iphone-6-downsampling-explained/

> On the downside, the system down samples everything by approximately 13 percent to the native resolution so some unwanted artifacts do appear which degrade image quality slightly in certain situations. [...] 

> The lines are perfectly crisp when rendered into a backing store of 1,242-by-2,208 logical pixels. But after the iPhone 6 Plus does its downsampling magic for display on the 1,080-by-1,920 pixel screen, the crisp lines lose the black 1-pixel-wide gaps between each green line and a very subtle Moiré pattern is introduced.

Example: https://youtu.be/eH0hyh5cvbU

Downsampling to any pixel resolutions other than multiples of 2 of the original will cause visible artefacts. At minimum it makes small text fuzzier and harder to read. The end.

PPI has no relevance to this discussion."
technology,"You're making the mistake of comparing natively rendered text at different ppi VS text rendered for a high resolution being downsampled / downscaled to a smaller resolution that is NOT a multiple of 2 of the original.

Yes the ppi is near indistinguishable. Native text for one screen at its ppi will look very similar to native text at another screen at another ppi.

NON-native text NOT at a multiple of 2 scaling will be visibly worse, and ppi has zero relevance. It's the scaling that makes it bad."
technology,"You're missing the point.  The human eye is physically incapable of perceiving details that small.  So it isn't ""hard to spot"" or ""fuzzy"".  It's actually physically impossible to see.  What you're suggesting is like saying that a single molecule out of place is just ""hard to spot"".  There are limitations on our vision, beyond which you just don't see it.  You'd have to hold the screen 6 inches from your face to see that fuzzy look.  At a normal viewing distance, it would look sharp."
technology,"False

https://youtu.be/eH0hyh5cvbU

That's what non-native non 2x scaling does to high detail images

PPI is irrelevant, scaling creates artefacts. The artefacts becomes big enough by simply messing up details and making the errors large enough to become visible

Also, per the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem, the actual limit to make it undetectable is approximately 2x2 (4) (sub)pixels per photoreceptor in the eyes due to different grids and imperfect alignment, etc. So double the PPI. Same as for sound. Also note that the SCALING ERROR must be smaller than that (less than 1 pixel under double PPI) to be invisible.

The scaling error is clearly not smaller than that. A scaling error that takes up 4+ pixels on a <4K phone screen in small text is visible."
technology,"By the default method of choosing phone screen PPI + the fact that errors take up multiple pixels, you need to hold your phone *at least* 2x further away than the intended distance to not be able to see the errors. (you will also still not be able to see small text...)

See the video above - the grids are visibly distorted when incorrectly scaled, and the error is only invisible if you're so far away that the grids themselves would still blurry even when correctly scaled."
technology,"I wonder if a [watch winder](https://www.aliexpress.com/item/Luxury-Double-Watches-Mechanical-Watch-Winder-For-Automatic-Watches-Winder-Multi-function-4-Modes-Affordable-Watch/32871443496.html) would work.  
These are for mechanical watches that keep running based on your normal movements while you're wearing them.  But if you don't always wear your watch, it can run down.  This doesn't damage the watch, but it is a drag if you have to re-set the time and date when you wear it again.  So the mechanical watch winder moves your watch while it's in storage.  

So maybe these could trick your fitness tracker into thinking you're wearing it (and being active).  You could even plug the winder into a timer, to control how ""active"" you appear.  Smarter still would be to set the timer for a ""sedentary"" level, then turn it up after a while.  Then you probably get bonuses and discounts for increasing your exercise.

Of course, walking would also work."
technology,"My insurance requires that I get a physical annually to get all my critical stats in order to receive a discount.  This should suffice.   Now insurance companies want access to your hourly stats for rate reduction?  
I’m a very active person and have nothing to hide, but fuck them if they think I’m going to allow them to invade my privacy by accessing my hourly data.   I’d do everything possible to provide them falsified data that makes me look good just to give them the bird.  "
technology,"Nonsense. Facebook Twitter, YouTube, Google, Gmail were blocked long before any tariffs.  Actually, we should be doing something in response to China's draconian Internet policy.  We should be cutting off all trade until they open up their Internet 100%.  There is no way we should allow the most populous country on Earth to live under such mind control.  If they are the next superpower, it should be really nice dealing with 1.4 billion people who are completely brainwashed by state-controlled media and a censored Internet."
technology,"It’s truly horrible. Whenever I’m there it feels modern in the tier 1 cities, great infrastructure. But the truth is there’s a slow suffocating repression you know is going on underneath everything. The people deserve so much better, but like the core of Trump’s base, a lot of them are susceptible to the propaganda and demagoguery of the CCP nationalists.

I used to have hope for Hong Kong, that they could have a positive influence on the social and political development  there. Now it seems so naive in retrospect."
technology,"No CEO in their right mind would turn down the cheap labour and... production-friendly regulations that china has. Sure they run mass internment camps, have killed enough to make Hitler blush, crush any opposition ruthlessly and stifle free expression and press. But switching production from anywhere to there is bound to look fantastic for profit margins! What do those CEOs do next? Why, I'm sure some of those extra profits go toward lobbying to make sure relations stay 'open' between the government and China.  "
technology,"Other places can benefit from local caching so that data for (popular) streams likely doesn't have to ""travel"" the entire distance from Twitch to you, there's often a closer copy available to speed things up. I hear that Twitch never had any CDN or servers within China so all traffic was coming through the firewall/from abroad. That means that all data, always passed through the boundaries (and likely multiple times) and due to the traffic inspection as part of the great firewall things get artificially slowed at those borders too."
technology,"I think I understand what you are trying to say but I don't get your last question. Which one of what? China sounds more like China. I agree with your second sentence though. While there aren't any specific bills passed banning speech in any way, there is social ""justice"" happening to people which is ruining lives. James Gunn, Rosanne, Norm MacDonald, etc. The government doesn't need to pass any bill because we are censoring ourselves. We are making it scary to try and tell a joke nowadays in fear of someone taking it out of context and using it to ruin your life. We are lumping in people like Norm MacDonald, a comedian, with actual hate groups. Even right wing YouTube channels like Steven Crowder are constantly demonetized which in turn makes it hard for them to thrive and voice their opinions on that platform. I've watched a fair bit of Steven Crowder and the guy is far from evil and is mainly a lighthearted numerous show which happens to lean right. What's so bad about that? Young Turks exist and that's fine too."
technology,Yeah it's pretty wild how isolated they are making themselves. It's eventually going to make it very hard to trade or do other things like explore space. I just don't see the value in wanting to isolate yourself when there is so much to gain from working as a team. China is a very important factor when it comes to North Korea as well so it's concerning to see them align themselves more with a North Korean-like isolation.
technology,"But the reason there are no twitch servers in China is because it would require them to actually operate in the country. But, China doesn't allow foreign companies to operate in its borders directly, they'd need to instead make a ""joint venture"" with a Chinese partner who holds a majority stake. And many companies have complained that when they do this, the Chinese partner then steals their trade secrets.

So, yeah, not necessarily the GFW (though it could be throttled) but still likely government-guided."
technology,"yeah ? China restricts not only America they restrict a great percentage of the world, and you're saying China BULLIES US companies IN china ?... thats not BULLYING.  

If chinese companies have so called ""free reign"" to sell on US soil, thats US's fault. Thats not china BULLYING the US. 

This is the US we're talking about. Same coutry that goes to war and killed thousands for fucking bananas. Nobody bullies the US, If it decides that china can sell on US soil, thats not china bullying the US, thats the US and its runaway capitalism ALLOWING it. And you think Trump's trades wars will fix it ? ... seriously no. it wont.

&nbsp

Do i know there are quotas on american movies ? Yes I worked in that industry, i also know that china  paid A LOT to have some chinese actors and chinese product placement in movies like Transformers. The version they see is slightly different than what we see. 
NO ONE bullied paramount to add those things in. Paramount wanted the monies from the chinese market, and they ALLOWED it.


The US already distributes movies products to 90%+ of the world, and you're saying its being BULLIED because ONE ex-communist country tries to defy the giant by attempting to grow its own market? Do you see how entitled you are ?

No no , i say again... no one BULLIES the US. 

US is going into almost unrestricted capitalist mode, and the companies are ALLOWING It. And trump isn't the solution he is the symptom of a bigger problem, he will.. and IS making it worse.

You want a solution ?? Get money out of politics. Two party system is stupid, and the founding fathers already said it but hey its what you got so work with it, Whatever side you're on, i don't fucking care just get money out of politics.

But stop with this victim mentality of ""OOOOOO AMERICAN BEING BULLIED pls pls stop china from exclude plsss""."
technology,">The main thing driving down his numbers? The failed trade war.

Either that or: his blatant unprofessionalism; his over inflated sense of self worth; HIS NEED TO TYPE WITH CAPS LOCK ON; his general lack of understanding of how his actions will affect everybody, not just those in his own camp; his explicit pandering to bigots/racists; his constantly revolving inner circle of money hungry morons; his alleged tie to Russian fuled voter manipulation; his love/hate relationship with Putin. I could keep going.

The trade war is just the tip of the iceberg, I strongly doubt that it even makes up the majority of the reason that 60% dislike him and his policies.

>Looks like I touched a nerve.

You didn't necessarily touch a nerve, but spamming the same exact comment in several threads is just plain annoying, especially without any additional context. Try typing out your thoughts better next time.

Edit: trolling to troll the trolls just makes you a troll"
technology,"Eh, if you want a serious answer then it’s because the shift towards mandatory prosecutions was a policy change and members of the cabinet expressed the opinion that this was a tool used against immigrants (I don’t say illegal because legal refugees are also being separated) which runs against your version of the narrative that makes it just about procedures being carried out as necessary. The problem is that the technical definition of genocide includes the forcible transfer of children so from an international law perspective, it is in fact genocide despite not a single immigrant being harmed. "
technology," ""any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:....
forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.""

This is the definition you are speaking of.  You think this applies at our border?

They are trying to stop illegal entry.  People of all races, religions, ethnicity, nationality, etc for illegally bypassing legal immigration.  It may be wrong, but it is not Genocide by any means, to imply otherwise is sensational.


It always amazes me how many things people try their correlate to the Holocaust, Nazis, Hitler, etc.   

Somebody earlier said Mitch McConnell is Donald Trump’s Heinrich Himmler.  Seriously?  

Everyone just needs to tone down the rhetoric a bit.

"
technology,"You’re welcome to draw your own conclusions about the intent of the people responsible because that’s what this comes down to. While you may call it sensationalist I think a lot of people have legitimate concerns about the increase in nationalist rhetoric and it’s effect on policy. 

I think that when *rational* people draw the comparisons between the current administration and the Nazis they’re not talking about pogroms or the Holocaust but rather the incremental rise of a nationalist, fascist government *in a democratic society*. In other words, the concern isn’t specifically about one issue such as border separations but a larger pattern of behavior led by xenophobic ideology."
technology,"Exactly!

The entire mentality of Alex Jones and his group is just giving shit to people. Endless filth, insanity, and hate. Yet the instant they get shit sent back to them, in the form of businesses no longer willing to work with them, host them, etc.? All of a sudden they're the victims! They can't wait to tell you about how under attack they are! They're like the ""SJW"" boogeymen they constantly whine about, but louder.

No one is obligated to be a jackass, and no one is obligated to treat jackasses with kindness. Alex Jones and his group are free to stop being horrible people at any time, and people and businesses will be more willing to work with them when that time comes."
technology,"You know, if you repeat hate and exclusion often enough, you might just get it. Not that you would find any proof of his racist remarks or anything.

The best you could do is to point out his battle rifle comments. That from telling it's viewers to have them by the bedside incase antifa doxxes them that has turned into Alex Jones is telling it's viewers to attack reporters with battle rifles.

The more you censor him, the more you'll be BTFO'd at the near future."
technology,"Jesus, Democrats are fucking evil.  They know they control big tech & the internet, so they're denying people service based upon political views?

Hate speech pretty much means any speech that Democrats disagree with.

Jonathan Haidt explains the concept of abusing hate speech rules: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ckrkh2EVEAEmGs1.jpg

I'm sick of this bullshit. I'm voting for any Republican in 2018 & voting for Trump again in 2020.  I'm a former Democrat.  Democrats disgust me now. They've become so anti-American."
technology,"Death threats? They took his words out of context.  That would never hold up in a court of law.

Saying you want to meet at high noon to have an ideological battle of ideas is not a death threat.  I remember him specifically using the word ""politically"".

You realize if you weaponize this extreme out of context tactic you're using, it can also be used against your own political party? It's not wise."
technology,"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_turbulent_priest%3F

There's only so much room for pretending you don't know the effects of what you're doing. He knows exactly how people perceive him and his comments, and it's fully intentional. He's using these fluff words like ""politically"" to dodge responsibility for what everybody knows he's doing.

Now people are calling his bluffs, and even Twitter's CEO who previously personally opposed banning Jones had to cave and ban him after he using Twitter's app Periscope to livestream himself harassing a CNN employee.

If anything, it's Jones who is trying to weaponize this situation by lying about getting banned for opinions, when everybody with a brain knows its his actions that got him banned.

*Everybody* acting like Jones should be banned, no matter which party. It's the behavior that is intolerable. No exceptions."
technology,"I strongly condemn them for saying arrest all democrats. That's bull shit. 

I don't even watch Alex Jones, lol.  I don't agree with 50% of the stuff he says.   I just want him to have free speech.

I want to do everything i legally can to help him get his free speech back even though half of the stuff he says is ridiculous and wrong.

If you were being wrongly silenced, I would stick up for you too."
technology,"How about Infowars/Republicans calling a 16 y/o kid - who might be the victim of sexual assault - a drunken floosey, a street walker and a whore?

Edit:

> If you were being wrongly silenced, I would stick up for you too.

He was not wrongly silenced, he wasn't even silenced. He broke their TOS, and he lost access to their platform. Nobody has any right to a platform on non-governmental grounds. If I stood at your front lawn, ranting and raving, threatening people walking by, and you told me to fuck off. Would that be a breach of my free speech?"
technology,"LOL

WTF you on about ?

All that bail out of Freddie/Fanny happened UNDER Bush, HIS Treasury Secretary and HIS FHFA Director. Because the Repubs who held absolute power for most of the time leading up to it, crashed the economy leading to near economic collapse under Republican economic policies.

Learn some Actual Facts and delete your clueless non-factual rewrite of history fam. 

Start here: The federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was the placing into conservatorship of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) by the U.S. Treasury in September 2008. It was one of the financial events among many in the ongoing subprime mortgage crisis.

On September 6, 2008, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), James B. Lockhart III, announced his decision to place the two GSEs into a conservatorship run by the FHFA.[1][2][3]

At the same press conference, United States Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, stated that placing the two GSEs into conservatorship was a decision he fully supported, and that he advised ""that conservatorship was the only form in which I would commit taxpayer money to the GSEs."" He further said that ""I attribute the need for today's action primarily to the inherent conflict and flawed business model embedded in the GSE structure, and to the ongoing housing correction.""[1]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_takeover_of_Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_Mac

Not mention Fannie/Freddie were in trouble only BECAUSE Bush and full GOP directed them to get involved in the risky practices under the 2003 American downpayment Act that irresposnibly eased all the rules for homebuying by Fannie/Freddie like proving your income and not needing a Downpayment,that led to the collapse.
Again Repubs legislating intervention leading to economic shitshow. Learn your history.
Even the uber conservative Heritage Foundation were outraged by this:

That chance will arise when the House is asked to approve by unanimous consent the American Dream Downpayment Act -- a bill that would require the U. S. taxpayers to provide $200 million per year to fund cash grants of as much as $10,000 to individuals and families wanting to buy a house, but without subjecting themselves to the burden of having to save for the downpayment. - https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/american-dream-downpayment-act-fiscally-irresponsible-andredundant






And Trump tax cuts just added more federal debt in ONE year than happened in 200 years...but if this is pretend play time then carry on !

At the end of 1976, the public debt was $477.4 billion, and the gross federal debt was just under $629 billion.

So how does that compare to Trump’s record?

The amount of public debt added in 2017 -- a year when Trump was president for all but 20 days and when the Republicans were in control of Congress -- was $497.8 billion, while the amount of gross federal debt added was $666.3 billion.

Whichever variety of debt you use, the amount of debt added under Republican control in 2017 was greater than the accumulated debt by the end of 1976, making Scarborough’s statement correct.

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/sep/12/joe-scarborough/will-trump-gop-create-more-debt-one-year-first-200/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2018/02/09/trumps-federal-budget-deficit-1-trillion-and-beyond/

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-gop-taxplan-20171005-story.html
"
technology,"Google is the only major search engine in America. I mean honestly, all I can think of otherwise is AskJeeves, DuckDuckGo, Bing, and Yahoo maybe? I don’t think any of those represent major competition.

As for Facebook, its only competition is Instagram (which it owns) and Twitter (which can’t turn a profit). I think you could make a good argument that Facebook and Twitter simply have too much market share.

But you’re totally right that this isn’t to break up monopolies by any means. Trump is angry that people say mean things on the internet and would like them to stop. However, if he decides to break up or heavily regulate these shadowy companies that have created a shadowy market to mine and sell your personal info, I’m all for it. Then again, I think that data brokerage is the last thing on his mind because it involves too many big words."
technology,"While you're busy trust busting google and Facebook, how about you add AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc into the mix? ~~Walmart?~~ Do I need to continue the list with more companies with shitty anti-consumer business practices that Trump is in the pockets of?

Edit: Jesus guys I get it I left off many companies that have anti consumer & anti worker practices, but that list is very, very long.

Edit2: I also crossed out Walmart because while technically they aren't a trust or a a monopoly, still a shitty business"
technology,"Wait, the only one that I think I agree with as far as anti-trust could be Comcast, if they were the only legit ISP in your area? Mobile carriers have a ton of competition (I hate them with a passion, but they do compete, and switching is often as easy as SIM swap). Might want to remove WMT from the list, too. Not that the aforementioned companies don't do bad things to rob their customers, but they're not monopolies. "
technology,"Yeah that's one of the biggest things that confused me with conservative rebuttals to Net Neutrality. ""Net Neutrality hurts small business ISPs."" Internet Service is almost impossible small business, the startup and infrastructure costs are ridiculously high. Until Internet Service becomes an ACTUAL UTILITY, as in everyone gets the same quality internet and wires are laid down to every house that every company has access to send data through, the exact same as water, electricity, and gas, internet service can never be a feasible small business."
technology,"I think the concern is that Target and Walmart have attempted to compete almost too much, taking advantage of people's need for unskilled labor jobs, and forcing people to work very little hours, paying them as little as possible, and attempting to give as little benefits as possible, all while making their job a living hell. 

Local businesses and smaller chains can't really keep up with that level of awfulness, not to mention the economies of scale, so it perpetuates an ever growing Monopoly of giant supermarket chains that all treat their employees like shit."
technology,"Was just looking at a deal of theirs last night for ""two for one"" tickets at $17/each.  After fees it would've been over $82 for two tickets.  It was a $17 ticket with a $19.xx ""facility charge"" and a ""$4.50 service fee.""  Not sure where the ""two for one"" thing was supposed to come in because there was no discount listed anywhere - unless they were supposed to be $34 tickets.."
technology,"There is a extreme labor surplus, especially compared to the 50s and 60s, are you insane? Companies have absolutely no problem replacing you if you walk away from your job and that's in part because we've doubled our population in only about 60 years. In that time have we doubled the amount of available jobs? Have we doubled the amount of infrastructure investment? Have we doubled the amount of homes built? Of course not. That's why housing values are through the roof and wages have stagnated. Go look at that chart socialists love to show that show how executive pay has increased over time and laborer pay hasn't. [There's no coincidence that bottom line stopped climbing after the 1965 immigration act was passed] (https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3184623)."
technology,"> companies would be forced to pay more and treat employees better

Forced by whom?  All the government seems to be interested in is constantly tilting the balance in favor of corporations.  It's not that corporations can't make any money, it's that all of the wealth flows to the top.  Having a white person or a brown person employed doesn't change that.  Also, they're more likely to be replaced by someone who is stainless steel (or lines of code) than they are someone of a different color. 

You should read more."
technology,By market factors. The fact that you think the government is the only one who can control wages is embarrassing. If companies had a shortage of workers and had to compete for the best workers they would be forced to pay more. This was the case in the 50s and 60s before the 1965 immigration act where 'help wanted' signs were commonplace and companies were forced to compete for workers. Now if you need warehouse help there are thousands of people to choose from and if an employee leaves you just take another one out of the unemployment line.
technology,"Yeah, I think you're confused about what people are talking about.

/r/the_saad_salman isn't arguing that you can't find a job; he's arguing that plenty of people are employed in jobs that don't pay enough and they therefore have to work two jobs.

Are you trying to argue that there's less wealth disparity now then there was in the 50's and 60's?  Is your opinion that employees are better off now than they were in the 50's and 60's?

Also, how can you blame the issues on immigration without mentioning technology or offshoring or any of the other factors?  "
technology,"You're jumping between two arguments and also misstating mine.  Awesome.

You're blaming immigration as though it's the boogeyman and you're ignoring other factors such as technology, offshoring, overseas manufacturing, etc.

Regardless of how you slice/dice it, corporations work very hard and pay a lot of money to politicians so that they can pay as little to their workers in salary and benefits while providing the least amount of job security possible.  They also push to pay the least amount of taxes back into their community as possible.  This happens all over the pay scale in white and blue collar jobs.  To blame all of that on immigration is just stupid."
technology,"> but if we get rid of this stupid thing they've been doing where they stay out of each other's way, maybe there will be enough competition for it.

They're not competing because they don't want to compete. Wired service is inherently less competitive than wireless due to the expense and inconvenience of rolling out the infrastructure.

> I'm not sure the voters could do much in a public system though. You know how quickly Congress moves on stuff that's important.

Municipal ISPs don't have to deal with Congress at all. Customer-owned ISP cooperatives wouldn't have to talk to Congress at all. Just because something is publicly owned doesn't mean it has to be federally managed, or even state managed. Voters can absolutely have a major impact on the direction of a municipal ISP--it's why their service tends to be a lot better."
technology,"I'm not arguing that people can't get a job I'm arguing that you are replaceable due to our immigration policies increasing the labor supply and our offshoring programs which have decreased the labor demand. [When populations increase as much as we've seen in the last 60 years labor supply shifts which lowers wages](https://imgur.com/a/AiRVDC2). As jobs move over seas labor demand decreases which moves the red line in the graph to the right (which further lowers wages). Both are equally detrimental but I would argue that doubling our labor pool is more harmful than 10%-15% of our jobs moving overseas. 

Yes I'm trying to say that there is less wealth disparity than the 50s and 60s before the 1965 immigration act, [that's demonstrably true] (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/30/ceo-to-worker-pay-ratio_n_3184623.html). Employees were much better off then now. They had one member of the household working a 9-5 job and were able to afford a house and provide for a family.

Immigration is by far the biggest factor with offshoring jobs second and technology last because in many cases technology creates roughly as many jobs as it replaces. For ever manufacturing job lost someone has to maintain, make parts for, and create the next generation of each machine."
technology,"It's not about race it's about labor pool. I'm not arguing that people can't get a job I'm arguing that you are replaceable due to our immigration policies increasing the labor supply and our offshoring programs which have decreased the labor demand. [When populations increase as much as we've seen in the last 60 years labor supply shifts which lowers wages](https://imgur.com/a/AiRVDC2). [As jobs move over seas labor demand decreases which further lowers wages](https://i.imgur.com/t02O3un.png). Both are equally detrimental but I would argue that doubling our labor pool is more harmful than 10%-15% of our jobs moving overseas. 

Immigration is by far the biggest factor with offshoring jobs second and technology last because in many cases technology creates roughly as many jobs as it replaces. For ever manufacturing job lost someone has to maintain, make parts for, and create the next generation of each machine. Either way the solution to the problem is not to bring in more workers and move more jobs over seas."
technology,"Our Immigration laws are not lowering wages. Across the US especially in healthcare (Nurses, primary care employees, etc.)and mid level education jobs (Mechanics, Masons etc.) there is already a shortage of employees and wages have still stagnated, and when they do raise wages in those fields the prices of their services rise dramatically, causing inflation. So overall their wages may increase but inflation will make it so it’s like they never got a wage increase. And for other people in different sectors of the economy who rarely get wage increases the inflation from higher wages makes them worse off. The solution is to take the bulk of payments of employees off their employers backs (Single Payer healthcare) and possibly limits on wage increases for upper levels of companies."
technology,"> technology creates roughly as many jobs as it replaces

No, it doesn't.  I'm one of those business owners that take advantage of technological advances to reduce manpower and I can tell you that it's nowhere near 1:1.  

> For ever manufacturing job lost someone has to maintain, make parts for, and create the next generation of each machine.

Huh?  Can you provide some evidence of this, please?  Because it doesn't take one person to take care of one machine.

You don't understand robotic process automation at all and you fully don't understand what's required to install and service an automated factory.

What is more likely is that post-automation, the factory will be producing *more* with *fewer* employees.  That's if it even stays within this country.  It's likely cheaper to move the factory somewhere with cheaper labor, no unions, less restrictive environmental laws, AND also implement automation.  

At the end of the day, the american worker is still unemployed, but his flatscreen is cheaper.

Or it's all imigrants' fault.  Fuck Tesla and SpaceX, right?"
technology,"Exactly, they've created a system that requires no skilled labor and then they go and import those laborers who are willing to work for next to nothing from other countries and expect Americans to compete with them in the labor market. Any work requiring skilled labor is offshored to Asia for the same reason. This leads to lower wages. If they didn't have millions of people to choose from they would still be forced to pay high wages we saw in the 50s and 60s."
technology,"The conditions you're forced to work in are the issue, not the pay. I worked for a few weeks at a Walmart and it was horrific. Being thrown to the wolves with no help and having to cover three departments at once, constantly being pulled in different directions by different managers, being yelled at for messing things up that I had never been told how to do in the first place, and much more.

Not to mention Walmart is so anti-union that when stores tried to unionize to fight these bad conditions they flat out got shut down. "
technology,"> At the end of the day, the american worker is still unemployed, but his flatscreen is cheaper.

Hence why people still think the economy is booming. It's only now where people are looking around and realizing that there's no way in hell they could ever afford property that the veil is beginning to slip. ""But I just bought a 4K flatscreen! I'm middle-class!"" Sorry but no, you make less every year."
technology,"That's not how inflation or single payer Healthcare works. Inflation is a complicated metric mostly governed by interest rates and the wages of a single sector have very little to do with it. And employers still pay for Healthcare in single payer system (as evidenced by my Canadian wife's private insurance provided by videotron) , on top of heavy taxes so it's not really the type of solution you claim it to be (even if it is a necessary thing) "
technology,"> For ever manufacturing job lost someone has to maintain, make parts for, and create the next generation of each machine.

This is false. The goal of advanced manufacturing is higher productivity - make more with less labor. Better pay yes, but also less jobs and higher skill requirements. This has traditionally been offset by employment in other areas (services), but that's not some law of the universe, it's just how things have shaken out so far. Maybe this will continue...and maybe it will plateau or even reverse at some point. You don't know, I don't know, and plenty of people more knowledgeable than either of us disagree or say they don't know.

> I'm not arguing that people can't get a job I'm arguing that you are replaceable due to our immigration policies increasing the labor supply and our offshoring programs which have decreased the labor demand.

If you're low skilled, you're going to be replaceable even in a tight labor market, and more exposed to the effects of automation. That said, you're correct that a tight market tends to increase wages, at least in the short term. Not always, but often. This is the best argument you've advanced. 

The question is - where are we on that curve? What's the right amount of immigration?

One factor here that often gets overlooked: birthrate. [The TFR - total fertility rate - for the US is sub-replacement, and experiencing rapid decline.](https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/22/17376536/fertility-rate-united-states-births-women) This doesn't immediately lead to deaths > births because of [population momentum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_momentum), but eventually it catches up with us. [It's been about 46 years since we dropped below replacement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States#Vital_statistics_from_1935) - that 'eventually' is coming sometime in the next decade.

Now some people would say 'well duh, people can't afford to have kids. If they made more money, presto, more kids.' Except this is the **opposite** of what tends to happen - by and large, the more money people make, the less kids they have:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility

https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/

Okay so...where am I going with this? If we want our population to keep growing, or at least keep it stable, we need to do one or more of the following:

* Directly incentivize a higher birthrate by redistributing wealth towards child care. Daycare, PreK, guaranteed maternity leave, bigger safety nets, universal healthcare, bigger tax breaks(EITC++)...all that jazz and more.

* Push more people into poverty, reduce access to education, and grow the wealth gap. Poor and poorly educated people have more kids, so if quantity is your only concern...

* Maintain immigration to the US at a level close to or even greater than we presently do (dependent on TFR). You could certainly decrease it a bit in the short term, but unless the TFR goes over and stays over 2.1, you'll just have to ramp immigration back up in the future.

* Hope our TFR magically improves with no input from anyone.

The alternative to all this is we go sub-replacement and possibly end up like Japan - a shrinking nation of increasingly elderly people, many packed in nursing homes where their best friends are glorified roombas. At least they'll have tight labor market tho...until other nations start to out-compete them.

> Yes I'm trying to say that there is less wealth disparity than the 50s and 60s before the 1965 immigration act, that's demonstrably true. Employees were much better off then now. They had one member of the household working a 9-5 job and were able to afford a house and provide for a family.

Correlation, not causation. [You can use the same reasoning to show that the decline of pirates fueled the rise of global warming.](https://sparrowism.soc.srcf.net/home/graph.png)

The 1950s and 1960s were different in many ways from now. For example: the US was basically the only world power with an advanced manufacturing base left intact after WW2. The demand for our output was immense, we were in an enviable position to take advantage, and labor was in a much stronger position to extract good wages than it is now due to a combination of said high demand and strong unions."
technology,"It’s better than relying on shareholder greed, since shareholder greed demands offering the least costly and slowest service at the highest price you can force customers to pay. Which is easy to force customers into because the physical infrastructure requirements pose such a high barrier to entry. 

That’s why “relying on the voters” works for utilities. Utility services are natural monopolies, so if you want fair treatment by the utility it has to be under public control so consumers get a say in the quality of service.

This isn’t even the same issue as net neutrality. Net neutrality is about preventing one sort of gross abuse by ISPs. It is right and proper for the FCC to have authority in that matter. They’re the natural agency to take on such a role, since they had been fulfilling it for nearly century with respect to the telephone networks the internet grew out of. It was a natural extension to apply the same principle of a common carrier to modern broadband networks.

The matter of who should own the ISPs is different from net neutrality regulation. Net neutrality *should be* enforced on both a municipal ISP and a private one. In addition, most ISPs *should be* publicly owned utilities of some sort—but they are not at present. 

You don’t really get to control how much competition happens somewhere. You don’t get to bend the market that way. What you should be able to do is get together with the rest of your community to start your own ISP to serve your own needs. While you might prefer to have multiple private competitors you can choose between, that’s just not economically feasible because of the nature of utilities. It’s only really feasible for wireless providers but that technology can’t offer the level of service most people are accustomed to at home "
technology,"I used to work for a water treatment plant one of the largest on the east coast.. private always always always is massively better... why votera in a small town  have better empolyees, better facilities, cheaper prices for customers...dont believe me see see flint. (That was a water treatment error would never allow water to be pumped out with out phosphoric acid to protect the pipes from degrading)


Also why do you think politicians arnt greedy? I KNOW share holder of x company is greedy. I know they want the most money for x company they are holding share.... its very predictable. How is y politicians greedy? Idk its an unknown, why does one want unknowns?

 again New Zealand figured out how to make isps competitive. "
technology,"> private always always always is massively better... 

Until you can't afford it, then it's massively worse because you can't get treated water at all.

> (That was a water treatment error would never allow water to be pumped out with out phosphoric acid to protect the pipes from degrading

I could *very easily* see a private company choosing to do that to save money. They're actually *incentivized* to do that, then find a way to cover up the consequences. Unlike a public agency, you can't even force them to turn over the documentation to figure out what's going on without already having standing for a lawsuit. At least with public agencies there are record retention requirements, sunshine laws, and FOIA to force them to hand over documentation of the underlying situation.

> Also why do you think politicians arnt greedy?

They are greedy, but they're at least nominally accountable to voters every so often. Shareholders aren't accountable to anyone but themselves, and corporate leadership isn't accountable to anyone other than shareholders. Customers have *very* little influence at all, except as some aggregate bulk.

I mean, fuck, look at the ISPs we're talking about. They're among the most hated companies in the United States. Comcast is a perennial ""winner"" of being the single most hated company in the country. Doesn't hurt their profitability at all, so they don't change their practices a bit.

> How is y politicians greedy? Idk its an unknown, why does one want unknowns?

How is that an unknown? They want to stay in office and keep collecting contributions. Easy to figure out what sort of influences they'll have.

Shareholders? Their goals are way harder to figure out. Different sort of investors have different reasons for holding shares in a company, and that's not always even a good thing.

> again New Zealand figured out how to make isps competitive.

Yeah, because they have a single company that owns the lines and the government of New Zealand forces them to sell wholesale access to other providers. It's ""competitive"" in that there are many internet resellers you can buy access from, but non-competitive in that it's just one company running the infrastructure, who's only reason for making upgrades is public money and public demands by the government."
technology,"> The isps got that way because of anti competitive government practices... 

No, they got that way because telecommunications is a natural monopoly. The government has actually stepped in on numerous occasions to force more competition on the internet. That's why exclusivity contracts were made illegal back in 1992. It's why the FCC has been fighting a running battle *for* net neutrality since 1996--up until Shit Pie killed it.

It's a natural monopoly because nobody wants competing private companies each maintaining their own separate networks--nobody wants unnecessary infrastructure to be deployed simply because some private companies can't work out a deal for wholesale access to the same infrastructure.

You can avoid that two different ways: A) heavy-handed government regulation forcing private companies to open access to their private networks, or B) public ownership of the network infrastructure which is then leased out to private companies that sell access to consumers.

If you just leave the market unregulated, you end up with exactly the situation we've got now--whomever first establishes a strong presence in a region can forever make it unprofitable to compete there because of the high cost of deploying new infrastructure. These companies don't even need exclusivity deals to prevent competitors from accessing their markets. If a competitor shows up they can just temporarily slash prices so low the new competitor can't make a case to expand to that region anymore. Since the preexisting company has already sunk the investment to deploy their infrastructure they can afford to take the hit longer than the newcomer. Eventually it becomes apparent to everyone that expansion isn't an option, so they just stop competing and start raising prices and cutting investment into the regions they've already got.

Even Google ran into this problem, even in cities that bent over backwards to beg them to come. That's Google with Google money coming in from search and ad revenue, who can afford to just light money on fire for side-projects. They couldn't afford to keep expanding their fiber service, and have decided to invest in serving internet content from blimps instead."
technology,"> But its not that google could afford the materials and labor required for infrastructure. Its they could afford to pay all the taxes, licenses, lining x politicians pockets.. or much more likely x politicians pockets were filled by comcast or Verizon first.

No. Google made elimination of the taxes, license restrictions, and establishment of a friendly local government a precondition of expansion. They even required governments to allow access to utility poles before they'd even be in the running for consideration. They said upfront that cities had to compete for Google's interest, and many cities did by eliminating these regulatory barriers. Google still couldn't make it economically successful.

Google Fiber is dying because of the economics of competition in the ISP space. Even with heaps of money coming in from ad revenue to subsidize it, competing in this space is nearly impossible for newcomers."
technology,"The closest comparison to government intervention into the market I can make would be environmental balance.

It is genuinely best to let nature do what it wants to, and only intervene when absolutely necessary. This often includes thinning or increasing the predator population (such as introducing wolves in Yellowstone, or hunting permits elsewhere). Stay as hands off as possible and allow nature to flourish, and only step in to prevent it from killing itself. The market is pretty similar to a darwinian model. Selective breeding fucks things up, natural selection creates more adaptions to the environment."
technology,"Libertarian here - monopolies are fine. They only get that way by being good (google, amazon) or government handouts (att, comcast). Stop the government handouts, and enjoy google and amazon.  

The law isn't actually against monopolies either btw - it's against anti competitive behaviour. Offering a superior product isn't anti competitive, in fact, it's the opposite.  There are of course complaints of anti competitive behaviour against google, but I'm pointing this out since most of the thread seems to think monopoly == illegal. "
technology,"nobody takes pride in having a light easy user interface anymore – it hogs up more and more of the screen and is more and more difficult to push out of the way.

everything is turning into Instagram which is great if you just want to jerk off but not so great if you have some work to do.

problems that were solved 30 years ago keep coming back because morons think they're smarter than everybody else and they're too lazy and incurious to think about what they're doing."
technology,"My gods I was just nodding through the entire thing! And you don't even have to be a programmer or someone with an understanding of coding to have witnessed this downfall; many of us that grew up with technology making great leaps (I was born in '87) can quite visibly see it. My phone now is the most powerful I've ever owned, yet all the apps (that I've used for years and years) run not much better than a phone I had nearly a decade ago, when they should be near instantaneous at this point! Thank you so much for linking that, it was more of a confirmation read than anything new but boy it hammered the nail so hard the board split in two!"
technology,"Page bloat is a common topic in webdev subs, because the entire package is delivered through the browser and can update often.  

But bloat has been an issue in development since as long as I started learning development in the late 90s. I remember bitching about Yahoo IM taking up 20mb of memory, now I live on Slack, Discord, Visual Studio Code, and GitKraken, which are all Electron apps which means I have at least 5 versions of Chrome running at any given time, sometimes more."
technology,"I have that issue not so much with the end products (though the mobile web is atrocious), but with the *tools* we developers use. 

The other week I had to get a .Net API up and running on my laptop. What a god damned dumpster fire that was. Couldn't just ""enable"" IIS. Had to enable it with about a half dozen other modules that didn't seem remotely related, but were. And the errors you got when trying to run the .Net site were totally ambiguous. Similar issue with configuring permissions for the SQL Server database and connections etc. 

Open source isn't much better. I only know how to spin up a LAMP stack fairly painlessly because I've done it 1000 times. But if you're not familiar with a stack, you're just plain fucked. 

Why the fuck are all of our tools so needlessly complicated and hard to set up?"
technology,"> *problems that were solved 30 years ago keep coming back because morons think they're smarter than everybody else and they're too lazy and incurious to think about what they're doing.*

This is also known as [**C**ascade of **A**ttention-**D**eficit **T**eenagers](https://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html), or CADT. The author describes his experience in similar terms:

>  *I report bugs; they go unread for a year, sometimes two; and then (surprise!) that module is rewritten from scratch -- and the new maintainer can't be bothered to check whether his new version has actually solved any of the known problems that existed in the previous version.*

Note that this was written in 2003, that's 15 years ago…"
technology,"> Why the fuck are all of our tools so needlessly complicated and hard to set up?

I feel you.

Only talking about **the setup part** of the project, installing tools, linking dependencies and so on so that you can actually start developing:

So often we have to find **arcane knowledge**, in which **order to run** things, in which places to **put cryptic strings** which we don't understand, which **versions** of which frameworks don't like each other (no, just updating everything to the latest isn't necessarily a good idea), which tutorial or guide is accurate or not outdated yet and so on, it really is frustrating.

I think those tasks should not be done by people who enter the field (means, who start using a certain technology), but some sort of automation seems to be better suited? If I have to copy files from A to B, enter certain values and start things in a given order, this is **so error prone and tedious, why isn't it automated yet?**

You're so happy when you can finally start working on your actual task that you might be **inclined to ignore some warnings** or errors which might contribute to the problem we talk about in this thread."
technology,"It's our tendency to over-complicate things. The world is trying to re-balance itself in favor of simplicity, but software just isn't following. Look at music, art, eating habits, correspondence. All of these over the past century have trimmed down to simpler forms. But as we get more and more advances in technology, software designers seem to think that the best case is to cram it all into one shiny interface. In some cases that can be a second avenue for profit as they sell education on it as well, but in most cases it just leads to frustration or people abandoning the program."
technology,"Not to be a jerk, but it is not my job to solve your problem.  As a developer of an open source library, bugs/new features that directly affect my ability to work or my ability to make money are given higher priority than yours.  You have to make the case to me that it's worthwhile fixing, it's simple enough to fix, within the design of the system that I want (if I have to do some crazy hack to make it work...it's probably not going to happen).  

I mean you can push a bug fix if you want, but people rarely do that.  They frequently just complain on StackOverflow, which guarantees that I'll see it years after it was an issue.

Also, people just forget.  If you don't care enough to follow up, then why would I care to spend more of my time on it?  I'm not digging through the 100s of issues to make sure I solve yours.

If I were a company, does it make me more money vs. something else that I could add?"
technology,"> Do you want your library to actually be used

Bug count and usage are not the same thing.  Every program has bugs and frequently a lot of them.

My package is in Python, so might as well check Python...6734 know bugs https://bugs.python.org/

Numpy has 1717 issues listed.  I might as well mention that with numpy, I diagnosed a bug that had a simple (but hackish) work around. It still took 2 years to get it into the software in exactly the form I suggested.  That follows exactly with ""Also, people just forget. If you don't care enough to follow up, then why would I care to spend more of my time on it?""  https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues

>  or dismissed as ""the maintainer can't even fix a known problem in five years""?

There's a big difference between never fixed a bug and never fixed your bug.  As I said...

>> You have to make the case to me that it's worthwhile fixing, it's simple enough to fix, within the design of the system that I want (if I have to do some crazy hack to make it work...it's probably not going to happen).

>> I mean you can push a bug fix if you want, but people rarely do that.

> When (competent) developers evaluate a library, this is certainly one of the factors.

Yeah and sometimes you just do it anyways because the library is still better than the alternatives.  I use six, colorama, and docopt.  There are approved pull requests that don't conflict that have been sitting there for years.  Outside of a few bugs though, I'm quite happy with them."
technology,"That's great, now we have a full scale, from Amazon (who seems to like adding random gratuitous grotesque sex scenes to their shows for some reason) to Apple (who thinks sex is bad and drugs are bad and it's dirty and eww they feel dirty just thinking about it)

I don't have examples handy to illustrate what I'm talking about with Amazon, I haven't seen a lot of their original shows but I'm always surprised to see nudity and overtly sexual situations in the most random contexts, feels a lot like 90's movies when they artificially added sex scenes whenever it was remotely possible without breaking the plot."
technology,"Oh yeah. I have little kids in my house and I try to beat them to removing the games remote installed on the kids' account before they can click on it.

They already got stuck on some cash grabby games by King and others. Luckily we don't let them spend any money online, and any one who gives a kid access to unrestricted online cash should not do that.

But what I'm worried about is a game, not vetted by a mature person, that has words or bad values that we don't want the kids to learn yet in an improper and reckless way, or that instills bad ideas or reactions into the kids. Also, when that happens, I called it."
technology,"Im less worried about bad behavior and bad words and more worried about potential hooks. I grew up with old PC games where murder and bad language is commonplace, those games never had such hooks on them tho. While these modern cash grab games were made to hook you in into their endless gameplay. At least with Wolfenstein and GTA, I can finish it in a weekend. This modern shit is infinite and just gets more reliant on real world payments the farther you progress."
technology,"Same.  
I leave it to update and update -which it then gets stuck in at 1803 at 76% and I have to fix that- and when it boots bloat. Bloat everywhere.

Which means I had to unusual that crap and run scripts to turn off all the spying crap etc before I can actually use my PC for what I intended for.

What's worse is I just realised I put the OS on the wrong ssd, FFS."
technology,"Hackers compromised the company's servers for more than a month and replaced the original version of the software with the malicious one.

The malware attack infected over 2.3 million users who downloaded or updated their CCleaner app between August and September last year from the official website with the backdoored version of the software.

https://thehackernews.com/2018/04/ccleaner-malware-attack.html

Been sorted since but a heap of people wrote it off after hearing about it, was widely publicised and it's probably the last thing a lot of people heard about it and you know what the internet masses are like.

I didn't have it on my current PC at the time so I don't feel particularly poned by it but I understand that some do."
technology,"Google “windows 10 decrapifier”, it’s a powershell script hosted on spiceworks. It removes all bloatware, stops it coming back, disables some annoyances and also disables some of the more dubious privacy issues with Win10. It’s best to run the script from audit mode while performing a fresh install (ctrl+shift+F3 during the OOBE screen) that way all new user accounts created will also have all the crap automatically removed. There is guides for running it on the same site. Script is fully open so you can read it through, comment out anything you don’t need and assure yourself it’s doing nothing nasty. "
technology,"It's somewhat ironic the amount of customization and 'hacking' required to get windows 10 to function normally. Windows was suppose to be user friendly and work out of the box. This is the major gripe so many people have about linux, that's its too complicated and too difficult to setup. 

Well when you're required to go in and edit the registry to make windows work as it should, is that really more difficult than typing 'apt-get upgrade' in ubuntu?"
technology,"Currently working on an image for windows 10 and we're using decrapifier.  I thought -allapps still respected $GoodApps.  Nope, it removed everything including calc.  

Nothing came back when I plugged in the ethernet cable.  I couldn't manually install the calculator either via powershell.  It's a great thing actually.  

We figured we would just wait for the good folks who make decrapifier to come out with the latest version before taking the latest win10 build.  I think the next build is coming out in October.  We'll see how long it takes them to make a decrapifier for that version.  "
technology,"No, I really didn’t. [Here’s a list](https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list.php?vendor_id=26&product_id=32238&version_id=&page=1&hasexp=0&opdos=0&opec=0&opov=0&opcsrf=0&opgpriv=0&opsqli=0&opxss=0&opdirt=0&opmemc=0&ophttprs=0&opbyp=0&opfileinc=0&opginf=0&cvssscoremin=0&cvssscoremax=0&year=0&month=0&cweid=0&order=3&trc=650&sha=41e451b72c2e412c0a1cb8cb1dcfee3d16d51c44). Note all the entries about “remote code execution” related to browsing a bad website, opening an image, movie, or pdf file.

Some are more indirect, breaking the security of third party programs allowing remote code execution for something like chrome.

Windows defender, antivirus, or your firewall won’t save you from busted software that’s supposed to be trusted...

There’s a funny video of someone installing Windows 95 on VM connected to the internet. It took hours for it to be conpletely compromised without touching the mouse. Once these exploits are patched, it’s easy to do a binary diff to find exactly how to use them and other places they might be. See the many YouTube tutorials on doing exactly this."
technology,"The major (bi-annual) windows updates actually install a new version of Windows 10, move all of your files onto the new version, and deletes the old windows 10. This is done for a few reasons but I believe the most prominent one is that windows 10 is going to become a perpetually updated OS rather than windows ever releasing a win11, so the updates have to become as stable as possible.

Re-installing windows has the unfortunate side effect of deleting all of your settings. Microsoft likely has the ability to fix lost settings, but considering that losing settings means installing bloatware, turning Cortana on, and making edge your browser, they are incentivized not to."
technology,"I mean that's great and all, but it reminds me of that concussion skit ""Why do we need this?"". The fact that this has to exist to satisfy PAYING customers is ridiculous at best. If you pay nearly 200$ for a windows license in some places it should not be this way.

I somewhat hope the day I have to upgrade, being an EU citizen, someone has told M$ to stop doing this crap."
technology,"Most anti-viruses companies provide a removal tool for their own products if the standard windows uninstallation fails. McAffee’s is called MCPR “McAfee Consumer Product Removal Tool”, should be able to find it with a quick search and give it a shot. 

As an aside, check out Ninite. It’s a useful little thing that lets you select a list of common every day software such as web browsers, PDF readers, media apps etc. It packages them all into once nice exe and then installs them all automatically. It even automatically un-checks them boxes that install McAffee and Bing bar etc.

The next time you run the Ninite exe it’ll update all of the stuff it installed for you on the first run.  No more accidentally installing McAffee on your  18th adobe update of the week!"
technology,"I dreaded the ""upgrade"" to 10, but I had just built a new gaming desktop and it was inevitable. I immediately turned *everything* off relating to tracking, ads, background apps, user data, etc. Ran scripts to get rid of unnecessary junk. Didn't have any issues for a while.

Then it updates and suddenly my net speed drops... because it decided to install, use on start-up, and upload allllllll of my storage onto OneDrive without asking or even making it obvious that's what was happening. Turned that shit off and disabled it.

THEN the next update, I start getting fucking pop-up ads through the notification bar during my games and stuff. I use it for my emails, so I just thought they were spam emails at first, but they physically won't go away until you click on the *tiny* arrow on the bottom right. If you click *anywhere* else, it opens your browser to the ad's site. And Outlook now gives you ads, when it never did before. So I go back through all my settings *again* to find there is tons of new shit that's been automatically set on for tracking, running in the background, and data collection.

It's a fucking joke, and I hate being played like this. If it weren't too late, I'd go back to 7, but it's already lost support, so I'm stuck. If I had more time to acquaint myself with Linux, I might consider it, but I just wanna turn the computer on and play my games. How fucking complicated does it have to get?!

/r"
technology,"​

Chicken before the egg problem. Linux doesn't work out of the box, without frustration, because most software companies and hardware companies don't bother supporting it, and they won't bother supporting it until linux has good market share.  


But it'll never get good market share until it's better supported by software and hardware vendors.   


Thus the usability everyone wants will never come unless people put in the effort to switch over."
technology,"What are you talking about, Windows 7 is still great for gaming. It is still receiving updates and I'm going to keep using it after it stops getting updates, just being more careful with my files.
  
There is not a single game out there that requires Windows 10, game developers hate that piece of shit just as much as gamers do. the drivers aren't any faster either (maybe except for a few cherry-picked scenarios), in some cases they are slower.
  
Once games start to require Windows 10 and won't support Linux I'll probably buy a console or stop playing new games."
technology,"I've disabled Windows updates for my gaming system altogether (you need to have a Pro windows version and disable the updates via group policy, other methods do not work). There's no reason for them at all. Yes, you will have certain security risks, but you won't get random bullshit taking up all the bandwidth in the worst possible moment, randomly restarting the system, re-enabling bullshit settings and breaking drivers all the damn time. 

I am fine with security holes. There is nothing but games on my machine. I can format and recover everything in the worst case scenario very easily. "
technology,"I dunno, Ubuntu has gotten piss-easy to install with a lot of really great auto configuration and auto driver installation. Linux Mint following suit by nature. Steam is in the app store, and proton is already running insanely smooth.

You WILL have a better time with AMD hardware as they actually have full proper Linux support by way of actually open source drivers, nVidia doesn't care as much. But the closed source drivers still work fairly well, and give great performance regardless."
technology,"I get ads in notification at least once a month, sometimes the power icon tells me that Chrome is wasting my battery and I should uninstall it and use Edge. Also from time to time when I open the start menu I see an unfamiliar icon in Recently Added or a tile for some game shoved in amongst my carefully curated tiles. It doesn't take much to get rid of them, but it really shouldn't be happening. Ten years ago this sort of thing meant you had a virus on your computer."
technology,"May want to consider trying a dual boot scenario (I've heard some people have run into issues where win10 fucks grub when dual booting on the same disk, so maybe grab a small ssd for your Linux OS). Dual booting would let you play with it and run into any hard edges without losing the ability to just drop into windows and play your games to unwind. Also would give you a first hand understanding of which games would and wouldn't work "
technology,"I've been trying, but I think it's allergic to me. I've run plenty of servers with linux fine, but my brand new linux desktop has had huge issues and needed reinstalling twice. first ran linux mint 18, and SElinux started failing and eventually refused to take updates, thought it was a hardware issue, did intensive scans of my hdd and flash storage, everything checked out and my windows dual boot was completely fine, wiped and reinstalled it with linux mint 19 and i'm having the same freakin' issues. Considering switching to ubuntu and just manually enabling the mesa AMD drivers (mint does it for you) but if that fails in the same way i'm going to shelf the dream of the linux desktop for a couple more years."
technology,"Does protonmail accept mailchimp/mandrill emails? 

Lots of smaller mail services reject them because tons of spammers use the services and will redirect it through 3rd party emails which can cause those services to get blacklisted, of course mailchimp denies this and even hides the fact that mail is being rejected for spam from their customers (will show as delivered even when it's rejected)

I only ask because some services I use utilize mandrill and won't change even after i've shown them threads of people breaking down the shady shit they do and what they're hiding from customers and other times i've attempted to shift away from gmail ran into issues getting email from mandrill/mailchimp (can't even whitelist it as it's rejected at the blacklist level before it hits your whitelist most of the time)"
technology,"And these grey areas are where mods should be most active in determining whether or not someone is making a personal issue out of it or if the focus is on technology.  We can also have mods sticky a post at the top that says ""we need to discuss politics in order to talk about this technology. Please try to keep personal opinions out of the discussion and if this kind of discussion makes you uncomfortable, please do not post or report here. We have it under control."""
technology,"Politics is literally a part of everything you do. 

You play video games? There are laws regarding the regulations to what games you can play, where you can play them, how you access them, all because of intellectual property rights.

You like reading tech news on Reddit? Will you have to deal with the laws regarding how you access Reddit, and then you have to deal with potential censorship laws regarding private companies like Reddit or Twitter. And then you have to deal with the regulations that drive the cost and access to power, Internet, security.

This idea that politics is not something you would see on this sub is ridiculous."
technology,"It really is happening for both sides; that's what really gets lost in all of this.   Weaponized trolling. 

Edit: if y'all are too stupid to believe that there's no Russian-backed left-wing trolls out there, I am genuinely sad at how stupid you are.   Even if they're on your team and you agree with them, it does not make them any less harmful or manipulative.  Ask yourself, why *wouldn't* they also troll for the other side?  The whole point is to create a hyper-tribalism that will tear this republic apart.  In order to do so, they need trolls on both sides, stoking and supporting extremism on both ends of the political spectrum. "
technology,"If everyone forgets, they'll just do it again; we were betrayed over the (failed) promise of money and power.  Many people already think it's just a story made up by Trump or the russians, and the methodically-spaced Mueller headlines help make the problem worse.  Whether that's intentional or not is beyond me, but I've found it telling that it all started immediately after the leak, but nearly a year after the Trump tower meeting."
technology,"He'll go away eventually, and maybe expose some flaws with the system in the process; silver lining.  Like I said as early as the primaries, neither party likes him at all, and their approval is required for most of his dumber ideas.  Wall?  Still sand.  Deport mexicans? Still here.  Muslim ban? Blocked 7 out of 30 countries for a month.  The rest of the government has basically ensured that he's nothing but a rubber stamp and shitty diplomat.  And the handful of things he _has_ actually done would have been done by pretty much any other republican.  Bush was waay worse than this clown, and most of us survived that.

More important is to make sure that when the clock _tocks_, that the democrats are actually left-leaning progressives willing to take on the major issues crippling this country like healthcare, retirement, and higher education, and not this mealy 'republican lite' establishment crap they've been putting in office for 30 years. "
technology,"GDPR is at least in part a translation of UK law to the EU*.  We already had PECR and DPA which were 95% the same as GDPR... before the deadline we had ICO guys going around giving talks basically saying 'If you were compliant before, you'll be compliant after.. don't worry about it'.

It's more likely they'll simply weaken it to allow the government to do anything it likes.

* Not unusual.. EU->National law has always been a two way thing"
technology,"The requirement, and the big argument around the withdrawl bill, is ensuring all the laws get copied across as intact as possible. The big arguments have been around attempts by the government to skirt that more than just creating replacement institutions to replace the EU ones we use currently. They have tried to allow blanket no oversight rewriting of work rights and environmental protections amoung other things, hence why the Lords rejecting the bill a bunch of times already.

I am not as confident that the laws will end up getting scribed across and made UK law at this point, too many shenanigans going on with a press that is focussed on calling anyone who tries to stop it anti Brexit, instead of what it really is which is anti-dictatorship."
technology,"Most areas are pretty much copy and pasted from the 88+ page GDPR document, and the Data Protection Act 2018 is much larger, but it's definitely the British version.

The main difference is making sure that its built around how UK law work, and adding specific details, since GDPR was a directive and left the details down to each country to implement so that it worked in their own legal systems."
technology,"The GDPR was a Regulation not a Directive though. There are parts of it that acted as a Directive, which the Data Protection Act is used to implement, but the majority of it was Regulation that applied regardless of local legislation. 

The GDPR in the Data Protection Act is referred to by it's EU Regulation, and the whole of it isn't in the legislation as far as I can tell. (obviously I could be wrong)"
technology,Just saved myself the cost of a TV by fixing my broken one. Cost $50 in parts. Learned everything I needed to know from YouTube. Same goes for the oven I fixed with the only cost being a cheap soldering iron and multimeter. We need to be allowed to repair our own stuff. Also I found it quite empowering when I fixed my own stuff. Gave me a great sense of accomplishment.
technology,"Third party repair and warranty issues. It's not as simple as you think. Companies like apple can literally sue for that. It's weird really that we aren't allowed to decide how we want to repair an iPhone we paid 1000 bucks for. We should have the right to repair our products ourselves and maintain a warranty/not brick the software (as long as we do it right and there is no direct damage from the repair) and we should be able to go to whichever third party we want without them risking a lawsuit for repairing our phone cheaper. A lot of places don't even have authorized dealers near them. In terms of their safety liability, all it takes is an additional clause related to those repair terms"
technology,"In addition to whT u/numinak said...

It is common today to patent various components used in larger products, and then write code for controllers/microprocessors that, in addition to what other functions they do will also ""look"" to see if those components are installed.   Even more, the individual components can also have controllers/microprocessors that are protected by patents and copyright.  That coding on the controller/microprocessor is now protected by copyright and/or patents. 

This can effectively stop other companies from repairing using off-the-shelf components."
technology,"John Deere wants to prevent farmers from repairing or tweaking stuff, because they want them to pay 3x what a diesel/farm tech would charge. Add to the fact they'll ""get someone there when they can"", which can be up to three days. But Farmers don't have that much spare time when they're harvesting.

Deere is also claiming Farmers will tweak them so they don't run within emissions guidelines, so they want to block them out entirely..... But it's mostly for the increased revenue.

As a result other companies are jumping on the bandwagon because the shareholder's are more interested in monthly insurance/subscription."
technology,"The Digital Millennium Copyright Act makes it a felony to circumvent [DRM](https://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm_digital_restrictions_management). Increasingly, companies like John Deere are making it so that the embedded control computer in their machines detects when a failure occurs, and then -- even if the mechanical fault gets repaired -- disables operation until the fault code is cleared by an ""authorized"" technician using the manufacturer-supplied cryptographic key.

So repair in general is not *directly* illegal, but repairing a John Deere tractor effectively is because it requires ""hacking"" the ECU!"
technology,"Here’s the thing, for the most part nobody is stopping you. People hem and haw about these companies taking away your rights to repair but the truth is, if you told them to fuck off and did it anyway, there’s not much they can do to stop you.

Sure they’re going to try to weasel out of a warranty, and truth be told if something breaks on you and is covered under warranty a person shouldn’t be trying to repair it anyway.

I’ve been fixing things my whole life. Nobody has ever shown up and told me I can’t. People are lazy and have little inclination to learn how to fix things."
technology,"I deem you a TV expert now... So MAAAAAYBE you know what's wrong with my 3d tv downstairs.

Imagine a piece of paper where you fold it over itself then put I back to normal.

Basically by tv has a line through it's picture and it looks like the paper thing I described above. The it makes the picture bounce up and down a bit...

I know you probably don't know why I'm talking about but I have no idea what to Google that I haven't already tried to fix it. "
technology,"Except there are several cases, Verizon and AT&T for example, were given billion in tax breaks to upgrade infrastructure and hire thousands of workers. However, hat money ended up being diverted to shareholders and the infrastructure was never really upgraded. NY AG has attempt to take them to court over one of Verizon's cases, but it was worded so vaguely nothing really came of it last I had seen.

And this has happened multiple times for each company.

Additionally, there was a huge tax incentive that was going to be given to manufacturers to hire more people, and they were all for it, but off the record they admitted it wasn't actually going to go towards hiring people"
technology,"I get how that seems like horseshit, but they don't do this kind of thing to screw the end user. Car companies don't get those repair dollars. They want their car to be as good, fixable, long lasting, and cheap to maintain as possible. Toyota gets lots of its customers based on reliability and lowest cost to own over the life of the car. They also need good general performance as well, so some parts are going to be hard to get at. Some companies are horseshit with these anti-consumer practices,  but Toyota isn't and most car companies don't try those types of tricks."
technology,So that bit about the code being needing to be cleared is not true. The DTCs will go away as soon as what ever fault that triggers them is satisfied. Some of the engine DTCs may require some time before that happens but a hard reset on the system will fix that as well. No technician required if you know what you are doing. Knowing what to do is where they are getting in trouble since they won’t release the repair manuals unless you are a dealer. 
technology,"what the devil? it was invented to plow fields, just the same as Lamborghini tractors  

this shit stinks like desperation..  

wanna change my software to a subscription based service, maybe if there's decent upgrades along the way. wanna keep your Kelly Clarkson hit record from being pirated.. I get it. 

but NOT with a fuxking mechanical piece of equipment that someone paid for up front to OWN

stinks like a pile of Monsanto manure"
technology,"In addition to the other posts about warranties voided, I believe John Deere literally put encryption and software locks on some of their sensors and diagnostics to make it not work. I don't know the exact specifics, but imagine your tractor has computer software in it and won't start unless an authorized John deere battery was put in from an authorized John deere repair shop. We'll guess what, John Deere can now massively overcharge. It's also a big inconvenience for a relatively simple task, transporting that huge combine, and there's almost no competition for repair centers (they have to pay John deere a bunch of money to be authorized) so you'd have to wait days for that new battery. 

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/kzp7ny/tractor-hacking-right-to-repair

Some farmers are hacking their firmware and using a pirated diagnostic tool to get around these software locks at the expense of their warranty. "
technology,"Panasonic wanted a couple hundred dollars to fix an old TV that sometimes wouldn't turn on. I googled the problem and learned that it could be fixed with a firmware update. This wasn't a smart TV, but it had an SD card slot for viewing photos and videos and would automatically install new firmware if it was formatted correctly on the card. 

Problem fixed for free in 5 minutes. They don't even want to make it easy for *software* fixes, it seems. Had to get the files off someone's Google Drive account that were linked to in a forum post."
technology,"""The Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act (P.L. 93-637) is a United States federal law (15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq.). Enacted in 1975, the federal statute governs warranties on consumer products. ""
-- source:  wikipedia

""Those stickers on gadgets that say you'll void your warranty if they're removed? You've probably come to expect them whenever you purchase a new device. The FTC has just made clear, however, that those warranty notices are illegal""

-- https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/11/ftc-warranty-warning/"
technology,"You are correct on the repair part. They do not release their service manuals unless you are an authorized dealer. That is similar with most of the market though not just Deere And I see that shifting at the end of this whole debacle. 

The big issue that gets brought up is software. You are correct that they don’t want people going in and “tweaking” it for what ever reason. This a lot because of IP reasons and safety. They spend a lot of money developing that software and if you have access to tweak it then you have access to copy it. Also this is heavy machinery and if you accidentally shift the right bit out of place you could drive an implement function instead of turning on the lights. 

There is no revenue gained by locking you out from modifying the software that drives the machine. There is revenue gained by not allowing you access to the service software that is needed to repair or diagnose issues from time to time which is what they lock down. "
technology,"Yep. And *every other consumer good with a microchip in it* is either vulnerable to the same control tactic by megalomaniacal manufacturers, or -- like [Keurig coffee machines](https://www.theverge.com/2015/2/5/7986327/keurigs-attempt-to-drm-its-coffee-cups-totally-backfired), [Tesla cars](https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/4xapnd/tesla-self-driving-vehicle-drm) or [Lexmark printers](https://boingboing.net/2017/05/30/printer-eschatology.html) -- has already been infected with it.

And with the advent of ultra-small, ultra-low-power ""internet of things"" technologies, ""every consumer good with a microchip in it"" will be *literally every consumer good, period* in the not-so-distant future.

It is really nothing less than an attempt to do away with private property ownership entirely and replace it with copyright-enforced neo-feudalism."
technology,"yeh I remember Teslut reprogramming some cars with an over the air software 'update' for some extra mileage so ppl could get out of whatever hurricane was screwing the east coast a year or two ago.  
as if OnStar with remote disable wasn't bad enough... I don't really like where all this is going.  
  

and then 5 yrs from we find out that their central server has been compromised (oh 6 mo prior btw) and now your vehicle might drive off a cliff. just don't blame our autopilot feature..   
it's all right there in the contract you signed your life over with when buying the car.  
  

there's something off about the idea of liability (and DRM) contracts outlasting the warranty of a vehicle"
technology,"I've been working in IT for about 8 years. I have multiple certifications and have worked on many different types of devices. 

I once was doing a part replacement on a laptop, forget which company, and he would not ship it out to my house because he ""had to ship it to a certified technician"" which I think they had local contracts. 

It took everything I had but I managed to calmly staten ""Sir, I am certified, this is my job, send me the part."" 

He was so smug and adamant about it that it was the closest I've come to verbally abusing a CSR, which I try to avoid because I've worked customer service before."
technology,"So no offense but not even close. I get that you don’t know the specifics but I will try to highlight the issues in you statement. 

First, they do not have any encryption or locks that will keep you from replacing your battery with an aftermarket battery. Same for any simple sensor. If the part you replace is equivalent in specs then it can be replaced without any issue. 

Where I think you are getting confused is the comments around the 5min mark on the video. The more complex parts, or the computers, do not come pre programmed off the shelf. So when you by that service part it needs to be programmed after installing it in the machine but that can only be done if you have access to the service software and tools. Aka Service Advisor. Which is restricted to dealers. Even if you would have the pirated tool you still won’t have access to the actual software that needs to be installed. 

The biggest issue is that they don’t release the service manuals that detail the root cause of the codes and how to fix them. That documentation is restricted to dealers. 

"
technology,"Did you read the article?  I assume it was true, so maybe find an alternative source that disputes it. 

""As tractors have become more high-tech, we do not have the ability to hook up a tractor to diagnose it, to repair it, or even to activate parts that we’ve already bought. There are used parts that are available, but if I put them on, the tractor won’t run” because of software activation locks.""

"" John Deere makes farmers sign licensing agreements that limit the amount of tinkering they are supposed to do one their equipment; violating it could be considered breach of contract and farmers who do are liable to be sued"" "
technology,"I think I was close in illustrating the point. Obviously the battery isn't software activation locked, it was an example. But the article has the quote ""we do not have the ability to hook up a tractor to diagnose it, to repair it, or even to activate parts that we’ve already bought. There are used parts that are available, but if I put them on, the tractor won’t run because of software activation locks."" It's not even an issue of the software not being already on the device, as it was obviously on the used device. It's just not compatible because of software locks. Explain how the quote is wrong. Why does the service software need to be restricted to authorized dealers? "
technology,"It looks similar when the lines are across his TV but mine is just one line, in one particular area.(And it's still watchable just annoying to set line pop up and change the picture then go away and repeat) Maybe my capacitor isnt as far gone as his? Ill pop the back off and see if there is something visibly wrong with the capacitors.

Thanks for your help I love people on Reddit <3"
technology,">wanna keep your Kelly Clarkson hit record from being pirated.. I get it.

Serious question - what's the difference between this and buying a tractor?

The software bit I get, _if_ that subscription comes with a regular schedule of updates and added features.

But buying music should be the same as buying a tractor IMO. Once you own it you should be able to do what you want with it, and it shouldn't be locked behind some kind of service or auto-checking computer program that only lets you play it on that one device or program.

You still can't publish the song as if it were your own - that's protected by IP laws - but you should be able to do whatever you like with your discrete copy of it."
technology,"Replaced the cpu on my DLP tv after some common corruption issues a couple years back that was $40 and an hour of my time BOOM! New tv. Replaced the lamp on it this year for $45. BOOM! New tv again. 2007 Mitsubishi 65”  DLP 1080p is as beautiful as it was the day I bought it in 2007, and looks stellar holding up well with other 1080p’s that came along later. It’s no 4K LED but I have no need to replace it and it is still great for movies and gaming. It’s been through 5 moves without a scratch too and only weighs ~70 pounds.

The “cost” of looking up how to fix things is well worth the effort. A $2200 tv from 2007 (from circuit city lol) isn’t scrapped. "
technology,">Btw, timing belt, head bolts, seals, etc while you're at it. Fuck off Toyota.

Please suggest a better way of designing an engine to change a timing belt easier.  It's also not a Toyota specific problem, every car manufacturer's engine makes it labor intensive to changing a belt. That's your fucking fault for neglecting maintenance and they also make engines that use timing chains that should last the life of the vehicle. "
technology,"You may be close but you are missing a big point. I would say 99 percent of the parts on these tractors can be replaced without any need to access the software tools we are talking about. If the on board system detects an error, the codes are displayed through a monitor on the machine. The documentation needed to understand that code is the biggest issue. That documentation is locked to the dealers which is the issue but that is just a pdf file like any tech manual for a car.  But anyone who has been around these machines long enough and has the drive to dig into the issue can usually figure it out based off the short detail in the monitor. 

The tricky part is the computer parts they are talking about. The computers off the shelf are a blank slate like the tech in the video said.  Even when they are going down the manufacturing line. These computers then have custom software for each VIN to handle all the options the customer paid for and the performance specs for a specific model. So when you rip it off one machine to put it on another it won’t work. Because they don’t want people to track down machines that have the fancy automation software installed, rip off and steal the computer, then use it on another machine.

The only way to install this software is to have access to the service tool that can interface with the machine and then also have access to the Deere website where you can download that custom software file for that VIN. This is a gap that they are trying to close but the right to repair legislation exceeds that mandate and has extra wording that would allow users to modify these software packages to change performance or other things that can possibly damage the machine. That is what they are fighting. They are committed to solving the service issue but they want to be able to maintain their IP and the users safety at the same time. "
technology,I fixed my first lcd back in like 2013. It was two capacitors at a cost of about $1.50. Samsung TV only about 2 yrs old. I was so happy because I was in the process of researching new TV's so I just went for it. Then I fixed my dad's bad capictor tv. Then I found one by a trashcan on a curb. I said wtf and fixed that one. Put an ad on Craigslist in the wanted section for LCDs with good screens but won't turn on. Fixed 4 or 5 more and sold those. Samsung TVs in particular were bad about blowing caps back then. I think the bad caps problem is not as common on TV's these days.
technology,"What was the vehicle and part?

Every time I’ve tried to fix a Toyota I’ve ended up excited at how accessible, and simple the repair was. My Lexus was my first car I’ve ever had with brake callipers that simply pivot up out of the way conveniently.

I love them because it seems like they forced the designers to have to do repairs themselves, with their own design.

You want expensive hard to reach inaccessible parts causing catastrophic failures? You should have seen my BMW, made my Lexus look like a fisher price block set where you try and put the shaped blocks into the right hole. "
technology,"I had 2 other mechanics with me when we removed the intake, and they thought it was the dumbest shit they'd ever seen.  Rubber coolant hose between the block and intake; just asking for a leak. It could've been ducted or piped. The heat shield protecting it failed long ago. It's a double jointed endeavor just to change spark plugs on this thing, can't wait for these electric cars.  I'm happy fixing my analog systems until then. "
technology,">It's wasn't the timing belt I have heartburn with, as they're not $10. 

Depending on the car and the brand you end up buying, yeah, they can cost $10. It's still going with your point, a timing belt is an inexpensive component to an engine, but can cost $1000+ to replace. Redesigning an engine to make every inexpensive part on there easily accessible to a consumer is not practical at all. I am aware of some car manufacturers making it more difficult to change things, like a bulb, but no one's forcing you to buy that particular brand. You have a limitless amount of knowledge easily available to you through the internet to do your own research. 
"
technology,"I have a 60 inch flatscreen sitting up against the wall, my neighbors moved out and told me the backlight was out and they didn’t know how to fix it and told me I could take it if I wanted it... I snagged that bitch so fast, like... really? I looked it up and it’s $60 worth of parts and super easy to fix, and it’s a $700 tv still on amazon lol like ok I’ll take it"
technology,"Are you suggesting a customer should buy the chiltons+ on any vehicle before purchase?  I'm pretty mechanically minded, and that sounds absurd for me, let alone your average consumer. I suspect auto manufacturers do in fact have a pact with dealers to make vehicles harder to work on, so they can corner the market on parts when nobody has a clue.  For example, I tried to get my transmission flushed, because I'm not buying their ""forever good oil."" Toyota was the only service able to do it, and wanted me to sign a waiver on my warranty.  I told them the Supreme Court disagrees under Magnuson V Moss, and they were hesitant, still wanted me to sign crap. I can't trust them to do anything if they're ignoring laws.

If we as consumers don't stand up, speak out against this behavior, you can expect more of it. "
technology,">Are you suggesting a customer should buy the chiltons+ on any vehicle before purchase?

What are ""chiltons+""? I'm suggesting you do research before purchasing a vehicle, or anything you buy where you're spending a good amount of money. 


> For example, I tried to get my transmission flushed, because I'm not buying their ""forever good oil."" Toyota was the only service able to do it, and wanted me to sign a waiver on my warranty. 

If there's no service interval on their ""lifetime ATF"" and you're still on the warranty, why are you even bothering to flush it during that time? "
technology,"On vehicles that drive on the road they do have to make it available. It just costs way too much. Part of that is that it is designed to support a dealership. One computer to work on everything from that manufacturer. Someone who is a professional mechanic usually only needs to know one or two things about any given job(like the torque specs here or there) I've never had a manual for my car or truck but I've done all my repairs. I've also repaired phones, computers and everything else. I can't remember the last time I had something repaired for me. But how repairable something is makes up a large part of my buying decisions. "
technology,"I've gotta say, how-to videos on YouTube are a godsend. Not just for tech stuff. As a homeowner? Holy shit, it's nice to be able to figure out how to make a simple fix to something like a toilet that needs a new flusher mechanism, when the thing won't stop running at two in the morning. Realizing that what you need is a $10 part from Home Depot and a five-minute replacement, rather than an emergency call to a plumber on a weekend is the best."
technology,"Just Google the symptoms, or watch TampaTec on YouTube. I think he has a general troubleshooting video where he goes through the various issues and how to fix and test them. A lot of things are really cheap to fix if you want to solder stuff. Otherwise you just replace a board which is usually in the $50 range. Really easy to fix.   
  
My problem was bad backlight which requires disassembling the entire TV. It's time consuming and you have to be careful not to break the actual screen.   
  
If the actual screen is broken then the TV is pretty much unfixable from my understanding. The panel is 80% of the price of a new TV and can't easily be shipped outside of the TV because it is so fragile."
technology,"Cars have steadily become more reliable. They have done so despite also becoming vastly more complex. And contrary to your beliefs, car manufacturers actually have a huge problem because parts from China start to become actually half decent while staying ridiculously cheap.

This isn't the 70s any more when an engine bay was huge because there was little more in it than the engine. You want good AC? Power everything? Intelligent engine management? A turbo for better fuel economy? Crumple zones and other safety mechanism? All that is going to result in a cramped engine bay. You have to make compromises. You can't make everything easily accessible. What's more important, having a part like the timing belt that you change maybe 3-4 times in the life of the car, or a knock sensor that you maybe replace once in the life of the car easily accessible? Or having something like the oil filter easily accessible? I'd say the priorities should be quite clear.

And all of this gets way worse once you involve hybrids or cars like the Audi RS3 with a 3.2 liter engine in an economy car made for engines half the size.

You just can't have a car that's modern and super easy to work on. Well, you can, with electric cars, but with combustion engines that time is just gone unless you maybe buy something like the Fiesta with the 1l 3 cylinder."
technology,"Definitely sounds like bad backlight. Same as on my TV. The fix is long and requires taking the entire TV apart, but is definitely possible at home.  Turn it on in a dark room and shine a flashlight on it. You should be able to see a faint image. Make sure there's something on the screen by pushing the menu button on the remote, or something else that you know will produce a picture. Look at TampaTec and other YouTube channels to see the process for replacement.
  
I got my LED strips from AliExpress. If you live in the US you are probably better off getting them from ShopJimmy or another US based online store. I'm in Canada and it would have cost me over $100 to have them shipped from the US even before possible duty charges. $50 all inclusive from AliExpress seemed like it was worth the risk. "
technology,"Yeah. That's the exact problem. Usually its just one or two sections that go, but the TV detects a problem and shuts all the backlights off. Probably one of the hardest things to fix that's actually worth it. Just time consuming more than anything though. Probably worth the risk of the $50 part if it saves you from having to buy a new TV. If you screw it up and break the TV then you are really only out the cost of the LED strips.   
  
What I did was go through the entire procedure but I didn't replace the strips. Just tested them to see which ones I needed (ordered a whole set anyway). Then I reassembled and ensured that I didn't screw anything up and was working as before. Then I placed my order. This way I didn't waste the money if it turned out to be something I really couldn't handle. Also, it's worth testing the strips because if its just a single strip, then you can order the individual ones for $15. Mine had three bad ones so it seemed like a better idea to order the full set of twelve and have spares for when another one eventually goes."
technology,"In the last year or so:

Replaced TV’s PCB (thanks YouTube!), good as new. 

Dryer stopped drying - replaced the heating filament (thanks YouTube!), good as new. 

iPhone 6 with smashed screen. Got my free upgrade and then went to iFixit to figure out how to fix that screen. Passed it on to MIL. 

Each of these items would easily have been a few hundred bucks each to replace, but each repair was about £50-ish plus a few you tube vids. 

I’m currently buying a new MacBook Pro and it annoys me that if anything, even relatively simple goes wrong I’m kinda screwed. My last one I did the upgrading of memory and storage. New one, it is what it is. No upgrade. Huh! 

I have a fairly vintage stereo amp which I absolutely love, but it kept dying, because the fuses kept blowing. Going online and doing a bit of investigating, I finally discovered that the glass fuses that I was replacing every few months could be replaced with ceramic ones. Replaced all 3 fuses, from a pack of 10 and still, over a year later have 7 spares. It’s a bit sad that in the future if anything goes wrong with a piece of equipment the only option will be to send it back to the manufacturer. 




"
technology,"That all depends on how involved the repair is. A lot of things are easily repaired and should be fine under warranty. Also, the manufacturers should do a lot more to make their products last. Right now they only required a 12 month warranty, so as long as it lasts that long they don't care. A TV should have a life span of much longer than a year. There's a lot they could do to the design to make them easier to repair without making them much more bulky. They keep on telling use we want slimmer designs with less bezel but don't tell you it's coming at the cost of repairability."
technology,"Hey. Good job.

I feel electronics repair is for this century what sewing was for the last.

It's an invaluable skill to be able to perform basic fault finding and component replacement. And as you've shown it's not rocket science.  

Literally search the internet for your issue, then search ""how to fix xyz in this TV"". You can guarantee someone has done it and made tutorials or videos on it.  
I love it so much. And I encourage anyone to try it. We throw out so many things that have the electronics equivalent of a pair of pants with a ripped seam, when all it needs is stitching back up and it's good for years to come."
technology,I had a lightning strike at my house.  Insurance paid out on TVs and told me to do whatever I wanted with them.  I cash value for all of them to replace them and fixed each of them for about $25 in parts each (new control boards).  Each one took about 20 minutes or so to fix.  I was STOKED!  I go to recycling centers now looking for LED/LCD tvs that do not have broken screens and see if they will let me take them or buy them from them.  They can usually be fixed pretty cheap.  Resell those bad boys for 150-200 in profit each very easily.  
technology,"And then you won't buy another one in two years, from a company that already has razor thin margins if they're making money on their consumer electronics division at all. If the phone lasts twice as long, they'd have to charge twice as much, and I can't imagine anyone but you buying a $1600-$2000 phone with slightly inferior specs to the regular model that costs under $1k so they can keep it for 4-5 years instead of 2-3. Companies that aren't Samsung or Apple already barely break even or lose money on R&D, marketing, and payroll, so the only two companies that can afford to create repairable devices with longer lifecycles without drastically raising the price are also the only two whose devices people will buy for the brandname regardless of how good or bad they are.

Overall, I'm fully in support of right to repair, we should own our possessions rather than just rent the right to use them for a few years, but I just think the smartphone market is a bad example for right to repair. Even if you could keep them going for 5+ years, you wouldn't really want to. To fix that problem, you'd have to force web and app developers to optimize better, be more careful about which parts of which libraries they include, and keep supporting multiple versions of the same app with different levels of graphical effects and different feature sets. Bad web developers are going to keep loading the entirety of 3 different versions of React, Angular, jQuery, and video.js just to get a cross-compatible scrolling animation that would require maybe 25 lines of code to implement the right way as long as the newest devices can handle it. They'll just keep getting lazier the more powerful our phones get, and I don't believe that smartphone and mobile OS companies can or should have enough power over our economy and our lives to be able to do something about that. Appliances, TVs, lawnmowers, power tools, and cars, sure, there's no reason for those to ever go obsolete unless the manufacturer makes it happen, but the obsolescence of smartphones is natural. Back when Moto, LG, and Samsung phones had their screens or NAND deteriorate enough to make the phone very unpleasant to use after about a year or two, sure, but now a decent one can last for 3-4 years, which is about how long 95% of people would want to use a phone anyway.

It would be more wasteful and worse for the environment to waste materials on making phones with thicker bodies, more screws, and more segregated components, because all but a tiny minority of them would end up in the landfill at the same point in their lifecycle anyway. Besides, while smartphones are difficult to repair, it's still economical to: decently specced phones (that aren't loaded with Chinese government spyware at the chipset firmware level to subsidize the low price) start at ~$250 and go up to ~$800, there are luxury phones above that price point but they don't offer anything more except the badge and some minor exterior design changes. If you take it into a local shop, a battery replacement is $30-$80, a screen replacement is $150-$300, and a charging port repair is $20-50. If the phone breaks early enough in its lifecycle that it wasn't going to be thrown away soon anyway, then having a phone repaired is still a no-brainer over buying a new one. I've gotten a bulging battery fixed on nearly every phone, tablet or laptop I've ever owned, and never once has it been more than 1/4 the cost of a new one. Most people don't only because they don't know they can. The only devices that are truly impossible to repair are the Microsoft Surface series, which nobody buys anyway because they're not only hard to repair, but poorly built, badly supported, underspecced, and ludicrously overpriced besides. OEMs charge way more for the parts than they should, and those supplier cartels need to be broken up, but repairing still makes sense unless you're too poor to afford a new device either, in which case the throwaway culture point is sort of moot."
technology,"I kind of don't agree on this one. What we need to make sure we do is ensure students have proper reading and reasoning skills so that they can teach themselves when the time comes. Sure, you could teach TV repair but 10 years down the line, TVs might be completely different, and they won't be able to fix it without learning something new anyway. They might have to fix their toaster or their oven or some other piece of technology that doesn't even exist yet."
technology,"Not only do they not want you to ever change the trans oil, they don't make it easy at all.  You require a self contained vacuum and pump to fill, so that the system stays pressurized.  Alright, special tool, nothing new.  ""Sign this void warranty paperwork"" is a clear sign that Toyota is shitting the bed to me.

What's so difficult to understand about this?

*search for ""World Standard oil change transmission"" and watch the sludge.  They want your vehicle to fail so you can buy a new one. "
technology,If you have ever worked around farmers you know exactly why John Deere wants to lock their shit down. They don't want Cletus using some Chinese aftermarket sensors on a tractor that plows the field via autopilot and have some shitty sensor cause it to plow through the fucking barn. Or have him bypassing critical safety and emissions equipment because he don't believe in the gubment nanies telling him what to do. 
technology,"well you kinda summed up the main reason. I can let ppl drive my tractor (I think? or with DRM tractors you can't let your neighbor mow his field? no clue but that would be shit(tier than it already sounds).  
But I cannot legally go around sharing musical hits with friends or even family, well give them a copy anyways.  
they're on different levels, guess cause it's a physical machine and costs [tariffed] steel and mostly automated labor to make (assembly line). therein lies the difference, to me anyways, between software/music etc and durable goods.  
  
what's next? clothing with DRM? your expensive kapernick shoes gonna self destruct if you don't renew your membership? or they come take it like a leased car? all good questions that hopefully will never get answered.  

  
one that always saddens me, and probably paved the road to shittown is Monsonto whom pretty much DRMed their bukkshit corn; another physical (though not so durable) good... they made it that way by design. [and now they have ungodly sums of money to falsify people's honest claims of cancer caused by Roundup]

/rant"
technology,"Hmm, hard to pin point exactly. Maybe IT as a whole in general? I was a service desk team lead for the corporation I work for roughly 5 years and rejected from being the manager twice (both people taken in my place lasted less than a year). Was on the verge of quitting until I was promoted to being a Network Engineer. That was several years ago. The first year I was ecstatic, but over time I realized the corporate politics never go away and I don't think I'll ever be at a point where I am completely satisfied."
technology,"I'm not sure I follow. I fix my own iphone(s) all the time. It just voids the warranty, now I'm on my own to internally repair my own shit, which I'm ok with. I understand why Apple can void the warranty when I do that. From a logical standpoint it makes sense.

What am I missing? Am I technically and legally not allowed to go into and open my own phone that I own, or are people fighting for the right to chose to have Apple honor warranties when it's been handled by an untrained amateur?"
technology,"> I understand why Apple can void the warranty when I do that

Actually it's against the law for Apple to do this.

> Am I technically and legally not allowed to go into and open my own phone that I own

You're allowed to open your phone, but Apple is allowed to take measures to make their stuff as difficult to repair as possible. For example, replacing the home button on one of their newer phones is impossible without special Apple tools."
technology,"Yeah fuck that, my wife went to replace the screen on her old iphome while under warranty. Good news, it's *only* $100 because you bought the warranty!  
Excuse me, but no. Go fuck yourself apple. Every single iphone my wife has had (5, 5s, and now 7) has been a steaming pile of garbage with tons of issues (massive slowdowns with age, terrible battery life after a year, randomly shutting off all the time... The 5s also like to overheat randomly, which was cool).

Honestly if she weren't locked into the ecosystem I could probably convince her to switch to literally anything else."
technology,"Voiding of the warranty is part of the issue; it flies in the face of existing laws when they claim that opening a product invalidates the warranty of a product. Unless the customer has done something that can be shown to make the product not perform as advertised (or expected), the seller is responsible for making the customer whole.

To restrict sale of a replacement part, like, say, a home button, and then software disabling the entire device if software detects that the the part is replaced by anyone other than the official supplier... Yeah, that needs to not happen anymore."
technology,">What am I missing? Am I technically and legally not allowed to go into and open my own phone that I own, or are people fighting for the right to chose to have Apple honor warranties when it's been handled by an untrained amateur?


""right to repair"" actually means ""force Apple to publish repair manuals and sell replacement parts"".

Your right to do stuff with things that you own is not impeded in any way, and nobody is threatening it. There aren't new ""anti-repair"" laws being pushed. If you want to force companies to publish repair manuals and sell replacement parts, that is fine, just don't call it ""right to repair"". You already have the right to repair."
technology,"It **can** void your warranty, and that needs to be made clear in these arguments.

Opening it does not, performing a successful repair does not.

Damage something in doing so? Warranty is gone, however it needs to be proven that what you did caused damage that is now being claimed warranty on.

OR the current argument with apple, they've stated that if it has a 3rd party screen they will still warrant it, but if it has a 3rd party battery, or charge socket, or camera, or (list every other part here), or if the bottom screws are stripped and cannot be removed, then its no longer covered.  
Also If they break your 3rd party screen while repairing your phone they won't cover it.

And lastly, while legally companies cannot deny you warranty for opening your device, there's nothing to say they can't make it difficult as hell for you, take weeks longer and escalations to multiple higher managers etc before it's actually processed.

So there's a few things to keep in mind."
technology,"The touch I'd sensor can be repaired. The issue is they break in the flex cable running too it.  

Someone with microsoldering skills must take a new home button and transplant the old button onto the new flex cable and it will work again... Which sounds tough but it's easy enough for someone with the right gear and a steady hand.

Otherwise, you can simply put a new home button in it for.... 2 bucks or whatever they cost. Just the thumbprint scanner doesn't work."
technology,"From a company stand point, though, how are they supposed to know what you did and didn’t do while the phone/device was open. 

Using the computer example, what if when I opened the computer to replace the ram I shorted something.  That’s incredibly difficult to tell and now the company has to cover my mistake?   

I get the concept and I think we should be allowed to repair our own shit, but I disagree that a company should have to cover a device that was repaired by someone not manufacturer-authorized. Theres no way to control what someone does to their device. "
technology,">Using the computer example, what if when I opened the computer to replace the ram I shorted something.

Then it's on the company to demonstrate customer fault. If there's a mobo short near the RAM that has no other apparent cause, then the company has a reasonable claim that the customer is at fault for the short since they know there was an at home RAM installation.

In most cases there are ways for the company to check these claims during the process of completing an RMA or sending out a tech. They have to be able to prove they're not at fault, so they have procedures developed to that end. Kinda like how phones have the water damage indicator thing.

>I disagree that a company should have to cover a device that was repaired by someone not manufacturer-authorized.

The company just has to prove that they aren't at fault, like I mentioned. The law referenced above doesn't force them to uphold warranty on products repaired by non-authorized dealers, it just forces them to demonstrate that they aren't at fault in the process of voiding a warranty."
technology,"I understand your point of view and I appreciate the info, I just don’t agree. I think, more often than not, someone will mess something up while trying to repair it themselves and if I owned a company, I wouldn’t want to cover peoples’ repairs.  

I feel like a lot of companies do employ the individual part warranty but only if you can guarantee their unrelated.  

Like a battery needing replacement on an iphone with a non-apple screen.  

The battery is still covered, just not the phone as a whole (because the screen isnt)"
technology,"?? It's the latter, but a lot of these people who make repairs aren't untrained amateurs. A lot of people who open shops have worked for Apple or other professional tech repair shops. I paid several hundred dollars for a phone. Then bought the warranty. Then I still pay for Apple Care. But if I drop my phone & crack or shatter my screen in a place where I literally CANNOT get to the Apple store or their Genius Bar can't see me for 2 days, but there's a kiosk or shop around the corner & I get it fixed... now my warranty is void and Apple Care is useless? That's ridiculous. It's like I'm being held hostage by them. Have I ever gotten my phone fixed at a shop or a kiosk that wasn't Apple? No. Would I like to? Yes. Will I? No. Why? Because if a major software or technical issue happens, yeah, I want to be able to get it taken care of with Apple. But a physical/mechanical issue? It's ridiculous for me not to have multiple options to get a quick repair done in a few minutes. Same with cars... am I supposed to go to the dealership every time I get a crack in my windshield? No."
technology,"Why would I lie about it exactly?

But you're right, THAT COULD NEVER HAPPEN.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-NU7yOSElE
""Apple refused to fix our imac pro!""

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MG_NRcy5mxU&t=652s
""The apple store genius bar broke my $5000 imac pro""

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhJoRjpDIms
""Apple genius broke my MacBook""

And yes, I work in Tech, and pretty much every business I've worked for in the past 5 years have used Macbooks and iPhones, as well generally being filled with Apple fanatics who are into the design/UX. Personally I'd rather use a macbook over any other laptop for work.

Everything I've experienced and people I know have experienced points to apple repairs being shoddy and the genius bar being filled with morons - whether that's true on a larger scale, apparently not.

If that hurts your Apple fanboy heart, bad luck buddy."
technology,"\>  The federal minimum standards for full warranties are waived if the warrantor can show that the problem associated with a warranted consumer product was caused by damage while in the possession of the consumer, or by unreasonable use, including a failure to provide reasonable and necessary maintenance. 

​

From the mangnuson-moss Warranty Act Wikipedia page. Clearly attempting to fix your own device is ""damage while in the possession of the consumer."" No company should be obligated to replace a device you broke."
technology,"> iPhone 7 and 8 users who have had their touchscreens replaced suddenly found their phones disabled.

I used to work in a mobile repair shop, we replaced lots of screens on 7 and 8 iPhones with no issues. So I'm wondering what circumstances caused what you speak of, how widespread it was, and how recently it was.

Also, if Apple were causing it it would be illegal, and it wouldnt make sense as in their own terms they state ""a device with a 3rd party screen will still be covered under warranty, so long as replaced part did not cause the damage warranty is being claimed for"" (paraphrasing, but same meaning).

So the only real explaination is dodgy parts or dodgy repairs. Either way I can all but guarantee you it wasn't Apple doing it."
technology,"This was about 6 months ago, when Apple released iOS 11, and was fairly prevalent amongst iPhone 8s with replaced screens. Something similar happened about a year before, with iPhone 7s.

These were touchscreens that adhere to the interface spec, and were working immediately before the software update (not a defective part, and not a botched replacement). The workaround, in many cases, was to swap in the original broken Apple touchscreen, re-run the upgrade to iOS 11.3, and then swap in the 3rd party screen."
technology,"> I may reconsider some of my more loosely-held views in response to finding out that they are overwhelmingly unpopular.

That's a very bad reason to change your views, IMO. If you have views that you feel nobody can challenge, don't change them just because others are uncomfortable with them. Example: I'm an advocate for pedophiles who don't molest. A lot of people don't like that, but fuck 'em :P

Of course, you've also got to be careful that your biases aren't getting in the way either. This is a delicate tightrope that has to be walked.
"
technology,"Honestly, most people don't even care about cross play, we just want cross save. Most people on PC left their console clans behind. I would be more than willing to switch to PC knowing that A. I wouldn't have to grind out 3 characters again, and B. I could switch back to PS4 for the occasional raid.

Edit: Also, they can totally just grey stuff out you don't have a license for. Back when TTK launched in D1 there was an additional 10 dollar purchase you could make for class specific emotes. My wife bought this, I did not. When I logged in on her console I was given the emotes. I applied it and used it. When I moved back to my own console the emote was grayed out and unusable. The capability for locking things is definitely there. Whether or not they can cleanly merge databases, and whether or not Sony would allow it, are the two questions we have no answer to."
technology,"Same boat. Got D2 with humble monthly. Got a character to 20 before deciding that no, there is no way I want to do that grind again.

It sucks so much. PC is so goddamn beautiful... 60+ fps, no frame drops (my PS4 occasionally hits 10-12 in some circumstances). But I would be leaving behind every single clan member I've played with for 4 years, AND I would be starting from scratch."
technology,"Fortnite has Exclusive Skins as well and that still has crossplay. Destiny even already has mechinisms to prevent people from playing a strike if they're too underleved/don't have it unlocked/or don't have a curated loaded (a future feature that is planned for an event called ""Arms Day"")

The ""Don't have it Unlocked"" bit is important. If they don't have the exclusive strike, then that means they don't have it unlocked.


Simple.


 

^^^Fucking ^^^exclusives.

 

Edit: MMmmm... Made this comment and didn't read further. Hope you have a good day."
technology,"D2 vanilla was not bad, just had a hard limit on the content available because there was no random rolls on guns and armor. And loot fell from the trees like apples so by like 2-3 weeks in you could pretty much be ""done"" with the game.

Compared to D1, this was a travesty. D1 had an almost ""infinite"" grind feel to it. There was always something to chase. Another exotic, a god roll legendary, etc. D2 vanilla had none of this.

Then came the first DLC, which added fuck all and didn't really fix everything and that is when most people completely wrote the game off. But I think its important to recognize that the base game wasn't bad per se, it just wasn't infinite. You get x amount of content and then after that it just felt like why bother? So for the hardcore D1 players, it was like a kick to the nuts when we realized there just isn't shit to do.

A few months ago Warmind dropped (2nd DLC) and breathed a lot of life back into the game. Random rolls weren't back, but they added multiple long challenging quest lines to get some of the best guns in the game, the new raid lair was properly challenging, strikes had some purpose again and most of all were fun thanks to random modifiers and strike specific loot making a return. And since most people skipped the 1st DLC, you had all of those guns to grind for as well and the grind this time didn't suck because strikes and patrols and pub events were actually kinda fun again.

Then they dropped the whispers of the worm mission randomly, and that is when we got a first glimpse at what they had in store for us coming forward. It brought back all the nostalgia of the first game. A post popped up on reddit where a guy found a random portal on one of the planets that only opened during a specific public event, and when you went through the portal it launched a new mission that had a 20 minute timer and the first half of the mission was one really long jumping/maneuvering puzzle. My first time going in I didn't even make it half way. So there was this mystery and life breathed back into the game, everyone was scrambling trying to get into this random mission with a strict timer and figure out what was at the end.

So after a 10-15 minute traipse through the jumping section (you can easily do it in less than 5~ after you know it) you get to a room filled with some insanely tough bad guys. And then there is another room. And another. And the final room has a shit load of bad guys and 3 bosses.

If you manage to kill those, you are awarded with the best exotic sniper (honestly IMO best exotic in the game) which had insanely high damage and if you land 3 crits (headshots) in a row, you get that ammo back. So you have the highest DPS sniper in the game, and it has infinite ammo if you're good, and its a callback to one of the fan favorite guns from D1.

And THEN you get access to the heroic version of this mission which had special modifiers each week and if you found all the 5 hidden chests + completed it on heroic you got about 1/3 progress on the exotic catalyst which when completed made the gun even stronger.

Couple this along with all the other new exotic missions that weren't a secret, PvP in a decent state of balance and 3 raids, things were looking up.

Then summer solstice event happens which added another whole suite of armor to grind out, coupled with the new prestige raid lairs dropping 400~ power (higher than previous max power) weapons and again there is just so much to do.

And now we had forsaken, the latest expansion drop 3-4 weeks ago which is honestly the biggest DLC destiny has ever had (even looking at D1) and personally I think the absolute best DLC period. It just added so much and fixed nearly everything that the community found to be wrong with the game over the previous year. Loadouts are extremely customizable, guns have random rolls so you have a reason to continue chasing specific things, armors have actually good perks exotics are actually exotic and don't just fall into your lap (although admittedly this is probably something that will change as many in the community dislike just how rare they are), PvP is quite literally the best it has been in any version of Destiny ever, there is a new PvEvP mode that is insanely fun and to top it all off there was two new locations to explore, the one you do while leveling, and then for the first time there is actually an entire public area designed for end game content, with challenges and stuff rotating weekly so each week you log in and it changes slowly getting more and more ""taken"". 

The power grind is back, so you aren't max level and max power within a week or two of starting. In fact it is pretty likely that many players may not even reach max power level. There is once again that sense of awe when looking at someone with really good gear, knowing they worked their ass off for it. 

Aaaand holy shit this is way longer than I anticipated so I'm gonna go ahead and stop."
technology,"""Simple"" as of the idea not implementation. The concept is as far reaching hard as people think. How its implemented is an entirely different story code wise. I was addressing in the simplest of ways what they would do to show it wasn't impossible. That their is an easy solution logically and how it would in it's most basic sense be done. I know the code is never that simple, I'm a computer scientist though my field is hardware, but the objective of the code in this case is. "
technology,"They have said in interviews recently (ones for Forsaken) that they are interested in it and talk about it often in the studio. So while it won't be nearly as easy as flipping a switch it can be done. Also, due to architectural and language differences on the consoles, parts of the API will always be specific for specific accounts due to how the apps based around the API have to interact. "
technology,"Wouldn't be hard they could steal the code that stops two exotics from being equipped or even the level requirement. Then create a class for PS exclusives and define the weapons that meet that class. Then if weapon is PS exclusive  PSN is required. IF not lock weapon and display psn logo or something. 

Besides that could be a selling point for Sony. You were killed by (PSN Exclusive weapon).

Edit would be happy with crosssave"
technology,"I think Fortnite's original crossplay matchmaking works just fine for this problem. Basically, if there's one PC player in the party, then the whole group gets matched up with PC lobbies. The console players in the group might be at slight disadvantage, but they know what they signed up for.

Epic recently switched to input-based matchmaking instead, but the one concern I have there is the FOV slider on PC. Someone using a controller on PC still has an advantage if they have a wider FOV than those on console."
technology,"Me? Yes. I'll be the first to admit that the last 4 years have been like an abusive relationship at times, but it checks a lot of the boxes I want for a fun and challenging (when I want it to be) game. I've never felt like I've had to spend money outside of DLCs/Expansions, and even then that's just keeping up with the game, I don't see it as any different that paying for a sub."
technology,"**Yes.** You and your friends on Xbox can now squad together.


You'll be able to add them to your Epic Friends List in-game or through Epic's website. You cannot add them to your PS4 Friends List.

When you're in the lobby, you can click on the empty slots in your squad to join/invite your Epic Friends. You can also do this directly from the Epic Friends List.


Your friends won't be able to join your PS4 party (and vice-versa for Xbox parties), but once they're in your squad, you can instead use in-game voice chat.

Your Epic Friends List is accessible in-game on the top right.

_____________

As a quick explanation... As far as I understand it, all of your personal Fortnite information (progress, skins, achievements, etc) are tied to your Epic Account. This is also how you can add/join friends. You're not adding their Xbox account to your friends list, you're adding their Epic account.


""But I'm on PS4/Xbox. I never made an Epic Account!""


I *believe* that an Epic Account is created behind the scenes when you first play Fortnite on console, so you *do* have one, you just aren't yet aware of it.

I'm not sure how that works in particular with things like duplicate names or which password they'd assign to the account.

"
technology,"On your last point, i can confirm that everyone has an epic account. It gets created when they start game for the first time. You can sign in to it through xbox or psn and then set its own password. First time you launched game it asks if you want to make an account or just play.  If you chose just play it still made an account and named it the same thing as your psn or xbl."
technology,"If the email associated with your PSN is associated with an Epic account, it'll automatically sign in with that one. I know from personal experience that up until today, if I tried opening Fortnite on my PS4, I couldn't get past the title screen because my PSN email was already tied to an Xbox account.

If there's no matching account, then there's an on-screen prompt to sign in with an Epic account or create a new one."
technology,">...people fail to see factual information as being fact.  
>  
>...their new iphone xr has the same screen resolution as the iphone 4 and costs $750

If you're gonna complain about people failing to see factual information as being fact then you should probably not get your facts completely wrong two sentences later.  The iPhone 4 screen resolution was 960x640. The XR is 1792x828. They both have the same PPI of 326 pixels per inch is what you probably meant to say. Solely focusing on screen resolution doesn't take into account color accuracy, white balance, color gamut and contrast, brightness, etc which all factor heavily into how good a screen looks. Are you also one of the people that thinks that a camera is automatically better if it has more megapixels?"
technology,">""The short attention span we're creating in this millennium is actually very dangerous,"" said Soon-Shiong, the new owner of the Los Angeles Times. ""It's the unintended consequences of social media.""

It seems like part of his point is people eat up these sound bites without using any critical thinking or double-checking facts. 

>He said people cannot differentiate from ""fake news,"" ""real news"" or ""opinion news"" on Facebook.

There's a long history of questionable news practices, so ""fake news"" isn't that modern of an invention. It's that many people just don't care enough to take the time and verify what they read, or see whether these articles are just sponsored BS.
"
technology,"And the biggest tragedy here is that it's NEVER BEEN EASIER for people to fact check.

[edit] I knew the misinformation argument would follow this comment. Yes, we have fast access to information. Yes, there is also easy access to misinformation. You're missing the point. Your phone isn't going to do the research and critically think FOR YOU, and at the end of the day, many people just want to be told what to think. It's never been easier to cross reference sources and pull information to do your own fact checking.

tl;dr: the ease of FINDING facts vs the ease of gathering information TO FACT CHECK are two different things, people."
technology,"I actually have a hard time finding solid facts about recently published news articles. Googling just returns page after page of news sites saying roughly the same thing, with various levels of spin in one direction or another.

It's also never been easier for people to spread misinformation, knowingly or otherwise. The sheer volume of chaff you have to wade through to find anything of value is frustrating.

I'd love to hear any tips folks have."
technology,">There's a long history of questionable news practices, so ""fake news"" isn't that modern of an invention. It's that many people just don't care enough to take the time and verify what they read, or see whether these articles are just sponsored BS.

No, the difference is the idea of reputability and trust has been completely eroded. There was never a point in history where people both had the capability and the will to fact-check their news, but their news sources were by-and-large accurate because the reputation of being inaccurate was severely damaging. After all, who wants to read unreliable news?

What changed was that the right wing spent decades casting doubt on the veracity of all manner of news sources, playing up conspiracy theories and related bullshit about how the ""mainstream"" media is biased against them and outright lying, and they themselves are the only trustworthy source of information. *This* is specifically the problem: there is no combating fake news because those that believe it do so because they have completely lost trust in reputable news sources. And once that happens, confirmation bias takes precedence over reliability.

How do you counter a factoid that someone *wants* to believe when that person distrusts any and all outside sources of information? It's basically like arguing against religion."
technology,"> How do you counter a factoid that someone wants to believe when that person distrusts any and all outside sources of information?

To paraphrase the parent comment, this isn't a modern problem.  In the past there wasn't an abundance of news sources to disprove something so there was less emphasis on the distrusting portion but people have always been stubborn and prone to believing whatever convenient lie is in their face."
technology,"Rotate keywords, read the content and search for new keywords, get inspired for new keywords and so on. Research is still way easier and quicker then 10 or 15 years ago, but then research was hard. Now it is just a matter of finding the right keywords. Back we'd have to dig through pdfs for specific topics or information was simply not available online. 

In other words, you just proved the assumption with your comment about you having hard time finding facts ""quickly"".

That's the point of his accusation, people demand that checking facts is ""easy"" and doesn't consume time. Research remains time consumptive, but it's easier to find well developed facts and everything exists online.
 "
technology,"I would agree with that, but there's also never been so much ""news"". The flow of news it so constant. I feel like the ""fake"" headlines probably influence people more than anything. You scroll by them, you think, ""That seems a bit off"", but you don't have time to actually check facts on everything. I only ever find myself doing a serious fact check once every week or so. I see a lot more ""news"" every week that I'm sure isn't completely accurate."
technology,"> I actually have a hard time finding solid facts about recently published news articles. Googling just returns page after page of news sites saying roughly the same thing, with various levels of spin in one direction or another.

Well for starters, if concerned about a certain politician:

Look at their voting records (on laws and bills) which are available publicly along with if they choose country over party or party over country (aheeeeem). It can't be this hard..."
technology,"Mistrust of science isn’t new either really, especially in highly religious cultures. Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, all presenting accurate information and sound theories to explain it all, and yet their work was enormously controversial at their times, even to the point of being banned from being taught for years.

Humans are just lazy thinkers generally and are easy to sway as long as new information reinforces things we already believe. There’s so much information available, but brains aren’t ready to process it all, and most of it doesn’t impact day-to-day living.  It’s not good, but it’s how we operate."
technology,"Good articles link to the source of the original news article. Follow the links until you come to the news agency that first published it. 

It usually has a lot more information on the matter than the news outlets that reposted/referenced it.

Just googling the news story will result in showing you a lot of crap, cause most news sites use plenty of SEO to get higher ranks.

So just try and follow the links to the original story is my best advice. They will usually have actual video/audio/transcript of whatever interview they did.
"
technology,"I still would disagree, because the amount of misinformation among the information is also much larger, and the quality standards of many reputable publications seems to have fallen. While we are not just blindly believing a few sources of media that is the only ones we can have access to, one can easily get lost, misled and confused by all the, well, fake news competing for online space with the real news."
technology,"> It seems like part of his point is people eat up these sound bites


Well yeah. He's a politician. Rhetoric is how they engage people. He wants a conversation in the public on this. Ignore the words and specific claims and look at the core message when these sorts of speeches or press releases happen.



>There's a long history of questionable news practices, so ""fake news"" isn't that modern of an invention.


It's never been more dangerous than now. That's new.  This needs to be visible given the sheer size of the problem. I've asked my legislators to require social media sites put warnings on them similar to California's cancer warnings or on cigarette boxes. We need to get a handle on this.



>many people just don't care enough to take the time and verify what they read, 

And that's not likely to change. The people who own social media sites are a big contributor of this problem. There's no accountability. Social media has led to people dying, being harassed, and a plethora of other anti social behavior. We hold police accountable, why not social media? Arguably they cause more damage.


Politicians who do this are reaching out to the public. They want feedback to inform them of what to push. Read between the lines: they're asking you ""is this important enough to you that I need to address this with policy and new laws? The best way to do that is to be controversial. And here he succeeds. Write to him if you disagree, or agree! He won't hear you out here. Politicians chase votes for political office, not votes on social media.


Politicians are like parents. Quite often what they say isn't what they mean. Arguments over chores aren't really about chores most of the time. Its a bad attempt at getting their kids to take responsibility. To develop habits they will carry into adult life. "
technology,"I dunno, I find it pretty easy to find facts. The trick is, you have to actually look at facts. No one's going to tell you ""When they said this, it was just their opinion, but when they said this, it was truth.""

You learned the difference between fact and opinion, just use it. Disregard the part that isn't fact. If the article is about an event that you can watch for yourself, do it. When some media sites say that the un laughed at Donald trump, and some say they laughed with Donald trump, cut out the opinion

 and know that the un laughed in the vicinity of Donald trump. To find out why, go to the source, watch the video and decide for yourself. Until then, just ignore the opinions and look at the facts. "
technology,"It's actually quite simple, the first indicator one should search for is: search a scientific source. There are so many articles quoting the supposed content of some ""new studies"" and quoting all kinds of numbers, but then never link to the actual scientific paper - with this little method you'd already filter a huge amount. 

>quality standards of many reputable publications seems to have fallen.

Research is not meant compare news article from Fox with news article from BBC with news article from Bloomberg and so on. Research is getting behind the sources of where those content comes from.

The question that overall journalistic standards seem to have sunken is not part of this comment thread."
technology,"If you disagree, you are wrong. Think about having to drive down to the library 20 years ago, index the book you want or magazine, find it, and read it, repeat. When's the last time you scowered through a library bookshelf to find information?

The flip side is, you never have to leave your house, in fact you have a smart phone with you that has access to all the information in the world. How is that not easier?

It might still not be easy but it is easier, you cannot disagree with that. If you do, you are objectively wrong in every way."
technology,"Vice loves to do this shit.

They'll talk about how someone was wronged by police or some bullshit and this and that then randomly in the middle or end of a 12 minutes story try to gloss over the fact that the ""victim"" in question did something horrible to receive what he got.

The following is an example of the type of reporting vice normally does and the way they structure their storires. It is just an example of the style and not based off of an actual story.

""A 24 year old father of 6 was shot by police while walking home that day....""

10-15 minute narrative with crying family, interviews, government officials and so on goes here...

And finallyyyy, they'll let the people know why said person was shot but theyll be sneaky about it and make sure they're as quick and non-chalant as possible about relaying the cause or reason. Usually the reporter now speaks like an auctioneer for the following 5-15 seconds or so to let us know the following ""minor"" fact about the story:

""policeshotathimafterhegrabbedtheofficersgunansattemptedtoshoottheofficerwhilehighonmeth""

Then they'll continue like as if that wasn't a big deal all along maybe bring up how he was a great father or some bullshit right after to divert people's attention again as to why it happened and instead to drive their own narrative whether it be about the police, race, corruption or whatever even though it doesn't apply at all to the story they're covering and it was just a dude on meth who grabbed a cops gun and they took action nothing more...

Sad part is, tons of media outlets are now copying this style of reporting to get people riled up about whatever narrative they want to drive."
technology,"Fact of the matter is that most people don't have time to be informed like that.

People work, commute, have families, social obligations. Sometimes the only news you get is a blip in passing orayne news on the radio while you commute. Local news doesn't really report in depth on anything as controversial as politics, and cable news is all spin, just pick your direction. 

To sit there and do real research on something takes time and time is something a lot of Americans do not have. 

The ones that do have a lot of free time are mostly teenagers, young adults in school or still living at home or the type of people who aren't the type to do that kind of research anyway, so it doesn't matter how easy it is. "
technology,"Can you give me an example where there would be no source available?

If an influential person said something than it most certainly is on tape, otherwise that shouldn't be deemed a trustworthy statement and thus no one should strengthen or weaken their opinion based on that article.

Like Trump making a joke out of himself in front of the whole world. If that would not be with any proof the simply don't build your opinion and believes on that."
technology,"I so agree that it's never been easier to research a topic and find liars and fake newsers.

One example I provided is an analysis of someone's enormous comment with 16 different sources, posted on Reddit and initially rose to the top of the sub with a big numbers of upvotes. I spent maybe 2 or 3 hours reading each one of his articles in his post on fasting vs calorie restriction, searching through his sources and related links online, to find that about every single one of his sources was counter to his claims. I provided a rational rebuttal, despite starting out knowing nothing about the topics.

Nobody would have been able to do this research without the internet, without being an academic knowing where to look in a medical library.

[1] [Permalink to my comment about fasting](https://www.reddit.com/r/DecidingToBeBetter/comments/6tchbu/the_scientific_benefits_of_intermittent_fasting/dlk0uz6/)    
[2] [Edit: Here is a copy of his irrational post to /r/fasting](https://www.reddit.com/r/DecidingToBeBetter/comments/6tchbu/the_scientific_benefits_of_intermittent_fasting/dlkbmdi/)"
technology,"but now more than ever i've never seen SO much in a day on social media. I feel like I don't even spend all that much time on social media (I glance at facebook for work purposes maybe once or twice a day, never scroll through my feed really, and I do check instagram quite frequently) and even just between that and reddit, I Feel like I see so much stuff that i don't think anyone has enough hours in a day to fact check all of those things
"
technology,"I still get triggered seeing ""opinion news."" Opinion news is not really news. It's just someone's opinion written up in news format. And in THESE articles, there's A LOT of ""poetry"" that pretty much uses vocabulary and analogies to theatrical proportions. It's a mistake to try to guise these opinions as news and people are stupid for taking these opinions as news. But just that isn't the scope of fake news. You're right. People just don't fact check enough; even intelligent people. So much so that you're bound to let few bullshit news through your filter.

​

I remember that first week or two of pizzagate rumors coming out."
technology,"You didn't address the point of misinformation. What if it is actually easier and less time consuming to go down to the library and grab the specific book I need, sometimes with the help of a librarian.

Whereas I might spend many more hours comparing source to source and verifying and getting credentials etc.. there did seem to be a higher level of 'quality' and trust to published pieces of Information  before the internet gained the prominence it has.

I don't even disagree with you really I just think you are not as correct as you think and, although you didn't say and this is my opinion, how you said your message gave me a feeling of callous dismissal of the new problems faced with Information and it's integrity."
technology,"Do libraries have every teenager's diary and every tabloid trying to peddle nonsense? Does the internet have trustworthy trained librarians which help you find the best source for the information you want?

The ease of access of information certainly is much greater. Including of wrong and misleading information, which is exactly where the problem lies. So we end up with family members spreading every hoax that was sent to them, because they don't know how to navigate all that nonsense."
technology,"> NEVER BEEN EASIER for people to fact check.

This is going to be very temporary.  When deep fakes become trivial to produce all video/audio recordings will become suspect and can be declared fake to push agendas.  Reputation (does the NYT say this is true, or is it some random blogger?) is going to become incredibly important.

It's a matter of when, not if, you'll be able to download an app and create a video of some random public persona doing/saying whatever you want."
technology,"Simultaneously, it's never been easier to hear what you want to hear, either. 

The entire world's knowledge is literally in people's pockets, but those same people only want to believe that their worldview is correct. So, if I spread some nonsense to reinforce that worldview then \#1 I can reach them instantly and \#2 confirmation bias. 

I remember after the election, there was a CNN panel and some lady said that millions of illegals voted  because that's what the president told her and when challenged on where that news came from, someone else said to google it, you can find it on Facebook

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/804329657244012544/video/1

That's all it took. Someone saying something they wanted to hear, and then people spreading it on Facebook. Sad times, really."
technology,"Your example is  a great example of what research means. Humans are in growing number getting lazier and lazier with their willingness to invest mental resources and time. 

 

- There are those who just read a headline and already take that as valuable asset to form their opinion, worst case.
- Then there are those who read the article to around at least a half and form conclusions based on that, the great majority. (I'm in marketing and design and there are a lot of tests regarding actual engagement ratios e.g. like how many people read how far in an article before they share those. The goal is to increase engagement ratio in hopes of increasing retention and sharing activity, hence we use heatmaps and clickmaps as also cursor records to see what users do. And general it comes down to only 30% read an article to the 80% mark whilst 80% stay above the fold, the initial text in the first view. Can read like [here](https://blog.bufferapp.com/55-visitors-read-articles-15-seconds-less-focus-attention-not-clicks) or [here about facebook comments to interaction, which says 70% comment based on headline and rapid conclusion and rarely even click](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/06/16/six-in-10-of-you-will-share-this-link-without-reading-it-according-to-a-new-and-depressing-study/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8c493fde4829), or [this one](https://www.successagency.com/growth/2014/05/27/4-reasons-you-probably-wont-finish-this-article/))
- Then there are those that skim 
- and the very small minority even reads an article to the end attentively.

Now, you have all those sub-groups of behavioral patterns which mostly don't even read content to the fullest, but already share or comment and definitely use the information to form their opinion. How many, or better, how little might the relative part be that then further investigates and tries to find the source?

Though, I admit I won't click on any link in the post of yours. I am a bodybuilder as well and I actually do IF just because it is convenient to not eat something till around 12. Calories restriction though is the most effective and efficient way."
technology,"I had the astute opportunity and pleasure to be able to drink in bars prior to smart phones. The arguments and conversations we would have. The wagers and confidence that erupted from something so minuscule was like a whiskey soaked symphony. Calling in third parties, phoning that friend who knew every sports stat known to man and then stewing on it for about a week before reconvening on a Friday afternoon and proclaiming in a thunderous voice of victory that ""YES!! IT WAS RANDY JOHNSON NOT CURT SCHILLING WHO HIT THAT FUCKING BIRD!!!"". Obligatory ""get off my lawn."""
technology,"You can try to find the primary source, too. It's initially more confusing these days because so much shit is aggregated, and what's not aggregated is still practically copy-and-pasted. But before the story or right after, you'll sometimes see a ""via ___"" that should be clickable. That should lead to at least one of the original stories that everyone else is copying.

If you need to go deeper than that to find out if something is true, the original story might attribute a quote or fact to something that's publicly verifiable, like via a C-SPAN video or a public press release. If the story uses anonymous sources, then it's probably going to be a dead-end for the public to verify. That doesn't mean it's fake, though.

Half of it is just reputation and trust. ""Real"" fake news is usually easy as hell to recognize, because it won't attribute anything that can be corroborated, and it will usually link back to some article posted on a no-name news site with a tricky or nonsense URL. Some of them do have decent domains now, but those are all pretty widely-recognized as fake news sites, so Googling the name should result in that info.

For the most part, it really does come down to reputable news sources. Once in a blue moon they might slip up and aggregate a story that was based on a fake story, but it really is pretty rare. And it would be corrected pretty quick.

The real trick is being able to differentiate between news and editorial. Editorials state opinions, news state facts. I think a lot of people on social media get riled up about opinion pieces, and dismiss them as fake news. It's understandable because there is so much editorializing these days."
technology,"The problem isn't facts... it's the spin that gets put on them.  

I saw a headline a couple years ago regarding solar industry jobs now DRASTICALLY outnumbering petroleum jobs- and wow- it even cited statistics and reliable sources.  The problem is that the article- not the statistics- defined ""solar industry jobs"" to be the broadest possible spectrum of the solar industry or anything even tangentially related to it, and kept petroleum jobs (note it didn't include the word 'industry' over here) defined as 'working in a gas station' or similar. 

Facts are facts... but news is absolutely manipulated on all political sides based on willful misinterpretation of statistics to back certain agendas.   "
technology,"I believe part of this is because the media (because of our desires) rushes to tell you about stories prior to all the information being available. If they don’t do it, social will, so now people just take the part of the story that resonates strongly with them and ignore the remaining information that comes in about a story over the next few weeks or months. I can’t tell you how often I was told about this new evidence about the deep state in the FBI only to then hear them completely forget about the story once that individual testified and the facts or stories were told. "
technology,"Purely coincidental/serendipitous that I happened to pick an example of something you were involved in. No worries, I'm not invested in either affair, just have an affinity for truth and like finding things out. At the moment, I need to shed a few pounds so sporadically a bit of IF and CR. So long as I'm consuming less energy than I'm using, not really too bothered.

I'm sure getting a masters degree those years ago helped prepare me for being more critical in general. I wonder if those who pursued trades or non-degree fields, wouldn't have had the awareness, discipline or basic skills to ever critically evaluate a Facebook post at any level, regardless of how emotionally invested they are in it being true or false. "
technology,"Snopes continues to provide solid fact checking with multiple sourcing.  There's some criticism over the spectrum they use for different degrees of ""false"" or ""true"" but rarely on the actual judgement of a claims veracity.  

In other words some might think a false claim should say ""*mostly* false"" or a true claim saying ""*mostly* true"" but there's almost never a case of a false claim turning out to be true or vice-versa."
technology,"I've done tons of research online and I can say that it is so much easier now to do *quality research*. This is the heart of the argument here. I went to college 20 years ago and there really was no substantive resource online for most of what I was looking for. If I did come across something it was usually something as reliable ""Aunt Sally's Roman History.""

But, even then, I could use resources online as a starting point for some inquiry dives at the library. 

Now, there are a lot more reputable sources that place their content online. The resources that would normally be exclusive at the library are now (mostly) online. I can take a quick dive online and see that a book on google books has something. But maybe that page is blocked. Well, now I've saved myself hours of guessing about what books to look for and can request a targeted number of books. 

Yes, you can use a librarian, or you can email any number of professors/authors in the world who have made themselves available with contact info online? This was not as widespread 20 years ago. I don't know why I'm spending so much time on this with you, but here we are sharing ideas online in a forum that's a lot easier than an AOL chatroom."
technology,"Google ""google scholar""; All peer reviewed articles. 

Additionally, only trust ""primary"" sources. That is to say, only sources that are written/recorded by the person who was present at the event in question. 

Look for another primary source that has a different viewpoint. 

Look for more primary sources (if available) of people corroborating the story of the original primary sources. 

We can never really know what happened without being in a moment ourselves, and even then, the truth is subjective. The key is to reject any opinion unless we have formulated an opinion of our own first. 

Personally, I always try to take the side of the underrepresented viewpoint when having a conversation. Even if I may agree with the majority. I find this helps make me look more objectively at a subject, and encourages me to look up references. 

I'll end with two quotes: 

1.""Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."" -Mark Twain
2. ""The best place to hide a body is the second page of Google search results"" -Anonymous
"
technology,"This is not an error, it is different types of user engagement goals. For marketers this should be clear for outsiders most certainly not that clear.

The y-axis is #viewers, x-axis scroll heatmap data. The additional tags cram the information that ""the majority of viewers watch 100% of content type: video/images"" and ""the majority only read to the 60% mark of content: text"". This additional information is not necessary and could be displayed in a different chart for easier comprehension, but it's aimed for professionals, so, not that big of a deal. 120% is going below the article content, the chart is based on heatmap data - so it actually doesn't tell one how much the viewer read, just how far he scrolled.

So, you are not in the audience for these niche articles, but that's not an error and not that frustrating for people like me who read data case-studies like this in hundreds."
technology,"It was always bad, but people were less willing to spot the 20% of false content in any given news story when the other 80% is true.  

Currently the main driver for fact-checking is partisanship, most of the time people only bother to check an article if they disagree with the underlying premise.  Media Matters and the MRC have openly partisan agendas but do a good job in debunking errors or misleading statements

This is why the first thing I check when reading any given article is the comment section.  They're mostly garbage but if there's ANY flaw in the article someone will be sure to point it out.  
"
technology,"Ok, let me try to clarify my point. It takes time because there is a lot more garbage information to go through to find the facts, which makes it a hassle and difficult for some people. Yes, searching is ""easy"", all you do is google, great. Does everyone want to spend 5 to 20 (or more?) minutes googling stuff to get to the actual facts? Probably not, people have lives. We can argue semantics all day, but the point is it's not as simple. "
technology,"Which is why the best course of action is to read multiple perspectives, full well knowing the author's bias and agenda, and determine what the overlapping truths are.  Even 100% factual accounts can paint a highly misleading picture by virtue of *which facts* they choose to present.  The odds of a crime getting national attention multiply when the victim is a photogenic white women, brown women don't go missing you see.  And you will only hear about someone on the internet getting death threats when the target is a woman.  With each passing decade Americans believe that society is getting more dangerous, when in reality crime rates have been declining for decades.

This applies even to non-political reporting.  In a free market, everything you read is in itself a product.  Information is cheap but needs to be condensed and arranged in a way to be easily digestible and leaving the audience *feeling informed*, which is not the same as actually being informed.

Even the author's beliefs are less relevant than *what the audience wants to believe*.  Articles about medicine, which should be un-biased, are skewed to appeal to the readers self-esteem and confirm stereotypes in ways you don't even notice.  Because only 1% of readers are going to bother confirming anything a mainstream outlets has to say about a medical study

https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/06/is_the_cult_of_self-esteem_rui.html

https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/09/finding_existential_solace_in.html"
technology,"It's also never been easier for one person to pull the strings on what millions of people hear, see, think and believe.

If you had a printing press at the hands of a liar, what was printing was being distributed to a small geographic area. There would be enough people calling bullshit for people to question it, and if you were caught peddling bullshit you were out of business. Now someone accuses a mouse of farting and the world knows about it before lunch."
technology,"I really like your post. It's contains a lot of stuff I think about on the regular. It's hard though, that your answer to the problem is:

> Which is why the best course of action is to read multiple perspectives 

Which...is probably the best answer, but even still if I know the author / company's bias, it's still difficult to find the truth. I can read multiple perspectives all day long, and then do I settle with the one \*I\* like the most? Do I settle with the one \*I think\* makes the most sense to me? I would just end up getting caught up in my own bias once again.

​

​"
technology,"I'm gonna go in a different direction and say this isn't the issue.  Or at least, it's not the biggest part of the issue.

People don't read the article.  We react based on headlines and comments.  Not content.  Not facts.

People could surely be taught to know the difference between an opinion piece and a news article, but what does it matter if those people don't even open the link they're reacting to?

What it comes down to, is we as a society need to become less reactionary.  We need to stop ourselves from succumbing to hysteria because we read 5 words.  I can't tell you how many times I've participated in conversations about recent events/things people saw in their newsfeed and someone said something completely contrary to details stated in said articles.  Or when someone starts commenting about bias despite an article clearly dedicating multiple paragraphs to account for the other side of the story, even offering quotes from sources representing that side of the story.

I have no idea how we do that. How we teach people to stop and say, ""maybe I shouldn't form an opinion on this until I learn more/ more information becomes available"" -but we need to."
technology,"I would almost agree. They do have a more progressive bias because most of England has a more progressive slant on many issues (climate change is universally accepted there, abortion, gay rights, etc are all accepted issues by almost everyone and considered debates of the past) whereas here they are not. But, just because they have similar opinions to the American left does not mean they are in connection or endorsing one party, it’s just a different culture with different debates.

Oh, and I was ONLY talking about the BBC not the guardian or others. I agree the others are not objective. But they are also not considered “the world leader in news” which, with a title like that, carries enormous responsibility. Something I think the BBC makes good on."
technology,">Does everyone want to spend 5 to 20 (or more?) minutes googling stuff to get to the actual facts? Probably not, people have lives

Did you just admit that you are the type this Billionaire is addressing? ""People have lives"" to argue a lack of time to invest to validate the facts they build their world-view and believes on is a pretty sad argument to bring forth here.

To not let you in the dark, because you seem to think 20minutes investing to falsify a set of information that makeup the fabric of your believe-system - 
20 minutes research is nothing, neither 15 years ago nor today. If you want to foster a strong opinion then research. 20 minutes man, that is barely one average medium post.

The content noise is circumventable with the right search terms/phrases, that's what rotating keywords and unearthing keyphrases is about. Advanced search parameters do the rest. 

The grander issue here is that people have more tools at hand to spread their uninformed opinions and do not fear to use those. To prevent issues that occur due to this (Trump, Brexit) there should be an afford made to teach people to ""invest time"" and to educate them how to research as that obviously is a lacking skill. 

 

I am also not really sure what your solution is. What do you want? Someone else to come up with an ultimate tool to cut through content noise? A governmental control mechanism to moderate content?Are you one of those  that really want to be deprivated of your rights in favor of a government controlling the pieces of information you are allowed to see?"
technology,"Usually just go straight to the citations to the Scientific articles. However, this is the most frustrating part for me. You can't even trust scientific articles anymore. There are so many conflicting studies and there have been cases of people fudging the numbers, changing metrics and you pretty much need a degree in something that does research to cut through that crap. So in essence, its just a huge pain in the ass and you need to understand Stats and research to really get to the truth.  


It's just so frustrating to get to the truth these days."
technology,"Fake news isn't modern. But you are living in a dream state if you think the AMOUNT of fake news people are getting overloaded and targeted with is the same.

It very easy to reinforce whatever half baked bullshit any one believes TODAY. You don't have to create fake news, you just have to give them a like/upvote/retweet/view/click etc. The Russians don't even need to create news these days. Just find a kook and encourage him.

Such architecture that instantly reinforces peoples beliefs at population scale never existed before.

Access to information and education are two different things.

Education happens only in the right environment without distraction and trained teachers. News media and social media in their present form are NOT suited to produce education. Which is why they fail to tackle fake news despite the tons of time and effort devoted to fact checking, standup routines calling out crap, suave talking heads etc etc. All of them are doing very well for themselves but society is not seeing any great outcomes."
technology,"Hey man (or girl), believe it or not some people don't have time or energy for shit. After a long day some people just want to check the news and see what's up without having to deal with checking ""the source of the source of the..."", but it sometimes is a hassle. I have no clue how it was 15 years ago, nor do I care. This is not what I'm talking about at all anyways, I was just clarifying my point on why I think it's not ""as easy"" to fact check things.

> I am also not really sure what your solution is. What do you want?

Uh, nothing? I'm just talking here to some random people lol, I'm not here to propose solutions. But I'm sure we can all agree it would be nice to be able to not have to deal with the ""unintended consequences of social media"", as the article says."
technology,"> Hey man (or girl), believe it or not some people don't have time or energy for shit. 

Everybody got time to check the arguments they have which make up their believes. People just dont ""want to"" because it is strenuous, annoying and so much easier to live when you just believe your ideas of the world are correct instead of knowing that they are.

> I was just clarifying my point on why I think it's not ""as easy"" to fact check things.

It's btw crucial to use the correct terms, for some reason you are very loose with that. The statement made was: ""never been easier for people to fact check"". The statement is not ""it's as easy to fact as"" nor was it ""it's easy to fact check"". These are not irrelevant semantics these are the crucial foundation of the argument that today it has been easier then in the past to find informations, to research background and to check the facts that make up your believe system.

>But I'm sure we can all agree it would be nice to be able to not have to deal with the ""unintended consequences of social media"", as the article says.

As the logical alternative would be censorship and arbitrary moderation, I can't really agree. It's on the obligation of the viewer to check what he believes and not on the platform that provides the content, nor on the person who deliberately manipulate and distort their content. I mean, morally, yes it is definitely and should be a fundamental trait of journalists of ""all kinds"", but it never has been. Newspapers have always distorted the articles to represent their views. Spiderman and the Daily Bugle is a pretty blatant portrayal of that.

The burden is on the reader, on the consumer, not on anyone else."
technology,">It's that many people just don't care enough to take the time and verify what they read

I think you are overestimating abilities. I think most people that are swayed by fake news are incapable of gathering conflicting opinions, reading between the lines, drawing comparisons and differences, and then deciding what is fact or fiction.

I think most people believe what they believe and that's it.

When you have someone that can question/change their own beliefs based on critical thinking and evidence is when it gets noteworthy. "
technology,"That’s a really good idea. I don’t want to be told how to feel, I want the facts. Tell me what happened. If I’m not sure what it means, or I’m not sure of all the context surrounding the issue, I can look into that. But a consistent source/arbiter of “yes everything said here is factually true” would be a good thing, I think. But only insofar as people value such a resource and push for it to remain as such. "
technology,"I pose a simple question: What critical thinking?

Our education system by and large, teaches us that thinking is the act of recalling memorized information and repeating it. We are rarely given proper opportunity to challenge the status quo way of thinking and often have teachers that will punish those that do via lowered marks, extra work, or by kicking them out of class for ""being disruptive"" and yes, I have experienced this. 

On top of this we have English and other language classes where someone disagreeing with your well constructed argument will nit pick the details to lower the mark or otherwise be blatantly biased without easy recourse. And of course, many parents will not help their kid stand up and will point to the kid as being the problem instead of considering having another person check it over and mark it. And to contrast this, we have Math and Science which typically can derive a correct answer - math in a very black and white way and science in a ""this is our current understanding"" way.

In the end, the courses that are least easy to breeze your way through are the ones that require the most active problem solving, and long consideration to the how.

Unfortunately this doesn't even touch on having not-math people try to flounder their way through teaching math.

So when are people supposed to learn critical thinking? Post-secondary? Well, more and more post secondary is a mandated extension to primary school so, um... good luck I suppose? When people get a job? From the parents who went through the same education system with likely similar parenting?

Critical thinking is a skill. And it is one, that few people have opportunity to develop when young and fewer yet are encouraged to actively use it. And if we say even 50% of people were never really taught how, and 50% of the remaining were never encouraged that leaves 25% of the society who would. And of those people, easily half of them are perusing something other then social media. So What, 1 in 8 people on social media will put deep thought into their messages?

And yes: The above is a very loose estimation - however, the message is loud and clear (or should be): Our education system needs to be fixed."
technology,"There's much more to it than simply fact checking. It's a very complex issue psychologically, where it's always easier to find facts and articles that support your own views and reject or look for the ""holes"" in articles that challenge them. What this potentially means is that by convincing the viewer of news that is **actually** fake, it is harder for them to change their mind even when there's a pile of information showing them otherwise. This is why the big ass comments with a bunch of sources and tens of thousands of upvotes are essentially useless and back patting from people who already believe them. "
technology,"The other part of the problem you forgot to mention is that many people today don't research facts or opinions that differ from their own beliefs, they only research information that reaffirms their beliefs. This has happened since the beginning of time but it just feels a lot worse now. I encounter it on a daily basis from random people to close friends. I'm at the point now where its just easier for me to agree with them because the conversation will end sooner without personal attacks. I feel better letting them think were on the same page when in reality were not even in the same galaxy."
technology,"How can you even be sure the book you are reading from the library doesn't have misinformation? 

I've had plenty of history books in school that had biased political views or wrong facts. Here's a fact that's wrong but gets tossed around in history books. ""Thomas Edison invented the lightbulb"". Thomas Edison didn't invent much. His company did. Tesla invented the lightbulb before him and someone in Europe did it before that.

There's always misinformation, the way to combat it, is to read more information about the subject from other sources. What easier way of getting more sources do we have then the internet? Don't like standard Google searches? Use free scholarly databases. 

Your lack of skill of sifting through information and sniffing out the bullshit is your problem. It does not constitute that everyone has problems with misinformation and believing it. I can sniff a bullshit news article from a mile away. 

Misinformation has always been prevalent, it might be easier to spread it. But that's only if you're looking on bad websites. Use Google scholar if you want super fact checked sources."
technology,"You can determine what the bare facts are by reading multiple accounts of the same event.  Usually the one that makes the most sense to you, initially, is flawed.  

This is due to the fact that the human mind is naturally prone to bias.  It's skeptical toward information that hurts the ego, and un-skeptical towards info that confirms our existing fears and biases.  This is in addition to seeking the simplest explanations of complex problems.  Take a look at my links.  There's a metric ton of medical studies done every year, but the press tends to surface the 5% of info that contains things people *want to be true*.  People want it to be true that stock brokers and wealthy people are more likely to be sociopaths, because it plays into the comforting belief that the reason *we* aren't successful is because we aren't heartless, like *those people*

For instance, there's a natural inclination for people to see humanity and diversity among the people they identify with, but to see ""enemies"" as homogeneous reactive robots.  This is called ""outgroup homogenity bias"", and you can see this play out on highly partisian websites.  Left-wing blogs and political sites will only surface info that confirms stereotypes about republicans (a bunch of bigoted white men fighting for corporate interests), whereas right-wing clickbait sites will only surface info that confirms stereotypes about the left (a bunch of violent, emotional communists and marxists).  These sites will actively suppress any info that shows their enemies acting outside of the biases of their readers

tldr; make sure your media diet includes hearing and reading things that will make you mad.  Mad at the speaker.  Even if they have nothing of value to say about the world, even if they're wrong about *everything*, they will give you insight into the minds of a cross-section of the population.  "
technology,"Google gives you the option to set a date range on a search, so for any older information you could try setting the end date right before the news articles started flooding other sources. Alternatively, subtract key terms from an unrelated statement that shows up often in those articles but is unlikely to be found in what you're looking for more information on. As long as google continues to support search operators, you can experiment to try to get better results."
technology,"We have cranked the machine up 1000x through technology.

There's no more or no less of people wanting to validate their sources. That's a fallacy that can't possibly be substantiated other than ""I think its changed"". There's simply exponential growth in the number of requests for info because now everything is done electronically. It's a giant game of telephone and messages are continually being miscommunicated. It's not lack of validation, it's a lack of transparency when mostly everyone has access to the internet and their intentions can never be known.

Not everything used to be sponsored or propaganda. Our consumer driven market and demand for material things has led to marketing absolutely proliferating every facet of our lives and spiraling out of control. We are living these fake consumer based lives because of societal pressure to look good and not fall behind. We are living a commercial that we don't even realize that we are in. 

. "
technology,"Yeah it's never been easier to verify or indeed learn any information, but we've never had faster stupidity either. No matter how easy learning is, stupid is always easier. This is self-evident from countless first comments on news articles, and a decent chunk of Youtube.

What's important is to make critical thinking a value that society actually cares about. People need to replace ""this is outrageous, don't you agree?"" with ""this is outrageous, is it true?"". It's badly needed because we've already reached the point where people do the next dumbest thing to believing fake news, and that is where they decide that the difference between true and false is whether it fits their predetermined world view."
technology,"\> There's a long history of questionable news practices, so ""fake news"" isn't that modern of an invention.

You're right to a point, but to suggest that the current media landscape is in any way comparable to what it was even 5 or 10 years ago is dangerously reductive. Social media and the ability to set up a real-looking news website overnight has changed the world more than television ever did. Combine that with the fact that there are foreign (and domestic) powers actively spreading that information and trying to make it seem legitimate and to make the actual news sources seem illegitimate. I've studied propaganda and worked in or around media relations most of my career, and it's always happened, sure, but never close to this scale.

30 years ago, if you wanted to spread fake news, you had to trick or otherwise induce a reporter to write your story, who then had to convince their editor and a room full of reporters that it was a worthwhile story, and then it had to stand up to scrutiny, even assuming the laziest, dumbest news person. You might get the odd one off, or you might get a few papers that lean your political direction taking a quote or two out of context but still being technically true. The few that did just make stuff up were for crackpots and no serious person took them for anything more than entertainment.

Today we have entire papers dedicated to making up stories out of whole cloth and marketing the shit out of them. On top of that, all of the people who believed that a bat boy was born in a cave now have a giant megaphone and a deep-seated need to spread the truth, while the FSB cheers them on.

So yes, questionable news practices have always existed, but there was a time when you could generally rely on the veracity of information that entered the public sphere. We're bad at fact-checking today because our parents never had to. Today, media literacy is far more complex than it ever has been, and I don't believe it's a stretch to say that is the number one threat to democracy as we know it."
technology,"It’s truly never been easier though. When I was young you had to go to the local library and use the card catalog to find books by subject and then sort through it. You may get lucky and find an almanac as a good reference, otherwise you have to go through newspaper archives to fact check on something. 

Today you can use search engines and search through news archives by date, or pull up government statistics. It’s never been easier to fact check a politician’s claim or a pundit’s assertion.  "
technology,"Is it worth pointing out the opinion, then? Say someone posted a serious theory that Ted Cruz is the zodiac killer, and they believe it. Instead of pointing out facts that dispel the theory, maybe say, ""So you don't think much of Ted Cruz, do you? Me neither, but there's enough reasons to hate him without him having to be a serial killer. Personally, I'm not convinced he has anything to do with the murders. Vote Beto."""
technology,"People used to have their career on the line every time they published news. It was a person who slogged through years of school, paid their dues, and got their name in the paper next to the article they wrote. Fucking around with the truth on purpose would have serious consequences for them and others.  
    
It would be nice if news writers had a reputation to keep up, but I don't think it works like that anymore. "
technology,"You’re right.  When you think about the age of instant gratification, it isn’t really surprising people don’t fact check. If you’re fact checking, you’re “working” when you could be reading more “informational” content. Fact checking isn’t instant gratification. It’s at least a little time consuming, and it might result in your needing to think for yourself and have mental output. Tough to do when all people want is instant entertaining input. "
technology,"There's a difference between people not being able to differentiate and simply not caring.  If you read some news about an issue that has no bearing on your life, and never will in any way, what does it matter if you believe it or not and move on... If you read some news about an issue you do care about, you will probably fact check it... Most news is either not news or irrelevant news.  Media sources besides social media are also not much better; you can get your news from the internet, newspapers, tv or radio, you'll get misinformation everywhere you look."
technology,"The point above was that blocked page is the not-easy part.  Libraries pay for you to use non-free database sites all the time, high schools & colleges pay for it too.  They may even pay for Google books or other paywall sources. So when you're at home with a cell phone and you have to pay up for information people will forgo looking into it unless it's something directly relevant to their life in the immediate sense.  **that is what got harder**, the information of use is all charged for or behind incredible amounts of distracting ads.  The ability to form an attention span has never been harder. The ability to afford quality information has never been harder. Before it was just ""want to research a topic? Have to go to the library but there's no ads or limits on what can be accessed"". "
technology,"well sir, recently published articles aren't really very important. pretty sure america is still committing genocide in the middle-east without ever explaining to even its own citizens why. pretty sure most people can tell that there is serious corruption in the us government causing this and constantly making deals to help corporate interests over its citizens.. hmm i wonder if giant media outlets could somehow be linked with this feeding the world propaganda plus a little bit of divisive and/or pointlessly distracting crap on top? But no all is well, there couldn't possibly be a need for some direct action because next election Americans can vote in someone better that will really change things because that has slowed down the war and corporate subsidies/tax breaks/bailouts basically every time someone new has been elected.

Everything is fine though, trusting what you've been told by the media and government never hurt anyone, and I'm sure all those brown people are terrorists anyways. I mean thats just a natural part of what it means to be human. Im sure overthrowing their governments, blowing up their cities, denouncing their people, murdering their children and funding some and influencing them to attack others for the last 65 years had no bearing on the previous 0.001% of their population who became them in the past.

I mean we gotta think of the gays right? There have no excuse for missing out on our recent cultural revolution and holding outdated beliefs. Its not our fault, they should've been discussing the real issues instead of being so focused on petty things like some perceived threat to their people and culture. Its not like it was credible anyways, cities crumbling around them and 'conflict' deaths in their region soaring into the millions are anecdotal. Silly people thats why the americans get involved in all these fights, they're helping stabilize the region so you little buggers don't keep hurting each other, and you go an reject new ideals their culture recently developed. I mean that's going to mean you'll need a lot more stabilising .. now go and tell your families living in our countries that you're fine and happy and that they need to get out there and expose themselves and their easily influenced children to the glory of western culture and trusted media outlets. Watching the kardashians will better for everyone than trying to gain influence in their politics.

So what article did you want clarification on? something some judge did decades ago?  trumps latest twitter war? kanye west's true feelings about taylor swift? what cryptic clue that game of thrones star was talking about? i dunno, im not really up to date on the real issues."
technology,"Yup. I actually have domain expertise here. When Musk tweeted that he had “funding secured” I remember thinking to myself, “damn, dude, you better really actually have funding secured.”

There was no way the SEC was *not* going to take action here once it turned out that Musk did not, in fact, have funding secured. The logical leap is that Musk appeared to simply mean to move the market—which is a big no no.

Whether or not you believe it (your opinion may be colored by right or left dogma), the SEC strives to maintain a level playing field for all investors, especially retail investors. Don’t fuck with mom and pop’s nest eggs, kids.

Musk is fucked. His board will need to take some sort of action now if they really intend on fulfilling their fiduciary responsibilities to other investors."
technology,"TBH this ludicrous aftermarket drop shows how many morons are bought into Tesla on nothing more than good wishes. If you didn't know this was coming then you have no business trading in shares. A 10%+ drop in share price on something that was inevitably going to happen suggests a lot of dreamers and few investors.

Interesting times ahead for Tesla given their revenues are lower than their debt servicing.

I actually think this might be the beginning rather than the end of the trouble for them as well. The company has produced a torrent of ludicrous guidance material the past few months which has helped their share price recover. When people see there is no legs to their sudden explosion in sales, that it is all accounting trickery, the question has to be asked at what point the company is liable for misleading investors."
technology,"The board's in a tough spot.  If he were any other CEO, he'd be *immediately* sidelined.  But so much of Tesla's market value is tied up in the Elon Musk Cult of Personality that sidelining him would cause the stock price to tank.

But even if giving him the boot will cause the price to dive, it's still the right call to make.  Do it now, do it fast, rip the band-aid off, deal with the sting, and then get past it.   If they don't remove him, the ongoing news regarding his case is going to be a continuing drain on the stock price and make uncertainty that'll impact their ability to raise capital; and then it's going to take a dive *anyway* when he's eventually convicted or settles and has to take sanctions that'll probably end with him being removed anyway."
technology,"lol, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Amazon was regularly operating at a loss for nearly 20 years, and it's the 2nd most valuable publicly traded company on Earth. Many, many companies that provide you with services operated at a loss for many years, or still do today. 

Uber is another great example, they lost $4.5 billion last year. Try to convince me that Uber isn't going to survive."
technology,"Oh man. You first tell someone they dont know what they're talking about, and then you go on to say THAT.

Amazon and Uber operate at a loss because they're reinvesting to grow rapidly. They dont have to operate at a loss. They're run well and could produce a profit if that was something they wanted to do, but they dont need to do that. Growth is more important to them. They arent having a major screw up every single week.

Tesla is constantly falling short, missing their goals, the CEO is saying/doing stupid shit, and the cherry on top is that they too operate at a loss.

Tesla loses money because its a shitty business. Amazon and Uber lose money because growth is expensive.
"
technology,"After legal announcements and fines, companies valuations usually go up after the initial hit.  This is due to the people in the know (not insiders, just people who follow) are assured, by the legal action, that the bullshit is behind them.

The SEC wants to correct action, not crash business.  The SEC does take down ponzi schemes, but I don't think Tesla should be nuked for a mistake or overeager accounting.  There are people in the company, shareholders, assets, business partners, and individuals all that rely on other businesses such as Tesla.

I wish there was a better solution with more teeth or something morally and ethically perfect, but honestly this is not too bad compared to other actions that people (humans) at the top might take."
technology,"Tesla has a lot of problems but faulting them for an inability to meet demand is a stretch. They are very young for a car company. It’s not like you can just build a few more major factories real quickly to meet demand. Other automobile manufacturers have been in business for many decades or more and have the capacity already. I’m not saying they couldn’t have executed better, but they were never going to be able to meet such a huge demand at their size. I guess if nobody wanted their cars then sure, they’d have a much easier time of it."
technology,"It's not about what we fault them for or what is realistic for ""such a young company"". It's about how the market operates. They're trying to be bullish in a market where every competitor is 100x bigger than them. They live or die by whether or not they can borrow money, and every major car company has them beat on profits. Why have they been able to borrow? Musk, who lit his reputation on fire in the last few months and now is defending a charge on securities fraud."
technology,"First person said ""They're doing poorly because they keep missing production goals and deadlines."" Someone replied to that and said ""So do many of the major car companies."" I said ""which companies?"". You said ""Hey, you can't fault them for missing goals, they're brand new!"" That's not what I asked, you didn't respond to the question I asked the other guy. You complained that other people have been misinterpreting what you said and addressing different topics but you did it yourself too. So let me ask you this: which other major car company has had so many issues with production that it's not currently possible to go buy one from a lot right this minute? At this point, my question isn't even rhetorical; I'm seriously curious now because I'm sure it has to have happened with at least some company."
technology,">  Im curious when people sue to recover losses

It will be interesting, generally you have to have loses to sue. His words were targeting shorts, but the stock run up was for less than a day. Then the stock went down. It would likely only be people that bought the stock on the pop from his words (or covered a short) but with the runup being for a few hours before the correction, the amount of $$ is likely to be pretty low.

The big suits are for lies that were left un-corrected for months or more not hours. Also I have not heard of lawsuits from non investors (options holders) they are the majority that were burned on this IMHO."
technology,"> Don’t fuck with mom and pop’s nest eggs, kids.

lol nonsense. The SEC dragged their feet to incorporate fiduciary standards re: retirement account investing after promising to do as much post Frank-Dodd only to have the DoL forcibly initiate the standards the SEC completely failed to do. (Trump naturally reversed the fiduciary standards almost immediately upon entering office, but that's a different tangent.) The SEC doesn't give a flying fuck about Nana and Poppop's retirement. Elon fucked with other billionaires. They care about that.

Source; Worked as a compliance analyst in capital markets. Stop pretending that the SEC is anything more than a slightly less shitty version of FINRA -its completely staffed by WS ffs. Your points are good, but don't paint the SEC in a completely undeserved positive light. "
technology,"Here is the entirety of the comment I was responding to:

>What other fucking car company have you heard of that isn't able to meet production goals to satisfy demand? When was the last time someone was like ""damn, I want to buy a brand new Toyota but there just aren't any available""?

My comment, and the comment I was responding to, was very specifically about meeting demand, which was never going to happen *right away* with a backlog of hundreds of thousands of orders and only one factory producing them.

Your response to my comment was about how markets operate, whether they can borrow money, how other companies have them beat on profits, and Musk’s reputation.

You’re looking at the big picture while I was addressing one very specific issue. Try to stay focused."
technology,"So, just so,I understand, you think Tesla would have done better these past few,years,without Elon in the PR role? you think the market is punishing him for his actions in that role?  That Tesla should be valued higher given their practical challenges?

I have to say I think exactly the opposite.  I think the markets absolutely love Elon and have overvalued him for years.  Better than 50/50 Tesla would be bankrupt without him out there as carnival barker.  But to each their own I guess "
technology,"Blown away that people actually try to defend Musk on this issue. He is the CEO of a listed company, not a kid playing games. People have given him their money and nest eggs to run a business - not to mess with.  

I like his visionary ability, but I think he is bad as a CEO right now.  At the very least he should be forced to take a leave of absence and rest and the board needs to reconsider its role in accountability vs enabling him."
technology,"You should do some reading from the investors who have been shorting the stock - they feel its overvalued, have major doubts about Tesla's (and often Musk himself's) ability to grow through the uptick in production - particularly since they are burning through massive amounts of money every month. 

Since they only manufacture on order that fact that they still burn that money is a red flag. Also, they read some of the sales methods Tesla is using as signs that Tesla is actually holding stock - remember the idea is Tesla only makes to order so while its production costs might be higher, it should in theory not have stock sitting around. They seem to suspect that vehicles have been made that cannot be delivered as people dont want them anymore."
technology,"I think its worth pointing out that Musk seems tired, stretched too far and still wants a flatter management system in place.  His theatrics in the media are self created and indicates he is unraveling - not the characteristics of a guy who needs to be top of his game right now.

He has made a point of being in the spotlight and likes it there. That means he needs to mature as a CEO.

Musk seems to be the guy you want starting a business, not the guy you want running it."
technology,"Tesla's EBIT (earnings before interest and tax for those who aren't financially inclined) has always been negative and has actually gotten more negative over time. Their interest expenses keep growing as well. There is little to differentiate them from a zombie company.

This isn't like Amazon where at any point for 15 years they could have said ""I have enough money"" and let the debt unroll. Tesla need vast investment to even have a positive EBIT. Once they have a positive EBIT they need to grow that until their EBIT/Interest ratio is greater than 1. At that point they will become a company that is financially treading water.

For comparison Amazon's EBIT is below. It is nearly always positive.

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AMZN/amazon/ebit

This is Tesla's

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TSLA/tesla/ebit"
technology,"The problem is they are a start-up. And they don't sell very many cars, because they don't make very many 

They were supposed to start making a ton of cars this time last year. They still have yet to meet those production goals 

So basically they are just having trouble making as many cars as they said they would. They are over a year behind, and are now running out of money. "
technology,"Yeah I honestly am quite confused at the valuation of this company. Sure, there's lots of potential, but there's also a big smokescreen going on with Musk and all these controversies. I support his idea and have been thinking of investing in the company for that reason for some time now, but I don't want to when there is problem after problem coming out like this. If it ever settles down, I think I might get in, but by then it might be too late. Another competitor might have stolen the show."
technology,"The short answer is that it’s against the law to manipulate the financial markets. Even more so if you are an insider of a publicly traded company.

As CEO of a publicly traded company, Musk made a significant, material misstatement regarding Tesla’s business. Moreso, a reasonable person can examine the evidence and at least walk away with the *appearance* that Musk made this statement to harm those who have taken a short interest in Tesla (i.e. people betting the stock will fall).

Investors—both retail and institutional—rely on accurate information to make decisions about their investments. In fact, there’s an entire body of law specifying how and when publicly-traded companies are allowed to disclose information. The SEC doesn’t fuck around here: they have a mandate to protect everyday investors from this sort of bullshit.

I can’t recall of a single occurrence during my professional career where the CEO of a publicly traded company was so blatant and reckless in making a material statement about his or her company that turned out to be not only untrue, but significantly untrue. I recognized this was a big deal when he tweeted it—and now the roosters are coming come to roost.

Elon is fucked. This isn’t going away."
technology,"Steve Jobs was a unknown person at that time. Or at least unknown in that he had no cult following yet. You can't really compare the two situations is the point I was making. 

Yes any company is at huge risk if the value of the company does not reside in the financial potential but predominately in a single person's character and charisma. Ya his removal would be a big problem. Much like his actions are causing big problems. "
technology,"Edit: I'm not calling him getting sued strange, it's obvious why, the strange part is how _fast_ they brought charges instead of negotiating a settlement. Look at how often they do that, they never do things this fast. That's not me saying I'm pro musk or hate musk; I like what he does as a technical manager but as a CEO he really has to stop blurting out things like that fateful tweet and picking fights with people. I'm sure people will cry conspiracy because of the unusual speed of SEC action, but maybe this court case is what it takes, hand out some kind of punishment to Tesla, and move on to regular business. I have faith in the brand and the other engineers at Tesla to continue on with or without Musk in the CEO position. 

Unless he is actually charged with a specific crime, I have a feeling though that people are just going to keep him in charge since he is so invested in protecting the brand both with his advocacy of it and literally bankrolling it in crisis, also he hasn't actually personally gained (at the expense of anyone) from the tweet given he made no changes to his own stock holdings before or after."
technology,"How is it very strange? He publicly stated he had finances secured at a 410 price point to go private and didn't. That's stock manipulation and a CEO making false statements about the potential finances of the company. Not even in an Enron, cook the books, way. It was a bold face lie that lost a lot of ""speculative"" investments... which in itself is a joke since a trade shouldn't be speculative based off of a CEOs definitive statement"
technology,"After some new information came to light, apparently Tesla _was_ negotiating a settlement as usual over the past few weeks and when they made unfavorable demands of the board, basically installing people above musk at his own company, he was not having that and basically forced them to sue him. it's a very risky decision... yea he didn't really do that much damage compared to usual fraud cases, but fighting the SEC is an almost reckless move. this all seems to explain away my confusion from yesterday at least."
technology,"An example I offer up as far as selling *data* is this:

> Facebook: When a hurricane comes statistically people in Texas mention buying cinnamon sugar pop tarts while in Florida they mention buying strawberry.

This information is ridiculously valuable to WalMart if they want to stock things properly and make ""extra"" profit but *you, specially* mean fuck all to WalMart or Facebook. You are a drop in the information well -- but a drop that's part of an avalanche, if your habits are consistent with others. I don't recall how to actually purchase this data though -- I'm not sure it's something they advertise doing.

The stuff they sell generally works like that. ""When X happens, people to tend talk over FBM about...."" but a lot of problems come when someone is smart and decides to break down data across several places to triangulate people (celebrities) and so people get scared because someone threw their entire life's details online and someone smart enough was able to put two and two together.

At least, generally this is how it works. "
technology,"It’s valuable, sure, but you still aren’t buying user data directly in that case.  It’s much more effective for WalMart to say “Show these pop tart ads to people who talk about pop tarts.”  If they sold user data directly, the model would be “Alright WalMart, here’s all the pop tart people, erm.... go try to find a way to get them interested in your pop tarts.”  That’s (1) Much shittier for users (2) Not really legal and (3) Overall more of a pain in the ass for the advertiser and less monetizable for the ad seller.

I can guarantee they don’t sell data in some secret back channel way.  That doesn’t scale, it isn’t effective from a profitability perspective, and it just isn’t as useful/easy for businesses.

As a business, I want to make sure my products get in front of people of a specific background.  I don’t really care who you are as a person, I just want to make sure if there’s a good chance you’ll buy my shit that you’ll see my ads.  Why would I buy your data, try to figure out how to contact/engage with you, and do that at scale when I can say “Show ads to people like X” which accomplishes exactly what I want to do.  There’s no reason for me to do it any other way.  Even more, why would Facebook and Google even show ads if they could just sell your data directly and make big money?  They probably wouldn’t if that were profitable, effective, and a scalable business model... but it just isn’t.

It makes a less sexy headline though and isn’t as good for drumming up resentment toward a company people don’t like.  I’ve worked in a bunch of ad tech companies and the most frustrating thing for employees is this common misconception.  It’s understandable since it’s hard to understand, but you can quite literally play around with ads functionality of Facebook and Google yourself (for free!)."
technology,"> It’s much more effective for WalMart to say “Show these pop tart ads to people who talk about pop tarts.”

Eh, I'm not sure it's ""much more effective"" because it's not a ""this or that"" situation. Those two things are not related except they are on the Facebook Platform. 

> If they sold user data directly, the model would be “Alright WalMart, here’s all the pop tart people, erm.... go try to find a way to get them interested in your pop tarts.”

I never said they sold data directly? There's been rumors but I've never cared to investigate those rumors.

> I can guarantee they don’t sell data in some secret back channel way. That doesn’t scale, it isn’t effective from a profitability perspective, and it just isn’t as useful/easy for businesses.

Sure, it'd be difficult to hide when you try to get the money.

> As a business, I want to make sure my products get in front of people of a specific background. I don’t really care who you are as a person, I just want to make sure if there’s a good chance you’ll buy my shit that you’ll see my ads.

There's two schools of thought here. Go out of your way to find people who have a higher chance of buying something or throw so many eyeballs on it that the numbers are so high that it outweighs the former. You do you.

> Why would I buy your data, try to figure out how to contact/engage with you

You're inferring a lot of information that you really shouldn't. Everyone wants to be a data collector but not everyone knows *what to do with the data*. If you got a hold of the entire Facebook Database then odds are you wouldn't know what to do with it. I guarantee you WalMart would.
WalMart would love to know what people are talking about.
So I don't think you understand how to apply the data you're given. You think they want to communicate to you. That's not what they need. Their job is to sell stuff. To sell stuff it helps to know what you want, especially during a panic.
I've worked with data similar to this. It's *way* more useful than you can possibly imagine when given to the right hands. Humans are very impressionable and if you know their tone, interests, etc -- you can push them in directions without them ever knowing.
For example -- Target was able to tell someone they were pregnant just noticing their purchasing habits change. Yes, humans are *that* predictable.

> It makes a less sexy headline though and isn’t as good for drumming up resentment toward a company people don’t like.

The headline is fine as it is.

> It’s understandable since it’s hard to understand, but you can quite literally play around with ads functionality of Facebook and Google yourself (for free!).

Considering you, yourself, don't know it -- indeed, it is understantable."
technology,"I’m not inferring as much as you’d guess... I spent a lot of my career as an engineer working on ad tech.  I’ve spent my entire day implementing the type of technology that you’re misrepresenting and I’ve worked with people who now work on the systems you’re purporting to be an expert on.  What’s your background that makes you qualified to speak so authoritatively against reasonably established fact?  Why is it that Reddit claims to care so much about the facts unless it’s inconvenient and doesn’t fit the popular narrative?

I realize it’s the cool thing to hate these companies.  There are probably better, more accurate reasons to hate them.  Latching onto things that aren’t true just ruins your credibility and is a big reason why meaningful reform isn’t happening.  People are focused on a boogeyman that isn’t real instead of important stuff."
technology,"> I’m not inferring as much as you’d guess... 

You literally typed it. I don't have to guess.

> I spent a lot of my career as an engineer working on ad tech

Do you have a degree in psychology? How much professional experience do you have in psychology and economics? Or how about statistics? How many hours did you take in college? There's a great many classes you can take for stuff like this.

> What’s your background that makes you qualified to speak so authoritatively against reasonably established fact?

Programmer with a *really* large database. I've had access to this sort of data. I've seen the magic one can do without ads and only having this data... and with ads. You, on the other hand, think way too highly of your field. 

So have you actually had access to data like this and seen what can be done with it? Or are you just making things up because it ""feels correct"" to you.

What I really find fascinating in this talk is how quickly you want to talk about experience and not actual data. I suspect you've already made up your mind on this topic and can't be bothered any further. You were *way* too quick to respond."
technology,"Since you’re an expert, go ahead and describe what the high level architecture that these companies are probably using.  Go ahead and describe to me how companies like Google and Facebook monetize.  Feel free to give even a little bit of knowledge on the size of the data sets these companies are working with.  I’ll wait.

I want you to back up your commentary with actual technical knowledge so Reddit can see the depth behind these sorts of comments.  Give it your best shot and I’ll go through and help you understand your blind spots."
technology,"What worries me is that one of the things I *really* liked about Musk was that generating profit was incidental to Musk's goals. He was more interested in helping bring humanity into the future then he was about making more zeros in his bank account.

I don't know how much damage the chairman can do, but I'll be fucking depressed if Tesla starts canning projects for more conservative means to make cash."
technology,"I don't believe the SEC has the power to remove him as CEO, that would be up to the board.

This does substantially limit his authority however, as the new board chairman and other seats on the board could elect to resign him should he do anything to devalue the company further in the future.  Basically the same thing that happened with Papa John's CEO John Schnatter-- he stepped down as chairman and the next chairman asked him to resign from CEO position and he had no authority to refuse."
technology,"you mean the company that he didn't found, forced out one of the co-founders and became CEO, sued said co-founder to be recognised officially as a co-founder, and then the guy had to settle out of court. He then IPOs it (takes it public) in 2010, takes a lot of people's money, incinerates and asks for more while making ridiculous unfulfilled promises, and turns it into the biggest joke on wall street in living memory. This will all end in tears. Buy Jan 2020 100 strike price puts for literally free money."
technology,"I'm aware of the claims, but the board is stacked with qualified individuals with careers of their own. To call them all yes-men is unfair and distorts the picture. Many of your articles reference the same event or present the claims about lack of independence as controversial, so as impressive as your wall of blue might look, it's a bit deceptive. I hope people choose to read the article rather than assume you're right.

To are right about me being overly aggressive though. There's a lot of (largely undeserved) animosity towards towards Musk and Tesla on this site, and I find it especially annoying when it bends the truth."
technology,"What bugs me really is that for some inane reason there is just two camps when it comes to Musk. Either you despise the man as the spirit of satan or he's a God among men who can do no wrong. 

Neither stance is accurate and both camps often have valid points on their side. Why can't we all just admit Elon Musk just as human as the rest of us and leave it at that? Why does it have to be all polarized and hostile? "
technology,"lol the internet is pretty damn funny, with people spouting opinions on subjects they have no knowledge about. Of course early stock holders of Tesla who didn't sell have made lots of money, so did people who bought pets.com in 1999. It doesn't make it a good business. My ego has not even been grazed actually, but talking of big egos, what do you think of Musk's? His hubris will be his downfall, and we are watching the beginning of the end for him. It will be pretty funny to watch over the coming months. "
technology,"He's grown the company, made it billions and is making new leaps in technology every day, making things previously astronomically expensive for the middle class, affordable. 

You're full of yourself if you think him opening the company to the market and stock holders was a bad descion. 

Obviously I dont know why you got a hard on for raging against Musk, but it's affecting your ability to rationally argue against him. "
worldnews,"Regardless, the moratorium is still in force, and Japan is a signatory to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (which empowers the IWC to act as a regulatory body). Countries like Iceland, Brazil, and Egypt have withdrawn from the Convention, but Japan has not.   


If Japan wanted to be free of the moratorium, they could denounce the Convention, but they could conceivably suffer substantial economic blow-back for doing so.  Seems like they are trying to have their cake and eat it too to me. "
worldnews,"You are right they could just withdraw. Give there have been no substantial economic blow-back to the countries that have done so, I am unsure why you believe it would happen now. 

However, it seems Japan wants sustainable whaling as that is what they are suggesting. Sustainable whaling requires an international governing body but one that actually governs. So it would be counter productive to leave if they can get IWC to start going the job it was designed for once more. 

"
worldnews,"No it's not, most populations are classified as ""unknown"" because they don't bother actually assessing the populations often enough since most ICW members have zero interest in whaling and are just there to keep a few wealthy anti-whaling nations happy.

Several populations are known to be healthy are safe to hunt within reason however, while others are definitively under threat and should not be hunted (and some are subject to poachers and that should definitively be cracked down on). You can't really make any blanket statements about all whales in general."
worldnews,"Hearsay?

An investigation into the trump campaign has resulted in convictions of crimes, people confessing and people close to him getting immunity for future prosecution..  The investigation is ongoing and almost daily we get information about something that seems off.. 

I think many of his supporters are latching onto this diversion of blaming ""fake news""  Im not American and I do not watch american news. I do however see what he himself both says and writes..  I can not for the life of me understand how people are still buying into his bullshit "
worldnews,"It just doesn't make any sense.. I own a bar and I had a few Trump supporting Americans there the other day and I asked them.. ""If I would ask you if Donald Trump was a truthful person, what would the answer be?"" they just laughed and came up with reasons why that either did not matter or that because of other unrelated things it was ok.. So apparently they  know he's a liar.. they just dont care"
worldnews,"Sure politicians sometimes switch positions but usually they better have a rational reason that they can explain or they're cast as a flip flopper. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/07/13/trump-denies-he-said-something-that-he-said-on-a-tape-that-everyone-has-heard/
I'm not talking policy changes. I'm talking about lies. Straight up saying ""I didn't say that."" Yeah, Donny you did and it's on tape usually from less than a year ago. That's on top of the things he says that can be disproven by a simple fact check.
You say he keeps his promises? 
Like drain the swamp and Mexico paying for the wall? (did they even start construction yet?) Those promises? You've been had by a total con-man. He's been one even when he was calling himself a Democrat. "
worldnews,"These are the kind of fake news hit jobs that make my point for me. He said he didn't criticize May. The recording didn't reveal any, according to the article, this what he said:

“I actually told Theresa May how to do [Brexit], but she didn't agree. She didn't listen to me.”

“I would say she actually went the opposite way. . . . But it's too bad what's going on.”

“I think the [European Union trade] deal she is striking is not the one people voted on, exactly. It's a much different deal than people voted on. It was not the deal that was in the referendum.”

“But it will definitely affect trade with the United States, unfortunately in a negative way.”

So now disagreeing with policy is talking bad about her personally? Such a crock, just like the other fake news peddled on this site daily "
worldnews,"Tax *avoidance* is choosing to live in such a way so that under the law you don't owe as many taxes.  For example, if I choose to buy something that is cheaper than something else so I can pay less sales tax, that's tax avoidance.  If I refuse to pay sales tax by lying about what I bought, that's tax *evasion*.

You can't make tax avoidance a crime by definition, because it's literally by definition the act of choosing to lawfully follow the law so you don't get charged as much.    I can't imagine what a decriminalization of tax avoidance would look like.  Would it be illegal to willfully live in counties where there are lower property taxes?  Would it be illegal to buy a crappy boat secondhand so you don't have to pay retail sales tax?   What if you ride your bike so you don't have to pay gas tax?  What if you live outside the country so you don't have to pay local sales taxes?

If you want to *change* the law so that whatever legal choices they are making are illegal, then fine.  For example, you could make it so that british citizens pay an equal income tax regardless of their residence.  You could make it so that all sales taxes and deductions are replaced with a no-deduction income tax.  You can close loopholes.  

You can't criminalize the act of trying minimize your tax burden under the law, you can only change the tax code itself."
worldnews,"Evaision is simple, it's simply not paying tax when you should, and that is illegal.

Avoidance is considered to be less simple, but that's because there is a range. For now, let's just split it into 2 types.

The first is sanctioned avoidance. This is fine, for example putting money into an ISA so that you don't pay tax on the interest. This is the point of an ISA.

The other type is what causes controversy. Tax avoidance is LEGAL, but it usually brings about an outcome that is NOT what the law originally intended.

Tax avoidance is often concerned with creating losses which can be set off against a taxable source. Avoidance is characterised by taking lots of steps which are not needed, or which have no economic substance.

The other thing it does it try to alter the nature of a transaction , again to create a tax advantage 

In short it's all 'clever' accounting and paper transactions. 

"
worldnews,"Not only that but the tax avoidance schemes are run from the City of London. Entire law firms and financial institutions only deal with these issues.

The other issue with tax avoidance is that it is a grey area, meaning that there are a bunch of things that you can do and it is not illegal, but it is not hard to cross the line. Because these are complex schemes by their very nature, the wrong move and you are on the opposite side of the law. "
worldnews,"Any government that made tax avoidance illegal as a concept wouldn't last a full term. It's literally any method of reducing the amount of tax you have to pay, and I seriously doubt that the majority of people would approve of getting rid of stuff like tax relief on charity donations or company pensions. There's far more nuance to this than a lot of the media like to make out, which is ironic since I bet a lot of the journalists involved do it a fair amount."
worldnews,"Say that you are paid £100,000 and have to pay 20% tax and you don't. That's evasion and is illegal

Say that you've worked out how to make it so you have to pay less tax - say that you're given a loan with a negative interest rate that ""pays itself"" back for the same amount with no tax and you don't have to pay anything, that's avoidance and is legal - you're doing something perfectly legal to pay less tax

However, just because it's legal doesn't mean it's not an abuse of the system or considered by most to be wrong"
worldnews,"A good example of avoidance is Apple, because it's so high-profile: The company makes tens of billions of USD in profit each year, and they're expected to pay tax on that in the US, where they're headquartered. You also pay tax on profit for subsidiaries--- companies you own. 

However, also under US law, if you own a foreign subsidiary and *it* makes a profit, then you don't have to pay its tax until you bring the profit back to the mother ship in the home country.  

What Apple does is use accounting tricks to push much of its domestic profits onto its foreign subsidiaries, and never bringing it back (on paper!).  Since the money is now on paper as being profit of the foreign subsidiary, they legally avoid paying tax on it.  We're talking like $250 billion in parked profits.

Moreover, the subsidiaries are based in tax havens for businesses, like Ireland, so they don't pay tax on it there, either."
worldnews,"Example:
I run an online store selling widgets.  My development office is in the U.S., so I have to pay about 30% of my profits in taxes.  However, most of my widget consumers are in Germany, which has a similar capital gains tax rate.

I set up two subsidiaries, one in Germany, and one in Switzerland, which has no capital gains tax.  I assign all my my intellectual property to the Swiss subsidiary, and open up a Swiss bank account.

My German subsidiary is required to pay licensing fees to the Swiss subsidiary equal to its profit.  Because it never takes a profit, it does not incur capital gains tax.

My Swiss subsidiary is required to pay fees to the American development group equal to their operating costs.  Because the American development group never makes money, they don't pay tax either.

Meanwhile, the money piles up in a Swiss bank account tax-free."
worldnews,"Expanding, Apple's money did go back the US.  It wasn't sitting in a vault in Ireland. Because of Apple's shenanigans, they weren't free to use the money in the same way as money which had been taxed, eg, they couldn't use it to build a new campus, or pay dividends with it.

But what Apple could do, and did, was use it as collateral for tens of billions of dollars in loans, which they were then free to use for building a new campus or paying dividends.  They had something like $300B locked up in ""overseas"" profits (sitting in US accounts) but they also had something like $100B in loans.

In the long term, such a strategy might not be wise ... unless you are able to wait it out long enough to get a tax holiday.  Which they got once in shortly after Bush Jr took office, and then now with Trump."
worldnews,"indeed - the rebuttal to this is for him and his colleges to do their fucking jobs and make a country people enjoy living in so that people don't view the far right as an alternative to what's currently being provided.

if something is growing in popularity at your expense, perhaps you should take a step back and look at the combination of what you're doing to push people away and in to the arms of an alternative."
worldnews,Yeah they should cave into the racist losers who whine  nonstop. we should give in to the people who drive cars into crowds of people and let them abuse the minorities. Because we're not competing with that alternative otherwise. Dumb. The far-right in the United States is not hurting economically. They are hurting me cuz they have to be around minorities and because liberal people make them feel bad about how shity they are.
worldnews,"i don't give a shit why racists are racist, i have no time for them.

i'm not showing sympathy for anyone.

i'm just pointing out that people going to the right isn't because they all of a sudden want to be racist. if racists want to be racist, they have been and will continue be - being racist isn't a new and recent thing.

people don't change, but what parties they're voting for is changing. so, what aren't the left/centre doing any more, and/or what is the right doing to cause this shift?

there are people who need to answer that question, and act upon the answer - and it's not the people at home sat on their sofas."
worldnews,"The people driving cars into crowds of people in Europe are almost all Islamists (when they're not elderly people who should have had their licenses and cars confiscated).

As for the actual article - it's not a good look to whine about people not counterprotesting enough. It's almost like politicians and police were elected and hired to do a job. Why the fuck should someone who works full time and has stuff to take care of at home be responsible for combating Nazis? "
worldnews,"This a million times this! Rather than going hurr durr durr you racist politicians if they are so worry abouy the far right should investigate what's happening  and find solutions for the problems that are pushing people to vote for the for far right parties, accusing people of being racist is just putting your head in the sand and with enough time is going to come back and bite these people in the ass."
worldnews,"> i'm just pointing out that people going to the right isn't because they all of a sudden want to be racist. if racists want to be racist, they have been and will continue be - being racist isn't a new and recent thing.

Wow good observation. And it follows from that logic that when you stop treating racists like a fringe group and an actual legitimate political movement you're going to be bleeding their racist bullshit into ordinary politics. But you know what, I'm sure white nationalists wearing MAGA hats shouting [""JEWS WILL NOT REPLACE US!""](https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/10/10/when-white-nationalists-chant-their-weird-slogans-what-do-they-mean) doesn't say anything about right wing populism to racists.

"
worldnews,"Horseshit. He said that because of the current drama in Chemnitz.

Some people were doing the Hitler salute in the open streetd, in Germany of all places, after all that happened. In some instances neo-nazis and other right wing fucks chased everyone through the streets who looked slightly foreign.

You can take your ""let's give these people what they want to appease them"" narrative and shove it up your ass. It's pants on head retarded."
worldnews,"There was a nazi rally with 12 people not that long ago. Trump didn't win because of those 12 people, he won because he was better than Hillary, who was probably the worse candidate the democrats could send. And if you're trying to say that half the americans are racists for supporting trump, without any reason to say so, even the black/latino/asian people... then something is wrong with you and not him/them."
worldnews,"TLDR: decies to make a law starting with good intentions (most of the time). Law has obvious massive problems and loopholes because it is was written in a hurry. Everybody points it out. He says the problems don't actually exists. Every NGO and the EU says that his law is terrible and bad and he should feel bad. He sees no problem. Law is passed. Obvsious flaws are immediately exploited. He promises to fix the problems. Doesn't fix them.


A few articles (in german): 
https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/gesetzesverschaerfungen-der-minister-der-unnoetigen-paragrafen-1.3564394

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/netzwirtschaft/die-eu-hat-bedenken-gegen-heiko-maas-gesetz-15066569.html

http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/netzdg-heiko-maas-verteidigt-netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz-gegen-kritik-a-1186118.html

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/heiko-maas-ist-der-justizminister-in-wahrheit-ein-verfassungsfeind-a-1155044.html

http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/bundestrojaner-heiko-maas-in-der-kritik-nach-spaeh-software-plaenen-a-1150484.html"
worldnews,"> so, what aren't the left/centre doing any more, and/or what is the right doing to cause this shift?

Instead of offering solutions that are actually possible (retraining/education for those from collapsed industries for example), the left/centre should just lie and say they're going to magically fix issues without explaining how. Apparently that's all it takes. 

They should also be more aggressive in their demonization of political opponents and spread rumours that their opponents are involved in child abuse, Satanism, etc. 

They also need to start a news station that only presents the left/centre in a good light and the right as inept and sinisterly manipulative at the same time. 

"
worldnews,"That is not what I was talking about.

You can’t deny that we’re also looking at people voting for those kinds of parties as a reaction to use the “sudden uprise in popularity” they create for those parties as a wakeup call.

That’s not the way I cast my vote, personally, but I can see how people feel like it’s the last resort in trying to make their voice heard. It’s easier than going to a protest or whatever, I suppose?"
worldnews,"How can a wall be racist? It just stands there, it has no concept of recognising races? It is built to stop illegal crossings of the border regardless of the race, and I see nothing wrong with stopping crime. Thousands of people are going through precedures, filling out forms, waiting in line, to enter America, why should Americans let some other skip the line and crosd into the country illegally?  No other country lets them do thatz why should america?

The country i was born in, that doesn't exist anymore, had army protecting the borders, and our neighbors (capitalist or communist) did the same on their borders. If you wanted to cross into the country, you had to go through a border crossing with appropriate documents. ...and you still do, except for a rather large group of people a few years ago that did stuff that sparked these protests now."
worldnews,"I'm not going to apologise for calling a spade a spade.

And migration isn't going to be significant enough to cause significant unemployment, further more, if they're employed they're consumers who are paying taxes, so they'll also create jobs anyway. So you won't have a net loss of jobs.

Targeting minorities instead of focusing on the actual causes is pretty classic xenophobic rhetoric. And it's bullshit. As was famously said, ""They Took Our Jobs"".
"
worldnews,">If the left constantly calls normal citizens with a different opinion nazis or what have you, what do you think they will do? Vote democrats?

of course not. What is so terrifying about all of this is that they are actively sowing division. We are in the middle of a divide and conquer stage. Ever since Trumps campaign the mainstream media and the establishment at large has been ""circling the wagons"".  If you find yourself within their camp, you will be an apostate if you leave. They aren't drawing anyone in at this point, they are radicalizing their herd."
worldnews,"On the contrary, it seems that center and left leaning americans are finally starting to understand the incredible lunacy of the american conservative parties. The biggest load of cum ever spoonfed to the american people was the idea that rational argument and civil discourse is the way to beat the racists. Lmao no. When you actively give racists a platform to spew their hot garbage, that's when they start getting bold, that's when their racist ideas start getting picked up in ordinary politics. 

Deplatforming fucking WORKS. I hope you know Richard Spencer [had to cancel is lecture tour because he was afraid of getting his fucking ass kicked by protesters](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/03/12/alt-right-leader-richard-spencer-says-his-rallies-arent-fun-anymore/416579002/). Milo Yiannapolus [crying on facebook because hes spent millions of dollars on events that got canceled by protesters.](https://i.imgur.com/VBveCud.jpg) THAT'S how you deal with racists. Not sitting there, taking their unintellectual dribble up the ass in ""cause everybody deserves to be heard"". You CAN NOT defeat racists with words. Only with actions."
worldnews,"I agree. I have had this discussion before on here. The fact that people start voting far right and identify with neo-nazis does not mean you have to change your message in order to win these people back. You can only do that by becoming far right yourself.

You need to keep selling a message you believe in yourself, a message of tolerance and inclusiveness. If people are not buying it any longer doesn't mean you have to let your message go, but you need to work even harder."
worldnews,"But why? If you have a house, and want to deter people from walking/driving over your property, you build a fence. Richer people (basically everyone screaming against Trump on tv) have even higher fences or actual concrete walls around their mansions. And armed guards. Some of them even buy houses next door, so other people have to stay even further away. And all those people, sitting behind high walls scream that a wall to protect a country from illegals (who become criminals as soon a they cross the border illegally) is somehow bad."
worldnews,"> However, those dumb fucks come from towns where the foreigner quota is less than 1%, so they don’t even know what they’re talking about.

i think this is a very ignorant comment.

it's like saying ""you have no idea what kind of damage fire does if you've never touched it"" after watching some one burn themselves - you know full well the damage it can do, you've just seen it.

you don't have to experience something to see how it affects other things. rightly or wrongly they probably want to keep their foreigner quota below 1% as they've seen other places with a quota above that and don't like what they see.

whether you agree with their opinions or not doesn't matter - pretending they can't have an opinion on something or understand it is downright ignorant."
worldnews,"> whether you agree with their opinions or not doesn't matter - pretending they can't have an opinion on something or understand it is downright ignorant.

The problem is that they **act** like they have those problems in their own towns. It's not that they say ""Look at cities like Duisburg-Marxloh, we don't want those problems here!"" - no, they say ""Look at all those immigrants in our town and the problems they are causing"", which is simply not true."
worldnews,"In Canada, we created a high-readiness military special operations unit specifically to deal with problems like counterterrorism or hostage rescue. It was created specifically to **replace** the police Special Emergency Response Team. 

The advantages are: 

*  A. You don't have the PR problem of training community police to kick down doors and throw flashbangs, and
*  B. You are now picking from a pool of people who are already trained to kick down doors and throw flashbangs. So one imagines they'll do the job much more safely and professionally than police officers; being that police are be primarily trained in policework, not section-level tactics. 

So imagine a US in which SWAT teams don't exist. You don't get meatheads who coasted through highschool with a C average now pretending to be professional soldiers; and when a situation arises where professional soldiers are called for, you **get** professional soldiers. You get the **best** professional soldiers; you get Seal Team 6, not the guys from the local precinct wearing black fatigues and tac vests. "
worldnews,"Illegal for the US military to operate on US soil here.

In my opinion, that's overall a good thing. The military is trained to neutralize the threat at all costs. The police are trained to protect and serve, which includes being able to analyze a situation and ideally de-escalate it, something which is already gravely lacking in the US. Plus, the SWAT teams are starting to roll out more and more it seems like, not just for armed hostage situations but for simple drug busts. Probably because the second amendment provides a good reason to assume they have a gun and are willing to use it. We would almost immediately end up with Humvees in the streets."
worldnews,"Hostage rescue isn't law enforcement. Law enforcement is the job of the police. Making arrests is also the job of the police. Arresting suspected terrorists or drug dealers in basements doesn't require flashbangs or automatic weapons. The military term for situations that is ""direct action"" which is back outside the realm of law enforcement. Arresting suspected terrorists may be counterterrorism in the general sense, but it's not direct action. Direct action against terrorism may enforce the law by proxy, in that terrorism is illegal; however, is not law enforcement under the generally understood definition.

Dealing with a situation like, for example, the 1980 London Iranian Embassy Siege, goes a bit beyond the purview and capability of law enforcement. Which is why the Brits, instead of sending in cops, sent in the SAS. You'll note, the Brits **don't** send in the SAS to kick down the doors of twitch streamers every time a bored 15 year-old gets a fun idea on how to prank his favourite gamer. Canada is much the same; there are local police, and there are soldiers, and never the twain shall meet in their operational requirements. "
worldnews,"My point isn't that police in Canada are better, or different; it's that police in Canada are just police. We generally don't have policemen, specially trained or otherwise, trying to do things that are best left to professional soldiers. Better yet, we actually have professional soldiers to do those things if required. 

So, my argument is that the **institutional structure** of Canadian police work is fundamentally better; by virtue of the fact that regular police aren't trained for combat roles. How you think that connects to whether or not any given beat cop might be an asshole is what baffles me. "
worldnews,"Fair enough; but since my comment was only concerning the latter, you're arguing against nobody on the former. 

I don't care what your opinion is on the professional decorum of your average beat cop. I'm talking about why it's better not to try to make cops do a soldier's job. Unless you're actually trying to support my point by saying that most cops are dicks, the two discussions are completely separate. 

If you don't care about what I'm talking about, then don't reply to my comment. Trying to drag me into a totally separate argument, because that's the one you want to have, is intellectually dishonest. "
worldnews,"Ad-Hominem may be a logical fallacy, but it's also a dreadfully efficient alternative to defending indefensible positions or actions. Especially if you have your people or close allies ready to repeat and relay the attacks for you nice and loud.

Say, for example, you eat babies. One way or another as much as YOU may feel the babies deserve what's coming to them, it makes a lot of people angry and is generally considered very rude. So if I suddenly put you on the spot with your recipe book leaked online along with pictures of the inside of your fridge, you may find yourself with a choice:

* 1) You argue for the righteousness and deliciousness of your position, how all of those babies were probably going to become terrorists, and even many of your allies are forced to pretend they didn't see anything while an angry coalition of parents razes your capital, lest they be accused of supporting the newborn-dining-experience in an election year.

* 2) Deny deny deny deny, but there's pictures... and video... Some'll believe you, but, most won't really no. Hope that your house isn't sitting over some oil-wells and expect lots of demands regarding any international travel you ever try to do being diverted to Des-Moines or The Hague.

* 3) Point out that I am an irrational inhumane hate-machine in the middle of assaulting you, who wants to see all <Insert general religion or culture here, like ""Jews"" for example> dead, denies and loves the holocaust at the same time and is an absolute monster actively attacking you, help, help, please help you I'm murdering your 65 year old grandmother who lived through that 73+ year old event by my very words and criminally inciting violence I must be stopped."
worldnews,"It's a childish tit for tat law.  I know some people will read way more into this than there actually is because nowdays it seems you can't post anything that is seen to remotely support Israel without being called an Islamophobe.

> Barko highlighted that the bill above would emphasise the principle of  reciprocity. Therefore, anyone who would raise the flag of a country  which is already banning the flag of Israel will be punished too. 
"
worldnews,"> What I cannot understand is why whenever Israel does something that can only be described as barbaric and xenophobic, those who criticise the state are immediately labelled as anti-semites.

They don't have a reasonable or logical response thus they resort to name-calling - as mentioned by u/torpedoguy this is a common logical fallacy under Ad Hominem. 

Calling others anti-Semites also puts the accusers in a position of being the victim i.e. they have now turned the tables on you. It has become common and even water-down to the point where any criticism of anything you can be called anti-Semite. It has gotten to the unfortunate point where in some cases you can be called anti-Semite for discussing or engaging in the human rights situation of Palestinians. 

> The Israeli state is perpetrating policies of apartheid yet the western world is terrified of doing anything.

This is especially worrying. I’m not sure if they are actually “terrified” or rather just siding with the state of Israel on this issue for several reasons. There has been growing support of Israel in recent years by the Western world and to some extent of the international community. Consider one of the reasons the Nikki Haley mentioned for US pulling out of the Human Rights Council was because Item 7: The Human Rights situation on Occupied Palestine since 1967 is a standing issue. Other member states to the Council have made similar intimidation remarks claiming that Item 7 is biased against Israel despite focusing on human rights of Palestinians. "
worldnews,"You are very quick to make assumptions about people. 

Now, I made an argument. You countered with a non-argument. So to me it seems you are the one not interested in arguing in good faith.

People claim Israel is an apartheid state, and yet they simultaneously admit to not knowing what constitutes apartheid, or what Israeli laws and policies are. Basically, they are arguing what they don't know about, because they have an agenda against Israel.

What really makes Israel so unique, however, that despite having a modern progressive society and thriving democratic rule of law, is still by FAR the world's most condemned country (more than the entire world combined), and despite being maybe 0.1% of the world's population, receives more negative media attention than much larger, more influential, and more powerful states?

One thing is that it has once been in constant wars against the Arab League. Although that changed with the signing of the peace treaties and not really unique to Israel as practically the entire West were involved in some wars in the middle east.

And the 2nd is that Israel is the world's only Jewish state. Meanwhile everywhere you go in a thousand mile radius there are only muslim countries, and everywhere in Europe are Christian countries.

"
worldnews,"A lot of people point to that it's often Arab nations with long lists of breaching human rights themselves which band together in the UN to condemn and draft resolutions against Israel. So it's not about what is done, but who does it. And in this case, there is prevalent anti-Semitism in most Arab nations which is seen as the reason for their engagement in the issue.

Also, a lot of people deny that anti-Semitism has ever been an issue, and that it's the Jews who are acting like monsters. It's been an excuse for centuries. 

Israel does something bad, which many else also does but nobody cares about --> anti-Semitism

Israel does something bad, which other countries do too and get as much criticism for --> not anti-Semitism"
worldnews,"I had forgotten about that Item 7. 

However isn’t it like many of the west’s policies in that it jut gets kicked down the road without practical enhancement by governments? A bit like the recognition of Jerusalem by the US.

Is there any strength to the idea that Israel could be the ‘bigger man’ and seek out policies that bring and end to the troubles. Forget the past and move on. Stop this tit-for-TAT response that is killing thousands on both sides? 

What do the younger generations in Israel think? 

"
worldnews,"Sorry but this is a massive generalisation.

Its no more true to say this than it is to say the left are stifling free speach or that Muslims are using Islamaphobia as a screen to avoid critism of Islam. Sure, you can find examples of all of these things but it's not true that all of the relevant group are doing this.

I've somewhat foolishly waded in on Israel a bit recently and have said things like ""Zionism is a rediculous idea"" and haven't been called an anti semite. In fact, I've been called a Zionist!

I'll say it again here, this particular policy is absurd and stands in opposition to values we should aspire to. Israel is far from the only nation state performing these actions though.

Is anyone actually willing to call me an anti semite for the above? "
worldnews,"There's a vocal minority that abuses that term to gain power (and happen to usually be supporters of the leading Israeli party in power in Israel right now). And *fuck them*.

It's an insult to rationality and debate, and even worse to actual victims because it renders the term meaningless (see comments here echoing this) while there are actual antisemites running around, and how are you supposed to differentiate them if you have retards calling everyone and their families antisemites?

How are victims supposed to get help if they aren't taken seriously because 'ha yes antisemitism of course, like everyone haha shut up and stop playing victim'. 

This is damaging the entire worldwide Jewish community and Israel in general so their views (which are themselves usually pretty bad) can get imposed on others inside Israel. So once more, fuck them.

Anyway, my rant here is to bring this point. Please don't let yourself grow jaded to the term. Notice who says it, check if the call is sincere, dubious or utterly trash, then remember the idiots next time and ignore them and them only. 

A failure to do so can only bring tragedy to Jewish people worldwide and indirectly to Palestinians too because of the reinforcement it causes to the vicious circle of fortress mentality which is already too strong in Israel. "
worldnews,"> What I cannot understand is why whenever Israel does something that can only be described as barbaric and xenophobic, those who criticise the state are immediately labelled as anti-semites.

Where do you see this? Literally the top 90% of comments here are saying the same thing with zero outcry.

Also whether or not you like it, there is a large amount of antisemitism still around and visible on platforms such as Reddit."
worldnews,"> Also whether or not you like it, there is a large amount of antisemitism still around and visible on platforms such as Reddit.

No it isn't.  There is a large amount of anti-Israeli government policies on reddit and the internet.  Most of us love jewish people and israeli jews and arab people in particular.  The only places you get anti-semitism are some really extreme communist circles and most alt-right circles like T_D, certain drama subs, and certain random islamic subs."
worldnews,"> No it isn't. 

Yes, there is.

>  There is a large amount of anti-Israeli government policies on reddit and the internet. 

Yep.

> Most of us love jewish people and israeli jews and arab people in particular. 

Most as in above 50%? Sure.

> The only places you get anti-semitism are some really extreme communist circles and most alt-right circles like T_D, certain drama subs, and certain random islamic subs.

No. I'm guessing you haven't looked through many Israel/Palestine /r/news articles that don't reach the front page."
worldnews,">like any overused accusation it simply has no meaning anymore

Most people still use the term appropriately and don't abuse it as a catch-all deflection for criticisms of Israel, I would say its generally used appropriately outside discussions of Israel. But even on the topic of Israel: Lets not ignore that there still is antisemitism in a subset of criticisms of Israel and that its appropriate to point that out.

Yes, accusations of antisemitism are an over- and abused rhetorical tool to deflect criticism of Israel but that doesn't mean it the term can't and isn't being used to describe actual antisemitism, generally or as part of criticisms of Israel.

"
worldnews,"I'm deeply opposed to this law, but... ""barbaric""? Seriously?

> Barko highlighted that the bill above would emphasise the principle of reciprocity. Therefore, anyone who would raise the flag of a country which is already banning the flag of Israel will be punished too.

The proposal is literally banning flags of countries that ban the Israeli one. Are you denouncing these states for being ""barbaric"", ""apartheid"" states too? 

And as for being ""those who criticise the state are immediately labelled as anti-semites""? I see every other comment crying about it, including an actual, highly upvoted, alt-righter, who talks about ""globalist media"" and how there were no Nazis in Charlottesville. And yet, I hardly see it happening. It reminds me of Fox's and The_Donald's paranoia of ""reverse racism"" and how being wrongly called a racist is worse than racism itself, more than anything."
worldnews,"The British didn't start a mandate to ""save"" jews. they used them, as a foot hold in ME. after WWII the torch got passed to the US, who side lined for a short period, saw what the British had seen (world oil resource control) and opted in for the same reasoning.

The world isn't terrified to do anything, it's western leadership refuses too, while oil and war profits soar and the rich profit anyway.

They care less about our outrage then most Israeli's do I'd imagine."
worldnews,"Yes Israel is so western and progressive with its liberal occupation. And I love that you try to make this a religious thing. So because there are Muslim countries that means the Jews of Israel have a right to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians who happen to be majority Muslim? Because they have the ""option"" to live in a land of people who share the same faith but not culture, traditions, land etc. ?

Get out of here. "
worldnews,"And the Israeli flag is the symbol of the Israeli people - or at least the Israeli Jews. Why is it okay to ban their flag, but it's ""barbaric ethnic cleansing"" when they retaliate and ban your flag back?

And I'm not sure how the fact Palestine aren't a country (although they certainly claim otherwise) has anything to do with it. Since when do you need to be a country to be barbaric or commit ethnic cleansing?"
worldnews,"Same happened to mine. Know what we did? Migrated, acquired education, built a better life in Israel with better quality of life, and got a nice house by the beach. We became middle class instead of lower class or below poverty line, and could afford a good living.

You know how we did that? We got over it, and started working for a future, not a past.

The Palestinians are only defined by their past, which in itself is disgusting to me. A man defined by his past alone is not a man anymore.

Time for you to man up."
worldnews,"They can return to their homes in the WB, Gaza, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, or Iraq. That is, they can force elections in WB and Gaza that would result in a government that would sign a peace treaty that would better their condition, and in the Arab states they could actually ask their respective states to provide them with citizenship, like Israel did with its own Palestinian population.

And no, I am not defined by my past. I define myself as an electronics engineer, which is my own doing."
worldnews,"A few possiblities from the top of the head.

A) Someone that dislikes me in particular (I tend to give pro-Israel comments but often bash on extremists both sides, and some people remember that) did it.

B) A rabid Likudnik that can't have anyone suggesting that abuse of the term antisemitism exists.

C) A zealot pro-Palestinian that hates anything calling Israel anything less than a genocidal and/or apartheid state.

D) Someone that hates rational debate and prefers people flaming each other.

E) A mix of the previous."
worldnews,">You can't compare Israli policy to Nazi Germany's without being called an anti-Semite

Yeah there's a reason for that. It's called Jew-baiting.

There's no important rhetorical point to be made about Israel that requires a comparison to Nazi Germany. Why not compare it to other brutal regimes, which are far more analogous than Nazi Germany? There is no accurate comparison between Gaza and the ghettos under Nazism. One major point being that when the Jews in the ghettos tried to fight back, the Nazis promptly exterminated the entire ghetto.  How long has Gaza been shooting rockets again?

You don't need to agree with it, you can absolutely criticise it, but there is no reason to compare it at all to Nazi Germany.  At best it's intellectually lazy, at worst it's actively antisemitic Jew-baiting."
worldnews,"Oh I think maybe you aren’t from the US or don’t follow domestic news but many in the Trump administration have been arrested and charged with and plead guilty to crimes and found to be corrupt. Also, Trump and many in the administration have been caught in countless lies in an attempt to hide meetings with Russians. It just so happens that the Russians were found to have intervened to assist his campaign in 2016 (as confirmed by all US and most of our allied intelligence agencies).

And can you give me a source that many in precious administrations have been arrested and charges with crimes? I can’t recall many high level administration and campaign officials in Obama, Bush or Clinton’s administrations. "
worldnews,"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes

I know wikipedia isn't an academic source but if half of these are good then we know this is a fairly consistent thing ever since nixon.

I do follow international and american news and I'm from Canada.  Trump has been the target of the media ever since he announced his bid for president.  They are over-reporting anything that has his name attached to it and involved crimes/scandals/russians/corruption.  There was even an undercover video of someone talking with one of the directors of some news network's journalists.  He caught the director saying they have no reason to believe that Russia and Trump colluded but the public was eating up the story and it was great for ratings.  He was fired when the video was released.

As for the intelligence agencies of the world, they aren't necessarily known for their integrity.  I mean, look at the Bush administration and their intel on WMDs.  Besides, there's no secret that the US intelligence community has a bias against non-career politicians.  And the only other intelligence source I know of that you could be talking about is that guy from MI6 who wrote a piece on Trump.  Except that he's got a number of bias's against Trump and was hired to write the piece by democrats and is retired having no current connections to the intelligence world.

There simply isn't the kind of concrete evidence that everyone keeps talking about.  By contrast, there IS concrete evidence that Hillary has been directly involved in a number of exceedingly shady deals and scandals that seem to not get reported on at all."
worldnews,"You want me to go and find every official in previous governments directly tied to presidents who were convicted/investigated for criminal/corrupt activity?  What am I?  Inspector gadget?  We know that most recently Hillary, secretary of state and close ally of Barrack Obama was found to be using a private server and deleted over 30,000 emails before investigators could see them.  James Comey conveniently decided that that was ok and not at all suspicious.

There's literally dozens and most of them (just like the ones being investigated/arrested now) are small fish.  They did something prior to the election or during the election which usually benefited themselves personally and they got caught.  The difference right now is that the media is taking anybody getting arrested now and slapping Trump's name all over it like he's their legal guardian and should be held responsible for all their actions.

Let me know when you find dirt on the guy you're actually targeting.

And as for deflection, I like how you literally read the title of the wikipedia page and nothing else.  You clearly have no interest in either open discussion or debate.  Have a nice day."
worldnews,"Obama; IRS targeting scandal, Benghazi weapon smuggling.
Bush; CIA leak scandal, Dismissed 8 attorneys in december 2006
Clinton; most well known for the whitemouth controversy and impeachment vote.  But there are literally entire websites dedicated to the scandals surrounding the Clintons.

The fact of the matter is that 90% of politicians and businessmen are guilty of some kind of crime (fraud, tax evasion, etc).  Most manage to sneak by.  Now, that said, the odds of a number of people who work for someone being guilty of these kinds of crimes is actually very high.  The thing is, never has the media ever focused so much on trying to find everything possible wrong with someone and their circle of friends and staff.

And lets just be clear, most of the crimes that have been confessed/convicted for have been concerning non-political issues prior to the campaign.  There are concerns of some campaign funds issues, but they haven't been able to tie that to Trump directly, just his campaign staff who have a personal interest in his victory.  Besides, campaign funds scandals are fairly common.  The kind of collusion that is being implied against Trump actually happened with Clinton and China in 1996 and lots of questionable campaign funding was going on coming from out of country.  Obama failed to report the sources of over 1.9 million dollars in donations from 1300 sources.  They got hit with a fine for that... a 375,000 dollar fine.

This is all nothing new.  The media is blowing everything out of the water and blaming Trump for all of it despite no real connection between him and the crimes committed.

Let me know when they find something on TRUMP himself."
worldnews,"Cool so you still don’t have examples of criminals. That’s what I thought. 

You’re repeating talking points from Fox News.

I’m talking about indictments and guilty please by many in the Trump administration and campaign. If we want to extend the discussion to scandals? Then the Trump administration absolutely takes the cake. 

It’s telling that all you have is Trump himself. Especially since his lawyer has testified under oath that Trump directed him to pay the two porn stars to change the election. 

And can we trust Trump? The guy who said he had no knowledge of paying the porn stars even though we now know that he did and was lying the whole time? "
worldnews,"First of all, IRS targeting, the Benghazi weapon smuggling, the CIA leak, and Clinton's history are all examples of illegal activity by previous presidents themselves.  If you want to talk about their administration then yeah, you can draw a funny kind of line around certain people and say that Trump has more people in his administration that have plead guilty than any recent president.  But if you expand that line a bit to include all people directly associated with/allied with the president then you again get huge lists for all presidents going back at least to Nixon.  So yeah, I guess if you want to define things in such a particular way then Trump is an anomaly.  It's still telling that with all these guilty pleas and investigations nobody has found proper evidence that Trump himself is guilty of anything.  I believe in judging people by what they do, not what their friends do.

His lawyer is breaking the law by abandoning client privilege if he's really telling the truth.  And are you seriously saying that two porn stars changed the election?  How the hell do two porn stars affect a national election?  Did they get his face tattooed on their breasts or something?

Every president going back to Roosevelt has been caught lying to some degree or another.  That's part of politics.  You have to lie to make yourself look as good as possible because the alternative is that you are proven guilty and the media crucifies you.  Look back at the Clinton presidency ""I did not have sexual relations with that woman"".  You can find plenty of examples for both Bush and Obama.

Trump isn't a great president.  I'm not even sure he's a good one.  But my god, get a grip.  He's not the nazi-saluting, white supremacy endorsing, racist, moronic, criminal that the media is making him out to be.  He's a businessman who has entered the world of politics.  Neither businessmen nor politicians are known for their integrity or squeaky clean records.  Trump is not so strange in his level of supposed ""corruption"" even if the worst rumours about him are true.  He's only abnormal in the levels of reporting and media attention everything he does is getting."
worldnews,"True. But I don't think they did all of that just to get them to watch some ads. Have you ever had a teacher decide to show a youtube video only for a movie trailer to pop up forcing everyone to sit through a minute of explosions before watching some documentary?

The children could just go do something else while the ads play like they do when the watch TV on their spare time. The assignment was on the program itself, not the ad"
worldnews,"> First, it wasn't on school time, it was at home.

Have you heard of home assignments?

> was that the parents had to post a picture of their child(ren) watching online

The program, not the ads? They were free to skip that. 

Having the students send photos seem like a more chill way to make sure people complete the assignment compared to having a rehearsal on the contents next morning



 

"
worldnews,"“In 2014, Russia illegally annexed Crimea from Ukraine and began to support separatists in the eastern part of the country through information warfare, direct shipments of weapons, and the deployment of Russian fighters posing as Ukrainian separatists.
Experts branded the campaign, for which Russia denied responsibility, as a new form of conflict called hybrid warfare.”

Haven’t the U.S. been using these tactics in South America for the last 50 years? I don’t see how this is a new tactic."
worldnews,"Not Ukraine, the authors of the article. Or the experts they cite.

It’s interesting how they make a point of that it’s worthy of a new term, when in fact it’s a practice that’s been used for many years. Again, I’m not trying to diminish how deplorable it is, just taking notice of how they wrote the article. The language they use makes me want to believe that it’s much worse than any previous incarnation of this tactic.

I’m reading Manufacturing Consent by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky at the moment. They do a great job of highlighting the use of language and the way it can manipulate opinions. It’s quite amazing how easy it is to spot these things when you look out for them. I’d highly recommend it if you haven’t read it already, it’s really eye-opening."
worldnews,"I am familiar with their work, and of how the media tailors their articles. I also take anything I read with a grain of salt, knowing there is almost always an agenda of some kind. It is important as a critical thinker to do so. But it is also important that while there may be an agenda, there may also be truth.

I am curious about Mr. Hollande's timing, but I do not feel he is lying. I understand they are merely reporting this information because they feel it is of interest and want people to click on it, but they also have liability if they report false information (even if it is credibility and not outright legality). And truthfully, it is not unlikely Mr. Putin is indeed doing the things he has been accused if."
worldnews,"Everything west of the Louisiana purchase, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii. Remember that popularly elected socialist leader of Guatemala? No you don't because we called him a communist and facilitated a coup to oust him from power so Dole would retain ownership of it's vast banana plantations. 

That's just on this continent. The Ayatollah are in charge in Iran right now because they overthrew the Shah, who we put in power. That guy straight up had his own secret police and we not only let it happen but gave him safe harbor after he fled the country. A huge factor in our shitty relationship with Iran is the fact that we shielded him from having to answer for the numerous atrocities he committed. Oh and we installed a satellite dictatorship in the Philippines because we beat spain in a war we started over an accident they had no involvement in. 

This is just a small list. We've pulled a metric fuckton of totally unacceptable bullshit over the years, all with unbelievably flimsy excuses like fighting savages or communism or terrorism or whatever. That doesn't change the fact that what Russia is doing is equally unacceptable, but that sentiment doesn't come from a place of ethical objection, it comes from experience.

And make no mistake, if Russia is ever made to account for it you better believe that they'll throw all of that back in our face."
worldnews,"No, it's a bullshit buzzword media marketing term to sell interventions, clamp-downs on freedom of speech and blossoming arms budgets. Wars were always fought with all available means, even the Mongols used propaganda and psychological warfare, and even the Americans were constricted in their campaigns in Vietnam. War is a branch on the tree of policy, it is always attached to all other considerations. It's never a hybrid, it's always a complex. In this, nothing has changed."
worldnews,"Of course, because I'd put good money on him *not* being East Ukrainian and having sympathies for the far-right coup government. Try getting to know some people from the East and finding out why they wanted to secede in the first place - political repression from the far-right coup government, *not* the big bad Putin under the bed conspiracy theory. Putin clearly *supported* them, he certainly didn't *cause* it to happen.

The fact he/you refer to them as ""Russian-Ukrainians"" betrays a very heavy bias - they're not Russians, they're a Ukrainian minority who speak Russian, and this idea that they are ""Russians"" comes straight from the ""fifth-column""/infiltrators/not-real-Ukrainians rhetoric of the far-right coup government."
worldnews,"My bias is in favour of all people to self-determination - whether that's Chechnya wanting to secede from Russia, Tibet wanting to secede from China, or here, Donbass and Luhansk wanting to cecede from Ukraine.  Being pro- or anti-Russian shouldn't be a factor in whether or not people get to assert their legitimate rights.

If you're referring to bias in favour of Ukraine or Russia, I don't have one. The Russian government has acted disgustingly. So has the Ukrainian coup government. So have the West in supporting the coup government. 

Ultimately the whole situation was caused by the Ukrainian far-right violently overthrowing a democratically elected government and politically repressing the Eastern regions."
worldnews,"I'm from the UK, and both sides (West and Russia) intervene and meddle in foreign elections. However, vague references to interference don't justify violent state-sponsored far-right coups.

I wouldn't like to see, say, Saudi Arabia sponsoring a violent takeover of the White House on the grounds of the election process being ""unfair"".

In the same sense I'm not going to look at a violent Western-sponsored coup by fascists and say ""well, it probably wasn't that democratic anyway, so I guess the fascists are okay"". That makes no sense."
worldnews,"Did producing umbrellas cause it to rain more?  Pick a better analogy, that makes no sense.  

If the pipeline can carry 3 times as much product a day, that would be the equivalent of 1300ish train cars a day.  You think they have that capacity already?  There would be no end to that train convoy, and that's daily.  They will extract more oil because they will have more capacity.  It is essentially their duty as a company to produce more profits for their shareholders.

And remember, the pipeline will be able to do 900,000 barrels a day, but they will not just stop trains and trucks, so we are now looking at the the increased capacity plus the current system.  

Nothing with oil or transport of it is good in the slightest when it comes to the environment, so don't try and polish the pipeline turd to make it shine.  The author may be using exaggerated language when it comes to its effects, but make no mistake the environment loses regardless of rail or pipeline because that extraction is so harmful."
worldnews,"Give me an electric car and you got a deal.  But in all seriousness, not doing the pipeline puts us in a situation we are currently in, and i don't see doom and gloom right now, yet people are crying over it like the economy hinges on its creation.  

And even ""environmental snowflakes"" know we aren't getting rid of oil in a day, because that's idiotic and the tech and infrastructure isn't there to replace it yet.  But we also live in a world that is by all accounts dying, so doubling down on something that produces the most emissions in this country feels like we are basically embracing climate change as inevitable (and only because...more monies)

Also, 600,000 barrels a day (the amount the new pipeline expansion generates) simply can't be stored in that quantity.  In one year that would be the equivalent of almost 250 billion barrels they are storing.  Oil production will increase with a pipeline, you can't convince me otherwise."
worldnews,"And we're the extreme ones for thinking we shouldn't be murdering billions of animals that can live 20+ years at age 2 that have been force fed weight-gaining food to be consumed by consumers that are twelve steps removed from the slaughterhouse. All because we think being morally consistent is important. 

​

I try to pick my battles, I really do, but it's extremely infuriating that people will use me IRL to excuse their behaviour (for example, I've had a friend tell me she has started to only eat meat twice a week instead of every day because she cares about animals... like great but you don't care about animals at all if you still consider eating their flesh a-ok after being educated on the horrific conditions that these animals are kept in).

​

I can already predict we're gonna get comments like ''muh uncle's farm tho'' where 0 abuse ever happens, yet they get take out three times a week from God knows where where they source their meat from a factory farm like 99% of the Western world."
worldnews,"Biodiversity is it’s own end in that humans are not advanced enough to be able to predict the consequences of a species, let  alone a large intercontinental mammal, becoming extinct.

So in that way, as an individual, I potentially l suffer from a reduction in biodiversity. Although I only frame it that way as a response.

I agree that what some humans are doing to the planet is probably the highest crime we see, but I think articles like these are important to inform those who really care and inspire action.

Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee kind of a situation."
worldnews,"Going extinct isn't bad dude. If you eat meat, you're already supporting the massive land clearance that happens when corporations need more land to feed their livestock... which makes bugs, small animals like foxes, rabbits and so on lose their natural habitat (forested cover). You're already supporting extinction to support your lifestyle, what's one more?

​

So what if cattle, pigs and so on go extinct? They're living miserable, horrific short lives where they are abused, forced into extreme weight gain and perform mentally and physical strenuous activities (laying hens live a fraction of what their lifespan would be because they were bred to push dozens of eggs a month that makes them suffer).

​

If you consume any animal product, this is what you and the billions of other humans like you are causing to this planet's fauna: [time-based calculator of how many animals are killed per second.](http://thevegancalculator.com/animal-slaughter/)

​

You can change this today. Your next meal can be 100% plant-based, with little to no animal cruelty involved. You are the master of your own life. If you try and proclaim some kind of ethical standing where you care and respect animals, you cannot be consuming animal products at all. It's hypocrisy, and while harsh, it's reality bro."
worldnews,"So let's say I'm not willing to stop consuming animal products, because I  am not. I have a strong culinary background, am partial partner in a restaurant and catering business, and come from a family of chefs. Most of my travels are focused on trying cuisine from different cultures. Food is one of my biggest passions and the truth is the best food isn't 100% plant based, choosing to live that way just isn't an option for me. I do my best to make sure that my products are locally sourced and raised as humanely as possible. So what do? Compromise with me hypothetically, I'm legitimately curious about your advice. "
worldnews,"Do you care about animals at all? If so, what is your reasoning for separating animals into animals you consider worthy of not being abused and exploited for personal satisfaction and gratification and others who are worthy of the opposite?

I used to be a foodie. I realized that my personal hobbies and/or things I like are not superior to the current reality that animals are being slaughtered for their unnecessary consumption.

No animal has ever given consent to be exploited and murdered after 1/5 of their lifespan to the farmers, no matter “local” or industrialized, that have taken it in their hands to brutalize these animals.

The only advice I have to give you is that you decide what kind of person you want to be in life. If you’re fine supporting abuse and literal torture, that’s on you. I don’t believe in sugar coating shit just like MLK didn’t ask white supremacists and apathetic white people to “pls act nicely and stop lynching us”. Niceness doesn’t get you anywhere in activism. The vegan position is that any exploitation of animals is wrong. And that one should try as far as it is possible to limit their personal contribution to what is happening on a global scale to animals.

There is no compromise to be had in this debate. It is literally all or nothing. There is no humane way of killing someone or an animal that did not consent to it. By continuing to eat and consume animal products, you are sponsoring abuse by contributing to the overall demand of meat and other animal products.

It’s hard to put yourself in a situation where you aren’t the main beneficiary of something, but animals literally do not have a voice in this. Someone has to stand up for them."
worldnews,"Ya, but we haven't made elephants stupid meat bags. Anyone who thinks a cow is the same as a buffalo has never met a buffalo. They've probably never met a cow. By all accounts, the aurochs was as big an asshole as the buffalo.

Modern cattle are classified as their own sub-species. Their wild predecessor is extinct. We should probably release buffalo into Europe, much like we should release elephants into the US."
worldnews,"Cows are bred specifically for use in human needs while elephants are wild animals and elephants are more neurological and socially complex than cows for two examples. Also cows have been a staple of meat and dairy for thousands of years, a critical part of society.

However this is meaningless as it’s fine to be varying degrees of levels against both. Killing elephants is bad for biodiversity reasons, and the over exploitation of cows in the modern age is bad for lots of reasons. "
worldnews,"Why does it matter what cows are bred for if the consequences are similar?

Why are neurological and social complexity relevant to the morality of killing?

>  Also cows have been a staple of meat and dairy for thousands of years, a critical part of society.

Does history define morality? They may have been a critical part of society in the past, but how is that morally relevant to individuals for whom it is not a necessity today?"
worldnews,"What’s the difference between iron and gold? It’s just some electrons. Why would you be mad if I stole your gold watch more than your cast iron pan? People value things differently for many reasons, one of them being scarcity. 

History doesn’t define morality but it provides context for the present. If someone gets shot in the head at 20, that’s more shocking than someone dying of cancer at 80. We’ll what’s the difference? In both scenarios one person died, so why wouldn’t people react the same?

I have to ask, what are you driving towards? I don’t get your ultimate point."
worldnews,"> People value things differently for many reasons, one of them being scarcity.

And as explained both killing cows and killing elephants affects scarcity. You still haven't answered the other questions.

Unless you're saying that they are values you assume to be true and have no further justification? Go deep enough and eventually that will be the foundation of many people's morality, but I hardly think 'cows are bred specifically for use in human needs' is an assumed value of yours.

> If someone gets shot in the head at 20, that’s more shocking than someone dying of cancer at 80. We’ll what’s the difference? In both scenarios one person died, so why wouldn’t people react the same?

We are talking about morality. Morality is concerned with actions, not people's reactions. The action of shooting someone in the head is certainly more immoral than standing by helplessly as a person dies of cancer.

> I have to ask, what are you driving towards? I don’t get your ultimate point.

My ultimate point is that it is hypocritical to admonish those who killed the elephants while eating meat."
worldnews,"Cows are not scarce, we know exactly how to make more, elephants are not bred in captivity and if their numbers deplete we don't know how to change that.

>My ultimate point is that it is hypocritical to admonish those who killed the elephants while eating meat.

That's certainly an expression of your values, but those are not universal values. I value an elephant's life more than a cows. I have varying degrees of value of all life with humans at the top and single cell organisms at the bottom. Since we can't make more elephants but we can make more cows and since elephants are more advanced creatures, I value them more. I also don't not value  cows. I actively support lab grown meat/meat alternatives and the reduction of meat eating in general. "
worldnews,"> Yea but that means there's a belief structure that can admonish the killing of elephants, use animal products in a way that is ethical to my values, and still want to reduce use/dependency on animal products.

You claim to believe in such a belief structure, I'm highly suspicious, hence the questions.

> Listen we clearly disagree and that's fine, but you really go a long way to prove a point that is meaningless and ultimately not helpful to a cause we both seem to agree on.

You don't think questioning one's actions or ideas is useful? It's one of the best tools to reliably come to a conclusion.

Anyways, this doesn't seem to be going anywhere. So let's end here."
worldnews,"We do pay for our own wars, US aid to Israel cover a small part of Israel's defense budget.

And as for lobbying, why wouldn't he? This is realpolitik kid, not a game of baseball. Israel gets all the help it can get, just like the Arab states used to get all the help they could get from Soviet union back in the day.

strange questions really, That's like asking why don't you put a handicap on yourself and fight with 1 hand behind your back."
worldnews,"A small part? FACT: ISRAEL DOES NOT pay for its own wars. Israel only keeps requesting more aid. The data isn’t on your side friend.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2018/03/understanding-military-aid-israel-180305092533077.html

Going deeper, if 3.7billion is coming from the US and Israel had a declared 18.6 billion defense budget, that’s *20%* of your defense cover3d by the US. Please send back that small percentage.

Also that’s great that you’re getting all the help you can get, so now why are you restricting the movement of Palestinians, preventing them from building an operational port, getting supplies intended for them and illegally expanding settlements. Is that under the “getting all the help we can get” by handicapping them?


"
worldnews,"[IDF annual budget is ~18b](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces#cite_note-IISS-2), not sure if it includes the aid or in addition to, but either way, US aid doesn't pay for everything, not even half.

> so now why are you restricting the movement of Palestinians

Because they have a tendency to suicide bomb busses, pizza parlors and restaurants. do drive by shootings and stab random civilians.

> preventing them from building an operational port, getting supplies intended for them.

Because they have a tendency to smuggle rockets and other weapons. Are these serious questions?

> illegally expanding settlements

Same reason the US and every other country expand cities. population growth.

> Is that under the “getting all the help we can get” by handicapping them?

Yes, it is. In a conflict you make it harder for the enemy to fight you, not easier. Same way the [Arab states tried to do](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_League_boycott_of_Israel)."
worldnews,"You said the US only pays a small percentage so return the 3.7 billion and stop asking for our money altogether. If 20% is so small return it all.

Everything else you said is why Israel has no intentions of peace. The difference is your government is two faced about it and the Palestinian people smell the dishonesty a mile away. 

So far you provided no facts about anything. You are wrong about Israel paying for its own wars, you admitted that Israel is illegally expanding and restricting the Palestinians and you showed you have no intentions of peace contrary to what your government says every time they are begging for more money.

All using your own words too, lol"
worldnews,"I said small part and it is. You said we don't pay for our wars at all but we do.

> so return the 3.7 billion and stop asking for our money altogether.

Not going to happen pal, this aid is part of the camp david accords and both Israel and your government has an interest in continuing it. Don't like it? tough shit.

> Everything else you said is why Israel has no intentions of peace

Can't say I'm surprised, you obviously hold very little regard for Israeli lives. If defending yourself from Palestinian terrorism is not wanting peace then so be it. "
worldnews,"> There will be a president at some point that slashes aid to Israel, I expect no bitching about it.

Maybe, maybe not. I expect at some point for the aid to end, hopefully by that time Israel will no longer need it.

>  I expect no bitching about it

You mean like how the Palestinians bitched and moan when you just cut off their aid? saying its an attack on them?

lol imagine giving donation to a soup kitchen and when you stop they attack you for it.

> Also, covering 1/5 of your defense isn’t a small part

Depends on your definition of small I guess, either way it still not half and definitely not all.

> at least be fucking grateful instead of acting like an entitled prick.

Oh make no mistake I am very grateful for the US aid to Israel and I thank the American people for their help.

But you? you act like a prick and consider us a stain of shit, why should I be grateful to you? I take great pleasure knowing someone like you who hate us so much is also paying for the aid."
worldnews,"You know who isn't trapped in modern society by the prisoner's dilemma? Billionaires that have partly divested from the source of their billions. SV billionaires. Bitcoin. Finance. Etc. Etc. Isn't it in their best interests to try to prevent the oncoming collapse by putting more money into, say, fusion research than vaccinations in the 3rd world? Especially such public figures that will be the target of much of the world's ire when collapse comes. You know why they don't do it? Delusion. Techno-optimism. The world is better now than it's ever been. The benevolence of the market gods. They'll come up with a solution when things get bad enough. Confirmation bias. I'm up here for a reason. Via capitalism, humanity has elected its leaders, the elite, who are not only ignoring the issue but installing into ""public"" power those that deny the issue. More insidious is that some, beyond techno delusion, may be betting on some form of paradigm change that sees the global conflict and mass famine ensnaring billions in lives of cruelty that end in violence. So I guess that's human nature, too. Hubris of those market confirmed rulers to take us to the brink of human extinction."
worldnews,"No; despite the concentration of wealth they create, they are too useful and efficient to do away with - the losses would far outstrip the benefits. 

That said, we can and should mitigate the extent to which they concentrate wealth. If capitol gains tax was much higher, those with significant resources would still invest in the market; it's not as if lower returns makes mattresses more attractive - the market is still the only option."
worldnews,"Not at all. I despise socialism and I think capitalism is the best economic system we ever came up with. People who take risks and contribute more to the economy deserve to be rewarded. I want to accumulate wealth myself and I'm working on it, but at the same time, when so many people (in the United States) live paycheck to paycheck, go bankrupt under the weight of health care bills, can't save for retirement (the large number of people with poor fiscal discipline notwithstanding), there is too much inequality in this country and something should be done about it."
worldnews,"I remember Bill Gates getting so much hate for having a lot of money. I heard like 20 years ago this comment: ""If Bill Gates was walking down the street and saw $500 in cash on the ground, it would not be worth his time to stop and pick it up.""  The amount just seems intangible.  Not that being financially successful (and then some) is a bad thing but ""How many yachts can you water-ski behind?""  "
worldnews,"Despise socialism? 

 ”when so many people (in the United States) live paycheck to paycheck, go bankrupt under the weight of health care bills, can't save for retirement”

”there is too much inequality in this country and something should be done about it.” 

It’s called socialism. But i agree, i don’t think socialsm would work in the United states without som real changes in the way your politicians spend your money. I wouldn’t trust them with my tax money either.



Question:
Whats’s the point of living in a wealthy country if only some take all the wealth?
"
worldnews,"Large companies use stock as a source of funding. For instance, Amazon pays their employees with stock rather than cash, so they're paid by investors rather than revenue. It's good for companies.

The stock market is a cheap and efficient way for anyone to make these investments. Closing the markets closes most investment opportunity for average people.

Bezos' money is capital. He's not some Saudi prince spending it on mansions and Ferraris. It's more like he's in charge of the money, which is fine, because he's proven that he's really good with it.

If you disperse his capital to the people, it will decrease production, increase consumption, and decrease overall wealth."
worldnews,">Nope, the incentive to become rich via innovative ideas or high education has to be there.

I've always wondered about that though. I went for a PhD so I could help drive innovations, make people's lives better, that sort of thing. I also enjoy discovering new things, sharing what I know, etc.

It pays really well, don't get me wrong. But even if money wasn't part of the equation, if all my basic needs could be met no matter what I did with my life, I can't imagine doing anything different than what I'm doing right now.

I think I speak for a lot of my fellow researchers when I say that. "
worldnews,">Seeing as its the only way for Joe Six Pack like you and me to retire millionaires

Wow you're the epitome of what Roger Wright warned about.

""Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.""

We shouldn't keep a system which lends itself to the exploitation of thousands/millions because there's a tiny fraction of a chance that you might become obscenely wealthy."
worldnews,"> People who take risks and contribute more to the economy deserve to be rewarded

>isn't it profoundly unfair that people like Jeff Bezos can increase their net worths by billions of dollars in a day when the average worker can expect to make barely 2-3 million in a lifetime

Hmm.

>there is too much inequality in this country and something should be done about it

Economic inequality (the accumulation of capital) is a feature of capitalism, not a bug. There's no immediate profit motive for them being ""concerned about the basic needs of their citizens and fighting inequality"". "
worldnews,"Save the invent vs harnessing of fire argument for the semantics dome.

So that's how you measure the quality of a life, with the aquisition of Material objects? They may live a miserable existence to achieve an iPhone and a car, but boy do they have them!  What about those who live in poverty around the world, billions of people,  because of terrible imperalistic policies exploiting the natural resources of nations that aren't ours?  We've destroyed half the world and plundered its resources at an unsustainable rate, all for what? So most people now have iPhones and cars.  Is that really worth it? Is that really the best you think mankind can do?  

Or is that what capitalists have lead us to believe over years of indoctrination? Why would the rich capitalists tell you differently? It certainly made  complacent slaves out of a lot of us.  "
worldnews,"We need to go back to the top tax bracket going up to 98% as it did in the 70's. Ever since it was removed we have had this horrible problem of stagnant wages, and ridiculous wealth concentration. Make a law where the highest earner cannot make more than 5 times the lowest earner in a company, cap capital gains income with a 98% tax bracket, and the country will become a MUCH better place over night."
worldnews,"It's not a fraction of a chance. It's a mathematical fact if you're in the American middle class and not a complete moron. Save a portion of your money and put it in a mutual fund. Save when times are good and save when times are bad. It's really that simple. Just because Roger Wright harped on the dipshits living in trailers who had no clear path to that end doesn't make his meme quote right about the people who actually use the system.

The thousands/millions exploit themselves by being terrified chimps like yourself who would rather screech in terror about wealth inequality than understand the system they live in and use it to benefit themselves."
worldnews,"> It's not a fraction of a chance

There are only about 10.8 million millionaires in America and the vast majority of them came from wealth, not ""playing the Stock Market smart.""

>The thousands/millions exploit themselves by being terrified chimps like yourself who would rather screech in terror about wealth inequality than understand the system they live in and use it to benefit themselves.

I actually do really well for myself, but a lot of that is the fact that I had a lot of opportunities growing up. The fact that you think that the system is just waiting to be gamed says a lot."
worldnews,"\>There are only about 10.8 million millionaires in America and the vast majority of them came from wealth

Got a source for that? All the studies I've ever seen indicate a large portion of millionaires (80-90%) did not come from wealth. No doubt the number isn't entirely accurate due to self selection but I have never seen anything to indicate that the majority of American millionaires are born into it.

I never said anything about ""gaming"" the system. Stop strawmanning. I am talking about using the system how it is meant to be used. Suffer the short term, benefit in the long term."
worldnews,"> All the studies I've ever seen indicate a large portion of millionaires (80-90%) did not come from wealth.

The studies you're referencing define ""not coming from wealth"" as meaning ""not already millionaires."" If your family growing up was worth $800,000 then they would consider you self-made.

>I am talking about using the system how it is meant to be used. Suffer the short term, benefit in the long term.

A huge portion of Americans don't have the luxury to ""suffer in the short term."" Do you not realize that?"
worldnews,"No, there's nothing wrong with stock markets. Some types of speculation are shady and maybe shouldn't be allowed but stock markets are pretty straightforward.

He basically just owns a portion of Amazon and it's a 1 trillion dollar company. If Amazon wasn't public and Jeff Bezos privately owned it he'd be worth the full 1 trillion dollars. So it's really not the stock market that makes him so much wealthier than all of us. It's the company he started being worth many times a lot of country's GDPs."
worldnews,This. Abolishing the stock market will do the exact opposite of what that guy thinks it will. Get rid of the stock market and guess who the only people allowed to invest in companies is now? Oh wait it’s the super rich because they’re the only ones that have enough capital to. You can buy shares of Fortune 500 companies for less than $100 get rid of the stock market and now your extra money is sitting in a bank account losing real value year over year. Abolishing the stock market would only increase wealth inequality. the market is how people can leave the lower and middle class and enter higher social classes by sharing in the ownership of these companies. 
worldnews,"Oh, which studies am I referring to? And btw, you have still failed to provide any of your own.

And they absolutely can. The issue is that most people, yourself included, have confused luxuries with necessities. Cable is a luxury. Eating out every week is a luxury. Expensive new iPhones are luxury. Expensive brand name clothes are a luxury. New cars are a luxury. Televisions are a luxury. I don't think there is a single person in this country, myself included, who couldn't trim a significant margin off their budget if they were really committed to it."
worldnews,"> It's better to eliminate the corporate income tax

Why?

> lower the marginal rate of the highest tax brackets

Mathematically, nobody is paying marginal tax due to progressive taxation.

> and tax dividends and capital gains as personal income

This would cripple investments. I think capital gains should also have progressive taxation to encourage investments but heavily tax those who make a killing. Keep the same low-tax tiers but after a certain profit amount, add progressive taxation based on overall income from all sources."
worldnews,"Jeff Bezos sold 2 million stocks in 2016 for ~$1.4 billion total, post-tax that's around $1 billion. That's his liquid cash. He's sitting on $163 billion in stocks that are there to help the company. He's stupid rich on paper, but in reality he's not close to the top in terms of absolute fuck you money (Meaning the people who buy Bugattis and leave them at a Saudi airport because it's not worth their time to get it stored or shipped somewhere, so they just cut their loss)."
worldnews,"It's more to do with tax policy than anything that causes the wealth gap. Bezos reached a point where all of the loopholes were accessible to him. When you have more power than the government, they will form policy according to your rules. 

The only thing that will close the wealth gap is an overhaul of the tax system. I really think if it was setup so the bank collected and remitted 10% of every deposit, you could run a society with a flat tax rate that is completely fair and doesn't have lower classes paying the majority of the costs of running a government. "
worldnews,"What do you think billionaires like that do with most of their money?  It is in stock in their company which goes towards funding the company doing what it needs.

No employer is going to be like “I already made as much money as i can for the year, so let’s take huge financial risks with my own money so that if things go well I can give more money to my employees!   No!  Limit income and producers will just scale back production to hit their limit while minimizing their risk.  Or open another division of their company in another country.  

98% tax rate would not be, nor has it ever been, effective."
worldnews,"The middle class seriously needs to run for every elected role and push a middle-out economy. If the middle class gets the tax breaks, free healthcare, and support, they become the upper class. And with more upperclass paying a larger portion of the taxes than now, this will help more people move from lower to middle class.

Everyone who is looking to move up gets some, regardless of the angle then are coming from.
"
worldnews,"I think Stock Markets should be abolished because of the type of business practices they create. When a company goes public, suddenly everything wholesome about it goes out the window in favor of getting those stock prices up. Labor gets outsourced, people get paid slave wages, benefits drop, product quality goes down, the environmental cost increases, mergers happen and more good companies get absorbed.. its a mess. All to get stock to rise to keep the shareholders happy."
worldnews,"I'd rather it benefit to more people instead of just a select few that will accelerate their capital hoarding and leave more and more people behind.

You drank some seriously strong koolaid. That article doesn't even confirm your claim about american owning savings/401k...

It just says 65% of them think they are saving enough and that, worryingly, 39% of them think 5 to 15% is the sweet spot while it really is more than 15%....

so yeah, stock market don't benefit to everyone. Just the already rich."
worldnews,"Yeah sure it might turn into a million but I also might lose all my money like HMNY investors or anyone who bought Bear Sterns. Also it's not like a magic money machine. My money is being used to grow companies which makes more people employed and hopefully gets people better wages. 

We live in a fucked society and healthcare and college should definitely be made drastically cheaper since they're such corrupt institutions profiting off of them. But stock trading has been regulated quite a bit over the years and the taxes function pretty well on it."
worldnews,"You are only taxed on the additional income. Example - Invest $100, that $100 increases in value to $150, you are only taxed on the $50 increase, not the entire $150. If you incur a loss, you can carry forward that loss and deduct gains in future years. It's a pretty sweet deal for investors.

So no, you are not taxed twice. It is the same situation as selling a house. Buy house for $100k after 30 years that house is now worth $1,000,000. You are taxed only on the difference ($900k). Additionally, since it is a capital asset, it is taxed at the lower capital gains rate of 20% (if this was regular income it would be the top bracket of 37%). The government provides even more advantages for this capital asset and provides a deduction up to $250k for single filers and $500k for married filers. So that $900k income is treated as only a $400k income at 20% (80k total tax).

Compare this to making $900k as regular income and you get taxed in excess of $300k+

That's 3x more taxes."
worldnews,"The dudes spending a billion dollars a year funding Blue Origin, and thats pretty much just a hobby project which has barely even started so far. They're not expecting to turn a profit (company-wide. Individual programs like BE-4 sales and New Glenn flights should be profitable in the short term) for at least 20-30 years because of all the R&D needed, in all probability he'll be dead by then. And even with that massive expenditure (paid for by selling Amazon shares) the value of his remaining shares are still increasing."
worldnews,"I can provide an anecdote. I lived in Colombia as an upper middle class person, and my quality of life was worse than living in Compton. 

I say upper middle class because we owned a house in Cartagena, paid in cash, and two farms in the Amazon basin, as well as having our own store. 

No hot water, no access to medical care (the closest provider was a guy in a house who claimed to be a doctor and had a small office in his house with a steel bed and some equipment) , no potable water, often no electricity, often no water period, deaths in front of the street from accidents, deaths from very easily treatable cancers, deaths from dealers getting revenge on retired cops. (I mentioning the deaths because, I find that the amount of money your people have affects when/how your people will die. )

Malnutrition was just a thing. All of the women didn't start their period until they were 17 or so. 
Gangs of starving children would raid your house if you weren't careful (good ol' Olaya!) 

I would rather be the poorest of the poor in the USA than be upper middle class in Colombia pre-2015 

Because it doesn't even compare. 


At the very least, when water gets lead in Flint, people notice. 

In Colombia, it's just the way it is. 


At the very least, the drinking water you buy isn't reused sewagee water that's been lightly filtered. (Big scam in Colombia) 

"
worldnews,">seriously combat inequality and make the 99% better off

What makes the 99% better off is heavy investment in free healthcare, education and security, but most of the 99% are more interested in taxing the rich directly than making these structural changes that actually benefit them.

Which is why things like Bezos being rich offends them even though it comes on the back of creating half a million jobs and creating significant efficiencies in the economy, but their lack of free healthcare and education doesn't seem to inspire the same kind of anger as this guy's being successful does.

The super rich don't consume that much compared to their net worth, wealth being invested is more useful to everyone than it not being invested. I've met my fair share of 1%ers by income that really don't consume any more than anyone who makes 20% as much as them.

Do people realize Jeff Bezos's net worth is basically paper money until he decides to sell right? And the day he tries to sell it all, Amazon's stock is going to crash by 90%.

Taxing capital gains is fine, but by making capital gains taxed at the same rate as income you promote speculative trading instead of passive investment which could create chaos in the markets and actually damage the economy overall, and you need to also be OK with the capital/residency flight that might entail since many other countries also have low long-term-capital gains to encourage investors.

Wanting to tax UNREALIZED gains (like Bezos's) right now, is absolute madness, and there's no reason why his unrealized gains should evoke such passion."
worldnews,"This is totally incorrect. There is no regulatory body or something tweaking the capital gains rate to maximize revenue year to year - watch how it stays the same for multiple tax periods. The closest thing to that is Congress and the President, for whom it is laughable to attribute any amount of technocratic leanings.

Lowering taxes on rich people has been tried before and 40 years later look where we are."
worldnews,"> The super rich don't consume that much compared to their net worth, wealth being invested is more useful to everyone than it not being invested. I've met my fair share of 1%ers by income that really don't consume any more than anyone who makes 20% as much as them.

So why did you claim in your prior comment that raising their taxes would encourage consumption over investment? Already they pay a higher tax on investments than consumption, and already as you said they mostly put money into investment over consumption. In other words the taxes would have to be pretty significant to actually turn them away from investment and into consumption, and regardless that can be counteracted with a progressive consumption tax very easily.

> capital/residency flight that might entail.

Again, if the US got serious about it, this kind of shit would not happen. Tax havens only continue to operate because the people in power are wealthy and benefit from their continued existence. The US is by far influential and powerful enough to prevent capital flight, policymakers just... choose not to. For good reason (at least for their own political fortunes). Imagine if they put the effort into shutting down loopholes and tax havens that they put into cracking down on the pennies lost to welfare fraud.

> Taxing UNREALIZED gains

I don't think a lot of people are arguing that. It's more the concern that a single individual or company can even reach this size without being broken up."
worldnews,"> So why did you claim in your prior comment that raising their taxes would encourage consumption over investment? 

Realistically they'll just restructure their investments to be in/from vehicles in different geographies. 

> Tax havens only continue to operate because the people in power are wealthy and benefit from their continued existence.

No, tax havens continue operate because there's no such thing as a world tax law and you don't get to invade other countries to establish one. You will have to literally ban trade with other country, there is no other way - because banning trade with say, Ireland, won't stop your problem since you can trade with Germany and Germany can trade with Ireland. You can tax consumption, but that's a regressive tax since the rich consume less.

If you have such a prescription to prevent tax havens and shell corporations I'd love to hear it, given that no country has been able to stop it completely. I'm sure more can be done, but I really doubt that it's as straightforward as you make it sound.

Again not a single goddamn word on health and education, but 3 paragraphs on capital flight. "
worldnews,"That's like just your opinion man! I wholeheartedly disagree. My career and hobbies are a product of my interests, I pursue them because they give me personal satisfaction, not wealth. I believe humans would still work, invent, and try and make the world better without money as an incentive (and in fact, I'm sure you could find thousands of examples where profit motive has had the exact opposite effect). But you know, that's a whole other philosophical debate."
worldnews,">Lowering taxes on rich people has been tried before and 40 years later look where we are.

You don't understand history. Taxes are typically lowered after existential wars. And at the height of the US marginal rate, no one was paying that rate, because there were tax shelters.

>There is no regulatory body or something tweaking the capital gains rate to maximize revenue year to year - watch how it stays the same for multiple tax periods.

You don't understand contemporary policy. Legislators are advised by armies of economists on revenue vs growth vs tax rate.

>Lowering taxes on rich people has been tried before and 40 years later look where we are.

You don't understand English, because I never suggested lowering the taxes on the rich.

Do you understand anything at all, or is just a stream of *non sequiturs* and angst?"
worldnews,"There *is* an optimum point. The evidence that we're close is that historical and well studied proposed changes in tax rate make little change to revenue, so were near a rate of change of 0.

The big problem is that the revenue will drop sharply at high tax rates, because there are discrete effects with respect to the tax rates of other markets. So we're near the peak, and searching for it with higher taxes courts economic recession."
worldnews,"Unfortunately for those who weren't, if you were raised with education, good nutrition and in a place with access to the tools required, you are literally going to provide another person with more value than those who weren't.   


Aside from punishing those who were, and want to invent, trade, improve the globes wealth, which will only slow our progress, we cannot do anything about that.  


The world has far fewer starving people because the scraps from the west today are so much better than what one could muster in Uganda in the 50's."
worldnews,"The reason healthcare and education and other public works can’t get through IS the inequality. Solving the inequality is gonna be a prerequisite for lasting change. There is a reason that labor has been pushing for big changes like that for a century and little has gotten done. Inequality is a social ill on its own - other problems must be solved too, but this discussion is about inequality.

And tax havens aren’t doing the big economies of the world any favors. Sanctioning the Bahamas or Switzerland or what have you is very do-able. It’s never even been tried though. The US can effectively regulate the vast majority of multinational corporations because of its indispensable place at the center of global trade, but it chooses not to. If the governments of the world actually went to bat for the 99%, tax havens would be shut down by the weekend. Your argument implies that no sanctions work, but they needn’t be universal to be impactful enough to effect change. And imagine the optics of being the Chancellor of Germany or what have you and continuing to treat the Caymans as a normal country while the US tries to stop international tax evasion through meaningful sanctions - it’s not a good look."
worldnews,"I would prefer all items being inflation adjusted after X amount of years. This way Congress doesn't have to continually go back and re-write the laws (adding in more bologna as they do it). 

Went to Law school and got a concentration in Tax Law, and I still don't know shit. There is a strong incentive to prevent double taxation (for example the Foreign Tax Credit which gives you a credit for any taxes you paid to foreign countries on your year abroad in Germany so you don't pay taxes to two different countries). 

However, the tax codes are longer than any other sub-section of laws and are a product of those in power carving out advantages from themselves and advertising them as benefits to all (such as the mortgage interest deduction)."
worldnews,"You're right, I'm not sure I understand your objection. 

I don't rank people on some kind of hierarchy where one person's labor is intrinsically more valuable than another's. Every person has equal dignity and equal worth.  Moreover, there are plenty of people out there who could do my job better than me (and would want to), but who are stuck struggling to make it each day, doing something they hate because we live under a system that grossly misallocates human potential. There's nothing particularly special about me as a person.

In any case, there's no instrinsic reason why anyone (in the devleoped world, at least) should have to suffer from poverty regardless. These are structural issues, man-made problems. 

"
worldnews,"> You don't understand history. Taxes are typically lowered after existential wars. And at the height of the US marginal rate, no one was paying that rate, because there were tax shelters.

So do something about the shelters? There is no good reason that the IRS has to play along with Apple's game that supposedly their Palo Alto headquarters are just a subsidiary of an Irish company. Also, I'm referring to trickle down economics in the 80s, not the Kennedy tax cuts or whatever you're trying to vaguely reference.

> You don't understand contemporary policy. Legislators are advised by armies of economists on revenue vs growth vs tax rate.

You have a faith in the US legislative system that even the legislators themselves don't have. Imagine thinking that legislation is simply the end result of a bunch of economists and policy wonks coming together to craft policies optimal for the median citizen and then telling someone else that they ""don't understand contemporary policy."" Jesus Christ that is naive. For your information, the latest overhaul of the tax code was completely devoid of support by independent economists, and tax revenue immediately dropped after it went into effect.

> I never suggested lowering the taxes on the rich.

Let me quote you directly:

> lower the marginal rate of the highest tax brackets


> Do you understand anything at all, or is just a stream of non sequiturs and angst?

Considering I have a degree in economics, I'd say I ""understand"" the tax discussion as much as anyone else in these comments. Clearly more than yourself, person who unironically chose the username ""L2Logic."" Jeez."
worldnews,"I have no clue... But I assume the connections that China has been building out their way? They're reconnecting the old silk road basically with modern ports and shit.

That or something completely different... But who knows too lazy to google just as you are pffff

Edit: yep got less lazy, it's the belt road initiative. Basically a modern silk road that gonna make China into a even bigger superpower/economy if someone doesn't think up something better.

Vox has a (admittedly biased, as all vox videos are) video on the BRI of you care to learn more."
worldnews,"The rich staying rich is a different statement than ""the vast majority of millionaires are from wealth"". Do you have a chart breaking down the number of millionaires by how wealthy their parents were?

I think you're overestimating how difficult it is to become a millionaire in 2018. With a lifetime of working, saving, owning a house, and putting money into a 401(k), it is common for middle class people to retire as a millionaire. Not as exciting or accessible as being a liquid millionaire in your 20s, but still a millionaire. "
worldnews,Oh yeah gotta love how much refinancing helped people on '08. The amount of scum and crookery in the stock market is insane but they focus the attention on Bezos (who needs to increase his workers wages and cut hours or take on more shifts. Do something so people don't have to shit in bags) the dark pools of the stock market and the fucking mortgage and student loan bond market still needs to be fixed. The amount of money people make from growing a company like Amazon is pennies compared to the money made from screwing people over through debt.
worldnews,"No single person on earth truly produces anything worth billions of dollars. 

They just place themselves in a position to exploit the shit out of people who produce and actually create tangible goods. On that same note, you as CEO are not worth 10,000x the lowest of your employees. That’s the whole god damn issue.

And this “white mans burden” explanation of how nothing can change is outright short sighted. Not all inventors are rich, not all of them were for purely monetary gain. This is a relatively new phenomenon fed into by America’s creed of “Fuck you, I got mine”.  Is leaving nearly the entire earths population in poverty save for the group of billionaires behind truly progress? Sounds more like me a centralization of wealth into a noble class all over again. 





"
worldnews,"It’s the Belt and Road Initiative. It is the plan by the Chinese government to make western dominated shipping from the Chinese coast less important. Right now the Chinese are dependent on western shipping companies to take goods from China to their destinations everywhere in the world. China is building several large highways that Willens make it possible to drive from basically anywhere in Africa, the Middle East, and Europe to China or vice versa. There is also a big railroad that’s getting built too and some ports in various countries. 

It is as important as the silk road once was. Think of how dominant the idea of the Silk Road was in your history classes was, how dominant the transpacific railroad to the US was, the Panama Canal. This is bigger. 

It will mean that China controls the global supply chain for more than 3/4 of the world. The only thing they won’t control is goods produced in North and South America that go by sea to Europe or Africa. It’s also why China wants to control the South China Sea, because it’s where all the major shipping lanes go for that region. "
worldnews,"I disagree. Unfair, would be taking all of the risk, and doing all of the work, and making all of the personal sacrifice, only to be forced into giving your earned gains away.


It is sad, and hugely unfortunate, that there are poor people, and people with untreated mental health issues, and people who just can’t seem to catch a break. These are tragic conditions, to be sure.


I do not begrudge anyone who takes all the chance, and assumes all the risk, and comes out ahead for it. That being said, folks with ridiculous amounts of wealth should feel morally obligated to help those less fortunate. Whether those folks choose to help or not, is their decision. They should not be forced to part with their earnings because there are others less fortunate.


There will always be poor, infirmed, down-on-their-luck people in this world. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor does nothing to solve the problem."
worldnews,"Did you even read the article you linked? First of all, as the other guy pointed out, the article says 65% of people think they’re saving up enough, not 65% are saving up enough. The whole point of the article was to say that most people are not saving up enough. Second, this article says nothing about how many people have 401ks, it only says 65% of people think they’re saving enough. It tells us nothing about the figure you were trying to back up. Third, unrelated to the article and as another person pointed out, changes in stock price affect richer people much more. The effects on the average person can sometimes be negligible. If you have $200,000 invested (which is close to what the article said people will save total over their whole career) and the market goes up by 5%, you’ll get an extra $10,000. That may seem significant, but over 20 years (assuming you retire at 65 and die at 85, which is pretty average), that’s only $500 extra a year or $42 a month, which is almost nothing. However, if you’re rich and have $20 million invested and stocks go up 5%, then you get $1 million ($4,200 a month), which very much is significant. So, stock market increases barely affect average people at all, and mostly just make rich people richer."
worldnews,"Did he say that? I'll answer for you: he did not say people didn't die before we had the obscenely rich, he said the two are linked. I'll break it down a little for you. 

The way Bezos is able to reach the level of extreme wealth he has today is, obviously, by maximizing his company's profitability, which, inevitably means taking advantage of and under paying workers, which is very well documented with Amazon. So that's one part. The other, is that in the era where Jeff Bezos lives (hint, it's the current one), there is much more poverty then there needs to be because wealth is extremely concentrated in a few hands, instead of helping out those who could benefit a lot from just a little. We grow enough food in America to fully feed every citizen. We have more empty housing stock then homeless people. Obviously solving these problems is complex, but the point is that there is a finite amount of wealth in the economy, and every million dollars more that goes to Bezos is a million dollars not able to help anyone survive. (not even Jeff himself, since $1,000,000 will sit unnoticed tied up in stock somewhere not bringing him anything except even a little bit more money). "
worldnews,"Forbes has a ranking scale for their top 400 richest people based on how wealthy they were growing up. A 10 means they grew up poor, and a 1 means they inherited everything. Only 9s and 10s would be considered working class. 98 of the people on that list (~24%) fall into this category. This is despite being a majority of the country. Only 8.5% actually grew up poor. However even if you make the cutoff for ""grew up wealthy"" to be people like Donald Trump (who is a 5 on their scale, was the son a major real estate tycoon, and got a small loan of a million dollars) then those people account for over 30% of the list despite very much being in the top 1%."
worldnews,"That's where you and i disagree.

If millions of people didnt value the amazon service, then bezos wouldnt be a billionaire.

If bezos didnt create it, then people wouldnt be able to give him money, which they feel is worth the value he provided.  


Additionally,  poverty isnt a fixed amount, poverty is anyone who makes less than half of the median, so a HUGE portion of the world will always be in poverty, by definition."
worldnews,"Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that kinda the point? Instead of accumulating the wealth themselves (the $1 into $0.02 issue), the rich would invest that money back into the economy through their businesses, thus having the money be counted as an expense instead of just profit, thus kicking in tax breaks on the wealth they were going to keep?

​

The way I understood it was that in the past, the tax rate was so high because it was an incentive for the rich to reinvest, thus creating a stronger economy. The high tax rate was to target those who were accumulating money without doing much of anything with it."
worldnews,"Again, you're explaining something different than what you said. You said that ""the vast majority of millionaires are from wealth"". Forbes top 400 I'm assuming is all billionaires, though at the very least rank 400 must have hundreds of millions of dollars. I'm not arguing that the richest of the rich didn't come from money, I am asking you to support your argument that the vast majority of millionaires are from wealth. The category 'millionaire' starts with 1 million dollars, not forbes rank 400 "
worldnews,"At least for the corporate income tax, my understanding is that the corporate income tax is just an indirect tax on consumers. Instead of targeting the rich, it targets the poor and the middle class. If the government comes in and says to Microsoft that they are now going to pay an extra million in corporate income tax, the corporation is just going to raise the prices on their products to match the new tax. Since taxes generally are across the board, this doesn't create much of an incentive to not push the tax on the consumer as other businesses in a similar field will also have that same tax to pay. Therefore, all of the businesses see it as in their best interest to charge a higher rate on their products.

​

If you want to tax the rich, you tax them directly. Taxing corporations generally only taxes the consumers, the very people you don't want being taxed too heavily as they are the ones keeping the economy afloat with the purchase of goods."
worldnews,"Alright, take a look at [this chart.](http://www.capso.org/Emailer/EducationalMobilityTable.png) 46% of people in the top 20% of income have children who will stay in that top 20%, and the trend seems to only get more extreme as you get higher up on the income scale.  Approximately the top 7% of people in the US are millionaires. It is difficult to find data specifically relating to millionaires as the cutoff (economists love quintiles) but it would be bizarre to me to assume that the trend stops at the 80% mark and that a majority of people in the top 7% wouldn't also have kids who end up in the top 7%.

Edit: Because I grabbed the wrong chart, [here](https://static.neatorama.com/images/2012-06/generational-mobility.jpg) is one based on income. Surprise, it's almost exactly the same."
worldnews,"It's not though, because for the average person taxing capital gains the same way is only going to make their retirement funds double taxed and really fuck them over.

If you're making 50k after tax, and you're being responsible and putting away 10k every year after tax into investments for your retirement, why the fuck should you be punished with additional taxes on money you've already been taxed to earn? This will just discourage investment in general. "
worldnews,"> At least for the corporate income tax, my understanding is that the corporate income tax is just an indirect tax on consumers.

Since we get screwed anyway, let's tax corporations just in case. It seems like the lower the corporate tax, the more people get screwed. So therefore let's keep lowering it? Why? Is there some instant flip where if that number goes to 0, people stop getting screwed and get benefits?

How about this: corporations had their taxes lowered this year. Are they lowering prices? No. Are they increasing pay? No. Some are but are all? No. Most even? I doubt it.

So as you continue to decrease their corporate rate - and we have already been doing that - what makes you think people will get any benefit? If we're not getting a benefit now, decreasing the rate more will somehow give us a benefit?

> If the government comes in and says to Microsoft that they are now going to pay an extra million in corporate income tax, the corporation is just going to raise the prices on their products to match the new tax. 

But how about this:

* the government does nothing
* Microsoft raises prices anyway

Now what?

Or how about this:

* the government decreases tax rate
* Microsoft raises prices anyway

You know that new iPhone? I hear it's still $1000 and Apple hasn't lowered their prices even though corporate taxes were lowered.

Now what?

> If you want to tax the rich, you tax them directly. 

That's where my capital gains tax idea comes into play. Also decrease the exemption on the estate tax."
worldnews,"That's due to a misconception between minimum wage and living wage.

Minimum wage is supposed to be paid to non-adult men (i.e. women and children) when the primary caregiver - which at the time was an adult male - had the salary. 

Minimum wage wasn't intended to be the primary source of income. It was meant to be a secondary source.

Living wage is meant to be a primary source of income and that's not being paid by corporations who pay minimum wage.

People who believe you - as an adult - can get by on minimum wage are wrong."
worldnews,"That chart is refering to education, not wealth. At least at this point you're being honest about working on assumptions rather than facts. Reality may actually surprise you. Wealth is not some immutable thing that creates entire dynasties of entitled people with a silver spoon in their mouth, more often than not it dries up pretty quick.

http://time.com/money/3925308/rich-families-lose-wealth/

>Indeed, 70% of wealthy families lose their wealth by the second generation, and a stunning 90% by the third, according to the Williams Group wealth consultancy.



Obviously the system isn't perfect but people like yourself really don't seem to grasp how dynamic and shifting it truly is. Coupled with other studies showing a how many self-made millionaires there are (again, self-selecting but still indicative that it is a far more common occurence than you think) the system doesn't seem quite as staunch or bleak."
worldnews,"the rich today aren't sitting on mounds of cash.  Nearly everything that billionaires have is in investments.  Inflation alone is reason enough to not store tons of cash in bank accounts.  

Also, you don't get to dodge taxes just because you reinvest money.  You can avoid showing profits on a company by spending what would be profits in expanding the business, but what is the point of that if you are going to be taxed the next year just as much on a now bigger business with a higher risk?

Growing a business bigger when you can't earn any more on it because taxes are so high is stupid and risky.  You would be better off keeping the business small and only keeping minimal equipment and employees to hit the practical limit of personal profits, or you effectively commit tax fraud by buying all the fun stuff you would like personally but claim they are business expenses to avoid paying taxes.  Oh, my business needs a yacht for yacht meetings.  there goes what would have been 1 million in profits.  Oh, and I need some corporate jet skis so people who are late can get out to the yacht meeting.  I am also installing my business home theater for showing my vice presidents the quarterly sales reports on a 200"" screen."
worldnews,"Well, I appreciate the time you took to detail your experience.  There is truth in that if something isn't available in your area then you cannot have it whether or not you can purchase it - the difference in access to technology and various forms of infrastructure between developing and developed countries is not up for debate, that is trivially true.

But, the poster I responded to is  just spreading sensationalist nonsense; to even get to his estimate of $2/day you have to include extrapolated pseudo-data from nations that we don't have valid statistics on and you also have to include the millions upon millions of people who still don't rely on modern economies to sustain themselves - you don't need a wage when you are able to feed and cloth yourself without currency, and that is a perfectly valid lifestyle.

When you factor in the above as well as adjust the figure for purchasing power parity the average daily income is somewhere between $50-$75 a day, which all of sudden doesn't seem so crazy.

[Source](https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17512040)"
worldnews,"Do you have a link to that 70% number as opposed to a third party reporting on the fact? I'd like to see the data as they often have shaky ways of defining ""not wealthy."" Also, even if only 30% of rich people's kids wind up rich, that's way too high a number to be representative of a meritocracy. Assuming that we're talking about the 1%, that means that rich kids have a 50x higher likelihood of becoming rich than everyone else."
worldnews,"Lets assume all those 164,7B is available in his bank account.

He could buy 16 of the best players in the NHL and pay them 10M a year for 1000 years.

And still have almost 5 billion friggin dollars left over.

He could give every person in the planet $10 and still be one of the wealthiest people alive.

He could give every person in USA $500 each and still have around 5 billion dollars left over."
worldnews,"Okay silly. Anyone with a small business is aware of self employment tax, the split on FICA between the company and employee. More than a few employees and you are aware of self underwriting healthcare policies. Doesn’t take an expert, just some minor experience.

If federal and state governments made companies with employees pitch into Medicare instead of BCBS, Aetna or some other unnecessary broker the numbers work out for reasonable coverage for the population. 

Want better than the provided coverage? Get a rider from a healthcare provider at that point.

Yoy. Sheesh."
worldnews,"This is the thing that bothers me about extreme wealth. What the hell are you going to do with all that money? I mean what's the point, there's literally no way you can spend it all unless you just give it all away. Even people with a fraction of that amount of money would never be able to spend it. It's just extremely selfish to accumulate so much wealth when there are so many out there who's lives could be improved if you were to share some of it."
worldnews,"I believe that Bill Gates said that when he dies all (or majority) of his wealth and money is going charity. But anyway just giving people money won't get rid of issues. Investing the money and using the money wisely is far better than just donating it. You don't help countries through foreign aid, you help them by trading with them. East asia is a perfect example of this. Just ""giving"" money won't actually help that much. 

I do believe the current wealth inequality is an issue but it isn't all bad. We do need some ridiculously rich people to invest in things. The hard part is to get the rich people to invest in important things and stay away from harmful things. 

Give a man a fish and he is fed for a day, teach a man how to fish and he feeds himself for the rest of his life. However, we need to make sure that the billionaires actually teach (invest in good things) and not steal your fishing pole."
worldnews,"In fairness, the fact that you cannot fathom what to do with such enormous amounts of money is a lot of the reason why you don't have such money. I don't mean that to downplay the role of luck, ruthlessness, or even meglomania. It's the same reason lottery winners and NFL millionaires all go bankrupt. The rich are rich because they fundamentally think of money differently than everyone else. Whatever they did to make the money and keep it by definition are things no one else saw. I don't mean they have different preferences that you could imagine sharing, hypothetically. I mean they are on a totally different wavelength when it comes to money. Logically this must be the case because in order to accumulate such money, you have to see opportunities and pitfalls for money that everyone else doesn't see at all. Otherwise there would be 1000's of Bezoses, which is to say there would be no Jeff Bezos. He exists because no one else on Earth shares his mental model for how to handle money. Before someone chimes in that he's not special, just especially exploitative, bear mind millions of people worldwide are much more willing than Bezos to exploit people. "
worldnews,"I absolutely agree, when I talk about sharing the wealth I'm not referring to just donating. I just can't understand why someone feels the need to hoard wealth like that. Sure keep a couple million/billion in the bank/as assets, but to have hundreds of billions to your name is just absurd. These astronomical numbers are crazy and it blows my mind when they just hoard it, I mean freaking spend it, even if they spend it all on themselves they're at least stimulating the various industries that produce the products/services they would spend it on. I'm by no means an expert in economics so I don't truly understand where all these people keep their money, but I mean come on, it's outrageous that you can attribute so much wealth to a single individual."
worldnews,"I repeat, you do not understand history.

1. In 1955, the **effective tax rate** on the top 0.01% was 45%.
1. American taxes have become steadily **more progressive** since 1955.
1. Since 1955, the tax burden on the GDP has stayed within the same narrow band.
1. The 1986 tax reform did not significantly change the tax burden by income percentile.

>So do something about the shelters?

Eisenhower era tax code was designed to control investment behavior, not gouge the rich. The shelters were intentional.

Later policy, like the Tax Reform Act of 1986, did not significantly perturb tax burden. They simultaneously lowered rates and removed shelters. It was designed to be revenue neutral with careful study.

>Also, I'm referring to trickle down economics in the 80s, not the Kennedy tax cuts or whatever you're trying to vaguely reference.

It's clear you don't understand taxes, because you're only considering marginal rates. But effective tax rates, taxes actually paid, are more important.

>You have a faith in the US legislative system that even the legislators themselves don't have. Imagine thinking that legislation is simply the end result of a bunch of economists and policy wonks coming together to craft policies optimal for the median citizen and then telling someone else that they ""don't understand contemporary policy.""

Straw man fallacy. The scenario you described isn't what I claimed.

>For your information, the latest overhaul of the tax code was completely devoid of support by independent economists, and tax revenue immediately dropped after it went into effect.

The Trump cuts? I think he intended a true cut, not a revenue neutral change. He said some bullshit about rebound effects, but it sounded like a smokescreen. Plenty of economists support lowering, or even eliminating, the corporate income tax. Furthermore, we won't know if it's revenue neutral until next year.

>Let me quote you directly

Beautiful. You *really* don't understand the difference between marginal rates and effective rates.

I love how you think you had me cornered, only for it to turn out to be the same mathematical error you've been making thia whole time. Talk about rhetorical blue-balling.

>Considering I have a degree in economics

Argument by authority.

>I'd say I ""understand"" the tax discussion as much as anyone else in these comments.

You'd say that, and yet what you say says otherwise."
worldnews,"Ohhh, sorry, I misread your comment - yes, I realize that capital gains are taxed, I thought you were proposing increasing that tax amount and I was objecting because that would punish me as a middle class saver for doing the right thing and planning for my retirement. That money is already taxed twice, once when you earn it originally, and then again when it makes gains. 

But I do like the idea of cutting income tax and then increasing tax on capital gains to compensate, to an extent. Would keep more money in the hands of people who spend, and would slow down the mindset among corporations of constant unrelenting growth, which is driven by the fact that they're all paid in stocks."
worldnews,"In fact it is the exact opposite.

A wealthy person who consumes vast amounts is depriving the world of those resources. Whereas someone who doesn't spend their money is being truly generous. 

Jeff Bezos is accumulating paper wealth, but that doesn't deprive anyone of anything. Even if a single person owned the entire Fortune 500, it really wouldn't matter at all as long as they lived the same lifestyle as the rest of us.

It is unequal consumption that matters, not unequal wealth."
worldnews,"Your metric claims that 1/3 of the world lives on $2 a day.

If I was generous I could say that [1/7](https://homelessworldcup.org/homelessness-statistics/) of the world is lacking their basic necessities but the number is honestly closer to [1/70](https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/life/culture/article/2017/07/04/us-and-them-what-homelessness-looks-around-world).

Either way, most people who are living on ""$2/day"" are not homeless nor starving though their relative lifestyle might seem primitive to a citizen from a developed nation.  This is because markets adapt to their consumers - if the consumers have radically low incomes on average then luxury goods/services might not be offered but necessary goods/services will be something that the workers can arguably afford.

It also depends on the style of government in the area - how many social services are offered?  Do citizens receive free rations, housing, and healthcare?  If so, then their income says a lot less about their lifestyle because they pretty much only need income for wants rather than needs.  A decent example of this would be Cuba.  The Nordic countries achieve similar effects through taxation despite their average income being far and beyond $2/day - but the point is that your income is a meaningless number without the context of the area you live in (cost of living, social subsidies, no access/reliance on markets, etc.).

Just as an example here in the states, my salary could not hope to support a decent lifestyle for me in the bay area of san francisco.  Here on the east coast I manage alright.  If I moved to a less developed part of the US, like the Midwest or Appalachia, then my salary could afford myself a much more luxurious lifestyle as the costs of living there are very low in comparison.

"
worldnews,">What the hell are you going to do with all that money? 

Invest it back into the company and expand the business, which is exactly what Bezos has done. You have a child's grasp on economics if you think he's just sitting on a mountain of useless cash.

To further expand on your infantile understanding on how money works: Even if Bezos literally was keeping a mountain of money locked away in a vault, he's actually still benefiting society with it. Because money is a representation of value. And the money Bezos has made represents the value he's put back into society by offering a service that lets families order products online that they couldn't otherwise get locally, and the other host of conveniences that Amazon provides."
worldnews,"Yes, for all practical intents and purposes there is a finite amount. The irony in you saying we have 10 times more wealth than 100 years ago is especially good considering 10 is a very finite number. I'll address what I think you're thinking about - that the economy is predicted to be able to *grow* infinitely. Even leaving aside the debate over how true this really is, that still does not in any way mean that *our current economy today* (or at any singular point in time) is infinite. It's not. You can sum all the wealth in the American economy (not easy to do with any great accuracy), and it's a really big number, but it isn't infinity.

TL;DR: infinite potential expansion over a period of time is not the same thing as an infinite quantity at any specific point in time. "
worldnews,"It is scam the BRI, It is the chinese communist party utopian dream.  


China know that their whole trade is stoping if US decide to block the sea so, their only other option is the land trade routes which lack the infrastructure.   


Also china had huge bubble with money printing and investing in infrastrucutre so very huge amount of chinese economy are constructuion companies so they want to take advantage of that and go build highways and railways to other countries."
worldnews,">Isn’t working more valuable to a society than “investing”?

No, that's the conceit of communism.  A guy who finds and raises capital for a promising robotics startup creating automated warehouse solutions that increase productivity 100x is far more valuable to society than the guy who shuffles boxes in the warehouse daily, doing the same every day working harder but not making any significant change.

>We could just take the money from those rich people and invest it for them,

You aren't as good as the rich people at investing money. That's one of the many reasons they are rich and you are not.

It's not that hard to make money once you are at the point where you can afford education and healthcare, but most people still fail, apparently. The US has a net negative savings rate, so clearly investment 

>Labor is necessary, laborers are necessary, capital is necessary, capitalists are not.

The people who invest capital most efficiently, provided they gain a cut of it, are by definition capitalists. If you don't give them a cut of it, then they have no incentive to invest it optimally. There is scope for reform here, maybe the US needs to create a Norway style professionally managed sovereign fund,  but the cut and dry bullshit here is nauseating."
worldnews,"The really scary thing is that there is probably a ton of stuff that we don't know about. If it's at the point where his secretary of defence is saying that Trump views things at a 6th grade level, Tillerson said he's a fucking moron, and Cohn was literally taking documents off of his desk so Trump would forget about them........... 

The part about Trumps lawyer prepping him for questioning from Mueller was epic as well."
worldnews,"Holy cow, reading that article is simply insane.  Former and current cabinet members literally and strategically treating the president like a 5th grader by hiding papers from him and struggling to explain political concepts to him in order to prevent grave consequences for the world.  Straight up openly disparaging him and his cognitive skills to other staff, with tons of expletives.  Kelly is completely right- it truly, sincerely, honestly is crazytown.  How did the highest office come to this?

Some of those quotes are mind boggling:

>""If that was me, I would have taken that resignation letter and shoved it up his ass six different times.""

\- John Kelly to Gary Cohn

>""This guy is mentally retarded,"" Trump said of Sessions. ""He's this dumb  southerner,"" Trump told Porter, mocking Sessions by feigning a southern  accent.

This quote seems almost certain to finally piss off southern Republicans, yet that probably means they will love him even more.

And then there's:

>Trump called President Barack Obama a ""weak dick"" for not acting in Syria, Woodward reports.

...Could this be a case of Freudian projection against his ultimate enemy?"
worldnews,"Nah. The guy in charge of the nuclear arsenal is the secretary of energy, which would be Rick Perry. This is the guy who questioned the need for a department of energy because he thought it's role was to oversee energy companies. Basically the idiot has mostly hired other idiots. I'm genuinely scared that these are the people in charge. My only hope is that those under them still know how things should be done."
worldnews,"I cannot for the life of me understand why so many people think having lots of money automatically means you are intelligent.

Trump was given a million dollars, pointed toward the Manhattan Real estate market, and told ""have fun, don't screw it up!"" Literally one of the easiest real estate markets in the world to make money in. And here's the thing, he actually screwed it up. He lost all his money. He was so bad at what he's supposed to be good at, he ran a *casino* into the ground. The only reason he got back on his feet was the loan-shark deal he made with Russian oligarchs.

Any idiot could have taken Trump's resources and done what he did. Most of us don't because most of us don't have parents who've built their own real estate empire to give us a million-dollar seed loan to get ourselves started.

And let's say he's actually good at real estate. Real estate agent and President of the United States are two *very* different things.

The guy is just an idiot. Idiots get rich and into positions of power *all the fucking time.* Why is that so difficult for people to understand?"
worldnews,"1) I sincerely doubt that anyone, even those of us who hated the guy the entire time, knew just how corrupt and unabashedly stupid he was. We knew he was a tactless blowhard prick, we knew he was a brazen sexist and racist, but a lot of people were at least hoping his acumen as a businessman and figurehead would mean he wasn't entirely incompetent. It seems now that it's much worse than anyone thought, he is borderline retarded, is threatening to axe longstanding democratic institutions, and openly colluding with foreign agents. I don't think even his most ardent haters expected it to be this bad. 

2) What is better, to have a raving lunatic making public statements, policy decisions, and bills totally unchecked by anyone around him, or to have some competent people around him who are suffering through it in order to try and mitigate the damage?

Surely, within the entire executive branch, there are plenty of people who are genuinely there to do their duty properly for the good of the country, just as there are plenty of crony con men appointed by Team Trump to back up his lies and nonsense. 

It's important to differentiate between the two and acknowledge good behavior by those doing their jobs, because otherwise there won't be anyone to do it next time the idiot public votes in a demented sociopath. And there *will* be a next time. "
worldnews,"While I agree, I also believe that with Sanders as Dem candidate things would have turned out \*way\* differently. Core difference being swaths of Dem-leaning voters who didn't want to vote for Clinton believing that enough other people would do and not having a vote for Clinton on their conscience.

We all know what happened instead... Trump voters turning up at Election Day like a pack of wolves when they smell a herd of sheep."
worldnews,"Truth is that no Commander In Chief has supreme authority to launch missiles any time they want. There are an array of people between him and that actually happening, and if any one of those people said ""uh, no"" then it wouldn't happen. 

*In theory* he can. In practice, no he can't. The military higher-ups of this world aren't going to jump into an atomic war on a whim or because of some irrational tweet. All that football does is arm them, it doesn't actually fire them. That'd be the job of others. "
worldnews,"The Republicans are to blame for nominating him, but the Democrats also deserve some of the blame for nominating literally the only candidate that could lose to Trump.

I'm not saying Bernie had a guaranteed chance of winning, but anyone paying attention knew that the nominee should not have been Clinton. But, don't worry, the DNC hasn't learned any of their lessons, so we'll probably get another Third Way Centrist like Booker or Harris or Diet Kennedy ^tm or whatever Centrist the party decides to ram down our throats."
worldnews,"The OP said any idiot could take a million dollar loan from their parents and ""do what he did"". To the contrary, take a look at lotto winners who win hundreds of millions of dollars and go broke. Or people who win large court settlements. Or people who inherit from their parents and don't do anything to build on it. You could give anyone on this thread *100 million* and I highly doubt anyone would make their name one that is recognized world wide and then go on to become President of the United States. 

​

I very much dislike Trump, but it's to the point where you can make any sort of criticism you want about him, valid or otherwise, and people will eat it up. It's not really necessary when there is plenty of legitimate material available to analyze. "
worldnews,"No, Bernie just lost. The end. There was no evidence of tampering in the votes themselves (and Clinton won by a huge margin in the popular vote as well as the delegates) or of improper campaign conduct, and Sanders himself said he fairly lost and told his supporters that Clinton would be their best choice going forward. And Clinton still won the popular vote in the Presidential election too, too bad our electoral system heavily weights rural shitholes with 3 residents per square mile over the cities where 85% of the population lives"
worldnews,"Technically no. Congress only needs to approve acts of sustained war, which *technically speaking* the launch of a nuke wouldn't be, *technically*. 

This all assumes that we're not preemptively making nuclear strikes, but rather retaliating for others on ourselves. In that scenario you absolutely do not want to have to get Congress to convene and vote on retaliation, you want it to happen literally within minutes. If a nuke from NK landed in Hawaii, we'd nuke them back minutes later. That's the idea.

But again, people often pretend the military is just automatons following orders, and it isn't. They're human beings full capable of reason. If he wanted to preemptively strike with nuclear weapons, Trump could feasibly convince them, but it'd be a con-job like no other. He couldn't do it alone, he'd have to have some serious intelligence backing in place already in on it. I mean he'd have to convince many, many people that **we already were nuked** for him to be able to launch on nothing but his say-so. Otherwise I believe you'd just see people refusing the order completely down the line. 

And if it got to that point, the next step is a military coup in America. Which if it got to that point, I'd welcome. Because they wouldn't tolerate Trump in office. The military is divided along political lines like any one else, but they do all respect the military above all else. And being ordered to nuke a nation because Trump is having a bad day would be more than enough evidence for those military higher-ups. They'd seize control. Best case scenario, it's temporary until Congress puts in another President. Worst case, they dissolve Congress entirely and we're stuck with a military dictatorship. "
worldnews," The political system had become so bi partisan and rigged, that people were willing to take any risk on a political outsider just to shake things up. The inability for a 3rd party candidate to get traction, means a outsider from within was the only means of dissent. 

Anyone from the democratic party would have beaten Trump, except Hillary, she is just plain unlikable. She oozes smugness, and a ""more of the same"" air of elitism. They spurned Berny, they had the polling results that said Bernie beats trump and Hillary loses. Yet they chose to go with her because ""it was her time"" in her mind. The strangle hold the two parties have on the American people is disgusting. They have no incentive to change. People who vote for a color instead of a platform, deserve what they get.

I'm sure most of the people who wanted to ""shake things up"" didn't expect this kind of idiocy, but when you roll the dice, sometimes you get snake eyes."
worldnews,">Dem-leaning voters who didn't want to vote for Clinton believing that enough other people would do and not having a vote for Clinton on their conscience.

Yeah and how's Trump working out for them?  Expecting an ideal candidate is an idiotic way to navigate politics, especially on the national level.   Clinton won at the polls decisively and not because of any sort of rigging of from the DNC, some supporters of his were just too short-sighted to see that.  She wasn't a perfect candidate but she was far better than the current shitshow. "
worldnews,"Your speculation of his net worth aside, I don't understand how some of you think this works. He's done so poorly that took a large amount of money and made it into an even larger amount of money. He was known worldwide for his business dealings. Then became President of the United States. 

​

The index fund thing, again, is speculation considering his net worth and any financial details about Trump are unknown. Further, it's pretty easy to pick some stocks in retrospect and say ""what a dumbass, he could have just put all his money in Amazon and he would be the richest in the world"". The S&P 500 didn't really take off until the 80s. In fact, before that, depending on when you invested, you could have put money in and not seen any growth over 2 decades. If it were that easy to look ahead, we would all be rich. That is really a moot point."
worldnews,"Omarosa hasn't publicly released all of her tapes, nor has Michael Cohen, nor has anyone else that has worked in the administration.  We don't know if they have anything that would qualify as evidence of a crime or an admission of guilt, but we also don't know that they don't (because that would be given to Mueller, not the public).

I'm just wondering though, if Omarosa or Cohen has a tape where Trump outright admits to a conspiracy against the United States of America, would you even accept that, or would you just call it 'fake news' because you don't trust the source?"
worldnews,"The saddest reality, as a liberal, is that the downslide of America society over the last few decades falls squarely on the shoulders of Democrat leadership.  The ""adults in the room"" failed to do their job, so the kids went outside and surprise surprise, the homeless dude in the van is letting them down.  They have fought on the wrong hills, gotten outmaneuver in countless ways, and most importantly, cared more about the image they project than actually making political progress.  Now, a large number of states are gerrymandered to hell in favor of the GOP, and the Supreme Court is stacked for the foreseeable future.  Even if 60-65% of voters lean left, it's an uphill battle due to the multitude of failures by democrats over the past 2 decades."
worldnews,"Polling showed Hillary also beat Trump. Bernie had also not gone through a full on republican media attack so if he wins primary, all those ads suddenly get released. 

Polling was meaningless in the end. 

The democrats also went with a person who had been a member of the party for 20+ years. Instead of a independent who joined <1 year earlier simply to take advantage of the party for his presidential aspirations. 

It may have been “her time”, which is idiotic on those who voted purely for this, but she had also done significant amounts of work for the party is the past, vs Bernie who had never been a member. "
worldnews,"I mean, for the most part you're not wrong.... but....

Shouldn't most of the blame go to the people trying to destroy the country, and not the people who failed to stop them? Like Super Man failing to beat Lex Luthor and saying ""The blame rests squarely on Superman for his incompetence while trying to stop Lex Luthor"". Give Lex Luthor some credit here. Superman didn't build a deathray, he just failed to stop Lex from firing it.

And the way things are now, Superman is still our best shot at stopping Lex. 3rd parties like The Flash, Wonder Woman, and Cyborg just aren't getting elected. So why are we making Superman out to be the be guy here? "
worldnews,"> Bernie had also not gone through a full on republican media attack so if he wins primary, all those ads suddenly get released.

Seriously. Bernie is a self-described socialist and he actually went to the USSR on his honeymoon and described it as ""an incredible place"". The phrase ""writes itself"" is overused, but it's applicable here. The attack ads would write themselves. I voted for the guy in the primary, but anyone who thinks Bernie was untouchable in the general is deluding themselves."
worldnews,"You're not wrong, but we just don't have any precedent. No nation has ever been nuked ss a declaration. Japan was already at a war they declared when those bombs fell.

Today, if any nation nuked America, it would be seen as grounds for immediate declaration. It is a sneak attack, and the implication is of course going to be war. So it is true that a strike isn't a declaration, it practically and in all likelihood will be seen as one the world over when that actually does happen. "
worldnews,"The US system isn't very representative. It promotes geographical advantages over the number of people in each region. It hands all the power to a simple majority. And each seat in government is awarded to the top vote-getter, leaving no room in government for small but significant alternative voices.

The Republican party was able to pursue oligarchic rule by assembling *just enough* extremists, low-information voters, and greedy rich people along with enough underhanded election interference to win a simple majority in the US system. Everyone else gets shut out once they are in charge."
worldnews,"> The *Republicans* are to blame for putting out one of the worst candidates in modern history. I mean if you *nominate* Trump, you gotta be fucking terrible right? I get it, time to move forward. But if we're going to see why this happened, *the Republicans were the biggest* part of it *by far*.

I also straight up said that they own part of it, so I guess you just agreed with me in a way that implies that you don't which is weird.

I guess what I'm trying to say is why is everything the Democrats do the fault of the Democrats and the Democrats alone, but everything the Republicans do the fault of the Democrats and the Democrats alone? 

What part of that seems right to you or anyone else? Which party is the party of personal responsibility again? "
worldnews,"> They pushed a vigorous, highly qualified Democrat, who was the wife of a popular President, and with awesome name recognition?

With record levels of unpopularity, and decades of political baggage.

Both the Republican and Democratic nominee that year had record levels of unpopular polling.

You're inadvertently backing up my point - the DNC deserves its share of the blame for pushing the only candidate that could have lost to Trump"
worldnews,"And there it is. The DNC talking points from 2016.

She did have the highest levels of approval ratings....and she also had the highest levels of disapproval ratings. She also had decades of political baggage and fuel for Republicans, so all you're doing is reinforcing my point:

Clinton was the wrong candidate for 2016, and the DNC deserves its share of the blame for nominating and pushing for her as you just just admitted. They pushed the only candidate that could lose to Trump, so they need to be called out and blamed so that the party can actually move on.

But you're also proving my *other* point:

The party has not learned its lesson and is going to ram another Centrist Third Way Democrat down our throats in 2020 and find a way to lose that election, too."
worldnews,"Record levels of unpopularity *among Republicans*. She was well liked among Democrats.

> the DNC deserves its share of the blame for pushing the only candidate that could have lost to Trump

Oh, bullshit. I maintain that Bernie would have been stomped in the general election and it's not like O'Malley, Webb, or freaking *Chafee* were going to beat Trump. Elizabeth Warren wasn't going to run (and she's *very* divisive). The Democrats are a little short of high profile candidates (which is a completely different problem that *can* be laid at the feet of the DNC, at least partially). Russ Feingold? He was a long shot in 2008 and I don't think his chances had improved.
"
worldnews,"It wasn't just a million dollars, and it was more than just straight up currency. He inherited real estate and investments, not to mention being born into an already well-known name. If that moron inherited $250mil one day with no family name attached, he would've lost it, plain and simple. Hell, it's arguable the only reason he isn't begging on the streets right now is because he sold out his name."
worldnews,">Record levels of unpopularity among Republicans. She was well liked among Democrats.



I call bullshit. She had record levels of unpopularity among Republicans and Independents. Just because she was well liked by Democrats does not mean she was well liked among Independents. And those same Independents are what cost her the election - just look at Michigan and Ohio.


Elections aren't just about getting your base to vote, they're also about getting the Independents of this country to vote for you, and Clinton failed miserable at that.


Again:

My point is that Clinton should not have been the nominee, and that the DNC gets their share of the blame for pushing her from the beginning.

I refuse to go into what-if-history territory because it doesn't matter, so I don't care about the rest of your comment beyond agreeing that the DNC is severely lacking in popular front-runners."
worldnews,"I mean... there's also the argument that Superman was aware of the death ray, rolled his eyes at the death ray, said ""don't be stupid, I'm Superman,"" and turned his attention elsewhere as the death ray was methodically aimed at large segments of the populace.

Also it vents carcinogens on nearly half the rest, but Lex Luthor has convinced them (without subtlety, through mass media channels) that the exhaust is actually ""vitamins."""
worldnews,"Holy crap this sounds huge. Woodward sounds familiar. Is he a respected journalist who will be taken seriously with these kinds of claims? I will be very interested to see how backs these claims up. 

Also, if he’s quoting John Kelly like this while Kelly is still chief of staff isn’t that kinda burning a source? Wouldn’t it be better etiquette as a journalist to wait until after the storm has blown over to put your sources on blast like this?"
worldnews,"The closet and casual racist is still HORRENDOUS because they turn a blind eye to the actions of the destructive ones. Put a cute spin on it like ""not my business"" or ""we don't talk about that side of the family"" but still invite those family members to the reunion cookout.

It's enabling. Like if you had an alcoholic or abuser in your family and chastised him about it but never any more. It wouldn't stop him, and the inaction puts one on the side of the abuser over the abused."
worldnews,"I would argue that Trump is undoing what amounts to 100 years of damage the administrative state has done because Congress no longer legislates.  He's gutting the Federal rules and telling Congress that they have to pass laws and run on their records of being for and against things.

It's undemocratic to rely on the bureaucracy to implement policy, because the people have no ability to hold them accountable, and even the government can't hold civil employees accountable.  They merely get brought up the Capitol Hill and yelled at, but they're never fired.

This is why the USSC is so partisan now, because the people have zero recourse against the administrative state other than to appeal to the courts.

Who does someone vote against to ease farming regulations that are hurting Iowa farmers?  No one... because Congress just passes legislation that says ""the <insert political appointee title here> shall come up with regulations."""
worldnews,"I didn't say that. I said Democrats also have their issues, and I disagree with many of their ideals. 

Better than we currently have? Almost absolutely. As angelic as reddit seems to think? Hell no. 

The two party system is flawed all together. My team vs your team. We're all on the same fucking team you nitwits.

And for being a reactionary little cunt trying to put words in my mouth, fuck you very much."
worldnews,"Forget it you'll never undo this damage completely. You'll never gain back the trust of your allies. To some degree, probably, but not completely. Even if you get an all dem house, senate and president, what prevents the hillbillies from electing the next trump 4 years later? Their vote counts significantly more in terms of the presidential election, compared to say a professor from NY. So even if your country, in general, gets more educated and liberal over time your antiquated voting system and constitution will still fuck you over.

Here's and interesting perspective from a history professor if you're interested:

https://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/the-fall-of-the-american-empire-will-come-by-2030-predicts-famed-historian
"
worldnews,"And thats my point EVERYTHING is it MIGHT be bad IF it exists. 

Look at the Kavenaugh hearing, they are holding up the hearing because of fears of what ""MIGHT"" exist somewhere in some documents we cant see. Not in the 500,000 we've seen. Not in his entire history as a judge and all the on record opinions he's given. Not in all his articles, some of which they used in defence of Clinton. All because of this ""thing"" that MIGHT exist. 

Get off it and show some legitimate real contextual proof that I can see, hear, whatever. Until then, get off it."
worldnews,"I think most people still fail to grasp that he *is* that stupid. It’s not play to get votes or something strategic, he is that guy. He inherited colossal amount of money and squandered it away, what saved him was that his insane narcissism and fake bragging to media gave him a rich guy myth that eventually companies would rights to put his name on their buildings and he got to play in a reality show.

We are just lucky Trump is not as competent as he is mean and vindictive. Someone of his level of hatred and Obama’s level of diligence probably already would have overthrown the republic."
worldnews,"It’s sometimes unbelievable. 

My aunt and uncle live down the road from me now. We go out to dinner twice a week. My wife and aunt are close, even with a 35 year age difference. We have the same interests, and live the same basic lifestyles. But if politics come up, I’m a bleeding heart liberal snowflake. Despite the fact that I’ve voted republican until Trump. Despite the fact that I obviously support most of the core GOP values. Their reaction becomes angry and vile. 


And then there’s my mother. My father was a pretty middle of the road republican for as long as anyone can remember. Socially liberal, fiscally conservative type. He passed over 15 years ago. And my mother has been with a fairly prominent retired political figure for the past 11 years. Nice guy, but super hard lined when it comes to party loyalty. And now, so is my mother. She’s in full support of the wall, and increased immigration security. Despite the fact that she’s now personally involved in almost a dozen charity funds setup up for legal aid to immigrants that are facing deportation. People she knows from within her community. They are quite literally the bulk of the immigrants she knows. So, she knows lots of immigrants, she thinks they’re great people and hard workers worthy of respect and citizenship, she’s actively fighting to keep them here. She is also still convinced that 99% of immigrants are criminals or freeloaders. Like she happened to luckily enough to stumble upon the only 10 immigrants that happen to be decent in this whole country. Oh, and she’s the daughter of two immigrants. 

It’s just a stubbornness. An unwillingness to accept what they know is true. And it sucks. "
worldnews,"Yeah, I don't think many Americans have a solid grasp on the amount of damage this administration has caused. Not just tangible damage, but the intangible things like trust and reputation. The world no longer trusts us - and we are no longer seen as a steadfast ally. It's the beginning of the end of America's position as a global leader. Between the rise of China and our insistence on being utterly retarded (literally - we vehemently hate academics), the 21st century is not being kind to America.


Hell, the environmental rollbacks alone will take decades to even start to repair fully. And, we all know that the economic deregulation is not going to get repealed anytime soon - better get used to the corporatocracy. And neither are the tax cuts on the 1% - at the very least they'll never be pre-80s levels. We might see a repeal of the last tax plan, but I highly doubt it. Just enough Democrats will break ranks to make sure it never happens."
worldnews,"I don't agree with your assessment of Clinton. Clinton played his part in passing several deregulation and tough on crime bills that have directly contributed to our country's modern problems. The Telecommunications Act alone directly gave rise to Conservative Talk Radio and empowered Fox News to become as blatantly partisan as they are today, and that's ignoring the amount of consolidation we've seen in the medias that it allowed.


Oh no, Clinton was center right at best. He'd be a centrist Republican by today's standards, barring social stances."
worldnews,"So you were so upset at the DNC that it forced the Republicans to nominate and vote for Trump? Again, Hillary sucks. The DNC fucked up by rigging their primaries (especially since you can look at the numbers and she still would've won by a landslide). The Republicans are still the most responsible **by far**. They could've, just for example, nominated someone qualified to do the job. Or even willing to try to do the job properly. Or maybe just someone at least capable of understanding the job. Get out of the way and let the adults do it for him? No? "
worldnews,"I mean obviously the Republicans are mostly responsible for this mess.  Duh.  The actors are the ones most responsible for their actions.  Obviously.  

Also, ""blame"" doesn't seem like the right word to put on the Republicans because they actually wanted Trump elected, that was their goal.  It's the Dems job to make sure that shit doesn't happen.  I get it, the Republicans are the worst of the worst.  But if we're gonna learn from this mistake we have to put some blame on the Dems for trotting out Hillary and fucking it up.  

"
worldnews,"> Bernie had also not gone through a full on republican media attack so if he wins primary, all those ads suddenly get released.

That doesnt really matter though, does it?  Republican votes really dont matter - the thing that currently determines presidential elections is *democrat turnout.*  The number of democrats who stay home vs the ones who go out and vote is what sways elections in modern America... and Hillary couldnt get the turnout."
worldnews,"It's pretty simple. They see wealth and they want it. Which automatically means that whatever they want must be right and smart and just.    
It's the American Delusion.   
Money certainly is power and it's clear that if you have enough of it, you can do whatever the hell you want regardless of consequences or intelligence.   
That's what those people strive for.  
They want ""fuck you"" money not to look after themselves and their family but literally to ""fuck you"".   
Trump is the embodiment of that. The details don't matter.    "
worldnews,"Sounds to me like we agree on pretty much all of it then. 

But blame is the right word. You can blame someone for wanting something stupid and achieving it.

And technically when you've got an unqualified mess of a candidate who's history of corruption shows exactly what he'll do with the power that comes with the position it's *everybodys* job to make sure that shit doesn't happen. It's in the Oath they have to swear to get the job.

I've enjoyed this little conversation though. No insults and bullshit, just 2 people with slightly different views on a subject talking. Thanks. Have a good one."
worldnews,"I think it would take a lot for me to not support the good he is doing. I think bigger picture than some sex scandals or tax evasion. He's been a playboy his whole life and he doesn't do his own taxes, so for all I care its about whats best for the country. If he does something like genocide, killing camps, or something, hell yea I'll change that in a heartbeat, but over something like a pornstar payment, not really.

Didn't care when Clinton got a BJ, didn't care when Obama got fined 350k for campaign finance violations, didn't care when Cheney shot his buddy. Unless its something that's negatively affecting the country as a whole, I could care less about some individual scandals.

I DO care when the FBI, CIA, NSA are violating American's rights by using billion dollar computer centers in Utah to track them and their thoughts for monetary gain. I DO care when one political party uses that power on the opposing political party using politically funded research without checking it. I DO care when government employees are breaking the law in order to push their own political agendas. That is affecting the greater functioning of the country. That is more my concern."
worldnews,"How about kummerspeck? The flab you gain by eating too much in response to an emotionally traumatic event. 

Or Weltschmerz, or the pain you feel when the world is so ludicrously not what you wish it were. 

Or a word to describe Trump, he has a Backpfeifengensicht, a face whose quality would be improved with a hard slap. 

Erklaerungsnot, when you find yourself in a position when you need a good explanation for something and you are incapable of doing so, something Trump must be facing every thirteen minutes. 

And finally, something to describe this Stupid Watergate as a whole, Kuddelmuddel, which is an instructed mess, or chaos. "
worldnews,"This is too fucking true. When demographics change or are *perceived* to change it Sparks up tribalism and idiocy regardless of group. Cave man brain thinks that it's going to lose social standing to other groups and is worried that they might secretly be sabertooth tigers, so it circles the wagons. Happened in California a while back and is happening now because of Obama. And Obama even tried to avoid race while campaigning. Didn't matter"
worldnews,"Blaming racists, while easier than admitting fault, is just a scapegoat. If the racists were that influential we wouldn't have had a black president **twice**. They lost when a black man was running twice, suggesting that they're the deciding factor when a black person wasn't even running seems silly.

No, the reason we're in this mess is because the DNC saw fit to force one of the least popular politicians ever as their canidate. Hillary couldn't beat a dumpster fire in a popularity contest, that's why we're here. Own the mistakes and fix them."
worldnews,"The good thing about the football is that the president can't actually order a nuclear strike with it. The football exists solely so that generals CAN'T order the use of nuclear weapons without the presidents or vice presidents approval.   

He can't just call the key master and say: Here are the codes, please carpet nuke Sweden. I fucking can't get this IKEA plywood desk together and the cartoons are boring!  All they do is build things.

The order still has to be planned out by a general or admiral depending on where the target is and when they want to strike.  

It's not a button that magically fires all nukes from subs, ships, planes and underground facilities in all directions.  

Yes, of cource Trump said he has a button to Kim on Twitter.  

No, obviously it doesn't exist."
worldnews,"And, for full disclosure, here is kelly’s response to the alleged quote

>In the White House statement released on Tuesday, Kelly re-upped an official comment he made in May, calling the accusations “total BS.”

>”I spend more time with the President than anyone else, and we have an incredibly candid and strong relationship,” he said in the statement. “I’m committed to the President, his agenda, and our country. This is another pathetic attempt to smear people close to President Trump and distract from the administration’s many successes.”  

Although I doubt it will be as popular as the quote in the book."
worldnews,"There are ways. Namely, statehood for DC and Puerto Rico. The red states have too much of a monopoly of 3 electoral votes for a tiny population. DC would get 2 senators, and Puerto Rico would get 2 senators and 4 representatives (this could be slightly different depending on how it would be ratified). Not to mention that it is bullshit that they aren't states. That would be able to get 4 more senators that would make it much much harder to obstruct in the senate, and the house can flip a lot faster than other branches. "
worldnews,"Kelly wouldn’t be the source, the sources will be flies on the wall whose presence no one paid attention to and later related what they heard. At least that was my interpretation of Woodward telling Trump that all of his sources are first-hand. He didn’t rely on hearsay, the sources actually heard it. But you can bet your ass Kelly himself didn’t tell Woodward he called his current boss an idiot. "
worldnews,"But isn't it better to have an evil moron than a competent evil person at the Helm? I mean obviously it's better to have someone good, but at least trump isn't going to be spearheading efforts to rip down democracies and install dictatorships like most other us presidents for the last 70 years. I prefer him to pence, because pence may actually help republicans get their god awful agenda through, not get in the way."
worldnews,"This is what's mind boggling to us non Americans, why in FUVK does your shitheel of a president wield so much unchecked power that he can pull out of trade agreements, make immigration policy, pull aid from countries and impose random tariffs without the Congress voting and approving or denying it?

And why in fuck can you not charge  a sitting president for indictible offences? He's broken the law numerous times in the run up to the presidency. I understand he's got ""immunity"" to a degree once he's a sitting president, but that should only apply from the moment he is officially president. He shouldn't be immune to any charges that arise out of crimes committed before the presidency."
worldnews,"You're confusing an act of war with a declaration of war. Only Congress can make a declaration of war, but the president is commander in chief of the armed forces, and can order them to do something that would clearly be an act of war even if Congress hasn't declared war. He's not supposed to, it might even be illegal, and in theory officers could disobey such an order (at their peril) if they thought it was unconstitutional, but he could do it."
worldnews,"Net worth is not your personal wealth. Owning a building doesn't mean you can suddenly turn it into liquid capital. Quite the opposite actually, as those properties are usually in some level of debt and must keep operating to justify their cost. 

As for information, I recommend you start with the Netflix documentary series *Dirty Money*. Season 1 episode 6 is all about Donald Trump, the Trump family, and how he has run his business. It's quite enlightening as it brings in business associates, long time friends, and many others to speak about the man from people who've known him best. "
worldnews,"All else being equal, you're probably right.

The problem is that a competent evil person will only do 'evil' things that have a benefit.  They don't do evil things just because they're evil things.  They're not going to stand up on a stage and tell blatant obvious lies and try to divide the nation against itself like Trump is doing, they'll stand up on a stage and tell subtle lies, mixed with the truth, so that no one really knows where the truth ends and the lies begin.  They'll try to unite the nation under their own banner, because pushing through an agenda is always easiest with multilateral support.

Competent evil is less likely to commit petty evils against people, but more likely to succeed at its end goals.  Say what you want about the evils of previous Presidents, it was pretty rare for them to actively try to divide the nation against itself.  The last time it got this bad was under Johnson and Nixon, and that was due to the Vietnam war more than any direct attempts to tear apart society."
worldnews,"I do, and I wrote about it a while ago:

>Trump is not a normal candidate. Trump is a Caudillo. Which is troubling because Trump is the first AMERICAN Caudillo. Other nations know how to handle these people, America doesn't.

>Caudillos are men who hold vast power through:

>A. Economic

>B. Military

>C. Politically

>D. Socially

>They gain power not from just real power, but IMAGINED power.

>Lets take a very famous Caudillo, Maximino Avila Camacho. He used armed supporters to storm his own government offices for fun as minister, massive shows of wealth, and intimidation to give himself an air of power, specifically machismo power.

>He took over the top spot from Plutarco Elias Calles, who after being humiliated by being arrested and expelled from the nation to live with his sister, lost all his power. He wasn't seen as the power house he was, because his IMAGE got tarnished. Calles had real power, but the most important asset to him was imagined power.

>He was ""El Jefe Maximo"" (The Maximum Boss or The Supreme Leader) now reduced to a confused old man being dragged out of his house in the middle of the night to go live with his sister in America because his ass got kicked out of his own country and everyone was cheering for it.

>Maximino was the same, he pushed the idea of a strong military man who still had it.

>In reality, Maximino was nothing more than a washed up old man trying to cling to his powerful image he held in his youth as a soldier. Sure he had vast economic power and was friends with Axel Wenner Gren, the richest man on the world at that point, but his power didn't come from his businesses. It came from his military history, and he was just an obese old man with severe untreated diabetes and a metal bone in his leg. He was so frail he was advised against traveling at all, but he would never let that reality be known.

>If some historians are to be believed, Maximino was murdered by a silent man named Miguel Alemán Valdés, a man who worked in espionage and his rival by poison, after Maximino threatened to kill Miguel. No boasting. No warnings. No threats. Miguel just brought death to what people saw as the most powerful man in front of all his friends.

>In the official story, he died stuffing his fat face with food in front of all his friends after threatening his political enemies.

>Neither of those scenarios are manly or dominant in the slightest and destroyed the image of Maximino. He was no longer some untouchable demigod.

>Caudillos are men who typically prey upon the weak. The emasculated. The humiliated. The ones who took economic hits while others didn't. Both of history's greatest examples are old men who can't even fight a toddler but their image makes them out to be manly men when they are impotent.

>And weak men especially gravitate towards a Caudillo who is almost guaranteed to be weak as well. They desperately form a shield wall around a Caudillo and only do so because of image, in today's term ""memery"".

>The rule is the louder the caudillo, the weaker he is and more desperate are his even weaker supporters.

>The only way to take down a Caudillo is through humiliation so blatant not even his supporters can deny it. Or if another Caudillo declares literal war on him and wins. Caudillos exist because their image makes them seem like demigods to people who look for what they think is power. You can attack their real power like businesses or voting record, but that isn't where their actual power lies.

>So Trump gained his appeal because he is rich and seen as in charge. Weak people gravitated to what they see as a strong leader to help after feeling emasculated and powerless against the larger world.

>The only way for Trump to lose support is if he is shown to be broke, and powerless. Meaning he wasn't some genius businessman, just a failed one. The MC Hammer of the business world. Which is why his tax records are guarded so well.

>Caudillos cannot be destroyed by facts or blunders. They can only be destroyed by striking at the very heart of their power, the image they cultivate for themselves.

Trump is using some very old social engineering going back centuries, and was previously only seen in Spanish Speaking countries.

If Caudillos become common in America, it will cause way more damage than it ever caused to Latin America. And Caudillos have killed a LOT of futures and can easily destroy a nation for decades.
"
worldnews,"Yes, we **could** all be rich if we were handed 100 million dollars from our father and put it into investments. And it's not speculation as there are people who've seen his raw tax returns. Speaking of which, did you ever consider why he has worked so hard to never release them? Among other reasons it's because he's not worth nearly as much as he claims. Which leads us to the below.

As for his reputation, it's literally a sham. I know that sounds like hyperbole, but you really should watch the Netflix documentary series *Dirty Money* if you want to see what kind of a businessman he really is. Season 1 episode 6 is all about Donald Trump, the Trump family, and how he has run his business. It's quite enlightening as it brings in business associates, long time friends, and many others to speak about the man from people who've known him best."
worldnews,"I guess time will tell if they're responsible people, or responsible for enabling him.  I wonder how people will feel about men like Kelly and Mattis if it turns out in the end that they knew Trump had broken the law in an effort to win the election, but they stayed silent?  Does them stopping him from launching nukes against N. Korea, or withdrawing from NATO, or the WTO or NAFTA balance out?"
worldnews,"Good lord.

Look through the Forbes info. Each asset shows it's estimated value, % owned and debt to determine net worth towards Trump. Liquidation type value. Trump claims ~$10 bil which is obviously overinflated but $250 mil is ridiculous. And their estimates of value are much more conservatives than Trump's, which is fine, and still shows billions.

Again, what secret knowledge do you possess? Or are you convinced Forbes and Bloomberg don't understand net worth as well as you?"
worldnews,"Idk. I didn't vote for Trump and threw my vote into a third party, but I got what I wanted for the most part. The executive branch is getting a lot of its extra powers looked at and pruned, Hillary didn't get to hand pick a judge who would disagree that the second amendment protects the right to own a pistol (the Heller ruling she ran on killing), Gorsuch is tougher on privacy than most of the Democrats, Kavanagh isn't the best but I like him, and the classist elitist pricks with half finished degrees and an idea of rural America out of bad horror films have very entertaining tantrums. 


If the Democrats cared about more than their upper ""middle class"" urban bastions and the poor who suffer for their standards of living they might not have lost to a mentally and ethically defunct Oompa Loompa. "
worldnews,"No, he is saying that after Obama got elected racist right wing people desperately wanted someone they like in office. Meanwhile the DNC shot itself in the foot and rigged their own elections against Bernie Sanders and they intentionally made sure Hillary won the nomination because Sanders was too anti-establishment and wanted to make legitimate good changes to the country that would piss off rich people and large corporations. So when that happened all the independents (which is the largest political ""party"" in the country) didn't like either candidate so people just didn't vote. Causing the republican party to walk away with a new president despite *still* losing the popular vote by millions."
worldnews,">If you think gay people are people, though, that rhetoric falls pretty flat.

It's kinda hard to give Democrats much credit there considering they couldn't even legalize marriage equality in California and the supreme Court had to squint their eyes and read funny to get any justice done on that front. 


Democrats are far more interested in banning guns than income inequality, LBGT rights, and healthcare access. Shit, they couldn't even increase that on the backs of their rich base. Young men who weren't in college but earning 1.5x poverty line had to write that check. 

That's not worth losing the right to self defense and taking a weak stance on other liberties to a lot of people. My LGBT friends all voted Trump. "
worldnews,"What will happen is the next dem president will deficit spend to fix the problems and then get nailed for ""raising the debt"" and then ""fiscally conservative"" GOPs will be elected who then ""monkey things up"" .... and the cycle continues.

It's the same in Canada... the ""fiscally conservative"" PC party in Ontario is lining us up for pointless deficit spending while the Libs (while faulted) were actually investing in the provinces future..."
worldnews,"The reform bill was notable, but Obamacare was only a half-measure, if it even got halfway to what they set out to do. It's a pretty good example of the Dems' overeagerness to compromise and how it often leads to losing the point of their policies in the first place.

Of course, yeah, a lot of the reason for that was that they lost control of the House/Senate, but that's also rooted in party tactics that had been around long before Obama. The economy being on fire, and the GOP being positioned to essentially cancel out everything Obama could get through are products of decades of mismanagement and poor strategy. Obama could have done more if he possessed some of the killer instincts the Republican party have shown the past few years, but ultimately a lot of the issue was around before he even took office."
worldnews,"Yup. It does pain me and dampens any sense of relief,  knowing what lies ahead even with Trump out and a Democrat in. They'll just accuse Democrats of everything Republicans did in the recent past. Their constituents, with their selective memory, will parrot it. Fox news will do the same, but will know exactly what they're doing. Rinse and repeat. It's already exhausting and they have complete control of the government. I just wish the GOP could be completely dismantled. "
worldnews,"You can believe whatever you want. It's why the Democrats lose so many votes in rural areas or places with strong gun culture. 

Log Cabin Republicans are a things. 

http://www.logcabin.org/

But, I mean, why would a transwoman  want the right to self defense? Or a gay dude? Your progressive magic makes their thoughts and feelings disappear before the might of your mostly white, cis, and straight party of ""equality"". 

Why would they be against paying more for healthcare so rich Californians can pretend to be a struggling middle class?


The wife of the Man who passed fucking DOMA definitely deserves their vote based on her incredibly wishy washy support for maybe sorta being a little equal if it polls well.  "
worldnews,">Shouldn't most of the blame go to the people trying to destroy the country, and not the people who failed to stop them?

In a moral sense? Sure. In a practical sense, no.

The reality is the extremists aren't going to change their behavior. Lex Luthor is going to use that death ray no matter what.The only thing that changes whether or not that happens is whether Superman intervenes.

The person with the choice, the swing voter, is the one who actually determines the outcome."
worldnews,"Don't forget this part!

>Trump faced widespread criticism after he initially said that “both sides” were to blame for the violence that broke out at the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va., last August.

>He later condemned white supremacists and neo-Nazis at the urging of his advisers, according to Woodward.

>“That was the biggest f---ing mistake I’ve made,” Trump reportedly told aides almost immediately after the condemnation.

>Trump also called it the “worst speech I’ve ever given,” according to Woodward's account."
worldnews,"Oh, he’ll have a complete, toddler-esque meltdown of course. Assuming someone tells him what’s in the book. We know damn well he doesn’t read, so he isn’t going to find out for himself. 

As far as consequences, it’s hard to say. Trump is probably having difficult time finding people to sign on to his kamikaze mission at this point. So the only thing preventing him from firing everyone he wants to may be the fact he can’t get anyone with an IQ above room temperature to sign on to replace them. 

 I believe those around him may have realized just how dire the circumstances are, and some, like Mattis and Kelly, may be bearing the insufferable tantrums out of a sense of duty to protect the country from whatever this maladjusted child might get up to without adults keeping a close watch over him. 

"
worldnews,"No, no, and no. I said nothing about Trump. I think he's compromised and should be ousted yesterday. But we weren't talking about Trump, and I would appreciate it if you could stay in the scope in which we are talking, and not attempt to shift it to suit your argument.

With regards to your edit: A small percentage of Muslims being terrorists should be treated as terrorists. A small percentage of Trump supporters being traitors should be treated as traitors. "
worldnews,"Maybe... we need a different party. One that isn't pushing their sides agenda for the sake of ruining the other side. I don't actually think it would happen, but how awesome would it be if America actually payed attention during the election period? What if we all looked into the candidates OURSELVES instead of reading whatever CNN or Fox puts out to roast the opposing candidate? Maybe then we would actually vote in the BEST person for the job and not the one wearing their favortie teams color.

""Bunch of democrips and rebloodicans,
Red state versus a blue state,
Which one you governin'?""
-Kendrick Lamar"
worldnews,">Trump called President Barack Obama a ""weak dick"" for not acting in Syria, Woodward reports

My only comment on this would be that Obama discussed chemical weapons as a red line, a term he used more than once. When the line was crossed, nothing was done.

​

The geopolitical situation is far too complex and multifaceted for me to pretend to have a solution, but the issuing of ultimatums and then lack of action *does* imply weakness, that a nation isn't worth their word. The solution there being not issuing red lines but pressuring the UN to act, offering resources to act if necessary. "
worldnews,"This is the angle the Trump team/Fox News will take. They'll say he is embellishing things people who were mad at him said - it's all part of the witch hunt.

The sad thing is, people will believe it. That this is yet another ""setup to make Trump look bad."" I don't know how many setups and exposures it will take, but after talking to my dad, it might be infinite."
worldnews,">he tariff shit was when I realized that wide swathes of this country are so fucking stupid they not only vote against their interests and fuck themselves, they actively don't even understand that they're getting fucked until it hits their pocket book. And even then most of these rural farmers getting ass fucked on these ""deals"" support him.  
>  
>Unreal.

It's a prosperity paradox. After a specific level of comfort is reached people kind of tune out. If there were ever extremely hard times again like the depression people would start to notice how policy affected them. There are a lot of things that only come with a high prosperity. Furries, Bronies, adults collecting tons of toys, adults with a primary focus on video games etc. 100 years ago, teenagers would get married, work all day to support their family and behave in a much more mature way than adults do today."
worldnews,"Wouldn't work. He'd just point to all the hotels with his name on, the golf courses, and say ""see. If I couldnt do it on my own, why do I have all this? Daddy has been dead for decades!"" And that's all it'd take to convince the majority. 

Why do you think he didn't release his taxes? They'd prove it. And they're easy enough to summarise for Dems that he wouldn't be able to deny it."
worldnews,"I read an article which more or less said that if the president suddenly decided to nuke someone the generals would first remind him that that was highly illegal and that he shouldn't do that.

If he persisted it was implied that they would likely override him and call his sanity into question to get him removed from office.

Luckily one person can't just press a button and send out nukes, despite what tv makes it look like. Even though he does have the final say on the decision to nuke or not to nuke, it's very unlikely that anyone in the military would follow the order if we weren't at war or in some other type of crisis situation."
worldnews,"We aren't going to change the Constitution over this. We literally can't. The Founders wrote the operating system of a country in a single summer, when it takes years to write a real operating system which functions at all. Now we've broken the whole thing so thoroughly, gotten so good at manipulating a vague and poorly-concieved document from centuries ago, that the only way to fix it is going to be tearing the whole thing up and starting fresh.

Having the oldest Constitution doesn't make us great. It means our entire government is antiquated and out of date. We've skipped nearly a quarter milennium of political theory and social and technological change without making any significant structural improvements to a document which was written when information traveled at the speed of horse.

I don't know how we get out of this."
worldnews,"It’s almost like they’ve never heard of a bubble. Like the four they’ve already experienced are fake. 

It’s doubly frustrating for me because my brother and I manage our family finances. We literally make our living by simply directing the vast fortune we already control. We continually point to past crashes to prepare for this one. We’re actually at the point that lawyers are involved because my mother trusts Trump’s  opinion  more than her own son and step son. Like she’s convinced we’d steal from her before he’d do this country’s wrong. 


This is all despite the fact that for 15 years we’ve sacrificed our own financial prosperity in favor of hers’. Despite the fact we’ve doubled her net worth every 5 years. Despite the fact she’s seen nothing but success at our hands...she still thinks we’re shills for Hillary Clinton. She still thinks we’re trying to ruin the country. She still thinks Donald Trump, a man that has personally insulted her, and actually groped her(my Mother is a .001%er), is still the best option this country has. 

It’s so fucking insulting. "
worldnews,"I dunno.. I think some people are starting to hope that it's all just an act, particularly people who voted for him, but aren't redcaps, y'know, the people who actually decided the election.

After all, it's difficult to comprehend how he got as far as he has if he truly is that much of an idiot.  Did he really get that far on bluff and bluster alone?  And if so, what does that say about American society that someone who his closest confidantes believe is an idiot can be one of the most successful men in America?"
worldnews,"That is creepy.  The original article is from 1991.  Here's the most relevant bit:

""Trump's father was required to get licensed here after a highly unusual loan to the Trump Castle Casino Resort that enabled the casino to narrowly avert a default and make a $16 million interest payment to bondholders.

Fred Trump, through his attorney, bought $3.5 million in chips at a high-stakes blackjack table and left without gambling with them.

The move resulted in an investigation and a complaint by the gaming division. Trump officials and the gaming division reached a settlement of the complaint and the gaming hall has agreed to pay a $30,000 fine. That settlement will be reviewed by the casino commission on June 19."""
worldnews,"The Clinton commercials in my state were pretty much 100% Donald Trump speeches. They'd show Trump saying something outrageous and mix it in with shots of kids watching TV. Clinton's strategy was literally Mrs. Lovejoy from the Simpsons going ""Think of the children! Won't somebody *please* think of the children!""

If I were running against Trump, I'd highlight his long history of business failures. How he was constantly bailed out by his dad, how he's hiding his tax returns. I'd attack the narrative that he's a good businessman and not some spoiled rich kid. The whole ""but he's MEAN"" angle just fell on deaf ears."
worldnews,"Nah mate, this Reddit user clearly knows more than all the experts at Forbes and Bloomberg. /s

I hate Trump as much, if not more, than the next man, but this is just stupid. It's shit like this that feeds into Trumps 'fake news' shtick. There's loads of shit that people can call Trump out on, instead they love to throw this ""he was worse than an index fund"" line.

Third time I've posted this here but you may appreciate it. It's a small breakdown of why the Index fund line isn't true.

https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/98z9k1/trump_said_on_monday_he_was_worried_that_any/e4l3rbn/
"
worldnews,"OK, so looking at the S&P 500 it's averaged 7.63% over the last 44 years.

Given his starting wealth of $40m (this is disputed, but $40m seems to be the most commonly thrown around figure), and his final net worth now of $3.1bn (according to Forbes and Bloomberg), that means he's beat the market by 2.8% every year for the last 44 years. It works out about 10.4% per year. If you can find me an Index fund that can reliably average 10.4% a year for me I'll happily give you 2% for your troubles.

And that's assuming he never spent a penny of his wealth over those 44 years and reinvested it all."
worldnews,"I want to understand your mom's behavior better. What's that called? The diagnosis?

Because if we understand it, maybe we can do something about it.

\--

One bro is an ER nurse. Utterly opposes single payer. Because reasons. But he still hates the insurance companies.  I dunno how you square that circle.

Another bro stole a bride from Mexico. Rant and raved about how hard it was to bring her to the USA (legally). Then yells and screams about all the immigrants coming here, how we need to build the wall, deport everyone, etc.

Same bro bitched about cost of rail ticket. Can't understand that nice things cost money. Refuses to support public transit. This might actually might make sense, in a twisted logic sort of way. GOP sabotages government, then whines about how government doesn't work, people don't want to fund something they perceive as broken.

Had a bestie that hates liberals and taxes. Moved from coast to interior. Higher taxes (\~20%), much lower pay, fewer services, no medicare expansion. So now probably won't be able to retire. But cannot connect the dots.

​"
worldnews," Tax breaks are an illusion that spike polls in the short term and hurt in the long term. Especially when government spending just broke the all time record, 2 quarters in a row. These job increases are an illusion that the federal government cannot afford.

Especially with the Trade deficit ballooning to comical levels with no signs of slowing, the economy is about to hit the dirt road. I'm pretty sure, that's going to be a pretty big blow to employment numbers.

 He's so early into his term, he's riding the numbers of the previous administration. Come talk in about 2 years, when Trump's insane policies have had a chance to do their cumulative damage."
worldnews,"You have some interesting opinions there.

Looking more at what's actually happening and not falling in to hype and doomsday doom and gloom prophecies..The effects of Trump's presidency are here now. The stock market (which is at an all time high) reacts in real time to everything from Trump's initial win, his administration's current and proposed policies, to his latest Tweet and foreign dealings. It will go down, yes.. that's how the stock market works.. boom and bust cycles. It's strong right now, stronger than ever, and that's a measure of current health of the economy under the current administration.

Employers too higher in real time; job seekers additionally seek employment in real time. And the job market is currently, relatively very strong. This is because both employers and job seekers are feeling good about the current health of the economy under the current administration.

And I know it's tempting to fall in to doomsday predictions (Soviet nuclear war, and communism taking over, and the Mayan calendar, and Y2K, and Heavens gate, etc), but try to take a more realistic look at what's actually happening.

And no, you dont get to blame everything good on previous administrations and everything bad bbn on the current. I mean you can, but it's a silly thing to do.

RemindMe! 2 years"
worldnews,"This is so wrong.  Not accurate at all.  Many Western powers, but mainly the French,  tried to destabilize Libya for a whole bunch of reasons, none of which was oil sales.  The petro dollar is a major international force no doubt, but Libya is a very bad example of it having an international effect.  You could accurately say that Libya’s proximity to nations able to more directly effect the petro dollar increased its significance on the world stage, and increased the will other countries were willing to exert to try to change Libya, for better or worse."
worldnews,"Allegedly.
This is from Woodward's mouth. While I can buy it, it's no confirmation. 

Damn if everyone's not quick to give up secrets (while not impeaching him) this time around. There are protocols to follow and, if half of this stuff is going on, I hope someone's using them so that something can be done *about* all of it. Instead we seem to be treating it as the latest bit of gossip and someone gets the spotlight for a bit. :/"
worldnews,">[Gaddafi] and his inner circle had tried to punch westward out of the shattered city into open countryside in a column of vehicles.

>But it was a gamble that ultimately would not allow him to escape the fate suffered by so many of his opponents during his 42 years in power.

>**High above Sirte, the heavily armed American MQ1 Predator drones**, which are piloted by satellite link and can provide surveillance or fire missiles in all weather, day and night, had been circling. The aircraft, which can remain ""on station"" for up to 18 hours, were being remotely flown from Creech air force base in Nevada. **One of the Predator pilots had now received permission to attack the fleeing convoy.**

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8843684/Gaddafis-final-hours-Nato-and-the-SAS-helped-rebels-drive-hunted-leader-into-endgame-in-a-desert-drain.html"
worldnews,"Gaddafi was assassinated by his own people. Certainly, Obama did nothing to stop it. Well I am an Obama supporter over a trump supporter I'm not complaining about either forigen leader being killed or attempted. I don't want to create another Iraq or Iran but I don't have a problem with her moving crazy dictator. I just don't want him to be messy and expensive.  One of the top comments here is the concern over how eratic Trump is. Obama was cool under pressure. Clearly, Trump is not."
worldnews,"I've never understood this logic. Realistically Hillary's presidency would have just been an extension of Obama's. Trump spent his entire campaign talking about Bengazi and her emails, and people ate that shit up. At the time, people thought Trump was the lesser of two evils because they convinced themselves that his attitude would change once he stepped into the white house. Two years later:

""Sleepy Eyes Chuck Todd of Fake NBC News said it’s time for the Press to stop complaining and to start fighting back. Actually Chuck, they’ve been doing that from the day I announced for President. They’ve gone all out, and I WON, and now they’re going CRAZY!"""
worldnews,"> Ever stop to think that all this is planned and maybe he's not as dumb as everybody thinks he is?

The problem is this ""argument"" would work with literally any idiot in any asylum around the world, and he's taking this ""strategy"" into every other part of his ""leadership"", y'know like.. trade and whatnot? The things he literally doesn't understand and has to be spoonfed with airplane noises?

This concept maybe could have been feasible back at the start, but there is no denying he is not just stupid, but he's corrupt as fuck.. I mean, unless you believe that having a half dozen _convictions_ in his cabinet is part of his ""unpredictable"" super clever strategy?"
worldnews,"I see what you're saying but one doesn't amass a 3+ billion dollar fortune, out debate and campaign 14 Republican rivals, out campaign the most corrupt and entrenched political dynasty in America (Clintons) by being an idiot.  Sorry, doesn't work that way.

As far as convictions go, I don't put much weight on any of that frankly.  I absolutely believe if you put a microscope to ANY politician or business person of his stature, you'd uncover at least this much crap.  Problem is, it's never done to anybody else.  Remember what Hillary was caught screaming to Donna Brazille?  ""If this fucker wins we're all going to be in jail!"". 

He's made some very powerful people, very pissed off and they want him gone at any cost.  I really believe that.  You can laugh all you want, call me a fool, whatever.  I've been on this planet 49 years, I've NEVER seen anything like this before.  The incessant negative coverage by the press etc is a whole new level of this ballgame.

Time will tell."
worldnews,"Again not a very big difference when it comes to dictators. It's not like he could actually get acquitted. It's a formality to end his life. 

They have to *try* to capture him because they want to display a respect for justice and the law, but let's not pretend it's not a guaranteed death sentence either way. Both groups wanted him dead eventually! And Obama knew that by supporting the rebels. He had no intention of Ghaddafi escaping the situation alive. He was facilitating his death as an inevitable outcome of his actions. "
worldnews,"it is not only produced in russian chemical factories, that claim has been debunked a very long time ago; it originates from a statement boris johnson made which turned out to be completely unsubstantiated. 

>In recent years, there has been much speculation that a fourth generation of nerve agents, ‘Novichoks’ (newcomer), was developed in Russia, beginning in the 1970s as part of the ‘Foliant’ programme, with the aim of finding agents that would compromise defensive countermeasures. Information on these compounds has been sparse in the public domain, mostly originating from a dissident Russian military chemist, Vil Mirzayanov. No independent confirmation of the structures or the properties of such compounds has been published. (Black, 2016)

---
>One should be mindful that the chemical components or precursors of A-232 or its binary version novichok-5 are ordinary organophosphates that can be made at commercial chemical companies that manufacture such products as fertilizers and pesticides.

---

http://www.spectroscopynow.com/details/ezine/1591ca249b2/Iranian-chemists-identify-Russian-chemical-warfare-agents.html?tzcheck=1,1,1,1,1&&tzcheck=1&tzcheck=1&tzcheck=1

---

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/15/uks-claims-questioned-doubts-emerge-about-source-of-salisburys-novichok

---

http://rogerannis.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Other-countries-making-Novichok-poison.pdf

>British Prime Minister Theresa May says that because it was Russia that developed Novichok
agents, it is “highly likely” that Russia either attacked the Skripals itself, or lost control of its
Novichok to someone else who did. But other countries legally created Novichok for testing
purposes after its existence was revealed in 1992

>“Novichoks were only produced in any sizeable quantities in the Soviet Union,” says Zanders.
But after Mirzayanov’s revelations, Western defence labs made small amounts – legal under the
treaty, partly so the agents can be identified in situations like Salisbury. In 2016, Iranian chemists
even published a method for doing so.

this defected russian spy was already imprisoned in russia for years for his defection. explain to me why the russian government would wait for skripal to enter foreign soil before assassinating him when they had all the time in the world to do it and could have swept it under the rug quite easily if they did it on russian soil. additionally, yulia skripal has stated she hopes to return to russia. if russia's culpability were as cut and dry as the UK makes it out to be, is yulia a suicidal imbecile for wanting to go back into the domain of her supposed assassins? or is this case just not what it seems?

so there is no sufficient motive, no sufficient evidence and most definitely no sufficient ground to indict russia on the basis of a state-sanctioned assassination. what remains is that the UK has found two men who entered the UK under russian pseudonyms (so fake identities), who then very quickly left again. that's it. amazing investigation by the UK, totally does not reek of false flagging and propaganda. 

 "
worldnews,"I’ll just pick one element from your post..

> this defected russian spy was already imprisoned in russia for years for his defection. explain to me why the russian government would wait for skripal to enter foreign soil before assassinating him when they had all the time in the world to do it and could have swept it under the rug quite easily if they did it on russian soil.

To trade back for Russian spies. Which he was in 2010:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43291394


"
worldnews,"this is not a matter of belief, either there is evidence or there isn't. and right now there isn't, that is indisputable fact. 

in the west a concept called 'in dubio pro reo' has established itself, but it seems that does not apply to people of russian heritage. 

the burden of proof falls on the UK to produce evidence that proves russia's culpability to begin with, the onus is not on russia to prove themselves innocent, again, a basic principle western societies are founded on. 

why you would believe a government that is partly responsible for a war in which a million was killed because of a campaign of lies is beyond me. neither the russian government nor the british government deserve to be trusted without evidence, period."
worldnews,"Erm Russia did have a motive. Putin had an election and assassinating a former rogue agent the other side of the world in a country with some of the best security and intelligence services is an incredibly bold and powerful move. It shows he can reach traitors no matter where they are and get away with it. 

Noone else has any sort of reasonable motive. So by process of elimination even without evidence Russia is highly like to be the culprit.

This new evidence just reinforces it."
worldnews,"so this is a sensible scenario for you? russia swaps 4 of their prisoners in exchange for 10 russian spies arrested by the FBI. one of these prisoners, skripal, is exchanged only to be murdered years and years after his pardon on foreign soil.

what does russia gain from this gambit? they could have just swapped another prisoner that wasn't skripal, i am sure they have plenty to draw from, and they would have henceforth completely avoided (supposedly) killing skripal with the whole world watching. instead you propose that skripal was pardoned and swapped only so russia could make a gambit and kill him later on.. again, for what? clearly skripal wasn't an **active** danger given that they let him leave for GB and didn't kill him while he was still imprisoned. they obviously would not have pardoned him if they weren't sure of that.  so what feasible motive could russia have for making such a risky move? either you can give a motive or this is just lunacy.

this whole line of thought depends on the skripal assassination being a ploy that was literally orchestrated more than a decade ago by the way, which does not seem realistic given how amateurish the actual 'assassination' was. you'd think they would want to make clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that skripal and yulia would die in such an orchestration. it's classical conspiracy thinking by the way to simply enlarge the conspiracy when opposing facts come into play. this is now not only a state-sanctioned assassination, it is an assassination that was planned more than 10 years in advance but botched horribly. at least that's how it has to be if this argument is led to its conclusion.

seems legit."
worldnews,"that is not a sufficient motive. what does putin gain from this demonstration of power? you say this proves how far russia's influence reaches, correct. and showing this the world benefits russia.. how exactly? being sanctioned heavily by the west benefited russia in which ways exactly?

the advantage (assuming there even is an advantage for russia sanctioning this hit) of proving to the world that crossing russia means death does not come up for the financial losses the sanctions have caused. it's not like putin needed to prove that anyways given that litvinenko's murder is still fresh in everyone's heads. 

but let's assume that it was a demonstration of power. that does not conform with reality as the actual assassination was amateurish and neither of the targets were successfully killed. this argument does not hold up under scrutiny.

>Noone else has any sort of reasonable motive.

a false flag operation to weaken russia's standing on the world stage is very much a reasonable motive. "
worldnews,"The motive is simple, revenge and a warning. Not sure why that’s so difficult to comprehend.

“this whole line of thought depends on the skripal assassination being a ploy that was literally orchestrated more than a decade ago by the way, which does not seem realistic given how amateurish the actual 'assassination' was. you'd think they would want to make clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that skripal and yulia would die in such an orchestration. it's classical conspiracy thinking by the way to simply enlarge the conspiracy when opposing facts come into play. this is now not only a state-sanctioned assassination, it is an assassination that was planned more than 10 years in advance but botched horribly. at least that's how it has to be if this argument is led to its conclusion.”

No it doesn’t. In the slightest. The physical ‘plan’ to do it might have been planned the night before these two left Russia but Skripal could have have been on a list for years. What’s so hard to believe there?"
worldnews,"His motive would be to deter traitors and political opponents. If you have heard about the Kremlin news reporting on this. They are treating it with arrogance and hubris. Which is very suggestive of their international political agenda. The reality of the situation is sanctions mean very little and so it has succeeded to certain degree in proving that they can do whatever they want.

Yes they botched the job but that was always going to be an uncertainty. Using a nerve agent instead of shooting or some other method also fits with the whole bold power play theory.

As for your theory of alternative motive. There's not much substance to that. There is no way the UK would be behind such a reckless attack on its own soil as we are not the sort of people to call for war over such thing. So there is no real political gain.

Which means it would have to be a third party. In which case why has Russia been so difficult and uncooperative? Why have they not tried to prove it was someone else? If it was genuinely manufactured to weaken them then surely they have good reason to investigate themselves? I don't know about you but I would be pretty pissed off at a false accusation like this. Yet they have been pretty casual about be it."
worldnews,"litvinenko was killed not long ago, there is absolutely no need whatsoever for russia to flex power on foreign soil again. it's not that your argument is difficult to comprehend, it's that it is nonsense. especially when taking into account the financial damage this case has caused for russia it is more than doubtful that a simple exercise of power would come up for these losses.

>No it doesn’t. In the slightest. The physical ‘plan’ to do it might have been planned the night before these two left Russia but Skripal could have have been on a list for years. What’s so hard to believe there?

if skripal were on a list for years, then he would have been a very high priority target. it clearly makes sense for russia to give up on this target and needlessly handicap themselves by assassinating him on foreign soil, when they could have just, again, done it in the comfort of their own walls. 

if skripal was on a list for years, russia would not give him up without being 100% sure they could dispose of him later on. the amateurish poisoning does not conform with this no matter how you try to spin it."
worldnews,"Litvinenko isn’t Skripal, I don’t see why Russia couldn’t kill a traitor when they’ve already got previous for doing the same thing. If anything that just provides ‘bad character’ evidence. They didn’t do it ‘from the comfort of their own walls’ because they wanted to trade him for more spies.. which they did. A dead spy isn’t going to be worth anything to trade with. Try to spin it? The suspects are Russian government agents? What’s the alternative theory here then? "
worldnews,"My ""method"" is not a method. It is discretion to not publicly discuss sources of information or methods used to protect the public. Discussing methods used to protect the public like this article hints at, undermines their effectiveness and makes the task of protecting the public that much more difficult.

I shall provide a simple example to illustrate further. Imagine you are in a public square. And you notice and count ten cameras. But wait! You only actually see camera housings and do not know if they all contain cameras or are merely the housing for the cameras. Do you want the ones that do contain cameras to be painted orange and the rest to remain white? Of course not because to do so would be to undermine their effectiveness by publicizing which ones are cameras and which ones are the dummies. 

Revealing sources and methods undermines effectiveness. 

Your well intentioned quote is being misunderstood and misapplied. No one is giving up liberty by valuing and protecting intelligent law enforcement methods. Quite the contrary actually. Fertile soil is being prepared for liberty to sprout. The liberty you so rightly cherish cannot exist in a lawless environment."
worldnews,"What you're talking about is [security through obscurity](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity) and is generally considered bad security practice.

Take your security camera example. Let's say that the security designer thinks that, since all the cameras are white, no criminals know which ones have cameras. Until some crook looks in the windows in the front on a bright day and sees the camera in some, and an empty housing in others (or bought a guard a beer, or captured a snapshot of the control room, or. . .). Now he knows the security scheme, and since you believe that people don't know it, you are at a disadvantage. If you assume that all criminals know where the security cameras are, then what's the point of the extra housings?

It's also worth noting that theure literally just saying ""don't act suspicious when you're about to commit a crime."" If someone doesn't known that, well, then theyyre probably not picking through news articles before committing a crime. "
worldnews,"""Simple conversation""?

What seems like gibberish to me could be a simple conversation to a rocket scientist or public safety expert. 

Many of our safeguards are based on simple ideas that anyone could subvert if they ""just knew about it"". Keeping them secret is essential for proper operation. 

For example, imagine what would happen if every elevator advertised the fact that you can skip stopping at floors if you press a certain button combination. Nationally, wait times for elevators would go up by several minutes on average. I know, it's a silly example, with little relevance to public safety, but it works. 

Knowledge is power. In the end all our safeguards can be overcome, it is due to the public's ignorance that any of them are left standing at all. 

Say the state told everyone exactly which power distribution hubs to hit to cause a nationwide blackout. Trolls from the country itself would probably hit that spot before any terrorist even could."
worldnews,"I agree. For the most part. However you are lumping ""terrorists"" into an all inclusive category. Some are as sophisticated as you suggest. Most are not. Like this attacker. He was what is called a lone wolf. Which is the most difficult category to thwart. And a common type seen all too often lately. I don't see why we should make the task of some terrorists easier than it need be. The primary goal after all is to protect innocent lives. "
worldnews,"First rule of security: Don't talk about your security capabilities or methods.   
This applies from junior school where  the teacher doesn't mention leaving a laptop recording when stepping out of the room, and the administration doesn't reveal the resolution of the security cameras.  

In computer security the  strength requirements of the password have to be revealed to users when they set one up but it is preferably not revealed to outsiders.  Everything about the security systems is secret unless there is a reason to reveal it.   Then tripwires can be set up to catch intruders before they get too far in.  "
worldnews,"If this is real (I'm sure ""The Marijuana Herald"" is a totally legit, non-biased news source), he must have known the risk he was taking so it is hard to feel sorry for him. I've spent a significant amount of time in Malaysia; there are big signs upon entering the country informing that there is a mandatory death penalty for drug offenses. Taking such a risk in a country like Malaysia, the guy must have had a death wish."
worldnews,"Differences between clearly defined laws (with their penalties) and the risk of being a victim to a crime aside. If that dangerous neighbourhood had hard to miss signage - and it was common knowledge - that being seen within WILL result in being mugged and/or raped, would it be a massive leap to say you should have seen it coming?

I don't agree with that law in Malaysia, however I do understand the point that you need to live with the laws of the land you reside, or accept the consequences. I personally disagree with many speed limits, but accept if I get caught speeding, I will need to pay the fine."
worldnews,"I don't think I've seen anyone here argue that they are for or against cannabis oil in medicine. The main point being made is that all actions have consequences.

In this case breaking that particular law in Malaysia results in the death penalty. I can't imagine many people on here believe it is a fitting punishment, but it is the one clearly written into law in that country.

I genuinely hope this guy can manage an appeal, as his heart was clearly in the right place. Let's be real here though, this was obviously going to end badly for him."
worldnews,"I only ever start with dried beans anymore. It's cheaper, more nutritious, and sooo much better.

I recently discovered honey garlic baked beans. I start with 5 types of prepped beans, some chopped onions, mushrooms, a bit of diced pork and the sauce/spices. Throw it in the oven, zero real effort. Goes very well with rice, as most bean dishes do.

It'll be a cold day in Canada before I have any sympathy for cops."
worldnews,"If that is the case, I would suggest you are probably a bigoted american (or a canadian who might as well be an american) who is trying to export YOUR bigotry. Most nations are NOT right wing hell holes without any Left wing presence like the US. The cops are well trained, do not murder citizens and non-citizens and expect to get away with it. FFS kiwi cops do not even carry guns usually. DO NOT extrapolate American (and AMerican lite) police style executions to the rest of the world."
worldnews,"Considering you can't even get your country names straight, I have to think you're a complete and utter moron, so I'm unconcerned with what you have to say. I mean my nationality is plainly written in the comment to which you took such offense.

So why is the police apologist so thin skinned? Why do you think my comment bothers you so much? All I said was I have no sympathy for people who choose to become police. I didn't say kill them, or anything hyperbolic. I said I didn't like them, and you're throwing a tantrum.

Are you just a kid? You sound like one, one with shitty parents."
worldnews,"Lol you were the one who started comparing Germany to its past, not me.  They weren't ""consumed"" by Roman culture there were loads of different tribes with their own cultures, look up the Visigoths, the Alamanni, Franks, Burgundians, Ostrogoths, Suebi, Greuthingi, Saxons, Vandals all Germanic speaking tribes that had similar(ish) cultures, although not a lot is known about these to make much in the way of definitive answers. They had a distinct culture that actually THEY imposed on the Romans in the western Roman Empire: See- Ostrogothic invasion of Italy, where Theoderic invaded Northern Italy after killing ANOTHER Germanic war lord called Odoacer who was in control of much of Italy at the time. Theoderic appeased Roman culture to keep the inhabitants happy but also made it very clear he was a Goth (Germanic). 
"
worldnews,"I just outlined why, in fact, the Germans weren't conquered and can actually be seen as the conquerors... Where are these tribes now? All around us. The culture is still seen in our laws, literature, languages. We are speaking a Germanic language now which comes from a tribe called the Saxons who invaded the little-known Roman province of Britannia. A lot of 'white' people are of Germanic descent from Germany, The Netherlands, England and to a lesser extent the rest of the British Isles, France was conquered by a Germanic tribe called the Franks, Spain the Visigoths, that on top of the amount of pillaging from Scandinavia making Scandinavian genes prevalent in a lot of Northern European peoples. These countries went on to essentially shape how the world is today  so yeah not much... 

The Germanic tribes aren't comparable to Native American tribes because, well, the Native Americans had their land stolen and with it a lot of hope and prospects of wealth because they were forced away from their lands. The Germanic decedents were the ones taking it. "
worldnews,"Rome conquered Britannia as well, which was where the Angles, another Germanic tribe, had settled as well. If not for the Roman conquest, these backwards fucks would have still been worshipping their druids and mother earth, fucking their cousins and cattle, and fighting with sharpened stones.

Britannia became the vanguard of cultural exportation of Rome’s legacy for the next several centuries. With declining influence in the current era due to secession of the majority of its colonies (tokens of western conquest), this role has now effectively been passed to the United States, one of the many legacies of the conquests of Britannia/Rome. As the dictators of the European monarchistic structure enjoyed their conquests of the colonial age, the more authentic Roman model was re-established in early America.

Through two centuries of conquest and no use of the brakes, America has became Rome-incarnate.

Where else do they speak German besides the immediate vicinity of Germany? German culture was consumed by England. And now, they are being force-fed (literally-look at McDonald’s in Germany) American culture. They watch our movies, eat our food, listen to our music, and learn our language. They are one of many lesser tribes to have been conquered by the legacy of Rome. Germany has that honor many times throughout history, in fact."
worldnews,"Jesus Christ dude English is a *Germanic* language that came to England from *Germanic* tribes. The same *Germanic* that **Germany** is. English actually turned up in force **after** the Romans had left (in 407 AD), being invited in by the Romano-British inhabitants who were being attacked by Picts. The Celtic peoples of Britain actually lived in kinda urban environments as well as rural ones.  They also knew how to farm and fight and there are even pre-Roman coins from Britain so they had some form of an economy. There is evidence of trade, also with continental Europe. So, hardly savages. I study this at University, seriously.

You have an incredibly weird view of history, have you just made this shit up or do you follow a certain pseudo-intellectual? Because there are some massive citations needed here. I don't know what has lead you to believe that America rules any countries in the same way that Rome did because it really doesn't. There isn't any US conquest, and if you think MacDonalds is a US conquest I have no idea what to say to you. MacDonalds works independently from the US, its a business. It isn't Caesar massacring vast swathes of the population of Gaul to annex big areas of land, the US doesn't actually *own* places like the Roman's did. America doesn't run on a system of government where you have two leaders replaced every year. The US had slavery for a bit so I guess that's similar but it wasn't much like Roman slavery. Also, how the fuck was German culture ever taken over by English culture? I'm preeeettttyy certain German culture still exists. 

I'm British. It's not your language really is it? (assuming you're from the US). Germany is very much like here (the UK) where we watch our own movies, eat our own food, and listen to our own music and speak in our own language. No one here really knows about US history nor do we give a fuck, I don't know why you think the US somehow owns the world when it demonstrably doesn't. Also, there was never a single ""German tribe"", Germany was a mix of loads of different tribes like I said.  Jesus fucking Christ I don't know why I bother there is so much wrong with what you've said I think I'm going to implode. 

The world does not work on weird views of masculinity nor is it some popularity competition where the country with the most people speaking its language some how... wins? Its incredibly complex and intricate made up of *autonomous* countries that aren't owned by the US (apart from maybe the US but even that's debatable nowadays)"
worldnews,"Lol its funny you think that you know what people outside the US consume despite being from the US and trying to lecture someone about it from the UK. I'm in the UK and nearly all the culture I consume is British and the same with the news (Brexit is kind of a big deal atm). One trip to Germany doesn't make you an expert. 

Rome was a powerful force for loads of debatable reasons. A good one that is overlooked is that it allowed anyone to become citizens and wealthy with rights that other neighbouring territories didn't grant subjugates- allowing Rome's population to grow fast, also it was a great trading hub which allowed Rome to become incredibly rich. It wasn't an ideal location because it was essentially built upon a swamp and also had no real good escape route because the Romans kinda saw Rome as infallible but this changed when the capital of the empire was moved to Constantinople and before then the capital had been in Ravenna and Milan places in which there were much better escape routes and were easier to defend. Rome was under constant threat from its neighbours all the time and it was that problem that caused it's downfall.

Rome took hundreds of years to expand it's empires borders through military and diplomatic conquest in which the end goal was that *Romans* governed the provinces that they had actually conquered. They didn't theoretically expand it through fast-food chains, asinine politics, and dubious foreign relations in which they kind of had a say in another countries politics in a backhand kind of way. Rome fully took over provinces and made them *Roman* something that the US doesn't do. You can see that in the fact that no one in these places that you claim are conquered by the US would call themselves US citizens, whereas in the Roman empire they could do that. So you could claim that there is US TV on all the time, or US music on all the time but do any of the people in Germany, Latin America, Korea or whatever consider themselves American? No. "
worldnews,"No, they don’t consider themselves American because we allow them to keep their separate identity after we conquer them. We then strip their military and rebuild it in our image. We then use those cohorts to supplement our main effort in other campaigns (Germany deployed Bundeswehr units to Afghanistan in GWOT, ROK continues to train with our Marine Corps   and army for the invasion of China, etc.)

Furthermore, we bring in all of our commercial interests to dominate their market, making us incredibly rich and able to further commit to R&D and stay ahead of everyone else technologically. 

You said that it took hundreds of years for Rome to expand its borders.

The US has gradually been expanding outwardly for over 200 years, and now its sphere of influence pushes up to China in the west and Russia on the east. 

You said that Rome went in and made them Roman, something the US doesn’t do.

How much more “American” can Europe get than to already be eating McDonald’s, drinking Coke, listening to our music, watching our movies, buying arms, goods, vehicles, etc.?

And yet look how content you all are under this illusion that you are a sovereign people, happy and free.

But we can see what happens when our subjects act out of line. We all saw before our very eyes how the EU Finance Minister caved to Trump’s tariff threats, bent down and took Trump’s dick in his asshole right on the world stage. 

Also, you are trying to misleadingly allude to my singular foreign exchange student experience as my only international travel in an attempt to discredit me. Let me be clear, I have traveled extensively throughout Europe and other regions. I’ve been to the UK, Netherlands, France, Germany, Cyprus, Italy, Kuwait, Qatar, and Iraq. Some were for leisure, some for business, and some as a participant in armed conflict.I do speak Spanish, German, and Russian, and I’m in the process of adding Korean and Japanese to that list. So it was worth a shot, but a swing and a miss."
worldnews,"Me: Then can I get a job?

Gunning: No, you need to get experience first.

Me: But how can I get experience if I can't get a job?

Gunning: Not my problem.

Also people like Gunning: Fucking millennials are lazy and unmotivated; they need to work!

I am very, very fortunate with my career prospects post Uni in a few weeks but I know so many people who have are struggling to get anywhere in life because they're denied jobs they're clearly qualified for. So tired of people who have everything they want and need in life acting as if it's easy. They bought their homes in an age where prices were cheap and it was easy to obtain a mortgage. These same people are the reason why people struggle to obtain their own home, even fucking pay rent."
worldnews,"I graduated college back in 2010 and used to kind of feel that way.  It's pretty LOL now though.

​

You simply need to start at the bottom and work your way up.  The problem is that you're applying to jobs that require experience.  EG -- finance majors apply to financial analyst positions and think the system is rigged against their generation.

​

No.  Unless you went to an ivy league school or had a 3.5-4.0 GPA, you're probably going to need to work a few years in a non-analyst position that you think you're too good for and then get promoted to that position.

​

""BUT in my parent's generation every finance major was instantly an analyst!""  In your parent's generation, only the equivalent of those 4.0 GPA students or ivy leaguers went to college in the first place.   70% of 16-24 year olds are enrolled in college right now.  70% of the population can't be analysts.  70% of the population isn't smart enough to even be an analyst.

​

It's not that things are ""harder"" for you.  You're over-valuing your own ability because you think that being a 2018 college grad makes you as qualified as a 1970 college grad.  It does not.  A 2018 college grad's aptitude and ability is on par with a 1970 high school grads.

​

You're actually gifted with much more opportunity.  In 1970, someone at the 50th %ile would have been relegated to being a mechanic or something forever.  No hope of anything better.  In 2018, that 50th %ile can still be a mechanic right out of high school.  But he also has the chance to go to college and do something more."
worldnews,"> Me: But how can I get experience if I can't get a job?

Unpaid internship, while you're funded by your parents.

AKA aristocracy and classism

Very common in fashion, culture, the arts, but also education - to the detriment of society and the economy as a whole, as talent is wasted as people end up working shit jobs when they would have been far more productive working in another sector."
worldnews,"I'm speaking from personal experience.  I graduated in finance right after the real estate bubble and the banking crisis -- the worst time ever.  I was like ""OMG I'm applying to jobs all over the country (banking, financial analyst, brokerage, etc etc etc -- everything) and I'm not hearing back wtf!!  It must be the era that I live in!!""

It wasn't.  It was simply the fact that 2/3 of the population goes to college and I was looking at my degree like it signified that I was in the top 10% of mental ability, like it did in the 1970s.  Truth -- you can be ""smart"" enough to get a ""college degree"" in 2018 but be too dumb to join the army as a grunt, being disqualified by the ASVAB.  The only thing comparable to a 1960s college degree is an ivy league degree or a 3.5-4.0 GPA at a decent school with networking.  I was being arrogant and overvaluing myself. 

Work a few years in something as simple as doing book keeping at a local business or just an administrative office job at some random company.  Get a job as a lowly bank teller and work your way up to management in the retail bank and apply horizontally in the same bank to the jobs that you really want.  Just start working -- any job, anything.  Nothing is below you.  You're not better than anyone.  All the sudden doors start to open up.  You start networking, making connections, building real skills, piling on certifications (eg -- CFA), and you move along.  

You're going to laugh at this post bemoaning how you can't get anywhere because the cards are stacked against your generation in a few years."
worldnews,"I laugh at your post because of how incredibly Ill-informed it is, not because I don’t get your totally awesome nonsense anecdote. 

Are you even aware of the difference in education standards from almost 50 years ago and today? As someone with a bachelor of education hearing you make that comparison is quite literally the dumbest thing I’ve heard this week. 

Job hunting is harder for this generation because of the simple fact that more population + more graduates + more automation means there are less jobs. 

I suggest you actually educate yourself before mouthing off with bullshit about people aiming too high. 1970 and 2018 are not comparable in a single way, and if you had any decent education you would be aware of that simple fact "
worldnews,"I went to a college that averaged a 3.7 GPA for the incoming freshman class and many of the students required remedial math classes and had trouble with basic ideas.  Standards, whatever, that's all BS.  I know what my real life experience says: 70% of the population is taking college classes, and people aren't any smarter than they were 50 years ago.  All these kids expected to become analysts and stuff and most of them wouldn't be any better at it than the guy changing my tires if put into the same ""entry level"" job.  The 50th %ile is the 50th%ile and a piece of paper doesn't change that.  The 50%ile in 1970 just knew they were dumb and the 50th%ile in 2018 has a ""college degree"" (in sarcastic quotations for a reason) and thinks they're entitled to professional level work."
worldnews,"Unpaid internships are illegal in Australia, I believe.
They were never offered when I was at uni, they simply didn’t exist, so unless that has changed in the last few years?

(I know some engineering degrees have a requirement of something like 6 months in a relevant job, similar to an internship. Work based training type of thing?)

But you’re left with overqualified retail workers because,

Need a degree for a job.
Graduate position applied for - *minimum requirement 3 years experience*

No internships - how do I get experience?

Also, why do I need experience for a *graduate position*?

Therefore, have a degree, and a government debt, but can’t get a job because I need experience.
"
worldnews,">It is the same entity.

Only in name. Different political parties, different people, different laws, different constitution; Canada wasn't even fully independent of the British Crown until 1982.

> The vast majority of people want institutions to take responsibility for their actions regardless of the time span, especially for ingenious acts.

Proof? The past cannot be changed by an apology, and the time for a meaningful apology is well past (since everyone who made the decision is long dead)."
worldnews,"There is a concept called ""collective guilt"".  We bear responsibility *and/or shame*  for the actions of the group we belong to, including the sinful actions of our ancestors.  The amount of responsibility and/or shame depends on certain factors, such as the extend of the ability of the people in the group to do and/or speak out for the ""right thing"".  

By acknowledging a sin of the past, the shame of that sin can be absolved.  Absolving sin is necessary to travel the path of the righteous.  That is why Germany, today, is a righteous country; they admit the sins of the Nazi period, thus seek nobility.  This is why the USA is righteous country, *despite all the bad things we still do;* we seek truth and acknowledge our sins."
worldnews,"I'm saying that if you gain German citizenship, you are responsible for the *shame* of the sins committed by Germany.  

I'm American.  I'm responsible for the *shame* of the sins committed by America.  I'm partially *guilty* for the sins committed by America today, because I benefit from being an American and I have some ability to influence what my country is. 

What you seem to be saying is that you think you have no responsibility except for what you yourself did, even though you claim Canadian identity for yourself. That's morally immature.  You want to claim this identity (or citizenship), but you don't accept the stains that come with it.  "
worldnews,"> Neo-nazism is on the rise across the world and there are right wing parties rising in Canada and Europe who deny that the Holocaust ever happened.

It really isn't. What is on the rise though are extremist fascist left-wing SJW's accusing anyone and everyone who does not agree with them 100% of being a Nazi and/or ""alt-right"".

>This is very important, will impact a lot of people, and is long overdue.

It is not important, will not impact anyone, and is so far overdue that it is completely pointless."
worldnews,">because I benefit from being an American and I have some ability to influence what my country is.

Unless you are extremely wealthy and/or heavily connected, you have absolutely no influence in what your country is.

>What you seem to be saying is that you think you have no responsibility except for what you yourself did, even though you claim Canadian identity for yourself. That's morally immature. You want to claim this identity (or citizenship), but you don't accept the stains that come with it.

I don't ""claim"" any identity for myself. I am Canadian only because I was born so. I did not choose in the matter, and I have no choice one way or the other. I do not accept responsibility or ""shame"" for any actions in which I did not participate or have any influence over, and neither should you or anyone else."
worldnews,"Found a neo-nazi! 

Top clues: you don't think that Holocaust denial is on the rise, you don't think that turning a boat full of refugees away to die in concentration camps is an atrocity, and you think that SJWs are worse than nazis. 

This false equivalence between SJWs (a term made up by the alt-right) and neo-nazis is one of the favourite ways for paid foreign trolls to undermine democracy and encourage faciscm in America. You should look up the reports by the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI about foreign interference in the 2016 eleection on social media -- you're writing directly in line with the thousands of comments captured that were written by foreign trolls. 

You are almost quoting them verbatim. "
worldnews,"> you have absolutely no influence in what your country is.

Well if you believe that, why don't you go live in China?  That's were I lived a third of my life.  Go see what it's like to live in a nation where there is not even a pretense of democracy.  

>I don't ""claim"" any identity for myself. I am Canadian

Semantics.  You are saying you belong to this group called ""Canada / Canadian"".  You are saying that is part of your identity... as in ""I AM CANADIAN"".  

>I did not choose in the matter, and I have no choice one way or the other. 

You have no choice about what womb you come out of.  Of course, you have a choice about what country you maintain your citizenship in.  

>I do not accept responsibility or ""shame"" for any actions in which I did not participate or have any influence over, and neither should you or anyone else.

So again, you are saying that you just have responsibility for yourself, which is morally immature.   In Biblical-ish language, you are saying ""You are not your brother's keeper.""  You pay your taxes to support the system.  You get great education and social benefits from the system.  You grew up in a land not ruled by a tyrant because of the sacrifices of people who came before yo.  All this you have.  But the dirt that came with it somehow cannot stick to you.  "
worldnews,"Fun fact, lobbying came about as a manner in which experts in a given field could advise lawmakers to help them make informed policy (e.g. a physicist could be a lobbyist for science related laws, etc). This was actually a good thing way back when! 

Problem is that nowadays the “advice” is typically money, and the “informed decision” has become a quid pro quo with corporations and the rich. Incredibly scummy. "
worldnews,"That's the lie people were sold long ago, that capitalism was the right way and that every vote counts.  You know at least one of those statements is wrong.  I think people are starting to get it that capitalism, though a fine and honorable concept, is just as corrupt and evil as communism was in its day.  The common denominator there is that people are somewhat psychopathic and really only care for themselves.  That's what fell afoul of success of both systems.  "
worldnews,"> Sure there are out right deniers but they're incredibly few. 

I’m not convinced of that at all. There are plenty of outright deniers, and a large chunk of the rest of the “skeptics” generally give weak qualifying “well, I’m not a *denier*, I just think nothing is going to happen and we should burn more coal...” in an effort to seem more acceptable. 

In practice they are evidently just as convinced that climate change is some “leftist conspiracy” as the others. 

"
worldnews,"I have no doubt that some republicans ""deny"" climate change to some extent but not all of them. And I don't even think it's a flat out denial like its not happening at all. It's more of a ""how much are we responsible for it and what should we do"" which is a lot different than denying it all together. Just like the dems the republican party is made up of a bunch of different opinions of varying degrees. It's like saying every democrat wants to ban all guns. It's just not true. I just find it more useful to point out the specific individual on what they believe or said and how are they wrong. I would say I lean more right on a lot of issues and if there was a republican that flat out denied that our records show the earth is warming I would have to disagree with them. It's the same shit you see on reddit every day where people group every individual of a certain party to the most extreme example. I'm just a regular guy with a college education, a house, a family and a solid career. The dems and republicans are made up of a majority of people just like me who probably agree on more things than we think. I just wish that if republicans hated republican officials as much as they hate the democrats and if democrats hated the democrats in office as much as they hate the republicans, we would probably get a lot further. It doesn't seem like anybody is really happy with either party but disagree so much with the others so much they will deal with the stupid shit their party does just so the other guy won't win.  Blanket statements about an entire group just don't really seem to help anyone except for the people who already agree with you. "
worldnews,"""It's the flipside of anti immigration nationalism""

none white migration effects you can see in places such as France or Germany with countless terror for allah rapes murders for mohammad and or welfare. Every 5th migrant in Germany is on state assistance.

Just to let you know, COUNTLESS none white countries are welcoming or giving asylums to white SA if they only chose to come. White are welcomed everywhere due to a fact that they will make any nation strive grow unlike the you know who..."
worldnews,">There’s no correlation though... A gun is a weapon

What is a bomb used for other that a weapon? A knife is a weapon. Knives can also be designed to kill, was the knifing spree in Paris a knife problem?

> Give someone a truck and they will most likely drive it law abidingly.

30% of Americans own a gun, and by far, the vast majority will use them law abidingly.

Edit: added a bit to my first paragraph"
worldnews,">I didn't want to even attempt your bomb analogy given that Pakistan is a third world Muslim country, do I need to say more?

Absolutely you need to say more. If you are going to blame the tools that an insane person uses to hurt someone innocent, why would the people of Pakistan be an exception? The fact that it’s a “third world country” is utterly irrelevant.

>Knives are used to prepare foods, guns are used to shoot things.

Knives are also used to kill people. I own a rifle, it is only used for shooting food, why is that different from a knife that you claim are used exclusively for preparing food? My gun is used exclusively for shooting deer or elk, that is part of my food preparation.

>I don't see this argument going anywhere, bye.

I generally find this statement to be common when I question anyone who is against guns. There truly is no logic to their arguments, so rather than discuss their opinion they just shut it down."
worldnews,"Did you even read your first article? The first key point clearly states that per capita ownership has fallen.

If people were the issue then wouldn't Australia see regular mass shootings like the U.S.A?

It's not necessarily the availability of guns in America that results in your ridiculous levels of gun crime, it's the gun culture that comes as a result of it. People aren't buying guns and using them because they are mentally ill, it's because guns are seen as a fundamental part of your society.

As I said before, you're not going to budge from your viewpoint and I'm not going to change mine. We both think the other is wrong, this isn't going anywhere."
worldnews,"I don't even get the conspiracy theory the people on this site are trying to promote with the whole ""same bank as Justice Kennedy's son... the same justice that just retired!""

Like. What is even the implication. Trump would get a dirty loan and owe a bank that Justice Kennedy's son works at, but then he would also have the power to strong-arm Kennedy into leaving? Or does it implicate Kennedy somehow? I don't even see anything there?

Or would it be more likely that a right leaning justice appointed by a Republican president would want to retire at 82 years old while a Republican holds office? No... that can't be it. Trump has to be doing something evil!!!"
worldnews,"The son works in the real estate division and reportedly loaned'Trump up to a billion dollars in real estate money. However the bank itself has been found guilty multiple times for money laundering.

One of the plausible money laundering schemes is Trump selling property to Russian oligarchs for far more then they are worth to clean the money. And legitimize assets for Russians. 

So let's say Russians want control of the USA Supreme Court for a few decades.  They would blackmail Kennedy to retire as they have leverage over his son. He is old so he wouldn't last through the next president term most likely. Then they get their Trump aides to push for Kavanaugh. 

Then proceed to (in Russian Accent) *Destroy Precious American Freedoms.* 

I think it's overall a stretch, but with as much bullshittery has occurred surrounding Trump I do not want to outright say it is entirely ridiculous. The speed of Kennedy's retirement was also atypical. But Putin pulls the strings. Trump is just a narcissist, where every moment revolves around him. 

Wouldn't be surprised if the Maginsky Act is tested in the Supreme Court after Kavanaugh's made a SCJ. "
worldnews,"I just find it insane that people on this site think that is a more likely scenario than an 82 year old saying ""hey. I'm 82. I'll be 84 after this first term and if Trump doesn't win, I may be 92, or even older by the time we have a next Republican president. I better retire now.""

I dont think anyone actually believes the conspiracy right? They just want it to be true? Similar to the right with Seth Rich and the Pizza Gate conspiracies?"
worldnews,"It is possible that Kennedy was threatened or Blackmailed into retiring. But he was absolutely pressured by the White House. 

The White House was blunt, warning the 81-year-old justice that time was of the essence. There was no telling, they said, what would happen if Democrats gained control of the Senate after the November elections and had the power to block the president’s choice as his successor.

After the whole Merrick Garland thing, leaving the Supreme Court with 8 Justices is bad for SC decsisions.

Perhaps, Narcissistic Trump underhandedly threatened his son some how... To get what he wants. Perhaps it is closer to reddit conspiracy. 

But the Republicans absolutely want to stack the court with Republican before they lose seats. Which is why Trump impeachment is not a question for Republicans, they are not finished with him yet. Republicans are acting in bad faith,  and have been since they became the 'party of no'. 

"
worldnews,"Oh fun!  Now replace the whole article:  

>President Donald Trump exploded at his former lawyer, John Dowd, after reading news reports that said the special counsel Robert Mueller had subpoenaed records from Deutsche Bank, journalist Bob Woodward reported in his upcoming book, ""Fear: Trump in the White House,"" which Business Insider obtained and reviewed.

>After learning of the news regarding Mueller and Deutsche Bank, a primary lender to the president, Woodward wrote that a furious Trump phoned Dowd at 7 a.m.

>""I know my relationships with Deutsche Bank,"" Trump told Dowd, with Woodward writing that the president said the bank loved him and was always paid for its loans. ""I know what I borrowed, when I borrowed, when I paid it back. I know every godd--- one.""

>Trump added that ""this is bulls---!""

>Dowd then spoke with Jim Quarles, a member of Mueller's team who was also an assistant special prosecutor on the Watergate probe. Dowd repeated Trump's assertion that ""this is bulls---.""

>During a conference call, Quarles said that Mueller's team had subpoenas issued to Deutsche Bank ""way back in the summertime, but it doesn't involve the president or his finances.""

>The New York Times reported earlier this year that those reports led to Trump seeking to fire Mueller in December. But Trump backed down once the initial news reports, which said the subpoenas were aimed at Trump's and his family's dealings with the bank, were inaccurate. Instead, The Times reported that federal prosecutors in a separate inquiry issued a subpoena for entities that were connected to White House senior adviser and Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner.

>Times columnist David Leonhardt wrote this weekend about the possible nexus between Trump's business and Russian money laundering involving Deutsche Bank, which has been tied to such illicit money.

>The relationship between Trump and the German bank dates back two decades, a time when major Wall Street firms would no longer loan Trump money following a series of disastrous ventures such as the Trump Shuttle and Trump's Atlantic City casinos.

>Prior to Trump's election as president, his financial disclosures showed he held roughly $360 million in debt to the bank, with about $125 million in two mortgages for one of the president's major Florida golf courses, Trump National Doral, The Washington Post reported.

>Deutsche Bank was under investigation by the Justice Department for both its role in a ""mirror trading"" scheme with Russian oligarchs that allowed them to launder cash out of Russia in the face of US sanctions, and for its mortgage practices amid the financial crisis, which regulators sought a $14 billion fine for. Deutsche Bank ended up settling with the government on the mortgage front for $7.2 billion just days before Trump took office last January.

>Last July, The Times reported that US banking regulators were reviewing the hundreds of millions of dollars in loans Deutsche Bank made to Trump over the past two decades. It was in the same story that The Times reported that the bank was in contact with federal investigators related to the special counsel's probe. Sources said the bank was expecting it would have to turn over information on Trump's accounts to Mueller. "
worldnews,"Trump getting angry at something isn't news.

The man (if he should even be called that) once flew into a rage at the sight of a drinking fountain whose location he didn't agree with on his new perfectly manicured clay tennis court and proceeded to grab it and rip it from the ground sending water spraying from the loose plumbing, destroying that area of the professional grade court.

Mueller is looking into everything. When he has something, that will be news. 

This is not news."
worldnews,"No, that's exactly what al-Qaeda and other similar terrorist organizations want you to think. It's basically reverse psychology, they say ""attack us silly westerners you'll bankrupt yourselves hahaha!"" to try and reduce public support for action against them, but they would actually prefer it if you left them to their own devices.

It's not like they're going to stop invading other countries or stop making terrorist attacks if America sits back and does nothing. The stated goal is to establish a global caliphate."
worldnews,"It’s the opposite of what Al awards wanted, they wanted the US out of the Middle East and thought that the attack would show the American public that the policies were not effective and would only result in more suffering.  Instead they got occupation of many countries.

This isn’t lik when the Soviets fought back in Afghanistan and we’re struggling economically to keep up with their war efforts.  The US has spent a lot of money, but the US can afford to spend a lot of money.  "
worldnews,"10 years later and in his old age and after accomplishing all and more than what he set out to accomplish.

He played us like fools and we stupidly brag about ending his life.

Our inability to show any respect for the talents of our enemies (the number of times I've been called a liberal, Islamic sympathiser for talking about this...) Will get us into more disastrous engagements in the future."
worldnews,"Now look at what the sacrifices we'd have to take to transfer to universal health care. Due to the nature of the US being very dependent on a strong court system, this means hospital expenses are heavily poured into doctors protection from being sued. It'd also be nice if the burden of R&D wasn't heavily taxed onto US citizens because europeans get a discounted cost on our drugs. Without the incentive for profit, investors wouldn't bother funding R&D. Not only that, do you really believe medical professionals will take a 25% paycut just to have more work? That's what universal health care would mean, doctors are barely able to break even on obama care covered patients, what do you think that would mean if everyone was covered the same way? Not only will hospitals receive less funding for equipment, it'd mean a cut in staff and less people pursuing medicine.

Don't get me wrong, I think everyone should be covered but, there isn't a viable solution right now without a sever shift in the industry. Just preaching ""universal health care is the future!"" isn't going to fix things.

Funding education is a lost cause, the US is possibly one of the largest funders for education per capita but, the result just goes to show why asian countries still pull ahead in scores. Students already have the resources available to them to succeed the only thing holding them back is unhealthy upbringings and family culture. California is a good example of similar income neighborhoods separated by ethnicity that heavily indicates family upbringing and culture plays a heavier part in education than school funding.

Free college is unnecessary, community college for 2 years transfer to a state school is essentially less than 14k in debt out of college on average. The only people preaching for free college are the ones who expect a college experience."
worldnews,"Italy is not racist in the way where they treat someone with a different skin pigment as someone less

Italy is considered racist because it doesn't want more migrants straining an already weak economy and a struggling social system. It has nothing to do with race and only with common sense.

Please stay in America. If there's anything we dislike it's people like you. Your ideas will find no validation in this country"
worldnews,"The UN should enforce a system where illegal immigration doesn't happen.

It's trying to fix a symptom of the cause and not the actual cause.

It's the equivalent of helping drug addicts out while not properly prosecuting, arresting and stopping drug trafficking.

The ideal solution would be to setup refugee camps within Libya and legally select immigrants who are eligible. Is the UN doing this? No. They're not fixing the true cause.

I'm happy to take in people escaping conflict from war torn countries. I'm also happy to take in people being persecuted for religious beliefs or sexual preference.

However, I have no interest in taking in economical refugees. There's a very long list of people spread around the entire world that want to immigrate to Europe. Forcing entry by stubbornly inflating a rubber boat and waiting in the middle of the ocean is cheating the system.

Let me be crystal clear. This is not racism. This is following the rules by the law book and using common sense. "
worldnews,"> The UN should enforce a system where illegal immigration doesn't happen.

The UN is not a government for the world, it is a communicating tool, although member states have come to agreements in the past to enforce common human rights and few other regulations this does not make the UN an all-round governing body. To ""enforce"" any kind of system involving many separate countries all with their own laws, motivations and cultures needs a lot of consensus, the only role the UN can play in these matters is to offer a negotiation platform for those countries involved and offer idea's to them.

They do investigate things, and write reports, because that's how you get things in the open and discussed about."
worldnews,"In the 3 months since the current government have taken power there have been 14 shootings, two murders and 56 physical assaults against not only immigrants but just those who aren't Italian. One of these attacks involved a 13 month old Roma child being shot in the head with an airgun. There was also a shooting at a market where 5 Black vendors where shot by a neo-Fascist and 2 of them died. 

Good to see done your research /s."
worldnews,"Salvini has made his anti-Roma position pretty clear, so you can't really disregard attacks against Roma being connected to the recent election. Also the data is much higher than it was, in the same period last year there were no shootings and no deaths. Now you have people attacking people based on the colour of their skin, An Italian athlete who happens to be Black had her eye injured after people threw stuff at her in Turin. The Turin D.A tried to look into the rise of hate crimes but was hounded by Salvini's supporters, who are seemingly the only people denying that this is going on. Just because you deny it, it doesn't mean it isn't happening."
worldnews,"Roma have always been hated and frowned upon in Italy. Italian Gipsies are a complete different reality than Northern European Gipsies. They act as crime syndicates, ignore integration and overall provide little to no benefit to society. Racism towards Roma has always been there and will never fade away until they start integrating properly. Salvini supporters are highlighting something that has always been there.

> Now you have people attacking people based on the colour of their skin

A few incidents don't personify an entire country. School shootings in America happen once a month but you don't see people assuming that all white kids are mentally deranged.

Just because Salvini is Right-Winged, doesn't mean he is racist. 

American moralist ideology unfortunately has no validation in Italy because it's a complete different reality. America has a lot of educated African Americans that are as good if not better than it's white counter-part in a lot of skilled jobs. In Italy the vast majority of northern African minorities have no education, don't integrate properly and come from cultures that assimilate with Italian values.

This subbreddit is uber SJW alt-left and I'm not surprised by the downvotes. Take this argument to the average Italian and he will agree for good reasons.
"
worldnews,"No one is saying that these incidents represent the Italians at all. I’m just giving you evidence that the UN is justified in their actions. You are the one denying that it’s happening at all, implying that it’s the Roma’s fault for the discrimination (I doubt that 13 month old was part of a crime syndicate). Also just because the “average Italian” would agree with you (which I highly doubt) doesn’t mean that these attacks are justified.

Also Salvini vowed to expel all of the Roma from Italy during his election, how can you support that? What’s the difference between you and a Roma child born in Italy, they have just as much of a right to live there as you. This isn’t about the sub being “SJW alt-left” this is about you denying fact, and treating people as less important than yourself because they aren’t Italian."
worldnews,"You obviously have never had the experience of being an immigrant. See about 100 years ago Italy was so fucked up that people left for America in mass.

Now if you’re a decedent of one of these immigrants, you heard stories of how badly they were treated when they came here. Italian immigrants were considered uneducated and criminal. Americans began to blame them for their economic problems. Sound familiar? Ever hear of the word Dego, or Wop? My Grandfather was seen as a hero in Italy for doing the more difficult task of migration, ever hear the term White Widow? 

So it especially angers me when I see fucktwat neofascist buttboys for Putin take ahold of Italian politics. It’s embarrassing and you should be embarrassed. 

"
worldnews,"I’m not denying anything. Im just stating that this UN investigation is a joke because it’s focusing on the wrong things. A handful of racist incidents are prone to happen in any country where such a huge influx of immigrants has been present. The issue is that these migration flows should be halted indefinitely until a better legal way is found. The right type of Immigration helps the economy and Italy really needs a boost. 

And for the love of god stop interpreting the things I say under your own agenda. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, none of these acts are justified, there’s nothing racist in my arguments!

And Jesus Christ it’s so obvious you’ve never been to Italy. You’re basing your ideas on simplistic moral values that hold absolutely no truth in the real world. A Roma kid is the same as an Italian kid, sure. It’s what the Roma kid becomes at a later age that differs a lot from the average Italian. Roma culture is not oppressed it’s low key oppressing other Italians though acts of violence, criminality or overall leeching of social systems. Most Roma live in secluded trailer parks, don’t work, don’t educate themselves, have a high tendency to not follow the law. It’s just a lifestyle that was allowed to grow and become a reality. 

Why the fuck should tax payers money go to people that don’t work and overall don’t contribute to society if not damage it?

"
worldnews,"Do you have a source for that? If so that means that 1 of my examples (also the tamest one) has context that I never knew about before. So what about the shootings and immigrants being beaten to death? Also I jumped straight to a racism conclusion on that story considering that it was featured in an article about the rise of crimes against immigrants in Italy. Also you are missing the point about the Roma. Yes them being looked down upon is not exclusive to Italy, however the government of Italy has made the Roma a target and scapegoat with Salvini’s vow to expel them."
worldnews,"   >You’re thinking of the less developed form of respect like parent to child relationship,

What are you talking about? Familial relationships are 'servitude'? 

Yeah, we don't want you here. Speaking the way you're writing here you'd get punched in the face. Not that you'd have the balls. 

> We have the same problems here,

Ffs, stop assuming that every society is like the US'. And your media sucks at reporting affairs of other anglophone countries, let alone other ones, so I hope you don't consider yourself informed.  "
worldnews,"I can get even worse. Part of the problem Italy has is the same as you find in Greece. When the church has a bigger influence on the country than any other institution that means you’re easy prey for active measures.  You guys were about to go communist after ww2 until the US and U.K. secret services paid off the pope and sabotaged your elections. The residue of fascism still permeates, and while you blame immigrants, you have a government more corrupt than any American institution. Your King Emmanuel did a nice number on the county too, good thing my Grandfather did leave and denounce him.
"
worldnews,">The UN is doing its job by trying to make sure people are alright.

So why does it only care when some white people attack minorities in small numbers, but migrants can rape and murder children, and the UN gives zero care. If going by every other country is the example, interracial crime is committed in much lower numbers by the white people, than vice versa. Whites are pretty much always universally the minority of interracial crime committers."
worldnews,"I mean this isn't passed yet and still needs to be approved by the council of Europe who's very likely to kill it because of the backlash or going to make it less harsh. Brexit may have been a good thing because Britain valued complete autonomy over anything else the problem is the British government has no plan in place for brexit meaning the end outcome will be a kneecapped British economy, shit trade deals decided at the last minute, no real control over there boarders because that's a stipulation in those trade deals, and essentially staying in the EU except now they really have no say of how EU laws effect them "
worldnews,"Wow a random post on a random site. So trustworthy, such proof. Seriously, you choose to believe this random post? Don't you think Israelis would cover this more? For all we know this could be written by a sad Arab troll.
But yeah, if Israel has something like a internet forces, so what? Palestinians have Pallywood and their propaganda machine, Arabs have Al Jazeera, the Democrats and Republicans have paid internet trolls/shills, the Kremlin and China have whole divisions of internet trolls. So what? That's the world we live in "
worldnews,"Identify, call out, tag em, and move on.

Zionists and not good faith actors or speakers, there is no point in engaging with them.

These are people who justify child murder by saying they'll grow up to hate us anyway.  These are the people who claim Palestine has autonomy while they snap up it's land, kill their people and blockade their waters.  These are people who mimick and paraphrase Adolf Hitler without shame."
worldnews,"Moroccan here. This headline is confusing. The laws that passed today are for violence against women and sexual harassement in general (harassement in public, sexual assault and cybercrimes etc..). It's not like sexual violence or violence against women was legal (or went unpunished) before, it's just that this law gave women more protection against things that weren't given as much attention before, and it upgraded the punishments. (I.E public harassement etc..) I don't understand why they used those terms in the headline because they imply something very different.

As for forced marriage there was this controversial law that was passed in 2012 by some retarded politicians that made it possible for rapists to marry their victims but it was repealed two years later, after a lot of people protested. So it is completely irrelevant to the laws that passed today. I'm disappointed in BBC.

Forced marriage is one of those things that ultimately depends on what kind of family you have, since even that controversial rape law that existed didn't make it automatically possible for the rapists to marry their victim, they still faced a sentence. It was up to the family to decide if they wanted to do that. So forced marriage was never really explicitly legal, they just made a retarded assumption that somehow this won't be abused and the victim would somehow voluntarily want to marry her rapist and not be forced to do it (*facepalm* as you can probably tell that law had a religious dimension to it. The Islamist idiots are the ones that passed the law.). If the woman has a fucked up family then the government can't really do much about it if the woman is pressured into marrying someone. The only solution is for the woman to get away from her family and that is unfortunately not always possible and sometimes they don't always want to cut ties with their families, like some form of Stockholm syndrome. This is actually one of the things that are being discussed and what a lot of activists want for the future, stuff like shelter for victims. Right now NGOs are the only ones doing this kind of work."
worldnews,"I think it has to do with activists claiming the law does not protect against forced/arranged marriage because it fails to explicitly mention or define it and the vague reference to ""ill treatment of women"" gives too much lee way

http://news.trust.org//item/20180912173630-lh7iq/

> Suad Abu-Dayyeh, a Middle East expert with the global advocacy group Equality Now, welcomed the law as a ""positive step"" to protect women, but said implementation was key.

> ""We want to see the implementation of this law - forced and child marriages are very much happening in Morocco."""
worldnews,"> In a recent notice sent to Congress, the administration said it intended to take $20 million in foreign assistance funds and use it to help Mexico pay plane and bus fare to deport as many as 17,000 people who are in that country illegally.

Yes, so sensationalized. 

Writing that they’re planning on spending aid money to Mexico and then reporting that they’re planning on sending aid money to Mexico. 

The nerve."
worldnews,"He lied? His still in office with 2 years to go. You can only call him a liar after his term ends.

Now I don't think he'll build an actually wall, he'll probably just reinforce the fences that are already in place and the cost will be divided 50/50 between the US and Mexico, like most things of this sort. If that does happen then you can't call him a liar because he technically did what he said he would.

Are you sure you read the article? He isn't paying Mexico to keep the immigrants out...

Btw you are just mentioning one part of my comment. Not once did you mention my criticism of the second part of the title of this thread, which is my biggest gripe with it."
worldnews,"I don’t have a finite amount that I can bitch. I’m exceptionally capable of making multiple objections and being a dick about a plethora of lies. 

I’m not picking this one thing only to hinge my entire stance against Trump on. 

If we are using hills as a metaphor then this hills adds to the others to create a mountain that I’ll die on. 

If I had to order it by importance then yeah, this would be pretty low. I can still address it and the other stuff though. We were just talking about this one thing so far though. 

Where would you dig your heels in? We probably align there tbh."
worldnews,"You don't think it is weird, at all, that Obama paid them straight cash in foreign currency? I say Obama because it was the Executive branch without Congress. The reason it was done that way is to circumvent U.S. and international sanctions... it was a shady deal dude. Also, it was U.S. Tax payer money that went to Iran.

""The money came from a little-known fund administered by the Treasury Department for settling litigation claims. The so-called Judgment Fund is taxpayer money Congress has permanently approved in the event it's needed, allowing the president to bypass direct congressional approval to make a settlement. The U.S. previously paid out $278 million in Iran-related claims by using the fund in 1991.""

Also, $400,000,000 of the $1,700,000,000 was *contingent* on the release of U.S. captives. In other words, it was ransom money.

Source:  http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-iran-payment-cash-20160907-snap-story.html"
worldnews,"As Chinese, I really want Google to come here to rescue us from baidu... Stopping Project Dragonfly won’t change CCP, but doing that can save lives from baidu’s horrible “Auction Ad”

“Auction Ad” means baidu will place ads in the same place as search results and only have a small notes below. The number of ads can range from 0 to 10. Then whenever a company pays higher price, it will be placed at the top. Even hospitals can do this. Which results in, people go to baidu to search for hospitals, and baidu advertise for bad hospitals which may have wrong medication and make them die."
worldnews,"> “Auction Ad” means baidu will place ads in the same place as search results and only have a small notes below. The number of ads can range from 0 to 10. Then whenever a company pays higher price, it will be placed at the top.

Google does the same, the only difference between a search result and an ad on a Google search result page is an indiscriminate ""[Ad]"" box next to the URL. The ads used to have different background color but those probably stood out too much from regular results. Now the first 3-4 results and the last 3-4 results of a popular search will be ads. Ironically this is against the Terms of Use for Google's AdSense platform where you can't make your normal content look like AdSense textual ads."
worldnews,"No, not really

Sounds to me like the government cares about shutting down anti-state commentary; I doubt they care at all whether or not a certain company wins out over another, so long as they're able to prevent said commentary on the site

I mean they probably care about baidu's profits but only because they already have a firm grasp on their policies and trust baidu to be compliant with whatever policies they push out. If there was another compliant search engine, they probably wouldn't give a shit"
worldnews,"The problem is that if Google makes a substantial investment in the Chinese market, the Chinese government can threaten this investment at any time unless Google does their bidding in western markets. For instance, displaying Taiwan as a separate country than China in search result or Google Maps. We already know the Chinese government is willing to do this, because they have already attempted to do this with the US airlines.

If Google begins making money in China, then at any time the Chinese government can threaten to take these revenues away unless they start adding censorship in favor of the Chinese government to their English language and foreign search websites as well."
worldnews,"It would be worse if Google cooperated with the Chinese government, because if Google starts making substantial money in China, the Chinese government could threaten this revenue stream unless Google began censoring topics abroad outside of the mainland as well. We have already seen that CCP is willing to use economic leverage to threaten international corporations to do its bidding, for instance when it successfully forced many US airlines to delist Taiwan as a separate country on their websites."
worldnews,"Hi, I’ve got a coworker here in the US who was born in China but has been here for 9 years (he’s late 20’s).  I was amazed to hear his perspective in that he thinks China is right in all they’re doing.  He said Chinese people naturally gravitate towards power and that China does the things it does to maintain order and to establish itself.  As a result, when I asked him, he actually said he places human rights near the bottom of priorities, and that China should silence dissenting opinions.  His motto was “don’t be stupid and don’t cause problems and you won’t have any problems.”

Is that the attitude of the majority of people there?"
worldnews,"Google AdSense textual ads are ads you can place on your website. They're 'textual' because instead of a graphic banner it's just text. You can style your normal content (like say links to another section of your website) to blend up nicely with the textual ads. However, because Google thinks this 'tricks' the user into accidentally clicking the ad when they think they're clicking on a link to another page on your website, this is prohibited.

Google has conveniently made an exception for their own textual ads on their search result pages. This double standard is what happens when the ad network (Google AdSense) and publisher (Google Search) is the same company. When you start buying out a lot of online advertising companies (as Google has done), you don't have many choices for ad networks as a sole publisher and so Google can force arbitrary rules like this."
worldnews,">It really bothers me that western tech firms have been selling out decades of research and development to authoritarian governments for just a little extra lucre.

Time was when technological, engineering, or scientific development by western democratic societies was proof of the superiority of our culture, and providing it to authoritarian governments was treasonous.  Because they would simply use that stolen knowledge against their own citizens and us.

Guess what. They still do that, but somewhere along the way selling out *our* society for one more dollar became acceptable."
worldnews,"Honestly, I've been in the situation of driving someone in distress to the ER. I left work to do it, because an ambulance ride is crazy expensive. I got home to find her curled up next to our front door in a puddle of vomit. We waited at the nearest ER for an hour while she was in the fetal position on the floor, puking, writhing in pain and moaning.

If I had to do it again, and saw a billboard with 5 minute wait, I'd divert to that ER in a heartbeat. It's an ugly system, but you can't deny that's some quality marketing."
worldnews,"It’s a bigger problem with capitalists being able to have preferential treatment for their products and services in search engine results, based simply on the money they can bring to the table. It’s a problem in China with Baidu, as well as in the rest of the world. At least in China, the government is severely limiting the power these capitalists have in the marketplace, and transitioning to more democratic control over the economy. In the western world, we basically let them do whatever they want - the human cost be damned. Anything to preserve and expand the power of the bourgeoisie. "
worldnews,"Yeah I spot them easily, but my mom might not. Google did a pretty good job of blending ads with real search results.

Anyway, if you're informed, there will always be an ""ad"" marking to look for. No need to glorify Google, they just have a really good PR team. like everyone is hating Facebook for their use of user data but not Google when Google is clearly worse to me. The always on location tracking should have made a huge scandal but I don't know how, they still found a way to make it be forgotten in a matter of days. Facebook would have been shut down if they were found to be doing this."
worldnews,"I spent a year living in Beijing and can confirm the options currently available of Baidu and Bing are dogshit, especially if you don't know Chinese. It's also a serious annoyance to have to use an unreliable VPN to check Gmail and potentially dangerous if you have business stuff that you could miss. Censorship or not, any alternative developed by Google is likely to be far superior to the current state of affairs.

Trying to protest by staying out of the market achieves nothing and is arguably harmful for an anti-censorship cause by making people unfamiliar with Western search engines when they go abroad. People shit talking Google for this really have no idea what they're talking about."
worldnews,"Haha, Cogent? Damn, I’m out of my depth here. I like the cut of your jib though, so I’ll indulge you.

>	At least in China, the government is severely limiting the power these capitalists have in the marketplace, and transitioning to more democratic control over the economy.

They are by definition authoritarian, with no democratic control over anything let alone their companies. Company control is authoritative much of them state owned but in no way shape or form could you ever describe this as *democratic*. Its laughable. You know the old Soviet jokes? In China the State is the Capitalist. Literally. It doesn’t just support it, it is it.

>	In the western world, we basically let them do whatever they want - the human cost be damned. Anything to preserve and expand the power of the bourgeoisie. 

Maybe you’ve missed China buying baby powder from abroad because their own is known to poison their babies. Maybe you’ve missed the compete lack of control of pollution and environmental degradation. China is *hyper capitalist* with barely any regard for any external factors. Maybe you’ve missed the asbestos they still use in regular building materials. The list goes on and on, these are examples I’ve just thought of now.

The west is the gold standard for nearly all (I’m sure there are some exceptions) regulation on capitalism in the world and all that regulation is passed by democratically elected governments.

So I said it reads like a bizzaro world because you painted China as democratic with a safer market for its consumers (completely false).

And you painted the west as hyper capitalist with no regard for consumer safety at all, when the west has a super regulated market.

You switched the two, it’s bizzaro. Not sure why you believe what you do, but it’s not factual. It kinda reads like Chinese propaganda for westerners who don’t know any better."
worldnews,"Well, either there was some pretty special circumstances or a triage nurse f-ed that up. Maybe there was a ten car accident and they had tons of lives to save, who knows. Most nurses are wonderful and care about people, but there are reasons they have to input codes on medicine cabinets to keep nurses from stealing the drugs too. Some people care and want to make the world a better place and some are screwing around. Sometimes literally."
worldnews,"Yes, completely serious. It is a fundamental tenet of geopolitics that media can be used to destabilize geopolitical opponents.

Look at the ruckus over 2016 election inteference by Russia and the outrage it caused when it is tiny fraction of what the US does to other countries. It would be silly for countries with less than stellar relations with the US to not impose some media controls of some kind to limit the influence."
worldnews,"> I budget over 30% of my monthly budget to charities.

So, are you spending that other 70% on yourself? If so, once again, according to your logic, you care more about money than life. As a teacher, you make FIFTY TIMES more money than half the world. Again, if we're following your logic, if you're not giving away virtually all of that money, then you care more about money than life. 

Why is your compassion pushed aside because of your selfishness?"
worldnews,"> But me needing $250 a week for food, rent, and utilities is being selfish? You’re scum.

Actually, YOU set the standard for compassion and who is scum. You said that if people don't give away their money in the way that you see fit, then they care more about money than they do about life. You're just mad because you can't live up to the standard you set for the people you derisively call 'scum'. 

>Have you actually mistaken selfishness for survival?

How much do you think people who sell insurance make? Probably about the same as you, so any thing you can say about yourself about not being selfish you can also say about those who work in the insurance industry - or as you call them, 'scum'. 

And the fact is, any company has to make profits to exist, and if they don't, you might laugh and feel good about yourself because the evil bastards went out of business, but the actual people hurt would be people just like you when they no longer have a job. 

>Clearly you’re not comparing companies or CEOs needing an extra million dollars for their survival.

Well, let's compare the NEA, massive superintendent salaries, and the HUGE amount of tax dollars spent on education each year then. Are you telling me all those salaries and education dollars are 'needed for survival'? 

The only real difference is that if you don't want to deal with the 'evil insurance companies' you don't have to. When it comes to the massive education complex, we're not only forced to send our kids to crappy schools, but we also are forced to pay taxes for other kids if we don't have kids. 

Don't like insurance companies? Don't do business with them. Simple as that. 

>You can hide behind the anonymity of the internet and sneer at the screen like an idiot

Actually, EvisceratedInFiction is hiding behind the anonymity of the internet. My username is andypro77, which is just a shortened version of my name, Andy Prosseda. 

>But everyone can see straight through you. 

No, I saw straight through you, and it only took one comment to do so. You claim that people who don't give away their money the way you think they should 'care more about money than life', but then you fail to live up to YOUR standard in your own life. 

I'll refrain from calling you scum, because that's not something a nice person would do. 
"
worldnews,Honestly if you’re holding your breath for Manafort to be the silver bullet against trump you probably shouldn’t.  Manafort was brought in temporarily for his delegate skills and left.  Likely he wasn’t in the inner circle.  But how about you and me agree to not speculate any more and just see what happens.  If trump did something then Mueller sure should find it.  And if he ends up getting impeached let’s put our full force of support behind President Pence for 9 years.
worldnews,"It's a voluntary moratorium on catching whales that only applies if you are a member of the IWC. If you are not a member of the IWC the moratorium doesn't apply to you. You can also hunt whales for certain reasobs: scientific - Japan, aboriginal hunting - America

If Japan decided to leave the IWC it would turn in to an organisation filled with non whaling countries that would have no reason to keep the IWC going.

"
worldnews,"This is so disengenuos. The origional comments thinks the whaling ban has something to do with race(it doesn't) and the person you replied to pointed out that white people are also hunting whales and are subject to the same rules. the ""discussion"" here is ridiculous. You could argue about their right to tradition, but i find that a very weak arguement as well. Currently japan whales exclusively for tradition, whale meat is very unpopular, so it's not even hampering their diet or food sources. "
worldnews,"Iceland and Norway didn't accept the moratorium, so it does not apply to them. As long as IWC does not set quotas there are no quotas for these countries need to follow, so these countries stile technically being members does not make the organisation less obsolete.

The quotas for 'First Nations communities' was just increased once again to 80 a year in total which is both an insignificant number and more than these relative few communities are able to hunt. So it does not really need a fairly comprehensive organization to handle this."
worldnews,"There's very little and it's all spread out.  Each impurity will be pulled but only exert a small force on the area it's in. Since it's distributed pretty evenly basically the force is everywhere and it can levitate it.  I'm sure if you crank it even higher than yea it would rip the impurities out, but you get to levitation before that. Remember you're talking about a strawberry, not an elephant. It doesn't take much force to lift it"
worldnews,"Have you seen how fast shit is found out nowadays due to civilian paranoia and snooping? It's more likely that no company would be able to get away with shit (like now), but would no longer have government protection (since the lack of regulation comes with a lack of government shielding). 

And if the fines are down, it seems like we have a much more pressing problem to deal with, since it means the EPA can just be paid off and the companies can continue doing their shit under government protection. "
worldnews,"> There are no cars on the roads of Brussels and Paris on Sunday. On the eve of the event, the mayors of the two cities called for all of Europe to follow suit and hold an annual vehicle-free day.

> The call came in a joint statement by Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo and her counterpart in Brussels, Philippe Close, in which the two pointed to ""the urgency of climate issues and the health impact of pollution"".

> Both capitals are holding their annual car-free day on Sunday as part of the European Heritage Days 2018, a weekend of cultural events staged every year in countries throughout the bloc.

"
worldnews,"Locally in Brussels it's known by city centre inhabitants as being the day the cyclists who never commute come into town and forget all the road rules. It's chaos, and people are really selfish. The police try their best to insist it's ""car free Sunday"" and not ""law free Sunday"" but it's really hell.

Brussels and Paris aren't the only European cities doing this sort of initiative annually, despite what they may imply with such an announcement.

Brussels also has ""peak pollution days"" where under certain criteria they can enforce lower speed limits or even prohibit cars with odd or even number plates from being on the road. It hasn't come into effect in years regardless of ""peak pollution"" so once again it appears the economy drives decisions above environmental needs.

For context, there are local (city) elections in Belgium next month, including Brussels, so Philippe Close is busy posturing while trying to sweep a number of scandals his party has been involved in under the rug, so the sentiment is pretty hollow."
worldnews,"Arsehole cars (plenty in Brussels) are more predictable than arsehole bikes. They don't drive at full speed down pavement or between tables on a cafe terrace or through a market or down stairs, they follow one way streets down the right direction and have to obey traffic lights unless they want to be crushed. They park in predictable places instead of the middle of.. everywhere.

Being a pedestrian in Brussels city centre on car free day is a suicide mission, especially for your kids. It's been like that for more than a decade and as more and more non-commuters come into town for the event it just gets more chaotic every year.

So no, I don't like being nearly run over by a bike, or being yelled at for crossing on a green light or at a zebra crossing. I'll concede when they change the name of the day to ""nobody is allow out unless they're riding a bike day"" but until then, cyclists need to stop being selfish on these days."
worldnews,"That is not how the 4th geneva convention works, while it is distasteful for people to move to illegaly annexed/settled land it does not make them war criminals, it makes their goverment guilty of it due to them encouraging civilian population movement there. And absolutly no one deserves to die even if they have crappy morals. You are being no better than the other side who calls everyone terrorists.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for writing any of this.

"
worldnews,"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gush_Etzion

Land owned by jews back in the '20s and further inhabited by jews back in the '40s, then massacred and taken by the Arab League in the '48 war and at last reclaimed by Israel in '67.
That's not occupied land my friend,you can argue using the Geneva Convention as long as you want,I rather listen to actual facts and historical events rather than laws pissed upon by every single state."
worldnews,"I honestly don't know how I would deal if I was English instead of a Kiwi (New Zealand).
Like, the idea at least half my country is dumb enough to get duped into Brexit, or actively think it would be a good idea without being lied to, which is even worse.
EDIT: Correction. Half of those that voted. But I still think if you didn't vote in such an important referendum, you are dumb or unluckily restricted from doing so."
worldnews,">Like, the idea at least half my country is dumb enough to get duped into Brexit

This is a silly mindset, as if there is one objectively correct side. For Leave voters (majority of voters), ending free government and returning all law making powers to the British Government voted for by british people. Deutsche bank will still be in London. Frankfurt as a financial city doesn't come close to the importance and power of London"
worldnews,"If you have all or most of the information needed there is an objective right or wrong ... quite obviously. Under game theoretic circumstances there are always good and bad decisions.

Brexit very much looks like a bad decision, not so much on its surface , mostly because UK just made a powerful (economic) enemy just across her borders. And unless she finds allies and fast, she loses this (politcal/economic) war.

The last two times that most of Europe was allied against UK, UK (and her allies) won. This time it may not be so. Things have changed and it helps that most of the EU countries are not being led by megalomaniacal dictators or kings.

It seems to me that there would be a trade war, or at least heavy pressure. EU countries have been eyeing the City for decades now, they are now in a position to put pressure to UK to give them at least part of that wealth.

IMO it is for that reason why Brexit seems like a bad decision. It didn't come from a position of strength. In war and international politics you should act from a position of strength. It looks like a gamble in the hopes that UK would create a network of allies anew.  At the time of the referendum -in fact- I though they had one at-a-ready ... I was incorrect. It was ""pissing in the wind"" ... let's see how it works out. Maybe throwing pasta at the wall and see what sticks can work this time..."
worldnews,"> Economists thought joining the euro would be good. 

Of course people make mistakes, but is that a good reason to dismiss their warnings when all they do is learn and study about the subject? Compare it to other professionals making mistakes.its not unheard of for doctors To get a prognosis wrong. Does that mean you shouldn’t listen to their advice given that they are right 90 % of the time and not 100%? Now coming back to economists, oftentimes their predictions are fairly spot on, but should we dismiss them because they don’t have a 100% track record? You should note that free trade is probably the one issue pretty much all economists agree on. "
worldnews,"If you listen to the Obama adviser’s interview he says Cameron was talking about establishing a trade deal with the US and Obama said, rightfully, that it was something to think about after Brexit, that a deal with the EU was already in place and one of Cameron’s entourage said “we’d be at the back of the queue then” and Obama said yes. Then Cameron asked if he could state that point during the conference about to happen. It wasn’t a lie. It was and remains the truth. You’re at the back of the queue, even with Trump. I don’t like it, as I said, but that’s the reality of it. I’ll link the video https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-44688534/obama-adviser-on-how-cameron-asked-for-brexit-warning"
worldnews,"We got your point, we're arguing the fact that you stated ""last quarter was one of the UK highest economic growths in years"" is incorrect. 

Maybe that didn't receive as many upvotes because it's untrue? And if a 0.4% increase in GDP is ""the highest economic growth in years"" then I think we need to re-assess what qualifies as ""high economic growth.""

You can only argue that this sub is biased on comparable issues. Perhaps some sort of social experiment is required? You're probably right, this sub is biased, but you used a poor example."
worldnews,"> So they all the made mistakes on the last few momentous decisions Britian has made

That statement is problematic for several reasons. First, the IMF said that the brexit vote **could** prompt a recession, not that it would 100% cause it. Second, where is the list of the last few momentous decisions that Britain has made? Are you just remembering the ones where the IMF wasn’t spot on? Third, free trade is the one economic issue where pretty much every economist agrees on. It is not a new issue for the IMF to analyze. The results of free trade and lack of it have been observed again and again. Let me repeat this, **it’s not a new issue**. "
worldnews,"To be entirely honest, i think that the EU is in fact interested in stripping the UK a bit. I think they want to state an example to states who think it‘s a good idea to leave. I also think that the UK have navigated themselves in a position in which the EU can actually take advantage of them, which i think will happen. Overall the UK is worse off alone than if they had stayed within the EU."
worldnews,"That is a misinterpretation of the argument. You first stated that the reason for not listening was that they had been wrong before, to which he answered that they had been right before as well. The correct reasoning would be to then consider listening to them and lowering the value of their opinion based on what other sources of information you have over the topic. What you did was turning the argument of „they are more often right than wrong so theres a good chance they are right again“ into „but they were wrong before so they will most likely be wrong again“, which neglects they quote of being right."
worldnews,"> And they were wrong


No they weren’t. Could!=would. 

> Are you just remembering the ones where the IMF wasn’t spot on?

>> Which was when?

I don’t have the list. I would presume you would since you said so presumptuously that the IMF has been wrong on all the last momentous decisions Britain has made. So I’m guessing you admit to being wrong since you don’t even have the list. Sad!

> Not just IMF, Bank of England too. They were also wrong

I’m afraid you didn’t get the point. Free trade is one of the oldest economic issues to be settled. There has been much empirical evidence in regard to the long term effects. So much so, that economists almost reach a consensus that

Free trade->better economy 

No free trade-> no better economy. 

Brexit involves many things. However the fact that it’s leaving the free trade zone is enough to understand that its economy is going to weaken. "
worldnews,"I didn't say trade war, no. That's the extreme end of what will happen. What I wrote word for word is ""a trade war, or at least heavy pressure""

An all out war, like you pointed out, is unlikely. But antagonistic behavior and straight on pressure is not only likely, it is expected.

Like I said, I was surprised that UK seemed to have made this move (calling for a referendum) without being in a position of power first.

IMO they should had at least surpassed Germany as the most powerful economy of Europe before attempting to antagonize the whole Continent (UK was in her way to do so in 2020s)

Last two times that the UK did so was still an empire. International politics should be cold hard calculations. IMO the UK was/is not in a position to pull a Brexit without being heavily ... manhandled by the EU.

In international politics there is no such things as alliances. Alliances can shift all the time. And while EU is unlikely to turn hostile to UK, it would certainly openly antagonize UK from now on. There would be heavy pressure. It's already apparent in fact. Either the UK would capitulate, or further being pushed into the corner. 

She has many valuables that the EU would rather have."
worldnews,"not only dumb, but lazy. Really lazy. They even don't make the effort to go check what Nigel was saying. When an issue is too much complex, they will rely on a man who just want power...

And this issue is not only applicable for UK. Take for example flat earther (the dumbest and laziest ones). They just have to make a a balloon and go check themselves which is far easier than understanding politics!

​

so, welcome to a world with dumb and more importantly, lazy peoples"
worldnews,"""They"" don't want to check what Farage has been saying. He's just saying what they're all thinking. 

Lots of British voters who want Brexit haven't been duped, they vehemently believe Europe is shit and immigrants are all rapist job stealing benefit scroungers and we can make it on our own.

Who's fault is it? It's certainly not the people themselves. They form opinions based on what they read and what they hear and the groups they sit with at the pub and chat with on Facebook. And who are we to say they can't form their own opinion? 

The fault lies squarely with Government and cheap tabloids and ""share if you agree"". "
worldnews,"Which EU rules impede the national interest?

Will you trade with the EU after Brexit?  To trade with them, will your industries not still have to abide by a set of regulations that you no longer have influence over?

Is a hard border with Ireland a good idea?

What if your government fails to end freedom of movement, as a condition for an economically favorable Brexit?

In what ways are the default WTO trade rules preferable to Britain than deals made by the whole EU with large trading partners like the US and China?  Will Britain pursue new unilateral trade deals instead?

Is independence preferable to geopolitical relevance?

Since you've poured over each of these issues in order to form your opinion, Id love to get your take on each one."
worldnews,"> The BNP failed, and the Neo-Nazis in it moved to UKIP. UKIP is failing and they are now moving to the Conservative party.

Hang on a minute mate you said this: 

> Signing up to a party run by a literal Neo-Nazi is neo-fascism, yes.

Which is not true, because Farage is basically an outcast now and his party is now irrelevant. So are you going to retract that claim or nah? And now you make the claim that the Tories are some Neo-Nazis, care to prove that the Tory party are Neo-Nazis? Because to be honest from an international perspective of right-wing parties they're really quite tame. "
worldnews,"Maybe so, but this was over 2 years ago. He is talking about gaining power and people signing up to a party run by a neo-nazi. UKIP is no longer run by Nigel nor is it even that politically relevant. They're not gaining power, and then he did what to be honest I expected him to do and just cop-out and say ""Well the Tories are Nazis now"" which is just stupid. "
worldnews,">Like, are you genuinely convinced that you're living through the second coming of the Third Reich?

I would rather be in error by being overly cautious about Nazis gaining power than insufficiently cautious, wouldn't you?

The simple fact is that UKIP leadership is Neo-Nazi. The whole fundamental purpose of the European Union was to stop Nazis. That is why the EU exists. Damaging the EU is one of the basic aims of any Neo-Nazi groups hoping to rise in Europe."
worldnews,"This is verging on a 'no true Scotsman'.


There are plenty of remarkably well-educated people with significant understanding of the Financial Services sector who have genuine concerns about Brexit's impact on London's future as the FS capital of Europe. Passporting is one of many major issues, but you can also consider the potential brain-drain, the implied difficulty of securing work visas for top talent, regulatory discrepancies with the EU and reduced confidence in the consistent reliability of the UK's legal & regulatory environment - to name but a few.


No one (or at least very few people) are suggesting that when whatever the fuck happens in March '19 actually happens we'll suddenly become a business Siberia, but there are some serious conversations being had about London being usurped by major EU cities in the next 10-20 years - to say otherwise just suggests a lack of reliable/unbiased information or someone burying their head in the sand..."
worldnews,"They would be insane to do that. The world economy is in a major boom phase, all the big economies suffer from a workforce shortage crisis. Unemployment in Germany will fall below 5% soon, companies hire people you wouldn't trust to eat with fork and knife without harming themselves, because there's no one else left. Meanwhile the Brits close their borders for skilled labour. Leaves more for the rest of us, I guess."
worldnews,"This is because doing so would compromise about half of the income of the City of London. The UK is funded mostly by secret ""financial services"", which is overseas trusts and secret payments from those that want to stay outside financial regulation.

It's not obvious what they will do given this fact. Perhaps a coordinated international set of sanctions would weaken the Putin regime further (recent sanctions have had major impact already)."
worldnews,"No we aren't. People were tricked into voting for something they didn't understand. Or are you saying 52% of the UK are racists or something?

Also, the US is doing pretty much nothing to stop TRUMP. Clinton was impeached for having a girl blow him. Trump gets away with all the shit he has tho? Why? because he hasn't lied UNDER OATH. So he can lie all he wan't. Their political system is fucked."
worldnews,"I wouldn't call them racist. I think the chance of them being a racist slightly increases but not to any large degree. Similar to if you are Muslim or far-right in the USA. The chance that you will be involved in terrorism has very, very slightly raised (more so if you are far-right than muslim, though, if stats are to be believed).  

If you thought that Brexit would help the economy of Britain, you were objectively wrong, according to the current result shown in the evidence.  
If you thought that Brexit would give you back 100% control over your borders, then you are most likely going to be wrong, because the EU and it's economic requirements, and Ireland, still exist.  
My point is that the evidence for both, and what all the experts who are more knowledgeable in this situation than you and me, said showed that this was very obvious. Similar to climate-change deniers. If you deny it, regardless of the evidence or what the scientists say, then I'm going to call you dumb.  
The people that supported Brexit love it when you 'say it like it is' and don't pull your punches and don't be PC.  
Fine. That's exactly what I'm doing. People that think Brexit was a good idea for Britain, like Climate-change deniers, are stupid."
worldnews,"If half of the voters thought that climate-change was fake, I would still call them dumb.
If half of the voters thought that Brexit was a good idea and would achieve their goals, economically or 'migrationally', regardless of the opinions of the experts and of common evidence and sense, then I call them dumb.
I guess I'm the one sick of being PC now, and not calling voters who vote against their own interests stupid."
worldnews,"Brexit would never 'give all law making powers to the British Government'. By your weird definition of power, even then the UK will need to keep to EU regulations in order to trade with it.
And in order to get control of the borders, they would have to change the Ireland border as well.
I would also argue that all historical evidence shows that Isolationism regresses your country in trade and science.

Finally, arguing that Frankfurt doesn't come close to London's economic power is arguing that London is too big to fail. More importantly, it doesn't argue that Brexit is good economically, it just says that the bad things Brexit cause won't be bad enough to push it below Franktfurt.

It's like scratching your Ferrari and then saying 'Look, it's still looks nicer than that car over there'."
worldnews,"My sympathies. While my follow Kiwis and other well-of first world countries like Canada and Norway (all of which are True Democracies on the Democracy Index) have people laughing at the UK and US, and the nutjobs rising in Germany and France, I can't. I have a Cornish great-aunt and an American friend, both of which have to deal with all this trash, mentally and practically.
I'm just glad to live in a truly free country, free of pay-to-win politics and undemocratic systems like FPTP and the electoral college. It's nice to live in a country with a population that is both educated (on average), politically motivated and willing to do shit if the system doesn't work."
worldnews,"Well, that's why I'm going of the declared desires of the Leavers, through interviews and what I have heard them say and what groups like UKIP say.
Mostly it's take back their country and more money for Britain. I'm saying that they are not going to get what they want from Brexit. I'm open to other ideas outside of that, like that the cost of Brexit economically is worth making 'Britain for British people' but I don't see how Brexit helps them achieve that, outside of being anti-globalist."
worldnews,"* 1) What are the objective benefits of the UK having ""full independence and deciding her own laws via elected politicians entirely voted for by British people""?

* 2) MEP are still democratically elected, in part by UK citizens.

* 3) How is being part of a shared government, partially elected by other countries any different than being part of a shared government partially elected by other constituencies?

* 4) Your view is dismissed ""so flippantly"" because it's nonsensical, and is often used by people who don't understand how the EU functions, or what the ramifications of such a position are (e.g. some of the better laws we have are *EU* laws, rather than *UK* laws, such as the Human Rights act which the Conservative government wants to change (and given their track record, likely not for the betterment of the average person))."
worldnews,"You might be getting downvoted but there is truth in your comment, and I say this as someone who supported the Remain campaign during the referendum. The sheer arrogance of hard core remainers is astounding, don't get me wrong hard core brexiteers aren't really any better but you'd think after the referendum defeat the hard core remainers would at least try to understand what pushed half of the voters to vote leave. Simply saying it was lies and racism isn't true."
worldnews,"There is no such ban.

The EU is a democratic machine. It voted *against* the proposed directive on 5 July and, following modifications to it, voted recently to advance it for further scrutiny. It will get another vote early next year, and people are noting that there has been an outcry against the likes of Articles 11 and 13, and these will almost certainly be modified well before the next vote."
worldnews,"Trump isn't temporary. 

Trump is isolating America from the rest of the world just like Brexit for the UK. He's severing relationships left and right, because he wants to feel powerful and that's the only thing he can actually manage to accomplish. Backing out of the Iran nuclear deal alone will likely cause irreparable damages. 

It also doesn't end with trump. The russian influence and corruption is spread throughout the government down to the state and local levels. Though, from what I understand, this is also true for the UK..."
worldnews,"What other solution though would there be if you had their grievances? Could try and change the EU from inside but UK governments had already tried that and didn't get very far. 

The EU has been going down a path that was always going to rub people up the wrong way, particularly Brits who feel slightly detached from mainland Europe. I think for this reason some sort of split was always likely, it's just the split has been much earlier and much more dramatic. "
worldnews,"Easy to turn this around and call you remainers the mindless idiots who childishly believe that staying stuck in a low-growth wreck of a EU that is riven by a decade long economic crisis and can barely stop half its member states from lapsing into authoritarianism or political turmoil is a good idea. Hilarious that other successful nations don't need to be in giant antidemocratic customs unions in order to prosper. Yet, according to you sheep-like morons, the UK is uniquely unable to survive outside of a monolithic and deeply undemocratic EU. For reasons.

"
worldnews,">Substantiate any of your claims of ""neo-nazism"".

This tells you all you need to know about a near 18-year old Farage. https://www.scribd.com/doc/169454715/Nigel-Farage-1981-school-letter He is a little fucking thug and anyone who would follow this creep should be viewed as suspect.

>People like you cheapen the word and are belittling the real crimes of the real nazis.

You know, I'm gonna just make a guess here, but I suspect that the people who were murdered by Nazis would have wanted future people to be very *very* fucking vigilant to people like Nazis, to people saying similar things to Nazis as they rose to power. They would want us to watch for those people who are ranting about patriotism, about protecting indigenous culture, about closing borders.

I'm gonna guess that they'd rather we err on the side of being too cautious about stopping the rise of neo-fascists than too complacent."
worldnews,"I'm familiar with that letter, I'd say just about anyone who follows British politics is. By the sound of it, Nigel was always a cunt through and through. What a guy.

So, have we reached the point where we can agree he's not a literal neo-Nazi (or that you're just using the term incorrectly)? An awful man with some detestable views, sure. A neo-Nazi, not quite. 

edited to add, for clarity:

> neo-Nazi

> *noun*

> a person, or member of a group, espousing the programs and policies of Hitler's Nazis

It's a very particular thing, to be a neo-Nazi. There are many different shades of awful, but that term refers to a very specific one. 

It's a real pet peeve of mine, people who use such terms inappropriately. I'm the same with people on the right who label every left winger they don't like a Marxist. Made worse when the term ""literally"" is thrown in, of course. "
worldnews,"Oh yes. Open doors or restricted access. I wonder where other EU skilled labour would choose to go. Or even other international labour. Access to the whole EU, or the UK who just shut doors to its neighbours and risked an economic crisis. Very sensible indeed. Seems to be working very well so far and I'm sure the future is bright because their brilliant plans so far show so. I mean, you talk like Brexit had any plans to begin with, which is hilarious.

"
worldnews,"I'm not taking sides, but the EU contributes about half of our immigration. We could, in theory (though almost definitely won't), block EU immigrants to the UK once we leave the EU. At the moment we can't do that. A lot of blue collar workers rightly or wrongly believe immigrants are costing them their jobs.

Like I said don't bite my head off, I am not taking sides here. I am just explaining the rationale of other leave voters from what I gather.

https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/"
worldnews,It's arguably better than the status quo. Iran isn't much better than North Korea or Palestine/Israel making deals. They will give you enough to get what they want and then it falls back apart. It has become more obvious to most Americans that when we become involved in these places it's not long before the 'Death to America' chants start. Trump is being very pragmatic about foreign relations and development of a quid pro quo strategy to put America first. The US and UK are in no danger of becoming Bhutan. The Russia paranoia is a bit much. After the cold war we learned how impotent Russia can be once the facade crumbles. 
worldnews," Not just protest, even the PM insulted half the country leading up to it calling everyone ‘little englanders’ or people being called racist and fascist or snowflakes or whatever. None of that is a discussion to change people’s minds and encourage them to see your side, it just made people more aggressive and determined in their path. 

Similar happened on the lead up to the US election as well. 

... similar is still happening in this post too, it’s disheartening. "
worldnews,"So your entire basis for believing that the UK is two minutes away from Kristalnacht and the concentration camps is... a thirty seven year old school letter about a politician who doesn't hold any UK elected office and hasn't got a single member of his former party in parliament?

I'm not *completely* sure that's a rational basis for assuming that the Reichstag fire is just around the corner and we'll be marching into Poland any minute now."
worldnews,"Wow you are delusional. What threat is Iran? They want left alone and haven’t gone to war in some time, which is a lot more than can be said about America! Russia is impotent? The carried out a chemical attack on British soil, brought down an airliner while successfully annexing part of Ukraine and if that doesn’t tell you they aren’t impotent then there is always the elephant in the room, they installed Trump as president of the United States to divide your country. That is Russia’s main goal, divide and conquer. It’s working as the US is more alienated on a global stage than ever before "
worldnews,"Why did we just have farms throwing away produce due to lack of labour? How about how the local fast food joints are always hiring or how unemployment is really low? What are you on about mate? Clearly you appear to have some facts that haven't been revealed to the public or are you just talking out of your ass, like pretty much every Brexit supporter so far? Why not share this genius post Brexit plan? Because so far most other economies have only warned the UK: this not just includes the EU of course, but also the US and Japan. "
worldnews,"I think to some degree, the internet itself is a polarizing medium. With the internet between us, people are more willing to say aggressive or nasty things they would never say to your face, and there are a lot of extreme, loud people; it seems like the reasonable people have decided it is more reasonable to leave the room, than to shout. It is also much easier to streamline your news feeds to see only information that you are likely to agree with, so people may be less accustomed to seeing different points of view? but that is speculation on my part

​

We need more reasonable people to speak up,"
worldnews,"What the actual fuck. Unemployment is low because there's over supply? What fucking universe are you from? You're bloody insane buddy. 

Let's look at it this way. Even if your little loony ideas were right, you actually think it's a good idea to cut off the biggest supply of skilled labour just so Jane may decide to get her ass off benefits and get a job at the local farm / McDonald's? Holy fuck. No wonder people like you believed the bus Brexit ads. "
worldnews,">So your entire basis for believing that the UK is two minutes away from Kristalnacht and the concentration camps is...

Keep building that strawman if it makes you happy.

Nazis don't get to power talking about genocides. They first talk about palatable things like patriotism and borders. It can take a while for a population to be led down a neo-fascist path.

>a politician who doesn't hold any UK elected office

Beginning to assume bad faith based on a comment like that. Farage is an MEP representative and has been UKIP leader for a long while now. He is all over media. Your pretence that he has no power is transparent.

>hasn't got a single member of his former party in parliament?

Just as the members scurried from the burning BNP to UKIP, so they are now crawled into the Conservatives.

>a thirty seven year old school letter

Again that whiff of bad faith. The age of the evidence doesn't matter. What matters is that Farage approaching 18 was a Neo-Nazi."
worldnews,"Lol, you’re really reaching there.

Firstly, I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that putting qualifications on people who can come to the U.K. is ‘cutting off the biggest supply of skilled labour’. 

The U.K. has literally been denying visas to Indian doctors while having no control over the number of Eastern-European bricklayers. It was an absolute fucking shambles and a scandal. 

How do you plan a national infrastructure when you don’t know what your population will be next year? Hint: you can’t.

What was wrong with the Brexit bus ad? What’s stopping a future government from putting the savings made in EU contributions into the NHS? Come on, you lot think that’s such a ‘gotcha’ point, explain why."
worldnews,"This is such a simplistic view of a complicated economic system that is so often parroted, yet the studies supporting this view have been shown to be flawed. 

>Check every single example of protectionism ever for evidence.

Ok here is an example: Australia is the wealthiest country in terms of wealth per adult. It also has very strict border controls when it comes to mass unskilled immigration. 

This idea that the only way to grow GDP is by flooding the country with millions of uneducated and unskilled workers is batshit crazy."
worldnews,"I'm sorry if calling your stupid decision stupid upsets you, but let's get real here. Outside of the 'lot going on' reason which could be legit (as mentioned in the 'unluckily restricted' cause), you decided that, because of polls and your impression that 'it couldn't possibly happen', that it was a sure thing and therefore *the Brexit vote wasn't worth your time*.  
And then thousands of other voters thought the same thing and oopps! It's suddenly not a sure thing!  
I'm not trying to insult you here, but that mistake IS a mistake."
worldnews,"Well, it's not so much who great we are, just that we weren't total morons.  
I mean, how's that healthcare going for you? And those university degrees?  
I'm thinking of walking in an alley of detroit, sound like a good idea?  
Nah, probally not safe. I should go to a school or a gaming bar. Slightly less odds of getting shot there.  

Also, outside of the half-jests there ... New Zealand's the same size as England mate. And good that we are not included on some World maps, we always like to joke that it stops Americans from improving their geography and finding their way here.  

Also, 'relevant on the world stage' ... No one asked the USA to overspend on military and start going into other counties. You also kinda have more people than us. For a fair comparison, you should ask if Kentucky has more relevance than New Zealand.  

Regardless, the 'problems' that come when you are bigger didn't seem to affect the UK or France or Norway as badly as it affected the USA. Kinda missed the problems that I brought up. Those that don't happen because of size, like the Electoral College or money in politics."
worldnews,"> I'm not taking sides, but the EU contributes about half of our immigration. 

* Legal or Illegal?

* Skilled or Unskilled?

* Are these immigrants recruited, or are they moving here in search of employment?

> At the moment we can't do that

Depending on the answers to the above questions, that's not strictly true.

> A lot of blue collar workers rightly or wrongly believe immigrants are costing them their jobs.

Like I said don't bite my head off, I am not taking sides here. I am just explaining the rationale of other leave voters from what I gather.

This is the point I was making. Being a member of the EU isn't the absolute cause of these issues (perceived or real), and leaving won't fix them."
worldnews,"A strong and transparent political process is more important than almost anything else, and I voted as such in the referendum.
I will accept a shrinking economy to remove the UKs ties to the EU parliament. Although I'd rather have had EU reform, I don't think it would ever have happened.
I think your tune would change if an economic treaty with Australia morphed into their deciding NZ import/export tarriffs, etc etc. 
Although maybe it wouldn't, which is fair enough, I just disagree."
worldnews,"Healthcare is free here, education too. I'm not an American, woops. But among the things I have learned while being here: you just can not compare your own country to a country with a population exponentially bigger than yours. 

New Zealand isn't where it is today because your people are somehow wiser or smarter or inheritly less greedy. They are not. You are relatively well off because it has a manageable population, is not the target of mass immigration, is not bordering hostile countries (Australia doesnt count, they aren't hostile, thats just how they are) and not exactly a target for terrorist attacks or drug smuggling. If the hobbit shire was a real place, you'd be it. Enjoy it, but maybe don't go ""nananananana"" to countries that actually have to deal with shit and make the world turn."
worldnews,"> I think your tune would change if an economic treaty with Australia morphed into their deciding NZ import/export tarriffs, etc etc

That is not the same scenario. Also, we are already in many talks for a Pacific trade agreement.
At least you are respectful about it, but I still think you are drastically wrong and will not get what you want through Brexit. I mean, the country didn't even know what Brexit meant till it was voted on."
worldnews,"Where exactly are you from, then?  

> you just can not compare your own country to a country with a population exponentially bigger than yours.  

Yes I can. If one country has a flawed democracy, I can critique that regardless of the size. The USA democracy does not represent the people as accurately as they think. Electoral college, special interests using money as 'free speech'. The shocking is that even when errors results from it, like the fact that they can only vote between 2 parties for President, or that Trump won without the popular vote (which means its not 1 person - 1 vote and therefore not equal), they will not do anything about it or even play the apologetic for it.

> You are relatively well off because it has a manageable population  

Australia is much bigger, they are well off. UK is bigger, the UK is relatively well off. Having a large population does not mean your population starts making stupid mistakes.

>  is not the target of mass immigration  

1. That doesn't cause issues like you think it does.
2. If you knew about New Zealand you know that we did have large immigration, including refugees, into here. Not as much as Australia but.

>  is not bordering hostile countries  

Yeah man, Mexico is just rearing to invade the USA. Or maybe the Canadians will get fed up with ya?

> not exactly a target for terrorist attacks or drug smuggling

Terrorist attack, no. But then again, we didn't invade Afghanistan or Iraq or fund Isreal so the middle-east doesn't exactly have it out for us. Also, the highest threat of terrorism in the USA (which going by what you said is where you are, but not from) is far-right libertarian extremists (Sovereign Citizens and far-right conspiratorial crazies that think the government is out for them or has been corrupted)  
We have a big drug problem of meth, or 'Pee' as our variant is called.

>(Australia doesnt count, they aren't hostile, thats just how they are)  

Not sure if a joke, but if it is its not really funny. The Australia Kiwi thing is mostly a brother sibling thing, mostly around sports. South Africa sort of acts the same way.

>If the hobbit shire was a real place, you'd be it. Enjoy it, but maybe don't go ""nananananana"" to countries that actually have to deal with shit and make the world turn.  

I mean ... we do have the Shire. It's a good tourist location with feast and hobbit holes and an Inn.
I'm not teasing other countries for not getting their shit together.  I laid that out in the very first question. I think it is tragic, this slip back to Isolationism, deliberate ignorance and conspiratorial crazies being considered legit. Countries that used to function now look stupid, like the US, or make tragic mistakes, like the UK. Other countries, like France and Germany, are having a rising hatred-based far right organizing and convincing everyone that it's the immigrants fault, or the muslims or enter scapegoat here.

But I have to say, if you want to live the delusion that counties like New Zealand are being lazy and piggy-backing off countries like the USA that 'do the real work and make the world turn' and suffer the consequences and that's totally not down to mistake made by those countries, go right ahead. 
 I will laugh though, over our large animal farming industry which is our main purpose for the world. NZ is great because NZ operates logically. USA is not great because it does not. I mean, it's fine, but not comparable. I mean, to argue that populations are all the same everywhere means I could argue that Saudia Arabia operates just like the USA.  
Cultural differences do exists. NZ people are not smarter, but they are generally more educated, politically and otherwise. NZ people are generally less greedy, we are less focused on wealth and Capitalism and more on doing good.
"
worldnews,"I agree, it's not the same, the EU is much more complicated than boiling it down to that one example, but it's a decent example in my mind. And honestly, I also think this entire situation has been handled in the most drastically terrible manner of any political decision ever.

I don't entirely agree that the country didn't know what it was voting for. It was to leave or stay in the EU, which is pretty clear with the arguements both sides made. It was a surprise that Cameron dropped out with no contingency in place, and then the conservatives imploding through personal greed. Throwing the entire country under the bus."
worldnews,"There was a transition period after the EU Eastern expansions where freedom of movement from the new member states could be restricted. Germany, for example, implemented this to avoid its labour market being disrupted, while simultaneously Poland closed off its real estate market so German capital wouldn’t suddenly buy out Polish housing.

The UK *opted out* of this transition period to attract the cheap labour from Poland, Romania etc. that you‘re now complaining about. This crisis, to the extent that it even exists, is entirely homemade and has little to do with the EU itself.

"
worldnews,"The UK did use those rules, much to the outrage of many at the time who now seem to have forgotten all about it, however they only aloud you could deport someone after a very expensive and lengthy legal process, and only if they fit a very specific set of circumstances if they know how to beat the system by doing abit of unpaid volunteering once every few months for example they couldn't be deported.

The UK was able to deport perhaps 1000 a year, under EU rules at great expense. It was never a realistic option.

You absolutely couldn't use it to discriminate between skilled and unskilled labor that was totally against EU rules. "
worldnews,">Which is not true, because Farage is basically an outcast now and his party is now irrelevant.

Yup. The maniac Neo-Nazi left and all the little Neo-Nazis scurried out of it probably into the Tories, just as they scurried from the BNP to UKIP previously.

>And now you make the claim that the Tories are some Neo-Nazis

That smell. What is it? It's like the dry shitty smell of BAD FAITH ARGUMENT! The Tories are not generally Neo-Nazis. I said that the Neo-Nazis of UKIP are joining the Conservatives. This is simply the case. Right now, though, the goal of isolationism happens to be something the Tories and the Neo-Nazis have in common; the Tories want the UK to be a tax haven and the Neo-Nazis don't like brown people.



>So are you going to retract that claim or nah?

What claim? I said ""Signing up to a party run by a literal Neo-Nazi is neo-fascism"". That is pretty much by definition true."
worldnews,"> That population revolts and gets rid of the thing denying them jobs.

Good luck with that against technology. The rich and powerful do not need the common folk anymore once automation catches on, which is a stark difference from any other revolt in history. Human labor will be obsolete, and with that, the power of the masses, slowly.

Our current generations are also way too complacent and mellow to do anything like a revolt unless the powers that be seriously rock the boat, maybe not even then. Not that those powers would be dumb enough to let it get to that point. Every country has a perfect case study nowadays of how to erode people's values and rights slowly over time, with them even voluntarily giving those up."
worldnews,"Absolutely true. It's why Democracies tend towards immorality over time, as there is a natural pressure towards the self interest of the strongest voting bloc, often at the expense of the totality. Very strong controls need to exist in the opposite direction, such as from other parties (in the parliamentary style, not the two-party system) or a supreme court. Of course those controls can be vulnerable to moral decay as well (or better, moral lag as society moves on to a different moral code faster than the government), such as has occurred in the United States and to a limited extent in parts of Europe."
worldnews,"Hence automation.

We simply do not need as many people to do the same amount of work 50 years ago. What used to be an auto plant with dozens of people on an assembly line is a couple people overseeing an assembling line of robots. 

Now just we need to tax each robot as if it's a worker.

Also more and more young people aren't paying income tax since many are either in school or in low paying jobs until their mid 20's."
worldnews,"What I said was a statement of fact not opinion. I will admit I am not all that knowledgeable on the Japanese tax system but I can assume it is the same as the rest of the developed world where income tax is responsible for a sizable amount of the governments public spending funds.

I agree the world will have to deal with it. We are very clearly growing at an unsustainable rate. Climate change is going to make matters worse for a planet that has it's natural resources stretched too far. We need to stop growing and think further into our future. We know this isn't gonna happen though. Shit doesn't get sorted out quick in a democracy."
worldnews,"That's a gross exaggeration. We could 2x the earth's population within half the United States with the density of Manila or Hong Kong. The earth's population is estimated to plateau somewhere around 12billion people, we can easily sustain that. I'm not some sort of conspiracy theorist or whatever, and I'm not ""anti climate change"" or sustainability, but to say that the earth is over-populated, strictly by the meaning of the word, is an exaggeration."
worldnews,"Not necessarily. From my point of view, people lack perspective because the world is too big and there are too many variables to account for. In a tribal situation, it's easy to compute how much food, land, and other resources are available to the group, and thus easy to ascertain if having more (or less) children is desirable. But because of the vastness of our current enterprise, there is no way for individual people to calculate these things. Most people are completely removed from things like food production, land and resource management, and so on. Thus, they base the decision to or not to have kids on other factors that are often merely tangentially related to these important considerations, like the earning power of their job or their amount of free time. Therefore, I hold that some sort of authority is necessary to both keep track of these complicated factors and to proscribe guidelines for reproduction based on these factors.

That controlling authority might deem that Eugenics is desirable; then again it might not. In any case, if the goal is simply a responsible and informed control of human reproduction and population, then Eugenics is more of an option than an inevitability.

​"
worldnews,"Yes but with the current level of tech the world literraly cannot sustain 7.5 billion of us.  Without change i'd wager in 20 30 years enough of the ecosystems will be damaged beyond any hope of repair to trigger a mass extinction event or global war which will reduce the population significantly.

Remember, we are only feeling the effects of global warming from what we have done in the 90s. More shit will come."
worldnews,"No it‘s not.
Automation = production = taxation
In fact due to automation more wealth will be created, which can be spread out over fewer people, which increases individual wealth.


You tax the company instead of the incomes, which is then relocated to the citizens.
It‘s literally the only solution for ever growing automation and every country will have to do this sooner or later, it likely will go hand in hand with universal basic income.

And the EU and countries like Japan are likely the first to implement it and have a smooth transition into automated economies, while countries like the US will fight it tooth and nail, while large part of the population will be jobless and the companies make all the profits.

Japan is looking into the future and are searching for real long term solutions of an aging population and ever increasing automation, while many other countries have their head in the sand."
worldnews,"It could have CBD (Cannabidiol), a component of marijuana that doesn't get you high but still is said to have relaxing and potentially medical effects.

You can buy legal weed (no THC, CBD only) and smoke it in Switzerland. Which also conveniently means that ""I smelled weed"" is no longer probable cause, although I'm not sure if the courts already managed to drill that into the polices' thick heads.

Edit: the drink in question doesn't contain even CBD - it legally could, but doesn't. Lame."
worldnews,"Not really, no. Acute nerve agent poisoning would generally start with pin-point pupils, sweating and heavy salivation, then loss of voluntary muscle control, coupled with seizures, and finally death by paralysis of the diaphragm or heart. If he was poisoned with a nerve agent to the point that he couldn't walk, he wouldn't be recovering without the prompt administration of an antidote like atropine. There are many, many poisons that have the effects you listed, and most of them are far less nasty to be around (for the attacker) than organophosphate nerve agents "
worldnews,"The doctor is entirely correct that the symptoms do appear to match poisoning.

The doctor is not able to assign blame. It could be food poisoning such as botulism. There are many ways to be poisoned accidentally.

Accidental cases of poisoning especially of such severity are nevertheless rare even for a country with lower standards such as Russia which makes it suspect.

It'll be interesting if he is later able to give an account of what happened before the poisoning.

Such poisonings can be very difficult to track down. It doesn't require a specialised production plant. You can take some shavings from your garden and slip it in someone's tea.

The term poisoned doesn't mean poisoned by someone. It literally just means poisoned."
worldnews,"Well, think of it about this. UK is a services economy, a huge portion of it came from financial services based in London, and access to european markets with special privileges by foreign companies, investors and so forth, which is why so many companies had EU headquarters in London.

From the CIA UK factbook, UK Economy breakdown:

agriculture: 1.3%

industry: 15.2%

services: 83.5%

Exports vs Imports currently:

E: $436.5 billion (2017 est.)

I: $602.5 billion (2017 est.)


With leaving the EU, especially with a no deal, a huge portion of finance, and foreign headquarters is moving away from London (already happening) to Europe, Frankfurt for example. With them, they are taking a very sizeable chunk of the UK's economy.

Its likely going to be bad, in a way that will make the 2008 recession look like a a hiccup. I am personally converting my savings into other currencies, i have little faith the exchange rate will remain favourable. As an EU citizen at least I have a fall back and can leave without much regret or worry. But i am concerned about the people who cannot. And that is another thing, a good portion of specialised workers which EU supplied in IT, medicine, finance, and so forth, will likely leave.  If anything, I think the articles about the effects of leaving are being quite conservative in order to avoid panic, which only makes things worse. "
worldnews,Personally am not worried. Like this article there is a presumption in their stats that migration would stop. Of course it won't. There will/ may be a reduction but not enough to influence gov. Income from taxes I would bet. Same with large financial services companies. Am sure some business would be lost to Europe but not wiping out huge swathes of the economy.  Banks made huge profits across Europe before the financial passporting rules came in. They will continue to do so if passporting rules were removed.
worldnews,"AND I work for a global bank . It is all a major cock up all politicians from all parties handled every aspect badly from the initial decision to have a referendum to the campaigns by both sides and the subsequent Brexit negotiations. 
What hit home most about the leave campaign about the sign on the bus and £350 million extra a week for the NHS. Everyone knew from day one that was BS. And on the Remain side they did not / could not ""sell"" the advantages of the EU. Their only campaigning was about how awful it would be if we leave ( project fear)  and again most people knew most of those claims were false. Planes won't be able to fly. Food prices will increase. Farmers will go bust without the EU funding. Etc etc"
worldnews,"Just to clarify something.
Of the 83% you have under ""service industry"" only 40% of that is business and financial services.  (Source Offive of national statistics) You could break that down prob in half between business services (auditors,legal , marketing, civil services etc) and financial. The financial again you need to break down into Insurance, retail banking ,investment banking, foreign exchange and then break that down again into National and International. Then break down the International into EU and Rest of World.  Basically people have this perception that the 83% is all down to the large banks based in London but this is not the reality."
worldnews,"While I agree with the first half, I don't believe the con artist aspect is accurate or fair and we shouldn't ignore his businesses, ones that are doing great things. The gigawatt factories are a big help to places like Australia and much less of our tax dollars are spent when the government uses him to put things into orbit. He needs to get his personal shit under control, but you're missing facts if you say ""his shit"" should be ignored. "
worldnews,"This is reddit. There's no place for rational not to one side extreme opinions and it's sure as hell isn't getting better. People need to just relax and get some perspective and put their personal feelings aside no matter how amped up they are, good or bad. Musk is just filthy rich and is living his life as if he were filthy rich. He's got some businesses, some big ideas, plenty of notoriety, enough arrogance to get him to billionaire level and twitter account. Idiot just ran his mouth then couldn't back down in a public way cause he has to save face. He'll do what every rich ego driven person does, pay to make it go away."
worldnews,"This is the wrong forum freind, see this is the forum for Elon Musk hate, you want the room two doors down. /s

People are dumb as fuck and jealous to boot. This is a perfect catalyst to vent that jealousy and stupidity.

If half these turds spouting rage at musk spent a moment or two to research what kind of impact Musk has had on humanity they would stop flapping their fingers and go back to doing nothing with their lives. But they have no intention of doing that research because deep down they know that it would prove what they so desperately want to think is wrong. Hes not perfect, but hes damn well better than 99% of us."
worldnews,The pressurized angst of the jealous cavemen that permeate this world has found a vent with this article. Do we ignore their wails of idiocy or attempt to educate them? I say we spend too much time trying to talk sense into stupid self centered people who will never grasp anything outside of their own sphere of influence. Humanity will be further divided by the smart and the dumb. I wonder who will win?
worldnews,"Or he really thought he could help.

""But he has lots of money so that means he must be a manipulative scumbag!""

So many shitty people in these comments. Why are you shitty? Because you have not done any research on this human you so blindly hate. Elon musk has done a million times more for humanity than you or anyone you know. He can screw up once in awhile without all you useless shits acting all pompus. Go back to your pathetic lives you shitmonkeys.
"
worldnews,"nah I think he knows he's wrong.. just can't admit it publicly. He'll pay it to avoid a summons and have to deal with time in court. He'd rather deal in engineering than litigation BS. Lawyers will probably say give him the 75,000 and a public apology. Having Musk admit that on Twitter and other media platforms would be worth it. They guy really didn't suffer too much because everyone knows Musk was talking bullshit. It's not like he lost job opportunities or sleep.. The diver was celebrated by everyone around for his work."
worldnews,"No, I actually didn't. I acknowledged the **blackouts** in South Australia and explained that is only 1 state.       

I then proceeded to explain to you that the blackouts still occur and that Musk didn't fix anything. It was, a publicity stunt. The South Australian government understood this when the offer was made and used the opportunity to just get cheap batteries that could later be used as storage in a renewables project.    

I get that you're a Musk fanboy, but there isn't any point in talking to you if you're just going to put words in my mouth."
worldnews,"Despite someone at the scene being involved from the start? Like,  they came up with ideas on twitter for everyone to see. Plus someone begging him to help in the first place. 

Publicity stunt? For who? what sub building company does he have? Every fucker on the planet knows who musk tesla and spaceX are. That is a retarded argument.

He insulted him after the ""guy who was nearby""(he was not a first responder and never went in or took any part in the rescue. He was just a diver who has been in before.) told him to shove his submarine up his arse, completely unprovoked.

You sure taught him and all other famous people a lesson. Don't get involved. Even when you can help, even when they beg. Fuck em. Well done SJWs."
worldnews,"Are you a troll or is this a display of your actual ability to comprehend words?

Israel and Gaza are not the same country.   Israel is being blamed for not opening its border to Gaza. 


Let’s see if the criticism is reasonable by comparing the situation to two other random countries that share a border.  We will use America and Canada as an example. 

If America did not open its Canadian border for foreign delegates, would it receive the same criticism?  No. 

Congratulations if you’ve made it this far, you are now reading at a 3rd grade level."
worldnews,"No I see the words, but I don't get what you're trying to say.  

Your first comment to mine looked something like this:

Me: ""People are suggesting that the delegation simply go around the Israeli blockade by going through Egypt.  But they don't seem to appreciate how complicated that would be logstically.""

You: ""SO IF AMERICA DOESNT LET CANADIANS IN ITS EVIL?!?!  WTF""

Me: ""I'm sorry what?""

You: ""The allegation is that Israel is evil!"" (Or something?)

I just don't understand what you're trying to tell me or accuse me of.  I'm talking about logistics and security clearance, you seem to be upset about people criticizing Israel.  Can you clarify? 
"
worldnews,"There is private healthcare, more corporate and personal and with that you can get access to faster medical attention and procedures and better conditions if you have to stay in for any length of time (eg a private room rather than a ward). 

At the moment the NHS is available to everyone and the doctors are largely the same - they'll see some private and some NHS patients. Obviously with the NHS you may have to wait longer.

I have American friends who have put up with various medical conditions and complaints because they couldn't afford or weren't covered for treatment. In the UK you'd just see your GP and get referred to a hospital and go on the waiting list (as an NHS patient).

It is creaking though - bloated by middle management and long waiting lists and apparently hospitals in London are struggling for staff in some areas already as staff from countries staying in the EU are going home. However, if you privatised it as a for profit enterprise then the poorest in society who can't afford private medical insurance would suffer the most.
"
worldnews,"No real eli5 here.

The NHS doesn't need competition it is free at point of use, paid for by taxation.
There is the option for private healthcare if you want it.

The US trade agreements that bring the nhs into it serve the US and the US only in terms of bringing their incredibly inflated cost of healthcare to the UK, which lines the pockets of us providers..

Im not short sighted enough to think things will never go wrong for me or my family, i am safe and happy in the knowledge that as it stands, i will not be essentially financially bankrupted by insane hospital fees if something does go wrong.

The primary concern of health insurance companies is not to help you.. It is to turn a profit, it is not as simple as get sick and the insurance pays for it unlike in a national healthcare system."
worldnews,"> The US trade agreements that bring the nhs into it serve the US and the US only in terms of bringing their incredibly inflated cost of healthcare to the UK, which lines the pockets of us providers..

Yeah but then some asshole starts a bill to make NHS profitable a year or two down the road.... you know they have a plan and scream conspiracy if you try to figure it out and call them on it. "
worldnews,"If they follow the American model ... they will start de-funding the NHS, leave it for the ""poor"" who can't afford private insurance.  Demonize it.  With it will come corporate for-profit hospitals, while the NHS facilities are allowed to deteriorate.  Then will follow the class war cry of pull yourself up by your boot straps ... you lazy, stupid, poor idjits and quit with all this sense of entitlement.  You've had it better than you deserved for too long.  Next thing you know, you'll expect to keep earning a living wage.  It's this kind of selfish thinking that is holding the filthy rich back from being the filthy fuckin' rich and controlling everything."
worldnews,"Not just the poorest. US style healthcare made medical bills the number one reason people declare bankruptcy Over 600,000 people every year, with an additional 1.2 million immediate family members .

It's not poor people going bankrupt though. The poorest can't even afford care. It's people who have health care that has a lifetime maximum they burn through in a year. It's people who wouldn't even consider not going to the doctor who get hit by life destroying bills. Who have to put their life and their families financial well being on a scale.

"
worldnews,"I have a question for people who are anti-women making their own choices: if the fetus was gay or trans, would you still fight for its rights? 

That’s what I hate most about conservatives. They only act as allies to the lgbt community when it suits their agenda. 

and btw, as a transgender individual myself (look at my profile if you don’t believe me), yes, I would support the right for women to choose, even if the fetus would turn out gay or trans. "
worldnews,"That’s fine. I’m an atheist myself, and if it was my wife, I would strongly urge her against abortion. I believe that everyone deserves a chance at life. 

But that is my own personal belief. I do not like the idea of forcing a woman against her will to carry and bear a child. To me that is taking rights of her body away from her and I cannot stand the notion of that. 

I think birth control and contraceptives should be more readily accessible to the public. "
worldnews,"According to your belief.  Others may conclude something totally different.  You can be a Christian first and an American Patriot second, but at some point you have to appreciate that we live in a secular country with secular laws.  Laws created by humans and changed by humans.   Unless one is willing to stand against the US constitution (including the second amendment), it’s not acceptable to deny any American citizen the right to chose their own religious or non-religious beliefs.  

Prosthelytize all you want, but you’ll never win a civics argument with scripture.  "
worldnews,"EDIT: Getting a lot of repeating feedback. It does bring up an interesting point about how we view ""blind bag toys"" and trading cards. Maybe it's partially how easy it is to keep buying more loot boxes, as your card is already set up to keep spending. When I bought trading cards, I'd buy  pack, go outside, open it, and see what I got. So I didn't just manically buy 40 packs in one sitting until I got the rare card I wanted. Also, for games that don't repeat the same items and offer similar tier items it's not as bad. (Example: You will get a mount that is the same speed no matter what, but you *might* get the gold one instead of the silver. Gameplay wise, identical outcome.)

ORIGINAL POST: I've totally fine with free to play games selling you goods in the game. But the loot boxes, where you have a ""chance"" of getting an item needs to stop. That is gambling.

If I'm told ""$10 gets you this mount and armor"" I'm paying for a thing I want. If ""This $10 loot box **may contain** the armor and/or mount you want"" it could be $300 before I get what I actually wanted? That's just insane."
worldnews,"That particular form is a racket. When they COULD just give you the items you want for a set price, but instead give you a chance to get it, that benefits only one party.

I am struggling to articulate how this differs from 'gaming' forms of gambling, such as one would find in a casino. You don't engage in those games in the hopes of someday getting an item you need for the game (so you can continue to play). You know the money you lay down is going to othing and you hope to win more money. More money is a much greater thing than a digital item that costs the game makers nothing to produce out of thin air.

Sorry this is kinda incoherent. 

I guess the crux of the difference is what you are gambling for. The insane thing is getting 10 loot crates just to get an item you want, spending $100, to get what is, without the game, essentially worthless. 

Whereas gambling with money to get money makes sense because of a possibility of having even large investments return big-time.

Since the loot crates operate as a gamble, but are a poor investment, this opens up the good possibility that people can become harmfully addicted to them."
worldnews,"Disguising gambling as a videogame mechanic and then marketing directly to children in order to make money is morally wrong IMO.

It's kind of like drinking alcohol: nothing is wrong with it if it's done in moderation by responsible adults. However, it can be extremely damaging to a persons emotional and financial wellbeing if done irresponsibly. This is why most countries don't allow kids to drink until they reach a reasonable age that they can understand the risks involved. And they definitely don't let alcohol companies market directly to children."
worldnews,"Would you argue that Trading card games such as Magic the Gathering or Pokemon would also be gambling? Gaming companies could argue that baseball card manufacturers and TCG company's have been doing this for years but with tangible objects rather than digital assets. 

One difference I can spot would be the ability to buy a rare card in real life that you've sought after, compared to some games which make it impossible to access some content unless it is pulled through a loot box system, which I agree is insane and should be looked into.

Games that lock content behind a monetized system of chance is ridiculous and it looks bad to people looking from the outside of the culture.

Formatting "
worldnews,"The difference is that with trading cards you're buying chunks of the game versus loot boxes get you to buy parts for the game.

It's a thin distinction and if trading card companies are required to sell cards a la carte, that's a casualty I'm willing to accept. 

The only game that should get an exception to the ban are ones where the loot boxes are 100% cosmetic ~~and can't be bought with real money~~ like Overwatch. "
worldnews,"For someone calling everyone else dumb, I'm not sure why you didn't think about the fact that you can get a debit card that can be used online at 13. In Australia, the default style of card is a debit card that can be used online. You barely get a choice these days. 

>If people dont like the game mechanics why dont they just not play?

You would basically have to give up playing every AAA game these days. It seems really weird to suggest not playing a game due to one facet of it. Take Overwatch for example. You could really enjoy the actual game play but still dislike the loot boxes."
worldnews,"Its addictive. Its harmful to society as a whole because of this. Puts people in debt, increases crime, tears families apart, etc. Lootboxes are both crafted to be addictive and to draw in children. You don't see how this might be a problem? The last thing we need is the next generation turning out to be a bunch of gambling addicts because we valued corporate profits over children. There is a reason gambling is restricted to those of adult age in pretty much every developed country."
worldnews,"I think as someone else has stated. The difference is physical product verse digital product. As a player of Magic and OW and many mobile gacha games myself, if Magic stops making new sets, I can still sell my assets related to the game. In fact, they may even become more popular and more expensive. The game will continue to exist and be supported even after the creators have closed shop albeit potentially less supported over time as it turns into a collector hobby.

Additionally, I can create proxies of cards to play the game with others at only the cost of the paper and ink used to print it. While the act of CCGs is incredibly close to gambling and preys on the similar instinct we all have (seriously, Magic is cardboard crack for some people and I have watched a shopkeeps prey hard on that feeling to buy more) the fact that the value of the cards is dependent on the game's rules but not necessarily on the game's success means you are always going to have some value. If I stop playing OW I can't trade my account/accessories to someone else legally or even let someone else use it legally because of digital design.

Also Wizards of the Coast and Hasbro get no cut of my sales like Valve does with. If I decide to sell my product/accessories as mentioned above, Wizards/Hasbro don't take a cut. For that I can buy and sell cards at a 1:1 price to secondary market value. If I sell a card valued at 100 I can then buy a card worth 100 assuming no secondary market influence between purchases. If I sell a CSGO gun at 100 a portion of that is taken from me and so I cannot buy another gun of 100 value. This preys on the secondary market and means you are never free and always losing money for participating.

While all of these tactics prey on the instinct of the chase of the 'high' or gambling if you will, I find CCGs to be the least predatory because my product is physical and cannot be legally taken from me at any time. Should CCG be age restricted? Perhaps they should, but its far more difficult to steal Dads CC and buy Magic cards than it is to buy OW lootboxes and parental supervision is key. Parents that can't hold their own will on the other hand are a different story.

My problem with lootboxes will always be that I am gambling for product I can't sell at full price or keep forever/extended time. My Magic cards can be sold 20yrs from now at an antique auction. My Witch Mercy skin cannot."
worldnews,"I think another big difference here is that TCGs have been around long enough, and are in fact tangible, that adults understand what they're doing, and parents understand what their kid wants or is doing, where as electronic loot boxes are a different story. Parents may not understand that their kids are in fact gambling on cosmetic items.


There's also the argument that TCGs are in fact collections, and may be resold later in life for possible monetary gain. Short term cosmetics in video games normally can't be, with the exception of a couple games like CS:GO"
worldnews,"In addition to that it’s been proven that there’s a markedly different effect when you pay for something in cash versus paying for something using a card.

If you’re walking into a store and making a physical transaction as a kid and you have to physically part with your pocket money to buy something, you feel how much money you’re spending and you’re more likely to be conservative with your money because you’re conscious of the choice you’re making.

If you’re purchasing something online and the transaction takes place on a card (especially if it’s their parents money and not money they saved themselves) it feels psychologically like you’re not paying anything or not paying nearly as much as you actually are.

People (especially kids) are a lot more likely to get carried away in spending and underestimate how much they spent in a digital storefront because it’s all broken up over the course of multiple transactions. You never actually see how much you spend. It’s brushed off as nothing because the amounts are small. We’re psychologically conditioned to not really give a shit about spending a tiny amount like $2 one hundred times (it’s just $2!) but we’d balk at spending $200 once even though it’s the same thing.

That’s one of the big tricks that makes micro transactions and loot boxes in a digital storefront more dangerous than buying cards in a store - because there’s such a sense of disconnect from the actual consequences of your spending and the amounts you’re spending that isn’t there with physical products and physical stores and physical money, particularly for kids."
worldnews,"If you enjoy gambling, go to Vegas or your nearest equivalent.

Video games do not need nor should they have gambling elements involved. Doesn’t matter if hey are “just cosmetic”. That argument has been shot down many a time as completely false. If its in the game, it affects your gameplay and enjoyment of the game. Simple as.

Feel free to enjoy your habit in a place that is specifically designed around it."
worldnews,"Its not just the random rewards, though as you say with TCG's you can just buy the one thing you want, its the psychological conditioning aspect. With lootboxes, just as with slot machines there's usually an Audio and Visual ""celebration"" as such when you open them. This conditions your brain to feel elated when opening them and you keep pulling the lever/opening boxes to keep getting that feeling. Especially when you get the thing you want."
worldnews,"You are wrong, but also correct.

In scenario 1 where you can directly buy the item you want, you are a happier customer.

In scenario 2 where you have to buy a lootbox, you might feel discouraged and annoyed, but in fact you would pay 5x or 10x more for the chance. It's also recorded that people who finally win in the gambling feel far happier for their purchase. 

Scenario 1 makes less money and takes a lot more effort from the developers while scenario 2 makes tons more money with little effort. The reason isn't because the developers are evil people. The reason is that players are dumb and buy into gambling. 

For every player they lose because of lootboxes, they have a whale who will spend 100x times the normal amount and win, win, win. It gets especially hard when usable items are thrown into the mix and many start to blindly defend them. It's disgusting and has put me off from free to play games."
worldnews,"Exactly. Its a really insidious blind spot that companies like EA have taken full advantage of. Video games are still a very new form of entertainment and the law hasn’t caught up to them yet. Companies have gotten away with so much crap as a result. But in a way I suppose we should be thankful they’ve been so greedy, since they left a very clear trail of evidence to follow.

These games actually get kids hooked on that gambling feeling, which is predatory and dangerous as fuck for their mental health and future.
"
worldnews,"I think that the difference is that for a TCG you can still play amongst friends with average decks that don't have super amazing rare cards. You can still get by with normal packs. For what happened with EA's lootboxes, you literally needed to win certain items to continue playing the game.

​

That being said, I never thought of TCGs as gambling, even though looking back it soooo was. You're incentivized to keep buying packs hoping to get better cards, and mostly got the same cards you already had. It's the idea that you don't know what you're buying. I feel instinctively defensive about the TCGs because I grew up with it and feel like it's totally fine to have, but when actually thinking about it... it IS gambling.

​

I guess the best course of action regarding TCGs now that there's substantiated accusations in the realm, is to look at whether the TCG player population of the 90s grew up and started gambling addictively. The problem with gambling isn't necessarily the gambling itself, it's the addictiveness of it. Although I feel like the angle for the lootboxes is that kids are being encouraged to spend a lot of money on chance boxes they don't even know what's inside of. Which is kinda different."
worldnews,"Another difference is that real life trading card packs do not have sound and visual effects attached to them that have been specifically designed to make them more addictive. This distinction makes loot boxes far more dangerous even if the basic principles are the same.

Additionally the fact that you do not need to move your ass to some store and buy lootboxes in person means that it is much easier for people to just push that 99,99$ purchase button. Also much easier for kids, as if they went to a store with a 100 dollar bill to buy pokemon cards the person on the other side of the counter might get suspicious."
worldnews,"First time I've seen someone victim blame about lootboxes and still be against them.

I understand your frustrations with these whales, but these people are the even greater victims here: some of them are wealthy and can afford it, but it is a time honored truth that people will gamble with money they don't have because of x or y life circumstance, mental health issue, etc. They're throwing it all away and really can't control themselves.

I don't think you should be contemptuous of these people. I think you should pity them. These are not rational, malicious people; it's an at-risk person being shamelessly and pridefully taken advantage of, and *that's* what is the most disgusting thing about lootboxes and these company's arrogant employment and defense of them. It is cynical and evil to so flagrantly exploit those who cannot control themselves. Fuck these awful people and their greed, and pity those they prey upon."
worldnews,"While I do think trading cards are gambling I think loot boxes are far more insidious, while card packs often have guarantees of certain amounts of rare cards and Commons and what not most loot boxes percentages are completely black boxed.  You have no idea what the actual chances are or if they can change day to day.  I could totally see a game company during a promotion increasing drop chances for good items (helping to bring in new players) then lowering them significantly a few days later.  Not to mention, as others have said, you can't cash out, there is not an even potential return of investment.  I sold a ton of Pokemon cards a while back, I can't do that in gwent or rocket league."
worldnews,"You throw around words like paywall and gambling and then get caught up in shitty arguments without considering what's actually happening.

The business model for these games centers around generating revenue outside of the core game. The idea is to have a free-to-play game, thus maximising the number of players, whilst still generating a revenue stream and keeping the game 'fair' by limiting the microtransactions to non impacting variables, aka Hats.

This loot box system most certainly parallels gambling, as we see from this study. However, it is clearly not the same as vegas, because aesthetics are trivial and cash rewards are not. You won't see people betting their houses away for a legendary skin.

You say it has no place in games. That is incredibly naive. The massive success of games like dota/lol/hearthstone/fortnite comes from this free to play business model, which this lootbox system enables."
worldnews,"That seems a bit hazier. As an example, I play a free to play MMO (Tera) and for the first year I didn't give them a dime. After playing for a year, I decided that since I had enjoyed the game, and would have gladly paid full price of a typical retail game, I went ahead and spent $60 (about average new game price) on items I wanted. I've not paid another dime since then.

Another MMO I didn't like, I played for a month, never gave them a dime.

I saw it as more of me supporting a game I liked."
worldnews,"The vast majority of users do not spent that much on a game, especially kids. Loot boxes model thrives on a smaller population of players that spent $1000s rather than the main player base spending $100s.

The main player base is there to create a base level of competition for the rich players to spent money so that they can beat the average non-paying player easily.

The argument is that even if the kids don't spent tons of money on the games now while they are young the game is training them from childhood to be addicted to gambling. 

These game have free loot boxes daily or let players grind for a loot box if they play 10 games, or w.e. So these kids are still given the chance to win monetary value though chance, which by definition is gambling.

Gambling addiction is actual chemistry in your brain happening when the brain expect a reward, but is denied the reward except for a few times. This denial of reward except for a few times is proven to give your brain more dopamine than if you win 100% of the time.

These kids have not experience enough in life to know that these 'good' feelings they get from opening the loot boxes are harmful. 15 years later their brain would be addicted to 15 years of dopamine shot and it is very hard to kick off the habit then. There is a reason why drugs are hard to quit.

That is why casino is ban for kids and not allow to have ""1 cents slot machine"". Anything with chance to win money is no go.

Even if it's affordable now, it is still view as giving kids injection of drugs to their brain."
worldnews,"Yeah, see, this is what I really like about warframe's model. You can go buy the part you need from another player if the RNG doesn't deliver for you, and on top of that, you can tell on the stuff you don't want (that you got from RNG drops) to be able to have the in game currency to buy the part you want. I haven't spent a cent on that game in like, 6 months, thanks to trading and I have everything I want. Occasionally I buy a prime access, simply because I feel guilty about getting such a good game that I've played for almost 5 years for free. That's how dlc/loot should be done."
worldnews,"I've never thought of that one before.... like, I've spent a stupid amount of money buying Hearthstone packs. In the case we could no longer use in game transactions with credit cards, I dont think I'd ever go to the store to buy a Hearthstone giftcard for myself though. To make it worse, I always feel like I'm ""getting a deal"" because I use Amazon coins (which is a fraction cheaper). Its kind of crazy to think about how things would be given just a small amount of friction

On the flip side, I loved buying surprise skin boxes on League of Legends for my friends. It was a blast."
worldnews,"""You prefer to have a shiny to make yourself feel special because you can't be special in any other way.""

Lmao why are you trying to personally attack me over this? My argument for loot boxes is as long as they are purely cosmetic there is nothing wrong with an adult wanting to gamble for rare items.

 You claimed that cosmetic items not affecting gameplay has been ""shot down many times as completely false"" yet when I pointed out it is silly to claim cosmetics affect my gameplay you just moved on. How about you stop trying to ditch past failed points."
worldnews,"There are some fundamental differences between TCGs and loot boxes, which is why they have not had the same scrutiny.

You're also making great leaps of judgement to decree that such and such 'is wrong.'

While lootboxes need to be properly regulated (and if that means banned, so be it) they are not actively malicious and are mostly not necessary.

If someone buys a lootbox they have made a conscious choice to do so, or if a parent trusts their kid with their card details and gaming habits without supervision that is also a choice. 

Everything is a manipulation of emotion, self-motivated or external, and money has no inherant value only what we place in it so cannot be insulted directly.

There need to be limitations and warnings revolving around loot boxes in order to prevent their abuse. On top of this their odds and purpose need to be explicit so that even the most dis-interested of people can understand what they are getting in to.
If the easiest way is to ban them then so be it, but don't start painting a new canvas with the same brush."
worldnews,"You have just proved my point about how cosmetics affect gameplay. You admitted that having a shiny that no one else has, gives you a good feeling and lets you enjoy the game more as opposed to if you didn’t have one, just like say having a powerful weapon lets you enjoy a game more. i.e; it affects your gameplay. So I didn’t “ditch past” anything. Thanks for proving my point.

Lootboxes are a problem and if you seriously can’t see why after everything that has happened over the past year or two, then nothing will convince you. Kids having access to unregulated gambling is both immoral and harmful.

If you want to gamble, go to a casino. 

I personally attack you because people like you are the very reason why lootboxes have gotten as far as they have and why we are all being forced to facilitate your addiction/ego. Attributing false value to ridiculous virtual items because they make you feel better than others. And you’re willing to spin the money wheel like a good little hamster to get them. "
worldnews,"The thing is, the same argument is being used against Overwatch, which only has cosmetic items in its lootboxes, so it's not just based on remaining competitive. That said, I have to question where the kids are getting to money to buy lootboxes. You need a debit/credit card to even buy them, so surely parents must be aware of when their kids are buying them, and can put a stop to it once it gets too far. You can't just stroll into a store with your pocket money."
worldnews,"One of the saddest things about the spectral tiger, was the 'Game Grumps' WoW series. The one guy that actually plays WoW decided it would be a good idea to buy the whole team spectral tigers. So they of course didn't even care that it was rare because they don't play the game, and didn't even ride on them. I don't remember how many there was, but they were all wasted on people that didn't even care/use them. I don't know for sure because I haven't watched Game Grumps in awhile, but I don't think any of them kept playing."
worldnews,"And they exploit the fuck out of that. In overwatch (which isn't free to play btw) the progression is tied to the loot box so you always see it and can't avoid being tempted. You get 4 items and 3 of them are garbage 90% of the time (sprays, icons or voice lines nobody cares about) while 1 is at least a recolor of the basic skin for a hero. The loot boxes in overwatch are so bad value that card packs in hearthstone have more value, since they give 5 items, and each card that gives can be used somehow instead of being a cosmetic you used to do for free (ie sprays and avatars.)"
worldnews,"Come on, dude, that's not the same and you know it. 

For a pack of cards, you pay for a pack of cards, and you get a pack of cards. The rarities are known; X rare cards, Y uncommon cards, and Z common cards. Any value beyond that have is determined by a secondary market. For a scratchcard, you're paying for a *chance to win money*. There is no secondary market for scratchcards (unless you count the government as one)."
worldnews,"No lootboxes need to fundamentally change from what they currently are (and yes MTG IS also gambling, any game of chance involving money, regardless of id there's a monetary reward or not, is a gamble). Lootboxes could perhaps exist if they were an entirely F2P system, as in they can only be bought with ingame currency, that's only earnable ingame (also the dropchance for any specific item would have to be something you can look up, and it'd have to tell you how many lootboxes you'd need on average to get that specific item). Whereas you can just buy the cosmetic change directly for real currency (and the cost would have to more directly reflect the value of the product). And the items would have to be relevant in perpetuity, if the item is phased out later it devalues something you've spent money on, also last but by absolutely no means least, all items from lootboxes has to be entirely cosmetic, 'cause otherwise the company will break the game balance in order to sell the new additions."
worldnews,"Correct. It was more directed at the differences portion of OPs post.

In regards to the debate of if its gambling, I think lootboxes and CCGs are gambling to some degree. I don't agree that CCGs should be as heavily regulated as gambling but I believe lootboxes should.

The value and accessibility is important in my opinion in judging the severity of a predatory system. Gambling is restricted because it preys on our emotions that are often immature before a certain age. This can lead to people losing everything. CCG are not infinite digital rewards. There is a stock limit and always a physical product. I can spend 100000 buying every box of Magic but then I have to wait for it to be restocked and I have tangible product to sell back. I can spend 100000 on lootboxes and still continue spending with no permanent ownership to the product I am buying.

EDIT: Added accessibility because I combined paragraphs and forgot to add it at the start.

EDIT2: Elaborating a bit more on accessibility of CCG. Stock limits often mean that many stores have to restrict the sale at least in the beginning and excessive buying is often monitored because they have to service everyone and creators have a general idea how much stock is needed for a release. Buying more product than this is difficult for someone underage and tedious leading to less chance of losing everything."
worldnews,"You seem not to understand that the fact that it's online creates so many more problems. Also, I would disagree with those saying it's just five year olds who don't know better. They're certainly out there, but I think the real issue is kids around the age of 10 to 12 using their parents money without their permission knowingly. When my brother was around 9 or 10, there were so many instances where he blew hundreds of dollars we didn't have because he figured out the password. Kids aren't buying hundreds of dollars worth of cereal with a dinky toy, they either want temporary boosts to make themselves feel more powerful, or the skins that make their peers envy them"
worldnews,"I mean yeah, it's actually high praise for them to label it ""like"" gambling, since it's just gambling. It's odd that the fact is even in dispute at all, or that people went to all the trouble of forming a committee and presumably reading books and stuff, only to turn out a finished product that fell short of the mark so spectacularly. Not only did anyone with half a brain already know the answer, but they also knew the *correct* answer."
worldnews,"I saw the booth on the map for PAX Prime. I was really excited.

HL3? Fat chance.  New Portal? Not likely.  Maybe a 4k refresh of the Steam Link? I wish.

It was the first booth I hit on Friday at 10am. 

I get there and gleefully see the Artifact banners.  I go up to the booth workers and  ask what it's all about.  A fucking Hearthstone clone that no one asked for.  That's it.  No other games, no hardware updates.

Kind of a shitty way to start off the show, but there were lots of other, better games there"
worldnews,"It isn't always gambling. Being a loot box does not require that it is purchasable, loot boxes can be made to be exclusively acquired for free.

A good example is in Minecraft. Servers have chests at spawn that only open with a special item, this item is only acquired by voting for the server on a website. Opening the chest produces a procedurally generated reward. This is a loot box that is completely free and not gambling."
worldnews,"This “its just cosmetic and doesn’t not help me shoot things” is a pathetically weak excuse. Comestics have just as much relevance to a gameplay as anything else.

As you have demonstratively shown, cosmetics directly affect the amount of enjoyment you get out of a game. You would not be playing the same way, if you didn’t have your so called “rare” cosmetics. How you look, affects how you play. Customising and making yourself look cool is one of the staples of video game escapism. The same way weapons affect how you play and view a game.

So again I ask; how can companies charge and make billions of dollars off of something that apparently  “doesn’t affect gameplay”."
worldnews,"I'd argue that it isn't really gambling. When you buy a pack, you get a guaranteed quantity of cards of specific rarity+. Yes, there are different cards you can get for each slot, but cards are distributed pretty evenly for their rarity.

For it to be gambling, that would be buying a pack and wondering what rarity of cards are you going to get. Are you going to get a full common pack? A triple mythic? If you have a chance to lose, then it's gambling. 

It helps that there is a secondary market that WotC tends to try and cater to/regulate by releasing cards that jump too high in value. (Ignoring the reserve list). 

Even better, some tournaments allow proxy play, which means you might not even HAVE to pay for the card, as long as you have a good enough marked proxy, you're clear."
worldnews,"You can use it to no avail because for some perculiar reason, the people that believe having to unlock any costmetic whatsoever, or at least ones that aren’t straight up dog, in a game via a crate is acceptable are the same kinda people to tell you to fuck off talking shit about their game. 

Counter strike really kicked it up a notch. I’m sure there’s a timeline of games doing this out there somewhere.

Actually, valve are into some pretty deep things right now, I wonder how much of that attributes to what they effectively started. "
worldnews,"As a ex-MtG player.

Yes they are gambling. The card packs that is.

Plus, compared to most games that have lootboxes - you have a secondary market letting you buy what you can.

I am completely fine with lootboxes as long as:

* odds are public
* items can be bought(even at latter time(month, or two)) directly
* there is a secondary market(trading of duplicates)
* they don't affect gameplay at all."
worldnews,"Stop trying to say cosmetics affect performance lmao that is just so wrong. If rare items made you play better than pros would ONLY be rocking the sickest of looks but in Rocket League (just using this as an example because it is the game I have opened the most crates in) most pros use entirely free items. I often times use free or very common / cheap cars and I never play different than if I was using more expensive items.

The gameplay comes first and is what matters the most when it comes to my enjoyment of a game, the cosmetics come second. I play lots of games where I have 0 items of high rarity/value and it doesn't affect my enjoyment of said games in any way.

"
worldnews,"You should mind them. It’s a permanent tax. 

The witness I shall bring to the stand is this wonderful CSGO knife.

Shows you’re magically badass at the game, can flick it around and shit, can even somehow help you get headshots. $500 please. 

The second witness I shall bring to the stand is a CSGO gambling website. Youtubers endorse it, advertisements of it everywhere and it’s entirely rigged. But it’s ok because the steam store is still making a profit back off the items you won and are now selling for steam credit. You fucking idiot.

Not you, them. 

"
worldnews,"A lot of parents also feel that it isn’t their fault, even though they allowed the child to possess the device, possess install permissions, access the store, etc.

They didn’t want to be the one to say “no”, put up with the hassle of learning about what their kid wanted to do/play/buy/install, or bought into the impulsiveness and uncritical trend following that is common among the undeveloped or uneducated.  

I can see the argument about TCGs, but I’d also have little sympathy for a parent who can’t or won’t teach them that there are no assets that are guaranteed to appreciate, and that their collection may (probably?) be of no more value than their personal enjoyment of collecting/playing/trading."
worldnews,"Yes that is true. You definitely can get addicted to anything that have chances to win something, it doesn't have to be money. These old laws concern with money because money eventually became the object that people gamble the most over.


Money is just the catch all for gambling because it is the catch all for any object. Law makers can't ban everything that have a  reward by chance to children, we still have those cranks machine that spit out a random toy for 50 cents and McDonald meal shave a random toy with purchases.


Laws are not specific but rather are general when a big concern is noticed. It's like you don't take out an entire fleet of fishing ships to catch individual fish; you call out the fleet when you noticed a huge swarm of fish is gathering in one place.


Gaming loot boxes are recognized as a bigger problem then say McDonald happy meal loot boxes mainly because of 2 practical reasons: 


1) It's easier to reach your audience because your store is in their pocket.


2) It is cheap to give free doses of your product to reel them in. All these games give the kids to condition them are just digital data which is just random numbers beings tore somewhere. McDonald can't  give kids free happy meals toys to reel them in because of cost issues.


These laws have to balance themselves between practicalities and ideologies. So how they are implement will change as technologies change, just like video games and the nature of gambling have changed."
worldnews,"Did I say cosmetics make you play *better?*. Nope. I said they affect how you play, which is 100% true. You will not have the same experience if you were playing without your shiny would you. Since you attribute false value to cosmetics and they subsequently make you like to act like you’re above others, its pretty obvious how cosmetics affect your gameplay.

Also, I apologise but I highly doubt you use cheap or free stuff, given your view of exclusive items and your attitude around lootboxes in general. Its very clear from this conversation and others that cosmetics have a high place in your world, so anything you say can be taken with utter mountains of salt."
worldnews,"I occasionally play Magic drafts, that's the only times I actually buy any cards. In that case, I'm not really paying for the cards themselves, because I don't use them afterwards, but I pay for the experience of opening this random set of cards and building something from them. The randomness of the booster packs is an essential part of this, and similar gamemodes. I would hate it if booster card packs were banned, simply for the reason that people can't handle loot boxes in other games."
worldnews,"I'd say part of that is the idea that ""at least you get something."" When you buy a meal or buy a card, even if you lose you still have the physical item that has value. You still exchanged money for goods.

But the validity distinction is irrelevant. If someone thinks these new policies are a mistake they should voice that. But I don't think whataboutisms invalidate them. If people feel strongly about gambling in burgers you should start a movement. This movement doesn't need to be the end-all-be-all for dismantling shitty business practices. "
worldnews,"Fuck that. Did it ever occur to you that people enjoy TCGs? I've been playing MTG for five years, made incredible friendships and had some of the best gaming of my life. I've placed top 16 at a 100 person event, and I've traveled to grand prix events where I met some of the world's greatest MTG players. You might not mourn the loss, but try to consider how I would feel about MTG just disappearing.

And it's incredible how ignorant people are of MTG's basic gameplay: Randomly generated booster packs are integral to Draft and Sealed competitive formats. If you don't know what those are and you're pushing for TCG booster packs to be banned, then congratulations, you're as ignorant as the people who thought video games are all satanic and rot your brain."
worldnews,"I've very recently got into it, and yeah I just buy the cards from a used card website now, so I can get the exact cards I need for the deck I'm researching/building.  

Hate the booster packs - and people I talk to who are into it just don't seems to see it. They're all like:

""hey so are you off to the new launch event for Ravnika?  It's like £20, you get some booster packs... ""

... and I've instantly checked out.  I'll just buy the specific cards I need from the new sets online a couple of days later, and get a shit-ton more value for money for that same £20, than a load of randomly colored common cards that'll just gather dust and very likely never make it into a deck."
worldnews,"I don't see why you still can't just pay like 20 bucks and get EVERY card.  I mean I know why on the exec's reasoning, which is ""If someone can just BUY all the cards, they won't spend hundreds of bucks GETTING them all!"" but from a gameplay standpoint it seems like the easiest.  The game is built, too, for different ""Characters"" having different sets, so you can make it even more hand holdey and it'd work."
worldnews,"Eh, nope.

Whites return 5, cost 40 to create (12,5% return)  
Blues return 20, cost 100 to create (20% return)  
Epic return 100, cost 400 to create (25% return)  
Legendary return 400, cost 1600 to create (25% return)  

Considering the droprates for the different types I think you can expect about 80-100 dust value on average from a pack. The base game is free sure, but it's extremely grindy and the only way past it is to play the pack lottery or just straight up buy enough shit cards to get the dust you want. At least the valve game will have the option to straight up buy the specific cards you need instead of rolling the dice for years."
worldnews,"I’d mourn the loss of the games themselves but I agree the random cards per pack is just a physical loot box.  I will give a bit of credit to physical tcgs though.  You’re getting an actual physical good that has a some sort of actual value.  And since it’s a physical good can be bought, sold, or traded on a free market.  While many of these loot box games have no way to trade or directly buy or sell individual cards/items.  

Edit: after reading some more posts and thinking about it myself, having a cash value actual makes it more like gambling as there’s a “cash out” option.  But I also want to point out that TCGs have moved to provide the Theme and Starter deck options giving access to big value cards and working decks without the randomness needed.  I’d be interested in seeing a tcg offer a full set option instead of booster pack collecting.  But would also be afraid to see how much something like that would cost."
worldnews,"Are you going to ask millions of parents in the country not to give their kids that $300 gambling money one parent at a time?

By making an official report concluding that loot box mechanism is a form of gambling and suggesting it to be regulated, the committee is effectively telling every current and future parent they shouldn't finance their kids to play games which have loot box mechanism, while asking the game companies to stop the kids from playing when their parents failed to do so."
worldnews,">It's the secondary market that determine a card's value

Which is hugely influenced by the amount of cards that are available, which is completely in hands of the game company (this is something they even indirectly admit to by having [a list of cards](https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Reserved_List) which will not be reprinted to not lower their value). The black lotus would not be on it's current insane price point if it was still printed."
worldnews,"Not even the worst example, and the only reason I state that is because Siege doesn't go ""Out there"" often enough with skins, and most of the skins that are ""Out there"" and silly / cool / good are purchaseable on their own, sometimes in a straight up bundle / pack, and the game makes a very clear distinction by making the only thing purchaseable that can ""Buy"" lootpacks the default money, and not any special money.  

Overwatch is worse by hitting all 4 of the major gambling things:

*  Very elaborate, fun, opening animation with great sounds and can put an endorphine rush into practically anyone.

*  Limited time ""Deals"" for skins:  Basically, buy this now or never get it until a year later!

*  ""Look at how much money you are saving buying 200 loot boxes!"" Which is akin to when slot machines show you how much you CAN win.  Hiding odds makes this feel worse too.

*  Finally, making it seem possible to get tons of gold in a limited time to actually buy most skins you want, so buying lootboxes isn't a waste the first, second, or 500th time you fail to get what you want.

Still can't play Overwatch without feeling like I want to buy boxes.  That's how bad it was for me."
worldnews,"Are you suggesting to ban Pokémon cards because buying packs is “gambling”? 

Banning them is dumb and government over reach when it isn’t harmful to kids. 

It was pretty fun to me and my siblings and friends, and I never felt i wasted money. You’d be taking away every single TCG, that doesn’t sound reasonable. 

Also, it’s not like you get nothing, you just might not get the exact cards you want. I don’t see the harm in that. I’m open to being proven wrong though so feel free to do so. 

Kids enjoy it, they won’t suffer, let them buy Pokémon cards if they want, you’d be taking away a lot of potential experiences and fond memories too. You can also sell/buy or trade the cards too"
worldnews,"Don't forget the other effects
A) this is an event when you can play and unlock cool exclusive items! (or pay as that's the only realistic way to actually unlock the things you want cos rng+time gate... Come on... It's only 3 bucks and you get stuff anyway..... Come on...)

B) this super rare skin that has a lower chance of dropping than you being stuck by lightning while winning the lotto is worth 10k and only needs 1key to unlock!(and and and, if you don't win you can literally gamble that skin on a site that we take a share of the transaction fee off the trade to earn more!!)

There's literally dozens of way to encourage gambling, "
worldnews,"This is also misguided. Every item in the Alpha Packs are sold in the store separately, and can be bought using renown (F2P currency) or R6 credits (Paid currency). You can easily bypass the Apha Pack system and get what you want for free by grinding (high end is around a week if you have no idea how to earn renown for say a 25k Operator) or a $5 R6 credits pack."
worldnews,"Uh....is that video supposed to prove something? You yourself just admitted you open crates for RL. So showing me a default skin is completely pointless.

> it means my performance in game (excuses, excuses, excuses, excuses)

All of those are very weak excuses which I already explained previously. You even used the “it doesn’t help me shoot things” excuse I quoted. Honestly.

If its in the game, it affects your gameplay. Simple as that. Gameplay is also defined as how a player interacts with a video game and cosmetics more than certainly affect that, as I have said and as you have proven previously.

From now on, I’ll leave this question at the bottom of all my next replies until you stop dodging and answer it;

If cosmetics do not affect gameplay, why do companies charge and make billions out of them every year?"
worldnews,">I'd say part of that is the idea that ""at least you get something."" When you buy a meal or buy a card, even if you lose you still have the physical item that has value. You still exchanged money for goods.

Digital items can have a real value too, at steam marketplace for example. I'd say that it makes it even worse since it gives one more incentive to gamble.

>But the validity distinction is irrelevant. If someone thinks these new policies are a mistake they should voice that. But I don't think whataboutisms invalidate them.

I doesn't invalidate them of course. I just think that law should be equally applied to every form of misconduct (making profits by abusing gambling addicts). Something being exclusive to only lootboxes doesn't make sense."
worldnews,"I can't say for certain, but it may be because when you buy a pack of trading cards, you own the cards and can sell them, trade them, roll them up and smoke them, whatever. With lootboxes, you can't do that.

A fair few trading card systems will allow you to buy the cards you want individually, directly from the producers, too. It'll be a hassle, and probably relatively expensive, but it's possible. If games had a system where you could pay for individual items *or* roll the dice for a lower cost, I don't think people would be so up in arms."
worldnews,"I think my biggest problem with these systems is the almost always without fail contain a “pity mechanic” where the rare drop you have will only have a 3% chance of dropping, and then if you don’t get it the next box will have a 5% chance, then a 7% chance and so on and so forth so you can’t even get a decent chance at what you actually want till you’ve bought like 10 loot boxes. And if you don’t know about the pity mechanic then you might just think you’re lucky so you might just keep going and feeding into that compulsion and potentially creating a habit in people who would’ve otherwise avoided gambling systems"
worldnews,"You said you don't believe I use free cheap items and the last thing  I uploaded to reddit of a video game was me using cheap free items.

I guess the issue with the points you are trying to make is I only enjoy competitive video games where the objective is to be better than other players. I will not play better or worse than other players because of cosmetics and that is all that matters in these games. You are trying to use gameplay in place of game experience. 

I didn't answer it because it is a question with a few blatantly obvious answers.

1) People like to look nice and have rare things.
2) Gambling is fun (and addictive to the point where it's an issue for some) 
3) Because of that companies keep making crates and keep making money."
worldnews,"> Gambling marketed towards kids, or anyone outside of a casino or other proper licensed setting, is wrong.

If you stretch your definition of gambling (like particular religions), dice are out, too. That's not your decision to make, it's their parents'. Besides, trading cards (and other games akin to gambling) are a quintessential part of growing up in America. Trading cards teach you how to value things, how to take risks, how to negotiate, and how to resolve arguments, all indispensable skills for growing up or simply being able to navigate the world in the 21st century. 

My problem is that overbearing nanny statists like yourself, while your intentions may be good, are actually depriving people of valuable skills. More than that, you're depriving them of adulthood--the ability to grow up. We're raising a generation of uncompetitive pansies."
worldnews,"> Fuck that. Did it ever occur to you that people enjoy **poker**? I've been playing **poker** for five years, made incredible friendships and had some of the best gaming of my life. I've placed top 16 at a 100 person event, and I've traveled to grand prix events where I met some of the world's greatest **poker** players. You might not mourn the loss, but try to consider how I would feel about **poker** just disappearing.

Also.  You could still do the generated booster pack style play.  The cards in the packs could be marked as ""For Booster Draft Play Only"" and not recognized in other kinds of games."
worldnews,"TBF this isn't actually really different than something like MTG, if Wizards ran a store where you could sell and buy cards from.


Like, when you sell a card to a local store or something they're usually paying you something like 60% of the value of the card in store credit, or less if you're getting cash. The weirdest part here is that since Valve actually owns the store as well they're taking a cut of their own resale.

Interestingly though, this also centralizes the entire card market in one place (till inevitably bots pop up for selling and buying cards, which they will make no mistake). I wonder what that will do for card prices? It should theoretically make it much cheaper I'd think?"
worldnews,The details to this are completely irrelevant. Random booster packs are also absolutely in no way integral to anything. You can just take the complete deck and randomly assign certain cards to people without them ever paying a single cent. There's literally nothing to TCG that requires them to have semi random booster packs you need to buy. The only reason why they exist is to extract as much money from players as possible.
worldnews,"I agree, it was fun and gave me that childhood buzz of opening Pokémon cards. We stopped playing a few months after that though, so now I’ve got loads of cards sitting around.

The worst part I find is that you end up with so many copies of cards you don’t want, it’s just so wasteful. If they had to keep the model, I wish they’d either add an expensive rate card booster, or sell directly the rare cards somehow... but they’d probably break the “economy” and stop them selling so much."
worldnews,"See, I think you feel for the trap too, just from the other side. Are you saying if I remove the ""lootbox"", and merely give you a random item after the fact, you are not ok with it too? Are you not ok with MMORPG's and other MMO games?

From my point of view, the ""lootbox"" is a psychologically manipulative mechanic that replaced normal item drops. Because random item drops are fine by itself."
worldnews,"I can't scrap shitty skins and sprays I don't want, only when I get a duplicate, meaning it takes ages to save up for a just one legendary skin. You get very few crates for just playing the game and it makes the progression super slow, had they used proper progression system from any other multi-player game before, even if it's still just cosmetics, it would be much more rewarding, but you get 1 each level and they make it slow like that to intice you to spend money.

Even in games like CS GO and TF2 which are super heavy on loot boxes as well, you can atleast get something out of your useless shit you don't want, here you can't and are forced to collect stupid stickers"
worldnews,"The absolute worst is CoD WWII IMO. Certain Calling Cards (particularly animated ones) used to be reserved for pulling off some decent skills/being a consistent player. Complete all of the killer achievements? Get a special animated calling card. But, the team behind CoD just wanted that sweet cash and decided to just swamp the loot boxes with absolutely pathetic cosmetics (the pistol grips were just laughably bad) *and* swamp low level calling cards that are often animated. Meaning, that animated calling card is now just a random drop from a loot box that is only rated common. It's trash now.

​

So, in response to the community outrage at just how bad the loot boxes were (and often they were straight up broken \[get a box with a ""guaranteed"" no duplicate, get a duplicate anyways and be glad because the PC community got jack shit\]), they decided to add more random bad loot, like helmets, recolors of various uniforms, the same exact taunt animation but with a different name, gun keychains (like from R6 Siege), face paint that looks godawful, emblems, paintjobs, etc. It's so littered with junk that it's near impossible to get what you want without paying as one of the main ways to get the free currency is by getting duplicates, but the cheapest loot box is going to be nothing but junk anyways and only give a few coins. 

​

Oh, and if you're willing to pay up, you can now just buy the animated purple paint job for one of the guns. It was shit at launch and it only got worse as time went on. "
worldnews,"Yeah, but the majority of loot box games don't have access to a marketplace. Personally, I'm ok with a TF2 method. You get random stuff that can be converted into junk which can be turned into what you want. Or, you can trade for what you want. I have a rare degreaser but I want a rare eternal reward. I can try to find someone to trade for that.

​

The problem comes with the games that forcibly prevent you from doing that (and will ban accounts that attempt to buy/sell said items) as that turns it from trading cards that can either be random or bought/sold into just random. That's when it starts to turn into what seriously looks like gambling. "
worldnews,"> You said you don’t believe I use free cheap items

And a five second clip of you using a default skin is supposed to convince me that you never ever use anything else? Sorry, but thats not how the real world works.

You honestly expect me to believe you don’t use the “rarities” you’ve collected from all those crates you’ve opened. Please.

> I will not play better or worse than other players

But you will play differently to before you had your precious shinies won’t you. You’ll go into the game with a different attitude. Whether or not you play better or worse is irrelevant, your playstyle will be affected.

> gameplay in place of game experience

They go hand in hand. Cosmetics do affect both experience and gameplay. The “it doesn’t help me blah blah” doesn’t work. Shooting things brings enjoyment. Cosmetics and customisation also brings enjoyment. Tomatoe, tomato.

> people like to look nice

So you admit that shooting things isn’t the whole package of video gaming then? What a surprise.

> Gambling is fun

To people who like gambling, which quite a lot of people very obviously don’t.

> companies keep making money

And so, to sum it all up, cosmetics are in fact a huge part of gameplay. 

I know the question had obvious answers. Just wanted to hear you admit it, since it automatically invalidates any argument you have for lootboxes and “its just cosmetic”.

You have zero real arguments. You are just a shallow gambling addict."
worldnews,I disagree. No one will ever understand why I disagree and im okay with that. I think you guys are over reacting. Your taking something I love and making it seem evil. True video game people play video games to get away from irl. It helps us to stop thinking about all the problems for however long the game is on for. Some people dont understand the joy that comes from buying stuff in the game. Leave video games alone and go focus on some other problems you think are insane.
worldnews,"> But the loot boxes, where you have a ""chance"" of getting an item needs to stop. That is gambling.

exactly. Gambling. marketed to children. **designed by fucking psychologists** in order to manipulate you into gambling more. It's disgusting and sickening.

If you want to sell a cosmetic or some other game content do it, by displaying [x] product for [y] price. Anything else is gambling and should be vehemently opposed.

"
worldnews,"Because those 20 bucks do not earn Activision Blizzard all of the money.

I stopped playing hearthstone that much after realising how much money i've spend on it - every once in a while i drop in, do a few games, then quit for a month or two.

Adventures were great because you got it all in one pack, but now that they changed it to 3 (or is it 4?) expansions a year, where all of them are full card sets without the possibility to get everything for a reasonable price (several hundred packs), it is simply too expensive. It has always been bad, but the value for money is awful in Hearthstone."
worldnews,"Of course it's not the same. I just tried to discredit the analogy.

The rarities for scratchcards are also known, at least in germany, where I live. So far so similar.

The fact, that a secondary market with relatively stable prices exists, makes it much more akin to gambling. That's not Wizards fault, but that's how it is.

You can argue that every card is valuable but at this moment I could buy 4000 random cards for under 20€. that's 2 cards for a cent. I guess used scratchies wouldn't be much cheaper."
worldnews,"I was super into collecting these Harry potter trading cards that came with the chocolate frogs. Each pack had a few chocolates and like 10 or so random cards. I once used all my allowance money to buy a bunch of packs, only to discover that I got a ton of the same worthless cards, as if each pack had the same assortment. Needless to say I felt cheated, lost interest in card collecting in general、and got sick from all the chocolate."
worldnews,"You do. Showing the rewards you *would* have gotten is also a common tactic in any free to play game. Playing free to play means inherently accepting that the game will try to manipulate you into shelling out (and less acceptably AAA these days because of course). I'm okay with that, to an extent. It's when the economy is deliberately weighted so that the spending has no reasonable end that we get a problem and fortnite shows an unusual level of restraint with free to play bullshit.

It also helps that Fortnite is a complete and rewarding game (albeit not really my thing) even if you don't pay up."
worldnews,"I believe this was addressed before so I'll just parrot a fair argument I heard against the 'baseball card' argument:

To sum it up: obtaining lootboxes is far easier than something like a pack of cards.

Scenario: You go to your local store and pick up a few card packs. Now, because you don't know if you'll get what you want early in your openings or not, you pick up only a few packs at a time before heading out.

Say you didn't get what you wanted though from any of yer packs. Well, the odds of you going through the trouble of going back to get more right that instant is ridiculously slim.

Now think of something like a slot machine: it's designed to be convenient to keep tossing money into it. Yer just a lever away from each attempt, and very little is hampering an addicted person from just constantly pulling it.

Lootboxes are extremely similar. Due to how convenient it is, those who suffer from gambling addictions are far more likely to blow way too much money on lootboxes, since all they have to do is click maybe two button: Purchase, then Open.

With card packs, your options are far more limited. Even ordering online isn't as exploitative thanks to shipping times.

Though I should mention: I still think the argument of card packs being gambling is valid: you're spending money at a chance to get big rewards. But I believe lootboxes fit the bill for a more traditional 'casino' type of gambling, due to the ease of access."
worldnews,"Before CoD4 got completely taken over by hackers, I managed to get myself the golden Dragunov.  One of the first games I used it in, I laid down in the grass to watch this one alleyway leading into our base.  I’m scanning the area with my scope, and when I look away from my scope, I see two of my teammates crouched over me on either side just to examine my gun.  Made me feel proud and annoyed at the same time.  "
worldnews,"See, I don't really mind lootboxes to that extend, as long as MOST of the things that I would get are things I (somewhat) like. If I can get 2 random chances in a box with thre being a 70% chance I'll get a skin for a character I like, sure. I like the idea of not knowing which character I'll get something for, it might surprise me and give me a Mc Cree skin so I'll try him out. As long as I get something I somewhat like out of it, I don't mind.



**However**, if the thing I want has a low % drop chance and is only from an RNG box, no thanks.



Basically it comes down to what I get from the pulls. If the end result makes me happy, I will love it. If the chances are super high that I'll end up getting crap, fuck that shit."
worldnews,"I know that you think pixels on your computer screen are really important, but they're not.  It may seem callous of me to discard something that's clearly pretty central to your identity but nobody in the world is going to care how unfair it is that your character in your video game doesn't look the way you want it to and looking for sympathy from people because of that is only going to alienate you. You're someone who gets upset about cosmetics in video games so you're probably already pretty alienated as is."
worldnews,"Completely different. With a TCG like magic, the cards you buy in the pack **are the game**. With a loot box system in a $60 dollar game, the loot box materials do not constitute the game. The game is shooting rebels or storm troopers, flying around in the Millennium Falcon firing at TIE fighters, or leaping through the air as Luke Skywalker twirling around your lightsaber. The loot box system is entirely immaterial to the actual game and is only there to monetize a game you already payed $60 for. They brute forced this insane convoluted economy into a simple shooter style game in order to bridge the *actual* game to something to spend money on via this economy. You can't monetize **pew pew** at the AT ST, but you *can* monetize -STAR CREDITS-. There is literally like three different currencies and exchange rates and they do different things and...it is fucking ridiculous. They designed it so that the economy is that actual ""game"" and shooting storm troopers and swinging the lightsaber is just the excuse the fuel the economy. 

And they infuriatingly act as if there is just no other way to implement a ""progression"" system without this kind of economy saturating the game. Somehow forgetting that a general experience points (XP) system that can be spent on upgrades in weapons, abilities, or stats has been tried and true for fucking decades now. These EA devs genuinely act like they are baffled and just have no idea how there could be ""progression"" in a multiplayer game without a monetized economy around it. Like they are genuinely unaware that almost every game ever made has some kind of XP system that does just fine giving a sense of progression in a game. It is to the point where the economy around the actual game becomes the main focus and actual takes priority over the game itself. They don't want people playing single player so they actually cut off earning any XP (or whichever of their three currencies lets you unlock characters) after like an hour of single player a day. The game punishes you for not playing in the way that most keeps you in contact with and dependent on their economy. 

Anyway whatever I don't want to rehash the whole thing over again, but absolutely yes I would say there is virtually no valid argument that TGC games like MTG are the same thing as loot boxes in AAA $60 games. In MTG, the cards you are buying *are the game*. There is nothing more to the game than the cards. There's nothing else to spend money on. You *buy* the cards because that's what MTG *is*. It's like buying more legos. The lego bricks *are the thing you want*. In say, SW Battle Front, the game is ostensibly shooting rebels and flying X Wings and shit. That's the game. The whole loot box/star credit/whatever economy graphed on to the game is it's own thing. It is the simplest thing in the world to just have a standard XP system to get new upgrades and progress and there is absolutely no need for some complex economy *other than the fact that it is possible to monetize for micro-transactions*. And deciding to introduce randomness into the system is also unnecessary and done with the sole intention to serve as bait for more money. They could easily just have their upgrades/cosmetics available for a certain amount of xp without any randomness. Not only is the loot box system entirely unnecessary and utterly irrelevant to shooting SW characters, it hamstrings the very game it is graphed onto. The game itself, the thing that you payed for and is supposed to be the like, point and focus of your time playing, is designed to push you back to the loot system. Things are *intentionally* fucked up and unbalanced in a way where the solution is something you get from a loot box. The real product, from the perspective of EA, is the loot box economy system and the Star Wars based shooting/action game is the packaging and marketing. In Magic the Gathering, the cards ARE the real product, even if there is an element of randomness to booster packs. "
worldnews,"If you talk to anyone in the Magic community though, 95% of people will tell you not to just open booster packs for the hell of it. If you are looking for a particular card, you should just go to ebay or the store/website of your choice and just buy the card (s) you are looking for. The gambling aspect gets a bit removed when you consider that there is an actual game you are intended to play when you open booster packs. That game is drafting where you and 7 other people each open 3 booster packs and attempt to make a playable deck from what you open. Drafting a great deck sometimes means passing a highly valuable card to the person on your right because it won't fit in to your deck."
worldnews,"I've been a gamer basically since I could manage it (and honestly, before that).

The overwhelming prevalence of loot box and microtransaction systems makes it so I can't even get excited about new releases anymore. One of my favorite games of all time (Red Dead Redemption) is getting a sequel in about a month's time and I'm not even that excited because it's Rockstar and they brutalized GTA:O within an inch of its life.

Bethesda has also admitted (though I'm not sure to what extent) that FO76 will have microtransactions. I've given so much of my life to this hobby and because of companies being shitty and exploiting people I can't even be excited about it anymore."
worldnews,"Thinking about the movie comparison, with how overpriced some microtransactions are for what they offer it is kinda like movies offered ""1 minute extra scene after credits only 15 dollar!"" well with lootboxes more like ""5 dollar for a ten percent chance for the scene, 90% chance for various 10 second outtakes!"" (If you ever play smartphone games with a collection mechanic they tend to be even more ridiculous, I know some that offer a set+a skin + a few other items for 60 dollar or crazy things like that.)"
worldnews,"The difference is the direct link between to pay for a physical existing object, with all limitations about those object. Its also tradable like there is also no RNG factor behind that can even at the time you open your pack is under the possibility of changing.

​

You buy your booster and thats it. Lootboxes have a preset of % chance to get x... but up to the point where you open it, you cant be sure it would actually realy use this prese chance. So there is not only a huge room of cheating around those lootboxes, especially with the now upcomin big date AI systems and several studies to make sure the whole ratio of possibill ""wins"" is fitted in a enjoyable way to the specific customer, its also limited to the game enviroment, so, no realy trade, nothing like it, everytime the chance to loose everything (Game -> Offline) and its not controlled like a whole sale of physical items is controlled.

​

Its not just lootboxes are gambling because you have a chance of whatever you want, its also a whole manipulated system that lures everybody to get more. So even as gambling, we are facing an unsave enviroment around gambling and also gambling addiction with huge space for abuse in favor of the selling company because, at least, its all just date that can be manupulated easiely by the company itself even while you are playing/gambling.

​

Even around this... they are still embedded in a mostly common and regular service, that also effects the funcionality of the service itself. Its like a craftsman will do on purpouse on a building site a damage to the old wall to say ""hey, that wasnt part of the contract to also rebuild this damage here, I want more money!"" "
worldnews,"Yeah that shows how scummy this really is. They so desperately don't want you to know how low the chances of getting what you want are that they jump through every loophole not to show it. It's the same strategy casinos use, keep you hoping for success, keep you in the dark about exactly how unlikely that is.   
  
Up until that happened I was on the fence, but I haven't bought one since"
worldnews,"Straight up it's fucking over people like me who work all the damn time. 

I want to have fun online, I don't have time to grind & practice for 4 hours every night. I'm lucky if I can get an hour in before bed these days 


I stopped playing battlefield because I'll literally never unlock everything, and I can't justify paying to unlock shit in a game I barely play. So instead I just miss out. 

It's fucking bullshit dude, I play games as an escape from. troubles in real life, not to be reminded I'm broke irl"
worldnews,">""Spending large amounts of money on loot boxes was associated with problematic levels of spending on other forms of gambling. This is what one would expect if loot boxes psychologically constituted a form of gambling. It is not what one would expect if loot boxes were, instead, psychologically comparable to baseball cards.""

My understanding is that, even though the mechanisms are similar, they didn't observe the same behaviours when it came to baseball cards,  and we can assume with TCGs in general."
worldnews,">Would you argue that Trading card games such as Magic the Gathering or Pokemon would also be gambling?

Yes. They could sell the cards you want outright but instead chose to sell only blind bags containing mostly garbage to maximise their profits.

> Gaming companies could argue that baseball card manufacturers and TCG company's have been doing this for years

Correct. Are you saying that we shouldn't bother to fix any wrongs unless if there is more than one wrong thing?

> One difference I can spot would be the ability to buy a rare card in real life that you've sought after, compared to some games which make it impossible to access some content unless it is pulled through a loot box system

It's still gambling - when you buy a specific magic the gathering card from a 3rd party exchange then you simply pay some 3rd party to gamble for you."
worldnews,"Absolutely. I enjoyed the single player experience on GTAV though. So I just played that and didn't even do online. As long as my single player campaign is still long and rewarding, I'm still going to buy it, as I'm still getting as much content as any other GTA game prior to there being online multiplayer.

For FO76 that is VERY concerning, as the game will only be online to begin with. They can do that with a free to play, but why do they get to milk us after we already purchased the damn thing? (alternatively, I'd argue maybe they should just make it free to play instead, or just give us a complete game for what we pay.)"
worldnews,"That you can't trade an item after having bought it isn't the same thing as it having no value. Compare with food. I buy a sandwich and eat it, and the economic value deprecation is 100%. I'm still satisfied having eaten the sandwich and have no reason to regret the transaction. Compare with my grandma. I love her, but she can't (legally) be sold or traded. That doesn't make her worthless."
worldnews,"Essential yes, but guess what? No upfront cost.

Lets be honest, this entire situation isnt because of free 2 play mobile games, its because the big boys got a taste of it and now want to greedily get more. I dont personally mind loot boxes... in F2P games. But when you toss a $60 price tag on something THEN add-in lootboxes, I call bullshit. 

The difference though, is that MtG, Pokemon and baseball cards have real world value. Your skin for Tracer in Overwatch does not."
worldnews,">My problem with lootboxes will always be that I am gambling for product I can't sell at full price or keep forever/extended time. My Magic cards can be sold 20yrs from now at an antique auction. My Witch Mercy skin cannot.

but in Fifa they have right to take it from you and loses its value after a year..how dumb is that we still try to buy(fifa points) those worthless cards with real money"
worldnews,"Feels like I’m talking about halo every other day damn I really miss halo 3, company’s need to take a step back and look at games like halo 3 with tons of customization without paying for anything, but if the games completely free and the purchases are “skins” like what fortnite and league of legends has to offer then I’m fine with that. (Although for not so rich people like myself it’d be nice not to feel left out when it comes to customization, that’s why I loved halo 3 so much..)

No loot boxes though, league of legends recently introduced loot boxes EXACTLY like how overwatch does them and I don’t get the point behind them other then you can spend less money and get a random skin you probably won’t like."
worldnews,"I remember the Rare days, where mastering the dozens of cheat codes or completing extremely difficult challenges actually rewarded you with more fun ways to enjoy the game.

Nowadays it's all ""let us prey on your baser instincts to milk as much cash out of you as possible before you realize that the lack of tangible rewards after grinding away at the game for hundreds of hours is not actually satisfying the addiction we've programmed into your brain and dismissively manipulate""."
worldnews,"I just dont know why you are angry because someone mentioned trading cards.  Disagreeing is one thing but ""fucking hate you trading card people"" seems awfully strong, especially considering we are talking about hobbies.

Funny thing is, I'm on your side, but that person is as allowed to their opinion as you are yours.

And for the record, yes of course I over exaggerate when upset or angry, but this doesnt seem worth getting that upset about."
worldnews,"TCGs can still exist, but the packs system would need to change. Instead of the surprise of getting random cards, you would get a pack with all the cards in it listed on the back, so you can pick which one you want. Ofc, these'd end up being a bit more expensive, but overall you'd be cheaper off than buying dozens of packs to get one single card.

Hearthstone could also use similar systems. You could get the option of, say, 5 card packs, and you can see whats in them and pick which one to buy. Once you buy you'd get a new lineup. If you dont want to buy any of them you'd need to fulfill some arbitrary thing for a new lineuip, to prevent people from just endlessly scrolling for that one perfect pack, but it would be something like winning a game or something.

That, and you could modify the Arena to where if you reach a certain amount of wins, you get to pick a card from the Arena deck you made that you want to keep. 

Etc etc. "
worldnews,"the thing that i believe will save MTG (and probably the others but i dont know for sure) is that Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro has always ignored the secondary market. when you buy a pack from them each card is worth 1/15th the price of the pack, with each pack guaranteeing you a specific distribution of rarities. In the official eyes of the company, the chase rare is valued exactly the same as the jank common. 

the only way to buy singles is through the seconday market which is not controlled or regulated by WotC/Hasbro

Draft is a hugely popular way to play the game and was how the game was originally intended to be played. Each player starts with 3 packs and sits in a circle. they then open one pack, choose one card and pass the remainder around. in this way you build your deck for that session. since the 'money' card in the pack may not fall within your strategy it is often more optimal to pass on it. there is a story from a big tournament in which a player almost passed a card still valued at over $100 (more back then) for a card that was worth $0.25. taking the cheap card would have undoubtedly made his deck better and he was criticized by many for doing so.

I think that leaning on this play experience being independent of a cards monetary value on the secondary market will help them make more of a case legally"
worldnews,I've read who knows how many threads about this topic and you always get clowns dropping the trading card crap. Honestly at this point I'm convinced there is not a small amount of schilling going on to that effect. In any event its not like I'm sitting around fuming about it or them. I read it. It annoyed me. I wrote a reply. It took 2 seconds. I forgot about it. Until of course you started breaking my balls about it lol. No hard feelings my dude.
worldnews,"More scummy thing with TCG like Magic The Gathering is that Wizards of the Coast actually set fixed prices on card rarity.
Which means all  cards of same rarity have same monetary values according to them. That then means they can say that booster pack always give you what is promised. 

But if you loot at ""secondary"" market AKA trading and buying individual cards there's clear price difference between different rares. From single set there can be rares worth under 1€ - 100€.

I'm adult and I understand that. But everytime there's new set release I see tons of kids buying MTG, Yu-Gi-Oh or Pokemon boosters just for ""big"" rares or rare cool characters. Pretty sure a lot of them don't even know how to play it."
worldnews,Tbh even trading card packs aren't ideal. It predisposes us as children towards gambling. But the great thing about trading card packs is that you and your parents have a very physical idea of how much shit you've bought in how much time so it self limits. You don't buy 40 packs because you can see how much you're spending. Aphysical game loot boxes are this without the inhibition. That's dangerous. 
worldnews,"> Thinking about it though when I've had to buy multiple parts for something from multiple vendors I sort of lose the ability to keep track of all the transactions at the same time (this may also be why I'm terrible at budgeting).

Sometimes I have to buy things in chunks like that. What helps me is to just do up a spreadsheet, plan out all my purchases, then look at the ""total project"" cost. "
worldnews,"> after reading some more posts and thinking about it myself, having a cash value actual makes it more like gambling as there’s a “cash out” option. 

Still I think the reverse is true - having the ability to resell is what gives other players the ability to avoid the gambling aspect and puts a limit on how many packs people will buy in search of a rare card. Why would I buy hundreds of packs when I can just go on ebay and get exactly the thing I need?

It also gives the opportunity to reduce my outlay by selling on cards I don't need. No purchase is a total loss.

Compare this to lootboxes, where a bad result is literally valueless (from both a personal and monetary point of view) and there is no other way to acquire the item I desperately desire.

The reason the law is based around ""cashing out"" is because this is what gives casino chips their value. You win the chips to convert to cash to purchase goods/services that you want. Lootboxes just go straight from gamble to valuable goods/services. The lack of the intermediate 'cash' step doesn't change anything. 

Consider a slot machine that gives vouchers instead of cash. Every pull is a winner - some tickets are for one free M&M, others are for a free all-inclusive vacation (non-transferable). I think that would pretty clearly still be gambling, despite the fact it never pays out cash."
worldnews,"I know. You kinda do know what your buying right? (Lets forget about any game that EA has done that has some type of form of loot boxes) no matter what. you will get one of the items that they show you in the loot boxes. Correct me if I'm wrong if there is a game that does not show you what you will get. And the other thing. Video games and esports as a whole can change and go down hill because of a ban like this. They make good money with cosmetic items in the game. They help build the esports industry, they help keep the game alive and it helps them be able to update the games ever other month. But if there is any pay to win aspect of loot boxes. Then that needs to go. "
worldnews,"I miss times when items required effort or skill to unlock... now most stuff is about luck or money. Especially in multiplayer games where the developers want to create an atmosphere of jealousy in order to get you to spend money on MTX to have a chance of getting those same items.

Games have improved in so many ways, but this... this is such a step backwards for the entire industry. And when it's at a point where we WANT governments to intervene and sort it out, you know it's gotten bad."
worldnews,"""any transaction that requires currency* that results in the customer receiving any product (physical or digital) or service where there is any probability less than 100% of the customer receiving everything advertised, must have all probabilities advertised to the customer, in the same size, font, typeface, color, and design as the amount of currency required for the transaction. This includes nested transactions: if, because of a transaction, the customer is purchasing an item which has less than 100% probability of delivering everything the customer is advertised to being possible to receive, this transaction is covered by these provisions, and probabilities of those nested transactions must also be published with the parent transaction. 

*currency includes actual currency, or any object generally recognized as a form of currency (such as gift cards, store credit, tokens, etc)"""
worldnews,"Seriously, COD WWII was such whiplash for me. I hadn’t played a COD game since 2012, and just picked up WWII the other day to try out. Holy crap, the amount of new bs was overwhelming! Plus I feel like they tweaked the gunplay to be more random, nobody seems able to absolutely dominate like they could in the older CODs if they were good enough to do so, like they’re trying to not have anyone have too “unfair” an experience. "
worldnews,"I think the biggest difference between Lootboxes and something like blindbags/trading cards is that in my experience what you get out of a booster pack, even if it isn't necessarily what you *want* is still useful, such as for building a deck. In contrast, often lootboxes seem to be filled with absolute crap 90% of the time, which is of questionable value to begin with. One of the dangers of trying to make Lootboxes 'cosmedic' is that making such things is time consuming/requires a large investment, so those things ultimately always get bumped up to a higher rarity tier, leaving the commons and uncommons to be random junk. "
worldnews,">  Some games even get easier for you immediately after you purchase

Wasn't there some popular Candy Crush-like mobile game that actually got harder if you completely multiple levels quickly? Their rationale being that you probably like the game but are also a bit too good for their liking and that way your ""addiction"" to it right now may lead to you buying whatever they are selling. And if you managed to rush through all of the levels without losing lives and buying something they'd lose out on possible profits."
worldnews,"> 3DS

Yup, there's also Pokemon Picross (I think), capped at $40. I think they called those type of games ""*free to start*"". It's kinda like you get a free demo and can buy some (or all of the) extra stuff but there's an upper limit to how much you can spend. If I remember correctly once you paid the for tokens to get to the full price for the Picross game they also removed the timer (or counter) that restricted you with a cooldown period (or gave you unlimited tokens)."
worldnews,"Collectible card games that only come in full decks actually exist, at least one does, but it's nowhere near as popular.

I don't know how I feel about TCGs, on one hand I loved constructing decks from random cards, and opening packs was fun as a kid, on the other, I would not spend money on random packs as an adult, but perhaps if it was just deck based... I might have kept collecting pokemon cards afterall."
worldnews,"Why would buying singles work differently with kids? My fiance and his brother all played MTG growing up and would buy the cards they wanted and could afford as it's cheaper to build a deck this way than buying a package. You would have to spend 100s before you had a usable deck but premade decks are like 25$ and you can build your own usable deck for about that much.

No one gets Magic cards to sit around and compare and look at, they get them to play a game and packets aren't conducive to that."
worldnews,"Every form of economic system has it's draw backs. Socialism where everything must cost the same is bad because while everyone has the same amount of money,... that's it there's no real reason for you to start a buisiness, and therefore less goods to go around. There is no ideal realistic economic system. At least in the end as far as essentials such as food and water go, companies are competing for your money and will lower their prices to get your money, which benefits you too"
worldnews,"Depends on what your target playerbase is. I remember one company saying something in the lines of ""this is a limited lootbox available only for a month. There is a 1% chance that you'll get top tier stuff out of it and a 1% chance of that is the rare mount. We estimate that there will only be 3 to 5 of those in the whole game, ever."" I know people who dropped 1k+ USD on that lootbox alone.

TL;DR 0.01% chance to get a mount out of a lootbox and people spend upwards of a $1000 on it."
worldnews,"That's definitely something that's been troubling me recently. I think a lot of subreddits have that problem, I think. Any community based around consumption (such as my vices of guitars, headphones, fountain pens, and keyboards) will naturally lend itself to the larger spenders (and likely more active users) making jokes around how much they spend which winds up influencing the approach for the community as a whole. Like, I would not have spent 150 dollars on GMK Laser without the r/mk community. But I'm a bougie fuck. And I cut costs in areas it's ok to cut costs in. So it's ok for me to spend as much as I do, but I still want to cut down. 

But I'd bet that some people aren't joking when they talk about eating packet ramen for a month because of their hobby. So I think people do have to take a look at the way they approach spending and cost in many different subs. "
worldnews,">They have market value but so do many digital items.

The point is you can utilise the market value of trading cards. Look at Pokemon, if you went nuts years ago, you could well have a small fortune in your attic. 

Comparatively loot boxes may have a market value, but often you have no means to utilise it. You can't sell the item on, you can't (usually) trade it for something else and ultimately short of actually selling your account (Which isn't always possible, and is often against ToS) then you have no actual means to benefit from the supposed value of what you acquired. "
worldnews,"The big problem too is that the publisher controls your drop chance. There's a few games with tailored chances (you haven't bought a box in some times/it's your first box? You'll get a skin fo your most played character) 
They comtrol the chances, they set up the entire game environement to slow down levels and push you towards the box. 

Sure if you take the lootboxes in a vacuum they look a lot like trading card (that you can't exchange, trade or sell and do not own) but you have to consider the environment they are sold in."
worldnews,"Did you get what I said? I agree with the banning of Random loot crates, but in my comment I only wanted to state that I wouldn't mind opening cases you wouldn't be able to sell for money, or win the game with, because you'd really get nothing in return, the problem is that you can or, win the game, or, gain money from it. The sad part is that European/Australian court probably doesnt care and wants to ban them all. 
 By this method you could also ban those machines at stores that drop out a plastic ball with a toy in them."
worldnews,"It would be like that if the concept of shuffling cards didn't exist. You then choose a subset of those shuffled cards. Voilá: Randomness without any gambling aspect. There's literally nothing about playing the game that cannot be replicated if you take out the gambling part when buying booster packs.

You only lose the excitement that's caused by the gaming itself. It's the exact same excitement you get when you spend your money on other types of gambling like Poker or Black Jack. "
worldnews,"That's disingenuous and you know it. 

In games that have loot boxes, there's items which are markedly more valuable than others. You can try to argue ""but you cant sell them or cash out, so no they don't!"" Bullshit.  Let's use overwatch as an example, you can't say a player icon has remotely the same value as a new legendary skin.  Nobody opens a loot box hoping for that player icon, it's always the flashy high end items. Closing the marketplace doesn't mean that the items suddenly don't have value, especially relative value. 

A random child's toy out of a quarter machine doesn't have the chance to wildly vary in value in the same way. It'd be similar if some of the items in the machine gave away nintendo switches or action figures some small percentage of the time but usually gave stickers or teeny plastic knick-knacks.
"
worldnews,"It's not the worst mechanic. I'd rather be able to get loot boxes by playing the game than actually spending money on it. Yeah I get the addiction to this reward but banning this mechanic because your definition of gambling includes this mechanic is silly IMO. What's good for the minority is not inherently good for the majority. I don't find it gambling cause at the end of the day you are getting items for which you either purchased or played the game long enough to use in game currency or other mechanic to receive the loot. 

Source: Plays HOTS till 5 am some nights out of semi addiction to winning. "
worldnews,"There's threads on reddit or some forums every now and then about people talking about collecting TCG cards and not knowing how to play them. So there is people doing that. And if you check those out it's mostly people saying doing it as kids to get cool stuffs. I have even done that myself when I was younger.

I'm also talking about Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh cards too. Those are TCG with shows airing almost every morning targeted at kids in my country.

I know what you say makes sense to us adults or kids that matures early, but most kids are not fully mentally developed so they are way easier to manipulate and exploit. That's why for example there's tons of laws limiting what can be done with advertisements aimed at kids or shows during peak time."
worldnews,"It's law. They cannot hold a contest that requires purchase of their products, because then you're gambling and they're profiting from your gambling and nobody has been regulated for gambling.

The promotional games of chance are always *just* that - a game of chance to promote something. You don't have to pay anything to participate - but you'll likely have to answer a basic math question before you get any kind of prize redemption, too, because that makes it a game of *skill* and not a game of *chance* that you won, and therefore you are still not gambling.

But the thingy with the skill-testing question is given out to anybody with a random win from the promotional game. Anybody can request those random chances, usually via postal mail. It usually amounts to something like McDonalds running a scratchoff promotion for discounts on food; no prices are changed on the menu, but anybody buying a boxed burger gets the slip tossed in their bag too. Anybody asking via the correct postal mail address for slips gets some sent in their self-addressed-stamped-envelope. Then anybody with a winning slip gets asked the skill-testing question, then it's rung through as a coupon or whatever to give you the promotional discount you won."
worldnews,"> The only game that should get an exception to the ban are ones where the loot boxes are 100% cosmetic

But... why?

It's still a shitty anti-consumer practice that preys on people with tendencys towards gambling addictions. 

Cosmetic alterations are a BIG part of a game for a lot of people, and one which used to be free and included in the base package. People spend outrageous amounts of money to get skins they want in something like OW. 

Willingly agreeing to these sorts of gambling mechanics under guise of cosmetics really just weakens your voice as a consumer.

Lets look at some examples - In Fortnite and League of Legends, you can buy specifically what you want, no gambling. As a result, in LoL, some of the more popular skins go on to form skin lines - the consumer voice was heard, and more of that product was made.

Likewise for something like Fortnite. People love skins with wings for backblings (fortnite's backpack cosmetics). People buy those skins a lot, those types of backblings are being made more.

Then you look at something with lootboxes... and its nothing like that. The company can make 20 shit items and 2 desirable ones, and never know which was which given that all they saw was ""sales up x% when these loot items were added to the loot box pool""

You lose your voice as a consumer. And you can simply say well you wont buy lootboxes then!. Well, not only are you missing out on the cosmetic aspects of a game you bought, but you're also probably not even impacting the issue at all, as for every 1000 'wise' players like you tolerating half of your game being sold piecemeal, there's 5 whales buying thousands of dollars of product. You're their content - you populate the servers that makes the whales want to show off. By keeping the game with the shitty monetization alive with a playerbase, you're acting as a part of the whale honeypot.

Fact is, the 5 dudes spending thousands outvote your voice 1,000,000 to 1. 

It's a strange game, the only correct move is to not play at all. 
"
worldnews,"I would say it depends on the TCG and the availability of a secondary market. 

Hearthstone for instance is not great because it either takes grinding your games out or buying randomized packs to get the cards you want. 

However, physical games like Pokemon or Magic have secondary markets where you can buy the specific card, or even a specific amount of cards for the deck you're trying to create.

While physical games still have randomized packs, they have sort of turned more into resources for specific formats like drafting rather than an effective way to gain new cards. 

Anyone who plays for more than a couple games in this day and age will realize it's far more cost effective to simply buy a singleton of the secondary market than buying 40 packs of cards and hoping for the best. "
worldnews,"I forget which company it was, but they showed a way to make cosmetic items pay to win.  You record players skill and you match them against each other based on what cosmetics they buy.  The more cosmetics the buy, the lower skill players they are matched against.  The less cosmetics they buy, the higher skill players they are matched against.  That way someone who spends money now suddenly starts killing everywhere while someone who doesn't spend money is constantly being killed by someone with shinny bling making them associate shinny bling with skill (and if they do end up spending money, they'll quickly notice how much better they are at the game).

And to reiterate this could be applied to purely cosmetic times.  Someone like Fortnite could already be doing this.
"
worldnews,"Well that's hardly any different than any other mystery bag or mystery toy out there. Kids like surprises and they like lording over their friends when they get something cool. That's pretty much baked into their psyche. 

But as a counter argument, in every local game store I've ever been to they have singleton rares in the glass case the kids have to lean over to ask for booster packs. So there's not really a whole lot of excuse there other than ""I want to buy the randomized thing"". 

There's also the idea that when kids play the game more and more, they want to become more efficient at it. They eventually realize they can buy the individual cards for decks they want. 

Plus, as the poster above me mentioned, killing randomized packs removes an entire beloved format called draft. It kills prerelease events. A lot of fun events become casualties because ""who will think of the children"". "
worldnews,">A game i played on my phone had a hidden value for luck and it increases when you spend money/game currency. Not long ago they made it visible for the user.

The way many games do it is they increase it when you spend money but then start decreasing it when you stop, and eventually you end up with a lower value than if you never spent money.  Because they know you are someone who will spend money they'll treat you worse than someone who won't so that you will spend money.  The players who never spend money are treated a bit nicer because they need them to stick around so the whales have someone to beat up on and to keep the game popular (be it direct conflict or just leader boards).;"
worldnews,"> Except the existence of the secondary market dictating a card's value and prices, and the makers of Magic knowingly printing cards that are sought after and in small amounts and therefore drive their monetary value up, make booster 

See, I would have defended Wizards previously, when they only had three rarities. A rare was a rare was a rare, and the only thing that drove value was playability.

Now they added in super rare ""mythic rares"" that are a 1/8 chance when getting a booster pack. Pretty much indefensible, and is why i quit. "
worldnews,"I'm a little older I think, as the video game crowd goes. I recently bought a PS4, maybe 6 months ago.  Before that, my last gaming console was the original play station, and I had played some PC games on Steam. 

So, long story short, I understand paying for things that you want. I have a job, money, i understand capitalism etc. I dont have a problem with this. But, I got CoD WWII, and one day decided to buy an amount of in-game gold so I could get some crates. I assumed I would be able to get what I wanted. What a disappointment to find that I was paying money to buy a box full of chances. 

In any case, that was the last time I'll purchase something like that in a game. But, I can definitely see where this sales strategy would lead to problems with a lot of people, and could lead to gambling issues being developed with much younger people... teens and such. "
worldnews,"One dream idea:

Require that any game with loot boxes, booster packs, etc have a “buy entire game” option. The price of this option must be easily obtainable to anyone (a publicly-available URL should be fine since the exploitative stuff requires Internet access). If the price is set so that lootboxes remain worth buying, the Entire Game option would be so high that it would shock a lot of people into realizing how expensive these games actually are. If they instead set it low, then people can just buy that instead."
worldnews,"It's interesting that you mention trading cards. The thing here is that they are easily moved on if you get duplicates and most notably if you buy boxes the odds are usually given. 

When I bought card fight vanguard boxes, you were always guaranteed one super special card (can't remember the rarities). Each pack also always gave you one rare I think?


The thing is here you don't always know what you're going to get, but you can at least guarantee that you will get so many rare and rarer cards per box. At least that was the case when I was buying them. "
worldnews,"They don't sell singles or control secondary market directly. They sometime do ""reprint"" which bring back old cards in new sets. They also do some special releases for cards with ""high demands"" in different playing formats.

Prices in secondary market is pretty much supply / demands. There's also cards with collector values. Different sets or art on card or have artist/designer signature etc.

They do have Magic Online where they sell singles according to secondary ""paper"" market.

I doubt they will start selling singles. Or at least all singles. There was backlash long time ago when they reprinted some cards with very high collectors values and now they have [list of cards that'll never be reprinted](https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Reserved_List)"
worldnews,I would disagree because of the physical aspect of real world TCG. You can see a real visual representation of how much you spend in how much space the stuff takes up and the effort if going to a shop and buying a pack of cards. As someone who played magic and yugioh and Pokemon and hearthstone I can tell you it feels really different buying a 50 pack preorder for the next expansion in hearthstone vs buying a box of a new expansion in magic. The literal weight of the cards really makes you think about further purchases in a more serious way and looking at the box full of packs seems more real and often more excessive than looking at the same dollar amount of digital packs. It's really that kind of thing that makes digital versions more sinister forms of gambling. Whether through obsfucation of dollar amounts by forcing the use of paid currency or just the difference between having something in your hands vs digitally seriously changes the experience and makes it feel like less money spent than it is and often for mediocre value
worldnews,"> Maybe it's partially how easy it is to keep buying more loot boxes, as your card is already set up to keep spending.

That's no different from having your information saved on Amazon, yet people can control their spending there. 

> So I didn't just manically buy 40 packs in one sitting until I got the rare card I wanted. 

Does it matter if the effect and pattern is the same? 

> Also, for games that don't repeat the same items and offer similar tier items it's not as bad. 

That's true, but buying trading card packs, you might get the same cards as you did before. 

> But the loot boxes, where you have a ""chance"" of getting an item needs to stop. That is gambling.

I would say that [Razorfist's video on the subject matter](https://youtu.be/m5a8zEeFt9c) is the absolutely the definitive argument on how absurd this topic has become for trying to legislate against. "
worldnews,">Still I think the reverse is true - having the ability to resell is what gives other players the ability to avoid the gambling aspect and puts a limit on how many packs people will buy in search of a rare card. Why would I buy hundreds of packs when I can just go on ebay and get exactly the thing I need?

because you're to broke to buy the card but can afford packs and think that you're luck is good enough you can get the card you want in the pack. 

>It also gives the opportunity to reduce my outlay by selling on cards I don't need. No purchase is a total loss.

Which makes it like gambling because then you can buy a bunch of packs with the intention of getting lucky and getting cards worth enough that you make a profit. "
worldnews,"Not everyone is a raging alcoholic or a hopeless gambler. Everyone is different. In my 20's I bought a few packs of mtg cards and realized I'd never get what I wanted so I went the ebay route. 

Someone else I played with had more money than me and could have went the ebay route too, but he was hardcore hooked on the rush of getting lucky from buying packs. Guy once spent his entire $1200 paycheck on packs.

He got 1 maybe 2 rare-ish cards. His gf almost left him at that point. Pretty sure she did later because he kept doing it.

Anyway, the point isn't if you or someone else can do it differently. The point is the entire thing is still set up to trigger and exploit those with addictive tendencies. 

Trading card games are predatory by their very nature."
worldnews,"Each player has 3 booster packs and opens one. You take a single card from the pack and give the rest to the player seated to your left. This continues with each of the 3 packs until you’ve selected 45 cards, and construct a 40 card deck with them. This eliminates the “who has more cards” aspect of the game as well as adding a level of skill to building a deck with limited information as to what will be available. 

It’s quite well balanced as a competitive game and was my primary way of playing events after I stopped keeping up maintaining a competitive deck."
worldnews,"My roommate didn't eat ramen and didn't wind up on his ass because I felt bad to make him do it but he was one of those people although his was car stuff. we split the rent and paid $500 each plus $200 for all the bills and he made me handle everything so he'd just (theoretically) give me $700 at the beginning of the month. What actually happened is he'd spend a ton of money on car stuff and then at the beginning of the month be like ""sorry man I only have $200 to give you"" and then if I'd ask what happened to the rest or mention that he just spent $800 on shit to deck his car out he'd either cry and talk about how he's such a terrible person or just freak out and say he might as well kill himself if he cant have things he wants. I'm never going to bother asking for the money because I know he'll never have it but if I added up all the money I lent him or used to cover his ass when he wasted his money he'd probably owe me around 15k. "
worldnews,"I'm not saying they should ban it or anything. It's just my experience and opinion on matter of booster / buying single and what I actually see kids doing.

I actually do MTG booster draft with friends on every set launch and would love continue doing that. I have also had few sets where I got more money from selling rares than cost of all boosters from that set.

Honestly in the end I don't really care what random kids do with their money."
worldnews,"What you’re describing is called a “cube” and people make and play them. They’re far less fun than a draft with actual packs because you always know the proportion of cards in play, and the logistical overhead to fully simulate the variance presented in a draft pod would take, literally, hours of shuffling and 5000+ cards. 

Booster packs are fundamentally critical to draft integrity. 


Digitally, however, you can simulate drafts, and I do. This is still fun, as my enjoyment is not tied to the monetary, “gambling” aspect but rather the increased variance provided by the booster pack format."
worldnews,"> Mythics are as rare as rares from old large sets are, there’s just fewer filler rares inflating the set. 

Then why is it, after the change, most rares were going for 50 cents to a buck, vs 2-3 bucks?

Why is it chase cards went from $20-$25 at most, to $40-$80+?

It ruins the point of a * T * CG if trading is all but impossible for the best cards. 

Add to that WotC saying mythics wouldn't be lists of the most powerful cards / utility cards, and then immediately breaking that promise not even a block later with shit like Lotus Cobra. 

Add to that wizards Co-opting Elder Dragon Highlander, rebranding it as Commander (can't trademark EDH after all!) and printing broken cards to profit off of the casual player's custom game mode?

I suppose there were more reasons I quit, but almost all of them go down to WotC getting greedy. "
worldnews,"Well, I never did get the pestillence helmet effect on Reach. That was too grindy and I played the hell out of that game. Like, I put a shitload of my free time into that. Anybody who ranked that high would have to put double the hours in, at least. And while I don't judge for what you do in your free time, I still deem it unhealthy, because I was 15/16 and consider the time I spent to be unhealthy.

Nowadays, that grind would be even more than that, but hey, you get a sweet option to pay for it with real money. And at the cost of half a day's work, that's like 4 hours compared to the hundreds it would take to earn it in-game. 

Imagine having that mindset. Like you work, 40 hours a week, and you pay your bills, electric, internet, your food and groceries and shit. In yiur free time you wanna play a video game and - oh look, a cool skin that does nothing to the actual game - oh it'll take me ages to get enough in game currency to aquire. I'll just pick up another shift, use the real money from that to purchase the alternative in game currency that's different from the first one, and now I have the thing  I wanted in the game. 

And game devs (or companies that own them) encourage this. It's not about the game. It's taking advantage of people's needs to collect everything by discouraging people from playing the actual game to get it, by making it take an unhealthy anount of time, and giving an alternative in real money. "
worldnews,"Personal thoughts:  


I think parents should pay attention to their bank statements and what kids are doing with their money. I also think developers should enable a secondary market if they're going to be utilizing lootboxes. I also think lootboxes should be allowed when it doesn't impact gameplay (i.e. cosmetic) and the statistics of pulling particular rarities is clearly outlined. I don't think any of these things needs to be mutually exclusive."
worldnews,">Then why is it, after the change, most rares were going for 50 cents to a buck, vs 2-3 bucks?

Your nostalgia messing with your memory of card prices, mostly.  Mythic conscription in particular was expensive after this change, as well as Jace based decks, I'll concede, but deck prices overall after that era leveled out, they were figuring it out and that was over a decade ago, and decks pre-mythic had attained price tags in the several hundred dollars as well.

>Add to that WotC saying mythics wouldn't be lists of the most powerful cards / utility cards, and then immediately breaking that promise not even a block later with shit like Lotus Cobra.

[Lets take a look at your alleged ""list of most powerful cards"" then?](https://scryfall.com/search?as=grid&order=name&q=e%3Azen+r%3Am)
Oh.  Lotus cobra in standard, mindbreak trap as anti storm tech... warren instigator in goblins and.... I guess sorin probably showed up as a control finisher somewhere?    Certainly wasn't tearing up standard. Iona?  She seems pretty deservedly mythic. I'll give you 5/15.  One out of three is pretty close to the proportion for normal rares being standard playable. They did *not* say good cards wouldn't be at mythic, they said mythic would not simply be every good card from the set.  From that exact same set is the far more expensive fetchlands at rare, eternal staples like goblin guide, and honestly most of its competitive offerings.  Its literally just a single card you're salty about because green got something interesting without a big number as its CMC.

>Add to that wizards Co-opting Elder Dragon Highlander, rebranding it as Commander (can't trademark EDH after all!) and printing broken cards to profit off of the casual player's custom game mode?

So they shouldn't make cards for popular niches?  I really can't even address this because I can't fathom it.  Fuck them for making more content for the things people like, right?"
worldnews,"If I'm not mistaken, the key difference is that in gambling, the value of the reward varies.

EA and Blizzard are trying to argue that ""with every loot crate, you always get X number of items, so you always get your money's worth!"" 

They're trying to argue that ""rare"" drops have no more monetary value than ""common"" drops, therefore it's not gambling, because there is no chance of ""winning"" or ""losing"", since all results are ""valued"" equally. 

We, if course, know that's bullshit, but that's their defense argument. "
worldnews,">More scummy thing with TCG like Magic The Gathering is that Wizards of the Coast actually set fixed prices on card rarity.
>Which means all  cards of same rarity have same monetary values according to them. That then means they can say that booster pack always give you what is promised. 

Just no. Wizard's doesn't set any prices. Each pack contains 9 or 10 commons, 3 uncommon, a rare or mythic rare, and occasionally special cards. They make no promises beyond that. The values on the secondary market are based on supply and demand. 
"
worldnews,"Those are the main reasons I tolerate Overwatch's loot box system. I was gifted the game, and I haven't given Blizzard/Activision a penny after 7 months of playing and over 100 hours of playtime. Yet I still have a ton of cosmetics for a lot of different characters; many bought with credits or earned from a special event(D.Va's Nano Cola challenge recently had me putting on Seagull's streaming for 8 hours for sprays, and winning 9 matches for some more sprays, an icon, and an epic skin)."
worldnews,"> When I bought trading cards, I'd buy pack, go outside, open it, and see what I got. So I didn't just manically buy 40 packs in one sitting until I got the rare card I wanted.
 
 
Despite your rationalization & denial of cards being substantially similar as loot boxes , I'm not persuaded, and I don't think you quite reached the eureka differentiation (if there is any) on cards and loot boxes. 
 
 
I think what you were trying to say is that somehow card packs don't trigger your personal compulsive & obsessive tendencies, the same as loot boxes. Well it's not clear you have experience with both, except for card packs. And, this is entirely your subjective opinion, and you're also probably biases because you are clearly a card player, who doesn't want to be associated with vilified loot boxes (confirmation bias bro!).  There is a reason card players are suddenly coming out of the wood work to claim they are not gambling addicts. Oh yes, and I'm sure people who partake in loot boxes won't claim to be gambling addicts either..... also, not every one who gambles is a gambling addict, or feels the OCD urges, so it's really a false dichotomy, right?
 


Objectively speaking loot boxes are card packs are very similar."
worldnews,"Ew, don't talk about Socialism if you know nothing about it. Poland, for instance, has universal health care, free college education and state-funded social security. It's a pretty progressive place with great social(ist) policies. That's also where CD Projekt Red is located, the makers of some of the highest rated, immersive RPGs of this era. I highly doubt taking care of the poor and not allowing corporations to run our country anymore wouldn't lead to the end of good video games."
worldnews,"Valve has been trying to phase out trading for ever. It is the whole reason for the market place, they wanted to make infinite returns on items they already sold. Say someone spends $300 on keys to eventually get a CSGO knife, that person then sells the knife for $500. Valve made $800, and will continue to reap another $30-$550 every time someone else sells it depending on the price and whether or not the buyer already had steam funds or if they added more to buy it. The seller gains no real money at all, but gets $450 to spend on more keys or games that they weren't initially planning on doing. Now they could have sold it for paypal money, but because the market exists, you have to sell your items for MUCH less than they are ""worth"" as there is no difference to buyers other than paypal being extremely risky. The market killed the trading scene and sent %100+ of the profits from the real money trading scene directly into valves pockets. 

Valve strangely also requires you to give them your tax ID or SSN if you sell a certain amount of things even though you aren't actually making any income at all, presumably so that they can offload the taxes onto the sellers rather than pay it themselves even though they are the ones making money."
worldnews,"> Poland, for instance, has universal health care, free college education and state-funded social security.

And private property, which according to other posters here completely disqualifies it from being considered socialism.  Poland would be an example of a capitalistic society with some level of welfare/socialistic policies.  Not socialism.

>I highly doubt taking care of the poor and not allowing corporations to run our country anymore wouldn't lead to the end of good video games.

No, but end private property and having the government... excuse me, the collective will of the people represented by an organization that is indistinguishable from the government, set the rules of what we can and can't do since no one of us owns property will mean we will be too busy getting food to code video games (how could I code it on a computer if I can't own one, and since the group will say the computer is better used to take care of ensuring everyone is fed instead of making video games, I won't get to use the community's computer)."
worldnews,"> xtra? They're already twisting games to be basically unplayable to lure people into the microtransaction economy. Sure you COULD grind for 200 hours to finish the game, or just drop a couple hundred bucks on loot boxes right now. It's morally bankrupt, and worse than that it's making games less fun.


Yeah but this isn't even related to lootboxes. Don't support shitty fucking game developers for gods sake and you won't have this problem. "
worldnews,"No he's not, and the huge number of gambler anonymous organizations would beg to differ. Go to any casino and you'll see dozens if not hundreds of people with a gambling addiction to various degress. 

All corporations have teams around to make sure they exploit human emotions and addictions as much as possible. Any game that has a chance factor involved is as carefully crafted as possible to ensure maximum sales by getting people to buy things to be rewarded with that ""rush"" of finding something rare.

If you can't see that, then I guess we're at an impasse."
worldnews,"Why is it that a country moving toward ending private ownership (which also ISN'T the point of socialism) automatically implies that country has no means of feeding its people? Wouldn't the point of removing ownership to that level to feed more people mean less people would be hungry, which would mean they would be able to do more with their lives and time instead of working to make money to eat? A system that makes sure people are fed, educated and healthy and that is subsidized by taxation is socialist by its very nature. Just because it retains profit motive and an open market, doesn't mean socialism isn't prevalent. That's just called ""market socialism."" Look it up. 

In essence, all people want is for the well-being of society as a whole to be put above the success of just a few individuals. This is most effectively done through collective ownership. It is simply untrue that socialism wants to do away with all private ownership, though. Its main focus is to remove private ownership over those entities and facilities that create capital for the whole country, often referred to as the ""means of production."" 

For instance: socialism does not mean you can't own your own computer. It doesn't even mean you can't own your own company. It does mean, however, that you're not allowed to use the wealth you gain from that company to modify or change the social and political structure of the country. Socialism is a very broad set of policies that ensure that the success of the whole, or ""the collective will of the people,"" isn't sacrificed for the success of a minority of the population.

None of that precludes the ability to work on something creative to make money, like making a video game. The idea that somehow a socialist utopia doesn't include quality art is straight up propaganda invented during the Red Scare and even earlier than that."
worldnews,"It's why I like League of Legend's way of doing Loot boxes. 

""Here is our entire store, you can buy anything you want (minus certain exceptions) or you can buy a box that gives you something at random! We will also give you some for doing well at the game, and if you display good sportsmanship then we'll give you the way to open them also!""

They found a way to promote playing the game well, and having good sportsmanship in game while allowing players to buy the cosmetics out right if they wish. They also don't allow the selling of cosmetics or trading them. 

I will also note I don't understand why more companies don't take this approach as RIOT Games has had income figures in the $1b+ for several years due to this model. "
worldnews,"Because, again, gambling is addictive! That was the point of... The last few posts... Yunno, addiction? You gotta string the thoughts together bro! Conversation! Ideas building off each other! But I'll spell it out:

If we accept that some games are gambling aimed at kids, what does that mean? Well, gambling is addictive! It's manipulative! Like drugs or other vices. *Adults* have problems with gambling, so what chance do kids have? 

So okay, why not just turn off the thing these companies are using to manipulate kids to for profit? Because they're still hooked and can still be hooked. Because in a digital age, they're still going to find other games to play. Games that also capitalize on them in the same way! Unless you're saying all children should live the Amish life style! Most kids play games, and it seems like most AAA games have this shitty gambling in them one way or another. 

Okay, so it's not just one game, it's lots of games. So why don't we just stop companies from inserting these manipulative addictive practices into our children's lives? Hey, welcome to the club! You're on our side now!"
worldnews,"It's Activision, and it's incredibly sinister. They go so far as to give you easy matches after spending money so that you associate spending with winning and other positive emotions. They will also match people they believe are on the cusp of spending money with better players who do spend money, so they see players with the sick skinz performing well. 

They claim it hasn't been implemented in any games, but I feel like that's complete bullshit. My guess is its in every game."
worldnews,"> Why is it that a country moving toward ending private ownership  automatically implies that country has no means of feeding its people?

Because people don't work as hard when they don't get to have the benefits of their labor, and a system where everyone is doing the absolute minimum ceases to function.

>(which also ISN'T the point of socialism)

Then let me know your definition because no two people I ever talk to seem to share the same one.

>Wouldn't the point of removing ownership to that level to feed more people mean less people would be hungry, which would mean they would be able to do more with their lives and time instead of working to make money to eat?

Why would farmers who just lost their land continue to work it when they could get an easier job that pays the same?  Some will, but not enough to keep food production high enough to meet demand.

>In essence, all people want is for the well-being of society as a whole to be put above the success of just a few individuals.

They generally do not.  They want this as long as it doesn't hurt them, but once it does, they will stop wanting it or else just determine that what ever it is that is hurting them isn't beneficial for the well being of society.  See the concept of socialized sex.

>This is most effectively done through collective ownership.

All past examples contradict this.  Fundamentally is that the collective will form a government, and which ever entity (be it a person or a group of people) will seize power of themselves.  You might go one or two generations of a benevolent entity but it will always end up with someone greedy.

>For instance: socialism does not mean you can't own your own computer. It doesn't even mean you can't own your own company. It does mean, however, that you're not allowed to use the wealth you gain from that company to modify or change the social and political structure of the country. 

Generally full socialism means you can't own your own company.  And what you are describing is just considered anti-lobbying laws, not socialism."
worldnews,"> Because people don't work as hard when they don't get to have the benefits of their labor, and a system where everyone is doing the absolute minimum ceases to function.

I honestly can't tell if you're describing capitalism here. Socialism basically represents the opposite of what you stated. Folks are encouraged to do other, more fulfilling things when the government prevents a certain degradation of quality of life because they aren't being hamstrung by capitalists into just working to survive. Literally, in capitalism right now, you get a tiny fraction of the product of your labor **just because**. Most of it goes to shareholders and executives whose labor is far less physically and mentally demanding, despite what CEOs will try to make you believe about their ""work loads"". I mean, just look a the wealth gap in America over the last several decades. That is one of socialists' biggest complaints.

> Then let me know your definition because no two people I ever talk to seem to share the same one.

There's a reason no one seems to share a definition of socialism but I'll get to that later. If you want my most succinct definition, then this is what I've got: Socialism is the name for a set of economic, legal and diplomatic policies that serve to counteract the natural exploitation of labor that occurs in capitalist markets.

> All past examples contradict this.

In fact, they do not. Actually, we have current examples that expressly support the success of *some elements* of socialism. Since you assumed I already know of all these ""past examples,"" I'll assume you can search for ""successful socialist policies"" and you'll find plenty.

The reason there are no True Socialist^TM governments is because it, unlike capitalism and corporate imperialism, is grass roots. Thus it is always evolving and has nothing to prove. Socialists' minds can change and be unsure because their premise and problem aren't simple or easy to understand. Capitalists have a pretty simple premise: earn more capital than you lose at whatever the cost. Their problem: you have to do that without breaking the system in which capital is earned. Socialists are dealing with a much more complex premise and problem: how do you ensure that folks who are just trying to survive, live happy lives and contribute to society in their own way don't get artificially suppressed by other people who are just trying to gain exorbitant wealth, power and control? Socialism adapts what works from other systems and tries to implement them to best stop the negative effects of rampant capitalism. That's why it's hard to get a ""single definition,"" although I think you can put as simply as: 

societal health > individual wealth

> They generally do not. They want this as long as it doesn't hurt them, but once it does, they will stop wanting it or else just determine that what ever it is that is hurting them isn't beneficial for the well being of society.
> You might go one or two generations of a benevolent entity but it will always end up with someone greedy.

To me, this is the type of ugly mentality only capitalism and drive for profit can create. Yes, there are a lot of greedy people. There are conniving people. There are Machiavellian geniuses poised to snatch control at any moment. However, those folks are far more likely to succeed in a system that encourages cutthroat, bottom-line, short-term gains, profit earning and status quo retention. A system that creates and enforces laws and norms to literally discourage that type of behavior and mentality could potentially, believe it or not, create better people"
worldnews,"As dumb as it is to buy a game and have ANY sort of features behind an additional paywall or ridiculous grind hours, I agree with your comment - then don't buy the game. The only 'rights' we have when purchasing a game are those set forth by the developer / publisher, which we agree to when we purchase the game. Some companies are more liberal than others, and just like any other product, if you don't like the terms, take your money elsewhere."
worldnews,"I think it's less that they don't want you to know the chances, it's that they don't want you to know the systems behind those chances. In Hearthstone, it is treated as fact by the community that the game is programmed to give you a legendary card if you haven't gotten one in 40 packs. Blizzard refuses to acknowledge this. When Blizzard officially complied with the law, the only thing they said is that the odds of getting a legendary are 1/19.

I believe the fear is that, right now, it is completely legal to manipulate odds for maximum manipulation. It's legal to make the same lootboxes more likely to have rare items if paid for with real money. It's legal to lower the change the odds right after someone has won or lost. If lootboxes became regulated, a lot of their ideas and practices are suddenly under scrutiny. Right now they can tweak the odds however they want and all anyone has are vague suspicions."
worldnews,"The reason many give that argument of it being just a cosmetic is that it does not impact the game for them. They have zero desire (or low) to collect the cosmetic items and can enjoy the game play without them.  They are not at the mercy of needing to collect a certain cosmetic to gain a competitive advantage.

If you don't collect the cosmetic items you are not at any disadvantage when playing against other players."
worldnews,"What about rocket league? Any if not ALL desirable cosmetics are behind a pay only system, with dire crates openable by your average chump only around events like Easter. 

Black ops etc, yeah... rocket league and counter strike... no. 

Cosmetics are a HUGE part of any game and uou cannot use that argument. It’s unjustifiable. You can’t even use custom sprays in counter strike anymore.

It’s all a predetermined path of gambling."
worldnews,"The clarify the distinction for me.

If I build a widget machine, either I own it or not.  Either I own raw material or not.  If I take raw material in own and put it into the widget machine I own, I own the widget that comes out.  I can find someone, tell them 'Hey, turn this crank on my widget machine for me and I'll give you 1 out of every 5 widgets', which they are free to accept or walk away from.  So where does personal property fit that doesn't allow me to engage in this basic form of capitalism?"
worldnews,"One, I said ""Maybe."" That's not a very confident word, and I didn't see it or claim it was a eureka moment. I'd say I'm far from it, and you have a valid point in me not having enough personal experience.

> you are clearly a card player,

Actually, I'm not. I used to collect non gaming cards for fun. Rocketeer, Dick Tracy, Rescue Rangers, Star Wars, Star Trek, Ghostbusters, and Pirates of Dark Water. They weren't games, they were just collecting cards for the sake of having them. Though, I did seek the rare ones. So certainly I'm even further removed from the loot box/card gaming crowd."
worldnews,"> That's no different from having your information saved on Amazon, yet people can control their spending there.

Generally you both get what you paid for, and many items need to be shipped to you. There's a barrier that slows you down.

>That's true, but buying trading card packs, you might get the same cards as you did before.

I've seen plenty of mmo loot boxes that may give you armor, or just give you generic health potions. It'd be better if you got armor no matter what. But a lot of companies are pushing loot boxes with generic consumables with a chance to get something way cooler (armor, playable character, mount) It's like buying a blind box vinyl figure with a IRL chance to win a gold nugget.

I'll watch the video later. 

"
worldnews,"Seems a little better if you offer everything as an up-front option. I feel like people with control issues could see the downsides and actually just buy the thing they want.

I'm more talking about the kind of shit where you can only get the exclusive item via a loot box that only has crappy items that no one really wants. You buy $75 worth of loot boxes, then have nothing to show for it.

It'll be nothing but health potions, but you might get a mount, weapon, or playable character. No one would usually pay physical dollars for health potions. They're cheap with the ingame currency even."
worldnews,"I understood this since I was old enough to by the time loot crates became a thing. I imagine me at 13 years old wouldn't have had the same impulse control.

Hell, when I was 17 and got my first job the entire first paycheck went to a gamestop buy one get one free sale. Kids are dumb. At least I still have a binder full of PS2 games to show for it."
worldnews,"The people who complain about it are the less vulnerable anyway. The people who don't even vaguely understand the issue and then pay it are often the most likely to be easily manipulated, which is the problem.

I know some people who justify by hours played. ""I would typically pay $60 for a 40ish hour game. I've played this MMO for 700+ hours, so $400 in items doesn't seem so bad to me."" this number seems so high, but they have a point in that if they were playing solo games like I typically do, they would have actually probably spent **more** for 700 hours of gaming.

It gets weird when someone just started playing, and drops $400 for a character. Then two months later the devs change a fundamental mechanic to the game, everyone stops playing, and the player spent $400 with no return."
worldnews,"When did I say I only used cheap free items? Never once. You just said you don't believe that I use them which is obviously wrong. Also if I cared about rare items as much as you thought wouldn't I want all of my reddit posts to be showing them off?

Playing better or worse is NOT irrelevant because that is the only thing that matters.

Yes cosmetics affect the game EXPERIENCE, not the gameplay, but as long as payed loot boxes aren't the only path to cosmetics it doesn't hurt anyone.

Also how are you seriously trying to call me a ""shallow gambling addict"" when you know NOTHING about my habits. I spend 10-20 dollars on crates every few months when a new series comes out and that's it.
"
worldnews,"I think the only valid argument for the difference is that once the toys are shipped, or the cards printed, you can't adjust the rarity of the delivered product. 

You know certain chase mythics exist and that the rarity is roughly x% in any pack, and that will never change.

With lootboxes, they can change the drop rate on a per-player-per-session basis. In fact, as others have mentioned, Activison has a patent for this very thing. "
worldnews,"> You just said you don’t believe I use them which is obviously wrong

My friend, a five second clip of your default car does not somehow mean you actively use default skins all the time. 

You are on the internet. You can literally present anything you want in the way you want it. 

I could say I live in a mansion and post a picture of me standing in front of one with the caption “Hey this is my mansion”. Does count as actual proof that its mine and I live there? No. See what I mean here.

> If I cared about rare items as much you thought

Stop right there. **You** are the one who posted how awesome it is to get exclusive gear and dangle it in front of other people so you can feel like a snowflake.

**You** demonstrated how much cosmetics and lootboxes mean to you. I don’t *think* you care a lot about exclusive cosmetics, you’ve outright admitted it.

> wouldn’t I want all of my reddit posts to be showing them off?

Uh.....no? You do all that in-game just fine according to you. 

> Playing better or worse is NOT irrelevant

Actually it is. Perhaps if you read my post properly you’d understand.

> game EXPERIENCE

Gameplay and game experience are two sides of the same coin. You experience a game through various gameplay systems, cosmetics being one of them. They do affect gameplay, since they affect your attitude and subsequently playstyle.

> As long as payed loot boxes are not the only path to cosmetics, it doesn’t hurt anyone. 

Wrong. Just because a game has other ways to acquire things, doesn’t mean it won’t hurt anyone. Please take a look at the most famous case-in-point; **Star Wars Battlefront 2 EA.**

That game had lootboxes, but you could technically get the stuff in them for free by playing the game. Only, the amount of grind/time required for you to even unlock one character would take 40 hours of straight, uninterrupted gaming, which also didn’t include the time it takes to pass between matches. For people who are not suicidal and have actual responsibilities (school, work etc etc), this would obviously be a lot longer. This was a very blatant attempt at making players get so tired with the grinding, that they would just buy the boxes instead. It was the most egregious example of scummy company practices and pay-to-win in gaming in recent memory and perhaps even in history.  

So no, just because a game can let you get its lootbox stuff in alternative way, it doesn’t mean the companies are going to make it easy, nor do they really want you to earn that stuff for free. They will purposely make the grind hard so that you just get fed up and pay more. Lootboxes are in that game for a reason.

Try and defend that all you wish, but anyone who isn’t blind knows that when a game says you can earn its lootboxes gear for free, knows that the grind will be ridiculously time-consuming. Lootboxes aren’t just supposed to sit on the side, they are made purely to profit the company. Any game with them in, is bad. No matter what.

> Also how are you seriously trying to call me a ""shallow gambling addict"" when you know NOTHING about my habits.

You admitted you find gambling fun, defend and buy lootboxes for extra shinies, because it makes you feel nice to wave things in peoples faces. I think that points to one of your habits at least.

> I spend 10-20 dollars on crates every few months when a new series comes out and that's it.

And I’m the reincarnation of the God of the Wind and Wisdom; Kukulkan.

With all the defensiveness about lootboxes in games, I’m afraid I’m going to have to take that statement with another mountain of salt.
"
worldnews,"Knowing the rates doesn't necessarily preclude a company from manipulating you, take the following example:

I *REALLY* want that reaper skin in overwatch, I often open up the hero gallery and click it just to take a look, because I think it looks great, or I spend an extended amount of time looking at players which have that skin.

Blizzard internally tracks my behaviour, and comes up with a way to determine that I want that skin..

Blizzard then decreases the chance of *THAT SPECIFIC SKIN* dropping for me, whilst maintaining the quality drop probability.

So if the chance of a legendary dropping is 1 in 13 loot boxes, I'll still get the legendary skins at the stated rate, but the one I'm looking for will have a massively reduced chance of appearing. This may prompt me to purchase more loot boxes in order to 'speed up the process' (to purchase via coins, for example), while ultimately blizzard are intentionally fucking me over."
worldnews,"But that upload was from a while ago, it isn't like I uploaded it last night to make a point. Actually my only other uploaded clip on reddit is from even longer ago is using purely free items that everyone gets. 

How about my youtube channel where my only 2 RL clips are using purely free items 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR4-ObwCfVs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIFneFVzIbo

Battlefront is an AWFUL example because what you received in those crates were not purely cosmetic, I think the crates in that game are trash and no company should ever use similar systems.

The issue with all of this is you keep trying to blow my feelings of having rare items WAY out of proportion. My feelings towards them are no more extreme than ""It's cool to have"" yet you keep trying to make it seem like it is super important to me to flex on people. 

I get defensive about lootboxes because people attack them as if the concept is inherently evil. I think some games/companies do lootboxes in a shitty way and I agree that how crates are done right now can be bad for children but I think age verification is a better solution than removing all boxes. "
worldnews,"Selling the cards you got MAKES it gambling. You can make spend all your money trying to get rich! CCG can't be sold so it's not gambling, you're not receiving wealth in case you get lucky, you just get more toys from your toy sales company and can't turn this money that you spent into potentially even more money. So it's literally the opposite of gambling! You just don't fucking like it.  You're advocating for gambling because you want to have your gamble prizes to have real world value."
worldnews,"Basically, yes.

The shit service with limitations gives parents the enough time to safely moderate their child's introduction to the world of gambling. They can give them a small amount of money, explain how the hobby of collecting works, and allow the child to decide whether they like the risk/reward of collecting, or if they'd rather spend the money on something else.

Loot boxes have no mechanism for moderation. In fact it's the opposite - with extremely fast turnarounds being designed into the system in order to exploit the human reward system."
worldnews,"> random cards per pack is just a physical loot box.

Magic: the Gathering is my main hobby, and I think this misrepresents why we buy booster packs. Most booster packs are used to compete in ""limited"" events like draft and sealed, where you have to figure out how to build a deck with the random cards you open. If we didn't have random boosters, we wouldn't be able to play Magic this way. (And really, limited is the best way to play Magic. Fight me.)

Limited players tend to sell or trade the valuable cards they pick up from these events. Most of the players who play constructed formats - playing with their own cards - purchase those cards on the secondary market rather than opening booster packs."
worldnews,"I can't speak for other TCGs, but in Magic most booster packs are bought for play in limited formats where the players are supposed use the random cards they open. It's the most popular way to play Magic everywhere I've lived. That the cards have secondary market value just helps you recoup some of the cost you incur playing limited. Since I play with my cards right away, I get my $4 of value out of a booster pack no matter whether I opened something valuable or not."
worldnews,"In Magic, there are two sets of rules. The first set, covered by the Comprehensive Rules, governs how cards are played in a literal game of Magic. These are generally the same no matter how you play. The second set, called a ""format"", governs the rules regarding deck construction. Which format you play is fundamentally important to how you're playing the game, and the choices you make in deck construction are just as important as the choices you make within a particular ""game.""

The most-played set of deck-construction rules is called Booster Draft. A group of competitors (usually eight players) each starts with three booster packs. They open the first pack, select a single card, and pass the rest of the pack to the next player. Then they pick up the pack they were passed and select another card. This goes on until all three booster packs are used up. Then the players build a deck from the draft pool. Fundamentally, the format tests your ability to craft a deck on the fly, and your intuition regarding what strategies your fellow players are selecting. (There are other ways to draft, with player-created and -randomized draft sets. These play quite differently from opening boosters for a draft.)

To play with your own cards - called ""Constructed"" - is a fundamentally different experience. That is all about crafting a well-tuned deck to handle the ""metagame"" of other expected decks in the format. It's also a fun way to play, but it's a totally different experience from drafting where you don't know what you'll have to work with.

The vast majority of Magic cards are designed to only see play in limited formats like Booster Draft, and Booster Draft is generally the most-played sanctioned format. If a regulation were to kill booster packs, it would extension be killing most of Magic."
worldnews,">The way it is today, if you want to play anything else than draft/sealed or the durdliest of kitchen table you have to pay for singles with money. It's an integral part of the system.

Well yeah. That's because of the demand for the individual cards to build competitive decks (the secondary market). Playing Limited or regular kitchen table Magic is essentially removing the secondary market from the equation since you just play with what you have. If you want to be more *competitive* then you'll have to spend more. You've not exactly refuted my point. "
worldnews,"You can't try and discredit an analogy by using examples that aren't similar to one another. That doesn't make sense.

>The fact, that a secondary market with relatively stable prices exists, makes it much more akin to gambling

It really doesn't because Wizards doesn't profit from the secondary market. It's the sites and stores that make money from singles, and the biggest sites like Channel Fireball and SCG basically set the prices themselves. Again, you're paying for a product, not the chance to win more. 

>You can argue that every card is valuable but at this moment I could buy 4000 random cards for under 20€

Sure, because that's the value of those bulk cards. Used scratchcards have no value. If you offered someone that money for their used scratchcards they'd both jump at the chance and think you're nuts *because* they're worthless. 
"
worldnews,"You can get pretty close to the booster draft experience with not too many cards. I'll pick the 2019 core set as an example. It has 280 cards, of which 111 are common, 80 are uncommon and 69 are rare/mythic. There are also 10 common lands, 2 uncommon lands and 1 rare land [note that these non-basic lands can take the land slot in a booster.]

Take 4 copies each common, 2 copies of each uncommon, and 1 copy of each rare/mythic and put these all in seperate piles. Also take an additional 4 copies of each common lands, 2 copies of each uncommon land and a single copy of the rare land and put these all to a single land pile. This is 718 cards in total, split into a common pile of 444 cards, an uncommon pile of 160 cards, a rare/mythic pile of 69 cards, and a land pile of 45 cards.

How do you draft with these cards? Well, first, add 60 basic lands to the land pile (12 of each colour). Shuffle all 4 piles. Now to make a booster, pick 10 cards from the common pile, 3 from the uncommon pile, 1 from the rare/mythic pile and 1 from the land pile. You have enough cards to make up to 44 boosters, which should be enough for most games. 

You'd usually give 3 boosters to each player, so with 44 boosters, you can have up to 14 players. However, I would recommend keeping the maximum playerbase at 8, so that most of the cards don't get used so as to keep the varience high enough. With 8 players each having 3 boosters, there are 204 unused commons still in the pile, 88 unused rares still in the pile, 45 rare/mythics and 81 unused lands, so you pretty much have no idea what you're going to get, even after seeing a lot of the cards. And the distribution of cards is the same as in the packs. So the experience is going to extremely close to just a normal draft.

So you can pretty much play an 8 player booster draft with just 718 cards. "
worldnews,"I have played with repacks, and they're fun, but there's a significant problem with them: time investment. I got into Magic because I was willing to pay a lot of money for something that I didn't need to invest much time into. (Seriously, my reasoning was that I had more money than time.) You're taking an expensive hobby which requires virtually no start-up effort, and turning it into a cheap hobby that requires a lot of effort to set up. That's a fundamentally different experience, and I'm not interested unless I'm paying someone else to build my booster packs, which is what we already have.

Given that there are hordes of players who would rather draft boosters every week than play with repacks, I suspect that there are a lot more players who see things my way than your way."
worldnews,"Limited format(drafting) plays with 40 card decks. When drafting 3 packs, you will end up with 45 cards at the end of the draft that you need to make a 40 card deck from. About 17 cards in your deck will be basic lands that you do not need to draft so you actually only need to pick about 23 cards from the pool of 45 that you drafted. You play in the tournament  with the cards you drafted and you go home with the cards you drafted. This means you need to develop a strategy for winning while drafting, and the monetary of a card does not necessarily dictate its strategic value in that context."
worldnews,"Why are you defending them? You’re clearly not one of those that pay just for thrills and instead think it’s acceptable to buy core cosmetics in crates. It’s wrong and it’s unjustifiable and there’s a reason it’s becoming illegal.

It’s gambling for things that should be achievements and earned. Not 1% chance at being bought.

You can say it’s an opinion but that’s going to last right up until it’s illegal. "
worldnews,"First off I am explaining why some people are ok with loot boxes that only contain cosmetics. I actually would be perfectly fine if cosmetics did not even exist in games. I have never purchased any loot boxes and tell others only do so if you are supporting the developer not because you want some digital good.  

I don't think it's great that is the model companies choose to find their games, and hopefully the players will generate enough revenue when companies are forced into direct purchasing.  For me i see this as an evil required to fund games that people would not pay a subscription for or purchase dlc.  The issue is hiding request content behind paywalls factures the player base.  Players are fickle and bitch about micro transactions yet are fine with loot boxes until the ea fiasco.

Even when such loot boxes become restricted for games it can still be a valid opinion that people can have.  Based on your logic, weed should never be legalized and nobody can have the opinion that it should be legal.  People should not be drinking alcohol because at one point it was illegal and nobody should have discussed and made change to legalize it.  Smoking is legal and nobody should have an opinion that it's horrible that a product can be sold with ads on tv that effectively tell people how to quit because it's so dearly and addictive.

Opinions help drive discussions.
Now a fact,   Technically loot boxes are not gambling due to lack of consideration for both parties for the outcome of the gamble.  Look up the legal definition."
worldnews,"No one is going to jail for this, and it is infuriating. It just continues the narrative that this kind of thing is ""okay"" for banks to do because there are no real consequences.

I'm glad I changed from Danske Bank ten or twelve years ago, but the bank I switched to is probably no better.

*Edit: Holy shit, this blew up. I shitpost every day and I can't remember the updoots and @'s. Please vote against the parties that protect  these banks instead, regardless of where you live.*"
worldnews,"In the US,

-- For the Rich ---

Steal billions = Nothing

Commit egregious insider trading = Virtually no chance of conviction, 3-9 months probation sentence 

Rape = Very low odds of conviction averaged out, 1-2 years avg sentence

Child molestation/Rape = Slightly higher rate of conviction, 2-4 years avg sentence

-- For the Poor ---

Commit $50k of interstate bank fraud = Very high odds of conviction, 2-3 years sentence

Physical assault (bar fight) with broken arm = Very high odds of conviction, 2 years sentence

Caught smoking joint in the wrong place in the US = Guranteed odds of conviction, 1-8 years sentence

Moral of the story, the US doesn't have a justice system, it has a legal system. And that system is engineered soley to attack the crimes of the poor and ignore the crimes of the rich. Rich people can do great hurt and damage to other people, society and the world and get the same length of sentence as a poor person caught with weed at an airport.

Edit: Noted at the top this isn't about Denmark
"
worldnews,"Scandals like this make me tired. You hear about companies pulling bullshit, scamming millions, stealing money, and absolutely nothing is done. A bank could completely fuck you over just because you opened a checking account, apparently. 

Wells Fargo used to constantly overdraft my money. I’d change my debit cards, I’d change passwords, all that. Then the news came out that employees were stealing from customers. I doubt I was a victim at all, but we’re required to hand over basically everything for “safe keeping” with zero coverage."
worldnews,"I don't get those overdraft fees at all. Everything I've heard about it makes it sound awful and too expensive.

In my country it's treated as a small (temporary) loan. If you have -100 euro for a day you pay a very small amount of interest (at my bank it's 9% on a year basis) that will probably be only a few cents per day.

If you don't have it on or you've reached the limit transactions will just get declined."
worldnews,"I think that’s exactly how it should be. Not sure about other places, but banks in the US make it crazy hard on the poorer people to do anything. Overdraft by .50? Enjoy that $20 overdraft fee that isn’t refundable. I got a fee because I went $5 below $100 on an account that makes it mandatory to have at least a hundred. Which confuses me. That’s my money, why can’t I use it?"
worldnews,"The problem is they have deniability - ""Oh shoot, that money people were depositing and giving us to invest was *dirty* money? Oh wow, yikes we didn't know, but I'll still step down since it happened under my watch"" is the narrative they go with. 

And its really *really* hard to prove they knew about it and let it happen, or actively engaged and encouraged it. The article itself even says there is no proof the CEO or other officials did anything illegal or went outside their legal obligations to the bank or finance laws. 

I agree though that white collar crime should be better fought and have harsher punishments applied (didn't China just *execute* a bunch of executives at a company that was doing shady shit? Could you even imagine if that was possible for bankers in the western world? This shit would stop *immediately*.)."
worldnews,"Only because nobody understands the situation at the top of the pyramid. What authority or playbook is there that determines how big banks ought to run? Who actually has expertise and understanding for how it should work? It's very difficult to make laws that target niche situations that are only directly applicable to the 0.01% of the population because what they do is so rare that it defies generalization when you get down to it. Unless we understand the specific circumstance of money laundering in this case, and the loopholes or methods that were used to do it, we will have a hard time making any reasonable laws against it. Furthermore, countries have to work together to prevent international money laundering. Like you think the us is corrupt, but if the us decided to start being extra harsh on the super rich, there's no reason why billionaires can't fly a private jet to any other continent with countries that are willing to accept a level of corruption for a small influx of wealth from a billionaire. This is, I think, greater than the U.S.

Prevention of large scale corruption is probably greater than a single country because of the leverage rich people have in being able to manage their finances on an international level. Even if Panama papers exposed the levels of corruption, we actually have to work together for anything to be done about it. Try telling Saudi Arabia, as the worst example, that they need to be less greedy.

But you think the locus of corruption is the fucking states? Give me a break. At least many there have the fucking chance to get rich and aren't starving to death like a Venezuelan. My point is, I hate seeing empty complaints. They make me lose hope and feel low effort. 

Also what does rape and child molestation have to do with a rich/poor divide? Clearly the reason these crimes go underpunished is due to the intensely personal nature of the crime. Violating someone sexually is much harder to pinpoint and nail down than stealing a physical object from them. If we wanted to, we could prosecute such crimes with greater severity and frequency but then we would be sitting around making your same arguments that the corrupt and rich legal system wrongfully convicts the poor of heinous crimes without enough proof.

Anyways, your very point, that rich people can do a lot of damage and hurt is a basic consequence of the leverage that comes with having so much. In that kind of situation, you either have to be saint-like, like Bill Gates, or else if you continue to make risks and investments you are nearly guaranteed to fuck people over and overturn the lives of people as easily as turning over a chessboard even if you have good intentions. Obviously when you have a top level position, every action, ever word you say to the press or on social media can cause a national scandal if you aren't careful. These people live behind veils because of the barbarity of poor people who do not react reasonably or with an understanding of what a common person would do in the position of the super rich.

Nothing is done solely for X or Y. Maybe you exist solely to complain though?"
worldnews,"Yeah, at least banks have regulations and compliance officers and auditors and shit. Sure it fails sometimes  and stuff like this happens. Stil most banks invest a ton of resources to avoid money laundering or wouldn't want to be caught near anything outright illegal. 

On the other hand you have these new untraceable made up currencies that have non of all of that. That won't attract any shady types at all... /s"
worldnews,"I think a big part of the disparity is for-profit legal representation. Poor people get public defenders or a cheap lawyer, both of which are stretched thin for time on the case. Rich people can afford to pay hundreds of thousands or millions on entire teams of lawyers to find every loophole and technicality to tie up the case to the point where the prosecution can't keep up with the wall of bullshit."
worldnews,"I feel like that’s all very simplistic for what the real systemic issues that need to be addressed.

• Liberalization of drug laws
• Stronger sentencing guidelines for child-related crimes

You mention interstate bank fraud, which I’m not sure exactly what that is. But the main difference I notice is that low-income demographics are more likely to commit violent crimes than the equivalent middle-income or wealthy criminal. Meaning, lower-income criminals have less access to the tools necessary to commit insider trading or money laundering. And are, statistically-speaking, more apt to rob someone one-on-one with a weapon. As it stands now, sentencing/punishment is more egregious for violent crimes.

Now a more interesting question arises, which is how we should react to that. Is it inherently worse to rob someone with a gun than a computer? Perhaps. Life and death are the binary options to being robbed at gunpoint, despite the take for the robber being the same. Though perhaps not as we must ask of our system: are we policing/judging actions or consequences?"
worldnews,"The offending bank needs only pay a paltry fine relative to the size of their revenue and no one goes to jail. Take HSBC for example - below are some articles of the money-laundering scandal by HSBC bank:

* [Failure after failure at HSBC led to the London-based bank being used as a conduit for ""drug kingpins and rogue nations"", a 300-page report compiled for a US Senate committee has found.](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-18880269)

* [HSBC Helped Terrorists, Iran, Mexican Drug Cartels Launder Money, Senate Report Says](https://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2012/07/16/hsbc-helped-terrorists-iran-mexican-drug-cartels-launder-money-senate-report-says/#59f2975d5712)

* [HSBC to pay $1.9 billion U.S. fine in money-laundering case](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hsbc-probe/hsbc-to-pay-1-9-billion-u-s-fine-in-money-laundering-case-idUSBRE8BA05M20121211)

* [HSBC escaped US money-laundering charges after Osborne's intervention: UK chancellor and a British banking regulator warned of ‘global financial disaster’ if bank were prosecuted, House report says](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/11/hsbc-us-money-laundering-george-osborne-report)

* [HSBC hopes to leave era of scandals behind: The bank has been held back by big fines and hasty acquisitions but believes it is in a position to grow again](https://www.ft.com/content/303a4296-12a2-11e8-940e-08320fc2a277)

* And finally a documentary re-examines [HSBC’s $881 million money-laundering scandal](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/netflix-documentary-re-examines-hsbcs-881-million-money-laundering-scandal-2018-02-21)

Edit: formatting"
worldnews,"Just wanted to clarify it a bit; while she did sell off $200K of company stock, it was the additional side sale of her own personal shares of a biotech company just to avoid a loss of around $46,000 (which at the time of her billion dollar net worth, was probably a loss of something along the lines of like $50 for a middle class family) which did her in. She acted on a tip from a crooked broker and *that’s* what the SEC got her on. Her fines alone quadrupled the personal loss she was trying to avoid and that’s where the $300K tag comes in. 

And you’re right. It was a really tough crime to prove at the time. But I think the trade commission really wanted to make an example out of someone big at the time and they really pushed for it. In any case she did 5 months at a “cushy” Club Fed pen, was released and she’s probably an even bigger celebrity now. Ironically enough, she eventually lost her billionaire status years later because her company was just simply failing and they were hemorrhaging money. 
"
worldnews,"It's an estonian bank they bought in 2007, and it's focused primarily on non-resident banks meaning banks outside estonia. This entire investigation is their own law-firm and an internal investigation, and these numbers are only from around 6500 of the 15000 ""shady""-marked accounts

What came out in the press conference today was the fact that a couple of months after the purchase Danske Bank got emails from the Russian federal bank, saying this bank they just bought was likely being used for money laundering. The report also states the CEO being informed at a couple of different meetings, so lets see what happens when 'Bagmandspolitiet' drums up their investigation."
worldnews,"You don’t owe taxes on overseas income in most countries. The US is the only major country that utilizes citizenship based taxation. The US also is essentially the only one that has foreign account disclosure laws (which by the way even the Swiss banks comply with). If you’re a brit with a swiss account, nobody knows. If you’re an american, even the Swiss will tell the IRS. FATCA makes it illegal to fail to disclose a foreign account."
worldnews,"Denmark is my adopted country, and has a really special place in my heart. We're supposedly one of the *least* corrupt countries in the world, so this really pisses me off.

Danske Bank is our largest bank by far - they handle over seventy five *billion* kroner (that's akin to eleven billion US) of the banking in Denmark. For a European country the metric size of Ohio, that's a hell of a lot of money.

There's a big deal of suspicion and rumor that our PM has a pretty big stake in their success, and unfortunately as the ""premier"" bank here they have a lot to lose if things go poorly.

I'm not calling for the execution of the people involved, but I do want (probably naively) *accountability* for their actions. 

That their president gets off with a cushy severance package and some angry Facebook posts frosts my ass. 

For fuck's sake, I had the police on my ass because Post Danmark lost a package that I sent to someone (it showed up two days later). This guy is getting away with defrauding a country and gets to basically retire early to a nice house on the beach on Sealand.

*Edit: My spelling is ass*"
worldnews,"Well heaven forbid a rich person is sent to jail and forced to do slave labor for pennies a day like the common man, Especially after they paid so much to get those laws enacted so they would still have slaves after the civil war. And paid so much to ensure that more Americans are in jail then people in any other country on earth. Many for stupid crimes like smoking a joint.

Yep you are more likely to go to jail and be enslaved in the 'land of freedom' then you are in north Korea, China, Russia or any other country you could name. "
worldnews,"How exactly does being rich put you in a category where you do less time for those crimes?  Is it simply a matter of affording better legal counsel?  

​

I mean, surely there's not part of the process that looks at tax returns and then the Judge says, ""Oh, I see here that you are rich...so sorry for inconveniencing you, sir.""   

​

So what is it that rich people do to avoid longer sentences?  Is it bribes or what?  

​"
worldnews,"Justice is in the eye of the beholder. Or in the hands of the moneyholder rather. That's just how disjunct and corrupt our systems have become. And it's all because these policy makers have absolutely no exposure to the negative consequences of their actions. They walk around like they're invincible because they *are* virtually invincible! Nothing can stop them from doing their worst, none of these ""reforms"" or ""commissions"" or ""watchdogs"". It's all just a diversion in this amusement park of hypocrites and frauds."
worldnews,"Quote from Terry Pratchett :

All right,"" said Susan. ""I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable.""

REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.

""Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—""

YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.

""So we can believe the big ones?""

YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

""They're not the same at all!""

YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED."
worldnews,"well thats not true at all

everyone is prosecuted the same way under the law

rich people usually fare better for two reasons, which have nothing to do with the actual laws themselves:

* Knowledge about how to talk to police:  lots of people (even innocent people) accidentally incriminate themselves by saying stuff to police. as a rule of thumb, just do not say anything. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-duane-dont-talk-police-20160826-snap-story.html. seriously. also check out the videos of the guy who doesnt answer police questions. internalize it

*  Getting a good lawyer:  this is something that unfortuantely costs lots of money. there are only so many pro bono cases.  if you can afford some former mob lawyer, who is good enough to keep actually bad ppl out of jail, you are probably way more likely of getting acquitted from that bar fight charge, vs using the state provided public defender. again though, its not the laws fault. thats just supply+demand -- the highest quality, most in demand product costs the most amount of money in an open market. which in this case is unfortunate "
worldnews,"> Danske Bank is our largest bank by far - they handle over seventy five billion kroner (that's akin to eleven billion US) of the banking in Denmark. For a European country the metric size of Ohio, that's a hell of a lot of money.

This number is way, way off. According to their website, they currently are managing 1648 billions DKK, or north of $250 billion, more than 20 times the number you posted. Not looking at rest of your post, I just know DNB, basically the Norwegian equivalent of DB, also have trillions of NOK under management, and DB shouldn't be much different so I looked it up.  
"
worldnews,"I think we have to reconsider what we mean as ""rich"" though. Somebody making $500k a year is pretty rich by our standards, but they would still probably be convicted for the same crimes as the ""poor"" people because they don't have any influence. Instead of having your subtitles be ""For the Rich"" and ""For the Poor"", imo it should be ""For the people with influence"" and ""For the people without influence"". It just so happens that the people with influence are also enormously wealthy. But that doesn't mean that all rich people are like this, only some of the big shots. There is a big difference between being rich from making $500k a year working for a company, and being rich from making millions of dollars a year as the head of that company who decides to fuck over his employees and customers for slightly increased profit. 

Although I will agree that the police certainly would treat the $500k person better than a poor person. But imo once they get to court there is basically no difference except for the fact that the $500k guy can afford a better lawyer. But for someone with influence in court, they can use their connections to have the judge rule in their favor, like with the bankster above."
worldnews,"> These people live behind veils because of the barbarity of poor people who do not react reasonably or with an understanding of what a common person would do in the position of the super rich.

The answer to this, I think, is that no one should be that rich or powerful to begin with.  We're talking about people with so much wealth and power that they may as well be considered demigods when compared to you or me.  I feel it shouldn't need to be said that this should not happen.  Yeah, most people are not incorruptible.  Obviously, but most people will also never have the level of responsibility that comes with having so much wealth and power that a decision they make in a tower somewhere can affect the lives of millions in potentially very serious ways.  "
worldnews,"If you can prove with evidence that a specific person broke a specific law, they will go to jail. For example if you walk into Walgreens, pull out a 9mm and empty the cash register, it's all caught on camera and easy to prove. Open shut case you go to jail. 

When a huge company with more employees than a European country has citizens sells a product that was 5-10 years later deemed 'misleading' who are you going to imprison, and for what?"
worldnews,"Well, some of them have the money to influence the laws or put up legal defenses that make prosecuting them nearly impossible.  On top of that, rich people commit different crimes than poor people.  White collar crime is also much more nebulous in its impact.  

If someone gets arrested for burglarizing a home, the impact of that is REALLY apparent.  Someone had their home violated.  They probably won't feel safe in there for a long time, if ever.  On top of that, there's potential property damage and things that they just can't get back.  The impact of this is really apparent.  It's easy to measure.

However, if a rich person is arrested for laundering a few billion dollars, who did this hurt?  How did it hurt them.  What was the collective damage to lives that occurred here?  It's a lot of money, yeah, but how did it impact people?  In many cases, it's super difficult to really quantify that.  

If you ask me, crimes should be punished according to the amount of total damage caused to society, and by the potential to rehabilitate the criminal in question.  For instance, someone stealing to survive is not only doing low damage to society, but would probably be better served with an opportunity to lead a better life than a prison sentence.  Yeah, they probably aren't well equipped to lead a successful life, but that's something that can be taught.  Meanwhile, in greedy banker land, there's no necessity.  I don't believe that there's any point in trying to rehabilitate someone like that.  They had the opportunities, and the support; everything they needed to get ahead, or in many cases, stay ahead, and they still committed serious crimes."
worldnews,"As long as the US Dollar is a world reserve currency this will be the case.

The treasury shitlist is brutal because if you end up on it, banks who wish to do business with you can not do business with US banks OR with banks that do business with US banks. And no bank currently will risk that because they have to be able to somehow buy dollars, or risk all their other customers losing access to the US and access to any market/bank that uses dollars."
worldnews,"What’s occurring to me today is that we are referring to this group of crimes wrong.  Maybe this is why nothing is done about them.  Installed of lumping them together and calling them “rich people crimes” they should be called financial crimes or institutional crimes.

They don’t apply to rich people and saying rich people in this context confuses the issue.  

A poor person suddenly elevated to a high position in a bank could commit the same institutional/financial crimes.  Its not the case that the ceo of wells fargo committed financial crimes because he was rich.  His personal wealth played no role in what wells fargo did.  "
worldnews,"You say this now, but public opinion has shifted over the past couple decades. Things move slow on a global scale, but there's a reckoning coming for the greedy, and these pricks who've gotten off Scot free with billions, these are the ones who will be made an example of. They'll be the ones rotting in prison for life. That probably won't be a long life either, as they'll be put in REAL prison when they're unable to protect themselves with their money. REAL prison, where the entire population of the prison has been fucked over by these CEO's greed. This doesn't end well for these wealthy people.

They know this. Why do you think people like Putin obsess over things like the Ghadafi tape? They know, every society which has had *this much* (or in many cases even milder) wealth disparity throughout history, has ended with the wealthy either dead, or in prison. The elite have plans, and means to control the general population, and keep the peasants mostly peasants, but for how long? That's the only question. How long will they be able to keep power, before they're killed or imprisoned? This is why the ultra-rich are generally miserable. They know, (many only on a subconscious level) that for them to have that much wealth, others must suffer. It's why Bill Gates gives so much away, because he knows that kind of wealth is fucking wrong. And he's well liked for it, my guess is, when the shit hits the fan, if it's in his lifetime, he'd be spared imprisonment.

The point is, if we look at things from a historical perspective, the elite get over thrown, the peasants who over threw them become the new elite, and rule for a few generations until everyone's sick of the new elite. Continuing the cycle of why bother. Let's try not having elite next time."
worldnews,"US: Sometime after 2000 under George Bush Jr there was a role back of consumer protection regulations that involved fees and banks. All the banks quickly converted to making free money through fees, and it was far more profitable to nickel and dime your customers rather than compete in banking services. Late 90's, a number of debit cards would just deny sale if you over drafted, but not the major banks which love overdrafts. Wasn't unusually to get 2-3 overdrafts because they let you overdraft based on the number of purchases that went up to -$100 dollars. If I bought groceries and overdrafted for $45, the 1.10 I spent the next day for gum would also be another $45, and I was free overdraft myself as much as I wanted until I hit that -$100 limit. 

Our worst bank during that time was I think CityBank which would reorder your purchases to overdraft on purpose to get the most fees-regardless of the actual order they came in on. Had $30 in your account and bought $1 worth of gun, and later $45 worth of gas... they're going to apply that $45 first to get one overdraft fee, and then that $1 dollar after to get a second overdraft fee. Despite it should have been only one fee if applied to the account correctly.  It's not like that anymore because congress had to step in... but shit.

"
worldnews,"Did he really make PCs more accessible?

The early PCs weren't remotely accessible at all. They were far less friendly than many of the competitors. People just brought them because they were ""IBM"". And the early versions of windows were neither better than the competition, nor were they remotely innovative.

Eventually windows got pretty good. But a big part of that is because software companies enjoy enormous economies of scale.   A huge part of Microsoft's success was because they were simply in the right place at the right timne, which is not worthy of any special praise."
worldnews,"""Don't you know? The laws aren't made to help people like us. Back in the old days, the _really_ old days.. it was just every man for his self, and the strongest, meanest men got all the best stuff. They got the greenest valleys while everyone else just got sand. Then they made the laws. Once the strong guys got everything they wanted, they said, 'This is fair now, this is the law.' Once they were already winning, they changed the rules up."""
worldnews,"This isn't accurate. 

Firstly, most places tax your overseas income if you are tax resident there. The difference is, as you note, that the US taxes based solely on nationality (or if you hold a green card). 

Also - FATCA applies for US disclosures, but the notion that no one will know if a Brit has a Swiss account is not true. CRS applies in that circumstance. 

The reality is that these days it's very hard to have a bank account at a reputable bank without that information being available to the governments within the OECD. "
worldnews," I have lived overseas in Asia for 20 years and can say with absolute accuracy that Americans are entitled, naive, and soft.  We don't have the courage to do what would be needed. So its intellectual masturbation on social media until marriage, silly dna clones, and the inevitable reversion to status quo to protect one's interests. 

​

It's not going to change. Americans don't know real pain. If you think you do, send me a PM. Come visit me and I'll show you millions living in poverty so stark you'd do anything to escape it. Anything."
worldnews,">Why would someone in a position to make laws equal for everyone put themselves at higher risk when the system is already written to protect those in power like themselves.

Because we're talking about a person who wants to do this becoming a politician. Do you think there are no people in the world who want things to be more evenly distributed even if it disadvantages them?

>This is exactly why being a politician should not be a career. Why would you make the rich pay a larger portion of taxes when you're in that bracket yourself?

That sounds more like an argument for ""politician"" not being a highly paid career. "
worldnews,"I would say law is law, it's just rules and on it self it can't be justice or injustice, as physics can't be bad or good. Lawmakers use this, to create justice and judges (and police with other power structures) just follows that.

Old greek statue Lady Justice is with blindfold for exactly that reason and it's good, because if you will allow someone to start interpret law you will get downfall much quicker.

​"
worldnews,"I would argue that no legal or government system in our world is fully fair to everyone involved. Some systems are objectively better than others, and some are just outright barbaric and cruel. All of them tend to serve the individuals at the top of the economic ladder. That concept is baked into every system by design, as the engineers of said systems are always at the top, and laws are meant to protect the status quo.

Changing the subject from ""the American legal system is broken"" to ""many Asian legal systems are cruel and barbaric"" feels like whataboutism and takes away from the point of this discussion, which is that when people feel invalidated and believe justice isn't being served, if they have the capability, they will take other measures to enact their own brand of justice. Whether it is truly fair or right becomes irrelevant. America just happens to provide this capability in the form of protest, social media and other public expression. I would argue that while dangerous and easily abused, this outlet can sometimes serve as a stopgap to help minimize absolute abuse of flawed system in which we are trapped.

So to *your* point, I would agree that we should celebrate our ability to express our views and opinions - even if that ability has the potential to lead to false accusations - because without that freedom we become trapped in a cycle of oppression similar to what we have seen in other types of governments. I would use your example as a warning of how much worse it could be, but it should not prevent us from speaking up when we feel we have been wronged."
worldnews,"That last point is what happens and has been happening throughout all of history. I fail to see how major adaptations to our society, especially the positive ones we hope for (e.g. a reasonable approach in law to social media/the internet, environmental standards, etc.) Could possibly be accomplished through solely bottom up movements organized by ordinary working class individuals. I mean it could, but it wouldn't be able to happen when it's necessary and as fast as it needs to be.

Some native american groups had systems in place where a decision would not be able to be made until everyone was at the table and everyone had the chance to speak for as long as they wished. While certainly democratic, it's not like they are known for being able to adapt fast to new, unwelcome changes in their culture.

Nowadays, we are changing faster and faster as technology revolutionizes the way we interact with one another. Certainly we need people in place to put limits on Facebook and Google and keep our privacy in order without hurting our online freedom. These kinds of issues are insanely tough to deal with as a push towards freedom likely intrudes on our chance to keep our information private and vice versa. These are not decisions big groups of ordinary people are going to be able to make well. We need to put our faith in our ability to judge who the best people in our society are, and then elect them to have responsibility over the issues we cannot solve. 

I mean just as much as you put your faith in doctors, or your lawyer, so too do we need to start thinking of our politicians as experts and holding them to greater standards. It might be really tough, but if 90% or more of a country's population voted in federal elections, as an example, all the politicians would raise their ears and realize that their public is interested in genuinely being more informed.

I'm not honestly sure if there are limits to how much responsibility someone should or could have. In the most ideal circumstance, we would want to push people to take as much responsibility as they can reasonably manage. And how much they can 'reasonably manage' is impossible to pin down unless you want to set limits on human potential. It's different than being able to say something like: ""well a human being can only ever run X km/h, because after that our bones and muscles collapse"", and that's because responsibility is significantly more abstract than that and can't even be measured except through qualia. There is no limit to the amount of faith you can generate in yourself amongst other people, and so you are able to genuinely control big chunks of the world just because important enough people are will to trust you. I don't know how willing I am to say that this is bad. It just, is how it is?"
worldnews,"This article is stating Edward Savarin gave up his citizenship to avoid taxes. He is avoiding paying capital gains/income tax on his stock. Yes, the 20% capital gains tax is significant with this kind of money, but it is sad that he is avoiding paying taxes to the economy responsible for helping to make him almost a billionaire. However, if he had already paid taxes on his gains, he could give up his citizenship and not have to pay any extra taxes. My comment was asking about what facts you have to support your claim, not OP's. Thank you for taking the time to post the article, but I believe you were incorrect about taxation in your post."
worldnews,"Yeah, I don't know why you would have been downvoted for that.  

It's a rather agreeable cautionary statement, warning of the difference - and too-frequent disagreement - between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.  

Likewise, [the statement I quoted](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_justitia_ruat_caelum) is the related cautionary statement of following the letter of the law too closely or too literally, such that the result is a technically-correct/legal action with a morally-incorrect result that is contrary to the spirit of the law.  

>In subsequent versions of this legend, this principle became known as ""Piso's justice"", a term that characterizes sentences that are carried out or passed from retaliation - whose intentions are technically correct, but morally wrong - and this could be construed as a negative interpretation of the meaning of *Fiat justitia ruat caelum*.

(It was also somewhat-recently popularized as the tagline to the 2014 anime, [Aldnoah.Zero](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldnoah.Zero).)"
worldnews,"This is the kind of criticism that goes somewhere though. Maxal group has a lawyer, a lawsuit, and this is a news report that covers the issue. Sure, it's probably not enough, but this is the kind of specificity and action that actually can get shit done. If the mayor is in bed with Davies, the people have to strip the mayor of his seat in the election. This isn't a dead end. If this was my town, I would be pissed. I would be talking it up and making sure that at least my friends and family knew that this was an issue important to me, and urge that it should be important enough to them too so that it might have some impact on their vote. "
worldnews,"Yeah - sorry - I'm not the guy you were replying to in the previous post.

I have previously researched the cost of renouncing US citizenship and it is non-zero for some wealthier individuals: https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2017/02/27/renounce-u-s-heres-how-irs-computes-exit-tax/#5670ea2b287d

> The Exit Tax is computed as if you sold all your assets on the day before you expatriated, and had to report the gain.  Currently, net capital gains can be taxed as high as 23.8%, including the net investment income tax.

I haven't really made any claims. I mean outside of the two that I've linked to. ""Facebook founder renounced to minimize tax burden"" and now ""exit taxes are charged when you renounce""

Now - the exit tax *generally* only applies to people with more than 2 million in assets ... but people with less than 2 million can trigger an exit tax if they haven't filed/paid their appropriate taxes in the last 5 years."
worldnews,"For all the Americans here who've never been-

Cuba is gorgeous.  The land and the people.

They live their days outside, with their friends and family, making art, doing ballet, playing baseball.  There's a weird number of Michael Jackson impersonators that are fucking amazing.

They make amazing Pina Colada, relax like nobodies business, and enjoy fast cars.

They are, also, not generally douches about non hetro-normal lifestyles.  

They're wonderful, the country is wonderful, and I'm so excited to be going back next Feb."
worldnews,"[If only there was a way to verify yourself...](http://theconversation.com/you-dont-need-to-build-a-rocket-to-prove-the-earth-isnt-flat-heres-the-simple-science-88106)

>One of the best documented methods for determining the Earth’s roundness was first performed (to our knowledge) by the ancient Greeks. This was achieved by comparing the shadows of sticks in different locations. When the sun was directly overhead in one place, the stick there cast no shadow. At the same time in a city around 500 miles north, the stick there did cast a shadow.

>If the Earth were flat then both sticks should show the same shadow (or lack of) because they would be positioned at the same angle towards the sun. The ancient Greeks found the shadows were different because the Earth was curved and so the sticks were at different angles. They then used the difference in these angles to calculate the circumference of the Earth. They managed to get it to within 10% of the true value – not bad for around 250 BC.

It is just so simple to verify today, in the age of the internet.  They could use their flat-Earther network to independently carry out this experiment and answer the question definitively.

They spend so much time and energy explaining why the Earth is flat yet no energy is spent on this experiment.

That tells you everything.  Everything."
worldnews,"Its believed that Columbus' belief that the earth was round stemmed from the bible in genesis, which spoke of spheres. His Christian faith is what led to the world learning of a different continent and a round earth (other than the Vikings who were well aware). What's ironic is that today the biggest proponents of Flat Earth society are *Christians*, and many articles have anecdotally stated that a lot of people have converted to Christian ideology because of the society. We, with all the information we would ever need to thrive mere taps of our fingers away, are more ignorant and self centered today, than we were 2000 years ago, when the average person had never traveled more than a few miles from home."
worldnews,"That’s the an odd thing. The bible doesn’t say anything about the world being spherical. There are some mentions of domes, but that’s it. It tends to refer to the land as being a laid out sheet, being held in place or up with the mountains.

Columbus’ mistake was in measure. Stadion (the measure the Greek calculation) was between something like 157m and 209m. Columbus just thought the Greek established circumference of the earth was in the smaller measure. So, with the size of Asia and Europe, a sea route to Asia across the Atlantic should have been relatively short."
worldnews,"They claimed the region hundreds of years ago, so other people's claim (based on that past) today is irrelevant. Too much time has passed. 

You then saying that them claiming the region hundreds of years ago is irrelevant today because it's long ago is just retarded. Unless of course you want to reinstate all the borders and nations as they were 1000 years ago, if that's enough for you. Is that what you want? "
worldnews,"I was pointing out a flaw in your argument such that it could be used at any time.

​

\> you want to reinstate all the borders and nations as they were 1000 years ago   

​

nation states aren't that old.  [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation\_state](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state)  

​

Drawing a line in the sand and then time passes doesn't remove the moral imperative to be kind to other humans. If you disagree your a shit lord.

​"
worldnews,">I was pointing out a flaw in your argument such that it could be used at any time.

It can be used at any time to say what I said. If you just use it in a different context, it has nothing to do with what I said. I said that the Hungarians' claim today is legitimate because they've been there for a long time. As is the US' claim. Or the Canadians'. Or the Australians'. Or the Italians'. Or the Mexicans'. Or the Syrians', Iraqis', Afghans', Japanese's, or whatever. Russia's claim on Crimea can be argued. Or soon China's claim on territories in Africa. But to argue that the Hungarians owe anyone anything because ""they"" (actually their ancestors from hundreds of years ago) also came to that land from elsewhere... That's retarded.

>Drawing a line in the sand and then time passes doesn't remove the moral imperative to be kind to other humans. If you disagree your a shit lord.

*you're"
worldnews,"when I saw the link to the WaPo article, I felt better about the credibility of the news, but I wish that the wapo link had been posted instead of ""talkingpointsmemo.com"". You gotta admit, that does *not* sound like a very reputable source. 

And, after checking [mediabiasfactcheck.com](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/talking-points-memo/), it isn't:

> These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation.  They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), **publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.**

I wish people would think of this stuff before posting charged content from unreputable sources. Even if it's true I (not unreasonably) end up having reservations of the validity of the piece.

"
worldnews,"> when I saw the link to the WaPo article, I felt better about the credibility of the news, but I wish that the wapo link had been posted instead of ""talkingpointsmemo.com"".

Oh yeah, I don't disagree with you there. I think all news subreddits should nuke meta-stories in favor of the actual primary links.

BUT...

""MediaBiasFactCheck"" isn't remotely credible enough to weigh in on anything, quite frankly.

From their FAQ on the guy who runs the site:

> Who in the heck is Dave Van Zandt?
> 
> Dave Van Zandt obtained a Communications Degree before pursuing a higher degree in the sciences. **Dave currently works full time in the health care industry**. Dave has spent more than 20 years as an arm chair researcher on media bias and its role in political influence.

Yeah... if I were you, I'd not rely on that site.

TPM may be biased, but that doesn't necessarily make the content they post disreputable. They've done some good work in the past (see here, for example: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/business/worldbusiness/24iht-blogger.4.10338691.html).



"
worldnews,"I'm glad we agree on the first point, maybe we should petition the mods to make that a rule.

Can you elaborate on why MediaBiasFactCheck is considered unreputable? It's analyses are based on Pew Research studies, and I have yet to find a site it's horribly off on. Also, it has a team of a dozen people performing the analyses--Dave just started the group, he doesn't run anything. They are also extremely transparent about their funding and methodology, and it's about as mathematical as you can get for bias-assessment: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this, as I am not sure that the quote you cited speaks to the trustworthiness of the source."
worldnews,"> Can you elaborate on why MediaBiasFactCheck is considered unreputable? 

The guy has zero expertise in media analysis. He doesn't even work in the industry. There is no ""Pew Research studies"" that give a formula for determining media bias. Pew does study media issues, but does not issue a stamp of BIASED.

> Also, it has a team of a dozen people performing the analyses--Dave just started the group, he doesn't run anything

What team? Who are they? What are their qualifications and background in media/media analysis? Why are they experts able to grade media outlets' supposed bias?

The FAQ indicates they have zero actual expertise.

> **None of the MBFC team are professional journalists**. We actually see this as an advantage as we are media consumers just like you. Each person on the team is college educated in a **variety of fields** with a common interest in keeping media accountable for their words and information.

But, again, who are they? 

They have info on *some,* but not all of them. Let's examine.

> Aaron O’Leary: I’m a Politics graduate from Ireland and an aspiring political correspondent.

So, an Irishman in Ireland judging the ""bias"" of American media outlets based on a politics degree from Ireland. I wouldn't dare presume to understand the potential biases of Irish media, quite frankly, much less be able to ""rate"" them.

> Karen O’Connor Rubsam: a CFA charterholder and retired CPA having spent 20+ years in the independent accounting and reinsurance industries

Financial experience is great and at least she looks like she's in the US. But it does not make you qualified to rate entire media outlets.

> Kenneth White: resides in California with his wife. Ken is not registered to any party, leans left but strives for center in his reporting, and wishes all this Neo-Nazi business would hide its head in the sand once again.

That is literally the info we're given. Do you trust him as an expert on the media?

> Jim Fowler: is currently working toward pursuing a degree in Psychology/Addiction

Media expertise? Nah.

They don't even give bios for the other four people listed. I found info on one of  them.

Faith Locke Siewert appears to be a photographer, but not a journalist. Can't tell if she's in the United States, but she was born in London.

No apparent journalism experience or expertise.

Overall, I'm not seeing any reason to believe that any of these people have any expertise whatsoever.

And really, the burden of proof on someone claiming expertise should be on *them,* not me to debunk it.

Next, their methodology is comical. First, this, from his FAQ:

> Keep in mind this is not a scientifically proven methodology.

So, it's just made up shit. I guess at least they admit it.

Then, from the methodology page:

> When calculating bias we are not just looking at political bias, but also how factual the information is and if they provide links to credible, verifiable sources.

Those are two completely separate data points, that are somehow represented with one dot on a scale. That makes zero sense.

The rest is just subjective with no actual, meaningful criteria laid out.

Their four ""categories"" are far, far too vague to be of actual use and too subject to subjectivity. What are ""loaded words?"" How do you quantify backing up claims? How do you evaluate sourced evidence? What is reporting ""both sides?"" Define ""endorse a particularly political ideology."" Define ""extreme."" 

Let's check out some of their ""least biased"" news sites.

Know Your Meme (this is news?): https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/know-your-meme/

The Jordan Times (this is literally owned by the Jordanian government): https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-jordan-times/

The Xinhua News Agency (literally state-run Chinese propaganda): https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/xinhua-news-agency/

Voice of America (literally US-owned propaganda): https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/voice-of-america/

The Meme Policeman (wtf is this shit even): https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-meme-policeman/

PR Newswire (this is literally a wire service for press releases. This is the opposite of news): https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/pr-newswire/

I could probably pick apart more, but you get the point.

The entire site is pretty much silly.

"
worldnews,"I mean, this isn't some conspiracy claim, this is proven facts. It is no secret that the CIA is heavily invested in news organizations since the 1960's.

Church Committee has a report that details part of the CIA's media operation. Is there any reason to think they stopped? 

No one is claiming that the CIA creates false media companies, they utilize existing companies and journalists, some willing and some unwilling; some organizations are well known(WaPo) and some are small independent outfits."
worldnews,">The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.

\- John Ehrlichman,  Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under Nixon"
worldnews,"I think one of this issues is the stigmatization of drug users. If society would accept this as a medical issue, more people when offered help would get help.  Many people who go on to abuse drugs have an untreated or undiagnosed mental illness, and often people self medicate with drugs. If someone gets continually caught with drugs, instead of jail, maybe forced rehab is an answer. Whether jail or rehab, they no longer will have access to their drug. Another thing would be for example with heroin, for those who just can't quit, safe injecting sites. Like I've said, the best way we can approach this is more on the health medical issue side and less on the criminal justice side. Portugal seems to be doing very well with their implementation of something just like this. "
worldnews,"For a lot of people it might be a medical issue, for a lot of others it’s not.

Many localities have implemented drug type programs in jails/prisons, which essentially act as a rehab facility. 

But if you take away all criminal aspects of it you’re taking away all avenues that the government has that can force someone’s hand in getting treatment. There is then no consequence for a drug user simply saying “no” to getting help.

What portugal is doing is great. But the dynamics of what may work in Portugal may not work in the US. When Portugal made the move to decriminalize, drug use was already relatively low, that’s not the case in the US

"
worldnews,"That was a big part of my point. Ideally people are forced to go to rehab after a simple possession charge, but people who have shown no desire to get off hard drugs even when they’re given the resources and help to do so should face stiffer consequences. Actual punishments.

I’m 100% for giving people a chance and opportunity to change, and resources to help them change.

I’m also 100% for punishing people who refuse that help, or refuse to change because they don’t want to."
worldnews,"This. The war on drugs may have been possible because hemp was poised to replace timber as a less expensive source for raw materials for paper, but this is why the war on drugs continued, and why it continues today. It gives the government power. The fact that most people, when hearing about someone arrested for drugs go ""yeah, well, shouldn't have been doing drugs then..."" Gives our government TREMENDOUS power. Even if you think ""that's not me, I don't do drugs, so I'm at no risk."" Think again. You almost definitely know/love someone who does drugs, or has done drugs. Enormous, unchecked, power."
worldnews,"I don't have time to really delve into it right now, but I did a quick read through and it seems most of their concerns lie in children/adolescents using the drug, with lines like this:

>Evidence from both animal and human studies suggests that the severity of the effects of cannabis use on cognitive development is dependent on the age when cannabis use begins.

But that's still illegal last I checked and rightfully so. I'm sure children or adolescents who consume alcohol regularly would have similar issues. Nobody is advocating for drugs for kids. There's also this line from the article:

> Cannabis has a negative impact on cognition; however, the current body of research literature does not provide evidence of significant, long-term effects due to cannabis use. 

Which would seem to suggest that /u/priestjim may be correct or he may not, but there is no research pointing either way. The article ends by suggesting that more research should be conducted into the effects of cannabis and at least in that regard, I fully agree."
worldnews,"You’re absolutely right. Alcohol causes a ton of problems. And someone who is a severe alcoholic isn’t much different than a drug user. 

But there are fundamental differences between alcohol and hard drugs.

Alcohol in moderation is fine. When consumed responsibly, it’s relatively harmless. You can’t say the same thing about drugs like Meth and PCP.

And some states have ways of petitioning the courts to have some involuntarily committed into rehab, not unlike what most states do for mentally ill people. The requirements aren’t all that much different either. 

But then you just get a revolving door of people getting treatment, not following through after it’s over, relapsing, and they’re right back in rehab because there’s not really any consequences.

And it’s also worth noting that there are still several criminal charges associated with alcohol, many of them having to do with being intoxicated in public. 

I’m all for helping people and giving people resources to overcome their personal afflictions. But I’m also adamantly against absolving people of all personal responsibility. At some point you have to hold someone accountable for their actions. I’m not in support of forcibly sending someone to rehab a dozen times because they have no desire to stop using PCP. At some point they need to sit in a jail cell.

I also strongly believe that makers/traffickers/dealers should get very stiff penalties, and that they should be the focus more so than simple users "
worldnews,"So, I'm going to start by saying that I mostly agree with you when it comes to things like Meth or PCP. I suspect people get sucked into that addiction due to lower cost/ready availability more than anything else. Once you're addicted, you're basically just doing it to not feel terrible and if you do manage to get off but start struggling with life again, you're back into the problem of cheap/readily available. I mention all of this because if we were treating all drugs the way we treat alcohol (legal with some small restrictions), I imagine the market for things like PCP and Meth would evaporate *really* quickly. 

>And it’s also worth noting that there are still several criminal charges associated with alcohol, many of them having to do with being intoxicated in public.

I'm perfectly fine with applying public intoxication laws to drugs too. I'm talking about literally copying the existing laws surrounding alcohol and pasting it into a new document, then doing a ""Find and Replace"" on ""alcohol"" and replacing it with ""Marijuana"", ""Heroin"", ""whatever"" and passing those as new laws. But its worth noting that public intoxication laws are enforced almost entirely based on whether you *appear* intoxicated and a large portion of drug users function perfectly normally in society and have few if any obvious tells that they're on a drug. You probably have at least a few coworkers that you see everyday who are on heavy painkiller prescriptions but you wouldn't even know it without digging through their prescription history. I don't think these laws would have as much of an effect as you may think to curb drug use.

As to personal responsibility, I never suggested absolving people of personal responsibility at all. Committing crimes to further an addiction should of course still be prosecuted, just as committing crimes to put food on your table is still prosecuted, but you seem to be suggesting that being addicted is itself something that must be punished, and there I wholly disagree. If you aren't harming anyone but yourself, then its nobody else's business. If you are harming others, you should be punished and or sent to a rehab program. 

That leads me to rehab programs. Rehab programs need to be more than just a program to get clean right now. If your life sucks and you turn to drugs to feel better about it, getting clean won't help if your life still sucks. You need more than just someone to hold your hand while you puke up your guts, you need someone to actually help you improve your life longer term, otherwise the rehab will be ineffective in most cases. And if you turned to drugs because your life sucked, you probably don't know how to improve your life on your own and may not even know where to start looking for help. A rehab center would be an ideal candidate for teaching people, particularly low income people, how to improve their lives.

This is one of the areas that our current system is woefully unprepared for, regardless of what drug you're addicted to. Most treatment centers focus on getting the drugs out of your system and maybe offering some addiction counselling, which usually amounts to trying to reprogram your reaction to stress or teach you to upend your life and avoid anything that even remotely reminds you that drugs exist, but offer little if anything when it comes to truly improving your life. "
worldnews,"I think we agree on most points, but i will clarify the whole “addiction as a crime” thing. I don’t think possession hard drugs should be legal. There’s no reason for it. For possession, i think rehab is a good punishment. However, after repeat offenses, and rehab has shown to be ineffective, it is at that point i believe criminal elements should come into play.

Give people a chance to better themselves, but we shouldn’t be sending people to rehab a dozen times.

And yea, rehab centers should do more and there should be more of them. That being said, the people still have to have a sense of self responsibility and willpower to be a responsible adult and take the actions to stay clean.

That’s my point when i say that taking away all criminal elements is absolving drug users of personal responsibility. If the most “punishment” they ever receive for possession is getting sent to rehab, the only incentive they have to better themselves is their own willpower and desires. And for a lot of drug users that may not always be enough. Rehab would most likely be taken a lot more seriously if people knew that jail was an eventual option if they kept surrounding themselves with drugs.

And as far as “if they don’t harm anyone else then it’s nobody else’s business”, i disagree with that. I’m not going to wait for the dude who has PCP on him to take it and then beat the shit out someone and go crazy.

That’s like saying DUIs shouldn’t be a crime unless someone gets hurt, the whole point is to stop something before it happens."
worldnews,"Imagine being at a party and trying to figure out what you are going to get for food. You want to get Mexican food, so you make your case and have a vote. Pizza wins, so you say no no no. We’re going to try this again. You make your case and wings are the most popular choice. So you again throw a fit and say we need to vote again. This time Mexican Food wins by a small margin and you declare victory saying democracy has spoken. Here you’re just an asshole at a party, but when a government does it it’s way worse."
worldnews,"Another fun example. Imagine that the US had single issue referendums. Now imagine that the GOP, since they control both houses of Congress call a referendum to ban abortion. First time it’s called it fails, and abortion stays legal. So they call for another referendum. It fails again, so they call for another. This time it passes and it’s put into law in a way that can’t be reversed . Would you really accept that people just changed their minds at that was a legitimate strategy?
"
worldnews,"More alike someone asks at the start of the party if all want a pizza and that it is the best pizza on the world.  
Then while the party is going on you hear from various sources that it is not really a good pizza and furthermore much more expensive than expected.  
 Now the question is would you try to vote again before ordering or would you stick to your decision just because you said so at the start."
worldnews,"More like you all agree on pizza and then call in to ""negotiate"" with the pizza place. You're on the phone and you're hearing the options and the costs, and you go back and forth with the people at your party and the pizza place as you nail down the deal, and maybe after the people at your party hear the options and the wait time and the cost, they opt not to get pizza and get Chinese instead.

Modern day technology makes direct democracy more and more possible. That's what the Brexit referendum was at the start. So as the deal gets negotiated and the consequences of the withdrawal shape up, why should it be representatives making decisions for the masses instead of the masses?

There are a lot of problems with direct democracy, but I don't think it's fair to assume the EU will not honor the withdrawal if the people vote to express themselves during the various stages of negotiations and ultimately commit to Leave."
worldnews,"Well, if it was a fair vote, then I’d say so. But this is something that will have extremely far reaching consequences, and will not be reversible once it fully goes through. The original brexit campaign was based on lies, and all it’s main people just bolted. Maybe if they started a campaign to factually inform the public, then had another vote. But it’s even hard to extrapolate the consequences, since the government still doesn’t really know what type of brexit they want."
worldnews,">The EU is literally willing to ban memes over IP and copyrigh

That alone tells me you are very misinformed of both Article 11 and 13, regardless the purpose of those articles is change how copyright is enforced, not what is covered.  Ie: who and when someone is responsible for a copyright infringement.

It's a terrible piece of legislation but its not quite the same thing we are talking about here.

America takes IP to another level, and forces it on other nations.  This is why the TPP was bad up until the Americans left.

America is the only country that sends FBI agents to foreign nations to arrest a kid illegally downloading music.  America is one of the only countries that uses Federal Criminal Investigation resources for what is technically a civil matter.  America is the only country that regularly updates it's copyright terms close to expirary  to benefit the companies before the lose patents (75 + life? comeon...)

The EU may be pulling stupid shit here, but they do not force other countries to adopt their IP standards outside of the EU borders.  

It's not remotely comparable.

"
worldnews,"But we are comparing enforcement, which is the whole point. The EU forcing their standards on others and the US enforcing their standards on others. If you think that the EU's laws being forced on companies, that make up the bulk of the *world wide* web, would have no impact outside their border, then you are sorely mistaken. Your argument was that IP was just an American concern, it's clearly not. If it wasn't a concern, they wouldn't have to make these laws on how enforce something they don't care about."
worldnews,"The EU is not forcing their standards on others.

> If you think that the EU's laws being forced on companies, that make up the bulk of the world wide web, would have no impact outside their border, then you are sorely mistaken.

It may, that's up to the companies and their business model.  The EU is not actively going to another country like New Zeland and saying ""hey, this service operating within your country is using IP's that someone in our country has, we need you to extradite them"".

They are simply saying to operate here, these are the rules.

 >our argument was that IP was just an American concern, it's clearly not.

Maybe worded a tad poorly on my part.  Americans are more concerned about IP internationaly then others.  In the context of our discussion we are comparing tariffs with ignoring IP rights.  The only country that really pushes IP regulations outside of their own borders is the US.  Other countries don't really care as much as to what Canada is doing in this case.  In the context of our conversation, only Americans really care.

Canada isn't really ignoring IP, they are ignore American IP which i believe is equivalent to ignore trade agreements and applying tariffs.

Canada has its own IP system, as part of Nafta one of the concessions Canada made was that it had to treat American patents equivalent to Canadian.  I see no problem that if Americans are going to selectively ignore parts of Nafta during negotiations, why Canada can't as well?

"
worldnews,"India has already done this. There are requirements before they're allowed to move to production. It's not a case of ""Hey that looks cool, lets copy that!"" it's more along the lines of:  
\- Is the medication available in our market  
\- Is the medication available for a price that doesn't make half of the country go bankrupt for the rest of their lives

This measure is a direct reaction to the likenesses of Martin Shkreli and the 400% price hike on another drug just this week ""because maximizing profits is what we're supposed to do"", making a single shot of it incredibly unaffordable.

They're not going to be assholes and just copy everything. They adhere to the same free market principles as the US, they just believe that free markets have limits and that its excesses can be regulated."
worldnews,"Saudis had the US by the nipples for YEARS because of the petro, but now you guys are fracking.

We however have the largest reserve of oil on the planet thanks to our dirty ass Oil Sands.  So there is sweet fuck all the Saudis can hold over us.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/saudi-arabia-wheat-1.4780595

The Saudis never had a strong position. We don't need a single one of their exports, but they sure as fuck needs ours. So their people is who takes the pain, when they attempt to slight us."
worldnews,"Depends on how you want to view the gains.

Personally I think the toll its takes just on the environment alone isn't worth it, especially what its doing to the rivers in Alberta. The farmers sure have quite a bit to say about the cost on this particular angle.

However we ship it to be refined, again at a further cost, but at some interesting gains.

The US and Canada relationship, the real reason its going to last, no matter what damn idiot is in control of either one, is the oil money. The Billions in revenue that travels back and forth between Alberta and Texas is fucking insane and it doesn't take kindly to disruptions.

As you notice both countries will throw tariffs on just about everything, even big Pharma is in the cross hairs and targeted. Yet neither country says boo about oil, and I'm smugly assuming that won't change. As no industry has the kind of money the Oil industry has."
worldnews,"Pretty much the entire Russian security apparatus is gopniks at this point, taking their lead from Putin and the other former street thugs who rose to power through the KGB and mafia in the 80s and 90s. Did you see the commander of the Russian National Guard (who was previously Putin's personal body guard) went on their official social media account to make a video literally challenging Alexei Navalny to a street fight, threatening to ""pound [his] face into tenderized steak""?

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-09-14/russia-s-thugs-may-be-too-much-for-its-technocrats?srnd=premium-europe"
worldnews,"
>You implied it when you wrote 'They invade other countries' air spaces' while discussing this particular story.

Nope I was referencing my other comment in this thread that you are responding to.  I said that they invade American and Canadian airspace.   If you  look at this thread I never once said they invaded UK airspace, nor did I imply it lol. 

It's not my fault that you can't follow a simple conversation lady.

"
worldnews,">  they meddle in elections

1996 Russian election, anyone? Clinton got the IMF to give Russia $10bn loan because the communist party had a *huge* lead in the polls as the harsh transition to capitalism was screwing their country with crime and corruption, this would have won them the election and re-started the cold war. After the loan, there was a colossal swing in the opinion polls - The US literally bought it."
worldnews,"ahh now we're moving goal posts! So here's more

>Russia has advised the US to stop sending military planes close to its border days after the Pentagon accused a Russian fighter jet of an “unsafe interaction” in the Black Sea. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-us-black-sea-air-force-planes-fly-near-border-fighter-jet-unsafe-interaction-black-sea-a8191376.html

>A Russian Su-27 jet performed an unsafe intercept of a US Navy surveillance plane while it was flying in international airspace over the Black Sea Monday, three defense officials told CNN.

>https://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/29/politics/russia-jet-us-navy-black-sea/index.html


Thanks for playing, ya dumb cunt"
worldnews,"oh so now its the us allies haven't done the same thing oh ok

>In a separate incident, Russia said an MiG-31 jet fighter had intercepted a Norwegian patrol plane over the Barents Sea. Russia's Defence Ministry identified the plane as a P-3 Orion anti-submarine aircraft.

The Russian Defence Ministry complained that the Norwegian plane had flown close to Russia's state border with its transponders switched off. The Norwegian military confirmed the encounter, but said it was ""normal.""

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3770263/usaf-russia-airforce-nato-baltic-sea/"
worldnews,"Because other countries don't do this? France deposed Gadaffi and fucked up Libya (more). UK did it with Iran. Canada keeps supplying the saudis with weapons to keep fucking up Yemen. It would be easier to list the countries there the US didn't meddle in one way or another. 

Its a fucked up standard practice by EVERYONE. Lets get off our high horse. 

oh also the US does this exact same shit in the Black Sea to test Russian response times, etc. Or used to before Putin's puppet was installed. 

"
worldnews,"After doing some research, I am pretty certain that 121.5 MHz is well known internationally and reserved for emergency communication by the ICAO, of which Russia is a member.  I don't know if the ""Standards and Recommended Practices for Aeronautical Telecommunications"" is actually international treaty or just a recommendation - but I have a hard time believing that Russia isn't aware of these international standards or that their military would ""accidentally forget"" about the frequency when conducting a mission close to another nation's sovereign airspace.

For reference, [Annex 10, Volume 2, 5.2.2.1.1.1](https://www.icao.int/Meetings/anconf12/Document%20Archive/AN10_V2_cons%5B1%5D.pdf) states that ""Aircraft on long over-water flights... shall continuously guard the VHF emergency frequency 121.5 MHz""."
worldnews,"You've left out (deliberately I suspect) a very important part of Annex 10, Volume 2, 5.2.2.1.1.1.

​

>Aircraft  on  ong over-water   flights, or on flights over designated areas over which the carriage of an emergency  locator transmitter (ELT)  is required, shall continuously guard the VHF emergency frequency 121.5 MHz, **except for those periods when aircraft are carrying out communications on other VHF  channels or when airborne equipment limitations or cockpit duties do not permit simultaneous guarding of two  channels.**

​

I'll also state it again - **121.5 isn't a controlled frequency**. Not monitoring 121.5 isn't the same as ignoring air traffic control."
worldnews,"I left it out because it is irrelevant.  It also doesn't matter that 121.5 isn't a controlled frequency (whatever that even means).

They know that 121.5Mhz exists.  They know what it is used for.  They know that they are flying in controlled airspace, and additionally flying close to sovereign airspace.  They know that they do not have a flight plan.  They know that ATC will be trying to contact them on that frequency.  This isn't a solo pilot flying a Cessna.  This is a crew of highly trained military pilots flying a strategic bomber.  They have million dollar radios capable of monitoring two channels at the same time.  They have multiple crew who are able to monitor two channels at the same time."
worldnews,">I left it out because it is irrelevant.

​

No, it's absolutely not irrelevant. It's ENTIRELY relevant because it provides entirely valid reasons as to why 121.5 need not be monitored.

​

>They know that they are flying in controlled airspace

​

Where did you come to that conclusion? What controlled airspace were they in, exactly? Who's airspace was it? What class of controlled airspace was it? If they were operating within controlled airspace, why would the controlling authority be trying to contact them on 121.5 instead of the prescribed control frequency?

​

Citation needed.

​

>They have million dollar radios

​

I had to laugh at this. They'll have more than one radio - sure - as is typical for most aircraft. 2 VHF and an HF radio, likely. However they may well be monitoring other frequencies and being a military flight they'll be operating under their own subset of rules - of which there is no global standard anyway -  so trying to quote ICAO doesn't mean much.

​

​"
worldnews,"Here is a Jewish paper writing about the complicated system. It's money for the family.

Israeli military court convicts even Palestinan dissidents and enforces military laws on a civilian population.

To combat that PA gives blanket payment to any family in Israeli jail. It's not for murder or terrorism. A political prisoners or a theif's family would get the same money as well.

It's to support families not terrorists. It does result in cases like this where a geniune terrorist's family gets payments but the payment is so that the families can live. It has no relation to the crime committed.

https://forward.com/news/israel/348017/exclusive-does-aid-to-palestinians-subsidize-the-families-of-terrorists/

EXCLUSIVE: Palestinian 'Terror Payments' — A Complicated History – The Forward

Don't downvote me for explaining the reason behind this fund. "
worldnews,"You know this is talking about the Palestinian portion of Israel taxes which is basically Palestinian money? 

You realize that those people haven't been paid  and Israel's definition of terrorism might differ from the Palestinian definition. I'm not arguing this specific case but in general its not strange that some labeled terrorists by Israel would be seen as a martyr by their enemy. 

EU and UN money goes to many good uses including education and refugee support which is very much needed for Palestinians at home and refugees in neighbouring states. "
worldnews,"Fuck terror and terrorists. Being related to one does not make you guilty of anything. Destroying family homes is in violation of international law but we all know Israel is above the law. 

Israel supports illegal settlers and a huge army that terrorises Palestinians. 

Let me spin it once more, would Israel not destroy the home of a known terrorist if the PA did not pay the terrorist? Make it look like the two are related when they are not. 

Also just for certainty, Israel has been doing this since it's inception inheriting this barbaric practice from the British mandate. It has nothing to do with payments for terrorists. "
worldnews,"Fuck terrorists but Israel should just try to dissuade them the civilized way with reasoned debate, harsh language and sternly written letters. /s 

What's barbaric is sending [teens to murder teens](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36671991) in their bedroom as they sleep and get praised as a martyr by his own mother for doing it. But don't hold it against the family. 

> Israel supports illegal settlers and a huge army that terrorises Palestinians.

If Israel wanted to follow the same 'rules of engagement' (or rather a lack thereof) as their adversaries there wouldn't be a blade of grass left standing in Gaza or the West Bank. The settlers enjoy a disproportionate voice in gov't due to the rep-by-pop parliament that turns fringe parties into kingmakers. I don't support settlers because I don't share their belief that the only way to live an authentic Jewish life is to live in 'biblical' Israel. If you're pointing to settlements as the cause of strife however, you're ignoring the fact that violent attacks on Israelis predates the settlements. 


> Also just for certainty, Israel has been doing this since it's inception inheriting this barbaric practice from the British mandate. It has nothing to do with payments for terrorists.

When someone is resigned to kill as many people as they can until they are killed in turn or apprehended it has everything to do with dissuading terrorists from carrying out attacks if it gives them pause to consider that their family will pay the price for their acts of indiscriminate violence. Who fears a lengthy prison sentence when they're strapped with a bomb belt and promised a glorious afterlife as a martyr? 

edit: Violent attacks, not 'violence attacks'
"
worldnews,"> If they're looking for cheap real estate then one possible solution to getting them to live somewhere less contentious is subsidized housing. That same approach is ineffective against fanatics because even if you paid them to live somewhere else they wouldn't.

Agreed.

> I see Israel becoming a 'mini-Coruscant' because there's really nowhere else to go but up.

You're most likely correct, much of the land simply isn't worth trying to develop."
worldnews,"You're painting everyone with the same brush and providing one example to justify the thousands of demolitions done by Israel. This is not how you achieve justice. 

The whole broken record of kill us all is getting old. Israel kills approximately 10 innocent Palestinians for every innocent Israeli they lose. The reality shows Israel is the one on a killing spree and not the other way around. 

Would you be ok if rapists daughters were sent to prison? Or maybe we can put wives on house arrest? If you rape a woman I will destroy your mom's home, does it sound better? Not to me you can't make the daughter or mother pay for a crime they didn't commit just to deter the rapist. This is some fucked up logic and fails on many levels. 

To return to my main point home demolitions are a grave injustice and in violation of international law. What about all the non terrorist homes Israel destroys, what about all the villages? What about homes taken away from Palestinians and given to Israelis. Israel amongst many things is a serial home destroyer and land grabber. They don't do it because of terrorist attacks they do it to expand Israel and choke Palestine and Palestinians. This whole terrorist bs is just another cover another reason to intensify the Palestinian struggle and make the Palestinians suffer. 
"
worldnews,"> You're painting everyone with the same brush and providing one example to justify the thousands of demolitions done by Israel. This is not how you achieve justice.

I'm providing a salient example of pure evil to make my point. 

> The whole broken record of kill us all is getting old. Israel kills approximately 10 innocent Palestinians for every innocent Israeli they lose. The reality shows Israel is the one on a killing spree and not the other way around.

Proportional response does not mean 'equal kill ratios'. Israel is not on a 'killing spree', Palestinian militants do everything they can to [exacerbate collateral damage](https://nypost.com/2015/05/02/un-report-outlines-how-hamas-used-kids-as-human-shields/) to get sympathy out of bleeding hearts, yourself for example. Again, if Israel wanted to go on a killing spree they have the means. They practice restraint because they aren't the 'barbarians' you insist they are. 

> To return to my main point home demolitions are a grave injustice and in violation of international law. 

To return to my point, if someone is committed to carrying out a violent attack to the extent where they do not expect to survive it anything that can be done to dissuade such violence must be on the table. You can't put a corpse on trial and rehabilitate it in prison. You're more concerned with the perpetrator than the victims of violence because you see them as the underdogs. Your priorities are upside down. 

> Israel amongst many things is a serial home destroyer and land grabber.

Israel removed every single Israeli from Gaza and returned the Sinai to Egypt, some land grab. Land for peace doesn't work unilaterally. Israel continues to build in Area C of the West Bank within the parts of the territory Israel expects to keep following the implementation of the two state solution. 

Try erecting structures without a permit or even extending your home and see what happens. 

> What about homes taken away from Palestinians and given to Israelis

What about the Arab League ethnically cleansing 850,000 Jews following '48 in retaliation to a conflict they weren't a party to? What about their homes? Their property? Their communities that were older than the states they resided within. Israel is supposed to take a hit coming *and* going? What would have been an involuntary population exchange similar to India & Pakistan post-colonialism remains one sided because the Arab League maintains the Palestinians as political pawns against Israel and as a way to deflect their citizens' anger.



 

"
worldnews,"You can't use someone's death as a reason to punish someone else. It's ridiculous. You have to stop looking at the terrorist and start looking at the people you are punishing. 

I don't like to dive too far into the past and try to focus on present or the past 30 years at most. The Jewish people ""cleansed"" from the middle east helped form the backbone of Israel as we know it today. Israel would not have been nearly as strong if it weren't for immigration.  Terrible, yes, but Israel did benefit from this greatly. Also let's not forget the Palestinian refugees driven away and never allowed to return but let's not pretend you care about those people and their homes and properties. At least Jewish people can return to Morocco now. 

What I'm talking about is why is it happening now? You're also making the Palestinians pay for what Morocco did 70 some years ago? I'm not really surprised since Bibi was trying to pin Nazi concentration camps on Palestinians too. 

Yes Israel left Gaza but is actively cutting through and taking over the West bank instead. You can't be serious about the two state agreement if you continue actively steal land to build settelments on land you're supposed to give back. "
worldnews,"> I don't like to dive too far into the past and try to focus on present or the past 30 years at most. The Jewish people ""cleansed"" from the middle east helped form the backbone of Israel as we know it today.

*It's ethnic cleansing, but look on the bright side.* 

It put immense strain on a nascent Israel. You're letting other states off the hook for their role in the conflict and diminishing the suffering they caused to hundreds of thousands of people because there were tertiary benefits to Israel in the long run. 

> At least Jewish people can return to Morocco now.

/slow clap. Yeah they can come back until the *next* pogrom. But I guess that's ok because Israel will then have the opportunity to make lemonade and benefit. The same way Israel benefits from French Jews fleeing antisemitic violence in Europe. They're people, not pawns. Immigration *should* be a choice, not a decision based on fear. 

> Also let's not forget the Palestinian refugees driven away and never allowed to return

that's why it's called an involuntary population exchange. Worked out for India & Pakistan because each naturalized the refugees rather than maintain them in camps in perpetuity for the sake of blaming the other. 


> You can't be serious about the two state agreement if you continue actively steal land to build settelments on land you're supposed to give back.

Israel is constructing homes in the parts of the West Bank they expect to keep. If Israel was able and willing to uproot every Israeli from Gaza they can do the same for the parts of the West Bank that are ceded to a nascent Palestine. Tough luck for those who built homes on a political fault line. 
 

>  let's not pretend you care

Let's not pretend you care about the lives of Israelis because you're fixated on the fact that more Palestinians happen to die in an asymmetrical conflict they can't possibly win through force of arms but keep trying to murder as many Jews as they can anyway (when they aren't 'accidentally' murdering Arab-Israelis they mistake for Jews). It's easy to offer empty platitudes like 'fuck terrorism' but that doesn't stop it. That doesn't save lives. 
"
worldnews,"Looks like NOBODY read the article. This is about confirming it’s you when you make purchases. Nothing else. If you wanna buy a $10 app all of a sudden and take 4 mins to type in your password your trust score lowers. If you frequently buy and it’s normal spending, your trust score increases. Credit cards do this to prevent scammers. If all of a sudden “you” are buying apps in India when you just bought something from the AppStore in Oklahoma 20 mins ago, it also lowers your trust score. It’s in the TOS. "
worldnews,"You have fleshed out what the article (and linked articles) said a lot. Is that because you have personal experience with the project as an Apple employee, or is it because you are connecting the dots of the cryptic statements that Apple put out there, or is it because of what you read in the TOS? If it's the last thing, please tell us what you remember about what you read.

I went on to read [this short article, too](https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/apple-trust-score-iphone-data-black-mirror-email-phone-fraud-a8546051.html?amp#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s). 

I think you're wrong, because there is **no reason** Apple would have to gather information about the phone calls you make or the emails you send in order to compute such a trust score. Do you disagree? How would such information conceivably be useful in that context? Explain that."
worldnews,"> ... there is no reason Apple would have to gather information about the phone calls you make or the emails you send in order to compute such a trust score.

What methods do you propose to try and combat click farms: https://imgur.com/gallery/0JQs0

When you use a website, like for a bank, they can record the way the user scrolls and moves the mouse around - and it's very different between a human vs automated script. And one thing Apple is interested in is being able to fight fraudulent purchases and ratings in the App store."
worldnews,"Additionally, they don’t gather direct call and email info. Instead they gather how many and how long your calls were. How many emails you send. For example I send maybe two emails a month. If all of a sudden I start churning out 160 emails a day for two weeks non-stop, something’s off. In fact, it used to happen with an app I had. It would send daily download links to anyone with an email address in my contacts, and would automatically tweet about it daily. "
worldnews,"> When you use a website, like for a bank, they can record the way the user scrolls and moves the mouse around - and it's very different between a human vs automated script.

Bullshit. That would require way too much processor time on the user's computer. It's possible to do things that are like that with javascript, but I don't think banks want to burden the CPU of their clients that much.

Click farms have **nothing** to do with what the article is talking about.

> And one thing Apple is interested in is being able to fight fraudulent purchases and ratings in the App store.

Do you think that they are collecting information on phone calls and emails because they are concerned about **ratings** in their app store? That's absurd. No company would do such a thing."
worldnews,"Sorry... Insert two quarters and try again.

All you are doing is **speculating.**

I don't buy your explanation. If there is an trojan horse going wild on your phone using your phone's email software to send emails, then that is a very rare case. I've never heard of such a trojan horse for iOS, have you?

Explain exactly why Apple would want to close down the ability of a user to buy apps on the app store or make purchases with Apple Pay because your device has been infected. 

If the issue is trojan horses, the article would have stated that clearly.
"
worldnews,"As in the text (funny a ""secret"" program is actually mentioned, isn't it?) it is to calculate a *device* trust score, not a trust score for you.

Read me other post:

https://old.reddit.com/r/news/comments/9hqzw9/apple_is_quietly_giving_people_black_mirrorstyle/e6dzbk3/?context=0

Your phone is a financial device. And **it can clone credit cards** (see how in link). This is to help Apple prevent people from using iPhones to clone credit cards. If you use your phone a lot, they trust the device. If it looks like it's a device used only for one purpose they don't trust the device much at all because it may be being used to scam that service."
worldnews,"Or iMessage spam?

To send an iMessage requires the device identify itself and be a legit device.

So that cuts down spam a lot. People can't spam for free. But they still can spam by buying a device (probably used) and using that ID to spam until Apple blocks it.

So Apple has to be able to figure out how to block devices before they can make enough from spamming to cover the cost of the device they buy.

If you generate a device trust score it helps with this. If you see a device has done nothing buy send iMessages and to hundreds of different people you can block it quickly with little risk of blocking legitimate users."
worldnews,"> Bullshit. That would require way too much processor time on the user's computer.

Wow, we're not talking about bitcoin mining here - [which some websites do](https://medium.com/@MaxenceCornet/coinhive-review-embeddable-javascript-crypto-miner-806f7024cde8). Simply keeping track of a few mouseover() events or if the user scrolled down before clicking on something is not processor intensive stuff, and it helps in identifying possible automation/non-human users. Also I'm a software engineer, I've written code to do this stuff.

> Do you think that they are collecting information on phone calls and emails because they are concerned about ratings in their app store?

Yes. Identifying whether a device is being used by a typical human vs automation/scammers/whatever is very useful. Whether that's to stop spam calls, or fake app reviews, or fake purchases whatever, that information is useful. Collecting generic stats like how many emails/phone calls you send/receive helps."
worldnews,"I appreciated reading what you said about Apple Wallet. However, clearly what the articles are discussing is an entirely different matter.

**A Device trust score** using information about what phone calls I have made and emails I have sent? Sorry... that doesn't make any sense at all.

You're taking your knowledge about one area, and then assuming that Apple is discussing the same thing, without closely looking at the details that were revealed to see if they match."
worldnews,">  it helps in identifying possible automation/non-human users. 

OK... but the article appears to be talking about differentiating one human user from another. Do you disagree?

I draw a big red line when it comes to your argument about a company collecting information on emails and phone calls on *personal devices* in order to protect their ratings on websites. That would not occur. No company would be that stupid. 

I think that your blasé assertions that a company like Apple can and should in good conscience collect any kind of information it wants about users and their usage habits of their devices and communications they make with family and friends in order to stop offenses that happen in the **public sphere** is quite reprehensible. 
"
worldnews,">OK... but the article appears to be talking about differentiating one human user from another. Do you disagree?

It's the same thing.

Differentiating two humans from each other, and differentiating a human from a script uses the same information.

>I draw a big red line when it comes to your argument about a company collecting information on emails and phone calls on personal devices in order to protect their ratings on websites. 

Not ""their ratings"", **all** ratings. Fraudulent rating in app stores is a huge problem. The rating system is used to help with screening bad apps and other problem behavior in the app store.

>That would not occur. No company would be that stupid.

Almost all companies do this. Personal devices aren't some magic bastion of privacy, almost every app and device includes language that allows similar data collection.

"
worldnews,"No, it isn't a different matter.

To clone a credit card you need a device. You would use a device which you don't use for anything else, because you don't want anything tracked back to you, since cloning credit cards is illegal.

So Apple would like to know if the device looks like it is being used by a person to do normal things or if it's just being used as a ""burner"" to scam services (like Apple Pay). If it's the latter they would not let you put credit cards on it, as you're likely doing it to scam. If its the latter and you start send a lot of iMessages to hundreds of people (and do nothing else) you are likely using it to spam (scam iMessage), so they would block the account.

Having scores like this helps them block scammers while minimizing errors of blocking legitimate users.

I closely looked at the details. They match."
worldnews,">A Device trust score using information about what phone calls I have made and emails I have sent? Sorry... that doesn't make any sense at all.

It makes perfect sense.

A person is going to make a fairly predictable pattern of phones calls, of a predictable range of duration.

A phone operating within those norms is going to have a higher trust score than a phone that makes 100 2 second calls a day, or zero calls.

Same goes for emails. The vast majority of phones aren't going to be used to send hundreds of emails a day, allowing apple to maintain a inherent distrust of devices that behavior in an unexpected way.

This makes it easier to block compromised phones, or phones used for click fraud, or phones being used for purchase fraud.

This type of general usage data is essential in effective screening. "
worldnews,"> collecting information on emails and phone calls on personal devices in order to protect their ratings on websites.

There are different types of data. There’s a big difference between collecting people’s names from emails vs collecting statistics on how many emails you send/receive per day. A few stats can help differentiate real humans from scripts to prevent fraud.

Your credit card company collects *way* more stats about you also to prevent fraud. Times of day you use your card, where you shop, how much you spend, etc. When your shopping suddenly becomes unusual they may flag those purchases as likely fraudulent. That’s happened to me - my card company called me up to let me know someone probably had a copy of my card and was buying stuff.

You’re free to complain to Apple and free to not buy their products. Unfortunately Google android collects a ton of information too - they are an ad company."
worldnews,">**A Device trust score** using information about what phone calls I have made and emails I have sent? Sorry... that doesn't make any sense at all.

Yes, it does. I’m not sure what else to say. If I only email/text very rarely for a few years and then suddenly begin spamming all my contacts with emails/texts that would be very suspicious indeed and Apple would probably want to know that it is likely I am not actually me."
worldnews,"> Bullshit. That would require way too much processor time on the user's computer. 

Oh wow, this is funny enough to make having read the chain worth it. You can install scripts that do this on your own website easily, along with heatmaps for click patterns and all kinds of other neat stuff for measuring user interactions. Applying this knowledge to antispam measures is brilliant and should be applauded. It reduces the nag factor, as a service using this may be able to stop enough spam by relying on passive input like this, and not need to interfere with the user at all. No more filling out annoying captchas and playing drone teaching minigames that ""don't work"" much of the time.

I despise and boycott Apple, and have for decades, but you're full of crap on this point."
worldnews,"I happen to resent websites whose developers have installed unnecessary Javascript functions. Frankly, I think that the Javascript standard should be simplified and pared down. In my estimation, being a person who has used the internet since its public debut with telnet sites and such things, I think that web pages should be ideally written only with formatting code. I think that to create the ability for web designers to utilize the processor of the computer to run code was a BIG mistakes that the w3c made. When I as a user, wish to run a program, I choose to do so and I accept the risks associated with that. That program, if it's poorly written, could seize up my computer, it could contact the internet and forward private information from my computer. But I know when I run an app that I have the responsibility that comes with choosing to do that. When I'm browsing the internet, I am in a library looking through books. I am seeking information. 

I, for one, do NOT despise Apple. I'm trying to get into using their equipment these days, because I want to learn iOS app development, but I do think that their ethic of keeping EVERYTHING the user does in the cloud is a really big security risk, and I do criticize that. I think that any company who actually makes it so that you can't operate your own machine normally without your private data in their cloud, somewhere in the world, really needs to be watched like a hawk.  "
worldnews,"I think that you, buddy, are going to find yourself on the **wrong** side of history. The collection of personal data is something that should be strictly controlled by legal frameworks. You shouldn't just be able to do it, willy nilly, because of some random idea you had.

Europe has some fairly strong data privacy laws. If you and your buddies brigading this comment thread want to sell your software in Europe, you had better realize the importance of this."
worldnews,"So what you're saying is you can't see how a company who makes a device which clones credit cards would want to try to find people who are scamming using it while not inconveniencing people who are using it as intended?

You can't see how the bank who would allow this device to clone their cards (each issue decides on their own to support Apple Pay or not) would want to see this done?

And thus the success of the service would depend on doing at least a decent job of detecting scammers?

Whether it's speculation or not, the details do match and your assertion that ""it doesn't make any sense at all"" doesn't fit.

> I think you're wrong, because there is **no reason** Apple would have to gather information about the phone calls you make or the emails you send in order to compute such a trust score. Do you disagree? How would such information conceivably be useful in that context? Explain that.

There is reason. I explained why they would want to do it. And even if it is speculation it shows that your argument that there is **no reason** was flat out wrong. You just failed to think of a reason."
worldnews,"> It is for us to discern what they are actually doing and what the implications are for cell phone users, app developers, and the broader society.

That's not what you said before. Before it was a problem because there was no reason for them to do this.

Before you had a ""can't explain that"" attitude. Now that someone can explain it, the issue is what are they really doing.

If it's really up to us to evaluate, then it's time for you to make your case. Now that you have been shown there are legitimate reasons why they would do this it's up to you to show that the reasons aren't these but are instead nefarious.

Because your last argument was simply that they must be nefarious because there are no legitimate reasons. And that argument has been shown to be false."
worldnews,"I still don't accept your usage case as a valid reason for a company to collect information about personal records - such as emails and telephone calls.  However, I don't wish to argue what appears to be a red herring that we are chasing down this pathway that you have chosen to take the conversation.

The concern I have, as a relatively recent adopter of Apple products, is that they are way too intrusive as a company into the privacy of their users. You can't even turn on a Macintosh that you have bought, without connecting it to the internet, and then typing in your Apple account information.

I realize that software developers have had to move to a better framework in order to continue to make a profit. While I, as a user, rue the day that people started making subscription based applications, I understand the economic necessity, and that many customers are perfectly happy to pay for subscriptions.  ""App stores"" for computers have solved the problem with software piracy in a way that has never happened for the music or the film industry. I admit that.

However, I **do not accept** that Apple needs to have all of my personal notes, and calendar data, and other assorted things on their servers somewhere in the world. I'm an old school guy. I believe that there should be a bright line between my usage of my computer and the things that I create on it - be it photographs, or text or other things with software - and the internet. 

I DO NOT APPRECIATE the arguments of people like you who say, ""Well, all of our personal life patterns are OK for Apple to make note of for any reason that they feel that they want to do so."" I understand that people like you admire the late Steve Jobs and the Apple company, but I insist that there is a time to criticize company policies when they are setting a bad precedent for the future of human society. 

By the way, Europe has some strong legal protections, when it comes to data privacy.. and if you're a guy who wants to make software that sells there, you should bone up on this stuff."
worldnews,"> I still don't accept your usage case as a valid reason for a company to collect information about personal records - such as emails and telephone calls. However, I don't wish to argue what appears to be a red herring that we are chasing down this pathway that you have chosen to take the conversation.

Sorry, we've got nothing going here then. I didn't ask if you felt this was the reason but if you saw that it is a valid reason.

And when you say now, it's clear you're not actually considering anything, you just were speaking from a close mind all along.

And thus there is no point in continuing. You're not going to make your case with me (and probably not others) if you show you aren't actually considering anything."
worldnews,"> Thus, there is no point in continuing

I'm sorry... I'm going to digress here, because it's become such a funny conversation. Let's quit talking about Apple and software design, now, shall we? Sigh. OK... what is actually happening here between you and me?

My first reaction was this:

*""Oh... WOW... you are such an American, aren't you? This is a classic way people in this country just want to shut down and leave a conversation whenever someone else wants to explain themselves in a more thorough way, or take the conversation into a broader context.*

*Fine, fare thee well!""* 

You say that I am ""closed minded."" Why? That was the biggest thing I hated back when I was a teenager, myself, when talking to older people. Yes, I'm older than you are, I think. I've seen that there are real patterns in the world that happen over the course of time that need to be understood and thought about. 

You may think that older people who ""rain on your parade"" as young people are ""closed minded."" But, on the other hand, are young men in America today getting the mentorship, role models and other things that they need in order to go forward into healthy adult lives? No. And that's tragic.

Instead of calling someone who is older than you closed minded, I would suggest that you go find some elderly person to help in their home, and see the value of the bond you can form with that person. It's incredible that kinds of things that you can learn to make your life better from someone like that!"
worldnews,"When the last Dutch who collaborated with the Nazis during the holocaust is tried, they get a right to recommend other war criminals. 

I like how European leaders now are shocked, shocked! with what's going on in Israel. It's like they haven't been committing actual atrocities all over the planet for centuries. Not to mention actively selling weapons to questionable regimes in the present. The EU should change its motto to ""do as I say, not as I do"". "
worldnews,"So practically nobody has ""your permission"" because of something that happened 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago - etc. Because almost every major western country was embroiled in one ugly thing or another in its history.

And countries that weren't colonizers are not allowed to criticize you because of their gays, or their women, etc (basically any Middle Eastern country that criticizes you).


Well, I'm glad the Palestinians can rest easy knowing those filthy colonizers from eras before any of us were even born are not allowed to speak up for them. Really makes your day better as you anxiously wait the few hours of electricity and running water coming your way."
worldnews,"Taste of what?

Because so far theres been no evidence it's a fabrication. Surely if this was a fake story a western media outlet would have picked it up, no?

I'm just not into using fallacy to argue. If you were to post a Fox News article I wouldn't just say ""oh its Fox its most likely lying"". Same goes for any outlet. Or should I say you're lying because you've posted on T_d before? 

I do agree that the article is trying to put the blame on the general opposition and that is wrong. They kind of fix this when they say it was an extremist element of the opposition. "
worldnews,"Use a little critical thinking.  The Venezuelan government's explanations of sabatours undermining their functionality as part of a large right-wing conspiracy never make sense when you consider the scale of what the Venezuelan economy should be.  40 tons of food?  They expropriated 8,520 tonnes of sugar from Coca-Cola on the theory they were hoarding it to cause evoconomic damage.

40 tons of food being destroyed is, in the grand scheme of things, an amount that should be replaceable with the production buffer one would expect the government to have, yet they allege 40,000 families are being affected.  Clearly, their expropriated food production assets are underperforming."
worldnews,"> Opponents to the legalization of medical marijuana use often state that there is a correlation between pot use and criminal activity, as a reason to keep marijuana on the illicit drug list.

> But, the analysis carried out by economist Yu-Wei Luke Chu, writing for The Conversation, revealed that medical marijuana laws haven't led to an increase in the actual rate of violent or property crimes in nearly all of the states in which medical marijuana is legal.

> And, in California, where it is possible to obtain weed legally, crime rates actually appeared to decrease by about 20 per cent, Chu wrote.

"
worldnews,"To be fair there absolutely is a mental ""wall"" with behaviour. If you break that barrier without consequence then you find it easier to do so again. Making weed illegal turns weed into more of a gateway drug than it would be otherwise. Similarly, alcohol is a gateway drug. Tabacco, even dramatic movies are gateway drugs because they encourage you to enjoy visceral experiences.

Of course, turning something into contraband because it increases risk by a little bit actually tends to make things worse. And, somewhat ironically, can even increase risk more. Idle hands are the devil's play things and all that. Thus, a liberal society that allows all behaviour that doesn't directly victimize people and that treats behaviour that puts others at risk as health issues instead of criminal issues actually minimizes damage from problematic human behaviour.

(And weed is less harmful than alcohol)."
worldnews,"There is a potential converse to this situation that I have not seen widely discussed.

For over 80 years we've been diluting the US criminal population with dopesmokers.  What if they've been acting like the control rods in a nuclear reactor, providing a more rational, nonviolent buffer between the violently radioactive inmates?  

Then you suddenly remove the docile, rational inmates by legalizing weed and your for-profit prison system is suddenly fissile with outrageously expensive hard-cases.

The financial solution seems to be to offer free weed to the hard-cases.  Either that or destroy the minds and motivation of inmates through the surreptitious introduction of far more damaging drugs.  They'll try the destroying-minds thing long before they'll try free weed and a Playstation."
worldnews,"Yeah but it has been a useful way for police to search and seize. Marijuana is usually a catalyst for cops to look for other reasons to arrest people. It's also useful for targeting specific demographics as well and give cops an excuse to throw more people in prison. That's why I think legalization is an important step, because most of these people don't deserve to be there.

The gateway drug argument is attribution bias. Just because marijuana happened to be there, or happened to be the first drug, doesn't mean that it is the reason why people got into harder drugs and/or criminal behavior. It's just one more factor, but it cannot be blamed."
worldnews,"More true now then ever, but that doesn't mean the marginal effect does not still exist. If it's technically illegal then there is significance to it. As a drug, there is significance to it. But, if you re-read my initial argument, you will notice that I am pro-legalization (and decriminalization of other harder drugs). Why? Because I think this marginal effect is outweighed by other factors. 

I went out of my way to say that in the beginning to avoid these kinds of misunderstandings. But people don't seem to be able to decipher nuance in today's hyper distracted world. Which is no knock on anyone, by the way. That's just how it is now. And I realize you're pointing out a perspective to me and not necessarily pointing out an error. But my second post's point was that the above user decided to just drop to a snarky comment instead of actually trying to raise a point of significance.

I've seen it before and I think it's unfortunate when people drop to mistruths (knowingly or otherwise) to push some cultural or political movement. Even if they are supporting a cause that is overall correct (and they very well likely have good reason to believe is correct). Take for instance the gay acceptance movement. I think, these days, that most of us can agree that it's a good thing. However, a common argument pushed during the interim was that homosexuallity was ""something you are born with"". 

Now, it's true that there are genetic factors at play and it's also true that environmentally shaped traits are not necessarily a choice (and sexuality is absolutely one of those that is not a choice). However, it was this mentality that has lead some homosexuals to attack, for example, bisexuals for being (supposedly) dishonest about their sexuality. That was an unnecessary regressive belief that became a necessary implication (to some) of this ""good"" mistruth.

Basically, my point is, there is nothing wrong with accepting or considering some fact or theory if it appears to disadvantage your position. It's better to be aligned (as much as humanly possible) with the real truth rather than trying to blaze through opposition with mistruths for ""the greater good"". 

And, ALL of that said, I am open to the possibility that I'm wrong as well. Maybe there is no psychological marginal effect in breaking down mental barriers. But, while the effect is marginal and less significant the more normalized a behaviour is, I think it is something that must have some kind of effect. Like when you kill something it makes it easier to do again when you break a law it makes it easier to do again. Thus, it is my conclusion that having laws against things that are generally harmless actually does more to hurt the effectiveness of the law than it helps by mitigating any small amount of 'gateway drug' effect you would get. (In fact, I would argue that making it illegal actually amplifies the gateway drug effect by encouraging people to ignore advice on drugs when they learn that the scare tactics are a bunch of baloney)."
worldnews,"I'm absolutely judging your word choice: you meant to say something like a ""cheap thrill"" or ""easy high.""  And these drugs produce a cerebral experience as much as they do a visceral one.  Moreover, something like exercise *is* a visceral experience.  Are we banning exercise?  Anyway, I'm not here for the morality per se; I'm more just providing a grammatical courtesy.


*In my younger and more vulnerable years my father gave me some advice that I've been turning over in my mind ever since.  He said that if you ever feel like criticizing (or judging) anyone, get your grammar and word choice in order, or they'll totally pick you asunder on social media and make jokes and stuff.*"
worldnews,"Once again you missed my initial point. I never said that I believed we should ban visceral experiences. I also was not criticizing anyone with my original post. I was merely making the point that there are mental barriers and that even harmless experiences, indeed because they are visceral, can have an effect on these barriers. I then went on to say that this effect is overridden by other factors.

If I am dearly afraid of moving I am most likely incapable of killing anyone: therefore if I participate in something like exercise, and no ills befall me, it eliminates a mental barrier that prevents me from becoming a murderer. This increases the risk that I will kill someone. But if nobody is allowed to move we all die, therefore accepting this increased risk is far better than the alternative. 

Similarly, making drugs illegal actually increases the mental barrier breach when drugs are done. Due to their highly addictive (as in enjoyable in this context) nature it is likely this will spread through natural social interaction. Thus, attempting to use scare tactics and the law to ban drugs, especially one that will not cause immediate negative effects to the user, will increase the risk that they will do worse drugs. After all, nothing bad happened the first time you did a drug so surely all the warnings about other drugs are bullshit too. 

However, it's still a drug, and thus by using it you are breaking down a mental barrier. Someone who tells themselves ""I never do drugs"" is far less likely to try a new drug than someone who does use drugs. This doesn't mean people who abstain from drugs are better people or anything but it's not a phenomena we should ignore because our parents used the logic as a justification for unfair and counterproductive drug policy."
worldnews,"I get that can be a catch 22 in a way, but i think that is tied into the dynamic of buying illegal drugs. I think it has to do with the whole gateway drug thing... weed isn't really a gateway drug, but by purchasing it illegally you're more inclined to be at the will of the dealer. You build a trust based relationship and eventually you're open to trying other things, people tend to build a tolerance and some have heavily addictive personalities. When they cant get that hogh or relief they are looking for they are more open to alternative. They'd turn to alcohol, whip-its, shrooms, or xans and opioids. Does this happen to everyone? God no... but the fact that it does happen to some people is the reason why that's included in the narrative that pot leads to ""criminal behavior"" not like they're going to be breaking in places and stealing money to buy their weed. But statistically they'd be more inclined to be found guilty of multiple drug charges opposed to just the possession."
worldnews,"Tell me about it.  I throw the first lines of The Great Gatsby at people all the time.  Nothing.  Maybe I should start with ""Who's there?""  

Anyway, this person may not use English as a first language, or they have other problems….  No big deal.  I'm a runner, and I need to structure the copious amt. of time I spend in the bathroom.  But this guy naively straddles fascist/authoritarian beliefs while doing little to make any kind of salient point, so whatevs.  "
worldnews,"I genuinely try to look past word usage, and to interpret cultural tones, and look at what a person is really trying to say. I mean it's impossible not to judge to some extent based on ignorance of language, and especially basics like spelling and correct word choice, but I try to use those failings to frame whatever inkling of a perception I have of the person speaking, where they came from, why they might believe as they do...

I guess I'm saying it's OK to correct and to criticise, but we need to be vigilant against bigotry while indulging in it. It's best to try to learn something about a person from their words rather than to pigeonhole them for their choices based on stereotypes - even if the stereotypes are frequently informed by kernels of truth, and even if it turns out one of them applies. Vigilance doesn't mean ignoring reality, either.

There is such a faint line between really hearing someone and applying our own version of reality to their words. I think more often than not the signal is lost entirely.

For example, I'm reasonably well educated and I have a decent command of English. The Great Gatsby references would mean absolutely nothing to me, as I'm not familiar with it. Does that tell you I'm not well read, or that my interests lay elsewhere, or that my circumstance just didn't expose me to it?"
worldnews,"i think of the internet and social media as a kind of horrible vice that i'm getting away with using.  i generally don't think it should ever be used as a basis for intelligent discourse or sincerity; it's like taking in the news via TV vs reading.  

anyway, this person was drawing lines on what people should and shouldn't do [without ""judging"" them].  and maybe they really weren't aware that they were.  this is the type of person that ends up banning sex or dancing (*Footloose* joke) under the naive guise of ""best intentions.""  anyway, i guess i'm saying that i believe most people have the ability to craft an intelligent argument on paper if they want--they're on the internet, so i know they have the resources.  

and i consider the first lines on Gatsby or Hamlet fair game; they're so profound!  otherwise, i rarely quote literature like that.  "
worldnews,While enjoying simplicity in life is absolutely a great way to be happy life is unfortunately complicated. So I take this perspective: it's okay to be wrong. I think we just need to be a bit more easy going when learning and raising points in any given discussion. I do believe it's important to dive deep into things and consider all of the possibilities. Thus I find value in raising and reading different perspectives on all kinds of minutiae.
worldnews,"I wonder if homosexuality will continue to be a thing once gene editing embryos becomes mainstream. [Outside of this humorous scenario](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2ND7sAClHo), who would willingly subject their child to the unpleasantness that this still brings you in this day and age? Same for other undesirable traits like birth defects, mental illnesses like autism and so on.  

Unsurprisingly, this possibility already has certain interest groups up in arms who wanna preemptively ban the procedure. Deaf people for instance have some pretty weird organizations that insist that there is nothing wrong with them. Guess that's what all this talk about being ""differently abled"" gets you: People willingly condemning their (and others') children to a life of, if not suffering, at least tremendous difficulties and reduced opportunities/possibilities."
worldnews,"Ok, I’ll help you, too. It’s propaganda from a regime that censors the internet in its country, clamps down on dissent, and is guilty of massive human rights violations. It is a lie by default. This lie happens to agree with the New York Times and Washington Post that the trade war hurts America and helps China. That should give you pause. Here’s something that’s not a lie. Check out the Shanghai and Shenzhen indexes since the start of the trade war. Compare with the DJIA, S&P 500, and the NASDAQ. You’ll see that all had a big drop at the same time when the trade war started, but the Chines indexes kept falling, while the American ones are back to where they were and even better. This should give you a hint as to whether it is a lie or not. "
worldnews,"> Ok, I’ll help you, too. It’s propaganda from a regime that censors the internet in its country, clamps down on dissent, and is guilty of massive human rights violations. **It is a lie by default.** 

I'm sorry but you can't be taken seriously if you disregard all information just because it's from people you don't like.

>  This lie happens to agree with the New York Times and Washington Post that the trade war hurts America and helps China. That should give you pause.

Why should it give anyone pause because they are saying something which may infact be true (much to your disdain i'm sure).

If those news organizations got it right, then they got it right.

> Here’s something that’s not a lie. Check out the Shanghai and Shenzhen indexes since the start of the trade war. Compare with the DJIA, S&P 500, and the NASDAQ. You’ll see that all had a big drop at the same time when the trade war started, but the Chines indexes kept falling, while the American ones are back to where they were and even better. This should give you a hint as to whether it is a lie or not. 

Like most trump supporters, it seems like you don't understand that the stock market is not the economy.

The american stock market rose into the clouds right up until it crashed into the floor in 2009. It's built on speculation, not trade.

So using that as a yard stick is frankly, pretty stupid."
worldnews,"> Selectively telling the truth can have the same effect as lying

*Effect as* is not the same as *is*.

> plus really one would be crazy to think they're not lying about anything or not lying more than independent journalists.

Nobody said we shouldn't check the information for accuracy.

What i *am* saying however, if that if you think they lied about anything, point out what it is.

Ironically, you calling them lies if they aren't, is itself lying."
worldnews,"> Effect as is not the same as is.

In both cases you're being intentionally manipulated to think and act against your own good. The effect is more important than the word we're gonna assign to these actions. And the same intent is there in both cases.    

 >Ironically, you calling them lies if they aren't, is itself lying.  

And saying they're not lies if they are lies is itself lying. If you think Chinese propaganda has never told a lie well that's your problem not mine. I'm not gonna waste time checking and proving something that is an absolute certainty to me. In fact I'm certain that just about any source lies and to think that Chinese propaganda which does it a hell of a lot more than the average, has never told a lie is absurd as you have insinuated by asking ""Are they wrong about anything""? "
worldnews,"> In both cases you're being intentionally manipulated to think and act against your own good.

Incorrect. In one case you are being lied to. And in the other, you are not.

> The effect is more important than the word we're gonna assign to these actions. And the same intent is there in both cases.

No, it isn't. You may not believe this, but the truth *matters*.

If you think there's an issue with being told the truth. Make sure people know *enough* of the truth, to avoid whatever problems you seem to think there will be from them finding out half of it.

> And saying they're not lies if they are lies is itself lying. If you think Chinese propaganda has never told a lie well that's your problem not mine.

You implied propaganda necessitates them being lies. I very clearly stated the opposite, and said you should still check.

The point is, are *these* lies or not.

And stating that they implicitly must be because they originate from the Chinese, is stupid.

> I'm not gonna waste time checking and proving something that is an absolute certainty to me. 

Then you live in an echo chamber, and it doesn't matter if they are lies or not. So why do you even care?

> In fact I'm certain that just about any source lies and to think that Chinese propaganda which does it a hell of a lot more than the average, has never told a lie is absurd as you have insinuated by asking ""Are they wrong about anything""? 

I have to say, your choice to never check anything you're certain of certainly can't be paying off very much.

You don't seem to be able to trust yourself to read a single comment chain without making a mistake.

I never said the Chinese never lie. I asked if what they had printed was lies.

You either understand the difference, or you don't. Which is it?"
worldnews,"It's not about statehood being good or bad but it being an option.

As a puertorrican, Trump saying he is not considering it because someone criticizes him is what irks me. What next? No aid or slow ess on aid because we didn't bend the knee?

He also said our almost 3k deaths were a lie fabricated by dems and fake media. No apology or anything there. Fuck Trump and much much more."
worldnews,"I don't know much about Russian politics but my guess is that as Russia's democracy has disintegrated, Putin decided that pensioners and people who are soon to become pensioners are no longer vital to him staying in power.  So he wants to cut spending on pensions and use that money for other purposes.

Putin is doing this now because oil and natural gas prices have been falling for years and he's short of money.  He has to cut spending somewhere.  He could have cut spending to the FSB and the army, but for a dictator like Putin this would have been political suicide.  So he decided to screw over the common folk."
worldnews,"More importantly, he's got a plethora of Russian oligarchs to keep happy, and he's already broken the biggest promise he's made to them, that they wouldn't suffer consequences for their habitual thieving from the Russian people and the international stock markets. The US has made sure Putin broke this promise too, by continually arresting oligarchs, seizing assets, and instituting tarriffs which specifically target the corrupt oligrarchs. This is the promise Putin made when he trotted out Mikhail Khodorkovsky on the international stage, in a cage, in a kangaroo court. He promised all the other oligarchs back then that IF they supported him, and gave him 50% of all their ill-gotten gains, they'd face no repercussions for their various financial crimes (which until this point had been taking money out of Putin's wallet). Putin did not account for the US systematically seizing assets oligarchs hide in the US, tariffs, or arrests of oligarchs abroad.

This has created a very difficult situation for Putin to navigate. I'd wager there's a lot going on behind the scenes in regards to keeping the oligarchs complacent. I'd also wager the pension issue is inextricable from the situation with the oligarchs, pretty much everything else is."
worldnews,"I've read somewhere that the oligarchs are slowly testing the waters for a revolt. I'm sure it would suck to see your life's work get taken before your eyes overnight because of a peasant. 

I think we may be witnessing the beginning of the end for Putin. I think the biggest irony will be how Russia remembers Putin. People couldn't talk shit about Stalin until after his death. The most frustrating thing is, an entire nation's potential has been squandered for one man and their expensive tastes for material goods. 

I mean if you think about it, it's the ultimate humiliation for the USSR legacy-to have a leader succumb to the lifestyles of the West while stealing from the people-oh wait that's what communism was all about."
worldnews,"The Euro is a currency shared by dozens of countries, and while each country can set its own fiscal policy (taxation, spending), not one country has control of its monetary policy (interest rates, inflation, money supply, etc).  This makes managing the currency as a whole a difficult and volatile balancing act.  Its unusual for a country to have control over fiscal policy, but not monetary policy, as these things can be intrinsically tied.

When things are going well, it sure looks fine.  But when, say, Greece defaults and can't devalue its currency or manage inflation, then all of a sudden you have a currency crisis.  Unless Europe becomes a more centralized political entity with EU-wide monetary and fiscal policies (which it won't, because the most basic form of sovereignty is control of taxation and spending, which no one wants to surrender to Berlin/Paris), the currency will always have a degree of instability baked into it.

In the US, the Federal Government controls both fiscal and monetary policy for the entire nation/currency.  The traditional stability of the dollar, paired with the use of the dollar as the global reserve currency, both self support the continuation of the status quo.  Most currencies are currently pegged to the dollar.

To move away from the dollar as the world's reserve currency would either begin, or be a response to, a global catastrophic financial meltdown.  Not impossible, but hardly something you just do because you don't like the US."
worldnews,"Any nation which does not have the capability to blockade and invade US territories. Defensibility of the target nation means little. As history has shown, the US doesn't need to win a conventional, superficial, ""green"" war to maintain hegemony. The ""green"" war we see on TV is just to soften the target through confusion and upheaval and, to obfuscate the murder of political opponents. The true strategic goals are achieved by CIA, mercenaries, and lawyers."
worldnews,"The USD will lose its international reserve status, I am certain it will happen at this point. 

Yes there will be a global economic collapse, but countries will eventually rebound. Not so much with the US still uncertain what happened and now facing crippling debt and rising interest rates as the demand for USD has gone down. That plus a swift depreciation of the USD to make the local ppp of the USD shrink by a good 20%. Fucked immediately and for good.

The immediate preceding and following years might be very violent, as you suggested why: the US army is undeniably the largest, strongest and most powerful in the world...
I keep repeating to US people the US economy is not its strength as it's similar to EU. It's the army protecting its currency and de facto controlling global finance."
worldnews,"Yes friend, the many globalist socialist communist fascists want all of our thumbs! I'm sitting on my ranch in the American state of Iowa staring at ocean thinking of all those globalist socialists plotting about taking away our sovereignty.

My uncle Josef, who was famous kicker for baseball team the New York Patriots, told me on 4th of July that Obama was not great success! 

As lesser American President Abraham Washington said in his song, ""My country Timothy, long live statue of liberty, from purple mountain to sea, let brave people go home."" This is true, no? "
worldnews,"It's true though, whenever I agree/support whatever the post is about, upvotes galore. When I express an opinion, and especially in a snarky way, HERE COME THE DOWNVOTES!!

My comment, for those of you who cannot discern it, is a way of saying to the world that I do not align nor support myself with our current staff of government, and that I fear for the safety of our country and would like to be excluded from any repercussions (as if that were even possible).

So, perhaps you should really read things before you snap-judge and jump to conclusions.

Sad life you must have..."
worldnews,"The sad part about this is a corporation that makes billions per year in PROFIT would have you feeling sorry for them like the are about to go out of business. We are talking about PROFIT. After everything is paid and accounted for the extra money that goes into the CEO's pockets. And because they wanted to make a few billion more this year, they will be ""forced"" to lay off workers putting people out of jobs, because the top brass sure as hell isnt going to risk only making $8 billion in PROFIT this year instead of 9.  
Lets insteads think like short sighted shareholders that dont give two shits about America, and only care about what their shares are worth next quarter. Lets keep buying everything from China, and be at their mercy, because that way you wont have to invest anything in America and its more short term PROFIT. Makes me sick.
  
When American Corporations put PROFITS ahead of Americas best interest in such disgusting greed. They should be named and shamed.  

EDIT: I Was incorrect about Tariffs just starting. Edited"
worldnews,"They must give the profits to the workers then right? Obviously, every penny doesnt go into the CEO pockets. But here is food for thought....   
*Ford releases salary, pay ratio data for entire workforce. Ford CEO Jim Hackett earned total compensation of $16.7 million in 2017, his first calendar year at the company's helm, the automaker said Thursday.*  For one year. Most of that pay comes from stocks. Therefor it would benefit someone like that to do whatever to raise shares because they make a higher annual pay."
worldnews,So what company does he work for?!? Is it Ford or one of the automakers? No?!?! Then don't blame the automakers. What? Another stupid comment that makes no sense here about teachers. You're blaming Ford for something they CANT even control or decide dude. You need to open your fucking eyes. We have one of those places around here. They make interior parts for chevy vehicles. Guess what? Chevy has nothing to do with what that company pays it's people. It's a third party company. People that work there make about the same as your brother. It's not chevys fault. You've proven my point. Thanks again!
worldnews,">drinking vodka in public is the same as taking gravity bong hits in public

I'd be somewhat inclined to agree, but the way I read the government is saying, it looks as though taking gravity bong hits in public would be completely acceptable, which of course it isn't really for most people. Personally I think most people would be perfectly fine with handling being allowed to drink a beer in public without threat of legal problems (or confrontation with police) given that 1 or 2 beers won't mess anyone up anymore than a small quantity of whatever high powered weed is popular in the moment - it's either allow all or allow neither in my view. "
worldnews,"Well disorderly conduct is still gonna be a thing and im sure it will apply to weed. If you high enough that you draw the cops attention, as a smoker, i still believe you should get the same treatment as someone thats drunk. Being an obnoxious prick is being an obnoxious prick.  
That being said, im pretty sure people who are drunk and can walk straight and not cause any sort of disturbance are not being hunted by the cops.  


​"
worldnews,"As i said earlier, you cant have both. Theres 2 main areas...outside and inside. Most places you can smoke outside but not inside. You can drink inside but not outside. If you try to block both, people will simply smoke anywhere they can. There sadly a choice to be made, do you prefer they'd be allowed to smoke outside or would you rather they'd be allowed to smoke weed inside buildings/restaurants? Obviously option 2 is not viable anymore so...there is 1 left.

It was legalized, but a LOT of people are still at the denial stage. Anger will come and eventually acceptance. How long anyone spends at any of those stages is entirely up to them.  


Most people are reasonable and wont smoke near others who dont. Trying to throw them in a cave somewhere will only make people do what they already have been doing for a while...smoke anywhere they want"
worldnews,"I think Amsterdam and Humboldt would like to have a word. Really some of the best indoor can be grown anywhere and light dep allows good outdoor from even places like Canada. Hawaii was the first place to produce awesome hybrids. Northern Lights, Skunk and Blueberry were some of the original American hybrids. Like all places BC has amazing smoke. They also have Beasters (BC Big Bud).

But yeah, beast in the world"
worldnews,"It is a huge symbolic gesture towards the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs

Basically says that the schedule of medical ganja within the SCND is no longer accurate and global commerce of MMJ should begin now. 

Quality is for the market to sort out but first there needs to be the evolution of the SCND before that can happen. This is a big public handshake between two commonwealth countries saying that MMJ is legit. 

We are beginning to see international MMJ commerce open up. Very very good news. "
worldnews,"A young man truly in love with his girlfriend decided to have her name tattooed on his penis. Her name was Wendy, and the tattoo was done while the penis was erect, so when it was not erect all you could see was W Y. Shortly after the couple was married they were honeymooning in Jamaica the man was in a bathroom in Jamaica, and standing next to him was a Jamaican man who also had a W Y on his penis. The American said to him ""Oh is your girl named Wendy too?"" The Jamaican replied, ""No, Mr. that says Welcome to Jamaica Have a Nice Day"" 
"
worldnews,"The ones with the best soil, most reliable rain, and most suitable climate.

Canada... Probably not - at least in bulk.

The USA and Amazon regions probably have the best climates and soils in the Americas. Mid-Africa, the Med and parts of India/SE Asia are decent too. 

Really, it's called weed for a reason. It grows almost anywhere, but some better than others.

My guess is that everyone would have a crack, and it'd either become like coffee, which suits many different tastes, or it'd become more like tobacco - fairly homogeneous."
worldnews,"i've been working help some companies retrofit greenhouses in Colombia.

IMO I like the area around Bogota the best right now.  Reason being its probably the cheapest place in the world to grow indoor quality weed in greenhouses.

In the USA or Canada, they need expensive light deprivation systems, heating in the winter, supplemental lighting etc.. (canada is worse for this obviously)   Which add a fuckton of costs.

Colombia being near the equator is pretty much in a constant 12/12 light cycle all year round, which means you can use cheaper greenhouses with no supplemental lighting except for some cheap household style LEDs to mimmick the vegetative period of the plant, rather than expensive lights for flower production. (most commercially viable cannabis plants flower based on seasonal amounts of sunlight hours)

Cheaper labor costs in countries like Colombia also allow for more attention to be given to the plant, allowing you to have craft quality at an economy of scale that the consumers will love.

I like the area around Bogota specifically due to its calmer temperatures.   Cooler areas of the Equator basically.

For extracts..... If the governments allow it, the hemp industry will change to varieties they can get THC out of, harvest for Pens etc..   Canada alone had 125,000 hectares of hemp last year, this year we're allowed to process it for CBD.... Once farmers in the American corn belt want in on it, its gonna be fucking HUGE... they're a powerful lobby."
worldnews,"It's not about developed vs third world country. Take Canada for example, most weed growers grow indoor with 24 hour climate control, soil are tested regularly to ensure optimal PH level for specific strains' growth, plants are trimmed/bent regularly to ensure maximum light exposure and yield... The indoor grow ops are much more expensive than outdoor ones and it encourages growers to maximize both yield and quality.  Yes, natural climate is much more favorable in the tropical countries, but I doubt their grow op is up to standard compare to the Canadian ones. Canadian(BC especially) weed is consistently considered one of best in the world. "
worldnews,"I went there. I purposely didn’t buy from the guys hounding tourist. Went way off on my own and nearly got killed in the process. Found a guy. He tried to sell me some decent stuff and I told him “No, I want what you smoke” sure enough he had a personal stash. Was very fruity with almost a sweet orange flavor. Really sticky. It was compressed like brick weed but high quality. They definitely have some unique strains."
worldnews,I used to have a connect from their back in the late 90’s. At the time it definitely was some of the best but after California went medicinal and 9/11 that all shut down. They all got scared to smuggle it and I think the high end growers all migrated to the emerald triangle and were behind the legal push. Those crusty old farts are the guys who stayed and are probably a little bitter. 
worldnews,"That is because it came from way before the actual treaty was signed and was discovered in some ""archive"".

Would be like me using time machine on the internet and then saying the information on it is still relevant today, even though it may have changed a hundred times since then.

Israel is trying to deliberately spin the narrative and is using old documentation and powerpoint with pretty pictures to sell to the US, which they are successfully doing. The rest of the world however is calling BS. 

Also, you are hearing that the IAEA is refusing to inspect from Israel. Do we have a statement directly from IAEA that is stating they refuse to inspect based on recent and relevant information?"
worldnews,"You seem like a deep thinker, and this subject intrigues me from a morality stand point.   In your estimation, would the most valuable solution (to all parties' well- being and prosperity beyond the present and perceived future conflict surrounding the state of Israel)  be for Israel to use it's covert or conventional means to destroy or apprehend these ""known"" threats, and use this destruction/ apprehension as a vindication of their preemptive strike?  In other words, should they just exact forgiveness in lieu of asking for permission to inspect? 
Again, I have no ulterior, pro, anti, left right motive or relationship to this issue beyond very much not wanting to witness one group of humans nuke another group of humans. Thank you in advance for your opinion, and any other resultant opinions shared on this topic, except those which are purposefully inflammatory and bigoted to arouse ire. "
worldnews,"Israel’s claim is that Iran’s nuclear program is still active, not that they’ve started a new one from scratch. So any information on the program could be useful.

Also the IAEA supposedly refused to inspect evidence that Israel did not release to the public, so it might be more than files from the archive.

Maybe we should wait for IAEA’s statement regarding the newly revealed intelligence to see if they “knew” about it too. And if they have some light to shine over it.

Also of course Western Europe won’t care. Iran is a regional threat. They only threaten to destroy the USA and Israel as per their scapegoat policy. While their proxies are conquering parts of the Middle East like in Lebanon and Yemen. Have you already forgotten how Europe’s indifference murdered tens of millions in the last century?"
worldnews,"> Was Israel’s evidence also bullshit when they took out the Iraqi and the Syrian nuclear facilities?

I am not well versed on either, but I have heard that there wasnt an actual Iraqi nuclear weapons program until after the Israelis bombed Osirak. Israeli aggression convinced Saddam he needed a nuke.

> Dan Reiter has repeatedly said that the attack was a dangerous failure: **the bombed reactor had nothing to do with weapons research**, while ""the attack may have actually increased Saddam's commitment to acquiring weapons."" In 2011, and basing herself on new Iraqi sources, Malfrid Braut-Hegghammer said that the attack: ""...**triggered a covert nuclear weapons program that did not previously exist**  a decade later Iraq stood on the threshold of a nuclear weapons capability. This case suggests that preventive attacks can increase the long-term proliferation risk posed by the targeted state."" Elsewhere, she wrote:

> The destruction of the Osiraq reactor did not delay the development of a nuclear weapons option because it [the reactor] was never intended to be part of such an effort. The French-supplied facility was subject to rigorous safeguards and designed to ensure that Iraq would not be able to produce weapons-grade plutonium. An examination of the reactor by Harvard physicist Richard Wilson after the attack concluded that the facility was not suited for production of weapons-grade plutonium. As a result, the attack did not reduce the risk that Iraq would develop nuclear weapons. On the contrary, it brought about a far more determined and focused effort to acquire nuclear weapons

So much for Israeli intelligence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera#Assessment"
worldnews,"Don't forget the one-sided whiny victomhood complex comment.

""People hating on Bibi instead of the iran problem in question""

People are allowed to criticize Netanyahu for his decades long exaggeration of the Iranian nuclear threat.

""People talking about palestine instead of the iran problem in question""

People are allowed to talk about Palestine. The fact that you even phrase this in such a way indicates a guilty conscience.

""People talking internet shills instead of the iran problem in question""

If you don't want people to accuse your side of having shills, don't start an official government program devoted to the creation of shills.  "
worldnews,"> With numerous people, including Bill Clinton, supporting the operation

Do you think I give a shit about what politicians (professional liars) who are subservient to lobby groups said at the time?

I choose to take more stock in the word of experts including Harvard Physicists who dont have a political agenda of sucking Israels cock or take paycheques from pro-Israel lobby groups. 

These people actually studied the effects and looked into the history of Iraqs nuclear weapons program for years before they came to their conclusions. And they concluded Iraqs nuclear weapons program was either negligent or non-existant until after the bombings. They also concluded that it was the Israeli bombings that convinced Saddam he needed nukes to protect himself from rogue states like Israel and America. "
worldnews,"Really? That’s funny, because the portion that you quoted, and even put in bold, starts off with the opinions of two political scientists. Interesting that you didn’t assume they were “professional liars” or “sucking Iraq’s cock.”
When you pick and choose things that only support your predetermined narrative don’t pretend it’s because of your high standards for sources. 
It’s pretty obvious that you had already decided what to believe before seeing the facts and just chose what supported your opinion and ignored/left out anything that didn’t. "
worldnews,"> Or its easier to attack a stranger than ask ourselves if there is a slant here

you mean, kinda like how you did. 

>  These aggressive responses don't need your highest achievement in life to figure out when someone is being a dick. Congrats on your community college degree. I'm sure your step dad is proud.

Lmao, so after bitching about getting aggressive comments, this is your response.

If your ability to read people is anything like your ability to read, period, then I fear I am wasting my time with an illiterate."
worldnews,"I'd say it depends on what corner of reddit and when. I'm sure you could find subs that swing either way. However, I would make the observation that reddit's users probably skew slightly more intelligent, tech savvy, and younger than the population at large, which would also suggest a skew toward the left of the political spectrum. Not saying that there aren't smart, young, tech savvy people who skew to the right, there are loads of them...but they're a self-admitted persecuted minority. I'm sure there are a few barely literate MAGA-hat wearers browsing here while cruising through Wal-Mart on the Courtesy Cart as well...

EDIT: But reddit doesn't claim to be, nor should it try to be some kind of neutral arbiter with no agenda...its an aggregate of its users...not even all its users, but any given post or sub is an aggregated expression of the subset of its users that pay attention and choose to participate to that particular post or sub...you'll also get dogpiling and brigading which can artificially skew the apparent political ""climate"".

So ""asking ourselves if there is a slant here"" is kind of an moot question...slanted compared to what imaginary plumb line?"
worldnews,"No worries, I mean, its kind of a dumb question that might appear to be pure political trolling, but there was no cause for the responses that followed citing the ""international nature of reddit"" or bullshit about your ""narratives""...its just real world demographics, you're not wrong, in places and at times there is, I am certain, a ""lefty"" skew. It just doesn't matter like your question seems to imply.

I am not a Leftist, nor a Democrat. I have been a ""Fiscal Conservative"", a Republican (until Bush II and the Rise of the Conservative Christian Right), and a ""Libertarian"" (until the term became muddied and contaminated by douchebags)...and I can, will and do say with some Authority that if I had to go looking for smart folks with logic and reasoning skills, I'm not looking anywhere near the current (political hacks and hoi polloi) Right in America. Ben Carson alone would have been enough to drive me out of the party had George HW Bush's kid and his cronies not already done it...I don't give a shit if the guy is a Black Republican unicorn and a World-Class Neurosurgeon...he's dumb as fuck in my book. The Pyramids of Egypt were granaries?!? STAHP."
worldnews,">Why has no one assassinated hin yet?

Whoa there. How about you disagree with his viewpoints. Don't you think that's a little far of a statement to make?


I do find funny that, as the interview starts you'd think the woman was starting off a segment about baking cookies. She definitely does not have the body language, the vocal tone of starting a serious interview about a serious subject.

Neither does Netanyahu, his demeanor, and tone is almost like a celebrity interview, and not being asked tough questions, nor the seriousness a subject like the one discussed merits."
worldnews,"Basically there is a company called Pied Pipr that want to make the internet free for everyone to use while not having their data harvested. A lot of us didn't think they would make it, and quite frankly they're frequent failures became predictable and boring. Almost as if their hurdles were written by lazy writers.

But its a great thing that their in a position to launch now. Not necessarily because it will work but because it will  give rise to future attempts that undoubtedly will."
worldnews,"tl;dr tear down the walled gardens of facebook, twitter etc and allow everyone to host **their data** wherever they want

Currently, nearly all web applications (eg facebook, whatsapp, gmail, reddit, etc) are designed to run on a single thus centralised database which contains data from everybody on the platform, and each application has each own model for describing it's data. 

SOLID tries to tackle mainly those two problems; 

* linked data solves the Babylon tower of everyone using their own models though shared descriptions like https://schema.org so you don't have to guess what a field called `name` means by using `https://schema.org/givenName`. 
* secondly, it sets out a stack of protocols designed to remove the centralised part, by describing which communication and data models a platform must use enables cross-application communication so you could have your social data (eg your profile, or a Twitter/microblog feed) on any server you want (hosted by a company, your tech friend, or at home on your computer or router)

Source: am linked data developer"
worldnews,"It can be sorted anywhere, but you shouldn't trust just anything. Data from your friend can usually be trusted just like in real life but there are additional measures to increase security and verifyability. 

There are two potential scenarios here; Bob wants to comment on Alice's server, or a third party claims it has a comment made by Bob. 

The first is about authentication, for which you can use any authentication system to verify who created some data on your system, just like with the web. 

In SOLID, which essentially just puts more constraints on linked data, the [WebID system](https://github.com/solid/solid-spec/blob/master/README.md#primary-authentication) is preferred, where a user provides a certificate challenge to proof their identity. In a manner like WhatsApp where you can accept friend requests and verify their certificate with their qr like photo. 

In the second scenario, we need to verify that the data wasn't tempered with by a third party (e.g. the russians), this is done with [data signing](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_signature)

Bob can [use his private key to sign his linked data comment](https://w3c-dvcg.github.io/ld-signatures/), and share his public key on his server, so Alice can use that public key to verify whether it was Bob who made the comment, even when it leaves the original server. "
worldnews,"It's really quite dumb, actually. You have a situation now where you are hosting none of your private data on your own server. When you go use applications and web pages, they gather data about you. They're not requesting access from you for your data - simply using their website in myriad ways causes them to have your data.

This wouldn't work because it requires everyone to stop using the internet as they know it. It's ridiculous."
worldnews,"We agree that it would work with electricity; the point is that it requires enormous amounts of it.

Here's [one estimate](http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/what-is-the-embodied-energy-of-materials.html), which suggests it takes 5,550 to 13,900 watt-hours to produce one kilogram (about two pounds) of steel from iron. Glass is in the same ballpark at 5,000 to 9,700 watt-hours.

Glass and steel comprise the bulk of the weight of a typical solar cell (the rest being the fancy exotic stuff that's probably even most costly to refine and process). A typical 100 watt cell [seems](https://www.amazon.com/Renogy-Watts-Volts-Monocrystalline-Solar/dp/B009Z6CW7O) to run about 15 pounds or so, call it seven kilos.

7500 watt-hours X 7 kilos = ~50,000 watt-hours.

If you're investing 50,000 watt-hours to produce a single 100 watt-hour cell, you can see the problem. Just for the production of the glass and steel - never mind building the actual guts of the thing - you're running each cell for 500 hours of daylight.

If you just want to produce the frames, you're running 60 cells for every one you produce, and producing one per day. "
worldnews,"If a large solar plant can provide power for 100,000 homes or a million people why would you assume a factory can't also take power from it? And if solar/wind is cheaper than nuclear/coal/or even gas why would you think it economically absurd to take that cheaper power?

Your example of a steel plant isn't particularly good one though as they use a lot of energy but not a lot of electricity. Steel production uses natural gas and coke for heating and byproducts of this is used to generate their own electricity onsite. Electricity from outside sources comprises less than 20% of their energy use.

In total the entire US steel industry uses 322,378 GW/h of energy but that's mostly from natural gas burning and is no more than 40-60% efficient.

Let's assuming you could migrate a steel plant to purely electric heating systems. That's maybe possible with [new methods of electrolysis and people are working on it](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cleaner-cheaper-way-to-make-steel-uses-electricity/). If that could happen steel production could take advantage of renewable energy just like anything else making it cheaper and with fewer greenhouse emissions.

Another option is to use renewables to generate hydrogen to replace gas, this could also bring us closer to zero carbon steel production. [And again people are working on that too](https://www.thefifthestate.com.au/innovation/building-construction/sweden-aims-for-first-place-in-carbon-free-steel-race)."
worldnews,"They're good calculations, i like it when people try to quantify things rather than throw insults.

A possible flaw is that you are talking about a single solar panel paying for itself.  But if they have a group of 100 panels already wouldn't that make it different?  I'm honestly not sure but it feels more correct that way.

Out of interest I'm surprised it's so low to create a kilo of steel (10 - 20 kWh).  I imagined a lot more because it needs to get up to like 1300 C / 2300 F ."
worldnews,"Well, here's an honest answer.

Consider the advantages to building the world's first solar-cell powered steel refinery. First, obviously, are huge reductions in pollution and atmospheric carbon. Second, it would provide a major boost to industrial adaptation of solar power for other high-energy intensive uses. Third, and perhaps best, there are surely iron mines which are located in remote, sunny areas, perhaps in desert locations. You could build the refinery on-site, exporting high-value steel instead of low-value ore, slashing transport costs and providing excess power to the mine operation itself.

Take it seriously, write it up. Do a gofundme, or perhaps apply for a grant, and have a proper feasibility study done. If the feasibility study starts with the phrase ""LOL no"", well, you've learned something important, and so have all the donors. If it starts with ""a clear path for further development"" then you can start looking for a corporate partner and you'll do more to save the world than any 20 people, and you might get filthy rich in the process.

And if you can make it work, I'll be your biggest fan.
"
worldnews,"I assume the estimates refer to the per-kilo energy cost when making it in the usual batches (tons at a time). Small batches would certainly be less efficient.

S, if you wanted to make the frames for a hundred panels a day, you'd still need 6000 panels to power it.

And of course this is just production from iron and sand to steel and glass. Everything else is pretty costly too."
worldnews,"When somebody builds one, it's feasible. It's not feasible right now, and you won't see one soon.

My confidence in this is because of the huge and obvious advantages of doing it right now, if it were even remotely feasible now. As I said to the other commenter, 

>First, obviously, are huge reductions in pollution and atmospheric carbon. Second, it would provide a major boost to industrial adaptation of solar power for other high-energy intensive uses. Third, and perhaps best, there are surely iron mines which are located in remote, sunny areas, perhaps in desert locations. You could build the refinery on-site, exporting high-value steel instead of low-value ore, slashing transport costs and providing excess power to the mine operation itself.

If it were even close, we'd have already built them."
worldnews,"Why would they have to manufacture their own steel?

The steel can come from somewhere else, but the point is that those refineries can themselves be run on electricity, which can come from solar panels.  And it will actually be cheaper (even ignoring environmental externalities) than if you got it from coal.

This next part might actually shock you.  The solar panels don't themselves have to be at the steel refinery, either.

Were you actually imagining, what?  Like a big off the grid steel refinery cum solar panel mega factory, powered by rooftop panels and a hand churn?  I can't imagine how else you could think your objections make sense."
worldnews,"OK, look, I'm going to make one last valiant effort here, and then we can just agree to disagree.

The usual way of making electricity is by burning fossil fuels to heat water into steam, and using the steam to turn a turbine on a generator, which causes electricity to come out the other end. When you are all done, maybe 50% of the energy produced by burning comes out as electricity, [give or take ten percent](https://www.brighthubengineering.com/power-plants/72369-compare-the-efficiency-of-different-power-plants/). This is because some energy is lost at every step of the conversion process.

The usual way of making steel involves burning fossil fuels to melt lots of iron and steel. This is much more efficient, because you're just applying the heat directly to the iron, and not going through a turbine and an energy conversion process. So that, right there, kills your idea dead. Furthermore, much of the heat that might be lost can be recaptured, and used to generate electricity, providing even more overall efficiency.

So now you understand why a steel mill that runs on conventional electricity cannot possibly compete with one that burns fossil fuels.

Since solar-generated electricity is, at best, roughly cost-competitive with conventional electricity, it should be obvious that this cannot possibly compete, either.

Which is who nobody on the face of the earth is has tried to power a steel mill with solar cells.

I can't make it any more obvious. If you don't agree, that's fine, we can just let it go.
"
worldnews,"When somebody builds what? A solar plant? A solar plant near industry? This isn't just feasible it's normal.

China Baowu Steel Group's Wuhan plant is moving from coal to solar

- http://en.people.cn/n3/2017/0701/c90000-9235841.html

Apel Steel Corporation in Alabama has been doing this for years

- http://solarlove.org/98-electricity-can-generated-solar-panels-alabama-steel-plant/

Sandfire built a solar plant for their copper-gold mine

- http://www.sandfire.com.au/operations/degrussa/solar-power-project.html

Fortescue is building off-grid solar plants to support mining operations.

- https://reneweconomy.com.au/alinta-may-build-australias-biggest-off-grid-solar-farm-for-fortescue-mine-38619/

Tata steel has a solar plant at one of their iron ore mines

- http://www.mining.com/indian-centenary-iron-ore-mine-goes-solar/

But apart from specific site examples roughly 18% of US electricity comes from renewable sources. So, roughly speaking, 18% electricity used by steel and all other industry comes from renewable sources. That share is increasing all the time too.

Germany and Denmark have double that number and their steel plants and auto factories don't seem to have a problem running off a significant amount of electricity from solar and wind. "
worldnews,"You've pointed out examples of steelmakers using solar to provide a fraction of the power they use. That's great, but that's not what I'm talking about here.

You can't economically produce things like steel and glass just with solar power. You need enormous amounts of heat to melt sand and iron ore, and you get this heat by burning fossil fuels. Trying to get that kind of heat from the electricity generated by solar cells is ridiculously expensive."
worldnews,"I've just been defending my initial point, that's all - these guys are not making their solar cells entirely with solar power, because they are obviously buying their steel and glass and other highly-refined materials pre-made, and letting somebody else burn the fossil fuels to make them.

This was an interesting read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_arc_furnace

My impression is that the energy costs are higher, as you'd expect, but it is offset, in some applications, by lower capital costs and greater flexibility. Unlike blast furnaces, they can vary their output to meet demand.

The power demands are formidable - variations in their power draw can affect the whole power grid!

>Because of the very dynamic quality of the arc furnace load, power systems may require technical measures to maintain the quality of power for other customers; flicker and harmonic distortion are common side-effects of arc furnace operation on a power system. For this reason the power station should be located as close to the EA furnaces as possible."
worldnews,"It's not fractional when it's up 98%. Each example is a different case of heavy industry being able to leverage solar and it's being done all over the world. And that's just some of them.

> You can't economically produce things like steel and glass just with solar power You need enormous amounts of heat to melt sand and iron ore, and you get this heat by burning fossil fuels

As I've mentioned already steel plants get their heat from natural gas and coke, not from grid electricity which can and is being replaced with renewables. The same goes for glass manufacture which is over 70% powered by natural gas. If you're talking about replacing the natural gas used for furnaces then that's perfectly feasible as well. I already gave you two examples of new techniques for this in steel: moving to electrolysis and hydrogen.

We can also just replace natural gas with bio-SNG / renewable gas either made from biowaste like sewage and food waste.The [Swedish are already looking into it](https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:642568/FULLTEXT01.pdf). As are the [Danish](http://orbit.dtu.dk/files/5237878/ris-r-1754.pdf). And the [Brits](http://www.biogas.org.uk/images/upload/news_7_Bio-SNG-Feasibility-Study.pdf). It's not as cheap as just burning shit we found in the ground but that cost doesn't include the environmental impact which is why a carbon tax is, and has always been, necessary.

"
worldnews,It's not impractical the economies had just not been right. We should have been fixing that with legislation over the last few decades but in lieu of any sensible policy we have to rely on market forces. This factory thinks it will be right for them in the next few years and I have no reason to doubt that. Primarily because solar PV manufacture is more worried about polysilicon wafers and assembly than they are with large scale glass production. That's usually handled by a specialist in glass manufacture.
Economics,"I would say the problem is that economists get distracted with two things:

1. Institutional wisdom / tradition
2. Modelling to fit metrics to a narrative in a closed story, rather than synthesizing analyses in a forward-looking manner

You can see how those two factors fit together. But in the case of thr fed, equity analysts, etc, we have people fitting dynamic data to fixed institutional models that don't represent the wider multistate behaviors and reorganizations driven by economic pressures. It's easier (or more politically expedient) so describe an economy as a system that has x, y, z and does a, b, and c, and those are the ""rules,"" and then you just fill in the gaps from there. It's a broken methodology, but that's how it works. "
Economics,Economics hasn't seemed to change at all. Competition is what drives improvement in society. Everyone who is freaking out over why certain numbers aren't doing what they should be doing based on other numbers are still looking at society as if we have perfect competition or close enough to. The reality is that society is much less competitive now than it has ever been and that's why nothing is aligning properly with expectations.
Economics,Nah. Fed can't be labeled truly successful until they normalize interest rates and their balance sheet. The Keyensian theory they are attempting to employ is two pronged solution to recessions. Low rates and debt spending during a downturn. Higher rates and paying down debt in an upturn. The Fed has done plenty of the first part and very little of the second. So to say they've been successful? Way too soon to honestly say.
Economics,"But hasn't the Fed has become an extension of libertarian policy, leading to counter-productive timing? Greenspan cut rates during good times, until there were no more rates left to cut, leaving Bernanke with little to fight the Great Recession, and now his Republican successors refuse to sufficiently raise rates after good times have returned, while Trump whines loudly about the slightest rise.

As the Republican monopoly over national politics has steadily strengthened over the past forty years, the Fed chairmanship has become an increasingly political appointment."
Economics,"> If I were a millennial looking for a job, I would stay the hell away from any job with a pension

Ha. Good luck finding a job that offers the good pension plans. Most places have shifted to much less generous plans for new hires.

> knowing that I was almost certainly not going to get it.

Ha. Not even close. The law of the land and historical precedent clearly shows that everything possible (and impossible) will be done to make pensioners whole at the expense of the tax payers."
Economics,"> The only thing keeping pensions from being changed is state laws. But the state can just change the laws.

This is precisely the reason why there are independent branches of the government. Judicial branch would shut down this kind of nonsense immediately.

The only way municipalities can get out of this is bankruptcy. And it's pretty much the nuclear option. Detroit pensioners got a 4.5% benefits cut. Pensioners will be at the very top when things get distributed in a bankruptcy."
Economics,"That’s actually not true in a majority of states. The traditional view of pensions was as “mere gratuities” that could be retroactively cut. That sucked.

In order to get away from that certain states enshrined them as a contract right. But that was INTENDED to only apply to earned benefits, not the future growth in benefits. So if you’re getting a $3k monthly check it can never go down to $2,800.

Unfortunately, in some states, including Illinois, the courts have awarded them super contractual status. Not only can you not take away what’s been earned, you can’t reduce the growth rate through things like COLA.

It’s all in the report here:

https://www.illinoispolicy.org/reports/tax-hikes-vs-reform-why-illinois-must-amend-its-constitution-to-fix-the-pension-crisis/"
Economics,"I won't argue on this anymore, but I think you are wildly optimistic. California alone is hundreds of billions of dollars deficient and the contribution obligations are already pushing many localities in California to cut services, which has as a secondary result the effect of eliminating employee positions so the pension pot gets older and older with fewer young people paying in.

 And that's today, with an insanely bubbly stock market and rosy projections. Let's assume the situation is only going to get worse, because that's how every other public finance problem goes. What do we think the situation will look like in forty years? What makes you think bankruptcy rules will matter when there just isn't enough money to pay what people promised themselves at the expense of their children? State laws don't need to follow bankruptcy rules. They can do whatever they want as long as there is political will.

Edit: here's some reporting on some California retirees already having pensions slashed by as much as 2/3.  http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-loyalton-calpers-pension-problems-20170806-htmlstory.html"
Economics,"Detroit's pension cuts were closer to 35% in net present value terms for a new retiree, due to the elimination of health care subsidies and pension COLA.

States will raise property taxes to the equilibrium point where prices start to fall and offset the hikes and people start to move to other states.  At that point, they will head into a very controlled bankruptcy process.  I wouldn't call it a ""nuclear"" option since half a dozen or so states are almost inevitably headed there within the next couples decades.  Remember that everybody said Puerto Rico wasn't allowed to declare bankruptcy because there was no statutory provision for territorial bankruptcy.  One day the Feds passed PROMESA, and now Puerto Rico is in bankruptcy court; it will be the same for the states.  Also remember that a major % of municipal debt is held by other public and private pension funds, so to the extent defaults start, they can start an infectious, downward spiral.  There's also the question of moral hazard - if we bail out public sector workers, why not blue collar workers whose private pension plans are broke as well?  Make no mistake, it will be a political process reminiscent of 2008-2010 rather than an economic or legal one.

People love to hate on California but in my opinion they will be fine since they are an incredibly desirable place to live and they have a lot of room to move up on property taxes via the incremental repeal of proposition 13.  It's the less desirable states with severe debt loads who have already maxed out income, property, sales, and other taxes (relative to their attractiveness) that are in trouble - Illinois, New Jersey, Kentucky."
Economics,"Not all municipal bonds are tax free.  Build America Bonds which were very popular in the last decade are typically taxable, for example.  Taxable represents a relatively small % of the overall municipal debt market, but of course that overall market size is massive - about four trillion USD.  By way of comparison, that's almost half the size of all outstanding mortgage debt.

For traditional tax free munis, you have banks and insurance companies as major holders, so widespread defaults or haircuts would potentially create follow on problems in those markets.  It's back to dominoes circa 2008 and ultimately the Feds will have to pick winners and losers, which is why I call it more of a political problem than an economic one."
Economics,"Yeah yeah,, and I should instead be grateful for a job that pays sub-par wages with no benefits? Amirite? 

This sub has turned to garbage. A bunch of paid hawk shills spouting drivel about a topic most of you know nothing about.

Unions are and will continue to be a driving force in ensuring Capitalism doesn't run amok. You don't need farcical data to prove that, as you hawk shills claim.  Furthermore, as an Illinoian, I know for a fact that the reason the state is broke is due to GOP mismanagement. Every GOP governor the idiots here elect ends up screwing the budget much to the chagrin of the those of us who understand what they are doing. After all, this has been the GOP's plan for decades. So, it comes as no surprise to see pensions and other benefits needing to be cut."
Economics,"So, I take issue with your parenthetical, and I agree with the rest.  I don't think it is reasonable to use total compensation as the metric to compare to productivty, as Feldstein suggests.  Total compensation includes benefits, like healthcare.  It seems to me that the massive increase in healthcare costs (a large portion of which are paid for by employers) makes it SEEM like total compensation has kept up with productivity, when really it's just a cash transfer from employers to insurance companies.  I have no data for the assertion, and I would like to see a comparison between ""productivity vs (total compensation - healthcare benefits)"" to really parse out if what I'm suggesting is true.  Furthermore, my second argument against your parenthetical is that total compensation also includes bonuses, but the ""productivity vs total compensation"" comparison doesn't parse out the distribution.  So, if I'm thinking about this correctly, large wall street bonuses skew the comparison in the direction of being more balanced  when really it's just because, in total dollars, a long of money is being moved around on wall street that just happens to fall into the category of wages.  Again, as before, a ""productivity vs (total compensation - finance bonuse)"" comparison could negate or confirm my position.   "
Economics,"If you take out healthcare from compensation, you also need to take it out of productivity statistics. Especially considering healthcare and its cost is becoming so much more of an issue partially because there's quite simply more healthcare being done these days due to ageing populations and improving treatment for various conditions.

In many cases, that healthcare contribution from the employer acts like company housing. If expanding company housing during this real estate conundrum became as common as expanding company health insurance during this healthcare boom, it would be just as disingenuous to take it out of compensation. Just because the money is going from employer to provider directly rather than through me doesn't make the final outcome any different. The problem is in the markets for these necessities, not in people's total compensation."
Economics,"It's reasonable to use total compensation because the way the argument is usually phrased is ""greedy employers are keeping in penury,"" which is clearly refuted by the TC data. It's not like employers particularly care what the distribution of compensation is for their employees; a dollar spent on benefits is a dollar that can't be spent on wages (I know tax incentives change this slightly, but broadly speaking this is true).

The argument against bonuses is also a bit off-base, since most bonuses are paid due to hitting performance/sales targets. It makes sense that the employees contributing the most to a firm's productivity would take home larger total compensation, no?"
Economics,"I saw some data where they compared each generation by age from 30 years ago to today. Something like 35% of young adults under 25 got their first home. Now it's 9%

Meanwhile 35% of old people owned a home, and now it's almost 80%.

The boomers are buying up everything to grow their wealth. As they age into retirement, they are going to start unloading, which will crash the market."
Economics,"Except foreign investors have almost nothing to do with the US housing market. Not even in downtown NYC.

The real issue is 

* Parking minimums for businesses, which ensure that 30-40% of some cities is parking

* Parking minimums for residences, which ensures that ~30% of your condo rent is paying for a parking spot

* Excessive road building. 6 lane, 8 lane, etc. If you build roads somewhere you can't build housing. Most streets should be no wider than 30 feet, with a few 90 feet arterial roads.

* Zoning laws, which prohibit developers from building high density housing. For example like 70% of SF is zoned for single family homes. Literally not allowed to build a apartment building there.

* There being a finite supply of land. The main problem is not building more housing, it's that housing is limited in desirable places because land is limited. A 25-100% Land Value Tax (LVT) would help a bit by reducing the upfront cost of land and ensuring that land is used efficiently.

* Immigration which causes a near-infinite demand for housing. Which would normally not be an issue, but it is because of all the aforementioned things."
Economics,">  Total compensation includes benefits, like healthcare. It seems to me that the massive increase in healthcare costs (a large portion of which are paid for by employers) makes it SEEM like total compensation has kept up with productivity, when really it's just a cash transfer from employers to insurance companies

Not really, since insurance profits are less than 0.5% of healthcare spending.

The cost of delivering care is higher for numerous reasons, but profits is nowhere near the top.

> So, if I'm thinking about this correctly, large wall street bonuses skew the comparison in the direction of being more balanced when really it's just because, in total dollars, a long of money is being moved around on wall street that just happens to fall into the category of wages. Again, as before, a ""productivity vs (total compensation - finance bonuse)"" comparison could negate or confirm my position. 

Much more importantly is that productivity is GDP per capita and GDP includes war spending and foreign aid *AND* GDP is adjusted using the GDP deflator and wages the CPI, so it's not even an apples to apples comparison.


This setting aside the fact that productivity increases aren't even necessarily due to labor and skills, but can be due to production being more capital intensive, so it's fallacious from the get go that labor wages necessarily should follow productivity."
Economics,"Google helped me a lot when I went to Europe (Germany and the Netherlands). Never had to check the schedules. I asked google maps to make an itinerary with public transit and it even told me on which platform/spoor to wait. The most confusing thing was finding the platforms when I had to switch trains at Hengelo.

To be frank though, I wasn't the usual tourist. One of the reasons I went there was to try high speed trains, which we don't have where I live."
Economics,"I booked tickets from Deutsche Bahn and the website was in English. Never had to print it, just showed the QR code to the inspectors, as I do back home. Maybe I'm the exception because I already use trains where I live but it wasn't much more complicated than buying an airline ticket.

Or maybe it's different with trains in other European countries like France or Italy. I see a lot of Germans whine about DB but to be honest, it's nothing compared to the level of service and late trains we have here back in Canada.

EDIT: Just tried to book trains in France, Italy and Spain. They all have websites in English (the SNCF one is a bit incomplete though) and you can book tickets fairly easily. Are people just not even trying and assuming it's gonna be shitty?"
Economics,"Booking trains on the DB and ÖBB apps (entirely in english) when I travelled in Germany and Austria for the first time was unbelievably simple. I say this as someone who has very rarely ever taken a commuter train. And the process was easy enough to figure out except one time where they changed a platform number near Salzburg without really making it obvious. That ended up as a $60 cab ride to make an appointment. Nonetheless, all. The. Trains. Came and went exactly on time. Amazing."
Economics,"I mean... Trains are marginally more complicated, but I'd rather take a train than a plane any day if it's less than a day. I just got back from a trip to France and we flew business-class over there but we damn sure took a train from Nice to Paris. So much easier and nicer. It was probably more expensive than some cheap-ass Ryanair flight, quite frankly, but you can get up and walk around, you've got a huge seat with a table, it's so comfortable."
Economics,"Yes, in Western Europe, trains are a far more enjoyable way to travel. Just show up at the train station 15 minutes before your train (or for common connections anytime you want because they leave so often). No TSA, no check in, usually just some restaurants and a short walk to the platform.  Scenery the whole trip, dining car, bar, usually internet, leg room.. And for most connections in Western Europe it’s actually faster to take the train when you calculate in time to get to/from airport and time at the airport. And it’s cheaper.. "
Economics,">Train operators could make it easier by having interactive websites, online booking, multi-lingual options etc.

All that won't make things easier when the UI/map layout is crap.  I mention this as I wager this is likely the biggest issue tourists have.  Where as locals know what train to take and where, out of town tourists do not.  So it doesn't matter if you offer more booking options really when a more user friendly map is needed."
Economics,"Reading the comments and the replies, I guess it depends on what type of tourists we're talking about. I mean, more than domestic vs international. 

English is not my first language and I do not expect people in another country to accommodate me by knowing it. Specific terms were easy to learn. Spoor for platform in Dutch and eingang/ausgang for entry/exit in German. I also use public transit back home, can do research and look on maps. So I guess I specifically look for that kind of ""adventure"" when I travel. I want to do what the locals do. I'm willing to bet that you would also find your way, by that simple reply.

But on the other hand, I also realize a lot of tourists couldn't do any of that. Some don't even know how to use public transit or trains in their own country. I guess they just want to go there, visit the touristic places and go back home. Hassle free. No learning involved. This can be understandable up to a point. They're on vacation after all.

I would be curious to know if the study divided those tourists in different categories but the preview doesn't mention any of that."
Economics,"On the contrary Paris to nice flight is 1.5 hr (plus 1.5 hr of security and commute)  and train is 5-6 hrs. And air France has flights to both CDG and ORLY. I would say the flight saved me time, but train might be more comfortable.

In addition there are 6 flights each way vs 2 trains per day. (Correct me if I am wrong). I left Paris at 8:30am, out of nice airport with rental car around 12:30 / 1 pm.  Train wasn’t getting there till 4pm.

Edit: one good thing about train is the stations are in the center of city. "
Economics,"Yeah. As mentioned, I already use ""trains"" in Canada so the whole thing was easier online than at the counter when I departed to Germany from Schipol. 

The prices were indeed a bit difficult to understand but this is also true here. It's cheaper if you buy a ticket that can't be refund or if you book in advance, for example. I managed to get an ICE from Hamburg to Berlin with the return included for something like 80 Euros. It's pretty much the same price here for the same distance and you'll be lucky if the train hits 150 km/h so I was satisfied with that! It also included public transit in Berlin while I was there.

All in all, even if it's not cheap, I wouldn't have taken a plane anyway. The time I passed in a cramped airplane over the Atlantic was already enough.

Oh, now that I think about that, I got over it now but here seats are always reserved. Not with DB. I was cheap and didn't reserve a seat and couldn't find a DB employee that could clearly explain where I could sit."
Economics,"I unfortunately didn't get the chance to try a high speed train in the Netherlands. Next time I'm going to take the time to go to Rotterdam. I only stayed one day but my hotel was in/at Sloterdijk so I used the Intercity and/or Sprinter depending on which one was convenient. No complains whatsoever. Much more efficient than what I'm used to.

My only surprise was that they're not all high speed lines. So the trip from Amsterdam to Hamburg was a bit longer than I thought it would be. The only real confusion was when I needed to switch train at Hengelo. I couldn't find the platform and got a bit nervous. Luckily, I followed a group of Americans trying to find the same platform and we got there in time.

As for the bikes. I can only be jealous and impressed. I come from Montreal and we're steadily slipping down the ranks of the Copenhagenize index. I didn't try a bike in the Netherlands either but I nearly got hit by one! 

Although I suspect I would have had a few difficulties. I cycle at least a 1000 km a year here but the culture is different. I rented a bike in Hamburg but I think it was a fixie, sitting straight with high handlebars. I usually ride an hybrid so I pretty much hated that one. I was fine on the paths but I got really afraid in the streets. I felt so out of place. Like I didn't know the local unwritten rules. 

I know both cities can't be compared bike-wise and I'll also try a bike next time I visit your country but I think I'm going to need some time to adjust."
Economics,"Come and try ours. You will have all the comfort of a 1970s wagon to patiently watch the fixed landscape while you wait for the late freight train to pass before your passenger train, as they have priority over people here. At roughly the same price and twice as slow! They even give water bottles when your train is more than 30 minutes late.

Seriously though, I know we always want to get better than what we're used to and you're right to keep the pressure on your train operators but compared to where I'm from, you got it real good. 
"
Economics,"Yerah that's abour right.. But if you life in someplace like Paris, you can get to most of Western Europe in 4 hours by train. If you are in central or Eastern Germany, it's far less possible.  

For me, however, I'd still rather take a 6 hour train than do a 2 hour flight (4 hours total). I can sit and work the whole way, walk around, see scenery, eat in the dining car, sleep if I want.. I live in Prague where the train connections are abysmally slow, but I still take a train when I need to go to Vienna, Budapest, Brno, or Bratislava despite them being longer trips.. Way batter experience and I waste less actual time because I'm getting things done on the tain that I wouldn't screwing around in the airport."
Economics,"While I use Google Maps' transit direction frequently, at least here in NYC it seems to sometimes get the schedules incorrect due to maintenance or sometimes wants to route me on connections that don't exist. 

For example, it has sometimes wanted me to get off at certain stations and transfer to another direction when the station physically doesn't allow those sorts of transfers without exiting one side and entering the other.

Overall, though, it does a reasonable job and I use it when traveling. "
Economics,"Is the American definition of middle class even a useful economic concept? I had kind of thought it was a propaganda term to socially split the working class.

They address it a bit in the piece. *""I think once you realize that you’re part of a precarious class, you might vote with others that are also precarious.""* But then she seems to fail to realize that the American definition of middle class is specifically meant to prevent that, specifically meant to make people forget how close to the bottom they really are.

Made really apparent when she says *""Middle-class and working-class people voting together and finding common cause–that’s the hope.""* What? Does the middle class in America not have to work for a living or something? I understand that Americans view ""working class"" as meaning ""poor losers"", but that's exactly the issue. As long as the working class views the working class as beneath them, the problem won't be fixed.

A lot of the analysis is fair, but the terminology is still pushing the division."
Economics,">*""Middle-class and working-class people voting together and finding common cause–that’s the hope.""*

My understanding of middle class versus working class is that the working class are paycheck to paycheck and will be nearly immediately destitute if they lose their jobs, while those in the middle class earn enough to generate actual savings and could survive at basically their same quality of life for some period of time after losing their job.

If you actually divided it like that I think thew majority of Americans (and Canadians) who think of themselves as being in the middle class are actually in the working class. It makes a lot more sense to divide it by savings vs not savings rather than blue vs white collar work. The average plumber, pipe fitter, electrician, etc makes enough money to handle periods of unemployment. Can the average low-seniority / low-skill office worker say the same? I bet not."
Economics,"> My understanding of middle class versus working class is that the working class are paycheck to paycheck and will be nearly immediately destitute if they lose their jobs, while those in the middle class earn enough to generate actual savings and could survive at basically their same quality of life for some period of time after losing their job.

Those are the American definitions. The normal definition of working class means you work for a living (it's in the name), as opposed to the capital class who can afford to buy and sell things for a living, without necessarily having to work. In this sense, the middle class is made of people who own maybe 1 or 2 small businesses, such that the majority of their income is from buying low and selling high, but they still have to work to manage and maintain it. They're in between the working class and capital class.

So I'd agree with you but go further. Nearly every single person who considers themselves middle class is actually working class. Savings is a useful metric, but that seems like a gradient of quality of life, not a delineation of distinct economic strategies."
Economics,">so asking everyone else to vote together is asking 99% of the population to vote as one.

Well, there are enough personal factors splitting the vote in other ways that even a perfect system wouldn't be that one-sided. Religious differences, safety vs freedom, tradition vs progress, etc. There are a lot of different attitudes towards running government that would divide that 99% further, but not economic strategy. Humans mostly just work for a living.

Less ""vote as one"" and more ""this shouldn't be a partisan issue"". We all vote as one when it comes to other things 99% of us agree on, for instance not letting canaries be doctors. It's not even a debate. Who the hell would even think like that?

It's a real accomplishment that we managed to cultivate a whole group of workers whose beliefs are distinctly anti-worker. That took some creativity."
Economics,"The working class is, in general use, a leftist term to separate the ""owner class"" and those who work for the ""owner class."" The bourgeoise vs the proletariat, etc.  

The middle class is on it's own separate spectrum, I would suggest. It's a rightwing concept of having society organized by a tier system. Made most effective post ww2 era. Where everyone starts as a lower class individual upon adulthood, but with a little work ethic, can build themselves into living a comfortable life as a middle class person, with the most skilled and intelligent becoming upper middle class, and so forth.

Leftist ideologies believe society is organized by the wealthy and powerful, the wealthy class, to exploit the labor of everyone else, the working class, to maintain it's power. As the wealthy class hoards it's wealth and builds a vast infrastructure, it makes it intentionally harder for the working class to move into the wealthy class. Then lesser people who are of the ""owner class,"" mainly small business owners/management, are then reduced to being of the working class, being that they can not compete with, and have to rely on the infrastructure built by, the wealthy class. The wealthy class then monopolizes it's individual power, giving it the power to control wages, and quality of goods. Society then reverts back to feudalism, I guess, however, instead of kings, we have Jeff Bezos', and Mark Zuckerbergs, etc.


Weird stuff. 
"
Economics,">My understanding of middle class versus working class is that the working class are paycheck to paycheck and will be nearly immediately destitute if they lose their jobs, while those in the middle class earn enough to generate actual savings and could survive at basically their same quality of life for some period of time after losing their job.

Except you can look at at two people in the ""middle class"" and one might be saving while the other consuming within their means, but far more than the former."
Economics,"That's sort of the point, is it not. The reason the capital class propagandizes the working class into thinking there are multiple working classes is explicitly to split the vote. We should be voting as a block of 99% working class to eliminate the choke hold the capitalists have on us. Then we can start voting as special interests within a society of the people, by the people, and for the people. But if we split ourselves before we oust the capitalists, we'll always be wage slaves and always be manipulated."
Economics,"Hmmm. Reflecting on it overnight though there really is 3 classes. A 1% who do not need to work to maintain their or their children's lifestyles. A further layer - upper middle class - that needs to work but will accumulate enough personal funds to eventually retire on their own means. And a final layer - the precariate - that needs to work and will need to rely on the state when they retire / if they lose their job.

That said the precariate and the upper middle class both still need to work. And depending on how you cut the numbers I'm sure you could say that some upper middle class thinkers are actually unwitting precariate workers.."
Economics,"R/economics (ie people that (should) understand the following points better than most):

(1) financial crises are uniquely devastating and generally only happen once a generation. Talking about “the next financial crisis” ten years after the last one is presumptively hyperbole

(2) too much leverage and shaky corporate and individual balance sheets alone aren’t enough to trigger a financial crisis. Banks might suffer losses, bankruptcy courts might be much busier and equities might be wrecked, but the global economic system can handle that pretty well. 

Both the Great Depression and the bear/Lehman debacle were triggered by a loss of confidence in an imploding financial system. Don’t call something a potential “financial crisis” unless you can point to a factor akin to the trillions of hopelessly complex mortgage backed structured products that infected the entire global financial system 10 years ago.

This might be sound like Greek to most people but hopefully someone knows what I’m talking about lol"
Economics,">(1) financial crises are uniquely devastating and generally only happen once a generation. Talking about “the next financial crisis” ten years after the last one is presumptively hyperbole

I see where you're coming from with this, and while it's a good point, it's worth pointing out the financial sector isn't what it used to be. Banks (both central and not) increasingly operate in a manner that seem to make crises more common.

​

​"
Economics,"Dean baker

Perhaps it has something to do with the ten-year anniversary of the Lehman crash, but we seem to be seeing more financial crisis stories in the media lately. Today's version comes to us from the New York Times in a [column](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/01/opinion/the-next-financial-crisis-lurks-underground.html) by Bethany McLean, headlined ""the next financial crisis lurks underground."" The subhead tells us the basic story:

""Fueled by debt and years of easy credit, America’s energy boom is on shaky footing.""

The piece looks to be a very reasonable discussion of the fracking boom and points out that most fracking operations are not profitable. It describes fracking as essentially a Ponzi scheme, where fracking companies are able to survive by finding suckers to buy their stock. Most frackers don't actually make enough money to repay their debts and generate a profit.

All of this sounds very plausible, although a jump back to 2014 type oil prices ($100 a barrel or higher) would presumably change this picture. (That's not a prediction, just noting the arithmetic.) But the problem is that if the Ponzi game ends, where is the financial crisis? We are told:

""Amir Azar, a fellow at the Columbia University Center on Global Energy Policy, calculated that the industry’s net debt in 2015 was $200 billion, a 300 percent increase from 2005.""

Okay, so suppose two-thirds this debt goes bad and investors get back fifty cents on the dollar, both pretty extreme assumptions. That comes to $67 billion in losses on $134 billion in debt, and amount equal to 0.34 percent of GDP. Perhaps there is a world where this gives us a financial crisis, but not this one.

Just to be clear, the New York Times picks the headline, not the author of the column. The column is a perfectly reasonable piece on fracking, the headline is not."
Economics,"> (1) financial crises are uniquely devastating and generally only happen once a generation. Talking about “the next financial crisis” ten years after the last one is presumptively hyperbole

Maybe that was true in the pre-2008 world. Today, however, crisis is the new normality. A disaster was avoided in 2008 only at the expense of preparing the ground for a much worse crisis in the future. The world economy has been on a very shaky ground ever since 2008, anything can topple it over.
"
Economics,"Not sure about that. Aren't we seeing an emerging currency crisis? And why do we have near 0 rates for so long? What's up with our pensions and states budget problems such as in IL?

And Argentina? Turkey? Spain? What about Japan's never-ending stagnation?

We're also seeing erection of tariffs and bad economic indicators in the U.S. (labor participation, lowering life expectancy, inequality.)

I know I'm cherrypicking but I think overgeneralizing doesn't help, either."
Economics,"Your first point is some real “End of History” hubris. You act as though financial crises are governed by some natural law that allows them to erupt, like a volcano, only seldomly. 

Finance and economies are changing so rapidly that I see no reason to believe your assertion is true, especially since we have a historical precedent of repeated major financial crises throughout the 19th century in Europe and America. From the long point of view, the post-WWII stability of our financial system is aberrant. "
Economics,"Rubbish is spewing from your mouth.

The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was enacted in response to the crisis.{1}
U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner testified before Congress on October 29, 2009. His testimony included five elements he stated as critical to effective reform:{

Expand the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) bank resolution mechanism to include non-bank financial institutions;


Ensure that a firm is allowed to fail in an orderly way and not be ""rescued"";


Ensure taxpayers are not on the hook for any losses, by applying losses first to the firm's investors and including the creation of a pool funded by the largest financial institutions;


Apply appropriate checks and balances to the FDIC and Federal Reserve in this resolution process;


Require stronger capital and liquidity positions for financial firms and related regulatory authority.

The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was signed into law by President Obama in July 2010, addressing each of these topics to varying degrees. Among other things, it created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Significant law enforcement action and litigation resulted from the crisis. The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation probed the possibility of fraud by mortgage financing companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, and insurer American International Group, among others. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo sued Long Island based Amerimod, one of the nation's largest loan modification corporations for fraud, and issued numerous subpoenas to other similar companies.The FBI assigned more agents to mortgage-related crimes and its caseload dramatically increased. The FBI began a probe of Countrywide Financial in March 2008 for possible fraudulent lending practices and securities fraud.{3}{4}{5}{6}

Several hundred civil lawsuits were filed in federal courts beginning in 2007 related to the subprime crisis. The number of filings in state courts was not quantified but was also believed to be significant. In August 2014, Bank of America agreed to a near-$17 billion deal to settle claims against it relating to the sale of toxic mortgage-linked securities including subprime home loans, in what was believed to be the largest settlement in U.S. corporate history. The deal with the U.S. Justice Department topped a deal the regulator made the previous year with JPMorgan Chase over similar issues. Morgan Stanley paid $2.6 billion to settle claims in February 2015, without reaching closure on homeowner relief and state claim.{7}{8}

President Obama's Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force (FFETF), which was created in November 2009 to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. The FFETF involves over 20 federal agencies, 94 U.S. Attorney's offices, and state and local partners.{9}

CNBC reported in April 2015 that banking fines and penalties totaled $150 billion between 2007 and 2014, versus $700 billion in profits over that time.

The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 in the United States included six separate major acts designed to restore confidence in the domestic mortgage industry.The Act included:{10}

Providing insurance for $300 billion in mortgages estimated to assist 400,000 homeowners.


Establishing a new regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency via the merger of two existing authorities, The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), and the Federal Housing Finance Board (FHFB), endowed with expanded powers and authority greater than the sum of its predecessors, to supervise operation of the 14 housing government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs): (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) and the 12 Federal Home Loan Banks.{11}


Raises the dollar limit of the mortgages the GSEs can purchase.
Provides loans for the refinancing of mortgages to owner-occupants at risk of foreclosure. The original lender or investor reduces the amount of the original mortgage (typically taking a significant loss) and the homeowner shares any future appreciation with the Federal Housing Administration. The new loans must be 30-year fixed loans.

Enhancements to mortgage disclosures.


Community assistance to help local governments buy and renovate foreclosed properties.


An increase in the national debt ceiling by US$800 billion, to give the Treasury the flexibility to support the secondary housing markets and the 14 GSEs, if necessary.


Source: the wiki on the 2007 2008 financial and subprime mortgage crisis,sections regulatory response. 

Edit: Expanding on my sources as people are morons.

{1}https://legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/Dodd-Frank%20Wall%20Street%20Reform%20and%20Consumer%20Protection%20Act.pdf

{2}https://financialservices.house.gov/media/file/hearings/111/geithner_-_treasury.pdf

{3}http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/09/23/fbi-investigating-potential-fraud-by-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-lehman-aig.html

{4}https://web.archive.org/web/20081015071159/http://www.fbi.gov/page2/june08/malicious_mortgage061908.html

{5}https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-cracks-down-on-mortgage-fraud/

{6}https://money.cnn.com/2008/03/08/news/companies/countrywide_FBI/?postversion=2008031003

{7}https://www.philadelphiaherald.com/news/224972439/bank-of-america-to-pay-nearly-17-bn-to-settle-mortgage-claims

{8}https://web.archive.org/web/20080921230708/http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/02/15/subprime_lawsuits_on_pace_to_top_sl_cases/

{9}https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/president-obama-establishes-interagency-financial-fraud-enforcement-task-force

{10}https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/house-bill/3221

{11}https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Housing_Finance_Agency"
Economics,"[Economist Admanti from Stanford on Dodd-Frank](https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/04/14/has-dodd-frank-eliminated-the-dangers-in-the-banking-system/the-financial-system-remains-too-fragile-too-distorted-too-dangerous)

If you think for a second the too-big-to-fail institutions are in any danger of taking the hit for another proceeding crashes, you are naive.  They have grasp over the 2 parties. Their control is to such a point that Citi Bank literally told Obama who to have in his administration, which Obama followed almost to a T (the other picks were I believe big donors, so not an improvement).  

Since the crash, the government did nothing to break up the too-big-to-fail institutions, even though they pose a systemic risk.  What's more, the Dodd-Frank bill helped the too-big-to-fail institutions get larger, by stifling small banks.  

Needless to say, the Bill being named after Barney Frank, he's well-liked by the banks enough to have continued to be given fundraisers by them after Dodd-Frank, and is now sitting on a bank board. "
Economics,"The thing is, you said nothing was done, not insufficient things were done. I will argue now that Title I and II of the Dodd-frank is sufficient

Also Timothy Geithner did point out that the bill needs to be set in a way so that ''Ensure that a firm is allowed to fail in an orderly way and not be ""rescued""''.

The law works to prevent banking bailouts or deposit guarantees from burdening the taxpayer or encouraging ""moral hazard"" which is when awareness of the safety net encourages excessive risk-taking. For instance, there is moral hazard when large financial institutions take excessive risks under the assumption that the government will deem them ""too big to fail"" and will come to their rescue in order to prevent a more widespread financial sector collapse. The banking provisions under the financial reform include higher capital requirements to make sure the bank is unlikely to get over-extended. The Federal Reserve in 2014 announced an extra “capital surcharge” on the 8 biggest banks. And provisions also require regular stress tests, for financial institutions with above $50 billion in assets to try to make sure that the cushion is thick enough to protect the solvency of the bank even in the event of major unforeseen adverse shocks. If a bank has trouble under the stress tests, it may be required to hold off from share buybacks or dividend payouts and, if necessary, to raise additional capital financing.

Dodd-Frank also established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to give households the same sort of protection against misleading or abusive provision of financial services as they have for consumer goods. The CFPB was originally proposed by now Senator Elizabeth Warren in response to the 2007-09 subprime mortgage crisis. (But some had warned of the lack of regulatory protection for homeowners against unscrupulous lending practices even before the crisis, for instance Fed Governor Edward Gramlich in 2007.)  Proponents of Dodd-Frank consider the activities of the CFPB so far to have been among the most successful aspects.

The reform improved regulation and transparency of derivatives, particularly by having standardized derivatives traded on centralized exchanges. These are just four major examples of ways in which Dodd-Frank works to reduce future crises.

 Reducing the Systemwide Loss Given Default of Systemic Financial Firms   
It is neither possible nor desirable to regulate large financial institutions so that they literally cannot fail. But regulation can limit the systemwide impact of such a failure. Let's review what has been done since the crisis to reduce the damage to the system from the failure of one of the very largest firms.

Under Dodd-Frank, nearly all financial institution failures, including those of large, complex institutions, will continue to be addressed as they were before passage of the new law. The holding company will be resolved in bankruptcy. Operating subsidiary failures will continue to be treated either under bankruptcy or, where applicable, under specialized resolution schemes, including the Federal Deposit Insurance Act for banks and the Securities Investor Protection Act for securities firms. 

Dodd-Frank eliminated the authority used by the Federal Reserve and other regulators to bail out individual institutions during the crisis, including Bear Stearns, Citicorp, Bank of America and AIG. But Congress also recognized that there may be rare instances in which the failure of a large financial firm could threaten the financial stability of the United States. To empower regulators to handle such a failure without destabilizing the financial system or exposing taxpayers to loss, Dodd-Frank created two important new regulatory tools.  

First, the Act requires large bank holding companies and nonbank financial firms designated by the Financial Stability Oversight Council to submit a resolution plan or ""living will"" for their rapid and orderly resolution under the Bankruptcy Code. Second, the Act created a new Orderly Liquidation Authority (OLA) as a backup to resolution in an ordinary bankruptcy. 

Single point of entry approach.  This approach is a classic simplifier, making theoretically possible something that seemed impossibly complex. 

Under single point of entry, the FDIC will be appointed receiver of only the top-tier parent holding company of the failed financial group. Promptly after the parent holding company is placed into receivership, the FDIC will transfer the assets of the parent company (primarily its investments in subsidiaries) to a bridge holding company. Equity claims of the failed parent company's shareholders will be wiped out, and claims of its unsecured debt holders will be written down as necessary to reflect any losses in the receivership that the shareholders cannot cover. To capitalize the bridge holding company and the operating subsidiaries, and to permit transfer of ownership and control of the bridge company back to private hands, the FDIC will exchange the remaining claims of unsecured creditors of the parent for equity and/or debt claims of the bridge company. If necessary, the FDIC would provide temporary liquidity to the bridge company until the ""bail-in"" of the failed parent company's creditors can be accomplished.

It is crucial to recognize how this approach addresses the problem of runs. Single point of entry is designed to focus losses on the shareholders and long-term debt holders of the failed parent and to produce a well-capitalized bridge holding company in place of the failed parent. The critical operating subsidiaries would be well capitalized, and would remain open for business. There would be much reduced incentives for creditors or customers of the operating subsidiaries to pull away, or for regulators to ring-fence or take other extraordinary measures. If the process can be fully worked out and understood by market participants, regulators, and the general public, it should work to resolve even the biggest institution without starting or accelerating a run, and without exposing taxpayers to loss.

Single point of entry has important features in common with Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization. The principal differences in favor of OLA are the greater speed at which a firm can be placed into a resolution process and stabilized, the ability to avoid disruptive creditor actions, and the availability of temporary backup liquidity support to continue critical operations. 

Two provisions of existing law already impose size caps on U.S. banking firms. One limits acquisitions of banks by any bank holding company that controls more than 10 percent of the total insured deposits in the United States, and a second, added by Dodd-Frank, forbids acquisitions by any financial firm that controls more than 10 percent of the total liabilities of financial firms in the United States. In addition, Dodd-Frank added a new requirement that banking regulators consider ""risk to the stability of the U.S. banking or financial system"" in evaluating any proposed merger or acquisition by a bank or bank holding company. Critics argue that these restrictions are inadequate and nothing short of destroying big banks is sufficient. I think that's bullshit.

Some critics want to get right to the business of breaking up the big banks into smaller, more manageable, more easily resolvable pieces.12   At the heart of this proposal is the thought that no financial institution should be so large or complex that it cannot be allowed to fail, like any other private business, with losses to its equity holders and creditors, and consequences for senior management.  If the largest institutions were too big to fail during the financial crisis, why not make them smaller?

Today, the market still appears to provide a subsidy, of changing and uncertain amount, to very large banks to account for the possibility of a government bailout in the event of failure.13   This subsidy, in the form of lower funding costs, may encourage ""too-bigness."" There would be substantial externalities to a large bank failure as well. 

The market needs to believe--and it needs to be the case--that every private financial institution can fail and be resolved under our laws without imposing undue costs on society. The current reform agenda is designed to accomplish just that, through two channels. First, it is intended to substantially reduce the likelihood of failure through a broad range of stronger regulation, including higher capital and liquidity standards, stress tests and recovery planning among other reforms. Second, it is intended to minimize the externalities from failure by making it possible to resolve a large financial institution without taxpayer exposure and without uncontainable disruption. If these reforms achieve their purpose, in my view they would be preferable to a government-imposed break-up, which would likely involve arbitrary judgments, efficiency losses, and a difficult transition.  

It is easy to agree that Dodd-Frank can be improved upon and even easier to acknowledge that no financial regulation will ever eliminate completely the boom-bust cycle that seems to be an intrinsic element of human social psychology. 



This is the opinion shared by [Jeffrey Frankel, Harvard](https://econofact.org/the-dodd-frank-financial-reform) and [Jerome Powell, 16th chairman of the federal reserve.](https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/powell20130304a.htm)"
Economics,"If you're talking the global economy this is obviously false. If you're talking exclusively about the US market/economy, then sure(maybe). 

You don't have to look far to see a financial crisis. There's a financial crisis going on right now! Just look at emerging markets! I understand that the words, ""This time is different"" can be dangerous, but at the same time the yin to that yang should be; ""The more things change, the more things stay the same""."
Economics,"> On one side, wages have stagnated for many; adjusted for inflation, the median male worker earns less now than he did in 1979. On the other side, some have seen their incomes grow much faster than the income of the nation as a whole. Thus C.E.O.s at the largest companies now make 270 times as much as the average worker, up from 27 times as much in 1980.

I respect Krugman, and if we can actually measure this data well I'm all for it, but comparing the median male worker to CEOs just screams of punditry from the start. Why not link to the data for [median females as well](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252882800Q). Or the [combined stat](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q).

I'm not so worried about CEOs as some because their compensation just isn't that big of a factor in the big picture. Last year [CEO pay](https://aflcio.org/paywatch/highest-paid-ceos) at all s&p 500 companies combined was only 7 billion dollars. That's a lot for just 500 people, but it's only a drop in the bucket compared to the nearly [9 Trillion](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A576RC1) paid out in wages and salaries US wide. You could take all that CEO pay and hand it out, but you would only have 21 dollars for each American. The potential for harm is higher in my opinion then the potential for good.  

[This study](http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/van_reenen_paper0824.pdf?mod=article_inline) was posted here the other day. The author had this to say about wages and CEO pay:

> “Just about all of the increase in earnings inequality has happened between firms rather than within firms (except maybe for the top percentile, dominated by the CEO),” 

The most productive firms are doing great things right now and their workers are all benefitting together, and maybe some CEOs are getting a little extra. My concern is that Krugmans proposed data is going to be used to paint a picture that more taxes and spending are needed, rather then that we need to figure out why innovations aren't diffusing to other firms as fast as before, and how we can help them spread faster without damaging the motivation to innovate."
Economics,"Comparing male and female wages is a a spin anyway. 

Women were in more low wage jobs. Now they are moving to higher wage jobs. That's great! 

This would be relevant if, overall, there was wage growth and more demographic groups had access to that wage growth.

However, I have not seen any data to show that this is the case. Overall, wages are stagnating despite economic growth. Simply put, the growing wealth of a demarcated economy (i.e., the USA) is being siphoned away from wages to other areas. The economy is investing less in human resources and the human resources, i.e., people are not benefiting (proportionately) from economic growth to the same extent that they were three decades ago. "
Economics,"I think you're misreading his point. He's emphatically not stating that purely the pay of CEO's is a big problem in itself. He's arguing that inequality is growing rapidly, and uses CEO's of Fortune 500 as an example of that wider problem.

If you disagree with his assertion that inequality is growing, that growing inequality is a problem, or that CEO compensation illustrates growing inequality, that might be an interesting discussion to have.

But to argue that a small example of a larger problem does not in itself encompass the larger problem as a whole... well, no shit Sherlock."
Economics,"> Precisely for this reason.  
>  
>This picking on CEOs reeks as bad as the speeches by all communist revolutionaries of the last century.  
>  
>It's such low grade demagoguery that it doesn't even deserve to be counter-argued.

The article discusses the disconnect between overall growth and individual experience. The only reason why he is comparing median male workers to CEOs is to show the differences in their individual experience. What of that, and why, do you consider demagoguery ?"
Economics,">and more demographic groups had access to that wage growth

Are women not a demographic group? Also why only wage growth? Why ignore bonuses, paid time off, healthcare compensation greater than healthcare inflation, and increased consumption across the board? [Compensation per hour](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=jYb6) looks very different then wages per hour, and considering that wage increases get a \~15% federal flat tax when other forms of compensation don't this isn't that surprising to me.

You say people aren't benefiting proportionately from economic growth to the extent they were three decades ago but half those people are women who are more equal then ever with their male counterparts, if not perfectly equal yet. Looking at national income brackets such as when he links to Picketty shows percentiles, but will ignore how people more throughout those percentiles during life.  [Over 70% of Americans make it to the top 20%](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0116370), and 61% remain there for at least 2 years. The top 1% sees a good deal of churn and about 5% of Americans make it there for two years as well."
Economics,">How would you defend a 1000% value increase for a CEO's work versus a negative value increase of the median worker?

I would say that the characteristics of both have changed considerably over the past 50 years, and using the CPI-U to deflate between 80s workers and 18 workers (as the Fred charts do) is going to be a flawed argument from the start  because of compounded overestimation of the metric. [Other research](https://www.dartmouth.edu/~bsacerdo/Sacerdote%2050%20Years%20of%20Growth%20in%20American%20Wages%20Income%20and%20Consumption%20May%202017.pdf) shows a considerably different picture when you attempt to account for the changes in the median American household:

>  The finding of zero growth in American real wages since the 1970s is driven in part by the choice of the CPIU as the price deflator (Broda and Weinstein 2008). Small biases in any price deflator compound over long periods of time. Using a different deflator such as the Personal Consumption Expenditures index (PCE) yields modest growth in real wages and in median household incomes throughout the time period. Accounting for the Hamilton (1998) and Costa (2001) estimates of CPI bias yields estimated wage growth of 1 percent per year during 1975-2015. Meaningful growth in consumption for below median income families has occurred even in a prolonged period of increasing income inequality, increasing consumption inequality and a decreasing share of national income accruing to labor.  

​"
Economics,"Yes. Artificial scarcity and regulations. But those work by cutting out competition, which means you're not going to get an optimal result in most cases, and you're basically back where you started.

The other option is to even the field by raising all boats. That means increasing education levels, quality of life, and so on world wide. You can limit how much of this is necessary through specialization in different areas  (bitcoin miners in areas with cheap electricity, for instance), but that's not going to go very far with the basic stuff you normally see in the gig economy.

Basically, to compete we're all going to have to up our game and offer something the other guy is not. Otherwise, the race to the bottom is inevitable."
Economics,"A Universal Basic Income could act as a *race to the top* in both technological and employment terms, especially if the sum were raised in line with productivity:

* in tech terms: as employment costs continually rise, there would be much more investment in techs that replace work that people don't want to do.

* in employment terms: the jobs left therefore have to be worthwhile enough to attract applicants. Employers need to court employees, so job standards rise."
Economics,"This is why it's so important to engage younger individuals on the importance of compound interest, and understanding why it's important to start saving early. I know a lot of people that live off of social security, and in especially high cost areas in the United States it's not too uncommon to see people living in rooming houses in order to afford to save, or pay off bills they've gathered over the years. Most of an individual's medical expenses tend to be towards the end of their life as well which will eat a large chunk of their retirement savings depending on the circumstances.  Truly an unfortunate set of circumstances. "
Economics," “The  intelligent investor shouldn’t ignore Mr. Market entirely. Instead, you  should do business with him- but only to the extent that it serves your  interests.”

\-  Benjamin Graham 

​

Investment could be a number of things. There are people that invest in rental real estate, starting small businesses, etc. It's up to the individual to decide their risk tolerance to certain endeavors. There is different ROI in every investment whether that be negative or positive. Paying yourself first I feel is a good financial goal to set for everyone even if it's sitting in a saving account for a ""rainy day"" compared to the alternative. "
Economics,"There are some real advantages to living in the US,  I have to admit that.  But I also like living here in Africa.  It's really a matter of weighing what you like against being able to tolerate the downsides of wherever you live.  Quality of life is very high in northern Europe,  for example,  but I can't deal with the cold, grey weather.  That's a deal-breaker for me.  On the other hand I can tolerate not having 200 TV channels here in Africa because I don't even own a TV.  But for some the reverse situation (cold grey weather and lots of TV channels) is preferable.  Trade-offs at work here."
Economics,"I traveled a lot and lived most of my life outside of my home country. But Africa is something special. I was in Gambia for 2 weeks and I was never so sad to leave a place. When I was sitting in the plane to leave and the crew sprayed the disinfectant, it was the only time I was bawling to leave a place. I know people that feel/felt the same and there is something about that continent."
Economics,"People complain that the rich ""live off of the labor of others."" They do so, for the most part, by investing in publicly traded corporations via the stock market.  They put in (more than $1) and earn a quarter of a percent or so in dividends, but... the value of their stocks grows by 8-10% per year. So, if you put $25 per week in the stock market, and that money doubled every 8 years, after 40 years you'd have a little bit of cash to spend.  After a month, you have $100.  After a year, you'd have more than $1200.  After 2 years, you'd have more than $2500.  After five years, you'd have close to $6000 in the bank.  Maybe at that point you could start putting in $50 per week? After 5 more years, you're up nicely into the tens of thousands.  After 20 years, your compounded earnings are contributing more every month than your paycheck is.

If you put $100 per week into the market (that's a stretch for many, I know), it would be possible to actually make enough to prevent one from being old and broke.

Or, you could spend every penny you make.  At the end of the year, you will have saved... nothing.  After 5 years you will have saved... nothing.  After 20 years you will have saved... nothing. After 40 years of work you will own... nothing.

So, it's either, ""after 70 years, you'll have $2"" or it's ""after 50 years, you'll have all the money you need to live the rest of your life, and thank God you decided to save."""
Economics,Are you being flippant on purpose?  I don’t personally enjoy the idea of contributing $7800 a year toward a safety net for myself or anyone that is a annually compounded financial loss.  I support SS as a system and benefit for the purpose it was created for. But to suggest the government can just print money to save it - like that’s a valid long term solution - I thought this was r/economics.  
Economics,"As a former dental professional, please don't encourage this. I've seen too many nasty cases where people go over the border to get work done cheaply, and when things fail, the patient has zero recourse. And then they end up paying for treatment in the US, usually after losing a few teeth along the way (and suffering a lot of pain).

You know why it's more expensive in the US? Malpractice insurance, board certifications, paying assistants and hygienists a decent wage."
Economics,"Even worst case scenario projections have everyone stabilizing at getting something like 70% of what they'd be owed on paper. And that assumes poor economic growth and low population growth (which can come from either births or immigration). 

Even under the worst case scenario, a simple influx of cash into the program (from the general treasury funds) would fix the problem overnight, and acknowledge that Social Security is a tax and spend program (like Medicare, the military, the national park system, and ICE), instead of pretending that it's totally separate from other government spending and revenue programs."
Economics,"If you have a salary that is close to western levels then life in Africa can be very nice indeed. You can afford a housekeeper and a driver if you like (each will cost you \~$2500 a year where I am).  Same with full-time day care in your house if you have young kids.

 If you are poor then it's not so easy,  though it isn't as bad as what the media makes it out to be.  The real advantage is the social component-- loneliness isn't really a thing here.  On the other hand social outcasts do exist."
Economics,"Put $1 in a low cost S&P 500 index fund at an estimated inflation adjusted growth rate of 7% in 70 years you'll have $114.

If you put an extra dollar in each year you'll have a little over $1,800.

Save more. Save early. It's not a panacea to poverty but it is an important thing to know about and understand. I wish I'd started seriously saving and investing in my early twenties instead of my late twenties. "
Economics,"These bankruptcies aren't a savings issue, they're a healthcare issue. When you can afford to live to 100 as long as you can foot the bill of multiple $10k, 100k, 1mil, surgeries-drugs-nurses-specialist visits, people are going to want to live and not going to be able to afford all the treatment. 

America needs to decide whether we are letting people live according to how much they can afford or we are socializing healthcare and the gov't decides what aging problems are worth footing the bill for, but either way Old people will die. In the former way, we accept bankruptcies in the elderly"
Economics,"And many people I know wished they had immigrated to the U.S sooner and they had the options to go to europe as well.

That is hiliarious isn't it?

Tell me a place where there is no:

1. for profit insurance

2. greedy corporation

3. corrupted government

4. skyhigh real estate

Aren't these the source of demise of the u.s that people like you love to rave about?

More healthy food option. Gimme a fucking break /u/papiavagina "
Economics,">First, I'm not an American. And I know a thing or two about poverty thats why it vexes me when Europeans like you or even some extremely out of touch Americans on this sub pretend to know what it's like to be poor.

Yeah, I'm sure Americans know much more about being poor as fuck, because I am literally seeing people recommending the Mexican healthcare system to each other, and traveling to developing countries so they can afford healthcare. Pretty screwed up, holmes."
Economics,"""We don’t call Social Security “welfare” because it’s a pejorative term and politicians don’t want to offend. So they classify Social Security as something else, when it isn’t. Here’s how I define a welfare program: first, it taxes one group to support another group, meaning it’s pay-as-you-go and not a contributory scheme where people’s own savings pay their later benefits; and second, Congress can constantly alter benefits, reflecting changing needs, economic conditions, and politics. Social Security qualifies on both counts.""

https://www.newsweek.com/social-security-middle-class-welfare-66119"
Economics,"The quote is a part of a larger analogy that I think is very profound. Mr. Market, in this case, is not exactly what economists would call ""the market"", it is a representation of the pricing behavior of equity markets. 

The idea is that once you own an equity, it doesn't necessarily matter what the price of that equity is. The price that Mr. Market tells you every millisecond of the trading hours only matters if you are considering buying or selling that equity. Mr. Market may set the price of a share of stock as $4 a share one day, and then $2.50 the next day, but if you are an intelligent investor, that shouldn't concern you too much unless you need to or want to buy or sell in the near future. He writes a whole chapter on this, and it is the best of the whole book, in my opinion."
Economics,">If we could have, we would have. 

This is possibly true for you.  I don't know your situation.

In general, it's false.  If you look at the savings rate data, the storyline is pretty clear: people don't save in good times.  [Savings rates](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSAVERT) reliably go up during recessions, even though workers have less money to work with.

Extremely many people have the ability to save but don't.  For an obvious example, [Nielsen](http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2015/saving-spending-and-living-paycheck-to-paycheck-in-america.html) reports that 24% of surveyed people making low six figures live paycheck to paycheck.  Much of the story here is about overconfidence in the financial future.

>A lot of people try and get their savings wiped out by life any way. 

""A lot"" is a vague term, but I still believe that you're overestimating this one.  Very few Americans have anything I'd be comfortable calling ""their life savings"".  [Median net worth in America is $70k, of which about $55k is home equity](https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-average-net-worth-of-americans-at-every-age-2017-6).  With that remaining $15k, it's mostly invested quite poorly.  [Only about half of Americans own even a single share of stock](https://www.npr.org/2017/03/01/517975766/while-trump-touts-stock-market-many-americans-left-out-of-the-conversation)."
Economics,"""Extremely many people have the ability to save but don't. ""

What is wrong with you? Take your data home and stop insulting the rest of us. 

What people who make over 6 figures do or don't do is irrelevant to most Americans. Anyone who makes over 6 figures can at the very least squirrel away at the last minute. Us people who have averaged less than half of that don't have that luxury. 

I can't believe you don't understand this.

Clearly a problem of looking at the ""data"" and not looking at how people really live. Wake up, man. "
Economics,"As someone who actually lives near the border, let me tell you what the real concern is. *It's the border violence.* Let me tell you, the actual care you get in Mexico is virtually indistinguishable from what you get in the US. A lot of border areas on the Mexican side of the border are rife with drug violence.

Having said that though, because Mexican dental and health care providers are aware of the negative perception that Mexico has in regards to safety, they are further motivated to provide excellent care."
Economics,"https://www.forbes.com/sites/nextavenue/2018/01/03/international-livings-top-10-places-to-retire-abroad-in-2018/#30bb09646c3e

malaysia is extremely nice. its islamic so most dense americans, would shit themselves before stepping foot in that country, which is just fine by me.  Its just overthrown last corrupt government (you can thank them for Wolf of WallSt) and making democratic reforms, but just dont ever try to scissor another woman in public if u are a girl....

My personal preference is vietnam, but i wouldnt want to get sick there and spend time in hospital, or, get in trouble and spend time in jail.  both are equally as bad.

Sometimes, insurance isnt needed - there is a thing called ""medical tourism"".  It isnt illegal (yet) and many procedures easily afforded out of pocket especially with favorable exchange rates.

Malay and viet are cheap to live in - i dont get the ""skyhigh realestate"" complaint, and looking at your comment history, you seem to have been to viet or know something about it.

Every country is greedy corp, but i argue USA is in a league all its own.

Every country is corrupt, and again, usa has a special place in this category too.

I didnt say EVERY country is desirable to live in.  There are plently of places i dont want to go (syria - home of teddy bear hampster) or many of the South African countries.

People make up their own mind where they want to live - im clearly done in USA.  I know the mustard shit they pump the populace with and im all done playing that game.
"
Economics,">Really? What is wrong with you? Only 5.4% of Americans make this much.

The point I was making is that even people with extremely high incomes live paycheck to paycheck.  It's not so simple as ""Americans are too broke to save"".  Some Americans are, but even many those who obviously have enough income don't save.

Would you care to cite a source for this figure?  The [2016 CPS](https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/cps-pinc/pinc-01.html#par_textimage_18) puts the prevalence of $100k or higher incomes at about 13% of the population.

>In the real world, most Americans are living paycheck to paycheck.

I agree that most Americans do this.  I disagree that saving is impossible for most Americans.  

The personal savings rate has gone up in every recession since at least 1960.  That is, most people's incomes will shrink, and they will still manage to save more than they do today.  This is considerably less efficient than saving now, during the good times, but demonstrates the possibility of saving.

I think [this article](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/04/why-dont-americans-save-money/478929/) provides good coverage for potential reasons why Americans save so much less than people from comparably wealthy nations."
Economics,"If they botch the dentistry in Mexico, people aren't going to sue them because they cant, they aren't likely to fly back and get the work redone, and many times American dentists wont even touch the work because it's a lawsuit waiting to happen. If an American doc touches the site at all they could potentially be held liable for all of it going wrong.

So the people get seriously boned when things go wrong. Yet everyone in this chain is encouraging more dental tourism.

If you want things different tell your Congressman, but dont act like dental tourism is a safe or viable answer."
Economics,"Research, stop buying shit you don't need, sell everything you have, get job where u can work online (skype, travelingmailbox, etc), give family hug, but 1 way ticket and go.

Quite simple actually.

AIRBNB until u know place then find cheaper rental someplace.

Vietnam and Malaysia are my top 2.  Malay is 90 day visa, viet is 30, but u can get 1year business visa from travel shop in town.

PM me if you need more info.

EDIT: dont forget you need usa government permission to leave country. (passport) if you convicted felon or owe back taxes your travel may be restricted."
Economics,"If you're interested I would encourage you to check out the /r/personalfinance wiki: 

https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/wiki/commontopics

The people on that sub have done a great job of collecting the most basic, fundamental, information beginners need when it comes to managing your personal finances. These articles helped me a lot.

The Bogleheads wiki is also a great resource if you're looking for information specific to investing. 

https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Main_Page

It only takes a few afternoons of reading and you'll have a good enough understanding of this stuff to make solid, long term decisions about your financial health. "
Economics,"That's a bad idea for the same reason that the gold standard was a bad idea: you lose the ability to inflate your way out of debts and increase the price competitiveness of exports, which can be an important policy tool. The only alternative that remains is internal devaluation and austerity, which will create unnecessary suffering and a great deal of political and social instability. The best solution if you're looking to deflate a currency is to just take some of it out of circulation and/or renominate it. That way you don't lose access to the printing press for when you do really need it. "
Economics,Governments have two arms to manage the economy. Their right arm which is fiscal policy and left arm which is monetary policy. You quit on your own currency you basically chop off your left arm forever. Now you have to manage the economy handicapped. Argentina once had triple digit inflation rates and managed to get through it without being so drastic. They will get through this eventually. Abandoning their currency would absurd.
Economics,"We couldn't compete internationally to begin with, so exports were low, specially in manufactured products that we used to export to other latinoamerican countries and the agricultural sector too. So we basically didn't have enough money, there wasn't enough money in the country to pay our debt or for paying anything really. 

Second our industry couldn't keep up with the salaries and investments other companies could make, as you had to pay in dollars. So most jobs, laws at the time gave lots of benefits to big companies, were given by these foreign companies that had no reason to keep revenue in the country, and salaries weren't even high as you would expect from this situation. 

So we basically we were left with nothing in the country that could make money. And how could we get money if we couldn't print it? EASY, debt... but wait, how do we pay that debt? Nothing in this country makes money... I know! Debt! And so we defaulted in 2001. "
Economics,"Anecdotal here. I see so many employers that dangle carrots to their employees. Employees take jobs that work them like crazy with absolutely terrible pay all for a potential opportunity to maybe get that really good job they're looking for one day. Then that job never becomes available or they don't get picked for it. The employee has already invested so much trying to get the good job that they keep chasing the carrot similar to a Nigerian scam where you've already lost so much money you have to believe the prince is going to give you that money if you just spend another 2 years at some other role you're totally overqualified for getting underpaid.

What I'm saying is that employees are being gamed by employers in the same manner people who fall for scams get gamed. The difference is that when it comes to jobs, someone does eventually get that one good job which is why so many people are easily abled to get gamed. They think if they take that lower level role for $40k/year for 10 years that they will eventually have that great job. In reality it seems to me that there exists a class system and certain people simply come into those roles without having to have worked from the bottom up. People need to stop believing in corporations and the carrot they dangle."
Economics,"Is it a possibility wage increases have not increased due to costs related to governmental compliance? 

For example we have seen a general increase in the use of 1099 contract workers since government regulations mandated companies over a certain size provide health care insurance to their employees. Is it a possibility that due to this new compliance cost, potential increase in wages for employees are now going to pay for this cost instead?


"
Economics,"I used to have this discussion with a buddy of mine all the time! I had loans, he did not. He always strutted around as if his shit didn't stink. 

Then I met his dad... who paid for his college, got him his cush job, and paid for his down payment on his house! 

All in, I'd say he had a good 200K head start on me... 

He still asserts that I didn't have to get loans, and I'm paying too much on my mortgage. My home loan rate is lower than his, btw. 

All this to lead up to this comment: 

I consider myself privileged to have what I have, and when I hear shit comments like ""were you conscripted into loans..."" it pisses me off because the answer is yes. In order to go to the same school as a bunch of lucky spoiled TRULY privileged fucks whose parents take care of the REAL obstacles, yes,I needed loans! And even though I make the same money as those chodes, I'll never catch up. Ergo, I lower my standards.

Personally, I don't blame the privileged... I blame those LIKE ME, who borrowed but didn't finish. Or, who borrowed to attend too ambitiously... now, tuition is artificially inflated, and an education under delivers on opportunity. But, at the heart of that, is the same naivete that I think exists in your comment. 

And no, the buddy and I aren't really buddies anymore... it became too much of a bother to not punch him or see him as a silver spoon fed punk... and my bitterness is clear in this post! 

I guess I'll do some YouTube yoga to find harmony... can't afford the in-person classes, got student loans to pay! "
Economics,"Yes. The cost of full time employees went up so the amount of full time employees went down.

Minimum wage did something similar. In a roundabout way, the cost of your least skilled workers went up so the amount of your least skilled workers went down. Basically some people on the bottom of the totem pole suddenly got paid more but others suddenly got paid nothing (because they were fired). The ones who remained had to pick up the slack of the ones who were fired. Across the board, jobs that paid the minimum wage thus became more challenging which made them harder for the least skilled members of society to qualify for. They then either leech of the taxpayers via welfare or they leech off their families which reduces discretionary income and traps their families in positions where they can't afford to take risks with changing employers which gives them no bargaining power for their wages"
Economics,"I decided to go in for an interview because the starting salary was actually stated before hand. I get there and as the interview is about to start they said, ""idk if you'd be interested in this because the starting pay is actually xxxx"" which was $12,000 below what they previously claimed was the starting salary. I wonder if that's a common strategy to try and get people who are in need of a job to accept for lower pay. "
Economics,"I don't blame those who took the loans and didn't finish. They were told they *had* to get a BA or a BS to be middle class, got started, realized for whatever reason that path wouldn't work for them personally, and dropped out.

I blame the low information people who say things like ""were you conscripted into your loans?"" Someone who looks at a macro situation, sees x% of middle income people and y% of low income people are acquiring five and six figure debt at 18 years old and don't see a systemic problem that needs to be addressed cooperatively. 

""Nope,"" they think wrongly, ""if I'm not personally suffering this problem *right now* then there is no systemic issue that needs to be resolved. I will say something glib and smug and dumb and then pat myself on the back for being smart enough to take credit for all the help other people have given me."" And in 10-20 years when the student loan issue triggers the recession after next and they're laid off they'll complain that the government should have done something about all this"
Economics,"Those 18 year olds taking out 5, even 6 figure loans based on no collateral isn't healthy either. There's a reason why loans normally require collateral. The government stepping in to safeguard loans distorts the market by changing the risk calculation.

Add to that these 18 year olds have been told all of their lives by every adult, every authority figure, and every teach that they must go to college. Can you blame them for thinking they must go to college? They have no experience and don't know any other way.

Normally no one would give an 18 year old with no assets a loan of that size. Its too risky. The kid doesn't know what they're doing and is making a decision based on the information they believe they have, except that all  of their lives everyone the kid trusts has been telling them things that may not be true.

Skilled trades are struggling for new hires right now while underemployed college graduates are serving coffee."
Economics,">Oh? Is that what going to college means? I didn't see psychic prediction 101 on my course selection handout.

Well, if you go to school for X subject, you're hoping that you'll have X job after  you're done in 4 years, right? Is that a tough concept for you to understand?

>maybe they can take a finance course their first semester.

Right. Because that makes sense, to take on loans to learn how they're going to fuck you later on. Cool concept. But again, kids don't have any idea as to what a 15, 20, 30 year loan looks like. Shit, we're talking about people who we don't deem responsible enough to drink, but we can send them off to war, and we can bury them in debt. Cool stuff right there."
Economics,"There's plenty of data that shows those with a college education, over a lifetime, will earn more than those with HS only. So, it's not entirely a misnomer. 

But, you're right... 18 y/os with a debt potential of 50K+ before they ever even earn a dime isn't a safe bet. 

UNLESS, an educated voting populace is something of a public good... in which case, tuition of any sort yanks higher education out of that classification as it is exclusive. 

The problem is that higher education is a speculative investment, that for most people, they have to short in order to even get involved. And is often the case, certainly with inexperienced investors, those who short markets, can lose BIG TIME! 

Also, personal financial literacy isn't a high school standard... at least not when it comes to realistic concepts pertaining to assets, liabilities, and speculative investments! 

Kids are told by so many trustworthy adults to invest in college, but ARE NOT supported in the process... sink or swim is ok when stakes aren't so long lasting. Rack up 20K in loans... you can feasibly pay that back over 5 years AND those who staked you (investment holders) can also earn returns! But, with how tuition has gotten STUPID over the past couple decades, its more of a feeding frenzy on long term debts... than it is about developing an educated populace. 

Because education is speculative (for investors, aka students), a disproportionate amount of risk rests on students! Speculative investments SHOULD NOT be so one-sided. Arguably, colleges would accept fewer students, fewer and smaller loans would be lent, and the return on attained education would be much higher IF this dynamic wasn't so lopsided, predatory even! 

The fact that loans cannot be subject to bankruptcy, makes them lopsided as well... AMD THIS is where the ""nobody made you take the loan"" arguers should place their scrutiny! I guarantee if lenders held more risk, this system would tighten up real quick! It's not because the argument that an education cannot be used as collateral because it's intangible is a joke! An experienced, licensed, plumber can lose their license. Doctors, lawyers, can lose the license to practice... ergo, a person with a liberal arts degree can lose their credentials! Thus, bankruptcy SHOULD include student loans. 

So, the point that there MIGHT be a systemic problem shouldn't be dismissed... and, when it comes to the forefront in a few years, THESE will be the SUDDENLY OBVIOUS details. "
Economics,"To me the issue is the reduction in middle class wage unskilled jobs. 40 years ago a responsible, hardworking American could go to the local factory, mill, or plant and get his foot in the door with a recommendation from his dad or uncle. He didn't need a Bachelor's degree to raise a family.

But now those jobs are gone and the people who would have gone that a route are piling in to universities. We aren't increasing the number of jobs available to those educated people, though, so here we are."
Economics,"I never understood the idea of starting a family before being economically settled.

I can also never understand this excuse. You can still look for jobs while being employed to a less-than-ideal one. People switch between jobs so much nowadays that it’s nothing but the smallest blemish on your resume, if even that.

Based on what I see today, I’m not raising kids until i have about 100-200k in reserve to raise them. Obviously the threshold is up to you, but I would say that 50k is the absolute minimum. If you’re making minimum wage or 15-20$ an hour supporting your family having a kid is absolutely not an option."
Economics,"I definitely understand your logic, but people don't plan like you are assuming they do. Shit happens, and not everyone who wants a kid is going to make 200k in their lifetime, let a lone save as much as that. We [as a society] can't just say 'fuck em', and the [mental toll poverty takes on a human is incomparable](http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/special-reports/addressing-poverty-and-mental-illness), so you can't expect people to take tje risk of changing jobs, or going back to school, or any of the 'logical' things we know amounts to individual economic growth. Some people just don't have the mental bandwidth to do those tasks.

You're right, but you're also wrong. Life isn't black and white. "
Economics,"If the main problem is underemployment, as this paper seems to suggest, there doesn't seem much that corporations *can* do to resolve the issue. Since workers are underemployed, the productivity they generate from their job definitely is not as high as one that makes full use of their human capital, so increasing their pay in accordance with their education and not what they actually do at their job sets a binding price floor for labour and skews incentives. Corporations need to make profit to survive, after all, and any job is better than no job.

To me, it seems as though the fault lies with the government's inability to secure growth in job sectors that reward higher levels of human capital and therefore pay higher wages."
Economics,"> Corporations need to make profit to give to the shareholders. 

Perhaps not even anymore. Shareholders hire executives and the like to run their company the best they can, due to their inability to constantly supervise the daily comings and goings of the business, but they are similarly unable to constantly hover over the shoulders of said executives. This information asymmetry leads to the classic ""principal-agent problem"", allowing high-level company employees to embezzle funds for their own pleasure.

​"
Economics,"> The only reason they don’t generate a profit is because they reinvest everything into expansion, which is what a company should do.

> Profit is an absolute requirement to maintaining and growing a business.

These are actually opposite statements, is what I'm saying. Amazon is not profitable because the investors are happy enough that they haven't fired Jeff Bezos yet. (Although they have let him become a hundred-billionaire, so maybe they're just irresponsible.)"
Economics,"Bezos' billions are the stock valuation at Amazon.  It's not like he's sitting on hundreds of billions in cash in his McDuck vault.  

In the sense you're saying, Amazon is profiting, it's just re-investing their profits into their own company.  You can put that down as an accounting cost I suppose, but the net of it is that after expenses are paid, there is money left over.  Their choices are to bank it, distribute it to shareholders, or re-invest it into the company."
Economics,"Yes, unions are an appropriate response to the market power wielded by massive super-corporations that are able to artificially suppress wages below what the worker actually deserves. Unions, however, are NOT the answer against **underemployment**. They can lobby for companies to pay workers a salary closer to their actual productive value to the company, but they can't force them to pay in excess of an employee's revenue product or else the firm would be making a loss, pushing them to cut jobs elsewhere. Underemployment is an issue of a worker's current job level being nowhere near what he/she *can actually accomplish*. 

Imagine a mechanical engineer forced to resort to cutting deli meats at Loblaws for a living. Unions solve the issue of him being paid $8 an hour when his contribution to Loblaws is worth $12 an hour. Unions **do not** solve the issue of him not having a job as a mechanical engineer. You can't ""grow"" the wage of the deli meat cutter to rival the wage of a mechanical engineer, even though ideally he would have a job that makes full use of his skills as a worker with a post-secondary education and pays him as such."
Economics,"OP's article makes the claim that low wage growth is ""due to widespread underemployment"". It's saying that the mechanical engineer at McDonalds cannot make more than he does already because more than a mediocre amount of experience in flipping burgers or punching numbers into the cash register does not increase the quality or quantity of his work to level sufficient to warrant a raise. Perhaps McDonalds employees make more in Denmark, and I'm not disagreeing in that more workers should join unions. What I *do* disagree with is being content to prescribe unions as the be-all, end-all solution to stagnant wages.

We'd much prefer the mechanical engineer to make his living as a mechanical engineer, not as a low-level grunt at a fast food chain. This solution to this underemployment isn't unions, but real and not insubstantial action by the government and the people in looking at what fields or industries we want to value, reward, and grow in a developed country such as the US or the UK. While I may not know much about the situation in Denmark, I do know this -- it's not one that pays minimum wage."
Economics,"Makes the dismal standard of living of people in this country even more unforgivable. Many of the countries listed in this map have things like universal health care, universal access to education, don't have our ridiculous student loan crisis and have programs to help the elderly where needed.   


We squander our riches with a bloated military, tax benefits for people who don't need them, and absurd levels of debt service for corrupt deals in the past instead of taking care of our own. "
Economics,">Many of the countries listed in this map have things like universal health care, universal access to education, don't have our ridiculous student loan crisis and have programs to help the elderly where needed.

The US has some of the highest rates of tertiary education in the world, and spends more money on the elderly than any country in the world on a per capita basis.  If you're going to make shit up, you should go for plausible fantasies, not things that are easily disproven.  "
Economics,"The problem isn't that people can't go to school, the problem is that it costs too damn much and the roi is now so low. I didn't make that up. Most everyone I know has defaulted on their student loans because they can't afford the payments, and these aren't humanities people, they are scientists. 

As for ""spending more on the elderly than any country in the world on a per capita basis"" have your ever thought that it might be not because we are concerned about quality of life but rather that medical care is just so absurdly expensive here?

Guess not."
Economics,">The problem isn't that people can't go to school, the problem is that it costs too damn much and the roi is now so low. 

my how quickly the goalposts shift!  how seamlessly we move from ""universal access to education"" to ""sufficiently high ROI on education.""

>I didn't make that up. Most everyone I know has defaulted on their student loans because they can't afford the payments, and these aren't humanities people, they are scientists.

Starting a conversation about data with ""most everyone I know"" is making things up.  Here are the [actual numbers](https://www.ed.gov/category/keyword/student-loan-default-rates)

>As for ""spending more on the elderly than any country in the world on a per capita basis"" have your ever thought that it might be not because we are concerned about quality of life but rather that medical care is just so absurdly expensive here?

my how quickly the goalposts shift!  seamlessly we move from ""We squander our riches with a bloated military, tax benefits for people who don't need them, and absurd levels of debt service"" to ""healthcare is too expensive.

Moving goal posts is a sure sign one is losing an argument.
"
Economics,"I live in this world. 

It's eminently possible. I'm reporting from my own kids' experience, one from 10 years ago and one from now. 

The university I graduated from advertises tuition at $5k per year. They don't say how many credit hours that is, but it'd be 30 hours for two semesters for 120 hours in four years. The local community college is $100 per credit hour - so for the first 60 hours, that's $6k. 
"
Economics,"You may find the $200 paper above interesting.  He uses a similar methodology in section 4.

>I estimate an average SCC that corresponds to the scenario in which CO2 emissions growth is reduced sufficiently to truncate the outcome distribution so as to eliminate the possibility of a GDP reduction that is 20% or greater.12 The required inputs are obtained from a survey of economists and climate scientists with established expertise in climate change impacts and policy. These inputs are used to calculate the benefit (B0) from truncating the impact distribution, and the reduction in CO2 emissions growth (from m0 to m1, yielding a total reduction ∆E) needed to achieve this truncation. Calculating the benefit in turn requires a distribution for the climate impact 50 years from now, as well as an expected impact at a longer horizon (the year 2150), ¯z2, from which the parameter β is calculated using eqn. (3). Calculating the total emissions reduction requires the BAU emissions growth rate m0 and reduced growth rate m1, and both calculations require a discount rate R.   
>  
>The impact distribution is derived from experts’ responses regarding impact probabilities. Each expert is asked for the probability that the impact, i.e., reduction in GDP, will be 2% (5%, 10%, 20%, and 50%) or greater (and I impose a probability of 1 that the impact will be 0% or greater). As explained below, I fit four different probability distributions to these six probabilities for each expert, and to sets of probabilities across groups of experts. 

His estimate still varies widely by methodology.  If he uses his full sample data, he calculates a $200/ton SCC.  If he truncates the data set to only those answers where respondents expressed high confidence and the outcome was in the range of 0% to 20% GDP loss, he calculates a $100/ton SCC.

I think it very hard for any policy maker to have confidence that any number is right when relatively small changes in methodology, e.g. altering the discount rate by 1% or adjusting for self-reported confidence in the result, results in 2x or greater variation in result."
Economics,"To be sure, I support a carbon tax.  In my view, it's obviously a bad, and most (all?) nations on Earth have objectively bad taxes on the books that we could reduce or remove.

At the same time, I completely understand the frustrations of policy makers here.  They have enough trouble with political opposition as it is.  The wildly varying estimates for the SCC make it seem like economists have no clue how to price carbon.  Which, in fairness, is true."
Economics,"And what's strangely ironic this time is people are calling for it, and have been calling for it, for nearly a year now. Not just bears and conspiracy theorists, but mainstream economists have been saying that the market is at the brink of correction/crashing, whichever term is better suited. They all mean massive selling anyway.

Leading up to the subprime mortgage crisis was a different story, however. Almost everyone was stuffing cotton in their ear and singing ""this time is different"" just before it crashed."
Economics,"It's not complicated. If you work for someone else for your main source of income, you are not middle class. 

Edit: ok folks, it's a free country and you can insist you're middle class all you want. But next time you complain about wage stagnation, inflation, or rising rents and property values, remember that the actual middle class benefits from all those things. When politicians harp on about helping the middle class, they're not talking about you. "
Economics,"Except that they don't. People willingly choose to use them but there is zero barrier to entry to a competitor starting up. Scale may give them more visibility and some other advantages, but unlike an actual monopoly (versus the misuse that Sanders, European politicians, and the people here use), there is a huge difference in that any monopoly is self imposed by the consumers **choosing** to continue using them. Same with Google, same with Facebook, same with every other supposed ""monopoly"" tech company. They aren't a monopoly, they're just popular."
Economics,"For a second I thought I was on /r/news when I read your comment. Why are you in /r/Economics if you think there is no barrier to entry to make another FAANG company? It is so insanely stupid that I even wonder if you are a shill. You only have to use your brain for a fraction of a second to realize that there is a massive barrier to entry to have a FAANG company. If there wasn't, we wouldn't be talking about FAANG, but the hundreds of a companies that own a reasonable portion of the search market, social media market, computer market, etc. "
Economics,"I'm not talking about a company being another FAANG company, or even directly competing on their level. I'm talking about monopolies, which are related but not the same thing as competing with the FAANG companies.    
A monopoly should not and cannot be predicated on being able to immediately compete with the top players, since that is impossible solely due to size.    
What you and the rest of the pseudo-Bolshevists here seem to want, is to punish companies solely for growing too big, which, while gaining some support in Europe, is absolutely ridiculous and totally antithetical to anything involving economics. A company being large does mean that it is more difficult for others to compete with them, but it is absolutely untrue to equate that with monopolism, which is stopping a competitor from existing/competing at all, or being able to entry the marketplace."
Economics,"Question: What is your opinion on Amazon running their retail segment at a loss? Doesn’t that seem a bit like unfair pricing to force out other competitors? Genuine question.

I work at a mall-based retailer and while I admit I have not pored over Amazon’s books, but from a slightly-educated-perspective, it seems to me that Amazon is operating their retail segment at an intentional loss, propped up by their dominance in AWS. So, I suppose my question is two-fold: Do you agree with that assessment? And, hypothetically speaking, if that WERE a correct assessment, do you feel that would be a problem big enough to warrant government intervention to the marketplace?

It’s hard for me to tell whether I’m biased, given that I work for a company that Amazon is destroying, or if my understanding of the situation is correct. Thanks!"
Economics,"I tend to think it is abusive, since they are very clearly trying to gain an advantage on their competitors by underpricing their goods versus cost in a way that can't reasonably be competed against. I'm not sure how rules could be created or enforced against it though, since a company can very easily say that it is growing into a new market or funding growth of its business in a market indefinitely, as long as they are making profit elsewhere. There are many legitimate reasons a company might do this when expanding, so it's a subjective judgment as to where the line is for abuse."
Economics,"All entry requires the purchase of capital, but if it requires an extremely large initial capital investment with low depreciation and marginal costs, then it's qualitatively distinct from a mere ""early bird advantage"".  Hell, that's literally the perfect environment for a natural monopoly, and Amazon famously runs many efforts at a loss in an effort to use their market dominance to price out competitors.

You're not actually engaging with sufficient detail to even establish the point you're arguing."
Economics,"Nobody is going to make an argument that Amazon isn't dominating e-commerce currently, but I think the case is clear that they aren't even close to a monopoly and are likely going to see declining market share, even as the ecommerce pot grows. 

To the point that we're not seeing a monopoly- Amazon's 4% of US retail still falls short of Walmart's roughly 10%. WMT is investing heavily to grow their share of online retail. Part of their growth is simply making more things available for purchase online. Compare the # of skus available in 2015 to 2017. You mentioned Jet and Hayneedle but don't forget Flipkart which is arguably a bigger deal. 

THD is another company with 100B in US retail that is making huge investments to grow their online business. They currently have 2 day delivery penetration in 95% of markets, and just as important, they sell things that Amazon doesn't. 

Grocery chains exist in a space that Amazon barely touches from a revenue perspective. 

The point isn't to say that Amazon isn't highly competitive or that they don't do what they do well. But a large part of their dominance of the ecommerece sector is just being first. Now that other mega caps are seeing a growing portion of their sales come from online they're investing in that space as well. We're talking billions and billions being spent and a long road to catch up, but the total US retail pot is around $5T so there's plenty to be had. "
Economics,"What numbers are you quoting? It's my understanding that AWS had just under 20B in sales in 2017 which compares to their 180B total revenue. I thought AWS represents ~11% of Amazon's revenue.

I'll find the source and edit this comment.

To be clear, this wouldn't negate your point at all. On the contrary, it demonstrates your point even more.

EDIT: [Check out page 25 of the 2017 Annual Report found here.](http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=97664&p=irol-reportsannual)

Also added a line to original comment."
Economics,"> why is this really bad? 

I didn't said its bad. 

The possible abuse of market position its the only thing bad in this. You won't know if they are throttling the opponents and you will have to trust their word.


> (like IBM, google and Microsoft) all have service comparable to AWS.

Google App Engine exists and it is nowhere near AWS. Same applies for Microsoft Azure. From my experience people usually don't like current AWS alternatives and if they do usually they never tried AWS.


 IBM cloud is 100% irrelevant."
Economics,"It's because Amazon uses service-oriented architecture for their systems. If Amazon makes a good service for their own use that they can monetize (i.e. AWS), then they can open it up to the public as a product.

So, Amazon benefits from being able to use AWS and being able to sell AWS to customers. If they didn't build their systems this way, then they couldn't also sell it as a service. 

It's similar to their warehouses. Initially built to house Amazon products, they now house and ship products bought through Amazon and owned by other companies or people. "
Economics,Construction is seeing it. I was given a $3/hr raise then moved up the chain to salary making a fair bit more money in a job directly in my degree field. They gave us those raises because the industry is booming and we're being offered jobs at other companies constantly. None of us would leave even though we could get another dollar or two an hour over our raise simply because the company is really good to work with. 
Economics,"Pretty standard. Recruiters will spam resumes without even checking to see if it fits the candidate. I'm in IT, but because one of my job titles was ""IT Technican"", I'll get recruiters contacting me about roles like ""Automotive technician"". The idea is reach out to hundreds of people, maybe 10% will express interest, and you will hopefully get paid for filling a role.

I also get contacted about exciting roles like cybersecurity, QA engineering, and systems administration too. You just gotta get used to ignoring the bad jobs and focus on the good ones :)"
Economics,"That's not what he said, though. He made false accusation of name calling. I never invoked any name.

Kinda weird that so many folks in an economics subreddit downvote and try hard to demean people who offer sound criticism of poor financial thinking. If y'all are in such a pissy, vindictive mood, just save it for the Monday morning appointment with a licensed therapist instead of taking it out on myself. 

Can't be *that* hard to comprehend, right? Same applies to you, /u/DollarSignsGoFirst and /u/superjimmyplus "
Economics,"I took a 20% pay cut to exit a boss that was toxic but now have better insurance & and 2:1 match on my retirement fund instead of being sub 1:1.

I also have a boss that isn't an asshole now and love the work I do.

I'm willing to make that ""sacrifice"" in the paycheck if it means I come home at night a nicer guy and happy with my day."
Economics,"What are you talking about? The mortgage payment is based on the value of the loan and and the interest rate. 125k at 3.9% is a 591 dollar payment on a 30 year loan. In the county my last house was in, if I go to a random real estate website and set the max asking price at 125k, there are 623 houses for sale under that price. 
 
So there you go, I must be lucky... I found 600 houses with less than an 800 dollar mortgage payment in about 45 seconds. 
 
**edit - 169k gives you a 799 mortgage payment. There are 798 homes for sale under 169,000 in that county. "
Economics,"In phx it is a livable wage. 
And lol @ people thinking rent has to be 30% of your income. It doesn’t. 

Here in AZ, unless you want a lux apartment, landlords don’t go by that.  They go by security deposit plus 1st month’s rent.  And if you don’t make enough but the landlord is really iffy on letting you rent, despite you telling them it’s affordable, then they’ll ask for 6 month’s rent in your bank account before letting you sign a 1 year lease. 


So here, everything is great as long as you can save up 6 months rent (just incase) with your minimum wage job. Which, if you live with mom and dad, will take you 3/4 months. "
Economics,"That's a long time to hold a job, it must be a good one. I can't remember where I read it but it was saying that employees actually need to change their job every few years nowadays in order to ensure that they get fair wages. The ones that don't are getting the glass ceiling and end up stagnating. Unless of course, it's a job that you love. Then no money in the world is worth that position.

Although the mere suggestion that you are starting to look for another job might make your boss want to give you a raise. If they're decent people to work with and appreciate having you around, they'll do their best to keep you."
Economics,"The big question is exactly where the ideal minimum wage should be for the most social benefit? $20 $100 per hour? Where? 

I suspect the number is higher than you would think. For any given business the number is not as simple as it would appear. For instance, in some clothing store I suspect that as minimum wage increased they would cut back on those annoying people who run around trying to ""help"" you, but not cut back on staff who sold you the clothes. They would also probably try to increase employee training so that they were more effective. 

Other businesses are simply making so much profit per employee that they could survive at $40 per hour (but the boss would no longer buy airplanes for a hobby). 

Automation would enter into the equation, which would seem to be bad, but with more money flowing in the economy there would be more jobs in other areas. 

So I suspect that the answer is so complex that literally only experiments can truly answer the exact number.

But I will also suggest that when you increase the minimum wage that you increase the economy enough that it prepares the economy for another increase (ignoring inflationary pressure) as a huge amount of an area's economy is determined by the amount of disposable income people have. At $7 per hour there is no disposable income. At $20 there is far more. And this is where I think the calculations for minimum wage should be set. It should be a number that leaves a typical household with x% disposable income as opposed to the classic where they are balancing things like medicine against food.

"
Economics,"Can you provide an example where a business is “making so much money per employee” that is anywhere near the minimum wage? I’d imagine Google’s profit per employee isn’t some astronomical number either in relation to an engineers salary.

Looking at FB’s numbers it appears they profit $180k per employee which probably gets paid $150k on the low end. This is for highly technical and specialized labor. 

I can only imagine how miserable it would be if your selling burgers/bottom-retail what their margins are.

* employee cost: $12/hr
* additional revenue per low skilled worker : $15/hr

But do enlighten me with some company examples

sources: First links on the google search for “google earnings per employee “"
Economics,"Quick question, only really related to your first paragraph, but say minimum wage doubles, would wages that are *already* above the new minimum wage stay the same? If so, what impact would that have? Say you raise minimum wage to $50/hour and there’s an engineer making $100k per year salary, you now have an engineer making the same money as a fast food worker, or would the engineer’s wage have to go up too? And in that case, wouldn’t that just be inflation on a massive scale? 

To be clear, not trying to argue with anyone, just wondering what effect raising the minimum wage would have on wages that are already higher. "
Economics,"When you hire someone, you're basically taking some of their work and keeping it for yourself, as profits.   The higher the minimum wage, the less you can keep.

​

The economy is basically a big zero sum game, when you view the GDP graphs they'e basically completely linear if you remove productivity increases (steady 2.3% year over 70 years) and population.

​

So you can in theory raise the minim wage to about $27/hour, which will hit the average income in the US.   At that point you have a communist country.  No profits left over to keep to yourself, and no way to pay others more than $27/hour either, so everyone gets $27.  Communism.   You want something where there is sufficient money left on the table so rich can play their games of being rich and compete, but where poor can live a non-stressed life.   If you don't want to play the capitalist game, so be it.  Make minimum wage and enjoy life.  If you want to play it, go for it.  Work hard.    As it stands we walk all over the poor and create a miserable life for those stuck at those levels, so we can have higher scores in our bank accounts.   A better balance is definitely needed, where that balance is, is kind of hard to tell.   Clearly not where it is. "
Economics,"You’re missing the general point here. You can’t dictate with a blanket law what a specific job “should be earning”. If your company only makes hot dogs for Sunday park ball games (the corner park not a stadium), then how can you realistically afford $15/hr? Let’s assume historically an average person can sell 5 hotdogs an hour, and brings $15 as revenue. What’s the point of even hiring someone at this level?

While that’s a super simple and silly example it illustrates how stupid even talking about wages is, much less even pretending to know what’s “fair”. 

Some people do $9/hr worth of work and some do $250/hr. But even then, let’s pretend you could do $30/hr worth of revenue and are being paid $9..... well, maybe you should move/change jobs/ ask for a raise. A smart boss/manager knows that “Jimmy always does well and sales increase when he’s on shift”. They are fully aware of this, down to the dollar.

But why would you hire anyone or perform an activity that only has revenues of $12 and the minimum wage is $14? You wouldn’t. The same way you wouldn’t buy an iPhone from bestbuy for $100000 when you know next door you can buy it for $500.

Edit: English "
Economics,"Actually it's because investors continue to inject cash by the buying of stock, which keeps them afloat. 

That doesn't mean they aren't living on the margins already. Profits are a function of revenue and expense. Cash you get from stocks are a separate balance sheet. If the cash investors are providing to keep the company afloat and allow for growth so they see a return on their investment go towards making some people feel good and not making the company more productive, they'll sell their stock and by extension that cash, which would lead to collapse."
Economics,"I work for a car wash. Last I heard it costs ~20-30 cents USD to run a car through the wash, and I believe that was for the biggest wash we offer. 

The cheapest wash we have is $6 and that's just a rinse and run type deal that involves no employee labor, and that's a sizable portion of our business. The most expensive wash you can buy is about $50 and it comes with armor all on the tires, on the inside, on the trim, and rain-x on the windows. We buy those chemicals in bulk and the price customers pay for those is $5, $8, $2, and $12 respectively (all rounded for even numbers.)

I do not know what those chemicals cost for us to buy but I do know they last quite a while. I would be very confident saying that they get more than their moneys worth for each barrel/bucket of chemical. It takes ~30 min to do the biggest package you can buy depending on how dirty the car is. So I make $9/hr and they have to pay me $4.50 if it takes me 30 min to do it. 

I was working for them when fed min wage was raised in 2009 to $7.25 and our prices for all packages have increased close to $10 each, probably a hair less but I flat out can't remember what the prices were back then exactly. I worked there through my last two years of high school, my first bought of college, left for a different job after college. Decided to go back to school so went back to wash cars to get me by.

I make $9/hr atm and 6% on extra dollars I sale. So a base car wash I don't make anything on but if they buy tire shine, AA, etc I make 6 pennies on the dollar for extra services. Or if you detail you make some tips. 

Back to the earlier paragraph. If it costs 30 cents to run it through the wash. We'll add two dollars to that being generous on estimating   cost of extra chemicals (tire shine etc). $4.50 for my half hour of labor and I think there's about $25 dollars in extras in that package, maybe a bit more, but I know I might make 2$ in commission on that sale. 

So that is $8.80 in overheard for a $50 package.  I think they would be ok if min wage went up. 

I know when I went back to school and work I was work 36-40 hrs a week, 6 days a week and honestly losing my mind. I was barely scraping by paycheck to paycheck. Luckily I was able to ditch all my financial obligations from my pre-back to school life eventually. I moved back in with my parents, I sold my truck to downgrade my payments, I ditched everything I could. I only work one day a week rn and that's just to cover my gas for commuting to school. I've been very fortunate to have help from my parents though. They're paying my car insurance for me (which has doubled in the past couple of years despite a clean driving record of 10 years) so I don't have to kill myself. I'm on mobile so I'm having a real hard time keeping my train of though but suffice it to say that I would work more if it had more value to me. I'm not gonna kill myself working 40 hours a week when its 100 degrees outside or freezing to make about $300 bucks a week when that honestly just doesn't stretch that far anymore. I'll work bare minimum and focus on school and then go from there. But I realize I'm one of the fortunate ones. 

Sorry if this got rambly.

Edit: Just wanted to clarify that this is mostly estimation on my part. I know all the prices by heart but I'm not 100% sure on all the overhead. "
Economics,"You’re missing the larger things like rent, insurance, administrative costs, and I’m sure there’s a longer laundry list of costs you’re not looking at.

Then you didn’t quite describe the sale numbers either. How many washes are done, or better what’s the average revenue per wash and how many washes are done per month? What’s the total employee count and all their associated costs?

Then when you have a clearer picture, you will notice that something like a car wash is a grinding business to be in to make very very little money. Not to mention that any 10 year old with a bucket and a hose can compete against you. Add to that everyone else in the same “pro” business doing the same low labor detailing and cleaning that again a team of 5 teens could do.

If a 10 year old can do the job, you’re not exactly doing much of value. This is coming from a guy who used to be a bagging/cashier at a grocery store and some retail when I was younger. The sooner you realize it, the better. Decide what you can do to go up the value chain rather than competing against the local cheerleaders doing a Saturday car wash.

Lastly, if you’re extremely confident you can do a better job and you deserve more money then go prove it? Go start your own small thing. Best of luck, that’s the whole point of this. Get some skills and move up or out."
Economics,"But you can and we do dictate a minimum amount a job has to pay to be livable. Businesses pay people less because they can, and rarely hire nearly proportionally after an influx of money. If you know you need two employees to cover the stadium to make $200, you might still pay them $5 because you know there are people in your town desperate for work, even if that's not livable. And, as a result, when minimum wage goes up, the struggling hot dog stand may actually find it has more customers. When many of a company's employees need further government assistance because their wages are so low, the government subsidizes an unsustainable business."
Economics,"There is no objective standard for 'livable' that applies generally. It's the same problem that arises calling for 'fair' wages. There is no objective general standard for the fairness of a wage. The same goes with 'livable', everyone has different needs and financial obligations. So what is a livable wage for me may not be for you. And there isn't much sense in demanding, especially as a moral imperative, businesses to pay someone a 'living wage' when the wage it takes them to live is actually less than what has been stipulated. "
Economics,"While the exact details are obviously open to argument, it seems pretty obvious that the minimum wage should be at least high enough that government income-based aid is mostly going to people who are not currently working ([a $1.17 increase in minimum wage corresponds to a million people no longer receiving public aid and over $5 billion saved in government assistance](https://www.epi.org/publication/wages-and-transfers/#epi-toc-6)), because again, the alternative means we are subsidizing wages that are unlivable. "
Economics,"Why? Not everyone needs government assistance on less than a living wage. I've worked jobs for years that paid below a living wage (in high school, college, and recently a side job), but if businesses were only allowed to pay someone the amount necessary to live solely on that wage, then those jobs I worked wouldn't have been available to me. In fact, they would be made illegal. That, to me, is absurd. 

On the other hand, the people who are working below the estimated living wage are, to me at least, the exact people I want to receive government assistance. They are working and benefiting society. Non-working, able-bodied people are the ones that seem like they deserve assistance the least. 

It seems like a far better alternative, rather than demonizing businesses and stirring up the rabble over minimum wage, to abolish the minimum wage altogether (to increase the number of available jobs) and give assistance to anyone who works but remains in poverty. "
Economics,"Most people earning near minimum wage are [over 30] (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/05/making-more-than-minimum-wage-but-less-than-10-10-an-hour/), and many programs that pay college students minimum wage do so mostly because they can, not because the extra couple hundred dollars over the course of a semester would make or break their business. 

They would happily fill those same positions with college students if the minimum wage was less, and pay them less. Not to mention, if your primary concern is college students not needing spending money (though let's be real, most interns earn [far above minimum wage](https://www.indeed.com/salaries/Intern-Salaries)), there's always the age-tiered minimum wage system used in Australia. "
Economics,"Im not sure what this data is supposed to prove about the minimum (or living) wage. The largest single group is 21-30. Nearly half are under 30. And nearly 20% are 51 or older. So more than 2/3 are either young people or elderly. That sounds like a lot of young people starting out their working life and old retired people working low wage jobs like Walmart door greeter (the link doesn't provide many details about the elderly group, so its hard to draw any conclusions). 

>many programs that pay college students minimum wage do so mostly because they can, not because the extra couple hundred dollars over the course of a semester would make or break their business. 

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. My point is that more people could be hired if there were no minimum wage. For instance, a business owner could hire someone to check their emails or answer their phone. If that service isnt worth the minimum wage to the owner, that job never gets created. It shouldn't be illegal to hire someone to do these sorts of tasks for less than what some bureaucrat (or a body of ignorant voters) has decided is fair. 

> if your primary concern is college students not needing spending money (though let's be real, most interns earn far above minimum wage),

The point is if there was no minimum they could hire more people to do jobs that dont, at this time, exist at all. Whatever the business owner decides they dont want to do themselves they could pay someone else to do. 


"
Economics,"I think questions like this are excellent. They also probably a so subtle and multi-variant that it allows people who are pro or anti this issue to find what they want.

I can add a second tier to your question. If you are in an industry that will benefit from the extra disposable income and normally earn 100k then I suspect you may end earning more. If you run one of those cash loan places you probably do worse (and good riddance) 

Then there are the very long term benefits that would be brutal to measure; such as growing up in a household with a bit more disposable income probably results in better nourished kids turning into more productive adults. Kind of like crime falling 16 years after Row vs Wade. 

But my inner Bolshevik doesn't like to see people trying to raise a family on slave wages while the owner of same business is sending his kids to university in shiny new BMWs. 
"
Economics,"Exactly, there are probably some businesses that literally can't afford to pay minimum wage. I doubt that there are many though. 

Even for those burger places and whatnot that are just scraping by a minimum wage hike across the board is still a level playing field. If every burger joint in town has to raise prices at the same time then a minimum wage hike doesn't create a competitive disadvantage. 

Years ago there was a $0.10 CDN (0.07) minimum wage hike in Nova Scotia Canada. I remember hearing the local radio station talking to various small business people and saying that it was going to be devastating. I knew two of them and they were leading gold plated lives; great cars, houses in the best neighbourhoods, travel all around the world. Boo hoo. The crazy part is that that 0.07 cent increase per hour would add up to 140USD per year which was enough to make a difference in their lives. The owners could spend 140USD without even noticing. 

"
Economics,"Yes and no. I suspect with a business that is pretty commodity such as fast food, then an across the board increase in minimum wage would potentially have an across the board increase in prices. 

But often there are other options. For instance, if movies become too expensive, people will spend their entertainment money elsewhere. 

And then there is automation. Enough wage hikes and automation becomes very attractive. But to me this last is not a loss in that once an industry undergoes an efficiency overhaul such as this that competition causes lower prices for all which is a societal good. 

For instance, Henry Ford did two great experiments: One was to make cars way cheaper which had many huge positive effects on the economy (unless you were part of the horse and buggy economy) and he also notably raised wages. He had the advantage of being one of the biggest employers in the area so it was close to a minimum wage hike experiment. Many consider his wage hike to have been a resounding success. No doubt there are few who disagree but probably to support some theory of their own that his experiment disproved.


"
Economics,">Im not sure what this data is supposed to prove about the minimum (or living) wage. The largest single group is 21-30. Nearly half are under 30. And nearly 20% are 51 or older. So more than 2/3 are either young people or elderly. That sounds like a lot of young people starting out their working life and old retired people working low wage jobs like Walmart door greeter (the link doesn't provide many details about the elderly group, so its hard to draw any conclusions). 

Are you seriously suggesting 51+ is elderly? Moreover, are you saying people working into retirement age don't deserve to earn enough to survive? Also, what, only 30? That's not an age when you should be just getting started with your career, unless you're a PhD or doctor and then you're not generally making minimum wage. If your claim is that minimum wage is for people who don't need the money anyway, then the fact that the substantial majority of people on minimum wage are adults well out of college contradicts that. 

>I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. My point is that more people could be hired if there were no minimum wage. For instance, a business owner could hire someone to check their emails or answer their phone. If that service isnt worth the minimum wage to the owner, that job never gets created. It shouldn't be illegal to hire someone to do these sorts of tasks for less than what some bureaucrat (or a body of ignorant voters) has decided is fair. 

But that's not what happens. People don't create jobs because they feel like spending money, they do so because there's a need and they will pay as little as they can get away with. Businesses can absorb increases in minimum wage labor costs, and those that can't are replaced by businesses that thrive because of the additional people now able to afford to buy things on non-starvation wages. As indicated by the article you're commenting on, the empirical results are positive all around: higher wages and more jobs "
Economics,"It's notable that this does not say for whom the productivity happens or what it's used for.

3 guys produce 1000 automated warrior robots to kill anyone that gets uppity while everyone else works as slaves, or everyone is equal but only produce 700 automated space robots to colonize mars.

Productivity is nice, but it doesn't help most people a lot if the productivity only benefits the wealthiest 1 in 10 000."
Economics,"I would not consider my argument moving the goal post.

""Minimum wage hikes are working as hoped"" implies that we've reached a conclusion that minimum wages fulfill the intended effect of increasing pay without increasing unemployment.

I've presented an argument that even if the economy fares well initially after a minimum wage hike, it doesn't mean that it won't have an effect on the rate of unemployment during a recession.

In other words, I'm saying that the study does not prove that minimum wage does not increase unemployment. I'm saying they reached a conclusion too easily. No goal post has been moved."
Economics,"Only 2.7% of hourly workers make the federal minimum wage or less. And people under 25 comprise 20% of that number.

So at the current level it’s a small issue. Most proposals want to gradually raise it to 10-15 an hour, which at worse would have a minor impact on employment.

A few economists believe the impact on employment will be positive, but nearly universally they believe the impac will be small (whether positive or negative), if done gradually."
Economics,"I don't think the overall policies of the multi party system, or public funding of parties (as opposed to bribe-funded parties) would be a negative in either of those countries. Nor do I think the differences make it unfeasible to support strong unions or employment rights.

Nor would it be unfeasible to have a governmental collection agency instead of entrusting debt collection to predatory companies.

I'm honestly having a hard time thinking of any particular Scandinavian policy that would be harder to implement because of geographical, cultural or diversity differences save possibly the gun regulations, but you can probably safely borrow those from Switzerland. 

Which particular idea do you think wouldn't leave the countries a better place to live than they are now due to geographical, cultural or diversity differences? "
Economics,"Wage hikes have little to do with recessions, but people like more money than less money. When deflation or a decrease in the money supply occurs due to the easy money drying up and bankruptcy and default cases rising (the bust), prices of good and services decrease due to the purchasing power of money rising (less money going after the same amount of goods or capital). People are able to buy more things. If wages are increased during the boom phase, then, for an employee, it is psychologically difficult to accept a lower wage when the recession occurs though not impossible. Most people don't understand the difference between real and nominal wages, they only see the absolute (e.g. $15/hr) amount and that's what they care about.

In this since, it may be tougher to lower nominal wages in a recession which is where the term sticky wages comes from. However, as one factor in a quick recovery of a recession, wages need to be flexible and be able to adjust to the new conditions otherwise the recession will be prolonged more than it otherwise would be. Minimum wages in this scenario reduce this flexibility and if businesses can't or do not want to pay the higher real wage during the recession or after then those jobs will be lost and will likely be consumed by another employee (wearing many hats) or given up entirely."
Economics,"I think the real question is why? What happened around 1997 when we see there too series diverge?

Blaming taxes or trade or whatever is too simplistic and probably wrong because they didn't abruptly change that year.

Did the way they are calculated change and this is an artifact of, methodology? Was three some big regulatory change? Is it just the the graph range and if you go further back does it diverge again, so this is a result of cherry picked data?

I don't know but I think that is the real question this brings up."
Economics,"A few big things that have happened since 1999-2001:

1. The internet, and the explosion of e-commerce. 
2. A federal budget that went from a $200B surplus in 2000 to over $1T deficits.  
3. The explosion of global value chains, goods assembled from parts and materials coming from all over the globe.
4. The 2000-2001 bursting of the dot-com bubble and recession, and then the 2007-2008 financial crisis and larger recession. 
5. Significant changes in tax laws, making them more favorable to corporate profits and higher income earners. 
6. 9/11 and the resulting impacts on US political economy

I don't think it's necessarily one thing that changed at one moment in time. I think you had an economy that was transitioning more to service jobs. Some of those service jobs were in retail, a sector which has been massively disrupted in the last two decades. People and companies with highly specialized skills now have global opportunities. While those with more common skills are competing with others like them around the globe. There is very little fixed capital investment being done in the US, plants and such are built more overseas. Even government deficits help to drive trade deficits, possibly contributing to all of this.  


"
Economics,"Assuming the starting point isn't poorly chosen, that is a pretty drastic change in one year. It turns on a dime in 1997. It isn't like there was some meeting one morning and all business owners just agreed to start keeping all the money for themselves because they felt like it. For such a drastic change you would need to find something that would cause it - probably equally as drastic.

Or the starting year is badly chosen.

Everything you mentioned was gradual. It isn't like the supply chain all of the sudden shifted in 1997.

Tax regime didn't drastically change that year. That was 1993 with mixed tax cuts and raises, and 1997 was a small cap gains reduction with some small increases in other areas, nothing major and nothing we didn't have before.

The series is poorly presented the way it is based off an index year. One bad year and it throws everything after it off. We could be back on track and it would still look bad. I think a better way to present it would be YOY change.

Edit: his revised chart with per capital GDP and total comp doesn't really change the story. In 1997 (98?) things go sideways.

If you aren't trying to figure out what happened at that point in time, and instead are railing against you always perceived enemies like taxes that didn't really change at that time, your going to come up a wrong conclusion."
Economics,"There's no big change in 1997. The first graph is set 1993=100, so if you set things equal in 1993, of course you are going to see some divergence shortly after. But that divergence isn't unusual. 

There's more divergence when real median income peaks in 2000 and then falls in 2001-2002, but even that isn't *that* unusual, in fact it seems to happen with most recessions; median income usually peaks *before* the recession.

What is more unusual is the failure of median incomes to recover after the recession. And the big tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 may well play a role in that, especially if almost 25% of the benefits went to the top 1% and less than 10% of the benefits to the middle 20%. 
"
Economics,"
>And the big tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 may well play a role in that, especially if almost 25% of the benefits went to the top 1% and less than 10% of the benefits to the middle 20%.

And this isn't what if said about every tax cut? Was there something uniquely bad about 2001 and 2003? that caused this uniquely different recovery?

It would be interesting to see the chart of previous recoveries, but when compared against that and the structure of the tax cuts not being much different than any other, I highly doubt it makes the story very compelling.

If the story is always ""those tax cuts only went to the wealthy"" then when something different come along, it is really difficult to apply the same narrative to it."
Economics,"1. It's not true of every tax cut. The tax cuts in the 1990s, for example, were more broadly based. 

2. It's not only that they went mostly to the rich, it's also that they were mosly unfunded, and increased deficits.  Increased budget deficits increase the trade deficit, and reduce domestic investment: 

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=l89N

I'm not saying the tax cuts are the only story here, but they certainly seem to be part of the story. Some of the other things I mentioned may be even more important. "
Economics,"> Now, instead of buying a focus made in China the US consumer will be spending those dollars buying one of the many cars made in the US

This would only be true if the Focus was the only car made in China in the entire car market, which it obviously isn't. At the price range of the Focus, foreign brands dominate US brands, it's trucks and heavier duty vehicles that American manufacturers are good at. In the end what happens is just less options for the consumer, and possibly less money in the American economy, if those consumers decide to substitute the missing product with a foreign brand."
Economics,"Not necessarily. It depends if the increase in prices is greater than the increased economic activity caused by now having the manufacturing. It is a spectrum.

In addition, it is not guaranteed that prices will be raised or by what amount. Lastly, you do not account for long-term effects. Comparative advantage of mineral deposits, which is what existed when the theory was created, is fairly static. Comparative advantage of knowledge, infrastructure heavy, etc, driven activities is dynamic. So, you can build a comparative advantage via protecting an industry and then later reap economic rewards greater than the cost of protecting the industry originally. Why? Because the labor market changed, knowledge grew, capital was invested, network effects were created, etc.

It is much more complex than the comparative advantage theory based on mineral deposits. Some examples of said countries that gained network effects, changed labor markets, etc through such protection would be China itself which was the fastest growing economy in the last 30 years."
Economics,"I am not sure you understand. Those foreign brands you talk about like toyota, nissan, etc. Those are all American made cars. American made cars with a foreign trademark on them. Some are also made in mexico. Which, that is a better alternative than sending that activity to China. Most cars americans will be buying are made in the US. Though, far too many are not too (probably 30%). With tariffs, far more will be american made as foreign brands will need to build factories in the US.

Protectionism of industries works. That is how china got a car industry in the first place. Industries that utilize lots of knowledge, capital, specialized labor, etc, are benefited from protectionism. It allows them to develop the labor market, capital investment, bulid network effects, etc.

Over time, a country can *build a comparative advantage*, which is what has happened in China and one reason why it has been the fastest growing economy in the last 30 years.

The tariffs can cause immediate pain, but long-term it ensures that rivals do not develop comparative advantages over the USA."
Economics,"Not sure what you are talking about? Johnson amendment has no effect on cargo ships. Cargo ships likely lost competitiveness in the US because they utilize steel. The US ran out of good iron for making good steel a long time ago. In addition, it's energy costs (steel requires lots of energy) is too high due to EPA regulation. China developed advantage in ships because due to protectionist policy it developed a big manufacturing base and needed to construct cargo ships. It puts tariffs on foreign built cargo ships, so it creates no market for US builders and thus got to build its industry. It has little environmental protections, so it can create steel much cheaper than the US. Etc

Tariffs are raw goods such as steel, which is nearly a raw good are never good. This is the classic comparative advantage model made hundreds of years ago. When tariffs can be effective and it becomes more murky is on more complex products that are less based on raw good extraction and assembly and more based on know-how, capital investment, network effects of an entire manufacturing supply chain, and specialized labor."
Economics,"> Industries that utilize lots of knowledge, capital, specialized labor, etc, are benefited from protectionism.

This is only true of a country's domestic firms are globally behind in their knowledge and specialized labor, because protectionist policies will make foreign goods artificially expensive in order for domestic makers to remain competitive.

On the supply side, all tariffs do is increase the barrier to entry and entrench existing firms, decreasing competition. On the consumer side, tariffs will inflate the price of goods and decrease selection. China wants these effects because their technology needs to catch up to us, which the US does not. Pursuing a trade policy designed for a developing country's problems in a developed country with a totally different set of problems is stupid.

> long-term it ensures that rivals do not develop comparative advantages over the USA.

Tariffs only help foreign manufacturers to *catch up* to the US, the US needs to do the opposite to remain competitive."
Economics,"> This is only true of a country's domestic firms are globally behind in their knowledge and specialized labor, because protectionist policies will make foreign goods artificially expensive in order for domestic makers to remain competitive.

The result is that a domestic market always loses its competitive advantage. Case in point: China imposes a 25% tariff on all US made cars. US imposes 0% tariff on foreign made cars.

It makes sense to place the factory in China. It has full access to both china and the US. If it is placed in the US, then it cannot serve China.

Now, all the new factories go to China. It must be that way due to the inequal tariff policy. The transportation costs are way less than the 25% tariff and economies of scale benefits and capital expense do not justify two separate factories. So, the only logical choice is to build the factory in China to serve both markets. Keep in mind, it was NOT due to china having a comparative advantage. If china's ability to produce cars is within 25% of the US's ability and the markets are similar size, the there is no justification for a US factory even if the US is a more efficient producer (this is important because this tariff in China made US consumers poorer as the US may be 10% more efficient at car building, but the factory still must go to China because capital costs and economies of scale cannot justify two factories).

So, after 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, you get a situation where cars are no longer built in the no tariff country. They all get built in the tariff country. And, with it, so goes all the engineering and design jobs in time. And, because the cars are made there, so there goes all the manufacturing of all the sub-components (this is called network effects).
"
Economics,"Ironically China had just cut foreign car import tariffs from 25% to 15% on July 1st, a futile attempt to defuse trade tensions with the US. Right after the cut, the White House announced plans for a 25% tariff hike on $200bn plus Chinese goods, so China hiked car tariffs specifically on US-made cars up to 40%.

The sharp tariff cut made July a new record high for monthly foreign car imports in China, which is still one of the largest growing auto markets in the world. The vast majority of those cars were exported from factories in Europe and Japan.

Meanwhile, US vehicle sales peaked in the early 2000s, and aren't expected to get substantially higher in the future - possibly forever. The US is already a very well-served, saturated auto market. 

Of course it's debatable whether emerging markets should really aspire to the level of per capita vehicle ownership as the US, but from a for-profit perspective, US auto manufacturing needs to be export-oriented, and the recent tariffs aren't helping. "
Economics,"This only makes sense because the Chinese market of 1.7 billion people is huge, and US companies make a killing *despite* the increased costs of the tariffs, because Chinese carmakers just cannot compete. This is the big caveat you keep ignoring. If you flipped the scenario, where the US has a 25% tariff and China has 0%, keeping all other factors the same, all you'd do is make cars more expensive in the US. Carmakers would *still create factories overseas*, because US specialized labor is so much more expensive. If you then prolong this over 10, 20, 50 years, all you'd do is make the US car market super non-competitive and technologically behind, because the rest of the world would have had a long time to catch up and surpass our advantage by competing in a freer market.

I think you're conflating jobs with market competitiveness. More manufacturing jobs in a particular locale does not equal a competitive advantage in the market. Tariffs can increase domestic employment *if the demand is there*, or at least won't increase outsourcing. However, doing this will *definitely* increase the price of goods and decrease competition, which in the long term, harms the local economy and eventually causes it to lag behind in technology and innovation."
Economics,"The US has never had a steel shortage of any grade, there's no shortage of ore, or the energy to smelt it.  The two biggest changes to the ship building industry for the past century was the Johnson amendment, and the ending of subsidies by the Reagan administration.  Both were destructive the the industry.

China isn't creating advantage by having tariffs.  They're paying massive subsidies to their own builders.  They also import large portions of their iron ore from the international market (and Utah), though they do have cheap coal and labor.  The biggest difference with the US is the labor cost, which is about 20x higher in the US.  Total costs otherwise are negligibly variant.  And the EPA is not what makes the difference."
Economics,"IDK about the car stuff, but China's growth in vessel production came in splitting the biggest ship construction company, deregulating the company/industry, allowing foreign direct investment, employing foreign experts, subsidizing their shipping industry, supplementjng their own steel industry, and supplementing commercial shipping operations. Steel may have played some part in America, but vessels are low tech monsters. Some systems like engine control, navigation, cargo control, and propulsion are still manufactured and designed in America, but the actual construction of ships have a fairly low bar to entry."
Economics,"> US auto manufacturing needs to be export-oriented, and the recent tariffs aren't helping.

The US is not in a great spot regarding exports. The countries of western Europe and Japan are really good at making high end products and the US can for multiple reason not compete in this segment. These countries invest more money in their workforce, in their infrastructure, and in the end they have better ressources to work with.

The US way of doing business tries to keep costs down, and this is such an obsession that a lot of infrastructure remains unfunded, a lot of education remains unfunded, and so on. And in the end this leads to an inability to compete at the high end."
Economics,"The US ranks third in the world after Germany and Japan in dollar value of cars exported, so I wouldn't say it's ""not able to compete in this segment."" Debates about education aside, worldwide car sales are monopolized by just a handful of countries, with the whole continent of Africa contributing a mere 1.2% of global car exports. 

There are huge swathes of the world that are all-import auto markets, and incredibly under-served at that (if you consider one man, one car a goal-worthy standard). China is already laying the diplomatic and logistical groundwork to capitalize on those emerging consumer markets far more extensively than the US.

I agree the US government's spend and tax priorities are more often than not irrational, but to say US autos have nowhere to go and no means to export is already at-present untrue. 


As for American businesses being exceptionally stingy when it comes to cutting costs at the expense of human capital, I'm not sure Japanese or European businesses are any less interested in keeping costs down, and it's tricky to mix particular business practices with how much a country values public spending. "
Economics,"Of course the US is not completely bad, it just isn't as good as it could be.

When looking at the US from the outside, it is very obvious how the political system is preventing important reforms. For example, the Obamacare reform.

Everyone is able to understand that a country needs universal health care in order to be amongst the top economies. But this is not the way US politics works, instead of finding solutions, US politics creates these crazy political ideologies.

*US politics does not do what is necessary, instead US politics follows political ideas, and that is a grave mistake.*

All this believing in ideas prevents much needed reforms like healthcare from happening. All this believing in political ideas is in the end the reason why the US is economically inferior to countries like Germany."
Economics,"Isn't crash insurance at all time highs right now? I thought I remembered reading a headline somewhere that people were paying through the teeth to protect against sudden drops.

The stock market has just been going sideways this year and is barely in the green. I don't know if this is what they call a ""correction"" and if things will fire back up again full force as buybacks continue, but I'm starting to get a feeling that it can't last much longer. Although on the bright side unemployment is at record lows..."
Economics,"Personally? I have thought Apple's tech has been overrated for the last 5 years.. But, here we are.  I have since decided to let the average consumer tell me when Apple's tech is overrated...

Also, in general, it's hard to guess if smartphone and computer technology will become stagnant in the near term.. Did most people 20 years ago expect smartphones to be where they are today?  I believe we'll hit some limits with silicon soon on the SoC level, but I don't think we'll hit limits on how we design things and how tech evolves anytime soon..."
Economics,"I was specifically referencing how much more we can shrink our transistors before we hit practical limits.  I agree there's still lots of opportunity in how we use and design with Si, just not how much more we can shrink it.. And once we hit shrink limits, we might see more saturation at the design level since more people will be able to design and manufacture on an even playing field."
Economics,"Comparing two seemingly unrelated metrics might be useful as a benchmark in some circumstances, but it has to be some sort of convention that is agreed upon to be useful. I guess you could imagine comparing GDP growth to unemployment to determine if the economy is doing well or not, for instance. But there is no such convention here (I've never seen any comparison between the GDP growth rate and unemployment in any context, ever). And to make matters worse, his statement isn't even true."
Economics,"Yeah it can be quite easily hyperinflated by the rich to make it look like a country is doing better than it actually is. India posted a shockingly high GDP last quarter (I can't remember exactly what it was) but from what I hear on the ground, the government isn't allowing any of it to uh... ""trickle down"" or so the theory goes. 

Now I know GDP isn't that big of an issue, but this isn't the first time I heard the statistics are being fudged. The other time it was a friend's account of several of her economics professors. Numbers are being manipulated."
Economics,"The [monthly employment report](https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm) is more detailed than the one number that the media picks up and pushes. It’s harder to force a partisan narrative and perspective if you have reams of quantitative and qualitative data to paint a nuanced picture. 

I’ve got an unsupported theory that people at focus on the simplest indicator because it’s easy to feel. Tables with their columns and footnotes and tiny numbers are the leading cause of glazed eye.  "
Economics,"Yes, it is true.  Its two statements that can be compared.  What is the annualized GDP growth and what is the unemployment rate?    Is the annualized GDP growth higher or lower than unemployment?

I don't understand the mental gymnastics involved in stating that he is wrong.  You may dislike the speaker, but the statement is accurate.   Anything else is someone admitting that they allow their personal opinions to supersede logic and fact. "
Economics,"Where do most people live and work? I’m not being snarky, I’m just saying we need to adopt policies that benefit the greatest number of people with the greatest frequency. 

This is part of the problem we have with national politics. Everyone wants us to remember it’s unfair when a city of millions dictates to a town of hundreds/thousands, but no one seems to mind that the opposite is often true and it’s a far greater injustice and does far more harm. "
Economics,">This is part of the problem we have with national politics. Everyone wants us to remember it’s unfair when a city of millions dictates to a town of hundreds/thousands, but no one seems to mind that the opposite is often true and it’s a far greater injustice and does far more harm.

Except this isn't true at all in this example.  High cost of living areas are free to set their own minimum wage at whatever they would like.  I honestly don't see an upside to a federal minimum wage and the downside is enormous to people trying to start or staff businesses in extremely low cost of living areas.  "
Economics,"Seems like there has to be a better way than federal or even statewide minimum wages.

As somebody in one of those lower (though not terribly low) COL areas, I've seen how this has affected organizations (I'm thinking non-profits in particular) who were already struggling to pay their employees competitively - not well. Who wants to be the boss when you can have a fraction of the responsibility for nearly all of the pay?"
Economics,"Cities and counties can generally set their own minimum wage, as for example was done in this study's data points. But if, for example, there were a national or statewide minimum wage, then rural areas *could not* adjust lower, but cities could go higher as needed.

The argument that cites rural and suburban areas with lower costs of living and prevailing wages isn't an argument against all minimum wages, it's an argument against overzealously applying blunt instruments where a more measured, tailored approach is better."
Economics,"Fair enough. I think the argument is a $15 minimum wage might not make sense for the entire nation, but neither does the lower minimum wage we have now. That we can point to an area where this might not be true doesn’t really change the argument. 

Another thing to think about is if you leave it up to individual cities/regions, will the pay be what’s best, or will it be the lowest the region can bear? It’s possible that we might see more predatory pay structures than “fair pay”. This might not be the case, but leaving the pay up to the area has issues as well. 

I’m not actually advocating for this particular pay increase, just that one might make sense."
Economics,"> ...the reason I don’t want to leave it up to the local areas is that they might not have the workers interests at heart.

Maybe not, but I personally don't see this as their responsibility. If somebody doesn't like the wages offered by a particular business, they should work elsewhere. If they believe that they can't work elsewhere, they should determine why that is. If they really cannot find work elsewhere and it's due to circumstances beyond their control, I have to wonder why businesses/organizations are punished for that."
Economics,"The upside of a federal minimum wage (or most federal labor constraints) is to eliminate a ""race to the bottom"" where different states try to use lower labor costs to incentivises job creation, forcing neighboring jurisdictions to follow. That said, it is certainly clear that the federal minimum wage should be a floor not a common value. Any one arguing for a $15 federal minimum wage had better also think high cost jurisdictions like San Fransisco should have higher minimums, like $30. It should also be clear that a change that drastic should be implemented slowly."
Economics,"Picking up and moving to another region isn’t easy when you are poor. 

And it’s my personal belief that we value capitalism because it’s a system that benefits the population. If it doesn’t, and the population suffers, then we need to step in. Not lightly, and ever so carefully, but sometimes we should. 

A really good example is one that everyone can agree with: child labor and safety laws. They technically “harm” business and cost companies money by implementing the laws. But they’re very clearly a benefit to a society. 

Would a company make more without them? Of course. But should we get rid of these laws? Of course not. "
Economics,"> Picking up and moving to another region isn’t easy when you are poor...

I didn't say that it was.

As far as the ""greater good"" argument goes, I can see your point when the actions of a company actually infringe on the natural rights (definition required, I'll concede) of an individual. Personally, I don't see ""a job with satisfactory pay"" on the same side of the line as ""don't force children to work in mines"" or ""don't dump sludge into our shared natural water sources"". There's even a chance that I wouldn't agree with every child labor law or safety law, but I'm not really qualified to argue about those in detail, so I'll try not to."
Economics,"i think that our COL definition needs updating. I have found that I can live much cheaper in a large city than in a rural community. In a city I may pay more for housing but save on transportation, food, insurance, medical, and energy. Where I live now I am considered rural and I pay through the nose for so much simply because there is no competition. There is no public transit, schools don't get enough funding, there are hardly any job opportunities that can lift one out of poverty, and if you want food after 6pm you are driving 90 miles round trip. Obviously there are examples that go against this, specifically places like San Fran, but I would argue that it is cheaper to live in cities than rural locations. No one is going to move out into the rural areas unless we end up with a second Homestead act. "
Economics,">  I think the argument is a $15 minimum wage might not make sense for the entire nation, but neither does the lower minimum wage we have now.

A minimum is a minimum. It doesn't have to make sense for the entire nation. It has to make sense for the minimum of the nation. A national maximum wage established by rural america makes as little sense as a national minimum wage established by the largest cities."
Economics,"\> This is part of the problem we have with national politics. Everyone  wants us to remember it’s unfair when a city of millions dictates to a  town of hundreds/thousands, but no one seems to mind that the opposite  is often true and it’s a far greater injustice and does far more harm.   


There's no harm because the city can just pass its own local minimum wage.  


If they lack the political will to do that locally, then why should it be done in the first place?"
Economics,"A Federal policy ensures consistency. But there is plenty of room in a federal policy to accommodate local realities. Instituting a manner of curve to the wage levels that accommodates local cost of living as multiplier seems an immediate and easy way to make it work better. 

That being said, it wasn’t too long ago that certain people were howling about how a minimum wage increase would destroy the economy.

Anyway. It’s always worth noting that the poor and middle class spend the majority of their wages. Thus, it should never be a mistake to adjust their wages to reflect the impact of inflation that has without a doubt reduced their spending ability.  "
Economics,"Because it doesn't make sense, some people have no valuable skills to offer to the labor market, if a person has no skills and can only bring $4 an hour worth of value to a business they'll never get a job when theres a minimum wage higher than that. 

What he's advocating for is raising the minimum wage further which will force more people out of the labor pool and make them 100% reliant on government assistance, instead of allowing those people to work for $4 an hour and only be 70% reliant on the government. With the current system those people will never gain marketable skills or a work ethic necessary for economic growth. 

I guarantee if you drove through an economically blighted community with a pickup truck advertising $50 for 10 hours of work the truck will be filled up before you drive from one end of main street to the other. "
Economics,"Places with relatively depressed economies might require special consideration in terms of the application of minimum wage laws, but if we're talking about stores or restaurants associated with a large chain (e.g. McDonalds, WalMart, etc) then there is NOT much legitimate reason to fear that a wage bump for the lowest-paid employees is enough to threaten the financial viability of the firm. Fast food franchises and big department stores are not operating on the same margins as the stereotypical ""mom & pop""."
Economics,"Why do you need a source? It's not a controversial claim to say a minimum wage study from San Francisco isn't informative of low-income areas. Asking people to cite this is just feeding a thicket of obstacles to casual conversation.

We've seen this scenario played out before in low-income areas subject to US law, like American Samoa, which saw large employment losses in the most recent minimum wage increase, which was far higher relative to local conditions than it was in the US."
Economics,"The fight for $15 is here in California.  I giggle when wealthy cities like San Francisco and Santa Monica (beach suburb of Los Angeles) implement their minimum wage laws.

I am quietly hoping that it won't completely cripple Central California, where there just isn't that much capability to spread the wealth around.  I have the sinking feeling that those chain dollar stores and pharmacies are going to close every other location, while most of the small businesses are going to go underground.  

"
Economics,">Hint, it was a banana republic

Are banana republics not subject to opportunity cost?

>no one can seem to show me the numbers demonstrating a mechanism of action

You are being deliberately obtuse.

[""Since 2007, the minimum wage in American Samoa has increased three times across 18 individual work sectors, ranging from $4.18 to $5.59 per hour. The GAO reported that average earnings in American Samoa rose by 27 percent, but local prices increased by 34 percent. The employment rate in American Samoa declined by 11 percent from 2007 to 2012, and average inflation-adjusted earnings fell by 5 percent. In the tuna canning industry alone, the employment rate fell by 58 percent from 2007 to 2013.""](https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/681370.pdf)

> Do you have an actual example of this being a problem?

I don't need one; It's just an ""as X goes to infinity"" thing. Would imposing a $100/hr wage minimum in SF be noticeably different? Probably. Would imposing a $10/hr wage in Kenya be different? Probably that as well.

You can play dumb about marginal cases but no citation is needed to say unadjusted nominal-dollar wage minimums will have different effects in different economies."
Economics,"It's worth asking why those employers are there - often because of the low wages - because the expenses of doing business there are so cheap. When you take that away, you take away job opportunities there.

If the math is identical to starting their business in a more urban area, they'll do it there instead. If its too high anywhere, they'll leave the country or go out of business while a foreign competitor takes over."
Economics,"Would it though? A $10 minimum wage? I'm not so sure. The evidence seems to suggest modest wage increases don't have much effect on employment. It's probably because the local labor market in much of the country is a monopsony for low-skilled workers, in part due to the weakness of unions and the subsequent lower negotiating ability of workers IMO, and a minimum wage increase merely transfers some of the surplus to the worker without affecting production. "
Economics,"Is it worse to benefit 100 at the expense of 10,000 or to benefit 10,000 at the expense of 100?

The problem was laid out as your articulate it by me. There is no “fair” system. There is only “more fair” and “less fair”.  My point is to strive for the most fair system we can. 

If you don’t “screw the minorities of ppl”, you’re screwing the majority of people. How is that better? "
Economics,"I feel like you didn't read his response at all. He said doing a blanket increase is probably damaging so tie it to an local area like cost of living per square foot. Then you're just like ""let's raise it to 10-12 because it might not have too many negative effects."" 

But I do think your right unions are important. And it's a shame they are going away. But I dont want to destroy small rural communities economies by tying them to a ""big city"" minimum wage like 10 or maybe even 12. I think tying it to cost of living or something like that is both better for all communities across the board. And could even be beneficial in the long term. As it would give a clear reference point and there would be little dispute about if minimum wage should be increased or not. "
Economics,"It’s somewhat analogous (states failing to act in the best interest of their citizens in the absence of federal intervention). 

And while I might not know precisely what’s best for the people of Alabama and Mississippi, history has shown that leaving them to their own devices hasn’t worked out very well either. Perhaps the states should be allowed to set their own minimum wage policies, but not without significant federal oversight. "
Economics,"It is a common theme among mid-size cities, particularly in the industrial midwest.  In the mid 20th century, these cities were humming along with a few factories, often in a single industry.  As the economy shifted in the last 20th century to a more white-collar service economy, the job growth was in larger cities, leaving mid sized cities in dire economic straights.

Personally, I grew up in NE Ohio, and witnessed this in cities like Canton, Stubenville and Erie.  The younger generation moved to the larger cities like Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Chicago, or to the coasts, where there were better opportunities.
"
Economics,I'd be curious to see the place where $7.25 is sufficient. The national floor might not be $15 but it sure is higher than $7.25. You can do it piecemeal if you like but places that don't hit local minimums ought to be ineligible for federal subsidies. I'm not interested in transferring my tax dollars to the places where an ideological dogma holds more sway than an economics textbook. We keep propping up ignorance and we're doing ourselves no favors.
Economics,"Unions aren’t as weak as people think they are. They still have significant influence. They just also have no interest in representing easily replaced workers, because even a strong union there is powerless.

Minimum wage is an artificial lower bound on the price of labor; it has two potential effects. Either you increase it and nothing happens, which suggests that people weren’t getting paid less than it in the first place (and thus it is a superfluous waste of political capital), or it restricts the demand for labor.

Either one is bad - in the former case you’re wasting political capital on something that provides no benefit, and in the latter you’re creating unemployment.

Of 80.4 million people over 16 earning hourly wages in 2017, just 542,000 were earning the federal minimum of $7.25/hr or less, 2/3 of which are in the service sector where they are nominally earning the federal minimum, but are tipped employees and thus typically earn far more than the federal minimum, averaging out to about $12/hr.

So any proposed change in the minimum wage up to $10 wouldn’t really have any effect for more than about 130,000 people, less than 1/10 of 1% of the workforce. This points to it being a superfluous waste of political capital."
Economics,">Either you increase it and nothing happens, which suggests that people weren’t getting paid less than it in the first place (and thus it is a superfluous waste of political capital)

I wouldn't call raising the wages of many Americans working at or near minimum wage superfluous.  Especially if it comes at the expense of firm surplus and not overall production.


>Of 80.4 million people over 16 earning hourly wages in 2017, just 542,000 were earning the federal minimum of $7.25/hr or less

Raising the minimum wage would also help lift wages for those close to the minimum.  So I think far more workers would be affected than your analysis suggests.
"
Economics,">I think minimum wage makes the most sense to execute as a local policy.

More than 3 states have now passed legislation to Bar cities from passing local raises to their minimum wage, and more will follow. I don't think I need to tell you what political party those states are under the thumb of. So if state legislatures won't let cities pass their own respective and appropriate minimums, what is the answer? If state legislatures have become corrupt, action can only be taken at the federal level."
Economics,"While your statement is absolutely true, that 3.3% of workers represents 540,000 people who, by the very definition of minimum wage, would be paid less than $7.25/hr if it were legal.  A law that guarantees a minimum standard of living of 15k a year for half a million people seems pretty worthwhile.

Policy certainly needs to first focus on things like median wages, but it can't ignore those on the margins."
Economics,"IMHO they need to tie minimum wage to age. Shitty jobs are meant to go to people with little to no experience, not people trying to support families. 

Either pay people more as life demands more of them or get used to a high turnover of people who know fuck-all and have school schedules you need to work around.

Employers have gotten used to having a supply of desperate people willing to eat shit and pretend its ice-cream all the while saying, ""Well anyone can do your job so be thankful!""

Yeah but they aren't going to hire just anyone because they want someone with few options and bills to pay, not the teenager who can tell them to take this job and shove it if their demands are too high.
"
Economics,"> Minimum wage is an artificial lower bound on the price of labor; it has two potential effects. Either you increase it and nothing happens, which suggests that people weren’t getting paid less than it in the first place (and thus it is a superfluous waste of political capital), or it restricts the demand for labor.

I would suggest that this is an incomplete view of the cycle.

Remember that money paid to workers doesn't just vanish. It goes into the hands of consumers, which in turn increases demand for all things done by all companies, which in turn increases the demand for labor.
"
Economics,"I'm not arguing for any particular minimum wage.  I believe you that such a policy decision is highly dependent on related policy choices, such as the level of the EITC, the amount of housing support, and the subsidy of food production.  Indeed, there is a set of policy options that makes the efficient minimum wage $0.

What I am arguing for is a large difference in minimum wages across America, as the cost of living varies greatly from place to place.  A gap of 2x between the lowest minimum wage and the highest minimum wage in America would be on the small side, relative to the cost of living delta in various places."
Economics,">So all the people who have Kansas!minimum wage jobs that have to work multiple jobs to pay rent / bills are going to all have the day off on election day?

Never herd of absentee ballots? never heard of early voting (Kansas allows voting on the Saturday before election day)...

Heck in 2016 I was out of town on a camping trip during the election. I voted the weekend before the trip.

What a person in Kansas \*can't\* do is change 49% of the senate or 99% of the house. Even if every voice in Kansas screamed for a lower minimum wage to help create more entry level jobs they literally have \*NO\* power on a national stage.

So to sum up.

Kansas: Can vote early or absentee (via mail) to change local elections but cannot significantly change the makeup of the house or senate.

​"
Economics,"No, this is how cities develop; they don't have a choice as to what industries develop - cities are established and grow to support the population and industry that locate in an area.   Those cities that have tried to artificially spur development in a new industry have generally failed badly.

This is not unique to the industrial midwest, all over the country single industry mid-size cities develop wherever there is an industry, but not enough population to support a large, diversified city.  This is true whether you look at, say, oil in Houston, agriculture in Des Moines, meat processing in Omaha, entertainment in Las Vegas, etc."
Economics,"Ah, yes, because when you're paid dirt and have to work multiple jobs to make end's meet, your days off are so plentiful and naturally you'd spend them voting and not getting ready for.  And yeah, the entire working population of Kansas would totally absentee vote.  They're totally not just gonna brush it off, on the whole.

And yes, they can't change the national baseline.  That's why it's there.  It isn't some malicious ""Let's keep entry level jobs from popping up"".  It's ""Let's make sure employers aren't fucking over their employees and bribing state congressmen to keep it legal."""
Economics,"> You should probably have some economics education to know whether or not raising the wage in a city will have a significant impact on the economy as a whole, employment as a whole, or on household income. Yes.

That's a classic Argument from authority fallacy... A Business owner in Wyoming probably knows better what he can afford to pay people than an economist in NY.

> MAYBE if you can't afford to pay your employees a living wage at your business, you are a poor businessman and should close.

So rather than people making 7.25, they can make 0.... Great argument there..."
Economics,"It's not an argument from authority fallacy at all. The average business owner has zero training and zero sense in the net effect of wages on the local economy. Full stop. You are miss-applying that fallacy. 


Saying that you should have training and education on a complex topic to fully understand it is not an argument from authority fallacy. Argument from authority fallacy would be if I pointed to a prominent economist who said raising wages was good, and then said he must be correct because he is a prominent economist. Try actually refuting my argument now. I mean fuck, you're in the economics subreddit here dude."
Economics,"No it wouldn’t. 

I think you underestimate the extent to which corporate consolidation has impacted our economy. 

The majority of the wages paid to low income workers come from company coffers that are not in the towns where the workers work. This applies to fast food, retail, every chain restaurant, factories, assembly lines, banks, service providers, even some utilities are now owned by out of state mega corporations. 

Raising the minimum wage would have absolutely nothing but positive impacts on Gary Indiana. It’s he companies that aren’t in Gary that are employing people there who would lose out. "
Economics,">And my point is that nowhere in the country is there a floor below a certain point far above $7.25. You could likely double that and not be unreasonable anywhere in the country. 

What can you provide in support of this claim?

Absent other policy changes, I think a national $15 minimum wage would be more devastating to American small towns in low cost of living areas than a tornado running right down Main Street.  Small towns need a price advantage to compete against the cluster/agglomeration effects big cities enjoy.

That's where your next proposal comes in, of course:

>Should it be $25? Probably not everywhere, although certainly some places 

This proposal of a $25/hour minimum wage in the big cities certainly helps the small towns with their price competition problem.  However, it has problems of its own.

Depending on who you listen to, Seattle's minimum wage policy is or is not beneficial for low wage workers at the current $14/hr level.  I happen to think that the pro case is still slightly stronger, but I will estimate that Seattle's minimum wage is near a level at which minimum wage earners are losing about the same from diminished opportunities than they are gaining from higher wages.  Maybe the efficient minimum wage is $14, $15, or $16, but it's almost certainly not $25.  

Even at $25, the delta between Seattle's minimum wage and Fayetteville's proposed $15 minimum wage is still much too small.  I imagine you concur that minimum wage should approximately track cost of living in each locale, yes?"
Economics,"It's not ""dependent on who you listen to"", facts are not relative. A simple Google search for ""lowest living wage U.S."" brought up a plethora of answers. [Here's](https://research.zippia.com/living-wage.html) a study that was on CNBC in February showing that you can get by on as little as $20.82 in Kentucky for a three person household. It's based on MIT's living wage calculator, which you can find [here](http://livingwage.mit.edu/); frankly I think the assumptions they use are absurdly low based on actual expenses in my area but it's a start. I'm sure there are a few impoverished places that survive on less but they shouldn't dictate policy for the country. They can structure it like they do the drinking age: a 10% cut to your state allocation for SNAP and Medicaid if you have a minimum wage under $15. You're free to opt out and explain to your constituents why. "
Economics,"I think people just imagine their boss and think ""f that guy!"" 

So these laws are like ""you think we should redistribute money from that guy whos trying to fire you?

It really is arbitrarily stupid to make the people who create jobs suffer

As a son of an income cliff trapped mom, i know first hand the meaning of ""democrats love the poor, thats why they make so many"" and i am skepitcal of it being an accident any more. At this point if they dont know what theyre doing, they dont represent us"
Economics,"Well, now we're talking about a different thing, which is whether you can live on the minimum wage. Whether the minimum wage should be a living wage is an interesting policy question.  Technically speaking, it isn't an economic question -- this is a matter of values.  Therefore I cannot answer this question, at least not with my economist hat on.

My commentary ""depending who you listen to"" was referring to the research into whether minimum wage increases in Seattle are benefiting or hurting minimum wage workers in Seattle.  This is a positive statement, not a normative one -- this body of research is discussing what is, without considering what should be.  It's a controversial matter, so it's difficult to answer with any certainty which paper best reflects reality.  I would suggest that, since both the pro and con sides appear to have reasonable arguments, the Seattle minimum wage is close to the level at which the social costs and benefits of the minimum wage balance out.  Absent other policy changes, I don't think a large increase in the Seattle minimum wage would benefit Seattle minimum wage workers."
Economics,"I think I understand the argument in the parent comment because it is implied that in a weak agglomeration city, like Gary, increasing minimum wage in our current regulation framework would just cause flight of businesses and labor from these weakly agglomerated cities.

However, if the policy is instituted nationally (federally), then there is no change in preference anywhere within the nation. 

So wouldn't it make sense that implementing it equally, nationally would be the preferable and most equitable method? 

i.e No one can gain an economic advantage simply by moving from one location in the nation to another."
Economics,"Yes but we’re talking about setting a “global” floor here. Having a nation wide floor and a local floor that might be higher are not mutually exclusive things. If there is any evidence that federal minimum wages are too high for certain regions then I suppose there is a discussion, but given that that does not appear so it’s irrelevant in practice whereas the threat of owners and employers underpaying low skill uneducated employees is very real "
Economics,"you have to realize that a large portion of those 540k people have no skills, no work experience and dont command a wage higher than 7.25. If you raise the minimum wage employers are less likely to hire them and train them. There really should be a training wage rate that allows employers to hire someone for 6 month to a year at below minimum wage. Even if an employer cycles through trainee workers to pay less they are giving those workers experience that lets them command better salary. Youth unemployment is very bad because no one wants to hire inexperienced workers"
Economics,"Is there any evidence to show that anyone has lost a job anywhere in the United States because they would have to be paid $7.25/hour? 

Furthermore, I think there is something to be said about the idea that if an employer doesn't have the ability to support a worker at that wage, maybe there's something wrong with their business model, or the product itself.

In the end, SOMEONE is going to pay the differential between what the firm is paying the labor and what it costs to pay for basic necessities.  If we're going to handle that with UBI derived from taxing high earners, then I'm all for that payer to be the government.  Until then, we should try to put as much of that responsibility on the firms as possible.

--edit: By the way, Happy Cake Day!!!"
Economics,"What would the possible value of a minimum wage be if it was not a living wage? You literally started this by talking about the amount needed to pay rent. If you aren't discussing a wage that would cover the necessities then what is the point?

There are not positive arguments on both sides, there are facts that can be measured. You create a basket of goods, establish a geographic area, and determine their cost within it. Offering an employee a wage below that cost shifts the remainder onto the public and allows the employer, who is so good at business they probably shouldn't be in the market since they can't pay a wage can live on, the opportunity to pocket the difference. If there are fewer jobs that require a state subsidy to exist, good. Any side arguing for alternative facts is a charlatan. "
Economics,"So, I decided to investigate the claim that Democrats make people poor.  The results are interesting.  It seems that polarization makes people poor, and that when a state leans heavily in either direction, it ends up with more poverty.  In the data below, I set 50.0 to be the mid-point political lean, with below 50 being Republican and above 50 being Democrat.  When you compare that with poverty rates, you find that very interesting curve that puts both parties at fault.

edit: Had to add the obligatory ""causality could run either way"".  It's entirely possible that poverty causes polarization as well.  One hypothesis may be that rural-type poverty begets a heavy republican lean, while urban-type poverty begets a heavy democratic lean.  I will admit that this seems much more plausible to me than the other direction of causality.

https://imgur.com/OSPZ2u7

https://imgur.com/PnLEpph

Sources:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_poverty_rate

- https://news.gallup.com/poll/226643/2017-party-affiliation-state.aspx"
Economics,"no, state by state minimum wage forces wages down.  if NJ says no minimum wage but PA says minimum wage, then businesses are going to set up camp in NJ, which will force PA to lower their standard of living.  it's a race to the bottom effect, not dissimilar to what happens when you globalize trade.  if you can get something done in china by paying someone a dollar a day, of course you're going to do it.

a federal minimum wage stops that."
Economics,"Your first example is a poor choice.  Houston is the fourth largest city in the US, not a mid-size city.  

It has also successfully diversified, and is a major port and trading hub, with major industries in biotech/healthcare, aerospace, and HR outsourcing.  It has one of the fastest population growths and job creation rates in the country, and did so even in the midst of the oil crash of the past few years.

[Source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Houston)"
Economics,">What would the possible value of a minimum wage be if it was not a living wage? You literally started this by talking about the amount needed to pay rent. If you aren't discussing a wage that would cover the necessities then what is the point?

In an environment where buyers of labor have more market power than sellers of labor, a minimum wage can transfer surplus from employers to workers at very little cost to society.

It is not obvious that wage labor for the least productive laborers in society generates enough value to provide for a minimum standard of living.  This is not to say that people should starve or be forced into the streets, of course, but employers won't pay more than an employee is worth to their business model.  If the minimum wage isn't sufficient, other social welfare policies can cover the gap (e.g. SNAP, Section 8, Medicaid).

>There are not positive arguments on both sides, there are facts that can be measured.  

The argument put forth by the UW study is [summarized here](https://www.seattletimes.com/business/uw-study-finds-seattles-minimum-wage-is-costing-jobs/):

""The team concluded that the second jump had a far greater impact, boosting pay in low-wage jobs by about 3 percent since 2014 but also resulting in a 9 percent reduction in hours worked in such jobs. That resulted in a 6 percent drop in what employers collectively pay — and what workers earn — for those low-wage jobs.

For an average low-wage worker in Seattle, that translates into a loss of about $125 per month per job.""

This is not a settled topic.  Other economists disagree.

>If there are fewer jobs that require a state subsidy to exist, good.

Not so.  Suppose a worker generates $13 an hour in value for their employer.  In such an environment, raising the minimum wage from $10 to $12.50 is a very low cost way of improving their situation.  However, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour makes everyone worse off.  The worker will lose his job.  The employer will lose the surplus that was being generated by the worker.  Society will need to pay for the full upkeep of that worker, not just the difference between their wages and the cost of their acceptable living standard."
Economics,"This is always my response to the Bernites that support the $15 min wage. A dual income household in my area can afford to live on $8/hr. And that's super easy to come by, places like starbucks and walmart start you higher than that, servers and line cooks make more than that. 

Rent is cheap, services are cheap, products are cheap, state income tax is low... more than doubling the min wage might be fine for a coastal or metro area that already has high prices and insane 2-3k/month rent for small apartments, but it would decimate the south and midwest, and destroy small business startups.

"
Economics,"Dont you think that maybe those few states dont have one *because* there's just an easy federal standard to fall back on? 

I mean if the fed min wage was lifted and all of a sudden there was an epidemic of employers in Oklahoma paying $4/hr that slashed tax revenue and stagnated the state economy, in addition to increasing spending on housing/food assistance, etc... im quite sure that *any* state government would act pretty quickly.

And that's the worst case scenario, *if* the state doesnt institute its own, which again could very well be because it hasnt had to."
Economics,"Dont you think that maybe those few states dont have one *because* there's just an easy federal standard to fall back on? 

I mean if the fed min wage was lifted and all of a sudden there was an epidemic of employers in Oklahoma paying $4/hr that slashed tax revenue and stagnated the state economy, in addition to increasing spending on housing/food assistance, etc... im quite sure that *any* state government would act pretty quickly.

And that's the worst case scenario, *if* the state doesnt institute its own, which again could very well be because it hasnt had to."
Economics,"We shouldn't  be subsidizing someone's crappy business model. If you can't find enough value to provide a minimum standard of living, you're not cut out to be a business owner. That's like saying ""I could have a thriving business if you'd only sell me X input a below-market rate"". That's not business, that' social welfare.

If that's what UW came up with, then check the measures, check the math, and accept it. I don't see how that's subject to debate. Other economists can disagree by showing how the measure or math is incorrect.

The only person who's worse off in your scenario is the employer, who was skimming $5 an hour from John Q. Public by paying $10, pocketing $13, and telling the employee to go get SNAP or Medicaid to make up the difference. The worker will lose his job, and find one that pays him enough to survive. The employer will lose the surplus he was taking from his neighbors taxes and have to get a job that generates a surplus for someone else or figure out a better business model. Society will pay the upkeep for the worker while they find some other employment, without subsidizing the employer's ill-conceived hobby."
Economics,"[http://livingwage.mit.edu/metros/41860](http://livingwage.mit.edu/metros/41860)

$17.76 for an adult at the bare minimum of living wage. More if you have a child or family. San Francisco is higher than that. 

$19.63

[http://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/06075](http://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/06075)

The national living wage is 17.28

[https://truthout.org/articles/the-real-living-wage-17-28-an-hour-at-least/](https://truthout.org/articles/the-real-living-wage-17-28-an-hour-at-least/)

An average one bedroom to rent in San Francisco is

[https://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-san-francisco-rent-trends/](https://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-san-francisco-rent-trends/)

Over $3,000. That means for one person to actually live in San Francisco, at the ""living wage I gave"" they would have about $100 left over. The Living wage I gave is on the low side when you take into account renting. They have to share rooms or live with parents, for instance. 

In Seattle a one bedroom, on average, is over $2000.

[https://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-seattle-rent-trends/](https://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-seattle-rent-trends/)

Which suggests that even the higher than average living wage I gave you isn't enough.

If you take into account cost of living should be 1/3 of your expenses. That would me total income for a one bedroom in Seattle should be around $37 an hour. People survive because they live with family and share rooms. That means it is unlikely a $15 an hour minimum wage would provide anyone with a lot of expendable income. It also shows, since most wages were near or higher than that, how a city can afford increasing a minimum wage. 

[https://www.bls.gov/regions/west/news-release/occupationalemploymentandwages\_seattle.htm](https://www.bls.gov/regions/west/news-release/occupationalemploymentandwages_seattle.htm)

"" Workers in the Seattle-Bellevue-Everett Metropolitan Division had an average (mean) hourly wage of $31.42 "".

​

​

​"
Economics,">We shouldn't be subsidizing someone's crappy business model. If you can't find enough value to provide a minimum standard of living, you're not cut out to be a business owner. That's like saying ""I could have a thriving business if you'd only sell me X input a below-market rate"". That's not business, that' social welfare.

The minimum wage is fundamentally a social welfare policy.  We are setting a price floor on labor because we believe it will improve the welfare of the poor worker.

If you set the minimum wage so high that no one will employ the worker, or that no one will supply as many hours as the worker wishes to work, your policy can be welfare pessimal.  The basic disagreement in various empirical studies is whether wage increases for minimum wage workers do or don't offset the declining supply of hours to minimum wage workers; different methods for modeling the problem lead different economists to reach different conclusions.

>The worker will lose his job, and find one that pays him enough to survive.

You're right that, if the worker can get a job that pays a living wage, the only net loser is the employer.  However, this is an unsafe assumption.  If all workers on the minimum wage could get a job that pays a higher wage, we'd have no need of a minimum wage."
Economics,"You’re literally making a circular argument which I suppose from a checks and balances standpoint I somewhat agree with.  But ultimately for a representative democracy to be responsive to any subgroup, especially one as large as the working poor, laws “closer” to the voter seem to be “better”.   I searched for research on federalism but was disappointed.


I understand your worry about employers moving to low wage areas but ultimately the federal minimum wage has to be the lowest common denominator or the policy will devastate rural America.  Someone working at a metro airport has living wage requirements higher than a rural diner worker.  You’ll kill rural diners if you force those employers to pay urban living wages."
Economics,"That just means the law wouldn’t have been written well enough. Companies are going to do all they can to be profitable, right or wrong, like it or not, that’s what they do and will always do. It’s dangerous when a politician can write a law that is poorly thought out but has good intentions, and then when it fails you can always blame the “greedy governments”.  It’s not an excuse, it’s a scapegoat."
Economics,"It's not the fossil fuel industry that needs convincing but rather conservative voters and politicians. The council Yellen joined has oil companies already on it. Shell, BP and Exxon have been pushing carbon taxes for years. Most fossil fuel companies realize they've kept the world in the dark about climate change as long as they could and now the world is going to do something about climate change. They're trying to get ahead of the curb by implementing carbon taxes. Carbon taxes are infinitely better than subsidies and regulations which distort the market and allow politicians to pick winners and losers.

*Ms Yellen, who chaired the US Federal Reserve until February, has joined the Climate Leadership Council, a bipartisan group pushing for the US to address the threat of global warming by introducing a carbon tax, with revenues returned to the public in dividend payments.*  ***The group is backed by large companies including ExxonMobil, BP, General Motors and Johnson & Johnson.***"
Economics,"And textbook solutions have such a good track record for real life. 

Econs are still trying to fit everything in a nice little box but I don't know if the concept of ""rationality"" will ever be truly rational. There have been some good attempts at it by Kahneman and Amos, maybe because they're looking at it from a psychological standpoint.'

And not to mention the lobby groups who will pile on to swing things their way. There's always a back door in the US, it just keeps getting more expensive each day."
Economics,"I've met a lot of people who seem like they understand basic economics, but they either don't know what externalities are, or have never heard the very basic idea that taxing negative externalities and subsidizing positive ones is, all else being equal, a pretty good idea.

And then, a *lot* of people are *really* committed to pure laissez faire, and, even if they heard about the basic approach to externalities in econ 101, either say ""yeah, but I don't think externalities really exist -- there's always somebody who can capture the benefit"" (and then they just kind of ramble when we talk about negative externalities), or ""okay, but you can't know exactly how significant the externality is, so instead of approximating, let's just go ahead and act like it's 0.""

I can respect the libertarians who say ""okay, externalities are real, and taxing them does make sense, but between regulatory capture, politics in general, the difficulty of getting the math right even when you're trying, and the moral consequences of taxation, it's really better if we don't tax them."" But so many are so committed to the idea that economics = laissez faire, and treat anybody who says otherwise as though they never took econ 101 is... insane."
Economics,">The council Yellen joined has oil companies already on it. Shell, BP and Exxon have been pushing carbon taxes for years...  Carbon taxes are infinitely better than subsidies and regulations which distort the market and allow politicians to pick winners and losers. 

On top of it, it feels like there could be heavy wins directly for them.

While a carbon tax hurts them by favoring renewables over gas, it further tilts the electricity generation trade-offs to gas from coal.  In the short-term, could making coal even more unaffordable compensate for the losses to renewables?

Regulations might grandfather in existing coal plants - which they don't want.  And carbon taxes, without regulation, will fail to account for damages from [leaks](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/10/climate/methane-emissions-epa.html) \- another win for oil & gas."
Economics,"> It's not the fossil fuel industry that needs convincing but rather conservative voters and politicians.

That work is actually *mostly* done. [A majority of Republican voters support a carbon tax](http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Global-Warming-Policy-Politics-March-2018.pdf), and [a majority of Republican politicians are receptive](https://community.citizensclimatelobby.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/june-2017-meeting-analysis-1127.pdf). The final step will be to get [those constituents](http://www.congressfoundation.org/storage/documents/CMF_Pubs/cmf-citizen-centric-advocacy.pdf) to [lobby](https://sociology.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/friends_or_foes-how_social_movement_allies_affect_the_passage_of_legislation_in_the_u._s._congress.pdf) their members of Congress. [It's easier](https://www.ted.com/talks/omar_ahmad_political_change_with_pen_and_paper?language=en) than people tend to think. I guess the good news is, [lots of people are already doing it](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/about-ccl/accomplishments/). "
Economics,"Of course not, the point I was trying to make is that it's hard to apply a textbook solution rationally. There will always be exceptions that make it ineffective. Such as lobby groups who will find loopholes and ways around the tax. 

Making people pay more for doing something isn't a very effective way to encourage another type of behavior. Punishment doesn't work, incentives do. Sure, there's loss aversion, but people would rather be rewarded for behaving well than punished for not following certain rules. A tax would effectively be a punishment for emissions."
Economics,">Factories in Russia increased their production of industrial waste products and then claimed millions of carbon credits for destroying them after an international trading scheme went into effect.
...

>For the potent greenhouse gases trifluoromethane (HFC-23) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), the value of the credits obtained can exceed the cost of destroying these gases in the production process, creating a 'perverse' incentive to increase production so that credits can be claimed.
...

>Although a supervisory committee exists to monitor and prevent abuses of the scheme, it is up to nations hosting JI projects to decide to request their assistance.

Seems like a poorly designed program, not an issue inherent to market based carbon credit systems. "
Economics,"I love when people are intentionally obtuse. Here we go... I argued for a market based solution, including a carbon credit, but not just carbon. Equating them all leads to abuses, as the link posted above discusses, and is unlikely to be the most effective option anyway. 

When it comes to regulatory agencies to prevent abuse, just dont make it toothless, enforce inspections and put sanctions on the products that a given country produces contrary to the credits system as consequence for those abuses. If there was no way to abuse the creation/destruction of them without incurring sanctions that make that abuse unprofitable, the abuse wouldn't happen. And I'm not advocating drastic sanctions either, just unilateral reduction in purchases of polluting products and their derivatives. 

I'm no economist, but from what little I know from having this conversation with a friend and professor of mine who is an economist that specializes in this kind of system, the credit program that was implemented wasn't implemented well. These are some ways I think would improve it, from what I remember of that conversation. Not sure why you object to it so strongly, I have to imagine an ulterior motive somewhere. "
Economics,"As a libertarian I would really like to see one of those impacts one-day. At best some republicans say 'small governments' sometimes to deny the Democrats some social project. Acting on any of this is totally absent, public debt, size of government and virtually any other measure shows that libertarians have no political influence what so ever.

If you actually look at the general population or at politics you can not find many libertarians. Pretty much any poll on economics shows this.

The only thing is that they like to talk about economics and other people who like to talk economics end up talking to libertarians.  That just selection bias."
Economics,"Storage is expensive though. However, we don't need to get to zero emissions, solar does a good job of ramping up as our demand does, and natural gas's flexibility is great for on-demand fine tuning and getting through the evening hump. Definitely a place for nuclear too.

But the carbon tax is in fact the market solution, invented for and geared to the conservative palette. Would you rather that politicians simply commanded that various inefficient power plants and factories be shuttered? Of course not."
Economics,"I’m sorry, but just how dumb are you? Trump being re-elected or not, let’s toss the politics out of this. Your response tells me that you’re okay with the deregulation for coal companies. 

The coal industry has been declining for years. It’s outdated. That’s like asking to bring back horse carriage drivers or get rid of the assembly line. Coal will be gone sooner than you think here in the US. The largest producers have already lost 92% or their market value. 

Meanwhile people are literally getting sick and dying from the result of coal waste polluting their water. Like a simple google search would suffice if you don’t believe it. Then there’s also the long lasting effect it has on the environment. 

But have no fear Mr. Fear Monger, jobs in alternative energy are already outpacing coal jobs it’s just getting started. 
Also, it’s been proposed that with the revenue from carbon tax, that coal miners would be specialized and transitioned into the alternative energy industry. Aka putting them back to work. "
Economics,"The thing is, energy companies don't want coal back. 

Not only is coal terrible for the environment its also expensive to burn. Renewables are cheap and getting cheaper every year. Energy companies understand this. Energy companies are in it for the long haul. The lifespan of a power plant is measured in decades. Existing coal plants will be kept around until they're decommissioned but new power plants are tending towards renewables. This includes wind, solar, and tidal.

Politicians are trying to drag energy companies back to a 19th century power source while the energy companies have already been looking to the future."
Economics,"LCD's got cheaper because there was economic incentive, the whole idea behind an externality is that there is not such incentive.  The investments in solar and wind happened because there were government policies encouraging them, they didn't just come out of nowhere.  The alternative to a carbon price is a government mandate.

> In ten years we'll have this little climate change problem licked.
> Trump is right.

These 2 thoughts are entirely contradictory.  What is Trump right about,  that climate change is a Chinese hoax?  How can we lick a problem that is a hoax?  We can we solve climate change if we burn more coal, our cars burn the same amount of gasoline and we leak and flare more methane, all recent administration regulatory initiatives from the EPA?
"
Economics,"This is so true.  We use so much electricity, the scale is truly staggering.  Pumped storage has been touted as a 'solution' by those who don't understand the scope of the issue, same thing with legions of Li-Ion battery banks.  It's just not feasible for a national, or even regional grid to rely on Li-Ion tech for power smoothing.

The main reason is batteries are expensive to produce, and experience resistance losses both during charging and discharging.  

Let's not talk about the waste involved in producing very large li ion batteries, or what we do with them when they've reached the end of their life cycle.

I wish I had an idea on what we could do for a national or regional storage network.  Maybe hydrogen storage?  "
Economics,"While climate change is an issue, it absolutely is, climate change isn't causing the South African government to copy the tactics used in Zimbabwe and cease land from farmers based on the colour of their skin.

Zimbabwe (at the time named Rhodesia) was once called the breadbasket of Africa, however, Zimbabwe's reforms under Mugabe lead to mass confiscation of farmland from farmers, and had it redistributed to those who had little to no experience with farming, leading to massive drops in production, something like 90,000,000,000% inflation (90 billion) and mass starvation.

Today this is the situation in ""The breadbasket of Africa""

Https://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/special-edition-agriculture-2014/zimbabwe%E2%80%99s-farmers-struggle-feed-nation
"
Economics,"I can’t really say how sound of an idea this is since I don’t know the demographics of South Africa especially how many black citizens there are that have agricultural backgrounds and do not have any land.  I know even less about their politics.

When racial disparities exist to the extent they do in South Africa and result as a direct product of a recently abandoned system I’m not sure there is another way to address it.  Letting it persist creates significant social problems and it isn’t likely to change with time.   "
Economics,"They had at least an acceptable system before where the government needed to compensate the farmers they're ceasing land from, at the very least, it was a fair and slow system, pay the farmers for their land, and train and educate new farmers slowly so theres not a massive famine like in Zimbabwe.

There was a lot of bad in South Africas past, but the average Boer farmer probably isn't the reason why things are bad.

It's also very flawed to look at this in a black vs white issue, not all ""blacks"" in South Africa are the same, it's important to look at this as a Boer vs Bantu vs Khoisan vs ect.

Should a Boer farmer living on land that used to belong to the Khoisan pay compensation to the Bantu, who murdered the Khoisan and occupied the land before the Boers arrived?

Those who live forever in the past are doomed to stay there, the South Africans should be working toward racial integration, create an environment where boers want to teach the bantus and khoisans and others how to farm the land.

The only way to build up society is to help elevate the poor, you get nowhere if you just drag the successful down to the same level as the poor."
Economics,"“Racial disparities in living standards have also narrowed. In 2004 whites, who are 8% of the population, made up 86% of those in the top bracket of living standards. By 2015 that share had fallen to 49%. Blacks made up 30%. That is partly because more blacks have been able to move into government jobs, which often pay well. But business and education have opened up, too. One survey of firms found that whereas in 1996 blacks made up just 8% of company executives, by 2015 they made up 41%. Before the end of apartheid, South African universities produced 44 white engineering graduates for every black one; by 2014, there were two blacks for every white.”

From 

https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2017/05/20/south-africas-inequality-is-no-longer-about-race

It appears my information is outdated in the sense that the white minority now owns only about half the wealth which is still remarkably larger than it should be in theory.  "
Economics,"And as the collapse of the Russian empire shows, simply killing the rich doesnt make the life of the poor any better, sure, it reduces inequality, but reducing inequality is the wrong goal to seek.

A society where everyone is living in poverty is a perfectly equal society, but a very bad one to live in, on the other hand, a society where some people control most wealth, most people live above poverty, and some people unfortunately live in poverty is a very ""unequal"" society, but it's one where escaping poverty and living a moderately successful life is available for the majority of the population, the goal shouldn't be to destroy the rich, the goal should be to raise the poor up, pulling them out of poverty.

Basically, it comes down to communism vs capitalism, I dont think I need to explain why communism is bad on an economics sub.

Note, I'm not saying the South African government is communist, I'm just drawing attention to the parallels between the fuck the rich attitude of communists, and the fuck the rich attitude of the South African government, and how these attitudes universally end up making life worse for the poor."
Economics,"At no point have I even brought up communism only that when there is substantial inequality in wealth particularly in land ownership among populations there are social problems that arise. 

The attitude of the SA government is more about attempts to redress this inequity which is the direct result of apartheid rather than a “fuck the rich” attitude.  They are going about it the wrong way IMO but not confronting this issue in the long term is not wise.  


"
Economics,"""It appears my information is outdated in the sense that the white minority now owns only about half the wealth which is still remarkably larger than it should be in theory.""

The problem is that is because white people in South Africa are more likely to own a business or have a higher degree. It isn't because they're farmers. Farmers in SA are one of the worst paid of any profession. Per hours put in and work they're near the bottom. 

​"
Economics,"> I am afraid I do not understand what ""uncertainty"" has to do with a local lunch place who takes advantage of worker desperation to get out of having to pay fair wages

In markets, we could say that uncertainty is any deviation from the contracted/expected outcome. Whether we're talking about deviation from the honoring of a contract (labor/purchase/rental/whatever), or whether we're talking about financial volatility, the effects on the econ at the macro level do tend to surface. 

There's actually some economic theory about the way that this might play out under information asymmetry. (called the [**market for lemons**](http://www.utdallas.edu/~nina.baranchuk/Fin7310/papers/Akerlof1970.pdf)). 

Basically, if there is a risk that a contract stipulating ""$x in goods or services in exchange for $x in cash"" won't be honored, then there will be less participation in that market, and parties that DO participate will take steps to protect their interests (which costs resources). 

So, from the regulator's POV it makes sense to deal with this issue because the macro-level effects that this change in market-behavior causes. 
"
Economics,">  if there is a risk that a contract stipulating ""$x in goods or services in exchange for $x in cash"" won't be honored, then there will be less participation in that market, and parties that DO participate will take steps to protect their interests (which costs resources).

I believe that there is no shortage of people who are willing to work for substandard wages or are willing to work for under the table wages. Workers do so for a number of reasons (wanting to disappear, the need for immediate cash, inability to establish bank accounts, job flexibility to leave the job for weeks of months where necessary) and unethical employers will take advantage of this. 

I am not sure that rectifying problems of wage abuses by employers would increase participation in the market, given that workers do so for reasons that the market cannot address. 

Would a local pizza place notorious for paying under the table and short changing workers suddenly see an increase in applications if they were to stop paying under the table and paid a living wage? 

Maybe, but why would this matter if their labor needs are already satisfied? There is nothing to be gained for them, which is why the practice continues. "
Economics,"""I’m pretty confident that not many people in the US are getting paid less than minimum wage.""

Gathering data on such practices is obviously not easy, but given my experiences with being paid less than minimum, working at places that pay less than minimum and being associated with people who work for less than minimum, it is probably more than you think. 

Contractors are, of course, required to file their own taxes as self employed individuals. A person working in a restaurant or for a non-construction business, however, should not have to. "
Economics,"They could move to where public transit exists, or support government that wants to expand public transit.  It's already wasteful when people live spaced out.  They take up more state-wide money for the cost of keeping up their infrastructure. 

Some other ways to keep costs low with a carbon tax, is bicycling whenever possible, like to the grocery store, or if work isn't too far, or buying an electric car sooner than previously expected.  

"
Economics,"To clarify, discussing fiscal or monetary operations by saying 'printing money' isn't really accurate and is a cause for confusion. The federal government issues T-bills through the Treasury and they auction them off to dealers in a primary market; doing this is a method of expanding or contracting the supply of reserve balances in the banking system, and it has no relation to government spending.

QE was the process of the fed buying toxic assets (mortgage backed securities and collateralized debt obligations) by transferring reserve balances to those banks' accounts at the Fed. If you notice, this is all a far different process than the headline implies. All National Debt means is the dollar value of outstanding treasury securities, and that number is never inherently bad.

​

Main takeaway: Trump is just a moron and doesn't understand monetary theory, so this headline quote really makes no operational sense whatsoever."
Economics,">To clarify, discussing fiscal or monetary operations by saying 'printing money' isn't really accurate and is a cause for confusion. The federal government issues T-bills through the Treasury and they auction them off to dealers in a primary market; 

I agree that ""printing money"" is an oversimplification of how QE works, and doubt Trump meant much more then he said.

The government issues Tbills to generate income to fund their budget deficits, they sell these bonds in the market. But 2.5 trillion of these bonds were bought buy the fed

>doing this is a method of expanding or contracting the supply of reserve balances in the banking system, and it has no relation to government spending.

Tbills have no relation to government spending? You sure?
https://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/financial-planning/treasury-bills1.htm

I believe the contraction and supply of reserves and balances is done through QE, where the fed prints money to buy bonds/MBS from banks so they have more money to lend out to people to start business and buy things with cheap interest rates

>QE was the process of the fed buying toxic assets (mortgage backed securities and collateralized debt obligations) by transferring reserve balances to those banks' accounts at the Fed. If you notice, this is all a far different process than the headline implies. All National Debt means is the dollar value of outstanding treasury securities, and that number is never inherently bad.

Ok, but 67% of the feds balance sheet is Tbills. 


>Main takeaway: Trump is just a moron and doesn't understand monetary theory, so this headline quote really makes no operational sense whatsoever.

Agreed
"
Economics,"Right.. the treasury should print money to stimulate aggregate demand adequately, and the Fed should buy bonds to control interest rates adequately.

You're right, this is exactly what is happening.

And what is the problem, exactly?

We are doing what Trump said we should do, which is also what MMT/post-Keynesian (**AKA sane** economic theory) says we should do, so what is the problem??

The problem is, of course, that the fiscal stimulus could be much better targeted than it is. *But it is still better than no fiscal stimulus*, so shouldn't we be marveling at how well Trump has played politics to get the Republic party to be Keynesian?

**It's really astonishing, honestly.** Before 2016, neither the Republicans or the Democrats were Keynesian. The Republicans were basicaly Monetarists, and the Democrats were New-Keynesians. AKA, both parties were essentially neoliberal.

Now we have a political party that is actually Keynesian, and lo and behold, good economic policy is actually working well.

How will the Democrats react?

Edit: Just, really, anyone who wants to downvote, explain why? It's so frustrating, as someone who's not in either stupid camp, who actually thinks about these things impartially... What is wrong with the point that Trump's fiscal stimulus is better than no fiscal stimulus? What is wrong with that point? Please explain."
Economics,">The government issues Tbills to generate income to fund their budget deficits

No, this is not true. The federal government doesn't not have to fund budget deficits, there is no revenue constraints on government spending; they can just spend the money because they are the sovereign issuer and controller of their own fiat currency. Issuing t bills is not done to raise funds for spending, they are completely separate operational processes. When the government does issue t bills, it contracts the supply of reserve balances because the issued t bills will have a higher interest rate than the current FFR, attracting banks to hold those instead of earning interest on reserves; the point of this process is to offset in expansion in reserves that occurs from government spending that creates deposits in the private sector. So no, treasury bills are not for funding spending, the two are unrelated in that way.

​

>Tbills have no relation to government spending? You sure? [https://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/financial-planning/treasury-bills1.htm](https://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/financial-planning/treasury-bills1.htm)

howstuffworks is a second hand interpretation of orthodox econ monetary theory that is wrong in its own formulation, I do not rely on these kinds of sources for an understanding of monetary theory. If you want to discuss sources some very clear places that clearly go over operations are:

Modern Monetary Theory by Randall Wray

Why Minksy Matters by Wray

Understanding Government Finance by Brain Romanchuk

Freedom From the National Debt by Frank Newman

​

>I believe the contraction and supply of reserves and balances is done through QE, where the fed prints money to buy bonds/MBS from banks so they have more money to lend out to people to start business and buy things with cheap interest rates

No, the contraction of the supply of reserves is not done through QE, its done through issuing t bills. QE was a plan to inject reserve balances (i.e expand the supply of reserves) by buying toxic assets because their hope is that the banks would take these reserves to make loans.

Here is a clear demonstration of how the orthodox monetary theory is flawed: *banks don't lend reserve balances.* QE did not work as intended because they had a fundamental misunderstanding of the financial system. Banks make loans on their own by endogenously creating money, they don't need to get it from anywhere. Banks don't lend reserves, that's why the Fed balance sheet currently has something like $800 billion in reserves right now."
Economics,"The federal government pays for the interest on bonds from the treasury account at the fed, so the government is paying for the interest; however, the idea that taxpayers pay for the interest on the debt itself relies on the idea that taxes fund government spending. On the local level this is more true to where state and local governments need to balance their budgets because they are not the sovereign issuer and controller of their own currency, but this is not the case for the federal government. The federal government does not have to worry about revenue before it spends, it can do so freely. The federal government can just spend; it can create money instantaneously because, again, they are the sovereign issuer of their own currency, and that currency does not have its value tied to anything (i.e gold, or another currency).

​

Federal taxes do not exist to fund spending, but they create demand for the currency (this topic itself quickly becomes complicated, and is credited to the theories comprising Neochartalism). Tax collection is an independent process to government spending. In fact, if you were to pay your taxes in cash, the fed would then shred that cash instead of 'store' it. There can be theoretical downsides to excessive deficit spending even with a fiat currency, but these have nothing to do with revenue constraints (such as paying interest on bonds). Since the Great Recession, there have been some implementations, such as the ability to pay interest on reserves, that have had  implications for how the government can spend in relation to issuing bonds (remember these as interest rate manipulation tools). *Restrictions like the debt ceiling, or more importantly the inability of the fed to buy bonds from the treasury directly, are completely self-imposed constraints without any rational basis at this point.*

​

I know this can be very strange to hear, and it is obviously not the case for all countries. Greece, for example (along with every other country on the Euro), has given away control of their monetary policy because they entered into the Economic and Monetary Union to adopt the Euro, so for them government debt and revenue can constrain their spending (as well as other policies they agreed to when signing the Maastricht treaty). When the US was still signed onto the Bretton Woods monetary agreement prior to 1972, then excessive spending could be damaging because the US dollar had its value tied to gold still, which is fundamentally different from the free floating fiat currency we have now. Other commenters have tried to bring up the German or Zimbabwe hyperinflation crises in response to my points on government spending, but these countries have different monetary systems which has different meanings for how government can spend.

​

The main points:

* issuing bonds, spending, and collecting taxes on the federal level, are separate processes and not necessary for each other
* Government spending expands private sector deposits thus creating reserves, while issuing t bills contracts that supply
   * managing bank reserves is important to hit the Federal Funds Rate target
      * however, this reality has been changed since the recession with the introduction of the ability for  banks to earn interest on reserve balances
* While the debt doesn't matter for use, it can for countries with different monetary regimes

​

edit: this approach to understanding monetary policy is known as Modern Monetary Theory, and you'll find it somewhat controversial among economists (especially the 'economists' on this sub) but this is because most people haven't actually read the literature or the arguments. If you are a curious and ambitious reader, the economists Randall Wray and Stephanie Kelton are two of the architects of this theory and have some wonderful material. "
Economics,"No, I don't think Trump understands monetary policy at that level. The man needs his daily briefings dumbed down for him. I think like a commenter down the way said, he's at the level of an 8yr old who asks his mom why they don't just print more money. 


If you can point me to any evidence where Trump speaks about any kind of Economic metric clearly where he demonstrates a functional grasp of what he's talking about, maybe I'll change my mind. Instead, I look to the mountain of evidence that he's an idiot"
Economics,"QE pushed down long term interest rates. In that regard it was successful, no?

It was a tool to inject no-yield liquidity and thus some forced velocity into the system. The central banks doing QE bought assets and thus the banks were left with cash that they were forced to ""invest"", and they of course just ""bought"" assets (such as loans in the forms of bonds, swaps, etc.) with that cash, thus pushing down interest rates.

​

That said, could you explain how Tbills auctions are not a direct consequence of the US federal budget deficit?

​

\> The federal government doesn't not have to fund budget deficits, there is no revenue constraints on government spending; 

​

Sure, but there's a solvency constraint, right? The Treasury can't wire transfer money to departments if their accounts are empty.

​

\> they can just spend the money

​

If they have it. Of course the Fed can create money against/expanding their balance sheet, but the Treasury can't do that, can they?

​

\> because they are the sovereign issuer and controller of their own fiat currency.

​

Yes, but you're mixing the central bank (monetary policy), which is supposedly an independent gov entity oversaw by Congress and the Executive branch (the Administration) that spends the money based on the fiscal policy (the budget accepted by Congress).

​

\> Issuing t bills is not done to raise funds for spending

​

The Treasury must have a reason to do that.

​

\> When the government does issue t bills

​

The Treasury does an auction via the primary dealers, right? These bonds are sold below their nominal value, as far as I know, and based on how low the Treasury has to go, makes loan service cheaper or costlier. (And there's something with coupon payments, but I don't remember right now.)

​

Now of course those same primary dealers participate in the Fed's Open Market Operations. And that's how the Fed conducts ordinary monetary policy. (Interest rate setting.) And of course the Fed doesn't have to auction off bonds, they can simply put it on their balance sheet.

​

\> , it contracts the supply of reserve balances because the issued t bills will have a higher interest rate than the current FFR \[federal funds rate\], attracting banks to hold those instead of earning interest on reserves;

​

Hm, yes, but the Treasury auctions are basically working against the Fed in some sense. Let's say the Fed wants to slow down the economy to clamp down inflation, so they want to raise the FFR - to slow down the ""money creation via lending by banks"" process - what does it do? It can buy securities, essentially starving the bond market, which pushes down bond interest rates, but at the same time it results in banks suddenly having a lot of cash in reserves, so they are incentivized to invest it again or lend it out, etc. (Which again pushes down interest rates.) So they have to sell it, but how do they do that? They first have to buy it?

​

​

\> the point of this process is to offset in expansion in reserves that occurs from government spending that creates deposits in the private sector.

​

This part is clear, and it's what most people don't get. (Because it seems so counter-intuitive.)

​

\> So no, treasury bills are not for funding spending, the two are unrelated in that way.

​

I'd say they are a very versatile tool.

​"
Economics,"> There can be theoretical downsides to excessive deficit spending even with a fiat currency, but these have nothing to do with revenue constraints (such as paying interest on bonds).

For the curious, Wray lists several of these theoretical downsides to excessive spending in a blog:

* too much spending can cause inflation
* too much spending could pressure the exchange rate
* too much spending by government might leave too few resources for private interests
* government should not do everything—impacts on incentives could be perverse
* budgeting provides a lever to manage and evaluate government projects

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/02/mmp-blog-36-what-government-ought-to-do.html

The role of taxation is perhaps even more interesting under the theory, as alluded to in the above comment. If the government can spend at will, why levy taxes? At a glance, the theory holds that taxes are necessary mostly to keep aggregate demand under control and as an incentive for citizens to use the currency.

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2014/05/taxes-mmt-approach.html

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2011/07/mmp-blog-8-taxes-drive-money.html"
Economics,"With popularity polls coming out every week, national elections every two years, and four-year presidential campaigns that begin three years before the election... the temptation is to focus on the very, *very* short-term and ignore the long-term consequences.

Saddam Hussein is reported to have been preoccupied with what people would say about him in 500 years.  That's probably *too* long a timeline to rule effectively... but somewhere between 500 years and 24 hours is probably the sweet spot."
Economics,"Excuse me, [there is no inflation in Venezuela](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-economy/for-economy-czar-of-crisis-hit-venezuela-inflation-does-not-exist-idUSKBN0UL27820160107) according to their Economy VP.

>“Inflation does not exist in real life,” he wrote in a 2015 pamphlet called “22 Keys to Understanding the Economic War.” “When a person goes to a shop and finds that prices have gone up, they are not in the presence of ‘inflation.’”

>Salas has argued against the idea that excessive printing of money causes inflation - an almost universally accepted tenet of macroeconomics. He insists prices rise primarily because corporations seek excessive profit margins."
Economics,"What are these idiots trying to achieve? My wife is USW and makes an INSANE amount  of money ($50us/hr second year on the job). 

I was union (OE, BAC), and cannot for the life of me figure out how they justify not only their wages, but their administrative costs. 

I'm just a student again, but an econ major this time. I cannot understand outside of politics how organized (bullshit) labor can be anything but a hindrance to the US economy.
"
Economics,"Labor unions push wages and standards for work up in the whole economy, as employers of even non union workplaces have to respond to the changing market. The only thing that determines wages is bargaining power, and unions are a means of workers to get bargaining power. 

Unless you want to participate in the race to the bottom, in which case tell your wife to quit her job and work a non union job. The ideal laborer for an employer is hourly, with no benefits, and on demand, like temp agencies. You could try convincing her to do that and see how it goes. "
Economics,"OK? That's your job, not your wife's. I didn't ask about your work. 

Unions push wages and labor standards up. Laborers are consumers, and the marginal dollar is more valuable to someone with lower income. Higher wages at lower incomes stimulates more demand. 

I can understand someone who manages or owns capital as being opposed to unions, it's a naturally antagonistic relationship. I can't fathom why someone who doesn't own capital would oppose unions, there's no material benefit to you in doing so. In fact there is material benefit to you personally by the existence of unions, because your wife makes good money."
Economics,"Workers are not paid for productivity, they are paid their wage for their time. Workers are also the public. There isn't a distinction between a worker and a consumer and a taxpayer, it's the same person at different points of the day. So the idea that workers doing well somehow detracts from the public doing well is nonsense, they are the public. 

Why would unions stop asking for more? What logic would be behind that? For decades now, productivity has climbed yet real wages are stagnant in the broader economy. Workers are working harder now than they used to, they are capable of producing more in quantity and quality, yet in real terms they are paid the same or less than workers were getting 40 years ago, nearly 50 now. Stagnant wages with an ever rising cost of living is a declining standard of living, which we can see with our own eyes as people delay things like buying a house and having children because they can't afford it. 

What is the point of any of this if all anyone has to look forward to is things continually getting worse? "
Economics,"Kind of the same question I've been asking myself and talking to my professors about. Does it matter if wages go up if the cost of goods and services does so at the same or similar rate? I really can't see anything but bloat on both sides of the equation. Historically based on my (terrible) math it doesn't matter if one side goes up or down, because it will always correct for the change. 

I'm not being an arrogant dick here, I'm actually trying to learn something, just so you know. I am opposing what I perceive to be counterproductive, and supporting what I perceive to be a solution, but feel like I'm constantly dividing by 0."
Economics,"Real wages are nominal wages adjusted for inflation, and inflation is measured from how the basket of goods in CPI changes. Nominal wages have risen at or below the rate of inflation for decades, so real wages haven't grown much if at all. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ 

Real wages matter because they measure how much material stuff a person can have to maintain or increase their standard of living. If you expect your future life in society to be worse than it is now, what incentive do you have to participate in existing society? 

Historically people have been able to make real wage gains and have rising standards of living, in large part due to unions making demands. Individual workers have little bargaining power, but unions have a lot as they pool individual bargaining together. Which is why employers hate unions and do everything they can to avoid workers unionizing, going so far as to try and preempt unionization efforts with relatively generous policies like Henry Ford did or even places like Walmart do now, in addition to propaganda to demonize unions (which has succeeded, but seems to be less effective nowadays). "
Economics,"Denied doesn't mean wrong. How many have sued him for slander- 0  Why, because they know he's telling the truth. If there are 10 people in a meeting and 6 talk to Woodward he doesn't have to talk directly to #8 to confirm what #8 said in that meeting. The administration doesn't exactly have the best tack record with honesty or hiring the best people. Not that they haven't had enough chances. "
Economics,"This is the first I'm seeing of any actual quote and it's not attributed to anyone so I give it no credibility. I've also heard a ton of BS come out of the mouths of the people in this administration that just wasn't true. Fuck, they lie under oath as a hobby. And for the record, I have been a registered Republican for most of my adult life. I don't like liars and grifters."
Economics,"> ""People start being interested in something because it's going up, not because they understand it or anything else. But the guy next door, who they know is dumber than they are, is getting rich and they aren't,"" he said. ""And their spouse is saying can't you figure it out too? It is so contagious. So that's a permanent part of the system.""

This also explains the popularity of cryptocurrencies and ~~pyramid schemes~~ ""network marketing"", except in the latter you don't actually make a profit, but simply convince social media that you do."
Economics,"Came here to say this. I met a guy last fall around this time who was all excited about some BitCoin he had just purchased with his meager funds. I didn't know he had bought any we he asked me, So what do you think of BitCoin?

""It's a fad. It sounds cool and in theory it has its uses in the market place, but it's actual value is more imaginary than most currencies because their are not many outlets for it's use. It could be the dotcom bust all over again"" 

He told me I was wrong and that this was a thing of the future.  I don't think he understood the first thing about economics he was just getting swept up in the tail end of the boom. It was his get rich quick scheme. 

I feel bad for the guy, but not that bad.


EDIT:
I was thinking it was last fall because I remember it was a birthday party, which I thought was for a friend. However if it was my friennd's son's birthday party, that would have been in December just as BTC was peaking.  If memory serves, that was when I had the conversation. "
Economics,"This is what happened when everyone heard their Uber driver talking about it. Serious fear of missing out, feelings of inadequacy, or whatever it may be. Then the ""currency of the future"" disease spread like wildfire. 

Now everyone's stuck on the bounty referral campaign syndrome. I don't understand who would honestly trust those links, but evidently someone does. There's way too much spamming around about absurd altcoins these days. It must be awfully hard for someone who is actually serious about the market to sift through all the mess. "
Economics,"Back when the it was a huge fad going up 10K% and people were interested I asked them if they used bitcoin for anything. And the answer has always been a resounding no. Because of this growth potential is and always will be capped, because Dollars work just as well as digital currency. 

And its a real catch-22. Bitcoin would be great for lets say traveling, if you could spend one currency bought at a unified rate you could save a ton of money in many countries. But places need to use bitcoin and accept bitcoin for it work. "
Economics,"I have a friend who was sending money to some hedge fund in the Balkans, and he kept getting these statements showing his money was growing at what amounted to about 80% annually.  He kept asking if I wanted in and I kept turning him down.

It was *obviously* a ponzi scheme, but after about two years, he told the dude he wanted all his money out, and (less some big fees of course) he got just what the statements showed, which by that time amounted to a small fortune.

It was really frustrating, knowing that (well I assume anyway) I was right the whole time about it being a ponzi scheme, yet he was lucky enough to get in and get out while the guy was still growing and needed people to believe it was legit.

But you know, if *I* had put anything it, it would have cratered immediately.  :("
Economics,"haha I guess so, the work I do has put me in touch with  a lot of people who invested early on in crypto (like $100) so I guess im more exposed to BTC success stories rather than late buying bad ones. 

The most utility BTC has right now is for sportsbetting and online poker in America and seems to be working quite well to circumvent deposit laws America has at the moment.

I too bought into the hype at 5k and then watched it go to 20 and back down to 7k where I sold lol"
Economics,"Sure, but that's why most welfare subsidies are geared at families with children. A single mom with two kids earning minimum wage is going to receive about 5.5k in EITC, 4k in the child tax credit, health coverage through Medicaid or CHIP, subsidized school lunches, and 2-4k in food stamps depending on their state, and possibly TANF or section 8 housing depending on where they're at or how lucky they are. Just looking at raw income would miss a lot of that."
Economics,"When it all boils down to it, its still bread crumbs compared to the actually increases in inflation, and also, why dont we just pay less taxes and just pay our workers more so everyone can live comfortably? 

Why have this convoluted system of payments that exist because our businesses don't pay people a living wage and pawn it off to have the government pay it out, while those said companies avoiding those taxes they should be paying? 

Most high income brackets have seen steady increases over the years, well over inflation, and average worker pay has stagnated. While social programs have been bloated, I wish we could go back to the days when your employer took care of you, not the government. "
Economics,"What many people don't realize is that moving up a tax bracket doesn't mean you'll be taxed at a higher rate overall. Only the amount above the cutoff will be taxed at the higher rate. So the effective tax rate would still be a continuous curve as you increase pretax income

Anyway, I think looking at it before taxes may make more sense regardless, considering how many tax breaks and benefits there are for various expenses/situations/etc. While the study is about income specifically, those tax breaks would probably be statistically undesirable since an increase in post-tax income wouldn't necessarily mean an increase in pretax income"
Economics,"Median family income accelerated 1.4% beyond inflation. That's a very healthy increase for just one year. 

> why dont we just pay less taxes and just pay our workers more so everyone can live comfortably?

Because not everyone has an employer or steady work, especially single moms with kids. Most single people without kids don't get stuck in poverty, and policies that help those who need it while not encouraging employers to hire one group over another who needs help are much better than distortionary policies that hurt those most at risk (see Bernie's BEZOS bill). The vast, vast majority of jobs pay enough to keep a childless household out of poverty. It's when kids come into the mix that things get tough. "
Economics,"As someone who knows a few single mothers (single dad here), that's not entirely accurate. Ya gotta jump through hoops to get those benefits, it isn't easy and easier to lose them. Can't work too many hours or there goes your benefits and financial aid if you're going to school as well. God forbid you collected financial aid before you apply for benefits. All this is anecdotal, make what you will. "
Economics,"> It's when kids come into the mix that things get tough.

Don't have a job because I go to school full time. Either I get a part time job on top of the 15 units and see my son a lot less or sacrifice financial freedom for a better opportunity down the road. I have a family that I can fall back on, but not everyone has that luxury. It's a shame that there is a lack of empathy in this country. "
Economics,"Unless people are lying to the US census the median household size has been and still is decreasing. 

>Median household size in 1960=3.33

>Median household size in 1970=2.76

>Median household size 2017=2.54

>>The population of the United States has been growing steadily for decades. Since 1960, the number of households more than doubled from 53 million to about 126 million households in 2017. 
Most of these households, about 34 percent, are two-person households. The distribution of U.S. households has changed over the years though. The percentage of single-person households has been on the rise since 1970 and made up the second largest proportion of households in the U.S. in 2016, at 28 percent. 
In concordance with the rise of single-person households, the percentage of family households with own children living in the household has declined since 1970 from 56 percent to 42 percent in 2016.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/183648/average-size-of-households-in-the-us/"
Economics,"Well, that's not really true.  My wife made something like $800.  The problem with counting individual income is that she would completely bring down the average.  They wouldn't really have a way of knowing that we intentionally don't have her get a job because I make enough to get by. Students can also make a meager sum, as well as the unemployed.  This just serves as a way to ignore all that.  I'm not saying I support this measurement though. It definitely does tell a different story.

She also doesn't get a job because most jobs pay complete shit, and I'd rather have her home than out making $10/hr doing a crappy job with no benefits.  The household income metric doesn't really tell that story either."
Economics,"My friend struggling to find a job for over 9 months with a Bachelor’s degree in chemistry would disagree with you. So would the one paying almost $500 a month for his prescriptions WITH insurance. So would my friend desperately trying to move AWAY from a large city to save money but doesn’t want to leave her aging mother alone. Stop spreading the rumor that millennials are entitled. It’s disgusting, despicable, and completely invalidates any struggles our age group deals with."
Economics,"Other countries do pay for these things. That pay via income and other tax expenditures. The tax burden for a family making the equivalent to $61,000 would be ~ 40% of their income in Europe, but is only ~20% of their income here. If you think that ~$12,000 doesn’t matter, I’m not sure what you’re thinking. 

Americans live better than any other country on earth. Look at these comments in this thread. People are saying “yeah you can’t afford two cars and a house on $61,000”. Yeah. No shit. Even in wealthy European countries, people have ONE used car and they rent or own a small apartment or townhome - yes, even middle class and wealthy families. 

Americans live these exorbitant, inflated, excessive lives then complain when they are in debt even though they make $60,000+. 
"
Economics,"> Except people in the US have to pay huge amounts for stuff like health insurance that people in most other developed countries don't.


There is a statistical measure used by the World Bank called PPP per capita.

It measures how much it cost to live in a country when taxes and living expenses are accounted for, and compared to income.

So with PPP,  medical, educational  and child care cost are fully accounted for.

If Europeans countries, with their PPP, where compared with the US  they would be poorer than some of our poorest States.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/08/25/britain-is-poorer-than-any-us-state-yes-even-mississippi/amp/"
Economics,"Dude it's not entitlement it's preference.  Shit, chill man.  

So my thing about millennials moving home to save up for a house [is grounded in data](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/582309002).  Millennials have notoriously bought houses at a really low rate, but now that we're hitting our 30s we're suddenly buying houses worth $300,000.  This is literally what my partner and I did.  I have no degree, very little savings, but enough income to pay for a pretty hefty mortgage.  My partner lived with her parents, had a biology degree, was a farm laborer, and had almost enough saved up for a down payment on a house.  We pooled our resources and are part of the new trend."
Economics,"I don’t take issue with your data. I take issue with you perpetuating the narrative that millennials are all entitled. I personally see no reason to purchase a house until I can afford a nicer one. I rent, and have no problem with that, nor do I complain about it. Having different goals and different priorities don’t make me or someone in a worse off situation entitled. I see no reason to “chill” when my entire generation is represented as a bunch of spoiled brats. Not only is it a misrepresentation, it’s downright damaging. It creates a stereotype that anyone in my age range has to work to overcome to be taken seriously by our elders. The struggles of my peers shouldn’t be downplayed, but the narrative you are feeding into directly does that."
Economics,"More like 12k in cash alone. Medicaid benefits are valued at about 10k for a household that size, and school lunches about 2k a year, so 24k to support 2 kids, plus 14k from annual minimum wage payouts, or 38k total which is more than meidan personal income. If she gets section 8 housing voucher, thats about a 12k benefit bringing the total to 60k for two kids, which is on par with US household income. 

Keep in mind these are only federal benefits. There's at least another trillion dollars spent annually by state and local governements on social support programs, so this leaves out other sources of help that exist. Good talk!"
Economics,"The median is the midway point so it gives you a better idea of how people are doing as a whole. With the median, you know half the population is making below or above a certain amount. The mean can be deceiving bc if you have a bunch of people not making much and a few people making a ton, it can make it seem like we are doing better/worse than we are. "
Economics,"I should have qualified my question. 

Looking at the data for mean income which is lower than the median why use the median? Just want to get some context for the message that this article is portraying. 

Maybe I'm making something out of nothing. The article just doesn't seem to saying anything of importance. 

Edit: I think I just have a personal issue with using a median in relation to economic concepts bc it ignores distribution. And being that economics is a social science distribution should be considered. And some of the statistics dont paint an appropriate picture of the issue."
Economics,"> Looking at the data for mean income which is lower than the median why use the median?

Mean household income is considerably higher than the median ($72,641 in 2014 according to the census bureau), not lower.

>  I think I just have a personal issue with using a median in relation to economic concepts bc it ignores distribution. And being that economics is a social science distribution should be considered. And some of the statistics dont paint an appropriate picture of the issue.

It depends on what the point of your analysis is. If you're trying to talk about the income of a typical household, a measure of central tendency that is less sensitive to skew is clearly better."
Economics,"The middle class cannot shrink.  Anyone proposing such an idea is playing with numbers and statistics and trying to paint a picture.  The middle class is the middle 3 quintiles of the population.  That is the definition.  It cannot shrink unless the population shrinks, and not only that but people in those 3 quintiles are becoming less and less affluent as inequality increases.  We know this because incomes have not kept up with cost of living. "
Economics,"People in metro areas are more likely to move up than down?  I bet if you adjust for local cost of living, you will find that it's much closer to 1 to 1. Cost of living is higher in metros therefore we can assume people earn more there as well.  For every person that leaves the middle class, someone must replace them.  Everyone cannot just magically get rich unfortunately, which is what such a trend would ultimately lead to. "
Economics,"> For every person that leaves the middle class, someone must replace them.

That is completely wrong.  The middle class used to be about 60% of the population, now it is about 49%. Or something, I am pulling these numbers from memory, the actual numbers don't matter.  What does matter is that the middle class has shrunk by 11% of the population.  11% of the population left the middle class without being replaced.  You may be confused about the definition of ""middle-class.""  Middle class is defined as aboved 2/3 of the median income and below twice the median income.  "
Economics,"Lol so ""middle class"" is now two people working full-time earning about 30k each? Lol.

If you making 30k you are not middle class, your poor. 

You certainly do not have enough to buy a decent car, Apt, putting money away for retirement  or your kids education on 60k.

If you can't do those things you are not middle class. You are poor.

People think they are Middle class in America when they can't even afford to live without roommates. The levels of delusion people have it's amusing"
Economics,"I would love to hear you tell someone in Cambodia that being poor in America means having to rent an apartment, have a car payment,  not eat out all the time, and not be able to pay for your kids college in cash. (Your kids can still go to college, they just must leverage debt). 

$60,000 per household is definitely middle class and allows the household to live very comfortably in America. "
Economics,"Its incredible that you call others delusional when you seem to have no connection, no awareness whatsoever of the world you live in.

I had the misfortune of growing up in an actual poor country where the lifestyle you consider ""poverty"" would be something people would kill for (in some cases literally- I had friends that went down some very dark paths just to escape the grind of their shitty lives... lives that consisted of actual poverty).

On 60K in the USA you can absolutely afford a car and a house if you have some basic budgeting skills. Life for a middle class American on 60K a day is not easy but is significantly, almost immeasurably better than it is for the average person around the world. To call it poverty is shockingly ignorant.

So yea what you said in that stupid little post is downright offensive. Youre a clown and I hope no one takes you seriously. I dont know what else to say."
Economics,"Or living and working in a cheaper city. Cheaper cities are usually Southern and Midwest cities, but many poor people on the coasts will never stoop to moving to the South or Midwest, even for a good job. I've interviewed 'em and watched good offers be declined because they weren't in one of the three areas of the country the interviewee was willing to live even though they were currently unemployed."
Economics,"Children are expensive from age 0-4 when they aren't in public education and one parent needs to stay home or put the child in daycare. Once both parents are working the costs are exaggerated. With the scenario above the annual income after taxes is going to be around 45k and mortgage/utilities is going to be around 23k. That leaves 22k per year for cars/food/entertainment. It's not a glorious life filled with luxury but with proper budgeting its completely feasible, I see people in my own community only an hour away from NYC do so. The biggest thing that help lower middle class individuals would be more cuts to the personal income tax. "
Economics,"Yea,  but  a lot of those people you see doing it may have a decent chunk of debt. I think children may get a little less expensive as they get older, but prob not by much. You trade daycare expenses for after school care, whatever activities they may be in, increased food costs, school supplies and books. also, living in a small, cheap  apartment is much easier when you don’t have teenagers. Don’t get me wrong, it’s doable, but families on that income with more than one kid are probably not saving as much as they should for retirement. And you prob aren’t bringing home 3500 unless you aren’t paying for healthcare. Prob bringing home more like 3000 if you are paying for healthcare and saving for retirement. Meaning half of take home Og would go to mortgage. "
Economics,"> Lol so ""middle class"" is now two people working full-time earning about 30k each? Lol.

Where is this coming from?  The median household has 1.2 workers, not 2.

> If you making 30k you are not middle class, your poor.  You certainly do not have enough to buy a decent car, Apt, putting money away for retirement  or your kids education on 60k.

Maybe you should take a trip outside of your little bubble and see how the vast majority of people live?  You can absolutely do all of these things on $61K.

> People think they are Middle class in America when they can't even afford to live without roommates. The levels of delusion people have it's amusing

The vast majority of households don’t have people living as roommates.

It’s very clear you have a political motive here and it runs counter to the data.  Stop with the jealousy politics and pay attention to what the data is telling you."
Economics,"The middle class is a quantitative term, the middle 3 quintiles.  Poor is a qualitative term, having a low quality of life due to financial constraints.  The reality is that the middle class is poor in America, especially the second quintile.  

Also, the fifth quintile in America are called upper middles because calling them rich would be a misnomer.  The truly rich in America are statistical anomalies, not a part of the normal percentile distribution. This is what inequality looks like and it is a trend that continues and as time goes by the percentile threshold you need to reach in order to not feel poor will increase, i.e. the more people in America who will be poor.  At some point it may even become the majority. "
Economics,"> Lol so ""middle class"" is now two people working full-time earning about 30k each? Lol.


Think before you leap to conclusions.

30% of household with children are single parents. Only a single income is counted, 
(child support is not counted.)

Single people living alone also have one income. 

(28% of elderly people live alone, many with low incomes. (Even if they are quite wealthy)

Median means half above, half below the median.

I imagine the number of households with two incomes in the upper half is much much larger than in the bottom half."
Economics,"It is an argument I'm willing to consider but the article does a pretty weak job of making its case. These are the only two things Bush actually did according to the article:

* when the head of the Federal Reserve and his Treasury Secretary told him they needed to bail out AIG, Bush agreed with them.
* during the TARP negotiations he lobbied a single Republican congressperson to support the program

I mean, it seems likely that he did more but the article certainly doesn't make for a very compelling argument. Reading between the lines it seems that the argument is that Bush was willing to allow pragmatism trump ideology in ways that, e.g. the Tea Party or Trichet at the ECB or Merkel in Germany (or German voters for that matter) weren't.

Not to disparage that. Bush is quoted as saying ""if we suffer political damage so be it"" while under similar circumstances Merkel shot down proposals saying ""I won't kill myself""."
Economics,"Really, come on, you guys! Can we please stop making pretend that it's the nominal debt that matters and not the debt relative to GDP? We can do adult economics here on r/economics.

Like, I know you actually know how this works, you guys aren't dumb.

As the dollar gradually loses it's preeminent reserve status globally, we'll want to print less dollars, and that's fine.

But it's also fine to print more money now. GDP and wage increases are showing that MMT is right, and soon the debt ratio will stabilize or possibly decline.

**Edit: Unbelievably, I hadn't actually noticed yet that the debt ratio actually did decline already in 2017!**

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-debt-to-gdp

Note that the 2015 decline is associated with a combination of preceding higher deficits, fueling the strongest GDP growth Obama got, combined with his lowest deficits, which then caused the decline in GDP growth in 2016. Had Obama kept deficits higher longer, he could have been an actually OK president. I'd say good, except I care about other issues than economic policy like extrajudicial executions etc."
Economics,"I just edited to link to the debt to GDP ratio data, showing that increased deficits can reduce the ratio. We don't really know exactly how much deficit spending the economy wants in order to leverage it into real growth, but we find out by increasing the deficit until we get much higher inflation, which we don't have yet. And when we do get higher inflation, that still doesn't mean we should reduce the deficit - raising rates might be a better choice, as long as the debt ratio will stay under control.

The takeaway to understand, as a non-economist, is that it's the debt ratio that matters, not the debt. So anyone who ever makes an argument just based on ""deficits are bad"" is bullshitting you."
Economics,"It does, IF producers are able to employ unemployed resoureces to expand production in response to the extra demand. The evidence is that, even when there is already inflation and a tight job market, to some degree additional demand can create additional output, because of the added monetary incentive.

https://www.ineteconomics.org/uploads/papers/WP_70-Stirati-Demand-Expansion.pdf

This all follows from Keynes, really obviously, so that's why MMT is really just a rebranding of post-Keynesianism. So this is all what Minsky said, what Godley said, what sane economists have been saying for 50 years. Y'all can live in delusional neo-liberal fantasy land as long as you want, it won't change reality, and it won't change that Trump's tax cut is working better than nothing, for obvious reasons."
Economics,"Let me repeat what I wrote:

>It does, IF producers are able to employ **unemployed** resoureces to expand production in response to the extra demand.

I put the word **unemployed** in bold for you.

So, exhibit A, your comment:

>I find it truly fascinating that people think printing money somehow tricks people in to doing more work than they otherwise would have.

This comment is, sadly, completely unsubstantive and rhetorical in the worst way. It in no way deals with the argument at hand.

I am talking about unemployed resources, you are talking about people doing work they otherwise wouldn't have. The definition of unemployed resources is resources available to do work they aren't currently doing. Please check the link, which empirically demonstrates the falsity of your neo-liberal religion. You underestimate the availability of unemployed resources, of various kinds."
Economics,"It's not about just unemployment of people! It's like you didn't even read what I wrote?

Are you actually just a troll, or are you an adult? Also, just read the link, dude, the data is there. More demand out of thin air demonstrably increases GDP permanently with no reversion to some trend due to crisis or whatever bullshit... just read the link.

But anyway,

Unemployed resources/factors of production include capital/technology and natural resources, which when employed allow greater productivity. That's why it works at full employment, when there's already inflation.

So I will put it again in bold for you, I think that might have helped?

**It's not just about unemployed people or people working more hours.**"
Economics,"You're just literally trolling me with semantic arguments here.

But out of charity, assuming you're just not really well read enough to understand from context when I'm talking about nominal demand and when I'm talking about real effective demand, I'll help.

If inflation is proportional to the increase in nominal demand, obviously real effective demand does not go up. So if people's expectations lead to inflation, which causes the increase in nominal demand to be nullified, then no, that does not increase real effective demand.

But real effective demand can be created by increased nominal demand, *insofar as there are unemployed resources*.

So to repeat what I said at first: If there are unemployed resources, then printing nominal money can create real growth.

**As is proven by the damn article you should just read.**"
Economics,"I'm not making a semantics argument. Since we're doing the bold thing, **printing money does not increase demand. Printing money does not create new resources. Printing money does not print prosperity or create wealth.** :)

I'll actually take it a step further, printing money distorts the market for loanable funds causing malinvestment, and capital and labor expenditure on projects that the market does not demand. It causes a real and unrecoverable waste of real resources."
Economics,">It does, IF producers are able to employ unemployed resoureces to expand production in response to the extra demand.

Why bother?  If I knew government was printing money, I'd raise prices; expecting an inflating money supply.  If enough businesses do this, inflation goes up, and then I don't hire anyone because I have to create a warchest of cash to buy up assets on the cheap in the next downturn after the Fed tightening reverses.

That's literally my gameplan. 

Besides, this last fiscal stimulus was largely just tax cuts, not some huge infrastructure investment. It's one thing to assume businesses will hire more people if they have more cash, and another for the government to directly purchase goods/services to push up demand."
Economics,"Nah, economics is really pretty basic and boring, that's why it's so annoying that y'all can't get some basic points through your heads.

What will be fascinating will be watching your cult implode over the next year as the stimulus kicks in. Of course there's already plenty of evidence, which you can see in the article, which I linked for you, if you recall. But this time you all are so invested that the religious edifice you've built up just really will not survive.

Watch and see, it really is a fascinating time to be alive."
Economics,"This is the tired monetarist line, that inflation expectations will nullify the increase in the money supply, and real effective demand won't increase.

Fortunately for the country/world, you're just empirically wrong:

https://www.ineteconomics.org/uploads/papers/WP_70-Stirati-Demand-Expansion.pdf

I know your theory is nice and internally consistent. But so is MMT. The difference between them is that one explains real world data and the other doesn't. Basically, your team underestimates the availability of un/underemployed resources, and the ability of additional monetary incentive to drive greater real production as a result."
Economics,"Why not? Trump, Xi, and Lagarde all understand what has to happen. They'll manage the transition just fine.

The only economists who don't understand what's going on in the world are neo-liberals in isolated ivory towers in the US, who only have careers (for now) because they are essentially kept as pets by Wall St. to be trotted out in front of congress to spew the same filth theories and policy advice whenever the legislature starts considering actually helping regular Americans.

Most everywhere else in the world, and at plenty of institutions in the US too, economists actually understand Keynes and don't try to pretend like history has never happened."
Economics,"The piece missing from /u/Diningbat 's posts is that rising prices also have an effect on technology. Rising wages and rising prices make technological innovations ""cheaper"" to implement relative to prices. As prices rise in aggregate, innovations that were, at a lower price level, not cost effective to implement, gradually become more cost effective. What most Keynesians (and Post-Keynesians) have built into these models is a technology function driven by increases in consumption demand over and above available real resources."
Economics,">Also, if one were to raise taxes that could make the situation worse by stifling growth.

Only if you use the taxes to reduce deficits. If you increase spending, to maintain the same deficit, taxes are just a policy choice. The same effective demand can be created through different policy choices, I know that might be hard for you to understand, but believe it or not, in fact, the government can actually take a dollar someone was going to spend and spend it for them instead."
Economics,"Be careful shopping that paper around. They analyze only short-run hysteresis effects, not long run aggregate demand. It doesn't actually tell us much about long run productivity and capital formation, which are long run growth effects. They point this out in the paper:

>Our empirical results lead to the question of what the economic mechanisms working behind these results are, and which analytic framework would be consistent with them. Clearly, a positive link between non-investment autonomous components of aggregate demand, GDP and capital accumulation in the long run is inconsistent with macro models in which an increase in public spending, or any other autonomous components of demand cause a crowding out of private investment and/or private consumption. **More generally it is inconsistent with the view that an increase in the autonomous components of demand will cause rising inflation while only temporarily, if at all, leading to an increase in output, which in the medium to long run must be regarded as determined by factor endowments, technology and institutions – all of them independent of aggregate demand**\*.\*17

​"
Economics,">more nominal demand has in reality elevated output, permanently, in many real countries, in real history, in conclusive contradiction to monetarism.

This is not a claim put forward by any Post-Keynesians, and is also not a claim made by the paper you linked. They frame hysteresis as short-run *persistence*, not long-run *permanence*. They are very clear to point this out in the paper, and is in line with all Post-Keynesian growth models. Long run growth in aggregate supply is, as all Post-Keynesians know, is a result of technology and productivity growth, not consumption and wages on their own. You can show short-run aggregate (and effective) demand increases via fiscal expansion, but that's not *news* really. Even mainstream economists know that. This is just a restatement of the mainstream principle of short-run aggregate demand within a Post-Keynesian framework."
Economics,"What are you even talking about dude? Are you joking, or can you just not read?

This paragraph clearly states that their empirical results **contradict**

>""the view that an increase in the autonomous components of demand will cause rising inflation while only temporarily, if at all, leading to an increase in output, which in the medium to long run must be regarded as determined by factor endowments, technology and institutions – all of them independent of aggregate demand.""

They're saying their empirical results **confirm** 
>""...a positive link between non-investment autonomous components of aggregate demand, GDP and capital accumulation in the **long run**...""

So you literally just misread the paragraph here, like you read it completely wrong. Really, reread it. Sorry they are Europeans and so learned English better than you did."
Economics,"> I didn't say it was created out of nothing, and it's not money

Me: Where does currency come from?

You: It emerges naturally in the market.

You Again: If I go to a store and the owner says I can pay next week, is that out of nothing?

Me Again: Currency was not created through non-payment.

You: it's not money, it's a short term loan

Me: *Double-checking the thread to see wtf just happened*

Fuck it.  This conversation is officially derailed."
Economics,"As I said in my other comment, you misread the paper, the empirical results do confirm long run impacts. Please reread the paper before you reply again, if you want to at all. Regarding PK theory, yes, long run supply increases with technology/productivity, but productivity gains/technological innovation are *accelerated* by short term increases in output, and thus short term increases in output create long term increases in output.

It is really all so awfully simple, it is just astonishing the knots you will twist into to lie about the very clear evidence, which is in the paper, which you should reread, since apparently the first time you just skimmed it for the one paragraph you thought you could twist to fit your warped worldview, but then failed hillariously."
Economics,"You're totally missing the thread here. In this comment thread here I was explaining how the tax rate was a policy choice that was somewhat arbitrary, which was why you should look at debt/GDP rather than debt/Revenue.

He tried to make the argument that you couldn't just change the tax rate, because if you increased taxes, you would decrease demand, but I pointed out that that is not true, because exactly as you say, it doesn't matter who spends the dollar between you or the government - you only reduce demand if you tax the dollar and then use it to reduce deficits, rather than spending it, keeping deficits constant. So you are agreeing with the point I was making here."
Economics,"Mmm sorry, I'm surprised someone else was looking at this thread still.

Anyway, something you critically miss in your analysis is that private banks already print money, just like I'm proposing the government should. Then, if their happen to be savers who want to buy the loans, the bank then has more capital to leverage to print more money. But the money printing comes first, and doesn't require the savings. So every argument you would apply to the government's money printing being a ""trick"" can equally apply to bank money printing.

So, read the paper, and it's also important to point out that it's not just money printing - money flowing in in the form of running a  current account surplus has the same effect - that's why they're analyzing ""autonomous demand"" and not just fiscal deficits."
Economics,"So, as a fellow Post-Keynesian who is deeply familiar with the various heterodox models of demand and wage led growth, I thought I'd help you out with some misapprehensions you have about that paper and the broader literature, but that appears to have failed.

Furthermore, while I had hoped to redirect the conversation to something productive like the merits of the paper instead of mudslinging and making pretensions of knowledge, you've deliberately chosen to be rude, aggressive and quick to resort to insults.

I overlooked this in your previous comments toward other redditors, but since you have continued your assault fairly uncritically, I am forced to take action. 

Maybe after you've had some time to cool off, we can discuss this topic civilly and productively."
Economics,">private banks already print money,

Yes, I reconize that. This is a problem sometimes like it was in 2008.  Otherwise, they are constrained by the market and Fed policy. 

>So every argument you would apply to the government's money printing being a ""trick"" can equally apply to bank money printing

I don't doubt the governments ability to induce market activity, and stimulate the economy at least in the short term.  MMT is a poweful force, especially in very competitive markets where prices are rather sticky. Not every business has or will use pricing power either, so the government can (and does) grant a 'free lunch' without causing broad inflation or negative economic problems. This is desirable in some ways. Higher inflation helps liquidate markets that would otherwise be trapped in deflation too. Few will identify the seignorage tax in transactions until they look at historical prices.

What I mostly disagree with is *how* the government spends (and taxes). That's why I approach ideas like money printing with skepticism. "
Economics,"I will be messaging you on [**2018-12-15 08:03:57 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2018-12-15 08:03:57 UTC To Local Time) to remind you of [**this link.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/9fl2lq/us_government_posts_214_billion_deficit_in_august/)

[**CLICK THIS LINK**](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=[https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/9fl2lq/us_government_posts_214_billion_deficit_in_august/]%0A%0ARemindMe!  3 months) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.

^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete Comment&message=Delete! e60eti4)

_____

|[^(FAQs)](http://np.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/24duzp/remindmebot_info/)|[^(Custom)](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=[LINK INSIDE SQUARE BRACKETS else default to FAQs]%0A%0ANOTE: Don't forget to add the time options after the command.%0A%0ARemindMe!)|[^(Your Reminders)](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List Of Reminders&message=MyReminders!)|[^(Feedback)](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBotWrangler&subject=Feedback)|[^(Code)](https://github.com/SIlver--/remindmebot-reddit)|[^(Browser Extensions)](https://np.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/4kldad/remindmebot_extensions/)
|-|-|-|-|-|-|"
Economics,"Loans create money. In fact far more is created via loans than printing. What matters is the effective money size and whether it is sufficient for all the growth people want to do. If there was only 1 dollar in the world printing a million more would create value since that 1 dollar is just not sufficient to drive economic progress. It is why commodity based currencies do not help growth, they can constrain it.  

Almost all money was created via loans and you also want inflation to be positive (since otherwise people just throw it under their pillow and they may make money via deflation ).  Almost all business opportunities are a form of arbitrage. If I spend X dollars I will get X+Y dollars. If I can't get X dollars then in a real sense we are creating less real value.  If the return on X dollars is greater than the cost of creating the money (via loans) then you want to create the money."
Economics,"Okay that is not what I am talking about. Money creation is far more complicated than you think. I am not talking about money can be divided. I am saying Banks don't need to have the money they loan to make a loan. They can just create it.  There are nuances here the wiki is okay:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation

Also this book is good: Where Does Money Come From? https://www.amazon.com/dp/1521043892/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_E6BNBbBXYDXHY

The money supply is constantly growing and shrinking right now according to needs (well mostly increasing)."
Economics,"My point is that printing money can create value in the same way loans can create value (and hurt in the same way as well). Also, making sure there is some inflation is important because otherwise you can make money (or not lose money) by just sitting on it which takes money out of circulation. Money is just like any commidity it's value is affected by supply and demand. You want to print more so that the value of money doesn't go up because then no one uses it.

Other point is no one is really printing money anymore. Almost all of it is created via loans which clearly provide value."
Economics,"Printing money creates value in the same way me lending out my neighbors lawnmower to my other neighbor creates value.

The idea that money must go down in value to be used doesn't make sense. People sell appreciating stock all the time to pay for things. Additionally, people are mortal. Things now are more valuable than things later. You spend money when you want the thing your buying more than the money, and people must consume or they die. The same logic you use to say money can't go up in value or people wouldn't use it also works the other direction. If no one ever uses money, then it would not have value. If money doesn't have value, then no one would hold on to it."
Economics,"Hm, I see. 


But how would the alternative (letting the banks fail) be any better? The banks are the ones that provide loans and investment opportunities to individuals and businesses after all, so wouldn't letting that system just collapse have extreme economic consequences? 

> Don't recall the government bailing out individual taxpayers like the banks and institutional investment houses.


Wasn't that the whole point of the 2008 tax rebates? And if I recall correctly, they weren't really that much of a stellar success story.

I completely support reforming the system to prevent banks from failing in the first place, but what choice was there but to bail them out once the collapse actually happened? Again, I'm just trying to understand other people's perspectives here, and I appreciate your input.
"
Economics,">The banks are the ones that provide loans and investment opportunities to individuals and businesses after all, so wouldn't letting that system just collapse have extreme economic consequences? 

You're making a false equivalency here, and trying to slip it under the radar, you neo-liberals are all so sneaky.

Let me explain. Private bank credit is only one source of new money which sustains demand. You are implying that it is the only source, and that if it dries up demand growth will too, with ""EXTREME economic consequences"".

But, of course, new demand can also be created with new money created by the public bank, very obviously.

So, I'm not going to go into details about what exactly I think the appropriate response to the financial crisis was, because the real answer was ""don't blow up private debt in the first place"", but I just wanted to point out that your arguments were premised on a false equivalency/assumption.

It's not just you though, it's the neo-liberal ideology to religiously not talk about how money and fiscal policy actually work in the real world, in real history, in real countries."
Economics,"The federal reserve printed money to force interest rates across the curve below the rate of inflation.  This, in turn, forced money out of bonds and back into stocks. Additionally, it allowed buyers to continue paying stupid prices for homes.  Homes which - surprise - banks now owned a massive number of thanks to the flood of foreclosures.  With homes being back above water, banks were “solvent” and the bailout loans were repaid.

Who paid for this bailout?  Well, you did.  When the fed set interest rates below inflation, your savings lost value.  And the years following the recession when employers refused to give raises?  Your salary lost purchasing power.

Hilarious that most working class people don’t realize the game the fed played to fuck the average person to keep assets owned by the wealthiest propped up.  But remember: inflation is good for you! War is peace! "
Economics,"Are you saying that they should not have engaged in expansionary monetary policy during the financial crisis? Austerity isn't a commonly held belief among most economists, at least in the sense that you make fiscal and monetary policies tighter to shrink the economy while it is shrinking.

And I don't know, I'm pretty average and have done pretty well from the Fed lowering interest rates. Pushed money into stocks and I've made a quick buck from it. There's always going to be winners and losers."
Economics,"Even if what you said were true, private bank credit is still a major source (if not “only”) of new money nonetheless (and quite frankly, that’s an understatement). You can’t just allow the entire private sector of banking to fail without repercussion—it’s impossible. You can support an incrementalist transition from our current system of finance to a publicly-run bank, but allowing an entire industry which sustains the economy (to a significant extent) to tank is dangerous to say the least—and yes, even in the real world.


> It's not just you though, it's the neo-liberal ideology to religiously not talk about how money and fiscal policy actually work in the real world, in real history, in real countries.


Okay, I support fiscal policy as well, but that's not what I'm arguing here. The reality is that the U.S. doesn't take a fully Keynesian approach to the economy (I'm sure we both agree there), and if it were to transition into doing so (whether it be a good idea or not isn't what I'm arguing), letting the entire system collapse on itself and rebuilding is probably the worst method."
Economics,"You're right, it's not austerity; what I meant was if you were asking for an austerity-like situation where you contract the economy despite it stalling or shrinking.

That said, you haven't really made a convincing claim as to why we shouldn't have engaged in it. Being upset that a move made to save the economy altered wealth (as it always does) is not a very convincing argument, at least from an economics standpoint. What you're arguing from is more of a philosophic/political standpoint."
Economics,"That's a fair argument, but not really related to what he was saying. But then again, how often does the Great Depression or Great Recession hit us? It's not that farfetched to think that even secure banks would go bankrupt. If the Fed always assumes recession, we would cause a recession because banks wouldn't be able to lend in the first place.

So I agree that it would be nice if banks didn't need a bailout, but a world economy doesn't crash every day, you know?"
Economics,"To me, something that always struck me as odd is that many students are willing to choose a not great private school. 

For instance, an undergraduate degree at the [State University of New York is $6,870 tuition + $1,610 fees](https://www.suny.edu/smarttrack/tuition-and-fees/#foot5), [California State is $5,742 + campus fees](https://www2.calstate.edu/attend/paying-for-college/Pages/campus-costs-of-attendance.aspx), University of Texas is $10,136 for tuition and fees (got that average in state number from google). [The average public school is ~$9000 a year in tuition and fees, while the average private school is a lot more.](https://www.usnews.com/dims4/USNEWS/a08730d/2147483647/resize/970x/quality/85/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.beam.usnews.com%2Fa4%2Fb8%2Fa40b61e148f7b0d6391de00b9df9%2F180905-tuitionjpg-design.png)

Now there exists a few top tier private schools that charge way more than your local state school, but what you are getting is an extremely quality and prestigious education. So in this category you have your Stanfords and Yales and so on.


So to me, these are the two category of schools that make sense to me. You can either go to your local state school for an moderately prestigious degree at reasonable prices, or you can pay 3-5 times as much to go to a top tier private school for a very prestigious degree.

But then what gets me is the mediocre private school, where you'd go to a school that charges 3 - 5 times as much as your local state school, for a degree that is no more prestigious. Hell, I'd argue, that when you leave your state or the US, your local public school is probably more well known (Hey, I've heard of New York, so ya know, if you say you went to State University of New York I wouldn't draw a blank. But I would draw a blank for 90% of the private schools in New York).

There are 1,845 private colleges in the United States, and I have to say, unless you're getting massive student aid, or if youre studying a super rare major not available at your state school, I don't get the point of going to the majority (say, 1500?) of them.

Or to use an analogy, you can either get a Toyota Camry, an average car for a low price (your local state school), or you can get a Porsche 911, a very prestigious, top quality car for multiple times the price (a top private school). What I don't understand, are people who are willing to pay multiple times the price of a Camry for a damned Nissan Altima (mediocre private school). 

In fact, car buyers seem to understand this. Badge engineered luxury cars (where you take a pedestrian car and stick a luxury badge on it) sell very poorly. But here's the thing, a Cadillac Cimmeron might be just a much more expensive Chevy Cavalier with leather and slightly better interior trim, but at least you're getting a Cadillac instead of a Chevy. Hell, I'd even understand it if your paying multiple times as much for SUNY grade education but a degree that says Harvard. But like, the current students who go to mediocre private schools that nobody's heard of is like paying multiple times as much for a Pontiac instead of a Chevy!"
Economics,"For reasonably good students, many -- perhaps most -- private universities are not much more costly than state schools, for two reasons:

1) Private universities typically have more access to endowments and scholarships, so their listed tuition cost is much higher than what most students actually pay.

2) Public universities are now much more expensive than they were, due to tax cuts that forced states to shift most of the cost burden from taxpayers to students.

This is largely covered in the article."
Economics,"> To me, something that always struck me as odd is that many students are willing to choose a not great private school.  
   
These are often the students without any better option.   Unfortunately society has told them that college is the answer.   Employers know graduates from those schools had no better option, and stay away from hiring those graduates.  
So the poor young adults are left with a lifetime of debt, and a piece of paper that adds very little to no value, because they never had the aptitude of a better school.   
   


"
Economics,"That's exactly how I made my decision to apply to colleges back in the day. If the school wasn't extremely good (top ~20 national universities, maybe top ~10 LACs), there was no way the upside of the school itself was going to beat a full ride to my decent state school relative to the cost. It's a pretty clear dividing line - so many of these make no sense - there's no way there are 300+ private colleges (that cost more than a state school) that are worth the price tag.

I know people who are way stricter with their kids as well - knocking their top tier alma maters off the list because they think the return on the top ~5 or so schools is the only one worth the price relative to a decent state school. 

We should train guidance counselors make a much more rigorous effort to teach kids to think about the cost/benefit of both specific school and major choices. The systems in other countries (e.g., Germany or the UK) seem to do a much better job of forcing that tradeoff or guiding kids towards a different path. In the US it's just ""you have to go to college"", ""you have to get a degree"" and so kids / their parents don't think much beyond that. We might solve some of our incredibly inefficient allocation of education resources. "
Economics,"> I don't know how true it is, but I've heard people talk about how some industries respect private, ivy league schools over public schools.

Well that's the problem, they respect some private schools over some public schools, but it's a pretty small fraction. The problem isn't with the people who go to excellent / tippety top private schools, the problem is for everyone else going to a relatively mediocre private school - where the upside pretty quickly falls off a cliff. "
Economics,"> College is absolutely an economic decision. The fortunes of those without a college degree are abysmal. This is noted in the well written and sourced article.

College is an economically beneficial decision.

This is distinct from an economic decision. While it usually benefits them economically, it is not clear whether the economic benefits are the real reason people choose to go to college. People's choice of school, major, etc., throw significant doubt at the idea that people are thinking rationally about college. "
Economics,"That logic does not make sense economically and was used to make the program politically feasible. Any type of worker will be found in the US for a certain price and H1-Bs will always make that price cheaper.

With that said, the H1-B program is certainly a net benefit to the US economy and should be maintained. It's just important to realize that the oft-stated reason for its existence is not a valid one."
Economics,"Living in Canada, I can't help but notice the stagnating living standards of many middle Americans. Travelling to northern New York seems like a time-warp from the 90s. The mall in Watertown, NY, for example, looks like it hasn't changed since 1995. I knew people here who used to shop at that mall in the 90s and it was ""upscale"" vis-a-vis Ontario malls. Now it's the opposite. Trump signs everywhere, too. Odd. "
Economics,"That's one graph and it is not the tell all sign of an economic well being for people. You need to stop posting things like that because you don't understand it. This sub is filled with too many kids who post who one thing and say the world is flat. While covering their ears on other view points. Median income is 38k but the cost of living is high, goods are more expensive or healthcare keeps rising. Next time don't just post one graph and say that is it. Please don't do that again you're better than that."
Economics,">A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

- Max Planck, Nobel Prize winning physicist

A lot of ""science"" tends to be dogmatic. You're not learning how to conduct clinical studies, understand sound statistical methodology, or interpret advanced statistics. You're learning established dogmatic practices. Once you're degreed and certified, there is comparatively minimal continuing education and it's more of the same. It's hard to accept that much of what you were taught (and how you've made your living) was based on faulty data/logic/methodology. See: the food pyramid only recently being changed and USDA dropping ""calories from fat"" from nutrition labels and FINALLY adding ""added sugars"".... in 2018.

/rant from a statistics nerd who worships data and logic


"
Economics,"Do you think that this will trigger a recession or cause a recession? 

I think it might trigger a recession, but not what is causing the inevitable recession. I think the main cause will be (even moderately) higher interest rates. 

Not that higher interest rates aren't good!! We should have higher interest rates. But after a long period of low interest rates and ""free money"" everyone is overly loaded with debt. Higher interest rates will cause a lot of corporations we consider to be stable to start having problems. It will also cause a big problem in countries with a lot of $-denominated debt. We ""fixed"" the Dot-com bubble by lowering interest rates and giving out free money. Then we ""fixed"" the 2008 crash by lowering interest rates even further and gave out even more free money. Once that happened, a crash is inevitable, unless we choose to seriously rethink how our monetary system works. Since no one has done that, I think a crash (and a recession) is basically inevitable.

Of course a lot of other things can trigger a recession as well."
Economics,"Oh, yes. This is by far my biggest worry. It will all be the ""fault"" of Trump and the tax cuts. Not that the tax cuts aren't making matters worse, of course they are.

The question is how will the Fed ""solve"" the next crash. With negative interest rates and even more QE? I doubt they can just keep repeating the same strategy, because every time the bailout has to become larger and larger. And this time, the Fed can't do everything by itself, without anyone even noticing. Because of Dodd-Frank, Congress has to step in."
Economics,"It went up because he ran on expansionary monetary policy in the midst of a period of relatively stable economic growth. If someone was elected on a platform of “mail everyone $10,000” the stock market would also jump. 

That seems the most likely scenario at least. Also the fact that he quickly showed that he saw the stock market as central to defining his success, suggesting he would prioritize the market going up over other policy concerns."
Economics,"We had it, in futures, for a few hours. It was like a 5% drop. Then Trump gave his first speech and people decided that he wasn't literally insane, and futures began to bid. Man, that was a crazy time for the stock market, end of 2016, beginning of 2017. Really entertaining.

I'm not going to call it irrational. As soon as investors realised that Republicans = corporate tax cuts, they priced in the effects of the tax cuts. The effect has been good for corporate profits and buybacks.

What I think is irrational is the market, especially FAANG, is STILL going up."
Economics,"Seriously, I don't know what the hell is going on anymore. The only thing I can chalk it up to is consumer sentiment, but the CCI is starting to wane in the past couple months and the market indexes still manage to chug uphill.

I'm thinking a lot of less-informed consumers are expecting overly-optimistic personal windfalls from these tax breaks. Once this tax season goes by and consumers realize that a lot of the tax rate drops are eaten up by the loss of personal exemptions/home equity credit interest/etc, I think things might start correcting. 

Unfortunately, since things seem to be pretty inflated, instead of a normal correction we can possibly see the market shitting the bed. A market rising on sentiment falls hard at the lack of it."
Economics,"IMHO, positive sentiment is nearing infinity for some darling shares like $AMZN, $MSFT and $AAPL and because these are huge companies, they can move the S&P500 up by themselves. The first two at least are growing from the expansion of the internet and ecommerce.

I really don't understand how $AAPL is doing so well. Half of its revenue comes from iPhones, when are people going to stop buying those overpriced things? I paid $300 for my Android phone! I'm not going to say it's as good, but I have much better uses for the $1000 I saved. Yes, they have services too, but that's a far smaller part of the money the company makes. Is it buybacks, or the mountains of cash that the company has no idea how to use??

Anyway we're going way off topic and I'm just an enthusiastic amateur, so yeah."
Economics,"Your comment doesn’t really conflict with or connect to mine. I didn’t call his platform drastic, I just pointed out that at its root his economic plan was borrowing a lot of money and injecting it into an economy already almost a decade out of its last recession. That would almost certainly lead to stock market gains because any losses are deferred far down the line whenever the money he’s borrowing will be paid back."
Economics,"Betting against the iPhone thus far has been a bad bet. People have been saying that the iPhone market is going to crash for years, and every year Apple still rakes in the vast majority of profits in the smartphone market. 

The iPhone is basically the gold standard top tier phone on the market. Samsung is their only real competitor in that space. As long as Apple keeps making phones that people enjoy using, and want to upgrade to the next model, they will continue to dominate. It’s an incredibly profitable market and it also drives every other one of their business units such as services and accessories (AirPods and Apple Watch). Investors recognize this. This is why Apple is consistently at the top of the market. Investors know they will continue to see a return for the foreseeable future. "
Economics,"Dan Carlin makes an interesting point about WW1 that is relevant to this.  He effectively argues that by the early 1900's western powers like england, germany, france, had reached a level of sophistication with their governments where the government had enough control over society that, if the government decided to drive society into hell, the government could ride that horse all the way down.  There was no longer a safety valve where if things got too bad the government would be removed and the nation's direction changed.

​

A hundred years later it isn't just great governments that can do this.  North Korea, Venezuela, Iran, Turkey have all reached a point in sophistication of their governments where the government can drive the country into hell without losing power along the way.

​

So to hear the leader of a country say things like this, to watch him take dictatorial powers, to watch him bump off his opposition...   If you ask how badly things could go for Turkey as a result you need only look to Venezuela, or North Korea.  "
Economics,That's a great turn of phrase.  But she when you check out Carlin's reading list to see just how many books he has read to put together his podcasts you will see they are as well sourced as any history paper.  Also if you check out the peer reviews of his podcasts you will see that it is mostly minor quibbles as opposed to substantive challenges - amazing considering the volume of material.
Economics,"That's great to hear - podcasts are new enough that I would not expect any of them to be reference grade. 

I've seen Dan on the odd docu. on TV more than listened to his podcasts ( it's not a medium I'm particularly interested in ) and was surprised to see him in harness with other professional historians. 

For the record, I consider narrative historians as valid and valuable. I'm just not 100% sure where to put Dan because the medium is different."
Economics,"Perhaps Trump’s goal is to get Americans working in the factories, but not to build products for Americans.

Many people are very confused about the goals of this “trade war”. It is not to bring factory jobs back to America that are now in China. We will not beat them in many areas they dominate in now.

We do have products with advanced technology where if allowed to compete in China, our exports there would soar.

The goal is to open China’s markets up to America companies to same the degrees we have opened our markets to them. 

There are hundred ways in which they suppress imports, some are too complex to type here, but here is an easy one to write and to understand. 

>When we raised some tariffs up to 15 to 25%, China responded on tariffs on many products of over 40%. Why? Because they were already at 15 to 25% on American imports. 

To punish us for doing what they have done for decades they slapped additional tariffs on top of their already high tariffs. The high tariffs are not even the worst of the barriers of exporting to China we have just accepted for years.

China’s upper middle-class is not as rich as America’s middle class,  and it’s upper middle class is only a tiny 10% of their population. 

10% of China’s population is 160 million people. A giant market we are shut out of in many, many ways. 


Most American products sold in China are made in China, often because the manufacturers had no other choice that made economic sense. Not because of the cost of high cost labor in America, but because of Chinese trade barriers,

That has to change."
Economics,"It's an attempt to give domestic companies an ability to raise prices and funnel more profits into stock pumping schemes, just like with the tax breaks, attempted change of insurance price caps from obamacare, roll back of net neutrality, increase in needless defense spending, increase in private prisons, a focus on public (money) private (profit) partnerships - these are all, without exception, stock pumping schemes without any foundational strength to them. "
Economics,"Many business cases for fast food restaurants, retailers and others are built on a requirement for  having workers not much above minimum wage. America’s sells per outlet or per square foot is much lower than Europe’s.

In Europe they have fewer outlets but much higher sale volume per store, this is because the cost per employee (pay, benefits, vacations) is much higher in the US.


We don’t need 4 fast food restaurants on every corner. Starbucks within a mile of each other. As wages increase those will decrease. 

**Business cases built on poverty wages almost single handily keep our current unemployment numbers low**. Those businesses will have to figure out a different plan (close low volume stores)if wages increase due keeping the supply of labor down by limiting illegal immigration and we can significantly increase exports of high technology manufacturered goods."
Economics,"I’d be comforted if I were convinced Donald and his acolytes were genuine free traders who were using tariffs to encourage better behavior by China.  I’d be happy to see that turn out to be true, but I really don’t think it is.  There’s been a couple hopeful signs though so I don’t think you’re totally off base.

To the best of my knowledge, the best free trade policy for a developed country would be “we won’t levy tariffs or quotas except in the interest of national security.”  Even if other countries levy high tariffs on your exports, it still doesn’t make economic sense to retaliate.  Retaliation only makes sense in a game theoretic way, it’s not actually profitable in and of itself."
Economics,"If he were smart, he would have said ""we will match China's duty"", but he didn't want them to eliminate them and not be able to use tariffs as a bludgeon. 

It's a political winner to go ""well, no one likes 40% tariffs, but we're just matching China. I urge my counterpart there to lower tariffs to 5% so that we may also do so.""

The problem is that he wants them at 5% and us at 40%. "
Economics,"> China’s upper middle-class is not as rich as America’s middle class, and it’s upper middle class is only a tiny 10% of their population.
> 
> 10% of China’s population is 160 million people. A giant market we are shut out of in many, many ways.

So... they're not very wealthy and a tiny fraction of China's population, but they're also a giant market that we want in on.  Ok.  Got it.  "
Economics,"Your point 1 and 2 are ignoring the impact of market forces on labor supply and cost. You act if companies don’t have to compete for employees at full employment.

Your 3rd point ignores the fact that if a franchise owner can’t make a profit on his investment, he will try to sell it, if he can’t he will close his store without caring what HQ thinks. You really didn’t think this one out at all."
Economics,"That is the downside of protectionism....however, free trade cannot be a one way street. Also, it is worth asking why China does so well behind a massive wall of protectionism if protectionism is so bad for an economy? I think the answer is that China has access to free markets elsewhere that force their industries to be competitive on the global market. In the USA, industries have free markets locally but face walls of protectionism in the EU and most Asian markets."
Economics,"> Nike and Adidas are killing it

The US-China trade deficit is 375 billion. Be serious. Every single Chinese industry is protected to a great extent; it is all-but-law that if you as a foreigner want to set up a business in China, you need to give up your IP and trade secrets right off the bat. And that's not a guarantee that you'll be treated well, just that you'll be able to sell anything at all whatsoever. Using two examples out of decades of history is ridiculous. Protectionism is a pillar of Chinese economic policy."
Economics,"I realize that.  So why describe them as ""not as rich"" and ""tiny"" if you're then immediately going to lament the lack of access to it?  It was really a comment more about your way of presenting information rather than disputing any particular aspect of it.  

Although it is debatable whether or not that 10% of the Chinese population is as wealthy as the middle class in the United States.  But that would depend upon how you are measuring wealth.  They may have smaller lawns but better healthcare.  Fewer cars but better pensions.  And so forth.  "
Economics,"In a time like now where automation is booming, it is the perfect time to try to generate more demand for jobs. Not just because of the need to fill in the lost employment because of jobs, but to create such a demand for labor, that our country's investors put more money into costly automation. If a McDonalds can't get five frycooks no matter how hard it tries, and needs five to deal with its daily needs, it will have no choice but to pay the many thousands of dollars to get the 'automated' frycooks to fill in the void from lack of labor. This in turn creates over the long term, a more profitable McDonalds location, and cheaper to make hamburger.

​

In a scenario like now, where you have so many unfilled positions, companies will start having no choice but to spend the millions of dollars to create more automated plants. This in turn makes lower costs for the companies as less labor is involved, and thus more competitive in the global marketplace. If it costs a sweatshop in asia 5 cents to make a pair of gloves, but 20 cents with a non automated usa factory, the asian market wins out. But because the USA factory had their hand forced in automating the factory due to necessity, it may now only cost them 5 cents to make the gloves. So over time, as the asian market becomes more wealthy, and their wages rise above sweat shop levels and it becomes more than 5 cents to make the gloves in asia, the USA market will win out.

​

​"
Economics,"What makes you think factory jobs wouldn't be built on the same poverty wages? Fast food jobs themselves are just that, a fancy factory. The manufacturing sector has some of the lowest wages in the world, where employees in india and the philipines earn an average of about $1/h. What makes you think americans would be better off and want to spend their whole lives turning the same screw over and over again 12h per day in a toy supply chain? "
Economics,"China is doing so well (in terms of trade surplus, not much in other aspects) mainly because they have a huge supply of workers (100's of millions) who are willing to work grueling hours in horrible conditions for meager pay. No American is looking to work 14 hour days doing a repetitive manual task all day long for $2/hr.  I'm pretty sure that is China's main competitive advantage right now, it has very little to do with ""a massive wall of protectionism"". "
Economics,"Margins at fast food places are razor thin. Many literally cannot exist in their current configuration with either higher wages or lower sales volumes. If they increase prices to cover significant wage increases their volume will fall. Their business model require low wages. (Very high volume stores could raise wages, but that is less than 30% of outlets.)

Manufacturing of niche high technology goods is not dependent on low factory wages to make a decent margin. 
The jobs are also not as redundant.


I am not talking about high volume consumer goods. Rather low volume manufacturing of high value goods sold to other businesses for their factories, unique commercial networks, testing and measurement equipment. There are thousands of such companies of which the public has never heard. Germany has as many as America, as they are great in these niches. 

The value in such high cost units is in R&D, design, support and patents. Manufacturing cost of goods and labor are a small part of overall cost.

America cannot compete with the low manufacturing wages for consumer goods."
Economics,"Interesting you pick Intel.

Certainly worldwide companies have worldwide manufacturing. Labor cost alone does not drive those decisions. In some low value function, such as assembling, cost becomes more important.

Most wafer fabrication for Intel is done in the US.

In 2018 Intel announced resuming construction on a plant that will employee as many as 10,000 high skilled workers in Arizona.

They seem to be pinning some hopes on recent tax reform and better trade policies.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/26/technology/im-flash-intel-micron-manufacturing-trump.html


https://www.industryweek.com/workforce/intel-7-billion-semiconductor-factory-arizona-create-10000-jobs

**There are also many factories in China for the sole reason that China requires factories in country to sell to the Chinese markets. They also require full technology transfers and and a Chinese partner for ownership.**"
Economics,"https://www.oecd.org/els/public-pensions/PAG2017-country-profile-China.pdf

https://www.statista.com/statistics/263775/gross-domestic-product-gdp-per-capita-in-china/

https://tradingeconomics.com/china/gdp-per-capita

https://www.statista.com/statistics/270180/countries-with-the-largest-gross-domestic-product-gdp-per-capita/

https://chinapower.csis.org/china-middle-class/

China's GDP per capita is around 15k PPP. And 10k nominal. The average worker's earnings are 8,000 per year. We consider ""small"" pensions in the US to be around 10-20k. America's GDP per capita is almost 60, 000 dollars. That's considered poverty. And healthcare in China is a mess, except for that available to the lower rungs of the wealthy and above. What are you talking about? This is delusional. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_China#Current_healthcare_system

https://supchina.com/2017/03/28/healthcare-us-compare-china/"
Economics,"I only looked at Intel due your earlier comment, which I took as saying Intel did not have a large number of well paying manufacturing jobs in the US.

Silicon chips is not an example of forced technology transfer I would have used, as I know little about them. 


Obviously Intel is still investing in US manufacturing in a big way. (I threw  the NYT article in because I found it and thought it was humorously on target. Common business sense says no company makes a multi billion dollar manufacturing decision in months after an election hoping for promised but not delivered change. The tax reform was not passed or in proposal form at the time of the article. 

To answer your question on chip technology transfer to China, does this qualify?

https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1333267"
Economics,"That joint venture is based on SoC development, which is basically useless without the foundries to print them at scale. I consider this as being pretty much as important as would be the acquisition of MySpace to eventually make a new Facebook for China. They are constantly playing catch-up and were never given a fair chance to begin with. They are at least 20 years away from being autonomous in the production of a Huawei phone despite what you believe, and will always depend on the US or its allies for their base materials in their supply chains. This whole IP transfer story is fear mongering, and even if the chinese motive was to thwart foreing surveillance, they cannot know what foundries have put on those silicon wafers because they will never have control of them."
Economics,"I can tell you for a fact it is not just fear mongering.

Between 2008 and 2012 I worked for a small ($500m) company that practically owned a small niche in cellular networks around the world. Our only large worldwide competition was a Chinese owned company that had 100% of the Chinese market and 15% of the rest of worldwide market.
In building their product for the Chinese market for years they liberally used our patents and then ignored our ownership. 

As China announced a upgrading of the national cellular networks my company was very much interested in competing for the close to $100 million in our type of equipment that was needed. After over two years of trying to get Government permission to sell into China the company said screw it, it’s not worth it.

The demands:

Joint ownership of a new company to sell in China, with 51% Chinese ownership.

Full transfer of the technology of all equipment to be sold in China to the new company, the new company would not be required to pay for use of patents owned by my company.

The new company could sell outside of China.

Manufacturing of all products sold in China would be done in China.

Large R&D center opened in China with full access “and sharing” of R&D of our US company.

I was close friend with a lead negotiator on this and he said the demands were constant, non negotiable and unbelievable and our Chinese competitor was openly influential in the demands.

Our CEO finally said screw it and abandoned the entire huge Chinese market.

That happened. That is a real world example of Chinese trade barriers and protectionism."
Economics,"It's like nobody listened in their history classes, that they're communist country like venezuela, cuba, north korea etc. Having an agreement to buy from them doesn't make things less state owned inside a rogue country.  If we don't like it we shouldn't buy from them and that's it, but until now everyone has been happy with it and the cheap ways to improve our quality of life abusing their tortured slaves population."
Economics,"> Spending less = saving more personally

Wrong again. If prices of goods rise, people can just as easily spend the same amount of money for fewer goods.

> nd note, we’ve been overdue for a recession. Look at the Shiller PE charts.

What is your economics background? And why do you think you can predict recessions? And why would you want to trigger a recessions solely because we're overdue? Do you think there are no actual economists that peruse this forum that could call you out? Because there are many economists that browse reddit."
Economics,"There are lots of times that a cheap, low quality unit is more than adequate and spending more on a higher quality version of the same thing is not a good use of money.

If you're doing a plumbing project in your house, let's say, and you need to cut a few pieces of PVC. Obviously you need a cutter. Do you need a $5 tool that will last through the job, or do you need a $40 tool that will last through the job and any other similar job that may come up for the rest of your life but likely never be used again? Personally, I'd rather have the $35 than a high quality tool I'll never use again. Even if I have to buy the $5 tool again, I'm still $30 ahead."
Economics,"The US right now can’t compete on labor prices, especially when cities are vowing for $15/ hour minimum wage. 

How can they compete with people in India and China working for a few dollars an hour; if that?

This isn’t why products overseas are cheaper.

So Trump, I believe, see Tariffs as a multi win win approach,
- get taxes through Tariff, 
- Force citizens to not abandon fellow citizens for higher priced products.
- improve quality of products
- increase jobs

But yes, automobile companies will have to step up their game.
"
Economics,"Renting is not all that practical in a lot of situations. First, there's an opportunity cost to renting in the form of the time it takes to go rent the tool and also to return it. That can easily add two or three hours to the task. Second, some tools are just not worth renting to begin with, things like screwdrivers, hammers, utility knives, drill bits, and so forth. Third, by the time you've rented a tool two or three times, you probably could have bought one instead. 

Plate compactor? Rent it. Cement mixer? Rent it. Crowbar? Buy it. Dry wall panel hoist? Rent it. Hammer? Screwdrivers? Pliers? Buy those. Cordless drill? Buy it.

Not everyone needs a fancy, high end drill and they are more than happy with the lower quality, cheap ones that will do the job for infrequent use. They probably don't want to go rent a drill when the need comes up, and they don't want to drop $200 to have one in the house.

All of that aside, the tariffs will make goods and services more expensive in America for everyone. People who are already struggling to make ends meet will have less buying power since wages will not be rising with the prices. That $100/week for whatever probably won't buy nearly as much as it used to. People won't buy more expensive versions of stuff they can barely afford already, they'll just have to not buy it at all.

There will be the same amount of money spent, but it will buy less stuff. People won't be saving money. They'll be spending more of it to get the same things they were already buying."
Economics,"it wouldn't happen as quickly... there wouldn't be hundreds of billions of dollars being poured into the industry


""found that the total amount that the United States spent on medical and health R&D in 2016 reached $171.8 billion.

The biggest contributor to R&D spending over the study period was industry, which includes biopharmaceutical developers, medical technology developers, and healthcare service companies""

.....

if the chance of profit isn't there that money goes to another industry. Private equity backed healthcare companies disappear, PE money goes somewhere else. 

"
Economics,"I'm not sure why you think your age is relevant. Population levels in most farming communities are declining, not growing. The margins on farming are razor thin. Combined, these things mean lower property values for farmers (in terms of real dollars). Not higher. It doesn't matter whether a few farmers living close to growing population centers get a few million for selling out to developers, what matters is the overall trend."
Economics,"There's not really any ""winning"" a trade war. From a purely economic standpoint, the participants are always worse off during and after it than they were beforehand. So countries other than China and the US are benefitting by getting a bit closer to being top dog, but of course not nearly enough to have any big disruption.

One thing a lot of people miss about the trade war though is that it really has nothing to do with economics. It's all political. China is targeting Trump's voting base to try to punish him and get him out to hopefully get someone who is more pro-China. It's less obvious what America is targeting, but it's quite possible they are trying to pop the bubble of bad credit in China in hopes of causing a recession."
Economics,"I think you need to shift your perspective. Do you think seamless trade is good? Do you think more trade = larger GDP? Do you think less regulations and barriers in an economy are good? Most economists at a macro level think those things are good. 

Obviously it results in different winners and losers compared to when there are tariffs so a few classes would prefer certain tariffs, but on the whole, most economists think more trade is expansionary and better for the econom. It’s not a how big are our tariffs vs how big are there’s. Both result in barriers to trade."
Economics,"If you define ""winning"" as ""Americans are paying at lot more in taxes thanks to these actions than ever, and soon will be paying 25% percent tariffs on things like consumer electronics"", then yeah, we are ""Winning"".

I don't see the ability to put crippling tariffs on things for which there is no reasonable replacement as winning.  I don't see the coming economic downturn as winning.  But to each his own."
Economics,"I view the problem to be a little more complicated than that, because these things are not a zero sum game. Trump just put a tax on 200 billion dollars worth of goods that we import and China responded by making our exports more expensive to a smaller subset. In addition to this, China has been cozening up to North Korea a lot lately and Trump seems to have forced both Xi and Kim to have a much closer relationship because of his actions.  

I guess if you look at this only in regard to the Trade War maybe we are presently losing less than China does, but only because we import more than they do. "
Economics," > I can't believe I'm saying this, but it sounds like trump is winning this battle. Am I misunderstanding something?

At least the fact that whoever puts higher tariffs is not the winner. It is a situation where both parties lose. Just because one party may lose a little less than the other, it doesn't mean they're winning in the absolute sense.

China may also be betting on the midterms, after which they may expect most of the tariffs to be undone, and thus are hesitant to antagonize the US by escalating the tariffs."
Economics,"China expertise and businessmen will just shift to SEA countries. The successful SEA in those country before the recent rise of China has been...Chinese anyways lol

During the Vietnam War era...the actual Viets held animosity to successful Chinese business-minded folks. Most Americans probably don’t know that Vietnam had 1 million ethnic Chinese that preserved their culture and language learning in segregated schools.

Lol. But America doesn’t care about real Asian American history or actual contemporary Asia history xD"
Economics,"Tariffs are only one tool in the trade war toolbox. 
   
For example, since the introduction of tariffs, China's currency has declined by 6% vs. the US dollar. That eliminates most of the increase in cost for Chinese goods in the US, but adds to the cost of US goods in China.     
   
There is also little the US can do about that. Inflation is creeping up, and interest rates are already historically very low. If anything, the dollar is likely to rise in the near term.   
    


"
Economics,"The US and China aren't ""winning"" anything in relative terms.  
The parties that operate these governments are shooting each other in the knees.
Both Xi and Trump will be regarded as poor businessmen who operate in the  dark.
All of China is affected by Trumps tariffs, republican Americans are about the only ones feeling anything on this side, along with anyone who doesn't realize that trump is going turn his back on them too when the moment arises.
At the end of the day, all these tariffs and embargoes are just pushing other countries to become more resilient and become surf-sufficient where it's best. An expensive route, but it's a desperate wake up call to citizens to empower themselves with more knowledge and how to use it against companies, corporations, and governments that would prefer that they become modern day slaves."
Economics,"So what do you propose the US do about china regarding IP, market manipulation, etc? I feel like most people are being short sighted by calling a trade war a bad decision. Who cares if we are in a trade war for 1 year and the renegotiated terms last for decades ultimately resulting in more a more efficient market? It's a strategy and unless you are a time traveler from the future you can't say it's not going to work. "
Economics,"This isn't like poker where you can outbid others and make them drop the game.


China just has to weather the economic storm better. Tariffs hurt both sides. 



To put it another way. China could levy no tariffs at all and still not be ""losing"". The only effect of US tariffs is to raise prices for US consumers and maybe get companies to buy from the US itself or other countries. 


So unless the tariffs actually lead to less buying from China, they aren't hurt.


And even if they are hurt, the Chinese political system has a lot more capacity to just sit it out on principle.. "
Economics,"The renminbi is still the third biggest reserve currency. If China goes down, it will at first take the rest of Asia with it (about 1/3 of the world's GDP btw.), then anyone with major reserves and any country reliant on Chinese money, at which point at the very latest any other country will be in crisis, too.

I know it doesn't look like it because we westerners like to forget a bit about Asia and only see China, but countries like Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Taiwan, etc. *actually aren't all that tiny* in economical terms, and they are some of the first to fall when China does."
Economics,"I propose the US do what it has always done since learning that tariffs don't work - encourage free trade which has better and more sustainable market based results.  Unless the US goes full nationalistic by banning all imports, a policy of tariffs means we will be chasing countries poaching US manufacturing after the last country is no longer attractive.

China is already becoming less and less attractive for new manufacturing.  Wages are rising and workers are getting fed up.  Companies have other operations in other countries with awful labor practices and low wages.  Once China is no longer attractive they'll move to a different country - then their quality of life will rise and so on and so forth.  Chasing countries by tariffs isn't sustainable.  Free trade is."
Economics,"So you propose we do nothing (""*encourage* free trade which has better and more sustainable market based results."" Ok then, thanks for your opinion. I would argue doing nothing led us to economic decline (relative to China) and a loss of manufacturing. Ever since Trump has stated his intentions, to make the US more competitive and clamp down on China not being fair, the market has favored the US. You can postulate anything you want but in the end I don't think anyone can prove doing x is better than doing y. People can hate trump all they want but that doesn't mean their economic theories are any more correct than his. I also want to point out most of his voter base voted him in to make a change so, doing nothing, your idea is not what the general population wanted. "
Economics,"It's not an opinion.  It's based on a Nobel Prize winning postulation.  This is an economics sub. This new policy is not focused on economics.  Maybe you can argue it's geopolitical, but it is not based on economic models - macro or micro.

Free trade is why the US is the biggest economy in the world.  Free trade is why the US has had so many trading partners.  What China is engaging in is not free trade, which is why other US trading partners work together to isolate China.  That's what the TPP was.  It was the exact opposite of doing nothing.  But people think they know more than Ivy League trained experts and picked the guy who without evidence said the TPP was bad. 

But you've already said you don't accept what experts say about free trade, and argue it's an opinion rather than acknowledge we haven't had successful tariffs since the 1800s.  You base this on a belief, a *pure* belief based on no evidence whatsoever and because ""hey it's different and it's what I wanted so that's that."" At best, all you're doing is comparing independent and unrelated variables to each other because you dont really know any better.  So I guess there's no arguing or winning over someone who rejects expert consensus based on nothing at all.

Why are you even on this sub?  Go somewhere else if you're going to double down on nonsense."
Economics,"I'm not disagreeing with free trade but I'm arguing for imposing tariffs as a bargaining measure. I do appreciate your response and yes I suppose there are more ivy leave economists who think Trump is playing a bad hand however I don't believe economists have all the answers or are right all the time. For example, we have the best economists leading the Federal reserve yet we still go through bubbles and recessions, economic policies have changed over time, and most importantly I believe most of economics relies on assumptions which are mostly predicated on past events. No one can predict the future and always relying and past economic policies while the world changes around it is bound to fail at some point. 

I think you put it best when you said this is more about politics and less about economics. In that context, economics theory is meaningless. "
Economics,"It's the loss of business channels and relationships. To compensate for the tariffs, companies took their money elsewhere, setup supply lines, signed contracts, and made friends. All of these things cost time and money. 

It's not appealing to throw all that work away, only to have to do it *again*, but this time with a nation that's already been shown to have an unstable relation with the US. Putting them back into your supply chain is just high risk low reward situation.

So not only are you missing out on that potential, but in taking losses during the entirety of the trade war, competitors outside of the US and China were gaining ground. The relationships, supply lines, and contracts that third parties setup with either country are giving them an edge that gets harder to overcome the longer it lasts.

For example: China will still need soybeans, and the tariffs will raise prices across the board. Companies in Brazil and elsewhere will see that there's more money to be made, so they'll invest more in land, equipment, and marketing for their soy crops. When the tariffs do finally go away, American farmers will have a whole new set of stronger competitors to deal with, and they'll be in a weaker position than they were to start."
Economics,"Most moderates with knowledge of China's trade practices agree that something should be done about China's economic policies, and the trade war is a valid way to do that.

What they *don't* agree with is simultaneously starting a trade war with the rest of our Western Allies. We should have hit China alongside our Allies as a unified front, which would have certainly caused this whole business to end faster and with less of a negative impact on the economy.

I mean, what's China going to do, put tariffs on every product coming from Europe and the Americas? They're struggling with just America, but at least that's a storm they can weather for a while."
Economics,"Because it's over a century later and applying standards from 1-3 centuries ago is an asinine. We also don't own slaves, we let women and minorities vote, we use sterilization in surgery, and we have a globally integrated market where stealing IP is directly damaging to the aggrieved entity.

This is one of the stupidest arguments I've heard, and I hear it often. If you think China should be treated like an emerging world power from a few hundred years ago, then we can explore that. The result is that we'd bomb the country into submission, subjugate its people, and steal it clean of natural resources. I don't think that's the kind of standard we want to apply. We're a few hundred years better than that. Nice try though."
Economics,"> 
> Free trade is why the US is the biggest economy in the world. Free trade is why the US has had so many trading partners. What China is engaging in is not free trade,

And China doesn't do free trade and they have been growing their economy at a much faster rate the the US for the last 15 years.  

All the experts agree that maintaining a one-sided free trade relationship would be the best course of action?"
Economics,"Hence why china needs us more than we need china. Cheap labor is easy to find in a global market, know what's hard to find? A market as good as the US. All of the media u see saying how china will win the trade war and how we're screwed is just propaganda. The shanghai index is down nearly 40% in 2 months. China has a bigger debt problem than the US. Their smaller components manufacturers are already going out of business."
Economics,">Cheap labor is easy to find in a global market

This is very misleading and honestly not true.

Finding manufacturers in other countries who can compete on the same production scale with similar quality is very, very difficult.

Beyond that, companies with large scale operations cannot just pick up and relocate to a new country. There's an enormous amount of logistics that goes into these things and it's not like you just click a button to move your multi million dollar manufacturing contract to a new vendor in a new country with completely different laws, standards, wages, culture, and geography.

This WILL hurt us badly. I'm not saying it won't hurt China even worse as I cannot grasp that level of economics, but I do know that it is NOT easy to just replace China like people suggest."
Economics,"> Finding manufacturers in other countries who can compete on the same production scale with similar quality is very, very difficult.

This is the big thing. If you're looking to stand up a factory and hire 300 workers who can make your new chips for your device, China can have it ready to go in a matter of *days* in some cases. Doing that in the US would take months at least. Doing that in other countries is a tradeoff between either time or quality.

China really does have the market cornered on acceptable-quality high-speed manufacturing, and they can make major factory shifts very quickly - much faster than most countries could ever hope to - without sacrificing quality."
Economics,"> If you're looking to stand up a factory and hire 300 workers who can make your new chips for your device, China can have it ready to go in a matter of days in some cases. 

Have you checked where your CPU is made? Hint: It's not China and has not been for a very long time. Even Xiaomi now makes phones in India. Samsung has been making their phones and displays in Vietnam for quite some time now.

I'm not sure if you've visited Asia but it's one giant factory and the quality is actually just as good as China, and sometimes even better. This is in particular with fine Japanese stationary which requires insane precision with plastic parts which more and some of the best is made in Japan, then Vietnam, then China."
Economics,"You know where cheap labor isn't found? In the US. There's a reason there's so much business with China, it's a big fucking country advanced enough to produce a ton of stuff but comparatively poor enough that cost of living and wages are low. On *this scale* that's not really found anywhere else.

America is losing a major market for their goods, not only consumer goods but products and resources American companies need, and can't afford at domestic prices. China has literally the rest of the world to trade with, for what they buy from the US, a comparatively expensive country, they can find elsewhere, but the US in turn is hard pressed to find another country that can produce enough for prices in the same ballpark as China can.

And I really don't know how the fuck it got into people's heads that the stock market is such a great indicator for how an economy is doing. The stock market is an unpredictable, jumpy, fickle bitch, and while it *can* say a lot, it's entirely useless at saying anything on its own other whatever the stock market decides to do."
Economics,"That's because China has gotten so damn good at this that they're able to start charging higher prices. That changes nothing about the speed and quality considerations of what comes out of that country.

It's still the first place everyone looks when considering where to build a chip, but other countries are *finally* catching up in their ability to produce, while Chinese labor prices slowly rise in response to their popularity."
Economics,"Except we've been seeing more and more items not made in China from smaller companies as well because if you've been travelling around Asia, factories are everywhere here, big and small, along with huge supply chains.

Vietnam is already a major alternative hub to China for assembly and manufacturing. It's not as good as Shenzhen for a startup hardware company. But it's the alternative replacement label for whatever crap you need not in China, and cheaper at it too. It's a side effect of major companies like Nike, IBM, Samsung and so on moving there and generating the environment necessary.

Its mainly because the manufacturing companies tend to be not Chinese. For example, Foxconn, TSMC, or Pou Chen are not PRC companies, and have factories all over the world. Pou Chen makes all your Nike, Adidas, Clarks, Reebok, New Balance, Crocs, Timberland, etc etc shoes (and most sports shoes) in countries all over and they have their largest factory in Vietnam."
Economics,"You're not understanding what I'm saying.

I'm not talking about individual companies. There are alternatives for most companies somewhere. 

The problem is that we've got billions of dollars wrapped up in Chinese manufacturing as a whole that cannot be easily moved. No other country currently has even remotely the capacity to do what China is doing. 

And even if all those companies moved, in 2 years we may have a new administration which changes everything and all the companies will have to move right back. 

This is not an easily solved situation. People on the internet tend to break things down into numbers without realizing the reality of logistics and the many factors that go into outsourcing massive amounts of manufacturing. Just saying something like ""there's tons of cheap labor around the world"" is short sighted and stupid. This will have massive effects on the global economy."
Economics,">And even if all those companies moved, in 2 years we may have a new administration which changes everything and all the companies will have to move right back.

Many of these companies moved a decade ago. I feel like there always seems to be outdated information on Asia especially on this subreddit. The facts are manufacturing is cheaper in Vietnam and while the total capacity isn't as large as China, the population and geography makes it so there's not really that much of a difference. I did see some people already heavily invested in China trying to argue differently, but a lot of these major manufacturers diversified to Vietnam and the rest of SEA over a decade ago.

As you already know, factories use a ton of energy. One key indicator is the fact that China is curbing power plant production. Meanwhile in Vietnam it is being built on a massive scale.

What I'm saying is, as someone who is Taiwanese, and naturally has a family that is into manufacturing, who has relatives who work in some of the largest manufacturing companies on the planet, which includes, as I've written elsewhere, PCC, Foxconn, TSMC, etc, that the move has long been happening."
Economics,"Yeah but they're not impressive at all. Also, real life testing shows that while Kirin processors seem nice, but they are energy hogs and still perform slower than Qualcomm processors which defeats the point of a mobile processor.

When ZTE faced a US ban, they were dire straits to go out of business.

I can dump a laptop CPU into a phone and then claim impressive specs, but real life will show its fallacies. See Asus Zenfone 2 series with its palty 2-5 hour real life battery because they used barely modified Atom processors. Meanwhile I have a 8 hour SOC on a modern Qualcomm 845 snapdragon and can get 12+ out of a big battery 636.

Plus any SOC's that China assembles have critical parts not made there."
Economics,"Ah that was the case.

In general, no not really not anymore. Most of the people I see going there do so for other reasons or sometimes just ignorance.

**You can get the same exact manufacturing machinery, with the same skillset of labour, at a quarter of the price, in Vietnam, overseen by the same exact manufacturing company (Foxconn, TSMC, PCC) as the ones they have in China.**

It really depends on the factory and manufacturing partner. It's not locale based anymore. It varies even within China just like elsewhere. Even a major manufacturing partner will have varying quality depending on teams.

But as I said, even for fine plastic and metal stationary, Vietnam does it just as well, for cheaper. It's why some of Japan's best stationary is now made in Vietnam, not China. It's why the best android phones are made in Vietnam as well.

Things have changed a lot. I don't expect everyone to catch on and most don't until a long time later. Look at how many boutique bicycle makers still go to China when its long moved away. FFS, a lot of people until a year or two ago still thought that Starcraft was still a thing in SK. It's stuff like that."
Economics,"No, China doesn’t need us. China has global customers. Cheap labor is not easy to find, nobody is going to make iphone until they feel like jumping out of the building. This is not propaganda China has got US by the balls. US has more debt problems than China. Almost 90 percent of US citizens are in debt, thats is not the case in China. Their nothing is going out of business. "
Economics,"No worries! It was also a bit more brash than I meant for it to come across, so I hope this one came along a bit better :)

It doesn't surprise me that things are expanding to other countries - that's the way a lot of these cheap labor factories tend to go. It happens a lot in the clothing industry as well. One country is picked as the primary place for something to get made. That industry grows and so do the factories supporting it. The country now has a ton of people making way more money than they ever did on their farms, so their quality of life improves. The economy improves along with it, and labor costs go up. These industries cause the economies to improve so much that they essentially price themselves out of the market, and the industries move to other countries (like how shirts used to be made in China, then Bangladesh, then...).

I still maintain that China is generally the best balance of speed, quality, and price, but since manufacturing has been around for this long, the alternatives are probably much more viable than they have been, and in some cases probably surpass what China can do now."
Economics,"Yes it is true. Indonesia has been literally marketing itself to the world as the alternative to China. Same with Malaysia. India is also clamoring that they can handle more manufacturing. 

Uhhhhh please cite examples. If you'd like an example to prove mine, look at data storage manufacturing. Companies like seagate and western digital moved their manufacturing from mainland china to Indonesia and south east Asia. Even before the tariffs, countries were more interested in China's market than just their manufacturing. You think companies were going to let their IP get stolen? They suffered and put up with it cause it was the way to gain access to the Chinese consumer market. But times are changing the yuan doesn't show the international promise it once did. China is trying to use the yuan to help developing markets but has failed miserably. Look at Chinese investment in Africa and its silk road projects, major fails. In Sri Lanka alone, India has been laughing it's ass off at the Chinese building a port that cost over a billion dollars and yet no ships show up to it. The Chinese are desperately trying to force open new markets for when automation will destroy their business model. 

You have no clue what you're talking about when you wrote ""it's very difficult to find production line to match quality"". Not a single clue what you're saying. Alibaba is the world leader in doing what you just said isn't easy. Alibaba even offers you supplemental insurance in case your order comes fucked up from the factory. Once again, it couldn't be ever easier to find suppliers who will match quality. In fact most of them send you samples before you even commit to an order. I work in purchasing for a US manufacturer... yes yes it is easy. Only critical components you don't risk your butt on but for cheap plastic components, china is still our go to. With the tariffs we've been looking at suppliers in India and Taiwan. We're even in discussion with a mass 3D print shop over in Wisconsin. What's interesting is that 3D print shops can work overnight, so where they miss out on mass scale production, they have advantages of non human labor. 

Once again, you're just making generalities on what common sense might be, that yes it would be extremely difficult to move your major operations from china to another country, but once again you have no idea what you're talking about cause China ONLY allows dual ventures with Chinese owned companies. Which is why there was even a debate on why there is a trade deficit and how the Chinese market is unfair to American companies wanting to do business there. Our companies have restricted access that we can't sell freely in china. Any business that has that much standing in china, that it would kill their business model to not be in china, would have to be a Chinese business lmao

Yes, do stick to your level of economic comprehension cause china is 1000000x worse off than America from the trade war. Americans will have to pay marginally more for cheap consumer goods, that's probably the worst our economy will feel from it. Mean while, China's entire private sector was funded through the west. When china opened up in the mid 90's who the fuck think financed all the factory building? Groups like HSBC. I don't think you realize just how bad China's private debt is. Their government may have surplus but that means jack shit when they keep their currency artificially low to increase exports. So china has to make a decision, its buy back and selling of currency needs to stop so it's currency can float with the market (which will explode the Chinese middle class to a level the world can't imagine, their purchase power will go up tremendously) which china will never do as a community political state cause of huge population to keep employed, or to accept that western capital is dried up. 



"
Economics,"> Owning foreign reserves like US treasures is a way they do this.

Yes exactly.  But if they want to keep their currency pegged without supporting ""evil and bankrupt without their help"" regime, then moving holdings to hard assets is a way for them to preserve their wealth and surplus by turning them into goods they will eventually consume anyway.

The suggestion is entirely and purely about keeping their currency pegged while sinking the US into a more reasonable attitude."
Economics,"No. They won't. We already import from many other countries because their costs are cheaper.  China's economy isn't that great and their GDP is probably inflated by the games they play by a good 20%.   

The people who feel the pain immediately will be us companies who manufacturer solely in China.  

China is also famous for product dumping.  We're seeing this a lot with Amazon and China.  In fact, an item we import from China costs us $7 landed.  Walmart sells the exact item for 4.88 cents.   This forced us to stop selling this item and now after China wrecked the market, the item is finally restricted by anti dumping laws. 

Many items on Amazon now are sent directly to Amazon from a seller in China, cutting out US companies.   Of course this isn't Amazons fault and eBay, etc allow it.   

The part that should piss you off the most, is your tax dollars being used to subsidize a Chinese seller to mail you that item cheaper than a us company can mail it. If you're a decent size retailer, you're very aware of how bad this problem is becoming.   "
Economics,"Of course you can, but it might not be the same price. If they were buying it from the US in the first place it's that it was either cheaper or of better quality (or both) than the alternative, or that the supply chain for exporting these products to China was more efficient, etc. Chinese businesses will find these products elsewhere, but it might not be as efficient or cheap or good. "
Economics,"Wtf are u talking about? Manufacturing set up from scratch.... are you really that ignorant that you think a company just shows up, clears out some land, builds a factory then hires local workers? Indonesia and Malaysia have industrial sectors also and just because they're not as developed, they have the infrastructure to support manufacturing.

"".01%"".... please just stop spewing bullshit facts that are fake to make yourself sound knowledgeable about the situation. You have no clue what you're talking about. Alibaba and supplier platforms feature suppliers from all over the world including Indonesia and Vietnam. Whatever component or piece you need, there's always competitors in other emerging markets, like India who can copy Chinese manufacturing and are ready to do so immediately. When you work in manufacturing you usually complete production in ""runs"". On your first run you can sure up quality and logistics with a new supplier in less than a month. What matters are the dyes, molds, imprints, or base unit that used to create or guide the manufacturing process. 

Once again.... I'll repeat..... markets that have valuable currency have more leverage than emerging markets with cheap labor. 
"
Economics,"I categorically disagree with you on the basis of finance. Chinese growth was financed primarily from western capital doing joint ventures with Chinese banks, like HSBC. This is what financed the building of the factories. China has a double edged sword cause if they abandon western capital and subsidize the Chinese banks who are losing their western capital backing, they'll be forced to float their currency to be able to pay back everything and the system to still work, otherwise Chinese banks won't keep funding operational loans on companies who don't have purchase orders (aka your Chinese manufacturer), so if tariffs are put in place, and the combination of western capital disappearing and suppliers have less orders to prove they're good to pay it back.... who's going to underwrite the risk? Oh that's right... it points back to the Chinese government to try to bail out their banks that with the currency they don't float (meaning not really worth that), then the finance industry gets destroyed over night. Once again.... I'll repeat what I said before.... the shanghai index lost 40% in 2 months. Once the capital dries up, industry will slow down. Western purchase orders and western capital is what keeps the game going for Chinese suppliers and their lenders who keep them afloat. "
Economics,"You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. Not a clue. 

Samsung makes their phones in Vietnam now, they stopped making in china about 5 years ago.... so shows how much you know about that. Foxconn also manufacturers in both china and Malaysia, that's the supplier of the iphones.... once again, you have no clue what you're talking about.

Tell me about China's global customers? You mean Zimbabwe that they bailed out? Or do you mean Sri Lanka that they had to build a 1 billion dollar port for them, to accept their trade, and the port sits empty, cause no one wants to take Chinese infrastructure loans for their ""Silk Road"" project. The whole Silk Road project is proving to be a huge fail as emerging markets are developing on their own. Look at India... it could replace China easily. 

Once again you have no clue what you're saying about debt. In china, there's more private debt than the US, much more. Maybe our governments debt is higher than their governments debt, but that doesn't mean much cause the Chinese govt holds and pushes for yuan, which isn't valued currency, it's manipulated currency, which the only countries who want to accept it, are countries who will just take the free help to allow Chinese influence to come in (ex: Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka). These countries that have huge economic issues are ready to take whatever Chinese hand out they can get, but doesn't mean they have valuable currency to buy Chinese goods, which is what private Chinese companies want. 

Meaning yuan isn't worth shit to people unless they get a hand out with it. The yuan will continue to be worth shit as long as their government drastically fucks with the value of its worth, the markets can't float it. "
Economics,">This is the big thing. If you're looking to stand up a factory and hire 300 workers who can make your new chips for your device, China can have it ready to go in a matter of days in some cases. Doing that in the US would take months at least. Doing that in other countries is a tradeoff between either time or quality.

One does not simply stand up a multi billion dollar fab, they are planned years in advance. Nor does a chip go from design to tapeout in days. Finally, semiconductor manufacturing is dominated by the US, Japan, SK, and Taiwan. "
Economics,"China wants to keep their currency pegged to the US dollar, their most important trading partner. They don't want their currency appreciating against the dollar and destroying their relationship as #1 supplier and manufacturer to the US economy. Pegging their currency to commodities unfixes it from the USD. Their USD peg isn't really a political position, it's an economic decision to reduce volatility of their trading relationship and support their main goal of steady economic growth, which for the near future is still mainly dependent on exports."
Economics,"Yes, absolutely, the west and the US dollar are very much important for China, not disagreeing with that. And while China knows that it's a weakness and is trying to move away from that, they also still have a long way to go.

But what you apparently fail to realize is that this isn't a one sided relationship. Daddy America isn't giving little China some lunch money. America needs that money back just as much as China needs it being given to them. And if China can't deliver, a country like America, who has a *lot* of money on foreign countries and assets, is getting dragged down right with them. America is so afraid of China not being able to pay that they have at multiple points foregone long planned interest hikes. China is really the last (single) country America can afford to drop the ball on. Fuck, it even goes as far as the US *asking China* to shift more towards domestic savings, a problem the US too has btw. They are literally asking China to take less of their Dollars because the codependency is so great.

If Germany had to bail out Greece because they would have dragged them down with them, a country with a relatively way smaller GDP, the US sure as fuck has to bail out China (if it can) because they are so dependant on the other doing well.

And again, it's really the US waging the war here, not only on one front, but battling with some of the biggest economies of the world, although maybe not always to the same extend, like South Korea, Canada, the EU, Mexico, etc. China is just fighting back, and China has zero trouble doing business with literally any other country on earth.

But in reality, it's just two guys poking each other with sticks, anyway. Neither China nor the US can afford to substantially hurt each others economy. Not that it's really an economical war, anyway, but a political one."
Economics,"Maybe, depends on if supply chains are there. The problem for US farmers is as Brazil and other countries start to expand their production this will start to eat away a huge portion of the US market base. This could hurt the US farmers in the long term but it does also hurt in the short term as switching customers and placing systems to get it to new markets is going to cost alot of money and hassle."
Economics,"It will be Argentina and Brazil. Soybean prices will increase. It’ll be a small part of American soybeans that will still be sold to China. China has around 60% of imports, brazil and USA around 40% each, Argentina around 10%. Basically, they’ll still have to buy around 10% of us soybean. So prices will decrease for American soybeans, as the main buyer will prefer other soybeans to theirs. It’s what has actually de facto happened. It’s not much discussion to be had. "
Economics,"To put it perspective- it’s not whether American soybeans are still competitive or not. This is a completely commoditized market, só American farmers are complete price-takers. Yeah, at these low prices they are competitive, in the sense that they still manage to sell some to China (Well, they have to), and to some other countries, but at this price, soybean producers might switch their crops (if possible) to others such as cotton, or corn (tbh, not sure if corn is remunerative either),  or even just decrease crop land. Net farm income is at such a low, that if this pushes it into a negative, you could see crop land decreasing. With commodity prices pressured and interest rate/cost of debt increasing, the perspective isn’t great either. "
Economics,"Do you think the true market value of labor has been distorted by government intervention at both the state/local level? I would consider property tax abatements, exclusive servicing contracts and certain forms of welfare a large determining factor in market value. 

We’ve all seen the billions in corporate welfare he Walton’s have received through poverty assistance problems and he country doesn’t seem to care. I would be curious if the true size of the assistance to Fortune 500 companies was made public how the taxpayers would feel. "
Economics,"The simple answer to this is no. The complex long answer would flow along the lines of many variables affect the value of labor for a market sector. Bargaining power of labor isn't a simple demand and supply graph as we'd like to think. Labor value is inherently something only capital can truly know based on their own set of criteria that achieves their goal. There are always positions that are must fills to ensure production, but there can be positions that are nice to have where capital can hold out on hiring until their criteria to bring on more workers is met. This can work both ways obviously."
Economics,"I wouldn't suggest we make Walmart or other retail employees ineligible for SNAP but instead not reward companies that utilize these programs as a pillar of their entry-level compensation equation. 

Poverty assistance programs should be a transfer to individuals and never something that large corporations consider when deciding their wages. The way I see it for certain companies is if you don't pay an employee enough to be healthy, appropriately dressed and reliable then you can't ever expect them to be a good employee? 

​

It always feels like cheating and a low effort example but when discussing Walmart you have a company that produces extraordinary gains for a small number of family members. Three of the operating principles behind this company are to charge as little as possible for their products, pay as little for land and property tax as possible and pay their employees as low of a wage as possible. 

Inherently I don't see anything wrong with those goals as a business, no individual let alone company wants to pay more for a service than they are required. When these are combined however it appears as though taxpayers through increased taxes and social services are subsidizing the labor cost for a company that sells $500 Billion in goods a year, part of which is only due to their ability to pay their labor so little relative to the true cost of supporting that employee."
Economics,"Some may misinterprete what you mean so I'd like to clarify. 

To be clear you're calling out that if a company decides to invest in themselves like expanding the business or updating their systems it increases demand for employees which leads to job growth, right?

As opposed to some people who think if there is more money for operations it'll naturally be used to increase supply of a good when really a company will only increase supply of there is an existing unmet demand.

I call this out to say just bc there are tax cuts doesn't mean there will be wage growth or an increase in jobs.  However if there is an increase in demand due to those with a higher velocity of money having more money then it is likely to increase the need for employees and likely lead to wage growth."
Economics,"People use these programs as a pillar of their entry-level compensation. Walmart pays people whatever the market requires. Any kind of welfare will require Walmart to pay *more* to lure them into the labor market. To illustrate this consider an extreme case - suppose right now a Walmart worker earns $12/hr and $1/hr in SNAP (divided across # of hours). If you increased SNAP to $5/hr, do you think Walmart would cut its wages to $8/hr? People would just go across the street, keep their $5/hr in SNAP and work for $12/hr somewhere else...

I don't think the number of owners is really relevant. It's the same business whether it has 4 owners or 400,000.

The operating principles behind the company are ruthless efficiency and giving the customer what they want, among other things. Like you said, in any buyer-seller relationship the buyer wants a low price and the seller wants a high price. 

To reiterate, SNAP/etc are not subsidies to Walmart. Who is more desperate for a $12/hr job:

- Someone receiving $25,000/year in state/federal benefits

- Someone receiving $0/year in state/federal benefits

Obviously the person with a large number of benefits is less desperate, which IMPROVES their ability to walk away from a $12/hr job. This is the OPPOSITE of a subsidy - higher benefits force Walmart to pay higher wages to attract the same number of workers."
Economics,">Do you think the true market value of labor has been distorted by government intervention at both the state/local level? 

I think this is a dubious question.  I wouldn't say that there is a true market value of labor.  Markets exist in a context; some market maker sets the rules of the game and those rules strongly constrain market activity.

As written, your question hinges on whether you believe a given policy constitutes a distortion or a helpful market making action.  This is often a question that cannot be addressed solely with economics.  For example, would a carbon tax distort the energy market?  That depends on whether you view climate change as a problem worth solving.  If you do believe it's worth solving, you will frame a carbon tax as a fair pricing of a negative externality.  If you don't, you will frame a carbon tax as a harmful distortion.

>We’ve all seen the billions in corporate welfare he Walton’s have received through poverty assistance problems and he country doesn’t seem to care. I would be curious if the true size of the assistance to Fortune 500 companies was made public how the taxpayers would feel.

I believe poverty assistance programs harm Walmart in the labor market.  A more desperate workforce will have a lower reservation wage and be more eager to supply more hours of labor.

The value in poverty assistance programs to Walmart comes from the buyer side.  More dollars for poor people implies more spending at Walmart.  This makes policy intervention to reduce the number of taxpayer dollars spent at Walmart quite uncomfortable, and also implies that Walmart raising its wages won't much reduce the amount of subsidy Walmart receives."
Economics,"> Or they could try to increase sales of widgets because they feel they are in a position to grow and hire more people if that marketing was successful.

This is entirely dependent upon the demand/market for widgets and not on the tax bill of the firm.  If they can sell more widgets via better advertising (or whatever), then they will do that regardless of their tax bill.  This is the fundamental flaw with Supply Side theory.  In a competitive market, the firm faces a given (market) price for their product; reducing their tax rate will not change the price/demand that they face, so will not affect how much they can sell.  Therefore, there is no reason (all other things being the same) that a reduction in tax rate will prompt firms to hire more workers or pay existing workers more.

What the article is positing is that wages are going up because the supply of Labor is tight, so firms have to pay slightly more to retain workers.  This agrees with my anecdotal experience in the SoCal manufacturing labor market.  We have a hard time retaining and hiring mechanics, drivers, and other positions.  That is what is driving our wage growth, not the tax break.  

The tax break *is* making investment more attractive however, so that could spur job/wage growth in ancillary industries."
Economics,"The relationship is also watered down at each stage. Some of the increased funds go towards dividends for investors; of the reinvested money is invested in things other than labor; some of the money invested on labor is not invested as wages, but as recruiter fees, benefits, equipment or something like that (obviously increased benefits are good for workers too, but it's another reason the long-term effect on wages might still be tiny)."
Economics,"> Unlikely,

What, exactly, is unlikely?

Because of the tax law, we had to make changes to the Excel models we use for Capital Investment projects that made the ROR on all projects improve.  One of the key parts that isn't talked about much is the fact that you can now depreciate some assets 100% in the first year so you get an immediate tax break when buying a capital asset.  This dramatically decreases the effective price of the asset.  On the whole, this should increase the quantity of capital demanded in the economy.

That said, for our company at least, we might not increase our overall capital budget significantly because we face other constraints in the market (e.g. rising material costs, increased freight costs, lower recycling rates due to China's new restrictions on imported post-consumer material, etc.).  

I do work for a private company though, so stock buy-backs are off the table as an ""investment"" option.  It's entirely probable that buybacks will be more attractive than capital investment for most public firms."
Economics,"This is that whole hidden 'costs of being poor'  I think it mostly applies to access the things like credit and banking services. Things like getting early Healthcare instead of using emergency rooms for chronic illnesses. Most of the publication's I've seen on this only allude to the material cost of goods. And provide evidence more towards the cost of services. Anecdotally I think the buy it for life subreddit is full of 20 and 50 year old American and German made Goods. It specifically not full of cheap Chinese consumer products. Not that all American goods are good, but I think it's telling none the less"
Economics,"Cheap things have to get replaced more or cause injuries/inconveniences/cost that a superior product would. Toilet Paper is an example. Shoes are the best example. 

A good pair of shoes can last multiple years and sustain elements. A bad pair of shoes can't. They can lead to foot injuries and those with cheap shoes usually don't have insurance or the best insurance. The bad pair of shoes is now more expensive because it leads to medical bills that are substantially more than the cost of one good pair of shoes.  

Bad quality items have to be replaced more. A pair $150 sneakers will last you for years if you take care of them. A $40 dollar pair won't. You will have to replace them multiple times before you ever have to replace the $150 dollar pair. This what companys like H&M and Forever 21 do with clothing.

They offer ""Cheaper"" products, but those products stretch in the wash, stain easily, tear, and end up having to be replaced several times over. Consumers will do this willingly because no one thinks about the times they've said ""Eh it's only $4 dollars"" and fail to realize that a $20 pack of V-necks is substantially cheaper than ordering a $4 dollar vneck (+ shipping & fees) multiple times"
Economics,"No. I just reject the notion of “disqualifying” an example arbitrarily. You didn’t want it used because it answers everything. I also provided toilet paper as an example.

Furthermore, I provided another shoe example, which illustrates how a bad pair of shoes can lead to medical cost making them more expensive.

Your insult was garbage. The fact you want to disqualify an example because you don’t have a retort is even worse.  However, cherry picking parts of my reply, and then being a smug a-hole because you can’t answer it takes the cake. "
Economics,"She should develop more skills to make herself more valuable to an employer. I was working crappy low paying, low skill jobs, so I went and worked in crappy sales jobs (house painting door to door, then car sales) for 4 years to develop a skill, and now just got a job paying nearly double the national average pay for people without a college degree get, plus commissions.

Before the 4 years of sales experience, I was worth about $10/hr to employers, now I'm worth somewhere around $50/hr. It didn't come because I need the $, or because I'm a good person, it came because I made myself valuable by gaining skills!"
Economics,"Yes, I think most people want to work. It gives them something to do, something to identify with, something that lets them feel like they contribute to society, something they can be proud of. And if it's a half decent working environment, something can be proud of stocking shelves just as much as an accountant or a doctor or whatever. Even being unemployed for a few months sucks *hard* for most people, doesn't matter if they have been fired as a server or just graduated from UCLA.

And of course people want money, but it's not like working at Walmart is about buying fancy cars and going on vacation, it's the difference between being able to put food on the table and not wearing clothes that have holes in them. That's not about ""money"", that's about being able to live a half decent life or not.

And yes, sure, that's how stuff works on a basic level, but Walmart, and Amazon, and whatever, don't work like a relatively normal labor market relatively reasonably governed by supply and demand for these people."
Economics,"It's not even an example! It's a quote from a novel! There's literally no proof in economics that this is a real concept! I might as well quote from Atlas Shrugged to justify trickle down economics.

Did you know that poor people smoke more and watch more TV than wealthy people? Therefore, based off of these 2 examples alone, poor people are entirely responsible for their situation. I'm gonna ignore your anecdotal examples and you can ignore my anecdotal examples and we can both ignore economics. "
Economics,"I don't think your claims are borne out by time use surveys of the general population or time use surveys of the unemployed specifically. The average American watches a staggering 4+ hours of TV per day, and plenty of other time on leisure activities, not work. 

There is a large gulf between fancy cars and food on the table. Making $12/hr (Walmart Full Time Average) over min wage is the difference between a 2BR and a 1BR, the difference between clothing from good will and clothing from Walmart, from a $300 phone and a $50 phone. I would not say that someone who lives in a small apartment with a cheap phone and wears used clothing is somehow living an awful life - most of the quality of life is your social network.

You don't think Walmart's labor market is governed by supply and demand? How does this strange claim turn SNAP benefits into a subsidy?"
Economics,"Well I'm a verified member on /r/askcarsales for the past several years while I've worked in car sales, and now I've been hired as a financial advisor. If you prefer to not believe that someone can work hard, gain experience and land a great job, I think that says more about you than anyone else.

If your wife had great sales skills, she probably wouldn't be applying for jobs cutting pot plants though."
Economics,"Right place at the right time? I've had a bunch of recruiters reach out to me recently. There are tons of companies looking for people with sales skills here. Anyone who's worked the past several years in sales could probably at least get an interview with a medical device sales company, or do what I did and interview for a financial advisor role. From there it comes down to hard work to pass the interviews and tests involved. 

I was hired by Edward Jones. They are looking for hundreds of employees nationwide. They are consistently rated one of the top 5 companies to work for by Fortune. It's not some magical, hidden or lucky opportunity, it's out there for people who want to work for it."
Economics,">I don't think your claims are borne out by time use surveys of the general population or time use surveys of the unemployed specifically. The average American watches a staggering 4+ hours of TV per day, and plenty of other time on leisure activities, not work. 

Yes, *because they are also at work*. I'm not saying people want 40 hour + work weeks. Please look up some statistics on unemployment and happyness.

>There is a large gulf between fancy cars and food on the table. Making $12/hr (Walmart Full Time Average) over min wage is the difference between a 2BR and a 1BR, the difference between clothing from good will and clothing from Walmart, from a $300 phone and a $50 phone. I would not say that someone who lives in a small apartment with a cheap phone and wears used clothing is somehow living an awful life - most of the quality of life is your social network.

I don't think it's open to dispute that rising income is correlated with happyness as well. And you know what makes you feel like shit? Feeling like you're not self sufficient. Feeling like you depend on welfare. Again, plenty of statistics out there.

Yeah, maybe it's the difference between a 300$ phone and a 50$ phone for some. But it's also the difference between a car with a cracked windshield or not. Buying a new mattress because yours is 20 years old. Fixing the lampshade that's been broken since you've moved in. Not to even mention that Walmart tries *very* hard not having to employ people full time. *Half* of Walmarts employees don't work full time, and that's not because they don't want to, or because that's ""normal"" because of the industry it's in, no, it hasn't always been that way, it hasn't even been that way 10 years ago. And part time workers get less money, less benefits and have a harder time climbing the ranks.

>You don't think Walmart's labor market is governed by supply and demand? How does this strange claim turn SNAP benefits into a subsidy?

I have told you why. Walmart acts as a monopsony, and the workers affected by these issues are very inelastic in their labor supply.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016604621200018X

Another thing is that you *have to work* to get food stamps, if you are able to work. For at least 20 hours per week, too, btw. So, you have a situation where you can't just *not work* but the only place where you *can* work is Walmart. Your options *aren't* working and earning a bit more, or just staying at home and living off benefits. Your options are either working and earning a tiny wage in addition to food stamps, or not having work or food stamps. Do you really think that's a position where the employee can be picky about wages?"
Economics,"Well that’s a bold assertion. I seem to recall a rather large population increase in the 50s and 60s. How stagnant were wages during that time? Also, is there a recent uptick in population growth I haven’t heard about? How about inflation?

So let’s summarize your position here: wages rise when the stock market does well, over the long run, except historically they haven’t. Population and inflation growth causes stagnant wages, except historically the opposite is true. But that’s not really relevant bc population growth and inflation aren’t increasing now anyway. 

What am I missing? I think your first point that increasing the coffers leads to reinvestment in growth is completely unsubstantiated, and that when you tried to substantiate it you provided evidence of the exact opposite. "
Economics,"What benefits the world economy ultimately benefits the US. Expanding opportunities and growth in other countries benefits everyone involved. If companies only ever invested in the US we'd be worse off, other countries can do things better than us + we have our own comparative advantages in other areas.


This works the opposite way as well. Levying tariffs harms our consumers and props up domestic industries that underperform vs. foreign producers. Having trade barriers levied against us hurts our producers/industries and hurts foriegn consumers that otherwise would have bought our valued products."
Economics,"Well cheaper products tend to be worst quality and we know this. There are a fair share of things that don’t matter but most do. 

Cheaper housing genuinely means lower quality housing. Cheap transportation such as buses and trains are lower quality forms of transportation. 

Cheaper building materials (in a vacuum, so cheap concrete vs regular concrete) tend to be lower quality. 

This is true for Razors, tires, and hell, food. Taste excluded, cheaper  food is usually made with lower quality ingredients. It’s the reason a burger cost less than a steak does at a steakhouse despite a burger costing more to make. 

So no. You’re being intentionally obtuse to justify you wanting to remove a classic example that you can’t answer "
Economics,">	I seem to recall a rather large population increase in the 50s and 60s. How stagnant were wages during that time? 

Yes, that was called the Baby Boom. ""Baby"" being the operative word because they don't really join the labor force until ~20 years later. if you bothered to look at the statistics you'd see that [annual growth in the prime working age population](https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-732Db1_-dWk/VLBDkNWnEhI/AAAAAAAAh6g/Xpx1b9sK66M/s1600/PrimeChange.PNG) averaged only ~0.5% for much of the 50's and 60's, before shooting up well above 2% in the 70's and 80's as the boomers entered the workforce. 

And this graph doesn't even look at the effect of significantly higher percentages of women joining the workforce in the 70's, or the unchecked illegal immigration of the 80's and 90's. These influences can easily be seen in a [graph of the labor force participation rate.](https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2016/images/hipple-fig1.png), which shot up beginning in the early 70's and continued to climb in the 80's and 90's.

The rapid increase in the labor force from baby boomers, working women and illegal immigration has absolutely put downward pressure on wages, as would be expected considering that the labor market functions as, well, a market. "
Economics,">its a race to the bottom, good luck dragging every9ne with you because youre the chosen one

Yea I watched Unions and their benevolent dealings destroy industry in my home town... They dragged the entire rustbelt into the abyss.

I'm not against the idea of unions, nor am I one to say they don't serve a purpose, a certain niche. But they became as corrupt as the 1% a good long time ago.

I work in a field with decent pay (my wife does not have to work) and good benefits. I work 45-50 hours a week but on an extremely flexible schedule with ample time off.

What would a union do for me? really? other than back my employer into a corner where they can't be as flexible with me."
Economics,">ok, so now amazon and walmart grind people into the ground.

There is the old adage about Pigs Getting Fat and Hogs get Slaughtered... Unions had the catbird seat in nearly every way but they continued to eat and eat with no regard as to the health of the domestic manufactures. 

Walmart should be nothing more than the jobs you get to learn job skills, they should not be a career. But we've chased career level jobs out of the country.

How much is standing at a cash register worth? Because if you think it's worth 15$ an hour for someone just entering the workforce, you're going to see more and more of those stupid auto checkout stations.

> behavioral economics supports your decision to be relatively more rich than your neighbor 

See this is the mistake you're making... I don't care what my neighbor is making, or my co-worker. I look at the value of my position and find was that I go above and beyond that for my employer. I try to find a place where I am getting fairly compensated for my output.

It's not about what other people make, beyond me using the average salary as a baseline.

>your ceiling is shrinking 

Of course it is... I'm now 20 years into the field. When I started I was getting 10-20% pay hikes with every jump, now it would be unreasonable for me to ask for that much on a jump, because I'm near the top of my positions pay scale.

So I am taking my skills and training to move from Engineering to architecture, that's the next move.

In the mean time we are going to force out the low paying entry level jobs that people use to \*start\* learning jobs skills and climbing the ladder."
Economics,"Yes, but the US has enjoyed the ""exorbitant privilege"" of being the world reserve currency for some 70+ years. Under that system, a growing world economy will demand more US Treasurys to serve as reserve asset. Those dollars rarely come home to roost.

If the world stops stockpiling USTs, then the debt starts to matter again.

If the world switches to a different reserve asset altogether and redeems their USTs, then the dollar will be toast."
Economics,">Yeah, maybe it's the difference between a 300$ phone and a 50$ phone for some. But it's also the difference between a car with a cracked windshield or not. Buying a new mattress because yours is 20 years old. Fixing the lampshade that's been broken since you've moved in.

Are a broken lampshade and an old mattress really evidence of a ""subpar existence?"" You're shifting the goalposts - first you said that low income implies you can't live a decent life, now you're reducing the claim to ""rich people are happier.""

>Not to even mention that Walmart tries very hard not having to employ people full time. Half of Walmarts employees don't work full time, and that's not because they don't want to, or because that's ""normal"" because of the industry it's in, no, it hasn't always been that way, it hasn't even been that way 10 years ago. And part time workers get less money, less benefits and have a harder time climbing the ranks.

Do you think Walmart wants to employ people part time? The reason for this is because the government, in its infinite wisdom, has layered on mountains of regulation and additional cost on full time work.

>I have told you why. Walmart acts as a monopsony, and the workers affected by these issues are very inelastic in their labor supply.

If workers are inelastic in their labor supply, SNAP will have little impact on the price they are willing to work for, and thus will have little impact on the wage Walmart pays. You are trying to have it both ways - you claim that (A) Workers would refuse to work for Walmart at low wages in the absence of SNAP and (B) Workers have inelastic supply so rarely refuse to work for Walmart at any wage.

>Your options aren't working and earning a bit more, or just staying at home and living off benefits. Your options are either working and earning a tiny wage in addition to food stamps, or not having work or food stamps. Do you really think that's a position where the employee can be picky about wages?

Yes. Many people will seek informal jobs (like house cleaning) that produce cash income that doesn't impact your W-2 or 1099 income and therefore doesn't reduce benefit eligibility. These people can be very picky about Walmart jobs. SNAP has work requirements but much larger programs like section 8 basically penalize you for earning money. Food stamps are a tiny fraction of the benefits out there."
Economics,"Lol what? Only if you're spending it all on processed junk food and Lobster. The SNAP benefit for a single individual with zero income is $192/month. This is enough for roughly 20 lbs of staple grains, 30 lbs of stew meat/chicken thighs/etc, and $80-100/month to spend on fresh fruits, vegetables, spices, whatever else you want. This would also put you well ahead of the average American who eats roughly 200 lbs of meat per year."
Economics,">Do you think Walmart wants to employ people part time? The reason for this is because the government, in its infinite wisdom, has layered on mountains of regulation and additional cost on full time work.

Why not?

>If workers are inelastic in their labor supply, SNAP will have little impact on the price they are willing to work for, and thus will have little impact on the wage Walmart pays. You are trying to have it both ways - you claim that (A) Workers would refuse to work for Walmart at low wages in the absence of SNAP and (B) Workers have inelastic supply so rarely refuse to work for Walmart at any wage.

Where do I say they would refuse to work for low wages?

>Yes. Many people will seek informal jobs (like house cleaning) that produce cash income that doesn't impact your W-2 or 1099 income and therefore doesn't reduce benefit eligibility. These people can be very picky about Walmart jobs. SNAP has work requirements but much larger programs like section 8 basically penalize you for earning money. Food stamps are a tiny fraction of the benefits out there.

But we aren't talking about these other programs."
Economics,">Why not?

Why not what?

>Where do I say they would refuse to work for low wages?

When you say we should ""not reward companies that utilize these programs as a pillar of their entry-level compensation equation."" Saying that benefit programs are a ""pillar"" suggests that the equation wouldn't work without them (i.e. they wouldn't get enough workers).

>But we aren't talking about these other programs.

So you are claiming that only SNAP is a subsidy to Walmart, but other transfer programs are not? My original claim was about poverty assistance programs generally - SNAP is just an example.

The basic point is that the idea that welfare programs like SNAP are a ""subsidy"" to Walmart is dead wrong for all of the reasons I have outlined. "
Economics,"Why wouldn't Walmart employ people part time?

>When you say we should ""not reward companies that utilize these programs as a pillar of their entry-level compensation equation."" Saying that benefit programs are a ""pillar"" suggests that the equation wouldn't work without them (i.e. they wouldn't get enough workers).

I never talked about any pillars.

>So you are claiming that only SNAP is a subsidy to Walmart, but other transfer programs are not? My original claim was about poverty assistance programs generally - SNAP is just an example.

No, I'm not claiming only SNAP is a subsidy. I'm just saying that these programs can act as a subsidy. I don't know the ins and outs of every poverty assistance out there and frankly can't be bothered to argue technicalities with half a dozen of them. If SNAP acts as a subsidy, other programs can act as one as well, I think that's a reasonable assumption.

>The basic point is that the idea that welfare programs like SNAP are a ""subsidy"" to Walmart is dead wrong for all of the reasons I have outlined.

Which reasons? I'm not seeing any."
Economics,"There was a time where Unions and the companies had a balance between them, then the Unions started asking for too much and the company's, not thinking ahead, relented.

There is no union in my industry yet our salaries have, for the most part, kept up or even surged ahead. And when there was collusion between several silicone valley companies we didn't need a union to address it, a class action suit seemed to take care of it.

Again, not saying unions are a bad thing, outside of government unions... They are always bad."
Economics,"My whole problem is that saying ""oh, the market will fix it,"" is just avoiding solving a much larger issue. The markets are rigged and  youre either a moron or a liar if you say otherwise. We know where wages or buying power should be in the ""ideal"" conditions and they're not at those levels. So either the economic theories for these ideas are broken or the market itself is broken. Pick one because we are past a point of getting it both ways. Wages are not being driven by market forces or our concept of market forces need to be reexamined. 

The sheer amount of poverty in the US should be much lower if all the economists in this sub were right. It's just stupidity that's saying everything is fine and this is just how it works. This isn't working, it's going to collapse soon, and then what will people in this sub say? ""Market forces"" or some stupid shit."
Economics,"> unions suck

Never said that... I said that they overstepped and it ended up shredding the industries they were in and employment suffered.

My father was a Union man all his life, told me if I crossed a picket line to pay a tax bill at City Hall that ""I deserved to get punched in the face"".

Then one year he said he was done, because rather than the UAW holding their convention in flint (where it could have really benefited their membership) they went to vegas so the Union big wigs could have a good time.

The Unions became just as bad as the corporate bosses.... More interested in squeezing out every penny and less about fair and equitable wages/working conditions.

In the private sector that's all well and good. 

But in the public sector you have the union buying politicians who then give the unions more sweetheart deals and burden the tax payer with what as become a completely un-payable pension system."
Economics,"While there is luck involved in everyone's life, to blame everything on luck is to remove any and all personal responsibility. Yes you can do everything right and still fail, but the vast majority of people fail not simply because of bad luck, but also due to lack of effort, or at least lack of knowing where to apply their effort.

The poster above obviously worked hard to get where he is. There must have been some luck involved, but don't discount the work he did to get there."
Economics,">Why wouldn't Walmart employ people part time?

Because it allows them to spread fixed costs over a larger amount of labor. Labor/hour costs are much lower if their hiring/training costs are spread over 2000 hours/yr instead of 500 hours/yr. 

>I never talked about any pillars.

Oops that was someone else / lost in the list of replies.

>No, I'm not claiming only SNAP is a subsidy. I'm just saying that these programs can act as a subsidy. I don't know the ins and outs of every poverty assistance out there and frankly can't be bothered to argue technicalities with half a dozen of them.

Okay that's fine I just wanted to establish we are talking about benefit programs generally, many of which don't have work requirements.

>Which reasons? I'm not seeing any.

I have said it a bunch of different ways but I'll lay it out here;
- Benefit programs reduce the cost of unemployment
- Reduced cost of unemployment makes workers less desperate to find a job and improves their ability to say no to specific jobs
- This will require that Walmart raise wages to get enough workers to say yes to a specific job

If this isn't obvious, consider a situation with UBI of $15k/year. Do you think people would work at Walmart for $2/hour because they are receiving so many benefits?"
Economics,">I have said it a bunch of different ways but I'll lay it out here;

>- Benefit programs reduce the cost of unemployment

>- Reduced cost of unemployment makes workers less desperate to find a job and improves their ability to say no to specific jobs

>- This will require that Walmart raise wages to get enough workers to say yes to a specific job

Yes, but the problem with this, at least with SNAP is, that you are required to work to get those benefits. That means they *don't* reduce the cost of unemployment, since they are tied to being employed. In fact, I'd argue that it can do the opposite."
Economics,"If they are loaning the money, then the money gets spent. It is not hoarding cash.

> Only $8.3bn of Apple's stash is actually in hard cash.

That's simply not true. A bank deposit is not held as cash, it is loaned out to people who spend it. There is no $8.3bn in a Scrooge McDuck cash vault somewhere.

The only people who actually hoard cash are crazy people and drug dealers, and the latter only because if they deposited it in a bank the government would confiscate it. They'd love to be able to deposit it. And then the bank would loan it out.
"
Economics,"> A NEED FOR A BUSINESS TO COMPETE WITH ANOTHER BUSINESS

You aren't entitled to two businesses mutually undercutting themselves back and forth until they are in the poorhouse, businesses regularly hike their prices in unison because they know the market will bear it. Not that it has anything to do with any of this.

> JUST TAX CORPORATIONS AT 100%, THEN TTHEY'LL JUST REINVEST EVERYTHING

Yeah, yeah, that sounds a lot like ""if we set the minimum wage to a billion dollars"".

[Corporations aren't pulling their weight](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Share_of_Federal_Revenue_from_Different_Tax_Sources_%28Individual%2C_Payroll%2C_and_Corporate%29_1950_-_2010.gif) and [we are going broke on account of it](https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287)."
Economics,"> You're the idiot who suggested that we should tax corporations at 100% and you dont' even realize it.

So in your mind the suggestion that you have some vegetables in your diet is fully equivalent to eating a half ton of vegetables with every meal?

> A libertarian

Well, [there was an attempt](https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/top/).

> doesn't believe in free market competition

There is such a thing as competition, you just aren't entitled to free shit falling out of the sky on account of it.

What any of your tangets have to do with whether or not tax cuts cause growth is completely beyond me. Could it be that you are attempting to change the subject because you are wrong?"
Economics,"Spare me the blogosphere ideology, theres no such thing as free money. What you assume falls for free out of the sky with the laffer curve, is actually the leftovers from growth that isn't happening.

If you are going to say that money that investors have cashed out of a company is as good as money being in a company because investors just can't help but reinvest it in our economy, then it stands to reason that taxing that money instead, and giving it to the investors who had put their money into t-bills is completely equivalent, as those investors would have nothing better to do with it than invest it in those very same objectively superior places to invest.

It's a little thing you might have heard of, called fiscal responsibility?"
Economics,"I'm sorry this isn't true. You may want to compare wages to inflation and double check, [graph](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=l6Vv) 

You can also look at median [personal income](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=ljPl)

Or you can look at median [weekly earnings](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=ljPt)

Or you can look at median [household income](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=ljPx)

Or you can look at the [total employment cost](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=ljPD) compared to inflation

These all show generally positive growth after the last recession. There's really no support for what you're saying"
Economics,"The same can be said for people not in the labor force who want a job.

Unfortunately I can't figure out how to directly link BLS datasets, but the number of people not in the labor force who want jobs has ranged from ~4.7 million - 5.7 million in 2018 compared to 4.5 - 5.5 million in 2008. Here's the graph:

https://imgur.com/CgTeSVb

Honestly you should really check the data before you form the opinion."
Economics,"Just because a person doesn't desire to work *at the moment* doesnt mean they are not discouraged workers. 


For example. Person was laid off in 2011. They decided since the job market was tough, so they decided to become a stay at home parent. Right now they dont want a job because wages are still low, but as soon as wages start to tick up slightly they suddenly ""want a job"".


Thats where the Job market slack comes in. They arnt considered U-6 (long term discouraged) nor they really want a job because conditions are bad. Doesnt mean they wont work when wages tick up and the work environment gets slightly better. 


And again, This is the reason why there inst a shortage of workers. Theres still plenty of these types of people around not working.
"
Economics,"It has nothing to do with discouragement, discouraged workers came back. 

There are a lot of people not in the labor force for various reasons. Might be disability, a type of addiction, stay at home parent, don't need to work for income, etc.

Workers are scarce, positions can't be filled. I know of a manufacturing plant that in addition to raising pay, busses people in from 60 miles away, waived drug testing requirements, covers relocation expenses, and a myriad of other tactics to find workers, and they can't fill positions."
Economics,"If someone is long term discouraged in this economy they're being irrational, unless there's a massive barrier to employment for them such as a criminal record. If you put your resume up on a job board you'll literally get dozens of calls from recruiters. 

Yes, some people might not be able to find the perfect job. Some fields are oversaturated. But most people should be able to find work of some sort."
Economics,">BLS does count persons not in the labor force who would like a job.

If you look at the graph, 63% of those ""not in the labor force who would like a job"" have not searched for work in the past 12 months. The remaining 37% have not looked for work in the past 4 weeks.

Only 434,000 cite discouragement as their reason for not being in the labor force. Most of the other reasons are circumstances that prevent working, such as:

- Being in school

- Family responsibilities

- Illness/disability

Do people expect to magically be offered a job just by wishing for it?

If you have an economy with record low unemployment, and people aren't looking for work because of discouragement, can you really cite them as ""available to work""?"
Economics,"For an individual company, if you can afford to raise salaries, then yes, you might have an easier time finding workers. 

At an industry level, if the entire industry raised wages, it might attract new workers to that profession and pull workers away from other professions.

But at the macro level, such as the entire country raising wages across all industries, at that point it creates wage-spiral inflation. Input costs rises, which requires an increase in prices to break even.

Raising wages isn't always an option either. A lot of companies have razor thin margins, but their customers aren't willing to accept price increases. It's not just ""being picky"", for some businesses higher wages simply aren't an option."
Economics,"Sure, but the number of individuals on a high salary that are retiring early doesn't sound like it would be a high number, nor does it sound like an area that would be of most concern.  My understanding has been that a lot of Baby Boomers have recently been staying in the workforce longer and longer, holding on to their positions rather than retiring, which has kept these positions away from younger individuals who would have otherwise had the opportunity to move up into them by now (along with other factors). I'm not saying that older individuals shouldn't be able to work as long as they want, but, practically speaking, we've got to find ways to allow younger individuals a way to gain experience, take on more responsibility, and move up the ranks. The following sorts of articles are a dime a dozen: [https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/genymoney/why-millennials-are-delaying-marriage-home-buying-and-having-kids/article37472363/](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/genymoney/why-millennials-are-delaying-marriage-home-buying-and-having-kids/article37472363/)"
Economics,"If they only take high cash clients (sophisticated investors) I can't see them going for a negative return. That's why their money isn't in a bank account to begin with. Knowing the Fed fully intends to surpass this rate of return this seems fragile. The bank just becomes a temporary segway basically charging people money to exist in a vacuum with no hope of business continuity.

The only people who make any real money will be the bankers themselves."
Economics,"1. Well essentially they are asking the Fed to be their business partners but then openly having no business continuity. You wouldn't go for that personally right?

2. It isn't arbitrage because the Fed doesn't suffer and the only people being ripped off are the folks dumb enough to play. We are discussing it here as laymen so there is no way it is particularly clever enough to be a strategy of note. It is just a quick buck looking for suckers.

3. To be honest the Fed likely doesn't care relating to the actual practice. It is the abuse of people's gullibility that's the problem. It is like this conversation; there is this deep cleverness you seem to see that I just can't. You're not breaking the universe by earning, instead of 1.75%, 1.9%. It just isn't happening.

4. It isn't illegal. But stupid rarely is. Now is it ethical? That's the real question.

As for what the Fed should do I don't see that here: the difference in rate is .2%. Again you can do better with a basic CD. 

"
Economics,"1. The fed isn't really a business in the normal sense. Its really an arm of the government. When the government operates a program all citizens should be allowed to participate equally. What reason does the Fed have to deny them entry to this program?

2. Goes to my point that the Fed needs a reason to deny them and doesn't have one.

3. ditto

4. Not sure why ethics matter here. It clearly is a question of the law. Is the Fed required to allow licensed entities access to its borrowing window? And on what grounds may they deny access to their borrowing window?"
Economics,"1. Because it has a fiduciary duty to the citizens. The only people who would maintain a balance after the inflation rate outpaces would be the ignorant and that's why it is a scheme to begin with. The bankers make money no matter what the inflation rate is at zero risk. The bank is thus failing it's fiduciary duty through essentially false representation of the entire system and their plan. 



2. Fiduciary duty.

3. -

4. Business ethics matters everywhere. The fact of the matter is that this is without a doubt a simple get rich quick scheme based on what may be a temporary measure. By the way ""returning the money"" if inflation eats it won't be as simple as it sounds over prolonged time and I'm certain there will be someone who gets the brunt of this really basic scheme. And he is likely poor and financially uneducated."
Economics,"I think I'll just explain the problem:

It isn't ""we will beat inflation"" that's the problem claim. 

It is ""we are risk free"" that's the problem claim.

All other banks offer loans and partake in investments which carry risk. TNB won't. This means that they can only invest in the riskless asset of US Treasury bonds and hold money with the Fed.

The model is required to beat inflation specifically because if, even without fees, the bank holds your money without any investments greater than inflation all the money declines in value meaning that giving your money back to you essentially becomes an impossibility. If you put in $100 after inflationary adjustment they can only give you $1.95 back at that rate but the cost to hold was really $2 so you make -$.05. That's without fees.

However even with the fee without any means to produce a profit greater than inflation, because the fee is part of an already underwater system, the cost to operate goes beyond culpability and then we end up with a naturally insolvent system.

So ""stupid"" people like me are why you're not scammed all the time because ""smart"" people like you don't know what too focus on."
Economics,"Now level 2.

FDIC. The money in an openly insolvent bank is insured by Fed. So the Fed gets shafted for raising its own rates by a run on this bank because it is naturally insolvent to begin with. No one with a brain would put more than the secure amount less interest believed to be made on the deal in the bank so that they don't get burned. 

Insert common consumers like you who don't get it and lost money on the deal meanwhile the bankers lose nothing because it is wholly legal."
Economics,"Because employment has increased so much. People aren't spending much time jobless at this time. If you had a job it's fairly easy to get another one. And people aren't being laid off right now which is primarily how you get on unemployment which is what this measures. 

Poverty issues are people that won't show up on this list. Those who never really had a steady job or who are fired. Or those who quit without prospects of a new job. And of course underemployment."
Economics,"Labor markets were less efficient back then. The internet is a real game changer in matching people together - those looking for work with those looking for labor (labor markets). You see this in a ton of other areas: those looking for a particular kind of food (spicy soft shell crab roll) with those serving a particular kind of food (yelp); those wanting to drive from A to B with those wanting to go from A to B (ride hailing companies); etc etc. 

Online dating is odd tho - more people are single than ever. But maybe that’s actually a success metric and marriage is giving up? "
Economics,"ITT: People who don't seem to understand what the new jobless claims number represents.

I also think this is something that hasn't really gotten a lot of attention when it is bizarrely low. As a percentage of employment we've been in unprecedented territory for [three straight years](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=liyI) and it's only continuing to decrease.

My guess is that it has a lot to do with the so-called ""gig economy"" and rise in contracting and temporary workers, but I don't have any solid numbers to that effect. There's a lot of questions about [how to measure it](https://www.npr.org/2018/06/07/617863204/one-in-10-workers-are-independent-contractors-labor-department-says). "
Economics,"A person retiring early, forgoes tens if not hundreds of thousands dollars in revenues and thus spending. This reduction in spending reduces the need for employees at the places the money would have been spent. It also reduces the amount of taxes collected by government and thus reduces governments' ability to provide services, to spend and to create jobs. The early retiree is also more likely to need financial help from children and family raising the burden even further on those poor young underemployed people and their underfunded government.

The longer people work, the less they directly or indirectly rely on the younger generation to provide for them."
Economics,"It's both really. It used to be a cultural taboo to get divorced, people were expected to find someone and settle down, and (and this goes quadruple for women) you were expected socially to settle down earlier. Now, it's no longer weird for a guy or gal to say ""I don't wanna ever get married or have kids."" Nobody bats an eye at a 50 year old who says he's happy, and also isn't married with kids.

That said, if you do wanna get married/find love, there are more obstacles to settling down than ever. Going to college, constantly moving to find a job, ect.

I'll only add one more thing onto this, people today have more choices than ever, simply because they have the tech to see who they can match with in their area, so you can see 50+ potential mates. Now, ironically, when you have too many choices you wind up being less likely to actually pick one because there is a lot more vetting to do, and you are allowed to be pickier. On the other hand, if this were 50 years ago I'd have just a few choices and I'd go with the best option I could realistically get. (The phenomenon is called choice overload.) So that could be a hypothetical factor.  


EDIT: I have to say too, that choice overload bit is a social psychology finding, and social psych is having something of a replication crisis right now, so feel free to take that with a grain of salt. That's why I made a point to call it a *hypothetical* factor. "
Economics,"I would argue against this. Obviously, it depends on where you live, but in a lot of areas in America it is perfectly acceptable to be single, and to remain single. The only places where I could see it being a problem is maybe in rural religious areas. Perhaps I should rephrase the argument though. It is now *more* acceptable to be single on a permanent basis. Not totally acceptable everywhere, and with everyone."
Economics,"Sure, til some oligarch like Putin steals the wealth of the nation and then you have no laws and you can all be at the rise and fall of revolution and corruption.  We don't need a robber baron economy where they think the world's their personal oyster.  Otherwise, that shit can be decided by who's the most violent.  

If we can't even fine companies to affect their behavior effectively, I don't think this broken system will last while everyone dreams of someday winning the lifestyle of the rich and famous, they're getting looted while they daydream.

The US government has kept a war on drugs for fifty years, it can do what the will of the people decide or like I'm told by so many conservatives, find a new place to live where mobsters thrive."
Economics,">Sure, til some oligarch like Putin steals the wealth of the nation and then you have no laws and you can all be at the rise and fall of revolution and corruption

So you think a law setting a ""maximum salary"", concentrating that kind of power in the hands of government, will prevent something like Putin stealing wealth...  That's cute.

You don't steal wealth when you're getting paid by someone else, no matter how much they pay you.

> If we can't even fine companies to affect their behavior effectively 

Is a completely different issue than a federal ""maximum wage""... You're using the idea of reasonable oversight and enforcement to sell an unreasonable idea.

> The US government has kept a war on drugs for fifty years 

You're all over the place here... Again, this has \*nothing\* to do with setting a maximum wage. Also, I'm not fond of the WOD and the way we fight it....

You don't seem to want to be a citizen, you want to be a serf.."
Economics,"You do realize that these workers in other nations are human too, and require identical inputs in order to produce their labor? The minimum wage is largely focused on luxury services too, a guy isn't going to wash your car from india or deliver you a pizza from bolivia.

Blame the currency exchange rates if you need to, but not the simple observation that humans need to consume calories of energy in order to exert calories of energy."
Economics,"1) I'm pretty sure he didnt think a kid selling newspapers on the corner should by law be making the same as a coal miner or industrial worker supporting a family. Do you have any evidence he thought every single job should pay enough to support an entire family.

2) He was also against public sector unions.... So are you picking and choosing when to back him based on electoral results?

"" All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.  "" -- FDR"
Economics,"“No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country... By living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level — I mean the wages of a decent living.” (1933, Statement on National Industrial Recovery Act)

“Do not let any calamity-howling executive with an income of $1,000 a day, who has been turning his employees over to the Government relief rolls in order to preserve his company’s undistributed reserves, tell you – using his stockholders’ money to pay the postage for his personal opinions — tell you that a wage of $11.00 a week is going to have a disastrous effect on all American industry.” (1938, Fireside Chat, the night before signing the Fair Labor Standards Act that instituted the federal minimum wage)

“All but the hopelessly reactionary will agree that to conserve our primary resources of man power, government must have some control over maximum hours, minimum wages, the evil of child labor and the exploitation of unorganized labor.” (1937, Message to Congress upon introduction of the Fair Labor Standards Act)

"
Economics,"> No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.

Let's read the whole thing... okay..

""by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls""

No boys selling papers, flipping burgers? Why did you edit that part out? eh?

And do you agree with FDR on public sector unions?"
Economics,"Work on personal projects, make a website that highlights them in a portfolio/blog setting. Make them pop. Eventually you'll find someone who will like your initiative and style and hire you, depending on which field you are looking at. 

This is coming from someone who graduated in 2014 (M.A.) and worked at a small, niche company where I didn't really learn anything. When I was looking for other work the last 4 months I finally found a place that was into me for my brain and skills rather than industry experience. The projects showed creativity and initiative, which opened doors that wouldn't have been there otherwise."
Economics,"What school did you go to? Where state do you live? Are you willing to move for a position? I had a lot of friends have a problem finding a position just out of college from 2009 - 2012, but since then they have been able to start their careers. I'm just wondering what else could be the problem. The economy is strong, you should be able to find a position in your field. "
Economics,"Econ alone can be a bit rough without a Master's or PhD or some other skill.  


You really gotta network and move to a place like Chicago or DC to put that degree to work. Then, the pedigree gets raised because of the demand for higher education levels. Getting an Economist position with just a Bachelor's is pretty tough because of the sheer competition. You're probably better off looking at financial analyst roles and, even then, it's a little bit of underemployment in my opinion.  


\- MS in Economics but, somehow, work as a Software Engineer but could probably fit into any analytical/research architecture role pretty well."
Economics,"Employed Econ Major here. From an extremely small school. 

Where are you applying and what you are applying for?

Unless you are in DC, NY, or near one of the Federal Reserve branches, you are going to have trouble getting a job that is just pure economics. Economics can be molded into many different career fields. Finance, Marketing, Data Analytics, etc etc. Even if your goal is to work purely in a policy environment, there's plenty of benefit in a corporate environment. "
Economics,"You should look into moving to Sacramento and work for the state government or NYC or D.C.  There are lot of jobs in the these locations for people with economics degrees. You also might find something that isn't necessarily pure economics but is just related. Also, make sure that your resume is well written and formatted. If you don't have people around you who can read and edit your resume, then hire a good professional resume writer. Go to networking events. Use Linkedin to network and have coffee with hiring managers. There is so much that you can do to put that extra effort in to get the job you want and deserve. Good luck. "
Economics,"That’s such bullshit. Bullshit jobs do not look good on a resume and only bullshit employers consider you if your resume is tainted with bullshit jobs. I graduated with a masters in stats 8 years ago and worked in retail during the recession. I still make 30k a year. Those jobs did nothing for my resume besides discredit my education. Good employers don’t take me seriously anymore. Never EVER take a shit job. They only lead to other shit jobs,"
Economics,"> Not sure if you knew this but that figure includes everyone 15 years old and over. Teenagers aren't earning wages to support themselves.

They damn well should be building that nest egg. Not only do they have no assets (car, house, passive income etc), but once they hit the workforce, they are still going to be lumped into that ""work for a loss so you can gain experience"" category, even though they have experience; and they are going to get hosed on everything (rent, insurance, healthcare etc).

> You probably want to look at median household income which is 61k. Big difference.

Thats two working adults, each earning 30k..."
Economics,"If you say you're right, you must be right.  I'm sorry for ever doubting you.  You are the real economics genius here, after all you're a mathematician!  60k / 2 obviously equals 30k.  Silly me.  Next time I design the bridge you drive over every day, I'll just tell my boss that it's okay to divide by two in the designs when we reduce the amount of traffic by half - it's totally safe because a guy on reddit told me so!"
Economics,"Jack Ma himself has said, 

""When trade stops, war begins.""

In the past, the West's international policy was to control trade WITH war. Hence imperialism in the past and whats going on in the Middle East recently with trying to control oil. Today while America has shifted to a ""promote war and stop trade"" model with Trump and his band of idiots. China is in Africa producing a ""start massive amounts of trade and don't promote war at all"" model.

Remember, China used to be run by a fascist dictator as well, with a nation in complete disarray. But they have since pulled a 180 and China can't even come up in conversation without being followed by ""next superpower?"" They didnt this through war but through trade. Today they want to bring the same process to Africa. Promote trade, commerce, and technology and know that as people see the benefits of trade, they will naturally push out ideas promoting fascism and their leaders will have to change to reflect that. Just like China did in the 1980s. [Kigali is a great example of this change in action.](https://youtu.be/FFGtGfLUP4o)

China is looking for new places for resources, to import goods from, and to export labor to because China knows manufacturing for the world has ruined their environment. Just like it did to the US in our industrial revolution before we exported our labor to China. So now they want to also export their labor to a country that has more nature than money instead of more money than nature. 

"
Economics,"In America the prevailing opinion is Mao was a tyrant. But a lot of westerners right now also think Xi is a tyrant which is something you can get a feel for on Reddit. Especially after the term limits elimination. I disagree with this opinion on Xi, myself.

If you feel different about Mao, you may know better. I'm an American. But you have to admit, in the 1970s China was pretty bad place to be place compared to America at the time."
Economics,"Where are all you people in other threads on China. Americans and a lot of westerners consider China fascists and dictators simply because they are communists and Americans are brainwashed to see communists that way. I literally have tens of thousands of dollars invested in Chinese companies that trade on US exchanges like Alibaba and JD because I noticed how skewed the US's view of China is and how cheap those stocks are because they're being underestimated because Americans think 

*""These companies HAVE TO be scams and hiding something. How can a communist state possibly innovate  better than us exceptional Americans.""*

Every thread is full of the kind of people who are convinced China's 30 years of development and Trillions in products are only because they wholesale stole from us great Americans and how the documentary ""The China Hustle"" is basically what all of China must be like. Then I come here and make an off hand comment about the exact thing Reddit screams about and you're coming out the woodwork to be offended."
Economics,"I think many in these particular discussion find your categorization of PRC being a fascist state quite odd. Since I am an American I understand there is odd tendencies in the state to link communism automatically to fascist, but there is really not a whole lot of evidence for it in post revolution China. Let's not forget, this is a country with 56 officially recognized ethnicities and thousands years of ethnic exchanges (sometimes violent, often times in relative harmony). And they were just coming out of hundreds years of imperial rule under a minority ethnicity over the dominate Han. 

Dictatorship wise, I guess there will be more people feel China is one, especially during Mao's time. And PRC had been on a single party dictatorship from then on. These may be all true, but since the alternative is not any better (KMT of the RoC fleeted to Taiwan and the first two (2nd and 3rd) presidents were father and son and both for life. It is widely speculated had not for the Chiang Ching Kou's untimely death due to eating grape fruit, the single party rule of RoC/Taiwan will continue far longer), the argument is largely just for categorization purpose, cannot directly related to economic performance of the country. What Xi did with eliminate the terms limit is worrisome. But note that being the president of PRC does not ultimately make you the commander-in-chief like in the US. The authority of military power (中央军委主席) and party lead （中央委员会总书记）has never had term limits, and in fact Mao was not the president of PRC for most of his later years but still able to have the complete control over the country. Will setting up term limits for the other two authorities better for its people? Most likely. Will slowly shifting the single party rule republic to a democratic republic better for China's future? Maybe, but at least lots people inside and outside of China is hoping for this and working on it while what Xi did can be see as a major set back. But again, it is very hard to say anything about the link of dictatorship and country's economic performance. 


TL;DR: I believe most commenters  only have issue with your classification of China being fascist state, not everything you said. Communist does not automatically equal fascist, nor everything bad are fascist. "
Economics,"I am not arguing the technical nor historical accuracy of the terminology or that Mao wasn't a fascist. Just that in America there is fairly large set of prevailing beliefs that China was fascist and in some cases people believe that even today China's one party, no term limits, and censored internet makes them fascist. Which is indicated by articles like these.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/world/asia/01iht-letter01.html

https://ipolitics.ca/2017/10/12/the-dawn-of-a-fascist-china-and-what-it-means-for-us/

I don't agree with it at all. I think it's American exceptionalism and bias to think just because other culture don't believe and hold dear the same metrics that you do, doesn't mean that they are evil. But it's not an uncommon belief in America. Enough that articles like this can be given credance to some degree shows it's not some opinion I made up myself. Remember that a huge section of Americans also believe that not standing for the national anthem is akin to treason. So accuracy of this opinion is not my goal. Just that it exists.

"
Economics,"The only problem with your line of argument is that there are objective definitions of fascism and  dictatorship. And objective categorization of political movements/structures matter. Not only because it matters in the interest of historical curiosity, but also more importantly it is very important to contemporary political behaviors and rationales. 

Here is a very fine video debunking American right wing's claim that Nazism is socialist. Hopefully, through that you can see what I mean. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUFvG4RpwJI"
Economics,"Honestly, I think this study has entered our collective unconscious, which explains why so many people believe it. The NY Times article made big waves, and now everyone accepts it as more or less true. 

This may be especially true of secular people like myself who don't turn to religious authorities for life advice. Millennials are largely secular. 

More and more I realize that a great deal of my life decisions have been shaped by various think pieces, TED talks, popular studies and op eds. My brain is filled with ideas like ""the Mediterranean diet is best,"" ""value experiences over possessions,"" and ""exercise is treatment for a great number of ills.""

It's not necessarily a bad thing, except I probably should reexamine those beliefs every so often. And with the replication crisis in psychology, not all of them are necessarily true. "
Economics,"Those studies don't take into account how much happier your kids are when you can pay for their whole tuition and rent, or how much happier you are for the 5 extra years of retirement that your savings bought you. 

It's stupid. There's no real reason to assume that lifetime happiness and enjoyment will stop scaling beyond some arbitrary threshold of annual income, and it comes across like an attempt at placating the middle class from aspiring for more. Any study that shows these results needs to have its assumptions and methods of assessing happiness examined and validated before my perspective is going to change materially. "
Economics,"It's not just accepting a study though.  I know when my income passed about 75k, life got a lot easier, and increases since then have been meh.  The real difference is that you stop worrying about regular bills.  They're all taken care of, and you just try not to waste money on stupid stuff.

The reason it translates to so many other people is that when you add up all the typical wants of a modest family, you end up around 75k a year.  Above that point you start looking at savings and investment, which may be confusing, but not nearly as stressful as worrying about making the rent payment."
Economics,"Aspiring for more income or for something else? Most psychologists would argue that there is an order in which needs have to be satisfied to be happy, starting with basic necessities like food and shelter. We're biologically hardwired to become extremely happy when the necessities are met and the arbitrary thresholds these studies suggest  seem to be at a level where meeting basic needs isn't an issue to worry about anymore. Anything affecting happiness past that is up to the individual and what they want to accomplish. "
Economics,"Happiness has a lot to do with having something to look forward to.  At $75,000 your needs are being met but there is still something to work towards. “I want to save for that trip out west.”  “Once we get this much money we can pay off our house” 

Once you go over $75,000 a lot of the small ambitions are no longer as exciting. Paying off a car just doesn’t have the same excitement, that extra $300 is just not as exciting as it was when you were a little bit poorer. "
Economics,"The stress I feel in my job now as a technical lead is far less than what I felt when I was broke in college and had times where I wondered how I would make rent and utilities. This is especially so when you’re splitting bills with a roommate and they can’t come through one month or your shitty college job cuts your hours for daring to ask for a day off to study for exams. 

My job now can be stressful, but I like what I do. So occasionally having to really bust ass or work miracles isn’t so bad when I don’t wonder if I can pay for groceries, don’t wonder if I can afford to put gas in my car, and something like to A/C going out in my house is an expensive inconvenience rather than a crisis or just learning to live without (in the southeast US where it’s hot and humid). "
Economics,"I refinanced to a 5 year plan to get a better interest rate. It's more painful initially, but should save ~$30-40k. 

But yes, ""average"" medical school debt is roughly $200k upon graduation, including the 30% of students who owe nothing 2/2 military  or rich parents. Residency and fellowship salaries don't allow for payments that cover interest, so it's pretty common to see total loan burden of $300k on completion of training, including principal and capitalized interest. "
Economics,"You know Millennials are 22 to 37 years old now. Many of them are 10-15 years out of college with kids and a mortgage. It's not all that unrealistic to hope to make $75,000 at year at that age.

These aren't a bunch of spoiled kids anymore. These are people that are entering their prime earning period of their lives and have very large expenses with student loans, sky-high home prices and rising medical costs. "
Economics,"Ya, if they have to choose between a statistician who has been underemployed or a fresh newbie, they'll choose the fresh newbie. But why are you just passively applying to thousands of jobs. You shouldn't apply to jobs that you haven't personally talked to a recruiter about first. Even when I graduated, I found it hard to get an interview with any company I didn't have a contact with. And I have an ivy league degree. 

If you are judging your worth based on sending thousands of applications online, then not only is your perception skewed, but you are misunderstanding the modern job market. Your process should be to attend a networking event every Friday and Saturday night, getting a couple dozen business cards, then monitoring those businesses for new postings. Then do it every weekend for 3-4 months until you find a good position. If you are just sending applications from home every weekend, that's not going to be successful. 

Statistics even puts you in a better position to overcome your bad resume. First, remove your bad old jobs. Second, spend your free time doing open source collaboration works on Github, then put that on your resume. No one will know you were underemployed. They'll just see someone who actively spends their free time on worthy online projects. "
Economics,"It's more efficient to do it this way (this is also proven mathematically with social networking models). Employers get thousands of emails, so how else should they sort through it? Let me tell you what a recruiter at a think tank told me: ""the top 100 candidates for any position we post are nearly indistinguishable. They will all perform equally well at the job. So how do I pick who to hire? It essentially becomes random."" 

Going the extra mile by wasting all your weekends on career development is how good firms decide on the best candidate. There's no other way. Like propose another system. Just looking at online resume applications? How will you decide between the top 100 candidates? Every candidate to Deloitte or Bain or Google has published 20 papers and almost won a Nobel Prize. You can't pick just based on the paper application. It's **inefficient**

Honestly, the real way the economy works is better for you than the way you think it works. In your version of reality, you are fucked. In real life, you get a better job by sacrificing leisure. "
Economics,"I’m saying if it takes that much effort just to get noticed by an employer, it is inefficient to keep applying. Most college grads are better off starting their own company. There’s too much competition among employees and your efforts are best spent elsewhere. At some point it is a systemic issue not a personal one. It may be efficient on the employers side, but it is incredibly inefficient on the employee side."
Economics,"I think you are confusing efficient for easy. How is it not efficient? What would a better alternative system be? 

If you think the opportunity cost of this process is too high, then start a business. But most people don't think that. There is no objective metric of where your efforts are best spent. it all depends on your utility function and expected probabilities. 

You have a choice to make: continue being paid low or sacrifice leisure to get a better job. If you think its too much effort given the possible payoff of a good job, that's fine. but don't blame things that aren't to be blamed."
Economics,I find it funny whenever I’m in a training and the presenter goes into the “those millennials and their cell phones and iPads and selfies and social media and changing jobs if you don’t invest in them. Am I right?” or a coworker starts in on it. Then they look at me for affirmation because I’m not in my early 20s. No man - I’m 36. That makes me a millennial too. Thy usually clam up when I mention that. 
Economics,"But you cant always change reality.  They never think of paring down, ever.  Moving to a cheaper area, not taking on any new debt (even after taking on student loans they couldnt afford to pay back.)  Buying a very small home with all that money they are ""saving for retirement"" sitting in their 401ks they think they need to live a life of travel and luxury when theyre old. People my age never, ever seem to consider alternatives outside of what they ""dreamed.""   They need to wake up and learn about how the economy works, and how they fit into it.  Because sometimes you cant earn more, and it happens, and that's the worst time to see things for the way they really are.  Better rip off the bandaid now and find meaning outside your career because if and when that is gone, you are gonna have a bad time."
Economics,"You’re right it’s not completely in your control.  However that doesn’t mean you are helpless either.  Don’t let your degree or your past experiences define you.  

You having a bachelors degree alone can get you many entry level positions even if they are low paying.  Use any job or position you can as a stepping stone and get to know people.  Stick close to the successful ones and learn from then.  Above all light a fire under your own ass and be ready to work.  It may sound harsh but it’s the truth.  I’m not trying to be condescending."
Economics,"This isn't exactly true per se. (Gots me an MA in Psych).

The truth is we have found an approximate amount of money (that will change due to things like inflation/social expectancies and such) where making more money ceases to increase your happiness. However, other important factors about your job other than pay will affect overall job satisfaction. These are things like autonomy (do you make some decisions about how you finish your work, or are you completely at your bosses whims), mastery (a job can't be so difficult that you can't get good at it, BUT, it can't be so easy that it poses no challenge), and meaning (do you feel doing your job does good for the world). Further, there are aspects about your overall happiness (from a Eudaimonia perspective) that are important to think of as well. These are things like social contact/activity and health factors. Saying there is a perfect amount of money you need to be happy is an oversimplification. You can make less money and still be happy due to finding a great social circle, being fit and healthy, and finding something in your life that gives it meaning, and you can be a millionaire and also miserable. 

This is all from research I read about a while ago, so I may be misremembering some things, and I will need time to dig up the sources."
Economics,"Honestly first of all get out of social work.  Seriously take any god damn job besides social work.  That is not an industry built off growth and profits.  It’s an industry based off dependency.  

Seriously look into a trade/skilled job.  Trade employers don’t give two fucks about your education or history.  They just care if you can get the job done.  I’d be happy to tell you about my line of work if you’re willing to listen.

Also because of your degree I’m sure you’re good with money, but the folks at r/personalfinance are great at helping you optimize your wealth and income."
Economics,"But that number has been floated around for a while. As soon as I read the OP, I became suspicious that that may have influenced the answer given in the poll. It’s a pretty reasonable thing to search on Google, which I’m sure many of the respondents had, and more probably heard it second hand. I’m wondering if that’s truly their own assessment or if they just thought it was the right answer."
Economics,"i think it's totally dependent on your living costs. that amount of money in mainland europe is tremendous; but in the US that is just about enough to start feeling happy (generalization, of course).

due to not having to pay back student loans and having affordable healthcare, along with (again, generally) great public transport systems in most major cities in europe, it wouldn't surprise me if the living costs are significantly lower across the pond"
Economics,"I was under the impression that's what an ""investment bank"" was.

...but then again, no Glass Steagall Act.

On a more serious note, ""narrow banking"" is the business that the Treasury is in (assuming ""full faith and credit"" rules apply), so it's not terribly surprising that the Fed shut them down (probably just a silly Austrian publicity stunt anyway).

Still, the bigger question for ""narrow banking"" is, ""what exactly will they do with depositor money?""  I mean, if they're just going to buy Treasuries and pass on the risk free rate, I think the ""narrow bank"" CEO isn't going to make very much."
Economics,"The Treasury has a complex relationship with the Fed.

*The* primary monetary tool the Fed has at its disposal is being able to set the interest rate (the ""full faith and credit"" part of the Treasury's mission statement makes the the Fed's interest rate a ""risk free rate of return"").  

Implicit in that bargain is than the Treasury doesn't go off and do something that causes interest rates to depart Fed control.  Last time that happened was when Volcker was brought in to get the Fed back in control of run-away Treasury policy.  The key here is to understand the Treasury bond auction price discovery mechanism.  When Treasury auctions start to fail and the bonds get handed back in unpurchased, that's basically the market (""bond vigilantes"" as the Fed likes to call them) telling the US government that their ""full faith and credit"" guarantee is going to cost a little more this week (and maybe even more the next week and even more than week after that).  Left unchecked, the Fed loses control of the ability to set interest rates.  That's why, **when Treasury bond auctions start to fail, the Fed always steps in and buys what the market will not**.  This why the debt ceiling political show that gets put on every couple of years is such a huge fucking charade.  The Fed basically produces ever increasing debt by purchasing unpurchased bonds that would otherwise allow the market to start setting interest rates.  Thus, we arrive at the conclusion that **the Treasury isn't the one ""printing the money""**; it's the Fed that does that work.

Fundamentally, **what the Fed does is prevent interest rates from characterizing risk**.  Why does it do this?  Risk in the bond world is the risk of default.  A central bank's singular purpose in life (and you can forget the ""dual mandate"" window dressing) is to keep the debt the central bank has created intact."
Economics,"So I looked at the report to see where the 81 billion came from. The fact that the military does things like fight pirates along oil shipping lanes in the Persian gulf really cant be described as a ""subsidy to oil"" can it? That's just militaries doing their jobs. 

Using that logic, Bangladesh spends huge sums fighting maoist insurgents, a chief beneficiary is the fashion industry. Do you argue that Bangladesh is subsidizing the fashion industry with its military? 

Hell, the NYPD spends a lot of money combating organized crime. If you own a pizza shop in New York, and the NYPD's anti organized crime initiatives stopped a gang from extorting protection money, is that the government subsidizing the pizza industry? 



"
Economics,"Yeah the fact that they try to tie 19 million barrels a day of oil the US imports to overseas contingency spending, when the vast majority of that comes from either internally from the US or imported from Canada means these findings can be safely ignored. At the end of the day of those 19 million barrels 9 million come from within the US, 4[ million from Canada, just under 1 million from Saudi Arabia, with only 1.7 million in total coming from the Persian gulf.](https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbblpd_a.htm) Afghanistan doesn't export anything and Iraq only exports .6 million bpd to us. 

On a broader note though, securing the global commons and safeguarding worldwide trade is easily one of the most valuable services the US military provides. If you factor in the 81 billion in cost of these operations then you should also factor in the trillions of dollars in trade that occurs between the US and its partners alone, much less the tens of trillions that occur on an annual basis throughout the world in no small part due to the more secure world we live in since the soviet union went away. "
Economics,"Not in a way. This is exactly what it is. There is nothing wrong with subsidies, it has become taboo to discuss them because it gets tagged into socialism or communism.  When a local government looks at the cost of building roads to a potential new development, we don't say ""well isn't that just the job of the transportation department"". We *should* run a cost benefit analysis and debate the merits from there. "
Economics,"This would be a compelling argument if the enforcement of shipping lane safety was uniform or performed with disregard of the region or interests it intends to protect.

Consider a scenario where the NYPD only stops crime that impacts pizza places. The US military overlooks a great deal of suffering and lawlessness in the world because it doesn’t advance the interests of the American economy. 

If the US military has to perform the functions of the military of other countries solely for the benefit of cheaper oil, it seems like more like a subsidy and less like “we are just upholding the order!”"
Economics,"> $10k - $30k for an evacuation from an embassy

Interesting point  ( and something I didn't know ). That sounds more like a fine than a fee, though. Then again, with private contractors... 

I consider how we mainly use hydrocarbons to subsidize land use patterns to be the ugliest part of it. I mean residential land use - people are pushed out to exurbs because of land price and we don't capture land rents near where they work. 

This being said, I've seen parts of the oil industry up close. People are mainly there because there's money. But the fact that hydrocarbons basically got us out of a 19th century social structure has some merit. "
Economics,"\> That's why corporate taxes are justified more so than taxes on consumption or labour.   


Not really, since a) the corporations would just defend their own property-if the state lets them-and b) corporate taxes are just passed onto the consumer anyways.  


So it's just the state not letting the corporation do it, then charging them for doing the thing they would do otherwise, all with pointing the same proverbial guns at each party."
Economics,What I'm saying is that the resource extraction from developing nations on a massive scale being conducted by oil corporations creates an environment (extreme poverty in close proximity with high-value unarmed targets in open waters) in which large scale military protection from a hegemonic state halfway across the globe is required for the business to be viable or profitable. Corporations selling internationally shipped goods (usually exploiting cheap labor from the developing world) also provide easy targets in the same way; they should be subject to the same sort of analysis imo.
Economics,"The highest value isn’t oil, it’s manufactured goods. Sure, oil tankers might be more valuable, but the container ships are far more numerous. Some pirate lord doesn’t care about the cargo, they care about the fact that the owner of the ship is willing to pay him a couple million to release it. The ship is way too large for him to hide, and the infrastructure required to effectively collect the cargo from the ship and resell it elsewhere is too expensive for said pirate lord to construct. They’re looking for a quick buck - that means capturing the easiest target possible, phoning in the threat, collecting the cash, and getting the hell out.

So essentially, what you’re saying is, *if global trade didn’t exist, and everyone lived in poverty, piracy wouldn’t exist either*. And that’s just fucking wrong on so many levels."
Economics,"I mean, I generally agree with you, but...

The victims of... probably most crimes are... not just innocent, but aggressively innocent. The pizza shop is just a fucking pizza shop. It's not putting itself in any risky position. It's not placing itself under a volcano. It probably didn't knowingly pick the building next to mafia home base to do business in. They have a lock on their door. They do everything they're supposed to do to operate a regular, not-unusually-risky business. Accordingly, we feel comfortable ""insuring"" their safety. Their taxes are their insurance premiums; the police are their policy.

And, you know, I don't wanna play the victim blame game. Of course, the police stop, or should stop, criminals when the victims are not being as safe as possible, and even when the victims are pretty evil. But I think that analogy is harder when you're talking about corporations operating in knowingly risky conditions. They're putting themselves in a position where they know that the US Government is going to have to spend billions to defend them, and is going to do it. And they're profiting from it in some vague proportion. That's different, isn't it? If we go by the insurance analogy -- isn't their behavior way too risky to insure at the usual price?"
Economics,"Take ""former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman. “More than half the Defense budget is for the security of Persian Gulf oil.”""

That's a tricky bit - the model in play for regimes in the region is based on the House of Saud. The primary business of the House of Saud is hospitality in and around Mecca and Medina. Those are destinations of pilgrims on The Haj. 

That means they can't be ""military"" in an interesting way. There is a standard , based in perception amongst Muslims that giving the appearance of interfering with performing the Haj is a grave sin. 

So they farm that out to us. This is by treaty and by ( otherwise independent of treaty ) policy. 

The fact that it is related to oil is very nearly beside the point. Our relationship with the House of Saud is one we more or less inherited from the British as the Empire declined. That being said, security of the flow of oil is a legitimate strategic concern. 

I think a better framing of a question is ""well, should we be World Police at all?"" Maybe not, but path dependence is just one of those things... "
Economics,"> In order to make a profit, you first need property rights and private property. Sovereign states are what's making sure of these things.

Right.  Sovereign states gain their rightful authority from their enforcing of the rule of law.  

> That's why corporate taxes are justified more so than taxes on consumption or labour

Huh?  How does this follow?  You just pointed out that everyone benefits from the protection of the state; why are taxes on some aspects of the economy more justified than others?"
Economics,"> We should run a cost benefit analysis and debate the merits from there.

Yes. But we should also have a system in place that prevents the owner/ceo of the company building that new development from bribing the local government into building that road even if it's shown to non-beneficial by independent analysis. 

The economics of things political in nature do not run on a simple cost benefit analysis or in a vacuum. "
Economics,"The $81 billion in direct costs for patrolling sea lanes doesn't protect oil alone, but it's doubtful that the U.S. Navy would care as much about what goes on in the western Indian Ocean without it.

Moreover, this routine policing doesn't include the vastly costlier *wars* for control of the Middle East oil patch, which are a much more direct subsidy:

>And that’s still only direct military costs, which are just one piece of the puzzle. The economists Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz have done [**extraordinary work**](https://go.redirectingat.com/?id=66960X1516588&xs=1&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FThree-Trillion-Dollar-War-Conflict%2Fdp%2F0393334171) attempting to tally up the full costs of the wars, including higher oil prices, debt service, obligations to returning veterans, lost wages, lost lives, and much else. They [**estimated the total**](https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/estimating-costs-war-methodological-issues-applications-iraq-and-afghanistan) at somewhere between $4 and $6 trillion.

​"
Economics,"That's not the only factor though. William Lazonik writes a lot about how legislation allowing share-buybacks for executives and boardmembers has become a major culprit in increasing inequality between employees and employers.

Taxation is a mechanism of redistribution and nobody has really solved the question of how to best tax coorporations given their capability of moving capital and disguising profits as costs in their accounting (Starbucks in the UK is a great example). Look up G. Zucmann and A. Alstadsæter for more details on this."
Economics,"Not sure why you would be “absolutely certain” about something based off of a relatively uncontroversial opinion, but part of the reason I think that is I’ve had “real jobs” in government, non profit and for profit sectors. Occasionally, I’d find those positions in the first two, and I’m not saying they don’t exist in the corporate world, just that they are relatively rare. I obviously haven’t worked in every company ever. 

That said, I’ve worked with plenty of people who suck at their jobs, which I guess makes them pointless, but the role itself would be beneficial if it had an effective person in it. 

Also, who cares how much experience I’ve had? It’s an empirical guess on my part and same as yours. Sounds like we’re both coloring our opinions on personal experience, no?"
Economics,"Got it. I don’t wholly agree, but get your point then. I was interpreting pointless as in “unnecessary for the operation/business,” in which case I’m sure they exist but those jobs generally tend to get phased out. This takes time so there are always a few, but if prevalent in any single business or industry, the whole thing won’t be around long. 

To your point, I think there’s some truth there, but I’m not sure to the degree of it’s all entirely pointless. It doesn’t have to be life-affirming to be a marginal positive, and those marginal positives are better than negatives or nothing. Could we ideate some better way for everyone to spend their time, money and labor, I’m sure, but we’ve yet to conceive a way to effectively scale that as far as I know."
Economics,"It probably is a good strategy, but people are too into the whole ""dey took r jerbz"" type hatred of blue collar workers to see it. 

The mainline impression I get from this sub is that we *need* immigration because our citizens will refuse to do this kind of work, when in reality that kind of work wouldn't be considered so demeaning if undocumented and imported laborers weren't completely undercutting and suppressing wages. 

The subtext here is that the middle class love their ridiculously cheap fast food, lawn care, massages, house cleaners, construction, janitors, etc, etc too much to admit that its creating a permanent  underclass of immigrants. We're gonna have weird ethnic class strife... their children will grow older and realize their parents escaped abject poverty in the 3rd world only to leave them with a raw deal relative to their peers in the 1st world.
"
Economics,"> I sincerely wonder what you mean by that. I think there’s a major semantic difference here over what “pointless” means in this context.

It generates no real value, it's simply adding costs and giving a more ""human"" feel to the transaction. Hence ordering kiosks are taking off, and counter-serve restaurants are being adopted extremely rapidly to cut out the cost of having a ""human robot"" do things simple machines with modern technology can do better. "
Economics,"Everyone who's ever worked in an organization knows that dead wood exists.  The problem is that the claim that MOST jobs are pointless is so over the top, it's hard to take seriously.  I feel like he started with the thesis and started added up job titles till he got to 50% and secures a book deal.  

Stuff like saying ""customer service is pointless because nobody should ever make a mistake"" is not an argument made in good faith.   "
Economics,"> In the private, for profit sector, pointless jobs are pretty rare.

Have worked in the private sector for 23 years. I think you're misunderstanding what ""pointless"" means in this case, because across the board, the private sector is riddled with them.

Every middle manager whose job is to tell local management what corporate said and tell corporate how local management is doing is a pointless job.

Virtually all cashiers are either pointless or will be soon.

I once worked on a retail team that went around to different stores in the company to... change the layout because they decided it would work better if this aisle was over there, and this vendor bought this eight foot section here. Then a few months later we'd go change it again. Epitome of pointless."
Economics,"What does any of that have to do with allocation of resources and labor to pointless jobs? Anyone can park their own car, there’s no point in paying someone to do it. The majority of work a bank teller does can be done by an ATM but people prefer to interact with humans so it’s a job. 

Your definition of meaningful work is that people are willing to pay for it therefore it’s a good way to allocate resources. It’s the most surface level analysis of work and its  meaning. "
Economics,"I agree that he overstates the proliferation of useless jobs, particularly among the ""duct tapers"" in customer service. Almost anyone whose worked customer service has dealt with an avoidable problem and is understandably frustrated by that, especially when that problem repeats itself. However, Graeber also makes the case for UBI by arguing that if workers had a minimum guarantee of a comfortable lifestyle without having to work, they would have a greater incentive to fix repeated, avoidable problems since their livelihood is dependent on fixing those repeated problems. 

All in all, Graeber is critiquing an immensely complex phenomenon and therefore his critique is almost certainly incomplete. More analysis is needed."
Economics,"momentum + asymmetric information (you may know your job is 80% pointless, but management might not.)

"" In a competitive industry at any rate—and such an industry alone can serve as a test—the task of keeping cost from rising requires constant struggle, absorbing a great part of the energy of the manager. How easy it is for an inefficient manager to dissipate the differentials on which profitability rests, and that it is possible, with the same technical facilities, to produce with a great variety of costs, are among the commonplaces of business experience which do not seem to be equally familiar in the study of the economist. The very strength of the desire, constantly voiced by producers and engineers, to be allowed to proceed untrammeled by considerations of money costs, is eloquent testimony to the extent to which these factors enter into their daily work.""

Hayek 

https://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw.html"
Economics,"Middle managers are not pointless. That’s like saying the ranks between corporal and 5 star general are useless because he general can just tell the corporals what to do directly...

Advertising and product placement is not useless. It increases demand for certain products and provides additional exposure. Perhaps it’s being done poorly at that company, but it is not a pointless job. 

Cashiers are not pointless. Many people prefer to use cashiers and they’re required for some types of purchases. "
Economics,"You're definitely misunderstanding what ""pointless"" means, then, which is fine. 

People can prefer human cashiers, but they add nothing of value over automation. The world won't break when this unnecessary job is eliminated, and it has already started.

Middle managers are routinely cut by the dozens-to-hundreds at corporations, who see stock prices increase and efficiencies hold steady or grow, because these roles are often duplicating the work of others or just simply have a vague job description to justify themselves. These are easily proven pointless when the layoffs result in no change.

Advertising and product placement increase desire. This is not something that helps society function in any meaningful way. This one's just too obvious to me.

Here's some info on Bullshit Jobs: https://www.vox.com/2018/5/8/17308744/bullshit-jobs-book-david-graeber-occupy-wall-street-karl-marx"
Economics,">People can prefer human cashiers, but they add nothing of value over automation. The world won't break when this unnecessary job is eliminated, and it has already started.

You can say the same about, well, literally anything except food and water basically. Will the world break if you don't have songs, movies, tasty food, etc? No. Do they increase human happiness? Yes. If we were going for bare-minimum survival that's one thing. But people tend to want a society that is prosperous and happy. You can say it doesn't create any real widgets either, but the point of widgets is to provide happiness as well, in some form or another. 

>Middle managers are routinely cut by the dozens-to-hundreds at corporations, who see stock prices increase and efficiencies hold steady or grow, because these roles are often duplicating the work of others or just simply have a vague job description to justify themselves. These are easily proven pointless when the layoffs result in no change.

Some? Yes. All? No. It depends on the specific position. Except during major restructuring which generally happens when a company is already failing due to having pointless jobs (notably, not all companies are doing so) I don't see any of these getting cut. The market responds. 

>Advertising and product placement increase desire. This is not something that helps society function in any meaningful way. This one's just too obvious to me.

Increase desire which is good for the company, okay for consumers. They also increase awareness. You can't properly let the market know what you want if you can't see what the market has to offer. 
"
Economics,"> There is no inherent reason why technological change should increase inequality vs decreases it. - zzzzz94

Comments consisting of mere jokes are against the rules. 

In the event that you're actually serious, the material development and advances in technology in the productive forces, is the primary agent of change in the structure of society and of human social relations and that social systems and their relations (e.g. feudalism, capitalism and so on) become contradictory and inefficient as the productive forces develop, which results in some form of social revolution arising in response to the mounting contradictions which eventually leads to greater equality.


"
Economics,"Kurt Vonnegut talked about exactly that in [Player Piano](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_Piano_(novel%29) - they created a bunch of nonsense jobs for people whose jobs had been replaced with machines, and one of them was definitely flag-waver. 

*edit* If you've never read it, I highly recommend it. It's a reasonably short novel, a good read, and very prescient about our modern condition. (Albeit, of course, highly dated in terms of technology - punch cards are the storage medium of choice.)"
Economics,"> The mainline impression I get from this sub is that we need immigration because our citizens will refuse to do this kind of work

I don't think that's r/Economics point of view on it - it has nothing to do with economics. Illegal immigrants compete for jobs just as citizens do - they buy groceries from the same markets, purchase housing in the same city, etc. Making immigration illegal performs the same function as a trade tariff, and has the same results - it raises the price of a local good above what is competitive, resulting in people purchasing from other countries (outsourcing), and it creates a black market for that good (illegal immigration). 

From an economic standpoint, the complaint that ""these people are willing to work for less than we are"" is not compelling. It's competition. (Now, of course, there's a question of who has the competitive advantage between illegal immigrants and citizens, since the illegal immigrants don't pay certain taxes but also don't receive public assistance or refundable tax credits, but that's a more complex question.)"
Economics,"Sure, that's back to data entry but those people normally do more than just book keep (though some of it certainly could be automated, that'd require each company hire an automation specialist who goes through every job to find what can be automated, which itself would probably not be worth it for many companies, and is infeasible for all of them to do) 

That's still hardly a lot of jobs. Maybe like what, 5% of a typical office? These people normally also do other things that require they know the data (e.g. buyers/sellers) which while surely technically could at some point be automated it is not going to be cost effective to do so. 

  
Also dozens of anecdotes doesn't cut it when talking about an apparently wide-spread uselessnes of jobs. Maybe a few hundred thousand. "
Economics,"> Making immigration illegal performs the same function as a trade tariff, and has the same results - it raises the price of a local good above what is competitive

This would only be the case if immigrants are primarily working in the manufacturing sector lowering the price of domestic goods relative to the global competition, but in my admittedly anecdotal experience they are primarily employed in the service sector and construction; things that you cannot ""outsource"" because they have to exist locally. 

So our ticky tack houses and lawncare and hamburgers (things that we can't get from China) are marginally cheaper than they would be, but our lower class is staring at heavy competition and depressed wages for that low-skill work. More of our citizens getting on government assistance and giving up while undocumented people pick up the slack. It's a net drain on our society. Can you explain why I'm wrong here?

> Now, of course, there's a question of who has the competitive advantage between illegal immigrants and citizens, since the illegal immigrants don't pay certain taxes but also don't receive public assistance or refundable tax credits, but that's a more complex question.

I don't think it's all that complex, that's exactly the concern we are talking about here. They push down wages because they are A. More desperate thus work for less. B. Playing by different rules outside of the law. It's not their fault, I don't blame the undocumented for trying to improve their lives by coming to the US or wherever but that doesn't mean we can ignore the consequences or just keep hand waving it.

"
Economics,"Bullshit jobs are a thing but they aren't permanent. Companies grow and refine the same way bodybuilders do: Cycles of bulking and cutting.

When your company is growing you shouldn't slash. You *should* be less discerning about expenditures because expenditures help grow revenue. But this means inefficiencies build up. Inefficiencies come in many forms, including dead wood. Then you take a year and do a burn. You try and get rid of as much inefficiency as you can while retaining as much revenue as you can, then you go back to growing."
Economics,"> hire an automation specialist 

You mean consultant.  And they may not find everything.

> That's still hardly a lot of jobs. Maybe like what, 5% of a typical office? These people normally also do other things that require they know the data (e.g. buyers/sellers) which while surely technically could at some point be automated it is not going to be cost effective to do so.

Never said it was a lot of jobs (although it depends on your definition of ""a lot"" here; some people would consider ""a few hundred thousand"" as ""a lot"").  I just said they existed and offered a possible explanation of how they exist and some examples."
Economics,"> This would only be the case if immigrants are primarily working in the manufacturing sector lowering the price of domestic goods

The ""good"" in this case is labor. And I would be very surprised if a majority of illegal immigrants are not working in agriculture and manufacturing. 

>It's a net drain on our society. Can you explain why I'm wrong here?

The question would simply be why you think you're right? Why are more people working in a society a ""net drain""? People contribute not just supply but demand to an economy. Pointing to ""heavy competition"" does not suggest that anyone is a ""net drain"". 

>I don't think it's all that complex, that's exactly the concern we are talking about here

I'm not sure you understood the complexity here. It's not entirely clear whether illegal immigrants have a competitive advantage over citizens because of taxes or vice versa. They can't take advantage of refundable tax credits or many kinds of public assistance. And in fact many of them do pay payroll taxes and income taxes even though they can't reap many of the benefits. 

>More desperate thus work for less.

Again, from an economic standpoint, the complaint that someone is willing to work for less than you is not compelling. It very much feels like you're looking for a non-economic answer to this question. From a purely economic standpoint, I'm not sure there's a particularly compelling case for limiting immigration. And certainly whether there is one or not, it has nothing to do with ""taking the jobs we won't do"", that's just a dumb political argument, nor does it have anything to do with ""they will do the jobs for less"", which is a *good* thing from an economic point of view."
Economics,"Let’s say you are making $30k/year, and that happens to be enough to survive on, do you not still look for that next opportunity to increase your salary? “Well if I get X cert or Y title then I can push for a raise or submit a resume to Company Z”. Automation will eventually replace nearly all low level jobs (taxis, truck drivers, fast food, cashiers, etc.). Not just because it will be feasible but also because buying a automated semi will be cheaper than hiring a driver (at least for long haul stuff anyway). 

Right now we rely on the idea that everyone *must* have a job to be a productive member of society. Anyone who doesn’t have a formal job is a slacker/not contributing. Well in all likelyhood that paradigm is going to have to change. 

Let’s be real, how much does a cashier, fast food worker, really advance society, these are menial jobs largely that enable people to survive, but really the world would be better off if we automated them and provided a basic standard of living for everyone. Maybe some people will sit at home and eat bonbons. Which is really already the case as we have various welfare programs and these people will still show up for medical treatment which is then still paid for by society today. However, I believe that vast majority will still look for opportunities to contribute and not having to rely on a 9-5 to survive (buy food/get healthcare) will enable them to pursue other opportunities, think community service, global aid work, greater progress in typically fuzzy areas like philosophy and the arts. 

TL;DR - In the future, not everyone will have to work and that’s fine as society as a whole will be enabled to grow further and faster. 

Edit: People who don’t want to be productive, will find ways of being unproductive regardless, which society inevitably ends up paying for anyway (think about coworkers who have performed at the absolute bare minimum to avoid being fired but still represented a hinderance). Creating a UBI would prevent people who want to be productive, from getting trapped in dead-end, menial jobs."
Economics,"technology can liberate people to pursue higher-value-added work if the technology itself is accessible. 

Most of the innovative software and architectures in the past few decades are paywalled by EULAs, IP restrictions, lack of affordable full-featured subscriptions and the requirement for specialized proprietary training. The only reason we have so many amateur media content creators on the internet is because of how easy it is to get a pirated copy of Adobe AfterEffects. 

That's why we need to fundamentally reform our intellectual property laws and support movements like Creative Commons and Open Access.

Speaking historically, the introduction of industrial technology hasn't really served employees very well. Ford or Toyota installing Kuka robots only reduces your poverty if you just happened to have been a major shareholder in Kuka or Siemens at the time. The problem is that labor is largely excluded from owning substantive amounts of the capital of their employer, which creates competing interests in which the capitalists (who are served directly by the sole decision makers of the firm, those being the C-suite executives and Board of Directors) always win out, to the expense of labor."
Economics,"Marketing isn't about introducing people to new products, it's more about figuring out what kinds of products people are getting ready to buy anyway, and getting them to buy brand x instead of brand y. These days, that is pretty much all automated. 

Companies still have marketing departments because investors equate more hiring to future earnings growth. They get their roi all the same so they're happy, but it's not *really* a function of hiring more people. That's just a number for the slide deck. "
Economics,"> The ""good"" in this case is labor. 

Goods are consumable items, tangible property. Services are non-physical. Labor needn't necessarily produce goods. I might need some clarification here.

> And I would be very surprised if a majority of illegal immigrants are not working in agriculture and manufacturing.

Ok... and I would be very surprised if a majority of US illegal immigrants *are* in agriculture and manufacturing. It's ""undocumented"" by nature which is part of the issue, and hard to prove. Illegal day laborers in domestic service industries and construction is the trope, but maybe there's a ton manufacturing exportable goods for foreign consumption and keeping us competitive? Again, we are working in a information black hole.

> It's not entirely clear whether illegal immigrants have a competitive advantage over citizens because of taxes or vice versa.

They obviously have *some* type of advantage when it comes to taxation... unless you are implying that illegal immigrants are simply better day laborers than our own citizens. How else do we explain the phenomenon of a dozen hispanic men sitting outside of a home depot everyday waiting for something... and little to no white, black, or asian men?

Anecdotally, I worked with some girls from Honduras at a sandwich shop for a couple summers in high school. They admitted that they worked for a little under minimum wage, and I noticed they'd frequently work well more than 12 daily hours allowable. If they couldn't get the owner to let em stay, they would literally switch out t-shirts an walk over the adjacent burrito shop and keep working or vice versa. I would only be guessing at their taxes, but their kids all went the local schools. They were nice people; one was super proud of her first car, another showed off her kids third grade report card. This is what they came here for.

I realize that you want to just be condescending and tell me these experiences don't matter, but maybe you can actually provide information as to why I'm an idiot so I can learn.

> They can't take advantage of refundable tax credits or many kinds of public assistance. And in fact many of them do pay payroll taxes and income taxes even though they can't reap many of the benefits.

We can't know what they do or do not pay in taxes and what governmental services take advantage of *because* they are undocumented, which is part of the issue here.

> ""they will do the jobs for less"", which is a good thing from an economic point of view.

It's a good thing for the country's GDP, it's a bad thing for the people that don't have a job who would've otherwise. I'm more concerned with our citizens' standard of living than I am with gross growth. Can you show that illegal immigration nets us a better quality of life on a per capita basis?"
Economics,"> the wealth inequality that’s caused by it

In a zero-sum world, the rich have to take from the poor to amass wealth. In a non-zero-sum world, which is what we live in, the rich can also amass wealth by positioning themselves to take advantage of market efficiencies that only they have access to. I can be a shipping tycoon who bullies my workers into accepting less pay, thereby making myself richer, and/or I can use robotics to make my shipping more efficient but never share those efficiency gains with my employees. 

Both of these behaviors need to be addressed and curtailed by a strong democratic government. We want innovation, we want competition, we want growth and prosperity, but not at the expense of allowing Robber Barrons to trample over the common man. "
Economics,"Not everyone is incentivized by maximizing overall profit, that only happens in nice perfect econ models. 

In reality, there are tons of forces at play that push a company off the maximum profit line. Think about a sales team that finds its sales bonus tied to beating benchmarks which are largely set by last year's performance. You tend to see sales teams aim to \*just\* beat their annual target and then have no incentive to go beyond since it means hitting that target next year will be harder. Yet, the firm would be maximizing profit if it sold me."
Economics,"> government building maintenance


People are so removed from trades work they think this is a made up job. Large buildings have fairly complicated automation systems and boilers and HVAC equipment and a million other things. Generally almost everything is contracted out and there is maybe one guy who has worked in the field for a long time to oversee a half dozen buildings who is ""the government worker"".


You ever notice sometimes escalators stop working but then they are working again later? That doesn't happen by itself."
Economics,"You should get a portion of the value you generate. If you can pile wood twice as fast you should get paid twice as fast. If you then notice that the wood could be re-organized to save a lot of money of the year, you should get a cut of that as a bonus. Many places already have profit sharing like this. There can be individual and team based profit sharing to get different sized problems tackled as well. Just a thought."
Economics,"Answer: we don't care about wealth inequality. For it is only a measure of envy. All we care about is whether our lot today will is better than it was yesterday. For the vast majority of humans, this is absolutely true. Wealth inequality is a relative metric, trotted out only by the left when every single absolute metric shows us that we're all better off today than we ever were, and things are getting better still for everybody. "
Economics,">That probably vastly understates it (since they are you know undocumented by nature and hard to track)

That number sounds like it's essentially made up, but DHS, USDA, and the Census Bureau all arrive at more or less the same number. The thing about unauthorized immigrants is that they're almost *all* working. The subset that come to this country illegally and either don't work or become career criminals is small. If you can estimate the number of undocumented immigrant adults, you're pretty close to the number working. 

On the other hand, how USDA got the ""what industries they're working in"" numbers is still a mystery to me.

> Is this OP not correct?

Possibly. It depends on the nature of each job.

For the most part, those jobs are available to American citizens *right now*. Ask any farmer, any cannery operator, any landscaping foreman whether they would have an American citizen, a migrant worker, or an undocumented immigrant working for them, they would *almost always* want the American. None of them want to take on the risk of hiring undocumented help, migrant worker visas are expensive and time consuming to get, but the problem is that American workers, by and large, [do not want those jobs for the wage that can be paid.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/a-landscapers-hire-american-plan-ended-with-bringing-in-mexican-workers-to-finish-the-job/2017/10/05/f4656234-9743-11e7-b569-3360011663b4_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.85c81a05fbab) H2-B Visas are *expensive*, if a business owner could get an American to do the same job they would in a heartbeat.

But let's handwave that away and assume that these American workers would do these jobs for $14/hr, at that point a business owner has to look at automation as a viable alternative to hiring. 

Take for example, take the push to pay fast food workers $15. Some workers will remain at $15/hour, but at that rate *some* subset of those jobs will be automated away. People at the counter are being replaced by touch-screen kiosks and change dispensers, Red Robin is cutting expediters and bus boys, etc. 

On the other hand, this will in turn create some new jobs. Someone's gotta build those kiosks and maintain those robots, but the job creation won't be 1:1. 5 kiosks might take 3 people's full time low-skill jobs away, but only create one permanent high-skill position as a kiosk service technician. 

>So this information implies 5% or somewhere north of 6.5 million jobs could be created by ""halting illegal immigration""

Not at all. Again, these jobs are available to Americans today, but Americans don't want them. It sounds good to say ""well kick out the illegals, the business will have to pay *me* a living wage"", but that's not always the case. At some point there's a tipping point in pay rate where the cost of labor is greater than the revenue generated by the employee, so the employee is losing the company money. Migrant/undocumented immigrants work well below that tipping point, in general Americans don't. 

EDIT: undocumented immigrants adults - > undocumented immigrant adults"
Economics,"> Again, these jobs are available to Americans today, but Americans don't want them.

Yea I agree to an extent, but American citizens used to do these jobs and I think decades of depressed wages and stigma caused by desperate illegal workers takes it's toll on American's willingness to involve themselves in certain industries. The work would still need to be done, and if you actually managed to ""halt"" illegal immigration the employers would have to entice domestic laborers somehow.

Is it feasible to halt immigration? Would it be positive for GDP overall? Probably no and no. But if we did manage to deport everyone it could *significantly* improve the lives of some lower quartile blue-collar middle-American families who would have more options, higher employment, and higher wages. That weird vein of hope is a big reason we ended up with Trump as our president...
"
Economics,"Part of the problem will be what the new jobs are. The jobs being replaced are factory jobs other manual labor that requires no advanced education - just on the job training. The people with that those jobs probably wouldn't be able to do a lot of the 133 million new jobs because they are probably of a completely different skill set. 

For example replace 5 manual works with a machine which creates 3 new jobs to have people monitor and maintain the machine but the 5 original workers simply don't have the skill set to perform that job. "
Economics,"Or by completely eliminating the pressure for change, people continue to whine about it, I agree that some social net is needed to make the transition easier and that should come with retraining, like the plan Obama supported and financed as well Hillary wanted to continue. There's plenty of social nets here in the EU, the mentality is the same, people hate changing jobs and learning a new skill. Just to make a point. Coal miners chose Trump over the retraining plan. Ergo they should be left behind. 

Even though the UK offers several programs for displaced workers, example UnionLearn, only 9% feel as the government is doing ""enough"".  16 % of that their trade unions are taking appropriate steps; and only 27 % of employees think their employer is taking action to prepare them for changes. So apart from offering you options what should the Government do, just guarantee you a job, offer you indefinite pay?

I think ideologically it's easy to offer help but in practice people are not guaranteed to take advantage of it."
Economics,"There's more jobs than coding and yes they would. If someone has the required skill set you hire them, nobody would care if they used to work in a factory.

Example: Coal miners going in to renewables. [This](https://www.academia.edu/26372861/Retraining_Investment_for_U.S._Transition_from_Coal_to_Solar_Photovoltaic_Employment#_blank) study shows it's possible and really not costly. If they refuse then the ships just sail on without them.

Also if they flat out refuse any training then what can we do for them? Oh no the truck drivers refuse to learn a new skill, I guess we should just slow economic output and performance for a few decades until they die. You, me and every member of the economy will technically be paying a subside due to higher prices on goods and services and we would lose the economic edge for future growth, great. And all this just because someone doesn't feel like learning new shit. Well I don't think that's fair to the rest of us. Truck drivers and factory workers aren't a protected species and I personally feel no obligations to them apart from helping them transition."
Economics,"> I'm sorry but the world shouldn't pander to people who fight change. We can't just keep them employed untill they die.

Not disagreeing with the gist of your argument, but I'd argue there's some nuance involved. 

Do you spend tens of thousand on retraining someone in their early 60s that's about to retire? Or just let them ride out the last couple of years with mediocre productivity? Or do we just fire anyone who can't pull their weight as well as your best and brightest talent? 

One of the arguments made against a minimum wage is that it increases unemployment to a degree, but do we as a society accept some level of unemployment in exchange for the majority to have a livable income?

I do agree that the ""make coal great again!"" lunacy is a complete policy failure (and the people pushing really just want the political capital reaped from the ignorant), but there is something to be said for trying to retrain every single worker into a cutting edge field if there are minimal marginal gains to be had, if not net losses."
Economics,"Repetitive jobs are replaced by machines.  To say that factory jobs are being replaced by machines isn't entirely accurate.  A recent example of this was found at the [Tesla manufacturing plant](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-13/musk-tips-his-tesla-cap-to-humans-after-robots-undercut-model-3).  Musk had clearly subscribed to the idea that factory workers could be replaced by machines, but found out that is incorrect:

> “We had this crazy, complex network of conveyor belts, and it wasn’t working, so we got rid of that whole thing,” said Musk

Analyst Max Warburton had reported his incredulity over Musk's original thesis that the factory could be heavily automated.  He explained:

> “The best producers -- still the Japanese -- try to limit automation. It is expensive and is statistically inversely correlated to quality. One tenet of lean production is ‘stabilize the process, and only then automate.’ If you automate first, you get automated errors. We believe Tesla may be learning this to its cost.”

It was further explained that machines are good at repetitive tasks, but not good at identifying differentiation in those tasks and adapting.  So, if the car is on the assembly line a cm behind where the previous car was, the machine will try to screw the bolts into it in the wrong place.  The time it takes for a machine to identify where the bolts should go is significantly longer than a human can adapt to the situation.  In fact, humans often don't realize they are adapting on the fly, which is why the idea that humans can be replaced by machines in factories is so prevalent.  We just don't notice all the times we have to adapt to minor deviations.

Maybe, some day, machines will be as quick as humans at adapting.  However, they are far from being capable of keeping up with humans still.  There's a reason a company like Toyota has 370k employees.  It isn't because they haven't bothered to replace them with machines yet.  There's a reason companies like GM and Ford put plants in Mexico, where labor is cheaper.  Humans remain superior to machines in many tasks in a factory."
Economics,"I think there's also potential issues with people no longer being able to do work they are passionate about or at least enjoy. For instance, I'm in healthcare but if i were - for whatever reason - not able to get work anymore and had to switch to something like programming, I'd not only be lost, but probably depressed. People can be retrained, of course, but some people are just naturally more suited for certain areas and drawn to certain fields. It's a less serious problem than actually finding work, but I still think it's worth thinking about how society will handle dramatic shifts in professions. "
Economics,"Retraining is fine for the short term.  And if you believe that AI and automation will continue to create more jobs than it eliminates **indefinitely**, then it's fine long term too.  But I highly doubt that, considering that AI, automation, and computing power improve constantly over time while the human body & brain have limitations.  What do you do if more and more people become completely unemployable?  Or if we can automate the newly created jobs at a faster rate than the populace can benefit economically?  There has got to be a backup plan for the massive income/wealth inequality that will result if the productivity gains of capital investment in automation keep applying downward pressure on the value of labor over time."
Economics,">Doesn't mean it's incorrect

No it doesn't, but it also doesn't mean it's nothing more than a persons opinion.

> it's one of the most accessible ways for people to learn about new ideas.

This is bad if the information they are getting is worthless.

>Nick Bostrums Superintelligence is a good one. Those most adaptable to change prosper, which includes looking at news ideas.

I am quite familiar with all of the argument about super intelligence.  My colleagues have been obsessed with this stuff for decades.  
"
Economics,"Firs off I can't believe how hard i rolled my eyes to this cliche response, I was hoping for a real world solution not a wild what if scenario that currently is not known on what and how many policy changes will be needed, there is no plan of action. Second negative tax income is a better and plausible  version of UBI, so maybe you should read up on that instead reddit pipe dreams.

The Finnish experiment for UBI was a massive failure, let's see how the other 4 develop. I'm actually for something like negative tax income, as it scales with peoples salary as oppose to giving everyone money. Rich and middle class people don't need the same help as blue collar workers do. To quote Luke Martinelli, an economist at the University of Bath, UK. “An affordable UBI is inadequate, and an adequate UBI is unaffordable” but that's not true for NTI."
Economics,"That's a big what if. Like what if a person can never figure out solving second order differential equations, are physicist prepared for that????? But the US, Canadian, EU governments are doing experiments with UBI and more importantly NTI. 

Just saying though but the problem you're talking about isn't just around the corner. In the next 50-60 years we will not see a change where automation will take more jobs than it produces. The solutions we can think now may not be at all applicable to that society. Also there's a trend of people slowly leaving production in the hands of robots but entertainment,culture,art and science and engineering are to be the final jobs of humans."
Economics,"this. people seem to think it's low income workers that are going to be replaced, this is nonsensical for a number of reasons: 

1. the value of automating a process corresponds directly to the earnings of that worker-the less they earn, the less value you'll find in automating their work

2. if your job is looking at a computer, corresponding through a computer and taking actions on a computer: you are already at high risk of having your job automated. making a robot that shaves a coconut is very hard, writing software that converts excel doc and does data entry is exceedingly easy.



"
Economics,">Repetitive jobs are replaced by machines.

There's some really interesting research on this, with separate papers coming to similar conclusions.

The gist is that you can separate work into routine vs. non-routine and cognitive vs. non-cognitive resulting in 4 types of work:

* Nonroutine cognitive occupations, which include management and professional occupations
* Nonroutine manual occupations, which include service occupations related to assisting or caring for others
* Routine cognitive, which include sales and office occupations
* Routine manual, which include construction, transportation, production and repair occupations

What these papers have found is that automation is great at routine tasks whether cognitive or manual, pushing workers out of routine tasks into non-routine cognitive tasks and non-routine manual tasks.

If you look at what's being replaced - sales and office occupations and construction, transportation, production and repair occupations - are jobs that tend to make up a larger chunk of middle class/middle skill work. This leaves low skill and high skill work remaining, and so workers are being pressured into one of these resulting in the jobs polarization effects we've been seeing.

Generally speaking, nonroutine cognitive occupations are high paying jobs while nonroutine manual occupations are lower paying, and we've been similarly seeing an increase in jobs polarization as middle skill workers are being pushed into higher and lower skill work.

So it's likely that the issue with automation is less that robots will take our jobs and more that they are going to make social mobility more difficult by replacing the middle tier jobs that people could use to work their way up the ladder.

This article give a good overview but the [NBER has some more in depth papers](https://www.google.com/search?q=nber+jobs+polarization) I think are worth reading as well. [https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2017/may/growing-skill-divide-us-labor-market](https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2017/may/growing-skill-divide-us-labor-market)"
Economics,"I'm not necessarily arguing that we should resist the inevitable, but to expect that everyone is just going to smoothly transition to completely new careers is naive. It will be tough on some people - both those who simply can't do the work and those who actually do find fulfillment in their current careers.

For example, my dad is dyslexic and not tech savvy at all. He's been working in a meat packing plant for over 30 years. Not too long ago, he was offered a less physically demanding job at the plant, but it required him to punch some information into a computer. My dad kept struggling with that seemingly simple task, so he got put back in his old job. It was actually really kind of sad. I worry about people like him. 

Also, when are we going to see the benefits of automation? Where I'm from, there's now an automated McDonald's. It isn't any cheaper. When I go to the store, there's less and less cashiers but plenty of self-checkouts. Groceries aren't any cheaper - in fact, they keep going up. 

And the rich/big corporations will totally be cool with us taxing them more to make up for the job losses associated with automation, right?? It's going to be a difficult transition is all I'm saying. "
Economics,"If you have an alternate ready answer for ""what else is there"", why ask the rhetorical question?

UBI has advantages and disadvantages compared to a negative income tax, but ultimately they are there same answer, differing only in details.

There main reason UBI is ""unaffordable"" is unwillingness to heavily tax capital, not any *actual* infeasibility.

A UBI adequate to allow living, albeit unpleasantly, is possible. Whether it is phased out as you earn more is completely a nitpicking detail, the disadvantage of which is discouraging work to some degree."
Economics,"The McDonalds thing, the it only became economical recently to replace cashiers. So the price of a machine is only slightly lower or equal to that of cashier, no meaningful price cut can be made but prices can remain the same for longer, that + inflation = gains for economic actors.

I'm sorry about your dad. I'm curious if future research won't help him. For instance a font for dyslexic people has been made, that helps with reading. And plenty of the big corps are doing research in to helping people like your dad. 

Check this out: https://www.abilitynet.org.uk/factsheets/dyslexia-and-computing"
Economics,"None of that addresses the fact the 95% of the work out there needs nothing even *close* to generalized artificial intelligence. The use we put most humans to is very nearly capable of being done by machines even today, and it's not clear that we need very many humans to do very much more than that.

A self driving car doesn't need to be as smart as a person or rely on fantasies about how much DNNs can learn... They are very nearly possible today, and I'll eat my hat if they aren't practical in 20-50 years.

Indeed there's considerable advantage to it being *way* stupider... And most of what happens in a factory or other middling skill workplace is way easier than that task."
Economics,"Ok but in this example OP had his dream job and lost it, there is no gaining that job, some sort of change is needed. I am for an adequate safety net in the form of cash and retraining but I'm against  a lot of current implementation like Germany, where to my experience living there, a lot of people would use it as mandated but a lot will use it to slack off. Saint Pauli a town within a town is notorious for basically living off welfare. I don't want that. "
Economics,"I took your comment as to meaning that engineering/science/creative jobs would be replaced by AI within 50 years. Yes for simple tasks AI can take the place of humans,but it does need human input and maintenance. 

AI cars are a sure thing, and I think we will see AI only lanes in the near future on the road but there's still a lot of hurdles ahead. I don't think they've solved the limitations of LiDar, yet."
Economics,"No, I'm talking about 90% of all jobs. Engineering/science/creative  jobs are relatively rare. 

Most humans don't even have the capability to be ""retrained"" for the kinds of jobs that machines will be incapable of in 20-50 years, because most people are relatively stupid compared to the top end of the normal curve populated by those highly skilled jobs.

Of course, one possible outcome of that is that humans just get cheaper and cheaper (and more and more miserable) over that time period, so that machines remain slightly more expensive. "
Economics,"Surgery is now being piecemeal automated - we still have surgeons driving the machines but less and less. 

AI is already outperforming people in diagnostics and treatment planning in some domains.

The practice of law and adjudication is a rich target area. As is securities trading.

Our society now produces adequate abundance for all with ample leisure time even for the most necessary workers.

But the wealth is being hoarded. That isn’t sustainable."
Economics,"I’ve lived in over half a dozen major population centers all over the US - moving for the jobs. I built space craft, phone companies, gem trading networks, and ultimately software. I have a degree in petroleum engineering and when the bottom fell out of that mid 80s there was no help to switch specialties so I do NOT work as an engineer. You have to be full on autodidactic or starve - that’s America"
Economics,"What is NTI?  I did a quick search, but it turned up too many things with that acronym.  


> In the next 50-60 years we will not see a change where automation will take more jobs than it produces.   The solutions we can think now may not be at all applicable to that society. 

 I think you're right to recognize the difficulty in predicting what society will look like and what solutions will work, but I think the ""when"" is similarly unpredictable.  50-60 years ago very few people had access to a computer at all, now nearly half of the world's population has internet access.  Look at the advances in processing power (10\^3 FLOPS to 10\^15 FLOPS), massive cloud storage and processing that is cheaper by the day, software tools that make computing more accessible to more people, and all of the AI feats once thought impossible that have already been accomplished and can be built upon.   Add in the huge financial incentives and I think all of the pieces are in place for this to be a serious problem much sooner than that.  Out of curiosity, where did you get the 50-60 number and why do you think it will take that long?

​"
Economics,"Actually, it seems that middle income jobs are eroding.

[https://blogs.imf.org/2016/06/28/rising-income-polarization-in-the-united-states/](https://blogs.imf.org/2016/06/28/rising-income-polarization-in-the-united-states/)

​

\> To sum up: income polarization in the United States has seen a significant increase since the 1970s. While initially more middle-income households moved up the income ladder rather than down, since 2000, most of the increased polarization has been towards the low end of the income ladder. **These trends, in addition to the well-documented income inequality trends, have led to a declining income share of the middle-income households.**

​

(emphasis mine)"
Economics,"The days of moore's law are nearing an end, soon we will hit the physical limit of transistors.

NTI stands for negative tax income. To be honest it's NIT but because I was on mobile I started calling it NTI for some reason, haha.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

I'm a theoretical physics Bsc, but I often venture to see what the engineers and AI techs are doing and just by talking to them I don't see how robots are going to overtake the jobs they create. Like for instance the current automation wave was posed to be ""the one"" to actually do it, but it didn't and it's not even showing signs of doing it. 

The 50 year thing was just a number I put forward, can you name a technology being developed right now that you think will revolutionize AI? But it's true we can't predict what will happen in that time. I don't think it's even possible to do a study on the topic, current trends from economic history, point to what I'm suggesting but as all inductive reasoning, it's by no means a law.

Read thru this thread for instance, or ask around on the sub to see if anyone thinks that AI will be the thing that bridges the gap. In economic theory sense increased productivity would lead to resources being used elsewhere which would create new jobs. So I don't really see how robots will automate more than they create.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/6xqty0/d_what_common_misconceptions_about_machine/"
Economics,"Yes, I agree but it should be is my point. The only way to safe the workers out of a job is to retrain them, not just leave them in the dumps to figure it out. You for instance were adaptive enough to survive but not everyone is like that, some help can be good for the society and economy. But you can't help someone who doesn't want help, and that's what we're seeing in the coal workers. I'm not glad to say it but if they refuse help then they should learn to adapt on their own, their profession is nearing a dead end and Republican can stop it."
Economics,"Retraining almost never happens, though. Just take the TPP, for example. After a lot of pressure, congress agreed to set aside something like $900 million to help retrain the millions of people who would be adversely affected by it. So a couple of hundred bucks per worker. That's not even close to enough to train a person in pretty much anything, and to make matters even worse, the GOP decided against the funding at the last minute so it never would have happened in the first place. Most of the people affected by NAFTA were never retrained, either, and not because they didn't want the help. 

You can't just ignore politics when you talk about stuff like this. If retraining is impossible in the current political environment, don't push a policy saying it will be ok because we'll just retrain people. There's a reason most people don't care what economists have to say about just about anything. Your pie in the sky theory sounds great on paper but it doesn't mean shit if it falls apart once it meets reality. "
Economics,">I think the social cost of these programs should be considered when pushing a specific policy.

Great me too, that's not an actual idea put forward though.
>Assuming that the government will do something that they most assuredly WONT do, in order to make your proposal look more attractive is pretty deceitful.

So my assumption, that the government would see retraining as the most cost effective way to try and help, is wrong because they currently do not provide enough. Did I understand you correctly? And I'm being deceitful how exactly? 

POWER+ Plan is a 10 billion initiative to help coal miners. There are less than 630k working in that industry as a whole, out of this number only 50 k are actual miners. Not a lot of people need retraining when moving between energy sectors so most of those people can go somewhere with minimal retraining. But let's say we do some stupid shit and just divide the money across everyone. That's still 16k per person, which is enough for some kind of retraining. When you take in to account that most of these workers don't need a 4 year university degree, and that a local uni costs aroun 18k anyway. You see that it has the potential to actually benefit a lot of them.

So maybe it's not that optimistic to think a similar initiative can be made for other industries. Of course the actual plan isn't about spending all the money on retraining.But some highlights.

 Coalfield Development Corporation received $600,000 for a project that will support agriculture production on reclaimed surface mines in West Virginia and provide job training and business incubation services around the local foods sector.

  Appalshop in Eastern Kentucky received $275,000 to work in collaboration with community college to implement a one-year IT workforce certificate.


 San Juan College received $1.4 million to offer worker retraining services in collaboration with emerging IT, healthcare, and renewable energy sectors


  The Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) received $200,000 to train bus diesel mechanics and technicians as part of a plan to transition a retired power plant into a bus storage and service facility. 

 Department of Labor's (DOL) Dislocated Workers National Reserve — $20 million


 Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) — $25 million  Economic Development Administration's (EDA) Economic Development Assistance Program — $6 million


  Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Brownfields Program — $5 million

  United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development — $12 million for Rural Economic Development (RED) grants & $85 million for loans

The program was to be expanded but it was stopped by Trump, when the stupid coal miners decided they would rather try and bring back the coal golden age then to try and move forward. That's literally them shooting themselves in the foot.

I ask again what is your idea, what do you think is a better, more cost effective, practical approach?"
Economics,"So long as 

1. Human greed is infinite.
2. Somewhere in the chain of command, the robots will need a human to tell them what to do.

I don't think automation will reduce the long run number of jobs in the economy.

If automation gets to the point where on average a single person can produce the same amount as N (where N is any number greater than 1) people today, then in the long run, society will simply produce and consume N times more stuff per capita. "
Economics,"You'd still have a 50 year old competing against a 20 year old. Both have the same level of skill in the relevant field, except the 50 year old has a mortgage to pay and a family to support.

Why would any business hire the 50 year old over the 20 year old? The 20 year old will do it for cheaper.

Thats age discrimination in a nutshell. The 50 year old trying to change careers so late in life is, quite frankly, screwed. None of his past experience will count for his new career. 

Starting over is also a huge psychological hit. You've worked all your life to be the best at your field. You may be the best truck driver who has ever driven a truck, but suddenly none of that counts anymore. 30 years of work experience were wiped clean. You're now no more valuable than a 20 year old kid. How do you pay that pile of overdue bills on your coffee table?

"
Economics,"I get it, I really do but this didn't happen yesterday, ok. For truck drivers this hasn't happened yet and won't until at least another 10 years. Maybe they should start thinking about changing jobs, right now. It's not all about software, plenty of industries will allow for older people to join the workforce. If you were a coal miner go to renewable energy or gas. Go to night school or start a part time degree, even distanced learning like openuniversity will do. There's gotta be some place you can switch to.

I don't have all the answers but there's no practical alternative. Just paying people to live is not a good solution because as you said the guy/gal lost a 70k job with a mortgage for a 70k wage. No amount of NIT or UBI will help them. So really what do you expect the government or anybody to do? I'm sorry for these people but we can't be held accountable for their bad planning. Coal didn't start disappearing yesterday, factory jobs didn't disappear out of nowhere. There is some responsibility left to the individual, don't you think?

I mean if you have an idea, please share it."
Economics,"1.) The poster above you makes a point you don't seem to understand. In almost all industries, hiring an older person is not sexy. We don't have a demand for that much clergy. 
2.) The # of coal jobs > # of new renewable energy jobs. There are more jobs disappearing than being displaced - that is the key output of modern automation. There's a reason why the textile industry disappeared in the US in the 1980s-90s and it's not foreign workers. We were able to automate it. 
3.) The exponential growth of technologies abilities implies that, at a certain point, it will happen ""overnight."" Hell, wasn't it this past year where you could tell Siri to order yourself a fucking pizza? "
Economics,"With automation new industries have been founded. There are now more jobs than ever before, the renewable industry employs more people than peak coal, peak coal employed 800k miners in 1923, there are 800k+ renewable jobs as of 2017. A new technology does not happen over night. Like literally we are commenting on an article that says that 75 million jobs will be lost to automation and 133 million will be created. Luddites were wrong during the textile automation and they are wrong now. Mechanical engineers such as Henry Maudslay, Richard Roberts, and James Nasmyth, Whitworth pioneered a manufacturing revolution that saw Great Britain transformed from a craft economy to full mechanization in the space of two generations. Without this, the railways could not have come into being, the textiles industry would not have become so dominant, and shipbuilding would not have evolved into a great industry. Jobless rate is lower than any time between 1970 and 2000. Its clear that new jobs and industries have been pioneered thanks to technology. 


I ask you, besides retraining or some other social net to help displaced workers transition , do you have any practical, cost effective ideas on how to help them? 

"
Economics,"Yes, you're right, I misspoke. 
.# of nonrenewable old world jobs > # of sexy renewable new technology jobs. The article implies I'm wrong though.

I also worry that the number of jobs doesn't necessarily mean ""good jobs."" For example, people criticize Luddites that claimed that ATMs would put people out of work with the advent of ATMs. That didn't happen. After ATMs, there were MORE bank teller jobs. Unfortunately, they are shit jobs that pay low and people likely need government assistance if they hold these jobs. 

Sure, technology has created more jobs. But many of them are artificial. Think of the ""social media marketing guru"" jobs that rarely add value (some people are good at it, most are not) and are wasting resources. Or the ""Chief Diversity Officer"" of American universities that make $100,000+ per year to essentially be glorified training coordinators. And this is in America! 

What age are we going into? The technology age? Is everyone going to be a coder? In 2009, we found out [that robots learned to lie without us](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/414934/robots-evolve-the-ability-to-deceive/) and that [computers are better at teaching themselves to code](https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23331144-500-ai-learns-to-write-its-own-code-by-stealing-from-other-programs/). 

Coding in the next ten years isn't going to be ""Hello world!"" coding. Quite frankly, a lot of people will be unable to learn because they lack the cognitive ability. 

Yes, I do have a solution. I'm going to Sofia to drag your ass outta there and come up with a plan for the world. Then I'll drink a Zagorka to your good health with you.

A realistic solution is likely a humane version of execution like in the Four Futures book. Or, if that is not humane, change the system to promote single people. Give tax breaks to people who don't have kids. The wealthy (I assume people with the technical ability for jobs will be wealthy because they'll be paid well for their skill set) will ignore these breaks and raise children. Everyone else would love to get an extra $X (or X lv) each year and will consume for a mere 120 years or so. With that, we can solve this within a generation. :) "
Economics,"Whether a ""real economist"" uses the term ""trickle down"", ""horse and sparrow"", or any one of the other numerous terms used is irrelevant. Trickle down is a term used, in my opinion, mostly as a political economic concept to convince the uneducated that giving more money to the rich is the way to prosperity regardless of how many times it has failed.   Economists do use the term, although I doubt any economist considers it a valid theory.  
The deficit is a combination of many things, including tax revenues and spending.  
In a growing economy, tax revenues will increase. We are in a growing economy. The fact that tax revenues increased, even after a tax cut, just shows how well the economy is doing. 
The fact that we have a trillion dollar deficit, in a growing economy with tax revenues increasing should be very concerning.  This is the time that deficits should be very low.
Edit: grammar"
Economics,"Depends on your definition of Labour. 'New Labour' - the strategy pioneered by Tony Blair (and watered down by Gordon Brown) was basically 'Compassionate Thatcherism', greater spending on Welfare services, combined with a generous immigration regime but generally not very aggressive taxation/ worker guidelines (although they did bring in some of the more crazy health and safety culture). As a result investment / FDI grew as by comparison to other EU markets it was easy to invest.

​

The Old Labour (which is basically a further left-field socialist with Communist sympathies) is trying to redress what they perceive to be economic injustices (where you are on this is where you stand). It will work with certain workers/voters but, even though the actual introduction guidelines are highly diluted - signal a anti-investment ethos to the wider market. Will it get them elected? Maybe. Will it encourage investment? Probably not. "
Economics,"The only reason why it doesn't encourage investment is because countries are competing in a race to the bottom when it comes to creating the ""best possible"" investment climate, in order to rake in the cash. 

Is it dangerous to be a more socialist country when others are not by paying their investors better through gradually selling their worker population into slavery? Yes, surely.

But if we continue forward on this path, then the rich will only get richer until eventually the worker population starts a real revolution, one that involves a bit more than voting leave in a referendum. 

There is only one way out, a political nightmare, but necessary: international agreements on the bottom line division of the wealth that goes to investors and the wealth that goes to labour.

Politically impossible, and therefore, like any great social improvement of our moral behaviour in the history of mankind (think abolishment of slavery), someone needs to take that first (insane) leap of faith. The kind of leap that is seen as suicide beforehand, but can be heralded as the first step towards a better world in hindsight.

I hope the world is ready to follow Corbyn into throwing off the neoliberal dogmatism of the past decades."
Economics,"As I mentioned, from the comments I read given to Broadsheets by Labour (FT etc) of the new policy, it is to be implemented over a five year period as opposed to immediate and in full effect. There are also exceptions to small companies (<250), foreign companies etc and does not penalise those who don't give it out dividends but invest back in the business. It also does not compel a uniform 'Employee Trust' structure (no uniform structure creates loopholes). Again difficult to say until the legislation is printed.  I have had a quick look on the Labour website but can't find it yet. 


It is not the policy itself, but rather the perception of it. If decision makers in FDI related companies see a high probability Labour outcome in the election, they will withold investment (if they want to regulate this, then next they will want to regulate that - that type of thinking. This is very real). Now you could turn this on it's head and say 'well they will' as you get into the cat and mouse game of what investment 'doesn't come' to the UK. We can just about keep tabs on what FDI is coming in. Unless it is a mega project/factory it is difficult to say what is lost. "
Economics,"That's not really correct in context. Telling someone to look up something You dont understand and is not particularly relevant? Hmm. You should not be upvoted. Im skeptical it would increase the velocity of money (in the long run certainly probably not) and also increases in MPC only increases economic activity in the short run. In the long run a higher MPC *decreases* economic activity and incomes. Even in the short run, if you are not in/recovering from a recession, an increase in MPC will be absorbed almost entirely in the form of higher prices, not real increases in activity.

You should know this from the keynesian models you learned in intro macro

This is even leaving aside the distortionary cost of whatever his plan is to increase MPC, if that is the goal"
Economics,">>So what happens when capital seeking returns exceeds investment opportunity?

>The natural rate of interest falls to the equilibrium point.

So say, if the government returned a trillion dollars to the demographics with the highest propensity to save... interest rates were supposed to go down? I hope your understanding of growth economics doesn't rest on this 'insight' because again, the exact opposite is happening.

>you'd have to prove that (excess capital, inequality, and financialization can slow growth and increase the severity of crises)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1572308917304291

https://digitalcommons.bard.edu/senproj_s2017/185/

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00036846.2017.1420899

The counter arguments, I guess, would require capital to be: homogenous, unrelated to credit growth, and involved in novel investments beyond M&A, property bubbles, unstable PE ratios, and other forms of nominal asset appreciation. "
Economics,">So say, if the government returned a trillion dollars to the demographics with the highest propensity to save... interest rates were supposed to go down?

Are you aware that the US is not a closed economy, and that return on capital is determined globally? In any event, the nominal interest rate will be whatever the fed wants it to be.

To be clear, I don't consider credit expansion to be akin to a growing capital stock. None of your links relate to the Solow growth model, if anything they showcase support for Austrian business cycle theory. I don't agree with it, but we may not be too far off on that point. The simple point about Solow stands, however. "
Economics,"1. Markets aren’t so simple, a lot of people are investors, workers, business owners all at the same time. 
2. you will basically have to re-write our whole financial system probably causing massive conflicts
3. A system so rigid is bound to be a lot worse then what we have. 
4. What’s fair? refer to point 1
5. There are many more reasons why this would be a terrible idea but I hope that is enough."
Economics,"I don't know if you are being sarcastic. If you are, then I completely agree and would like to clarify that I'm only arguing for a form of capitalism that protects their labour force better than it does now, through the use of government legislation.

I am aware that this can have a slightly negative effect on the economic productivity of a country as it means that the market will be less free, but I personally value the health and happiness of people over the speed and volatility of our economic progress (as long as the overall productivity does not gradually decline)"
Economics,"Thanks, I appreciate your reply.

1. True, but there exists a strong correlation between the amount of wealth someone has and the amount he invests. 

2. As we know from Piketty's work, the postwar profits gained from labour are less than the profits gained by capital, so if we do not cap/tax capital gains more than we do now, in one form or the other, the financial markets will ultimately extract all wealth from the real economy. So we better try to correct course, even if it is at the cost of short term instability, because if we don't, there will be even greater instability later on.

3. Rigidity is a good argument and a problem that will need to be addressed in one way or the other. I agree.

4. Also a fair point. I believe that there is a point of optimal performance of the real economy where people can also lead a good life. Certainly, the UK and the USA have comparably worse standards of living than the slightly more socialist but still capitalist countries such as the Netherlands, Norway, Finland etc.

5. I'd love to hear them."
Economics,"I'm not proposing a complete communist society. Socialism and communism aren't the same thing. At least not as far as I know. I'm totally okay with differences in terms of income.

Corbyns proposal isn't entirely communist either, even if he is portrayed in that way by British media. Capping or taxing the income from investment (perhaps in a slightly more intelligent way than Corbyn proposes) is not the same as creating a new Soviet Union. 

In my opinion the goal is and should be to make sure that the gains from capital are equal to the gains from labour. (Basically Piketty's vision)
"
Economics,"Not semantics... but is it marginal propensity to save that predicts long term growth... or the total savings rate? This may matter when you factor in debt. If the lower income segment of the population is increasing their debt, that's negative savings, right? If shifting income reduces debt... is that the equivalent of increasing savings? This matters if [investment in financing others' debt doesn't provide the same returns as other investments](https://academic.oup.com/cje/article-abstract/35/4/637/1697549). That is... consumer debt is financed by other's savings, which means those savings don't go to capital, technology, or other productive investments.

There's also arguments that the highest returns in developed countries come from human capital... if so shifting income can increase human capital more at the bottom of the distribution than the top (who already have high human capital). [One paper arguing such](http://ftp.iza.org/dp6328.pdf):

>In early stages of industrialization, as physical capital accumulation was a prime engine of growth, inequality enhanced the process of development by channeling resources towards individuals whose marginal propensity to save is higher. In later stages of development, however, as human capital has become a main engine of growth, equality, in the presence of credit constraints, has stimulated human capital formation and growth."
Economics,"I'm not arguing semantics. Communism is something else entirely than 'worker control over the means of production'. You are arguing for social democracy, not socialism. Karl Marx never said ""socialism is when the government does stuff, and the more stuff it does, the socialister it is"". Socialism is a specific thing. There is no semantic argument here, there is you using a term wildly incorrectly, and me attempting to correct you. This isn't a matter of opinion. I can't all of a sudden say that the KKK is a pro-diversity, anti-racist organization and not get called out for it. 

"
Economics,"Models have consequences in so far as their ability to mimic reality. You understand this right?  If the model wasn’t accurate in in its assumptions and revelations it wouldn’t be used.

The fact is the Solow-Swan model works pretty fucking well and is the core model used for extensions when you are looking at technological growth, savings, and capital inputs proves this. 

Reality hurts. It’s not agenda pushing to say this model is effective. It’s effective in modeling because it’s true. Imagine being afraid of truth? Sad"
Economics,"It would disincentivize both.

The math is just from a standard cobb Douglas production function minus the cost of inputs and optimizing.

What in the world is with people bringing up velocity of money in here? I doubt this would really effect the velocity of money, nor does velocity of money really matter for the economy. Velocity of money should be of no interest to anyone except central bankers digging into very specific details. It's a pretty obscure thing and not interesting.

Also, I believe ""giving more to workers"" is likely to decrease the overall savings rate, not increase it, even ignoring other effects"
Economics,">Your assertion that the source of money affects where it is spent/used seems suspect

Its about incentives. Taxing return on capital reduces incentive to accumulate capital. This leads to lower labor productivity, meaning lower real wages for workers. 

>Worker productivity has increased massively in the US over the last 30 years but wages have not. What say you?

[Eh, not that cut and dry.](https://piie.com/sites/default/files/realtime/files/2015/07/lawrence20150721-figure5.png) Median wages haven't kept up, but mean wages have. This indicates skew at the top end of income earners, starting around the early 70's. I blame monetary policy, which is a bit old school, but there are a few paper I can refer you to if you actually care to read more about this. 

​"
Economics,"Look this is really stupid to argue about and I'm not sure why you're erecting all these semantic walls. Investment drives TFP, TFP drives growth. 

Obviously inoptimal /centrally planned investment doesn't have a direct link to TFP, but the premise is that investment is market-driven, not nationalized. So if you're trying to obtusely say that a central planner like China can't just raise investment and ""buy"" growth, you're of course correct, but that is hardly ceteris paribus because it is not even in a competitive market framework. 

But at the end of the day (competitive, economically efficient) investment is the only growth driver. If you don't want to take my word and the word of all mainstream economics, then I wish you luck wherever you set yourself adrift. 
"
Economics,"I already conceded to you that it is fine if ""socialism"" means what you think it means and you might even be correct in thinking it means that (I wouldn't know if that's what it means without doing research on how people on average use the term, and I don't think it's an interesting topic of research/discussion).

You called me out for my ""incorrect"" usage of the term, I explained what I meant, but you insisted I was wrong still and even after conceding to use your definition you did not want to comment on the content of what I said.

Therefore, this entire exchange perfectly fits the definition of a semantic argument, but let's not have a semantic argument about the definition of a semantic argument.

What do you think of what I said in my original post?"
Economics,"That's really just semantics. Marginal propensity to save has the implicit of the marginal propensity to spend (because whatever you are not saving is being spent). 

The effects of this on demand are what is being pointed out. If more people can afford to spend money because they have an increased disposable income then their demand ""increases,"" or more specifically, they can now afford some need/want that they could not before. 

If in aggregate this then creates greater incentive for suppliers to meet that greater demand. Kind of Keynes big famous point... Economies are demand based, not supply based. Raising effective aggregate demand grows an economy. 

You can make a billion pencils, that doesn't mean people need/want that many and if they can afford them (demand) it doesn't mean they will buy them. 

But if people can afford and need a million cars, then there are going to be a million cars, barring externalities. "
Economics,"It doesn't matter how people on average use it. People 'on average' use quantum mechanics to mean all kinds of bizarre magic/sci-fi shit, but speak to an actual physicist about it and they'll tell you exactly what it means - and why the majority are wrong. The same situation exists here. In the US particular, socialism has come to mean 'when the government does stuff', and that toxic stupidity is spreading to the rest of the globe where even Aussies and Brits are beginning (though not in the majority) to see it that way too.

But that's incorrect. Socialism refers to a specific thing. The elimination of class conflict/wage labour/the capital class is essentially a *necessary condition* for it to be called socialism. It would be semantics if we were quibbling over minor differences in meaning. But we're not, you're saying that black is white, and I'm telling you no, black is black. 

I don't really care what you said in your original post, I'm just tired of seeing this bullshit equating any kind of 'government doing stuff' with socialism. "
Economics,"Do you mean to say that the reason Haiti and Angola are so poor is that the people there simply do not demand enough goods? Obviously not true. Productivity grows economies, and the more capital an economy has (think tractors, roads, computers) the more productive its labor force will be. This means greater output per worker, giving us more supply of consumer goods. The only way to grow the capital stock, btw, is if we save so that we fund investment (that is, if we reduce consumption in favor of savings). This is a long run illustration of how economies grow; there are short run changes that occur when an economy reduces consumption, and it takes time for the labor market to shift from consumption production to capital production, but this change has beneficial long run affects for the economy. "
Economics,"Demand is not simply need or want, but the ability to afford need/want. 

The reason investment works is because it not only produces to meet a demand, but also puts the affordability into the hands of the people working. 

This isn't a hard concept here. If people don't have money to spend, they cannot buy anything, and they drop off the slope of the demand curve entirely. That aspect, increase aggregate demand, is at the foundation of growth."
Economics,"What if they enact a new tax along with it. 10% on total cash basis incomings for all corporates and private enterprises alike. Your exempt if you don't earn enough or if you choose to give up a 10% shareholding to the government. This share is held by the central bank as collateral for government spending or in a sovereign fund. Give some fixed percentage of dividends to workers to buy their votes and outsource the government's voting rights to employees while keeping the rest as government revenues. Then offer an corporation tax rebate of say 10% to those corporates who gave up the shares. Anti avoidance is the stick, taxation by giving up shares is the carrot."
Economics,">Demand is not simply need or want, but the ability to afford need/want.

Again, the problem with Haiti and Angola is not that people don't 'have enough money'. Both of those countries have printing presses, and could hand out plenty of money - do you think this would help their economies? The answer economists give is 'no', because whats at the core of increased economic growth is productivity, which has to come from an increase in the capital stock of a country. "
Economics,"Well the assumption, which given your examples isn't true there, is that if there is a demand someone will try to supply it since there is profit to be made. 

If, as a people or society, people just don't want to, I would classify that as an externality.

Increasing capital stock is a way of saying ""get more businesses here"" like sure, your not wrong, but the whole point with increased demand is that it will trend towards equilibrium yeah? So there isn't a need for that since suppliers would try to meet demand. 

Like I'm not sure what your point is. Are you contesting the claim that increasing aggregate demand increases growth? 

Because from simple logic that is a given. More people with more money buying more things creates the incentive for more production, barring externalities. "
Economics,"Really?

You must produce food and water before you need it? 

Your fooling yourself a bit here. People start by producing what they need, that need comes before production.

People then produce what they want, that want comes before production. 

Then people will use surplus production to trade for other things they need/want. 

Adding money to that doesn't change that what gets produced RELIES on what people demand (how they use money to meet their needs/wants). 

I'm not the one putting the horse before the cart. You are. Demand comes before supply, because lacking demand, there is no reason TO supply. "
Economics,"Again, people demand an infinite amount. Why do some communities in Africa and the Caribbean have poverty and terrible living conditions? Don't they demand better ones? By your logic, they should just then produce better buildings and more food! Yet, that reveals why this whole notion of 'demand grows the economy' is wrong;  because it has to be precluded by production! Theoretically, we all demand an infinite amount of consumption, yet the constraint we have is that we are not productive enough to *produce* all it is we want to *demand.* 

You switched definitions of 'demand'. Here you are saying it is what people theoretically want, before you said it is what they can afford; you keep switching between the two. "
Economics,"What if we make it simpler. voluntary program, exchange 10% of your shares for a permanent 15% reduction in corporate tax. Shareholder value increases, workers have a say on the board making it more collaborative and the government eventually gets 10% of the market value if the company is sold. Also FDI goes through the roof, as corporation tax is deferred until its paid all at once as sale proceeds making the UK a very attractive place to invest. 

Edit: This is the Tory/Labour compromise version. 

Edit 2: Smooth out the cash flows by borrowing from the central bank against the share value."
Economics,"While ""demand is infinite"" is a require assumption for orthodox models and is taught in basic classes it is easy to tell that reality is not that way. So much so that the externality isn't an exception but a rule. 

You don't want an infinite amount of food, so there is a lower willingness to pay for food the more you have, which is then immediately reflected in demand. When looking at everything one's demands there is an upper level that plateaus out. If demand were actually infinite substitution in trade wouldn't exist, you would just demand them all. If demand were infinite there wouldn't be the diminishing marginal utility. Demand isn't infinite, that rule exists to simplify the variables to make the subject manageable enough to teach. Not because it somehow reflects reality. 

As for your example, that assumes that their demand isn't met, again, affordability of needs or wants. If they done feel the need or the want, then it wouldn't matter if they can afford it or not.

My definition of the word demand has not changed. It is a representation of what people can afford regarding their needs/wants. It can be used in discussing past, present, or future tense, but it always refers to one's ability to afford what you need and want. "
Economics,">it always refers to one's ability to afford what you need and want.

Then you finally agree that saying 'demand grows demand' is effectively meaningless and confused? Just use the right words... 'increased consumption has to be precluded by increased productivity, in the long run', which by the way all economists agree on and is not a controversial issue. Just fyi, these debates about ""demand grows the economy! No, supply does!"" doesn't exist in academic economics; researchers and actual economists are in resounding agreement that the model is as follows; ""we have a capital stock which makes labor more productive, increasing our output, thereby enabling greater consumption (demand) in future periods. The capital stock grows when people save their incomes and invest the savings in capital expenditure."""
Economics,"I'm not sure where you are pulling ""demand causes demand,"" that wasn't something I said. Demand is inherent in what someone needs and wants, if they can afford it. 

Increased consumption needs to have production come before it, demand comes before production. 

In effect, you want something you can afford, it gets produced, you consume it. 

As for your claim, you are so wrong. There are dozens of schools of economic thought, both orthodox and heterodox, within the academic community (at least in the US). And if your last claim was true then why not simply do so regarding developmental economies around the world?

They have tried to do so for decades and yet their economies are still not where all those theories say they should be. The fact of the matter is that demand stimulates an economy. Lacking demand, there is no production needed or wanted. You can supply as many pencils as you want, if people don't demand them they are not going to sell, regardless of how much capital stock exists for pencils. 

People have to BUY something for profit to be made. Demand is the foundation, supply serves it.

And this debate has been ongoing since at least 1950 that I'm aware of. "
Economics,"​

>You can supply as many pencils as you want, if people don't demand them they are not going to sell, regardless of how much capital stock exists for pencils.

**People can only afford to buy more pencils if they themselves are productive, not if they 'demand' pencils.** Homeless/jobless people demand houses, yet they cant afford them because they don't produce enough to exchange for housing. The reason markets don't produce stupid amounts of pencils is because they are limited by the profit/loss system. The reason markets don't produce stupid amounts of pencils is because they are limited by the profit/loss system. 

>There are dozens of schools of economic thought, both orthodox and heterodox, within the academic community

Nope. There is a neoclassical synthesis. Marxists, Austrians, 'Georgists' - whatever else- don't have any clout in economic academia. They don't get published, and nobody listens to them. At least in the U.S. This is how I can tell you don't have a background in economics, other than your understanding of how economies grow. 

You keep implicitly implying that 'demand grows demand'. It doesn't. "
Economics,"Businesses also won't invest if no one's spending.  Look at the record amount of cash corporations are sitting on.  Low aggregate demand has plagued much of the recovery.  

Taxing the wealthy to directly fund investments in science and infrastructure would do far more for long term economic growth.  This is exemplified by the government funding much of the revolutionary technologies we enjoy today like the internet, the microchip, satellites, GPS, touch screens, the research of Larry Page and Sergey Brin, shale gas, MRIs, the Human Genome Project, HIV/AIDS research, early aviation and aeronautics, hybrid corn, Tor, Boston Dynamics, among many others.  

Re-distribution to the poor would also probably increase net well-being and reduce a lot of the craziness in politics and society.  If people weren't so stressed out over a future of job insecurity and rising education / healthcare / housing costs, then people wouldn't be so eager to elect radicals and populists.  "
Economics,"

>**People can only afford to buy more pencils if they themselves are productive, not if they 'demand' pencils.** 

You are using demand wrong. Let me spell this out with demand as economically defined. 

""people can only afford to buy more pencils if they themselves are productive, not if they can afford their want for pencils."" 
See how that doesn't make any sense? 

But yes... People can only demand pencils if they have the income available. To take this back to the initial point you responded to, that was the whole point being made. If more people are making money (based on the presumption the labour party will redistribute income from ultra wealthy to less wealthy) then they will be able to afford more of their needs and wants, which is exactly what I said when I said aggregate demand would increase and grow the economy. 


>Nope. There is a neoclassical synthesis. Marxists, Austrians, 'Georgists' - whatever else- don't have any clout in economic academia. They don't get published, and nobody listens to them. At least in the U.S. This is how I can tell you don't have a background in economics, other than your understanding of how economies grow. 

Your denial isn't my problem. I've read and learned plenty from the neoclassical school, I've also read from Chicagoan.  There are dozens of schools of thought that are published and I've read from them. Institutional thought has been particularly helpful to me in learning how to explain some things that neoclassical doctrine doesn't, but that's not here or there. 

>You keep implicitly implying that 'demand grows demand'. It doesn't. 

No, I'm not implying anything. I'm only saying exactly what I'm saying. Which is that demand, as in the affordability for needs and wants, is the base for modern economies. It comes before supply and is the reason for supply, and by increasing disposable income of the aggregate you enable more people to afford their needs and wants. Which increases how much is purchased, which creates a greater need for supply. 

Demand doesn't somehow create demand, stop trying to straw man. "
Economics,">What you meant by demand earlier was increased consumption spending, which I think we've established cannot be the basis for economic growth; it has to be increased productivity due to capital accumulation.

If people have more to spend then (at least if their mps is not 100%) consumer spending is increased as a result of more widespread income. I can't really think of an example where demand is increased where consumer spending wasn't. 

>Sigh, no, there really aren't any 'schools' of economics anymore, its all pretty much the same thing. Sorry to be a bore, but its true. I should know, I've published in several journals (not to brag). 

Again, that simply isn't true. 

By and large neoclassical leanings are pervasive in every American Institution and almost all journals choose not to publish things that fall outside that. However, that is not a representation of schools of thought. There are also journals that are themselves outside the neoclassical leanings in many cases.

In any case I think we have come to a conclusion regarding the OP, and even if you don't agree, I believe you understand the meaning I was trying to get across. Have a good one!"
Economics,"Yeah, I was afraid that this would be your next reply. From a debate about the particular semantics of a word, we go to a debate about how the meaning of a word should be determined. I didnt really want to open this can of worms, and still dont, but i guess i am too stubborn to let this go.

You are saying that there is a definite meaning of a word. One that is determined by some expert or group of experts. I'm not denying that this makes sense and is a relatively useful way to think about the meaning of words, but it is not how actual language works. In linguistics, it has been widely recognized thst many words have long histories of semantic change, where at one point it meant one thing, and at the next point something else entirely, sometimes even the opposite of the original meaning. Even experts have changed the meanings of certain technical terminology throughout the ages.

The fact, on top of this, that the word form (spoken or written) associated with a particular concept is often entirely arbitrary and can vary greatly from speaker to speaker and from language to language, has led most linguists to deny that there is a ""correct"" usage of a word, despite what you and many other people may think. Language is inherently a social phenomenon and can be compared to ethics, where there often isn't a very clear cut objectively ""good"" way to behave. Instead, what is correct or incorrect is in flux. It changes with the properties of our society and even within one society, there can be disagreement with no way to adjucate.

I am not saying that in this particular case, I am right about ""the"" meaning of socialism, even if there is no such thing. All I'm saying is that even though you might be very right that experts are siding with you when it comes to the ""proper"" definition of socialism, it is still the case that - as you have said so yourself - there are many people who use socialism in a different sense. And because of the social dynamics of language use and the arbitrariness of language, there is no absolute right or wrong. There is only communication and miscommunication.

Now, you can try to keep correcting everyone who uses socialism ""wrongly"". I applaud you for the effort and wish you good luck with that. It will certainly help everyone to communicate better with each other in the future.

But it will probably take you a very very long time and I believe it might be much more efficient and pleasant for everyone involved if we would only correct each other when there is a purpose and an intention to communicate. Since you don't seem to want to add anything to the debate, I would like to thank you for your language lessons today and wish you a good day."
Economics,"Very interesting post. Would like to get your opinion on the following argument (note throughout the example focusing on the US economy and it's recent history):  
You responded to this point: ""So what happens when capital seeking returns exceeds investment opportunity?"" with ""The natural rate of interest falls to the equilibrium point."" which makes sense.   
However, if the interest rate reaches 0, or slight negative, and there is still an excess of capital returns seeking investment opportunities, wouldn't the interest rate be unable to go any lower, causing it to be unable to reach a market clearing rate?  


For awhile the US economy was at this zero lower bound, admittedly though it is not right now. However, if one views the housing bubble of early 2000s as capital investor's response to a lack of investment opportunities (relative to the amount of capital seeking reinvestment) then an interest rate over 0% would only indicate a bubble staving off the eventual crash to 0%. Obviously this is not necessarily the case now, but it would indicate to me at least that an interest rate over 0% does not, in the long run, necessarily indicate a balance between investment opportunities and capital seeking reinvestment."
Economics,"This is where I’m confused productivity has been increasing (thanks to automation) but wages (especially at the bottom levels) have not been increasing.

So how do economists overcome automation wiping out large segments of the labor pool?

I feel like the answer from economists is always “tough luck”. 

How can those who are unable/unfit to hold  skilled  productive jobs survive? 

Liberals say tax the rich spread that money out.

Conservatives say cut business taxes so they can create more jobs.

But how can business sell goods and create jobs when people don’t have enough money to buy those goods? Especially in times where excess captital is often invested in automation and not workers. 

I am definitely not an economist I’m just curious because I don’t understand how economists take technology into account, or the large segments of people unable/unfit to learn skilled labor jobs when Unskilled labor jobs are on the decline?"
Economics,"The problem with any quasi-free-market model of interest rates in the US is that US rates are mostly determined by policy. Market forces are merely allowed to tune quantitatively-modest credit and term premiums on top of the Fed policy. If you look at the long-run historical yield of 5% on, say, an intermediate corporate bond, about 80% was set by policy action, 20% by market action. So the answer to ""what happens to interest rates when X"" is dominated by ""whatever the Fed did/does to interest rates when X"". Thus investors closely follow and indeed overanalyze their every word."
Economics,"The argument that the interest rate is what the Federal reserve sets it at, rather than market forces, is not convincing to me at the moment. The primary reason is, while yes the Federal Reserve can push the interest rate to wherever it wants more or less, doing so too far in either extreme would result in either a spike in inflation or a huge drop in investment. In effect the Federal Reserve is constrained in where it can push interest rates by the market reaction and it's dual mandate. 

In rare cases the Federal reserve may choose to cause one of the calamities in the short term to resolve long term problems, such as what it did to resolve stagflation. This does not negate that in most cases it is constrained because ultimately such action is to reach its dual mandate. As such in most cases it is still the market pulling the Federal Reserve along, rather than the other way around."
Economics,"> the highest returns in developed countries come from human capital... if so shifting income can increase human capital more at the bottom of the distribution than the top (who already have high human capital).

I agree with that over the recent past, but it is important to note that human capital development is a process which has some non-economic constraints, and perhaps has already nearly hit them in much of the developed world. Access to a large amount of credit (e.g. to fund higher education) may help propel the average lower-class student into the middle class, but there's no evidence that a nearly-infinite amount of credit will consistently turn the lower classes into ultra-rich titans of large, brand new industries. You can see hints of that in the long-term studies of lottery winners, etc. Access to financial capital is hardly the only important constraint."
Economics,"I certainly agree that there is *some* constraining range that they are likely to respect & obviously they are almost certain to avoid ludicrous extremes. But their willingness to preserve negative real risk-free rates for (at least) 2011-2015 shows that they can and do diverge significantly from some hypothetical neutral/free-market-clearing rate. They have greatly diminished the power (and returns..) of private low-risk-tolerance money market & fixed-income investors in particular, almost to the point of making them irrelevant to certain borrowers. In so doing they have also pushed a massive sum of private money into higher-risk asset classes such as housing and equities in a desperate search for positive real return. So in at least one important way, the market follows the Fed, not (just) the other way around. But it is true that the relationship is complex and dynamic and not simply unidirectional in either sense."
Economics,"FWIW I do think they waited too long, and have been increasing rates (and unwinding QE) too slowly. I will stop short of calling their preferred measure of inflation (PCE) cooked or fraudulent, but it clearly does significantly underestimate the actual inflation experienced by the young urban middle class in particular. In some of the largest coastal metros, house prices have been running at 6-8%/yr since 2013, health insurance 10%/yr+, gasoline 10%+ over the past year or so, college tuition 6%+, rent in non-rent-controlled markets 3-4%+, and so on. How many LCD TVs would you have to buy to bring your overall inflation rate down to 0-1%/yr given all of that?"
Economics,"That is just completely wrong.  First of all, you can't use the terms like that.  They apply to individuals.  When you extrapolate to the economy as a whole, you say aggregate demand and aggregate supply.  It's fairly obvious that an economy relies on both facets to reach its maximum potential.  

And no, you can't just keep pumping capital into the economy and expect more and more growth.  That would mean if we gave all our money to 1 person with 100% marginal propensity to save, our economy should be infinitely productive... Yeah, ok.  

Obviously there is a certain level of investment the economy needs.  Past that point, further investment is wasted.  This threshold is positively correlated with consumption.  So you increase consumption you increase the need for investment.  If you over do it on investment, then that money is no longer going to be used productively.  Once aggregate demand is met in an economy, the rest will be used primarily for rent-seeking.  Most of our economy is rent-seeking at this point.  So we clearly have an issue of oversaving and under redistributing.  "
Economics,"Your first point is true, the second is not necessarily true.  In a capital rich society, the second is blatantly false.  The US has so much capital it exports it.  Trillions of dollars worth.  The lives of the poor in America could be made much better if capital were not seeking returns in foreign countries.  This is a problem of too much investment, not enough demand. 

And I know what your argument is going to be, that this is efficient and it increases the livelihoods of people in third worlds.  Not so fast I say.  You are getting way too into data and theory if you don't understand that suddenly expecting the population in the most advanced economy in the world to happily compete with dirt farmers in SE Asia is gonna fly.  You're going to cause unrest.  You're going to cause MOB populism, which is much worse than rational populism.  That's going to set the economy back decades.  

Your theory works on paper, but that's it.  In the real world, you cannot have a perfect global market overnight.  In the real world, there is no perfect market. "
Economics,"I advocate for greater ""self"" production. With greater automation and cheaper 3D printing economies of scale will be possible, in some cases. To become decentralized. 

Interdependence and trade will change from what we know today (again this is all opinion) to become more independent and self reliant. The answer to the money and jobs question quite honestly is that you just won't need them as much. Combine that with centralized automation given a competitive oligopoly and goods will be really cheap, human service will be expensive and, at least for 20 years post automation, will be a viable means to self employ. 

Unfortunately the very concentration of wealth means taxation in upper brackets needs to be higher to sustain public services, if there are no changes to the public sector. 

Change is discomfort, people will suffer, that suffering will create motivation for change in the very people who now ignore or are apathetic about the issue. Best advice is get yourself some savings and just wait until it does. Keep saving and if it never happens, retire. If it does you will have your savings to alleviate your suffering. 

As for prevention... Well you can't prevent suffering others consent to. "
Economics,"Just because enforcement doesn’t fully prevent illegal immigration doesn’t mean we should fully roll it back and just start handing visas to those desperate enough to break the law?

What about the hundreds of thousands and millions of other people who want to immigrate here legally and have applied but keep getting cut in line by illegal immigrants who are getting free visas for crossing the border illegally?

That makes no sense.

-A legal immigrant to the US"
Economics,"The idea isn’t to give visas to people who cross illegally, the idea is to make the illegal crossing unnecessary in the first place. 

I will NEVER understand the “life was hard for me so it should be hard for everyone else” argument when we could be working to make life better for everyone instead. It’s the equivalent of saying a grocery store should not open more checkout lanes when it’s busy because you had to wait in a longer line so everyone else should too. "
Economics,"It makes sense if your goal is harm reduction. Handing out more visas overall would alleviate the problems legal immigrants have with having to wait in a line in the first place, and allow the more ""desperate"" to have a better legal shot at getting in. Demand far, far outstrips the quotas such that legal immigration takes *years*, which for a host of reasons (economic, humanitarian, legal) is the main driver of illegal entry and visa overstays.

Drastically reducing the time to allow someone to legally enter the country and reside should be a key focus of immigration policy, because it helps both legal and illegal immigrants."
Economics,"It doesn’t make sense if your goal is fair and equal entry to the US. It’s fundamentally immoral to hand certain people visas choosing over others waiting in line simply because they’re closer to the country and chose to cross illegally. 

That’s not counting for how many blue collar jobs these immigrants are taking away from US citizens (more than 10mil), the same blue collar jobs that are being wiped out by the age of machines. If they want a visa, they should go through the legal process of applying and waiting just like everyone else."
Economics,">we could be working to make life better for everyone instead

Having more illegal immigrants here, even if it’s on handout visas, doesn’t make this country better. I don’t give a shit about quality of life for people outside the US, especially those willing to break the law to get what they want. The American Dream is supposed to be about working hard for what you want, now if we set the standard that breaking this country’s laws will get people what they desire, what kind of expectations does that set for those immigrants and other immigrants who become aware of this fact?

If stopping illegal immigrants makes life for US citizens better, and it does (Mollie Tibbets, Kate Steinle, Missouri murderer, non-taxpaying illegal workers, etc.), then I’m all for stricter borders than handing out visas."
Economics,">  If they want a visa, they should go through the legal process of applying and waiting just like everyone else. 

Well, they do. That's part of the problem. The line is so long at this stage, due to decades of extremely tight immigration policies that it's something of an impossible task to expect your immigration case to be either 1) heard at all or 2) take less than 4-5 years from start to finish.

Ideally you want to widen the doors (or, as one other commenter said, open more lanes) so that both legal applicants get a speedier judgment and other applicants aren't forced to consider illegal entry in order to immigrate at all. The Bracero program cited in the article was simultaneously a skills-based entry program to fill an economic need, as well as a political need, so in that sense it helped solve two problems at once.

As to the competition between immigrant and native workers, that's been pretty solidly debunked by decades of very careful research. Immigrants compete with other immigrants for the same jobs, and there's actually very little overlap between native workers and immigrant workers in the labor market."
Economics,"> Having more illegal immigrants here, even if it’s on handout visas, doesn’t make this country better

Let's go over this one again for the slow learners: **IF THEY HAVE VISAS THEN THEY AREN'T HERE ILLEGALLY**

Again, you are saying a grocery store should not open more checkout lanes when it’s busy because you had to wait in a longer line so everyone else should too. It's stupid, it's inefficient, it solves NO problem, and only causes more problems to refuse to increase the bandwidth of the process just out of spite.


"
Economics,"Let me rephrase this for you so you can see the hypocrisy. ""I think you mean how dare they subvert democracies"" - The US has meddled in over 80 elections since WW2. ""Assassinate people in Western Europe"" - maybe not there, but certainly in many other areas of the world, most notably the Middle East. ""attack NATO member election infrastructure including our own."" - replace NATO with Russia. It's well known the Americans were involved in meddling in the election of Boris Yeltsin. We have also interfered in the Russian annexation of Crimea, in which 95% of voters in that election chose to rejoin Russia. We then sent Ukraine weapons and money to fend off the Russians. ""Attempt to assassinate the leaders of countries in the west"" - replace West with East and you'll find the USA, guilty as charged.   


Sometimes a look in the mirror is important."
Economics,"> The US doesn’t pay for The EU’s defence.

What have you been smoking? The Americans don't pay *all* the costs of the defense of the EU but they pay a huge share - and the EU pays nothing beyond lip service towards American defense. For the Americans, defense is a one way street that funnels lots of American dollars into European economies with too little in return. The big question in America is becoming why does Europe think the Americans should be paying *anything* towards European defense?  

NATO, for instance, doesn't exist for the Americans benefit, it exists to protect Europe. According to [NATO](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm):

> The combined wealth of the non-US Allies, measured in GDP, exceeds that of the United States. However, non-US Allies together spend less than half of what the United States spends on defence. This imbalance has been a constant, with variations, throughout the history of the Alliance and more so since the tragic events of 11 September 2001, after which the United States significantly increased its defence spending. The gap between defence spending in the United States compared to Canada and European members combined has therefore increased.

> Today, the volume of the US defence expenditure effectively represents some 67 per cent of the defence spending of the Alliance members as a whole in real terms

In fairness, the Americans have defense expenditures far outside the scope of Europe - though it's an easy argument that American dollars being spent in other parts of the world also provide some benefit to European nations. It's not the mighty Danish and German Navies that protect Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd shipping in the Malacca Straits, for instance. Fairness also says that it should be noted that the US pays more than 22% of the total bill for NATO. 

The bottom line: of the 29 NATO nations, only 5 have met the agreed defense spending target of 2% of national GDP. The U.S. (3.6%), Greece (2.4%), Britain (2.1%), Estonia (2.1%) and Poland (2.0-ish%) are carrying the load they agreed to. The rest, including Germany (1.2%), France (1.8%) and Canada (1.3%) have grown comfortable living beneath the American skirts and free riding on the good will of the few. We'd like for all y'all slackers to pick up more of the load - it would be nice to spend less of our money keeping the bullies off the backs of Europeans. Who knows, we might even get to spend a little more of our money on the kind of social programs we hear Europeans constantly bragging on. "
Economics,"I’m sorry but do you actually think this? Are you saying the defence funding of nations like the UK or Germany comes from the US not those countries? 

NATO has no bill, the members don’t pay anything to it nor do they have to, that 2% spending is a guideline nothing more.

And again the EU country’s defence isn’t funded by the US, only an absolute moron would think that.

And NATO does exist for the American benefit, Europe doesn’t need NATO, but it benefits both of them so why get rid of it? "
Economics,"> Are you saying the defence funding of nations like the UK or Germany comes from the US not those countries?

Not entirely. What I said was the Americans are paying a *portion* of the defense costs of many European nations. And getting little to nothing in return. These payments are in the form of [direct military aid payments](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/spc/multimedia/military-spending/) to individual European nations (2010 = US$210million, 1946 - 2010 = US$190billion), payments to NATO, [ongoing military deployments](https://militarybases.com/overseas/germany/) and other programs.
> 
> NATO has no bill, the members don’t pay anything to it nor do they have to, that 2% spending is a guideline nothing more.

You think NATO is free and that it's members don't pay for it? What's the color of the sky in your world? NATO's budget for 2018 is over [€1.5billion](https://www.nato.int/cps/ie/natohq/topics_67655.htm), the Americans are paying [nearly a quarter of that](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gates-criticizes-nato-how-much-does-us-pay/) amount. Yeah, I know, NATO is supposed to come to the defense of America if the Russians attack but: (a) nobody really believes Russian troops are going to be invading Alaska like they did [Ukraine](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/28/russia-crimea-white-house) and [Georgia](https://www.cnn.com/2014/03/13/world/europe/2008-georgia-russia-conflict/), and; (b) even if they did, nobody really believes that the majority of individual NATO nations would actually do much to honor their commitment beyond [cavil and caterwaul](https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/03/18/wheres-natos-strong-response-to-russias-invasion-of-crimea/). 

The 2% is a guideline that was based upon what everyone in NATO agreed to as a reasonable and necessary amount for self-defense. Instead, more than a decade after all the nations agreed to [work towards the goal](https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2006/s060608m.htm), the average amount remains a [dismally low 1.3%](https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2018_03/20180315_180315-pr2018-16-en.pdf). As you point out, it's an agreement that means next to nothing - about what the Americans have come to expect from Europe. It's perhaps easy to excuse small and economically distressed economies like Slovenia and Albania for not making that goal but powerhouse economies like Germany and France? Especially when Greece and Poland have been able to get the job done? Too many Europeans have been leaning on the [patsy](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/patsy) Americans for so long they've lost their ability to stand on their own.

> 
> And again the EU country’s defence isn’t funded by the US, only an absolute moron would think that.

I'm not a moron and I and have shown here in some detail that the EU defense is partially/significantly funded by the Americans. Only an absolute moron can't recognize that.
> 
> And NATO does exist for the American benefit, Europe doesn’t need NATO, but it benefits both of them so why get rid of it?

If you think NATO doesn't exist for the benefit of the Europeans and that they don't need it, I'll join you in suggesting it's time is past. Let the Europeans pay for their own defense and we'll pay for ours and the next time the [SHTF](https://youtu.be/Z0GFRcFm-aY) in the Old World, we'll learn to live without Mercedes and Chateauneuf du Pape. Удачи, вам это понадобится. Товарищ.

*edited to replace a reference that contained accurate information but from a source that is prohibited.*
"
Economics,"The US isn't in Europe to pay for our defence:

1. The US operates black sites in Europe. This is because this would be difficult on US soil to do legally. Same with Guantanamo bay and so on.

2. The US has a supply and logistics base in Germany. It's their route into the Persian peninsula and Africa. US soldiers can also receive medical treatment there.

Italy, France and the UK pay for their own defence with their armies and nukes. Germany isn't allowed to have significant military and their citizens were brainwashed by the CIA to not like military. So it's not possible any longer.
"
Economics,"The US isn’t “sending money to Europe,” it has some bases there. That was America’s strategic decision, not Europe’s. The idea is that Russia won’t engage directly either the US militarily, so having the bases means that NATO’s eastern members are safe from invasion as long as US troops are present. You are only counting the costs of NATO to America and ignoring the massive benefits, like a stable market economy of 500 million people in Europe, a bunch of fellow democracies to work with, a contained Russia (this one is big), and NATO encouraging members to buy American weaponry, which is money directly flowing from European governments to the United States."
Economics,"Mate, you do realise military bases don’t equal military funding. If the US pays a country to have a military base there then that’s because it benefits the US.

Again NATO doesn’t require its members to pay anything onwards it, and even if it did, if the US pays less than a quarter of that then it’s pretty pathetic as they make up well about 25% of the groups GDP.

Again the 2% guideline doesn’t mean anything, whether nations reach it or not doesn’t matter, but countries have actually set timelines for when they will meet it.

You haven’t show the that US pays for European defence, what you have shown somewhat is that the US pays countries to station troops and put bases there. That is in no way paying for European countries defence. 

I said NATO was mutually beneficial, which it is, but it acts more in American interests than European ones. "
Economics,"Yes, that's why Americans haven't improved their standard of living in 250 years -- all wage increases have been offset by inflation.

Or....the world isn't as simple as your one-sentence Reddit comment.

Since you've staked out this position, why don't you go the extra step and make your comment actually contribute to the conversation by educating everyone on when wage increases do and don't lead to inflation that wipes out all the wage gains."
Economics,"I don't think any rational person with an education in economics genuinely believes that, at all. I don't think people with a firm grasp of economics support tariffs for any reason. 

The only justification for them (at least in this context) is using them as a stick to motivate other countries to lower their tariffs. Which would be a good outcome for both the US and emerging markets. 

The problem is that if the tariffs don't work, Trump probably won't back down for fear of looking weak, so we just end up with higher tariffs as the new normal. "
Economics,"I'm concerned about that too...the Trump Republicans really seem think that trade deficits are bad, even though it really just means that we have more capital to spend than local supply can economically fulfill...that's actually a good sign for the economy, but still they want to rig the markets unnaturally to offset this natural supply/demand mechanism with taxes.  That's not free market capitalism - that's more like state-run corporatism. 

Trump Republicans: ""We gotta compete with (an emerging industrial market) China by becoming more state-run like China was, except be more nationalist and closed-off to trade with everyone too...yeah, that'll show em who's boss in global trade."" /eye roll"
Economics,"Wrong. The market sets prices. The market doesn’t care if it costs one company twice what it costs another to make an equal product. If they try to charge twice the price as their competitor (for an equal, competing product), they won’t be in business long.

For example, if Ford Motor Co’s manufacturing expenses result in them charging twice the price for a Taurus as Chevrolet does for an Impala or Chrysler does for the 300, guess who’s going to sell far more vehicles?

I don’t understand why this myth won’t die. Cost of production does not ultimately set prices. It sets profit margin."
Economics,"Actually, the most straightforward way to raise wages by the government would be for the government to simply hire more people, at the wage level and with the benefits they want to set as a minimum - basically acting an employer of last resort & providing competition for the labor force. The government wouldn't have to mandate anything on private employers that way either, just use the same power to spend money that it already uses.

Of course, the special interests that have a vested interest in preventing the government from growing larger would go ape-shit at such a proposal - not that they like the minimum wage approach either. In fact, they don't really like any proposal that would effectively increase wages - I wonder why?"
Economics,"More teachers, more fire fighters, more rangers, more law enforcement, EPA testing, FDA testing, CDC agents, etc. Include training as part of the job-hiring. There are perpetual complaints about a lot of these useful agencies being short-staffed, get people used to doing useful things in return for decent compensation. 

As far as money is concerned, the government doesn't seem to find much problem finding money to fatten up the wallets of the financial industry, does it - even with lots of reports seeming to indicate that this policy does much, much more good for Wall Street than it does Main Street. Redirecting most of that would probably do the economy much more good than it is doing right now.

Also, you can crank up the highest level marginal tax brackets quite a bit w/o coming even close to affecting individual & small businesses, and by using a lot of that to pay people at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder, it's a form of feedback against both income inequality & inflation due to over-money-supply."
Economics,"Well do you actually have some logic behind it to explain why you believe that they have totally different meanings?

Sorry but trickle down is a political term for supply-side government stimulus and it's just as socialist as demand-side government stimulus...it's not some brilliantly different strategy from demand-side economics...the two are more like the difference between QE and QT tools used by the Fed.  

Supply-side is a great socialist tool for the government to directly stimulate production from the top, but only in the case where there's existing demand growth in place first that can't be met reasonably without subsidies/stimulus from the government...otherwise it's just promoting new business investment without any demand there to sustain it (or worse - an act of desperation to prolong the inevitable), so then basically the extra capital must be invested back into just the survival of this entity that's already on life support.  If the general population doesn't have enough money to buy more stuff, then there's no demand to support this top-down production increase, and promoting more capital gains by cutting taxes isn't going to help businesses to make enough sustainable profit in order to afford to hire people who in turn then have the money to buy from said producers/employers and keep the economic cycle going...the ventures are inherently existing on government welfare without any new demand/growth for them to justify using the capital for more production, and that doesn't make any sense financially. 

I like the idea of a balance of fiscal conservatism through socialist policies like regulation to avoid stuff like monopolies, and to avoid systemic risk like zombie banks and corporations that are forced to cannibalize year over year exasperating the systemic risk, and fair progressive gains taxes on private business capital, as long as there are equal socialist protections for those private businesses as well, like general government subsidies on employees (tax-paid basic medical, disability, family leave) to take some of this long-term financial burden off of employers, making employment profitable for both business and working-class.  It's interesting for example how Swedish government has become more fiscally conservative than US government despite being more democratic socialist.  FDR used some pretty extreme demand-side economics after the Great Depression, and to great success despite being controversial.  I think it was Eisenhower who heavily-subsidized private business contracts for military and that was successful too because demand was there and had to be met with some more direct supply-side incentives from the government or something, though it was also considered to be controversial. "
Economics,"I actually really like your idea. The problem I see is that it relies on the supply of these government jobs to be unlimited so everyone can opt for one of them, which I don't think is realistic. That said, something close to this could be done by creating some number of jobs at a given wage, but it would be very difficult to provide a job of last resort to everyone."
Economics,"For additional jobs, we could always treat ""retraining"" as a government job, where you'll get a working wage & benefits while learning new skills, but you'll be monitored & tested to see if you're taking the training seriously (setting the precedent that you have to work for a living).

Solves the not-enough-jobs problem so people don't end up doing scutwork for a living, and you end up with a large many-skilled flexible workforce used to working for a living. Should also improve probabilities of entrepreneurship, since people won't be so scared to take risks w/o a standard job.

Would probably be quite a bit more expensive than normal welfare, of course, at least in the short run."
Economics,"This is like saying credit scores are racist because black people have lower average FICA scores.  The truth of the matter is the black population is not well educated in high school, ergo any black college is a riskier proposition.  Until the white/black score gap closes it's entirely rational to ask a higher premium for schools dedicated to serving one particular racial demographic.  If it were an all Asian school it would be just the opposite, because Asians score better than whites do.  

Furthermore, I doubt the self-segregation of these schools is in the student's best long term interests, because it's entirely self-limiting.  Even if you collect the best black professors in the world, is it ever going to be comparable to other top schools?  No, it won't.  Thus, segregation is logically faulty and harmful to student's chances for learning from the top educators in this world."
Economics,"Black students have huge default rates on student debt. Something like 300% higher than whites. If blacks are your primary customer and they depend on student loans with a default risk like that, then it is a big future risk.

Any removal of subsidies to the student loan program will have outsized effects on universities that serve primarily blacks as their clients will not receive the funding necessary and thus the university cannot receive it. That should be reflected in their bond price."
Economics,There is data supporting the fact that on the whole all black businesses are on average more risky.  It's not just a matter of whether the students pay or not.  The long term success of a school and how it grows or doesn't grow (and possibly collapses) is determined by a lot more factors than that simplistic payment analysis.  In the end students are paying to get educated so they can get a decent job.  If they fail in that endeavor then over time this will erode confidence in the school and enrollment will stagnate or decline.  Self-segregation in this regard is a direct risk to ensuring these students get the best education they can for their money.
Economics,"Just wow.

Black students disproportionately go to less well funded and lower quality k-12 schools and disproportionately come from poorer and less stable households (arguably even more important than school funding or quality). You're saying that people who are poorer deserve to pay more to get an education. 

HBCUs do not segregate, they are historically black because historically they were the only legal institutions of higher education for black people. They do not deny applicants who are not black for either student or faculty positions.

Why did this get any up votes? Its not economics it's racist propaganda. "
Economics,"I never specified ""WHY"" their scores are lower, only the fact that they are lower and that has long term consequences for higher education.  I am **not** saying poorer deserve to pay more for education.  I am saying they're better off applying to a non-racially based college which can draw upon the wide diversity of professors available to educate students.  For whatever reason HBCUs have difficulty in hiring talented and diversified faculty, and that's a long term problem for them as well. 

>Amelia Smith’s good fortune is Spelman College’s loss. She is a talented and highly coveted black student who had her pick of any college she could get into and afford. But that hard-won freedom comes at a price for historically black colleges and universities. Predominantly white schools are picking off some of black colleges’ best prospects. Fifty years ago, 90 percent of all black college students went to black colleges. Today, 90 percent of black students are at mostly white schools.

This is why these schools are a financial risk, black students are choosing better colleges that they believe better reward their education dollar investments.  In a diversified world these schools should logically not exist, and they're in danger of disappearing entirely if they don't diversify, but that means abandoning their status of HBCUs.  

>Spelman is one of the richest and most highly regarded of the 101 accredited HBCUs. As are Howard University in Washington and Morehouse College in Atlanta. **They are not in danger because of choices like the one Smith made. But many HBCUs are.** (that's why they paid higher borrowing cost!)

>The AJC analyzed key data measures that relate to the health and stability of 101 schools — among them, enrollment, graduation rates, student retention and core revenue. The newspaper found the usual stars in the HBCU firmament — but also some troubled institutions that have struggled for years.

>**Tiny Paine College in Augusta has lost 46 percent of its enrollment since 2010, and two-thirds of Paine’s freshman class in 2015 didn’t come back for sophomore year.** Meanwhile, the oldest HBCU in America, Cheyney University of Pennsylvania, lost 55 percent of its enrollment during that period. Its six-year graduation rate in 2015? Seventeen percent. At South Carolina State University, enrollment declined 30 percent and core revenue 27 percent.

Perfect example of why many of these schools are doomed to failure and are bad investments or higher risks overall.

>Colleges can’t sustain those kinds of numbers for long — evident in the fact that at least six HBCUs have closed since 1988 and at least two (including one in Atlanta) are now colleges in name only.

Case closed, these schools are higher risks, period, and part of that risk is associated with their lack of diversity and the relatively poor education history of their students.  I understand they are from underprivileged school districts, but the facts are the facts, and **facts are not racist**.

>Some college finance experts predict that dozens of HBCUs will disappear in the next 20 years.

>“I use a phrase that got me in trouble. After 7½ years in this space and seeing a decline overall, my phrase is, ‘I am hopeful, but not optimistic,’” said Johnny Taylor, former president of the Thurgood Marshall College Fund, which supports public HBCUs.

>Taylor believes as many as one-quarter of HBCUs will not survive the next two decades.

https://www.myajc.com/news/local/perilous-times-for-black-colleges/EhDuhVHMOjZqmskOeKBHoM/"
Economics,"HBCUs are not 'racially based' colleges. They existed before the 1965 and were open for black students who were denied admission to traditional colleges because they were black. They do not discriminate in either student or faculty applications based on race, this is a falsehood you for some reason are perpetuating. They do not particularly serve the black population, they have historically served the black population.

You're parroting racist lies about what the institutions are and who they serve. "
Economics,"In a world that didn't treat black people as property unworthy of education and a decent life they wouldn't exist in the first place.

I have not made any comment about the future health of HBCUs. They have never been opposed to diversity, their status as HBCUs is entirely because they were open to black people before the 60s forced desegregation. 

What you have done is repeat racist propaganda, with the supposed justification of such racist shit being 'rational'. Pseudo science and the veneer of rationality has been used and continue to be used to justify racist policies and racist attitudes. Which you've propagated by claiming HBCUs are 'racially based' and participate in 'self segregation'. It's disgusting "
Economics,"How does that assist those that are not in the stock market. For example I don’t know the exact numbers off hand but there are plenty of Americans not in the market. Then there are even fewer that have actual retirement worthy money. Couple with the fact the majority of stocks are owned by the minority of the population and you start to wonder. 

So the economy is booming, my company has had its most profitable year ever, and despite the 200% growth we experienced my bonus was still 5% of my salary. Cool. You can’t eat unrealized gains in your retirement account. "
Economics,"> How does that assist those that are not in the stock market. For example I don’t know the exact numbers off hand but there are plenty of Americans not in the market.

Well get in then.

> o the economy is booming, my company has had its most profitable year ever, and despite the 200% growth we experienced my bonus was still 5% of my salary. Cool. You can’t eat unrealized gains in your retirement account.

Unemployment is at a 10 year low. I bet the growth is nice for people who didn't have a fucking job several years ago."
Economics,"Yep the data is just as I remember it being and something you should know too if you want to be snarky. 


Unemployment being low is commonly cited. What are those jobs? That data shows the jobs that are being created are shit jobs that don’t pay benefits. Do you want me to spoon feed you that data as well so you can believe it or are a few of your neurons going to fire and help you along. 

So follow up question. If we have the lowest unemployment in ten years, why are we not seeing worker wages increase. Genuinely curious because we are more productive today than at any other time in history yet we are seeing some serious social issues stemming from wealth inequality. But the stick market is higher than ever before! 

Cited by literally every administration ever. "
Economics,"> Unemployment being low is commonly cited. What are those jobs? That data shows the jobs that are being created are shit jobs that don’t pay benefits. Do you want me to spoon feed you that data as well so you can believe it or are a few of your neurons going to fire and help you along.

See response from /u/bobmarles3 and also the constant goalpost moving from your side (not you personally, but people who constantly bitch and moan how bad everything is economically) is extremely annoying. ""people don't have jobs!"" ""ok they have jobs now, but those are shitty jobs"" ""ok they are not so shitty but the benefits are shitty"" ""ok the benefits are pretty ok but France has 35 hour work week"". Fine, these are all valid concerns. But stops crying about nothing for anybody has improved when millions of peoples lives have clearly improved as a function of HAVING A JOB AND INCOME.

> So follow up question. If we have the lowest unemployment in ten years, why are we not seeing worker wages increase.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N I must be imagining the increase from 2012? 

> Genuinely curious because we are more productive today than at any other time in history yet we are seeing some serious social issues stemming from wealth inequality.

No one is saying there is no inequality and areas to improve. There are huge areas for improvement. But when would you rather be poor, now or 50 years ago? 

>  But the stick market is higher than ever before!

So what your solution? Tank the stock market so there is less jobs and opportunity for poor people? I can guarantee you rich people will still be fine if growth stops."
Economics,">How does that assist those that are not in the stock market.

Through underfunded state pensions funds who own a huge portion of the market realize higher gains in order to keep their programs solvent without raising everyone's taxes. Since state taxes are usually more regressive then federal taxes due to the ease of moving between states this disproportionately helps out the lower and middle class. Also through insurance companies that also own a sizable chunk of the market. They invest in the market in between disasters and help the millions of Americans affected every year to recover."
Economics,"Stock holdings are extremely stratified, 10% of Americans hold over 80% of stocks.
http://time.com/money/5054009/stock-ownership-10-percent-richest/
Half of America owns nothing at all.
https://www.npr.org/2017/03/01/517975766/while-trump-touts-stock-market-many-americans-left-out-of-the-conversation

The remainder who hold stocks do so through retirement accounts, which cannot be touched until they are older. And even within that 90% it skews older because they could save previously. Only a third of millennials have any holdings in stocks. 
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/24/millennials-are-afraid-to-invest-in-the-stock-market-ally-finds.html

Stocks don't matter to most people in real terms. There is a disproportionate attention paid to them because the news has to sell readers and watchers to advertisers and no one likes a poor customer. And there is some weird psychological thing where someone owns some stocks and they think it makes them Warren Buffett. But that's not a consequential part of their lives, much like how their favorite sports team winning or losing doesn't affect whether they can pay their bills."
Economics,"No they aren't, they are a reflection of investor confidence and nothing more. It's a useful fiction for propaganda purposes that stocks supposedly indicate what's happening in the real economy, but it's still a fiction.

There is no financial justification for Tesla to be worth ten billion more than Ford by market cap. None whatsoever. 

The economy hasn't actually grown 30% since the 2016 election either yet the indices have grown that much."
Economics,"> There is no financial justification for Tesla to be worth ten billion more than Ford by market cap. None whatsoever.

One stock out of several thousand currently listed is retardedly overvalued, OMG THE SYSTEM IS A SHAM!!

> The economy hasn't actually grown 30% since the 2016 election either yet the indices have grown that much.

And they will correct to a more reasonable place. Zoom out of the chart and take a longer term look"
Economics,"I don't get the logic with that, because the way to keep China from overshooting is to, y'know, have enforceable international agreements with consequences for failing to meet those targets. Like, say, if Beijing decides they're going to build more coal plants than the US, then we hit them with crippling carbon tariffs. Hell, it would make Trump's current trade war nonsense marginally more defensible if the justification was China's pollution rather than some vain pipe dream of bringing manufacturing jobs back onshore."
Economics,Is that defined in carbon emission per land mass area? Because that is not a fair metric. So larger countries like China with 90% of land mass is unoccupied are allowed to pollute their local industrial areas so bad that people literally cant breathe properly and willingly spend money to buy bags of fresh air from ireland?? Compared to USA where all major areas have clean air with only a few geographical outliers? 
Economics,"The main trouble with a carbon border tax is that you need some method of accounting for all the carbon that goes into a product.  If the product is coming from China, good luck with that; they don't have the data you want and even if they did they would have lots of incentive to embellish.

This is why most practical proposals for taxing carbon apply the tax at the source.  We have a really good idea how much carbon is in a barrel of oil or a TCF of natural gas."
Economics,"If you dig into the reasoning for this, it's pretty suspect:

>Wind and solar reached [record shares](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=35412) in the electricity mix in the United States in 2017, as 6.3 GW of coal-fired capacity shut down, and fossil-fuel fired electricity generation experienced its steepest year-on-year decline since the 2008 financial crisis. This development comes despite the Trump Administration’s promises to boost coal, and according to the official U.S. Energy Information Administration’s 2018 [Annual Energy Outlook](https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/), renewables and gas are expected to increasingly replace coal in electricity generation in the future. Resulting lower emissions from the power sector, decreases in emissions from transport, and a methodological change in inventory data lead to US emissions projections that decrease slightly through the early 2020s and then level off in 2030—5% lower than the CAT projected last year.  
>  
>Based on the Trump Administration’s intent to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, we still rate the US “Critically Insufficient.” On the CAT rating scale, we would rate US current policies as “Highly insufficient.”

[https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/usa/](https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/usa/)

That is, America reduced CAT by more than expected, but the political actions of the current President make people uncomfortable, so they decided to up the rating.  America is still meeting, and indeed exceeding, its Paris goals to date.  Of course, America's Paris goals are insufficient to do its share to limit to 2C, but so are everyone else's."
Economics,">The main trouble with a carbon border tax is that you need some method of accounting for all the carbon that goes into a product.  If the product is coming from China, good luck with that; they don't have the data you want and even if they did they would have lots of incentive to embellish.
>
>This is why most practical proposals for taxing carbon apply the tax at the source.  We have a really good idea how much carbon is in a barrel of oil or a TCF of natural gas.

Throwing your hands up is not the answer. Let's actually measure the carbon output to produce goods and services and tax them. Making the tax more granular as we learn more is not exactly a problem. Politics is the problem."
Economics,"I did not propose to throw my hands up.  I proposed a tax on carbon applied at the source, in all jurisdictions you trade with.  This is no less good at mitigating climate change and it is considerably easier to implement and enforce.

I don't think raising the UN and WTO is a particularly helpful argument here.  Distrust of those organizations is widespread.  I would expect many nations to reject routine UN or WTO inspections of all export production, which I believe is what you're requesting.  Even the ones who accept such intervention will find it burdensome."
Economics,"To clarify, this is the way the authors define middle class:


>Our “middle class” classification was first developed in 2010 and has been used by many researchers. While acknowledging that the middle class does not have a precise definition that can be globally applied, the threshold we use in this work has the following characteristics: those in the middle class have some discretionary income that can be used to buy consumer durables like motorcycles, refrigerators, or washing machines. They can afford to go to movies or indulge in other forms of entertainment. They may take vacations. And they are reasonably confident that they and their family can weather an economic shock—like illness or a spell of unemployment—without falling back into extreme poverty.




""Middle class"" can be somewhat of a buzzword at times, but the authors are talking about a significant development here no matter what words you use to discuss it."
Economics,"> We make these claims based on a classification of households into those in extreme poverty (households spending below $1.90 per person per day) and those in the middle class (**households spending $11-110 per day per person in 2011 purchasing power parity**, or PPP). Two other groups round out our classification: vulnerable households fall between those in poverty and the middle class; and those who are at the top of the distribution who are classified as “rich.” "
Economics,"I tick those boxes and my income over the last four years had been well under $20k. those metrics are so broad they might as well be meaningless. Luckily I'm content with three dogs, a fiancee, and a baby on the way. I have a roof over my head and food in our bellies. The cup runneth over, so to speak. My goal is to live life seeking inner peace and contentment, neither require material things.

 By an accurate, less silly assessment, though, we are lower or under class. Missing a week of work could mean starving. If she passed away I'd never afford a funeral without help. A debilitating disease would spell homelessness. But yeah, we just went to a movie, we ate out a couple times, by some standards we are this new fangled middle class. We have some money to spare, sometimes.

But like I said, I'm content. There are hills to climb and I watch people crest them just to find another hill to climb. They'll crest that and set about finding another. They'll climb hill after hill while I sit back and wish them luck. Just dont call me Middle Class, it's a bald faced lie. I live in poverty, but my soul is filled, that's all that matters to me. We are impoverished."
Economics,"Alternatively, I want to pay 200% of my income to taxes. I want to take out a loan on my house and use it to pay the government MORE money! I love to be a slave because I benefit from it because I get lots of things I didn’t ask for like bombing families in Yemen and other benefits. My favorite thing is to pay the salary of the slow inefficient government workers who are dismissive and rude to me and do a terrible job as a way of saying thanks for paying them. Reminds me that we should all be forced to be exactly equal (unless you are more productive in which case obviously you should have to pay more). Also - we live in a society! By being born into slavery you therefore obviously consent to it. Anyway - I gotta run - have to find someone to co-sign on my second mortgage so I can pay more taxes into this efficient charitable organization called IRS - who will jail those of you if you refuse to pay. Maybe they will be lenient on me because I paid extra. The really nice thing is the “thank you” cards I get from the government for my contributions. Thank goodness the recipients of my hard earned money don’t look on me with open hostility for having more money with which to pay higher taxes. I wish there was a physical building where I could go to signal my tax-paying virtues to be seen by everyone. Love, devotion and faith in the state is shown by paying taxes and is very different than being one of those religious crazies. Shame and hate to anyone who dislikes taxation!!!"
Economics,"HI fellow taxpaying virtue signaler! *Offers a high five but barely misses *

What on earth are you talking about! I said I want to pay MORE taxes! I want to start an investment capital firm and invest in taxation because the gains are so great. We will pay investors back with good vibes and sanctimony of course. 

It’s just good economics! 

Jail sounds okay too except for the not paying taxes part. (I may not have made perfectly clear that I do love taxes) jail otherwise provides perfect security. No money. Don’t have to work, it’s a socialist utopia. "
Economics,"Oh boy you so so so are right!!!! THANK YOU. 7$ is a little bit conservative for my 200% contribution, but that’s okay. You were too busy being right to be expected to worry about that!!! 

I would never hide anything from the IRS because I would run out of virtue to signal about! Also - because they do so much good with the money we give them, I understand why they get so mad as to jail me when I don’t pay it. They just want to help people! Why would someone not want to help people! 97% of money to government goes to helping poor children. 1% is roads and 1% is bureaucracy 1% military/police. Taxation isn’t slavery at all - it’s just a compulsory donation to charity and I am better than you for loving taxation much harder than you do. "
Economics,"I said it!!!! And I suggest it! I love taxation because it’s the price I have the PRIVILEGE of (mandatorily) paying (under threat of imprisonment) to live in society and that money does nothing but good - so if a little is good, a lot is so much better. 

Fantasy land is AWESOME and making proclamations about how tax cuts are bad makes me a huge hero so I have that going for me also. I’m glad that Trump gets to use my money for his agenda. I was happy when Clinton used it for her/his agenda. They need my money more than I do for votes. "
Economics,"I'm actually cautiously optimistic on [rental prices after cost growth slowed in Q2](https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-rental-rates-flatten-in-major-cities-as-supply-floods-market-1530097200): 

> The U.S. apartment market suffered its worst spring since 2010, near the depths of the housing crisis, as a flood of new supply and weakening demand resulted in rising vacancy rates and little or no rent increases in many major cities.

> Rents rose 2.3% in the second quarter compared with a year earlier, the weakest annual increase since the third quarter of 2010, according to data from RealPage Inc. scheduled to be released on Wednesday. Rental growth was flat in major cities with otherwise strong economies—such as Austin, Portland, Seattle, Dallas and Washington, D.C.—due to large amounts of new supply.

Mortgages are another issue but those aren't usually held by the people struggling the most. "
Economics,"Rising interest rates will probably have a larger effect. Most Americans finance their homes and base affordability on their expected monthly payments. As interest goes up, so do monthly payments.

Mortgage interest deduction has been largely irrelevant in recent years since interest rates are so low. It's not like the early 80s when interest was huge.

If your maximum monthly payment you can afford is $1,000, at 4% you can borrow $209,461. But at 5%, the amount you can borrow drops to $186,282. This is ignoring insurance, property taxes, and other home maintenance costs."
Economics,"Economics is definitely not very sciency and becoming more and more wonky. It also doesn't help that economists look at the USA as the ""model economy"", whilst it's a pretty shitty country with regards to most standards. Great examples of this are how when the USSR fell some policies the economists of USAID and other organisations recommended to the countries switching to capitalism totally [backfired](https://www.thenation.com/article/harvard-boys-do-russia/) and resulted in dramatic decreases of living standards for the russians."
Economics,"Well, you keep a larger chunk of your hard-earned pay, but so do the richer people.

A 1% cut for a rich person has way more meaning in absolute terms than a 1% cut for a poor person.

​

Say you have a 100$, and get a 1% cut, then you have 1$ more you get to keep.

Someone else has 10000$, then a 1% cut is 100 in absolute terms, which is equal to entire income of the poorer person. "
Economics,"Well, you keep a larger chunk of your hard-earned pay, but so do the richer people.

A 1% cut for a rich person has way more meaning in absolute terms than a 1% cut for a poor person.

​

Say you have a 100$, and get a 1% cut, then you have 1$ more you get to keep.

Someone else has 10000$, then a 1% cut is 100 in absolute terms, which is equal to entire income of the poorer person. "
todayilearned,"I came here to say that. A really bizarre comparison. The Empire State Building is only 0.28 miles tall (rounded up). The tunnel is thus 135 times longer, making the comparison of  little practical value. Rather, the fact a 35 mile long tunnel **only** used 84 times the amount of concrete as the Empire State is more a testament to the economy of the structural engineering than it is an indicator of the size or vastness of the tunnel."
todayilearned,"It's pretty intense, it's basically a guy getting tortured to death. I wouldn't say it's something you watch for pleasure. And there was only a few seconds showing the resurrection, which was disappointing because I thought that it was the whole point of the story.

I'd say it's an inspiring film if you're interested in religion or the story of Jesus, but for anyone outside of that, it's simply hard to watch. "
todayilearned,"> And there was only a few seconds showing the resurrection, which was disappointing because I thought that it was the whole point of the story.

The 'whole point' was in the title: *The Passion* refers to a very specific part of the narrative, which implicitly does not include the resurrection.

It is a little weird that Gibson chose to focus on that part of the story, ignoring so much else in order to give a heaping helping of torture, but he did."
todayilearned,"I mean, “the Passion” in the title should have been enough notice that it was all about his final days. I feel like your expectations were that it should have been a romanticized view of Christ’s life, which is simply not a “period piece.” A period piece would have attempted some realism—and if the Passion’s portrayal of the brutality of Romans toward some Christians wasn’t just that, I don’t know what is."
todayilearned,"Christian here, also an amateur filmmaker (not that it really matters). Here's my take on it.

Gibson's intentions were good. He wanted to show, to some extent, what the process of crucifixion was like, and he did as good of a job as can be expected. *It really was that bad, if not somewhat worse*.

That said, I think the movie is horribly manipulative. It focuses so much on the *suffering* of Christ, that it misses the *why* of his suffering. I don't care who it is in that movie, watching a man be crucified should cause an emotional reaction in anyone. Instead of having any actual depth, the film just focuses on the suffering. Obviously, the death of Christ is *an* important part of Christian theology, but his resurrection is *the* important part, and Passion of the Christ just sort of...glazes over the resurrection.

Personally, I think there are better depictions of the crucifixion in film. I actually think the 1959 Ben-Hur gets it right. It focuses less on the suffering of Christ and more on the affect it had on the people who knew him/witnessed his ministry. I'll even go as far to say that Martin Scorsese's *The Last Temptation of Christ* gets more right than Gibson's movie does, despite the obvious issues with it (it's a great movie, though).

Basically, I think Gibson's movie is little more than Christian torture porn, which particularly feeds into the ideal of Catholic guilt, ignores actual Christian theology in favor of relentless gore, and manipulates an emotional reaction from its audience by its focus on the bloodshed.

It also bugs me that the film is such a hard R-rated film, but Jesus isn't naked on the cross. That really makes me rage because stripping the person of their dignity was a HUGE part of what crucifixion was about. But that's probably a minor quibble."
todayilearned,"Yeah, the problem is most Christian movies are either a circlejerk (You made the right choice!) or are made for/by ""VeggieTales Christians"", as in the ones who were sheltered way too hard.

I wanna see a 300 style movie about Sampson! I wanna see Saul and David and treachery and war! I wanna see Genesis 1-3 like The Magician's Nephew!

But nah, they just keep making the prayer room or war room or whatever."
todayilearned,"> I mean, “the Passion” in the title should have been enough notice that it was all about his final days.

How so? I would be much more willing to think its about the last temptation. Nowhere in my mind would i associate passion with torture.

Edit: i want to make it clear i was never aware of this term in this context before today. Im sure lots of people arent."
todayilearned,">It is a little weird that Gibson chose to focus on that part of the story, ignoring so much else in order to give a heaping helping of torture, but he did.

I was growing up in the church when that movie came out. I remember there was sort of a backlash (heh) against Jesus stories that glossed over the ugliness of the crucifixion. Like the idea was that you should expose yourself to all the gruesome details so that you would understand Jesus' suffering and thus better understand God's sacrifice.

So people liked the movie because they saw it as filling a gap. It focused heavily on an aspect of the story that they felt previous tellings had avoided.

As a non-Christian now, it's kind of messed up. But I can see where they're coming from."
todayilearned,"This is exactly it. The idea is that it’s showcasing exactly how much Jesus was willing to go through to redeem mankind, drastically increasing the price tag for humanity over most other movies that include the crucifixion that water it down a fair bit, which in turn cheapens both the sacrifice and the value of humanity. That Jesus went through so much to save us is the whole point of the film. 

John 15:13 - “Greater love hath no man than this: that a man lay down his life for his friends.” The point isn’t just to show violence, but to say “This is how extreme Jesus’ passion for humanity was, that he selflessly laid down his life in the most gruesome manner possible for us all.” "
todayilearned,"Gotcha. I misunderstood your point. I thought you were enraged because it was a hard R while only showing extreme violence and cruelty. It’s a hard R might as well show the nudity. But male frontal nudity tends to get a tougher rating. 

That said, the hypocrisy of  the mmpa and American television in this regard drives me absolutely bonkers. Murder and violence can get pg-13. Sex? Even in a healthy depiction? Nonono. That’s too adult. "
todayilearned,"There were serious tensions between Jewish communities and the Roman Empire in the decades leading up to Christ’s persecution, and which eventually led to several wars ~15-20 years after his death. Many Romans were uncomfortable with the rising prosperity of Jews under Roman rule, and there was considerable persecution as a result.

“Christians” were hardly even a religious entity until right around the fires. They were persecuted almost as immediately as they formed. It was a “secret” religion for quite some time.

Also, Pilate, not Pilot."
todayilearned,"Yes. Also, had the Jews been in charge of the actual killing of Jesus, they would have had him stoned, as was tradition. Only Romans, by law, had the authority to crucify. So to say that the Jews “killed Christ” is not a whole truth. 

I think there are a number of redditors in this thread who are using one or two of the Gospels as a primary source for their “story.” Earlier accounts of the crucifixion (Mark, for example) make it clear that Pilate persecuted Jesus. Later Gospel writers began to portray Jews in a negative light, and with storytelling flourishes, with Pilate vouching for Jesus “three times” while the Jews railed against him."
todayilearned,"I agree about the stoning vs. crucifixion. It's one of the details of the story that shows that the Pharisees cared about preserving their power, not about enforcing Jewish law.

But Mark, the oldest gospel account, is a shorter version of events, and he's pretty clear that Pilate asked several times what cause they had to crucify him. He also says that Pilate ""perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests delivered him up"" to be executed. So he pretty blatantly blames the chief priests (not all Jews). Pilate is of course a coward just like all the other accounts. He does leave out the detail of Pilate's hand washing though."
todayilearned,"Former Protestant, current really bad Catholic here. To put it in it's simplest terms, the more your eyes adjust to the darkness the brighter the light will be. One must understand how wretched they are to understand the full scope of grace. The whole concept of the week shall inherit the earth is this same logic. A rich and powerful person with no care in the world cannot possibly understand why they need salvation, but somebody who lives in the darkest and dingiest of places understands it very well."
todayilearned,"Serbian film was fucking lame. Its like some guy just tried to shove all the bad things he could think of into a film. Edgy to the point of disgusting baby rape. 

I mean, it didn't shock me, just left me feeling like I watched some teenagers try their hardest to make a shocking movie. 

Hostel is a decent movie, Serbian is just a shitty fucking movie. I've seen real videos of people having their head blow off that have a better claim to an Oscar than that movie. "
todayilearned,"The trick that he is trying to get across is that it's all in your head. You've been brainwashed to think that you want cigarettes. You've been brainwashed to think they are helping you cope when they are only causing you the discomfort you wish to rid yourself of. 

Give it another read when you have the time. Take it slow and really read everything he has to say. Dont try to quit before you finish every last page."
todayilearned,"When you smoke, you stink like literal shit. No one wants to smell you, it's fucking disgusting. That hot 20 something who works in the same place as you - she smells it too. She's disgusted by it.

Not only this, but you've been wasting your money for years to do this. Whatever your hobby / interest is, the chances are you could have purchased something absolutely top of the range for this interest and got some real pleasure out of it.

Instead you invested it in dried leaves that you burned and inhaled.

Stop even considering that your body wants / needs / craves it. Ignore that shit. Go create something in this world. If you're single, go fuck that hot colleague. Stop acting like a 14 year old trying to be cool. It is not cool."
todayilearned,"There are conflicting reports about it. 


During the Chernobyl disaster, Alexei Ananenko, Valeri Bezpalov, and Boris Baranov were tasked with preventing a potentially disastrous steam explosion, by opening the sluice gates to drain a bubbler pool. (AP report)

Many sources have the three dying soon after (≈ 2 weeks) to radiation poisoning. Notable among them, the docudrama ""Surviving Disaster - Chernobyl Nuclear"". Another is: Catastrophe: A Guide to World's Worst Industrial Disasters.

Chernobyl 01:23:40: The Incredible True Story of the World's Worst Nuclear Disaster, on the other hand, claims they didn't die of radiation poisoning, and two of them are alive today (the third dying long after the incident, in 2005). Both the book and wikipedia cite this article from souzchernobyl.org.

"
todayilearned,"From a nuclear physics standpoint (I did 5 minutes of googling a few years ago, I'm a real professional /s), it's not outrageous, there was quite a lot of concrete between them and the reactor, and water is also a very good absorber of nuclear particles.

And if the story Ananenko tells is true, then the water wasn't even that deep, so they'd be able to walk most of the way, rather than be slowed down by swimming.
There's a reason why nuclear waste is stored in massive pools of water, not much penetrates past a few meters of water."
todayilearned,"No no no, physicist here, all the radiation from the chamber caused the bodies of these men to take on a wave-particle duality, the effects of which are colliquially known as ""Schrödinger's cat syndrome"" which causes the men to be both alive and dead until someone observes them.

If someone were to find this man and interview him, the duality would collapse, and a dangerous amount of radiation would be released."
todayilearned,"From an environmental aspect, what specifically the level is isn't so bad as the rate of change. Plants and animals don't evolve *that* fast, so rapidly changing conditions will lead to pretty crazy upheavals in the global biosphere and it would take millions of years to recover biodiversity. 

From a human aspect, we've spent centuries building up hundreds of trillions of dollars worth of infrastructure based on certain assumptions about how the seas and weather and whatnot would continue to act, and if they stop acting like that, a lot of that infrastructure could lose a lot of value or even become unuseable, which could lead to a significant amount of shittiness. Collapsed economies, mass migrations, mass starvation, wars, wars, and more wars. "
todayilearned,"The runaway greenhouse gas effect, which states that at some point co2 levels will be so high that it will cause the release of more greenhouse gasses which in turn heats up the earth more causing the release of more greenhouse gases until eventually the earth turns to Venus. It is said that the earth has either passed this point or is nearing it, however if co2 levels were already over twice as high as they are now, then why didn’t a runaway effect happen then?"
todayilearned,"I've heard one possibility is massive methane releases that were trapped in permafrosts. Methane decays naturally over time, but if it is let loose all at once, there's a potential for incredibly catastrophic warming, and if its enough for water to start boiling off the oceans, then you kind of have an irreversible situation, since water vapor is an incredibly effective greenhouse gas too. It would keep the earth forever hot.

So basically, in the past, the methane was just all decaying in the atmosphere as it was produced, so it wasn't really a problem. But a massive release could push the earth into a new stable state.

But in general hothouse earth scenarios are considered unlikely, and there are things we could do, technologically, to mitigate such a circumstance if it did happen. "
todayilearned,"And the leading theory on why there was so much O2 is that trees were new on the scene and were able to grow because of lignin. But lignin could not be consumed by anything in that era so trees kept putting oxygen in the atmosphere but didn't ""balance the books"" by releasing CO2 when they died. 

They also believe this process led to the greatest mass extinction on the planet. "
todayilearned,"The earths CO2 has gradually gotten trapped as oil, coal, methane. Prior to human usage of fossil fuels, greenhouse gases were at their all time low and teetering close to mass extinction levels of low, because there was nearly not enough for plants to continue to survive (supposedly plants need a minimum of 200 ppm and we were at 220 ppm). 

Carl Sagan argued something along the lines that perhaps humans evolved exclusively as a mechanism to release trapped CO2 from the Earth so that life could continue on."
todayilearned,"Yeah, they could still burn but anytime a swampy forest existed the trees would all fall and get covered like other fossils. Those lost forests are what make most the coal beds we see today. That process is what sequestered all the carbon into the rock and caused the O2 levels to rise high enough to make superbugs. There are theories about certain dinosaurs having similar issues where they couldn't survive today due to the atmospheric composition which makes the whole Jurrasic park thing a little harder. They think a bunch of the coal beds in Siberia were uncovered and caught fire dumping a ton of C02 into the atmosphere which is subsequently what ended the Carboniferous period. That or fungus started eating wood releasing the carbon back into the atmosphere. The Siberian fires could have just speed up the process  "
todayilearned,"I was likely the ability to break down lignin and cellulose, the two major, highly durable and stable components of plants' structures.

once the fungi got busy, then a lot more of the cellulose rotted away.

After the massive KT event, a huge number of ferns and related fungi spores were found, plus remnants of same. They had a huge growth rate with that much dead forests, about 90% of which burned in part, judging from the soot. at the KT boundaries world wide."
todayilearned,"Look there is such a field as geology. Do you know how Much limestone and related minerals like that exist in the earth's crust?

Many times outweighing and massing fossil fuels. Whole Mtn. ranges of limestone, world wide.

It's called CaCO3, calcium carbonate. THAT's where most of the C went, very likely. the billions of tons of diatoms, shelled animals, etc.

Man, where you people live inside your heads without looking outside is simply astonishing to we field biologists and other persons who Actually go outside most of the time & look at what's very likely widely going on.

Get outdoors and look at the geography and living systems and geology, please!!! & spend the time to acquaint yourselves with the real, living and physical universe of events.

& might be a good idea to look at the skies as well."
todayilearned,"Well, I mean he’s a bit over the top but we could have had an evolutionary hand up because of our C02 production. Although this mostly ensured that the entire ecosystem continued to work, not so much our ability to survive against other species for example (natural selection). Maybe we produced more C02 and consumed more 02 than other species? 

Anyways, it’s possible but definitely not even close to the whole story. "
todayilearned,"None of what you say is mainstream geology.

1. Lignin at the time was mostly used to protect the plants from being eaten by said massive insects. Structural stability allowing higher growth was just an additional benefit.

2. Lignin was immediately consumable by bacteria given favorable conditions, much like today. If it wasn't then you would expect a much greater variation in CO2 that would have essentially snowballed the Earth within a few thousand years. We can also visibly see partially decayed pieces of wood in Carboniferous coal deposits....

3. The greatest mass extinction was the Permian Triassic extinction, which came millions of years later.

"
todayilearned,"That doesn't make sense as is.  Plants weren't putting out _more_ O2 then because of less fungus and bacteria.  
  
I think its more a matter of:   

- More plants in total because of less herbivores in balance (plants were new)  
- Tectonic processes produce both carbon and oxygen, and much of the carbon ends up oxidized in life processes (including the rotting plant matter through fungus and bacteria), but during the carboniferous, much of the ""new"" carbon was buried before it could balance with the ""new"" oxygen, so tectonic processes were surfacing a net positive amount of oxygen into the atmosphere.  
"
todayilearned,"I don't get what you are saying. There was literally one paper that managed to get published  in Science (Floudas et all 2012) discussing the phylogenies of white rot. It got brief attention from popular science publications due to throwaway comments on the Carboniferous before getting shit on by the community for ignoring the rock record. There may be some literature review survey documenting the history of the hypothesis in detail, but I am not aware of it. The burden of presumption falls on new theories, not on their detractors.

The mainstream hypothesis has been, and likely will continue be, based primairly on tectonic activity rather than evolutionary biology."
todayilearned,"It has some merit. When bacteria break down the plant matter into CO2 they generally but not always consume oxygen to do so. So they put it out but when they die they arent consumed and so the oxygen isnt a consumed. This event is known to have happened, but we cant say its the reason for the oxygen surplus. However what we can say is that the carbon was not broken down, and instead was compressed and turned into coal. It would happen again when flowers appeared as the flowing part could not be broken down quickly enough, leading to a second much smaller era of coal creation. 

Coal is basically non broken down plants, oil is animals"
todayilearned,"> The mainstream hypothesis has been, and likely will continue be, based primairly on tectonic activity rather than evolutionary biology.

What I'm saying is please cite some source indicating the opinion you've given is the mainstream one.  
  
Second, you are now actively trying to demean and diminish the original hypothesis with statements like ""got brief attention... before getting shit on"".  This is simply untrue and suggests you may just not know what you're talking about.    
  
The 2016 paper I cited states this in its abstract ""A **widely accepted explanation** for this peak in coal production is a temporal lag between the evolution of abundant lignin production in woody plants and the subsequent evolution of lignin-degrading Agaricomycetes fungi, resulting in a period when vast amounts of lignin-rich plant material accumulated"".   
  
Do you have any source that shows your new hypothesis is ""widely accepted""?  
  "
todayilearned,"It would not produce it, but the lack of degradation reduces the rate of consumption. With a lower rate of consumption the oxygen would build up in the atmosphere. Effectively if we have bacteria that break down the lignin, X oxygen is produced during growth and X oxygen is consumed in decomposition. We have balance a standard composition to the air.

But if the lignin is not broken down, during growth X oxygen is produced and Y is consumed. Z=X-Y, where Z is the rate of accumulation beyond normal. Thus oxygen builds up purely because it isnt being consumed like it normally would. This is also why the period eventually ended though according to this hypothesis. Animals were able to grow larger and consume more oxygen, thus cutting into that rate of increase, and eventually stabilizing it. At that point as well the high oxygen content would lead to spontaneous fires that consumed it faster. When breakdown did start occurring these factors of animals and fire consumed it quicker than it was being produced leading to it returning to typical levels.


The balance of production and consumption is really important. The initial rise of oxygen in our atmosphere was hampered by consumption. Large amounts of iron were contained in the oceans in a soluble form. As much as was produced that iron was consuming the oxygen faster than it was produced, keeping atmospheric content to near zero. It was only when that iron was almost entirely consumed that we first got oxygen build up in the atmosphere"
todayilearned,"Again, it isn't the new hypothesis. The tectonic hypothesis has existed for a long time. What you demand, essentially a survey of researchers in the field about one trendy hypothesis put forward by biologists 6 years ago, likely does not exist. However, I can tell you that I have not yet met a professional geologist, industry or academic, who actually accepts the delayed evolution hypothesis.

>""A widely accepted explanation""

Yeah, among non-specialists. Saying the opposite is probably a bad way to make your own paper seem important and cite worthy."
todayilearned,"So you spouted your own opinion, have zero sources, and will discredit any source contrary to your opinion.  I'll also point out that wikipedia states the high oxygen levels were because ""large quantities of wood were buried during this period because animals and decomposing bacteria had not yet evolved enzymes that could effectively digest the resistant phenolic lignin polymers and waxy suberin polymers"".  Now I know you're going to say that wikipedia is not a source but it is well established as an encyclopedia, and YOU are not a better source than an encyclopedia.  
  
Nobody is asking for a full scientific review here, just ANY shred of evidence.  If you can produce any textbook, major publication, or paper newer than 2016 which lists your theory as ""widely accepted"", so be it.  But looks like you have no such backing.  "
todayilearned,"Hey it's my (you chose one for confirmation) patron saint in the front page! He was chosen as the patrn saint of the internet because he was absolutely obsessed with information. He didn't just make encyclopedias, he basically had THE encyclopedia of his day, like how we have wikipedia now. He was also abused as a kid by his older brother who beat him and caged him over his schooling. St Isidore ran away, he found a rock with a hole being bore through it. Water dripped in the same spot over the ages and worn a hole in the rock. He took it as a lesson for perserverence, over time things can change. His icon is also bees. It was fiting to chose him as my patron saint because I work in internet infrastructure, but the perserverence really struck me. Also bees."
todayilearned,"I'm no longer Catholic but I will say Confirmation was a really fun process to go through. For those who don't know,when you're about 10 or 11, you go through confirmation, basically a process in entering the church and I believe once you've done it you then can have the communion (the bread).

But the fun part is that at the start of the school year, we got to go through all the (patron-only?) saints, and briefly learn about their history. Then you choose one that you feel interests you, and you do this huge research project on them throughout the year. It's one of the first big research projects I did as a child and it was really interesting to just go really in depth into this guy's life. In Australia (in the schools I went to at least) we don't do a lot of history classes, so this was a nice change to be able to follow someone's entire life in the context of the world around them."
todayilearned,"I’ve found, from sharing with my friends also in Australia, that often we choose Confirmation saints as children and we grow up mildly regretting our choices because we think that particular saint is no longer relevant to our lives. However, my friends and I realise in our 20s that our Confirmation saints actually makes more sense now than when we were choosing them. 

For example, I chose St Monica simply because Monica was my dad’s nickname for me as a child. Now, St Monica’s story is so relevant to me. The loved ones in my life regularly make silly decisions and I know the most powerful thing I can do is pray for them and I honestly believe they, and anyone I ask God for conversion of, will love God soon enough too."
todayilearned,"St Isadore, please pray for all the people I encounter on reddit today. May they have a productive day, may their discussions inch closer to the truth, may the culture they inspire as a group be wholesome, and may each of them feel loved today by a person in their lives. St Isadore pray for us.

Like that. I believe in this stuff. If you have any more questions, I’m open to seeing if I can answer them :)"
todayilearned,"A lot of the wild west image we have in our heads is wrong. For instance, the hostilities between western settlers and Native Americans were hardly anything to write home about; there were, perhaps, a handful of murders a year between the groups, nothing like the stories of giant bands of Indians attacking wagon trains or settlers burning down whole camps. Everyone mostly stayed out of each others' way.


Gun fights were also incredibly rare. Many frontier cities even had strict gun laws, requiring you to check your firearm with the sheriff upon entry. 


Women were leaders of the community in plenty of towns, often coming from the ranks of prostitutes or brothel madames. They were the recipients of all those lonely miners' and farmers' cash (and secrets), and they used that wealth to buy influence and land, often constructing schools, hospitals, and buildings dedicated to the arts. A lot of the country's first lady mayors or [insert other elected office] came from the frontier."
todayilearned," On my Nextdoor, whenever the city budget is brought up,  there are always a vocal  minority calling for the closure of our libraries because the Internet has made them obsolete.  Balderdash I say.  They still serve a useful purpose for everyone and it would suck royally were they to close down.   It was crushing to see their hours massively scaled back at the start of the '08 recession and it took years for them to get their regular operating hours back on track.  "
todayilearned,"Libraries have only helped most libraries. Libraries often have computers/printers so you can have internet access. Many also use programs like OverDrive which allow you to borrow ebooks/audiobooks straight to your own device. Within this last year my city's library just opened a recording studio at one of the remodeled branches, and you can now borrow GoPros. A lot of Libraries have gotten much better over the last decade or two, they're very far from being obsolete.

[Here's a interesting wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trends_in_library_usage#Public_libraries) about library trends."
todayilearned,"I have a library card in the small town I live in, and in the next town over because I work there and get a free membership to the larger library. I only occasionally rent out physical books, but I use them for ebooks ALL THE TIME.

I just found out they rent out freakin' tools!! And other things, but man! Sometimes I need a specific tool for one stinkin' project and don't want to buy it/don't have room for it ,and it turns out they have them! So helpful."
todayilearned,"For the record, the only In-N-Out in SF is located in Fisherman’s Wharf which is a huge tourist area. Everytime you go there the line is long and the wait is about 20 mins. 

[Edit - just wanted to add I note that the only store in SF is in Fisherman’s Wharf because it is a high traffic area. 20 minutes is actually the low end of wait. Whether it compares to Vegas or not, I don’t think it’s fruitful to compare the two stores and determine which is more deserving of a higher wage between the two. They both deserve that amount because they both have to deal with high traffic. 

And yes, there are MANY In-N-Outs in the Bay Area. But I wager the SF one is the most busy one. It also has the highest prices due to rent and demand.] "
todayilearned,"Probably a unionized government employee so they're on similar pay scales to other government employees regardless of job title.

Also jobs like that are often a few government employees that oversee all of the maintenance and clean up around the city.  I highly doubt there's any sort of job where a guy just spends 8 hours picking up trash and dog shit and makes that much.  I can definitely see someone stretching the truth to make it seem like someone making that much is just picking up poop, though."
todayilearned,">$150k in the Bay is not incredible, but it’s more than livable.

Exactly. reddit likes to be all hurr hurr below poverty line but when I lived in San Fransisco, I used to make $250k a year, make take home pay used to be around 12.5k or so after dumping $1200-1300 in 401k and I still saved $6-6.5k from it and lived like a king in the other $6000-6500. 


Anyone who says $150k is not livable is an idiot. Because it more than is. "
todayilearned,"The vast majority of Las Vegas isn't filled with tourists nor are hte vast majority of In-n-Outs in Las Vegas.

However, there's a (fairly) new In-n-Out on the strip in the Linq, I think. And there's a huge In-N-Out across the highway from the strip, just off of Tropicana, that is pretty touristy. They both close at 1am though. If there was an In-n-Out in town where the manager deserved a $160,000 salary, it'd definitely be the one on Tropicana. That place is huge and has a separate gift shop next door."
todayilearned,"Very fresh, local ingredients (they don’t open restaurants too far away from their meat sources so the meat is never frozen) and they cut their fries in house. A very small menu, too. Single or double cheeseburgers, fries, and milkshakes. That’s it. So they do it well. Plus they offer “Animal Style” for their burgers and fries which includes grilled onions, special sauce, and I think they put mustard on the grill? 

On top of that, they’re known to be very friendly, professional, and clean. My family used to drive six hours round trip specifically to go to the nearest In N Out.

Edit: my bad! No bacon!"
todayilearned,"Oh man you used to be able do things like ask for a “12 by 12” and it was a cheeseburger with 12 patties by 12cheese slices. It ended up getting limited down to I think a 4 by 4 because people abused the shit out of it. There’s a viral picture floating about of the cheeseburger that changed the policy lol

Sorry I’m falling asleep or I would’ve made more of an effort 🤷🏻‍♀️"
todayilearned,"You can google or bing or whatever the secret menu but all employees know this stuff. They're super trained. You typically walk in and there's like 5 things on the menu. Other places,  not naming names, can't handle that. Then In n Out comes along, secret menu. Adds items, most people don't know about, employees still up on it. It's great. Like a secret club house when you're a kid. And then, the secret sauce on the burgers? Don't get that anywhere else. And, as other people mentioned, employees clean frequently and are super nice for no damn reason. We've been mistreated by other frachises here. Ketchup stains willy-nilly. Slippery floors. Ignored by staff. Order from the menu, get something else. In n Out treats you like a king. Anyone,  change my mind."
todayilearned,"Animal style's mustard-based sauce is called to evangelize for mustard-based barbecue sauce, the only real barbecue sauce. 

I don't want tangy water sauce (vinegar) soaking my bun. And I certainly don't want my tomatoes covered in sugar. Mustard based sauce is the smooth, sticks-to-your-ribs texture of tomato-based sauce and the tangy flavor of the vinegar sauce, all rolled into one. 

It saddens me that more places don't use a good mustard based sauce. Many don't even have one available. "
todayilearned,"Relatively inexpensive, good quality and experience all around for what you pay for.

Small unchanged menu after many years, but they allow for many customizations and ""secret"" menus.

Privately owned company that pays it's grunt workers above minimum wage, so service, efficiency, and overall experience are top notch for a fast food, low end restaurant.  No other fast food or other ""low end"" retail store has employees that are are all friendly, attentive, and give a shit about doing a good job.

Private company controls supply chain, so everything, ( most importantly the meat and produce) is fresh, not frozen.  Potatoes are peeled and ""chopped"" on site.  Every batch of fries is made to order (you can even customize them like asking for them to be extra light or extra well done/fried).  Note that many people don't like in-n-out fries because they taste like real potatos."
todayilearned,"In-N-Out has always had good wages for ""flipping burgers"". Here in my part of the Bay Area, when minimum was $8.50 they were paying $12. You're right though, for the city of SF, $16 is low but it's still just fast food. And yes, minimum wage in SF has just hit $15 as of 2 months ago. I expect them to raise wages over time like they always have with the minimum, but I could be wrong. "
todayilearned,"Is it huge though?  I went in there, seemed like a typical size for a fast food place to me...  And I'm coming from the UK.

Maybe I missed something, but you're talking about the one closest to NewYorkNewYork and Excalibur right?  Just down the road over the highway on the right if you're coming from the junction with NewYorkNewYork on it.

Hell, I didn't even have to wait that long for my food, maybe 10 minutes.

"
todayilearned,"When I was visiting the US, the only In-n-Out I went to was fisherman’s wharf. The line was non existent, although that was in winter a week out from Christmas. 

What astounded me was this old Hispanic lady cleaning the floors, she loved my two year daughter and was so kind, she went and grabbed some stickers and some paper hat things for her and had a bit of a chat with us, my daughter was ecstatic, will never forget her kindness."
todayilearned,"Well that's just flat out incorrect. It's a good combination of fresh, cheap, and okay flavor but it isn't anywhere close to the best testing burger. Their fries are also one of the worst of any fast food chain.

If you want a cheap meal made in a very clean establishment with fresh ingredients and don't mind a wait then In-N-Out is a good choice. If you want food that tastes good then you go elsewhere."
todayilearned,"My own understanding, not a statement from In N Out: They keep a small menu, with a small restaurant footprint, and all of their food is fresh, not frozen. Their meat patties come fresh from their own facilities to their restaurants every day. Due to quality concerns, they haven't added bacon to the menu, which has been unchanged for years. However, I have seen customers bring bacon in with them to put on their burgers. Honestly, I don't think the bacon would add much to the burger, it has a great balance of flavors without adding other stuff.

Also, if you've ever seen the queue, they don't need to further improve their formula."
todayilearned,"Those figures you see tossed around are talking about government workers who have a set salary scale, then get paid overtime.  They work double the hours and make double the money. They aren’t being gifted money and they aren’t scamming the system the way it’s implied by people who toss out the numbers. It’s actually cheaper for cities to have a 50k employee work double the hours, maybe getting 1.5x pay for overtime, than to hire two people since they don’t have to pay the ~20k+ in benefits to the second person that are required by their collective bargaining. 

This isn’t some corrupt wonderland where base pay is 150k for poop collectors. It’s another place where employers are looking to get around worker protections put in place to get people decent wages."
todayilearned,"To be honest I dont even think its a bad pay. As long as its only be paid by the local towns that employ them or surrounding areas I dont really care. Shit spreads disease, just because its easy doesnt make it safe. 


""Today, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget puts the value of a human life in the range of $7 million to $9 million.""

so as a job gets more dangerous, you start to make more money. "
todayilearned,"Because not everyone likes mustard or onions (animal style is a burger cooked in mustard with grilled onions and their special sauce), everything is made to order, so you can have them make it any way you like, including extra crispy fries, extra toasty buns, etc. so that's why the default is just a plain burger.  The workers are trained in a way that they know the entire secret menu, not like it's a secret anymore anyway."
todayilearned,"Everything from organic compounds and the presence of liquid water millions of years ago, to seasonal methane blooms and what may be fossilized bacteria-like organisms found in a rock from mars ejected to earth during an asteroid impact. The evidence is strong but so far inconclusive but where there is smoke . . .

And earth is right next door to a planet with conditions for life so im sure the universe is teeming with environments suitable for life to at least get started. There are trillions upon trillions of star systems in our universe"
todayilearned,"Doubtful that an organism could survive 2 enormous asteroid impacts and the travel between worlds that could last thousands of years. Even still, again, our closest neighbor, in a universe with trillions and trillions of star systems, was suitable for life. That likely means the universe is oozing with habitable planets. The numbers would mean its astronomically unlikely that earth is the only one. This is just an example of mans inflated sense of self worth"
todayilearned,"I can understand that. But just being realistic for a moment, it'd be like u looking out your bedroom window at your backyard and upon observing no animal activity for 5 minutes, you declare earth to be lifeless save for some grass and yourself. Its a hypothesis, sure, but not one that holds any weight. We've been observing the nearby universe for a few decades. U couldn't even call that a blink of an eye. I just think its a silly thing to declare, no offense to u or OP."
todayilearned,"Actually that's not the case (the 2nd part). Current thinking is that mars *may have* supported simple life during its wetter period. As for the organic compounds, yes true but those compounds must be present for life as we know it and are simply one more piece of evidence. My current favorite and most compelling evidence is the seasonal methane blooms. Again its just 1 more piece to the puzzle but its getting people pretty excited.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/science/space/mars-could-have-supported-life-nasa-says.html"
todayilearned,"But see... That's just the problem.  In your analogy, you look out, see no animals, and say, ""One possibility that isn't impossible is that there are no other living things.""  You're,not advocating it - you're just saying that that conclusion is an improbable but viable solution to what is observed.

There's another breakdown in the analogy as well - the existence of you and of grass infers a further ecosystem to which you must be connected, since you don't eat grass and grass doesn't merely grow in rock particulate.  That's fundamentally different from the situation regarding life on earth, because it appears life on earth is at least possibly the result of processes that don't depend on anything that wasn't on the earth 4 billion years ago.  Because life *could* arise independently on earth (and that is even the predominant hypothesis, rather than various exogenesis hypotheses), it leaves open the question of life outside of our planet.  In short, we cannot observe anything from which we can even reasonably *infer* other life, so there *is* a reasonable Occam's Razor argument that what we see is what we get."
todayilearned,"Organic matter doesn't mean anything. Water doesn't mean anything.

​

put carbon and water together and have it turn into a conscious being.  What you're suggesting is that this is all it takes.

​

You're not even close to taking this theory off the table yet. In fact, the fact that Mars could sustain life long enough for it to become anything more than single cell life, kinda gives this theory more credit. A planet literally next door to us, with the same sun, couldn't cut it. What does that say about other planets?"
todayilearned,"You can't dismiss (most) hypotheses outright. You can invalidate one one by presenting counter evidence.

We don't have any strong evidence that life existed/exists on Mars. We have a mounting set of circumstantial evidence that indicates the early environment might have been suitable for microbial life. There's also modern chemical findings like high levels of perchlorates in the areas where probes have sampled that would be difficult for Earth-like life to survive in.

Now, having gotten that out of the way, in no way do I find the rare Earth hypothesis to be likely. From physics and cosmology, we take the idea that everything that happens here happens everywhere else. Not talking about life specifically, but talking about physics and chemistry. There are so many places in the visible universe that have the same chemical and energy makeup we've had here that its numerically improbable for there to be anything really unique about Earth.

So, I am on your side of thinking in general. But I wanted to point out that your argument has flaws."
todayilearned,"Currently, yes. But we are now learning more andin more that Mars had a very wet period in it's past, perhaps one lasting tens to hundreds of millions of years. It's estimated that as much as 19 to 20% of the planet was covered in water. Here's a more recent article https://www.space.com/17135-life-on-mars.html I certainly don't doubt that Mars is dead or nearly dead now but the planet was once very much alive, covered in water, and with an atmosphere

Edit words"
todayilearned,"Again im not talking about conscious life, im talking about self replicating life. Now if its only talking about what's observable from earth then its a silly hypothesis. Yes. Im certain that life is probably quite rare, so rare that it may only happen every few star systems but that's not what the title suggests. ""Will likely not happen again in the Universe"" is very different from ""life thats observable from earth"""
todayilearned,"The Fermi Paradox proposes that since the universe is so old and life was able to take hold and develop so quickly on earth (relatively speaking), we should see evidence of highly advanced life everywhere in the universe by now. There are many proposed solutions to this, the rare earth hypothesis being one of them.

Most likely, the solution is that we are underestimating how hard it is for life to get past a certain point, the great filter, the only question is if its in front of us or behind us. Maybe life is seriously a 1 in a trillion event. Maybe getting to the point where you make enough of an impact on your surroundings to be noticed from afar is seriously difficult (doubtful cause were already there).

I think this question will be answered relatively soon once the James Webb space telescope launches. It'll be able to analyze the atmosphere of distant exoplanets and if we dont find any bio markers on any planets we observe, thats a good sign that earth might be pretty damn special. We might also find life is everywhere. Maybe we see non-natural gases in atmospheres that could tell us there is advanced life.

Exciting times ahead. "
todayilearned,"First, I don't see how us evolving quickly on Earth would equate to life being common elsewhere. If anything, wouldn't it be the opposite? We developed first? I actually think this is the answer. That human life evolved quite quickly on our planet, and so did life in general. As a result we are virtually alone as far as intelligence is concerned in our quadrant of the universe. Also, consider how short of a time we've been able to look into the stars with any significance. A few decades, a few centuries at most. The timescales involved in the evolution of life could mean that we miss the nearest intelligent species by only a few tens of thousands or perhaps millions of years. I'm definitely not arguing that intelligent life is common, but life comes in such insane varieties, and particularly extremophiles, are able to thrive in such incredibly extreme environments, it's impossible to imagine that life doesn't exist on the trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions of other planets in some capacity"
todayilearned,"Well thats the thing. That slide wasn't designed with those holes. Some dude just drilled 'em. Now yeah i can see his train of thought and again it follows great for the idea of the OP: would work great as a backyard or private solution. 

In this situation when it is for public use and going to be used thousands if not hundreds of thousands of times in its lifespan you have to think of any and every possible outcome, not just the plausible ones. "
todayilearned,"“Back in my day kids were a lot hardier and stupider. Not like these millennial sissy-boys who will probably grow up to be critical thinkers or even emphatic. We ate raw beets until our teeth bled and had to walk up hill both ways to our asbestos filled schools. Kids today have it so easy and are so sheltered. I bet they don’t even know what it’s like to hide under the sheets crying because daddy’s back from the bar and in a rotten mood. The audacity of parents today who care about children’s safety and want to prevent them from being harmed sickens me. Why don’t dad’s just beat their kids half to death with iron rods anymore? Toughened me up real good and it sure did a number on my ex-wife! Not only that, then you always have a spare rod to use on the blacks and gays!”

Why don’t you stick this quote over a minion and post it on Facebook, old man. "
todayilearned,"Let us count the stupid:

1. Holes are finger-sized and could amputate a kid's fingers as they slide down. (I just saw that happen in the news last week.)
2. Putting them all in a row probably weakened the slide as well
3. You only need one hole in a low spot to drain water, not five large holes
4. The actual problem was the slide wasn't level. A $0.99 pack of shims would have fixed it, but handyman-wanna-be took a power tool to it with the biggest drill but they could find without considering any of the repercussions.

​"
todayilearned,"Man I thought it was a little funny. I was being an asshole for fun but I didn’t want to upset or piss you off. 

I’m drunk and on ambien so I’m writing long incoherent  messes on reddit tonight.

I basically strawmanned you as the “crotchety old man who can’t stop bitching about how soft kids are today” or something but I know in actuality you’re probably not that person

If you don’t mind I’d appreciate you giving it a read. Just thought you should know 💋

Let’s not kid ourselves. We are writing comments on some stupid Reddit post in a subsection about a fucking modified slide. Both Our time is valueless. "
todayilearned,"Around 1/4thish maybe give or take a 16th but still large enough for toddlers fingers, even pencil sized could jam stuff in there that would poke out and could hurt kids. u/skintigh made a good list of other issues that are possible. 

Again good backyard and private fix put not for public use that will see non ending use over 10+ years with thousands of kids. Got to plan for any and all possibilities, not just plausible. "
todayilearned,"Any injury that doesn't result in permanent physical or psychological damage isn't a big deal. We don't want to go ""Well, when I grew up, we played with fireworks in a truck cab while our parent did 100 mph down the highway after 4 beers and I turned out alright!"" but it's okay if kids bleed or cry a bit during childhood. In fact, research seems to be showing that it's actually super bad for kids if they don't."
todayilearned,"Okay you convinced me. Let’s start fitting slides with razor wire. Gotta let them get hurt in totally preventable ways or they won’t learn how much life fuckin sucks. 

For real though lol my uncle one time did bitch about how stringent drinking and driving laws are now “When I was young we would measure road trip lengths in bottles of wine, up to the cottage that’s 2 bottles, down to Michigan that’s about 4 and a half. And nothing bad ever happened to us! Then there was that one time where my girlfriend and I drove back 2 and half hours and after passing out at home we couldn’t remember which one of us did the driving”"
todayilearned,"Nah man I’m not comparing razor wire to slide holes or whatever the fuck we were talking about.

I’m saying I agree with you now. We shouldn’t take reasonable and easy precautions to help children avoid harm. We need to let them bleed so they become smart like us. That’s what the wires for. 

You may not believe it but I study childhood development and you’ve inspired me to work towards finding the perfect balance of blood and tears we must have throughout childhood to grow up to by the ideal human - the rugged baby boomer.  If the scale is out of balance we end up with a whiny abuse victim or even worse, someone who according to you research suggests could end up “super bad”.
"
todayilearned,"I dispute that injuries which neither require acute professional treatment or cause chronic problems can be represented as ""harm."" Weird analogies aside, skinned knees are not a human rights crisis.

There's evidence of the opposite, even:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02732173.2011.574038#.VZVSyO1Viko

Kids should not be exposed to needless danger, but imagining contrived scenarios that require an aligning of the stars for kids to get hurt as the poster a few up did is bad parenting."
todayilearned,"I dispute that injuries which neither require acute professional treatment or cause chronic problems can be represented as ""harm."" Weird analogies aside, skinned knees are not a human rights crisis.

There's evidence of the opposite, even:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02732173.2011.574038#.VZVSyO1Viko

Kids should not be exposed to needless danger, but imagining contrived scenarios that require an aligning of the stars for kids to get hurt as the poster a few up did is bad parenting."
todayilearned,"Tell that to Heather Heyer who was ran over by a white supremacist at the fucking Nazi rally in Charlottesville, VA. I’m sure she’d beg to differ. 

Those same Nazis have been chanting “heil Trump” at their rallies, and waving signs that say “lugenpresse”, which translates to “fake news”, the same thing that Hitler’s followers chanted at THEIR rallies. 

Don’t tell me the Nazis aren’t here. They’re bigger than ever, and the piece of shit in the White House caters to them in order to keep their support. "
todayilearned,">Lol wow the media really brainwashed you folks

Eehhh, it's more your typical racist ignorance than brainwashing. Cherry pick the worst examples and lump everyone together to fill the holes instead of acknolweding your lack of knowledge. It's shitty, but it's just your garden variety racism rather than some grand conspiracy.

P.S. Generalizing ""us folks"" based on one idiot's comment is literally the same thing. So, you don't exactly have the high ground here..."
todayilearned,"I had a friend in high school who committed suicide about a week after he posted he was the happiest he had ever been. 

When talking with the grief counselor I learned that sometimes that's the trigger for people like that. They are so afraid to lose all of this happiness they have strived for, they would rather go out on top, than risk losing it all. 

Now whether that is true or not for every case, it is an interesting thought. 

Edit: some extra words"
todayilearned,"My coworker was just talking about a body she found as a kid. Before commiting suicide the kid had been in a really great mood. He had been going around hanging out with the younger neighborhood kids and giving away all his cool sports stuff and gadgets. He was normally a shutin and his younger brother was the extrovert so everyone thought it was cool he was finally getting out and about.

In hindsight giving away all his stuff and being really happy were two huge red flags."
todayilearned,"I have depression and I also have very rare happy periods where everything is better. It still breaks my heart every time I start to feel myself coming back down.

The first time it happened and I started getting depressed again, I was suicidal because I didn't know when or if I would ever feel better again. I felt like I'd been let out of a prison only to be forced back inside."
todayilearned,"Its also a sign of imminent suicide too. If you have a friend who struggles with depression and is usually sort of down. Generally, for a few days or at least hours leading up to suicide they become really happy. Kind of like a light at the end of the tunnel thing, where towards the end they are cheerier.

I found out about that one a few weeks too late once. "
todayilearned,"That could explain why a friend of mine (a brother to me, not blood brother but you know what I mean) committed suicide less than a year ago. He had finally gotten his drug use under control, (as far as we know) had finally gotten over his depression, had gotten engaged to the love of his life, had a good job and was on his way to starting his own restaurant within a few years or so. He had tried to kill himself years before, but as far as everyone knew, he had gotten over all of it "
todayilearned,"I'm sorry you had to experience that. in the end no one can ever truly know what was going on in that persons mind, but from a weird way I get that thought process. heindseight is always 20/20 and i wish looking back I had seen the other signs. Just know any the impact your friend had in your life was for the better, and that you can honor their memory by just being the you that was their brother. "
todayilearned,"It can also just be an uptick in energy. Depression is a son of a bitch but it often leaves people so groggy and exhausted that they simply don't have the mental stamina to kill themselves. Depression alleviating can be dangerous because often the physical side effects go before the suicidal ideation. So you feel good you feel energized you feel great...you can finally follow through on that longtime goal of ending it all. 

Anytime you see a significant change in a short amount of time with person with history of mental health issues it's a sign to be concerned even if the signs themselves aren't initially concerning. 

For instance, a person who has a history of depression becoming energized and acting outside of their usual behaviors might actually be bipolar and experiencing hypomania.

"
todayilearned,"My brother's best friends suicide note said ; [slightly paraphrasing because it was 20 years ago but its at least 95% accurate. You don't forget some of like this]

"" I'm so happy. For the first time in my life I'm not being suffocated from the pile of shit, life has constantly dumped on me. It want even that bad, I bet, but depression adds 100 kilos to every problem. I finally have a steady job and that I love. A girlfriend that loves me as much as I love her. This time it's not a one way street. I have  [ insert my brother's name] that has been with me through my depression and never gave up on me. Someone I love as a brother and that loves me like his own blood [he was a single child]. For the first time in my life,  I love and am loved back for real. I'm going out on a high note.  I'm not going back there ever again."" (He meant his severe depressive stage).


My brother doesn't remember the funeral as he had such an asthma attack due to the stress. He was rushed to the ER and almost followed his friend.  
He has not been able to forgive him to this day, however, as someone that suffers from severe depression and PTSD myself, I understand why he did it. Though I don't condone what he did and what it did to my brother his mom and dad and girlfriend.
His dad had left for work but forgot his briefcase.  Turned back within 15 minutes and found his son hanging from the staircase, strangled by wiring from music equipment him and my brother used to make music. 
On one hand, the pain he caused everyone was immeasurable,  on the other hand, the shear terror he must have felt over possibly one day losing what he had at that moment must have been horrific. 

I can almost understand why he did what he did. The pain he caused my brother is unforgivable to me. However, the note makes it a little easier to understand. [He planned everything for a week before he hung himself. Got his papers in order, wrote the note so the people he loved wouldn't wonder for the rest of their lives, practiced the wire setup, so he couldn't survive, etc....

His dad was 3 minutes too late in getting his briefcase and finding his son.  It destroyed the man when they told him. 

Forgive the long writing.  Just felt it applied and wanted to share. 
RIP Jochen"
todayilearned,"No problem. The more people share and open up, the better we all understand each other.

Everyone is different of course. But it's pretty common for depressed people to shut themselves away because they don't want other people to have to see them in that state, and they can't really handle the concern that people show. It makes them feel too guilty, so they feel like they have to hide their feelings in front of others or be alone. But socializing and/or talking about their problems is helpful.

It's not something everyone can manage to do, but if you offer to hang out for a little while, just get out of the house and have a chat with no pressure to either seem okay or talk about their feelings, it can really help. Just don't mention that they look unwell or at least don't show that it bothers you, and just hang out.

 Or if you can convince them they can talk to you about how they're feeling without ruining your day or making you lose sleep, they might open up more, which is also really helpful. I don't know how to get them to do that, usually people use therapists or talk about it to strangers online for that very reason. One friend would tell me what I told you, to just come out for a little while and she wouldn't ask too much about my state of mind or anything. Another friend would also have occasional depressive episodes, so I knew she already understood these feelings.

Small acts of kindness are also great, making them a cup of tea, getting them their favourite snack while you're out."
todayilearned,"never apologize for sharing a story. I'm sorry you had to go through that. and yeah I can understand both why someone might choose to, but also why someone can choose not to forgive. 

I had to learn that everyone grieves in their own way. The incident happened in high school, and I can remember some people getting very weird about how some people didn't seem as sad as others or others seemed ""too sad"". I myself got swept up in it, while also going through anger at my friend for what he did, sadness that I couldn't do anything, and just utter helplessness that he felt so desperate that was the only way out in his mind. "
todayilearned,"I remember as a kid growing up in Ontario we would be at school and the snow was so bad that we were going home early. Later in life one realizes why the complete understanding of a suicidal method is such a relief. When all the *slings and arrows* do not matter they don't really hurt. You no longer have to fight - you are going to 'win' no matter what.

It is actually a very scary feeling to change one's mind past this point. Once you realize you want to live, well... all those problems that appear so daunting are waiting for you somewhere in the darkness that is your future.

I wish there were more written and said on this subject. The logic is really quite sound and society is relatively toxic on so many levels. Suicidal ideation is not nearly as crazy as people make it out to be."
todayilearned,"People with chronic depression have a powerful gift for being there for others. Not 'help' so much as... knowing how people get knocked off their path and how they can get back on again. You have got this.

If i could make any request: find people like us when you feel a downswing. They say misery makes good company and that isn't entirely true. When two or more are joined, as the expression goes, there is a profound strength that resounds beyond the moment.

You will not believe me, i know - but if you could trust a total stranger on the internet: *we need you, your insight, your kindness and your profound wisdom.*"
todayilearned,"This worked for people like Robbin Williams for decades. People would prank him and avoid laughing at his antics / pretend that he was not remotely funny. Those who did these 'practical jokes' found that their unkind efforts would destroy his day quite rapidly.

Many amazing people simply live to give, it can be a life-sustaining force. 

As much as i recommend this giving-loving tactic, this is hard to do when one falls into the [Pit of Despair](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z05StkAKKF0). I found that when i or friends of mine would fall into such a state there might be no getting out for weeks if not months. I try to make fun of this state of being here, sure, but chronic depression is a rough place."
todayilearned,"I was sceptical about the term ‘fight to the death’ as it would be ridiculously hard to kill someone by boxing them to death so I went to another [wiki page about another fighter](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salamo_Arouch) and found this passage:
 > Lodged with the other fighters forced to participate in these matches and paid in extra food or lighter work, Salamo fought 208 matches in his estimation,[8] knowing that prisoners who lost would be sent to the gas chamber or shot.[5] Fights generally lasted until one fighter went down or the Nazis got tired of watching. "
todayilearned,"They got poor scores on the gaokao, which is why they had to go to a foreign university.  If they had done well, they would have stayed in China and gone to a good school.  

But, Mom & Dad's money to the rescue.  And American colleges are addicted to the outrageous fees.  For some reason if Chinese people stopped coming, it would be a disaster for American education.  The bottom would fall out of the market overnight and we'd have terrified administrators begging for more public funding to cover the ""shortfall"".  "
todayilearned,"Out of state tuition was more than double in state tuition at my school and international students paid for everything in cash since they didn't qualify for any financial aid. I'd like to think that their money helped to subsidize my education, since they're part of the reason why my in state tuition was so cheap. Essentially they're exchanging money for a piece of paper and as long as I'm not in groups with these students I'm OK with it. 

However, Chinese international students were the absolute worst in groups when I was in school. "
todayilearned,"I teach in an American Uni in a subject popular with Chinese students.

With very few exceptions, you have to accept a place in an American university by May 1st. Chinese students take the Gaokao is in June. If they are accepted to a top 100 university and they decide to go, they don't sit for the Gaokao.

And many more attend American community colleges to get ready for the next year's university admissions. These are very wealthy families we're are talking about (otherwise they would be denied student visas), and they are looking for the prestige that attending (and paying for) an American University provides. Unless they think their kid is on the way to one of the big two or three Chinese schools, they always choose to go abroad."
todayilearned,"Only  1 in 10? I work in biotech, and we commonly get Chinese PhD’s applying who look great on paper but in interviews it becomes obvious that they know absolutely nothing about the subject their supposed degree is in. Like the most basic concepts and techniques (for the curious, molecular biology PhD’s who cannot operate a standard micropipettor).

Edit: not to say there aren’t some amazing Chinese scientists in the US, but unfortunately we end up passing over Chinese candidates these days because we’ve been burned in the past. It’s a problem with Indian-trained folks too"
todayilearned,"It's important to realize exactly how impressive an American degree is considered in China. I knew loads of international kids from India, China, and Korea and about half of them were there to get the degree then go back home.

Some of them admitted to fabricated scores too. It's way too common amongst the wealthy around the world and whoever tracks that shit is too corrupt to do anything. Makes me realize that as much as America sucks right now, life here is so much easier."
todayilearned,"> And American colleges are addicted to the outrageous fees. For some reason if Chinese people stopped coming, it would be a disaster for American education.

That's one way to look at it. From the university's perspective, they're students willing to pay full out of state tuition in cash. Anyone can get into most American universities if you have the money to pay full tuition; It's just that most people are screened out by whether they have the academics to get scholarships (and if you pay full tuition and can't keep up, you'll still flunk out). 

What the international students choose to make of the education once they get in is up to them. They're subsidizing domestic tuition. "
todayilearned,There was a group of them in my math class that cheated during the test and I don’t know why but it broke me. I busted my ass studying because I didn’t understand this section well at all and all they had to do was share answers that they were looking up ON THEIR PHONES. I dropped the class because I couldn’t stand the fact that people get away with shit like that. 
todayilearned,"At one point in the past decade, 44 of 46 of the most recent (at the time) research publications in (certain science field) journals that were retracted due to academic dishonesty were from Chinese institutions.

When looking for literature to support planning out new experiments, I know many people who immediately skip past any articles with only Chinese authors, only investigating them later if there are no other options.

So while ranking may not officially be impacted, the reputation is certainly tainted."
todayilearned,"Oh it's very true. But you have to understand. Its accepted in their culture. They don't have the same mind set about cheating, copying, or imitating that we do. A bunch of exchange students got in trouble at my university for cheating. It was rampant. Almost every one of them were doing it according to the investigation. Their universities  in China saw no issue and threatened to terminate the exchange contract. My university  relented as long as they promised not to do it again. In other words, they kept cheating. "
todayilearned,"College admins act like their schools have every right to bring in international students as cash cows, but Universities don't spring from the ground renewed every semester- they're the result of many decades of Americans working selflessly to build the institutions into what they are today, and those people certainly didn't do it for the benefit of international students. Schools can only hold so many bodies, and most desirable institutions are full every year. That means for every international student in the school there's an American who missed out. Then these students go back to their home countries, taking that education with them. The result is a less educated American populace, all so Admins can build a new gym."
todayilearned,"Foreign universities don't have much prestige.  Maybe a long time ago, but not today.  It's better to go to a Chinese school because it's there you get connections.  Employers want connected workers.  Go to school in some flyover territory shithole and you come back to China with no connections and a bunch of weird ideas from a backwards culture.  

China has learned a tremendous amount in recent years about what foreign universities and American ones in particular are really like.  They want to believe Chinese universities are better, and the constant stream of craziness from American universities has done a number on their reputation."
todayilearned,"I can speak to this based on my personal experience. I went to University of South Florida to get my MBA. I would say that about 1/3 to 1/2 of every class were filled with Chinese students who came to the states to get their MBA. They all needed to have taken the traditional admission test (GMAT) to get in. The GMAT isn't an easy test. I had the non-pleasure to work with quite a few Chinese students... I would say that that about 4/5 of them did not want to do any work and be carried through the class. Half of them seemed like they barely spoke English. It was challenging to have simple conversations.  English isn't my first language and  so I know what it's like not to speak a language.  I tried to include them and make them feel part of the group but the work they submitted had to be completely rewritten, and face to face, they barely understood/spoke English. Students were literally kicked out and yelled at in the middle of exams for cheating. Teachers would go on rants about the issue in the middle of the classroom. I have no idea how 90% of them passed the GMAT. I also hope that USF has taken measures since then. The content and teachers were fantastic but since the majority of the course work revolved around group projects, it ruined the experience. I also had the pleasure of working with couple chinese students who were great. Unfortunately they were by far the minority. "
todayilearned,"This is literally a post about Chinese cultural norms accepting cheating in academics, it's not like it's an unrelated annecdote lmao

I would bet that almost everyone who has gone to a college with a significant international population would have similar stories - I certainly do. I've had discussions with Chinese students about the systems for cheating that have been developed over there- it's very much an aspect of their academic culture"
todayilearned,">  but unfortunately we end up passing over Chinese candidates these days because we’ve been burned in the past. It’s a problem with Indian-trained folks too

I don't see how educational/governmental institutions in China/India don't see this as a huge problem and do something about it. 

China will withdraw your passport if you misbehave as a tourist, but have no problem with you ruining the country's reputation with your fake phd. Ok. "
todayilearned,"> Foreign universities don't have much prestige.

Is that why a quarter million of China's wealthiest families  send their children to the US every year?

> It's better to go to a Chinese school because it's there you get connections.

Their parents already have connections, and usually far better ones than the average Chinese college professor.

> a bunch of weird ideas from a backwards culture [...] and the constant stream of craziness from American universities has done a number on their reputation

Chinese students don't major in Gender Studies. They major in economics, business, and STEM disciplines.

Troll harder."
todayilearned,"It's a massive thing doing my masters too. Im from the uk Not Chinese but people from outside the eu. Paid people to do their homework, somehow convinced the lecturers to tell them exactly what was in the exam. Infuriating they got higher grades than me. I earned my the real way. Does that matter on an application forms?  No.

They paid a lot more in tuition. It was in the unis interest to turn a blind eye and let them know ow what was in the exams."
todayilearned,">Not really. For public institutions, there's in state tuition, out of state tuition, and international. Less international students does mean less funding, but it also means less kids to teach. So its a tricky balance of how many international students you let in, to cover your budgets but in the end, there's more demand than supply.

I've worked for two colleges.  No offense, but you could not be more wrong.  International students are cash pinatas.  They get a whole separate onboarding and a white-glove matriculation experience.  They get dedicated tutors and counselors.  They get preference for Housing.  The marginal revenue of each additional foreign student can easily be 100% greater than a US citizen.  "
todayilearned,"When I graduated with a computer science degree in North Carolina, the undergraduate class was about 80% white, 15% black/eastern asian and 5% western asian.

Masters graduates were 40% white, 40% west Asian, 20% east Asian.

Doctorate level had 2 white dudes and a white female, 20 east Asians, and 10 west Asians.

The degree mill is real.  I experienced a very similar cross section when helping the company I worked for do Job fairs.  Lots and lots of East and West Asians with masters degrees from my school and a poor grasp of English.  (I mention the language barrier because I was working for a consultant company and upper management just wouldn't hire someone with a profound language barrier because everyone had to interact with clients.  Even if the person was a wiz programmer)

​

Edit: South Asia, not West"
todayilearned,"Out of curiosity, could you point me in the direction of where you heard this figure? 

I'm in my undergrad at a US university (as an international student), and it truly astounds me how many international students from China don't have the english proficiency to read and write at an academic level. It is my understanding that to apply for schools in the states (as an international student) you need to pass an english proficiency exam - something I was waived from because I am from Canada. 

Nevermind how difficult it is to interact socially when there is a language barrier, working with students who simply can't speak english well enough is a massive headache and leads me to wonder if they got 'help' in passing their english proficiency. "
todayilearned,"As an American living in China from 2011-2013. This is a way of life. They cheat with school, games, anything to get ahead. Cheat at the Gaokao and post graduation you have Chinese students who only know how to memorize and cheat. 

They have absolutely zero trouble shooting skills or the ability to think critically or for themselves. It's absolutely ridiculous. I was hired by Shenhua after I left the USAF serving my 12th year. They needed an engineer with skills in the above mentioned to include QA and creating abridged oversight. 

I basically took over the job being done by 13 Chinese workers, half of whom were older than me. 

I love the people individually and the time I spent there but the country as a collective and their government are a serious problem not just to themselves but to the world if they somehow break into prominence.

Cheating and stealing IP is only the surface of what people know about the country unfortunately. It goes so much deeper. **Anything** to get ahead. "
todayilearned,"I had a professor kick a few chinese students out of her class because she felt they didn't understand what was being taught. My school was around 50% international students, almost all Asian (Korea/China/Japan mostly) and they hardly spoke English well enough to understand that there were assignments they needed to do. I figured understanding the language the school taught all classes in would be important to their admission, but apparently not.

I'll note that at this point I was in level 2 of this class, so they'd somehow succeeded in level 1."
todayilearned,"My business program was probably 15-20% Asian, mostly Chinese. They would constantly cheat by sharing identical papers/assignments with one another and turning them into different teachers. It was pretty well known among the students so I can only imagine the faculty was aware, too, but for whatever reason just didn't do anything about it. 

I've been through *several* classes where Chinese students could barely speak the language and thus never participated...sometimes not even bringing things to class. Yet they would show up every day and I assume pass. I really don't quite know what was up with that. I realize their families pay fucking freighters full of money to the school for them to attend but it surprises me that the school would devalue its programs like that. "
todayilearned,"It's shit like this that really makes me want to hate China. They don't play by the same rules as the rest of the international community and everyone seems ok to let them, whether its matters of education, business, or policy the CCP can get away with whatever they want. 

I know it's not as simple as that, international relations never are, but I'm sure it is a true enough sentiment for most people to agree with me."
todayilearned,"This is just an anecdote, but I know some technicians who work with high tech microbiology equipment.  They go to laboratories to teach doctors and researchers how to use the equipment and make sure they're all set up.  They say that a significant portion of the people they present to are Chinese who have just recently immigrated to the US and were hired by these companies on the spot.  When they get to the 1 on 1 training phase with them, it became clear to them that they were totally lost.  As in, they didn't even understand the fundamentals that they should have learned while in school."
todayilearned,"not really. Some of the students wouldn't cheat, while others don't treat it seriously at all. Out of the ~10 Chinese grad students we had that year, 2 cheated while the other 8 were super serious and would never consider cheating.

My friend copied my homework without asking me, and as a result we both got 0. I was very angry because I cared, and she laughed it off. We were both in PhD program and both Chinese btw. She didn't even have the decency to tell the teacher I didn't know and shouldn't be punished. I lucked out and still managed to get an A. I guess the teachers can tell from participation and other activities.

when we TA'ed, about 50% of the cheaters we  caught would be Chinese. 40% would be Indian, and the other 10% American. Out of the tens of cases we elevated, only one saw being given an F. One that cheated openly in the final received nothing. we started to take videos, but the admin still wouldn't do nothing. it was frustrating."
todayilearned,"I was in this very situation, and we asked to have someone removed and we were refused. This guy in our group was not only not doing shit, but he was actively ruining work that we were doing. Guy was a complete whacko, but we had to put up with him. And this was at a top ranked university, mind you.

Through both my bachelor's and master's degree it was the only time I nearly got in a physical fight as an adult, dealing with that idiot. He was like a big bumbling 40 year old bully."
todayilearned,"In Australia there's a rule that basically says that if you study here from overseas, you cannot fail a unit or your get sent back in university. 

One guy in an accounting class for a group project basically did nothing, thought he could pay the others in the group to write his name in the credits and... well they were annoyed. 

He failed, was deported and an email was sent to everyone regarding the idiocy of trying to skip out on work in an assignment. "
todayilearned,"From my personal experience, I'd say well above that - perhaps a 4/10, or maybe even half. The culture of cheating, cutting corners and basically gaining an upper hand is so pervasive that it's almost foolish for them \*not\* to do so. If anything, it makes us idiots because we were not taking advantage of the exploits on deck.

​

I remember when a Chinese classmate was busted during our Human Biology final exam some years ago. This was in a top community college in California, and the dude brought in his girlfriend from UCLA to take a separate exam next to him. He got caught when the professor decided to 'card' the girl and she couldn't procure a student ID or memorize her student ID number. I mean, she couldn't, because she didn't even go to this school. When I went on to university, I actively avoided getting into group assignments with Chinese students. A friend of mine unfortunately got placed into a group with one, and on the first meeting, the lone Chinese kid in the group whipped out a USB drive. It was filled with the entire semester's assignments, fully completed, mind you - courtesy of Chinese students who took the class in the past."
todayilearned,"You have to look at the kind of people that are able to afford coming to the US to study. Many rich and influential families are sending their children overseas, and since their kids aren’t always the best and brightest, cheating is a common tool used to ensure their academics are acceptable to US colleges (who honestly don’t have a huge incentive to look too closely since those foreign students are paying hefty tuitions)."
todayilearned,"Somehow I suspect I would have a better idea whether I cheated or not than you. I never cheated on a test, or a quiz, or peeked at anyone's answers, or hid answers in my notes/phone/calculator. I never did because I decided I wasn't going to, and it was a fairly easy decision to not only make but uphold during my entire education.

Your personal experience doesn't represent everyone else, nor does your cynical view on the matter."
todayilearned,"I TA'd a bunch of EE masters level classes, and frequently had a higher case of blatant cheating from my Chinese students. From having their phone in their laps during exams to straight up plagiarizing on homeworks and projects... I even had one student plagiarize word for word from a paper I had written a few years ago on the same subject. Flattering... but I still need to write you up for it.

EDIT: It actually got so bad at my University that they implemented a testing process for all incoming graduate students that didn't receive undergraduate degrees from an accredited institution. The test was to ensure they actually knew the subject material they professed to have an undergrad degree in. A potential student would only be provisionally accepted into the program until they passed the test, and weren't eligible to become a TA or an RA or publish any papers until they had. And of course, the second year they gave that test, students cheated by getting the questions/answers from the previous year's students. So the professors had to write custom questions every year. This actually became a boon since they questions could be shared out once the test was over to act as a review for those needing to brush up on some material.

After one particularly bad semester of cheating students, I complained to my advisor, and he shared with me the statistics about pass/fail rates for that onboarding test. I was shocked at how many people failed the test - the tests I looked like never seemed very difficult."
todayilearned,"A lot probably. It is a very wide spread belief and part of their culture. ""If i can get away with it and not get caught, i did nothing wrong. The person who didnt catch me was the wrong one.""

EDIT: For the record I am not trying to crap on Chinese people and culture, I honestly love China and the people over there. I've learned this cultural phenomena while traveling there several times and have had it explained to me that way by Chinese people, in China."
todayilearned,"Here's the lesson you needed to learn: 

College is not a competition. 

It's irrelevant if someone else is cheating.  It does not affect how much you need to study or what you can learn. The goal of college is to introduce you to the concepts of subjects and give you a space in order to find your ability to learn. 

Anecdotally,  I was once in a class (programming) where I knew most of the class was cheating. I was approached and asked if I wanted the test banks and I declined. I was making better grades than 99% of the class already so it seemed pointless and I really wanted to learn the material on my own. I was actually interested in the subject. 

About 4 weeks later, the professor asked me to hold back after a class as everyone was leaving. She said, ""I just wanted to say how much I appreciate your effort and integrity. I've known many of them were cheating for weeks by using a test bank. I've been slowly and subtly changing questions to verify my suspicions. You are likely the only person not cheating on tests.""

I felt some amount of pride at that, but as an adult looking back to that moment, what it really taught me was that my drive to learn far surpassed my desire for a perfect grade and that was the turning moment of education for me. It's not about a grade. It never should be. We use grades as barometers, but they are faulty at even that. If there is something you are passionate about learning, you don't need a grade to let you know how you are doing. You'll know where you stand in comparison to where you want to be. "
todayilearned,"I hate that this is the mentality, I had a similar issue with a group (of all white kids mind you) and thankfully my teacher called them out on their nonsense, forced them to repeat all of the classes they took that entire semester.

If teachers don't want you to end up with bad coworkers, they need to do their part to stop those lazy morons from getting to the workforce in the first place. "
todayilearned,"In my graduate program more than a decade ago, we were asked to grade and critique our peers for a random assignment for one class.  I had been assigned a foreign, Chinese student’s paper. It was so poorly written and so obviously copied straight from the textbook that I was astonished.  It was also about a quarter the expected length and severely lacking in detail and critical thinking.  I was harsh but fair in my criticism to them, but was still disappointed that they had been accepted into a program I had thought would have been more selective. I still wonder if it was a language barrier or if they were simply unqualified."
todayilearned,I learned a ton but most of it was outside of classes. Learned a bunch on the job that I had with the university building computer networks. Learned how to make contacts in the industry that lead to my first job out of college. Learned how to drink socially without being a sloppy asshole that people want to avoid. Learned that I suck at picking up women. It was a nice way for me to figure out my personality for a few years in a sort of middle world between childhood and adult life. Can't say I use much that I learned in the classroom though.
todayilearned,"A lot of graduate students in the US are students who completed their undergrad out of the country. I personally know quite a few  Indians and Chinese grad students who admitted that they cheated in their undergrad career. In India, you'll find a bunch of students bribing their teachers for a 25% bump in their grades. Then some of them make it to the US to complete a PhD and they absolutely muck up the place."
todayilearned,"I have pretty much the same story.  The one time I got lumped in with some Chinese students for a group project in a business course, I ended up pulling an all-nighter rewriting all of their sections which were precise word-for-word copies of the source texts (texts which I had previously researched for them because they pretended not to know enough English to use the library properly).

Then the other American and I spent the next morning (the day of paper submission and live presentation) merging and editing the sections and putting together the powerpoint slides the Chinese kids also never did.  "
todayilearned,"It really depends on the major. In CS, I’ve seen professors try to get students expelled, even if they’ve never even received a warning before if the cheating/plagiarism was blatant or frequent.

It sounds weird, when code is borrowed so often in CS, but we do that while providing attribution. Providing attribution is so important that I’ve been told at the start of two classes:

> if you borrow code and provide proper attribution, I don’t care if the entire project is borrowed code stitched together, just provide the required documentation

...something like that.

If you can’t use the concepts properly in CS, we need you transferring out after the first or second class. *This was the most common suggestion amongst my university’s last graduating class: making Freshman classes harder.* 

Upperclassmen were pestered by a lot of students who were subtly cheating themselves out of their education, and thus the ability to actually graduate in that field, let alone do the work required honestly. This is common in many technical fields, but especially in lucrative ones like CS/IT and such."
todayilearned,"When I TA’d, the Chinese International students cheated to a degree that shocked me. More than half the Chinese international students cheated obviously and outrageously (down to half a dozen or more of them at a time with all the same spelling mistakes or copy errors) vs one or two out of of the entire rest of the class at most. I couldn’t figure out how they were going to function in an actual job. This didn’t apply to Chinese Canadian students, just International students."
todayilearned,"I found its not that they didnt do their parts, but that youd have to change everyones parts to be coherent together because their english usually isnt the best. That means you have to read through all their parts and try to understand exactly what they were trying to say while rewording it so the whole thing still flows together. If theres a presentation it's even worse bcause you cant have broken english all over slides or whatever so you have to figure out what people were trying to say, reword it to make it good and then coach them on what you changed and make sure they understand, it ends up being a lot of fucking work"
todayilearned,"I've been in a group where everyone didnt meet when they said they would, and I was the only one going. Then two of them, roommates, did something on their own and tried to pretend the rest of the group wasn't doing shit. The rest of us ganged up on them and did our own shit and it was such a fucking mess and we had to involve the professor who didnt give one fuck.

We ended up deciding that those two would give a part and them we'd follow up with our parts and it was fucking stupid.

Professors really need to stop making a whole semester based on a 5 person project and act like team building skills are an excuse to give everyone of the group the same grade. It's so fucking unfair. This is about an individual's education, not team building in a work environment. Work is completely fucking different and if you dont keep up you get fired. In a group project it's like a job where a whole team assembled of strangers has no boss and no one to catch this shit. Completely different environment. "
todayilearned,I did a project with a Chinese kid in community college. We split a report into sections. I did mine and got his to compile into one paper. I start reading his stuff and it felt familiar so I copied his stuff into Google and it was word for word a copy of a source I had quoted. I told him that shit isn't going to fly and to redo it. A few hours later he sends me another copy and paste of another article. I showed it to my instructor and she let me do it myself. Pretty sure he failed.
todayilearned,"I had a class with two exchange students, I got paired into their group for a class exercise that had us locate things on a map of the campus geographically. We would go through each problem, and I'd work through with them how to solve each one, at the end one girl pulled out her phone with pictures of the packet completely filled out and graded identical to the sheet we had been working on for the last hour."
todayilearned,"Personally I want to learn, I really want to learn *the subject that I signed up for school to study.* Its electives I have a beef about. 

I want to study computer science but for my associate's degree for example, my comp sci classes are done after two semesters and the rest is just bullshit humanities electives and shit. 

I am a 36 year old already working a career job, and having to pay thousands of dollars for irrelevant shit like writing dozens of pages on film and anthropology just really, really fucking gets on my nerves. It is a detriment to my development as a programmer because that's what I end up doing instead of practicing the thing I'm actually paying to learn to do. I just don't have the time money or patience for it, it doesn't better me in any meaningful way, it only adds to the heap of other stressful pointless shit on my plate and makes me 10x more likely to quit or just give someone some weed to write my papers. I would NEVER  do such a thing under ANY circumstances I'm just saying hypothetically I'm more likely to."
todayilearned,"And not only universities but colleges too, I was in a technical school and had 4 Chinese guys in my class, only 1 of them was even interested in graduating with any sort of knowledge. One of the guys was just running his parents business in China from Canada, it was absurd (he bought the closest house to the college, not even joking the one right at the very corner of the college road, house wasn't even up for sale). "
todayilearned,"You can whistle past the graveyard all you like.  Chinese people *want* to believe they're the best in the world.  Best learning is in China, of course.  Heck, today is Teachers Day in China.  I bet your country doesn't even *have* a teachers day, or if it does it's one of those dumb holidays like secretaries day.  

You think stories from the US don't make it to China?  Of course they do.  You think they don't have an effect on what Chinese think of US universities?  Of course they do.  "
todayilearned,"This ^^ I work in an International Department at a college and China isn't alone, we have a handful of countries that send students who are used to cheating and bribing. 

We've had teachers receive VAST sums of money from parents because a student was failing their class or receiving only an average grade. They are bribing but they don't see anything wrong with it because that's just how their culture works, in fact we've received complaints about teachers because they refused to accept bribes. Obviously teachers can lose their jobs if they accept those bribes and if a student is caught cheating they are punished like any other student (at least at the school I work at). 

We have a couple thousand international students every year and all of them have to attend what is basically a ""Canadian culture"" seminar where they're informed about expectations and rules that may differ from their home country. They also have 12-15 guidance counselor's from their region available to them to help bridge that cultural gap. We do what we can, but people choose to ignore those rules cause that's what they're used to or they just don't think it's a big deal.  "
todayilearned,"I used to work in a lab with a lot of international post docs. One Chinese guy was chugging along. He got his PhD in Canada, and loved having two children and didn’t want to ever go back to China. The other one left her husband and her 10 year old daughter to live in the states. My boss and the other Post Docs complained about her work. She could barely do the job, and her experiments were so poorly designed and ran. My boss ended up having an affair with her. It was so bizarre. But, yeah. The story was, she was born on a small farm, and took a test that said she had aptitude. She was pushed through to her PhD in a field she didn’t get to choose. The government picked it for her. And the assumption was her supervisors did her work, and put her name on it. They wanted the connections to our prestigious lab. She wasn’t useful at all, and we were paying her with federal funding and an H1-B visa. I love the visa program. So many amazing scientists from around the world worked with us, including people from Cuba. But the Chinese in our lab? It was a struggle catching them up to the standards required to publish. Didn’t work out well. Cheating sucks."
todayilearned,"I had a similar situation at another college. In-class, online exam - so already, it's a joke (we have Google). But if that wasn't enough. the international students just went on Facebook and sent each other the answers - while just talking to each other anyways. This was all obvious, but the professor didn't even bother checking people's screens.

Schools make money off keeping international students happy. That's the business model."
todayilearned,"I've met some absolutely wonderful and smart Indian PhD students.

But then, I've also met THE ONE. He ruined the whole country for me, I am super suspicious of any new recruit. Once this guy left the lab, we found his linkedn page and half his updated cv was fake. Fuck, he was saying he was an expert in using some data that I personally forbade to give him access to.

I've been told by a colleague that, when you are interviewing an Indian PhD/post-doc and everything sounds wonderful, to bring to the interview one of the ""good"" Indians. They'll see though their bullshitting in seconds.

I suppose it has something to do with countries with such a big population. People have to cheat/bullshit their path to the top.

PS: I am not trying to be racist. I'm great friends with a few of them. This is a rant of their education system that allows bullshitters to rise to the top."
todayilearned,"It's actually very easy to cheat. You don't always have to bring cheat sheats or discuss answers; sometimes the test questions are recycled from the years' past and students just kind of memorise the answers; this is why the frat kids at college always seem to have high GPAs relative to their effort.

If the professor doesn't want cheating then the test methods should be changed in a way that takes away the benefit of cheating. Students can be made to perform case studies, open book; it's impossible to cheat because it would be very obvious."
todayilearned,"Yup, had an old roommate that transfered over to university of Madison Wisconsin for engineering by hiring some guy in China forge his transcript and everything for him. He didn't know the school existed until he got accepted. At the time he was learning English at the international center, studying esl. Kid was dumb as shit, even paid me to write his papers for him. Never goes to class. Good times those guys are pro. "
todayilearned,"I was mainly just giving you shit for putting anecdotal observations in seemingly-scientific terms—sorry for being a jackass, just a pet peeve.  
  
That is actually really interesting, and I wonder how it would compare to Korean Americans, students in Korea, etc. Also interesting that cheating seems to be prevalent in Korean & Chinese academic culture, but I don't think the same is true for Japan. I also wonder how much of this is based on our own model-minority ideas influencing what we perceive. Would love to read more about this from someone who studies it professionally."
todayilearned,"As a BA in History, I passed as a IT guy for almost 4 months hahahaha. Server stuff, help calls, setting up new pc's, and pushing out updates was my main job. Not too bad for someone who never took a class past typing in middle school. I didn't use excel until I was 22. Granted I went in to the job letting them know I had zero knowledge beyond basic how to stuff of IT. "
todayilearned,"It's not always that easy. Depending on your school and your graduate program, you might be the one they punish if you try to fuck over the international students, regardless if you're in the right.

I'm about to get a paper published that will have a Chinese student's name on it, despite the fact that they didn't do anything with the paper. But they're rich as fuck and are able to pay my university full price for international tuition and donate money specifically to our graduate program. It's bullshit politics. But the school and program benefit more from these students getting a free degree and publications than by being honest.

It's my understanding that academic publications in China are an extremely rigged system and it's more about connections than the quality of your work. Getting your name out there with a publication from a school and academic conference in the West will definitely increase your legitimacy value and possibility of future publications. It's a shitty system, but it is what it is."
todayilearned,"During my anatomy and physiology classes in college there were 8 Chinese students in the back that just whipped out notes and shared answers for every test. This was reported to the instructors and the school administration, but somehow no one ever did anything about it. Probably because they pay 5x the tuition of everyone else.

It is enough to make me suspicious of the qualifications of every Chinese professional in education-intensive fields."
todayilearned,"There is a definite line here.  Most people have glimpsed over at a classmate's test, or hidden some equations under a sleeve.  This type of stuff 95% of students do.  Blatant, audible collusion is a world apart. I would NEVER have turned in classmates who did the former.  On the other hand, if I worked my ass off while a group of foreign students openly discussed the test behind me, within ear shot of a professor, I would be livid.  I might even call them out on the spot.  Literal protests in the street in support of cheating are a far cry from this type of ""innocent"" cheating. "
todayilearned,"That’s not how being a “team player” works. 
Every company has dead weight. Sometimes it’s people who have been there for decades, sometimes it’s your own boss who is charging time to your project. Or if you’re an intern you can’t exactly complain that your FTE partner made you do all the work. You just don’t have the standing. 

I’m not saying “shut up and stick it out doing all the work”; but the opposite of that - “just go tell your boss” doesn’t work either. 

In fact, this is such a common situation it’s often asked in the interviews - how do you deal with an underperforming team mate. 

There is no real absolutely right or wrong answer, which will depend on team culture and management. But knowing techniques and having experience of having managed such a situation is definitely a strength in an interview candidate. 

A typical answers are usually along the lines of “I asked them to do easy parts and then tried to not work with them in the future” or “I bribed them into working with pizza”. "
todayilearned,"I definitely could have made it more clear that was an anecdote and the math was literal, not statistic based. Thanks for touching back constructively!

It actually stems from a peeve of mine from that time, I only got stuck in that class cause I didn't ""test out"" to calc, in part due to my own laziness and in part to getting the first final for calc instead of the second final of pre calc for the test. Stopped my academic math career for the 6th time, I was *pissed* when the class was not only easy but I had to deal with ""noise"" during tests (made test taking hard with ADD)"
todayilearned,"CS major here.  It fizzled out after the first year or so, but all of the chinese students would sit in a clique so they could share answers on every test/quiz.  Several professors stated that they knew who was doing it, so rather than call them out en masse - they just failed them or had them removed before the final.  We also get annual ""This is what cheating looks like here, and why its not allowed no matter where you originate from"" type lectures at the start of fall terms. "
todayilearned,"This entire thread is a circlejerk of stupid tbh.

Everyone is crying about stupid tests, the things are supposed to be used to just judge how much you know and what the teacher failed to teach you, not to actually matter. So rather than cry about school reform where teachers actually teach you the information, people cry about others doing the smarter thing that still helps you learn just as well depending on the kind of person you are. I cheated my entire way through high school almost and I spent half my math, and other classes, teaching the material to the rest of the class when the teacher couldn't get the concept across to them.

I hate how retarded our school system is and how we put so much value on something as counterproductive as a test and what bothers me more, is that there are this many people defending the tests by crying about cheaters rather than complaining that the teacher/system failed the students that felt they needed to cheat to pass the test."
todayilearned,The Asian immigrant students worked their butts off despite their lack of money and limited language abilities. The international students who paid for the out of state tuition with cash and then bought a house near school because they didn't feel like living in the dorms did not have the same work ethic. I've had some simply put zero work into a group project and the rest attempt to pay me to do the work for them. 
todayilearned,"Man, if I had a dollar for every time I cheated I could fund my own private school. Until 14 (when we started taking our first exams) I used to routinely cheat on any test and then act all proud when I get a high score.

The only lessons I remember doing the work for was chemistry and French. It's a little hard to cheat on French when you still couldn't talk to an 8 year old French girl if you tried to save your life. That was the most work I ever did to fail. History rings some bells but my second year I just blew it off because I was so close to an A in my first year. "
todayilearned,"What's worse in biotech is if you're in a GMP lab. A lot of them don't care and will fudge data so they don't have to retest or deviate from SOPs, and these are patient samples I'm talking about. Fortunately when that comes to light the hammer comes down more often in a QC/manufacturing environment. 

Unfortunately I've seen it enough that it does seems to be a problem with specifically Chinese scientists. Others certainly can and do bad stuff but it does seem to come with the culture. "
todayilearned,"It was actually something our Honor Council brought up in school. The best students in China are also usually the best cheaters because it’s one of the only way to get ahead. 

iirc the answer was “while it’s accepted in other cultures, it isn’t accepted in our academic setting” and they said that if you cheat, you’ll be expelled just like any other student would be. I think that’s fair. If they’re really smart, they should still be able to succeed anyway. "
todayilearned,">Chinese people want to believe they're the best in the world.  Chinese people want to believe they're the best in the world. Best learning is in China, of course. Best learning is in China, of course. Best learning is in China, of course.

Is that why China's own university ranking system places American and European universities above Chinese universities? If this is true, why was Xi's own daughter educated in the United States?

> Heck, today is Teachers Day in China. I bet your country doesn't even have a teachers day.

Haha. We've had one longer than China (1985), and have spent a few of semesters conducting research in China, I can confirm that nothing actually happens on Teachers Day in China.

> You think stories from the US don't make it to China? Of course they do. You think they don't have an effect on what Chinese think of US universities? Of course they do. 

So I guess they must like what they hear about American Universities, because the number of Chinese applicants continues to rise?

Take your sorry wumao ass back to Sina where it belongs.

edit: Just of curiosity, how much do you get per Reddit post?"
todayilearned,"They also cheat at their TOEFL which is an English proficiency test. For example, at my school, it is required to pass the TOEFL with a score of 90 (basically showing fluency and a good grasp of English) in order to be admitted. However, there are still some Chinese kids who get in and can barely speak the language, let alone write in it. From what I've heard, it's because in China you can either pay to have it done or just cheat your way through it."
todayilearned,"Don’t even get me started. I carried my group for my masters of accounting course of 2 Asian women along with myself to an A. They knew not even basic accounting concepts, and it was a 30 minute power point presentation we had to put together, 95% done by me. I hope you went the same route as me and let the teacher know how much work was done by each individual. 


This also reminded me that these two women had ALL the answers to the quizzes/homework from a random online website. We had to present the questions to the class, and once a group of Asian student in the class had the exact same wording and answer as the teacher. When he called them out on it, they acted like they could barely speak English. Disappointing."
todayilearned,"Academics face competing pressures here.

The bosses love these international students because they pay outrageously inflated tuition, and often pay multiple years up-front and in cash, and are basically easy money for the university. It's especially helpful at lower-ranked universities that can't attract top-flight graduate students or healthy grants, so they chase these tuition dollars instead.

At the same time, professors are expected to be ""culturally sensitive"" to the fact that cheating is common in Asian schools. My colleagues and I have been told more than once to pause before reporting an international student for plagiarism, because they honestly might not know any better. Also, if an international student loses their university admission, they have to go back home in shame, and their life is basically over. No professor wants to be the one who pushes that button.

So what do we do? We watch our international students like hawks and report plagiarism and cheating whenever we see it."
todayilearned,"My mother taught at a Chinese-owned international high school. (in the USA) The Chinese students were blatant, notorious cheaters who saw absolutely nothing wrong with it at all. 

Eventually the school closed, because the Chinese people running it decided to stop paying the teachers halfway through the school year - who basically ended up teaching the last 4 months for free, getting no paycheck at all. 

Crooks all the way down. "
todayilearned,"I did PhD and Chinese students were the worst.  They were not the only cheaters, but they were by far the highest percentage of cheater. Talking to them, they said cheating was so prevalent on chine that people would literally steal a paper, repackage it (with the same exact figures) and publish it in another journal.  Other students in my office found repackaged papers of my advisors. Interestingly, the Russians and Koreans were the most academically honest in my particular group.  "
todayilearned,"A good manager knows that sometimes they are handed a bad situation and need to make it work.  Managers are not owners and frequently have little say in who is on the team.  A good manager does pair his weakest with his strongest.  If you have 2 great guys and 2 idiots, you can put the weak with the strong and have a good product across the board, or pair the strong together and weak together and 50% will excel, 50% will fail, and you'll waste all your money on QC."
todayilearned,"What concepts are we talking about? I've usually found slight concept misunderstandings when it comes to social issues due to how much our law's vary, mainly with Eastern Europeans as we get more Eastern Europeans here in the UK than most other nationalities. 

The only concept I've found one of them couldn't grasp is when we repeatedly had to explain to a girl on our course how TV shows and films are widely filmed with a single camera, on our TV and Film degree lol. However, I'm pretty sure that was because she was focusing on the word ""single"" because she wouldn't take it that Dexter was a single camera show because ""what if that single camera breaks?"" I had a native speaker buddy have the same question so I'm sure a lot of people could easily make that mistake. If I hadn't learned it at my previous college, then I probably would have been surprised hearing that in university. "
todayilearned,"That might explain some experiences I had tbh.

We had a Chinese student transfer to my small private school from Carnegie Mellon University. He was Comp Sci (which CMU is a top tier school for) there, but he was in our IT program. Odd. I just figured he was a smart guy who wanted an easier school. He shows up for a few classes, then after the first test is never seen again. Allegedly, he cheated on the first exam and kicked from the class. It makes me wonder if he cheated at CMU too. That same semester, a different chinese student was in my group for a semester long project. Same thing. He was there the first 5 weeks, but after the first test he was gone. I later learned he was expelled for cheating."
todayilearned,I have noticed that as well international students will make up sub 30% of the schools population but make up a good 2/3rds of those getting caught cheating. A good half of them work just as hard and don't cheat but I internally groan whenever I have one on a group project because the other half are at best shitty group mates because they either A. don't understand the material and frequently should not have been allowed in the class because they didn't understand the previous class this one was based on B. are lazy assholes or C. Cheat their asses off plagiarism ahoy.  
todayilearned,"Yes, many cultures expect it. 

An Indian colleague and I were in a management course together.  One of the obvious (to me) bullet points on managing people was ""if you do not tell the truth, people will not trust you.""

My colleague was floored by this.  He said in his culture it is always assumed that the other person is lying and you just work from there.

I mean, that's one way to do it, I guess."
todayilearned,"Bad according to whom though? They just have a different approach to it is all. They still have some very brilliant minds who all cheated in school as well. 

It is different than how we so things. And I do not like it. But I'm not gonna fault them if that's the way things are done in their country as long as it's not hurting anyone. 

The disagreement arises when they compete with us. The playing field needs to be level. And when they cheat it clearly is not. "
todayilearned,"I had a similar experience. My junior year of college I had a professor who was widely known for being tough, but you learned so much from him.

My schools CS program had a HUGE number of Chinese foreign exchange students that all worked in groups to basically cheat on every exam and project.

This class was at like 7am, and the professor required us all to buy clickers at the begining of the semester to answer questions during recitation for participation points. No roll call. Just these clickers.

Eventually the 15 something exchange students in this class dwindled to like 2 by mid semester, as one kid would come to class and use all their clickers to get his friends points.

This is about a day or so after late add/drop ends, so none of these students could leave the class or pick up another session. And this required class was only offered in the fall.

Professor asks question that requires clickers, and comments that he received many more answers than people in the room. Says ""Ok roll call time, if you answered but aren't in the room, you fail"".

I think he failed like 13 of those exchange stufents that day."
todayilearned,"Well, hopefully not entirely unstoppable... we thought the same of Russia and America multiple times but we're all still here. 

Plus they aren't *totally* self sufficient so could just be sanctioned to hell if they get too uppity. This would however require the world 'joining forces' so to speak. Still if it's that or accept Chinese rule universally, it's an option. Probably a bit better than nukes (especially as I doubt China would have many qualms about firing back...) 

...it's a great shame my country (the UK) are eyeing them up as a country to get in bed with since we're apparently so hell bent on rage quitting the EU like a pack of morons... "
todayilearned,"My school did have classes for people who were worse off at English, but I'm not sure if they were precursors or if they were taught at the same time as the other classes.

I went to an art school, so your art skill was what was really being tested. This is obviously why people got a free pass on their English, but it was difficult for the other students. I was consistently embarrassed because I had to ask a student to repeat themselves 10x before I gave up. I felt like an asshole, but I just couldn't understand through the accent and machinery being used in the background. On top of that it's simply not safe if the students can't understand the safety rules/requirements around high powered machinery.

My school was very accommodating to learning disabilities. I was paid 9$/hr by my school to go to my Art History class because I took (elaborate) notes for another student."
todayilearned,">Is that why China's own university ranking system places American and European universities above Chinese universities? 

You're talking about the past, I'm talking about the future.  Sad, I expect more comprehension from educated people, and less idiotic rah-rah patriotism.  

>and have spent a few of semesters conducting research in China, I can confirm that nothing actually happens on Teachers Day in China.

Ah, OK.  So you weren't teaching, and you didn't see anything on teachers day.  Got it.  

>Take your sorry wumao ass back to Sina where it belongs.

Does it feel good to say racist things like this?  "
todayilearned,"I had a similar problem when I used to manage an agricultural lab. We had two Indian applicants who had their “masters” from India. They made it passed the interview and it came to me to train them to perform their duties in the lab. 

After weeks of trying to get them to understand the basics of calibrating the instruments then running the assay upper management told me to let them work without direct supervision. 

After they somehow managed to mess up thousands of dollars worth of samples I had to go to HR to recommend that they be put in a different position or let go. "
todayilearned,"I had a number of Korean and Chinese students in my high school. One thing that really stuck out to me was that the Korean students were far more socially integrated with the rest of the (predominantly white) student body than the Chinese students were. They asked questions in class regularly and generally appeared to fit in a lot better, while the Chinese students seemed to interact almost exclusively with each other. Some would just sit in the back of the classroom and play games on their laptops and then ask for notes or answers later."
todayilearned,"Election compromises, buying telecoms, infusion, international lobbying. There's also information manipulation both in search functions, the education system most notably in Universities and now in movies and other projects as developments or projects will cater to the Chinese government by altering a premise, or basis even against ethical standards for access to the Chinese market.

Then you have the standard IP theft, counter-intelligence etc. 

The Chinese goal is attrition and while I can't say the same about other countries, the US while late at dealing with these issues, it may have come at just the right time. 

I work as crypto-analytics in DIA and NCSC-contractual and this is a very real thing for us. It's far larger than NKorea, Russia, Brazil and Iran. While my above descriptions were only vaguely stated, it details among those and other reasons why China is the single largest threat to the world, international stability and to our climate.

Please remember this over the next 15 years."
todayilearned,"Tldr: power went out during high school final which was a group project. Had to have everyone in the group come back after school to present (need everyone there for the machine to function). Only me and one other person showed up. We both got 90s on our final that we couldn't present, and the rest of our group got 0s.







Not college, but when I was in high school, I had an engineering class and the final was a group project where we designed and built an automated soda can crushing and ejecting machine. Each of us had specialized in different things throughout the trimester and we needed everyone to work together for any of us to get a good grade on the final. Which actually went surprisingly well. Our machine worked as intended. But on the last day of school, during the final for that class, we lost power. And I guess we didn't have backup generators. And it's kind of hard to show our machine without power. So the teacher told us that as much as it sucked, we had to come back after school that day to get graded. After school, everyone in the class that needed to show up did. Except for my group. It was just me and one other person. We needed everyone for it to work. So we couldn't present. My teacher gave me and the one other person in my group that showed up a 90 on the final. Everyone in my group that didn't show up got a 0.       
Feltgoodman


"
todayilearned,"Professors can care very much about their subject matter and about teaching and still have reason to not report cheating.  At some schools, in my humble experience, the process of reporting cheating is designed to promote faculty attrition: faculty do the leg work (emails, paperwork, on-the-record meetings with administration), are not consistently supported by administration (especially if you are contingent faculty), students are not consistently punished, and professors run the risk of retaliation.

Let me say a little more about the issue of retaliation.  This can happen in class, in office hours, or online.  It can be carried out by the student, by an associate of the student, or by a group.  More to the point, however, let me state that a student crying in your presence during office hours, insulting you during class, or threatening you in some form is quite taxing in the midst of what is likely a long enough day as it is.  All a student has to do to completely turn the tables is to accuse you of racism or sexual harassment.  Then either you suffer enough alienation to want to end your career or your career is ended for you.

The most egregious example, in my experience, of a student getting away with cheating is as follows: a star student in one of the college programs submitted a term paper to my course which was also submitted as a term paper for another course that same semester.  All of this was confirmed.  This is a big deal.  I won't talk about the legwork of communicating with the student (just to make sure this wasn't a simple mistake), with other faculty in my department, and the meetings I had to attend.  The dean, who was to oversee this matter, chuckled with me once we had all the evidence collected as well the full explanation from the student, since it was such an obvious case of cheating.  In the end: zero penalty for the student, who was granted additional time to write a paper.  You know who lost face with the administration?  I did.  This private college, where I taught for several years, is basically a diploma mill for the wealthy and, I think it is safe to presume, will not likely change.  Once this happened, I knew my place.  I taught passionately.  But I stopped even looking for plagiarism or other forms of cheating."
todayilearned,"It was engineering, so in the real world we are frequently forced to work alongside people with no concept of what we are trying to accomplish.  Those same people also frequently ask for the impossible. So, it was good training for what this role entails.  Luckily in order to do anything of importance, you need to be licensed, and that means showing competence and passing tests. Most work was individual, group work was not the norm."
todayilearned,"After the final presentation, yes.  Unfortunately there wasn't enough time after catching their plagiarism (literally the night before the due date), and I couldn't be sure that the prof wasn't going to be a hard-nose ""well this was a group project and the whole group failed"" type so I had to rewrite the whole thing to be safe.

After the live presentation (where they read off their plagiarized texts word-for-word instead of speaking conversationally and using the powerpoint slides we'd emergency-crafted) she saw the duress we were under and at least gave the two Americans A's.  I don't know what the Chinese kids got."
todayilearned,"I was writing & selling lower level essays back in college as extra cash. Almost all my clients were rich Chinese kids that must have cheated their way through their ACTs and SATs because they went to schools like Yale, Purdue, Columbia, and still would send super broken English messages to me. I got a friend to translate my entire profile and instructions and requirements to Chinese and then I started getting Chinese messages with more detail; they’d tell me how rich their parents were and that they’d pay me extra to get it done tonight, or that they’d send me all their friends if I did it for free. My Taiwanese friend that did all the translating started getting a cut for all the translating going on too. We considered launching our own website but then a lot of sites including the Silk Road started getting shut down so we just took down my stuff and quit."
todayilearned,"I'm surprised it's not higher. My freshman class at college was something like 15% international students, and the vast majority were from China. I'd say more than half of the Chinese students I met/had classes with could not understand English at all. There were two girls that I had the same class with for the entire first year. One of the girls legitimately never spoke English, and her friend (whose English was decent but definitely not fluent) just translated everything for her for the whole year.

They were all supposed to have passed a English proficiency tests before even being accepted. The year after I graduated, there was an even larger amount of international students, specifically from China too. I had friends who worked at other colleges in that city, and all of them had issues with the Chinese international students not knowing English, and how frustrating it was for everyone involved at the college."
todayilearned,"Even if I don't agree with the post you responded to, I wouldn't say that the author sucks at writing.  The post isn't perfect, but it's far better than most on this site.  You come off as bitter that someone got away with cheating; I assume you worked hard in high school and are personally insulted and embittered by the poster's admission.

​

I didn't cheat \*or\* work hard in high school and I still got great grades, so I beat both of you! :3  ...Not that high school grades mean much anyway. :'("
todayilearned,"I forget which Ivy League university's art school it was(might've been Penn or Yale), but I remember an article from awhile back where there  was this major change in the registration process that basically if you were applying to the art school and got in you were more or less locked into it because otherwise  it was a massive amount of work that you had to do to switch majors instead of the normal affair at any other school, pretty much like applying to the university all over again. 


Basically they had an obscene amount of wealthy international students who basically would scour the internet looking at artists' work and more or less say, ""hey I'll give you x amount of money to buy your portfolio, you scratch my back I'll scratch yours we all keep this on the DL"" and then they would get into the art school with this absolutely stupid talented art portfolio and immediately change majors to avoid any academic scrutiny and be on their way doing something else. 
"
todayilearned,"Yes. Not in a racist way, but in a “why waste our time dealing with this shit again?”.  Our organization is extremely multi-cultural (I am one of two native English speakers), so I assure you it’s just business. Unfortunate and unfair, yes, but so it goes.

If it makes you feel any better, Americans are passed over for academic postdocs compared to our American-trained Chinese counterparts for a variety of reasons.

Edit: not because of their nationality, but rather if their PhD is from China "
todayilearned,"The less kids to teach is really only true for the undergrad level. At the grad level most classes are far from being full anyway, and teachers aren't paid more for class size, so it doesn't cost theuniversity more to have them there. In fact, it's probably much cheaper because then they can use their grad students as TAs for super low wages rather than hiring someone for actual wages to teach. "
todayilearned,"> sometimes the test questions are recycled from the years' past and students just kind of memorise the answers; this is why the frat kids at college always seem to have high GPAs relative to their effort.

Oh, I see. Lol
Had a finance class in my last semester, we had an online test and every single one of us looked up the answer online because everyone was getting burned out from too much information. Professor most likely knew but she didn't give a damn.

I think it's also the same deal with sites that give you answers to your homework. Works only if your tests are multiple choices, though.
"
todayilearned,"that shit is infuriating. My wife while getting her masters had a group like this. 2 people in the group were bums. so her and another girl were the only one working on this quite lengthy project. I eventually got my very shy and timid wife to report it to her professor who basically came back with figure it out yourselves you can't remove people or get new teams.

My wife who is like 8 months pregnant, working full time and going to school full time has to pick up slack for these bums so they can get their masters degrees? FUCK THAT. I went straight to the dean. He tried to blow it off too. I basically in the end threatened him telling him everyone will know this is how these classes work and you condone it. They ended up being removed from the class.

Also other side rant: I have an engineering degree. Wife has her masters. School is a fucking joke. If we didn't need these little slips of papers to get us better jobs I wouldn't have gone. School has become so stupidly easy that any moron can go get a degree with minimal effort. And this was at D1 college's."
todayilearned,"It's interesting. There's a bit of an irony to it as well.

I remember proctoring for a class of 200 students. One of my coworkers (this indian grad student) was real good at catching cheaters. One day, a bunch of us grads were grading papers in a conference room, and he was telling us about how reading the body language was key. He then admitted that he used to cheat when he was in India and how a bunch of his friends would do the same; and in that very room, a pandora's box opened and some of the other foreign grad students in the room just flat out admitted to cheating when they were undergrads. They said they don't cheat anymore now that they are in the US, but it was still disheartening.

Of course, no professors were in the room when we had the discussion. Nobody thought that the discussion would leave the room, and it didn't. As naive as it sounds, we all sorta trust each other for it."
todayilearned,"I'd give it a decade, two at most. China is increasingly getting involved in academics and industry outside their borders and the rest of the world is catching on. China all but officially condones this behavior.

India is a different kind of problem. Where China is going it almost intentionally, India just has no way to regulate their people. India's government doesn't control academics and industry and can only do so much to reign in all the fraudulent organizations that keep popping up, taking advantage of both the naive and malicious."
todayilearned,"I wonder if that comes from having a a lot of social classes, wich are at the same time difficult to ""leave behind"". I am no Marxist, but one once told me that they believed that there couldn't be any real ""dialogue"" between classes. Where I live we have a very undistributed wealth, and it is true that many of the ""wealthy"", when raised in a bubble, are hard to read and trust, cause many times you don't know if they are telling the truth or subtly fucking with you. But they understand each other just fine."
todayilearned,"My wife is Chinese and we know a few kids who cheated on their TOEFL exam, GRE, and fudged a bunch of things in their admissions materials to get into grad school. The thing is that this behavior, coupled with cheating in courses, might get them a degree but does not serve them well in the long run. They bomb in internships, don't interview well, and don't land jobs. At least not in the US.

However, I would also add that many, if not most of the top students, faculty, researchers, and private sector employees in my field (math/statistics) are Chinese. Most Chinese students bust their ass studying and do really well by it. Americans have their cultural problems too (violence, willful ignorance,  gluttony) so it's not really useful to act self righteous."
todayilearned,"back in the day, probably close to 100% of one my classes cheated. The final just ""got out"" and made its way around. The professor was so proud we did so well. It's one of the reasons why I don't play this game of ""look at those cheaters!!!""

And why I realize the punishments are often non-existent. Because you can google some of those professors' papers from back in the day and find some missing citations.

I honestly think maybe we've gone way too far for some kid up at 3am trying to finish his stupid paper that he doesn't give a damn about for a class that he doesn't give a damn about. And some professors (whose papers you can google and maybe find a couple missing citations and destroy them) understand that."
todayilearned,"Ever worked in a lab with Chinese post-""docs""?  These guys supposedly had PhDs, but were dumber than most summer undergrads.  Piss-poor experimental design.  They couldn't wipe their own asses if they weren't spoon-fed a detailed protocol how to do it, and even then it would be 50/50 that they'd actually follow it without taking shortcuts.  1 in 10 is actually worth his/her salt.  They pollute the entire research infrastructure, and drive down wages for American scientists to boot.  They're exempt from H1B visa quotas since they work on public grants, so there's no stopping the flood."
todayilearned,"Basically it's just a matter of keeping a record of your conversations on facebook and the like with you going 'we need you to do this for this project,' their agreement, and when they don't do it just submitting it into the unit coordinator. 

With enough proof they basically have to pursue it. Have had it happen to others in my group specifically at least 3 times, none of them were foreign students though so no guilt over deporting someone. "
todayilearned,"When I was in high school, the girl who sat next to me in one of my classes was Chinese and she would regularly cheat on tests. I tried to ignore it because I just didn't want to be the class ""snitch"". One day, she got caught by the instructor, and threw a huuuge fit. She just got really violent, even attempting to throw her chair at the instructor. Security was eventually called in, and even they had trouble hauling her off. Rumor has it she didn't get in any trouble for whatever reason, and she came back to class the next day. Continued cheating throughout the year."
todayilearned,"That makes sense.  It's much more important to train, say, engineers in how to navigate and be effective cogs in a Kafkaesque nightmare of a failed corporate culture than it is to train them to build bridges that won't collapse.

You know, that being said, it does occur to me that maybe we *wouldn't* run into coworkers who were used to being carried by other people, and thus had no idea what they were doing because they'd never actually learned their profession, if maybe students weren't expected to carry other students, and people who couldn't pull their weight just didn't get a degree."
todayilearned,"The two Chinese students in my masters program (there were a total of 3 of us) had their PhD friends do all their assignments and write their papers. They officially did nothing during the degree. They never went to classes and asked me to get the homework for them, which I did not. They actually spent most of their time running businesses back home. I also have a feeling they cheated on their English exam to get into the university because one of them flat out could not English."
todayilearned,"Exactly what happened at my university. They paid 3x what local students paid so they let them get away with pretty much anything. One international girl student once told me that (from her country at least) male international sutdents often came to buy an easy diploma with their family's money so they would simply sit down and do pretty much nothing, money did the talking. Girls however needed to justify the money spent on them so she was working her ass off to get As everywhere.

​

Regarding cheating, my university got around the no cheating policy by changing to a cultural cheating policy. When caught cheating, insted of getting a zero, the department would now look into the reasons of the cheating and decide to allow an alternative action insted of a zero.  It was utter bullshit."
todayilearned,"There are many regions in the world that have shitty leaders who do what middle eastern dictators did that the US leaves alone. We don't annexx regions because global imperialism is frowned upon, but we are notorious in the recent past for starting wars in regions that are oil rich under the pretense of liberating people etc., and then installing our own leaders who will make favorable deals with the US. This often leads to more instability in the region, and worse lives for the people there. We aren't literally invading countries and taking oil. We are using out position as a global superpower to ""liberate"" people and ""take down"" bad governments for our own personal gain. "
todayilearned,"When you read the results of the most known student assessment - OECD's PISA study - you'll notice that there is no China. There are USA, Russia, Germany, UK, Japan, South Korea, and then there is ""China (Shanghai)"".

The assessment is only distributed in a select number of schools in the best performing city. The cheating is institutionalised, but in the media (esoecially Chinese) the fact that it's just Shanghai is simply omitted. Before you get your hopes up: Singapore, Japan, Korea, they are all just good."
todayilearned,">You're talking about the past, I'm talking about the future.

是吗？那你的英文水平有待提高。

你不是说了 “Best learning *in* China, of course""吗？ ""Is"" 才是 ""to be""的一般现在时态形式。

>  Sad, I expect more comprehension from educated people, and less idiotic rah-rah patriotism.

Is that so? Then why would you champion China's university system? It requires all incoming freshmen to partake in military exercises in order to ""defend the motherland,"" and all students to take vapid courses on ""political theory"" that are little more than transparent propaganda celebrate the ""nation"" and the ""party.""

Sad indeed.

> Ah, OK. So you weren't teaching, and you didn't see anything on teachers day. Got it. 

I was on fellowships with Chinese Universities. Got that?

>Does it feel good to say racist things like this? 

Wumao isn't a racial slur, and Sina is one of the websites where they are most active. Keep digging, but be careful, you might end up sounding like one of those SJW's you spent your last comments trashing."
todayilearned,"There is the key difference though. You know HOW to learn. That is a big goddamn deal.

My experience with a lot of the Chinese is they simply don't have the fundamental process of adaptation, critical thinking, any of that. It is one of the reasons I have been railing about standardized testing. That is what it creates. Someone that only learns that ""this is the answer the book says."" That is how they are taught, memorization. "
todayilearned,"There's a wide variety on this spectrum mate. I've seen, what we call in the biz, ""dog fuckers"" kept on schedule for years and years and still not get fired. Some industries are so desperate for anybody that even the most blatant dog fucker will just get a ""talk"" every once in a while. Just showing up on time and doing *something* is better than nobody at all I guess. Christ. (Retail btw)"
todayilearned,"> So what do we do? 

We communicate that cheating in any form is not ok, and the best way to do that is with proper procedure.

Maybe not automatically send them home, but have a serious and frank conversation with the professor, the student, and the director/dean/other administrator. Communicate very frankly that their grades are going to be affected by their choice already and their ability to stay at the university will be affected if they continue.

You *need* to be consistent with rules - consistent across time, consistent across cultures, and consistent across industries. If you aren't consistent, then you are favoring one group over the other unfairly, and the whole point of the educational system that the school uses loses any serious claim that they educate people effectively."
todayilearned,"At work so i can't gather sources right now, but check out resources on American Imperialism, and more recently about American intervention in the middle east/northern africa. The ""American Oil"" thing is moreabout the middle east wars recently from the late 80s up til now, but the US has had a long history in places like South America in the late 90s and during the cold war and others such as the Phillipines that many outside the US consider very bad. Outside the US, we are actuallyvery often considered bullies, it's just in the US we live in a bubble of dangerous nationalism and patriotism that hides what we really do to many other nations of the world. I would start with wikipedia for a general idea (AmericanImperialism, wars in the middle east, American cold war interventionalism) and move forward from there. "
todayilearned,"Had the same experience down here in Australia. I actually arranged to work with a local housing non profit for our group work (business strategy review), one of the students decided that telling the CEO and chairman of the board that selling ""their land"" (not their land) and kicking their clients onto the street (while point was to get them off the street) was the best way for the company to make a profit (it was a non profit charity). 

I facepalmed so hard that we shut down the meeting early. "
todayilearned,"Had the same experience down here in Australia. I actually arranged to work with a local housing non profit for our group work (business strategy review), one of the students decided that telling the CEO and chairman of the board that selling ""their land"" (not their land) and kicking their clients onto the street (while point was to get them off the street) was the best way for the company to make a profit (it was a non profit charity). 

I facepalmed so hard that we shut down the meeting early. "
todayilearned,"Westerner who went to school in China here, can't say for outside of China, but inside China they barely bat an eye. I received one year of introductory Chinese before I started my major proper, was conversational at best, got to my first few classes and realised I was never going to be able to follow along. Predictably, at the end of the first year I was threatened with being locked out of the program at the end of the first year. For them the practice seems to be to kick you off the deep end, either you learn to swim or you drown. "
todayilearned,"> This often leads to more instability in the region, and worse lives for the people there.

Hussein was truly shitty though. I admit that a lot of stuff that America do is not kosher, not to mention the lower level war crime that happens. But unless you are a libertarian, which you probably is not, I don't think do no harm is the right standard here. And America comparatively to other ""empires"" of great powers in the past is probably better. I don't think there's a neat, near-definitive narrative here."
todayilearned,"I live in the Bay Area of California. A whole lot of Asians here. I have learned to meet before I judge. Too many great people I have met could get passed up if I simply said, ""Another Chin, fuck that."" 

I know some folks at Kaiser Permanente that don't want Asian doctors. My cardiologist (who I absolutely love) is Asian. I went with him not knowing who he was. I'd have missed out on a great goddamn doctor and man had I have said ""Nope. Asian dude."" My physician, Dr. H, amazing doctor, he has helped save my life.

While there are some that will look at your name and maybe pass you up, there are a lot like me that will simply say, ""Let's see who this dude is first."" I'd have missed a lot of great people if I thought that small. Don't let that thought fuck with you too much. Because generally speaking, the people that would avoid your name, you'd want to avoid anyway."
todayilearned,"Well, yeah, screening based on school quality should be fine, but saying

> we end up passing over Chinese candidates these days because we’ve been burned in the past. It’s a problem with Indian-trained folks too


is a different matter. And ruling out *all* Chinese schools could be viewed as a proxy for national origin. Are they all of too low quality?

It's worth being careful about your actual and stated reasons on this sort of thing."
todayilearned,"I taught intro chem lab for stupid (read *non STEM*) kids at a university during my masters in chemistry. Grading academic papers was a chore for non native english speakers because I couldnt even grade objectively on their knowledge of the topic for their goddamn writing. I had to start going to the coordinator and asking what to do about papers that were unintelligible gibberish. Eventually I was ordered to start issuing F's. Which didnt necessarily mean a full fail as the labs were weighted mostly just for attendance and handing things in. (50% for showing up, and 50% credit for any assignment that at least was turned in with work done.)"
todayilearned,"A friend of mine teaches college courses with an aviation subject matter. She had no idea that the issue was cultural until I brought it up taking about a video game I play. She immediately chimed in about catching her Chinese (Nationally) students cheating and how it was a huge problem... You can't cheat in aviation. If you don't know your shit you could die or worse, you could kill other people.

So, Chinese students coming to the US with the mindset that they can cheat is a big problem... For them..."
todayilearned,"At my work, we recently let go an Indian gentleman. His resume and LinkedIn are amazing. His skills to do even the simplest tasks were abysmal. On paper he had a masters degree, but we were confounded how he was able to get through schooling, but was utterly helpless when it came to his ability to even show the slightest understanding of the systems he was supposed to maintain. 

Safety incidents? Yes. 
Ability to follow procedures? Not really. 
Critical thinking skills? Zero. 
Can remember instructions given? Generally no. 
At least get some work done? Minimal at best. 
Response when tasked with explaining the lack of work? Blamed others around him every time. 

It took my work over two years to give him the boot. When cheaters cheat and “fake it till you make it” is the mindset, the co-workers are the ones who suffer because we always end up having to pick up the slack. "
todayilearned,"I can only speak for myself and my personal experiences, and I in no way condone mistreatment or conspiracy based on race, but God damn are all the Chinese exchange students I've been partnered up with been anchors for my groups. Also one got in trouble for lying about his age. Said he was 23, he was actually 27. I don't understand the system in place or what it changed, but my department came at him with an iron fist.

Hard to say this shit without sounding racist..."
todayilearned,"There was a cheating case at my university involving a student who literally didn't know how to speak English. After investigations it was revealed that they had an English-speaking friend they talked to who answered and asked everything for them. It was all sparked because when the student got to a test where they didn't have their friend, they couldn't understand anything and in some attempt to get part-marks they rewrote the question in the answer box. It was found the student cheated on their English proficiency tests to get in. 

It's honestly ridiculous the cheating done by some students just to get the piece of paper. Once it's found you don't have any of the knowledge to back it up, aren't you screwed? And even if you try to hide your incompetence your whole life, what kind of life is that?"
todayilearned,"A friend of mine at a school that required dorm living for the first year had a Chinese international student as a roommate.  After a semester, he quit and went back to China... just left the brand new Mercedes he bought several months earlier in the spot and never came back - no fucks given. 

These international (especially Chinese) students bring in a lot of money because quite a lot of them are from families that are *absolutely fucking loaded*."
todayilearned,"Same exact experience in my classes, except that they did that in literally the front row of the class right in front of the professor. I remember one exam where they were just basically talking at normal volume like they were chatting about where to get lunch, and the professor had to go over and explain to them that talking to each other during an exam wasn’t allowed and they needed to stop. They all seemed confused. The rest of us were confused about their confusion. It was a very strange experience for everyone involved."
todayilearned,"Quite possibly. I mean, it sucks balls. Because there are a lot of second generation Chinese that are absolutely awesome. Some first generation too. They get saddled with a taint to their reputation. But the sad fact that I can't pass up is I have experienced it first hand, a lot. Not just a little bit. I have had no issues with folks from Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea. It was never an issue. It was almost always an issue with someone directly from China.

I would love for it not to be true, but people talk. My coworkers have discussed it. My Chinese-American friends have openly discussed it because they have faced the backlash that it has created. It is a real issue, and it sucks. Some might latch on to the racist aspect. They can fuck off in my book. "
todayilearned,"The last lab I worked in was largely staffed by students from China and at least two of them were quite open about how they cheated their TOEFL (among other things). It was a bit of culture shock to me, I suppose. 

I mean, they were competent enough at bench monkeying, so no big deal there. We did occasionally have trouble with them ""massaging"" data so it would look better in papers though, THAT was a problem."
todayilearned,"I agree with the Iran, and South American regime changes in that their primary goal was securing energy supply because of the Oil Shock from OPEC sanctions, and even stuff like even engineering the electoral loss of the communists in Italy. But I think one ought to consider the stuff the USSR was pulling off wrt to Cuba, Eastern Europe, and also other countries in South America. It's not possible to make any rigorous predictions about counterfactuals in the social sciences except for very narrow and restricted questions, but I think it's a very reasonable preference for someone that identify as a liberal to err on the side of American Imperialism in an era of comparably more racism and more existential threat. I am not an social liberal, so take it however you like.

I also think that both the Democrats and Republican had mostly anti-racists as their top leaders by the end of the WWII, if you look at the biography of the leaders, and even people like Barry Goldwater, who seemed to me like all purpose a genuine liberal who had a principle objection to parts of the civil rights act. They might not be anti-racist by contemporary standards and hold imperialistic views, but that's up to the inteructors."
todayilearned,"To someone who casually looked at the Retraction Watch website, I think your biases are getting in the way of being diligent. [Within the top 10 cited studies to be retracted, only 1 has Chinese surnames](https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-leaderboard/top-10-most-highly-cited-retracted-papers/). [Additionally, the ""retraction leaderboard"" is comprised mainly for Korean and Japanese](https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-leaderboard/) when you look for Asian surnames. I'm wondering, if this is such a large problem with Chinese papers and authors, why do you think such disproportionately small number of them appear on the retraction leaderboard?

Edit: Oh nevermind, this is just a racism circle-jerk I guess.

>The more I learn about China, the less I like China. It seems they are at the center of a lot of social, economic, and environmental problems for the entire world. There is a general attitude of self-importance, and things not mattering.

Good job Reddit."
todayilearned,"I work in biotech, and my last lab was largely staffed by Chinese students. Nice enough people, but we had some serious issues with a few. Some were quite open and talkative about how they cheated their TOEFL, and would repeatedly get caught ""massaging"" data that didn't fit their hypotheses. Apparently, they just cared about getting published (which was a required part of their program) and weren't bothered in the slightest if the data was fictional so long as it got them in print."
todayilearned,"While waiting for office hour one day, I overheard a former professor talking to a TA about catching cheating. He basically said that he spots 2 dozen or so people each quarter (in a 120 person class) who he's 90% sure are cheating, but it's not worth it to go after them unless he's 100% sure.

It's a major hassle, and more importantly, the fallout for him if the student isn't cheating can be huge."
todayilearned,"A girl at my school (Russian native) couldn't speak a full sentence in English. The school went over a test and essay she did to enter to notice that half of the pronouns were male. Basically, she paid someone to take it and that guy just copied his own only remembering to change things occasionally. I think (got this second hand from a TA) the sentence that gave it away was something like ""How would your friends describe your work ethic"" and hers said something like ""They'd say 'he is really interested in computers and he is dedicated to finding new applications for them in the expanding world of business' because I am"". she was so unfluent she didn't understand she was being kicked out and thought they were giving her another chance to write the essay.

I'd say the best foreign students we have are Indian and Japanese who go around making us natives look bad but they are far and few between. "
todayilearned,"Don't worry about it, they're only cheating themselves.  Employers around the world, and especially in China, have figured out that Chinese person having a degree doesn't necessarily mean anything.  These kids are paying triple the tuition price plus bringing tons of Chinese money into your country buying their fancy cars, clothes, and nice places to live, and at the end they get their piece of paper, but it's useless to them.  A Chinese guy can't show up at a business with their piece of paper from Iowa State University or whatever and just get a job with it.  Employers are wise to the fact that all that piece of paper by itself means, if anything, is that the Chinese kid's parents spent a boatload of money in Iowa.  Nowadays the Chinese kids have to actually prove with internal testing and interviews they can't cheat that they actually know something.  Most Chinese kids that just bought their degrees don't even bother going through that and take their piece of paper back to China--but Chinese companies have also got wise to the fact that Chinese kids with foreign degrees didn't necessarily earn them, and now they are having a hell of a time finding a decent job even inside China.  Of course, it sucks for the kids that actually did to the work and know their stuff that now they are tarred with this same assumption they just cheated their way to a degree, but that's the price a society pays when it's built on cheating."
todayilearned,"Don't worry about it, they're only cheating themselves.  Employers around the world, and especially in China, have figured out that Chinese person having a degree doesn't necessarily mean anything.  These kids are paying triple the tuition price plus bringing tons of Chinese money into your country buying their fancy cars, clothes, and nice places to live, and at the end they get their piece of paper, but it's useless to them.  A Chinese guy can't show up at a business with their piece of paper from Iowa State University or whatever and just get a job with it.  Employers are wise to the fact that all that piece of paper by itself means, if anything, is that the Chinese kid's parents spent a boatload of money in Iowa.  Nowadays the Chinese kids have to actually prove with internal testing and interviews they can't cheat that they actually know something.  Most Chinese kids that just bought their degrees don't even bother going through that and take their piece of paper back to China--but Chinese companies have also got wise to the fact that Chinese kids with foreign degrees didn't necessarily earn them, and now they are having a hell of a time finding a decent job even inside China.  Of course, it sucks for the kids that actually did to the work and know their stuff that now they are tarred with this same assumption they just cheated their way to a degree, but that's the price a society pays when it's built on cheating."
todayilearned,"Don't worry about it, they're only cheating themselves at this point.  Employers around the world, and especially in China, have figured out that Chinese person having a degree doesn't necessarily mean anything.  These kids are paying triple the tuition price plus bringing tons of Chinese money into your country buying their fancy cars, clothes, and nice places to live, and at the end they get their piece of paper, but it's useless to them.  A Chinese guy can't show up at a business with their piece of paper from Iowa State University or whatever and just get a job with it.  Employers are wise to the fact that all that piece of paper by itself means, if anything, is that the Chinese kid's parents spent a boatload of money in Iowa.  Nowadays the Chinese kids have to actually prove with internal testing and interviews they can't cheat that they actually know something.  Most Chinese kids that just bought their degrees don't even bother going through that in a western country, and take their piece of paper back to China--but Chinese companies have also got wise to the fact that Chinese kids with foreign degrees didn't necessarily earn them, and now they are having a hell of a time finding a decent job even inside China.  Of course, it sucks for the kids that actually did to the work and know their stuff that now they are tarred with this same assumption they just cheated their way to a degree, but that's the price a society pays when it's built on cheating."
todayilearned,"I still have the note today from the teacher asking me to tutor the students offering me a job in the math lab and still have friends from that class on my Facebook friends list that would verify it. I have college professors in political science that will also explain that I was the best student they had and to one law professor who happens to be extremely successful in my state said that I wrote the best court analysis he's ever received from a student.

I didn't say that to brag initially, I wanted to say that test scores mean piss all, but since you babies stuck in the 50s can't grow up and learn new methods of teaching or say that anti common core autism like ""well I learned that way and it worked for me,"" I guess I'm forced to defend what shouldn't have even been the key part of my statement. I'm sorry your tiny ego is so bothered by a regular and normal occurrence in school that apparently didn't happen to you since you had teachers who were as backwards as you were and didn't get you interested enough to work hard and learn as well as I did."
todayilearned,"OOH! I know all about this one! Aspire to all the other jobs. Volunteer to do all the shit that other people don't want to do. Escalations, training new people, if they'll let you, do the most annoying part of other people's jobs that they don't want to do. Pay the hell out of your dues. I took the absolute WORST escalations and didn't complain about them. I took a box of dirty mice that customers had returned, opened them up and cleaned them all out then distributed them around the floor (this was back when wheel mice were rare, for reference). I did training when it wasn't my job. I took on whatever projects I could. When people are looking to fill a role they look for people who are cheerfully doing whatever's needed of them. I've been at two different tech companies for 20 years total now and I've been internally promoted quite a few times.

As one of my favorite managers told me, your management is going to ask you to eat a shit sandwich. Your job is to take a big fucking bite, smile and say ""Yum yum! Could I have some more please?"" On one hand, that's reprehensible and I'm worth more than that. On the other, holy shit it works."
todayilearned,"I worked in admissions at a top US business school.  We have stopped accepting the results of GMAT tests taken in China and India.

Now the problem is that many students are traveling to neighboring countries to take the test and cheat from there...  It's like whack-a-mole.

The really tricky part is that the percentage of Asian students in MBA programs has gotten very high, and so many schools have started to raise the bar for Asians in general (hence the recent lawsuit against Harvard).   ...of course, since there's a strong pressure to maintain African American and Hispanic quotas, white students without any sort of connection to the school have the highest bar of all to overcome, by far (as well as Asian Americans kids that aren't cheating).

The entire admissions system has gotten F'd.  So glad I no longer work there.   The advice the admissions officers would give friends was to look through family trees and try to find literally *any* plausible ancestor that could demonstrably be hispanic, african, or native."
todayilearned,">navigate and be effective cogs in a Kafkaesque nightmare of a failed corporate culture than it is to train them to build bridges that won't collapse.

Or, you know, deal with people who have strong opinions on something whe they don't have the slightest clue what they are talking about.  Like dictating how an entire field should be educated and run.  The reality is, a design means shit if you can't effectively build it, engineers do not only design, they implement, manage projects, inspect, etc.  All of those individual fields require showing individual competence through licensure.  Communication, effectively expressing a design, and overcoming obstacles are far more important to most fields of engineering than ability to design by picking numbers off a chart.  Most designs aren't new or innovative, the handful of brilliant people who excel fill those rolls just fine.

Tl;Dr:  If you are installing a sidewalk, I don't care if you have a PhD."
todayilearned,"Neither of those stats back up your argument at all.

The other poster claimed that the majority of *removed/retracted papers* were Chinese.

That has nothing to do with the most cited retracted papers or with the list authors who have the most retracted papers.

There are simple explanations for fewer Chinese authors on those leaderboards... If it's well-known or believed that Chinese authors are unreliable, their papers are less likely to be cited.

Edit: the quote he added is not from me and not from the person his comment is in response to; it's from a [different poster in a different comment chain that nobody engaged with](https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/9enmff/til_that_cheating_is_so_acceptable_in_china_that/e5qv7fy?context=3). Misdirection."
todayilearned,"> there's a lot of them going back to their country of origin with the degree instead of staying here

There is no limit on the number of H1B visas issued for academic job positions, but it is not easy to get an academic job position either. I'm sure some of them wanted to go home, and I would also bet many of those students would have liked to stay in the US, but simply were unable to."
todayilearned,"People can be judged by their individual work.  Its not about leeching, they real idiots failed the classes based on individual performance.  The point was, if you get a C or D student in a group full of A's, no extension, no taking it easy, you might need to work harder for an A this time.  That life.  If you have a deadline, you get it done, even if you work with idiots.  Hell, your boss might be the biggest idiot in the bunch.  "
todayilearned,"I know when I used to review articles for a few journals, there was a distinct pattern of bullshit, clearly fabricated papers coming out of China, and not from anywhere else.

I just called them on it by either pointing out research they'd failed to cite that disproved what they claimed (a couple times that I'd published myself...), or asked for additional data I knew they'd be unable to produce. Never had any of those resubmitted."
todayilearned,"And they do the same in the workforce, it doesn't stop in college. At work there are a bunch of all Chinese groups and if you join their group, you're going to take the fall for the inevitable failure of the group. The group fails because they lie to each other to save face, cannot admit mistakes and eventually nothing works. Then they wonder why so few of them end up as executives lol. Well in a country like the USA, it's harder to cheat your way to the top."
todayilearned,"Yeah, like a culture of widespread gun ownership. *Real* shitty culture.

You're missing the point. *Of course* we criticise problematic cultural norms - that's one of the primary functions of sociology. What this also means, however, is that you need to be more understanding of the *individual's* position amidst it. I can't blame a Chinese student entirely for plagiarising an essay to get ahead, or an American mother for keeping a handgun in the bedside drawer under the mistaken assumption it makes the family home safer.

That shit's cultural "
todayilearned,"You are exactly the type of person I weed out during these interview questions. 

Somebody not pulling their weight is not always malicious. In real world, they may have other tasks assigned, other, non-technical value they provide (they may be better sales-people or have specific knowledge nobody else does). Finally, a person on your team may just go on vacation, but work still needs to be done. 

Your attitude may be passable for some minimum wage jobs that are used to internal drama, but you will get pushed out very quickly out of most office environments. "
todayilearned,"I think you and some others clearly lack reading comprehension. You being quick to anger further suggests lack of emotional control. Which in turn suggests lower intelligence. But I wasn't clear enough I guess. 

In their country if cheating is the accepted norm then that is fine. That's a level playing field for all and they have many highly intelligent subject matter experts. The cheating does not preclude them from learning and becoming experts in their fields. 

As I stated before, I don't like it. If they come over here and compete with us then the playing field needs to be level. Therefore they shouldn't be cheating. And they should be penalized when caught. Which they typically are. But it doesn't make them awful people. It's a cultural difference. 

So maybe relax on the strawman."
todayilearned,"I have met a few of these types in the software/IT circle. Great resume writers. Great technical interview skills and knowledge on a few general questions. Can't even turn on a computer when hired. They just studied the ""programming interview questions"" books. Wrote a massaged resume with overlapping ""contracts"" or side work. Legit enough to catch some people and get the job paying bank for 6 months before anyone really finds out they don't know shit. Yet when you look into the work it's either made up or only 6-8 months of working at a legit place. "
todayilearned,"Bwahahaha someone here didn't read the entire post. 

I'm saying you can't (for a longer period of time anyway) fake a PhD in (for example) molecular biology, because that's very different from doing pretend work as a mid level manager at a stationary company. 

Also, the Peter principle states that people in heirarchies tend to be promoted until they're no longer competent at their role. It doesn't really apply when someone says they have a PhD in biology and is hired for that, but when they turn up to do practical experiments they don't know what a pipette is. 

You can fake many jobs, but but not all. Doing experiments in molecular biology is one of the things that's pretty hard to fake. "
todayilearned,"Bigotry? You go around getting kicked in the nutts by people in green shirts all day, are you not supposed to flinch when a person in a green shirt comes up to you? Should you just try to trust every green shirt for the sake of social niceness? Or should you probably approach a green shirt with caution and suspicion, because 90% of the time, they'll kick you square in the nutts?

There's a systemic problem that scientific institutions in China need to address. This isn't a case of ""you shouldn't fully trust Chinese scientific articles because they're written by Chinese"" it's, ""you shouldn't fully trust Chinese scientific articles because they have a systemic problem of lying and fraud within their scientific community"". There's a way for them to clear this up: China needs to address these problems, rigorously test the scientific data they put out, and start turning out scientific information that is reproducable and trustworthy. When a respected scientific institution publishes an article, those in the scientific community usually believe its been rigorously tested, because those people don't have the same ability/time/funding to test it themselves. When it turns out your institutions don't seem to care much about one of the basic tenants of science, that your work is sound and reproducable, then they lose trust. No one is asking them to change their race or ethnicity, we're just asking that their institutions care more about the quality of scientific work they do. Their institutions have lost our trust, they need to gain it back. 

If the green shirted nutt kickers would like our trust, then simply don't kick us in the nutts. No one is asking them to change shirts. "
todayilearned,"My favorite resume memory was when I was interviewing a candidate who’s resume said that they were a “freelance consultant” for the last three years. I asked what that was like and he just looked confused. I showed it to him on his resume and he said, “Oh, it wasn’t my idea to put that on there.” I asked one more question to be polite and then thanked him for his time."
todayilearned,"They do this after graduation too.

I was once hired to ""troubleshoot"" a high tech company that was struggling to meet commitments. It was a small company in the Silicon Valley, and the business side was exasperated with the tech side. I don't recall the trigger, but I was called in by a new manager, who I had known, because he was afraid a customer demo was going to fail. I helped over a couple days, and then was asked to advise. 

The company had been taken over by Chinese PhDs and techs who were using it as a kind of sinecure. A couple of decent hires proceeded to stuff the company full of associates who were totally incompetent. I could not discover if there were payoffs, but they were all hiding the incompetence of each other. So if there was a project, it would have  a group of 4 working on it but only one was actually capable of making progress. Another project might have two competent people and between the three competent people work on both projects would progress at 1/5 speed. Yet all were paid and when non-technical management tried to make things go faster they were told that it was R&D and you could not predict progress. 

This takeover took several years and slowly the decent people would leave and what was left were Chinese placeholders. When I got called in, I would walk through basic steps (I am intentionally vague here) and I quickly discovered that at least half were unable to even do basic things, and were unteachable. It was a mess. 

I told the guy who hired me that the only solution was to set up a parallel group, (not Chinese!) and transfer all technology and development to the new group, extracting it from the initial group over a period of a few months. Then fire them all. "
todayilearned,Unless you have eyes placed on your head like a gazelle I doubt you had an accidental habit of uncovering forbidden truths on the papers of students to either side of you unless you made a conscious effort to do so. I made no such conscious effort and kids were not crammed next to me on either side. The spacing between desks during my tutelage was more than adequate to walk between all rows and so anything to either side of me between a 95 to 60 degree range was blurry because that's how peripheral vision actually works.
todayilearned,"I have a friend that deals with academic violations at one of the big universities in California, and she's mentioned to me on several occasions that they routinely have academic disciplinary boards with Chinese students over cheating, and there's a clear pattern of behavior:  

- if they are first or second generation Chinese, they cheat primarily out of intense pressure to succeed brought on by their family.  They may be otherwise good students who've hit some kind of snag and cheated out of desperation.

- if they are international students from China on student visas, they tend to cheat out of routine, either by assuming it's okay, or brazenly believing they won't be held accountable.

All of this became enough of a problem that the university made some changes to help mitigate issues.  For the folks pressured by family, they now do the disciplinary hearing without a family member present.  Apparently they admit to cheating in the hearing if they are there on their own, but with a family member present they're more likely to lie, which results in far more severe outcomes.  So by taking the family out of the equation, the student gets a chance to admit to the offense and take corrective action without their family knowing or adding even more pressure.

And now all international students at the university get a very specific, detailed block of instruction on unacceptable academic behavior as part of their orientation.

"
todayilearned,"IT - Computer Systems Analyst

Only needs a 2 year diploma, I went to an accelerated 1 year program (no breaks) to gain a 2 year diploma. Customs officer says that 2 years means spending minimum 2 years in class

Might have just been the wrong guy on the wrong day. CBP officers are a mixed bag sometimes.

Working with an immigration lawyer since last week to see if I can get my diploma recognized as a 2 year equivalent. If that goes through, then I can try to apply again directly through USCIS instead of at a crossing (ie. the slow way)

No need for pity, just wanted to give a great example of an instance where you need that educational paper over years of experience and expertise. "
todayilearned,"Why does a critique of a college professor and anthropologist need to be peer-reviewed? The author makes observations about Boas' history according to Boas' own accounts and writings, observations anybody can make. When you make observations about things do you say nothing unless you have a group of scientists to confer with first? It's not that you're not taking me seriously, you're being intentionally ignorant of facts presented to you because you don't want to be antisemitic, doesn't sound like you're a very objective or rational individual. May I ask what you studied at college?"
todayilearned,"The is a difference between managing expectations of non-technical staff vs. working with incompetent/lazy technical staff. 

If they aren't doing their work, the teacher has a responsibility to count that against them. Allowing them to pass when you know they didn't do the required work is a textbook example of unethical behavior. It devalues the grades/degrees earned by everyone else and puts unqualified engineers out into the field. 

It's just bad all around. "
todayilearned,"I report them all and... really nothing happens to any of them. I had a student on his fifth j-board review for cheating and the judicial board decided that having a file named ""NameYouOwnme40.docx"" was not proof that someone else wrote this document that did not sound like any of his other assignments. And then the student cans you on your teaching evals which is, here, the only way our teaching is evaluated. Lots of professors who are adjuncts or don't have tenure yet honestly fear that reprisal because it could negatively effect their employment. "
todayilearned,"the tourist issue is extremely public and visible. so it's higher impact. they also didnt need some crazy law to fix it. they just issued a manual. meanwhile, the fake phd thing is a small one. most people don't even know about it and it isnt always true neither. you are just a couple guys saying it. if it was that well known, chinese phds wouldnt even be able to get jobs in america but that's not what's happening. also, in order to fix the fake phd issue, they would need sweeping changes to their academic system and society as a whole that is probably impossible to implement at this point. all for what? so some whites can hire phds on the cheap? right like they're going to do that."
todayilearned,"That makes total sense. Like you were getting at, the entire syntax was just totally wrong which made it more or less unintelligible on a basic level. I could see her translating the words and verb tenses but not redoing the entire sentence to have the correct syntax. She also completely failed to put in pronouns and plurals, which from my understanding aren't really big in Chinese.

I remember sitting down with her, reading a sentence out loud and asking her what it even meant. And she was able to tell me what she actually meant by it quite fluidly."
todayilearned,"I don't have to be rational or serious when my goal is to waste an anti-Semite's time. 

Boas' whole thing was about showing that culture is the main influence on how you think and react to the world. Apparently, your culture says it's right and true to blame Jews for things and that it's right to twist facts to fit that agenda. Antisemitism and thoughts like yours killed half my family, so my culture dictates an immediate thought of ""fuck you"" to anyone who uses slurs like that."
todayilearned,"> scarily, they regularly do the same for drivers licenses. if they fail, if they fail, they just they send someone who looks enough like them to take the test.

It may be hard to imagine for you, but Asians can actually differentiate from eachother. Not all Asians look the same. This sounds like complete bullshit. 

> the bad Asian driver trope starts to make more sense.

And do you know who get most of the ''bad asian driver'' shit? Asian-Americans who are born in America and get the same driving lessons and exams as anyone else. The bad Asian driver trope doesn't make sense because it's not just applied to Chinese immigrants but to all members of the Asian race. It's racist. 

> I dated a girl for a couple years who moved here from China as a teenager. she was naturalized but still ingrained in the immigrant circles.

The typical redditor ''i dated an asian girl so let me explain to you how asians and asian culture works'' response. 

"
todayilearned,"It might not be a problem now, but if the issue keeps growing, they'll eventually end up with a ruined reputation in these matters. But as someone said, this is a sign of authoritarian rule. They care more about apperance and substance. The potential impact will be felt in the future, but they're more worried about handing out as many PhDs as they can so they can be at the top of the ""number of PhDs"" ranking. Because looking good now is more important than long term reputation. 

You're right that authoritarians only care about apperances, but I'm just saying that it's strange, given how keen they are on maintaining their international reputation, that they're not long sighted enough to prevent this from happening. "
todayilearned,"6-month classes, and they can call themselves ""programmers"". No...programmers don't call their variables ""MyDT"".

I'll never forgive my company for farming out our entire import system to one of those code factories in India. Full of MyProgrammers. I begged. I told them I'd rewrite the framework for free, just need to borrow an intern to help bang out the templates. It was a VB6 to .NET conversion, and a database overhaul. Super-easy. Nope. They insisted it would be cheaper than doing it in-house. That was 6 years ago, and we *still* suffer with it, and no one is willing to change it because it managed to get copy/pasted across 6x the number of plug-ins that were originally present."
todayilearned,"So this one anecdote made you bold enough to literally say ''they regularly send another person for driving tests'' about a population of nearly 2 billion people. 

That just sounds like one particular person who is bad at driving, and the other person who took her place obviously was able to drive. I know white friends that literally had to do their exam like 5 times, I am not going to use their shortcomings to imply that all are bad at driving or that, if my friends cheated, that white people regularly let another white person take their driving exams. 

I see people here on reddit making the most bold assumptions about Asian people (incredibly diverse population with different norms and values) because they know or dated 1 random Asian person. Wtf. 

I know literally hundreds of white people and dozens of black people personally, and even I have never used my experiences with those individuals to judge their whole racial groups. 

edit: its a funny anecdote, but you can leave the judgement of all asian people aside next time"
todayilearned,"Thanks for letting me actually see the book.

Well Kevin MacDonald is someone that the Southern Poverty Law Center has called, ""the neo-Nazi movement's favorite academic."" So that's not a great start. He has has a book in that series with a foreword by Sam Francis. You know he was a well-known racist, bigot, and anti-Semite, right? I'm sure this book will not be biased in any way.

Hmm, guess not. Every review I can find of this book from reputable reviewers, and not random people on Amazon, says it distorts facts to bring on a false conclusion. That it's bunk science. 

So what i'm saying is, find a better source. "
todayilearned,"They don't need evidence because what they're saying is simply common knowledge. What you're saying requires evidence because it goes against what everyone already knows.

>China has stood out in another, less boastful way. Since 2012, the country has retracted more scientific papers because of faked peer reviews than all other countries and territories put together, according to Retraction Watch, a blog that tracks and seeks to publicize retractions of research papers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/13/world/asia/china-science-fraud-scandals.html

"
todayilearned,"I will say this... There is cheating among the international students who take the GMAT to get into MBA programs. They have various forums among the Chinese community that basically give out the answers to some of the questions to the test (assuming you take the test within a certain time frame to ensure the questions haven't changed). Not to discredit any of the students who studied for it, but they do have those outlets to help them get a few extra points or more on tests like these. "
todayilearned,"I get it that you're invested here and want to push back on anything negative, but you seem to be missing the point.  her friend wasn't an amusing anecdote because she did this. it was amusing because she tried at all instead of just paying for a license from an already well established group of people who do this service and especially so because she tried multiple times before ""giving in and just paying for a license like everyone else""

more specifically this was Chinatown in NYC.  I can't speak specifically for other areas.  "
todayilearned,"Funny how you're relying on academics who I've told you are Jewish and/or serving a Jewish agenda to dictate the reliability of a source, rather than reading it for yourself. I can't provide a satisfactory source if my stance is antisemitic and thus wrong by default, can you not see how this is a logical fallacy? You're prejudging my evidence based on a broad term used to shut down any criticism of Jews, talk about biased "
todayilearned,"*White Americans are xenophobic and thus suck at basic geography. Closed Mindedness plus Faux News viewership usually leads to a distortion of world views. Fear mongering is easier to do when groups of 'others' (non-whites) can be easily categorized and catalogued. So they have no need or want to differentiate minorities.        
 Thus:     

•Africa is a country that every black/dark person is from    
 
•Latin America/South America/ Spanish speaking= Mexican    
     
•Middle East/Muslim/Head Turban= Terrorist (can be substituted with any buzz word country from the region, they're all the same)    
   
•All asians are Chinese    
   
•All Indians are Red Dot or Woo Woo    
   

FTFY"
todayilearned,"Not saying distrust a scientific article with a  Chinese name, I'm saying distrust the article because it came from a Chinese institution. I responded to the ""bigot"" comment who was responding to the ""great deal of trouble for using Chinese research paper"". CHINESE research papers. Not research papers with Chinese authors, but research papers specifically put out by people in China. Plenty of great American, Canadian, etc, researchers and scientists who hail from China, have Chinese backgrounds and/or have ethnic Chinese names. Didn't ask OP to do anything about it. Said it was a Chinese problem that the Chinese need to deal with. The Peoples Republic of China State Council aren't exactly known for listening to their own people, I wouldn't expect them to listen to foreigners. 

And how dare you! I would never discriminate against a red shirt. Red shirts are nutt fondlers and highly revered in my culture! "
todayilearned,"You're doing a good job of warping what i've been saying. 


The only source you've provided isn't a valid criticism. It's a biased work from someone with anti-semitic ties. Of course the resulting work creates a negative connotation of Jews. That's what bias does. It distorts truth and facts. 

If you want to change my mind, show me sources from someone who a) isn't Jewish. and b) isn't anti-Semitic and does not have ties with anti-Semitic groups such as the Occidental Observer or the Council of Conservative Citizens. 

I wouldn't send articles to you from 
Mother Jones, likewise you shouldn't send things to me from Breitbart. Because both are heavily biased.  

Neutral sources without bias are where the actual characterization of facts come from. Until you can do that, all you're spouting is Fake News. "
todayilearned,"Using Google as major resource in the field is something heavily instilled into us in the Networking field, but they also heavily instill into us how it works, critical thinking skills, and proper troubleshooting.

Cheating is cheating, and Google will only get you so far if you rely on it solely. Sitting there using Google every time an issue pops up or you have to do some is entirely inefficient and will lead to issues due to only knowing the bits and pieces you get from a search."
todayilearned,"If you honestly think “it’s common knowledge therefor proof is unnecessary and all counter-evidence must be wrong”, you might as well join the ranks of Reddit pseudo-scientists you are working so hard to be a part of.

Same article by the way:

> Over all, experts say, there are signs that the academic environment in China is improving. Plagiarism appears to be in decline thanks to new detection tools, and Chinese-born researchers returning from universities overseas have brought back best practices, helping to raise ethical standards."
todayilearned,"I have college professors in political science that will also explain that I was the best student they had and to one law professor who happens to be extremely successful in my state said that I wrote the best court analysis he's ever received from a student.

I'm sorry your tiny ego is so bothered by a regular and normal occurrence in school that apparently didn't happen to you since you had teachers who were as backwards as you were and didn't get you interested enough to work hard and learn as well as I did.

I didn't say that to brag initially, I wanted to say that test scores mean piss all, but since you babies stuck in the 50s can't grow up and learn new methods of teaching or say that anti common core autism like ""well I learned that way and it worked for me,"" I guess I'm forced to defend what shouldn't have even been the key part of my statement.


"
todayilearned,"Not from china or chinese, just wanted to share what I personally saw in a similar (Vietnam) culture. I just went to take a scooter driver's license test recently, and saw at least 3 people who didn't even pretend to put any effort into the driving part of the test and yet they passed with flying colors. It's not like everybody do it, most don't but the option of just bribing for your driver's license is definitely there and VERY accessible, like asking the test officer guy out for coffee/lunch or just slipping him 50$ when it's your turn."
todayilearned,"Retracted articles are (as far as I am aware) published first. If it isn't published, then there isn't a way for it to be peer reviewed and replicated, which leads to findings such as fraud. 

As a reminder, the study that claimed there was a link between vaccines and autism was a published paper in a reputable journal. 

If you ever go to cite a paper that is based upon a study, do so with caution if you cannot find replications, and honestly just not at all if it isn't peer reviewed. Peer review doesn't guarantee however that the study is not fraudulent, others could review it that are aware of the fraud, and benefit from it. 

Another thing is studies may not be asking all the right questions, things that appear to be sound, may later be found out to be incorrect, not through fraudulence, but simply due to understanding and the questions being asked. "
todayilearned,"I feel like the ""bad Asian driver"" stereotype originates more with first generation immigrants. The attitude towards driving is very different and much more laissez-faire in other countries, especially in Asia (or many parts of the Middle East). Things like stoplights, road lines, et cetera aren't enforced - there's really no way to get around other than to just go and force yourself into traffic. 

This attitude where you just force your way into traffic is how they were taught. Their entire lives that's how they've driven because otherwise they'd never get anywhere at all. Good driving strategies there come off as terrible and dangerous when they try to adapt to US American roadways. "
todayilearned,"Yeah I can. It’s really not that hard. Language and dialect would be a dead giveaway in discerning the difference between the 5. Chinese, Korean and Japanese are not that similar that they are easily confused. There are significant cultural differences between the ‘Asians’ that make them easily discernible if you have a modicum of intelligence and can look past Asian. And while the same is largely true of the Brit, Australian and the American; due to the fact that all three are crown colonies there naturally going to be homogeneous when it comes to identity. You can call all three White or European and they would be fine with it. The converse would not be true for those of the Asian continent. You "
todayilearned,"You're a racist idiot, and I'm not surprised you're an American.  Rah-rah USA morons like yourself are what's destroying your country.  
Reality is that America has long ceased to be a force for good. In this century America has invaded more countries, started more wars and killed more civilians than any other nation on this earth - and this includes Russia under Putin.

The Mid-East is littered with graves of innocent men, women and children blown up by bombs from 30,000 feet. Dropped from American planes.

How many countries did China bomb last year?  "
todayilearned,"And pile on the human rights violations, not just in the monitoring of its citizens and jailing of political dissenters, but also the literal muslim concentration camps that Xi Jinping has going. Not to mention that good ol' pooh bear Xi got the republic to remove term limits, thus setting himself up for a mao-esque lifetime totalitarian regime. China is looking to be a pretty dangerous entity moving forward, especially with trump reducing America's trading relationship with the rest of the world thus enabling China to swoop in as the next best thing."
todayilearned,"  That sounds like a massive flaw in the system that desperately needs to be fixed, and is in no way your fault.  Non tenured professors are unfairly vulnerable to dirty, no good, cheating bastard students.  There REALLY needs to be a new movement in academia in America lead and supported by administration from k-PHD that cheating will not be tolerated. The penalties should be harsh for even first time cheats, as some one willing to cheat is almost certainly not a first time cheater. From K-6 it should be repeating the class, and a maker on their record as a known cheat. For 7-12 it should be a repeat of the entire year, and also the cheaters mark.  Finally for college and higher level education - it should be expulsion from the school with no refund, and loss of all credits earned at the institution where they were caught cheating.  For foreign students it should be the above plus immediate deportation.  These cheats make the hard work and actual learning of those of us who actually try worth much less both in academia and in the job market. They are a plague and are obvious to those who actually learned when we were in school who run into them. They don't know what they are doing, and the tend to fuck things up that have to be fixed by legitimately educated people then have to fix wasting valuable time, and thus money every where they go.  It has gotten so bad that you literally can ABSOLUTELY NOT trust the degrees of any one from China, India for most STEM fields. Foreign students who usually have to have completely fluent English speaking, reading, and writing skills to attend school in the west.  These many examples where ones caught with there bullshit cheating and feign ignorance in that they cant understand English should be expelled on that alone, as they lied or cheated to get into the school in the first place.  They should have surprise, random English language tests administered in a no electronics, heavily monitored environment in the west, before admission so as not to waste any ones time with the first rule, that they be able to speak English.  This activity is bad for, and grossly unfair to every honest student in the western world who is seeking higher education, and who has what could be their slot filled by a non eligible Eastern ""student"". I use student loosely, as people doing this are not there to actually learn, but game a corrupt system back home, that we should not under any circumstances be aiding."
todayilearned,"I had to go to a mandatory safety training. Now, some of this stuff we'll never deal with, but it was interesting. These two Chinese girls came into the classroom and one was *on her cell phone* talking to someone! *Inside* the class room. At work. Like it was nothing. The teacher was waiting to start the class and she was jabbering away.
Finally the class started and it was 100% clear they didn't understand a word. Fell asleep in class, but not required to stay after or do it again. Not cool. They need to know what the hazards are and if nothing else, understand our culture."
todayilearned,"I'm thinking this is because 'Creativity' isn't as highly valued and rewarded and consequently all effort is on rote learning. This could be a wider issue indicative of learners from nations of higher population. The positions:competition ratio being high, those vying for the 'prize' tend to take the easiest (which might mean lesser effort) route.

A significant %age of people that are able to prove themselves and do make it, seem to thrive in the environment created by the universities and move on to achieve fulfilling careers once they have been tested in the 'crucible', so to speak."
todayilearned,"难道你人字不多吗？

Honestly, I'm not sure which is funnier. 

The fact that you extol the greatness of the Chinese education system for it's lack of PC-craziness, when in fact the politicization and censorship is so heavy in China that a film about Winnie-the-Pooh was banned?

Or that fact that when your groundless, faux-patriotic bullshit was thrown back in your face you retreated into the very same ""but.. but, racism!"" PC-isms you claim to hate."
todayilearned,"Just because someone is linked with groups that are outspoken against Jewish usary doesn't mean it isn't objective, afaik McDonald is largely apolitical and doesn't really involve himself in right wing groups except to do speeches about his books. If somebody is smart enough to be aware of Jewish usary though the chances are they will have antisemitic leanings, so it's impossible to win. People who are ""unbiased"" and neutral politically are too scared to speak about Jews, it's not worth it for them. Maybe I'd have more respect for you if you at least read the book and then decided if it is biased or not. From what I can tell it is just observations about things that are known to have happened as they are taken from Boas' own writings "
todayilearned,"i tried explaining this to a chinese friend of mine that i met through university, he was the only chinese student i spoke too that you could have a natural flowing conversation with without having to resort to google translate or dumbing down your vocabulary to the ut most basic words you could think of

anyway, after i explained that thing to him he said ""why dont we just carry her for these projects, she passes then goes back home with her degree, gets married to some rich guy and never has to use it, its fine, *she wont be applying it in real life*"""
todayilearned,"i reported one student for cheating directly to the course co-ordinator

why?

""she"" wrote a multi page paper on her part of a group project for coca cola with above average english, proper grammar and correct references.

the paper was meant to be on coca cola *amatil* which is the oceanic section of coca cola, when told to redo it all since the metrics are different, she was basically forced to do it in class with everyone around her.

the new paper was half a page long, riddled with spelling and grammatical errors *and she used the front page of wikipedia as her only reference*

Yes, i mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

This page was her reference.

when asked about it ""i dont know why we cant just use wikipedia for our references""

this is a *final year finance student*

that combined with the fact that shes at least an hour late to every class (no its not transport, she comes in with designer clothes bags hanging off her arms) and when the teacher would ask her a very basic question she gives em deer in headlights look and a whole load of ""uuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhh"" made me think theres something fucky going on, so i spoke to the teacher privately and he said ""provide some evidence and ill look into it personally""

so i did.


Her final contribution to a group project spanning a good 20 pages with included multiple facets of the course and required a whole load of jargon knowledge to complete?

The opening introduction paragraph.
"
todayilearned,"How hard is it to understand that it is a conscious choice to move one's eyes left or right in order to peek at someone one on either side of you? All it takes to *not* do so is another, easy to make conscious choice, merely choose to keep your eyes on your own work. You act like you have no control over your eyes, rather they constantly shift back and forth and burden you with the reality that you are forced to cheat merely because you lack self control and therefore clearly everyone is like you because you've spent your entire life ingrained into this thinking that cheating is the only way to get ahead. It's not. Although I do understand that you have discarded your own argument by this point and your motivation has shifted to trolling, because of whatever vindication or fear of being inadequate controls you id. Perhaps that's also why you're so supportive of cheating."
todayilearned,"I'm not driving while taking a test. I'm sitting in a room where nothing is coming at me. Obviously I do not have to rely on my peripheral vision in that scenario.

Noticing light or movement in my peripheral vision while driving is not cheating. It's part of driving. Roving eyes are not necessary for a test unless that is a test based on observation.

I do not think that you are capable of reading something that is 90 degrees from you, especially pencil marks on someone's paper, especially when they are in a row and you wouldn't be able to read which number those cells go to. You might as well be cherry picking.

The human vision is substantially poorer along the edges of our visual cone, we cannot focus on something within our peripheral vision unless we move our eyes to focus on it. Our ability to detect color is greatly reduced, however black/white contrast, such as dull lights, do stand out more. There are more cone cells in the center of the eye, which detector color, than anywhere else. All around that rod cells make up the majority, which detect value from black to white. I know this, because I lead night walks professionally and actually talk about human vision. It's actual science, not speculation you're desperately grasping at to form your argument. So you can accuse me of being stupid or whatever low balling ad hominem you like in attempt to somehow come out on top of all this but the facts are not on your side.

>You've essentially told me you're incapable of processing information

Processing information =/= choosing to disregard the possibility of information on either side of you. You however, in order to spin your argument, have tried to use my comments about *choosing* not to look as *incapable* of looking. That's either due your lack of reading comprehension or grasping at straws to maintain any weight in this discussion.

Facts are how the worlds work, not the generalizations like the one you used with your ""I cheat ergo everyone cheats"" statement. Clearly, despite my slow and stupid arbitrary morality, I have been successful.

​

​

​

​

​"
todayilearned,"The way it works at most universities is that the endowment is not to be spent - it is only invested for the benefit of the school. The school's budget comes from dividends/distributions from those investments as well as donations. Schools almost always do not have the extra budget to do massive stadium renovations/building projects - in fact, most have policies that directly prohibit using >x% of funds for building projects like a football stadium. Thus, many schools have to solicit donations that are earmarked for very specific uses and projects. Both my current school, a large private school, and my past school, a large public research university, used policies like these. "
todayilearned,"It's really not just foreign students though--minus the fashion (which is a BIG DEAL in China)--I've seen all that fuckery from American students too, all of whom try to turn it around and blame me and have the language skills to do so. 

When I teach in China over the summer the school there backs me up actually quite frighteningly on cheating cases, so it's not ALWAYS the case that their schools don't care. I do know those students are still enrolled though and are just being allowed to retake the class again and again... :/ But at least they aren't passed on like here...."
todayilearned,"> What - exactly - is racist about accepting that different cultures have different values and giving people who have come from a different culture a quick ""welcome to Canada, here's a few things that might be different to what you're used to"" heads up?

I don't think it is racist but a large part of american's do think it's racist. There is a lot of white guilt in america and this is one of the ways it rears its ugly head."
todayilearned,"We agree, my dear. When the core values are to appear virtuous and survive at all costs there isn't a behavior that would surprise me in the universities. 
In corporate environments, management dictates how poorly you are treated, but there is a whole legal mill designed to sue them and HR exists in order to foil law suits. The universities are vulnerable to being sued for their double standards and chicanery, I believe."
todayilearned,"A friend of mine once worked in a research lab with some international students, i think they were from india, rather than east asia. He made some backhanded joke, and it got reported by them. Apparently it was taken to such an extreme that he was put on probation and temporarily locked out of the research lab.

This put problems on his finishing his grad school project, so the compromise was that he would have access when they weren't there (after-hours basically)"
todayilearned,"This reminds me of a professor who also worked in our machine shop. He was definitely a character, regardless, he was always skeptical of chinese grad students, especially when using a mill/lathe, primarily because they never had any practical experience working with tool, hardware, etc.

We have a universal rule for using the lathe:
* the key always stays in your hand.

This is the key to secure your metal in the lathe. There is a very important reason for this. One of the said grad students forgot the key in the lathe, and turned the damn thing on. It went flying.

Keep in mind, this is a 2+ lb SOLID STEEL metal key, being turned by a machine with an insanely powerful motor. The key went through a wall... Luckily no one was hurt, but holy fuck, if you get hit, it'll be a miracle if you aren't brain dead."
todayilearned,"They're 72% from par. As a percapita basis, they're only 14% of the US. For this reason, it's the Chinese who will suffer. 

Their people won't be able to manage when PPP becomes tandem domestically. Then you have a society who can't critically think, problem solve and now they're losing the trade game, with massive tariffs and their economy now in the shitter because of it. When the trade renegotiations are managed, you'll see them fall into line and it couldn't have come soon enough. 

You'll see what I mean next Summer. I suggest you save this message and I can explain the details if you want. "
todayilearned,"I honestly have gone from so mad at someone for a very real slight to totally happy because they fed me. I remember picking up my sister’s then-boyfriend from work once, and his ass was just dawdling talking to his buddies for *45 minutes* while I sat in my car waiting for him. This was an impromptu “oh crap his car won’t start and his GF is at work” situation that dragged me away right as my dad was ordering pizza. I was so angry and hungry 😂 And when he finally showed up, I was about to bite his head off, and he presented me with a cupcake... And we were cool again, lol. Now I hate his guts for unrelated reasons that even cupcakes cannot assuage..."
todayilearned,"Mike Rowe of Dirty Jobs fame wrote this yesterday. """"We're Going to Do Something.""

You’ve been very quiet about the Kaepernick PR disaster at Nike. Any thoughts? - Sam Wilder

Hi Sam. Nike's free to celebrate whomever they wish, and Kaepernick is entitled to his opinion - kneeling, standing, or lying down. But if I was going to put someone's face on a billboard - someone who epitomized bravery and sacrifice - I might have gone another way, especially this time of year. I might have gone with this guy - Tom Burnett. 

Tom's last act on earth was one of the most courageous things imaginable. And his last words to his wife, Deena, are among the most inspiring I've ever heard. Those exact words are at the top of this page, and the bottom. They were spoken seventeen years ago, under conditions I hope to never experience. I'll never forget Tom's last words. I hope you won't either.

Transcript of Tom's Last Calls to Deena

6:27 a.m.( pacific time) First cell phone call from Tom to Deena 

Deena: Hello
Tom: Deena
Deena: Tom, are you O.K.?
Tom: No, I’m not. I’m on an airplane that has been hijacked. 
Deena: Hijacked?
Tom: Yes, They just knifed a guy.
Deena: A passenger? 
Tom: Yes.
Deena: Where are you? Are you in the air?
Tom: Yes, yes, just listen. Our airplane has been hijacked. It’s United Flight 93 from Newark to San Francisco. We are in the air. The hijackers have already knifed a guy, one of them has a gun, they are telling us there is a bomb on board, please call the authorities. He hung up.

6:31 Deena calls 911
6:34 The phone rang in on call waiting, Tom’s second cell phone call.

Deena: Hello
Tom: They’re in the cockpit. The guy they knifed is dead.
Deena: He’s dead?
Tom: Yes. I tried to help him, but I couldn’t get a pulse.
Deena: Tom, they are hijacking planes all up and down the east coast. They are taking them and hitting designated targets. They’ve already hit both towers of the World Trade Center.
Tom: They’re talking about crashing this plane. (a pause) Oh my God. It’s a suicide mission…(he then tells people sitting around him)
Deena: Who are you talking to?
Tom: My seatmate. Do you know which airline is involved?
Deena: No, they don’t know if they’re commercial airlines or not. The newsreporters are speculating cargo planes, private planes and commercial. No one knows.
Tom: How many planes are there?
Deena: They’re not sure, at least three. Maybe more.
Tom: O.K….O.K….Do you know who is involved?
Deena: No.
Tom: We’re turning back toward New York. We’re going back to the World Trade Center. No, wait, we’re turning back the other way. We’re going south.
Deena: What do you see?
Tom: Just a minute, I’m looking. I don’t see anything, we’re over a rural area. It’s just fields. I’ve gotta go. 

6:45 a.m. Third cell phone call from Tom to Deena

Tom: Deena
Deena: Tom, you’re O.K. (I thought at this point he had just survived the Pentagon plane crash).
Tom: No, I’m not.
Deena: They just hit the Pentagon.
Tom: (tells people sitting around him “They just hit the Pentagon.”)
Tom: O.K….O.K. What else can you tell me?
Deena: They think five airplanes have been hijacked. One is still on the ground. They believe all of them are commercial planes. I haven’t heard them say which airline, but all of them have originated on the east coast. 
Tom: Do you know who is involved?
Deena: No
Tom: What is the probability of their having a bomb on board? I don’t think they have one. I think they’re just telling us that for crowd control.
Deena: A plane can survive a bomb if it’s in the right place.
Tom: Did you call the authorities?
Deena: Yes, they didn’t know anything about your plane. 
Tom: They’re talking about crashing this plane into the ground. We have to do something. I’m putting a plan together.
Deena: Who’s helping you?
Tom: Different people. Several people. There’s a group of us. Don’t worry. I’ll call you back.

6:54 a.m. Fourth cell phone call to Tom to Deena

Deena: Tom?
Tom: Hi. Anything new?
Deena: No
Tom: Where are the kids?
Deena: They’re fine. They’re sitting at the table having breakfast. They’re asking to talk to you.
Tom: Tell them I’ll talk to them later.
Deena: I called your parents. They know your plane has been hijacked. 
Tom: Oh…you shouldn’t have worried them. How are they doing?
Deena: They’re O.K.. Mary and Martha are with them.
Tom: Good. 

(a long quiet pause) 

Tom: We’re waiting until we’re over a rural area. We’re going to take back the airplane.
Deena: No! Sit down, be still, be quiet, and don’t draw attention to yourself! (The exact words taught to me by Delta Airlines Flight Attendant Training).
Tom: Deena! If they’re going to crash this plane into the ground, we’re going to have do something!
Deena: What about the authorities?
Tom: We can’t wait for the authorities. I don’t know what they could do anyway.
It’s up to us. I think we can do it.
Deena: What do you want me to do?
Tom: Pray, Deena, just pray.

(after a long pause) 

Deena: I love you.
Tom: Don’t worry, we’re going to do something..."""
todayilearned,"Nope.

> Although US military forces had been alerted about the hijackings, and two Air Force F-16 jet fighters were airborne in the area, no official authorization to shoot down Flight 93 was given until the aircraft had crashed. (The question as to whether the 757 would have reached its target had those aboard not taken action on their own remained disturbingly unanswered in the report issued by a federal commission established to investigate the terrorist attack.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93"
todayilearned,"> Hi Sam. Nike's free to celebrate whomever they wish, and Kaepernick is entitled to his opinion - kneeling, standing, or lying down. But if I was going to put someone's face on a billboard - someone who epitomized bravery and sacrifice - I might have gone another way, especially this time of year. I might have gone with this guy - Tom Burnett.

I don't think your quote is accurate "
todayilearned,"I'd just like to comment randomly, and I expect downvotes, but...

I can't say ""all Jews are cheap"", because that's absurd. But I live in a hugely Jewish suburb that is very very upper-upper-middle class, and I've never seen so much rude behavior, usually related to money or people working simple jobs, on a day-to-day basis.

I've met plenty of people around here that are gracious and kind in many situations too, but I've had so many days where I go to the gas station or the coffee shop or the grocery or corner store and a middle aged man or women is making terribly rude comments to someone. I've heard a man tell a barista at Starbucks ""If you're going to charge me $6 for a drink you could at least wear a little makeup."" with what looked like his granddaughters with him.

There's a Jewish deli here that's fantastic, but the people who come in to wait in line think that it works on an age-based system or something. They will literally walk in, look you in the eye, and if you're younger, just butt in front of you. I've asked an employee before and they don't care.

My point isn't to defend comments regarding all Jews being one way or another. Just that it's not exactly surprising finding out Jerry Seinfeld is kind of a prick about his money and in general given it doesn't seem to be an uncommon attitude among families like his.

Maybe it has far more to do with the money than the culture, but either way, it's not surprising to me."
todayilearned,"Personally I thought both Kramer and Elaine were nothing but grounders. Both could be replaced with someone whose sole purpose was to ground Jerry and make him a bit more relateable in real world situations. George was out-loud voice for ideas and opinions many people have and was the regularly relateable guy who was always screwing something up. 

But I wouldn't say that Elaine and Kramer were key in any way. You had a 'lol purple penguin' guy whose sole appeal was being an eccentric who bumbled through life and a woman who was just kinda normal compared to everyone. 

But the major key here is Jerry and Larry **created** the show. They invested their time, money and took the risk to get the show going. This is literally no different then a start-up company. You don't turn to the guy who invested $500,000 on something just to turn around and in a couple years say *""So, I work here. Can I have 5% of everything this company makes per fiscal year? kthx""*"
todayilearned,"I live about 15 minutes from Oak Ridge.  The Y-12 facility is still there, and they will shoot you if you get too close.  The American Museum of Science and Energy located in Oak Ridge has a permanent display about the founding of the town and the work that went on there.

What they don't tell you, is all the stories about mishandling of highly radioactive nuclear waste, which some former workers claiming they dumped barrels into bonds and lakes, then the military filled them full of hole with rifles so they would sink faster. None of the caches were recorded as far as anyone can tell (or will tell) and there is still a higher rate of illness in the area than the surrounding cities. 

We don't eat the fish from around here.  Deer are suspect as well.
"
todayilearned,"My grandad worked in one of the plants during the war, and my dad worked on ""Environmental Restoration"" for the government, DOE I think, near the end of the century. My understanding is that he went through old files and documents trying to find where stuff was dumped, like centrifuges, so that they could get cleaned up. So hopefully most of it got cleaned up? I'll have to ask him about it next time I see him. 



 I hope that isn't classified or something "
todayilearned,"Brigham Young was a really shitty person. Some of his 'highlights':

* Oversaw the Mountain Meadow Massacre.
* Before that he forbade anyone from selling the non-Mormon pioneers needed supplies and encouraged rumors that they were attacking Mormons.
* Coerced underaged girls into marrying him and having sex with him when he was well into middle age.
* Amassed huge wealth off the sweat and toil of early Mormon church members.
* Outrageously racist (even for his time) and incited violence towards native Americans.
* Actively endorsed flagrant lying just to promote his religion.
* Forced out other rival leaders (who were also fairly shitty people) to wrest control of the early church for his own power and prestige.
* Brought in the concept of blood atonement.

Joseph Smith was also a horrible person.

And now to sit back any wait for the down-votes from all the Mormon apologists.
"
todayilearned,"Basically, he was just as any powerful man in control of the church and power. 
We have a bunch of those in each era of our history in Europe. Most of them have monuments.
Humans are shit, unfortunately. He couldn't do all of those horrors without the help of his followers. Sad truth. 
I'm actually shocked to hear this. Always had a romanticized view of the USA and its difference compared to the ""Old World""."
todayilearned,">In Mormonism, blood atonement is a controversial doctrine that taught that some crimes are so heinous that the atonement of Jesus does not apply. Instead, to atone for these sins the perpetrators should be killed in a way that would allow their blood to be shed upon the ground as a sacrificial offering.

Wow, what kind of heinous crimes would be considered so heinous that they are not covered by Jesus' sacrifice? Pedophilia? Genocide? Genocidal pedophilia?

> Sins that Young and other members of his First Presidency mentioned as meriting blood atonement included miscegenation

Oh.
"
todayilearned,">The definition of a cult itself raises some issues. In France, there is no legal definition for cults. The Inter-Ministerial Mission for Vigilance and Combating sectarian Aberration (MIVILUDES), which is responsible for the monitoring and analysis of cult phenomena in France, prefers the use of criteria, rather than a single definition, to characterize groups (MIVILUDES, 2015). Some common elements emerge from these criteria and the definitions proposed by some authors in the literature (Chambers et al., 1994, Rodriguez-Carballeira et al., 2015). Thus, cults can be seen as an organized group or a solitary person whose purpose is to dominate cult members by using psychological manipulation and pressure strategies. Theories regarding cult commitment have evolved and developed over the past few decades (Abgrall, 1996), from those of influential stakes or psychological manipulation (Ungerleider and Wellisch, 1979) to those of addictive disorders. The latter theory was introduced by many researchers (Abgrall, 1996, Booth and Bradshaw, 1999, Roy, 1998) and has the advantage of viewing the cult member as more than a victim, contrary to the theory of psychological manipulation.

>The first step in cult commitment, the narcissistic seduction, was described by Fournier and Monroy in 1999 (Fournier and Monroy, 1999). This process has many elements: the vulnerability of the subject, group effects, the use of emotions, detachment from outside influences, progress in doctrinal teaching, promotions and the assignment of responsibilities. This process takes a long time because a total and instant commitment has a poor chance of persisting if not followed by in-depth and multidimensional work with the goal of self-reinforcement (Miviludes, 2006). The feeling of emptiness outside of the sectarian practice creates the cycle but is also its consequence (Duretete et al., 2008). Thus, the ability to balance one's life becomes impossible and members lose their ability to choose. Moreover, active involvement in the cultic group could lead to affective dependence on the cult leader or on the group, which explains why people stay despite threats to their physical and psychological integrity (Garand, 2013). The protective factors that enable a member to leave the group always seem surprising and are seldom predictable given the magnitude of the hold and the constraints of the cult.

>Taking into account the common characteristics between cult membership and addictive disorders — persistence despite negative consequences (Fournier, 2009), common neurophysiological mechanisms (Abgrall, 1996, Roy, 1998) and the scientific literature — we hypothesized that the etiopathogenic model used to explain addictive disorders might also be applicable to cult commitment. Therefore, the model of cult membership would be multifactorial, involving vulnerability and protective factors. These factors could be individual, environmental and/or linked to the characteristics of the addiction object, that is, the cultic group. As for addictive disorders, we suppose that vulnerability factors could be involved during the initiation and the maintenance of cult commitment, and that protective factors could help to stop cult involvement.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165178116319941

"
todayilearned,"So what? As I said, scientists use a certain set of criteria to define cults to separate them from the relatively benign.

Furthermore, when the person I was responding to used the word, they didn't use it to point out that it's a group that venerates a diety. They meant to associate the Mormon church with the crazy level of devotion, submission, and abuse that characterize cults as characterized in the study I quoted. Whereupon I pointed out it's no longer considered to be that kind of a cult."
todayilearned,"these are complex political events.  Mormonism was literally outlawed, and mormons chased out west.  

i'm not saying it's justified.  I'm saying it's understandable.  It's like slapping a dog, and then the dog bites you, and you say ""It's not justified!""  maybe, but who doesn't expect to get bite by a dog they are harassing?  people are animals, as much as we want to believe otherwise.  we react to violence with violence.  it's written in our very genes."
todayilearned,"germany and most of europe also just suffered the most horrible war in human history. those young men in their 20s were in their 40s, in charge of the world stage. 

violence begets violence. the holocaust wasn't a logical event. it was purely emotions and animalistic. the ""other"" members were deemed a threat to the german ""pack"". and those that experienced WWI blamed whoever it was hip to blame at the time. 

it certainly was no a religious affair. "
todayilearned,"yep, lets ignore that hitler and the nazis repeatedly said, taught, and defended the idea that jews were foreign (even if they weren't) and inferior genetically (even though german jews had almost
identical gene patterns as other germans) , the fact that christian slavs and gypsies were also
targeted for the holocaust, the fact that germany and almost all of europe had been secular govenrments for decades, and the nazis praised nietzsche constantly who said ""God is dead"" 

keep grasping at straws. "
todayilearned,"Also, McDs uses a different recipe of Coke.  Supposedly it’s an older formula that tastes way better.  I gotta say, their coke is the best that I’ve had. 

Edit - not a different formula from what I was reading, but coke delivers the product in stainless steel containers that better preserve all that goodness.  Combined with a few other scientifically discovered things, it just makes it better there. 

Edit2 - everything I read was was a lie, and apparently not true in the slightest.  The internet was a mistake. "
todayilearned,"Actually- this used to be true for me too, however my local Burger King has stepped it up and have better Coke now than McDs. 

While we’re on the topic- Wendy’s used to have the better chicken pieces and now McDs has the best hands down. Those buttermilk chicken crispers are the shit.

And to twist it all up- Wendy’s has the best fries 🍟 which I think many would agree McDs used to. 




"
todayilearned,"Yea it's not a different formula, or else it wouldn't be coke.

You mentioned the stainless steel which is pretty much correct (iirc it's only to corporate stores, which franchisees have the option most opt for the same cardboard Beverage in Box as every other Coke product). They also mix it a bit different than most places. The ratio of syrup to carbonated water is heavier in McDonalds than other restaurants which makes it a bit sweeter, and its exclusive to McDonalds standards."
todayilearned,"It’s also due to McDonald’s really strict adherence to Coca Cola serving guidelines.  Temperature of the water, level of carbonation, etc.  many franchises are graded on their adherence to Coke’s specific standards.  That being said, McD’s are franchises, so YMMV from store to store.  There’s a WackArnold’s near me that does a shitty job and their Come tastes terrible, but that’s because they don’t clean the soda machine regularly, they probably haven’t flushed or replaced the lines since they’ve opened, so they’re one of the McDonald’s that makes you feel like you need a shower after stepping in the front door.

Edit:  it has been pointed out that iOS has autocorrected Coke into Come, making my comment very gay.  I’m leaving it for posterity, ty to all who brought this to my attention."
todayilearned,"Looking at your preferences (usually in personal format forms of coke) you may be more influenced by your senses than you think. I have copy and pasted a portion of the article regarding Coca Cola but the entirety is worth a read if you find marketing interesting. 

http://www.centreforsensorystudies.org/how-capitalism-came-to-its-senses-and-yours-the-invention-of-sensory-marketing/

""The solution lay in multiplying the sensory bases of product differentiation. This principle was hit on accidentally by the Coca-Cola Company in 1916 (if one may believe the display on this topic in the Coca-Cola Museum in Atlanta, which I had the opportunity to visit recently). At the time, Coke came in straight-sided glass bottles much like those of all the other soft drink manufacturers. The only thing that distinguished a Coke bottle from, say, a Pepsi was the paper label. These labels had the annoying tendency of peeling off when the bottle was jammed in amongst other bottles in the dispenser boxes filled with melting ice. Coke therefore held a competition to design a distinctively shaped bottle that would enable customers to identify their product even if they could not see it when they reached into the icebox. Out of this competition came what is known as the “contour bottle,” which is said to have been inspired by the curves and grooves of a cocoa bean. The inspiration may have been off (a cocoa bean rather than a cola bean – what were the designers thinking?) but the design caught on and became one of the most iconic shapes of the twentieth century. The Coca-Cola twin sphere bottle fits so snuggly in the fold of one’s hand that it is hard to resist reaching for one again and again and again. Coke patented the design, of course."""
todayilearned,Nope. It’s not so much a myth because a lot of the Mexican Coke does in fact use more “genuine” sugars (cane). And some states like in the Southwest do have it constantly available but not all glass bottled Coke is Mexican Coke. So yes it’s trendy and they’re trying to capitalize on that and produce more in glass bottles but the fact is a lot of people do prefer genuine Mexican coke that do use different sugars.
todayilearned,"It's my understanding that 90% of the time it's because the machines need to be completely disassembled to clean them and are super finicky about what they consider clean and fully assembled.  That and there is some sort of timer or something that automatically takes the machine out of service for cleaning regardless of actual cleanliness.

All that results in machines being ""broken"" when in actuality there just isn't enough time to clean them due to a rush or the staff doesn't want to because it's tedious."
todayilearned,"It doesn’t help that those machines are really complicated. When I worked at a small town McDonalds there was exactly 2 people that knew how to clean it completely. When the store manager (not one of those 2 people,  but should know) tried to clean it once, she assembled it wrong and resulted in a huge pressure build up and ice cream mix literally exploding, sending that stuff EVERYWHERE. We were still finding little drops of dried mix days afterwards "
todayilearned,"That’s because I was mainly trying to dispute that the sugar composition isn’t just a myth because that is not the case. And I wouldn’t argue that glass isn’t a factor either. Carbonation matters but glass is flavor neutral compared to plastics. So yes, glass is important but if you had two glass bottled Cokes and one was traditional vs Mexican, the Mexican is “usually” preferred because of its sugar composition. "
todayilearned,"Dude, on iOS the come/Coke typos are real. I don’t know what it is about those words specifically. I never discuss Coke, despite using the word “come” way more frequently I’m sure. And yet I literally needed to create a keyboard shortcut to autocorrect “Coke” to “come” because it would actually take the properly typed out word “come” and replace it with “Coke” even in situations where it only made sense as “come.” Like, “Hey, you wanna Coke hang out at my place after work” kind of changes. I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of these typos are from other people who had the same issue. 

It’s so weird because 99% of the time, iOS’ autocorrect is fantastic for me. I don’t know what it is about this specific set of words. "
todayilearned,"Worked at a few (non-franchised) stores in the UK and we used to get 20 litre cardboard BIB for all syrups except Coke which was a 100 litre enormous BIB that had like a reusable plastic crate housing.

Do the steel tanks have automatic sanitation/flushing cycles? Can imagine they would be an absolutely bitch to clean otherwise and wouldn’t be that economical for McD’s to pay for the additional staff time to do so. "
todayilearned,"Yeah they had pumps that would flush and sanitize them. The 20 Litre Cardboard BIB is common for most places. Gas Stations, Other Restaurants etc.  


With the switch to the new Freestyle machines I think the Steel Tanks are going to be phased out as Coke cracks down on the taste of it. The new Freestyle machines all taste the same so i'd expect Coke has been trying to control the water filtration and such."
todayilearned,"As a former McDrone here is what goes down, at least at the stores I worked in (USA):

Depending on the size of the store there are two or three huge stainless steel vats (I don't recall the capacity). The Coca Cola is delivered directly by the supplier from the truck into the vats. IIRC it got its carbonation from a dedicated hookup, not like the other drinks.

Only the other fountain drinks came ""bag-in-box"" like most restaurants. Those are the concentrated syrup pouches that get mixed with CO2 and water before being dispensed."
todayilearned,"A *wonderful* drink. Super popular drink in northern New England, when I worked in Maine we sold more of it than Coke in some accounts. It was owned by Coca-Cola Northern New England, but TCCC just bought it from us. So we no longer will be the sole bottlers of it at the LPC. It's a dark soda almost like a Dr. Pepper/Pibb but it's based off uniquely flavored Gentian Root. You either love it or can't stand it. It's almost like an herbal black licorice but a little sweeter but not as sweet as most sodas overall. 

The 12 oz glass can be found in specialty stores across the country and sometimes found at Cracker Barrel. As the brand slogan goes, it is ""Distinctively Different."" It's an acquired taste but it's actually quite nice and smooth once you've had a couple.

If you're in to video games at all, Vim! in Fallout 4 is based on it almost completely."
todayilearned,"We found maggots at the bottom of the pan where the mix goes when I worked there. I don't mean a couple. I mean like the entire bottom of the pan was crawling with them. And we had been serving shakes all day. 

I also witnessed a cook drop a burger patty on the floor during a rush, and he laughed as he picked it up and put it right on the bun and served it up. "
todayilearned,"Because they weren’t convicted of any crimes. They were charged but still innocent in the eyes of the law. Can you imagine walking down the street, having some cops arrest you because you look like a suspect to a crime they’re investigating, and lock you up? Even if you’re fully innocent and have a full proof alibi and have mounds of evidence that will exonerate you and proof you’re not the guy they’re looking for, you’re still waiting to see the judge. And then a natural disaster happens and you’re left trapped to die in your cell."
todayilearned,"They’re both tragic, don’t get me wrong. Neither the guilty nor the innocent deserve to die this way. I guess philosophically speaking, in my mind one is more tragic than the other.

I guess I see it like this:

Prisoner A is a convicted murderer. He dies of police negligence. That’s tragic.

Prisoner B is convicted of being drunk in public. He dies of police negligence. This is tragic as well, but in my mind it’s more tragic than the first example.

I know this is not connected and it’s a stretch, but I think about it from a mathematical perspective. Take the set of natural numbers (1, 2, 3, ...) and the set of even positive integers (2, 4, 6, ...). Both sets are infinite, but the first is “larger” than the second."
todayilearned,"They’re both tragic, don’t get me wrong. Neither the guilty nor the innocent deserve to die this way. I guess philosophically speaking, in my mind one is more tragic than the other.

I guess I see it like this:

Prisoner A is a convicted murderer. He dies of police negligence. That’s tragic.

Prisoner B is convicted of being drunk in public. He dies of police negligence. This is tragic as well, but in my mind it’s more tragic than the first example.

I know this is not connected and it’s a stretch, but I think about it from a mathematical perspective. Take the set of natural numbers (1, 2, 3, ...) and the set of even positive integers (2, 4, 6, ...). Both sets are infinite, but the first is “larger” than the second."
todayilearned,"Lol pussy? I’m not crying you’re crying.  Easy to say shit on the internet that’s what’s great about it so soy boy cuck sucker,  Trump diddles little kids, people like that have no place on this planet.  I’m not even from the “left”.  I just like seeing those people who gloat about winning get fucked up.  Because that’s real pussy shit, winning then taking a victim stance and whining, so realistically you’re the one pussing out.  Crybaby bitch boi."
todayilearned,"doesn't it make more sense to call violent and bloodthirsty leftists communists? fascism has a specific meaning beyond generic political violence, which sadly occurs under almost every ideology under the sun

“The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ""something not desirable""...In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning.” 
-George Orwell"
todayilearned,"In the end, fascism is when any party gets control of government and decides that the ""bad people"" have to be gotten rid of for the benefit of the ""good people"". 

How good or bad are determined depends on what those in power say rather than any form of reality.

So, it's meaning can take on many forms but in the end, it's a party controlling government to the sole benefit of it's believers rather than the country as a whole.

Consider the current situation in America: We have the far left, the center, and the far right. The far left and the far right are smaller groups than the center group between them but for arguments sake, let's assume that each group is equal in population. That means that any single group represents only one third of the population. So, if any one of these gain control of the country, that two thirds of the country will be unhappy. To counter that, the only choice is to suppress any and all opposition at every possible turn in order to stay in power. That will inevitably mean that government forces have to be used to subdue opposition. 

In the end, it has to fail.

The only solution that can work long term is a consensus of the three positions and that means that the right, the middle, and the left have to come to compromise. 

Until our elected leaders adopt this simple fact, we will never have real stability."
todayilearned,"Bugs don’t make a game incomplete. Fallout New Vegas was super buggy on release, as are a fair amount of games these days. I never had nearly as many issues with PoGo in the beginning as people talked about online. Definitely try out the game right now if you haven’t played lately. The legendary birds are out (and 1/20 are shiny), Mewtwo is in raids on the 20th, and rare Kanto spawns are everywhere. I saw two Laprases yesterday, both Hitmons, among Chanseys and Clefairies."
todayilearned,"Don't get arsey with me you little pussyfart, you might of fucked about like that but we most certainly didn't...let me introduce you to the treachery act of 1940


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treachery_Act_1940


The first section of the Treachery Act 1940 read:

“If, with intent to help the enemy, any person does, or attempts or conspires with any other person to do any act which is designed or likely to give assistance to the naval, military or air operations of the enemy, to impede such operations of His Majesty's forces, or to endanger life, he shall be guilty of felony and shall on conviction suffer death.""

A lot were imprisoned under the treason act of 1351 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/enemy-within-the-network-of-britons-who-spied-for-hitler-during-second-world-war-9158455.html%3famp

I would imagine America did far worse considering they rounded up their own citizens of Japanese descent..."
todayilearned,"Really? Because that's not what Google has to say on the subject lol

When the attack ended shortly before 10:00 a.m., less than two hours after it began, the American forces has paid a fearful price. Twenty-one ships of the U.S. Pacific Fleet were sunk or damaged. Aircraft losses were 188 destroyed and 159 damaged, the majority hit before they had a chance to take off. There were a total of 2,403 American casualties, including 68 civilians, most of them killed by improperly fused anti-aircraft shells landing in Honolulu. There were 1,178 military and civilian wounded.

Would you like to continue? But this time with facts?"
todayilearned,"For America it was 1941 after pearl harbor.  Not sure how this is even a question considering you claimed you were going to educate me.  

There was a war already going on however the US was not at war with anyone when this rally and picture took place.  I guess you also dont comprehend the term semantics? 

Except you have clearly done nothing but misuse the term and somehow you think it is ok because you dont agree with the actual definition? Perhaps you should just stop because clearly you are not educated enough to have this debate "
todayilearned,"Again, the ""Stupid Motorist"" Law is generally not enforceable to begin with unless the driver has committed another violation in the process of getting stranded in a flood zone. If anything, it's more like something authorities can tack on as a silent ""F**k you"" for being a jerk.

I mean, if you're stupid enough to get your vehicle stuck in a flood zone, and then stupid enough to also mock law enforcement and other first responders during/following your rescue, you probably deserve every fine they can leverage at you. Just another reason why it's called a ""Stupid Motorists"" Law."
todayilearned,"I knew a first responder (firefighter turned paramedic) who was all for this law and his cop buddies happily enforced it, because often assholes doing this would endanger the first responders by refusing to leave their vehicles and other such nonsense. Other times it was parents who had endangered the lives of their young children. I think it’s fair that those behaving extremely recklessly and putting others in danger because of that recklessness are fined."
todayilearned,"I guess it depends on the cost of a rescue. Considering how expensive ambulances are I'd guess it'd be many many thousands of dollars, 50k maybe IDK. So....probably plenty.

Plus I doubt those people thought they were risking themselves if it's just 6"" of water like you guys are saying. Fuck I would have driven through that, I do all the time when we get small floods here in Georgia. If it only takes half a foot to be dangerous then it's not surprising at all that people don't know that it's dangerous. This sounds almost more like a ""fine people from out of state"" thing."
todayilearned,"It's not that it isn't enforceable (it is) it's that the Police have said they wont, so that way no one is too scared to call for help. This law is really just used as a scare tactic because in AZ, flash floods are very real and very dangerous. 

For example,  a barricade will be up closing off a road, but the guy in a jeep can see the road lines through the water, he decides that this sign only applies to low-rider caminos. While crossing the water, a huge rush of water comes and sweeps him off the road, trapping him under 5' of water that wasn't there two seconds ago. 

People still ignore signs, but it is definitely less than the amount of people who got trapped prior to the law. "
todayilearned,"I agree 100%. This is one of those things that gets everyones justice boners raging, but is \*idiotic\* if you want a modern society, and not some pay-as-you-go third world hellhole. Arizona is the last place you want to model your laws after.

It's how many people that need an ambulance don't call for one, because of the cost, but it just ends up costing everyone more money in the long run. 

​"
todayilearned,"People may not get cited for it by the police, but  public shaming is another story, at least in the Phoenix (and maybe Tucson) area(s):

If the Stupid Motorist happens to be in the Phoenix Area, then when the dispatch goes out over the radio to the first responders, the local TV Stations pick it up on the scanner and - as soon as it's safe to fly - they dispatch helicopters to film the rescue.  That footage is then aired multiple times it over the next day and a half or so, generally with commentary to the effect of ""this person is putting the lives of first responders in danger"".    And the TV stations will always find 5 minutes during a 30 minute new cast to dedicate to the stupid motorist in question.

The evening news is arguably a more effective deterrent - In one shot, the footage and commentary helps to provide a demonstration of just how dangerous flash floods are, spread awareness of the Stupid Motorist Law, , punish the person that tried to drive their hummer across the ditch, and holds up the rescue crews for the heroes that they are."
todayilearned,"The people in this thread are just 100% convinced in their own brilliance and assume they're always going to be the smart people. Until they are the ones who need help, then I'm sure they'd scream and moan about how unfair it is to distinctivise people from calling for help in life and death situations.

Buncha goddamn monsters. Sometimes I think the state of this country is exactly as it needs to be, the people are becoming selfish degenerates."
todayilearned,"I don't buy your argument.  You're saying we should use taxes to pay for idiots because it will increase overall revenue (compared to charging them).  

That's purely conjecture, and there's really no good way of substantiating your claim.  One can just as easily claim the opposite is true, that charging them creates more economic benefit to the city than not.  And between the two claims, the latter has a more direct logic to it.  Also, your claim discounts the fact that people would be more risk adverse when they know they'll have to pay for it.  "
todayilearned,"Just an anecdote. When i was 18-24 i lived in Tucson, Arizona. Those who know Tucson know that the North side of the city near the mountains have several of these washes. 

I worked in the north side at a furniture store, and the quickest way for me to get to work was by driving through one of these washes(they are paved, for those wondering, and act as normal roads 360/365 days a year).

Now i dont know if these laws are the best solution to the problem, but what I do know is that one day i drove to work and began opening the store. A few minutes later several fire engines and ambulances rushed down the road i came to work on.

Turned out, just a few minutes after i passed, a flood of water came rushing down from the mountain and washed a car down the natural canal. The woman inside drowned to death. I was just lucky enough to be 5 or 6 minutes ahead of the water.

Its funny to think that such a dry arid place could have lethal flood waters. But it does...

Edit: it was the Pima wash. Apparently two other people were killed in the same wash last month =/"
todayilearned,"We had a flood in my area a few years back and our local law enforcement refused to go rescue people who had refused to evacuate. We had enough warning (it was combo snow melt and tremendous rains upriver). The chief came out and said something to the affect if ""We told you to leave, you ignored our advice, I'm not sending my officers into harm's way because of a few people's poor planning. We'll get you when the water goes down.""

The national guard still went and saved them, and I'm sure they learned absolutely nothing from the events."
todayilearned,"The technical term is ""confirmed bachelor"" or ""strong-willed woman"" for lesbians.

___
For a bit more context. The whole ""badmouthing people with passive-aggressive euphemisms"" thing really got popularized by Hugh Massingberd, the obituary editor for the Daily Telegraph, in the 80s and 90s--he basically turned obit writing into one giant joke. It was really popular with the readers and other papers copied it.

Some other of his euphemisms:

* Convivial at all hours = drunkard

* Colourful character = completely insane

* Uncompromising ladies' man = rapist

* Generous with one's affections = adulterer

* Dedicated to one's work = neglectful of his/her family

* Committed to charity work = tax dodger/white collar criminal

* Gave colourful accounts of one's exploits = pathological liar or boaster

* Not to have upheld the highest ethical standards of the City = criminal

* Notable vivacity = nymphomaniac

* Passed away unexpectly = suicide or AIDS (it was the 1980s)"
todayilearned,"If you've ever watched Deadwood, two of the main characters are Sol Star and Seth Bullock who are based on historical figures.  Both men basically quit their lives and moved to Deadwood to start a hardware store.  Seth Bullock married, but as an obligation to his older brother who died.  (That was the tradition back then, if your older brother died and you were an unmarried younger brother, you were supposed to marry his wife and take care of his family.)  Sol Star however is mentioned in his obituary as a ""lifelong confirmed bachelor.""  Certainly paints a picture right?  But that's not all.  Bullock was also lifelong friends and personal confidant of Theodore Roosevelt.  In fact he rounded up 50 young men to wear cowboy gear and parade on horses for Roosevelt's inauguration. It was said they had many adventures on the frontier, just the two of them. Rough Riders indeed, right?

So in summation based on my tv knowledge and loose facts, Theodore Roosevelt: America's first gay president."
todayilearned,"> He may be among the worst presidents as well, as he basically decided that trying to hold the country together was too hard and didn’t do anything about it falling apart, setting the stage for the civil war. 

That's only half of it; he also pushed the Supreme Court aggressively for a sweeping decision in *Dred Scott*.  So he managed to be both ineffectual *and* have horrible politics at the same time - he was a terrible president no matter what standard you use to measure him.  There's a reason gay people are much more eager to try and argue Lincoln was gay (he almost certainly wasn't, alas.)"
todayilearned,"I've used that term to describe myself.  Not gay, although I don't really care if others think I am.  I'm just not interested in marriage.  Most married people I know don't seem that happy.  

I've been in plenty of committed monogamous relationships, all but one ended amicably.  In almost every case my ex girlfriends married within a couple of years, usually to the next person they dated.  

I used to worry about this, thinking there must be something wrong with me.  Maybe too selfish, too introverted, too afraid of commitment.  But at this point I'm cool with it.  I like my life, my family and my friends and interests keep me busy.  Plus I get time to myself when I need it.   I'm a confirmed bachelor."
todayilearned,"FDR and Eleanor were in a somewhat platonic relationship. After they had their final child, they never had sex again. Eleanor apparently knew of FDR's affair with Missy LeHand and threatened to leave him - the only reason she didn't was because those close to FDR pleaded she not because it would kill his political career. There was also a chance she'd lose her inheritance if she did. 

The Roosevelt's also knew of FDR's unfaithful nature. Alice Longsworth Roosevelt secretly facilitated FDR's affair with Lucy Mercer because she disliked Eleanor so much. "
todayilearned,"Please, please laugh. Try and understand what's going on here, realize you're inept; and blame everything else but yourself.

I'll be here, one way or another: I'll either get your half-hearted attempt to excuse yourself from your own vitriolic, hate-based rhetoric. Or, I'll get your ad-hominem attack after you've wasted hours scrolling through my post history to indeed claim that I am, in fact, a gay man. 

I've got some popcorn on; let's see where this rabbit hole leads us."
todayilearned,"Man that was hundreds of years ago. You're applying conventions from the present to the past. Not marrying and living with another guy you enjoy being around does not mean they were 'totally gay for each other'. Men are capable of existing outside of their 'raging' sexualities. Also Newton probably never found a woman because he was ugly and an antisocial jackass. Possibly thought himself above marriage and that it (and children that would come with it) would've complicated his life.

The possibility of him simply being an autistic savant that never married (due to the autism) is more likely than him being gay."
todayilearned,"Naw he was gay as fuck...

>""I am now 'solitary and alone,' having no companion in the house with me. I have gone a wooing to several gentlemen, but have not succeeded with any one of them. I feel that it is not good for man to be alone, and [I] should not be astonished to find myself married to some old maid who can nurse me when I am sick, provide good dinners for me when I am well, and not expect from me any very ardent or romantic affection.""

-James Buchanan in a letter to a friend about when his lover King went to France on business for a couple years.

Dude was clearly, undeniably gay as can be. "
todayilearned,"From the Wikipedia article: 

>A similar euphemism was ""confirmed bachelor"", which was used in the second half of the twentieth century by the satirical magazine Private Eye. Rose Wild reported in The Times in May 2016, however, that she could only find around a dozen examples of the phrase in the paper's obituaries, some of which were of a non-coded form, causing her to wonder whether the phrase existed much outside the imagination of the writers of Private Eye."
todayilearned,"All the single men

All the single men

All the single men

All the single men


Up in the grave, just tore up

I'm doing my own little dead thing

I never got to dip it and now you wanna trip it

'Cause another brother befriended me

play whist with him, he play whist with me

Don't pay that any attention

'Cause I cried my tears for three good years

Ain’t no bitch marrying me

'Cause if you liked it, then you should have let me courted it

 if you liked it, then you should have let me courted it

Don't be mad once you see that he went Dutch 

 if you liked it, then you should have let me courted it


Oh, oh, oh
"
todayilearned,"Yes, but we had plenty of words for ourselves that were in use before that. For example, we were using 'gay' for ourselves decades before that definition came into common use outside LGBT spaces. The word 'bisexual' was first used to mean attraction to men and women in the late 19th century (to pathologize us), it just wasn't used in LGBT communities until later. 

> ""Recently"" in LGBT terms would be late 90s - early 2000s

Right. I said ""more recent"" to mean ""fairly recently."" "
todayilearned,"Well gay and lesbian as I already mentioned. But then there were also subcategories to describe stuff like gender presentation and sexual roles, like how today we use twink, bear, stone butch, femme, etc. Those would be different depending on when and where you are, especially considering that communities were so localized and usually segregated in various ways. For example, butch and femme  as identities began in working class lesbian communities, but eventually expanded to all lesbian communities and other queer spaces like [ball culture.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_culture) "
todayilearned,"You're seeing this from a modern perspective where women *have rights*. Not so much in the old days, if a man wanted to marry he got married and the women just had to deal with it. Heck, it still is the truth...if a man wants to marry no matter how horrible he is, he can just buy a mail order bride from Asia or Eastern Europe (or a ""model"" as he calls it) "
todayilearned,">more likely than him being gay.

Why though? I agree that it is likely, but why would it be more likely? It's not like people weren't gay back then, and if you were gay it's likely you would act as he did. We just don't know and you can't really claim either answer is more likely without evidence. He could have been gay, he could have been asexual or he could have really wanted to get laid but just never managed. We don't know."
todayilearned,"I was going to pull up statistics on autism/savants in mathematics and the first result I looked at talked about Newton, so take that as you will.

Gallop reports gay men to be 2-3% of men, while Time reports on a study finding 3.54% percent of a population of boys were *diagnosed* inside of a 3 year measurement period. Given the assumed (at least slight) correlation to mathematical aptitude and the autism spectrum, it's a very small step to say that ""a mathematically gifted man is more likely to have been autistic than gay"", even if there isn't strong evidence to suggest a conclusive categorization one way or the other."
todayilearned,"Are you saying everyone who is autistic is likely to be a virgin their entire life? ""Unable (or unwilling, though that might cross over into asexual) to have even one romantic relationship"" is a very small subsection within that 4%.

It is absolutely possible that he was autistic. It is also possible that that is the reason why he never married or had sex. But we just don't know. I know I would be annoyed if people came along 50+ years after my death and claimed to *know* my most intimate secrets."
todayilearned,"Look I don't know what your problem is. Lavender Marriage is a term for a marriage of convenience in which one or both of the partners is homosexual. It comes from the idea that lavender is associated with gay people, it's a euphemism because lavender etymologically is a name of a flower and has nothing to do with gay people, therefore a person who didn't know the double meaning would have no idea what it meant. Likewise Gay has a traditional definition and has only recently shifted to become a euphemism for homosexual.

You may think my terminology is wrong, but what exactly is offensive about those two statements?"
todayilearned,"The Norwegian fjords are relatively longer. ~~The measurements might also include Svalbard, which is technically part of Norway, but is a treaty territory.~~ Edit: Actually, the typically cited CIA world factbook length for Norway doesn't even include Svalbard - and the Svalbard coast is only 3 587 km there, which is far less than the 22 498 km length cited for the mainland and the 58 133 km length of the Norwegian islands.

Both Norway and Chile have claims in Antarctica, but those probably shouldn't be counted when comparing coastlines, particularly because Chile's claim overlaps with other countries and has no practical consequences due to the Antarctica treaty."
todayilearned,"One problem is that our world is made out of atoms, and even those atoms are mostly made up of space.

And the only practically meaningful way to measure a coastline is ""how far does a human have to travel in order to see it all"" rather than ""how far would an electron have to travel in order to visit all the atoms that make up the coastline"".

As long as we just use the same standard for all countries, the comparison is fair.

This is once again an example of how goal-oriented not only perception, but even basic concepts like length are for us humans."
todayilearned,"A significant proportion of the vast amount of CO2 us humans are pumping into the air gets dissolved into the ocean. This is making the ocean slightly more acidic. It's only very small shift relative to, say putting a drop of lemon juice in a glass of water, but over the entire ocean it makes a massive difference. The difference is that it makes it tiny bit harder for small critters to form shells. It's not going to dissolve clams - they're not going to fizz away like an Aspro - but when they're tiny microscopic baby clams their shells might not get started properly. This affects everything in the ocean that has a shell. It has already had an effect on corals and krill - two to the most important critters in the sea. A lot of sand in the world is made of rocks, but, the good stuff for both building construction and lying on while wearing a bikini is made of coral and shellfish. Sand is already considered a non-renewable resource because we are using it at a vastly faster rate than it is being produced. Killing off shellfish is more just a symbolic shooting of ourselves in the foot."
todayilearned,">  A lot of sand in the world is made of rocks, but, the good stuff for both building construction and lying on while wearing a bikini is made of coral and shellfish.

Do you have a citation to support the idea that the most valuable sand is carbonate-based? I'm aware the shape matters, and I'm aware how important limestone is in the construction industry, but I wasn't aware that carbonate sand is preferred in construction.

As an aside.. Are you familiar with the concept of enhanced weathering? "
todayilearned,"No it isn't. People in Japan are conditioned to think new homes are safer. The government established 30 years for wood and 37 years for reinforced concrete as an arbitrary window so that new home constructions are continuous. It's to keep the economy moving. Also, Japanese people prefer new to used. They'll tear down and rebuild before renovating, just because they have it ingrained in them that new is more reliable and safer. 

Although renovations are catching on in Japan as the idea of customising your living space has become really popular in the west. "
todayilearned,"They're probably not wrong. Increased knowledge of building practices to make infrastructure safer to disasters would make new safer. This is true in many places. In North America older homes have products that are less fire resistant, older wiring which increases the likelihood of fire, older piping. There's a reason why the older cities on the east coast have more house fires than newer cities. 

There are so many safety features in new homes. Drywall has a burn through rate of 45 minutes, fire barriers on the outside of houses, windows with the house next door and your windows are offset to prevent the radiation of heat. Two windows are beside each other. If a 600 degree fire is in one room it can ignite the neighboring room through the window through radiation heat transfer. There's also the improved electrical code, fire walls built into attached homes apartments, and malls to help contain fires to one unit. While house fires burn hotter and faster today because of all the IKEA garbage and plastic carpet we fill our houses with, there are less house fires."
todayilearned,"They have rights to their version of it, just like they have their version of the Grimm brothers' stories. Those stories are public domain, but you can't make your own merchandise resembling the Disney movies because they do have copyright over their own adaptation. 

So they'd just have to make a movie with a distinguishable art style, then they could use the fact that people recognize that style and the fact that they have more money than anyone else trying to make merchandise and they'd be fine. "
todayilearned,"I could literally make an animated movie about a little bratty boy named Melvin and his stuffed panda he believes is real named Robb and release a movie in that exact style about his overactive imagination and all the characters he creates in his head and nobody would be able to get a lawsuit to stick in court against it.

If any movie studio wanted to make a rip-off movie they could, they would rather just have the real thing though because it's worth more."
todayilearned,"It's not the same. Scientology got given religion status on a technicality and, depending who you believe, there was certainly some heavy lobbying involved and possibly even blackmail and fraud. Miscavige wanted it to get religion status to save it from financial ruin by becoming tax exempt and it worked. It's no different from any other exclusive pay-to-join club. You can't just become a scientologist because you believe in its cause, you have to have real money. There's a reason their HQ is called The Celebrity Centre.

I don't want to get into it too much here but Tom Cruise has arguably single handedly led to the continued success of the cult despite all we know about its inner workings.

And to compare it to not watching a film based on an actor's religious belief is not comparable. There will always be fundamentalists and lunatics in any organised collective (and believe me I have just as much a problem with Christianity, et al as the rest), but the difference is that the founding principals of those religions are rooted in good and moral causes. Scientology's are not. And they purposely destroy familys and brain wash people to fill the pockets of the highers up. Cruise is aware of this and still goes along with it. Therefore I can't appreciate the man despite his talent."
todayilearned,">It's not the same. Scientology got given religion status on a technicality and, depending who you believe, there was certainly some heavy lobbying involved and possibly even blackmail and fraud. Miscavige wanted it to get religion status to save it from financial ruin by becoming tax exempt and it worked. It's no different from any other exclusive pay-to-join club. You can't just become a scientologist because you believe in its cause, you have to have real money. There's a reason their HQ is called The Celebrity Centre.

I honestly couldn't care either way, and I don't mean that in a sense to belittle your argument, it just doesn't matter to me personally wether or not you have to pay the ""church"" to be a member.

>but the difference is that the founding principals of those religions are rooted in good and moral causes. Scientology's are not. And they purposely destroy familys and brain wash people to fill the pockets of the highers up. Cruise is aware of this and still goes along with it. Therefore I can't appreciate the man despite his talent.

I really don't see how that matters, I also don't really want to get into any sort of religious debate, but if you're Catholic and it comes out that priests are literally raping little kids while the higher ups hide the evidence and move priests around *because* of these actions, and your okay with that, how is that any different than being a Scientologist? As for brainwashing, I'm also of the opinion that every religion's goal is to brainwash people.

That's why I don't like the whole guilt by association thing, especially when it comes to religion. As far as I'm concerned they're all made up fairy tales written by people who didn't have basic understanding of things we learn in elementary school such as atoms, galaxies, and bacteria, yet they understood the very nature of existence itself.

Anyway, I'm not trying to get into a theological debate, I'm just stating that somebody's personal life isn't going to change my view of their art, I still think Kevin Spacey is (was?) a good actor, despite being a pretty shitty guy."
todayilearned,"Yes I do. Not interested in getting into theological debate that wasn't the point of my original comment. Read what I wrote. I have issues with ALL religions. Scientology is a business with a business model based on charging admittance. Christianity, Islam, etc. don't. That's the key difference. Of course there are charalatans and opportunists making money out of these too, but it isn't the very business model, it's select areas. Anyway that's all I want to say on it for today."
todayilearned,"My cousin has a few rifles passed down through his family (the side though which we’re not related). I don’t think they are particularly rare and expensive, but they are heirlooms nonetheless. He told me they don’t work anymore, but he keeps them for sentimental reasons, and has plans to display them in some fashion. I think they are more representative of what people mean when they say “the family rifle.”"
todayilearned,"My family is from Eastern Kentucky.  As family members have died off, the value of guns as invaluable and meaningful items of inheritance has become very apparent.

I think it is the fact that they are durable goods that are both portable and useful.  It makes them a pretty ideal item of inheritance to bestow meaning.  My father would eat roadkill before he would sell the Winchester Model 92 and S&W Model 10 that were passed down to him. Neither are particularly valuable in the market."
todayilearned,"I’m a lawyer in Texas and the entire homestead, regardless of value, is exempt property. This was one of the big holdups in passed the 2005 bankruptcy revisions (Florida has a similar law). Growing up in an environment where homestead is sacrosanct and the bedrock of nearly everything property related, I was shocked when I was hired to collect a judgment and tracked the judgment debtor down to a small town in Tennessee where he owned a small house. Tennessee’s constitutional homestead protection hadn’t been changed since the 18th century when the original constitution was drafted. They allowed something like $30.00 in homestead exemption. I had that house levied and sold in a matter of months. No mortgage so it was likely he’d bought it with the money he embezzled from my client. "
todayilearned,"My Grandad got a lever action winchester .22 when he was a boy by saving up some proof of purchases for something I don't remember right now. Anyways, he gave that rifle to my Dad when he was a boy and my Dad gave it to me when I was a boy. The rifle no longer fires and is in need of some repair but it's definitely the ""family rifle"". So many memories."
todayilearned,"so how does bankruptcy work? your creditors can just come in and take your stuff? or is it more geared towards ""you bought X with this Visa so Visa can come take it back, but not just rat fuck your house""?

if you had a debt consolidation loan, how does it work? those creditors were paid back but the bank now I have a loan with the bank, what are they allowed to take?

im not thinking about bankruptcy or asking for any kind of legal advice or anything, im just curious about how this works and you have some knowledge in the area.  "
todayilearned,"I have six shotguns and rifles I got from my grandfather.  None of them are of any special value monetarily, because he was a small-time farmer who never had the money to buy anything for reasons beyond simple functionality.  To me though they have sentimental value, so that's all that matters. The .22 hornet rifle is still dead accurate as a varmint gun, but the 12 gauge double barrel has an issue where one of the firing pins isn't striking so I will get that replaced at some point when I feel like it.  Also considering modifying the double barrel into a coach gun because it will look cool as hell. "
todayilearned,"Bankruptcy is a process you initiate because you can't meet your obligations. 

Basically, you file some paperwork with the court saying ""I'm in way too much debt there's no way I can pay this off, we have to figure something out!""

Then the court will see if you're right. And if it's true that you have so much debt you can never pay it off, they'll basically make the debt go away. 

But if you have a bunch of assets, they might make you sell them to pay off some of the debt first. However, there are some assets they won't force you to sell. In a lot of cases, for example, they won't make you sell your house. Apparently they often won't make you sell your wedding ring either. 

What they make you sell will depend on the law. I think in some cases the law gives discretion to judges, in others not. 

Bankruptcy law is super complicated, but this is the basic idea. "
todayilearned,"There's a few different types of bankruptcy. Chapter 11 (usually for businesses/people with large amounts of assets), Chapter 13 (debtor is locked into repayment plan for 3-5 years to pay off secured debts while retaining the property and a percentage of unsecured debt like credit cards), and Chapter 7 which is the stereotypical liquidation of assets). There's also Chapter 9 but that is reserved for municipalities. So, depending on the chapter that a bankruptcy is filed under will determine what creditors are able to claim, who gets property, and how much their payout is. Chapter 7 isn't complete liquidation sales, though. There can be reaffirmation agreements which is a promise to repay a secured loan such as a car note. Sorry, I haven't done bankruptcy work in a couple years and I'm freewriting at the moment."
todayilearned,"Are you sure?  If the jesus nut disengages, the blades will still be attached, along with the swash plate. The blades would just be spinning freely, meaning no engagement from the motor. During auto rotation, you are adjusting the pitch of the blades with the swash plate to spin the blades at high speed then adjusting pitch to create lift and slowing down your descent. 

Im not a chopper pilot or anything. This is just my understanding from my helicopter fascination. 

Maybe someone at r/helicopters could chime in?"
todayilearned,"It's actually an obvious conclusion. We as a civilization have created specialization of jobs because it means each person can hone their skills in one area and focus just on that and then we can share with each other the fruits of our labours.

Each part of a sandwich, from the sauces, to the bread to the lettuce and the meat, take an incredible amount of skill and work to make it as good as you expect in a sandwich each day. It would be near impossible to be excellent at every aspect as just one person unless you devoted your life to it.

"
todayilearned,"I think what people like the sandwich guy overlook is that at pretty much no point in ""civilized"" history did anyone make all the ingredients for a meal like a sandwich themselves. People were even more specialized back in medieval times and before. The smith was not growing grain. The baker was not butchering pigs. The butcher was not building mills. Farmers grew crops. Bakers sourced their ingredients from farmers. Salt as exotic and imported. You specialized in a trade and utilized your skill to make money or barter with others.

The idea of making a sandwich from complete scratch is a modern one. Growing all the different plants, owning the equipment, having the animal, producing the seasonings, etc would have been a completely foreign and insane idea to anyone in the past. "
todayilearned,"> on. We as a civilization have created specialization of jobs because it means each person can hone their skills in one area and focus just on that and then we can share with each other the fruits of our labours.
> Each part of a sandwich, from the sauces, to the bread to the lettuce and the meat, take an incredible amount of skill and work to make it as good as yo



Didn't read article but it seems like it's more about the economy of scale.  Mass producing heads of lettuce lowers their cost to negligible margins whereas the startup cost of growing a single head with the equipment and time needed will cost a lot more. Do this for all the ingredients and those percentages will multiply into a greater figure in the end. "
todayilearned,"Invest in science and technology so that we can eventually have a world where everything is automated. At the same time, push more and more for socialism (especially free post-secondary education). Ultimately, this results in a world where no one has to work a back-breaking job just to survive and no one expects people to work a back-breaking job. Robot slaves do all the necessary jobs that used to suck, medicine is advanced to a point where all the worst diseases are eliminated and the populace is educated enough to make if not always ethical, then at least not incredibly stupid decisions. Basically Star Trek."
todayilearned,"I would agree with you here. The problem wasn't that he made a mediocre sandwich, it's that he spent 6 months and $1,500 making said mediocre sandwich. It's entirely possible in this day and age to make a good sandwich totally from scratch provided you have the space to raise the farm animals and grow your grains/veggies. I live in the city and backyard gardens (even extensive ones!) are increasingly common, as is raising chickens and even goats. Couple that with the sheer amount of knowledge we have at our fingertips today and one could certainly learn to make a supremely delicious sandwich from the ground up.

But it's *waaaaayyyyy* easier to go to the supermarket and buy enough ingredients for 20 sandwiches for $10."
todayilearned,"Wrong.
I wouldn't say it's not obvious, but not at all for the same reasons. Your reasoning applies to crafts that result in better products/services when being done by a professional but there's no skill needed to put lettuce on your sandwich. Moreover, the lettuce doesn't taste  better because it's being harvested by a farmer in contrast to a private person. 

Example: Why does any self made burger look and taste better than a McDs burger?  

Your reasoning is true for the economy of scale, which means the sandwich is the lowest cost when it comes from a conglomerate of professionals (=a dollar burger). It's also true to a certain degree when it comes to looks and taste, because companies invest in food designers and add additives for look preservation and taste. But the former are still restricted by the price (=McD burger looks still shitty) and the latter is matter of taste and can't simulate a fatter pattie. 

I think you really wanted to share that knowledge but this thread gave you the wrong example with a burger/sandwich. It might be more difficult for an average person to make good bread and sauce, but that's about it."
todayilearned,"That's not capitalism, it's just lots of people doing lots of different things. Capitalism is just the system wherein people who *don't* do anything leach away the lion's share of the value produced and get to reign as petty tyrants and warp society to suit their desires. It is fundamentally just feudalism with extra steps: those who own extract wealth from those who work and their ownership is guaranteed through the implied threat of state violence against unruly workers (also the *active* state or non-state violence against unruly workers, as with the pinkertons attacking striking workers, or the cops attacking striking workers, or Coca Cola hiring paramilitary death squads to murder labor organizers).

The solution is pushing for the democratization of the economy and the establishment of a more egalitarian society, instead of the absurd autocratic oligarchy playing at democracy we have now. Short term, that means supporting any measures that weaken the power of the oligarchy and improve the lot of the average person, while being clear that that's not the end goal and the struggle will not be complete until the oligarchy is abolished as a class and power is held democratically, instead of as a consequence of wealth."
todayilearned,"I don’t think this is entirely accurate.   In cities it’s true, but farmers were largely self-sufficient right into the mid 20th century.   My own mother grew up on a farm where they slaughtered their own animals, churned their own butter, and cured their own meat.   My grandmother kept a family garden that grew the vegetables they would eat throughout the year - extras were canned for winter.   Mayonnaise was certainly made from scratch, and they made their own relish and sauces, mostly to preserve extra fruit or vegetables for later consumption.  The only ingredients that she wouldn’t have made entirely from scratch were the flour and yeast, and I suppose sugar if it was used in making the relish.

Even then, flour used to be sold to the mills, but in medieval times it could often be ‘paid for’ at least in part in flour, which is pretty much the equivalent of renting a flour mill.   Most country families had their own ‘family dough’ which is a bread starter - basically each time they made bread, they would break off and set aside a piece of the dough, and then kneed that together with the next batch.   That ‘starter’ contained the yeast to make the bread rise, and mixing it through would seed the new loaf.  Some of those starters could be hundreds of years old - some still exist today.  Salt and spices simply weren’t added, because they were too costly.   I think that making our complicated sandwiches that source ingredients from all over the globe would have been impossible, but making your food entirely from scratch is an old, old concept. 

"
todayilearned,"The farmer could most likely get closest of doing it all. Back in the day, people did everything they could themselves. While a farmer wouldn't have a full blown mill to themselves, hand mills were a thing (usually illegal, since milling usually worked as tax as well). It is [also possible to extract salt](https://youtu.be/SssqL1OFuoU?t=372), but that will depend wether your farm is near a resource to do this. 

But ofcourse when I say farmer, it doesn't mean just one person. These places used to have a huge amount of people living in them, and different people could have different expertise. "
todayilearned,"> Sort of like the assembly line. Instead of training a bunch of people to build a whole car, train each one to install a particular part.

Except not because people who prepare food are knowledgeable about many many aspects of food preparation while an assembly line is like saying ""No, you can't butter the bread, you get to slice the meat, but only that particular kind of meat, and only to that thickness, and I expect you to do it over and over again at the same rate for the next 8 hours, 5 days a week, for the next 10 years.""

If anyone working in a restaurant were given that restriction there'd be no sandwiches."
todayilearned,"No I wouldn't stand a chance. Now tell me who makes that kind of sandwich, *""where an artisan sandwich chef goes out and selects the best quality meats, cheese, breads, etc. all made by people at the top of their game in that field""*? You yourself have never eaten a sandwich like that.

The article compared a self-made sandwich to the average of all sandwiches tasted by that person before. The average of all sandwiches tasted by an average person does not correspond to a sandwich *"", where an artisan sandwich chef goes out and selects the best quality meats, cheese, breads, etc. all made by people at the top of their game in that field.""* It corresponds to a mix between McD's quality and subway's quality.

​

Now tell me again, how my McDonald's burger example is wrong. It's not a sandwich, alright, but McD is at the top of the game financially (=reaching the whole world with their products and standing for what we could consider burgers and sandwiches of the industrialized world), yet the price doesn't offer much taste quality.

​

Really you just got a little angry for me dissecting your claim didn't ya"
todayilearned,">  Their cars were objectively inferior in almost every way, including safety

Any and all cars built purely with a profit motive in the era of few if no safety regulations were extremely dangerous to drive and the companies building them resisting regulation for safety because of the threat to profit.

Its only because of a coercive force found in the state that profit isn't allowed to endanger people in automobile design now. Pretending profit motive leads to safety is absurd given the history of profit and lack of safety, exploitation and dangerous work conditions, and how much that changed with laws."
todayilearned,"Because without a capitalistic incentive, the technological advancement and incentive to create large organizations to accomplish specialist tasks more efficiently just doesn't occur, or occurs at a much slower pace. Incentivization is the root of advancement. There is one thing you can trust when dealing with others and that is greed. Capitalism exploits that to get people to work together in an efficient manner. 

Modern day socialists can only advocate a decent society by standing on the back of the gigantic societal and technological improvements that the concept of capitalism gave us."
todayilearned,"That 100 million dead number is one of those fantastic triumphs of cold war propaganda. The determination of the figure is so biased that it means nearly nothing as the desire to reach that particular figure by the author of the book that popularized it polluted the analysis, leading many contributors on the work to disavow many of its assertions it in the end, and of course it fails to account for applying similar methodologies to come to similar figures for capitalist societies. As Chomsky has pointed out a Black Book analysis of Indian capitalism would itself be a dire reading.

I suggest you come up with better ways to analyze the results of authoritarian socialism in the 20th century and recognize that there's a lot of diversity to socialist ideology, much of it highly critical of the Soviet and Chinese versions of it. But that's too complicated as we naturally need to boil it down to emotionally stirring statistics to short cut any meaningful analysis of either socialist ideology and its effects and absolutely must avoid any discussion of capitalism in a similar light."
todayilearned,"Setting aside that the few million deaths in embattled revolutionary states that were quite literally beset on all sides by hostile powers was nowhere near even *100* million nor does it have anything to do with creating a more democratic and equitable society - except in so far as the revolutionaries set out to try to do that and the only ones who managed to get power without being curb stomped by entrenched reactionary powers were the most brutal and paranoid ones who could defend themselves against subversion and unite people against their very real enemies (which, it turns out, are great traits to have when you're in a life or death struggle with fascists and feudalists, but make for pretty shitty administration later most of the time, Castro being the sole sort-of exception) - the excess death toll for capitalism over the 20th century was approximately 1.6 *billion* from violence committed by capitalist states and deprivation under capitalist states.

Like, even if the most excessive, ludicrous accusations of excess deaths under """"""communist"""""" states were true, they still come out as only a fraction as bad as what's accepted as the inevitable norm for capitalist states. Since WWII, the US and its direct proxies have actively killed some *20 million people*, more than the USSR's total excess death toll, and every single year some 20 million people die from starvation or preventable disease in capitalist states *and no one cares* for the chilling reason that ""there's just no profit in helping them, so of course it won't be done."" The deaths from state violence perpetrated by capitalists in the 20th century alone exceeds the total excess deaths under all communist states to have ever existed, including deaths from administrative incompetence or malice.

The sheer, mindbogglingly huge scale of the misery, death, and destruction that capitalism brings about as a simple side effect of how much the people with power don't give a flying fuck about human life or really anything other than stuffing their pockets and increasing their own power is just so horrifying that almost any alternative brought about by almost any means would still be better than sticking to the status quo."
todayilearned,"It also makes for a better story to say ""look at how great modern society is that you need to do this much work to make a sandwich!"" even though you don't actually have to.

Part of the issue with these sorts of experiments is the desire to get exactly a certain kind of ingredient when in reality all cuisine is a product of availability. You use regional ingredients usually and things that grow nearby. There are still many things in our supply chain that make sandwiches with certain ingredients very expensive if you want them to be shipped form the other side of the planet. "
todayilearned,"The definition of poverty will shift yet again. Even today’s poor are barely even really poor. 

“Work? To SURVIVE?”. Yeah, that’s kind of how it’s works. In a future world where everything is automated and advanced, “poor” will be a life of mere luxury while everyone else gets to live in a computer and be immortal. The poor in evil capitalist America have it fantastic compared to the poor most everywhere else."
todayilearned,"You have a slight misconception.

Capitalism is the system where the chicken sandwich gets made and the person who organized all the workers gets 2.5% while everyone else gets 0.001%, enough to afford a whole bunch of sandwiches because thousands of unskilled workers were directed in such an efficient, intelligent manner that they ended up making 100,000 of them a week. 

The alternative is the chicken sandwich not getting made at all because people are stupid and can’t do anything without being imbued with duty and responsibility."
todayilearned,"“Deaths causes by capitalist states” is different than “deaths caused by capitalism”.

Please understand that starving because the government promised to give you enough seeds and land to farm, but didn’t, and then proceeded to take away most of the food leaving not enough for you. Is different from being a lazy ass and not being able to produce the incredibly small amount of money needed to feed yourself in a capitalist state. In the US You can subsist on $5 a day on average. There is so much surplus wealth that beggars on the street make enough for a weeks worth of food in just a few hours. Do not pretend that anybody starves in capitalism that isn’t just incredibly stupid. Food god sakes there are heaping piles of food being thrown out everywhere because there is so much of it that even if everybody ate as much as the year possibly could at all times they could not possibly eat it all. There’s even a dude who ate a whole daily calories worth of food in New York City for a single dollar.

Do not for a second try and compare capitalism and communism by their ability to provide food. The fact that you even do proves you don’t live in reality."
todayilearned,"""Anti-democratic hierarchy is good because how could anything get done without the divine leadership of... [checks notes] some dipshit failsons who've literally never worked a day in their lives whose stock brokers bought them portfolios containing some shares in a company they've probably never even heard of! Clearly literally anything about this nightmarish shellgame of bullshit makes sense and is better than democracy and equitable payment for labor because why else would the CIA keep killing anyone who tries to do anything else?""

I mean seriously, it's an [established fact](https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf) (pdf warning) that more equitable and democratic leadership systems produce on average larger, more productive, and longer lasting businesses that also provide their workers with a higher quality of life. And you do realize that, for example, McDonalds pays out more in dividends and stock buybacks than it does in wages? In a more equitable model that would mean that every employee's salary could be doubled while still keeping the business operating, meaning more motivated and healthy workers who are thus more productive in general, but somehow a massive amount of wealth is taken from them to be given to unrelated 3rd parties; in a very real way more than half the surplus value created by McDonald's employees is being stolen from them in a manner that has nothing to do with the continuing operation or management of the business and everything to do with paying out to idle owners, who do and contribute nothing as a class."
todayilearned,"I personally enjoy sandwiches that I make because the consistency of the process and I know the percentage of people that wash their hands after they use the bathroom. Well actually I don't but I'd imagine it's around 50%. So that seems to throw a wrench in your eh hypothesis.

*The exception is foods that I can't cook, like a Philly cheesesteak. I've tried many times but I can't recreate an accurate Philly at home. Maybe it's the flat top. Maybe it's the Amoroso's, which I've been reluctant to buy, since I think you can only get them shipped in bulk, and what if it's something else that's missing? Maybe I don't chop the onions right. I don't know, and I don't care. I'm willing to fork over $12 for a sandwich because of that essential mystery. It would probably cost me more at home somehow. But I digress. 

I prefer cooking for myself than other people cooking for me, and if I could cook a killer philly I would in an exacerbated heartbeat."
todayilearned,"That's not how literally anything works, and comparing waste and excess in the states that are beneficiaries of imperialism and colonial exploitation - and *who still have food insecurity because of how extreme crushing poverty is* - to the unchecked starvation in their colonial victims is disingenuous at best. Destroying excess foods at a Whole Foods in a wealthy suburb doesn't negate food insecurity in the inner city or poor rural communities, nor the mass starvation in the third world that's caused by capitalist colonial powers keeping brutal dictators in power who let western corporations rape and plunder with wild abandon, while farmland is turned to the production of cash crops for export to the benefit of western corporations.

>Do not for a second try and compare capitalism and communism by their ability to provide food.

Because communist countries win hands down on the issue of ""actually feeding their populace""? Because in every case they came from the ashes of capitalist countries with centuries of periodic famines and after some initial stumbling blocks stopped the famines completely; meanwhile famines continue to regularly occur in third world capitalist countries, and that's not even getting into the normal accepted baseline rate of starvation, which roughly matches the starvation rate at the height of those few famines in communist countries. The USSR even managed to have higher daily calorie intake for the average person than the US did at the same time for its entire existence, just with less meat.

At the end of the day, the autocratic, inegalitarian structure of capitalism means that anything that doesn't benefit the oligarchy doesn't get done, and that means massive death and suffering for those outside their immediate sphere who they don't consider useful enough to help. People starve because there's no direct profit in making sure they don't, and in the first world there are only safety nets to help people - tattered as they may be now - because the alternative was the starving masses literally eating the rich."
todayilearned,"That's irrelevant to the erroneous statement claiming capitalism is nothing but people working together without central authority dictating their actions. Capitalism has of course at times been a command economy, specifically during war time. However the central authority of the businesses are dictating to people who work within them what to do. That is the power of private property over economic production, the central tenet of capitalism. 

Also its not like market driven economies are alien concepts to anti capitalists or that free markets are required elements of capitalism since capitalism has existed as extremely protectionist, highly coercive and unequal for most of its history."
todayilearned,"Well, that's the only number that matters to me. And it seems to me that one is enough to disprove the rule (it's either me or your science that is mistaken, and I'm not lying). At the very least you have to admit their hypothesis is incomplete, if not entirely mistaken.

>Also, the study was measuring tastiness and not non-olfactory enjoyment such as consistency and hygiene. 

Also, then find me a study that has to do with what we're talking about (whether a chef chooses to eat there) and not whatever wannabe bullshit you're peddling here. Your study fails to take into account why chefs (and I) prefer eating at home. And my point still stands with taste. I meant ""consistency"" as ""consistency of taste."" Got it?"
todayilearned,"And if you were talking in 1800 you'd be ranting that ""if democracy's so workable why are the only democratic countries some hillbilly slavers in the middle of nowhere, huh? Clearly if it worked better than the divine right of kings it'd have naturally outcompeted them already!"" It's like you fundamentally don't understand systemic inertia or how entrenched interests being relics of a more brutal and anti-democratic era works. The anti-democratic model is more popular because it is more profitable for the individual, who if successful can sell it all off for a nice payday or just fuck off and keep drawing value from it, and thus more startup money goes into founding such businesses. The same function could more effectively be performed through democratic allocation of resources, the resulting businesses would perform more effectively than the average business now does, and the feedback loop of allowing those who have wealth to turn it into more wealth by just having someone buy lots of tiny pieces of different companies they can passively leach value from or sell as a commodity later would be eliminated, thus dealing a blow to the institution of oligarchy and its toxic effects."
todayilearned,"> Also, then find me a study that has to do with what we're talking about (whether a chef chooses to eat there) and not whatever wannabe bullshit you're peddling here.

What are you going on about? My original comment was about sandwich tastiness and so is the study. My original comment was meant to be funny anyways because science doesn’t decisively prove anything—hence the quotation marks. I guess you took the comment very seriously because you started rambling about your sandwich preferences, and trying to seriously argue that one data point disproves a research hypothesis. 

Wanna be bullshit? I’m not the one discussing the merits of my cooking/sandwich-making when nobody asked me. 

"
todayilearned,">Wanna be bullshit? I’m not the one discussing the merits of my cooking/sandwich-making when nobody asked me. 

>Science like pretty much “proves” that sandwiches taste better when someone else makes them—something about olfactory habituation.

You actually *were* talking about the merits of my sandwich making. You said science proves that sandwiches taste better, etc. It's right there.

Unless you're taking it back? So you're saying you *didn't* mean that, that it was a joke, and you *don't* believe that science proves (a point you already argued) that my sandwiches are inferior to for example Schlotzsky's Deli? Is that what you're saying? I'm fine with that too. I've tasted both, you haven't. So for you, N=0.

Which one is it? For someone who throws around the word science a lot you sure don't have the hang of logic one bit.
"
todayilearned,"The anti capitalist position sees limiting that corruption by limiting the economic power people have over others. That's why labour organization is typically a very left leaning if not explicitly anti capitalist tradition. The state having a long history of betraying or abandoning the working masses' interests makes the power of the state dubious as a true solution, hence why the decaying power of labour in America is so much correlated with the stagnation of wages and worker rights. The state in a political democracy being subject to the disparities of power found in economic power makes the state the corrupted entity. Limiting that corruption doesn't solve it of course nor does it address the underlying disparities of power that make that corruption possible and so detrimental."
todayilearned,"You’re being literal. There is such a thing as an outlier. You think every rule is infallible?

The research *indicated* that—as per their **parameters**—the general finding was that sandwiches are tastier when other people make them. It doesn’t apply in every case. Perhaps you’re confusing a research hypothesis and theory. 

Of course there are exceptions. I never said you didn’t find your sandwiches to be tastier than others. What I said was that your sandwich quality and preferences don’t pertain to the Carnegie Mellon study because your definition of a good sandwich wasn’t used in the research hypothesis. 

The problem is that you took a science-based comment very literally, as in there is this infallible law about sandwich tastiness, and proceeded to try to disprove it by talking about your sandwiches. 

You can be the best sandwich-maker and adore your sandwiches above all others, but that doesn’t make the Carnegie Mellon study “full of shit,” as you put it. 

It’s like you think I’m saying that you *must* find your own sandwiches to be inferior because SCIENCE! That would be a ludicrous thing for me to claim. 

Does that make sense to you? "
todayilearned,"in the video (which was like an hour long) it was said it was extremely bland with the entire thing sucking the moisture out of their mouths.

its also significant that it doesnt **exactly** take 6 months to prepare something from scratch since the ingredients should be growing/being-harvested throughout the year (e.g. people didnt start growing sunflowers when they were craving fried chicken they were already being grown and it was harvested prepared.)"
todayilearned,"Oh man, Friday, I really wanted an egg salad sandwich and I was just obsessing about it and I was like, 'Man, I'm gonna make one of those.' So Saturday, I went out and got, like, a dozen eggs and then I boiled them all and I just, I spent, I dunno, probably three hours, like three and a half hours making, you know, the mayonnaise, and the onions and paprika and, you know, the necessary accoutrement. And then, by the time I was done, I didn't really feel like like eating it. 
"
todayilearned,"Okay, so first, let's just get out of the way that the part where you said 

>""My original comment was meant to be funny anyways because science doesn’t decisively prove anything—hence the quotation marks. I guess you took the comment very seriously ... I’m not the one discussing the merits of my cooking/sandwich-making when nobody asked me."" 

was complete bullshit.

Now that that's out of the way, I don't give a shit about the Carnegie Mellon study. I believe it's shit. Do you have any other way to convince me? Otherwise I expect you're shit out of luck. 

The problem is you've tasted a shit sandwich. And now you're basically trusting a shit sandwich of a paper (no offense to the minds that went into that undoubtedly esteemed paper) over mine own taste buds and experience. So you see the conflict here. I believe your study is full of shit, and so are you, for believing it and generally science over your own experience. That's basically the bottom that I'm getting at here. Take it or leave it."
todayilearned,"It's still never ever a good idea to eat undercooked chicken. 

Beef is mostly fine as long as the surface is seared (though ""rare"" burgers are a bad idea because the meat had been minced) 

pork and chicken: always cook all the way through.  

If someone tries to feed you some bullshit line about how it's fine because the animals it came from are raised in a disease-free hippie commune: don't buy it. "
todayilearned,"That link doesn't remotely support the claim. 

It specifically says to make sure pork reaches a safe minimum  internal temperature.

>**Safe Minimum Cooking Temperatures**

>Use this chart and a food thermometer to ensure that meat, poultry, seafood, and other cooked foods reach a safe minimum internal temperature.

The closest it gets is saying that you can't tell at a glance that it's safe from just looking and to get a food thermometer. 

[How much do you **really** want to eat raw pork?](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Fazil_Gelal2/publication/7838517/figure/fig1/AS:601716693143558@1520471847358/Evolution-of-brain-lesions-in-trichinosis-A-TSE-T2W-axial-image-at-admission-shows.png)
"
todayilearned,"I disagree, whilst capitalism can be an incredibly flawed system without any form of regulation or state intervention to prevent market failure and under provision of public goods. A centrally planned economy will never be a truly efficient economic system, even if the state involved has only benevolent motives (which spoiler: it never does in any form of government).

​

If the means of production are all owned by the state and not decided by a price mechanism then there is no rational way for the state owned producers to know how to use their capital goods in an efficient way to meet public demand for any given final good. 

​

"
todayilearned,"..... You know your link leads to 

>""Oops!

>We can’t seem to find the page you were looking for. Please try our search or A-Z index.""

You probably should have tested it before linking it 3 times. 

Yes, the CDC says to cook pork to 145 minimum internal. 

Which is **medium to well done.**

https://www.seriouseats.com/images/2016/02/20160208-sous-vide-pork-chop-guide-food-lab-40.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/17/d1/d7/17d1d752d087c51f8d3f957a0848efca.jpg

I'll note that the image above is from **[your own fucking source.](https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/9gp6l2/til_about_andy_george_who_spent_1500_and_6_months/e66qsyj/)**

**Apparently you've ended up with too many brain worms chomping away to be able to read your own linked sources.** so maybe lay off the ""rare"" pork a bit. "
todayilearned,"
https://www.cdc.gov/features/befoodsafe/

Here's the link, from before without the /index.html that got tacked on somehow or another.

You literally don't have a leg to stand on here buddy. First you claimed that 145 isn't safe and after being prooved categorically false by your own source you shifted the goal post to this new pedantic crap of what exactly is ""mid rare"". You even fabricated evidence to support yourself with your ""CDC pic claiming 130 was mid rare"", while insulting my sources as ""blogs"". Then posting your own cherry picked picture they uses sous vide to temps which are lower because it's an extended cooking time. It's almost like you are literally retarded.  Just accept the fact that you were wrong and move on with your life."
todayilearned,"Please link me to **anywhere** I claimed that 145 isn't safe

You've picked up some stupid idea somewhere. **Your own source** lists ""medium-rare"" as 140 degrees, which is unsafe. 

Those ""cherry picked"" images? the first is from your own link, that food blogger website that *you* linked to. 

Since you're too thick to accept any real sources provided by anyone else I just **started using your own**. Because they still contradict you. Because you apparently haven't read them. 

**According to your own links*, ""medium-rare""  pork isn't safe. 
"
todayilearned,"Watched it. 

Was so frustrated at how much work he put into some things, and decided to ‘just wing it’ for others. Ten minutes of reading could have improved the results by miles. 

The bread and chicken had serious errors in it. 

He didn’t separate the wheat properly, used too little salt in the bread, too much flour to water in the bread.  Had no clue how to make proper sour dough and just kind of guessed, and guessed wrong.  Over cooked the chicken and used barely any seasoning on it.  

It was such an interesting concept and I feel he blew the whole thing.

Pick a chef.  Pick a baker.  Pick a cheese maker. 

Bring them store bought flour, salt, chicken, cream, and seasoning. Have them help you make your end result. Taste it. 

Then start from scratch. Go to actual mills and learn how the wheat turns into flour. Don’t just guess.  Then go to a fucking pioneer village to learn how to do it with minimal technology by hand.  This is all way more interesting than “flour is just ground wheat, right?”

Take your flour to the baker and learn about sour dough. Have them help you turn your flour into bread. 

Continue with each ingredient. 

The journey would have been more interesting, and the results would have been delicious.

Multiple people who read/watch this, shit on making food from scratch because he fucked this up so badly, with such easily correctable errors. "
todayilearned,"It's so annoying arguing with disingenuous retards on the internet who care more about protecting their fragile ego than understanding new information when they are presented with it.  


I said Med-rare pork is safe to eat, and you replied with "" That link doesn't remotely support the claim "".  Meaning you disagree with the claim that med-rare pork is safe to eat.

[https://www.porkcdn.com/sites/porkbeinspired/library/2014/06/2924.pdf](https://www.porkcdn.com/sites/porkbeinspired/library/2014/06/2924.pdf)

\>The National Pork Board recommends cooking pork chops, roasts, and tenderloin to an internal temperature between 145° F. (medium rare) and 160° F. (medium), followed by a 3 minute rest. 

[https://www.bonappetit.com/recipes/healthy/article/is-it-safe-to-eat-medium-rare-pork](https://www.bonappetit.com/recipes/healthy/article/is-it-safe-to-eat-medium-rare-pork)

\>But some restaurant chefs across the country are going one step further and cooking pork medium-rare, or to about 145°F. 

[https://thetakeout.com/we-should-be-eating-medium-rare-pork-1828528374](https://thetakeout.com/we-should-be-eating-medium-rare-pork-1828528374)  


140 is for sous vide which is a longer cooking method so you don't need to extra 5 degrees.

It's fine if you didn't know that med-rare pork is cooked to 145, and that 145 is safe. But arguing like this makes you look retarded as fuck because you literally don't know anything about cooking.

​"
todayilearned,"You're acting as though millions of people didn't starve to death in communist states or that capitalism hasn't lifted billions out of poverty.  Or how about all of the people who met their deaths at the end of an AK-47 in the numerous conflicts communist nations had started when they existed.  The 10's and hundreds of millions numbers may only be estimated, but it absolutely did happen and not from starvation or war, but at the direction of the state in communist nations against their own people, specifically in china and russia at the hand of Moa and Stalin and their successors.  Capitalism isn't perfect and yes a lot of people have died out of the greed it fosters, but you're completely oblivious if you think it is even close to the scale that happened as a direct result of communism.  I'm also not opposed to socialist policies applied carefully to help curb the excesses of capitalism, but pure socialism has never ended in anything but countless deaths."
todayilearned,"Yeah look mate thats not exactly the case, but let’s just for the sake of argument say that the Soviets and Chinese were great commies and wantonly slaughtered their own people for absolutely no reason like you say.  

What would that have to do with the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production?  

So far you’ve got a South Park style:  
-Phase 1. Instigate common ownership and democratic control of the means of production.  
-Phase 2. ??  
-Phase 3. 100’s of millions of people die.  

If socialism/communism is the cause of such catastrophe then it shouldn’t be too hard to point out what phase 2 is.  

Edited; Sorry, made a couple of formatting/spelling errors."
todayilearned,"I absolutely agree that division of labor makes everything cheaper for everyone, but I think part of the reason this sandwich cost $1600 is that he's paying tons and tons in startup costs and put all of the cost on this one sandwich.

It probably wouldn't have been significantly more expensive to make a hundred sandwiches this way, at which point they're ""only"" $16 dollars, pretty much what you pay for one at an airport or music festival."
todayilearned,"Yeah, team members on the line are cross-functional and change positions on the line every two hours for a couple reasons:  

-	The repetitive motion is taxing in the body, so it’s important to switch it up;
-	If the seat installer wins the lottery and doesn’t show up to work, then we’re not without someone who knows how to install seats, and production doesn’t stop and;
-	As you mentioned, to curb boredom and keep team members engaged. "
todayilearned,"Phase 2 is getting rid of anyone who doesn't want to give up their stuff to the collective and causing a famine and economic collapse after you kill, enslave, or imprisone all of the successful and productive people leaving onlyu the people who don't know wtf they are doing in control of the means of production.  Maybe you get a popular uprising as a result; which needs to be swiftly put down.  Phase 1 never seems to happen.  The people in political power end up having control of everything and it quickly turns to fascism with a veneer of socialism.  It's such a common theme you could say actual socialism has never even gotten off of the ground; because it immediately devolves into fascism."
todayilearned,"Well I'm sorry you're incapable of understanding that point, but capitalism incentivises division of labor to an almost extreme  level and plays a huge part in the rapid development of groups focusing on improving one aspect of the division, causing exactly what the first person was talking about. Hundreds to thousands of specialists doing one particular thing to make a product, each group incentivised to improve upon their part.

It's basic economics and societal theory. 
"
todayilearned,"Now we are getting somewhere (well aside from the bit about the necessary imprisoning all of the productive people, you know that’s hyperbole that doesn’t make sense).  

So which is it honestly?  Has phase 1 happened?  

Additionally, how many times has it happened?  

Btw, I wouldn’t necessarily use the term fascism for what it’s devolved into.  Fascism is a very specific ultra-nationalist conspiracy-theory situated ideology, and deeming polities as such is way overdone these days (probably a legacy of WW2 being a landmark catastrophe of out time).  Sorry, I realise that’s beside the point but I thought it worth mentioning.  

Edit; Perhaps a comparison might help.  So far you are saying that the necessary slaughter comes from the deaths of people who reject the new laws of the polity.  

Couldn’t you charge capitalism with the same?  How is it different from when capitalists put to death those defending the old feudal order?"
todayilearned,"You need land (remember there is a cost to land, unless you're growing it on the side of a road... which is still worth something), water, in many cases fertilizer and also pesticide. Plus buying a shovel just for one head of lettuce sorta proves my point.  That's like a 30 dollar head of lettuce, as opposed to 1 dollar.  Hence, the first head is expensive, but everything that comes after becomes cheaper and cheaper and... you get it.  But yeah, now further apply that to the full equation of everything that goes into a sandwich. "
todayilearned,"Capitalism's problems, as we seem to be experiencing them, is that they take it's philosophy as a form of governance rather than purely economic policy.

When the market also starts buying power and consolidating into monopolies that now have no balance check. Capitalism will collapse. You need to make sure the capitalistic economic policy is kept separate from the governance. Not to dissimilar from our separation of church and state, frankly.

The ubiquitous ""money in politics"" problem. Free market for politicians, as it turns out, not great.

Centrally planned systems, when done correctly, still abide by laws of supply and demand. They do so from a different angle though. Protections come from regulatory limiting rather than competition. When done in this theoretically ideal way they do work. They fall apart for similar reasons though, ironically. Consolidation of power. Except instead of it being the richest person in the room it's the best connected party leader.

Really there is just no ideal world. The founding fathers of the US understood the balance of power required to keep tyranny at bay but there's no way they could have predicted every angle that power could grow from. We merely found a new way to build tyranny."
todayilearned,"In many cases yes. With good intentioned people that share a similar value system and hence share a likeminded outlook to such transactions.

But in somewhere in a parallel dimension, there's a nefarious cheese maker that is trying to hold their dependent buyers hostage, making the argument they're the only ones capable of making cheese, and if you want to keep buying it, you're going to have to trade over your secrets to making bread, meat, and pickles.  No thank you, I think I'll go cheesless or make my own. "
todayilearned,"There remains a fundamental difference though, which is that monopolies are not an essential feature of a capitalist system, and even though it can be very hard to avoid the formation of monopolies even with state intervention, they only control a given sector of the market. A centrally planned economy is, by definition, in effect one giant monopoly on all sectors of the economy.  

​

Not trying to defend a libertarian 'the market is always right' ideology here, and it's obvious there are inherent flaws in market economies which are very difficult if not impossible to overcome. But it's obvious both in theory and from historical experience that centrally planned economies suffer from severe inefficiencies and that market oriented economies are much better at increasing people's standards of living over the long run.  

​

Advances in computing and AI could make centrally planned economies a viable option in maybe even the near future, but that also raises all kinds of problems that have to be dealt with.     "
todayilearned,"Frankly, in more ways than one, USA was founded on the principal of competition. Not just in the capitalistic sense but I'm our own governance in the form of our checks and balances.

Our forefathers did see many things first have. They foresaw the problem of a people subjugated by a government. They saw the problem of religion running the government. What they never saw was a government bought by companies. We discovered, surprisingly late, the importance of labor rights. But even that movement doesn't account for what should be a ""separation of corporation and state."" I don't mean to imply it should have exactly the same relation as religion but recognizing it as an entity or power and influence is important."
todayilearned,"I have made the link several times, you just want to stick your fingers in your ears and go ""LALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU."" It all boils down to people being able to make money off of creating businesses (groups). It incentivises people to take risks and create said groups, without capitalism there is little to no incentive to do so.

People like yourself are especially guilty of not understanding the mechanics of this, believing business owners aren't deserving of reaping the benefits of their business."
todayilearned,"I agree with you in most ways. It depends on your goals. A market kept free of monopolies is the strongest for growth but you need a level of regulation to maintain that. Centrally managed tends to have a strength in maintaining a standard of life against crashes or other interests but is much weaker on growth.

Centrally managed certainly has one biggest weakness though, that is, with more power in one place it's simply easier to grow corruption.

For some insight: Personally I consider myself a fan of capitalism. I actually lean near liberatian myself on some topics. Doesn't mean I fail to see some lessons we should learn."
todayilearned,"What does taking risks have to do with the division of labour?  

Look mate if you are so sure that this is basic stuff you should be able to link to a source which explains it (because you aren’t doing it).  Even if you were doing it, it should be easy to link to (even easier in fact).  That would clearly settle which one of us is sticking our fingers in our ear and going “LALALA” etc.  

Edit, look mate ffs, this is what you’ve presented.  

Because capitalism apparently incentivises something via the profit motive, that somehow means division of labour (a concept that has existed before captalism, and in nationalised economies, and especially in the public sector) is somehow inherent to capitalism?  That’s what you’ve got so far."
todayilearned,"My apologies, I edited my above post.  I’ve marked it with an edit.  

Anyway, so now you are getting into dodgy adhom.  Mate just post a link to a source.  If you are right it will prove you so.  Pretend for a second that I don’t know what I’m talking about and just post a link.

Edit, I shouldn’t have to say this but the reason I ignore large parts of your post is because they are totally off topic.  We are talking about how the division of labour necessarily relates to the private ownership of the means of production and you are laying on thick standard internet cliches about why capitalism is great.  Can you not see the difference? Shit I don’t know maybe you can’t.  The language you use, and the total logical inconsistency, and especially your complete inability to produce a source suggests you don’t."
todayilearned,"> Because the profit motive leads to lobbying government to mandate safety regulations to prevent underpriced goods.

The lobbyists for safety in automobiles were not the manufacturers. They weren't lobbying for more expensive cars, they were lobbying for safer cars.

Your goofy argument just tried to say that without the people trying to risk others' lives there'd be no safety because nobody thought to demand they stop risking lives until they did... which makes no sense. "
todayilearned,"There are plenty of capitalist societies that didn't go through a purge.  You only have to look as far as current capitalist societies that still have the remnants of their feudal systems; such as token royalty.  I can't think of a single case where an attempt at a socialist society hasn't been preceded by a purge and was ultimately unsuccessful or devolved into something else where you have a single party state run as little more than a dictatorship.  

I'm also not saying that it may not achieve success under different conditions as technology advances and the need for labor disappears or that socialist policies can't be an excellent tool to temper the excesses of capitalism that harm people.  
"
todayilearned,"Yeah, look not really no.  Look at everything from the crisis of the 14th century to colonialism to the French Revolution and the German/European revolutions of the early to mid 1800’s to much more.  It’s centuries of bloodshed and horror as society transforms from one way of organising the polity (defined by ownership of the means of production) to the next.  I understand that these aren’t exactly commonly well understood chunks of history but surely you can see that’s because they aren’t politcised/have no recent political context.  

The bodycount truly isn’t even close, but you’ve hit on something very relevant to that in your last paragraph.  It’s not really a fair comparison in either direction because socialism is still in it’s infancy.  There’s been a handful of goes at it and at least 90% of them have been under the Leninist blueprint.  Do you reckon the first time private owners of production started a colony and brutalised the locals with savagery until then unseen we should have wrapped up capitalism, called it a day and gone back to the divine right of kings?  

What’s more important though is questioning whether the aforementioned bloodshed and horror is a necessary link to the mode of production.   Why is the bloodshed and horror of the transition to socialism necessarily linked to the mode of production where it isn’t for capitalism? 

EDIT (sorry about another edit mate, i am truly terribke with that) Just wanted to add that your mention of monarchies isn’t residual feudalism and proves nothing of the sort.  They are just constitutional organs who have no say in the mode of production."
todayilearned,"Dude, ""bad things happened in the process of poor, embattled revolutionary states rebuilding and modernizing, due to a lack of available expertise, because of stupid interpersonal politicking, or because reactionary hostile powers invaded and systematically isolated them"" isn't a good refutation of ""actually we need to rework the system to be more egalitarian and democratic."" The problems communist countries faced had material, not ideological, causes; we can see time and again that comparable capitalist countries experience much higher excess death, similar or greater political repression, lower literacy, worse civil rights, and much slower and more inefficient development, and we can also observe that liberalization always causes mass suffering and death as production shifts from meeting societal needs to serving the interests of the oligarchy."
todayilearned,"Interesting. 

If it’s square bread, perhaps cutting it into a triangle makes the sandwich more comfortable to hold, thus increasing enjoyment. 

Thinly cut deli meats are usually tastier than thick cuts because it increases air circulation around the meat and makes it more aromatic—or something like that. Perhaps cutting a sandwich  diagonally increases the surface area of exposed meats/cheeses, creating a similar effect. 

Or maybe a sandwich is more enjoyable when the first bite isn’t a mouthful of bread. "
todayilearned,"I would disagree- where I live, as well as many other areas in the world, have lots of rabbit and deer that will readily eat lettuce. Whereas in my 20 years growing potatoes and onions in gardens, not a single plant has been eaten by wildlife. My family has also never used fertilizer and have produced bountiful yields. However, the last few summers have been extremely dry and hot, dramatically impacting the harvests of all my veggies (with the exception of peppers)."
todayilearned,">Regulation is a fundamental and necessary component of all capitalist economies.

No it isn't. Its a fundamentally necessary component of capitalist economies that don't kill, harm, or cause suffering of its participants at higher rates than unregulated ones. There is no requirement for regulation in the manner we're discussing in capitalist society because capitalist society existed for a very long time without that regulation and in fact experienced some of its greatest economic booms under the periods of terrible regulation. Capitalism functions persistently in many societies which lack strong regulations or anything resembling the even half assed representation of western liberal democracies and people die, suffer, and are poisoned, exploited, whatever, and it trucks along. Often its a very attractive venue for investment because of the profit motive being unleashed. I see no indication that regulation is necessary except from the perspective of someone who wants to live within it without being the primary ownership beneficiary of that profit motive."
todayilearned,"As far as I know they arent regulated by any authoritative body, but they are universally agreed upon by all industries.

​

You keep posting that picture of what temp to cook sous vide pork at without understanding or reading my explanation that sous vide is a long cooking process, so the temps don't need to be as high to denature the proteins and kill pathogens.   You are the definition of someone arguing in bad faith and it's disgusting."
todayilearned,"You posted it first. 

They're not universally agreed upon. 
hence why they vary across various sources.

**For example** at the top of *this very discussion chain*, in the article you didn't bother to read because *reading is hard*. The one I origionally responded to saying that people should fucking cook their pork properly. 

>you're free to even cook it to medium rare if you like, we suggest you stick to **medium** (about 140-145 degrees)

The article by the idiot food blogger was directly advocating cooking below recommended temperatures even lower than 140-145 degrees, their own special definition of ""medium rare"" is sub-140,  (with, surprise surprise, no mention of sous vide), specifically under safe temperatures and idiots like you defended it.

you made yourself look like a moron again and again... and again and again and again.  then flounced out in a huff when it became clear that you'd made an idiot of yourself ranting against claims I'd never made... while posting links to sources that contradicted what you were claiming.

I hope to fuck you're not responsible for anybody elses food because if so they should be fucking worried. "
todayilearned,"That's rather incoherent nonsense. You used the term regulate to refer to laws unrelated to economic regulations. When we talk regulation we talk about impinging on free economic activity, ie the free market.

You understand the system so little, or you're so dishonest a speaker, that you deform terms to win arguments, or you fail to understand them at all. We don't regulate crime, we forbid it. You must in a capitalist society protect property right. Enter crimes against property. You must in almost any economic system create a stable order under which to operate. Enter crimes against the person. 

That has nothing to do with discussing economic regulations that are part of discussing free markets. Free markets has nothing to do with talking about making murder illegal. 

Anyone who tries to over simplify things like you do is desperate to undermine the complexities that seem to disrupt your perception of your pet ideology."
todayilearned,"Yeah, restricting murder is restricting free economic activity. What if I want to work as a hitman? 

What if I want to sell items that I seized with my own force on eBay? What if I want to poison my neighbor's crops so that mine increase in value?

These are all economic regulations. 

And no, this isn't my pet ideology mr monsantobreath. You are the zealot. You have a twisted and deformed view of Capitalism to the point that you don't even recognize that Capitalism requires a base level of regulation to even function. You think that anarchy = capitalism, when the two are fundamentally opposed to each other. If anarchy = capitalism then Syria would be the world's largest economy. It isn't.

Property rights and the enforcement thereof are the most fundamental tenant of capitalism. Deciding who owns what. Deciding how a person can get a fair return on investment. Deciding what is a scam and what isn't. 

Unsafe items that are expected to be safe fall into that last category: scams. They are fundamentally anti-capitalist."
todayilearned,">you don't even recognize that Capitalism requires a base level of regulation to even function

This is where you're now entering the realm of ignoring the person you're actually arguing with and instead substituting him with the caricature your type inevitably resorts to because its comfy and easy. I specifically said that capitalism requires a state or some authority to enforce property rights. But talking about economic regulations being necessary and saying any rule you deem necessary constitutes regulations on behalf of capitalism, including unrelated criminal ones, makes your argument so generic that you can say anything supports your argument.

Its terminology rendered meaningless and it ignores the discussion about how many laws we have for regulating society are not required for the functioning of capitalism and in fact many go against the impulses of what capitalism is most concerned with, namely production for profit. This is why many capitalist societies undergo strong deregulation efforts that enrich the primary holders of capital.

That you seek to conflate murder laws with things like work place safety, labour rights, or anti pollution mandates says you are arguing to win by deforming the nature of the discussion rather than having a clear conversation. 

>What if I want to sell items that I seized with my own force on eBay? What if I want to poison my neighbor's crops so that mine increase in value?

Those are laws against property crimes you're infringing on. As I said, property rights are the cornerstone of capitalism and so are things that are protected by a state entity. A state entity exists to facilitate these key values. You repeatedly turn to mostly property related crimes which are all related to the original point I already stated.

> You think that anarchy = capitalism, when the two are fundamentally opposed to each other.

You're making things completely up now. Anarchism would be a stateless society that opposes capitalist property rights. Yes anarchy is opposed to capitalism. I never said capitalism is a state less society without property rights. I specifically said that it was one.

>Property rights and the enforcement thereof are the most fundamental tenant of capitalism.

Which I said before you did in this exchange. I literally said that.

Your last reply shows how foolish you've been in this exchange."
todayilearned,"Psychedelics show you that ""seeing the world as it really is"" is bullshit because you can never know if what you're seeing is the ""real"" perspective. Your brain can barely tell the difference between a face and a bunch of coloured pixels on a screen arranged to look like a face. What makes you think your brain has the capacity to decide how the world ""really is"" when you're in a state of mind where the effort of getting out of bed makes you want to fucking die?    
    
Making thousands of negative judgements about everything around you and then a few of them turning out to be correct is not ""seeing the world as it really is""."
todayilearned,"Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and....disagree here. Someone that has tried mushrooms one time should not be just winging it and trying to grow their own.

Not sure if you're aware of this but mushrooms aren't really that easy to grow safely. These types of processes can go badly at home.

For instance, curing meat in some Italian cave where the air has the spores needed? Great! Curing meat in your basement utility room? Have fun with your poison."
todayilearned,"I tried those in adam but they felt somewhat weak tbh...was still a funny experience:  I went to the heineken museum and also got inside a big oldschool sailship. Sometimes I had to concentrate on remembering where I am exactly and then, in the middle of the ships belly, I would realize ""Oh, I'm in amsterdam on holydays, and touring a ship"". This would happen like once every hour, complete deorientation lol. 10/10 would do again"
todayilearned,"'#TrueFacts 

Many plants other than fungi use spores. For some strange reason I learned this last week from a book on how not to kill my houseplants.

>Not every plant grows from a seed. Some plants, like ferns and mosses, grow from spores. Other plants use asexual vegetative reproduction and grow new plants from rhizomes or tubers. We can also use techniques like grafting or take cuttings to make new plants.

https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/104-plant-reproduction-without-seeds"
todayilearned,"I actually did this for a few weeks one autumn and never actually found any that were psychoactive lol. I went to the forum ""the shroomery"" and got educated and everything. I found a few that I thought might be but after consulting the experts there, they weren't. It was during a time that the experienced people there were having a lot of success too.


It was an interesting little hobby for a bit but my lack of results made me lose interest."
todayilearned,"Yup, it's called the [coastline paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_paradox). 

Coastlines have fractal-like properties. The closer you measure them, the longer the line you measure becomes. A true fractal has technically infinite length along its borders. In real life, if you could somehow freeze time so the tides and waves and whatnot don't interfere, you could measure a coastline down to the atom. It'd be a staggeringly large number, but it'd be finite. For all intents an purposes though, you could say a coastline has an infinite length if you don't specify a scale or resolution.

[Here's a numberphile video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dcDuVyzb8Y) that does a decent job of explaining it."
todayilearned,"Wait... I understand the concept that the smaller the unit of measurement, the larger the number becomes... 

But he says that eventually the number would exceed the actual length of the coastline by millions of miles...

How does that work?

Even if you’re measuring it in millimeters, the end result would never be larger than the true length of the coastline, right? 

You’d be getting more and more accurate as your unit of measurement got down in size, and then eventually it’d be small enough that you would just be able to measure the actual length of the coastline without missing any of it, right?

Probably once you get down to measuring in inches the differences in length start to get pretty negligible, or at least far smaller than when you’re measuring in miles or whatever, right? 

That part doesn’t make sense to me..."
todayilearned,"I was born in Geurnsey (a channel island) and recently visited for the first time in 15 years last was when I was 7. My dad and his friends are the ones that told me they have the second largest tide in the world and let me tell you it is amazing to drive into town and the area around the bank is empty and dried up with rocks and moss then only 3/4 hours later your leaving and its about to break the bank and flow over which it regularly does.

Also on a side note they have the worlds smallest distance between a pub and a church, they all called it the church pub and the two roofs from the buildings basically touching. It was an honor to have a beer there. "
todayilearned,"Nah pretty much just that first episode. Maybe a bit more in the next one or two as that specific storyline continues and he keeps giving that speech, I don't recall if that finished up in the one episode or not, but once they actually move to the Ozarks I don't believe it ever comes up again. It just becomes part of Marty's sales pitch to anyone in the cartel as he's trying to convince them of his plan. Once it's approved, that's it."
todayilearned,"A goose actually bullied me throughout my elementary school years in Canada. That mofucka would be at the same fucking spot as I walked home from school. Sometimes he'd just stare at me, other times he'd run up at me. Other times he would just charge then stop and then stare, 100% in a *that's right bitch. know your place pussy* sort of way. I genuinely believe I saw that goose laugh at me a few times. 

Ngl I was scared to walk home from school most days at a point. I started taking a way longer route just to avoid that fucker. 

He probably grew up and has a hotass goose wife now, and they probably talk shit about me and laugh. And I don't blame them. He got me good those days

"
todayilearned,Want to know a good way to get a sense of the amount of lakes/water in Canada? Open Google maps on your phone. Zoom so that the USA from the southern tip of Texas to the northern border takes up the full height of your phone. Center it so that the southern tip of Texas is in the center at the bottom. Now scroll North. See all those lakes? Those are just the huge ones that can be seen at that scale. Now zoom in a spot with a lot of lakes. Keep going. It's like a lake fractal.
todayilearned,"Not really, if you measure with fractions of km its the same as measuring in cm.  It's when you measure a coastline and zoom in, it seems to get longer because you have more detail to change angle more often.

You certainly can change angle more often than every km if you're measuring the coast in km while walking along it.

e: saying you need to measure in full units is beyond retarded, imagine measuring a 0.51 km by 0.51 km box.  Yeah if you measure in km (1x1) instead of meters (510x510), its bigger with the rounding.  Likewise, when there's tons of .001 km lines around the edge, all those kms get rounded to 0."
todayilearned,">Conclusion

>It is evident from the above analysis that determining the country that has the most amount of lakes is a difficult task. When researching the amount of lakes a country has it is important to use accurate and reliable websites. Depending on who you ask, the country with the highest number of lakes may differ. The topic is still open to a lot of debate.

Holy shit, it's like reading my high school essays."
todayilearned,"Imagine you're trying to measure your yard. You could set a straight line end to end, or you could measure up and down each individual blade of grass in a straight line, which will be much longer.

The difference is there's a majority consensus on how to measure a yard. Measuring a coastline really depends on your frame of reference... If you're walking it, you measure by pace lengths. If you're looking at a globe, you might measure by multiple miles."
todayilearned,"There's something called ""The Coastline Paradox"" where you can keep measuring at smaller and smaller intervals and never get a truly accurate answer because of how much it changes based on how precise your measurements are.

Best way to demonstrate this on a small, visual scale is by trying to measure the coastline of Long Island, New York. When you zoom out it doesn't look too difficult, but keep zooming in and realize how impossible it is to get an accurate measurement with a smaller scale, like feet or inches.

That's one island, less than 120 miles long.

Now try mapping Florida's coast. Or the entire United States.

I'm amazed they use something as specific as miles or kilometers to measure coastlines. "
todayilearned,"Ehh, if you really want to be picky about terminology you could argue that unit of ""measurement"" means the unit in which the measurement was taken, essentially the unit on the tool used for taking the measurement, and that would be the limiting factor on the precision of the measurement for the purpose of the paradox. The unit in which the measurement is expressed would not change the results but the actual unit of measurement does."
todayilearned,"Measuring something in kilometers does not mean you have to use a kilometer long stick and keep moving it. When I measure something in feet I use a tape measure which has inches and centimeters and meters on it. This is just a pretty stupid thing and could be said for literally any shape in the world. Oh you have a perfect square that's 1.5km per side. Well if I measure in kilometers I'm gonna get 2 kilometers per side? This is just a really stupid random ""fact"" that isn't even a fact it's more an idiots interpretation of how things are measured.

Edit: looking at the descriptions of the coastline paradox in other posts, your description is just poor. It's not a fun fact, it's a thought experiment, where a coastline is used as an example due to it's shape. This is not a fact, it's a good way to think about the issue of ""how close of a measurement is close enough"" because the fact is you can measure something in kilometers without using a kilometer long stick."
todayilearned,"If you allow fractions of a kilometer, then you have to keep on dividing that kilometer into smaller and smaller measurements until you reach, well... atomic scale, I guess.

It doesn't have to be a kilometer ""resolution"", it could be 1/2 of a kilometer, or 1/10 of a kilometer. But you have to stop somewhere and decide ""okay, this is the smallest straight line that I will use to measure the coastline""."
todayilearned,"the point is where do you cutoff though

last .3 kilometers to finish an island make sense to use decimals

however those 10 inlets that are 1 meter wide and 5 meters inland over a 50 meter stretch, do we count them all as straight coast and just take it as 0.05 kilometers or do we add .1 kilometers to account for them. 

If we account for them what about the large rock that fell in the water on an otherwise straight shoreline adding 2 meters to go around it 

So when a map of shoreline is measured in a unit it is usually assumed that its the shore traced out as best as possibly by that unit"
todayilearned,"All I did was use your interpretation of the coastline paradox to point out why your interpretation is wrong. You can literally do this with a perfect circle. As your units of measurement get smaller, you will approach a circumference of exactly pi*d. It is a thought experiment, not a fact.

Edit to clarify: All I'm saying is that your explanation would apply to my square and circle examples. In reality this thought experiment deals with measuring infinite fractals. The farther down in scale you go, the more of the fractal you see and can measure. You can keep going down in scale forever, so the length goes to infinity, even if it all fits on a single piece of paper. Another actual fact is that coastlines are nowhere near perfect fractals down to a infinitesimally small scale so either way calling this a fact is just misleading and the reason your post irked me. It would have went much better if it started out ""Fun fact: there is a thought experiment regarding coastlines..."""
todayilearned,"That's America's secret climate change strategy. Once we run out of water because the entire lower 48 is desert now, we take over Canada and put all Canadians to work in the water mines of Northern America. The propaganda posters of the era will call this pond hockey, hearkening back to the days when Canada's vast network of freshwater bodies would freeze over during the Christmas shopping season. Allegedly these stoic Canadians would tape knives to their shoes and repeatedly stab these outdoor ice cubes until one of them demonstrated that they had more grit over a period of 60 minutes, then they would form opposing conga lines, give each other full body hugs, and collect a novelty drinking mug from the forest nymphs. Which I guess had to be returned or something because they were too poor to make new cups every year, and everyone in Canada had to share the one. 

PS: At this time America will no longer be known as the United States of America but the Corporate Alliance of Capitalist America. No longer having a government, but becoming the libertarian paradise of a *strictly voluntary* confederation of corporate interests with no regulatory bodies or collective checks against their unlimited power. 

All labour will be done by robots, but instead of it being a good thing that no one ever has to work again it will be a bad thing because the CACA will just continue to generate wealth for themselves exponentially while sharing none of it with the dirty poor. Our lives will be their entertainment."
todayilearned,"Yes, but you get different measurements depending on how wiggly the string is. 

Consider points A and B which are 20m apart in a straight line.  Coastlines are never straight so you measure using a string which bends (wiggles) every 1cm. Straighten it out and you get a measurement of 35m (for example). Then you use a different string, but this one bends every 1mm. Straighten it out and you get a measurement of 80m. 

As you keep using a smaller and smaller unit of measurement the length of the coastline increases."
todayilearned,"Well first of all it’s not a true paradox, just looks like one depending on how you word it.

Second, I’m pretty sure I did say it came down to semantics, but regardless, the two measurements are just two different versions of the real answer, differing on levels of accuracy.

Third, please tell me how it is incorrect that the km measurement is just a less accurate measurement than the cm one. 


If I count how long it takes for someone to run 100 meters and get 20 seconds, while a timing system gets 20.03 seconds, was my counting wrong, or just inaccurate? You could argue it’s wrong, but the error would be 0.15%, basically negligible. What would you round 20.03 to? 20

Now imagine if you wanted to find the average velocity, and from that find how long it would take that person to run a few kilometers, and from that find their energy output. After all those calculations, that error can be amplified. So no, my counting wouldn’t be a rounding error, but it might as well be; it would have the same effect in the long run."
todayilearned,"My point is that based on your explanation this effect would work with any shape, which is just how I pointed out your misunderstanding and your poor explanation. You talk about moving a kilometer long stick or something as if the unit of measurement matters at all. It is the scale at which you are looking at the problem, and has nothing to do with what unit of measurement you're using. With a fractal, the closer you look at something the more complicated the shape becomes. You are physically measuring a different shape when measuring at different scales. Your explanation is as if the shape remains the same and it is the size of your stick that is changing, which is why a circle has the same effect you are describing. You are describing the wrong effect."
todayilearned,"It still works with fractions and decimals. Think of it like tracing your hand with a ruler, if you choose to draw in segments of say 2cm the outline is on the scale a bad approximation but the total distance of line may be 45. If you do the same with something like 0.2cm the approximation comes closer and the perimeter increases, you can keep decreasing the ruler size and get a closer approximation but you could always decrease the the ruler size and get a closer approximation all the while increasing the perimeter"
todayilearned,"By ""measure in km"" they mean if you took a ruler that size. If you convert the units to meters, it would disagree with the measurement if you measured with a ruler of a meter. Does that make sense? Basically, measuring something is different than stating the length. All ""measurements"" of a coastline are estimates is basically the reason behind this. The way people are using ""measure"" here is as the most basic meaning of the verb ""to determine the length of.""

Your last section should be:

>The fact is you can state the length of something in kilometers without using a kilometer long stick to measure it."
todayilearned,"This is why we should never sell our water.

 And a big _FUCK YOU_ to Nestle, who has stolen it.

 I hope one day, you get payback by an avalanche crushing one of your factories, and others get sucked into a hole in the earth, and others become destroyed by flooding.

 Nestle makes Dick Cheney *seem* almost human in comparison.

 And it reminds me of this old passage : 
  
 “When the Last Tree is Cut Down, the Last Fish Eaten, and the Last Stream Poisoned, You Will Realize You Cannot Eat Money”

 https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/10/20/last-tree-cut/

 _Canada NEEDS to tell Nestle to stop stealing our water, or get the fuck out of our country._



ಠ_ಠ"
todayilearned,"Dying by moose is a real cause of death on Canadian Highways.  I don't know that anyone has ever assembled an actual annual figure but it would not surprise me if the annual total was greater then 50 people deceased in moose/car accidents per annum.

My dad was driving through Alqonquin Park about 15 yrs ago and a moose just jumped right out in front of the car.  He was only going about 25km/hr - the speed limit in the park is low just for such reasons but the car was declared a write off by the insurance company.  Their air bags went off so they were not seriously hurt by the moose, which bounced off the windshield among its many bounces and kicks.  It walked away relatively unharmed.

Any Canadian who lives in a rural area will attest to what moose can do.   They are gorgeous majestic creatures but freaking dangerous in more ways then one would imagine.

​"
todayilearned,"From Vic, getting educated in Van, here's my $0.02

Vancouver is pay to play. It takes ages to get anywhere, and its uber expensive to own a car here and it'll still take ages to get anywhere. The transit is way better, no contest, and booze in bars is actually approachably priced (around half what they charge in Vic). Closest natural beauty is up the Sea to Sky, very pretty and very expensive. Very international populace in Van. Being on the mainland brings you a ferry ride closer to any given mainland road trip destination, eg California, the Okanagan, interior ski resorts.

Victoria is very laid back, way less conspicuous consumption than Van. Considerably more natural beauty that is considerably closer. You need a car way more in Vic cause the transit sucks, but it rains 100 fewer days per year than Van so riding a bike is more consistently non-horrible. Vic has superior outdoor lake experiences to be had, all of Vancouver's swimming lakes are >40 mins from DT. However Victoria is insanely homogeneous compared to Vancouver.

For living, if you can get a really good job as a skilled professional in Vancouver, it's a fine place to be. 

For a vacation, Victoria/VI outshines Vancouver due to it's proximity to superior outdoor adventure areas. Vancouver wins in rock climbing, skiing and fancy bougie shit. 

For raising a family, Victoria hands down. It's growing fast so it's liable to change over the course of time that a family is raised, but I think you can't beat the more relaxed pace and simpler lifestyle that Vic has to offer."
todayilearned,"Yeah,  the banana harvest might be late this year.  Lol. 

Oh,  no,  wait,  Vancouver really is terrible,  Americans!  Actually,  all of Canada is!  The geese are vicious,  the dogsled traffic on the 401 is unreal,  and between the wild moose and grizzly bears ripping up the igloos all the time,  it's unreal.  Not to mention the damn elk assaulting you at the bank machine,  and wolves on the golf course.... 

You're better off where you are. "
todayilearned,Common sense would in terms of what was described above relate to a particular frame of reference. Common sense would have no value in measuring your yard in terms of ant foot falls to cross one end to the other nor would it value the time relative for an orbiting satellite in LEO to pass its length projected into the orbital path. A civilization made up of self aware satellites or ants however may not agree.
todayilearned,"Eli5 here: the thing about the coastlines is that they are infinitely ""rough"", which means that the smaller ruler you use, the better. Imagine measuring a country on a map, if you use a 30cm stick, it's not as accurate as using a 10cm stick, and not as accurate as using a 1cm stick. And the coastlines using 1cm stick maybe TWICE than using the 30cm stick (just and e.g). So measuring the coastlines indeed all depends on different methods."
todayilearned,"I'll agree it's not a real paradox. It's counterintuitive though. 

Say you've got an island that's roughly circular, one mile across. Its circumference should be roughly 3.14 miles, right? But then you look closer and there's a lot of inlets and fjords, peninsulas and estuaries. You factor those in, and all the sudden your island is 300 miles in diameter. Measure closer and it's 30,000 miles in diameter. Clearly not a logical conclusion when you assume the answer would be roughly pi from the geometry of the thing."
todayilearned,">You have that hard of a time accepting you were wrong?

Lol

Ok listen buddy. It's very obvious by your comment you thought there were grizzlies all over the island. That or you're terrible at grammar. Either way you're clearly the one in the wrong, you literally cited an article that said exactly what I said, they *sometimes* come over from the mainland, so how am I 'wrong'?

I tried to give you an out by saying I don't really care to argue about something so petty but you kept going, despite your comment literally being right above, showing that you're bullshitting this whole time. ""Grizzlies and cougars aplenty"" not ""We have cougars aplenty and sometimes grizzlies"". You need to grow up and learn to admit when you're wrong. It's the internet, it does not matter this much. You've clearly dug yourself in so deep so I'm assuming this is just going to keep going until I give up, so that's it, I'm done wasting my time on this lmao."
todayilearned,"I mean, stuff like this bothered me way back when I was in school. But now, I've realized that that language is always changing. Ain't is a word now and it is in the dictionary. The thing is, words in a language are not made by dictionaries; they are made by people using it and giving it meaning. It's not dumb for a language to evolve. In fact, it's healthy. The only languages that don't evolve over time are dead ones."
todayilearned,"> The coastline isn't ""the entire stretch of sandy beach"", it's ""where the water touches the coast"".

Fine, that's a fair way to look at it but then it becomes entirely impossible to measure the coastline at all because it's constantly changing dramatically at an atomic level. For practical purposes, I think it would be fair to say that the ""coast"" is the section of land that is typically covered at high tide and uncovered at low tide. Which, depending on the beach, might be 0 meters wide (vertical cliff) or 100+ meters if it's shallow, but it's fairly straightforward to define. Within that defined stretch of land, if you try to trace some path through the center of it, any resolution smaller than 1 meter seems like it would be fairly useless"
todayilearned,"I'm the kind of person to spends a lot of time in my head, thinking, over-analyzing. When I perceive negative social cues from someone, I rack my brain trying to assign a reason for them. Over time this has become a list of (confirmed & unconfirmed) reasons why people might not like me. We're raised from childhood that if you're nice and a good person, people will like you. You'll have friends. When that doesn't happen, it's obviously your fault. You didn't do something right. 

Fast forward to having 2-3 decades worth of (possible) reasons built up... You become hypersensitive to how others might be perceiving you. Now it's not even just when I get a negative reaction from someone, but also a neutral reaction. My brain goes ""what did you do that they don't like you?"" and searches its database for the most minute infraction I could have commited. 

Now it becomes a self fulfilling cycle. People like people with confidence. So when you lack confidence, you receive fewer positive reactions from people. This lack of positive reactions further fuels the idea that something is wrong with you, and pushes you're confidence even lower. It's an incredibly hard cycle to break out of because all the evidence you see points to something being wrong with you. Why else wouldn't people like you more?

"
todayilearned,"ahh i see your self esteem hasnt suck to the level where you dont even bother worrying about it anymore because you feel entirely powerless to make change, which results in your being perceived as being extremely self confident, leaving you needing to cross a valley in self esteem gains to resolve said discrepancy - too little a gain takes you back in to thinking you can control others judgment of you :(

under the right circumstances, i can project a persona of myself that is confident in ways that would make the Fox Tv Lucifer jealous because i am so low literally nothing matters. the second i receive a little too much positive response and self esteem boost, i crash and withdraw back in to over analyzing and despair.

shits vicious!"
todayilearned,"I think one of the worst things we do to kids is lie to them about human nature. Telling them all you have to do to make friends is ""be nice,"" is misleading. You need to be respectful, but you also need to be aware of social cues in order to do that effectively. They also don't tell you that if you don't fit in properly, other kids won't be able to empathize with you, and you have a high probability of getting shunned. They don't tell you that socializing is a skill that needs to be developed, and kids think there is something wrong with them if they can't do it naturally."
todayilearned,"This is really relatable. It sucks. I don't know how distinct social anxiety is but I suffer from it pretty bad and between the outright fear and constant overthinking due to low self esteem it's really hard to want to socialise. I don't lock myself away anymore but even when I do go out it's rare that I'll enjoy it or not have something happen that I spend the next week agonising over.

The irony is that I hate insecure people who bitch about others, but am probably the most insecure person I know. I suppose on the plus side this allows me to be hyper aware of when I'm being an insecure little bitch and hide it, even if I can't overcome it or deal with it."
todayilearned,"TBH I don't think it's the confidence that makes people stay but rather the neediness to explain themselves all the time to people with zero confidence that yes they like you and no they didn't mean XY in a bad way.

I also wonder whether Americans are more prone to depending on happy reactions since the pursuit of happiness is literally part of your declaration. At least I remember quite vividly from my stay there that people asked me if I'm not happy because I don't smile and I was like ""ummm no, it's just that I'm ""
only feeling ""neutral"" right now which is why I make a neutral face. Sun can't always shine can it? "" which oftentimes resulted in blank faces on my American friends.

The other way around, we told our American guests in Germany that yes people do think you're mentally challenged if you smile ALL the time. "
todayilearned,"couldnt have said it better, this was me before but instead of over-analyzing what other people are thinking or how they precive me, now I over-analyze what Im doing in the moment and it just makes me forget about everything else and now its become subconscious for me to just think and analyze things im doing or about to do just coz everyday life is getting boring if I don't talk and amuse myself "
todayilearned,"Therapy helps, even if it's just being able to talk through your thought process. 

Meditation has helped me build awareness, so I can realize I'm having unjustified negative thoughts and stop them. 

Just a guess based on how you wrote it, but it may be more an issue of introversion/extroversion than low/high self esteem. Our society seems to ascribe a perception of confidence to those who are more extroverted, while viewing introverts as weird, ""off"", or having low self esteem. 

>Especially when a low self esteem person finds high self esteem people the most offensive.

This could be two things, either A.)envy and resentment for how easily it seems to come, or B.) Many introverts like myself find certain extremely extroverted people annoying. They're draining for us. They're loud. They don't think before they speak. They're rude (they'll often talk right over us when we try to start speaking) and in spite of all these things people seem to like them more. 

The biggest thing people can do to help is to simply understand. There are a couple books, The Introvert Advantage maybe? that do a good job of explaining this. "
todayilearned,">I also wonder whether Americans are more prone to depending on happy reactions since the pursuit of happiness is literally part of your declaration. At least I remember quite vividly from my stay there that people asked me if I'm not happy because I don't smile and I was like ""ummm no, it's just that I'm "" only feeling ""neutral"" right now which is why I make a neutral face. Sun can't always shine can it? "" which oftentimes resulted in blank faces on my American friends.

Definitely! People don't know what to make of me because I don't look happy all the time, so they assume I'm angry/sad/a psychopath.

People in the U.S. think its weird when they ask how I am, or how my weekend was, and I say it was OK. They act like life is either amazing or horrible with no middle ground. "
todayilearned,"I was going to type a response to OP, but I couldn't have said it any better than you did.

I literally over analyze every social situation that I could potentially be in, I look for any possible negative outcomes and because of that possibility of eliciting a negative reaction, I usually don't speak much. And because of that, people think I'm standoffish. Its not that I intentionally try to be, its just that I'm terrified of getting a negative reaction from someone.

I try and try to remind myself that none of this really matters. Who cares if I say something stupid, or make a joke that isn't funny? None of that matters in the long term--hell, nobody is going to remember it in an hour or so. But I still over-analyze everything. It fucking sucks. "
todayilearned,"This is also why, at least in my opinion, we have issues with ""nice guys"". Little boys are/were outright told at a young age that if you're nice to girls, give them things they want, and try to make them happy, that they'll like you. 

TV/Movies teach boys that the grand romantic gesture, from the quiet awkward guy to the pretty girl who doesn't know he exists, is all it takes for her to realize he was perfect all along and fall in love with him. 

So many are taught that that's how you ""earn"" a woman's love. So when they do all that and it doesn't work it shatters their world view and they don't know how to react or cope. "
todayilearned,"For me the break in the cycle was realizing that attributing the actions of everyone around me to myself was actually pretty self-centered (ironically) and that most of the things I was trying to analyze contained unknowns that it was impossible to know all of.  For example, I  was nice to somenone and not terribly awkward and then they were a jerk to me or blew me off.  Theoretically it could have been a failure or flaw of some kind on my part, but maybe they were having a bad day, or they just got dumped, or yelled at by their boss, or their cat threw up in their shoe that morning or maybe they are a jerk to everyone, or maybe they have low self esteem and thought I was being patronizing somehow because they are hypersensitive...   
It is impossible to know all the factors, and it is pretty unlikely that most of your social interactions have anything to do with some deep, hidden character flaws that you have discovered after years of analysis.  The reasons people act certain ways are much more likely to be based on their own lives and minds than anything about you and people are so complex that after years of close contact you can still discover new things about them and see them change over time.  
I found that giving other people the benefit of the doubt was the first step in giving myself the benefit of the doubt in those kind of social over-analyzing moments and it was an incredible balm for my peace of mind."
todayilearned,"It's like, you know the Truman Show is just a movie, but can't help but feel like some version of that is happening to you. But your self esteem is so shit, you know its not a show or anything. People are just talking shit about you all the time, and word of your shittyness travels wherever you go, through people that don't even know each other. And the whole time, you realize how absurd that sounds. "
todayilearned,"Oh 100%. But across rich countries, distribution of wealth plays a huge impact in how it’s like to be disabled. Keller argued for socialism because she felt that wealth needed to be better distributed to improve accessibility to those with special needs  I was comparing the more socialized countries (in terms of healthcare and accessibility) to the US because they’re all rich and it’s more of an apples to apples comparison than US to Yemen. "
todayilearned,"You must not be from the US. Dont believe everything you read on the internet about people shitting on US healthcare. The disabled are very well taken care of here. Is it perfect? of course not, Is it pretty fucking good? Yes, yes it is. Is it as good Finland or Australia? I dont know, I've never been there, but I can tell you this; I have family members with disabilities and they have been well taken care of by the government assistance programs that exist for them. Please quit regurgitating dumbass shit you read on Reddit as factual information. "
todayilearned,"That is not what that means at all. ""Arguably the best"" means that you could argue it is the best, as in #1. 

If you were trying to say what you later moved your goalposts to mean, then you would have written ""arguably among the best"".

Either claim is very ""arguably"" indeed though, because the US doesn't rank very high compared to most Western countries when it comes to these sorts of things."
todayilearned,"Capitalism by design will only accomodate for the disabled if there is a financial incentive to do so. It is now unprofitable to be seen not to accomodate for the disabled. This is a relatively new invention.

More socialists schools of thought accomodate for diabled people as a matter of ethical course.


This isn't a socailsm vs capitalism thing, it's just an observation on why each system works how it does."
todayilearned,">Socialism in first world countries is the reason there are poor countries

Such as?

I presume you are not going to list countries in the former Soviet Union, since they were part of a closed-economy under a communist dictatorship, rather than socialism. Or Venezuela, which is poor because it decided to base over 90% of it's economy on oil.

Can you tell me which countries are poor because they are socialist?

>Outsourcing to China and Asia lifted more than a billion people out of poverty in the last 25 years

Yes, but it does this on that back of brutal expolitation of labour, and that wealth collects at the top.

The correct way is to appropriate the best aspects of both systems.
"
todayilearned,"Tell that to the people I know who have had to choose between getting treatment or keeping a place to sleep. People who have been put onto the streets because of medical crises, and people who I have had to personally convince to go to the ER so they don't die of preventable shit because they're terrified of how costly it is. I'm sure your experiences are fine but they are not universal and you need to have some empathy. I know it's easy to forget that your experiences are not everyone's, but it's the truth. "
todayilearned,"The countries extreme stance on international trade, government protectionism/intervention particularly in agriculture. The Uzbek state insists and mandate that cotton and wheat be the crops grown, how much land that farmers must use or not use, and the State then keeps the wages for growing those crops artificially low compared to world market prices and then uses the available difference to subsidize industrial factories (planes, trains, and automobiles in a very literal sense.) There is a literal salary cap in Uzbekistan, and there are bank withdrawal limits put in place to prevent fleeing/tax evasion/ or foreign investment from being taken away. Extremely high tariffs and random (but enforced) border closures prevent confident foreign investment.  

But while Uzbekistan government is heavily involved with cash crops, the farmers and Uzbek people have been able to grow their cattle herds substantially and led to farmers focusing any available land to other crops- where the government does not intervene so heavily and in some cases not at all. Items such as milk, fruit, vegetables, meat are not regulated in the same sense and do conform to traditional capitalist forces. The Uzbek government is fairly successful in taxing most of its citizens because the government uses all banking agencies as tax collection centers. 

Just because there are traces of capitalism in an economy does not make the economy capitalistic. Just because there are traces of socialism in an economy does not make an economy socialistic. It is ridiculous to categorize in such a manner. And power laying in the hands of a rich, ruling class is not a staple of capitalism- that's absolutely made up."
todayilearned,"> Yes, but it does this on that back of brutal expolitation of labour, and that wealth collects at the top.

Hundreds of millions of asians now have access to healthcare, education and social security thanks to those jobs that were outsourced, I guess you rather they still lived as subsistance farmers and starve during the next drought. But who cares about them right? The only important thing is that baristas and McD workers in America make $15 an hour.."
todayilearned,"> State Capitalism isn't a thing. Capitalism is inherently tied to private ownership and free-market principles, laissez-faire, etc.

No that's wrong. All capitalism requires is a market, some degree of private ownership and a rule of those who own capital and/or the means of production, i.e. in form of a republic, a oligarchy or a plutocracy.

> If something is fully government controlled, then it is some form of socialism or fascism. That doesn't mean it's intrinsically bad or awful. 

No it doesn't. I'm tired of this American ignorance calling anything the government does fascism. It makes no difference if something is done by a corporation or the government. Also fascism is a form of capitalism, so there's an example for state capitalism."
todayilearned,"

You've literally changed the definition of capitalism in an effort to fit your own idea of what you think capitalism is.  

There is no such thing as state capitalism. State capitalism is not private ownership as it requires the state to  heavily involved. Capitalism doesn't need just some amount of private ownership, it requires private ownership. 

Fascism isn't a form of capitalism, it's of a form of totalitarianism. In a capitalist system, power can be held in the hands of a small group of individuals, but that power can easily be move to new individuals as well. That's part of the  volatility of a capitalistic market. An oligarchy or autocracy is central control of markets by direction of a central authority. You're talking about forms of government that would not allow a capitalistic economic system. Or I should say, no example of oligarchies or autocracies have allowed for a capitalistic economic system. If you're going to maintain such a massive and expansive definition of capitalism, you might as well suggest that the USSR was capitalist because it had a strong black market.


I'm not sure why you're bring up American ignorance into this discussion. "
todayilearned,"Mars bars have been gone for a while in the US. They are Snickers with almonds now

Edit:
Not sure why I was downvoted (I assume it's due to some confusion over Mars bar the candy and Mars bar the company) but here's a link: 

>The Mars Bar has a new name - Snickers Almond Bar. It is a candy bar with roasted almonds, nougat, caramel and milk chocolate. The name changed in 2000.

https://www.oldtimecandy.com/products/snickers-almond-bar"
todayilearned,"TIL.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fried_chicken

> The first dish known to have been deep fried was fritters, which were popular in the Middle Ages. However, it was the Scottish who were the first Europeans to deep fry their chicken in fat (though without seasoning). Meanwhile, a number of West African peoples had traditions of seasoned fried chicken (though battering and cooking the chicken in palm oil). Scottish frying techniques and West African seasoning techniques were combined by enslaved Africans and African-Americans in the American South."
todayilearned,"There's also the deep fried Mars Bars (Americans know them as Milky Way)

We've got such a polarising relationship with food, because on one hand we have some of the best restaurants in the world. With some of the highest standards in gourmet cuisine, being performed by some of the most talented motherfuckers ever to hold a knife. And on the other hand, we'll have a donor kebab calzone, deep fried and served with extra chilli sauce because we're drunk as fuck and need something greasy to line our stomachs. "
todayilearned,"Ahem... excuse me... sorry to interrupt, but you said both 

>...called a Mars bar everywhere outside North America.

and 

>What the rest of the world calls a Milky Way is what you guys in the US call...

I hate to be a bother, but I think you're forgetting at the very least Canada; the other 21 countries and 9 territories will have to speak for themselves.

In Canada we call them Mars as well. 

I actually do find it fascinating the things we have in common with the US versus what we have in common with everyone else. It's actually surprising how much more like other parts of the world we are than the States; it's much more than most (including me) would probably have suspected."
todayilearned,"You got downvoted, but according to this [candy website](https://www.oldtimecandy.com/products/snickers-almond-bar):

>The Mars Bar has a new name - Snickers Almond Bar. It is a candy bar with roasted almonds, nougat, caramel and milk chocolate. The name changed in 2000.

I'm Canadian though so I can't speak from experience, just happened to see that earlier when researching Mars bars instead of doing my work.

Ninja edit: ahahaha, holy shit, just read 1 comment below and saw that you already explained that to someone else and posted the exact same link!"
todayilearned,I find it interesting that in the US all confectionary bars are called ‘candy bars’. Where I live in Canada what most Americans call a candy bar would be called a chocolate bar. Candy bars here are bars without chocolate. Not a big thing but I always find the small differences between the two countries very interesting. I live in Vancouver and the accent here is very similar to Seattle to the point you’d be hard pressed to hear the difference until someone said a key word like ‘drama’ or ‘decal’. 
todayilearned,When it comes to logarithmically increasing/decreasing light our eyes do have a logarithmic response (like film) but our modern digital cameras do not (they are linear). This is why our eyes (and film) do so well with bright sunny days and beautiful sunsets while digital cameras and their digital photos struggled for years to beautifully and naturally render high contrast scenes. They overexpose too quickly. The flip side is that these linear CMOS sensors are better at seeing into the shadows and into low light - something our eyes and film struggles with.
todayilearned,"I hear ya, same age, my GameFAQs account turned 17 this year. It may not be as popular as it once was but those still around tend to genuinely helpful and non toxic. I still use their forums for certain games, I’m leveraging one of Keyblade999’s guides for a perfect FFX play through right this moment. It’s good stuff, it bums me out it’s dying a bit. They used to be so popular their non video game forums were active. And secret private boards, in all honesty in another universe GameFAQs could of become Reddit. "
todayilearned,"I actually only play emulators these days I have a ps2 but I don’t think it’s been plugged in this year ...currently I got ready 2 rumble boxing on n64 paused lol (bought this shit on amazon that’s a nes,snes,sega Genesis, n64,and ps2 bootleg usb controller in one box) and anyway yeah I still go to gamefaqs several times a week minimum 

I have a room that is 90% just a comfy chair and the computer I use to play that shit


Edit I still have an n64 and a couple handfuls of games but I mean they’re Nokia tier immortal "
todayilearned,"Idk what you're trying to get at but I suggest you look into the details of the case first.

Edit: your comment is perfect irony. You're the exact type of person I'm talking about when I say ""even confronted with evidence to the contrary, people double down and blindly believe the lying corporations over the actual truth"". Because googling for the truth takes a bit of effort and critical thinking, and it's easier to just have all your opinions spoon fed to you."
todayilearned,"Indeed. That poor woman's labia became fused, no reasonable person can ever say she was wrong if they've seen the pictures.

What's more, she asked for the bare minimum amount to cover her medical expenses. When McDonald's refused, her lawyer (wisely) took it to court and won much more for her. I understand that McDonald's has a corporate strategy when it comes to legal proceedings but someone fucked up bad on that part."
todayilearned,"I did?

​

\>  Morgan filed suit in New Mexico District Court accusing McDonald's of ""[gross negligence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_negligence)"" for selling coffee that was ""unreasonably dangerous"" and ""defectively manufactured"".

​

She meant ""hot"", it was ""hot"", maybe more than usual, but that does not matter?!

​

There is a reason why cant let emotions rule over everything, just because someone got hurt doesnt mean they are right.

​

\>  Detractors have argued that McDonald's refusal to offer more than an $800 settlement for the $10,500 in medical bills indicated that the suit was meritless and highlighted the fact that Liebeck spilled the coffee on herself rather than any wrongdoing on the company's part.[\[20\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants#cite_note-20)[\[21\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants#cite_note-21)[\[22\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants#cite_note-Frank_Urban_Legends-22) They also argued that the coffee was not defective because McDonald's coffee conformed to industry standards,[\[2\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants#cite_note-Gerlin-2) and coffee continues to be served as hot or hotter today at McDonald's and chains like [Starbucks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starbucks).

​

Re to your edit: Yes obviously, i have no idea. and i spent no effort researching..... ahhahah you are pathetic

​

​

Fuck, I hate you emotional people thinking victims are always right."
todayilearned,"One quoted excerpt does not an entire case make.

Did you read about the part where they found that the second degree burns Stella Liebeck suffered weren't the first to happen from McDonald's coffee?

That McDonalds had a log book with *hundreds* of recorded instances of people receiving terrible burns from their coffee?

That in spite of hundreds of recorded serious burns, McDonald's did absolutely nothing to change their procedure or rectify the issue?

That when Ms. Liebeck initially got burned she approached McDonalds to try and recoup the medical costs she incurred for the ***skin grafts needed on her thighs and pubic region*** and McDonalds offered her only $800?

Yeah, you need to actually research into this instead of skimming for a few sentences that validate your preconceived opinions.


> Re to your edit: Yes obviously, i have no idea. and i spent no effort researching.

Well, thanks for admitting your faults, that's the first step."
todayilearned,"You're flat out wrong. I've been through every detail of this case before, and that lady was right in suing. The temperature in McDonalds machines was found to be kept at dangerous levels and they have since changed it. The lady got paid.

I don't see how else to put it to you that you're siding with a company that acted negligently, contributed to the harm of an elderly woman, and then lobbied a smear campaign against her in the media."
todayilearned,"
>I don't see how else to put it to you that you're siding with a company that acted negligently, contributed to the harm of an elderly woman, and then lobbied a smear campaign against her in the media.

Let's not mince words here, that's *exactly* what he's doing here.

He formed his opinion on this by having it fed to him by McDonald's smear campaign. And we know of the fallacy that people tend to believe the information they heard first over the actually correct information.

Now he's so entrenched in the opinion/position fed to him that even the fact he was lied to about this by McDonalds, the media and the insurance companies isn't a possibility for him. He'll continue to perform mental gymnastics to convince himself he's right."
todayilearned,"This is even more brutal:

In this case . . . while the challenged packaging contains the word “berries” it does so only in conjunction with the descriptive term “crunch.” This Court is not aware of, nor has Plaintiff alleged the existence of, any actual fruit referred to as a “crunchberry.” Furthermore, the “Crunchberries” depicted on the [box] are round, crunchy, brightly-colored cereal balls, and the [box] clearly states both that the Product contains “sweetened corn & oat cereal” and that the cereal is “enlarged to show texture.” Thus, a reasonable consumer would not be deceived into believing that the Product in the instant case contained a fruit that does not exist. . . . So far as this Court has been made aware, there is no such fruit growing in the wild or occurring naturally in any part of the world."
todayilearned,"I want to know what lawyer took this case on and whether he was sanctioned for wasting America’s time and money.

My friend is a lawyer and they say one of the biggest problems with the legal system is judges don’t take enough actions against frivolous law suits. As soon as this woman described her case to a lawyer they should have shown her the door, but they think a big enough company will just settle no matter what so they try to take advantage. Really this is the lawyers fault because know better, the woman was just their pawn."
todayilearned,"The media contributed greatly to this perception.  It was like a game of telephone where the facts of the case were marginalized or even misrepresented.  As story moved from outlet to outlet it became more and more sensationalized, focusing entirely on the award and coffee being hot.  At some point it was being reported that she was the driver of the vehicle and had opened the lid while driving the vehicle when that was not the case.  She had third degree burns on 16% of her body and McDonald's was aware of over 700 similar incidents and had settled such cases in the past.  Further, it even came out that despite McDonald's claims that it was initially so hot because they expected consumers to drive a distance before consuming the coffee, their own market research suggested they knew otherwise. 

Here's a good video on the case:

[Scalded by coffee, then the news media]
(https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000002507537/scalded-by-coffee-then-news-media.html)
"
todayilearned,"It's sad. McDonalds launched a campaign to completely discredit that woman. I remember when it was all going down everyone was reporting on the story like it was a joke. It was the, ""hey, can you believe this?"" segment...""Lady sues over hot coffee""...

And that's all most people remember. Turns out McDonalds has been sued numerous times for the same issue, and settled out of court with all of them. The same problem. 

The way the media handled it was just too *tidy*, in my opinion. It's pretty scary if you ask me."
todayilearned,"I had a judge tell me I should've just tried to outrun a guy in a brand new 2007 Ford focus, in my 1995 Isuzu Rodeo... ""Because a v6 is faster than a 4 cylinder"" which meant that the collision between his vehicle and mine was caused by me.....

In what FUCKING universe is a worn out Isuzu FASTER than a fucking coupe?  USAIN BOLT COULD RUN FASTER than my old SuzyQ....

Besides which . Uhh speed limits exist you dumb bitch...."
todayilearned,"Mcdonalds had been warned several times that their coffee was too hot for safe handling, but did not correct the problem. They had settled lawsuits in the past for substantial amounts of money, but in this case offered only $800 aND refused to budge. 

When trying to remove the lid to add sugar, the old woman spilled it on herself and got burned so badly she was hospitalized for 8 days getting skin grafts and had permanent nerve damage. She sued in the hopes of covering her medical expenses. However, Mcdonald's treatment of the case and their neglect to address the safety issues after previous lawsuits and warnings caused the court to award a far larger amount of money than the defendant asked for, as punitive damages.

Whether or not you still think it's her fault for spilling it, it's still a lot more serious than the way it's described in media and popular culture, and her decision to sue wasn't the crazy, vindictive act that it's painted as. And that's because of McDonalds deciding to twist the story as much as possible to make themselves into a victim, and then spreading that version everywhere. And other companies have pushed similar distortions, to help them lobby for legislative protection against lawsuits. Nowadays many states have caps on the payout for personal injury compensation, precisely because of this kind of propaganda."
todayilearned,"> It's pretty wild how effective it was, how, to this day, even when faced with proof of how serious the burns were

The severity of the injury is irrelevant as to who caused them. 

> people will still side with the lying corporations and think it's frivolous.

I'd say the exact opposite. That even when presented by the actual facts, people still think it was legit. (Probably because they have an anti-corperation bias, or because they were told incorrect  'facts' about the case, or both.)

Coffee... is hot. Everyone knows this. Everyone also knows you need to handle hot liquids carefully.  Not pinch the cup between your knees, reach over the top, and pull the far side of the lid, which is what Stella Liebeck did.  Any idiot can see that that will make the cup pivot and dump it's contents (hot coffee) in your lap.  Stella was the one responsible for the burns.

Now, I suppose you'll say ""No, it's McDonald's fault for serving the coffee too hot!"", but that is simply not true.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants#Coffee_temperature 

Look, I know the burns were serious. But they were simply not McDonald's fault.  They had their coffee at the correct, normal temperature (the same temp a home coffeemaker on your kitchen counter has it).   In fact, if you look at the statistics, there as only one (1) burn for every 24 million (24,000,000) cups sold.   If you want to claim the coffee was 'dangerously hot' or 'negligently hot', or 'unfit for consumption', or whatever, then you'll need to explain how 23,999,999 out of 24,000,000 people *somehow* managed to not burn themselves.

 It was Stella's incorrect handling that caused the injury. It was not McDonald's fault.



"
todayilearned,"The Isuzu had about 160hp when it was NEW....

the focus is right around there as well.. and weighed about half as much.. 

PLUS the Isuzu was geared CRAZY low. I once got it up to ALMOST 90mph..

Near red line on the engine in top gear... And that took several miles to do.

*Edit, she could pull the world, though. Miss the ol beast, she shredded a timing belt about a year or two ago*"
todayilearned,"Yea I'd say while the ridiculousness of it was overstated I feel like the ruling was still wrong. The coffe Mcdonalds sold was hotter than expected, but it is still a beverage that is usually made out of water at or close to the boiling point. I would say it was more an accident with very severe consequences than something Mcdonalds can be blamed for as they where not involved in the actual spilling. "
todayilearned,"> Did you read about the part where they found that the second degree burns Stella Liebeck suffered weren't the first to happen from McDonald's coffee?

Did you read how it was one (1) burn for every 24 million (24,000,000) cups sold?  Doesn't sound so impressive when put in proper perspective, does it?

>That McDonalds had a log book with hundreds of recorded instances of people receiving terrible burns from their coffee?

700 burns. Which sounds like a lot, until you find out that was over 10 year. And across the entire country.

>McDonald's did absolutely nothing to change their procedure or rectify the issue?

Because there was not problem with their procedure, and no ""issue"" to rectify.  The coffee was at the correct temp.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants#Coffee_temperature

>That when Ms. Liebeck initially got burned she approached McDonalds to try and recoup the medical costs she incurred 

Not true. She asked for $20,000. Her medical bills were far below that. Even after throwing in 'future medical bills', and *her daughters loss of income* (how is that a medical expense?!), it was still thousands less then what she asked for.

>**skin grafts needed on her thighs and pubic region**

Classic 'Appeal To Pity'.  You're trying to influence people by making them feel sorry for her.  This does not change the facts of the case.

>Yeah, you need to actually research into this instead of skimming for a few sentences that validate your preconceived opinions.

Exactly what I say to you."
todayilearned,"> And we know of the fallacy that people tend to believe the information they heard first over the actually correct information.

Indeed. For example, here are some *actual* facts on the case, showing that the coffee was not 'too hot'.  Will it change your mind? No. Because ""people tend to believe the information they heard first over the actually correct information"".

""In 1994, a spokesman for the National Coffee Association said that the temperature of McDonald's coffee conformed to industry standards. An ""admittedly unscientific"" survey by the LA Times that year found that coffee was served between 157 and 182 °F (69 and 83 °C), and that two coffee outlets tested, one Burger King and one Starbucks, served hotter coffee than McDonald's.

Since Liebeck, McDonald's has not reduced the service temperature of its coffee. McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee at 80–90 °C (176–194 °F), relying on more sternly worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future liability, though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee. The Specialty Coffee Association of America supports improved packaging methods rather than lowering the temperature at which coffee is served. The association has successfully aided the defense of subsequent coffee burn cases. Similarly, as of 2004, Starbucks sells coffee at 175–185 °F (79–85 °C), and the executive director of the Specialty Coffee Association of America reported that the standard serving temperature is 160–185 °F (71–85 °C). ""

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants#Coffee_temperature

"
todayilearned,"> Turns out McDonalds has been sued numerous times for the same issue, and settled out of court with all of them. The same problem.

No, not ""the same issue"", ""the same problem"".  Every case is different.  In some cases, McDonalds was at fault for, for example, not training their employees correctly. If (as an example) an improperly trained employee holds a cup of hot coffee by the *lid* as they hand it into a car at the drive thru, and the coffee cup disengages from the lid, falls, spills, and burns the driver... it's McDonald's fault.

That's completely different from a case where the customer themselves mis-handles the cup and burns themselves.  Two different circumstances, two different outcomes."
todayilearned,"> Mcdonalds had been warned several times that their coffee was too hot for safe handling

Not true. It met industry standards. 

And, if it were true, how do you explain that there was only one burn for every 24,000,000 cups sold??  ""too hot for safe handling"", but 23,999,999 people out of 24,000,000 can handle it safely??

>They had settled lawsuits in the past for substantial amounts of money

Different circumstances.  If an employee spilled hot coffee on a customer, then McDonalds is (or might be) liable.  But Stella spilled it on herself.

> the old woman spilled it on herself 

Exactly. It was her fault. Not McDonald's fault.

>She sued in the hopes of covering her medical expenses.

She sued fro far more than her medical expenses.

>their neglect to address the safety issues

There were no issues. The coffee was at industry standard temperatures. And they haven't changed that:  ""Since Liebeck, McDonald's has not reduced the service temperature of its coffee. McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee at 80–90 °C (176–194 °F)..."" - wikipedia

"
todayilearned,"Read the link I posted:

    In 1994, a spokesman for the National Coffee Association said that the temperature of McDonald's coffee conformed to industry standards. An ""admittedly unscientific"" survey by the LA Times that year found that coffee was served between 157 and 182 °F (69 and 83 °C), and that two coffee outlets tested, one Burger King and one Starbucks, served hotter coffee than McDonald's.
    
    Since Liebeck, McDonald's has not reduced the service temperature of its coffee. McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee at 80–90 °C (176–194 °F), relying on more sternly worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future liability, though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee. The Specialty Coffee Association of America supports improved packaging methods rather than lowering the temperature at which coffee is served. The association has successfully aided the defense of subsequent coffee burn cases. Similarly, as of 2004, Starbucks sells coffee at 175–185 °F (79–85 °C), and the executive director of the Specialty Coffee Association of America reported that the standard serving temperature is 160–185 °F (71–85 °C). 

Hell, I've measured my home coffee maker, and it puts out coffee in the same range of temps.  https://imgur.com/a/z7AfvBr

>they've been sued by more than just this lady, and settled

For different issues.  If an employee spills on a customer (who gets burned) then McDonalds might indeed be responsible, and might settle. But in this case, she spilled it on herself.  Apples/oranges."
todayilearned,"> And originally only asked for medical bills to be covered.

Incorrect.  ""Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her past medical expenses were $10,500; her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500; and her daughter's loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately $18,000.""  -wikipedia

""Anticipated future medical expenses"" and ""her daughters loss of income""(?!?) are not ""medical bills"". And even with those thrown in, the total was still thousands less than she asked for.

>The jury gave her the huge amount because 

...they felt sorry for her. And hey, it wasn't *their* money...."
todayilearned,">  she asked for the bare minimum amount to cover her medical expenses. 

Incorrect.  ""Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her past medical expenses were $10,500; her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500; and her daughter's loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately $18,000.""  -wikipedia

""Anticipated future medical expenses"" and ""her daughter's loss of income""(?!?) are not ""medical bills"". And even with those thrown in, the total was still thousands less than she asked for."
todayilearned,">It was Stella's incorrect handling that caused the injury. It was not McDonald's fault.

Jury found 20% due to her negligence, 80% due to McDonald's. So it was 80% McDonald's fault. 

>During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to hold coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). At 190 °F (88 °C), the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds.

>McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that those who purchased the coffee typically were commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee; the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip.[2] **However, it came to light that McDonald's had done research which indicated that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving**

>Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000

"
todayilearned,">>It was Stella's incorrect handling that caused the injury. It was not McDonald's fault.
>
>Jury found 20% due to her negligence, 80% due to McDonald's. So it was 80% McDonald's fault. 

I know what the jury found. I'm saying they were wrong.

""The jury foreman, Jerry Goens, said he ""wasn't convinced as to why I needed to be there to settle a coffee spill."" Juror Roxanne Bell said ""I was just insulted. The whole thing sounded ridiculous to me."" Juror Betsy Farnham said she also had thought that the suit was frivolous.

But that was before they saw the gruesome photographs of Stella's charred skin....""

It was a classic 'Appeal to Pity'.  Make the jurors, who up to that point were looking at the case calmly and logically, emotionally upset by showing them graphic pictures of the injuries.

>During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to hold coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). 

Which is th ecorrect temperature.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants#Coffee_temperature

>At 190 °F (88 °C), the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds.

I really duno if that's true.  

According to http://www.accuratebuilding.com/services/legal/charts/hot_water_burn_scalding_graph.html , water at 150 degrees will scald in 2 seconds. and water at 160 in .5 seconds.  So how can 190 take up to 7 seconds??

http://www.burnfoundation.org/programs/resource.cfm?c=1&a=3 says:

Hot Water Causes Third Degree Burns…
 …in 1 second at 156º
 …in 2 seconds at 149º
 …in 5 seconds at 140º
 …in 15 seconds at 133º. 

...which doesn't match up, either.  It's almost like people are making these numbers up.

And, in any case, the claim that the coffee ""would"" cause burns is obviously not true- million of people drink it every day, and don't get burned.

>McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that those who purchased the coffee typically were commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee; the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip. However, it came to light that McDonald's had done research which indicated that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving

Both can be true- some want to drink right away, and some want to wait.  In addition, some like their coffee 'HOT', and others like it 'hot', and some like it lukewarm.  The only way to satisfy all these different groups is to serve it HOT, and those who like it cooler can blow on it, or wait.

>Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, 

Mostly minor, actually: red skin (like a sunburn). No big deal.

But the main problem with quoting this number is that people always leave out two important facts:  1) it was over 10 years, and 2) it was nationwide. 

>and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000

Different cases, different circumstances."
todayilearned,"::sigh::

For the record, I do not, have not, and never will, work for McDonalds, directly or on their behalf.

Interesting point, though-  Many of the 'McDonalds Coffee case was not frivolous!!1!"" sites... are actually run by lawyers. You know, the ones who make money when you sue someone. Gee, why might they want to encourage people to sue a lot?  Hmm.... Do *you* work for a lawyer?  Does he pay you by handling all your lawsuits for free? Or does he just give you a discount?"
todayilearned,"They haven't changed the temperature but they have improved the packaging and made the warning much more visible.

I didn't say it was just for the medical expenses. But to be clear, Stella asked for 20,000 to cover current and anticipated medical expenses and her daughter's loss of income while caring for her after the hospital. When Mcdonald's refused she took it to court, for a higher amount. The jury decided to award her a much higher amount than she asked for in punitive damages because McDonalds makes so much money that they would barely notice any less."
todayilearned,">They haven't changed the temperature but they have improved the packaging and made the warning much more visible.

Thus, the temp wasn't the issue.

As for 'made the warning much more visible', it was perfectly visible before.  Check out r/talesfromretail for plenty of stories of customers who cant/don't see signs right. in. front. of. them.  Making them bigger/more obvious doesn't help.

>I didn't say it was just for the medical expenses.

True, you did not. My apologies.  Many people, however, do; 'SHe *just* wanted her medical bills paid....', and so on. Which is factually not true.

I can see (maybe) including ""anticipated medical expenses"" in 'her medical bills'. But 'her daughter's loss of income'?? it is in no way a medical expense. 

And, even those things added up were thousands less than the $20,000 asked for.  It may seem like nit-picking, but it's false that she 'just' asked for her medical bills to be paid."
todayilearned,"She placed the coffee cup between her *knees* (NOT in a cupholder, NOT on the dash, NOT asking the driver to hold it), pinched it between her knees, reached over it, grabbed the far side of the lid, and pulled toward her. This caused the cup to pivot and dump in her lap.

What other word except ""stupid"" can you come up with for someone who does that?

>because you should expect coffee to be that hot

Exactly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants#Coffee_temperature 

Hell, even my home coffee maker (a cheap one from Walmart, not an insulated commercial model) makes coffee that hot!!  https://imgur.com/a/z7AfvBr"
todayilearned,"The temperature of the coffee was an issue because it was unanticipated. Before this story, if I had spilled a cup of coffee like that I wouldn't have expected it to be hot enough to give me such severe burns. The jury agreed that the warning wasn't obvious enough.

Only 2000 less, I can see rounding it up or including a margin of error for the future medical treatment, since she was in recovery for 2 years and was never the same. Her daughter had to take leave from work to care for her for 3 weeks after she got out of hospital because she was unable to move around, which is why some people include that as a medical expense. A full time nurse or hospital stay would have probably cost even more."
todayilearned,">McDonald's lost that lawsuit for a reason.

It was a classic 'Appeal to Pity'. Make the jurors, who up to that point were looking at the case calmly and logically, emotionally upset by showing them graphic pictures of the injuries.

""The jury foreman, Jerry Goens, said he ""wasn't convinced as to why I needed to be there to settle a coffee spill."" Juror Roxanne Bell said ""I was just insulted. The whole thing sounded ridiculous to me."" Juror Betsy Farnham said she also had thought that the suit was frivolous.

But that was before they saw the gruesome photographs of Stella's charred skin...."""
todayilearned,">The temperature of the coffee was an issue because it was unanticipated. Before this story, if I had spilled a cup of coffee like that I wouldn't have expected it to be hot enough to give me such severe burns.

""In 1994, a spokesman for the National Coffee Association said that the temperature of McDonald's coffee conformed to industry standards. An ""admittedly unscientific"" survey by the LA Times that year found that coffee was served between 157 and 182 °F (69 and 83 °C), and that two coffee outlets tested, one Burger King and one Starbucks, served hotter coffee than McDonald's.""

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants#Coffee_temperature

It was the standard temp to serve coffee at. Some places even had it hotter. Anyone who knows anything about coffee knows it is hot. 

Imagine, if you will, some idiot decided to juggle some knives, cut themselves severely, then sued Ginsu because the knives were ""too sharp"".  The problem wasn't the sharpness (that's the whole point of a knife), it was the careless/negligent/stupid way they handled them. "
todayilearned,"No, actually, I know I'm an idiot, but I still like to point out manipulative argumentation techniques when I see them. If your argument is strong enough to stand on its own, it doesn't need emphasis. If your argument needs emphasis, it's not strong enough to stand on its own.

Anyways, I'm really happy that you've found your calling in life - if only I had anything to be as passionate about as you are about McDonald's serving exceedingly hot coffee. (Which, for the record, I didn't even deny.)"
todayilearned,">That's not appeal to pity.

Incorrect. https://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-pity/

----

""An appeal to pity attempts to persuade using emotion—specifically, sympathy—rather than evidence. Playing on the pity that someone feels for an individual or group can certainly affect what that person thinks about the group; this is a highly effective, and so quite common, fallacy.""

...

[an example]  “A US jury has been **shown graphic images** of people burned to death in the 11 September 2001 attack on the Pentagon. The jurors will decide whether al-Qaeda plotter Zacarias Moussaoui should be executed or jailed for life… Prosecutors **hope such emotional evidence will persuade the jury** to opt for the death penalty.”  (I highlighted similarities to this case)

----

>It's the justice system in action.

No, the justice system is about looking at FACTS, not making emotional decisions. In fact (heh), the jury is often refered to as 'triers of fact"" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trier_of_fact). 
"
todayilearned,"I think the above poster meant that if you did speed to avoid an accident you wouldn't or shouldn't get in trouble for it.

But, if someone else was at fault, it would still be their fault even if you could have theoretically speed out of it.

For instance if a car ran a red light and almost hits you, you wouldn't get in trouble for speeding to avoid him.  But, if you didnt speed and he hit you wouldn't get in trouble since he is at fault for running the light. "
todayilearned,"Knives are intended for cutting, coffee is not intended for burning. Having the coffee at that temperature serves no purpose (McDonalds admitted that their studies showed that people like to start drinking their drive-through coffee immediately.)

The coffee at this Mcdonald's was 88°C, not 83, so this study isn't really relevant. 

McDonalds served coffee at the drive through with lids, that are admittedly hard to remove, and with packets of sugar and cream. Meaning that they expect you to remove the lid and add things. This woman was parked, and was simply trying to remove the lid from her coffee to add the sugar. Not exactly the same as juggling knives."
todayilearned,"> The media contributed greatly to this perception. It was like a game of telephone where the facts of the case were marginalized or even misrepresented

And they still do this, and pretends it's only Fox that does it.  Read any article on gamergate and it's pure lies. They even lie about the people they aren't trying to slander. It's ridiculous, and caused me to lose complete trust in the media that they deliberately got so much wrong (they admitted it sometimes, saying that getting it right wouldn't be interesting) and yet they get used routinely as sources on wikipedia"
todayilearned,"*in America.

The differences between the EU and US standards are quite stark.

In the United States, USDA free range regulations currently apply only to poultry and indicate that the animal has been allowed access to the outside.


The EU by contrast regulates marketing standards for egg farming which specifies the following (cumulative) minimum conditions for the free-range method:

* Hens have continuous daytime access to open-air runs, (except in the case of temporary restrictions imposed by veterinary authorities,)

* The open-air runs to which hens have access is mainly covered with vegetation and not used for other purposes except for orchards, woodland and livestock grazing if the latter is authorised by the competent authorities,

* The open-air runs must at least satisfy the conditions specified in Article 4(1)(3)(b)(ii) of Directive 1999/74/EC whereby the maximum stocking density is not greater than 2500 hens per hectare of ground available to the hens or one hen per 4m2 at all times and the runs are not extending beyond a radius of 150 m from the nearest pophole of the building; an extension of up to 350 m from the nearest pophole of the building is permissible provided that a sufficient number of shelters and drinking troughs within the meaning of that provision are evenly distributed throughout the whole open-air run with at least four shelters per hectare.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_range"
todayilearned,"Many conspiracy groups in the EU are using facts and pictures from the US like you just shared, to make people affraid of some brands or big supermarkets or whatever.  


People barely know what are the laws behind the words they see on the package, and some of them actually thinks that there are bones chickens in McNuggets in european mcdonalds, while it's been proven thousand of times that it's impossible to happen in any european McDonalds. And if they did, they'd be in for a huuuuuuge amount of money to pay."
todayilearned,"I read a news article about that this morning. The person behind the idea said that she tried bubbling cannabis smoke into a box with a bit of water at the bottom, and the lobster she hotboxed was then more chilled out when replaced in its tank - she removed his claw tape, and he didn't attack any of the other lobsters.

Now, I'm willing to take that as preliminary evidence that weed makes lobsters less aggressive and more chilled out... *But exactly how stoned would you have to be to not feel pain when* **boiled alive??** It just seems like a marketing gimmick to me."
todayilearned,"A lot of is has to do with playing catch up. Marketing terms quickly become popular and its a constant game to define those terms. 10 years ago you just bought chicken; now you have organic, free range, antibiotic free, grain fed, non-gmo fed, etc etc. 

All of these terms usually start as marketing terms and then, eventually, get defined legally. Its more important now then ever to be an educated consumer. "
todayilearned,"and it certainly doesn't help that so much of the information you find online is misleading. 

Grass fed beef is one of my ones now. Nearly all cattle are grass fed most of their lives. Its about how they spend the last few months. Grass finished vs grain finished. Even though most articles you find online will tell you grass fed (aka finished) tastes better people overwhelmingly prefer fattier beef, which would need to be grain finished. Kobe beef isn't popular because its lean. And while there are large feedlot industrial operations, a lot of cattle live nice lives enjoying corn out of trough for a few months. 

Now there are differences in nutrition, which is where that PhD comes in, but just to find out what should taste better requires one to wade through miles of often misleading information. 

Its a tough world out there... "
todayilearned,"Yup, hoping for better legislation and stronger penalties gradually. Surprisingly Gove actually seems to be not terrible so i am a lil optimistic. Worried about the hardline brexiteers and their trade with the US desires though. 

Long term future i think is going to be ""lab grown"" meat providing for the mass consumption, with real meat being more of a rarity/delicacy and more expensive, and only coming from animals that have a high standard of welfare (think more traditional farm sorta thing). At least that is my hope for how things go. "
todayilearned,"gift tax is ordinarily paid by the one *giving* the gift. If these cars were being given away as gifts, I am not sure how the show arranged for the audience to be liable for it instead; they probably were asked to sign something when accepting, which they didn't bother to read or understand.

The official intent of gift taxes is to prevent people avoiding various other taxes, including inheritance tax, by just making extravagant ""gifts."" :edit: Keen observers might note that the ""official"" intention is at odds with reality since the gift tax is, in many cases, a lower rate than the inheritance tax would be."
todayilearned,"> The intent of gift taxes is, I believe, to prevent people avoiding various other taxes, including inheritance tax, by just making extravagant ""gifts.""

This part is correct. Also, the US tax code primarily covers all income, which includes cash value of prizes. Some other annoying catches to this are your prior year's tax refund (state wants to know what federal gave and federal wants to know what state gave) and when you settle a debt for less than the total owed, you owe for the taxes on the dollar amount forgiven."
todayilearned,"Only if you are a professional gambler and can prove the losses IIRC. 

Rather bs IMO. Millions of people loose their homes or all their saving and their is no tax break even though the government taxes the casinos in their profits. But win big and you pay pay taxes on the entire amount regardless if you have spent more than your winnings in previous years. 

Then again I do not gamble as really you never win and when you do, excited to give bunch to the government. "
todayilearned,"How would they know what tax bracket you are in? If the tax on gifts are low, why wouldn't they give all their employees 'gifts' of money instead of wages. If the tax is higher, than why not just adjust the gift value higher to account for the tax component the person will pay?

Personally I think it is just better to have the receiving person pay based on their tax bracket otherwise it becomes so easy to abuse. "
todayilearned,"Yes, gift tax is a real thing, however this is not a gift tax. Everyone is allowed to give up to $14,000 to another person without it being taxed every year ($14,000 per person, not total gift amount. So 2 people = $28k). If the tax is greater than $14,000 then the person giving the gift pays the gift tax. The person receiving a gift will not pay tax on it. These cars were not subject to gift tax, but considered normal income. 

Source: am CPA"
todayilearned,"You manage top start a successful company and make 50 million dollars, you die and leave it to your only child who took over the business, the government takes 25 million on your death.  

>and they still get away with so much.

You think they got away with 25 million worth of ""so much""? 

ITT; [people like this](https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/9hmspt/til_after_oprahs_famous_you_get_a_car_episode/e6dpbgx/) and a bunch of people focusing on quoting estate tax as 50% as wrong in this scenario like it's relevant (it's correct when you consider the historic averages of the estate tax, which has varied wildly). As if it makes a difference if it's 25 million or 11 million when the fact remains there's no way someone could ""get away with"" dodging that much in taxes in their lifetime, which was the whole point. Someone dying with this kind of money pays many times more of their income than the 99%, they don't magically keep it all like is being implied. 
"
todayilearned,"> Dude, I'm pretty sure you're trolling me, but yes. The rich dodge a great deal of their taxes ~~while disproportionately benefitting from the society those taxes pay to maintain. Our president even claimed that makes him smart.~~[not part of the point]
> 
> 
> 
> ~~Furthermore that kid did nothing to earn a dime of that money. Shouldn't they have had to work hard and pull themselves up by their bootstraps?~~[also not relevant]

Did they ""dodge"" 25 million in taxes or not? "
todayilearned,"> If you think the owner of a 50 million dollar company is actually paying 50% estate tax, then that’s a joke. The top rate is 40% and you get a ~11 million dollar exclusion. So if they don’t take advantage of any deductions (which they will and they will be significant) then that’s still way higher.

It changes wildly year to year and averages out to over 50% effective tax rate. "
todayilearned,"Yeah but what about this scenario that I just totally made up without researching the actual numbers involved huh? 

Anyway if you had bothered to actually research the estate tax, you'd see that the amount actually taken in taxes is about 14 million, and sure that sounds like a lot until you realize that this fictional person just inherited 36 million dollars they did dick all to earn other than winning the genetic lottery."
todayilearned,"You are partially confusing two related things: the estate tax exemption and gift tax. The limit on non-taxable gifts changes basically every year. You may also *choose* to use part of your estate tax exemption to exceed the normal gift limit without paying gift tax but it will potentially increase your estate tax.

In any case, the cars here were clearly treated by the Oprah Show as prizes rather than gifts, which is why the responsibility for the tax fell on the audience."
todayilearned,"You are supposed to report anything you win but they will not have a record of it unless it hits certain thresholds.  You can also itemize all your losses to offset any winnings but you have to have receipts and all that for that.  What that means is people just normally don't even report those small things.  Just like if you were to mow your neighbor's lawn while they were on vacation and they gave you $20.00, you are supposed to report that as income but it is highly unlikely you are going to do that.
  "
todayilearned,"> Anyway if you had bothered to actually research the estate tax, you'd see that the amount actually taken in taxes is about 14 million, ~~and sure that sounds like a lot until you realize that this fictional person just inherited 36 million dollars they did dick all to earn other than winning the genetic lottery.~~[I like making not relevant statements to side track an a discussion]

Estate tax varies, when you have a variable and make a generality you use an average. It's especially pointless attempt at a correction as they didn't benefit from 14 million in ""dodged"" taxes either. "
todayilearned,"Gift tax doesn't care about your tax bracket; gift tax is a flat 25% of value. 

As to using it for wages, I mean, you could try it, but the IRS doesn't just let you call things whatever you want, and a gift is defined specifically as not getting anything of value in return - which includes labor. So, even if it passed unremarked for a while, you'd be in the shitter in a hurry if they decided to audit you later."
todayilearned,"When you average 40% with anything less than 40%, the number goes down.  The maximum rate is 40%, it cannot go up on average.  Also, here:  [The average effective estate tax rate is 17% on estates that actually pay it.](https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/ten-facts-you-should-know-about-the-federal-estate-tax)

​

So unless you can provide a source for your claims I'm going to assume you're making stuff up.  The math and the facts I've found don't support your claim at all. "
todayilearned,"Pay their fair share back? Do you think successful business owners and entrepreneurs just stumble upon wealth? They had to take huge risks and make sacrifices to become successful. Nobody took that money from poor people or less fortunate. They got that money from selling a quality product or service that was willingly paid for by others.

If we're talking about money handed down through family, why must that be taxed again? Doesn't change the fact that that money was earned and they are entitled to give that money to whoever they want. If I die, I'd like whatever money I have already been taxed on to go to my siblings. Doesn't it seem wrong to tax that money yet again when I was already taxed on it? Yeah, some business people avoid taxes (which is understandable, who on Earth won't legally keep as much money in their pockets as possible) but this whole ""tax rich because their rich and I'm not"" is insane and sets a dangerous precedence.

Of course I'm on Reddit. Hardly any of you even bother entertaining a non-left view or ideology. And people wonder why politics is so divided nowadays. I'm not acting like capitalism is the one and only best system, nor that it needs to be regulated in it's extremes, but the to lengths which people and businesses with wealth are demonized is a problem. "
todayilearned,">It changes wildly year to year and averages out to over 50% effective tax rate.

Ok, this is statement was, at best, wildly milseading.  The *statutory* rate has been below 50% since 2002.  The *effective* tax rate is wildly different than the *statutory* rate.  As I stated previously, while the *statutory* rate is currently 40%, the average *effective* rate is a little below 17%.  So while there was a large period of our history where the *statutory* rate was over 50%, it's very hard to believe that the average *effective* rate was anywhere close to that when at not point that I'm aware of was anybody paying anywhere close to the *statutory* rate on average. "
todayilearned,"Well maybe we need to change our mindset about taxes and ask our politicians what we get in return for these taxes.   If it's more tanks rotting in a desert so some MIC stock goes up 2 points that's bad.  If it's fixing our D grade infrastructure that's good.   If it's buying a soundproof booth so my corrupt politicians can undermine my government that's bad,  if it feeds a poor child in school that's good. "
todayilearned,"> Ok, this is statement was, at best, wildly milseading.

No it's not. It clearly states averaging out from year to year, not person to person like you interpreted.

>The statutory rate has been below 50% since 2002. The effective tax rate is wildly different than the statutory rate.

Taxes started in 2002? News to me. 

>at not point that I'm aware of was anybody paying anywhere close to the statutory rate on average. 

Except that being the entire context of the discussion, someone dying with a wealth many times the exemption amount putting their effective rate very high. 

Sorry you're too busy pounding your keyboard because you disagree with opinion to read *good*. 
"
todayilearned,"Because you're not interested in a real discussion.  I'll admit to being antagonistic with you to begin with, which isn't productive.  However, you made a claim and provided zero evidence to back it up.  Generally, it is incumbent upon the person making a positive claim to provide evidence to support it (what with it being impossible to prove a negative and everything). Still, I cited multiple sources suggesting that your claim was wrong.  Then you sourced me back to the thread we're already in.  So enjoy yourself, I'm done. "
todayilearned,"> Still, I cited multiple sources suggesting that your claim was wrong.

No you didn't you cited things disproving what you erroneously thought I claimed, which you finally realized you were wrong about. I thought we already got through this. 

> However, you made a claim and provided zero evidence to back it up.

You want me to cite you how the sky is blue when you can walk outside and look up? It's public record. Objective. LOOK IT UP. "
todayilearned,"The estate tax should be 100% over $1 million and same for the gift tax.  You should have to prove your worth to society before being allowed to just live a life of luxury.  Otherwise, you are just supporting the idea of allowing an Aristocracy, which has not worked out too well through most of history.  

Do you think that retard Donald Trump is worth all the money he has?  No, he is just living a life of luxury off the hard work of his dad, Fred Trump.  After Fred was gone, Trump kept running the empire into the ground and had to declare bankruptcy on the Taj Mahal, Trump Castle, Trump Plaza, Plaza Hotel, Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts, and Trump Entertainment Resorts.  Its no surprise really because Donald has the cognitive skills of a 5 year old.  Or how about that fat idiot Wyatt Koch, who is already a billionaire; totally indefensible.  "
todayilearned,"Nobody held a gun to your head and forced you to work for them. Instead of being appreciative of them creating a job that provides you with regular pay, for some reason you're entitled to more money without having incurred any of the risk.

I suggest trying to start your own business or be completely self sufficient in supporting yourself. Perhaps then you might understand why business owners are entitled to more money for the risk they took on getting that company off the ground.

The level of entitlement in this thread is frankly pretty scary. "
todayilearned,"Inherited money was likely already taxed, how does it make sense to tax it again? Lottery tickets have no tax when you buy them. It's also not the same investment buying a lottery ticket as to working hard to earn a nest egg for you and your family. You're proposing a blanket way to handle a near infinitely small group of the population that wins the lottery and applying that logic to people who (generally) have legally earned their money and want to help take care of others they love with it. "
todayilearned,"I never said that there doesn't need to be some regulations since we are so tightly interconnected and dependent on business, but you have to take into account things from a business perspective. You can only compete if you offer competitively priced products and services. You typically can only do that by cutting as many costs as you can. It's the nature of business, like it or not. That's why it's important to be smart and get a real education or skill that is or is projected to be in-demand. We don't need more general psyche and political science majors, we need programmers, engineers and specialized trade skill workers. We need to stop brainwashing kids into just ""go to college no matter what"" and work smarter, not harder. This gives you bargaining power and more money, in the long run. With online degrees all over the place, even full time parents can now find time to get another more revelevant education in their free time if they work hard enough. Never said it was easy but almost nothing good in this world comes easy, nor should it. 

It's not perfect but regulating business is better than going pure socialist or communist. I don't think any young person in America is educated enough to understand or dive into the dangers of other types of societies, like communism or socialism, and people who despise big businesses are walking that line very closely in their ideologies. "
todayilearned,"On 27 April 1806 Great Britain was discovered by Moehanga.

Of course, various indigenous, white-skinned tribes had already inhabited the British Isles for thousands of years, but Moehanga was the first Māori to discover Britain. The British natives were in awe of Moehanga’s tattoos and they insisted he meet their chieftain King George III.

When Moehanga arrived on the island he would have seen families living in primitive, damp and unsanitary conditions and a brutal society that punished almost any act of disobedience, from theft to associating with gypsies, with death. The Britons were a warlike people, renowned and feared for their prowess at fighting other European tribes and even raiding and conquering lands and taking slaves on distant continents. Today England is a thriving multi-cultural nation producing a range of quality exports whilst preserving its rich heritage and traditions."
todayilearned,"Taking the test I have always come back as an ""I"" but the reality is I don't really enjoy socially interacting when it's not something I care about.  My interests often don't align with the typical person, so most of the interactions I would have are about things that I would struggle to stay awake trying to be interested in.   Since my interests are well aligned with my professional life it's a lot easier for me to in that area."
todayilearned,"Same here, though my own social anxiety gets in the way at times. 

If there's an activity I'm interested in, my brain is like ""Man I wish I could engage and be part of the conversation here. I feel like I could really add something and learn from these people.""

But if it's an activity I have zero interest in my brain is like ""I would cut off my own dick to be at home with a book right now."""
todayilearned,"I would disagree slightly, the perceiving / judging is quite relevant.

However, all of these are just about how you perceive them yourself. I once challenged my J, as I felt that I was very laid back and very go with the flow, but my colleagues pointed out that this was only because my nature was to have already thought things through at a million miles an hour. Classic J. 

I also flip between I and E, but with a situational focus. I would be quite happy to not speak to anyone for days and be the epitome of introvert , but switch into extrovert role when required.

The language used by myers Brigg is also misleading, and is often misinterpreted. I found the belbins to be more accurate. "
todayilearned,">The Aedes aegypti mosquito and 2 of its transmitted viruses (yellow fever and dengue viruses) and the plasmodia parasites of malaria (Plasmodium vivax and P. falciparum) are believed to have arrived to the Americas during the 17th century by ship during the slave trade (7–9). During the 17th century (even during a cold period known as the Little Ice Age) until the 19th century, summertime malaria was present in much of the eastern United States, including northern areas of the country (10). Numerous outbreaks of malaria occurred as far north as Massachusetts, with documented outbreaks occurring during 1793–1799 and in 1806, 1810, 1820, 1828, and 1836; nearly 2,000 cases were reported during an outbreak in 1880 alone (11). In the subtropical southern states along the Mississippi Valley during the 18th and 19th centuries, malaria spread quickly, especially during the American Revolutionary War and Civil War (5). Malaria is reported to have caused ≈1,300,000 cases of illness and ≈10,000 deaths among soldiers during the 4 years of the Civil War (5).

>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5938790/

If there were 1.3 million cases in the 1860's (4.2% of the population) I think it's possible that the founding fathers dealt with malaria."
todayilearned,"They weren't always large, there wasn't a big sample size (esp being as it isn't infectious, there was rarely a noticable localization) and people until like 1500, pretty much the world over, had a very, *very* sketchy idea of what the inside of a body, esp the composition of organs, looked like. Like, I'm pretty sure that the Christian/Muslim world thought men and women had different numbers of ribs for like 1300 years. Even though a trivial test would have shown that to be wrong.

I would be entirely unsurprised if almost all cancers afflicting internal organs were unheard of for most of human existence, until only a few centuries ago."
todayilearned,"They die and cut them open is the number one way. Some cancers can be physically visible too, or as you said can be felt when pushed against. Of course you're usually pretty boned by that time for all of those. 

I'm sure there are other ways they detected it though. Urination patterns changing, blood in urine or stool, etc. Ways we still do it today but via more primitive methods."
todayilearned,"This is a common misconception. While the exact nature of all organs in the human body were not extremely well known, we have been performing surgery on the human body for thousands of years. Surgery was a common treatment in ancient Egypt. Not all cultures thought cutting open a corpse was sacrilegious either. Ancient Egypt is a great example when it comes to what our ancestors understood of the internal organs, and it was a lot. China was also not skittish about surgery and studying internal organs."
todayilearned,"Oh yea. Just like colloidal silver, massive Vit A doses, homeopathic drops, fruit diet, raw diet, keto diet and prayers. If you heard it on Facebook it's probably wrong. 

If there really were a significant portion of people who got rid of cancer by fasting, it would be a part of the treatment administered by doctors.

That said I (personally) believe that ""one meal a day"" diets and fasting really does good things for you, since we, through evolution as hunter-gatherers, aren't made for three meals a day. Look up HGH, insulin reaistance and autophagy in relation to fasting for example. It might prevent cancer but not cure it."
todayilearned,"Though many cultures opposed disfigurement, there were also many cultures did not shy away from examining the human body. We have been doing autopsies also for thousands of years. Before even that, Egyptians did examine the organs they extracted during mummification (and even found and recorded tumors). We even know the names of some autopsists from ancient Greece.

Ancient Rome had laws and regular practice for autopsies. Famously, Julius Ceaser had an autopsy. "
todayilearned,"It wasn't universal, but medical texts between Classical times and the Renaissance, across Europe and the Islamic world, were remarkably incorrect about basic things. Maybe not everywhere was that bad, but it was at least somewhat rare.

And I'm not sure about the Egyptians, they were skilled at embalming, but they weren't exactly doing a thorough examination of the population. Even if they did assess and record the precise attributes of the few organs they cared about, it would be almost impossible to detect cancerous trends in essentially a single family per generation. And embalming for lower class people that could afford it (during the times when that was even a thing) was not nearly as sophisticated."
todayilearned,"I'm not saying cancer was unknown, I'm aware of it (or it's equivalent in terminology) being diagnosed from like 3000 years ago (I think). But only some kinds of it would be known, and probably only pretty advanced practitioners during short periods of history. And it was also likely rarely caught after death, even if autopsy was sometimes performed. Also, are you sure autopsy was widespread? I know it happened, but even before Christian times I was under the impression that studying dead bodies was pretty taboo in the Classical world."
todayilearned,"Now that you've linked a source I can agree with you that malaria is misidentified.

>Humphreys begins with a careful review of malaria in the colonial era and works through the nineteenth century, all the while aware that historical reports do not reliably identify malaria as a distinct disease.

I still disagree with your claim that the founding fathers never experienced or knew someone who experienced malaria once. With the prevalence at least one of their writings had to be about malaria and not a different disease.

I started this argument about whether it was *possible* that they dealt with malaria, but you continued it as if I was saying everything they ever wrote about malaria was gospel.

Claiming none of their writings were true in the context of 
>I wasn't aware it use to \*plague* the west.

makes it seem like you're trying to say America never had any malaria. Claiming malaria was never in America is more intellectually dishonest than me saying it's *possible* that the founding fathers were writing about the correct thing once."
todayilearned,"Interestingly cancer is theorized by some to be a “man made” disease in the sense that modern pollution, technological radiation, intake of chemicals and diet have caused cancer cases to be much more likely now then they were in pre-industrial societies. I’m sure you can find more information if you search it but there was an interesting study that found that an extremely tiny number of mummies had died of cancer (something like 2) which showed that it was a lot less prevalent historically."
todayilearned,"Huh. TIL. I love the Classical Era (esp Romans) and kinda consider myself at least amateur-ly very familiar with them.

Julius Caesar is actually one I was aware of, which is kinda what I meant by uncommon. He was the most important man in Rome, and as killed via murder, I figured opening him up was something of a legal exception to the typical culture around dead bodies of the time."
todayilearned,"Lol its hard when you have a 4 year old, a wife that doesn't work, and a machine operator job...

I went to college for an aerospace technical program and a 2 year degree, then tried going to University for computer engineering. Took 4 core classes, had my kid on the way, and failed out my first semester.

Studied on my own over a year, python, web stack, C... Tried to enroll for computer software classes for Fall 2018, but i moved further away from the college, have had car problems all summer and had to focus on my job and turn down University again...

Life sucks sometimes, but im trying to be surprisingly optimistic, thinking about changing jobs and getting my wife a job, car improved a lot."
todayilearned,"I have no dog in this fight. So none of this matters one way or another to me.

> It's not my fault you fell for a con man and emotionally invested in a position that later fell apart.

Now you're making assumptions about my ""side"" in this fight, as well as verging on a personal attack on me. (For my ""gullibility"" or some such)

I was just trying to offer you some friendly advice or introspection which you appeared to be lacking. I know now this was a fool's errand.

Feel free to continue on with your self-righteousness.

"
todayilearned,"Well, that's *only* 0,00189% of a 7 billion population.

I personally find it worse that over 6 times that amount resorts to suicide. This says a lot about our society. These people are so desperate or sad that they see no other options in life but to take their own and end the misery.

Funny how terrorism is somewhere all the way down. Makes you think about how much it gets blown up whenever something happens. Also puts people who fear *dem damn terrorists* but drive by car or drink alcohol or smoke into perspective. 

As my lecturer told us yesterday; ""When you lock the front door at night, you're actually increase the risk of dying for everyone inside the house. And still we call it *a security measure*."""
todayilearned,"And then consider that most mental illnesses, depression, and suicide are rare in “primitive” societies; i.e., those that are hunter-gatherer/pastoralist. Those numbers are also low in “modern” societies where poverty or subsistence living is the norm. The mechanisms are still not 100% known, but as I understand it, there’s not much time to commit suicide when you’re so busy trying to stay alive. 

(That’s not to say those factors didn’t  exist at all prior to the invention of agriculture, just that they occurred in extremely low rates, based on surveys and interviews with modern-day HG & Pastoral groups,) "
todayilearned,"I don't think the west realize how prevalent malaria is in poorer areas. I've been in Thailand for 10 years and I've known multiple families who have had members died to it, especially the elderly. 

Clean your water, use bug spray. These are core rules when traveling here in Thailand and the same everywhere. Cheap tourist come here and drink well water, don't use bug repellant, and sunscreen. Then later they come to hospitals with 3rd-degree burns, malaria, dengue fever, or worse. 

It's like everyone thinks these horrible diseases only exist in books. "
todayilearned,"cancer only became a serious diagnosis in recent decades, and without expensive tech non-exotic cancers were either just sudden death or a prolonged period of suffering followed by death.

add to that strange practises in the past and you'll see more people died from blood loss or infection than not.

even after the middle ages, ""old age"" was a perfectly valid cause of death, which as we know today is mostly cancer."
todayilearned,"They always say the killer is usually someone closest to the victim. Who else is closer to yourself than you? Who’s more likely to hate you than you? 

On a less flippant note: mental illness is now one of the leading causes of human suffering globally. It is hidden illness that you can’t see, which makes it that much more difficult to diagnose. On top of that, the stigma still exists for people, especially men, to seek treatment. Improvements in treatment and public perception of mental illness is steadily improving, but more needs to be done to tackle the issue from medical research to diagnosis and treatment at a local level. 

#If you or a loved one is suffering, here are a few links:

**UK**: [The Samaritans ](https://www.samaritans.org/) (you can also call them on **116 123** in the UK and Republic of Ireland.)

**USA**: [The Suicide Prevention Lifeline](http://suicidepreventionlifeline.org/) (call toll free on **1-800-273-8255**)

**Australia**: [Lifeline](https://www.lifeline.org.au/) (or call **13 11 14**)


#[For a list of contacts to other suicide prevention websites and hotlines, please click here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_suicide_crisis_lines) 

**New Zealand**: I noticed there was no information on there for you, [so click here](http://www.suicide.org/hotlines/international/new-zealand-suicide-hotlines.html). There appears to be  a variety of local numbers to call depending on your location. "
todayilearned,I'm intrigued.. what factors contribute to a locked door being more dangerous than an unlocked one? Just because the statistics of a home intruder are so low and other things happen more often that a locked door could make worse I guess? The only thing I could think of is if something like a fire or carbon monoxide poisoning was happening it might delay you getting outside but only a couple seconds really.. 
todayilearned,"Their number for malaria deaths in 2016 (719,551) is too high. The WHO estimates that [438,000](http://www.who.int/malaria/media/world-malaria-day-2016/en/) people died of malaria in 2015, and fatalities due to this disease have almost continually decreased for the last 10 years (with some periods of plateau). This is because of the widespread scaling up of malaria preventative interventions (insecticide treated mosquito nets, insecticide spraying on the walls of people’s homes, seasonal malaria chemoprevention for children, etc.) as well as improved diagnosis and treatment. 

There’s still a long way to go, but the statistic in their graph is misleading. "
todayilearned,"I know that for a fact for the developed world. Due to variances in durations of flu seasons and in more recent years the effectiveness of vaccinations charting flu deaths is a wild ride of highs and lows, but the numbers do trend downwards. However you could well be right for the underdeveloped world. Honestly, data is too incomplete, the WHO only has estimates due to poor reporting on CoD. I wouldn't go so far as to say you're right, but in lucid second thought I wouldn't say I was either :P "
todayilearned,"I feel like if we're accounting for all humans that ever lived over the timespan we've been on earth, cancer may be one of the biggest killers known to man in unrecorded history too. A quick google search says the earliest recording of Cancer was 1500 BC in Egypt.
Sure there has been lots of humans since 1500 BC, but also just as many maybe even more before that time too. Just a thought."
todayilearned,"Bill Gates has done some amazing things, but he is just one westerner in a billion. The fact three other people gave me the same name ""Bill Gates"" and no one else is testament to just how nobody really cares about Malaria.

Oh, and we haven't cured Malaria. There are treatments, but it is a disgusting disease. If it directly impacted the western world even to this day I think we'd have come close to a cure a while back. The regions of which it actually severely impacts usually don't have the money. And whilst Bill Gates is rich, he isn't country-rich."
todayilearned,"People with compromised immune systems tend to get more cancer. It's thought that ""potential cancers"" are relatively common but the immune system is able to recognize and eliminate them. So cancer is just a ""potential cancer"" that managed to trick or fend off the immune system. Looking at it another way, cancer happens when the immune system fails to recognize the problem. I think you could say that cancer is an autoimmune disease if you take that term very loosely. People are even working on reverse vaccines to treat cancers by helping the immune system to recognize the problem. (u/fl0wdeep)"
todayilearned,">Yeah, you can say any disease is autoimmune if you take the term loosely. 

I don't think so. An ""autoimmune"" disease refers to the immune system attacking the body's own cells when it shouldn't. Cancer involves the immune  system not attacking the body's own cells when it should, so it's kind of a reverse autoimmune disease. A bacterial infection, like a staph infection, isn't really like an *auto*immune disease at all. You could say that it's a failure of the immune system, but it's not an *auto*immune disorder. Anyway, the person above never said cancer *was* an autoimmune disorder, just that it's closer to being one than it is to being an infectious disease."
todayilearned,"Which ones of these do you consider that you've been insulted?  They look like arguments to me.  Closest I'd say might be the ""reading the wrong historians"" but that's a pretty big stretch.  Perhaps you're a lot more sensitive than you think you are?

>If there were 1.3 million cases in the 1860's (4.2% of the population) I think it's possible that the founding fathers dealt with malaria.


>You're the guy who hasn't provided a single source for your claim that the founding fathers never dealt with malaria.


>Then you're reading the wrong historians.


>Then can you name a single medical historian with the correct information?"
todayilearned,"I'm not sure this is going to help..  but I recommend re-reading these things and putting yourself in the other person's shoes.  You appear to continue to have these kinds of interactions across reddit in your posting history.  You don't seem to be able to have an argument without taking things personally.  Not sure if there is a way for you to step back and try another approach, but I think you might be happier if you are able to try and succeed.  I sincerely hope you can.  Good luck!"
todayilearned,"Is there something missing in your life where you're looking for validation on the internet?  I don't care about the argument at all or who was wrong or right. Nobody on the internet is going to come out and point out all the arguments and show who is right or wrong.  If you are looking for that kind of validation, I'm not sure you're in the right place.  I posted to help you understand where you can improve in your correspondence with others on the internet.  I'm not sure if you're 17 or 57.. but if its the latter, then I'm probably too late.  

If this would help you in your life, I'll post it.  ""That other guy was wrong about everything and lying and all that stuff.""  Now, can you agree that your human interaction and approach to arguments needs a lot of work and introspection? "
todayilearned,"Hey, you raise a valid points! And I really do want to take them to heart, but I just can’t help but focus on your hypocrisy because if you REALLY cared, you yourself would “correct” this record by listing a few names yourself. 

My point about gates still stands, and you’ve done nothing to weaken it. He’s not the only one, nor did I or anyone else claim him to be, but he’s done an infinite amount more than you, me, or the next guy has. Or at least his money has, and hey... almost the same thing. 

TLDR; Practice what you preach and enlighten us, and do you feel better for attempting to shit on someone who has done infinitely more good than yourself?  "
todayilearned,"Very likely. I visited a Christian church in China, as well as other temples. They're allowed to exist. But there are lots of restrictions on their existence and require registration in at least some provinces. A lot occurs right in the open.

However, I have not gotten the impression that it increase your safety or career success by being openly religious in the PRoC. Maybe you can correct this perception. Can you tell me of any openly non-traditional religious people  (as in not merely following Daoist/Buddhist beliefs with a mix of Confucianist cultural ideas) that are the Politburo or the People's Congress in the People's Republic of China? I'd love to be better informed and read directly about these people, as my local mainland Chinese friends cannot name any and said it lowered one's social standing in the Party."
todayilearned,"It’s always funny when China does something, be it banning something, or imprisoning someone and Americans look at it and with pride claim that it would never happen in America.

Meanwhile just as much equally bad things happen in US except it’s done not directly by the government, but instead by the corporations who own the government.

The only difference between the countries is that China doesn’t go out of its way to put a happy face on all the same shit."
todayilearned,"Dude, private entities doing bad things is *worlds* better than the government doing it. When the government does something authoritatively there is nobody other than a higher ranking government body or official who has the power to stop it, and then there's the potential for political fallout. When it's a corporation, there are many levels of accountability and governance that can take issue with and correct the matter. Basically, they have more oversight control and accountability to deal with as corporations than arms of a government do. It would be horrible to have the US government doing horrible things. Like running camps for example. Just...for example."
todayilearned,"I don't think you're living in the same country I am. The corporations are in charge of the government. In China, the government is in charge of the government. In the USA, the government is #2 to giant corporations. Wanna know who can buy out any candidate at any point in time at the drop of a hat? Google, Amazon, Walmart, Exxon Mobil, Berkshire Hathaway, Apple just to name a few gross tens of billions of dollars a year. Plenty to buy out any politician on the planet. Money buys everything in this country, including and especially elections. Corporations have already been shown to be above the law on numerous occasions.

Edit: Not to say China is doing better, not even a little bit. In China private entities do bad things too, just like the government in the USA does bad things. It's all chocolate-covered shit."
todayilearned,"Look, they can get a few people, but if they do something distasteful, there is a herd effect that will be able to exert authority. You can kill a man but you can't kill an idea. If you *can* ignore the idea, as in, if it's the govt. doing the bad things, you have less hope because you can be silenced. If you can continue to campaign and bring charges with other likeminded people, something can be done without waiting for those responsible to die."
todayilearned,"I agree there's more possibility for accountability and control with corporations. You're 100% right there, and it is a benefit over the government in that regard. The problem I have is that when you leave it to corporations there is -nobody- to police a corporation. The government is in their pockets, they look the other way. The CEOs, the presidents? Sure, they can for the most part when it's something unrelated to themselves, but what happens when a corporation or group of corporations, like Big Pharma, decides they need some serious money and go out and get a quarter of the population or more addicted to opiates? When the government commits the wrong-doing, the threat and balance to keep them in line is removal. That's the main advantage we have over China; we can determine who our politicians are and add or subtract accordingly. Yet even with that possibility we rely on corporations. 

To take a quote from you, ""When the government does something authoritatively there is nobody other than a higher ranking government body or official who has the power to stop it, and then there's the potential for political fallout.""

Definitely true again, but when it comes to corporations, the highest ups of the most successful answer to legitimately nobody. What happens if the CEO of WalMart decided to just put rat poison in 50% of their food products for fun? Is the CEO going down for that? Only if they can link it to him. Instead, whomever added the poison and whomever shipped it off will be held accountable. They scapegoat constantly. The government isn't much better on that front, but the public is what (is supposed to) hold them accountable. 

My overall point is that I agree in principle that corporations doing bad things is, in domestic and geopolitical sense, better than the government doing them. The current administration is enough to see how much havoc can be wrought by leaving it to the government to be accountable. My issue is that very, very few corporations will actually police themselves all the way up to the top. When there are people held unaccountable leading the way, that breeds trouble as well."
todayilearned,"I'm somewhat hesitant to go that far in terms of outright saying fuck them - not because their government isn't terrible, but because I have to least give them credit where credit is due.

They didn't have a healthcare system, then they decided to make it back in 08 or whenever it was, within a couple years 90+% of the citizens had healthcare.

They didn't have a good infrastructure, they decided to do it, and within the last decade they've gotten to the point which US can't even dream of.

So yeah, it's a shitty government and human rights are being violated a billion times a day - but at least, they get shit done.  I'd rather have that than live in a country which isn't quite as bad about violating rights, but where people are going bankrupt because they got sick, where infrastructure at every level is falling apart, where bureaucracy is so bad that if you want to build a new bridge, it'll take you 15 years of arguments and the project will be canceled 6x over because it's not in the right district from an elections standpoint.

Credit where credit is do, for all their faults, they're proactively doing everything in their power to improve their country and bring it to a 1st world level.  Meanwhile US is letting everything deteriorate to shit."
todayilearned,"Exactly this.  Frankly I'd even argue that no, corporations don't have more accountability.  They do in theory, but in practice when they're buying off those who are supposed to police and regulate them, all accountability goes out the window.

It's like you really think the FCC regulates Verizon in any way that would ever hurt that business no matter how crappy their business practices are and how many laws they break.

You really think the government would regulate the big banks when those big banks not only paid for the politicians' entire campaigns, but have then also given them specific lists of people to fill their cabinets with. Exactly why in 08 nothing happen to those banks. No matter how much money they lost, no matter how many people they screwed, they just got bailed out, everyone's bonuses were paid, and now they're far bigger than they were back in 08 when they were ""too big to fail"" and everyone was talking about breaking them up.

It is exactly what you say, just chocolate covered shit.  Not even trying to change the colour of it, just slightly covering up the stink while in the process attracting even more parasites to it."
todayilearned,"I don't know if you care about actual progress, but this kind of mentality that ""nothing really works anywhere anyways"" is very harmful to moving forward in our societies, and is very popular with authoritarian regimes because it perpetuates the idea that things can't get better and other governments are just as corrupt as theirs, only they hide it.

The United States certainly has its faults, and the sabotage of this book isn't great, but in general American government does pretty well with handling (or rather, not handling) dissent and opposition. In fact the popular media right now is incredibly critical of our current administration constantly, and that's already on a whole other *level* than what is allowed in China. There are plenty of troublesome problems the US needs to address (lots of foreign policy ones for example), but in terms of censorship and many other issues Washington doesn't *come close* to to Beijing, and throwing around claims of equivalency without nuance because you're cynical is dishonest and irresponsible."
todayilearned,"> Dude, private entities doing bad things is worlds better than the government doing it.

You have no recourse and no transparency when private entities do it. 

>  When the government does something authoritatively there is nobody other than a higher ranking government body or official who has the power to stop it,

Many countries in the world have this idea of ""voting to select their leaders"".

If you don't live in America, you have a wide range of political parties to choose from, and your vote for even a very marginal party is not wasted.

Of course, in America you have a choice between the pro-war, pro-Wall Street party, and the very very pro-war, very very pro-Wall Street party, and if you even breathe the suggestion of voting third party, every American will yell at you.  "
todayilearned,"\>In fact the popular media right now is incredibly critical of our current administration constantly

Current being the key word there. It's only because it's Trump, and only because they don't like him.

I'm not defending him, nor do I support him, but lets not pretend the media is in the right here.

Obama deported far more people than Trump. The media said fuckall.  Obama started another half dozen wars against countries neither attacked US nor posed any sort of a threat.  Again the media didn't say shit.  Obama's administration was an absolute disaster when it comes to protecting whistleblowers despite that being a major point of his campaign.

Bill Clinton met with Kim Jong-il, they didn't call him a traitor.  HRC has been taking money from foreign governments for decades, they've never suggested that she was a puppet to some oligarchs.

​

As I said, I'm not defending Trump in any way, I think 80-90% of what he does is absolutely stupid and most of the people he has surrounded himself with are absolute morons.  But what I am saying is that you can't praise the media because they chose to be selectively outraged with this administration, while for the 8 years prior they've self censored in order to protect the previous one.

Yes in China the media is controlled 100%.  In US, it doesn't need to be because most of the mainstream media, self censors worse than what you find in dictatorships.

It all goes right back to who owns the government.  The the same corporations own both it, and the media, the government doesn't need to censor anyone, the shared parent corporation will make sure that the subsidiaries aren't in conflict."
todayilearned,"Literally the first comment in the chain you're responding to mentioned China as a point of reference where Americans act like we are above the things that China does when we do the very same things at home disguised under different banners. China has different laws and rules for censorship; congrats? That's not the debate. Nobody said China is better, the OP just mentioned how China gets blasted for doing ""inhumane"" or ""corrupt"" things whilst we at home in the USA act like the mere **thought** is appalling.

I don't even know where you're getting an equation from in the first place. Not a single person in this chain has even so much as hinted that China's policies are better than the USA's policies or that they're possibly equatable. Two entirely different government forms. The only ""equation"" is that both are capable of being corrupt, lying, cheating, stealing, voter fraud, money laundering, tax evasion, etc. "
todayilearned,">Yes in China the media is controlled 100%. In US, it doesn't need to be because most of the mainstream media, self censors worse than what you find in dictatorships.

What unrepentant and utter bullshit. You’re being entirely disingenuous here because there is no way, shape, or form you can make this argument with a straight face. All those things you complained showed that bias, many of which are themselves intentional misrepresention of facts? They were reported in the media, that’s how you know about them. So, no, *its not just as bad here*, and even pretending like it is shows either your own ignorance or your own bias.

"
todayilearned,"That’s not censorship, that’s just the result of a profit driven news organization. They did the same with Clinton and Lewinsky, but I guess it only registers as censorship when they dare focus on the sordid details of GOP presidents? And let’s be clear, we’re at the point where an adult film actress is writing a tell-all book about the confirmed affair she and the sitting president had when the current FLOTUS was pregnant, *and you're arguing that the media focusing on the details of that story is censorship.*

This is a shit argument."
todayilearned,"... and we go straight to the Nazis naturally.

Ok, lets see, as an easy example.  A handful of Saudis flew some planes into buildings.  US then responded by invading a completely different country, one that didn't attack it, had nothing to do with the attack and the most they could say was ""the guy in charge is a bad guy"".  That killed over a million Iraqis and destabilised the entire region which has resulted in millions more dying.

So excuse the bluntness, but fuck off with the Nazis. Just because they did a ton of absolutely awful indefensible shit, doesn't mean that every war crime committed by US is perfectly fine just because a few million less people were killed over a slightly more extended period of time."
todayilearned,"The issue is not them talking about the story.  The issue is that to them it is a more important story, than anything else.

I do not support Trump. I did not vote for him. I disagree with the majority of what he does. And I do not give the slightest shit about his personal life. I would not care if he was blowing trannies in a turnpike bathroom.  I simply do not give any shit at all about that.

What I do care about is his specific policies. I care about the wars he could be pulling us out of but isn't. I care about him breaking all of his populist campaign promises.  But the media doesn't talk about these issues.  The closet they get to talking about them, is talking about what some other personalities have said about the issues and how someone is outraged about someone else saying some stupid irrelevant shit."
todayilearned,">The issue is not them talking about the story. The issue is that to them it is a more important story, than anything else.

No, the issue is that you think a profit driven media corporation isn’t driven by profit.

>I do not support Trump. I did not vote for him. I disagree with the majority of what he does. And I do not give the slightest shit about his personal life. I would not care if he was blowing trannies in a turnpike bathroom. I simply do not give any shit at all about that.

Cool, that has shit-all to do with the point being made.

>What I do care about is his specific policies. I care about the wars he could be pulling us out of but isn't. I care about him breaking all of his populist campaign promises. But the media doesn't talk about these issues. The closet they get to talking about them, is talking about what some other personalities have said about the issues and how someone is outraged about someone else saying some stupid irrelevant shit.

Who do you mean by “the media”, *specifically*? Because I can cite untold numbers of stories about the very sorts of issues you claim “the media” doesn’t cover. Hell, how do you think you know about those claims in the first place? “The media”.

You seem to think a CNN daytime host somehow talks for the entirety of the “the media” instead of what cable news often is, lowest common denominator newstainment. If you were at all politically aware during the Clinton impeachment, you’d recognize there’s nothing new nor biased on them reporting these sorts of sordid details."
todayilearned,"You can air your concerns that the mainstream media doesn't do enough to report on problems like Democrat-administration deportation and proxy wars. Plenty of people do on various forms of major media. ***Which would not be allowed in China.*** We're able to have a conversation about these things because we have the freedom to - whether we do or not is another matter. And Fox News certainly criticized Obama almost consistently throughout his entire stay in office.

>most of the mainstream media self censors worse than what you find in dictatorships.

This statement is just plain laughable and is exactly the kind of disingenuous nonsense I was referring to. First of all it is far preferable to be censoring yourself instead of being censored, because that's *freedom*. And no one is saying the media doesn't necessarily report the stories it should (although it typically reports what will sell, not what isn't controversial) to say that self-censorship has a comparable effect on content as authoritarian state censorship is just ignorance."
todayilearned,"How much you care about the president's personal life isn't relevant. The *people* do care about it, at least to the extent that they're willing to watch news stories on it, and for some it might affect their vote. But it's all driven by sales and ratings.

Yes, the mainstream media tends to go with hot-button news that often fails to address key issues. But that's far better than going with news specifically filtered by a propaganda agency that frequently straight-up lies and misinforms, and besides you also *have* access to *tons* of readily available media that *does* cover these things in detail specifically *because* the government isn't given the power to censor it."
todayilearned,"> but in general American government does pretty well with handling (or rather, not handling) dissent and opposition.

Holy moly you need to get out you bubble, boy.

The American population just let 3000 fucking people fucking die in Puerto Rico because they are clueless about *their own fucking country* works.

If you allow homeschooling you end up with idiots clueless about science, let alone their own country's operations.

The American educational system, with its white flight schools around the entire country, and home-schooling has produced a populace unbelievably ignorant about its own history and culture, and utterly incompetent to understand how things like colonialism, *which the rest of the world has renounced*, kills people, even today.

And Reagan era de-regulation on media monopolies destroyed the ability of the fourth estate to educate the populace."
todayilearned,"Organizations that report the news for profit engage in censorship. There are journalists inside these organizations who want to report on what they think is most important but are not permitted to by their bosses because their bosses want them to report on what will make money. That is censorship.

Think they can just quit if they don’t like it? If it were that simple we would have many more powerful independent news media organizations, but we don’t because several large conglomerates control the vast majority of the news. There aren’t very many jobs in independent media. The reality of working in media is that if you want to have a job that puts food on the table, you live with a job where you don’t get to report on what you think is important news and where you get censored by a boss beholden to corporate profits. Eventually you internalize those ‘professional standards’ and know before you ask what you will be allowed to report on. That is self-censorship and it’s just a euphemism for how an organization silences people within itself. It’s not actually preferable to other types of censorship. "
todayilearned,"Holly hell I am amazed to actually see people actually believing this.

In my humble opinnion , it is the reole of the government to protect people from corporations and to allways have a firm boot on the throat of corporate power to prevent the inevitable abuses such power allways commits when left unchecked .

At least in theory the government represents the people and is at least in theory accountable to the people , and it is at least in theory not a totalitarian thing. Corporations on the other hand are totalitarian organizations that are explicitly mandated to make profits at all costs...


Private entities doing bad things is better ONLY if there is a good degree of certanty that the government will stop them , and how can that happen where corporations own the government ?"
todayilearned,Healthcare in the US is pretty good for the vast majority of people who are covered by insurance or through a government program.  Our system sucks for those who are covered by neither or who have decided not to get healthcare.  Interior China healthcare is still at third world levels and people forget to mention the incredible disparity between what you find outside of the largest cities and special administrative zones.
todayilearned,"Total Number of All U.S. Registered Hospitals 5,534
Number of Investor-Owned (For-Profit) Community Hospitals 1,035

The numbers are pretty easy to look up here:

https://www.aha.org/statistics/fast-facts-us-hospitals

This is also the same source used by news organizations when reporting.

Both insurance and pharmaceuticals can be dealt with by the average person given some patience.  My family is multi-racial and we have a wide variety of backgrounds.  The one thing that is available to many people is government help.  I'm not denying your argument but we have in the US something like 12.5 million ER admissions and god knows how many doctor visits a year."
todayilearned,"And that is my point entirely, the military is structured in the same exact way that nearly every tin pot dictator has done over the last 100 years.  In the US there is a clear distinction between the elected government and the military.  In China there is no distinction, members of the military routinely issue press releases and exert political pressure.  If you are saying that the military does not play an incredible influence on the governance and politics of China then you can just keep your head in the sand.  "
todayilearned,">I don't know if you care about actual progress, but this kind of mentality that ""nothing really works anywhere anyways"" is very harmful to moving forward in our societies, and is very popular with authoritarian regimes because it perpetuates the idea that things can't get better and other governments are just as corrupt as theirs, only they hide it.

I completely disagree. I would argue that the majority of the US population is very complacent with the current state of their country and, in general, believes that their country is more progressive and free than it really is. Sticking your head in the sand isn't a way to create progress - criticising and inciting social change is. If comparing the US to China is an effective method if condemning an action (because China is seen as an enemy) and this in turn instigates change, then that is a good thing.

>The United States certainly has its faults, and the sabotage of this book isn't great, but in general American government does pretty well with handling (or rather, not handling) dissent and opposition. In fact the popular media right now is incredibly critical of our current administration constantly, and that's already on a whole other level than what is allowed in China.

Nobody us claiming that the US is as bad as China. The comment that you responded to is making an observation about the way in which the general US population looks down upon other countries for transgressions that their own country is guilty of, all the while being ignorant or accepting of those transgressions when it occurs within their own country. Additionally, just because media coverage is currently turning on the dumpster fire of an administration you elected, it had a completely different strategy pre-election. One incidentally positive action doesn't show that the US is a magical and free country.

>throwing around claims of equivalency without nuance because you're cynical is dishonest and irresponsible.

How is it dishonest and irresponsible? It's a completely valid criticism to make. The US has *many* problems with corruption, from political donations to media monopolies. Just because the US isn't literally a dictatorship like China doesn't somehow mean that it's invalid to compare the two. They are both superpowers that will face similar issues, and comparing how the two handle those issues is pretty important.

Ultimately, this comment feels like it has nothing to do with perspective, and everything to do with defending some misplaced sense of national pride."
todayilearned,"This is a very ironic perspective to take, given that this thread is specifically about a book by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman. 

There’s another book by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman you **really** need to read, since it deconstructs and refutes the very core of the argument you’ve made here. It’s called “Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media”.

In it, the authors effectively argue that the propaganda system in the United States is the most advanced, effective, efficient and restrictive of **any** propaganda system the world has ever seen. Part of why it is so efficient at delivering the political line the oligarchy wants to be repeated, and not straying from that line, is because the people who have high-paid positions at national newspapers and cable TV news channels have all *internalized* the ideas the “establishment” wants propagated. 

By the time these people get through college at Ivy League universities, and have spent years or decades working shoulder to shoulder with the wealthy elite in this country, they internalize the Neoliberal political “line”, or consensus, **much more deeply** than did their Soviet counterparts at Pravda, for example. They internalize it to such a degree that they just simply *know* that *”there are certain things that it just simply wouldn’t do to say. And moreover, there are certain things that it wouldn’t even do to THINK.”*

To prove this point, the authors analyze hundreds of news stories and editorials published in the most mainstream news sources in the country (NYT, WaPo, LA Times, etc.) dealing with certain subjects, and compares their coverage of, for instance, elections in US client states (such as El Salvador) to elections in states with Leftist governments during the same time period (such as Nicaragua and Guatemala). They analyze objective data about the elections from a variety of NGOs whose job it is to monitor these things, and compare the coverage in the US with the consensus positions of the NGOs. 

Using this method, the authors quite effectively prove that our decentralized propaganda model is **much more efficient** at delivering the “politically correct line” of the oligarchy than any state-run propaganda system has ever been. 

The title “Manufacturing Consent” is meant to imply that the news media is just a mouthpiece for power; an industry that produces commodities like any other. The commodity that the news media produces, however, is **consent for US foreign and domestic policy**. 

You should really read this book. You seem to have a very idealistic notion of how “free” our media is, compared to countries like China. I think, based on research such as this, that you are entirely wrong in this conclusion.

Think about this: there’s a reason why the news media is especially critical of Trump, compared with previous administrations. Trump, for various obvious reasons, threatens many of the essential interests of the oligarchy - the real rulers of this country. The news media serves as a propaganda mouthpiece for the oligarchy, just like Pravda was for the Communist Party in the Soviet Union. It’s just MUCH more effective - and a large part of why it’s more effective is *precisely because they’ve managed to trick so many citizens that they are, in fact, free agents, and that they aren’t being held to any political line.*"
todayilearned,"I don’t disagree with you regarding media and internalized propaganda, but I think it’s dangerous to say that media is critical of Trump *because* he threatens “the oligarchy”. It makes it sound as if he has some sort of positive intent or effect. 

He threatens many of the left- and right-wing elite, true. His policies are also hugely beneficial to many of the left- and right-wing elite, as well as adversarial foreign powers. He’s just attempting to replace one oligarchy with another. If he were really revolutionary, GOP old-timers like McConnell would be trying to boot him just as much as the left."
todayilearned,"You got me. Missing the point, but you got me. Hopefully you at least understand that making a generalized statement that covers **most** scenarios, IE ""we do the very same things at home"" isn't an implication that we do every single thing the same as China... would you like me to say 85% the same? 95%? 70%? But in any case  our government commits atrocities regularly and that is not up for debate. Though I can't say I remember the last time China nuked anybody. I digress, nuance is nuance, and you're right, we don't imprison people for voicing opinions regularly. 

Edit: I actually don't think you're even reading the comments or trying to understand anything, because I didn't even make that quote you yourself brought up. I was explaining who mentioned China, as you asked, which was u/michaelflux. The only thing he mentioned being equal is the severity of bad shit we do is about the same as the severity of bad shit China does. When I said they are the same, I am referring to the severity of human rights violations committed by each nation's government to be relatively equal in impact. You can get on my case for using the word same when paraphrasing his point, that's fine, but if you're just sitting there looking for things to pick at in an argument then there's the exit."
todayilearned,"When college students protested the vietnam war they were beaten and killed right? Forgot the name of the incident but America has already shown signs of facism for a long time. Trump is a reflection of Americas past. The problem is the gun owners are the fascists. Who are they gonna rise up against, they are the problem. They can destroy democracy by voting facism in because the electoral college favors rural fascists. "
todayilearned,"Good point. I wasn’t trying to imply that he’s somehow doing anything positive, or revolutionary. What I meant was that he threatens the *stability* of the system the oligarchy have grown so comfortable in. And I don’t think he even means to (obviously, since he’s a member of said oligarchy himself). He’s just such a complete imbecile that he keeps embarrassing them in public, and putting an ugly face on their ugly policies - as opposed to someone like Obama, who was a fantastic representative for the oligarchy. Clean-cut. Well-mannered. A perfect human representation of the international neoliberal consensus. "
todayilearned,"Maybe you should try not getting your information about how the world works from television.

No, protestors in general were not 'beaten and killed.' That's laughable. I assume you're talking about the Kent State shootings, where national guardmens panicked and fired on a violent mob of students throwing rocks after several days of escalating threats (from the students, not the government) and anger, including a college building being burned down. 

Yes, it was definitely unjustified, but absolutely not a deliberate order by a fascist government. And meanwhile, there were thousands or tens of thousands or other protests that were perfectly peaceful. "
todayilearned,"Do you even know what 'fascism' is, beyond 'stupid meany government doing things I don't like'? 

Yes, the national guardsmen killed people, but there's no evidence whatsoever to suggest it was ever a deliberate plan by anyone. Really, if the government wanted to 'beat and kill protesters' don't you think they could have done a much better job than they did? They killed four and wounded nine. Why wouldn't they just bring in heavy machine guns and gun down hundreds? "
todayilearned,"Whoa, one thing at a time. Now, we can agree that the idea of the government ordering protesting students be 'beaten and killed' is pretty stupid and silly, right? 

By the way, I love how your response pretty much supports exactly what I said. To you, fascism pretty much means exactly that, don't you? Meany stupid government doings things you don't like. Do you think democracies are incapable of human rights abuses? "
todayilearned,"I'm an immigrant who moved to the United States, so I've been outside of the west before. You are absolutely *insane* if you think a figure like 3000 is comparable to authoritarian regimes worldwide. My home country had a history of disappearing suspected dissidents in the tens of thousands, out of a population smaller than America by a factor of ten. A populace misinformed about some scientific and foreign-policy issues is nothing compared to those systematically oppressed by a regressive censorship system which routinely simply flat-out lies to them and often *purposefully murders them.* No one is saying that there aren't major problems to be solved, but I am telling you as someone from outside America that your false equivalencies actively help authoritarian regimes globally by giving them propaganda to show to their people and prove things over here aren't better. ***They are.*** I understand that you're trying to draw attention to issues you think aren't being addressed but your dishonest tactics have international consequences that *hurt people*. So *stop.*"
todayilearned,"All your points about simply making comparisons (which I would be fine with) and not having equated the two are wrong; this is the original poster's comment:

>The only difference between the countries is that China doesn’t go out of its way to put a happy face on all the same shit.

Which is clearly not just making comparisons but equating the two.

​

Media coverage isn't turning, it's always been negative. Anyways, my point isn't exclusive to the current administration, every administration in American history has had media criticizing it to some extent or another, at times very prominently and other times not. Even during the early part of the Iraq war there were dissidents, and the mainstream media didn't censor French opposition to the war or anything like that - and that was the *worst* point in media complacency in modern history.

​

>How is it dishonest and irresponsible? It's a completely valid criticism to make. The US has *many* problems with corruption, from political donations to media monopolies.  
>  
>Ultimately, this comment feels like it has nothing to do with  perspective, and everything to do with defending some misplaced sense of  national pride.

I'm telling you this as an immigrant from a country with a history of authoritarian government who moved to the United States and isn't defending this ""misplaced sense of national pride"" which you *assumed* because it was convenient; things here *are better*. People aren't thrown into the ocean from government helicopters, university students aren't kidnapped by the government and tortured. Yet here you are supporting these equivalencies as a lazy rhetorical tool, and in the process giving authoritarian governments propaganda that conditions in the United States aren't any better. That democracy is a failure and is just as corrupt and everyone knows it. That there isn't anything worth fighting for on the other side. ***STOP DOING IT.***"
todayilearned,"It's an issue I feel pretty strongly about. I come from Argentina where the dictatorships loved to say that the United States was a puppet for the CIA and only fools believe a civilian government could actually have power. They used American media exposés and conspiracy theories as proof, and many people who were used to believing that the truth is ten times worse than anything a government admits (instead of two or three times) fell for it. Some were even convinced dictatorship was preferable to a democracy because ""at least you know who's in power""."
todayilearned,"When people don’t have an argument against what you’re saying, they start nitpicking at your terminology.  It’s like trying to argue with lawyers, even if they’re defending the ‘wrong’ position, they’ll still try to ‘catch’ you on some technicality.  ‘You see on paragraph 18 line 3 you used the word xyz which in the context of a precedent set in 1867 by judge bla in Alabama, bla bla bla bla bla’"
todayilearned,"It sounds like an interesting book. However, my original comment was about comparisons and equivalencies about censorship and freedom between the United States and China. All the self-censoring in the world doesn't take away your freedom like authoritarian states do, and the fact that the book you're recommending isn't banned and instead readily available on Amazon is an example of why that's incredibly important. I understand that your point is that sort of ulterior tolerance is part of the system which makes propaganda more effective, but that's another conversation about propaganda and not freedom.

To move to your points, I agree that the actual media in the United States fails to do an adequate job at informing the public even semi-consistently (especially on foreign policy) and I view it with contempt. However, I don't really see it as being that effective in inspiring consent for US domestic policy compared to general political apathy, and how much leeway it gives the government I'm not sure. At the end of the day this manufactured consent still cannot give the US government more leeway than an authoritarian state, because authoritarian states straight up basically don't need consent in the first place (China can occupy and annex Tibet, I'm not sure whether the US could manage the same with Canada). So I'm fairly confident the Chinese system as a whole is worse, and that authoritarian elements would prefer a Chinese-style system to this American one if they could get it. As you said, the oligarchy couldn't even stop Trump from getting elected. You won't see that mistake in China or Russia anytime soon.

I'll have to remember to pick up the book sometime, though."
todayilearned,">Also, maybe don't say ""deep state"" if you want to be taken seriusly.

W.T.F.  Are you denying something that multiple US Presidents from both parties spoke about and warned us about?  Seriously?  Just because dumbass Trump supporters use it doesn't mean it's fake or conspiracy theory.  

The surveillance and military people have a vested interest in keeping a healthy budget for themselves.  It's not some dark conspiracy.  It's just human nature and business.   They are not elected.  They remain in place whether there's a D or and R in the white house.  That's the ""deep state"" and it's been a factor in US politics for many decades.  Ignoring it makes you look foolish."
todayilearned," 3000 AMERICAN CITIZENS  died because Americans are fucking clueless about their country.

You think that's OK? Then, bluntly speaking, forget you.

America is denying climate change because of home-schooling produces idiots.

Maldives will no longer exist is just a few years, because of climate change deniers.

You think that's OK? Well then, bluntly speaking, forget you.

America denies some of its citizens rights like voting, because white flight allows people top be utterly informed about their own country.

You think that's OK? Well then, bluntly speaking, forget you.

You know what's possible to do in a country with a dictator? Overthrow him. 

You know what's possible to do with an ignorant, xenophobic and intellectually lazy populace, kept ignorant so people in power will not be questioned? Not much."
todayilearned,">3000 AMERICAN CITIZENS  died because Americans are fucking clueless about their country.

And TENS OF THOUSANDS of citizens of dictatorships die not because of hurricanes or bureaucratic inefficiency but because *their government purposefully murders them.* ***ROUTINELY.***

>America denies some of its citizens rights like voting

Dictatorships deny *all* of their citizens ""rights like voting"". And other rights, like assembly, or trial by jury, or ***the pursuit of life***.

>You know what's possible to do in a country with a dictator? Overthrow him.

Good God, this is next level stupid. I don't even know where to begin. The total ignorance needed to make such an idiotic statement is unfathomable. I suppose next time I talk to my parents I'll ask them why *they* didn't just declare war against *the military of a modern nation state* \- I'm guessing it'll *probably* have something to do with their lack of a standing army, or an air force, or a navy. I believe they were also just not too keen on being stuffed into a body bag and thrown into the Atlantic from a helicopter.

>You know what's possible to do with an ignorant, xenophobic and  intellectually lazy populace, kept ignorant so people in power will not  be questioned?

Educate them? Are you implying that it's harder to *peacefully educate people* than to *overthrow a state military*? Man, what a terrible situation you're in; whereas *you* have to sit down and have a *conversation* with someone, all those *lucky* denizens of dictatorships just need to get themselves ***killed*** in a violent failed revolution to get *their* freedoms. Really sounds like you got the short end of the stick, what with *already* living in a stable democracy and all.

My friend, unless you're still in middle school you desperately need some perspective, and quick."
todayilearned,"I've seen the documentary and I don't disagree that our market-led model of indoctrination is the most effective ever yet created. However, you also have to look at the content of what is being indoctrinated. A great deal of it is harmless, and in some cases beneficial. Some ideas, after all, are true. Like, for example, the self-evident truth that all people are created equal. That's an excellent idea for the masses to be indoctrinated with. It's something that people *should* hold to be self-evident.

Not everything that we are socialized to believe (with utter mechanical efficiency) is necessarily bad, is all I'm trying to say. And I'd further posit this indoctrination mechanism is probably a large factor in why we've got a safer and more egalitarian society than we did 100 or 1000 years ago.

We also shouldn't assume that this indoctrination mechanism is completely elastic in its ability to indoctrinate any content. It may be that it's only good at indoctrinating true things, meaningless things, and insidiously evil things (the things Chomsky talks about), but not obviously evil things (like it wouldn't be able to turn America into Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, for example)."
todayilearned,"Yeah, that’s a good point. I would further argue, based on this very same logic, that a lot of the propaganda and censorship happening in China under official state direction is defensible using the same moral criteria you described. 

You may not be a communist like myself (to be clear, I’m not a big fan of the direction the CPC has taken over the last few decades, but based on what I know, I’m not yet willing to “throw out the baby with the bathwater”, as it were), but I would point out that the ostensible aims of the CPC in engaging in this propaganda and censorship are 100% morally defensible things, like spreading the idea of solidarity and comradeship in society, that every person is equal (not “created” equal) in society, and deserves to share in the wealth society creates - that people should look out for each other in society instead of themselves, that they should combat racism, combat destructive capitalist ideology which teaches that exploiting the labor of your fellow man for your own gain is somehow justified, and move in the direction of a stateless, classless society based on Marxist doctrine. 

They don’t follow through on a lot of these things very well, in some ways. And there’s some serious issues with their economic development backsliding into capitalist relations in practice, if not in theory. But the US are even bigger hypocrites, so... yeah. 

I mean, China doesn’t teach their citizens that every human is equal, and then engage in imperialist wars of aggression all around the world, killing millions of people at the behest of a corporate elite. "
todayilearned,"Yeah, Fox News was, but MSNBC, WaPo, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, and other major outlets that are constantly linked on r/politics largely treated Obama with kid gloves.  During the 2016 campaign for Hillary Clinton they also completely glossed over the military interventionist track record of Obama and Hillary.  As in, they almost never mentioned it or brought up the fact that under the Obama administration we went from bombing two countries to bombing seven.  They also didn't mention that the financial reform legislation passed by Obama's congress allowed the too big to fail banks to become even bigger, while giving them cheap money with which they could buy up smaller banks.  

New York Times did a decent job of critiquing Obama's foreign policy while it happened, but their editorial board still went out and endorsed Hillary Clinton when they would have better served their reputation by not endorsing either of the shit candidates fighting it out on the maincard in 2016.  "
todayilearned,"This is an interesting conversation. Thanks for those points. I believe strongly in communism (essentially) at the family/neighborhood level (since it's the natural state of order for the human animal at those levels), but at the state level (which has no ""natural"" state of order; i.e. evolution hasn't prepared us for it) I think I might, personally, be ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I recently read Marx's communist manifesto again, and with fresh eyes it just seems so clear that teaching people to think in terms of class struggle, while having the good intention of preventing oppression, has negative outcomes in terms of respect for the sovereignty of the individual (which obviously has led to human rights violations time and time again throughout the history of Communism). When people say, ""Well I read Marx and didn't feel myself going down that slippery slope,"" I want to remind them that that's only because they've already been deeply indoctrinated by another, better, system of morality--when you give Marx to people who haven't, that's when you get atrocities.

I'd prefer to teach people to think in terms of absolute respect for the rights of the individual, and then further teach that not exploiting people (whether they're of a certain class or not) is *therefore* not okay. It just doesn't seem to me that we require a completely new rubric of human moral imagination to replace the one we came up with during the Enlightenment (and also in ancient Greece, and in other places too, I'm sure). It's not clear to me that our moral failings as a species are due to the current rubric not being good enough.

Now I devolve into things I don't know enough of the specifics on to discuss seriously, but I'll throw some ideas out there in case you're bored at work like I am and it might give you an interesting thought or two:

As for Chinese foreign policy, I'm no expert (nor am I really caught up on modern literature on the subject), but I can see that it's very clever in that it maximally leverages the principals of Complex Interdependence outlined by Keohane and Nye. The Belt and Road initiative is definitely beating us at our own game. Western powers don't win most of their ""wars"" through violence, either, they win them through things like debt-slavery via the World Bank, which is what China seems to me to be doing now in the developing world, but at an even faster rate and under less regulation than we are, so I imagine it's even more exploitative, but that's just a guess since, as I said, I'm not really up to date on the specifics. It would be interesting to look into the concrete effects of the BRI and compare them to Western efforts of a similar nature (economic development, not military) in the developing world. Let me know if you have any interesting sources on this!

It's definitely an interesting experiment going on right now. Obviously life in China now is totally different than during the first decades of the revolution, so there have clearly been factors able to moderate the worst of what tends to happen in Communist states. Part of it seems to be switching to an economic model much more closely resembling market capitalism, if much more tightly controlled. That capitalist influence was able to grow the middle class, whose presence probably was a large factor in moderating China's most totalitarian policies. What will be an interesting lesson for the West, especially to the most staunch free-market Libertarians, will be seeing that markets, similar to our own, don't necessarily run better under democracy. They may, in fact, be even *more* profitable under authoritarian regimes. I think it was Slavoj Zizek who noticed that."
todayilearned,"Perhaps I'm not being as eloquent as I could. I don't disagree with what you've said. My observation is that the end result is the same. In fact your reference to 1984 is rather apt. It could be, and is often, argued the resistance was just another wing of Big Brother's regime. An enemy to focus the people. A counter narrative. 

If you believe the Russian interference narrative...this is exactly what is going on. When a crowd of people shout, who actually knows who is speaking? I don't have an answer, and I enjoy the discussion. I guess it could be argued that to much of any extreme is bad...one voice or millions. Just throwing it out there for though."
todayilearned,"I just have issue with calling it censorship. Do Americans have their heads up their asses? Yes. Is choosing to get your news off of Facebook censorship? No. 

It's different because at any point an individual can choose a different source, regardless of if they do so or not. 

As far as Russia goes, I totally agree they have been made into the West's boogieman. They are a convenient excuse for why your chosen political candidate lost. People need to be conscious that with free speech comes the freedom to lie and manipulate. Which is why we must remain viligant. 

I disagree because the US government would absolutely be as oppressive as the Chinese if they could. I have no doubt in my mind. Censorship could be way worse in this country. "
todayilearned,"The idea that we are created equal is constantly disproved by our legal system. If you have lots of money you are more equal than your fellow man in our legal system. Not even taking race into consideration, if you're rich you can afford to sue people or corporations in order to correct injustices, you can personally affect legislative changes that benefit you economically, and you can also frequently avoid justice for crimes you are certainly guilty of, simply because you can afford a better legal team than the prosecution can.  

This is considered to be fairly common knowledge, even in the least educated demographics. "
todayilearned,"It's also common knowledge among the least intelligent animals: Even two rats understand that no two individuals are equal in power. But that's not what the idea that we're ""all created equal"" means (just as it doesn't mean we're all equal in height, or equal in intelligence, etc.)

It means we are all equal in basic human dignity. Equal in value. Equal in rights. So in a court of law, when a lawyer argues that, as you say, a rich person has infringed on the rights of a poor person, no one laughs. Every single person in that room instantly recognizes what is being said. They all have a common understanding that that's how the law is supposed to work, because we all (in the Western world) share a cultural idea that all people are equal in dignity. That's not how it has been in almost any other culture throughout human history, or indeed in other modern cultures in the world.

If you read the code of hammurabi, the oldest extant legal document in the world, you'll find that laws literally applied differently to different classes of people. And that's how it was *supposed* to be. That's how people believed it *needed* to be in order to properly organize city-sized groups of people. We've come a long way from there. We're now at the point where the majority believes in equality, but argues over what that means specifically and how to implement it, and suffers in implementing it due to difference in power/ability/etc. between people (as you pointed out).

I doubt there will ever be a time in human history where we're done debating and refining these ideas, but I suspect progress in the department is like a [mathematical limit approaching infinity](https://www.mathsisfun.com/calculus/images/graph-1-1-n-n.gif): We're already around 80% of the way there, and over the next thousand years we may get to 90%, and in another 1000, perhaps 95% of the way.

I'd suggest checking out the book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (the audiobook is great, too) if you're interested in the evolution of humanity, genetically and culturally."
todayilearned,"My friend, you need to think about what happens when the world's largest military and the world's largest economy are centered around an (willfully?) ignorant populace.

War destroys civil order. 

The US visits war on foreign lands, and has done so continutously for more than 100 years.

Those dictators you are worried about? Whose global political chess games are they pawns in? Whose aid are they using to stay in power?

You think there is some no suffering from the largest refugee population in the history of the world?

You think that rose up out of nowhere?"
todayilearned,"A free society with an ignorant populace is capable of far more global misery than a small country with an murderous tyrant.

And, my friend, if the last century of history has not shown you that in fucking spades, it is *you* that needs to return to middle school.

Preferably in a country where the school book content is not decided  by a history and science denying subgroup.

But really, if you think American foreign policy did not as much as determine your home country's domestic policy, education may not help you much."
todayilearned,"The U.S. Commerce Department's security office warns that ""a cellular telephone can be turned into a microphone and transmitter for the purpose of listening to conversations in the vicinity of the phone."" An article in the Financial Times last year said mobile providers can ""remotely install a piece of software on to any handset, without the owner's knowledge, which will activate the microphone even when its owner is not making a call.""

. ""They can be remotely accessed and made to transmit room audio all the time,"" he said. ""You can do that without having physical access to the phone"".

It’s not just audio and video recording we need to be concerned about. Your smart home monitor knows how many people are in your house and in which rooms at what times. Your smart water meter knows every time a toilet is flushed in your home. Your alarm clock knows what time you woke up each day last month. Your refrigerator knows every time you filled a glass of cold water. Your cellphone has a GPS built into it that can track your location, and hence record your movements. Yes, you can turn off location tracking, but does that mean the phone isn’t keeping track of your location? And do you really know for sure your GPS is off simply because your phone’s screen says it is

When I was in the Air Force 85 to 89, I saw things that would blow your mind today. There is far more tech being utilized than you know right now. I don't have to make anything up my friend. Accessing cell phone mics and cams has been  used since the 2000's .  "
todayilearned,"> The U.S. Commerce Department's security office warns that ""a cellular telephone can be turned into a microphone and transmitter for the purpose of listening to conversations in the vicinity of the phone.""

Unless they release a proof of concept, isn't this just a useless warning? And why are they the experts in this field?

> An article in the Financial Times last year said mobile providers can ""remotely install a piece of software on to any handset, without the owner's knowledge, which will activate the microphone even when its owner is not making a call.""

Of course, but it can't do it when the phone is off.

> When I was in the Air Force 85 to 89, I saw things that would blow your mind today.

Oh fuck off. As if the air force has superior tech to what google and apple have.

Now sure, if you are saying you can pic up the tiny amount of energy put out by the mic by focusing a machine on the device from a few meters away, I will concede that is possible. But that is not the same as remote monitoring."
todayilearned,"The mic is a receiver, not a transmitter, btw.When you turn off your phone, it is still energized  by the battery. You just don't see anything turned on. Nothing is aimed at the mic, the mic and camera are activated. And one can listen as if you made a call to some one and set the phone down on the kitchen table and carried on a conversation with some one in the room. One must remove the battery from the phone , to prevent this. Unless it's an iPhone. Then you are screwed.

You don't have to believe it, not sure why you don't. The technology is no secret. The military, does have some mind blowing tech. I have had some limited access, it was amazing. 

Proof of concept? It's been used to gather evidence in some high profile mafia cases. Look it up. 

"
todayilearned,"Well, it's no secret the military has tech they keep secret from the general population. I don't know why you think that is do far fetched. The military used GPS long before civilians knew about it. Sr 71 Blackbird was a secret for a long time..just 2 examples, lots more...how would you know if your mic or camera were activated and being monitored on your cell phone right now if it looked and acted like it does when it is powered off?  A cell phone can be made to communicate with cell towers even when powered down. 

Like I said, this tech has been used already, and made public, so not sure why you think it's all bullshit. Is there something else that is bothering you?"
todayilearned,"If he already didn't like deaf people, I'm not sure that responding to him with ""fuck you"" is going to make him change his mind.

How about trying to educate people? Sure, he's being a dick, but why stoop to his level?

He's going to read your comment now, think that a deaf person just said ""fuck you"" at him and use it as internal justification for the fact that he thinks all deaf people are rude. Which doesn't help in the slightest."
todayilearned,"This is why the internet is such a relentlessly shitty place. Someone is a dick towards someone else as a troll / joke then everyone starts being assholes to each other.

I suspect that there will be more than 1 person that sees this bit of this thread and thinks ""oh yeah, deaf people really **are** rude"". Hope that makes you happy. 

Asshole.

EDIT: And you recently posted a thread asking people what they do to make the world a less shitty place? Haha, that's fucking hilarious, when you go round being a twat to people."
todayilearned,"Remember writing a paper about the rape of Nanjing. My history teacher thought it was BS because he never heard about it, but he looked it up and apologized. Crazy how so much of the barbarity Japan has been part of is basically unheard of in the West.

Edit: He doubted me when I explained what I was going to write about, asked me about sources and if they were valid and not too biased because he had not heard of this. Did not throw a tantrum, tearing papers, flipping tables and called me a big stinky lying weiner. Dunno if I blame him, we did not have any requirement to be taught about any intricate conflict in Asia during my years."
todayilearned,"This is one of my favorite useless facts to tell people I'm with at the MoA. I admire efficiency in engineering (for example, I always found it absurd the idea that there are server rooms requiring A/C in the winter while the rest of the building is being heated) and this is beautiful. That said, the idea is sorta gross if you think about it too much. We all know the (divisive) feeling of sitting in a warm seat, but imagine walking through an atmosphere of people's body heat. It's like indirectly cuddling thousands of other people."
todayilearned,"Haha it's surprising the difference a few bodies will make. It doesn't matter how hot it is outside, almost every wedding in a small church will quickly become miserable as the 100+ people radiate into a typically poorly ventilated space for an hour. 

The transition to Minnesota cold is brutal even for us. It's this season of fall where we have our thermometers set to dual mode, furnace running in the morning, A/C in the afternoon. I much prefer when I can leave only the furnace on and be able to adapt the colder temperatures. "
todayilearned,"What? Noooooooo! Nah, I love people! I just don't like feeling, smelling, hearing, seeing, and especially not tasting them. They're perfect on the internet! Except all the trolls, edgy children, politically biased bigots, self-deprecating attention seekers, and salty gamers.   


(nah, I'm just an introverted geek that appreciates friends but has a large bubble and doesn't know how to deal with extremely extroverted people. Unique person of the year award contender right here /s)"
todayilearned,"I'm a picky, spoiled inhabitant. My insulation probably isn't so good either. I tried to deal with the temp getting to 65 and I was uncomfortable, so I reluctantly turned it on. But the way the weather is looking, I can probably turn off and cover the A/C, it hasn't actually been used since I set the heat. And maybe not necessarily in a single day, but over the course of two days, it's not uncommon in the fall for a really cold night and a really hot afternoon. "
todayilearned,"If you let unconditioned winter air into the server room you'd no longer be able to effectively control the humidity or temperature. Too cold? Condensation appears inside and outside the server. Too hot? Major component failures. Too dry? Static electricity will build up. Too moist? Condensation again.

I have worked in server rooms for the last 3 years and you'd be amazed how careful we are with our airflow. Also keep in mind that during the winter it is much much less expensive to keep an A/C running. Basically the ac unit draws air from outside that's like 32F, conditions it to like 50F with 10% humidity, and sends it through our floors which only have slanted openings to direct the air directly to the server intakes. From there the heat rises into the roof exhaust grates and is recycled into usable heating and energy. "
todayilearned,"How well this works relies on how one's house was built and insulated. Inefficient, south-facing windows coupled with low ceilings and shoddy insulation  is  overwhelming in 80 degree heat, and a fan doesn't help much.

​

I have lived in a great old house with 10' ceilings and a north-facing bedroom and I spent that whole summer without AC in my room (with summers getting in the 100s) and I was only mildly uncomfortable during the peak. Just to give an example of how important architecture/interior design can be in these respects."
todayilearned,"I’ll be honest. I live in a mobile home. It’s newer (hence why I have central ac) but it’s also small. And 1 story with no basement. It does get hot quickly since there’s nowhere for hot air to go, also small space with a fair amount of windows in every direction. So while my friends places with basements and attics tend to stay more neutral where I live changes temps quickly. On the plus side central ac and heat do not require much to get it to a normal temperature. "
todayilearned,"My apartment, and a couple of past residences I've had, were built in the mid-century era, where insulating properly is not a common feature and landlords usually don't GAF about adding that sort of thing when fixing up houses and apartment buildings. Other places where I've lived were in buildings 100 years old or older, with all of the pros and cons that go along with those old buildings, like leaky windows, unheated common spaces (in apartments), uninsulated wood floors over crawlspaces and unheated basements, etc. (but tall ceilings and thick walls to keep the summer heat moderated with the help of blackout curtains).

​

I hold off as long as I can before turning the heat on at night, for me the night temps are usually in the 40s instead of 50s though. Air conditioning though, my husband and I tolerate heat badly."
todayilearned,"They're eggs made out of jade that, when inserted into and left inside a vagina for extended periods of time, supposedly had all manner of health benefits (the description was full of words like ""cleanse"" and ""detox"" and ""feminine energy"").

The problem is that jade is actually fairly porous, so even if you thoroughly cleaned it between uses you'd still have trouble actually sanitizing it. Bacteria would build up in it, and could result in bacterial vaginosis or toxic shock."
todayilearned,I think he holds a special place in so many kids hearts because of home alone and what that movie means to so many of us. It’s a staple at Christmas. It’s a cult classic. I want to see him to succeed so bad. I am so thrilled when he does the amas because he’s real and awesome and shows that yeah we can all have bad moments in life and then turn ourselves around into awesomeness. 
todayilearned,"This isn't true. This would mean many storm troopers were excellent actors, and willing to suddenly play a role perfectly even if it meant their life (like it did in the security office scene where they should have been shot, but aren't).

But even more telling, when Obi Wan is stealthily creeping around to shut down the tractor beam, he overhears a conversation between two Storm Troopers. One basically says to the other, you know wtf is going on? Is this a drill? So they're clueless, haven't been given any special instructions. "
todayilearned,"> I know we be animals. I also know animals want to live. I know this doesn't stop carnivores from eating other animals that want to live. We are no different. I face this truth with the understanding that we ARE animals and so are they and this is an animal eat animal world we live in.
> 
> Maybe you need to face the hard truth?

 

Wild animals kill to survive. They must kill to eat, otherwise they would die. Whether they kill on instinct or are aware of their predicament is irrelevant, we are not in their situation. If you live in modern society and have access to crops, vegetables, fruit, grains etc, then you have no obligation or need for animal products.  Also, wild animals exhibit all kinds of behaviour that you would seek to avoid, wild animals don't make for good ethical role models.
"
todayilearned,"Hmm given the suicide rates before and after gender reassignment therapy it’s pretty clear cut psychological illness. You’d probably be shocked that the larger part of the well educated portion of the population takes stock of the raw data rather then this wild political ideology.

I’m all for men dressing like woman vice versa, surgery to what ever gender you’re feeling what ever you need to be happy so long as ur not hurting someone else is kinda my motto. I say go for it. That doesn’t mean these people aren’t generally severely clinically  depressed and it goes deeper then feeling like you’re in the wrong body."
todayilearned,"There *is* proof of correlation between higher rates of chronic depression, marginalization and poverty among a lot of different people groups, and also a close connection between social exclusion and higher rates of suicide though. You may have been thinking of causation, which is a little harder to proof, but correlation between marginalization and mental health issues has definitely been proven before.

This has been proven multiple times on studies of racialized subjects in Canada (for example http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/race-policy-dialogue-papers/racial-discrimination-and-mental-health-racialized-and-aboriginal-communities), institutional and structral discrimination or otherwise antagonistic legal actions have been shown to increase the rate of suicide and depression among LGB people as well (https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2009.168815) , and it has been proven that transgender teens are often subject of bullying and harassment which often has an impact on mental health and may cause more issues later in life as well (Harsh Realities, The Experiences of Transgender Youth In Our Nation’s Schools), we can also see that there's close correlation between physical/verbal harassment or abuse and self harming/suicidality, and that the mental health of transgender individuals seems to be impacted by the social isolation and exclusion that comes with outwardly expressing a gender other than the one assigned at birth (Mental health disorders, psychological distress, and suicidality in a diverse sample of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youths. American Journal of Public Health.).

Minority stress theory (which at the end of the day is the central concept here), while previously cricticized for the point that you seemingly want to bring up about correlation not implying causation, seems to be widely accepted by the general population of mental health professionals on topics relating to the higher rates of mental health issues and suicide rates of marginalized groups, I did indeed find a study that looks for a causal relationship between discrimination and mental health (and physical health too) (here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10756618_Does_Perceived_Discrimination_Affect_Health_Longitudinal_Relationships_between_Work_Discrimination_and_Women%27s_Physical_and_Emotional_Health), but even if most of the proof was correlational, to quickly dismiss it right away specially on something that's quite a new field and on something that is widely accepted as the most correct assertion to make a point about how trans people are just mentally unhealthy *because* they're trans when there's no causational proof for that assumption either and most psychologists would probably go against that line of thinking is sort of just being contrarian and to an extent also seeing the idea of someone being transgender in absolutely negative lens for no reason at all.
"
todayilearned,"You’re right, I was thinking of causation.

Point by point. I agree that there is a definite connection between social isolation and suicide, but I’m dubious of your claim that poverty is connected as well. Again, poverty itself has never been demonstrated to raise suicide rates. Perhaps there are factors that cause someone to be less likely to be financially successful while also raising suicide rates.

Now, your links aren’t working for me, so I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that what you linked supports what you say.

http://www.sprc.org/racial-ethnic-disparities

This is data on suicide rates by race. If marginalized people are more prone to depression or suicide, why is it that the ones who are nearly universally agreed to be marginalized, like blacks and Hispanics, commit suicide far less than say, white people? 

https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/

White males, often touted as the least marginalized group,  accounted for 70% of all suicides in the US in 2016, despite making up less than 31% of the population.

It’s not as simple as you’re making it out to be. The role that marginalization plays in suicide rates is clearly extremely complicated and not a direct correlation."
todayilearned,"Still blows me away with some of the blatant “don’t give a fuck, I’m not using the product” that some Chinese businesses seem to do (not saying the west doesn’t do it, but at least they’re not as blatant about it or at least target demographics other than infants every once in a while). Like the low quality vaccines for infants or faking rabies vaccine test data, or in days gone past, padding baby formula with friggin plastic. Like no wonder baby formula from countries outside of china is flying off the shelves. If it were my kids I too would be paying extra to ensure my kids aren’t gonna have a dose of plastic in their next bottle of formula."
todayilearned,"Just FYI, fraud in medicine happens every where, [including USA](https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/5/17822680/theranos-shutdown-elizabeth-holmes-blood-test-health-science). It's not really any China special. If that actually causing lives, it should be considered severity felony in any country. Also it's corruption/bride that involves millions. Only that alone could be enough to get death sentence in China.

The only China special on this case is the severest punishment of crime in China is death sentence, which is commonly known, I believe?"
todayilearned,"Unfortunately, Reddit isn’t like that anymore. It’s been taken over by a much dumber hive mind in the last four years or so. Back in the day, any post or comment with a spelling error, emojis, grammatical issues, or shortened words was downvoted to oblivion. 

I still think Reddit is great, but it certainly has changed for the worse. There’s too much 4-Chan and Facebook overflow nowadays. 

But it is less pretentious now, for better or for worse. "
todayilearned,"Are you being facetious? 

I've been on Reddit around two yrs, and, grammar-wise, the only thing I've really noticed is an uptick ""cute"" talk - doggo, pupper, smol. . .I definitely find that obnoxious,  but general spelling and syntax errors don't vex me terribly. 

Many folks on here aren't native English speakers,  spelling isn't many people's forte. . .one of my degrees is in English, and I'm a pretty shit speller. Also, I Reddit exclusively on my mobile, I am pretty careless with typing/have chubby toddler hands - that makes for plenty of errors. I mean Reddit is just a time-waster for me - I don't ""craft"" or proofread my posts. I write extensively for work (psych nurse practitioner), and I definitely put more care into my writing IRL.

That being said, I did have a mini-stroke the first time I read ""smol"" ; that shit is seven different kinds of retarded.

I pay more attention to the cohesiveness/tone of some"
todayilearned,Well I've got my 6 year club badge so I have to say that while you may or may not be one of the idiots you didn't get on board during the golden age. Things are different now. It's more laid back but also more hollow. Also the constant political maneuvering in ever fucking subreddit is tiresome. It's just not as fun to be involved and it really did start about 4 years ago.
todayilearned,"No, but I don’t think they’d form a sustainable ecosystem in a plastic compost pile. In a normal backyard compost pile you have compost worms which live in there and turn vegetable matter into castings/compost. They live their entire life cycle in the compost pile and regenerate themselves by breeding.

But if the wax caterpillars grow up and fly away you’d have to keep on replacing them with new caterpillars, and at the same time you’d be releasing massive waves (I don’t know how many caterpillars it would take to dispose of a household worth of plastic but quite possibly plague-like proportions) of wax moths onto the local bee populations, which would likely wipe out a lot of beehives."
todayilearned,"I always wondered when my cake day was. Don't think this date coincides with anything significant but maybe learning I can get to the porn easily. It's weird to think the changes I have seen in them years. No ""Quarantining"" of subs, a link to /r/SpaceDick linked right to there so you could trick the uninitiated to see a man cutting a ""paper"" doll chain of his scrotum. More shit I'm too drunk and lazy to mention. 6 years and all a waste."
todayilearned,"Good food for bearded dragons and other pet reptiles. Also not hard to breed them if you have patience. Mealworms go into a kinda suspended animation when they get cold but Superworms just die. Between the two, I prefer Superworms but my favorite feeder bug is Dubias.


 If you have any exotic pet questions, feel free to ask! I've owned, cared for, or rescued about every ""common"" exotic pet you can think of :)"
todayilearned,"Nah i'm good on those reptiles. I find them very fascinating, but i would not let them into my home. I have some strange fear of snakes as in my body shivers, when i think about them. I was bitten once as a kid by a snake that was thinner than a straw. It didn't even penetrate the skin. I'm better with mammals. They tend to show you signs before they bite."
todayilearned,"It’s too bad our Congress today already have made-up their minds on so many stances and just plow ahead with whatever agenda they’ve had their hearts on from the beginning. It’s no longer about listening or being empathetic to someone’s story. It’s no longer about what the people or their constituents want. 

Can you imagine our Congress now-a-days hearing Mr. Rogers testimony? Can you imagine the vileness and dirt they’d be clamoring to dig up on him in hopes to embarrass him on a national stage to make him go away? 

I’m almost thankful Fred Rogers is gone because I don’t think I could stand to have him so disappointed in our actions as a country today. At the same time, I wish he were here now because I know he’d absolutely be that ray of sunshine and positivity we desperately need in our discourse today."
todayilearned,">	I’m almost thankful Fred Rogers is gone because I don’t think I could stand to have him so disappointed in our actions

Just had that thought. That man was too wholesome for where were at. It makes me cry that if he were here he’d tell us we were special just the way we are and that he cares. I don’t think he could muster a bad word about anyone, even trump. 

"
todayilearned,"I feel like this is is the result of how connected everyone is now.

Back then, you went to the hearing to find out the information you needed to make a decision upon. That's what the hearing was for.  They didn't have news alerts, emails, Twitter, Reddit.  I'd imagine they often walked into these hearing blind.

Now everyone knows everything before they walk in and it just reaffirms what they already decided upon. Then it's used as a formality to ensure their agenda comes through as expected."
todayilearned,"I'm not religious, but the people who said that can rot in hell if there is one. Mr. Rogers helped me deal with my parent's divorce when I was a kid. I don't remember a lot, but I remember it was really hard and Mr. Rogers helped me deal with my feelings. Teaching little boys and girls that their feelings are entitlement is what causes mental health issues. This seriously made me sick. Stone cold bastards"
todayilearned,"I was thinking about the Kavanaugh hearing personally. Just make up some story from 40 years ago with no evidence. Or even the Russia-Trump collusion story, which also has zero evidence yet is still eaten up by some people.

There's a good chunk of the population that doesn't care at all if something is true, they just *want to believe it* if it hurts people they disagree with. Pretty sad.

edit: As a third party voter, it is genuinely amusing to see just how biased main subreddits have become. You can't even see how ridiculous and partisan you look."
todayilearned,">Post on T_D but not a Trump supporter.

If you actually looked at my post history, you'd see that half of my comments on TD get heavily downvoted. I'm not a mindless drone who only talks to people that agree with me. I also post on r/politics and other vehemently anti-Trump subs (such as this one, apparently). In fact, I spend very little time on any subs with which I heavily do agree, because it's a waste of time.

>Does Manafort count as evidence? Flynn? The Trump Tower Meeting where Jnr admitted they were looking for Clinton dirt? Trump’s bending over backwards for Putin at the G8 summit, then siding with Putin over US intelligence at his and Putin’s joint press conference?

Yeah, none of that is evidence of collusion, even a little bit.

Imagine if this were Obama we were talking about. 0% chance you'd think there's collusion. You literally only think that because you were told to think it.

You know it's possible to actually look at the primary evidence yourself instead of just reading partisan opinion pieces, right? If you did that maybe you'd be a bit more skeptical. Instead you believe everything you're told, no matter how ridiculous it is."
todayilearned,"I’m not a huge Obama fan, I hate how he normalised drone strikes and his charisma dragged the left into a more centrist position. Also, Jnr admitting freely that he was seeking Clinton dirt is literally what collusion is. It doesn’t need to be that Trump and Putin met and devised an evil plan, or that they planted false memories in him like the Manchurian candidate. People from the Trump campaign met with Russian nationals for dirt on a political opponent. And admitted it. That is collusion. Or rather, it’s conspiracy, which is the actual criminal offence. There’s technically no collusion because collusion isn’t the legal word for it. And Manafort was arrested and tried, how is that not enough evidence?

More projection, every time Trump defenders come out. Either it’s Hillary’s fault or circle back to Obama or ‘you’ve been told to think this!’"
todayilearned,"But they were taken seriously by voters who acted on it. Words have power- everyone’s words have power, whether it’s taken seriously by certain circles or not. I disagree with your opinion on the Kavanaugh situation tbh, but I appreciate you recognizing that your side has flaws just as much as mine. 

Obama was slandered and insulted by the right for 8 years, and is still to this day. I can’t let you downplay the accusations thrown against him simply because they weren’t taken seriously by the MSM..if you won’t hold your own party accountable, who *will* you hold accountable?"
todayilearned,"You can say this, but in the Mr. Rogers documentary ""Won't you be my neighbor"" they made a clear point about how shaken he was from 9/11. It make him reconsider if what he was doing was right, and worth it. If you haven't seen it, please do.

Here in America, it's not always a straightforward path. The righteous are not always appreciated. Sometimes the people standing up for what is correct and what should be said are heavily discriminated against as you've implied.

I think people are losing sight of this. It's detrimental to us all to be so close minded and hateful. I wish I knew a solution but I really have no idea what could bring people together now."
todayilearned,"> It’s too bad our Congress today already have made-up their minds on so many stances and just plow ahead with whatever agenda they’ve had their hearts on from the beginning.

They have to.  This goes back to the 90's.  If a Politician DARED to go back on their word, they were a flip flopper.  ""Oh, he keeps changing his mind!""  Like that was a bad thing.  So now, to not be labeled a flip flopper, they have to stick to whatever stupid ass thing they were doing to begin with."
todayilearned,"Oh no he has great points. Things like law, finance and taxes, CPR and political awareness should be taught and put more emphasis on or be part of related subject's curriculum. However these things often use those abstract things from maths, history and so on. So basically schools give you breadcrumbs with no actual goal so you blunder around. 

It's also my opinion (as a maintenance employee at school - sysadmin) that just like work should stay in the office (I get it, sometimes it does not), teaching should stay at school. Stop giving out stupid homeworks. If a kid spends 30 hours in school already and then you toss them hour or two of homework for each subject every week and you want them to learn for quizzes and do a prep work for your class, you end up with a kid that is doing 40-50 hours of work a week. This then results in people that burn out in a job that does not pay overtime. No, fuck that. Do post school clubs instead where the teacher is present and able to explain shit but kids who have literally zero interest in the manner can focus on what they want to be instead of what school requires to get better financing."
todayilearned,"I've been to many schools across Europe... Now I am in the UK but I started (as a student) in Czech Republic, went to Denmark and Holland, Italy, Greece and Poland. Not in single school across these countries have I met a teacher who would not think their subject and the school is the most important thing ever. I guess there are burned out broken teachers but I never met any of them. "
todayilearned,"Ok but the subject of this thread is the American education system, and let me tell you I don't have enough time to even begin to scratch the surface of how fucked up that system is. I've had teachers who had abusive incidents toward students while the rest of the class watched, teachers who would rub teenage girls' shoulders and play with their hair, principals who would rather their school make more money than students being taught well (our system is actually geared to reward removing students who don't perform well on tests with increased funding which is potentially what happened with Depp.) I've seen teachers who spent time in a public school lecturing about Jesus in their math class, teachers who haven't cared about their job in a decade, administrators who out up religious posters in the school walls, search students weekly with drug dogs.  I've seen a lot of teachers who didn't think education was even an important part of their job.  I've never seen a teacher fired for any of this. 

I'm glad it's not that way in a lot of other places but that doesn't mean there isn't a tragedy of a system in place in the US"
todayilearned,"Renewable energy in Costa Rica has shot utilities through the roof while the country’s infrastructure is collapsing. The country didn't have energy problems before that, so they fixed something that wasnt broke. While its good for PR, the average joe is paying more for electricity and his commute is significantly dangerous because of deteriorating infrastructure. Oh, and energy in Costa Rica is Extremely unreliable. Power outtages are insanely common. Wrote a paper on this a while back. "
todayilearned,"As it stands, nuclear does seem more feasible to implement into every state rather than trying to control hydrology to that extent. We haven't had much luck with altering river hydrology long-term. France has definitely seen solid results since their issues during and pre 1980s. Nuclear tends to get bogged down with bureaucracy and various groups trying to minimize costs. It is a real shame because several major issues that have set back long-term nuclear development could have been avoided.  "
todayilearned,"Please no dams. Hydroelectric generates a shit ton of power, but they're actually as much of an ecological nightmare as coal plants. Disruption of fish movements, large scale habitat destruction, displacement of entire communities, freshwater habitat fragmentation, large scale sediment regime disruption... I could go on.

If we want to get away from fossil fuels, wind and nuclear is the way to go. Solar is decent, but has a long way to go still."
todayilearned,"Voting should be enough. Nothing wrong with being pissed at the US government for being blindingly selfish and intentionally obtuse. There's no good reason for us to be so far behind.

What do you expect people to do, exactly, other than vote and bitch? It's not like the average American is just sitting on a stockpile of Novichok, fully capable of overthrowing the world's most powerful country but they decide against it because, well, it's Tuesday and they're just not really feeling the extra effort today.

Or maybe each one of us is supposed buy our own solar and wind powered generators. Maybe each person is supposed to have enough land and cash to just pull themselves up by their bootstraps and just get it dun already? 

Or is it a free market thing? Like, you think green energy hasn't taken over because it's not profitable enough or it isn't an effective business plan and you personally believe that literally everything people do needs to make maximum profit or it's the wrong thing to do, naturally, because Capitalism?

Or maybe you think people should quit their jobs, move out into the wilderness and live off the land, casting aside all worldly possessions for a simpler life that has no need for ""electricity"" or ""hygiene.""

Honestly, other than vote and bitch, please please give us all something to do."
todayilearned,"Absolutely! Thank you for bringing this up. Depending on the type of dam, they can have very serious impacts on local ecology. We have been making significant improvements to some types of dams, but none are perfect. Fish aren't the only species that suffer when you alter the local hydrology in a region. Microorganisms, insects, crops, plants, and so many other organisms are impacted by changing hydrological conditions. Dams absolutely have their place in some regions, but it would be a mistake to recreate the dam fever that spread through the U.S. some 50-60+ years ago. We still need to figure out how we will maintain, replace, or remove the dams that are reaching their expected end of life. "
todayilearned,"Dams are ecologically destructive, but on a local scale. Coal plants pollute our air and will eventually cause extinctions due to climate change worldwide. It is oversimplifying to say hydro is as bad as coal.

I agree with you 100% that we should not be focused on installing more hydro (on the US we are basicallly at saturation on that anyway). Nuclear is a great transitional source. Solar has improved by leaps and bounds recently and is already a competitive source in sunny parts of the country"
todayilearned,"I’m hopeful for the TerraPower nuclear plant that’s currently in prototype. It’s 600MW, 1200MW if it works well, that runs on the depleted uranium we currently use. What this means it that were using the 99% of the uranium that isn’t used in our current methods. This means that a single fuel rod can run for 60 years before it’s used up. 

This means two big things: 

Were using the nuclear waste that everyone worries about (which is a non trivial issue, but one that is much less of worry than fossil fuel). 

And secondly, since the fuel burns for 60 years, there are is a lot less that can go wrong as the human interaction is much less frequent. Also with amount of fuel we have sitting around for, we would have thousands of years worth of fuel.

I’m sure there are issues that will crop up, but I think that will be a huge key in getting to 0 carbon emissions in the next 40 years."
todayilearned,"I mean that we consistently fail in our attempts to control river hydrology and we often make conditions worse for the local ecosystems and we occasionally make things worse for the humans living in the immediate area of river alteration programs. Yea, we've put dams in a lot of rivers. Yes, some of these dams are engineering marvels and contribute a huge amount of energy or water resources. These are all short-term wins. River systems are dynamic and they are subject to change over time. Native species suffer drastically from the implementation of dams. Also, there are plenty of examples of hydrological alterations that have failed. The great flood of 1993 is just one example of human induced hydrological disaster in the U.S. This stuff happens frequently because there are almost always too many factors at work to anticipate them all."
todayilearned,"Hi there! I actually might be able to help answer this question for you.  I'm an electrical engineer who has a couple years experience commissioning power plants and has recently been working in transmission.  Apologies in advance for the wall of text.

Nuclear is costly and difficult to build.  There is a ton of risk involved in a nuclear project.  If you want proof of this, look up the Virgil C Summer plant in South Carolina.  They undertook a 9 billion dollar project several years ago to add two nuclear units to their plant.  Westinghouse took the project on and it actually managed to bankrupt their nuclear division (Westinghouse is one of those oldest names in the power industry).  Toshiba then tried to salvage it and has sustained massive losses as a result.  Currently the project is on hold because it is almost $5billion overbudget and no one else wants to try and turn it around.

Now, for some cost analysis, one of these units being built supplies roughly 1000 MW to the grid (slightly less but make numbers easier).  That means if the project right now were to be complete without any additional spending (impossible) it would be approximately $14b spent to produce 2000MW.  Thats ignoring the costs of running.

A natural gas plant?  The last one I was on had about a $600m budget and produced just under 500MW.  Construction from start to finish took less than 3 years.  That means in terms of cost per Megawatt, this plant was about $1.2mill per MW compared to the $7m per Megawatt of a finish V.C Summer Plant.  Even if the plant never went over budget, its still over triple the cost and a much longer turnaround time.

Now, all of this is before you even get to running the plant.  Nuclear plants are a nightmare for two reasons.  The first is the huge impact they have on the grid when a unit ""trips"" offline.  NERC is a federal organization that was put in place after the 2003 blackout to prevent an incident like that from reoccuring.  They place strict regulations on any equipment that connects to our transmission grid.  Performing work in a nuclear site is a nightmare because of this.

Second major reason is the potential for a major accident.  Everyone has heard of Chernobyl, a plant in Russia that went critical in the 1980s and left a whole city uninhabitable to this day.  The estimate fatality count of this disaster was roughly 4000 lives.   But Chernobyl has not been the only incident.  Fukushima and Three Mile Island are two other major disasters that you can read into if you are interested.  

Technology has gotten better in recent times and these plants have gotten a lot safer, but these are just factors to consider.  I personally think we are headed in the right direction with nuclear, but we don't want to over extend ourselves trying to go 100% nuclear in a country this big too quickly.
"
todayilearned,"Then the sun sets and we gotta burn, baby, burn!

Planet Money had a podcast recently about how they want to use the excess solar power during the day to pump water uphill into reseveroirs, then let the water flow back down to produce hydro power during the night. Apparently they have turbines now that can act both as pumps for getting the water uphill, and as hydro turbines as it goes back down, so that's cool. "
todayilearned,"Hey I'm all for voting and bitching to our heart's content. I will continue to do that, and I will continue to expect the current level of progress.

As a society, there's one thing I could recommend. If anyone want to make a difference, consider getting seriously educated in the issues. I'm not saying everyone should become a solar engineer, but knowing more than ""global warming is bad, oil is bad, solar is good, wind is good"" would be a start.

Ever see someone study cancer inside and out after a family member falls ill? You know, that once completely medically ignorant person that can now walk into an oncologist's office and speak intelligently about the progression of the disease, spot drug contraindications, analyze treatments, etc.

Of course, not everyone has this ability. But there's so much untapped genius out there. And so many people that care about these issues but not care enough to take it beyond voting and bitching."
todayilearned,"Most states already have at least one.

[https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/map-power-reactors.html](https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/map-power-reactors.html)

France also, from what I have read, has more regulations on nuclear power... Something that does terrify me since where I live in the US has so damn many. Fallout series in the making.

Edit: Though I must admit, I am not sure how many of those are used for electric energy, versus the other potential uses of a nuclear power plant, such as a research reactor."
todayilearned,"True, but the testing could be much faster if someone just poured some money into it. There was an askreddit post the other day, ""instead of the USA spending $1,000,000,000,000 on an 11 year war, what else could have been done with that money?"" and I seriously believe that we would be using fission, if not fusion, had that kind of money been spent on new types of energy instead of fighting for oil."
todayilearned,"I guess I'm not understanding your argument. I am not arguing whether or not it is good that we modify/regulate most(all) of the major rivers in the US, just that we do. I guess I may have interpreted ""good luck"" (a very subjective term) incorrectly. 

​

 I understood it as we have been unable to control large scale river hydrology/hydraulics, which we absolutely have. There are some outliers, and our dam-reservoir system is designed to handle up to a certain amount of flow depending on the dam. I am not at all arguing that this is good environmentally or ecologically, or that it always works. But we do have a huge impact on how our rivers behave. There would be far more flooding without our dam-reservoir system.

Honestly though the real solution is for people living in floodplains to move, i fully support re-integrating floodplains (levee removal) and dam removal on rivers to restore them to their natural state. However in the US that would be extremely costly for major rivers and will likely not happen in our  or our children's lifetimes. "
todayilearned,"There are a few reasons, here’s what I can remember:

The investment was high. Costa Rican law requires environmental studies and in this case they had to be done a few times over because of politics and because they wanted to get renewables from hydroelectric plants(Dams) that use flowing rivers to spin turbines. (This ultimately did cause environmental damage). Costa Rica is very humid and mountainous and so it was not an easy or inexpensive task to carry out the project. 

Another reason for the high cost is that the power grid in general is outdated and deteriorating, so maintenance and repairs drive costs up. Most populated areas get priority over rural areas, rural areas are more expensive to fix. 

Lastly, energy is provided by a public institution that absolutely sucks. They have had many scandals of corruption and misuse of funds. Theyre also unionized and in a country as small as Costa Rica, this has given them a good amount of political power and so they have caused significant political problems, often resulting in increased salaries beyond reason and budget increases"
todayilearned,"I definitely appreciate your approach to this discussion and I totally agree there seems to be a misunderstanding between us. 

Many of our dams throughout the U.S.A. have been very successful in terms of what they were initially designed for (irrigation supply, hydropower, floodplain alteration, etc.). Yes, we have definitely been able to alter and in some cases control river hydraulics. In some cases, these changes are still in place an there doesn't appear to be any indication that our systems are failing. There are several major dam projects that serve as prime examples of these accomplishments.

The problems I was referencing aren't exclusively related to dams, but there are some examples that can be related to various dams. Just last year the Oroville dam failed. I'll admit that this dam was underfunded and in need of repairs/design alteration, but that is part of the challenge associated with controlling our rivers. We need to maintain the river control structures or they fail and we no long maintain control. 

I guess I should have better emphasized my interpretation of ""long-term."" You are absolutely right that we have been able to alter the hydrology of various river systems. The issue is that altering is easier than controlling. There is often, but not always, too much change carried through a river system for our designs to hold longterm. Just about any alteration to a river system is going to change how the water flows through the channel bed. Over time, these changes will cause erosion in various areas that can cause the river to jump/change channels from the original flow path. Before satellite imagery it was a lot harder to track these changes, but now we can easily map the divergence of river systems over 100s of years. Some of these changes are intentional and some of them occur opposite to what we had hoped for. 

We definitely have a massive impact on the behavior of our river systems, but we haven't always been in control of the changes we've caused. One of the major issues we face today is that many of our dams have reached the end our their expected ""safe operational period."" If we don't decide what to do with these dams, they could very well remove themselves (in some cases).  

Didn't mean to come off as if I was criticizing your opinion or denying that we have done a hell of a job building dams on most of our rivers. I believe we both have similar opinions on potential solutions to our current situation. Thanks for the opportunity to discuss. Best wishes!"
todayilearned,"It’s not free, you still pay for the energy like you are now. But it’s coming from your solar panels instead of a fossil-fuel plant elsewhere. And if the panels produce more energy than you use that month, you can sell it back to the grid, which shaves down your out-of-pocket costs.

We have SunNation but that looks like a local company to us. Google for what’s available in your area."
todayilearned,"Why are you assuming most of industry is made up of these specialized heating scenarios?

Here is an excerpt from the explanation about the ""industry"" category:

> The Industry sector produces the goods and raw materials we use every day. The greenhouse gases emitted during industrial production are split into two categories: direct emissions that are produced at the facility, and indirect emissions that occur off site, but are associated with the facility's use of energy.

> Direct emissions are produced by burning fuel **for power** or heat, through chemical reactions, and from leaks from industrial processes or equipment. **Most direct emissions come from the consumption of fossil fuels for energy.** A smaller amount, roughly a third, come from leaks from natural gas and petroleum systems, the use of fuels in production (e.g., petroleum products used to make plastics), and chemical reactions during the production of chemicals, iron and steel, and cement.

> Indirect emissions are produced by **burning fossil fuel at a power plant to make electricity**, which is then used by an industrial facility to power industrial buildings and machinery."
todayilearned,"What I am saying is that you can't reduce those emission to near zero by assuming everybody converts to electric heat.   Even here, roughly a third comes from things that aren't even related to producing heat.

Your argument was, basically, that once we convert production of electricity to renewable, we can just easily convert everything that today doesn't use electricity, and that doesn't make any sense.  Not only is it not technically feasible, it would require something like 50% more electricity even if the application was as energy-efficient, and it isn't.   

You could have as easily said ""let's assume that all cars are electric, too.""   It's not a very good thing to assume in the next couple of decades.  "
todayilearned,"> you can't reduce those emission to near zero by assuming everybody converts to electric heat. Even here, roughly a third comes from things that aren't even related to producing heat.

It says roughly a third *of the direct emissions category* comes from those other sources. That means it is one third of like 12% or something...so 4% out of the 22% total for industry.

> Your argument was, basically, that once we convert production of electricity to renewable, we can just easily convert everything that today doesn't use electricity

No, my argument was just that most emissions come from generating electricity or buring fuel for things that we could easily use electricity for. By ""easily"" I mean it is already common for people to use electricity for them, it just isn't universal. Electric cars are not commonplace yet, electric stoves, electric ovens, electric furnaces, etc... are all common, just not universal."
todayilearned,"Almost all industry emission are direct, though.

One third of industry direct emission is going to be a lot of emissions.

> No

You said no, then stated that your argument was exactly what I said it was.  

I'm sorry, but I'm not really finding this discussion to be useful.   I have to keep trying to correct bad information, and that's not good use of my time.  Have a good life.  

"
todayilearned,"I can't continue. I don't see how you could think what I said is the same as what you said.

What I said:

> ""most emissions come from generating electricity or buring fuel for things that we could easily use electricity for. By ""easily"" I mean it is already common for people to use electricity for them, it just isn't universal. Electric cars are not commonplace yet, electric stoves, electric ovens, electric furnaces, etc... are all common, just not universal.""

Your ""summary"" of what I said:

> once we convert production of electricity to renewable, we can just easily convert everything that today doesn't use electricity

I did not say we can ""just easily convert everything that today doesn't use electricity"". If you still think those two statements are the same, we're at an impasse. "
LifeProTips,"There's nothing worse than being a member of an 8 person social event and being stuck on one end of a row. You never get to speak with the people at the other end. Buying 4 seats in front of 4 seats for example, makes it easier for everyone to talk to each other.

Edit:  Okay, yes.  It should be a large number of people, not large amount of people.  I know it was completely unintelligible before."
LifeProTips,"Seriously, microwaves only do a shit job if you're impatient. Dial the power back, cook it for longer, and go choose your show on Netflix or whatevs while it cooks - you know you're just gonna let it go cold while you choose a show anyway, so get on top of your shit, flip it and reverse it, choose the show first and enjoy your hot leftovers rather than choking down a cold soggy mess.

For example: a lean cuisine green curry & rice says on the box ""COOK ON HIGH FOR 3 MINUTES LET STAND AND SERVE"" - but it only says that because they know you're an impatient little shit and won't buy the box that says ""COOK ON 1/4 POWER FOR 12 MINUTES"" because if you're not going to cook your own calorie controlled curry, you're also not going to stand around waiting *TWELVE WHOLE MINUTES* for this one when the *other* brand says it's done in three.


EDIT BECAUSE YOU PEOPLE NEVER STOP POSTING THE SAME 'SUCH TIME YUCK MICROWAVE 20 MINS IN OVEN INSTEAD AM SMART' COMMENT A MILLION TIMES OVER:

I'm a chef. You all have high hopes for how quickly your oven pre heats, and how easily you can remove a frozen meal from plastic Tupperware to change into an oven safe dish. You all also seem to be the type of person who would blast their shit in the microwave anyway, because s frozen curry being cooked through in the oven in 20 mins from turning the oven on would mean using a blast furnace. Also, did the title say ""if you're choosing how to reheat something...?"" No. It doesn't. Because I'm SPECIFICALLY addressing **Microwave** usage, so outta here with your faux superiority, go make your own thread about ovens and toaster ovens and airfryers. Not everyone has those things - dorm students may have a cooktop and convection microwave. I certainly don't have space for a toaster oven to sit around on my bench like a jerk all day (that's what the microwave is for). 

Also for those asking about fries: skip the microwave and go straight to the sandwich press. You're welcome. "
LifeProTips,"Both professionally and in my personal life, I know a bunch of people that refuse to admit to having made a mistake. When I mess up (and we all do at some point,) I just own up to it right away. By accepting responsibility, apologizing, and saying what I'll do to keep it from happening again, I not only avoid getting a lecture about whatever I did wrong, I also get thanked by my boss/friend/whoever."
LifeProTips,"I’m from New Orleans where flooding is common. Rising water in sewers offen moves manhole covers(openings to the sewer) creating a very dangerous situation especially when water is being pumped through the sewers (as in during a flood). It creates underground rivers and people fall in and drown. 

Use a boat whenever possible while crossing flooded urban areas and use extreme caution when walking.

Another thing to consider are keeping food, water and an axe with you if forced to move to a higher level of your home. Many people got stuck and even drowned in their attics during katrina but the people who brought axes could cut through to their roofs."
LifeProTips,"Wow didnt think this would blow up over night, thanks for all the advice anyone.

I personally graduated an electrical apprenticeship at a shipyard after failing out of college twice.  I wish I found the apprenticeship straight out of high school, but my school, and I'm sure many others, really pushed you to get a degree.

I now work for a military contractor making a pretty good wage.  I encourage anyone looking to get into an apprenticeship to reach out to their local trade union. Not only will they provide quality OJT, but most places will provide a free college degree like mine did."
LifeProTips,"This post in particular is referencing job recruiters at staffing firms, who are recruiting for companies other than their own.

A few years ago I worked as a technical recruiter. We would receive job requisitions which detailed the position, these requisitions came from large tech companies. Then as a recruiter it was my job to go on job boards such as Indeed, Monster, etc and look through resumes and find someone who would be a good fit for the position. 

We would call and email any and all potential candidates to get them to apply for the position through the staffing firm.

That sounds good right? Well this is where all good thoughts are thrown out the window.

If one of the recruits gets the job, then their salary comes through the staffing firm, not the company they are working at. 

This might differ between staffing firms but they have what are known as pay rates and base rates. The pay rate is what is listed on the job requisition form. This is what the company would roughly pay the recruit if they worked for the company directly (maybe a little lower). The base rate is the salary the recruiter tells you. 

The base rate is always lower than then pay rate due to other fees and costs. That is standard. However recruiters are encouraged by their companies to get people into jobs are the lowest possible rate. Furthermore the actual pay rate is never disclosed to the recruit. This is because the staffing firm and the recruiter earn the difference between the pay rate and base rate. 

The final straw for me was when one of my co-workers successfully recruited a veteran to a high paying position with a pay rate of $65 an hour. The recruiter convinced the recruit to take the job at $25 an hour. So for every hour the veteran worked the staffing agency would earn roughly $30. 

Instead of reprimanding the recruiter for taking such blatant advantage of someone, the recruiter was paraded around the office in celebration. 

I'm sure that their are staffing firms that encourage more ethical practices but their are also ones like what I described above. 

In conclusion, if you are ever contacted by a recruiter be very cautious and don't get drawn into their sweet talk. They will talk you up and make you think that they are your friend, but they just want you for money. So if you do take a job from a recruiter push for a higher salary and then do it a few more times.

Tl;dnr: when working with recruiters be very careful as they will manipulate you and take advantage of you."
LifeProTips,"I’ve noticed this from personal experience. Sometimes when I’m feeling happy, I would act a little bit hyper and energized. When people view this they always ask why I am acting “out” which makes me feel immediately insecure and it will often ruin my mood. Now, when I notice someone is acting like that, I usually mention that they seem happy and they usually are. 

Edit: maybe my wording was a little too vague. I didn’t mean crazy as in clinically insane. I meant if someone feels energized or has a skip in their step. Obviously don’t say that someone seems happy if they’re ripping stuff apart and “shitting in boxes”. Most of the time it is easy to tell when someone is acting out in a positive way.

Edit 2: im sorry this was “trending”. I don’t really decide if my post shows up in your notifications. If you go in settings, you can turn them off. I forgot specifically where in settings but you can probably google it.

Edit 3: Guys... am I manic?"
LifeProTips,"(EDIT: Adding an example as one was asked for further down in the comments.)

What does such a derailed career look like?

Let's take the example of a software developer who is hired on with that title, but is handed a phone and told to take IT help calls. Let's say this developer trusts the company knows what it's doing and stays on for two years before realizing that the company had no intention of actually fitting them into a role where they actually develop any software.

The developer is now two years out of practice AND two years behind the times in the development world. Even trying to switch jobs back into software development at that point is going to be a significant hurdle to overcome.

Talking to your company about this is a great first step and may help to correct your situation, but be wary of company promises about something in the future; that's basically the situation you're already in!

Two years out of practice is better than five, though. Don't get discouraged, persistence and studying on your own time pays off! Lots of great comments below with advice from success stories, hope to add mine soon!"
LifeProTips,"Social lies are the cause of that problem, not the solution to it. In my view they're things people use to try to be an asshole without feeling bad about it. *Acting* nice rather than actually *being* nice. Basically, I'm only interested in what you *mean*, rather than how you say it, so on that note I prefer it if people are just straight with me instead of e.g. trying for some daft reason to disguise a reminder as a belated thanks.

That said, that's a personal preference thing, I doubt we'll ever agree. And we don't have to, either. I just felt compelled to explain myself a bit better? You seem to have the impression that I get pissed off at everything."
LifeProTips,"The time, however, is compounded when at the wash. Adding 1 second to right your shirt/pants (or even less if you remove it in a different way) before tossing it in the hamper each day could save you minutes when you are putting all of your clothes in the laundry. It’s technically not much time saved, but it is perceived as a lot of time saved in the moment.

I do appreciate your tenacity on attempting to discredit this tip, though. Keep it up."
LifeProTips,"It is a LPT because the repetitive action of righting clothing before putting it in the wash is arduous and annoying and occupies more time in the moment, while doing it on a daily basis when discarding your sullied clothing is and does not. 

Your analogy is not at all relevant to what I have advised, as my LPT is not simply a function of perceived speed, and it does save time, despite it being possibly a minimal amount. I never stated that it was equivalent."
LifeProTips,"Also, it sounds obvious but when getting the router set up in a new apartment, DON'T agree to put the router in anyone's bedroom. I was a stupid 20-year-old and learned that one the hard way. It was in the far corner of his room and I once had to hike over a toxic wasteland of dirty dishes with rotting food and piles of festering old socks to reset the router."
LifeProTips,"Every Saturday and Sunday morning we’re both home, he gets up, makes coffee, makes breakfast, and comes in to the bedroom with coffee when breakfast is ten minutes from done.

For his birthday I secretly got up an hour early and made him eggs benedict with crispy pancetta and mushrooms, homemade hollandaise, coffee, and grapes. He woke up when I burned myself with pancetta grease like 20 min in but still appreciated it."
LifeProTips,"I’ve worked in a few areas in petroleum refining    and one of the things I’ve observed is that people aren’t disgruntled, they’re passionate. Their frustration comes with sharing their observations and feeling like they’re not being respected or valued, because they feel like they’re not being listened to. This causes the workforce to become distant and withdraw from healthy discussion and positive contribution. There’s a breakdown in communication and it creates “perception vs reality” issues across the organizations. 

Edit: These are some great replies! Thank you for keeping the conversation going! "
LifeProTips,"rainbow six siege is one of my fave games. sometimes it’s the only game i play when i’m really in the mood for it. i always have something to complain about in that game if i play long enough, but i still genuinely enjoy it 99% of the time. i never spend too long harping on something stupid that happened, such as a headshot that registered but didn’t kill. a lot of games are made to frustrate the player at some point or another, but it contributes to the above mentioned passion. i love r6. it could use work on some things but it’s still plenty fun. anyways, that’s my ted talk"
LifeProTips,"I've done my fair share of requirements gathering and actually talking to someone about what they do, day in, day out, why they do it that way and not other ways, and thier idea's is a great way to get someone to light-up. 

Alot of guys would of tried to have this very same convo with their manager who just isn't interested (at that time at least) 

The best guys to talk to are usally the complainers because these guys are passionate about doing a good job. They complain because it could be done better. "
LifeProTips,"That isn't true though. This perspective on it can be really self deprecating. I had a problem where I took on everyone else's issues because I wanted to be 'that friend', and my therapist asked me who I can rely on and I burst into tears. People genuinely like to help (like me) and it's not throwing garbage on us since we know it can help and mean something to the person venting. 

I began to vent little by little to my roommate (about non roommate things), and we became so much closer as friends. Yeah, no problems get solved. But venting exists because we feel better when other humans listen and understand us. 

All that to say there's definitely a balance. I went too far to the 'not venting' side, but of course someone could only vent and never listen. Screw those friends haha. Balance is key."
LifeProTips,"I'm no saint but generally try and listen to people ""rant"" about their life. It helps to see 1) where they are coming from and 2) understanding that they're pained, in some shape or form. The best way, I've found, is to always be non judgemental in your expressions and words.

When I combine listening nonjudgementally with expressing gratitude for the small things in my life, I've noticed people stop complaining to me and try to emulate my behavior / happiness. I've done this a few times at work and the atmosphere changes pretty dramatically.

To build some tolerance to external stressors, meditation helps."
LifeProTips,"Just the difference between days and nights creates two different working environments. Dividing the work groups even further allows for more opportunities of miscommunication. In just about every workplace, “safety” thrown around a lot. To me it gets overused but loses its meaning after a while because it gets misunderstood. Every time I see or hear the word I replace it with “communication” because that’s what it is... a cone communicates a hazard, an email or procedure communicates intent, purpose and potential hazards and mitigations... or so it should. I see the frustration with projecting the image or illusion of safety and feeling that it’s hypocritical. There’s a lot of fancy posters but that means nothing when people are getting hurt and hiding it because they don’t want to upset their safety record. And that’s where it has to get down to understanding limitations. If a workforce of 400 has one “safety guy”, maybe that guy isn’t the guy we should be going to. That person is only capable of so much. One person trying to help 400 is like trying to drink water out of a fire hydrant. And that’s also how it feels one-on-one, going into a conversation to try and fix a “disgruntled” person. So, I try to look at a person as a subject matter expert in their own life that’s willing to give me first-hand knowledge, listen, and then connect them with a closer resource, like an immediate supervisor or head of a workgroup. There’s likely to be more of an understanding than to try and recreate a scenario to someone who isn’t familiar with the “way things get done” vs “the way we’re supposed to be doing it”. That supervisor should be taking those things to their peers, working collectively, and then bringing it to their leader... but when it doesn’t happen, that’s where we get frustrated and lose trust. 
And that’s where I chose to try a different approach. I joined an employee-led safety committee. No special perks, no extra pay, no red hat. Just the ability to sit in a room and bypass all the levels above me, straight to the top. At first I was nervous, then I became confident. I brought all the issues to it and laid them out there, but it was ineffective because all I was doing was bringing low level issues to high level people. I wasn’t connecting a concern with the department responsible. The best takeaway from it was after I “saw the man behind the curtain” I saw where the communication stopped, and I spent time understanding who was responsible for what, and connecting the issues with the right people through email or electronic write ups. Digital “paper trails” go a long way— they’re a receipt and a reminder that anyone involved can go back to if they’re unclear and a way to follow up. And they’re an effective form of communication that show you’re listening and making the attempt to do something about it. I usually include the person with the concern, a direct supervisor and the person who may be able to resolve the issue. Having three or more people seems to get more effective replies and often, those two may continue the conversation to work the issue. 
"
LifeProTips,">I personally only bring home a couple big ticket gripes a month due to me not wanting to think about work unless I’m on the clock.


Right? I always felt that I am not paid enough for work to occupy my mind off off the clock. I also feel that I will be happy at work. A coworker asked me why. I asked ""Are they going to pay me more if I have a bad attitude? No? Then I will be happy instead."""
LifeProTips,"You found a commonality and gained trust, opened up and communicated. The act of helping others without expecting anything in return is a selfless act, but without reciprocation or feeling respected or listened to is tiring. Once we find that person that really listens, I mean just observes us, it feels good man. We want that to continue. At that point the hardest thing to do is allow for feedback and to be a good listener in return. For me, I cut people off out of excitement. I talk in circles. But my wife, my coworker, those two are great listeners and give me feedback on my inability to be an effective listener because of it. Those two have a great deal of patience and in return, I want to correct those behaviors, because it feels so great to have those rewarding conversations. But not once did they try to fix me, I had to be willing to want to improve, so I try to pay it forward with patience and open ears. 
I should mention that I wanted to help everyone also, but I wasn’t because I wasn’t listening, just trying to fix them with talking. Over time I’ve learned to be comfortable with narrowing my energy to those who matter to me, those who really care, those who really listen. "
LifeProTips,"I completely agree. I have a sister-in-law and she complains continuously about how she’s soooo busy (she doesn’t work), she has no money & can’t afford her mortgage payments (she shows me her next holiday itinerary on her new iPhone), her husband doesn’t help out as much as he should around the house (he’s awesome), her kids are driving her crazy (they both study & work full-time).  I’m a widowed mother of 4 young kids, working full-time running a business to try & pay the bills. I have no help & no money/time for a holiday. Listening to her I want to punch her in the face. "
LifeProTips,"I used to be such a negative drain on people's emotions at work. It didn't matter that I was right, 'cause I would just stoke the fire and wanted others to feel as crappy as I did. I'm so happy to have realized that my own demeanor and the way I respond or react at work really can bring the atmosphere at work down or up, and have been more on the up these last few years."
LifeProTips,Exactly this right here. It led me into a deep depression after my last job and I wasn’t even able to get out and get another job for a year. It’s hard when you work your ass off and then try to improve a department and everybody just turns their back on you and nobody listens. Then you go home frustrated and nobody at home wants to listen to your problems about work and then it gets to the point where you’re stressed and then you lose friends over it because now your friends don’t want to hear your bitching. Work sucks but it Sucks even more when you give so much to a company and then they just shit on you. It’s why I’ll never be loyal to another employer again. All they are there to do is steal your productivity and increase their profits. I’m sorry if you guys have had a lot better experiences with jobs and I have but I quite frankly don’t think half of them are worth a shit anymore. We’re constantly told that were valuable and that the company can’t run without us but then on the other hand they don’t ever want to pay people enough money to live off of. It’s saying one thing and doing another. The workforce at least in America anyways needs a serious overhaul.
LifeProTips,"Thats a great point to bring up.  I think most people tend to see those who  vent as disgruntled people and decide to not care about what they say.  But, in reality, they're passionate people who have great ideas on how to solve the problems at hand but their ideas aren't being listened to.     I feel like this is very relatable to any type of job where the company hired the person to do as they're told and it feels like anyone else could've done this job because its essentially telling you to not have an opinion."
LifeProTips,"I think being valued for the work you do is really high on the job satisfaction meter. Of course everyone needs to make enough to keep a place to live and food on the table and so on, but once that bare minimum is met, or on the way to getting it met, being respected is of true value.

I work in a hospital and have seen the disrespect that some of the workforce gets because of their job title. People don't even acknowledge others at times.

However, I know that the patient are not going to get well as fast (or at all) if housekeeping isn't working. Surgery is safer because of the guy who cleans up the suites after an operation. The woman who takes the trays off the cart and the meals to the patients rooms, is at least as important to them as someone with a license in healthcare bringing them their antibiotics. 

Attitude of gratitude for all that everyone does, and showing people they are valued by ""Thank you""s and friendly greetings - helps everybody."
LifeProTips,"This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. Moving lines is likely to be seen as suspicious behavior. Assuming the new hires will be what, slower? How do you think they learn? I absolutely get the preference for more experienced personnel, and everyone is entitled to their level of comfort, but I get so frustrated when people think they've ""hacked life"" by denying younger people experience they need to get better. Like people that refuse to receive care from Medical Students and Residents. How do you think your old doctor got to be so experienced? By practicing under the close tutelage of a more experienced person. "
LifeProTips,"Woah, holy shit man talk about an over reaction. The people who will switch lines because of this tip make up the smallest teeny tiny minute portion of the total number of people going through security. I'm sure Billy is getting plenty of practice. Have you ever seen one TSA line completely empty because they guy had a white shirt on? No, because a shorter line is a shorter line and most people don't know that shirt color even makes a difference so they would choose that line anyway."
LifeProTips,"He/she was reacting based off of the comments, I presume. I’m sure this is not how he/she reacts in day to day life. But I do understand your point. I didn’t know the color shirt difference today, and tomorrow if I’m in an airport I won’t skip lines because of experience level. However, I know from experience when people comment on here, it kind of triggers me in a way for certain things that I reply in much greater detail. In person, we either lack time, open minds, courage, or creativity to have a conversation like this. So again, I’m not speaking for he/she, but it’s a comment that would not happen in person because too many people cannot debate/argue on a topic without negative feelings associated with it. "
LifeProTips,"Because you're not covering the interest the loan is accruing on a monthly basis with a low 115 income based payment.  This is called perma-debt.  The goal of the loan company is to keep you on this for 20 years when the loan will be forgiven and written off, but for now they have a guaranteed monthly payment.  

The longer this goes on the loan amount increases due to compounding interest and subsequently higher interest amounts on the now higher total.  Every penny should be going into this loan to get it back on the rails."
LifeProTips,"Well, it's still accruing interest. Your monthly payments arent enough to cover interest and principal (at least not enough to make a difference). You should look into other payment plan options. If the other plans all require payments higher than you can afford, look into refinancing. If that isnt an option or doesn't give you low enough monthly payments, you might just have to deal with the increasing interest until you make more money.

Last September I applied for an IDRP and paid $0 on 4 loans and $14 on another. I'm still earning interest on those loans (although i think the interest rate may have been reduced for this period -- I honestly didnt look into the details much when I signed up for it because I was desperate), but without this plan, I would've been paying $500/month on those 5 loans and I couldnt afford that at the time. So this plan let me pay rent and eat while I continued making payments on other loans. I've since paid off 2 of those loans and found a better-paying job, so now that my year is up, I can afford that $500/month.

Loans are a long term game, unfortunately. They suck one way or the other.

If you do stick with the IDRP, put any extra money you have on your loans. Your lender may let you pay the extra directly to the principal, which would be beneficial in the long run."
LifeProTips,"Thanks for the tips! I honestly can’t pay more than what I’m paying. I’m in a real bad situation until I find a full-time gig honestly. I have rent, car insurance, a car payment and whatever the heck else to pay a month with the money I make from my 28-hour a week gig right now. It pays decently, but my other bills are through the roof, so I need every penny I can get to go toward that stuff.

I had no one to teach me about this stuff, sorry to sound dumb, but can you explain the “in 20 years it gets written off” part?"
LifeProTips,"That is a great idea. Thank you! Honestly, I really may just have to stick it out until I get something full-time. My interest is $3 a day I believe on this one. 


That’s so amazing! It’s great to hear there was some relief for you. It stinks because in my head I’m just like “yeah, that dinner you need, that money needs to go toward this massive student loan.” (Well, massive to me at least. I know there is way worse, since I went to a public and not a private college). 

That’s exactly the problem. I don’t have any extra money. The extra money, if anything, that I have is for gas and food. It’s the worst feeling. I hate doing something in life and not seeing any progress. 

I’m really relieved I’m not alone. Obviously I knew that, but I’m super glad to be talking about it. 
"
LifeProTips,"I hear you. I was at least that bad-- I was so overwhelmed by my debt I wasn't even sure I should try to pay it off. But now I finally have expendable income and I don't even know what it is or what to do with it. You'll get there. Soon you'll be making extra payments, and saving money, and still having a nice night out every so often. 

I'm no expert by any means, but feel free to message me if you want help with a budget or I have a spreadsheet for my loans to help me visualize paying them off that I can send you or anything like that! Or if you just need some encouragement one random day. :)"
LifeProTips,"That’s so awesome to hear! I keep thinking to myself “just hang in there, just enjoy your job now, and something even more will come eventually.”

In my head it’s like “I’ll be stuck in this debt forever.”

I sure hope so! I don’t even do anything else but pay bills and rent. When a friend asks to hang out, I feel guilty. That should never be.

I really appreciate that a lot and will definitely keep that in mind! That means a ton! :)"
LifeProTips,"I was on income based repayment for a few months and went back to regular payment. She said I was the only person to ever do that, and I said why? This payment doesn't cover the interest and the loan just gets bigger.  She said they know, but people just stay on that plan for the required 20 years and they forgive the loan.  In business speak, they write off the loss to not have paid the full amount borrowed and count it as a loss of income and get a tax credit.  Funny story, 20 years at a lower amount is still the same amount originally loaned so it's not actually a loss but I digress.

TL;DR you will pay 2x the amount borrowed if you repay the min/month.  If a low income payment doesn't even cover intrest accrued per month it's permadebt and it will never go away"
LifeProTips,"There's plenty to do with your friends that's free! Play board games or video games or hang out in a park. See if your area does free outdoor concerts or movies during the summer. Tons of free options to keep yourself going and to be happier :) you could also set aside just a few dollars a week or a month so you can have some fun -- that's important too. Look on groupon for deals on activities or events or food and get coupons for a dinner out with your friends. Your debt doesn't have to rule your life entirely, even now. "
LifeProTips,"My experience only revolves around fed loans, but income based repayment is forgiven (written off) after 20 years, gone. You can increase your income in that time, and one would hope you do, but the loan payment will increase as well.  During the time that you're paying under minimum the loan accumulates interest on a monthly and daily basis based on the total amount.  Like I said, if your payment doesn't cover at least the interest every month, your loan total will go up and accumulate even more interest on the new higher total and so on.  It's entirely possible to have a 50k loan turn into 75 or more in just a few years by not covering the interest every month."
LifeProTips,"Show me where I said they shouldn't have the right to express themselves? 

By all means, if they want to burn their jockey shorts to prove whatever point it is they think they're proving, have at it! Don't hurt anyone and don't burn your house down in the process... have fun!

​

Just bear in mind that right of expression also covers the right to tell someone they look, collectively, ridiculous. Which, they really kinda do. "
LifeProTips,"Negative, ghost rider. You're reading what you want to see there. There is not a drop of imperative language in my original statement.  I'm not *telling* anyone to do anything. At most, it might be construed as a suggestion, though hardly a forceful one. 

I get that you're really trying to find some indicia that a particular viewpoint is being suppressed and not finding it, you're grasping at straws here. It's completely compatible to support someone's right to express themselves while simultaneously pointing out they look like a little kid having a temper tantrum. 

Respecting your right to have and express an opinion does not mean one has to respect the opinion itself, something the ""anti-kap"" crowd seems to largely miss. "
LifeProTips,"From what my brain knows, I think cDNA is just the DNA made by viruses like HIV. They have to make the cDNA in a host cell by having an enzyme (or a specific little tool that is made of protein) called reverse transcriptase, read their genetic material (which is RNA, which is like DNA but less stable and slightly different in composition)  and make a single complementary strand of cDNA based on the original RNA. The host cell then takes this cDNA into its genetic material.

Hope that was kinda simple. "
LifeProTips,"Um. . . you are like talking logically and stuff, and the folks who are going to burn their own shoes, are not logical beings.  I mean, they don't even understand why he was kneeling.  They think it was a protest against the flag or the anthem (as if that bullshit matters). And they most likely voted for you know who, so logic is out the damn window with these folks."
LifeProTips,"Unlike these comments I agree. I always try and buy things for my friend but he never accepts or he turns it into a debt that he needs to repay. The only thing I actually want is a ""Thanks"", but it really doesn't make me relieved if he says no to an offer I make just because he feels bad accepting, it actually makes me feel bad that he isn't comfortable accepting favours. "
LifeProTips,"Try to see it from his perspective.  He does NOT see you offering as nice, he does NOT want you to offer, he does NOT want to accept your help.  It doesn't matter if you don't see it that way, he does.  Every time you think you're being nice, you're only making things awkward and difficult for him, because he doesn't want the help and feels indebted to you.  Take a hint, and stop trying to change him to suit you.  It's not nice, it's condescending and belittling."
LifeProTips,"No, I wasn't there, which is why I'm not making broad sweeping claims. I have only said things along this line:

""I don't understand your strong view of u/JoelKeys""

""I don't understand how you can claim such a strong, broad view such as ""totally"".""

And, from the conversation here, it seemed to me that u/JoelKeys has discussed this with his friend with the agreement of his friend wanting u/JoelKeys to continue despite the awkwardness. "
LifeProTips,"You are exactly right. I know my boundaries, me and him have discussed it before and he has made it very clear that the only reason for him ever saying no is because he feels like he's being a burden, when in reality he wants to say yes and really appreciates any generosity and wants it to continue. I have made this very clear in my other comments but you seem to be the only one here who understands that there is no malicious behaviours going on here.

We are very good friends and have been for a very long time, these strangers are taking small snippets of information I have provided and creating this whole scenario where I am purposely ignoring my friends feelings and feel like he needs to accept any offer I make him. This is simply false, I know my friend more than anyone and through literally discussing this very thing with him, I know it's not something that needs to change. 

I appreciate you defending me here, I genuinely cannot see the issue here at all
"
LifeProTips,"That would require the law to define acceptable usage for every word and phrase now and for the future and is simply impractical. What if someone decides to say ""made using X"" instead, or any possible variant?

I find the current state of affairs quite clear and the whole with/of thing is fairly self-explanatory. Regardless, the legal response would be that no reasonable person could be led to believe that a Big Mac was 100% beef."
LifeProTips,"There are lots of labeling requirements. 

The issue is that large companies (like Nestle) want to be able to cut corners and so they lobby so that they can keep labeling in ways that make them more money. For example, you can call your product ""chocolate"" if it is has more than 18% chocolate in it. Some of the big food manufacturers were trying to lower it to 12%. (Not sure of the numbers exactly but they are close)

Source: in food business and deal with the government often over labelling"
LifeProTips,"Ok so define common sense.

Even if we go with the 51% definition it fails at the first hurdle because it's something comparable to the 51% most intelligent understanding and the 49% least intelligent not understanding. Saying ""the majority of people understand it"" simply isn't good enough because those who don't are the very people who are arguably most at risk from this sort of thing.

The ""made with/of"" thing is completely self-explanatory. It's not even a clever use of language - it's just a _use of language_. If I said a cookie was made with 100% British flour would you assume it was the only ingredient?

Edit: it's possible you're conflating ""common sense"" with ""not intentionally misleading"", the latter being something I'm less worried about from a definition perspective."
LifeProTips,"My point was that if you want to legislate what is and isn't acceptable when it comes to precise language you'd better be damn sure what you're legislating because you can't make rules for the entirity of language now and forever that will work and aren't open for abuse.

Legislating what you can and cannot say is not the same as legislation around intentional attempts to mislead people and it's the conflation of these two ideas that we're disagreeing on :)

Edit: to be completely clear (because I think we probably agree on the premise here) defining what you can and cannot say is impractical, imperfect and open to abuse whereas legislating against intentionally misleading language is what we should be doing - because they are not the same thing at all."
LifeProTips,"I've noticed it's often used when a meat product is using a single meat source instead of multiple. Like hot dogs made with 100% beef, which obviously have ingredients other than beef, but it doesn't have pork or chicken.

Don't know if that's universally the case, just an observation I've made on a couple products since I don't tend to pay that much mind to stuff like that. I just read ingredient lists. "
LifeProTips,"That happened about a week after I moved into my current place.  

The guy was fishing around about which company, do I have any dogs, do I own any guns... I told him it was none of his business and that my place is secure and that anyone who tried to break in would regret it.

After he left, I called the company that he claimed to be with and they said that they never heard of him and that they don't have their staff go door to door."
LifeProTips,"I also had this happen right after I moved into my house.

I hadn't heard of this at the time but it seemed extremely sketchy and I hate people anyway. I just told them I already had one and wasn't interested.

I looked it up later that night when it occurred to me that they might be casing the place. Called the company the next day, and they don't send people door to door.

He had printed pamphlets and was wearing a white polo,  khakis, and a  hat.  Though I can't recall if it actually said the company name on it."
LifeProTips,"The moment you buy a house your info is public record. I didn’t have anyone at the door but for a good 2 months after I closed I got 2-3 calls a day from home security companies. I finally asked one wtf is going on and they explained that they all watch for new home owners and try to jump on them. 

I’d bet the companies that “don’t send people door to door” don’t send them themselves but do give them commission when they make a sell. "
LifeProTips,"Same here. I had just recently rented a place after moving post graduation in December. It was two weeks in and I had a dude knock on my front door one evening at like 6:30PM. He was asking about my home security system, etc. I pointed to my giant ass dog who was mean mugging him and said there he is. 

Anyways, he leaves and then like two weeks later, at 6AM, my dog starts going apeshit barking. I had parked my vehicle in the garage that night before. So I guess they thought I wasn’t home and were trying to break in. But I was and saw two dudes by my front door and another walking in the backyard. Ended up grabbing my shotgun, but by that time was dog was pretty pissed and they ended up running off. My guess was they saw inside the house and saw that I had nothing but a TV on the floor and two bag chairs for furniture and decided it wasn’t worth it. 

After telling the landlord, he canceled the lease and told me that it was best to go look for a new place to live where I wouldn’t be a big target as the only white dude on the block. He said it wasn’t racist, but that he didn’t want to keep having to replace the doors and windows from people targeting me to break in. "
LifeProTips,"That happened to me, too....except he showed me his ADT identification and gave me a brand new security system for free. They had this new homeowner deal. Three year contract for $73 a month. All my doors and accessible windows have sensors now. I have a doorbell camera and microphone and camera looking over my walk-out basement. They also gave me a smart thermostat and a garage door addition....all of which can be accessed by my cell phone. I love it.

...my point is that not everyone that asks about a security system is a criminal. I got a killer deal on peripherals that I was already planning on buying plus the added security of ADT."
LifeProTips,"This thread is making me irrationally angry. Home invasion is one of the most disgusting crimes. My house got broken into years ago and to this day the sound of someone knocking on the door instantly sends me into fight or flight mode. I know for a fact my house has been cased since by these ""salespeople"" and I usually am too hopped up on adrenaline to deliver the epic lines I come up with when I read stuff like this. 

and I'm usually in PJs when they come so I can't tuck a weapon into waistband and don't have my phone to start snapping pics of them. 

but one day I'll be able to make it go down how it always does in my head"
LifeProTips,"Ehh,that really just means they know where to get some guns if they are willing to stake you out and see when you leave. Unless you have a proper safe either bolted down or incredibly heavy. Had a friend of mine have a 24 gun safe loaded down that was handily wheeled striaght out of his home during broad daylight while he was at work,lost several longguns and half a dozen handguns. Including the Scar-H he had just gotten when they came out,thankfully that turned up years later after a big drug bust."
LifeProTips,"This is why I stopped labeling my moving boxes with what was inside when some mysteriously went ""missing"" when I had hired movers and was too young to understand how being bonded or having insurance worked so just called it a loss.

​

Now I have either a notepad or a spreadsheet that is NOWHERE near my moving items and I label each room with a different color label and just start with number 1 and go up from there. I make sure all 4 sides of the box have a label and that way it doesn't matter how anyone places the box, I can still VERY easily locate exactly the one I need and only have to read the number. In my notepad/spreadsheet, I track what I put into the box so I can easily scan for what I need at the new place first and then go find the box with yellow label #4 rather than READ EVERY FUCKING BOX to see which fucking box has what I need in it. Fucking hell I hate moving so much but this has made it significantly less painful of a process. Bonus: movers don't know which box has what stuff and nothing has gone missing since despite a plethora of moves. :) Extra bonus: if anyone were to scope my new place as a ""home security system door-to-door salesperson"", there would be nothing to see."
LifeProTips,"That's one box down =) -I think that is indeed safe-ish to lose.

Still have fibre optics and 10A power leads. I should ditch all the solid core cat5... but it's all attached to a bracket thing... and everything.

I should get rid of the 2 full height racks too... seriously haven't used more than one computer for like: a decade. I hate stuff. Less is more freedom. It's too much of a pain in the ass to get out of the place. Seriously heavy and bulky crap."
LifeProTips,"I mean, all I ever mark my boxes with is like, “fragile,” “misc daily shit,” or “books.” Fragile is anything I care about not breaking, books are anything that I had on the bookcase that filled the box, and misc daily shit is like toiletries, bedding, books I may have been reading at the time, etc. Good luck parsing through that labeling system and finding something worth taking! I don’t even know what I’ll find half the time, myself."
LifeProTips,"When we moved, there was some jewelry that I couldn't find. We moved everything with the help of friends, so we knew that nobody involved in the move had taken it. Months later, I found it in my kid's room in a box of random stuff that mostly belonged to my kid. I'm not really sure why I put the jewelry in there, but it was definitely a safe place for it."
LifeProTips,Being overly Paton Pof is just as bad. It leaks out into other aspects of your life and doesn’t allow you to really live. Double checking locked doors. Clicking the key fob an extra time to make sure and having a home alarm system are great things. But once it becomes excessive you have to stop and look at yourself. As long as you know the line between safety and excessive it’s all good man.
LifeProTips,"Thats why I love having open carry. Had this happen twice to me so far, always a couple days after moving in to a new place. They’d come knocking and Id open it with my holster and handgun showing clearly. They’d get visibly nervous and Id turn the situation around on them and basically hold them verbally hostage. Id ask them what company they’re from, what their position is, who their manager is, what’s their store location, headquarters location, company car, employee ID, so on and so on. The first one just turned around and walked back to his car after seeing the gun, the second tried his best to answer all of my questions but obviously was bullshitting. Snapped a picture of the car and part of the plate number and sent it to the police, cop stopped by later in the week saying they caught the guy trying to do the same shit to other people."
LifeProTips,"That's exactly what I did the last time I moved.  And when I unpacked a box, I crossed it off the list so when I would find myself looking for something, I could tell at a glance whether it was still in a box somewhere.

Also, I always have a last packed/first opened box that I move myself, with stuff like toiletries, medication, etc., so I don't have to go hunting for that stuff when I get to my new place."
LifeProTips,"Had guy come back after a sketchy attempted solicitation. I answered the door at age 14 and he was trying to sell magazines, supposedly. No clipboard or stuff, dirty cargo shorts. My dad was in the backyard raking but I lied and said he wasn't around and we weren't interested. ""how old are you?"" ""14."" ""ah, so you don't want magazines either."" and he left.

2 hours later, opens the front door and walks into our fucking living room. Luckily, dad was cooking dinner with a big knife right then. Guy scrambled to say he was stopping to ask what time it is.

I shudder to think of what he was actually there for. I now tell kids to say ""daddy is busy cleaning his guns in his room."" "
LifeProTips,"Yup that magazine scam has been around FOREVER....I got banned in BPT for making note of it and then called a racist by racist mods.

Shit head tried this on my father....he caught him trying to jimmy the side door open at 2am...fucking piece of shit broke out and ran when he opened the shades.

If you have a door to door solicitor that appears to be looking past you while giving their pitch, maybe looking into your house to see if there's anything easy to snatch....that's not a ""solicitor."""
LifeProTips,"Honestly? Like the majority of people on Earth. I've lived in a lot of cities and the only time I ever locked my doors every time I came home were in a bad part of Boston and right outside Baltimore. I've spent 20+ years in a fairly populous tourist town that has one of the highest rates of crime in the state and I rarely ever locked my front door. Most people here don't, and I've never had even a threat of a break in really. "
LifeProTips,"One time our neighbors were out of town for the weekend and just left their front door open...not wide open but at least 4"". I went over and knocked to see if anyone was home and got no answer so I figured I'd give it a day. They got back sunday and when I told them their front door was open all weekend they gave me this weird look and just said ""Ok?"" I just went back to my house."
LifeProTips,"This kinda happened in my parent's hood. It got billed in some article as one of the ""safest towns in America"". Well some wise crooks started casing the neighborhood and realized nobody locks their cars at night. In the span of a weekend 24 cars were robbed including my mom's. They just went block by block opening unlocked cars and rifling through whatever they could. I think a couple of obviously empty homes were also targeted. Now everyone locks their cars and their homes. "
LifeProTips,My fucking 35 yr old sister came to visit and every single fucking day she was there she'd leave doors and windows unlocked and then she had the gall to act like I was the problem and I should cut her some slack bc she's not used to locking doors. Bitch I live in a rough neighborhood with a toddler I have to protect. Get your shit together and get the fuck out of my house if you're not gonna do one simple task. 
LifeProTips,"Hell, around here they leave their cars unlocked and the fob in the damn car when they have the push button start. And they wonder why their car gets stolen. This has been going on around here for at least a year and people are still doing it. 

Someone I know recently had her car stolen...it was unlocked, keys in the car, purse in the car. It was taken and involved in a fatal hit and run. As they drove away with it they dumped out the stuff they didn't want, like the kids car seats,  right out in the middle of the street. I don't think they are going to have car insurance for much longer."
LifeProTips,"I'm not waving it around when I answer the door, it's just tucked in my waistband under my shirt.
It doesnt matter where you live, look at all the creepy stories in this one post alone.  I would wager that none of them happened in ghetto trailer park Chicago and the person posting it is a well-known drug dealer or something like that.  Theyre just normal towns on normal days to normal people."
LifeProTips,"This post isn’t really relevant to the overall statistics though. The odds of anyone knocking on your door first before trying to do something bad to you are astronomically low. 

Have you had any training to be able to pull your weapon and shoot someone attacking you? Even with training, I wonder what the odds are of shooting yourself in the thigh, ass, or foot when you tuck a gun in a waistband?





"
LifeProTips,"I imagine I could probably scare the shit out of some burglars if it's still dark. 

Hear something rummaging around my living room, walk out of the bedroom completely nude. See intruders, start screaming and screeching horrible noises, mouth open wide. Slightly lower my stance, and charge them, continuing to scream, and watch as they do one of two things:

Shoot me dead

Or bolt right the fuck out of my home.

Though I may have to explain things to my neighbors the next day, if I don't die."
LifeProTips,"I have actually.  I'm a very strong proponent of actual professional training for anyone who owns a firearm, not just a ""yeah I play CoD and I went to the range once or twice so I'm good"" training.
And you're right, the odds are low, but I guarantee you 100% of the people that scenario HAS happened to have woke up that morning not thinking even for a second that it would happen.  I have two young kids and a wife that i have the responsibility to protect, I'll play those odds.
Also, it's not literally just tucked in the waistband ala Plaxico Burress, its in an Alien Gear IWB, Remora sticky, Versacarry, or Undertech."
LifeProTips,I was about to take the bus to go see my ex one time in high school. But I realized while waiting at the stop I forgot my earbuds and I didn't want to wait the whole ride without music so I ran back to my house. I guess about the time I got to the door my mom pulled into the driveway with my little cousins. One of them tried to follow me inside but he was running. So right as I was about to head back outside he just flung open the door super fast and I nearly fuckin punched him in the mouth it freaked me out so bad. Having someone unexpected just come into your house is definitely a fight situation 
LifeProTips,"Once when I was 17 we had a new neighbour move in next door (they'd been there for a few days we hadn't met them yet). 

My friends and I were hanging out by the pool at around 4pm playing some music at a decent volume (not over the top loud at all), and it wasn't even explicit it was stuff like the script, train, imagine dragons, etc. 

Next thing you know, this guy decides he doesn't want us playing music anymore. Instead of coming to the house and ringing the doorbell, he decides to open the gate without permission, then walk inside our house (the front door was open as there were people downstairs) all the way into the kitchen before my mum saw him said ""what the fuck are you doing here?"" or something along those lines. 

His excuse was that he didn't think anyone else was home and he was just coming in to tell us off. 

Definitely nowhere near as malicious as some of these other stories but it's always irked me how he just wandered in without giving it a second thought. I've definitely made sure to always double check locks etc since then. "
LifeProTips,"Time for the sexist/misogynistic comment, as the man of the house, if i am home, the door stays unlocked. Albeit, i am a very heavy sleeper, but the distinct noise the door makes. I have a gun within arms reach/on me at any given point. It still bothers me sometimes as heavy of a sleeper i am, if someone were to come in, i may only wake up after the cats have hugged them to death."
LifeProTips,"I've never had a home invasion or known anyone around here who has but I live in a small ~6000 person town on the border of California and Arizona. Honestly almost everyone in this town is some sort of tweeker so I wouldn't quite call it safe but then again I'm sure it could be worse. 

I think most people around here just assume the doors are locked. And chances are if they're coming into the house to steal something, someone's gonna recognize them"
LifeProTips,Two people broke into my house when my family was super young (I think my Mom was still pregnant with me at the time). Well I guess they didn't take into account how close we were to a military base. My Dad ran downstairs wearing just his tighty whities and holding a shotgun. Shot out the tire of their truck and then sat with them for a few minutes making fun of them while cops arrived. 
LifeProTips,"Haha my uncle has an enormous all white malamute that's essentially just a walking piece of furniture. He'll park his ass on the front porch all day and just sleep, he's so quiet and still I often forget he's there. Well one day I ordered some delivery and completely forgot about him on the porch. 20 mins later I get a call from the delivery guy asking if I can call him in. When I looked out the window he was standing behind his car. I told him he was harmless so he came up and delivered the food, the dog didn't move an inch, just followed the dude with his eyes. "
LifeProTips,"I've done this. Not for like super long, but maybe as much as 30 - 45 minutes or so after closing. I really had no idea you weren't allowed to tell me to leave – I assumed it was okay to sit there while people cleaned up, and that I would be told when they were ready to leave.

In my defense, I feel like that's how things would work if there wasn't an insane standard of ""the customer is always right"". Anyway, thanks for the tip. I won't be doing this again."
LifeProTips,"Thank you for being receptive, obviously the restaurant industry is huge and carries but in the last few places I’ve worked people staying passed close has been a problem and there was no way to approach the customer about it. And honestly it really does add time for our work day. If the table is occupied, then we can’t clean your table, can’t put up chairs, can’t put on our music, can’t mop the dining room. "
LifeProTips,"Did you pay your check?  If you got there late one of the best things you can do is pay your check (and complete the tip portion) right after close, even if you are still eating.  

Sorting the money is often one of the longer tasks and so you can still help the staff get out someone quickly if you are still eating your food.  

But yeah, the heavy cleaning: chairs up, sweeping and mopping can't be done until everyone is gone, so you are keeping the entire staff there working an extra ""unpaid"" 30-45 minutes."
LifeProTips,"That's why I put in quotes.  The person may only be paid $1.5-2.5 dollars for that extra time.  I suppose you can give someone a dime for 8 hours and say they are still getting paid for that time.

In reality many places you have to clock out before you do your money (how the computers work) which means you work off the clock.  Which isn't legal and technically you can insist for them to change your time 30 minutes every night, but no one really cares about $2, and it would just piss off the manager.

The way it works out in tips is you will make $150.  You can make that in your scheduled 7 hours or you can make it in 8.  Or you can have the server stay all night and they are still just making $150 in tips.

"
LifeProTips,"I thought Elon was going to be more articulate. His speech indicates everything he says is going through a lot of filters in his mind. 

As for Joe I expected more interesting topics and ideas. The whole podcast felt like he was being extremely safe. Flamethrowers, AI, Automation, cars, rockets, simulation theory, climate change, etc. 

If you contrast it to the Neil Degrasse Tyson episode which explored the calendars, Manhattan Stonehenge, ancient navigation, his tweets about movies, it just seems like a press release from Musk Inc. Moreover, mosts guests are usually having a good time and laughing at crazy shit. 

This episode was just two dudes talking... "
LifeProTips,"Another point and this one seems a bit silly, but the large pieces are huge, and I will usually still eat around 2 pieces either way.  It can be nice for parties or work to have more pieces than huge pieces, but I digress.  

P.S. Just recently rediscovered the Costco combination pizza.  That is such a good deal, loaded with meat and veggies and is huge.  Damn I am making myself hungry now..."
LifeProTips,"I suffer with this problem a lot, maybe some of my experience can help?

Try pumping yourself up mentally to do the task. Like just really hype it up in your mind, like, ""Oh yeah, I'm totally gonna wash my dishes, it's a definite concrete thing that HAS to happen, I'm CHOOSING to do it."" And maybe set like 10 alarms telling you to do the thing.

And if these things don't work, or even if they do help a bit, get someone else you trust who has an outside perspective to be accountable to. Ask them to check in every once in a while (if they're willing) to keep you on task, or to make sure you do it or start the thing. 

I've found making a checklist by breaking a task down into smaller steps helps me TREMENDOUSLY. It makes it less of a big vague mountain of activity and turns it into something I can actually do and I see step by step what I need to do. It makes it MUCH easier to grasp the concept of what I need to do and everything the task entails.

Hope this helps. Best of luck and Godspeed."
LifeProTips,"First, thanks for all the actually useful tips.

I was sort of making a (apparently bad) turn of words on OP's title. Like how would I find the impulse to do nothing? And doing something else is actually the solution...Follow me? Doesn't matter.

I just tend to  procrastinate. A lot of the answers are good though and might help anyone anyway so thank you to those who saw it and answered it seriously."
LifeProTips,"If the person has the money too. If you gift that to your children and you say they may play an hour a day, you should also make sure there are enough games so he can enjoy this one hour a day. There are games which have a great playtime to price ratio if you like them like rocjet league or minecraft, but other games not so much. Also if you buy them a console ask other people if they are interested to gift sone games of choice."
LifeProTips,"Some games are free to play on the consoles these days, games can also be rented from the local library in some cases, as long as you have transportation to get to and from the library. Just make sure you include some kind of batteries or rechargable batteries for the controller and enough of them to last a long time if the controller doesn't have rechargable batteries, batteries are really expensive these days."
LifeProTips,"The “Power” button on a microwave doesn’t actually turn down the power, it turns it off for a period of time. If cooking on high for one minute gives you a full 60 seconds of microwave radiation, cooking at 50% gives you thirty total seconds of full blast and 30 total seconds of rotating without actually cooking. 

Those wait times allow the heat in the item being microwaved to spread more effectively. If the item you’re heating spreads heat well, like water, you’re good to go at full power. If it’s made of disparate frozen food, like a microwave burrito, you shouldn’t go over 30%. "
LifeProTips,"> If the item you’re heating spreads heat well, like water, you’re good to go at full power. If it’s made of disparate frozen food, like a microwave burrito, you shouldn’t go over 30%.

Part of the reason for this is that liquid water is heated very efficently by microwaves, while frozen water (ice) is barely heated at all. So when you microwave something that is frozen, almost all the heating is at the very surface where the ice has started to melt, and almost none on the interior. Also, with actual low viscosity water based fluids, the heating causes convection currents which help stir the fluid and allow the heat to disperse evenly. So yeah, longer at lower power, which allows the surface heating to be absorbed into the interior of the food while helping to prevent overcooking of the outside. "
LifeProTips,"Only if I'm going to be staying in there for a few days.

Jk.

But we had the microwave in the garage to reduce kitchen clutter (and because it's a 2.2 ft^(2) unit) and since it only added a door and 3 feet to the process of microwaving anything. Our old Hamilton Beach microwave never tripped the garage, but was also only a 900w microwave vs this 1200w inverter microwave. When I googled it I saw a lot of information about some (especially older) breakers being oversensitive and tripping because of the signature of the inverter microwave's power draw *(it mistakes it for a short).*

Also the house we're in was built in the late '70s and has fewer dedicated circuits than a newer home will - for instance, newer homes in the U.S. typically have a dedicated microwave circuit in the kitchen. Ours does not, and the entire kitchen and dining room (where my desk is) are one circuit. If I owned this place I'd have updated the electrical by now, but I don't. The master bedroom and master bathroom run off of the guest bathroom GFCI, so if anyone trips that our room goes dark. Lol

To be honest, I'm surprised the microwave doesn't trip the kitchen circuit since I've microwaved something while playing a game on my computer (pulling a kW if you include monitor power draw), running my 3d printer (\~200w), and having a floor lamp and laptop on and plugged in, plus whatever little things I'm forgetting. It doesn't really make sense, but my computer uses less power these days *(no more crossfire)* so I don't worry too much about it.

*I know this is way more response than your clever comment called for, but I find it all kind of interesting and tend to talk too much about things I find interesting (even mildly).*

​"
LifeProTips,"Yea cause that works all the time!

​

I remember when I still lived at home our internet might as well have gone out completely. It was worse than a 56k modem and dropped off constantly, though every once in awhile for a few minutes we'd get normal speeds. So I called optimum to complain and they sent out a tech to help. . 

Dude goes up to fiddle with the modems, speeds look good and he leaves. . . Nope, still the same shit. . .Over the course of about 2 months we were literally paying for unusable internet because even at 56k speeds it wasn't consistent enough of a connection to load things even slowly. Called them back 6 fucking times and every fucking time the same guy came out to do the same thing and than complain to me about our calls.

7th fucking time they send a different guy out who actually listens to what is going on and within 10 minutes figures out their wiring is fault underground and needs to be fixed - Had to completely tear up our yard and guess who still had to pay full price for 2 months of no internet?"
LifeProTips,"Verizon Fios has an ONT/Router all in one. It's the g2100 I believe. Probably so they can secure that rental money. I'm guessing OP has it or something similar. 

My fiber runs into the living room and into a stand-up ONT which then has ethernet I can put into the older g1100 gateway, so I'd be good to switch it out if I wanted, but it's decent enough. I do have my own WAP though. "
LifeProTips,"This really isn't the case. My ISP's modem/router combo is a 32x8 Docsis 3.0 modem with AC router, and I could upgrade free to the 3.1 version if I bothered. So that's about $200 for the 3.0 version. I could buy similar and expect to have saved money after two years of no issues, but it's more convenient for me to rent. I make this decision as someone who's both sold networking equipment in retail and worked for an ISP. I'd rather they bear the burden of ownership if something goes wrong.

You could get an SB6141 and a tplink ac router for ~120 after tax, which is what I'd go with if saving money was the #1 concern, but that's the actual ""already old tech"" scenario."
LifeProTips,"That is within reason. I used to have gigablast from Cox and was only getting ~400Mbps tops. Come to find the modem was faulty. My actual speed was ~980Mbps, which isn't a full gigabit, but within a reasonable margin. That margin is often stated in your agreement, and differs from speeds you may get during times of high usage in the area.

Also, their bandwidth is largely throttled depending on the customer and their chosen package, they can test lines without that throttle to make sure they are working properly."
LifeProTips,"During the flooding in Louisiana in 2016, I helped a buddy and his wife get back into his flooded house while it was still flooded. This was essentially what happened. The flooding backed up the sewage in their house. They had 18” of water mixed with raw sewage. I told them that they had about 30 seconds to get their stuff and get out before they got really sick. 

Pretty disgusting to witness. "
LifeProTips,"Yep. Pool noodle also helps hold the bag(s) in place.  Cut the noodle to a length that will fit around your bucket.  Then cut the noodle lengthwise down one side to create a channel to wedge it down over the top to the bucket.

Also don't pour a lot of kitty litter in at once.  Put in a cup or two, do your business, and then layer another cup or two on top after each use until you need to change bags.

Slip the noodle off, tie off the bag (you probably should double bag. Kitty litter is heavy), and dispose of the closed bag."
LifeProTips,"I don't want to be a downer, with all this for-free lectures and MOOCs around for a couple of years, has anyone **EVER** experienced some truly measurable success with those ?

All the BIG THINK guys at TED etc. always talk about how unneccessary big universites are since the raise of alternative learning platforms, but what often seems to be forgotten, imho, is that universities aren't in the business of giving useful information, but more in the business of giving degrees, which then lead to employment.

There might be some anecdotal evidence that one or two guys from the internet watched those MOOCs & had success with the exams, but to which effect ? 

I strongly doubt that ANY employer (besides the usual startups, who would employ a lot of people just under the view point of paying as less as possible for the work they do) truly relies on your certificate of doing an online MOOCs.

But i'm open to be refuted."
LifeProTips,"I worked at a company that did open source analysis for the US government on a contract basis. Several analysts took a MOOC for R programming. The client was happy about that and stated that fact. Not sure how that translated into money or contract security but anecdotally it was good for those employees job security versus others, and good for the company for prior performance rating when the contract went up for recompete."
LifeProTips,"> which you can't know

...if I'm hiring for a project that requires Java, then I'll fact check you.

> I'm a more preferable candidate 

Technically, you'd be more attractive than an open non-reader, but realistically, I'm more looking for expressions of your skills and interests. If you said that, but can't talk Java, who cares?

But someone who pulls out a Duolingo account, or self-study verification from respected institutions? Sure.

Honestly, I think your question is a little out-of-context (and indicative of a stats-gamer I would try to not hire, in general). The websites that let you self-train almost always have means of verification."
LifeProTips,"I did a lot of them while job hunting. My understanding is that it shows initiative and willingness to keep learning, which is what you want in somebody working in tech. I’d say they’re a good compliment to university courses, but not a replacement. I mean, I had a background in math and statistical programming already. I just hadn’t done much outside of “traditional” stats. A course on using SVMs is a lot easier to understand when you’ve already taken math and stats courses. "
LifeProTips,"These aren't meant to substitute formal education, though they can if you plan on doing freelance work.


Let's say you have a degree in Mathematics or Physics, but want to learn some more practical skills from the Computing and Engineering fields (or vice versa).
Taking an online course can help you fill in missing gaps in your skill set, but not necessarily replace it.


Another thing is - they can help you realize whether you actually want to study a subject way ahead of signing to a university."
LifeProTips,"> I don't want to be a downer, with all this for-free lectures and MOOCs around for a couple of years, has anyone EVER experienced some truly measurable success with those ?

Yes.

On the small side I'm a software developer that never went to school for game design and I learned a TON about game design and designed small games. 

On the larger side I turned hobby time in to critical thinking time and it made me a better engineer. Now I can build thinks with measurably more complexity than before. 

Basically I spent time learning things I wouldn't know might be useful. The odds are if you learn enough things and keep learning eventually you're going to learn something useful. I do this constantly. It's better than knowing what happened last season on name some TV show.

Constant learning has positive delta on life. 

I've now founded 3 software companies. I broke even on one, sold one, and I'm hoping to sell the current one. Each company teaching me more I needed to know for the next. 

As an employer, would I hire someone who studied in their own time under their own direction? Yes. The reason is simple. I know you have initiative to try and learn something. That's a skill surprisingly lacking in the population. I run a startup though so I'm willing to employ people for as cheap as possible. Even though I value your effort, I'm still going to feign not being impressed and offer a lower salary. I don't even have a salary. "
LifeProTips,"I don’t think that an education completely based on MOOCs will get you very far. 

However, I’m currently following a Biophysics program at a major European tech university (went back to uni after working 7 years as a lawyer) and I was surprised to what extend students can get credits for MOOCs. 

Not all MOOCs are allowed (obviously) but we are allowed to take up to 30 ECTS (out of 180 ECTS total) in relevant courses online.  There is a list of pre-approved courses, but if you want to follow another one you can make a request to exam committee. I followed a bioinformatics MOOC that was hosted by another major university and it was actual very interesting and rather challenging."
LifeProTips,"You don't need the certificate to show you took and passed the MOOC. I do a lot of MOOCs and at the end I just take a screenshot of the ""progress"" tab that shows my grades for the assignments then save them in a folder.

As to whether they benefit your career, I can say that the two most beneficial courses I took we're ""Intro to Comp Sci using Python"" and ""introduction to Arduino"" which helped me to automate some functions and data acquisition in our lab."
LifeProTips,">I don't want to be a downer, with all this for-free lectures and MOOCs around for a couple of years, has anyone   
>  
>EVER experienced some truly measurable success with those ?

YMMV, but I definitely had legit success as a result of the Objective-C programming class that Stanford offered. I  now work full-time as a programmer in NYC making 6-figures as a direct result of taking that class. 

More than any other field, I think  online courses can most benefit those wanting to learn skilled trades, like computer science. Employers seeking software engineers are far more concerned about proving your ability and couldn't care less about the degree.  If you're able to successfully code/whiteboard during interviews, you can surely get a job in software engineering from taking online courses."
LifeProTips,"With all due respect, even if the people learning, only do it for entertainment reasons, that's infinitely better for society overall. Think about it, people who may never work in an engineering firm, let alone engineer something useful, know engineering. While it seems like a complete waste, the fact that people are entertaining themselves by increasing their knowledge is astonishing! 

For kids in high school, and maybe even jr high and elementary, they have a resource that can help develop them beyond the confines of their school system. Need something more challenging that Mr HSCalculus Teacher's class? Here's a lecture on Engineering from MIT. ITs boring as hell, but it applies the concepts we learned in class to real life.  
  
If MIT's courses get one person out of what would otherwise be a wasted, insurance salesman life, MIT's free courses is worth its weight in course books."
LifeProTips,"First, I already have both a BS and MS in mechanical engineering. 

For me, I’ve found these kind of classes, both on MIT OCW and those on EdX, are a good way to review things I’ve already learned, to fill in gaps in my knowledge or in some cases to explore more advanced topics that I find interesting. 

For example, in 2015, I took a class through EdX called “Underactuated Robotics”, an advanced  control systems class, taught by some of the leading experts in the field. Without going too deep into the details, it covered the basics of how to make robots move more naturally. If you’ve seen any of the robots made by Boston Dynamics, you’ve seen this stuff in action. 

There’s no other way I’d ever have access to this kind of material and instruction.

I’ve also taken other classes in electronics since that’s something I often have to deal with at work, but wasn’t covered in school. As a result, while I don’t have a degree in electronics, I do have the knowledge, been able to apply it and have received opportunities that I would otherwise not have gotten. 

This kind of learning isn’t going to supplant a conventional college degree anytime soon IMO, but it definitely has real benefits. 
"
LifeProTips,"Literally me lol. I just graduated undergrad with math and physics, but I planned on going to med school originally. Since I've changed my mind ice been exploring other options and noticed I am lacking in computing and data analysis skills. I'm currently taking edX courses to make up for this and I've been having a lot of success! I've already been able to apply a ton of the data analysis skills in my research lab!  

My attitude towards these MOOC's is that they're like supplements. Like, I already went through the process of getting my degrees, so now I just need to find ways to learn new skills and apply them. I've been upfront about taking the edX courses on my resume and have them added under a ""professional development"" section, but only if I am confident in demonstrating those skills. And regardless of whether or not they look good to employers, I definitely agree that they can help you figure out what you actually want to do!

Edit: a word"
LifeProTips,"They're meant for students of shitty universities to get proper lectures and notes that are well explained by qualified professors. If you did all these lectures before you same class you should in theory be able to walk all over it minus a few details. 

If you missed notes on Multi-variant calculus calc it's a great resource to look up a few subjects as shown in your syllabus and do reasonably well in them. "
LifeProTips,"I do actually like your definition of higher education, but do you really believe it in our current time ?

With such a huge wave of academics coming from the universities our societies must flourish like in the renaissance, because all of em are well rounded and capable citiziens. 

But if i look closer at reality i see baristas with humanity degrees earned from a brainwash department serving coffee to people at starbucks. 

Or in the best case working as a shrill HR lady terrorizing the other staff with some BS HR policy.

This whole ""we need an educated population with as much academics as possible"" is probably the biggest meme ever sold to the population. "
LifeProTips,"I have a BS in Chem. Eng. from Davis. I used the MIT lectures quite often to learn concepts that were, let's say, less than adequately explained by my professors. I don't think I would have made it through P Chem (quantum mechanics) without the MIT lectures! A lot of others in my study groups will say the same.

These are a fantastic resource for continuing education, and I still make use of them."
LifeProTips,"My biggest problem is when people act like they are a replacement for university education. You'll have trouble finding even a lot of sophomore level courses online, but when I mention that my sister can't get a degree because she can't get approved for student loans people regularly point at Khan Academy. Bitch, EdX and Khan Academy and shit do not have junior level courses for my sister's math major, and you under-rate the usefulness of instructors in more complex courses to your own detriment. "
LifeProTips,"Used some of this online material/ classes / info to help me learn more about protein engineering, bioinformatic/ computer simulation for a medical school project many years ago. Have decent computer background from growing up with Dad as Engineer but no formal engineering background. 

These things aren't meant to confer degree but if you want to gain a quick intro to a topic can peruse a topic through course material. It definitely helped me develop some interesting research. Won top prize at big research conference."
LifeProTips,"I mean if you do nothing with the knowledge you get from those Tutorials/Courses it seem that they will be pretty useless, but if you go and do a project that can back you up when going for a job.

 

I am guilty of this, watching a lot of courses and tutorials and not really doing anything with what i learned, and i am going to copypaste a youtube comment that summarize the feeling: 

""To get personal, for me it's about fear or laziness, which are often related.  I want to feel like I'm doing something productive but I'm too afraid to dive into a project where I'm going to need to have the burden of making decisions / sacrifices and sweating through hard problems.  If I'm watching a tutorial, I give up responsibility to an external force, and can passively watch while still feeling like I'm being productive."""
LifeProTips,"I have an undergraduate and two post graduate degrees (one is an MBA). I often half joke that they are only good to get your foot in the door, to get an interview. They have obviously helped me prepare for work but a lot of my day job was learned from the companies I worked for, learning on the job.

What I like about the free on-line material is that it helps to identify new (sometimes more current, sometimes older but new to me) ideas that I may be able to use. I could never add the learning to my CV but I could definitely add a new responsibility I may have acquired in my role that may have been helped, in part, by this sort of additional learning.

My job is one where this is possible. I’m sure many roles aren’t the same though."
LifeProTips,"I self taught compsci/datascience through a combination of MIT opencourseware, free MOOCs and just building a bunch of stuff, and I'm now a reasonably successful software engineer working on AI systems a couple years later.

I never advertised the moocs on my resume or anything, but the stuff I built was interesting enough to get interviews, and the stuff I learned through opencourseware got me through technical interviews and helped me with projects in general.

Most people are kind of surprised and tell me they just assumed I studied compsci at a good school if it comes up.

It's all the same knowledge, literally all of it available for free on the internet, and there are other ways to prove you're competent than just getting an institution to say you jumped through their hoops, at least in practical fields like compsci or data science."
LifeProTips,"To be honest, I sort of fell into through personal contacts. That's just how it goes sometimes. But if you already are in a field like engineering, there's a good chance you also have contacts you can mine for opportunity. Also, you already have a technical background so this will get you in the door at a lot of places even barring any connection. An engineering degree (which I'm assuming you have) and a claim to the proper skill set will get you some interviews. Highlight any programming projects that you've already done on the job, have any good working code from your personal projects visible on github/gitlab (learn git or some other versioning software if you don't already), and make sure you are conversant in the topics that you claim to know. 

As someone who has a technical background, you are in a prime position to benefit from the courses the OP is talking about. These can help fill in the gaps and put a firmer foundation under any practical experience you have. I'd recommend [this course on algorithms](https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-006-introduction-to-algorithms-fall-2011/) as a great place for an intermediate programmer. This is the kind of theoretical material which is useful in practice and you get asked about in interviews. Ostensibly, the course is using Python, but it's mostly actually in pseudocode (as any algorithms course should be).  

You also want to look into deepening your hands-on and practical knowledge with your language(s) of choice. What do you program in?"
LifeProTips,"I don't think those MOOCs are replacement of an education at an university. However, I do think that opening couses to public can lower the bar of obtaining knowledge (e.g. having someone explaining stuff to you like in school for free where a lot of people can't afford the tuition at university).

Also, the inability to prove a student has the ability to utilize or recall the materials taught in class is about same for a degree obtain in university or a certificate from MOOCs.

Effectively, a degree can only prove that a student has gone through the class material, and passed the exam same way like a certificate could from doing an online MOOC.

I think in the end, people going through MOOCs should have a mindset of obtaining knowledge rather than having the ability to show off your certificate. I guess that's also true for people attending university."
LifeProTips,"> Even though I value your effort, I'm still going to feign not being impressed and offer a lower salary.

I've had startups play that game and I walked away because it was annoying and transparent. I would never work with someone who I thought wouldn't value me appropriately, and the labor market is tight so it's trivial for someone skilled to just walk away and go with someone who doesn't play games. That strategy just sounds like a way to filter out good candidates.

I took a startup position at a lower salary than I could make elsewhere, but it was because they were a really small team working on what I thought was a really interesting and underserved problem, I thought the odds of the company growing rapidly were high, they were straight up with me, and I thought they'd be cool on the ride up, not because they played some childish game of chipping away at my self esteem.

As a founder you should be able to inspire people, not just lean on them. "
LifeProTips,"A diploma is a ticket to a job market. If you have a degree, congrats, you might not get thrown in the trash right away. MOOCs do not offer that. However,  if you already have a degree and want to pivot to a semi related career, or you are looking to be a freelancer, MOOCs are a great resource. In particular, you use the MOOC to learn how to do something, then you practice it and make something with it. Then, *that* goes on your resume/portfolio. There's much less success with them because people are not very self motivated, and MOOCs don't have the same kind of consequences behind them that accredited universities do. They also don't really force you to learn or do anything to get the certificate. 

I'm a math major with very little formal training in computer science, but all of my advanced skills in programming have come from MOOCs, and the projects I completed are big parts of my resume. I currently work in software and I would attribute at least some of my success to the work I've done with MOOCs."
LifeProTips,"I *believe* my wife when she says my hair isn't thinning. 

The more educated a populace is the more capable/productive/useful they are is an undisputable fact. 

That huge wave of academics could absolutely flourish and usher in another age of development/progress. Thing is we are well past the point of tabletop breakthrough (random person working by themselves on their own increasing sparse free time makes a thing that is a fundemental breakthrough in other existing thing). We have tons of trained and capable biologists but not nearly enough labs for them to play in. That's the case with most sciences in the U.S. Even the high up creme de la creme of scientists have to spend at minimum a third to half their time ~~begging for money~~ requesting grants to keep their work alive. Let alone produce any breakthroughs in their particular research.


That is a direct result of the class/power structures and their self asserted control over academic and the economic realms of society. From the perspective of those sitting at the top a continuously more educated populace is a [potential threat](https://youtu.be/ILQepXUhJ98) to their(and I can't stress this enough) *self appointed* positions of power and privilege.

As they see it. [One of the bewildering paradoxes of our time is the extent to which the Enterprise system tolerates, if not participates in, it's own destruction](http://law2.wlu.edu/powellarchives/page.asp?pageid=1251).

 Since the 1970's a very effective class war has been waged against higher and public education to put control over it firmly into the hands of economic elite to drive that education to serve the interests of those elite. That's where those worthless humanity programs come from. Whose ""best"" case is to become a manager of workers(HR) in a system that prioritizes the well-being of the (owners of) institution over the workers. 


*We* absolutely need an educated population. 

Trying to downplay education as a unnecessary privilege(as opposed to an important inherent right) has been the meme force fed to the populace by those at the top for the past 40+ years at this point. 
 "
LifeProTips,"The core of my resume when I took the job I have now was a startup I built with a friend around a product I built on my own that failed (low power IoT hardware platform and webapp for automated logistics), another project I made it to the national finals of a reasonably large pitch competition for, and a reasonably large hackathon (30hr straight tech building competition) I won.

When I interviewed here I brought a prototype with me to show them and had already shown the recruiter a video of the remote hardware and webapp all working together with an explanation of how it worked.

Tech has a lot of opportunities to prove your skills without a degree, although I don't think that same strategy would apply outside of tech."
LifeProTips,"There's no way you can do the three hour labs or all day field trips I did for one of my degrees. Just isn't going to happen at home and watching a video recording of a lab or field trip, even if they existed out there, isn't really giving you proper project work experience. The deadlines at university aren't pretend, you fail if you don't meet them. You fail if your project falls apart and you have nothing to show for the marking criteria. If you cheat on the exam you fail too. Lots of opportunities to fall at university that you don't face at home. University is like having a job but you pay for the experience instead of being paid for it. Talking science here, I don't know how hard the humanities is or is not."
LifeProTips,"I took the intro to programming course tought by professor Gutag. I feel like that course alone was responsible for me getting my first programming job in terms of the knowledge it gave me. I have no formal education other than moocs, and I gotta say that I wouldn't be where I am now without them (am a software engineer at a fortune 500 company). O'Riley books also helped quite a bit whenever I wanted to learn some specific thing. "
LifeProTips,"Perhaps in an ideal world, but as someone who skipped higher education and went right into the workforce, it's becoming very difficult to move up without that formal education. So now I'm going back to school.

I went into construction and then construction management and absolutely hated it with every fiber of my being so now I have 5 years of wasted experience. Tough to move from construction to a technical field with no certificates or degrees so these online courses might be a good way for me to supplement my resume. At the same time I enjoy learning so I'm not too shook up about having to go back"
LifeProTips,"So I work in a nanotechnology lab. We make different types of nanoparticles for treating different cancers. Typically, each batch of nanoparticles we make have hundreds of thousands of particles, so it's an excellent data set to work with. We have to describe them based on their physical properties like size, shape, charge, etc. which can get really messy when you're working with many different types of nanoparticles.

I took the Data analysis for Excel series and found that I can drastically reduce the time it takes me to analyze the data if I use pivot tables/charts, Excel data models, slicers, and some more advanced features in Excel. This is really helpful too because I am usually the one who presents our work at symposiums, so the courses gave me an entirely new platform to present my work. So far, everyone has loved the pivot chart/slicer combo and everyone else in my lab is having me teach them how to do this! I also was able to more accurately represent my data with the lessons on statistics in the last course of the series. 

Btw, I just audited these courses. There's no difference in the education for paying for the certificate, so I just screenshot my overal score when I'm done with a course, and paste the image to a Word doc. That way, if I'm not asked to demonstrate skills in an interview, I'll at least have something to show them. "
LifeProTips,"You are both right and wrong. Many people,including myself, have gotten jobs that are not related to their degree. This is because a degree gets you an interview. To go past that, including advancing in the job, requires either knowledge or experience. Since most people, especially graduates, have little to no experience that is where knowledge comes in, in the form of alternative learning like this. 

Tl;dr a degree gets you in the job. Knowledge helps you go past that. "
LifeProTips,"Not OP but in a very similar position, work for a mid-large sized enterprise currently. I have an associate's in computer information systems which didn't teach me anything nor ever helped me land a gig. Self teaching through courses like these has been a god send since I would never have been able to afford a bachelor's where I was in my life prior to full time work.

I do plan on going back for one at some point, though."
LifeProTips,"Yeah and I very well could have spent those 5 years earning a degree so then I'd have college debt instead of the semi useless experience. But at least I'd have a 4 year degree. Tons of jobs im looking at don't really care what bachelor's you have as long as it's a science/business and not an arts degree.

Anyways just trying to make a point that it's not wrong to look at education as a means to an end."
LifeProTips,"I honestly don’t follow you. 

MOOCs made self-education much better. It’s easier now to get ramped up as a self-taught programmer and plenty of them are in the industry. 

I don’t think MOOC certificates would ever replace 4+ year degrees. I don’t think they are meant to.

Incidentally, even with degrees, it’s not a slam dunk for a job. You need to demonstrate you can actually do the job.

I don’t know what I’m refuting. If you are saying MOOC certificates are worthless then I can’t refute that cause it’s true. It’s not the paper that matters.

You’re not really interested in the subject matter to begin with. Your concerns aren’t whether the material is relevant and up-to-date or what specialty you’d go into. You just want to know if you sank a few thousand hours into this, regardless of your interest level or proficiency, if you’d be able to land a job with just the paper that comes out the end, like you’re at a degree/certificate vending machine contemplating which button to press."
LifeProTips,"Honestly the biggest thing I have found an education at a school like MIT gives you is the people. You are amongst some of the smartest and most motivated students in the world, and being taught by and associating with people at the top of their field. You can do projects and start startups with them, and give/receive recommendations for some of the best jobs out their. 

The classes themselves are not the most valuable part of the education. I think that's a large part of the issue with these education replacements, they really don't address that aspect. To have the best chance of succeeding you really want to immersed in an intellectually focused and motivated environment. "
LifeProTips,"I'm a scifi and fantasy author and have had a lot of success with these courses. I already have a degree and dramatic conservatory training. 

While researching and writing *Astral Fall* I took the following courses in full for a certificate:

- AstroTech: University of Edinburgh via Coursera  
- Justice: Harvard via Edx  <-- highly, highly recommended!
- Paradoxes of War: Princeton via Coursera (audit b/c no cert offered)  
- Social Psychology: Wesleyan via Coursera 

And I dipped in on other classes like The War for the Greater Middle East (Edx) which was delivered by war scholar Andrew Bacevich, and anything to do with tech or bio ethics. Usually I would have had to hunt down syllabi for recommended reading and maybe set up a quick chat with some of these scholars to learn more during the research phase -- and that's if they had the time and were willing. Instead I took the class and had access to online office hours.

Additionally I had support from The Science and Entertainment Exchange in the form of a science advisor and visited NASA Goddard.

What I hope to illustrate with this post:

- I second everyone here who says that Edx and Coursera are supplements to degree work and other professional training and research.

- There are careers other than programming/tech that are using these platforms.

- Self-improvement is also a worthy goal. There were retired service members from around the world in my Paradoxes of War course. They were they to enrich themselves and added a lot to the forums. I was particularly interested in their stories and reflections because I was interested in warrior experiences and they were there to reevaluate their experiences. A typical sociology classroom would not have this mix of students. And when I brushed up on social psychology on Coursera I was delighted to find that the entire course had an extra layer: it was a global experiment in and of itself. I came for one module but stayed for the entire course.

- Finally, in hiring other professionals, I would definitely be interested to see the Harvard Justice course on any resume -- especially for someone who does not have a humanities degree. It's a normative ethics course that uses modern case studies and thought experiments, it's excellent, and deciding ""What's the right thing to do?"" applies to any career. 
"
LifeProTips,"I went to art school (currently working in the entertainment industry) but I loved science and physics as well growing up, and have picked it up again as a hobby. I wouldn't want to necessarily work in a science related field, but these courses are perfect for someone who just wants to learn for the enjoyment of learning.

I only say this as I don't think the value of these courses should be measured completely on monetary success. "
LifeProTips,"I make 69k with a high school diploma, starting. Not going anywhere but up.

It’s all about the type of work you’re doing. 

If I end up needing a degree, fine. But I don’t see that happening as my career field is extremely stable, and my plan is to create residual income not depend upon someone paying me. 

If I got fired tomorrow I’d go for a trade. Electricians in my city make 98.8k without overtime after they’re journeymen. The training is paid and you’ll have an associates degree by the time you finish it. All depends on the type of work you choose to do. "
LifeProTips,"There’s two parts to this. In computer science in particular employers can lookup your open source contributions and see how well you wrote. In other industries you can demonstrate your talent or create your own business as well. Showing success is far more effective than stating your success. 

However it is far easier to get a job if you get a recommendation from someone who works there. Personally my degree didn’t help me very much, but the contacts I made at co-op placements are the reason I was hired at my current employer and my previous employer. "
LifeProTips,"am *almost actuary. so pretty used to teaching myself things, i would say i've learned a great deal from the internet and books.

i think i have learned more from self study than i did in college, and my qualifying exams would show that. it's very hard to actually teach yourself something and you have to concentrate on the material you don't like (because that's usually what you don't intuitively understand)

it's more than possible, but it's *so* like hard, and getting people to sit down and spend time learning and then actually applying mathematics is like ... hard.

no i don't think pay to play MOOCs are worth it, there are free materials are out there, read them, don't be a sucker. also nice to see what books they chose for their courses, especially when it's new and you are not sure where to begin."
LifeProTips,"I think it's all bullshit that you need formal education.  I have a physics degree and almost all of my most marketable skills are self taught.  I work through books in the same way I did at school... It really isn't difficult.  School is good for diversity of ideas, though.

To add, I'm also doing the Georgia tech Masters right now and whilst it facilitates my learning, I pretty much learn the way they structure the course anyway..."
LifeProTips,"Machine-learning and data science is a fairly crowded field at this point. I'm not sure how easy it is to break into. But there are plenty of specialized courses available on those topics (I'd still look at the foundational algorithms course I linked, though). Python is a good, general purpose language so you won't do wrong if you concentrate on improving your python skills at the expense of dabbling in other languages."
LifeProTips,"> As a founder you should be able to inspire people, not just lean on them.

You say tomato. I say tomato. 

There's different tactics for different people. I gave an example but if I REALLY wanted someone as a developer then my approach is going to be different. If I simply need more developers and one is presented to me, then I'm more prone to lean on them. 

I guess that comes down to the quality of the applicant.

There's also a recognition from my side that if I lean too hard on someone they're going to perform poorly because they feel screwed. You have to understand that boundary as well. "
LifeProTips,"Nah that’s just poor humaning. You can take into account the positive and negative gossip, add it to how the person acts irl and you’ll get a fuller picture. 

I work with a bunch of 20something girls, of course there’s tiffs, gossip, and miscommunications. But we have a good environment because we don’t take a single angle when thinking about our coworkers, we try to communicate as much as we can to understand each other and get along. Some of us get along better than others, some are good friends outside of work, but even through the gossip and negativity nobody really hates anyone. We just know who we get along with better and continue to treat the whole staff with equal respect and understanding.

Honestly it’s the best work environment I’ve ever experienced. I am way underpaid for what I do, but I stay because of the dynamic (plus my boss is the kindest person I think I’ve ever met). "
LifeProTips,"I don’t know. I find that some people take sides based solely on others opinions. Like these people aren’t formulating their own opinions, they’re just siding with the popular vote. I think it can create an unfair snow ball effect of negativity directed towards one person who doesn’t deserve it. It’s like the popular kids making fun of the geek— the minions don’t have any personal beef with the geek, they just make fun of him as well because the most popular kid does. "
LifeProTips,"Also never take them for granted because one day they will no longer be there. Their life span are so short compared to ours. After 19 years together, I held my baby girl kitty as the vet helped her take her least breath. She was my best friend, and my life hasn't been the same since. I have other kitties now and I cherish every crazy, funny, sweet moment with them, but it's still not the same. She was one of a kind. "
LifeProTips,"I had to have the vet put down a 15-year family cat yesterday.  I've moved away and come home a couple times during his life but he's always been an important cat to me.  We knew he was getting close but the actual day that he chose to go took us by surprise.  

After living with my mom all that time, he gave up the ghost while she was on a trip and I ended up cradling him to sleep for the last time.  Now I wish I could have done more to make his life longer or happier, but I have to remember that he wasn't my responsibility and I have some good memories to take with me.  

RIP kitties."
LifeProTips,"I had a pair of pet rats one time, and their lifespan shocked me to the point that I likely won't get another. I knew I liked rats as pets when I got them, but had no idea their lifespans were so short. 

It's made worse by how ridiculously personable those critters can be. I've grown up with cats and dogs, but never had an animal with as much personality as those two rats. They were like two tiny furry people, with OCD, in a cage."
LifeProTips,"My bff Aussie passed away unexpectedly in April. He was only 8. I know bigger dogs don't get as old, but I thought I'd have at least 4 more years with him. He had not been quite himself for a while, but the vet said he was OK. Two weeks after his exam he was dying and a week after that I had to have him put to sleep.

It's absolutely broken my heart. I'm not over it and I don't think I'll ever be. He was my constant companion and the doggie love of my life."
LifeProTips,"I adopted my first pair when they were 7-9 months old and thought since they already were on the older side we wouldn't be able to develop a really close bond... Turns out I was dead wrong. My ratto would escape his cage just to climb on the bed and give me nose kisses, then jump on my lap and fall asleep to some cuddles from me. His death devastated me but I liked them so much that in the end I adopted some more."
LifeProTips,"I had to put my dog down earlier this year, just one week shy of her 10th birthday.  The night before, my kids got emotional because she wouldn’t be here for her birthday, so I ran to the store for some special dog treats, and we sang happy birthday to her. 

I was just looking at pictures from her last couple of days, and damn if it didn’t hit me in the feels. I miss her something terrible.  Even though I have three kids, the house sometimes feels empty without her. "
LifeProTips,"I have done and gone so many places with my dog Kiara, she is 8 now, can't jump in the car very well so I have to lift her in on most days but when I see her keeping up wrestling with my other younger dogs it melts my heart. I wanted to take her on a hiking trip on AT for a week but I just don't know if she can do the hike anymore with her bad knees its heart breaking knowing she's limited because I hate leaving her out of mile stone achievements in my life."
LifeProTips,"I am already planning to be taking off one or two weeks vacation from work when that time comes because I know for a fact I will be an absolute mess. Got my little guy back when I was in college and working midnights four days a week. I was so burnt out between being tired, all the classes and just needed something to ground myself. Went to Pet store with my girlfriend who was getting stuff for her cat and I went over to the adoption area and looked at the kitties. Came back a couple days later and adopted one who had an eye infection because I felt bad for him.

​"
LifeProTips,"Heart rats are something special. I've had eight rats (had to stop after my fiance developed allergies to them). Seven of the eight ended up being put to sleep by the vet when their health got too bad. Just old age complications.

The only one who passed at home was my heart rat. He never showed signs of illness or anything. I just found him like that one day. 

To this day I think he planned it like that. It sounds insane, but he's the one I would have had the most difficulty with taking to the vet to say goodbye. I found him right when my SO got home from work. It's like he waited until I had emotional support available. I miss him everyday. It gets easier but it never goes away."
LifeProTips,">I wish cats and dogs lived longer

No thanks. There are so many dogs that are hurt by humans and already have to live decades with those injuries that makes it so sad. It'd also be much more of a burden to take on rescues if they lived as long as us. Both my dogs are rescues (a Stabyhoun and a Schnoodle) and the Schnoodle is really quite old now- cataracts, a bad hip, and low stamina. Once he's gone, there might be room for another small dog to join the pack, but in the meanwhile, I just try to take care of him as best I can (I feed him wet food every day regardless of whether it is pricey since he's had a hard life up to this point). My Stabyhoun is happy for the most part, he's got some behavioral issues that stem from his previous owner that if he lived for more decades might grow to be more severe (he's afraid of loud noises like doors slamming or thunder cracking, and he's real defensive about his ""safe space""). 

My point is, while we are starting to see more animal cruelty laws, they just aren't treated well enough by humans in general to think it would be okay for them to live anywhere close to as long as us. They live long enough to have nice, happy lives without having to carry serious burdens for too long. "
LifeProTips,"I saw a LPT a few months ago when it comes to putting animals down. When you do come to that, try and get the vet to come to your house to do the deed. In the animals last few moments, they won't be filled with fear and anxiety being held down on a metal table at the vet.

​

It might be a little extra money for the home visit, but imo it's well worth. Especially with how much happiness they've provided throughout the years :)"
LifeProTips,"It's unfortunately a big problem in families where someone has a pet parrot. My parents have 3 pet parrots, two macaws and a conure. The oldest of the birds is 15. Those birds will, without a doubt, outlive both of my parents and eventually become my problem. 

The birds and I didn't get along when I lived at my parent's house, I'm sure the 9 years I've spent not living there haven't helped that situation. Sometime within the next 15-20 years I'm going to become responsible for three animals who don't like me and who I frankly dislike as well. Sure there are rescues I can (and absolutely will) surrender the birds to...but fuck. 

There are a lot of animals we can have as pets that we probably shouldn't. We absolutely shouldn't have captive parrots though. They're mean to anyone they haven't chosen as their ""mate"", loud, powerful, and have the potential to be amazingly dangerous and destructive. It really is unfair to the bird and the vast majority of people the bird will interact with. "
LifeProTips,"I'm curious about your thoughts on this:

While the behavior and personality would probably be different, would you want a cloned version (like a kitten with the same genetics) as your cat?

Side tangent:

I've had 4 cats now in my life but my current one is a bengal mix and the most social, loving, playful, smart, vocal cat I've ever had. I know Bengals are know for these traits but God damn if he isn't my world and I wish he would live forever. But I think a clone would be pretty cool too. I'd almost rather have that than a new cat? 

6mo ago I woke up to him meowing and acting strange and scared at like 2am. He had a random balance issue with his back legs like they kept giving out and he was like falling asleep. I thought he mightve ingested some sedatives and was going to die from a tranq overdose (long story) or something and raced him to a 24 hour emergency only to find out he was okay. Still don't know what happened but I'm still feeling the effects of the trauma and stress it caused me to this day... I feel like I have ptsd or something and worry about him randomly dying or being dead when I wake up :("
LifeProTips,"There are birds with lifespans in the 30 year range. My little sister just got one. Her bird is in the parrot family, but is like maybe 8"" tall.

My sister is 13 and absolutely loves the little guy. He hangs out on her shoulder all day long once she gets home from school. I'm amazed at how clever the bird is, and how much personality he has. It's been interesting learning what foods he does and doesn't like. He's also interesting because if my sister won't let him out of the cage he can throw little temper tantrums splashing his water about and stuff."
LifeProTips,"❤️❤️❤️❤️ I just had to put my fur baby of 12 years down, he had a tumor and he was in pain. After 5? That’s just not fair. I have been crying on and off for days. The pain is just, unreal. I haven’t been able to wear mascara... just in case. 

My other cat is 11 years old and I dread the day her health declines. She’s been wandering around looking for him for days, and she’s super upset she is on a pseudo diet... aka she can’t eat his food anymore. I don’t know if I’ll get another cat before she passes. 

I love her but she is kind of a destructive asshole so she’ll probably live forever... and live to teach others her bad behavior :/"
LifeProTips,"I had him from when he was about 3 months old, and we moved about a lot so he was the only real constant in my life, I'm a 25 year old guy and it broke me when he died. I've never cried so hard in my life, when I got home with his empty cage I collapsed in a heap in the hallway, front door wide open just crying my eyes out. The next day at work involved me having to take repeated trips to the freezer to cry, that was when I wasn't just randomly breaking down in the kitchen. "
LifeProTips,"I feel you. I've never had a pet of mine personally die until he did.. I had him since I was 16. His death reminded me a lot of when my father died.. he died of colon cancer. My cat had an abdominal tumor that killed him in less than 2 months. It was very rapid vs. the 2 year decline of my dads. My cat declined very rapidly over  labor day weekend and I barely slept.. and had to call off on tuesday since I was such a mess. I was still a mess on wednesday... I still feel like I could break into tears with the wrong comment. 

Worst 4 day weekend of my life"
LifeProTips,"It doesn't take 19 years to develop a personality. That's done pretty early on, just mellows out over the years. I love my furbabies now, don't get me wrong, and if they are with me as long as she was, it will be just as hard. But I had a bond with her I can't explain, that I just don't have with my others. I still love them. Cried when my one got sick. She's all better now. "
LifeProTips,"If I were to see one up for adoption that looked just like her, I'd take it in a heartbeat. Fortunately for a stray they I got as a feral 7 week old, she was more unique in her looks than typical. However no, I would not clone. She was absolutely beautiful, my dad always said she was the prettiest cat he ever saw, and she carried herself that way. But it wouldn't be her. Part of how she looked was in seeing her personality shine through. She was a bitch, to anyone other than those she lived with. When it came to me, she had a ragdoll's personality. She understood my when I talked, certain words or what I was getting at. Part of our bond was the life experiences we had together. Several moves that never phased her as long as I was there. A couple different SO's in my life. The birth of my son. The death of my dad. A clone be nothing of her spirit. I'd take her spirit in a different looking cat before taking a clone of her."
LifeProTips,"This was a first time for me. But in my situation, it didn't matter. She was happy and calm in my arms. Any vet visit prior she was fine as long as I was holding her. She just didn't like being handled by strangers, especially being taken to a different room from me for bloodwork. They had to come get me to calm her. Then slightly sedate her in order to take blood cause at her age then, getting worked up so much was unsafe for her. But I could carry her around their office anywhere without a carrier, as long as she was in my arms. I think the most stressful part for her was having a stranger touching her paw and leg to administer, which would have happened no matter where we were. And by stranger, anyone that didn't live in her house. Even family who visited frequently through her life that she ""knew"", she did not like. But she adored me, and I her."
LifeProTips,"Honestly, the night before the appointment as her health just continued to rapidly decline, I prayed. I prayed to God. I prayed to my dad. To please come take her thru the night so i would not have to make that choice for her. Tearing up now remembering it. I didn't want to have to be there. I didn't want to feel her slip away from me. But i couldn't not be there for her. She stayed by my side all those years through so much, of course i would for her. I was angry the next morning that my prayers weren't answered. But then i realize even if they tried, she wouldn't have left me and gone with anyone. I had to make her go. She would have held on through her misery if I hadn't. It was my final way of showing my love, keeping her in my arms while letting her go. Ok, good cry time. Goodnight."
LifeProTips,"I more meant that after 19 tears you would have seen all the slight changes in personality. My famiky has always been a ""cat family"". My Mum had a really strong bond with Pop - a large ginger cat that had a really bad case of cat flu when he was a kitten. My Mum adored Pop and never really recovered after he passed, he's the only one of our familie's cats to pass quite young. He was 10 at the time. 

I asked her about it after reading this and she said that no pet could pass her relationship with Pop but she's has different cats now and she n owes they all need love and affection.

Sorry for babbling on."
LifeProTips,"Easy. Be a better you.

* Start working out, or if you ""work out"" already take it more seriously. Stick with it. Cut the crap out of your diet.
* Make yourself presentable. Wash your face. Buy some decent clothes that fit well. You don't have to spend a million dollars or be ""fabulous"" to not look like a trash bag.
* Read actual books. The more interesting books you read, the more interesting conversations you'll have.
* Meditate. Discover who you really are, and what you really want.
* Find an inclusive hobby that you can develop passion for. Volunteer. Help out others less fortunate than yourself.

All of these things build confidence. People like confidence. Someone you like will like you back eventually, and in the meantime literally every other aspect of your life will improve."
LifeProTips,"Are you a guy or a girl? If you're a girl, I can't help you. If you're a guy, at least in the US, it doesn't mean anything at all. Women here in the US, as a rule, will almost never show interest in a guy if they don't show interest first. Even things as simple as flirting or eye contact are things that American women, in general, will no initiate. As a guy with chronically low self-esteem/confidence, this is killer for me."
LifeProTips,"Many people don't. I don't know you.

These are just examples. Don't get hung up on one specific thing, or assume that the list above is all-encompassing and absolute. The takeaway should be to improve yourself first, and seek a partner second. From your comment, it sounds like you could do with developing your empathy, so maybe start with one of the last three suggestions.

Or you could assume that you're already perfect and the world owes you the perfect mate for being so infallible, and see how far that gets you. Either way, good luck."
LifeProTips,"There are a lot of fiction books that are very entertaining and also manage to explore a lot of scenarios that translate well to conversation. The Postmortal is a pretty good one (a world where they cure aging and most diseases). Reading just helps you train yourself to process things faster, can also help you improve how you speak in subtle ways. Can indeed make you a more interesting person when you have more to talk about and weigh in on in a conversation.

Sometimes it's good to set aside contemplation time, there's some apps that do a good job of training mindful meditation in short sessions. Can't remember the name right now but if you or anyone else actually wants to know i'll find it and PM"
LifeProTips,"Here's the deal. Definitely one of those your mileage may vary kind of deal. Sometimes it's a simple life adjustment, other times it's a radical. You gotta play your own cards. There is no magic formula, it's mostly dumb luck. You could do everything by the book to be the perfect man and turn someone off. You could do everything radically wrong, and attract someone. 

You gotta be you. You gotta take care of you, because if you can't take care of yourself, how can you be expected to take care of someone else? The end game is marriage, and marriage takes work. A lot of easy work, but if neglected, will burn down the house. Hence why the general advice of working on yourself, to show you won't be a burden to the relationship. You shouldn't offer any less or accept anything less either "
LifeProTips,"The first thing I was going to say is that you honestly sound like someone who doesn't wash their face, but then I decided it would be counterproductive.

Look.  I was a geek when that actually meant social rejection. On top of that I'm pretty awkward,  and I didn't have a girlfriend until I was 22.  But I followed the ""normie"" advice above, made up for lost time until it wasn't satisfying anymore, and got married.  That doesn't mean it will work for you, but you obviously aren't helping yourself.

The tip-off here is that tremu wasn't even talking to you specifically. You took 3 words out of the whole thing, acted is if they were intended for you, chose to get insulted, and then insulted back.

If you already wash your face, obviously that part doesn't apply to you, just pay attention to the rest of the advice. But again, it won't work if you're already driving prospective partners away by being an asshole."
LifeProTips,"Your empathy seems lacking because not only are you willing to insult a stranger for giving general advice in good faith by calling me stupid (?), but you've now repeatedly and bafflingly taken personal offense to that good faith advice which was offered generally by assuming that it was directed towards you personally, someone whose existence I was completely unaware of, let alone have any personal relationship with. I mean it wasn't even your comment I was originally replying to - you had to seek mine out, and thus seek offense. You seem unable to put yourself not only in my shoes (just trying to help out others based on what has worked for me), but those of anyone seeking advice on the subject for which at least parts of my comment would be helpful (which I genuinely believe is a great many people, as I used to be one of them, and knew/know plenty others). It's not my intention to be condescending when I say ""be a better you"" - indeed, the only people who would find it so could probably use a reality check up there in their ivory tower.

As to this hypothetical person who's ""done"" -all- of the things I suggested:

* First of all, this isn't a bucket list that you check off one by one. It's habits that you form, that become a part of who you are. You do them every day. The implication that one ""has done"" instead of ""is doing"" these things is that one has no more room for improvement, i.e. is perfect. IMO, not a good mindset. People generally don't like arrogance.
* Extending this hypothetical to a person who -actually- has formed habits around all these things, I have a really hard time believing that they need help or advice finding ANYONE to love. What's more likely is they can find someone, but that someone isn't fill-in-the-blank enough (pretty, smart, interesting, whathaveyou). In which case, I would recommend to just stick with these things listed above and keep improving yourself, and/or find other ways to improve yourself. Best way to punch up, no matter who you are, is to be a better you.
* Extending this hypothetical to a person who not only does all these things regularly, but legitimately can't find ANYONE to love - listen, I'm not a life coach, dating coach, pickup artist, or psychologist. Never claimed to be. But if you're asking me to guess, in this event horizon hypothetical, I'd say that person likely has some significant personality defect. For instance, maybe they come across like an asshole without even realizing it. So, this person probably has something specific to work on that would be of greater benefit to them than general self-improvement. The best way to do that would depend greatly upon the problem and the individual.
* Alternatively, this hypothetical person could simply be deeply insecure. For instance, they might seek out ways to be offended in order to justify highly antagonistic behavior, like the ""Hugh Mungus What"" lady. This pattern is almost universally unattractive. The prescription for this would be - you guessed it - improving yourself, possibly in the ways I listed before. Developing any one of the countless venues for self-improvement inherently builds confidence, and confidence is the antidote to insecurity.

In any case, no matter who you are, it's all about being better every day. If you're genuinely putting in the effort instead of sitting around waiting for Mr. or Ms. Right to fall into your lap (or worse, becoming increasingly bitter that Mr. or Ms. Right hasn't just fallen into your lap already), then it really is just a matter of time. The only real caveat to this that I can think of is if you live in an area where your prospective dating pool is significantly outnumbered by your competition. In which case, improving yourself becomes -even more- important.

If you build it, they will come. Good luck."
LifeProTips,"This is so stupid too. Story time.

A girl from high school got rear ended by an older woman. The girl was clearly not at fault, and in my state unless you're on camera backing into someone it's almost impossible to be found at fault if your vehicle is hit from behind.

The older woman was very upset at the ordeal and started crying, and the girl apologized for the mess they were in. It would have been the first of your two quotes.

The older woman took that quote to court (I don't remember if the woman hired attorneys or told her insurance who fought it on her behalf) and tried to claim it was the girls fault and that the girl had admitted it. Luckily it was settled out of court for not that much but apologizing anywhere near a car accident even for something unrelated can put you in significant legal jeopardy.

People suck."
LifeProTips,"And, as the new Woodward book points out in its chronicling of the Trump campaign at the time of the pussygrab tape, there were two main strategies forward beyond giving up (which was nearly the consensus itself): there was going on ABC and being apologetic, and then there was doubling down with a crowd of adoring redhats and attacking the media for wanting him to quit. This underdog went with the latter, in this and in every subsequent decision, and he won the election.

When you're already a total piece of shit and have an adoring fanbase, for whatever reason including all the wrong reasons, do NOT follow the advice of this LPT."
LifeProTips,"That's why I preface all of my apologies with lengthy terms and conditions. ""By hearing the apology I am about to make, you consent to disacknowledge it as an admission of guilty for perpetuity and this is binding to you and anyone associated with you by any biological or other means. If you do not wish to consent to this, you may choose to: evacuate your cranium with a well-placed discharge from, but not limited to, a handheld or mounted firearm as described in the addendum included after the apology, pierce the bodily membrane by which you may or may not perceive air particles energized by a source of energy in the form of waves, or cover your ears. I'm so sorry! Addendum 1 of 30 follows..."""
LifeProTips,"In Australia I had an accident when a guy was taking a right hand turn (we drive on the left), and was waiting for oncoming traffic to make a gap, so I went to go around him. As I pulled back in front he'd decided he didn't want to turn and drove straight into the back of me. Got out, he apologised, said it was his bas, exchanged details, etc. My insurance comes back to me and says that it was technically my fault, I told them he even apologised and took responsibility. Didn't matter. "
LifeProTips,"I've seen some hilariously mis-guided skill requests in software. There's always the ""Requires 3 years experience in a language that left beta last year"", but the other day I saw a request for several higher-level web development technologies as well as experience in a 3d game engine. Who the heck is doing full stack web apps + game development? Or at least, who is doing that for less than $200k lol."
LifeProTips,That’s exactly what I did. The best part is they are paying for my school for me to meet the requirements. So I got a high paying job I wasn’t completely qualified for plus a free degree. After I started I asked around and it turns out they interviewed others before me that already had their degree. Those people never took the job because they could get better pay elsewhere. But for me it was a fantastic deal. 
LifeProTips,"> Who the heck is doing full stack web apps + game development?

Someone who wants to make a browser based game? There are plenty of browser based games with a 3d engine on Facebook among other sites.

A strong background in optimizing browser-based applications with some experience in game engines seems a pretty desirable combination for that employer. I can't comment on the salary for that kind of ask though."
LifeProTips,"Ha ""entry level"" is a fucking lie, just graduated, trying to apply some some jobs with that tag, none replied. They should have rename ""entry level"" to ""less pay job cuz my company is fucking poor and need experience people"". If I'm so experienced I wouldn't even consider apply for a job in your piss poor company. I wouldn't be so mad if they at least gave me a chance for testing my skill set or interview. Remember employers, you're asking for ""entry level"" "
LifeProTips,People with five years experience don't accept entry level jobs. If they are posting entry level they are hiring entry level. If it says entry level you should apply even if you don't have every skill they ask for on the application. That's where making sure your resume stands out comes into play. A hiring manager is going to have 100 resumes to look at when they post a job so yours needs to stick out. I work in software Dev and had the same problems when trying to get my first job. If your industry is similar and you'd like me to take a look at yours and offer feedback I'd be happy to.
LifeProTips,"You do know I'm joking about 5 year ""entry level"" candidate right ? Anyway I got the job sometime ago but during the job search, most company made me question ""da hell do you want from an entry level candidate?"" I made my resume in black and white, categorized and point form, all in one page, CGPA 3.3 i think not sure if that matters as some of my friend got higher than me was still in job search during that time. "
LifeProTips,"Unfortunately here in Texas there is a fairly specific line of electronics technicians, especially those who specialize in industrial controls, that had people with 5 years experience getting into entry level jobs. The big oilfield boom produced a shitload of people that got 3-5 years experience before the bust. That left us with an absolute fuck ton of folks moving to adjacent industries to get entry level jobs because they needed a job. Its been getting much better over the past 2 years or so, but that just screwed a lot of people like me who were fresh out of college into having a hard time finding good actual entry level jobs where we had planned due to the excess of actual experienced techs being willing to take the positions.

This is definitely a bit of an outlier, but it happens."
LifeProTips,"> you can do all the things you did in college still but now you can earn more money.

Yeah unless you got a liberal arts degree or work in one of the many fields which make you work internships or start in mail rooms. 

My early 20s were fun since my friends and I all had the time/youthful vigor to party like college, but my quality of life was super dismal. I may not be able to crush a twelver of Milwaukee’s Beast in my 30s, but at least I can afford a better beer."
LifeProTips,"I think you might be looking in the wrong places. It's easy to meet new people if you put yourself into situation with like minded people. Join a book club, play golf, Go to a gym (Not like planet fitness, like MMA, rock climbing, Crosfitt), hang out at a local pub (Not a club). Find something that you're interested in and you'll easily meet people without an awkward ice-breaking process because you immediately have a connection. The friends in my life now that I'm closest with are people I've known less than 10 years so I've met almost all of them in my 30s. I still keep in touch with most of my high school friends, but have definitely culled the one's that aren't worth the effort."
LifeProTips,"Good question. Some of them were at my previous job, some I met by joining groups in the community and volunteering (Met Up is a great resource to find people), and some I met when I started my own business and began networking (still hoping those will go the distance). 

On the other hand, my husband only has like 2 friends. That's because he refuses to make any effort or to go out and meet people.

Like most things in life, it's all about the work you put in behind the scenes. It works when you prioritize spending time with the people you meet to maintain the relationships."
LifeProTips,"I hope you don't mind a bit of advice, but I think the best way to deal with that is to make your life as awesome as you can. Fill it with things you love, like helping other people or your hobbies and interests. 

Romance is important, but if you make yourself the best version you can, it will be a lot easier to find someone. And you will be way happier on your journey through life. 

Best of luck to you!"
LifeProTips,"I mean. I enjoy my life as long as I don't think about being the only person I know who hasn't had any type of love in 6 years. 

I enjoy the games I play, I don't have my job that much, I do Improv and am working on VO work as a dream but sometimes like today I see all these happy people and know I'll never have that. 

The only thing I think I should do more is exercise. But I would only be doing it to attract someone and I have it so I would probably end up resending it. 
"
LifeProTips,"I've gone through some soul crushing hard times in the past, and I know that depression is a beast to kick. But I also know that you attract like things into your life. 

Stop thinking you'll never have what other people have. It's the best way to make sure you never get it. 

What do you have to offer that will make another person want to spend time with you? Are you funny? Are you kind? Start working on the things you're putting out into the world. 

If you're out of shape and could maybe work on your appearance a little bit, are you only chasing women who are really attractive? What benchmarks do you use to measure potential partners? I've seen people shoot way high, but are unwilling to make the changes in themselves to be at the same level. Or they're discounting amazing people because of these high standards. 

Just some things to think about. You seem like an awesome person who's suffering from some not so great things at the moment. "
LifeProTips,"I am not unattractive I'd say. I'm 5 11 and 170 lbs. I'm not large just not muscular, just a little too much on the stomach but not noticeable when clothed. 

I feel like physically I'm not ruined but I know something must be wrong with me if after this long nobody is willing to even try. 

I don't go out with this attitude when I try to make things happen, this is more the sit in bed and be sad posting online in my despair mood. If I feel like this I just don't even try. 

I'd say really after this long the hardest things might be where to find new people who are interested. And then actually saying something because I'm in my head too much and I'll probably assume I'll fail. "
LifeProTips,"dude once you master hardboiled egg - life changes in so many ways.

my stove is place 6 eggs in a strainer thats laid inside a pan with cold water on stovetop with high heat. 

after 16 minutes the water boil. turn off, cover and let it sit for 6minutes and 30 seconds.

during that time, i fill a small container with ice and water and.place it in the freezer. after 6:30, place eggs in the ice water, still in the freezer for 5 minutes.

move to tupperware and fridge.

enjoy perfect yellow hardboiled eggs.

i reduce to 5:00 cooldown for slightly softboiled eggs"
LifeProTips,"It kind of depends on your cookware and even your heating surface. Here is one way I found online that is literally the most painless:

1. Put eggs in pot of water.
2. Boil water
3. As soon as it boils, turn off the heat.
4. Let it sit there and remove it like 10 or so minutes later, depending on how done you want them. 
5. Drain the water and then put them under running water to cool them down."
LifeProTips,"I do this. I recognize that sometimes, people are just trying to take that next step in life. Ain't necessarily them. Take the high road and move on.

Now, this isn't always the case. If they're particularly petty, or known to be thereof, I ghost the ghoster. Granted, I've been victim to some pretty rough treatment for this, up to corporate plots to have me fired and a _restraining order_ for harassment (I was the ghoster) so take it as you will"
LifeProTips,"This. I had a close friend ignore my texts and phone calls for months and I grew really worried until one day he texted me a long winded text saying that he was going through a rough time and didn't think I was a helpful presence/didn't like my advice. It broke my heart and honestly I wish they said that up front instead of ghosting me and causing me worry for so long. 

Like OP said sometimes friends are going through tough stuff when they drop contact but sometimes some of that tough stuff involves them wanting you out of their life. Bummed me out."
LifeProTips,"I've been on the other end (hell, still best friends with them). It's not that they are a bad person or a bad friend or anything. I love spending time with them.

It's just that for many things I've struggled with, they have a total inability to comprehend what I was/am going through and the advice they gave me was just tone deaf, inappropriate and insulting. But yeah. Doesn't make them a bad person. Just lived a different life.

I'll basically just pretend it's all fine and I'm alright when talking to them. No need to make it worse for everyone. "
LifeProTips,"I kind of was on both ends of that. I had a friend who I was best friends with for many years.

I knew they were always stubborn and difficult to work with sometimes, but I was at a point in time where I couldn't deal with the stubbornness.

They time and time again attacked my other friends. Would not accept that my friends of certain professions were decent people (sales reps - not cars). Was really judgemental towards some of my friends appearances (physical disabilities).

I probably wasn't the most charitable when I pointed out the stereotyping and discrimination. But I probably offended my friend by pointing it out.

Now we both avoid gatherings so we don't cross paths."
LifeProTips,"I’d rather piss someone off by ignoring their ghosting attempts (because idc if I annoy them after they’ve tried to bloody ghost me anyway) then potentially miss reaching out to them when they most need it. 

It’s like with super old school friends that I see on social media having a tough time. We were never close and they probably think i’m a proper weirdo sending them a message offering an ear out of the blue, but I’d rather they think that of me then them not have anyone message them if they actually need it. "
LifeProTips,"Came here to say this. Had it happen with a guy that had been my close friend for 20+ years. When he was finally confronted about it by my partner, he came out with a load of lies about me and said I was an asshole that she didn't deserve. Turns out, he just wanted her for himself and thought that she'd throw away a 4 year relationship.

Didn't work out for him."
LifeProTips,"This is the real LPT. Don't count on the Goodwill store near a nice neighborhood to have especially nice things; they distribute donations among stores.

On the other hand, non-Goodwill thrift stores near nice neighborhoods tend to keep their donated clothes and things locally.

It's a fallacy that rich people are so cheap and greedy they never donate nice things. Quite the opposite, especially when it comes to expensive clothes. 

As I write this, I am still kicking myself for *not* buying a beautiful leather pea-coat 5 years ago from a local thrift store in the North Chicago suburbs. Proper Schott Leather Naval Pea Coat, current retail price (they still make them) about $700. It fit me *perfectly* and was beautiful, very well made. They wanted $25 for it. I am an idiot for not buying it immediately. (""Are pea coats coming back in style? Um, I dunno . . ."")

This was not Goodwill, but a local church-organized thrift shop (truly local, not St. Vincent DePaul or anything like that) and they have some *nice* things. Including some expensive suits and ties for almost nothing.

Rich people can afford a new wardrobe each year. Giving the old rags from 2017 to charity makes them feel generous.

Also, while I am typing -- garage sales. In wealthy neighborhoods. Be on the lookout, because where I live, the nicest neighborhoods forbid any kind of yard or garage sales, except on specified community garage-sale dates. It probably only happens once a year. And those sales are *gold mines.*"
LifeProTips,"Take this with a grain of salt, but I've been told that it's not that simple.

These people don't have any skills and are on disability. If good will pays them a living wage, those people will then have to get minimum wage and therefore lose their disability benefits. Hire normal people, that's cool too. But then these people with disability have nothing to do all day. 

Goodwill basically gives people who wouldn't normally be able to have a job a place to go. And since they can come and leave their jobs at their choosing, they are able to not reapply for disability benefits every time they can't handle work. "
LifeProTips,"Seriously, decided to go looking for old hardware, as I'm a cheap bastard and often bored.  Hit up a few Goodwills in my round of thrift stores.

They literally were all the same.   Same layout.   Same mediocre selection of electronics.  I even swear I saw the same shitty $3 shelves in more than one location.

But here are two more valuable LPTs with regard to Goodwill:

- Anything _really_ good gets auctioned via their website.

- Target donates excess inventory (eg, when they're switching things out) to Goodwill.   Scored a lamp my girlfriend wanted but didn't want to pay full price for.  Neat."
LifeProTips,"I went to a local goodwill when I was in college and my computer chair broke. I didn't think I could afford a new one so I bought one from goodwill that looked like it had been scratched up by a dog or cat for $45, then found the same model in walmart for $40, new.

Not sure who the hell priced that or why I didn't look elsewhere at the time..."
LifeProTips,"Goodwill stores are set up by districts, and not all districts operate the same way. In the district I'm in, the stores put out both individual donations and donations shipped in from other stores. We also get leftover clearance items from Target and Walmart, and they also put out their own dollar-store-esq crap.

There's a rotation of colored tags, so if something is out on the shelf for more than a month (as indicated by the week that color tag was put out) and doesn't sell, it's packed up and shipped to another store.

My mom used to be a manager at Goodwill and it was actually pretty fascinating to hear about the differences. "
LifeProTips,"Find moving sales in rich neighborhoods. They don't want to bother with their extra shit, and beyond some select items they want to keep, they'd rather quickly sell off stuff instead of paying to move it.

I went to one when I bought my house a few years ago and came away with enough stuff that I needed to rent a truck and come back. Nice tables and dressers for $30 each, etc. Probably just enough money so that he could feel like he sold them (and I'd assume he also liked that I was moving into a new place and not a dealer trying to flip the stuff - although, I guess he couldn't really know for sure). "
LifeProTips,"I put in time at a goodwill. They don’t just ship stuff to other goodwills, they only ship the shit they don’t want. There’s sorters in he back who look at things and check condition and value, when they see good stuff they’ll keep it. We rarely just threw stuff into a truck. 

I volunteered at a “higher end” goodwill and I’ll have to say that it was much better than at a lower income area goodwill. People were donating things that still had price tags on them. It’s not necessarily the wealth of the community, but essentially people who are moving or just moved in. I would find areas where the population is growing and check those goodwills out. "
LifeProTips,"Yep.  The ""New Goods"" stickers are all overstock from other retailers.  Target, Walmart, and a third one I can't remember.  At the one I worked at, we had slightly different barcode tags, to keep track of what came from where - since they pay for those, they actually keep track of the inventory.  Like, if ""New Goods"" was in a rectangle, a circle, or had no border indicated which retailer it came from.

As for the same layout, we also had that between our different stores.  The idea is that since they're laid out the same, customers will have an easier time shopping at different ones - they'll know approximately where everything is.  The same selection of electronics is just that everyone who donates stuff bought the same useless crap on a whim and when they realized they never used it, it all went to Goodwill.  I saw sooo many of those lamps made of a pink rock/crystal with the bulb inside."
LifeProTips,I have neighbors that are part of something kind of like goodwill. Their garage is full of random shit like 20 watches (no joke) and random antiques. Sometimes they do garage sales but they have only been there for like a year and there is no way they have just collected like 20 watches over the years. I personally think they are taking all the good shit before it his the shelves and then sell it. 
LifeProTips,"Value Village is a total crapshoot for me here, depending on when I go. I've seen 10 year old campus welcome week volunteer shirts go for $10 in the same row I've purchased an amazing denim styled hoodie for $5. I've also an adult beer league hockey jersey with an obviously-inside-joke logo on it selling for the same price as an authentic NHL jersey. 

It's not even always the stores that vary, it's the individual products. "
LifeProTips,"They use the money from sales to help people in theory. Also, poor people can buy decent clothes cheaper than retail. For example, Rich people might buy new Levi's or Carhartt pants every year. Then poor people get to buy basically new pants for 5$ that will last way longer than Walmart shit they could normally afford. Also, if you were homeless it might be better to go the the soup kitchen on the better side of town."
LifeProTips,"Only sort of. They've faced a lot of criticism for paying employees far below minimum wage, sometimes as little as $1-2 per hour, while simultaneously paying their executives very well, in some cases over $1,000,000 per year.

This is legal because of a little-known law regarding employment of handicapped persons (which Goodwill specializes in), wherein the business can pay the employee a percentage of minimum wage based on what percent of the job the person is deemed to be able to do. While the employment of handicapped persons is unquestionably good, the wage percentage ""loophole"" is highly subjective and open to abuse. 

Source: [watchdog.org](https://www.watchdog.org/national/policies-tax-dollars-enrich-goodwill-execs/article_7e117259-609a-5ea1-a144-de3ef58734c9.html)

See also: [Wikipedia Goodwill Criticisms](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwill_Industries#Criticism_and_compensation)

"
LifeProTips,"> From your link, it appears 73% of people who made 100-200k itemized and 92%! of people making $200-500k. While I don't consider that 'rich', many people don't make that much.

And you've chosen to only look at the richer folk, though I do agree that a family making $100k-$200k is pretty solidly middle class.

If you look at *everybody*, for the last tax year, 26.3% of all households itemized, and they predict that for this tax year that'll drop to 7.6% -- that difference is huge.

The median household income is about $60k -- for the $50k-$75k bracket, the itemizing percentage drops from 36% to 7.5%."
LifeProTips,"Lol I wondered what you thought my name had to do with the ceo of Lululemon getting fired then hired by Nasty Gal. Basically I was at some aquarium in Australia and they had all these pictures on the wall of orcas and whales breaching, or for those who don't know what that is, jumping and splashing on their backs, which it's apparently some form of communication in some cases. Anyway there were so many of these pictures we started joking that the whales were one-upping each other, ""hey check out this breach!"" ""nah man, check out THIS breach"" "
LifeProTips,"I know the one an ex of mine used to work at (probably like 9-10 years ago?) used to pay for GED classes, had health insurance for it's people before ACA, and some other stuff. 

They may pay their CEO a bunch of money (I have no idea), but who's going to run a company with 3.5 billion in revenue on a non-competitive salary?

It's like people bitching about Bezos' 2 billion dollar charity contribution the other day: Sure, it's an awfully small percentage of his worth (like 1.5% or something) but it's two billion dollars that weren't there before. "
LifeProTips,"Yeah, rich people garage sales/estate sales are hit or miss. They’ll charge $3-6 for things other people sell at $1 or .50 cents. But I did get like a $400 herringbone chair in perfect condition for 60 bucks once. They often have certain things you won’t find at middle or lower income garage sales.


Consignment shops can be pretty great for nice clothes. There’s one near the rich neighborhood that has very nice clothes; costs more than Goodwill but less than a retail store."
LifeProTips,"The point I was trying to make is that I was under the impression these charities are supposed to be selling stuff to poor people, and the idea that some middle class shoppers just casually walk in there and go on a shopping spree to get bargains on leather coats just sounds wrong to me.

But maybe it's part of their business model to sell clothing to non-poor people, and use the money to help the poor people as you say. But in that case, shouldn't they try to sell the clothes for a proper price instead of 1/10 of their worth? You know, so they get more money to help poor people."
LifeProTips,"Yeah, Goodwill doesn't really have the greatest reputation. I believe their mission has to do mostly with providing work, and a starting point for those who might otherwise not get it, like felons, special needs people, things that generally keep you from easily finding work. I imagine that if they charged higher prices, they would do less volume of sales, and when you get your products for free, why not sell them really cheap? And as someone who is not broke, but definitely lower middle class, it's nice to have a decent place to get quality clothing."
LifeProTips,"There was a time in my life when I was able to own jeans, shirts, work blouses and slacks, coat, jacket, and shoes thanks to my local goodwill. Costs $0.50 to $5.00 for the clothes. I think 20$ for the jacket and 40$ for an extremely nice cashmere coat that fit me perfectly.  
  
If it weren't for Goodwill, I would have had to wear the same two pairs of jeans and shirts every day for months.  
  
Some Goodwills are fantastic."
LifeProTips,"> I volunteer at a goodwill in SC. This is entirely not correct. 

Well it's at least partially correct. In my area, Chicago suburbs, Goodwill stores 100% do move inventory among stores. Goodwill Industries of Northern Illinois. I have seen them do it. I have asked them why they are loading inventory onto a Goodwill truck at one store -- because they are moving it to another location. Why? Because we have too much stuff here. Goodwill Northern Illinois has 12 stores and they are expanding. At least that's what I was told on the dock at a donation center. 

They even run a special ""Goodwill Outet"" store -- that store does not have a donation center, it only gets inventory from other stores. Also there is a donation center in Illinois with no store, so obviously anything that gets donated there has to be distributed among other locations.

Of course, as someone else has mentioned somewhere else in this thread, things may be different in other districts."
LifeProTips,"I'm Facebook friends with a former coworker who was a talker. Like compulsively so. I was tasked with giving her training at work and had a real hard time because she wouldn't shut up long enough for me to train her. But I'm too nice a person, I guess, so I listened to her a lot and let her talk me into friending her on Facebook. I figured I would unfriend her pretty quick, but it turns out she's much more bearable over Facebook..."
LifeProTips,"Exactly. The complainers are just too hard to deal with. I have coworkers that only complain about customers, and then wonder why I'm so quiet. Especially at a point in my life where I want to be more positive.

I hope your friend wises up one day and becomes someone you actually enjoy being around. I'd say ditch her, but sometimes less than stellar friends are better than no friends at all."
LifeProTips,"This. I figure it’s a good thing to be reflecting on your own behavior based on these experiences. That’s probably half the battle already. 

I guess, just remember what it feels like to be on both sides, and empathize with the other person whether you’re on the  talking or listening side. Try to develop an awareness of your actions in a social context, and actively apply that knowledge when interacting.

I know I try to edit down my lengthy statements when in a conversation, but then I also feel like I have a lot to say about any one topic, and just as you mentioned, I also want to talk a lot out of loneliness. I guess there are many aspects of the situation to consider. Including addressing the loneliness itself, and also seeking more practice socializing. 

But self-awareness is key. If you have that, you’re already ahead of many other people. "
LifeProTips,"Yo man, dating apps are bullshit. I'd consider myself somewhat successful with girls, but I have 0 luck with Tinder and the likes. Keep your chin up and delete those apps. 
Focus on what you like and what you're good at. Like-minded people will be doing similar. 
It's not easy, but try to be happy by yourself. Because if you can't be happy with yourself, you probably can't be happy with someone else. 

Cheers, mate. Love you"
LifeProTips,"Yup. Although it’s a great tip to not be out right rude and dismissive, you’re also encouraging a habit. One of my best friends is the kind of people who has to talk through every feeling. She talks for 40 minutes straight and the minute you start talking you can tell they are distracted (searching Instagram, texting, etc.). It has made me feel like I can’t share my feelings with people because I don’t want to be that guy that dumps my emotions all over someone. It took me a long time to realize that setting boundaries wasn’t being rude or a bad friend. "
LifeProTips,"I said it kinda makes me paranoid. There's a difference there. Do you not have any insecurities that make you question how others feel towards you, regardless of their demeanor? I'm genuinely asking. And I'm not really upset, but when someone posts something entirely unhelpful, then I'm gonna respond back. 

A good example of why my response to you is what it is, is another comment starting out the same as yours, except they went on to offer advice.

Your comment comes off as someone just trying to make another person feel bad. Maybe that's not how you meant it, but it's the tone I got."
LifeProTips,"That's a good question, and I wasnt expecting it lol thanks for asking.

Singing is something I've always loved. Dreamed of being in a metal band since I was a kid haha
Music in general has always been awesome to me. Never well off enough to buy instruments to learn though. Other than that... Gaming, stupid YouTube videos lol and trying to get into politics / current events lately.

How about you?"
LifeProTips,"So do I! Haha. I felt like what I offered wasn’t the most helpful, but it’s good for us to talk about this stuff with others, regardless of if we can achieve a concrete answer to our dilemmas. Because I think it’s good to realize we aren’t alone in this. And it’s good to talk over everything in teams/groups, to try to work through challenges. 

I guess the best thing for me has been finding groups of socially-adept people, who will be kind and welcoming, to spend time with. Immersion, basically. Not even people that relate to my social challenges, but people who are compassionate, patient, welcoming; who also have highly-developed social abilities. So I can learn through mirroring, and absorbing their demeanor as my new internalized “base-level” expectation of functionality. 

Also patience and positivity with yourself, and thereby trying not to be in denial. Accepting the reality of your challenging situations, but also taking a perspective on everything that’s pro-learning.. don’t chastise yourself over being behind or still needing to learn. Congratulate yourself for trying.

Those things help me tremendously, but my main struggles (for some time) have been anxiety which keeps me from going out and trying to learn; and depression which causes me to judge myself harshly... so they combine into a vicious cycle. And frankly, I think meditation and a healthy lifestyle (healthy diet and exercise, sleep patterns, etc) are also essential prerequisites for success in any of these endeavors. 

I guess I got a little carried-away here. Just sharing what little I’ve learned that might actually help someone else. 

For what it’s worth, I think meditation is the biggest helper here. It facilitates all the rest.  But in my own experience, it’s difficult to feel able to do it when I’m anxious and depressed as a general rule. Now, that’s funny because it’s actually the solution... so it’s like people saying they could never do yoga because they’re not flexible, while yoga is the very thing to develop that flexibility. 

So, I guess in that case, maybe try mindfulness exercises and not strictly seated meditation. There are guided exercises on apps, YouTube videos, in books, etc. But I have thus far continued to live with all of my maladaptive coping mechanisms, and usually allow them to dictate my lifestyle. It’s not ideal. So try not to get stuck doing THAT for too long. But don’t beat yourself up for having more to learn, either. 

Hope that’s all a worthwhile read for someone out there."
LifeProTips,"Or you gain the (multiple in my case) unwanted friend that literally talks about nothing but themselves at that point, with no interest in a single thing you have to say. It’s not necessarily their fault, but it’s exhausting devoting yourself to completely one-sided relationship. 


I’ve had to learn the hard way that I need to set firm boundaries, and that ultimately I don’t owe anyone my time - I give it out of concern and kindness, but people have a funny way of feeling entitled to things. "
LifeProTips,"That was a worthwhile read for me. Anxiety and depression get the best of me quite often too. And just like you say, meditation is great, but it's hard to do, cause my mind never really wants to shut down. 

I think one thing I'm gonna try here soon is doing my daily stuff without music, or browsing reddit. I'm always needing distractions, like needing music while just walking around town. I think I'm scared to be in my own head a lot of the time.

I really like a lot of your advice, and I'm gonna implement some of it when I move back to my hometown. I made the mistake of moving far away from there for a girl last year lol as weird as it is to say, I don't want any social circle here, because I don't want to have to leave that behind.

This reply was wayyy late lol but I appreciate you taking the time to write all that out. Other people's opinions and how they view things is always interesting to me."
LifeProTips,"I've heard stories where neighbours call to have someone's car towed for it being simply parked on the street (where it is legal to park) in front of their house. Or property managers calling tow trucks on people they just don't like. Or, I just saw this video of this tow truck in Detroit that tows anyone in the McDonald's parking lot. The company runs some scheme with the owner of the store where the owner would have anyone's car towed if it's been there for more than 10 minutes. "
LifeProTips,"People that haven't worked out since high school, absolutely.  I found out how out of shape I was recently, and it was downright pathetic.  Three minutes on an elliptical made any sitting /standing/lying down excruciating for three days.  I'm pretty sure if I tried to do push ups, I'd maybe get 1.  That's not a typo, I did say one.  That being said, I'm starting personal training in a week to start fixing my situation. "
LifeProTips,"With all due respect internet friend, your comment and mine aren’t even remotely related. We live a world where we are more connected than we ever have been. We have more information at our finger tips than ever before. We have access to an almost infinite amount of free information that literally tells us how to be healthy and live healthy, using workouts that don’t involve paying for a gym membership. Eating healthy is not cheap, but exercise is free. There is no rational excuse for not exercising other than simply not wanting to. 25 push ups a day can add years to your life. Do 100 push ups, 10 at a time, throughout the day. Become a better you. Choosing not to is okay, but just realize that you’re only doing yourself and those you love a disservice when you die young when you didn’t have to. "
LifeProTips,"With all due respect internet friend, your comment and mine aren’t even remotely related. We live a world where we are more connected than we ever have been. We have more information at our finger tips than ever before. We have access to an almost infinite amount of free information that literally tells us how to be healthy and live healthy, using workouts that don’t involve paying for a gym membership. Eating healthy is not cheap, but exercise is free. There is no rational excuse for not exercising other than simply not wanting to. 25 push ups a day can add years to your life. Do 100 push ups, 10 at a time, throughout the day. Become a better you. Choosing not to is okay, but just realize that you’re only doing yourself and those you love a disservice when you die young when you didn’t have to."
LifeProTips,"When I was in the Marines my buddies and I had a stupid work out game for COD MW2 that we each got a life on multiplayer and while one played the other two had to do a workout, the person with the controller called out what the workout would be. It was never anything crazy due to the size of out bricks room but it helped add a few pullups to my PFT score...thanks door frame pull up bar.also made staying alive very a much more stressful endeavor especially if you called out something shitty like Smurf Jack's "
LifeProTips,Best dog I ever had was one of two left from a litter that was born and lived under a foot bridge in a tent camp for summer cannery workers. I pulled them both out and kept the one that was chill and didn’t squirm and cry. Mud flap was one of the blessings of my life and we had 14 years together. Most of his ashes are in a hollow tree in my yard. The rest are in the Stono river where we spent good times together catching fish and barking at floats for crab traps.
LifeProTips,"In that situation I wouldn't have been able to not take both puppers. Two left in the litter, take one and leave the last sibling alone with absolutely no family and still waiting for someone to pick
them? After he/she has had to sit there while their brothers and sisters were taken away one by one? Sitting in a tent village below a bridge?

Yeah, no, both are coming with me.

Edit: Autocorrect, you really made me look like a fool their."
LifeProTips,"Raising puppies together is actually not recommended. They can develop littermate syndrome, where they bond to each other more than their humans, and be very difficult to train and have together as they get older. This can also turn into aggression towards each other. The best way to prevent it is to raise them nearly completely separate from each other - separate walks, separate vet visits, separate playtime, separate mealtime, sleep in different rooms, etc. It's a LOT of work.   


Littermate syndrome doesn't automatically happen and some (maybe most? not sure on #s) littermates are fine together, but since you can't know until it's too late, it's best to actively try to prevent it. "
LifeProTips,"Ironically I considered myself very liberal up until a year or so ago. I still identify politically as a liberal if I'm asked because I'm far off from a conservative, but everyone has just gone so far into their rabbit holes this political season I don't want to identify with either parties so I avoid the question entirely unless it's someone I know.

I'll just say ""I'm a person"" if a stranger asks me because I know that no matter what I say it's a 50/50 chance I'm in for some really unnecessary presumptions. 

""Liberal"" ""Ahh so you support murderous thieves?""

""Conservative"" ""Ah so you are racist?""

""Moderate"" ""Ah, so you're a virgin?"" 

There's really no winning. "
LifeProTips,"The anger stems from having to argue againt intellectual dishonesty and lack of self awareness. It's frustration at repeatedly seeing a meme control the thoughts of so many over verifiable evidence to the contrary. Eventually you stop trying to convince them that what they've convinced themselves is a verifiable truth actually isn't, so you just make a snarky comment and move on

Being frustrated that a common tactic on the other side essentially shuts down conversation isn't offense, no one is insulted, my principles aren't being violated, it's just frustrating and anyone is free to call it out.

You can look at just the words put forth, or you can consider the full context, they will lead to different responses, neither of them is someone being offended"
LifeProTips,"Yeah I feel like this is bad advice. Kids need to learn that doing basic chores isn't something that should be rewarded with money. It's a healthy habit that should be taught from a young age so they can have a better quality of life in the future and be responsible and respectful. Giving them money is only gonna make them entitled. That's why so many teenagers leave the McDonald's tray on the table ""because the workers are paid to pick them up"" and others wouldn't even think of leaving the table like that and probably even take other costumers' trays. 

"
LifeProTips,"Your original argument was that kids shouldn't be rewarded for doing chores because it's ""basic shit"". Someone asked you why you have a job (and I expanded) since that's getting rewarded for ""basic shit"". Chores are just small tasks, what I would call ""basic shit"". Jobs are also made up of many tasks, do while they may be more complex and require more expertise, they're just ""basic shit"" at the core.

So it sounds like you have some distinction here I'm not really getting between a task and basic shit. 

Merging the thread:
> Your edit is wrong. Doing chores is not a ""job"", it's a baseline level of operating. You're screwing your kids by teaching them that everything they do will result in external rewards, so they don't associate doing chores with doing work just for themselves.

So it sounds like you want kids to learn about the intrinsic benefit of doing work without necessarily seeing a reward. That's a good message, but it doesn't necessarily have to be taught through chores/without paying for chores. The message of value your work enough to be paid for it is also a good one to teach your kids. I'm not a parent, but I think it's up to then to choose when and how they teach lessons like that. There's not a ""wrong"" lesson here."
LifeProTips,"> Chores are just small tasks

Wrong.  Chores are not ""just small tasks"" they're specifically small tasks that have no purpose beyond *personal* life maintenance, nothing like what goes on at a job.  Your whole argument is completely undercut by this false assumption.

> So it sounds like you have some distinction here I'm not really getting between a task and basic shit.

Yes, but only because I'm not being intellectually dishonest in this conversation and carry the shared understanding of what a chore is, along with the rest of the population of speakers of English.

> So it sounds like you want kids to learn about the intrinsic benefit of doing work without necessarily seeing a reward. That's a good message, but it doesn't necessarily have to be taught through chores/without paying for chores. 

No one said it necessarily had to do anything, what was said was that paying for chores teaches children to expect external rewards for work that has no external value.  It's a lie, and it is *absolutely* wrong.  Anyone who does this with their kids actively contributes to harming their children."
LifeProTips,"I was trying to say I don't have a clue. Today I gave her a tick for tidying her room without being asked, then a tick for out of no where getting herself and her younger brother a drink instead of asking us. She showed initiative and selflessness (she's 7). This resulted in her younger brother being upset she was being rewarded, asking what can he do to get a tick.
"
LifeProTips,"I do put items back when I see them around the store. (I also straighten shelves and pull products to the front when they’re hard to reach or see for others who may be looking for them.)

Unless it’s a perishable item. Then I bring it to the checkout and give it to the cashier (or a worker if I see one before o get to the checkout) because they’re not supposed to put perishables back if they’ve been left out of the cold areas.  

I’ve purchased milk that when I got it home was spoiled. I don’t want anyone else to deal with that problem. 

I also often grab the stray crap people leave around the check out areas as I’m waiting in line, and give to cashier so it can get restocked or handled. 

"
LifeProTips,"As someone that works in a supermarket, I hate people like you with a passion. There’s nothing worse than when you’re about to clock out for the night, and someone notices a whole bunch of random shit that needs to be put back in the right place. Either don’t take them, leave them with the cashier so they know about them, or just go and put them back.

**ESPECIALLY IF YOU GOT THE ITEM FROM THE FRIDGE. IF YOU DONT PUT IT BACK IN THE FRIDGE IT WILL HAVE TO BE THROWN AWAY.**"
LifeProTips,"Absolutely. Flood water typically has a current to it already and is not necessarily stationary. You slip in to a manhole cover it is already designed to go down 3-6 feet without flood waters. You are now under infected water (that you likely just swallowed in shock) and in a confined space 3-6 feet below where you were. Disoriented and being sloshed around or potentially hit things floating underwater with the current. 

Panic begets panic and now you have inhaled more water because you never got a good intake of air when you fell in suddenly.

And now you have drowned."
LifeProTips,"Here's another  mental math trick that comes in handy every once in a while.  

If you are multiplying 2 numbers that are the same distance from a number that is easy to square, square the easy number, then subtract the square of the distance to the original numbers.

Ex: 27 times 33.  27 and 33 are both 3 away from 30.  So we square 30 and subtract 3 squared.  900 - 9 = 891.

This is the difference of squares x^2 - y^2 = (x - y)(x + y)

85 * 75 = 80^2 - 5^2 = 6375

91 * 89 = 90^2 - 1^2 = 8099

#AMAZING"
LifeProTips,"Why do you assume everyone is going to say nice stuff about someone nasty?  The fact that you, the magnanimous soul you are, don't descent to their level of petty insults doesn't suddenly give their insults weight.  If they make specific claims you can naturally deny them, but to sully your name in such petty conflict should at least appear to be below you.

People don't go around saying: 'Oh they were so surprised that were insulted and since they failed to insult mr not nice back, it must be true'?"
LifeProTips,"No no, I wouldn't be saying that in this situation- *you're* supposed to come to the conclusion that he's a bitter conniving gosspiy queen upon hearing *me* say he's a nice guy.

The whole point of the post is not to insult someone, why would someone say he's nice, then when asked why - immediately call him that? lol

​

It's easy to be a gossip and still well-liked. Just don't say anything bad about the person you're talking to. So if no one has anything bad to say about him - that certainly doesn't mean anything he's saying has any truth to it."
LifeProTips,"I hope everyone’s taking notes, because this person is putting on a bloody masterclass.  [This is Putin quality. ](https://youtu.be/-E1gJMukGA8) 

Edit:  For context, these guys are joking about a fake cologne company called ""Andy by Hamish.""  Andy is the black-haired guy, and he signed a blind contract (didn't know what it entailed) given to him by Hamish, the guy in the blue and white shirt.  Jack is, well....a third wheel to all of their shenanigans."
LifeProTips,"That is completely acceptable but when I was younger I worked at a few restaurants and when people camped at your tables it was the worst.

The only thing worse than a camper that's reading is when a group of people after paying the bill hang out at your table for another two and a half hours. They might not realize this but we aren't allowed to leave until you physically leave that table and if we are actually still working then you possibly just cost that server 30 to $50. "
LifeProTips,"Considering there’s a difference between taking the high road (not insulting them back) and being outright hypocritical (complimenting them back), I wouldn’t say this LPT is common sense. *Everyone* knows that *no one* likes hearing rumors about themselves, if you respond by complimenting the person who insulted you, everyone know’s you’re lying. 

Instead, say something mature and accepting, maybe something like acting surprised and saying “That’s a shame that he/she thinks that”, or even just an “Okay, good to know”. Basically, yes, don’t insult them back, that’s 100% a great LPT. But here’s where this LPT fails: don’t act like you’re oh so happy and okay to hear it to the point where you compliment the other person either cause you’ll look pathetic and insincere. The integrity lies in your sincere refrain to criticize the other person, but also your *sincere* response. Complementing the other person is not sincere.

This LPT is the adult equivalent to the “Zero tolerance policy” in schools. No, you don’t just simply take hits in the face and “turn the other cheek”. 

That zero tolerance bs wasn’t even the true meaning of the passage in the bible when it was written (which was its origin). When the bible talks about Jesus “turning the other cheek” it talks about demanding respect from the people who wrong you. Back in those days, you could only use your right hand to slap a person (left hand = devil) anyways, you would also slap a person with the back of your hand as a sign of disrespect and authority over them. When Jesus “turns the other cheek” it is demanding the person to slap you with the palm of their hand, something that signifies that you are now at their level of authority. 

I’m not even religious nor mean to bring religion into this conversation, but I’ve done religious studies and I always find it interesting how my school’s bullying policy was “Turn the other cheek” when the fucking point of the original passage where that saying came from wasn’t even “don’t stand up for yourself”, it was more like “demand the fucking respect you deserve”. I suffered a lot because of that “turn the other cheek” bs, since I was never able to stand up to my bullies and one of my teachers went as far as forcing us into a group project together so we could “become friends.” My mom threatened to sue the school after that and that teacher dropped her cute group project = friendship bullshit. These girls had no intention on leaving me alone. "
LifeProTips,">During his stay at “Les Délices,” in Geneva, Voltaire was visited by the Italian Casanova, who said, in answer to his host’s praise of Haller, that the Bernese savant did not return the compliment by speaking well of Voltaire. “Perhaps we were both mistaken,” was the simple reply (Peut-être nous nous trompons tous les deux).
  
>Theano, the priestess of Delphi, told Timæonides, who had often reviled her, that, notwithstanding his unkindness, she always spoke well of him, but had the luck still to find that her panegyric had the same fate with his satire,—to be equally discredited.—STERNE: Koran. Prior derived an epigram from this:—
        	
>“You always speak ill of me,

>I always speak well of thee;

>But, spite of all our noise and pother,

>The world believes not one nor t’other.”
"
LifeProTips,"Mostly unnecessarily but contact clues do help in the first paragraph. The people of the time would know those titles and who was being referred to. Imagine telling someone from that era:

""Elon Musk was surprised to hear from Bill Gates that Hitler didn't speak well of him. The Tesla magnate said...""

They'd be confused as fuck because they don't know what Tesla is it is relationship to the conversation. But if you went on to say: 

""Elon Musk was surprised to hear from Bill Gates that Hitler didn't speak well of him, even though he spoke highly of the others' oratory. The Tesla magnate conceded that perhaps they were both wrong."" 

Here you can infer the Tesla magnate is the same individual who was surprised in the beginning.  I'm on mobile so spiralling an example, hope I didn't add to the confusion."
LifeProTips,"I don't know, admittedly I only know who Voltaire is, and not very well. I know was a very important theologian and philosopher.

But the point is you don't need to understand these cultural references to get the point of the passage.

Could easily be read as ""Bob was visited by Steve. Steve told Bob that while Bob had praised Jerry, Jerry had criticized Bob. Bob replied ""maybe we are both mistaken"".

Edited because I'm stupid. "
LifeProTips,"Let my try it another way. Here is how I read it:

> During his stay at “Les Délices,” in Geneva, 

Homes/Manors/estates often had names; the above boils down to *""While in Geneva""*

> Voltaire was visited by the Italian Casanova, 

*""Dude 1 visits Voltaire""*

> who said, in answer to his host’s praise of Haller, 

*Voltaire: «says nice things about Haller» (some guy)  
Dude 1: Um...*

> that the Bernese savant did not return the compliment by speaking well of Voltaire. 

*Dude 1: Funny you should say those nice things about Haller. He was shit talking you. Jus sayin.

> Perhaps we were both mistaken,” was the simple reply (Peut-être nous nous trompons tous les deux).

*Voltaire: ~~scratch that, he a bitch~~ I mean, maybe we were both wrong. (Haller was wrong in his shitty opinion of Voltaire and Voltaire was wrong about his good opinion of bitchboi Haller.)*"
LifeProTips,"As a work boot salesperson...the first few days, if it hurts, that is normal. It's just like breaking in a new pair of shoes. Take them out if it gets too bad, put the original footbeds back in and let your feet rest for a couple hours. Then put the orthotics back in. Your feet need to adjust because they're not used to it.

Now, if they keep hurting, you need to find a different pair that supports your feet better. Everyone's feet is unique to them. No two pairs of feet are alike, so you need to find what orthotic works for you. Rigid orthotics are the way to go. Not that Dr. Scholls shit.

Also, your shoe size should be measured by the size of your arch (heel-to-ball), NOT your foot (heel-to-toe) length. On average, I've found the arch length to be about one size to a size-and-a-half longer than the foot length, but that's not always true. Clarification: If you're getting your shoe size from your foot length, you need to account for toe room by going up one size from your foot length. Example: if your foot length is a US10, you need a size US11 for toe room. But, ALWAYS use your arch length, NOT your shoe size or foot length, when getting fit for arches.

And, save that $400 and go try the $30-60 orthotics at a specialty work boot store. Try those out before shelling out the money to the podiatrist. Those custom orthotics the doctor makes don't always work.

Hope this helps 😊

EDIT: Clarification"
LifeProTips,"Dr scholls has a ""custom"" line for around $100 (they are still squish), and a podiatrist will charge way more for professional ones. So I think $50 is pretty reasonable. Its a good product. Mine last me years and and make a noticeable difference. I initially bought them for my plantar fasciitis that came from running. Now I mostly use them in my work shoes. Of course I'm still sore after being on my feet for a 7 hour shift but not as sore as I am without them! Buy from somewhere with a good return policy if you are interested but skeptical. "
LifeProTips,"You seem particularly hung up on this idea that EVERYONE is out to get you. Why? They're not. I've literally never felt that way in my entire life. Sure, some times you encounter a string of assholes in a row. But never do I think ""okay, why is everyone out to get me?"" It's more like, ""wtf what's wrong with SOME people."" 

I get your point, but it just sounds like you may be overreaching a bit, and it could lead you to constantly reevaluate your mindset--which is exhausting and unnecessary imo. Just because you encounter 7 assholes in a row doesn't mean the 8th person won't be an angel. And just because you're having a great streak of luck with people doesn't mean an asshole hammer isn't coming to smash your butthole.

Frankly, if you're overly worried that other people are too preoccupied with you, it may be because you're too preoccupied with other people."
LifeProTips,"That person misrepresented the idea.  It is that we are responsible for how we choose to *react*.  If someone yells at me, yea I definitely am reacting to that with negative emotions. But, what I decide to do with that emotion is on me.  Just like the stabbing case, the robber totally is to blame for your pain, but, you are responsible for how you react to said event.  (In this case, sue their fucking ass).

Hope that clears it up"
LifeProTips,"I think there os a difference in pizza culture in US. White pies ar basically unheard of outside of more artisan style places. It hard to find a decent Margharita, even then you will likely get red sauce.

I think here pizza is more of a fast food. Cheesy, oily, cheap, and ready to go in 5 mins. So slices fit the market better

That being said, there is lots of diversity here."
LifeProTips,"Yes. 

I spent 20-odd years in the pizza business. Ordering your pizza uncut allows you to get around the cut person's refusal to allow the pie to stage for one minute before cutting it (which allows all the oils, etc, to stabilize thus preventing the soggy product). It also allows you to avoid the ""marked but uncut"" issue caused by lazy/weak cut persons, the ""speed demon"" cut person, dull utensils, etc. "
LifeProTips,"Having worked 7 years in 6 different pizza places, I can tell you that you are getting chances on the amount of each topping, because there's no way in hell 8 toppings will cook properly if the appropriate amount was given. Your ""double bacon"" is less than a single scoop of bacon that is typically put on.  You're better off going with the sandwich idea if you want it that loaded with toppings"
LifeProTips,"Get rid of it and get a rocker-style pizza cutter. Maintain it (cleaning, sharpening) just as you do your other kitchen knives.

Get a pizza stone too, and put it in the oven to warm up when you order the pizza. When it arrives, put a handtowel on the counter and place the hot stone on it. Open the pizza box on the stone and knock out the front wall of the box. Slice the pie however you want it, then block the pizza with the cutter and slide the box out from under it, leaving the pie on the hot stone. Toss the box and serve the pizza off the stone like a boss. Your date/s.o./friends/in-laws will love it.

Unless you're eating the pizza alone of course. Then just put the box on a TV tray next to the toilet and set your sixpack in the sink. Dump two or three trays of ice in the sink too, to make it *classy*."
LifeProTips,"I worked for a pizza place for a couple of years and missed the hell out my rocker when I started having to make my own pies at home.

Don't buy one of those single-piece of stainless steel rockers where the handle is folded, like this:

http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/1/4/7/8/9/6/7/webimg/431983583_o.jpg

 They are cheap and really flexible and not so great. Spend the bucks and get a real one of solid metal. Kind of like this:

http://kitchenpipeline.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Mezzaluna-Knife-Pizza-Cutter-Vegetable-Chopper-for-Chopped-Salad-Industrial-Pizza-Rocker-Knife-with-Wood-Display-Stand-14-Inch-Blade.jpg

"
LifeProTips,"But never identical product/skus. You can’t buy single 20oz in the drink aisle, and buying 6 at a time will naturally be cheaper. 

Same with M&Ms, a small bag is more $/oz than say a king size bag, which is more than a large bag you would usually buy for baking. But yes if you are committed to using a large bag of M&Ms then buy one large bag and not six small bags. "
LifeProTips,"> The food delivery services require a contract because they charge extra for the food and have a payment system where the money goes through them and then to an account listed for the restaurant.

I'm sorry, there is not always a requirement for a contract to exist. If you'd ever worked in either industry you'd know this.

> If your owner is saying he didn't do a contract with them he is either lying or not really the person in charge.

I'm sorry, you really do not seem to know what you're talking about.

I've worked both sides of the equation, at a restaurant that delivers and as an employee of one of these services. The service I worked for did require a contract, but not all of these services require contracts with the restaurant. There can be a contract, but there does not need to be one.

Door Dash (just as an example) does not need a contract with the restaurant. The order is placed as a carry out, then the Door Dash contractor arrives, pays for the order (with the Credit card provided by Door Dash) and simply leaves with the order. I've seen this done at an establishment I worked at, where I was a delivery driver.

When I saw a Door Dash contractor enter our establishment, I was a bit angry and confronted my manager and spoke to the Door Dash contractor (spoke to, seeking the information I've just now conveyed to you).

Some of the services probably/might require contracts with the restaurant, but that is because the delivery services are providing the online presence; i.e. Bitesquad.

I have no experience with Grub-Hub, Uber Eats, Caviaror any other delivery services; but if they are not providing the online presence or other added value and are just picking up orders, there really should not be a reason they would be required to have a contract with the restaurant. They may want to have a contract, but that does not mean they are required."
LifeProTips,"Thanks k you for your input. And I know about the red card system where the driver pays for the food upon arrival with the company card. However a contract is still required with the merchant. Perhaps your confusion is thinking it's this large formal stack of papers? 

A simple trip to any of these websites will tell you are speaking purely anicdotal. None of the restaurants in any of these programs is on their without their o knowledge or without agreeing to programs that require concessions. I'll use DoorDash. Their own program states that a restaurant is required to make menu updates, is required to be responsible for refunds as dictated and granted to the customer by DoorDash, and must agree to all terms to participate as well as give 7 days notice to end their partnership. That's a contract. Business don't simply interact without consent from each other 

*Edit* - figured I'd add this for you. This is the restaurant affiliate sign up form so they can reach out to you, verify you're the owner, make sure you understand you're requirements, offer you the order manager if you want it, and also setup the account they will bill you from for refunds. Just so you can see it's not them just sending people to the restaurant without their consent. Their is a contract between the businesses.

https://www.doordash.com/merchant/apply/"
LifeProTips,For my daughters I usually ask a normal toned question that’s just like “You Ok?” With a little smile. And most of the time they are fine. I don’t like to say “You’re OK!” cause sometimes they aren’t. I think your demeanor is what is most important and how you respond to something like that is important. I don’t want my daughters growing up to feel I’m insensitive to them .
LifeProTips,"I see this LPT ALL THE TIME and honestly I tried it and it doesn't work. At least not for my kid. My kid goes ""no actually I really hurts"".

In retrospect I was gaslighting him by telling him he wasn't feeling the things he was actually feeling. Now he makes a big fuss even for really minor things and I feel like it really backfired because he feels like he needs to make a big fuss for me to acknowledge him at all. "
LifeProTips,"This is what bothers me about this LPT.  Don't tell your child how they feel.  The OP is right that you can influence how a child feels after falling.  You can even teach them to brush off little falls.  But don't tell them how they feel.

I just say ""boom!  That was a big one!  Hop back up!"" In an encouraging tone.  If they're not hurt, it distracts them from the shock of the fall.  If they are hurt, they let me know by crying anyway.  Either way, they get you decide how they feel."
LifeProTips,"This seems like an important information to the people who applause the falls.

Sometimes reacting appropriately instead of made up non-concern is a better idea.
Let the kid be upset for a bit. Sometimes they aren’t hurt but they got scared of the fall and there is nothing wrong with being able to express it and get comforted. They do move on quickly and without hassle to the parent either way. But in one case they see an appropriate reaction to a fall and the other is... I don’t know not natural?

I’m not suggesting parents should make a big deal but it is ok to ask if they need a quick hug or if something hurts.
"
LifeProTips,"Every kid is different. What works on some kids doesn't work on others, especially if this type of thing doesn't fit in with your parenting style in general. We just would be there for hugs and sympathy. It definitely helps if YOU don't panic everytime they fall. They grow out of it, it is not that big a deal. And think of it this way, you're teaching your kids they can come to you for anything, small, imaginary or real."
LifeProTips,"failures in execution.

I always told my daughter ""That hurts, doesn't it? But you're okay. Do you want me to look at and be sure? See, no injury. Just a bump.""

Acknowledge that running full tilt into the coffee table does, in fact, hurt like a bitch. But you're not going to the hospital. You will be fine, and tears only take time to be dried and cleaned up before you get back to playing. Save them for when you're really injured, physically or emotionally."
LifeProTips,"It really depends. Favors should be roughly equal between friends. If you get discounts, you should do something in return beyond just ""being friends"".

Unless they're incredibly well off and don't have to care about you getting discounts, of course. Then it does not matter much. But ""you have a business, so I get discounts, I don't have a business, so you don't get discounts, thanks"" is not a good way of handling things at all."
LifeProTips,"They could be using that time for anything else - including for another customer. Their time is valued at $X per hour, and you’re asking then to spend it at X-20%.

That’s known as an opportunity cost, and it is absolutely a loss. They have given up their time for less than it is worth. 

If they told you to cut work to help them out, and you lost out on a day of wages in return for $20, would you not see that as a cash loss?"
LifeProTips,"When you're eating out and relatively young or poor, it's fine to split the check with your friends.  As you get older, it's customary for one person to foot the bill.  This is in no way required, but ff you are the most local friend (i.e., did not travel far to meet the other friend[s]), plan on paying for the meal.  They probably spent a fair amount of money travelling to meet you, it encourages them to visit you more often, and you can say, ""you can pay the next time I'm at your place!""  Making this assertion also helps avoid that awkward *who is going to pick up that check* look that happens at the end of the meal. "
LifeProTips,"True but that depends on way more factors than the degree itself. A bachelor's is so ""introductory"" to sciences that a BS will only land you graduate/professional school if you get involved, do research, and make connections. I don't really understand why anyone would major in biology to work right after school. That's not really how it works and I would expect someone who spent four years to get the degree to know about their future job prospects. "
LifeProTips,"I'm all for keeping your options open and not feeling like you *have* to go to college. But it kind of rubs me the wrong way when people shit on college like you shouldn't even bother with it. This post in particular isn't like it, but I see a decent number of people singing to the tune of ""Why waste money on college when you can learn a trade?"" I'm studying engineering, I like it and want to pursue it. There's no other options for me given this career choice, I have to go to college for it.  "
LifeProTips,"My son didn't know what he wanted to do, so we said get a degree in a wide field but nothing tech related since it's not his thing.  Nursing, Legal, Business are such wide bachelor's degrees that can allow you to work in a number of different capacities.  He chose nursing and took the chemistry class first semester to get it out of the way since he had just had chemistry in senior year.  Turns out he hated the nursing 101 class but loved the chem class, and chose to switch majors to biochem. he's in the end of his third year working in the library as the chemistry tutor and i'm betting that he'll be the SI for the nursing programs chemistry class next semester."
LifeProTips,"So true, it frustrates me endlessly to watch people half-ass there studies, make no effort to network or find a career, then complain.

This is especially true at the small liberal arts college I went to. I even tried to start a club to help people network and find careers. No one came.. 

The people who busted there asses are doing great, but that's like one in 10 maybe. Everyone else is back home or working jobs they could have got without degrees."
LifeProTips,"I feel like Womans Studies is one of those degrees that pairs well with other more generalized degrees to give a more focused resume. For example, a Business degree may net a new graduate a sales job at ""Big Company"", but the grad who double-majored in Business and Woman Studies is the perfect fit for ""Boy Company"" who is in the process of expanding their brand. And if by chance the second grad doesn't get that job, they still have the benefit of having two degrees and are still just as likely to get the sales job at ""Big Company""."
LifeProTips,"It frustrates me too. A lot of colleagues of mine decided to change their major when things got too intensive and science heavy (usually organic chemistry). But they seemed to put very little thought into how they would market themselves with that degree after actually receiving it. I felt like I went out of my way to really make things happen for me in undergrad and I still felt like I had accomplished nothing when it was time to start looking for jobs. But the goal was always professional school for me, so it's not like it was a surprise to me when I took my gap year. 

I had friends who majored in Mass communications but did so many internships during school that they all had jobs right after graduation. I don't know where people get the idea that if they just show up to classes and pass that they will get a job without doing anything else. These classes just give you the education to get involved in your field, determine if you like it, and use that experience to convince employers that you can be a valuable asset doing whatever. I was over the top obsessive about my job prospects during college though, so I may be a bit biased. "
LifeProTips,"I worked in a couple labs as an entry level chemist making 11 dollars an hour. I made more than that in highschool. 

I took a gap year though, and professional school was really always my plan so it's not like I was blind sided. I just don't really understand why people think that if they get a science degree then that's it. The farther I got into getting my BS, the more I realized that I didn't actually know shit about anything. Especially when I started doing research for my Organic Chemistry professor my last semester. I couldn't believe how basic undergraduate o chem seemed after being exposed to what the graduate students were doing. It was a humbling experience, but I enjoyed every second of it personally. "
LifeProTips,"I mean I personally wouldn't go to Reddit to find out if I could get a job in my field and others probably shouldn't either. I chose professional school over a PhD in chemistry because I spent years talking to graduate students, doing research on job availability and pay for chemists, etc. Ended up not seeming worth it in the end and wasn't the lifestyle I wanted after that much higher education. "
LifeProTips,"Yep!! As you mentioned, there are some very clear/evident glass ceiling that correlate to your level of degree, which is why I just got grad school over with (I can't recommend it, those 5 years of my life where filled with stress and despair). If you are still thinking about going back to school, mull over the idea of a complimentary masters (business or law would be my recommendations) instead of a PhD. A master's in the hard sciences is fine but doesn't do too much to significantly increase your paycheck or number of job opportunities."
LifeProTips,"Oh absolutely. I am actually enrolled in dental school right now. Dentistry caught my eye when my friends who were discussing it in undergrad. I looked into it and it seemed to encompass everything I loved about sciences and medicine but without the morbidity of general medicine. I found the surgeries to be really interesting as well. I wanted to be more certain that I could stablize myself financially when I finished school. Im loving it so far. I would have only really chose it if I liked it though. Once I shadowed, it really stuck with me.  "
LifeProTips,"While I absolutely think this is a good tip, trades aren't a replacement for college. They are vastly different careers with different drawbacks. My father is a mechanical contractor and makes about 10k more than me. He's in excellent condition for a 55 year old but can't do it for much longer. He has already had to cut back from 60 hours a week to 50.  I'm 24 and have unlimited time off. He pushed me not to do a trade and couldn't be happier that I didn't.

Edit: As a little more background, my father did 3.5 years of college as a math major but then dropped out to work full time. He credits his education as the reason that he has gotten as far as he has in his trade. $14/hr about 12 years ago to being considered as a partial owner. "
LifeProTips,"Preach. I can’t wait to see this LPT posted again when another recession hits and droves of welders/pipefitters/pipeliners, electricians, boilermakers, ironworkers/steelworkers, sheet metal workers, and carpenters are on the bench and starving because construction has ground to a halt. My parents, who were both union pipefitters suffered through those booms and busts. Dad retired after falling out of a piperack and injuring himself so badly that he was prematurely pronounced dead and Mom went back to school to be an engineer because she had no family life and was tired of being harassed. She also had to have back surgery in her 50’s because of her construction days. Too many of these people advocating for the trades only look at the money. Well there’s more to life than money. If we want people to join the trades, we need to give workers a better work/life balance, take a better look at safety, and repeal Taft-Hartley, yesterday. We also need to try and mitigate these ten year boom-bust cycles. "
LifeProTips,"Yep. As long as I get my work done I can take as much time off as I want. I'm salary, so I've had a few long weeks (60hrs) when we were busy but I've probably taken 6 weeks of vacation already this calendar year. However, at some companies they offer this to avoid paying PTO hours when an employee leaves, but won't actually allow their employees to take much time off. Luckily mine is not one of these."
LifeProTips,"I went to university for 5-6 years and didn't get a degree out of it before getting into the trades as an electrician. I absolutely love being an electrician and wish I started straight out of highschool but with that being said, I don't regret a single moment of post secondary education.

You get a lot more out of attending post secondary than just getting a piece of paper and knowledge in a specific major. I feel like attending post secondary helped me mature a lot as a person despite not graduating it."
LifeProTips,"Recessions are always the scariest parts of working in the trade. Honestly, no one is safe. There's pretty much no such thing as job security as a tradesman. The best you can hope for is to work for a legit and decent company that values its employees.

I worked for a good company for a while as an apprentice electrician in Alberta a year ago but the economy wasn't doing well and even though I feel like the company valued me as an honest and decent worker, I was still let go without prior notice. I didn't see it coming at all. I don't hold anything against them because they were honestly good people running the company, it's just the way of life in the trades."
LifeProTips,"I'm glad that you're doing something you enioy. I actually really love working with my hands and I'm lucky that my position let's me because most people in my field don't get that opportunity. I just want to make sure that we don't go ""anti-education"" with the whole trade push. Both are valuable and should co-exist peacefully. My knowledge of basic trade skills that I learned from my dad has helped me land a job twice now."
LifeProTips,"Oh I completely agree. I'm very thankful that I attended post secondary. This is just my opinion from my time in the trades, but most of my coworkers are the type of people I would say could have benefited with more liberal thinking which they might have gotten with more education. Many of the people I worked with were pretty ignorant and it was almost like a great divide from the type of mindset that they generally held compared to the mindset of those I encountered while in university.
"
LifeProTips,"That's what I think a lot of Reddit misses. There are lots of us that were ""forced"" to go to college. Not really forced. But, everybody in my immediate and extended family worked in jobs that were closer to trades than not. Some of them damn good jobs.

But it was always kind of a given that I was going to college. Very much ""I worked hard and dirty so you won't have to"" type of thing. When everybody around you is blue collar the college route is seen as a way out and a better way."
LifeProTips,"I was one of many people who was seduced by the promise of high-paying trades- which, as far as I can tell, is an absolute fiction, because none of the job offers I got were over $10/hr. Most stressful two years of my life, and if I had to rely on that shit for a living I probably would’ve drank myself to death by 30 or so.

These days, I’m a locksmith, and I’m making twice that to essentially sit in an air conditioned showroom and practice lockpicking for eight hours. Trades aren’t some magical guarantee for a good life. It’s grueling labor that will inevitably destroy your body, and the only way you’re going to be making those six-figure salaries is if you’re innately skilled AND practice rigorously. "
LifeProTips,"It was kind of weird in my family, because my dad had that mentality, but his extended family didn't. Now that I am making twice as much as my uncle (who did NOT get into a good trade) they are reconsidering their position. But its not for everyone. Both are really valid options, and I am glad that people are trying to prop up trades as a choice. We just have to make sure that we don't oversell either route or downplay the negatives."
LifeProTips,"I have unlimited time off. The policy is that you can take time off whenever you can do so without it causing problems. That time doesn't exist, so you end up having to arrange with multiple people to handle your things in your absence, and you are effectively on call during your vacation. It's like the dentist telling you to eat all the cheeseburgers you want the day after you get your wisdom teeth out: the number you want is zero."
LifeProTips,"I feel if you're a SKILLED laborer you can find work, the more you know the more you're worth, I might be biased but I think the modern world cant survive without electricians, not everyone is willing to get hit by 277 volts or even 120, I know the economy will take a shit again but if i have to take a pay cut from $50 an hour to $25 an hour I'd do it to survive. Best advice for tradesmans is LEARN, learn the proper terminolagy for your material, 80% is sound like you know what you're talking about, on the field learn and THINK about what you're doing."
LifeProTips,"glad to see complexity brought into the situation. the trades are a choice, certainly, but the upper middle class never encourage their kids to go into the trades. income mobility has never been lower in the US. or in other words, the rich have stayed richer and the poor, poorer. Typically, [welders make 40k/yr](https://www.bls.gov/ooh/production/welders-cutters-solderers-and-brazers.htm). That's below the [bachelor holder's average, which is about 56k/yr](https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2018/data-on-display/education-pays.htm).

hmmm fucking hmmmmmmmm. 

sure, if you're smart, dedicated, have a good head on your shoulders and love working with your hands, the trades actually aren't an unviable choice. but by the data, they are not the better choice if salary is all you care about. 

This is the equivalent of people saying that you can win against the casino. technically, yes. is it likely? no. if you say that it is, that's because you have a superbly weak grasp on statistics and/or are affected by particularly powerful anecdotes. the second point is a valid way of interpreting the world. but an evidence based method of determining the superiority of paths puts college ahead more often than not. "
LifeProTips,"I completely agree. Too often do I see people with the mentality of ""just get a trade; it's worth more than a college degree"". While trades aren't bad, I feel they are made out to seem much more lucrative than they really are. I had a few friends take this advice straight out of high school because it was the easy route, and now they work in fields that offer no room for growth, little promotion/benefits/security, or in the long will take a toll on their body. "
LifeProTips,"And in many cases it is worth going to college. As long as you go for something known to provide good jobs (STEM, medical, etc(?)). If you go to something not known to make money (humanities, history, ""gender studies"") then you have to realize your options may not be that great.

I got a STEM degree and my first job out of college started me at $30/hr. Compared to the trades mentioned that start at ~$15/hr."
LifeProTips,"This whole 'do a trade' thing is so Reddit it hurts. It's written by people who arent tradies and it's upvoted by people who have no interest in becoming tradies.

These kids see the figures for experts and think what the hell am I going to college for. Does my head in. You can work your way up in many office fields without requiring a degree but they are always conveniently overlooked.

It's either get a STEM degree or do a trade. There is no middle ground on Reddit."
LifeProTips,"I work for a small-ish cloud computing platform company, and this is definitely the truth. We're a distributed (all remote) company, so there isn't even any internal network or WiFi to manage, but our two internal IT guys are constantly busy with soooooo much other stuff than babysitting employees. We've been hiring a few people a week, and half their week ends up being getting everyone set up in our systems (which is why we just hiring a new IT automation engineer)."
LifeProTips,"At a large company, how easy would it be to tell who’s device is doing what? Is it even feasibly possible if there were 50+ employees? ***EDIT: I am asking this question assuming that it is my personal device which is not named after me. In other words, how do they know that MY phone is accessing reddit opposed to my 50 coworkers?***

Do companies ever ask you for logs of what is being accessed through their WiFi? Or how else would they find out if an employee was using the WiFi improperly?

Have you ever seen someone doing messed up stuff on company WiFi/internet and looked the other way? After all - aren’t you the gatekeeper/if you don’t report it there’s no other way that management could find out?

Asking for a friend. "
LifeProTips,"They don't need you to hand over anything and the size of the company does not matter. If you are on their WiFi, they see everything. The exception to this is a VPN. Assuming no VPN, most networks will auto flag suspicious activity for human review. Meaning, if you have 10k employees it won't matter because the network will flag you and a person will review your logs/access records. Anything done on any network has the ability to be tracked and accounted for because you're not doing it on your phone, you're doing it on their network. "
LifeProTips,"Not true. This is the end users choice, if the user wants to use your WAP(via personal device) and hide their activity they can(which I know you are aware of). 

For anyone that does not know, you can connect to a VPN server while on wifi and all traffic is encrypted by your device before it is sent through the network. This means when you go to facebook.com, all this guy will see is encrypted jumbled up random data going to your VPN server(not facebook). This will (for the most part) let you access services and sites that the network admin may have restricted as well because your VPN is not pornhub, it's your VPN lol.

Of course the admin can just block access to the VPN ... if he does that I reccomend tire slashing and water boarding.
"
LifeProTips,"If you use your phone to log into any company system it is likely that they tie the device ID to your AD login e.g. emails, Skype/Lync, Oracle etc 

If it is purely your personal phone then yeah, they wouldn’t be able to tell. If they were super anal they could check to see when the device first registered and tie that to the first day you were in the office but I don’t know a sys admin bothered enough "
LifeProTips,"all MAC addresses for the devices that are being routed traffic would show in the router's ARP table so it knows who gets what data. so if you have connected to one of your company's Wireless Access Points and have attempted to connect to the network, they have your MAC address, but may not be able to prove it's you without additional evidence like a video camera that would show what time you arrived on campus and what time the device started it's connection to match it up with."
LifeProTips,"Software on the device itself can identify you with ease, and automatically send logs to them if programmed to do so. Company property will probably have such software installed by IT, so always assume 100% of whats done on a company phone or computer is recorded with your name on it.

As for Private devices, its a bit more secure, but if you use Company Internet, you probably have to sign in some how, which means you had them your name with every internet request. If not, your lucky, but there are still ways of tracking you, such as the devices unique MAC address, which offers some ways of indirectly identifying all traffic that goes through it, and if they can link that MAC address to your device, they can know its you.

There are ways around most of this, but it gets pretty complicated. and more advanced tracking techniques can get around even that. Even VPN may be unsafe if the company sets up a Man in the Middle attack for all traffic on their Internet. its just better to assume everything on company property is recorded and linked back to you, and anything on their internet probably is too."
LifeProTips,"That’s true when it’s site encryption (https), but the post you’re replying to is taking about using a proxy/VPN. In that case all traffic is going to the proxy/VPN server so they see a shitload of encrypted traffic going to one site. Disclaimer: this is a super simplified explanation and is dependent on the type of connection to your VPN, level of encryption, and precisely which traffic is routed through it."
LifeProTips,"To address your edit....yeah we can generally figure it out. The larger the organization, the less we’ll be able to use the process of elimination to figure out who you are though. 

The easy way is to look at the Wireless Access Point that you’re using and go from there. Most gateway software will log device types, so you can eliminate everyone without that device, etc, etc. 

Generally though we don’t give a flying fuck unless you’re using company property (and even then we don’t care unless management is throwing a fit about it). We’re probably wasting time more than you. The one thing we will ding you for is if you start using a fuck ton of data, but even then we’ll just kick you off the network. "
LifeProTips,"I am not the person you are talking to, and I get your point, but there are a lot of variables. If there is a mobile device management MDM or mobile application management MAM software installed on your personal device, they could easily find your MAC address.

If you do not have MDM or MAM, and you are just joining the company WiFi, then there should be some type of authentication which should be trackable, but again that is dependent on the company setting up corporate wifi correctly.

Now if you are just adding your personal phone with no MDM on the guest wifi it gets a lot harder, and is probably not worth the effort for the network side "
LifeProTips,"After they announced they were banning phones from the wifi, because our wireless was already overloaded and slow, I just changed my iPhone’s name to the exact same syntax as my HP laptop’s name, except used the name of the remote guy who rarely comes in. 

My iPhone didn’t get noticed and banned for 2 more months. 

I needed it because I wanted to stream music all day, cell reception was shit, and the headphone audio quality coming from my expensive HP laptop was terrible no matter how much I fucked with the audio settings and drivers.

Seriously like a $2500 HP laptop with a $0.10 DAC. Some real bottom of the barrel shit. I’m not an audiophile or anything, it just sounded terrible. 

Anyways a small USB DAC was the next step and final solution. "
LifeProTips,"If we’re talking about a VPN or a secure connection to a proxy then it’s in the encrypted packet, sure. They would have to capture it on your machine (assuming that’s where you’ve set up the VPN. Which is likely given that we’re talking about a work network) or at the VPN server to see into without breaking the encryption. There’s practically zero chance they have any clout to run anything on the VPN provider’s end so that leaves your machine. If it’s a personal device, then they would have to get administrative/root access to it at some point to install some kind of tracking/sniffing software without your knowledge. A move that’s illegal in most places. If it’s a work device, then it’s already been covered in this thread, they can do what they want and would have little trouble seeing your traffic.

There’s little chance they’re breaking the encryption. It’s trivial these days to use very complex encryption and breaking it would most certainly require WAY more resources than is even reasonable. Especially if we’re considering all of the encrypted traffic that goes over their network. Much easier to just block all known VPN servers."
LifeProTips,"No, the device name is mostly for the amusement of the IT administrator. If they need to actually use the data for a valid purpose (I. E. correct an employee who is using the company IT infrastructure for illegal purposes) the device name is simply not enough. In addition to the device name, the MAC address and IP address of said phone is likely logged. This let's the IT administrator track the traffic back to the actual phone in use and not someone pretending to use someone else's phone. However, that method is not bullet proof either as both IP addresses and MAC addresses can be spoofed (e. g. pretending to be someone else) "
LifeProTips,"Unless, of course, you've ever accessed something related to your specific work on that device, logged in to an email or have an account synced... or visit websites with profiles that could be used to identify you or any number of other things. 

If the IT had a task to figure out who's what on the network, they would figure it out. There's many ways, some more obvious than others. 

If you want to browse privately at work, use a personal mobile internet connection. Boom. Impervious. "
LifeProTips,"Unless you have installed software that the IT told you to install, the contents of your phone are safe until the IT asks for it to be ""searched through"". Obviously, they can see what you are doing on the company's network, so if you want to browse privately then use a mobile internet, not WiFi, and don't keep super private info on that phone. 

You can try setting up separate accounts with different passwords, but if your IT guys are good, they will probably figure it out and since you signed that paper, you will have to unlock it."
LifeProTips,"I work in cyber security, so I can elaborate.  It’s not difficult to find who owns what device, even if it’s personal.  The amount of sites that are still running on http during login is insane.  We have queries we run to find the usernames and emails. Once you have either it’s a quick google search to see who owns it.  

There’s also fingerprinting with many proxy servers and network scanners.  Those often given unique identifiers which over a period help us narrow down the owner. "
LifeProTips,"If you do those things, then you're up for a good start. For it to hold up in court however, you would probably need use the actual device (or find a way to obfuscate the local logs in the device) as a computer forensics tech will likely need to analyze the logs on the device/computer itself for verification. But that isn't completely bullet proof either. You would have to prove that your friendly neighborhood HR lady was actually using the device at the given time (CCTV etc). "
LifeProTips,"At my work they scan packets for content. (They don't tell you this, I found out because my security on my device noticed something was ""wrong"" and wouldn't allow me to connect. Did some digging and found out this is company standard.) I no longer connect any of my devices. 

Not that I'm doing anything wrong, but if they have that kind of mindset, I don't trust them not to scrape other data."
LifeProTips,"If you are logging in to a company's email server, then rest assured, they know. Hell, if you have an exchange synced, they OWN your phone to begin with. 

I mean, there's so many ways I could go about figuring out who's what on my network if I had to. Hell, I could just wait for a coworker to arrive at work and catch their device handshaking to an access point. Boom, got you. Now I know your MAC and device name and IP and model and OS and etc. No need for any weird hacking. Easy. "
LifeProTips,"You could set up a tunnel between multiple, but no that's not something you'd be doing as a beginner.

A VPN is not (as the marketing would have you believe) a perfect solution to your problem, whatever it is.

A VPN is very helpful in certain circumstances. If you don't know what they are, perhaps do a little research before paying for one.

I'm happy paying for my VPN because I get my moneys worth from it."
LifeProTips,"The other guy was pointing out that if you've ever used the device to access a company site, they have your MAC address and such, though (short of spoofing with a rooted device or whatever.) If I'm looking to see who's browsing stuff I don't want them browsing, the first thing I'm going to do is check the MAC address against company server logs to see if they've ever connected to internal websites, Exchange, etc.  "
LifeProTips,"It's possible even with thousands of users. Most enterprise firewalls and proxies have built in tools to help with this. There's a slew of other tools that do /only/ this as well.

Logs are collected on our side, not yours. It's unlikely you'd ever need to be asked for something that an admin/engineer can't already get. 

Admins/engineers follow the directive of higher ups (boss, director, HR, information security officer). If we're told to look into a specific incident, we do. If we're told to enforce a policy, we do. 

We don't have time to or care to look into what everyone is doing at all times of the day. With that said, there are almost always alerts and/or safeguards in place to ensure policies are being enforced. "
LifeProTips,"> More lucrative plans do tend to limit you, for example by cutting off torrents or mobile hotspot, some even make you pay extra for data on tablets

Nonsense. I pay 15 EUR or so and I get unlimited 4G/LTE internet (on my home network, which is using an LTE modem/router with an antenna). And that is true unlimited, no restrictions, no throttling, up to 40 mbps on a (really) good day, around 20 m/s domestic latency, around 30-50 m/s to EU servers. Downloading a movie right now at 3-4 MB/s.

I am in Lithuania. "
LifeProTips,"Company device means company knows its MAC address, name and everything else. They would know this device is being used to connect to internet and likely where, depending on what other measures you take (like a VPN, SSL and etc).Using company device as a hotspot just enables other devices to use its connection. But the company knows that connection is yours (using a phone issued to you), so... 

Mind you, assuming IT cares. More likely than not they have their hands full with work as is, and unless there's specific orders or company policy to perform monitoring like that, they certainly couldn't care less, unless you cause problems with it. "
LifeProTips,"VPN (with SSL) masks the traffic that's being ran, so they wouldn't see what exactly you are looking at, but they would still see that the traffic is there, so you specifically are doing SOMETHING. 

Rule of a thumb - if you want to fly under a radar for sure use your own network and stay off the network of those you are trying to avoid. If you are on their network there is always a certain degree of a gamble whether they have resources and motivation to perform any monitoring like this. "
LifeProTips,"I was talking for my country mostly, which is Russia, and what you pay is the high end of celluar plans. By lucrative I meant, like... 3-4$ for unlimited data on a phone? Actually that's my former plan, and, expectedly, it was a PITA to use. That operator's coverage where I used it most (school) was sheet, you couldn't share it even with your tablet (tablet plans cost more! They even use IMEI to tell what device you have and almost force you offline if it's not a phone, and employed various snooping techniques to get you capped at 64kb/s if you're using hotspot mode. And if your tablet doesn't have celluar, well then get screwed!), and SMS rate is just nuts. At least call minutes were generous, but with how little I talk I'd gladly sacrifice all but 10 of them for a usable mobile hotspot."
LifeProTips,"I used to live in an apartment in Houston with an outdoor hallway.  At first I lived on the ground floor.  We'd get an occasional cockroach, but they stayed on the ground.  Mostly we had millipedes.  As far as insects go, millipedes are easy mode.  They can't climb very well, and when you kill them they tend to crumble instead of squish.

Then we moved to a larger unit on the second floor.  It was like getting to the second level of a video game.  Millipedes were scarce, but there were a lot more cockroaches, and suddenly they could fly.  Like the Paratroopas of the insect community.

I moved out a couple of years ago, and good thing, because the third floor was bats.

Anyway, anecdotally I find that cockroaches don't like a well air conditioned home.  As long as we set our AC to 68-73 (76-78 when we're gone), we see a lot fewer cockroaches."
LifeProTips,"I work in pest control, if you are interested in what products can be used to combat them I can help. Doyourownpestcontrol.com has products that you can't get at Lowe's or home Depot that are much more effective. In many cases it still may be more cost effective to use a company, but many companies over charge so I thought people would like that resource. Let me know if you have a specific problem and I'll recommend what you should use."
LifeProTips,"Also would like some help. 

Live in Florida and have seen what I perceive to be regular sightings of the small roaches.

Because I don't ever want to see a cockroach in my house, I'm possibly over estimating how many/frequency I've seen them, but feels like weekly.

I've had pest control come out multiple times, encapsulated the crawl space, maniacally clean up all food spills and never leave food out. However the sightings persist. What else can I do here?"
LifeProTips,"I live in southern Louisiana. I have a young oak tree in my backyard, and my back door is about thirty five feet away from a tree line that is the beginning point for about 5 miles of uninhabited, overgrown, woods. I see small (what I assume are German) roaches sometimes flying outside, or crawling on the oak tree. It's not a super frequent thing, but they definitely live somewhere out there. I see about one every month in my kitchen, where the back door is located, and assume they came in from outside. I spray the Ortho barrier home defense stuff about every three months around the perimeter of my home. Do you think I should be worried? I have small kids and pets, and I really don't know a safe way to combat them if they are living inside."
LifeProTips,"advion bait gel.  You can get it on Amazon.  Get that and an Insect Growth Regulator (IGR).  Those two do-it-yourself treatments combined can eradicate the german roach infestation.  Look for traces of what looks like black pepper around your baseboards and under your sink.  That's roach feces.  Put little spots of gel near those places and let it do it's trick.  Don't kill the roaches that are eating the bait, let them eat it and return to the group.   Good luck. "
LifeProTips,"I believe it is.  I have two dogs and a cat and it was no problem.  Here is a Q & A I just found with a quick search:

Q: What if my dog eats a cockroach that has ingested the Advion Roach Bait Gel?

A: There is no need to worry about any type of issues from your dog eating roaches that have been in contact with Advion Roach Bait Gel. There is only enough insecticide in these products to kill a roach, not enough to have any effect on a mammal."
LifeProTips,"and here's another, more relevant answer:


Q: What would happen to the cat if they ingest Advion Roach Bait Gel? 
I have a cat at home, and I saw in one of the questions that the gel should not be place where a cat might reach it. So I am wondering how sensitive is this potential hazard to pets.

A: According to the the Advion Roach Bait Gel MSDS:

""Potential Health Effects
Based on animal testing, no biologically significant effects are expected from skin or eye contact or by ingestion.""

You should still read and follow the product label which recommends that you use the roach bait gel in places that will be inaccessible to your pet."
LifeProTips,"Thanks for asking, you know well the culture impact you can have such as leaving food out etc. And you've had treatments from a company who I can only assume used decent product, the remaining things that could be causing you to see roaches would be environmental and mechanical.

What I mean by that is tempature and humidity in the home can increase the roaches want to be inside, and mechanical refers to the actual ease of access they may have into the home. Are you noticing them in a particular place? Are there holes along the outside of the home that lead in? Placing steel wool on those will deter all pest even mice. You could also ask the company to treat further out around the home. Most companies only go out 3-4 feet which isn't enough. Ask for a greater reach or try it yourself, I would recommend Temprid FX on the exterior."
LifeProTips,"First off great job, quarterly is an excellent spray schedule. You may want to consider extending your reach from not just the barrier around the home but going a little further out at least 5 ft. The roaches on trees are normally not German roaches but American, if you're really worried try and take a picture of one and look online at the difference if you need help identifing pm me.

Roaches are an important part of a semi tropical and tropical ecosystem as they break down a lot of what is on the Forrest line. You could probably care less haha as long as they are out of the house, but I wouldn't worry about tree roaches wanting to. Unless they have a great incentive like left out food or climate issues outside you should be fine and the addition of you treatments keeps you safe.

As for on the interior you could do a treatment on the cracks corners and baseboards once a year with something like Alpine WSG, Just make sure what you use on the interior is softer than Ortho barrier on the interior.

Sorry I'm on mobil."
LifeProTips,"You can also try a liquid treatment I usually don't recommend bait stations where you are seeing roaches. Bait is to draw them out, a liquid treatment will kill on contact and keep them out. There are plenty of products safe for animals look for one that is a synthetic derivative of a flower (I can't for the life of me remember the name of it). But the toxicity is less then that of salt in mice testing, and most liquid treatments dry in 15 mins."
LifeProTips,"As far as home remedies go there are the electric zapper things, and I've heard of lavender spray as well as citronella, but in the industry they set up what is called a vapor barrier. They are very expensive however and need reapplication every month so I cant reccomend it. Using repelents and making sure that your house is sealed will help. The true way to get rid of mosquitos is to drain standing water in the area, so maybe you could petion your local goverment to do somthing about it. With mosquitos being airbourne it is hard to find somthing that will actually kill them without cutting of thier reproduction cycle by draining standing water. Hope that is helpful."
LifeProTips,"Thank you for responding! I googled a couple of photos, and I'm fairly certain they are German roaches, not American. They are small, and not as dark. I will pm you a pic the next time I see one! 

There are definitely American roaches out there, too, but I always thought they were palmetto bugs. I'm not so worried about those getting inside, even though they do creep me out. 

I will try out the alpine as a precaution. The thought of them infesting my house just terrifies me."
LifeProTips,Love the site. About 2 years ago I purchased some termicide to get rid of my ant problem. It used to be that I had to scrub the entire house down because 1 tiny crumb and the colony invades. One time I had baked an apple pie and left it on the counter to cool while I quickly ran to the grocery store. I came home to a completely blacked out pie. It was so disgustingly disturbing. Anyways I googled solutions and came across the site. After just a few weeks of using the stuff on the perimeter of the house and no more ants. I can actually now leave food out on the countertop without worrying about ants. 
LifeProTips,"American Roaches do not typically infest, so it should not be of much concern, most likely a lost little baby, but it can be an indicator that there is something about your house like the humidity or temp. or other enviromental factors that may attract german roaches. For the most part it isnt something to worry too much on but I would still do a barrier treatment on the exterior just to be sure."
LifeProTips,"I'm a female living in Wisconsin. I get asked a lot why I'm not drinking. Now I'm getting past childbearing years, people assume I'm an alcoholic and judge them for drinking (nope, and nope), or the DD (maybe, but not too often). I just don't take chances with driving under the influence and/or I just don't feel like it. I actually like water because I can drink as much as I need to quench my thirst and only have to deal with a full bladder. "
LifeProTips,"I'm Irish and I don't drink.

People make a *big* deal about it sometimes. Went on holidays to Japan with 3 others friends and a lovely local American offered to buy us all drinks.

Cue ""I don't drink"" ""Me neither"" ""Nope"" ""Sorry"".

When he asked why, we mentioned that was why we could afford to travel to Japan. We save so much money. It's not the only reason but it's a big one.

Americans seem to make a big deal over it, while most others are just surprised. Had an Uber driver in Atlanta go speechless. He spent about a minute trying to make a sentence before just saying ""I need to tell my friends""."
LifeProTips,I’m not quite 30 but dealing with the same situation. Just so you know you aren’t alone! People say some of the most inappropriate and awkward things to me about my personal habits trying to deduce the reason for my infertility or lack of children. I now plan on asking if they would like to set up a webcam in my bedroom to determine what I’m doing wrong. It’s painful to have to explain it all the time so I’m planning on making them feel as uncomfortable as I do when these questions come up. 
LifeProTips,"I dunno about that.

Depending on the extras, the salesman might stand to make as much money off 2k in extras as they would make on a 30k base car.  If you are getting a good price, the salesman might only make 300 off the sale...throwing in some overpriced high margin extras could quickly inflate their total commission.

I think the key to OP's technique is convincing the sales people that you are an easy sale.  Essentially you are saying ""Look, you're not going to make a lot of money off me, but if you are willing to accept that, I'll come in, sign the papers, and be out of your hair.""  You aren't someone who they are going to have to take on test drives, spend time explaining features to, etc...  If they can earn a 250 commission off you in 45 minutes of work (plus an email response), they are better off than maybe earning 300 on a walk-in who spends 2-3 hours.

"
LifeProTips,"I was in the dealership for 30 mins, I went on the Bmw website chose which model, colour etc and went into the dealership. He said the glass was £800 and the climate control instead of ac was £999 or close, I said 30k was my limit so I’d have to look elsewhere if they couldn’t drop those. Maybe over at Audi I’d get the same specs but cheaper. He went and was back 3 mins later with it all rubber stamped. I had a budget I needed to stick to, so I did. I’m sure the guy made his 10% or whatever they get. Still not bad for half hour. I did have to wait 3 months for the car to be built though. "
LifeProTips,"$300 on a sale? Pfft I wish. In the age of the internet, a salesman is lucky to sell a car over invoice. Salesmen make their money on Gross, aka profit over invoice. Nowadays you can go online and find a very close estimate of the invoice price for just about any new car. Therefore, Internet departments at dealerships have to price their cars bottom dollar online cause that's what everyone else is doing. By not doing so, they're not competitive.

Therefore, the salesman almost always takes a ""mini"" aka minimum commission deal. It usually runs in the neighborhood of $100-150. 

Where the salesman make their money is quantity. Usually there's a monthly sales goal. Sell 10 cars and get a bonus of $500. 15 is $1000, 20 is $2000... 

As a salesman, I didn't give a fuck how much gross I made on the deal. I was getting $100 for it either way. Internet department dun gave that shit away before my customer even stepped through the door anyways. I twisted my manager's balls on my customer's behalf if I knew it would get me the deal.

The dealership makes their money in the finance office. They sell warranties, service plans and sell people on higher interest rates. "
LifeProTips,"I still don't think you're refuting what I'm saying. To further delve into my previous example:

I am 25, I have been working since 18. I have two jobs, and I average about 55 hours a week. Last year the wife and I made about $40k combined. Due to going on deployment, our income will be closer to double that much this year. Even if I stayed on back-to-back deployments for the next 5 years, we wouldn't reliably be able to amount even $15k in savings without spending it immediately upon amassing it. 

We currently rent in the hood, south of a large metro city, and we have to move out because we have had neighbors shot, neighbor children killed, and shots fired within 30ft of our house. We have one 2007 van that will need repairs soon. Our debt is small right now, but it is growing. 

I have a life, I want my kids to have a life, and money isn't that important. People shouldn't wait until they're 40 to buy something they want. "
LifeProTips,"Dude what the hell. 55 hrs / wk to earn a portion of 40k? 40k combined income doubled but still no room for saving? These numbers don't say ""saving is impossible"". They say something is wrong with your job or spending. 

Also, yeah you should have a life. And your kids should have a life. But you cant afford that right now man. Money is important if you want those things. Find a change or location or job or something. Something ain't right here. "
LifeProTips,"I make a lot more money on deployment, but I can only go on so many and keep my family happy. If I told my wife that I was volunteering for another back-to-back 1 year deployment after this one, she would most likely leave me. 

My comment isn't really about military life, moreso that while on deployment I make good money, but even if I stayed away from home for many years doinf it I couldn't save the kind of money being talked about. When I get back home, I'm going to take my wife and kids on a vacation somewhere, because a deployed dad is just as hard on then as it is for me. Money isn't as important as living your life. 
"
LifeProTips,"also people need to remember that the client dictates what we can pay, what they want, etc.  There were times I would send over outstanding candidates to a client and they would reject them every time.  There are times where the client has no clue what they want.  Another time a client I placed SEVERAL candidates with decided that didnt' want to pay more than 35k/yr for a Computer Sci grad.  I told them QuikTrip started out their cashiers at more than that, which of course they didn't like and I never heard from again, but good f'n riddance. "
LifeProTips,"I'm an electrical field engineer with 15+ years experience. I once got contacted by a very apologetic recruiter who was searching for anFSE for a client that did not understand how much money you have to pay for a fresh faced FSE, let alone one that could do the work they wanted right out the gate. She asked what my price to consider jumping to a new position was, and I told her minimum $85k base before incentives. She took my input to the client, but warned me it was probably a nonstarter.

Her client wanted to pay around $40k tops, but wanted to stay in the $36k range. I was the third candidate with all the check marks they wanted who gave them a price tag of $80k or more, and they just wouldn't play ball. I felt bad for the poor recruiter. That client sounded like a pain.

My resume is stacked with household name, large reputation companies, the kind that tells a recruiter from a mile off that I have a higher price tag. These days my minimum to jump ship is 6 figures and the recruiters that call me are usually ready to play ball with clients that scale accordingly.

I still think back on that poor lady though. I doubt she managed to reconcile that placement and it sounded like a hot fill."
LifeProTips,Venues that force beginning bands to sell tickets are con artists at best and downright criminals at worst. I've had the opinion that the practice should be illegal for a long time. It robs young musicians of their money and confidence and those who keep up that practice are the scum of the earth. better LPT: If you see a band selling their own tickets HELP THEM REALIZE THEY ARE BEING ROBBED BLIND!!!
LifeProTips,"I couldn't agree more. I manage a bar/music venue in my city and am in a band (along with everyone employed here) and that was the first thing we axed when I got the job. No ticket sales and never charging a band for playing a show with a dead turnout. From the door we take the cost of paying our door security (in my state if you are charging a cover you have to have a licensed security guard at the door collecting) which is usually $40-$80 depending on how long the sets are. The rest of the money collected goes to the bands. The main problem we run into is that if it's dead and don't clear that than we eat the cost but the bands don't get any money. They are never charged to play a show, ever, nor should they be. We print all the flyers ourselves and put alot of unpaid hours into promotion to help but sometimes it just doesn't work out and few things suck more than telling touring bands that you're sorry but there isn't any money. We usually buy a two pizzas for the bands, one with toppings and one vegan, and try to give them a place to stay for the night. 

A lot of the money bands are making on the road are from merch sales. Buying a shirt from a band costs you $10-$20 but that gets them to the next city, food in their stomach or most importantly hope that they aren't  wasting their time and money chasing their dream. Running a venue is way harder than most people could ever know but it doesn't compare to being a touring unknown band. 

A message to bands: Never, ever, ever pay a single dollar out of your pocket to play your music. You might not make a ton of money but you damn well shouldn't ever have to pay money."
LifeProTips,"there's a hierarchy for this kinda thing:

Band -> producer -> venue manager/operator

​

Now, what the producer is **supposed** to do is research and group together like-bands that have a decent following and put them together under an event.

This includes:

* Listening to demos
* googling the bands and trying to search up their fan base and see what their following is
* calculating the turnout liability of each band submitting and letting them know whether they are willing to take the risk or not.

From there, the producer's job is to advertise and push ads, fliers and what have you **locally** (not on their barely known, barely visited Facebook page only followed by other bands and their families/friends) to the areas where the bands are from and where the venue is popular so that when the event comes, a decent turn-out is had and money made.

​

If they do so successfully, they take a **small** percentage cut after the venue is paid for personal profit (it's a job, not a career) and the rest is divvied to the bands. If they don't and there's zero turnout, they apologize to the bands, the bands get SOME kind of compensation, the producer covers cost of the venue and they don't do so poorly next time.

​

What **is** happening nowadays is the ""producer"" just groups together oftentimes unknown, young bands, sets the venue date up on a dead night (usually Monday through Thursday) and promptly pushes all of their work off on them (fliers, tickets, ads, outreach etc.), promising to pay them a dollar or two for every ticket sold. (tickets are $10 usually too) and then the difference is given to the ""producer"" Sometimes as well, they'll contractually lock the band into a set number of tickets and hold them liable for money lost if they don't sell them all. (that particular practice is super scummy)

​

so what ends up happening is that these young musicians go to their friends and family because they haven't developed a following or haven't practiced their stuff enough and sell to them. Getting all this cash that they then fork over to the ""producer"" in exchange for 1/10 of the profit. The ""producer"" happily takes all of this cash and makes sure to diligently post their little Facebook flier so they can claim they were ""reaching out to their base of followers"" (which is really just other local bands usually being nice and following) and don't do anything outside of that. These people usually have ties to their venue because they keep the venue nice and paid up because the young musicians are paying everything.

​

In the end, the young musicians run out of friends/family willing to come because it's damned expensive. The musicians can't get the tickets sold because all they've been doing is playing to the same people over and over. Their return for the tickets is crap so they can't get new gear, maintain old gear, record demos, nothing and eventually they burn out and give up thinking it's their fault instead of the fucking con artist's as the producer will often site bullshit like:

* If you can't sell tickets, you're just not ready to play
* The venue and producer are super busy and can't take the time to advertise every event/band (literally the god damned job of the producer)
* Exposure is invaluable (this one makes me particularly angry as young musicians can not pay for gear, food, gas and demos with fucking exposure)
* I've been in this business for n years so this is just how it works

It is the musicians' job to do MUSIC. It is in. the. god. damned. name. of. the. occupation. NOT to produce their show, it is criminally destructive and a morally bankrupt practice that just takes advantage of otherwise talented youth."
LifeProTips,"Hey I got a question for y'all, instead of playing a club or something, eh... well say you lived in a place with alot of open space, and no noise ordinances, and all you gotta do is tell people who might be interested where the show is. I mean... I dunno I'm thinking out loud. Can somebody help me with this? (also I'm not currently in a band, but it would be useful to know for the future if thats a good idea or not)"
LifeProTips,"Idk where you are but I've been to a ton of basement/house/farm/warehouse shows. If you can get a couple generators or string along a bunch of extension cords going than a show can be literally anywhere. For basement and house shows the cops have shown up but usually it's just a ""shut it down"" situation. If you have a place for bands to play then usually finding bands to play there is easier than you might think."
LifeProTips,"When it comes up in a court of law your system's log files will be subpoenaed to verify the audit trail of actions taken on and around that date. If you are being honest then the meta data and system logs will corroborate your story. Unless you are doing kernel level hacking to obfuscate what was done, any edits will show in the system log, and if you are hacking your kernel then the investigating techs will likely find evidence of it. Screenshots are very viable as evidence. "
LifeProTips,"Angry ? No, people must suffer again for strong stoic men to be crafted again.
Little hitler? I see 2 connections there for you are hitler. Yeah makes sense, but critical thinking i do not expect here
Pissy? Opposite, i am having fun.

Keep taking that blue pill while your culture and traditions are being destroyed, while the avg man is but 1% of what his ancestors were, this is reality, consume and die like the worthless man you are to your own folk. "
LifeProTips,"It did as a kid, I would feel stupid and embarrassed. Nowadays I just own it. I know I’m weird and I embrace it. My husband loves me and all my quirks so anyone else’s opinion doesn’t really matter. I’m enjoying life to the fullest, sorry I express it loudly. I’ve seen the post about how pot isn’t a drug, but I smoke it for my medical condition so now it’s just laughable to me. "
LifeProTips,"Highly doubtful. Unless you are some huge asshole and I don’t sense that. Mine is a lot older than me, he is beyond that immature stuff. Not every older guy is like him though. Your guy is out there and he’s trying to get to you as fast as he can. Just gotta be patient and enjoy life on your own. It is true that you have to love yourself first. "
LifeProTips,"I was diagnosed a few months ago (27 years old). There are pros and cons. When your brain has enough dopamine to feel “normal” (on medication) I am very chill. I’ll sit down and read, clean do the dishes,  or I’ll sit and just watch a movie ( actually watch a movie). When I am not on my meds, I don’t have enough dopamine. So I am more talkative, jokey, and sometimes rude (not to mention I can hardly get basic chores done, I’ll just ignore everything until it’s too much and then spend a day or two cleaning) if I understand right it’s because dopamine is the brains way of motivating and rewarding you for good behaviour. So on my meds, I have the chemical motivation necessary to accomplish basic tasks and not be a jack ass. Off my meds I am silly and more fun because my brain is always seeking a higher level of stimulation than what ever is present. This is why I can hardly do chores, because the part of my brain that should motivate me to get basic mundane stuff done doesn’t work as well. Hence adhd and why meds help. I go from “haha I am gonna say a silly thing! Chores are stupid” to “I could read I guess, oh wait, dishes need to be done.” 

Also reading, I couldn’t read. Well I could read, But I couldn’t sustain focus and it would take me a few weeks to read a novel. On my meds I can read a book in a day and a bit if I really power through. "
LifeProTips,"Still, don’t be too hard on yourself. It will all work out. He and I talked a lot before we even met. It was an online relationship for over a year so that gave us a chance to fall in love with each other’s souls truly. 

Our relationship is extremely weird and so odd and not everyone can find it the same way. Personality first. If you can make me laugh you’re halfway there. Hot guys are great and lots of fun, but they usually have too big egos. That’s a rare one I’d say to find one with both. "
LifeProTips,"How did national socialists create bad times for germany? It is quite evident that germany was the best place to live pre-war as a germanic person. Sadly england and france pushed for war. ( read up on the justification of the sudetenland,danzig and memel and the countless peace offers by germany, not even talking about the hypocracy of the british and french). What caused bad times for germany was the loss of the war. In your mind not one ideology would be able of creating good times as all have fallen to another country or system at one time. 

Allthough i am sure you have done a lot of research, looked at it objectively and have read both the codex fascimo and mein kampf, together with the justifications of war right? "
LifeProTips,"I think it’s a generational thing—people simply weren’t really diagnosed with disorders as frequently when I was younger. 

I was also very high functioning—for me, hypomania translates over to extreme drive (I graduated high school a year early, had two jobs, etc.).  My parents told me to “get over” the depressive episodes, so it wasn’t until I was on my own and those started showing up physically (extreme fatigue, stomach ulcers, and etc.) that my PCP thought it might be more than a physical problem and regular hormonal ups and downs and I went to see a therapist, then a psychiatrist. It took two years after my first therapy session to get a diagnosis because I wasn’t connecting the two together (I thought the manic side of bipolar disorder was supposed to be “crazy”).  

"
LifeProTips,"Don't let that stop you.   

I had a co-worker a decade ago or so who was a right bitter fuck, commuting TWO HOURS one-way (country roads) for less than $10/hr, and would complain the whole time...

* ""So find a new job?"" - ""There's no jobs where I live""
* ""So find a new place to live?"" - ""I **LIKE** where I live!""

It's like... DUDE.. you're literally wasting 17% of your life commuting, plus the cost of gas, wear and tear... something's gotta give!"
LifeProTips,"Yeah, my company hires a lot of foreigners (it's a lot of language based job, and you just can't find that many people who speak the languages you need willing to do the job in one English speaking country), so they use pretty decent relocation packages to attract people even for the low level shit wage jobs.

Seriously, if you speak any language besides English and you're willing to move, have a look at language based jobs abroad. They are definitely looking if you're willing."
LifeProTips,"Well it’s fairly easy to get a years working holiday visa here if you want to try it out. Minimum wage is $16.50 an hour (I think) so as long as you are out of the big cities you can live comfortably on a pretty normal job. 

For a more permanent approach, depending what your skill set is you can be granted a working visa for 1, 2 or 3 years and then go from there. We have certain desired trades or careers that help you get an easier path into the country."
LifeProTips,"If you can, do it. My parents offered to pay my way after I graduated college to relocate to another city. I was too scared and I didn't want to burden them either. That decision probably cost me a hundreds of thousands of dollars once you factor in 401k investment.

Just by happenstance I moved to a bigger city and landed a good job in my field. Sad part is I'm 40 and only really started investing. I've been at my job a few years and I'm interviewing for a promotion next week. *crossing fingers*. The sad part is I could have been at this point in my career 12 years ago.

There's nothing saying that you have to stay where you move. It's common for people to move away get some experience that puts them above the rest that lands them a job in their home area."
LifeProTips,"Yeah.  Ours only go up to 5.  Most places that go up to 10 consider 9 and 10 to both be acceptable, but you'll get a lower score for a 9 than a 10.  I believe the Safeway stores consider 9 and 10 passing for instance.

However, most places that consider the top two scores acceptable also require the stores to get more passing scores.  My company shoots for an 80, which means for every 4 or below we get (0%), we need 4 surveys with a score of 5 (100%) to be passing (80%).  Back when a 4 or 5 counted, a 5 counted as 100%, a 4 counted as 80%, and everything else counted as 0%, and we needed to get a 90%.  Even 4's, which counted, dragged us below passing, just not as much as everything else."
LifeProTips,"It's a stupid retail thing.

My understanding is that the thinking is that when someone has a bad experience they tell everyone about it.  Some of the people they tell will tell other people about it.  But, they will only tell other people about their good experience if it's exceptional.  So by saying only the 5's count, they're finding the exceptional experiences, supposedly. 

They're not wrong.  What was the last decent experience you had when it came to something customer service related?  Not knock-your-socks-off amazing, but the experience was exactly what you were expecting when you went into the place.  Did you tell anyone about it?  What was the last terrible experience you had somewhere, and how many people did you tell?  When was the last time that everything that the staff could control went right, but there was still a bad experience?  Did you complain to your friends and family about the store, or did you tell them how great the staff at the store was, if you told the story at all?

That said, I guarantee you, the people saying that not everyone that says they were highly satisfied on our surveys is doing more than taking the survey to get the free coupon.  They aren't sharing their experiences with other people.  Don't get me wrong, some of them do, and I can even tell you which of my customers are going out and telling everyone about me, but most of them don't.  "
LifeProTips,"My comment was only meant for people who had good experiences but thought that rating 4 stars instead of 5 stars would still be a good rating.

I don't know what happened at your fast food restaurant.  I do know that it wouldn't happen at my store.  The most we would do is make sure the cashier didn't mention the survey to you if we thought you might not give us a good rating.  We're slower than a fast food restaurant and unless you came in extremely frequently, we wouldn't even recognize you to tell the cashier to not mention the survey the next few times.

I'm not saying you're wrong about what happened.  But not every place has to be sneaky and underhanded to get good surveys or prevent bad ones."
LifeProTips,"I mentioned in [another comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comments/9jyuzo/lpt_if_you_had_a_good_experience_at_some_business/e6vk7n9/) what I believe the purpose is.  I'm not someone behind one of the survey companies, just a retail employee who relies on my name being mentioned in positive surveys to affect my annual review and chances for promotion, so it's just a guess.

The links were merely to show that it's something that surveys do.  It's not just one company doing surveys that considers top box an appropriate metric, it's all of them.  As an employee, I find top box to be an inane method of figuring out if employees are doing their jobs well or not, and I'm the top positive survey getter in my store's district.  Most of the failing scores we get are outside of our control.  Either the customer's expectations are wrong, or the company isn't providing us with what we need to succeed (not enough payroll, not enough product, etc).  "
LifeProTips,"Just come out of a it support roll that your stats are based around customers satisfaction. Literally told that 5 stars is for when you meet the customers expectations and then go above and beyond helping them. Pain in the ass as it ultimately cost me my job due to not getting the 4 stars into 5 stars. 

We would get ratings like *4 stars* - x staff member was clear and precise when helping. Excellent support. 

I would be screaming why give 4 stars out of 5 then if it was excellent. God.

But yes that’s why less then 5 is a fail as all those ratings are CS roles where normally the business would expect you to go above and beyond for customers. "
LifeProTips,"But to these places asking you to rate them, 4 stars is the same as 1 or 2 stars. It is dumb and I hated working for places like this, but that's how they function.


If you wanna give someone a 4 Star rating, you may be better off not leaving a rating at all, because you're 4 Star rating can cost them a bonus or even their job.


Note that I'm talking about those cards they leave on the table at a restaurant - not Yelp, Google, etc."
LifeProTips,"Much later and blah blah, but I tell everyone I personally know about the awesome experience I had with Dylan at( that specific Government Employee Insurance COmpany). I even stopped the call and asked to speak to his supervisor, and after that to his supers super.

I was going through the (ir)regular  jump through every hoop by the dmv. DMV was so segmented it was a nightmare getting the info I needed, but the aforementioned company ( at least the representative) was so helpful I didn’t mind too much."
LifeProTips,"Right.  When you have exceptional service you tell people about it.

One of my customers came in a few weeks ago with her teenage son doing some back to school shopping for him (I work in the print center of an office supply store).  She comes up to my counter so she can introduce me to him, or him to me.  I looked at the kid, 17-years-old or so, and asked him ""Does your mom really talk about me enough that she can say 'this is bestem' and you know who I am?""  And he tells me that she tells absolutely everyone whenever they need anything that they might be able to get from my store, or any printing at all, that they should come in and see me.  I know customers that will follow me if I get transferred to a store 30 minutes away (I have customers that have done that).   I expect those customers to give me 5's on surveys.  I do big jobs for them, I do them right, I do them quicker than expected, and I steer them in the right direction and help them problem solve before we even get the jobs.

But when all I do is make a half a dozen copies of a 5 page pamphlet, and 2 minutes later while ringing them up I tell them to take the survey and mention that ""bestem was amazing"" (or awesome or wonderful or whatever positive adjective I choose)...  honestly, those people ought to be rating 3's or 4's.   In both cases I'm just doing my job, but in the second case I'm not doing anything the customer even finds exceptional.  It's just my register patter that gets the surveys."
askscience,"Question is basically the title plus a little extra. So I've learned in school that if we use a telescope to observe something that's 1 lightyear away, then what we observe is not the thing as it is today but rather how it was 1 year ago. So the farther away the object of observation is, the older the image we observe of it. 

 

If this is true, and please correct me if I'm wrong, then given that the universe is 13.8 billion years old and infinitely wide (because it's constantly expanding right?) then what happens if we theoretically try to observe something that's 13.9 billion lightyears away or farther? 

 

Since the universe didn't exist before 13.8 billion years ago, there isn't any light that anyone or anything can pick up and observe right? Or is it that we can only possibly see as far as the universe is currently wide, in which case is it really infinite or is it sort of asymptotically infinite? Is it even theoretically possible to build a telescope that could peer across such astronomical distances? 

 

And tangentially related this is something that's been on my mind for a while and I'm hoping someone can answer it. Say you teleported to some observatory 200 lightyears away and were able to use a telescope to look back at Earth. Say you could also zoom in enough to see cities. Would you then see the world as it was in the 1800s? Or is this idea itself, barring the obvious outlandish conditions, science fiction?"
askscience,"[Nature Digital Medicine published our study last week, and it is open access](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-018-0040-6). This publication had some delay after the [FDA approved the AI-system, called IDx-DR, on April 11 of this year](https://www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannouncements/ucm604357.htm).

After the approval, many physicians, scientists, and patients had questions about the safety of the AI system, its design, the design of the clinical trial, the trial results, as well as what the results mean for people with diabetes, for the healthcare system, and the future of AI in healthcare. Now, we are finally able to discuss these questions, and I thought a reddit AMA is the most appropriate place to do so. While this is a true AMA, I want to focus on the paper and the study. Questions about cost, pricing, market strategy, investing, and the like I consider to not be about the science, and are also under the highest regulatory scrutiny, so those will have to wait until a later AMA.

I am a retinal specialist - a physician who specialized in ophthalmology and then did a fellowship in vitreoretinal surgery - who treats patients with retinal diseases and teaches medical students, residents, and fellows. I am also a machine learning and image analysis expert, with a MS in Computer Science focused on Artificial Intelligence, and  a PhD in image analysis - Jan Koenderink was one of my advisors. 1989-1990 I was  postdoc in Tokyo, Japan, at the RIKEN neural networks research lab. I was one of the original contributors of ImageJ, a widely used open source image analysis app. I have published over 250 peer reviewed  journal papers (h-index 53) on AI, image analysis, and retina, am past Editor of the journals IEEE TMI and IOVS, and editor of Nature Scientific Reports, and have 17 patents and 5 patent applications in this area. I am the Watzke Professor of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Electrical and Computer Engineering and Biomedical Engineering at the University of Iowa, and I am proud to say that my former graduate students are successful in AI all over the world. [More info on me on my faculty page](https://medicine.uiowa.edu/eye/abramoff).


I also am Founder and President of [IDx](https://www.eyediagnosis.net/), the company that sponsored the study we will be discussing and that markets the AI system, and thus have a conflict of interest. FDA and other regulatory agencies - depending on where you are located - regulate what I can and cannot say about the AI system performance, and I will indicate when that is the case. [More info on the AI system, called labelling, here](https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/ea14f7_410f793af1504f46a9bf76d20a3b4d02.pdf).

I'll be in and out for a good part of the day, AMA!

"
askscience,"So the ""visual spectrum"" for humans is 700-400 ish nm light. I know certain insects see in the ultraviolet band as well. I would assume some animals see somewhat lower into the infrared. My question is, what makes that narrow portion of thr em spectrum optimal? Is it optimal? Or did it evolve because other life interacted with that band and so early photoreceptors evolved to sense it? Would it be conceivable that some alien species sees in microwaves, for instance and has named small slices of that the way we name colors? So for them our visual spectrum would be lumped in with the ""infra red"" or ""radio"" bands?"
askscience,"As infalling gravitational singularities orbit each other faster and faster around a certain point, they produce waves that we've measured: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWqhUANNFXw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWqhUANNFXw)

I was wondering what sort of geodesic they form in the microseconds before merger...as the event horizons draw nearer and pull space-time between them...is it a sort of torus, or elongated sphere?  What would happen to  certain particles, or even photons, trapped between them moving in an insanely fast figure  8; would they be accelerated out in escape velocities just before the merge?  Does that generate a sort of 'radio blast' that would follow millions of years after we detected the gravity wave due to redshift?"
askscience,"Speaking from a certain level of layman intuition, I can picture how a single charged particle spiraling around in a cyclotron can emit EM waves [like this](https://imgur.com/3Hc21Lx.gif). What I'm having trouble understanding is the consistency between this wave model, and the discrete nature of photons, specifically in the case of cyclotron radiation. 

As I understand it, you could detect individual discrete photon energy packets arriving at a detector at various times from a spiraling (accelerating) charge in a cyclotron. Does this discrete particle aspect indicate that there are instances in time when the accelerating charge is not producing a photon? Or else it seems like it would have to be emitting an infinite amount of photons (and energy) at every moment in time to mirror the continuous nature of the wave-like behavior in the gif?"
askscience,"Actually a Parks and Rec episode got me thinking. The super fit character Chris catches the flu, and claims that due to his low body fat and lean muscle his symptoms are worse than they might be in an average person.

So would physical size have any effect on the likelihood of catching something like the flu or a cold, and have any bearing on either duration or severity? And would there be a difference if the person were obese and sedentary or muscular and fit? "
askscience,"Modern humans have been around for at least 40,000 years (some sources say 300,000), yet the first somewhat advanced civilizations came into existence around 3000 BC. If the humans living 40,000 years ago were just as intelligent as we are now, then why did it take humans at least over 30,000 years to organize societies like the Mesopotamian civilization where they used alphabet, built sophisticated buildings, roads and weaponry. It's kind of strange don't you think?  "
askscience,"I understand that the Transit method is the best current way to find exoplanets, but I was just thinking about how a planet like Jupiter takes 12 earth years for one Jupiter year, would that mean that we'd probably be completely unaware of the largest planet in the solar system (and gas giant with the shortest year) even if we've been examining it's star closely for a whole decade?

Following on from that, could that mean that we've got an extremely skewed perception of the makeup extra-solar systems? Maybe systems more like the solar system are common with large planets on the outskirts but we can't really see that with the transit method?"
askscience,"A friend told me the following math problem:  


Imagine you are walking to the bus stop. Your current position has a value of 1, the bus stop has a value of 0, and the distance between the two can be represented by a decimal. Before you reach the bus stop you must first reach half way to the bus stop (0.5), and then you must reach half way between that point and the bus stop (0.25), and then you must reach half way between that point and the bus stop (0.125) and so on and so on, I think you get the picture. If you must first pass an infinite number of places before reaching the bus stop, mathematically how do you actually reach it? 

​

If you continue this process infinitely, simple math would suggest that you will never reach the bus stop, but we know that we can reach it in a real world example. Is this because as numbers get very small they must approach a finite value? "
askscience,"Hidden variables may not be impossible, but if they require a field that guides particles deterministically, shouldn't we be able to measure our movement through that field (the same way we should have been able to measure our movement through the luminiferous aether, if it existed)? Wouldn't that provide an absolute reference frame? I don't see how pilot wave theory can be made compatible with special relativity. Am I missing something?"
askscience,"As per Physics...The amount of matter and antimatter produced or released after the big bang must be equal, then why is it so rare, and also how do scientists make it in the Large Haldron Collider?

Is it possible that there is a whole another anti-universe or something?Why does it release tremendous amounts of energy when it comes into contact with matter?

and one last thing...If anti-matter can give us tremendous amounts of energy, then matter also should be able to give the same tremendous amounts of energy when it contacts anti-matter in, say, an anti-matter planet or something, right? then that way if we find out a Place made out of anti-matter, then that'd be a great exchange for the aliens living there, and for us to give our normal matter and get some anti-matter, right?

Fuel for us, fuel for them and we weigh not based on the item, but based on the mass. Or is it that matter out of a Diamond would release more energy when contacted with anti-matter than a banana peel? **Just Curious**.

I hope all of it makes sense.

  
Edit: Now it might make a little more sense(Punctuation xD)"
askscience,"Genetic engineering is now cheap, relatively simple, and pretty reliable - at least when done in a lab setting. Using a tool called CRISPR, researchers can access DNA in live cells, target specific strings of the DNA code to slice out, turn gene expression up or down, or even swap in new DNA. This means we can, theoretically, reverse genetic conditions, modify cell behaviors, and perhaps program the cells to better fight against disease.

If you want an overview on CRISPR and how it works, my university created this animated explainer: [https://youtu.be/iXgU--ugLqY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXgU--ugLqY)

My lab is using CRISPR to better understand how the genome controls the functions of human immune cells, in health and disease. We hope to use this research to inform future cell-based therapies to fight cancer, infectious disease, and autoimmunity.

If you're deeply interested in CRISPR, you may have heard of our recent work - we discovered a way to make CRISPR more efficient and flexible in re-writing long DNA sequences in human immune cells, without the use of viruses. There are currently FDA approved gene engineered T cell therapies for certain types of cancer. These cells have been generated by using modified viruses to deliver genes into haphazard sites in the T cell genomes. Improved non-viral CRISPR delivery allows us, effectively, to paste long new stretches of DNA sequences into specific sites in the genome, without having to rely viruses that are costly and laborious to employ. We are working to develop non-viral CRISPR-based genome targeting into broadly useful platforms to make better, faster, cheaper engineered T cells for the next generation of immunotherapies.

You can read my university's story about it here: [http://tiny.ucsf.edu/OccPKL](http://tiny.ucsf.edu/OccPKL)

I'm here to talk about all things CRISPR, genetic engineering, immunology, or any other part of my work. I'll start around 2:30pm PT (5:30 PM ET, 22:30 UT), AMA!

EDIT: Hi everyone, I’m logged in and eager to start answering your questions!

EDIT 2: I appreciate all the questions, I enjoyed answering them. I’m signing off now, but am looking forward to seeing how the conversation evolves here. Thanks and goodnight.

"
askscience,"A Tale of Two Chlorines

​

Can someone please explain why I had a sturdy plastic bucket literally explode into fragments when I mixed 2 different brands of pool chlorine together? I've never seen something explode like that when exposed to open air.

So what I would normally do is mix the chlorine with pool water and then pour everything into the pool, no problem.

One day we switched chlorine brands, so I poured the last little bit of the original chlorine into the bucket (there might have been a little water in the bucket to begin with) and topped up with the new chlorine. I noticed vapor coming off the mixture almost immediately as I started mixing. The reaction started bubbling and boiling and within about 10 seconds, the mixture started putting out a thick yellow cloud. This was when I knew I had to GTFO, mainly to avoid breathing in any of the noxious fumes. I can't quite remember if I was going to call someone or to get water to dilute the mixture.

I turned around and started walking and as I turned a corner about 5 meters away from where the bucket was left standing, I heard an incredibly loud bang and saw pieces of the red bucket fly past me and land in the pool and on the lawn over 10 meters away. There was literally nothing left at ground zero other than a few white stains from the powder. It was a really powerful explosion.

​

This happened quite some years ago when I used to look after the pool at home, so the details may be a bit sketchy. I've always thought about that incident, what if I hadn't moved away? I could have been permanently blinded, or developed some kind of respiratory issue, possibly even hearing damage?

​

P.S. the brands were HTH and Clarity in that order (i think)

There was no outside contamination that I know of.

​

Edit: Thanks for the replies and explanations so far. I'm glad I'm not the only one surprised/confused by this. Just a couple things, This *was* a long time ago like I said, so it might not have bubbled for 10 seconds, the gas might have been green instead of yellow, etc. All I know for sure is that it was loud, it started raining red plastic bits, there was definitely no lid on the bucket and that there were 2 brands of chlorine in a bucket."
askscience,Its said that the age of the universe is roughly 13.8 billion years old but since all mass has an effect on space time how do we know if thats the true age? Like from the perspective of someone next to a black hole the universe would be younger and someone in intergalactic space older right? Do scientists take this into account when they estimate ages of space objects? And if time doesnt run at exactly the same speed in any two parts of the universe is there any way to know the exact age of anything far away? 
askscience,"I did some work on this back in grad school, outside of stem though. The theory back in the 1990s was that even a limited nuclear war could cause a nuclear winter. I think the problem is how people define ""nuclear winter"" It is actually a temporary dramatic shift in world climate that will eventually subside, after several years.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/424481

I would love to hear thought from anyone in the field. I have not come across anything to really dispute the above."
askscience,"While this is slightly off topic, there is evidence that the entire concept of ""Nuclear Winter"" was a facet in the Soviet propaganda campaign to take advantage of the peace movement in the west. Not that there wasn't a possibility of a cooling event from a large amount of dust thrown into the atmosphere, but that even in the largest nuclear exchange, you are likely orders of magnitude below the energy that would be necessary to cause a large change in atmospheric dust levels.  


Leading credence to this was the disappearance of one of the initiators of the theory in 1985, Vladimir Alexandrov. Granted, some of his research went on to aid in our modern understanding of global climate changes."
askscience,"A lot of it was substantiated by a defected Soviet intelligence officer named Sergei Tretyakov in the 2000s in his book *Comrade J: The Untold Secrets of Russia's Master Spy in America After the End of the Cold War*. TIME magazine was running [articles alluding to](https://web.archive.org/web/20070930040755/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,960025,00.html) such things back in the 1980s.

The Sagan stuff was part of the supposed influence that the Soviets had over the, at the time nascent peace movement in the late 1940s and 1950s, from which Sagan came out. From my reading of these events, the idea was to cause a rift between the scientific community and the burgeoning national labs which were focused on nuclear weapons development and required a large deal of cooperation with the physics community to keep the research going.

I came across a lot of this information when I was studying nuclear proliferation and other issues in college. I've thought more about it now, as it shows that there was a historical precedence to the alleged events surrounding the 2016 election."
askscience,"I did in a separate reply.  


There is a lot of circumstantial evidence. However, there is enough to at least see it as a more likely possibility than an actual nuclear winter scenario.  


The DoD released a [paper on the subject](http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a200062.pdf) in 1987. A key takeaway in the summery was:

 

>The nuclear winter hypothesis has attracted increased attention in the scientific community over the past five years. The research has advanced to  the state that, in spite of remaining uncertainties, there is a consensus of plausibility for the hypothesis and for the impact such an effect would have on the earth's environment. The validity of this ""nonissue"" has increased to the point that the emotional aspects of the horrors of a nuclear war are now given additional credence by scientific research. The dilemma of the issue is that the ""guidance"" offered by scientific information has many interpretations on how best to keep the world safe from nuclear war.

  
Further, the paper talks about the propaganda value of idea becoming more important than the idea itself; effectively that that discussing the horrors of nuclear war was a method of deterrence and that the more open western media allowed for that to have a greater impact on the populations there than in the Soviet sphere."
askscience,"The nuclear winter idea in the West clearly originated separate from any serious Soviet influence (it has its own intellectual trajectory), and the work that has been done on it since then has been largely independent of Soviet theories and data (the originators of the theory were appropriately wary of relying on anything coming out the USSR). 

Did the Soviets use it as a facet of their propaganda? Sure. They also used Civil Rights as part of their propaganda as well, but that doesn't undermine the reality of it. Both the USA and USSR promoted theories or arguments that promoted their overall diplomatic/ideological goals during the Cold War, often through clandestine sources. One should not confuse promotion with creation, or let it by itself ""taint"" the underlying work.

You should be aware that the ""nuclear winter is Soviet propaganda"" argument is itself a holdover of propaganda from people who were resisting the argument that nuclear winter implied that the desired arms build-ups in the 1980s were suicidal. (So you're engaging with another form of propaganda in repeating it, ironically.)

There have been many nuclear winter studies over the last 30 years, by many different groups, using many different models, and many different assumptions. They get different results, like all scientific modeling of complex phenomena. Some suggest nuclear winter effects are likely, some indicate they are not. It may be that everybody involved has some political stake in the results (it's hard not to), but the idea that it's some kind of cheap conspiracy is about as plausible as the similar ideas propagated by climate change denialists.  The initial TTAPS work was rather crude compared to the full climate simulations that people (both pro and con) are using today. Science marches on, though the scale of the problem is large enough that total certainty is likely to remain elusive for a long time yet.

For a very good history of nuclear winter by a serious historian of science, see Lawrence Badash, _A Nuclear Winter's Tale_. Please also be aware that former Soviet intelligence agents _love_ to inflate their role in things, and all such accounts need to be read with a grain of salt."
askscience,"I don't think that's quite true. At the height of the cold war they had tens of thousands of missiles, each carrying multiple warheads. There was a lot more than now. They wouldn't have all reached their targets at the same time instead they would be falling and reinforcing the effects of the warheads detonated earlier. Thus inputting more energy into the dust and ash clouds forming.

It probably would not have frozen Earth solid as claimed by some but global cooling would have been on a level where only the tropical and subtropical locations would have been warm enough to grow crops. And considering how much radiation there would be floating all around I doubt a lot of plant life would survive.

All in all even if they were using the scenario to make more people less willing to use nuclear weapons that is a good thing.

If they were telling people a possible side-effect of the world going to nuclear war. People got scared and wanted the chance of war to be less. That is a good thing.

​

Also all of the things that Tretyakov said are claims by him only. There is no collaboration with any trusted sourced. Considering he worked in the SVR decades after the things he claimed happened I doubt he actually would have gain access to such documents in the first place. "
askscience,"Bearing in mind: there will be nobody to put out the fires! Any fire that exists will die on its own accord, or simply rage and feed into other fires, and there will still be huge landscapes awash in flames, and even when the fires eventually go out, there will be smoke rising from the hot embers for who knows how long. Think of how long the 9/11 WTC site was emitting noxious smoke from beneath the collapsed buildings. "
askscience,"Assume all the major metro areas and industrial centers got nuked. 

1. At least a third of the population has just died. Probably about half of the young adult population, conservatively. Populations will decline further in the short term before they can start to recover. 

2. The infrastructure and logistics support to distribute food and supplies is probably completely inoperable. You're suck surviving on things that can be produced locally for a long while.

3. The power is probably out. It will probably stay that way because the people that know how to run a large power grid were probably based in a city.

4. Most highly specialized knowledge in general is probably lost within a generation or so, as those types of activities are concentrated in urban areas, and require huge amounts of time to learn (on equipment that was just vaporized), which can't be spared because trying to survive is a full time job.

Worst case scenario, you basically have to redo the entire industrialization process, with the benefit of a few modern tools and some general knowledge about how it turns out."
askscience,"Take a look at Tsar Bomba, 50mt yield. And that wasn't even enough to cause even local atmospheric pollution or any other sort of long lasting effects that don't include radiation. I would venture a guess that it would take orders of magnitudes more than even 50mt. You're realistically looking at several thousands, if not tens of thousands of megatons in yield to accomplish nuclear winter. I would even venture to guess that there isn't enough nuclear weaponry to accomplish it.

"
askscience,"It's been pretty much universally agreed upon in the nuclear community that the intersection of the power curve you're talking about is right around 50mt.

They had originally planned to make it 100mt, but up one calculating it, realized they are wasting a lot of the energy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield

To date, we've tested almost 51,000mt worth of nuclear devices.

I really think ""nuclear winter"" is a product of science fiction novels and movies. I don't even think detonating every nuclear device on the planet currently and simultaneously would do the trick either."
askscience,"> Also the limit of 50mt is the yield above which all you do is send more air into space

It's actually more about the weight to yield ratio and the altitude at which the device will detonate. 

All nuclear explosions are spherical and generated above the target. No matter what your yield is, you will always have a spherical detonation that is sending X coefficent downwards (towards target) and Y coefficent upwards (away from target).

For sake of easy math, lets assume it's a 50/50 split. I know it's not, but that's not important to explaining the theory.

Now, there's an ideal altitude at which will take the 50% of that energy traveling outwards and *down towards the target* and distribute it to maximum effect on the target.

Bombs with a yield greater than 50mt require a detonation altitude which is inefficient for damaging targets on the ground. (IE; you have to detonate a 100mt bomb so high that it will achieve the same destruction as a 50mt bomb detonated at a lower altitude) 

They will both have the same damage on the target, the only difference being it's much more efficient and cost savings to build a 50mt bomb to do the same thing as a 100mt bomb.

> is send more air into space

That hurts my head just reading. Air doesn't get ""sent into space"" energy is just directed upwards into the atmosphere where there's no targets and it gets dispersed. This is something that happens with all nuclear devices because of the spherical explosion. It all stays inside the atmosphere."
askscience,"Well yes, the angle of destructive force will get more acute as the radius increases. 
But the shockwave does send a lot of air into space, still inside the upper atmosphere, but I’m considering space to be the point at which the shockwave becomes irrelevant due to the rarity of the air. 
Obviously the thermal pulse does too. But I’m getting at the same point as you... most of the energy in the downward and all of the energy in the upward region of the sphere is wasted. The only portion of the blast that is applying its energy usefully is a small ring of the emitted pulse/blast, aiming at the regions where destruction is only moderate. This would obviously get thinner with greater yield as this critical target region got further way "
askscience,"> air into space

dude, you really need to stop saying this. that is not at all what happens. no air ""goes into space"" that is not possible. 

Take a balloon, inflate it half way and seal it. Grab the inflated part of the baloon and start squeezing it. Notice how you just move a pocket of air around *inside the balloon*? That's what happens with a nuclear detonation. It just gets moved around within the atmosphere. 

Remember, we're talking about an explosion occurring a mile or less above the surface. 

The explosion does not ""push air into space"" that is still around 65 miles above where the explosion took place.

Please stop saying that. It really makes you sound uneducated.

> Well yes, the angle of destructive force will get more acute as the radius increases.

Exactly. Which should explain to you exactly why it's better to use a 50mt yield that can achieve the same effect as a 100mt yield. There's no reason to build and detonate a 100mt bomb, when a 50mt bomb (does the exact same thing)

I think that's the misconception here. You think that the 100mt bomb *does less damage* than the 50mt bomb, but it's actually *the same damage* which makes the 50mt bomb a more efficient option.

> I’m considering space to be the point at which the shockwave becomes irrelevant due to the rarity of the air. 

The shockwave dissipates well before it reaches even halfway to the upper atmosphere. Remember, the upper limit of the atmosphere is still some 60 miles or so ABOVE the explosion.




"
askscience,"Yes. They absorb visible light and re-emit the energy as infrared light, which is absorbed by greenhouse gasses. Lightly-colored surfaces, on the other hand, reflect more of the incoming visible light back into space, so that energy doesn't have to find its way through the greenhouse gasses (as they are transparent to visible light). 

For this reason, the melting of sea ice creates a feedback loop. Sea water absorbs a great deal of incident light, especially compared to ice. As the ice melts, the Earth absorbs more of the energy from the Sun, which warms the Earth, causing more ice to melt, causing more absorption of energy from the Sun, etc. This is not the only feedback process involved in the climate (some are positive feedback loops while others are negative), but it is an important one. A negative feedback loop that works the same way is that a warmer Earth leads to more water evaporation, which leads to more cloud formation, which leads to more incoming sunlight being reflected away, thus cooling the Earth back down. How strong each of these various feedback loops is is one large source of uncertainty in modelling the future of climate change. (I want to be clear, though, that uncertainty in modelling the future is not the same as uncertainty in what is causing climate change - carbon dioxide originating from human activity is responsible for increased global average temperatures in the last several decades.)

We can see this effect in other planets as well. [Venus reflects an incredible 77% of all the light incident upon it](https://i.redd.it/ugexjlyu2oj11.jpg) (compared to Earth's 30%). Venus actually absorbs less energy from the Sun than Earth does, even though it's closer to the Sun! Yet Venus is hot enough that the first several probes sent there melted. Why? Venus has a thick atmosphere, dozens of times as dense as Earth's, and it's almost all carbon dioxide, so that Venus is extremely inefficient at re-radiating the energy it receives from the Sun. The greenhouse effect is strong enough to turn the 23% of sunlight that isn't reflected by the clouds into a hell-scape. "
askscience,"So, the groups U (n) are called unitary groups. They act on the set of matrices n×n who have their inverse equivalent to their conjugate transpose via matrix multiplication. This is a subgroup of the general linear group so it would act on the same vector space. The group SU (n) is the subgroup of the unitary group whose elements all have determinate 1. So, they are effectively act as linear transformations on a vector space of dimension n."
askscience,"The vector space it acts on isn't anything other than a space. So, the thing that makes these groups special and useful in physics is that they're Lie Groups and thus are continous in  some sense. So, they're generally used to talk about spin and stuff that has continous symmetry, so the best way to think about the vector space the group lives in is the space the particle is experiencing symmetry in. I might be taking for granted that I come from a math background where the use of these things in physics makes sense because I know what they're doing independent of the real world. I apologize if so, I am just hoping I can help a little."
askscience,"Yeah I know the math behind what SU(3) is, and I was enquiring about the physical context. I appreciate the effort though!

To give an example of what I am asking about. When we consider rotations of the coordinate system, we (physicists) often look at an infinitesimal rotation. Then we notice that there is a ""basis"" of 3 different way to do this infinitesimal rotation. These obey a specific algebra, and then we identify the rotations with the group SO(3). 

But here we had a coordinate system, or a wavefunction on which we could apply a linear transformation. SU(3) is also transformations, but what kinds of objects does it transform, in the context of gauge in the strong interaction?"
askscience,"Basically, yes, it's the wave function. Of course if you do particle physics you should really do quantum field theory and one usually doesn't talk about wave functions, but still operators (now fields) acting on a Hilbert space. The Hilbert space is the vector space you're mentioning, and it is defined by all relevant quantum numbers. So not only space and time coordinates, but also quantum numbers under internal symmetry operations such as electric charge, isospin etc."
askscience,"Sort of, yes. The space for the strong interactions is called color. The space for the electromagnetic interaction is charge. The space for the the unified electroweak force is is a product space of electroweak isospin (the SU(2) part) and the electroweak hypercharge (the U(1) part) . In general it is the associated charge. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_(physics)

The actual colors are arbitrary labels that can’t be fixed unless a symmetry is broken, and even then, only under convention (we call electrons negative charges, arbitrarily)

For the strong force, the colors are not observable— there’s no way to create a fixed source of “Red” charge, so calling them red, green, and blue is an entirely fictitious way of keeping track without enumerating them.

Anti-red is not an additive complement to red, though. Rather, it is the dual representation. The consequence is that there is a sub space of the color-anticolor product space that is invariant under the group transformation — this state corresponds to a neutral combination of color/anti color particles. It’s not red-antired, blue-antiblue, or green-antigreen. It’s a superposition of all of these— a color singlet state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon#Color_singlet_states"
askscience,"Neither you nor he are factually inaccurate.  Starches are not sugars even though they are entirely made of them.  Animals are made entirely of elemental compounds, yet they are not classified as such.

/u/yugo_1 is wrong because nobody before your reply commented that starches are counted as sugars.  While you are wrong because your question implies that they are.  Even the link you posted is careful to talk about sugars, before talking about polysaccharides.  They are associated but not the same. "
askscience,"I'm sorry for lack of clarity.

I was trying to say that your characterization doesn't seem accurate.

You told Scbios that they were wrong, because they implied that starches are sugars - I was trying to point out that, at least to me, they did more than just imply it; they specifically said so.

And in that light it doesn't seem strange that yugo_1 would comment on it.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding something."
askscience,"It depends on what you mean by ""amount"" and ""carbs"" 😉

By weight the amount of carbohydrates doesn't change significantly. But the amount of carbohydrate substances increase, since the chemical meaning of the word amount is the number of molecules in this example. And since the starch is long chains of monosaccharides that gets divided into several shorter sugars, the amount increases.

And the use of ""carbs"" is a bit ambiguous... It's originally a short form of carbohydrates, but is often used as an everyday term for energy content, since carbohydrates are our main source of energy. The amount, by weight, of carbohydrates doesn't change as the longer carbohydrates break down to shorter ones. But if a form of carbohydrate that the human digestive system normally can't digest, for example cellulose, were to be broken down into starch or sugars, which our bodies can make use of, the amount of usable energy could increase.

I don't really know if the latter happens, but it is theoretically possible."
askscience,"No need to be sorry, I make perfect sense in my own head but it doesn't always come out that way.  ; )  Thanks for actually clarifying!

There is nothing factually inaccurate about it though and they aren't saying that starches *are* sugars so much as the sugars within them haven't become *not sugar*.  If I place an iron chain in a bucket of water, seal it, and wait for it to rust away, has the iron content of the bucket changed?  I'd say that no it has not changed.  The amount in solution has changed, but the total amount of iron within the bucket has stayed relatively flat (of course that isn't 100% accurate, but it's close enough for all practical purposes).

In the end it is kind of a Ship of Theseus type of situation I suppose, or it's equally possible I'm misunderstanding something instead.  "
askscience,"Agreed. Calling starch ""sugar"" when discussing the different nutrients in a banana is going to confuse a layman. The point is you will get a higher glycemic response from eating a very ripe banana. Overall, though, unless you have an issue with diabetes, I don't see a huge difference from eating a slightly green banana and a yellow one. Just eat whichever you feel tastes better. If the tastiness of a ripe banana convinces you to eat one every day, that's a good thing. It has lot of potassium, some vitamins, and fiber, and it's much better for you compared to purple drink. "
askscience,"Yes to all of these. In hearing people clanging is words that have similar sounds. In sign language it is signs that have similar movements. They also can have word salad where they just sign a bunch of signs that don’t go together such as “dog day person money”. They have no meaning, just random signs. Deaf person’s signing can be “slurred” especially after things like waking up from anesthesia. Wernicke’s and broca’s area are a language center in the brain, not just a spoken language so yes sign language can be affected by those as well. Another phenomenon is that people who are schizophrenic sometimes will not cross one side of their body. For example some signs move from one side of the body to the other and they will make the movement all on one side of their body. They will never cross the midline. If there is a terminology for this, it’s escaped my mind right now.  Deaf people also do have auditory hallucinations (hear voices) as well. This is because auditory hallucinations are from an internal stimuli (in their brain) and not an external stimuli (an actual noise).

Source: am a working sign language interpreter and have a certification in mental health interpreting "
askscience,"So interesting! I figured clanging would still occur, but I was trying to think what that would look like, so thank you for your input. I was assuming it could either be words that look the same on paper that might get signed, but signing words that use similar movements makes much more sense.  

If you could elaborate more on people who are deaf having auditory hallucinations I would love to know more. "
askscience,"yes...also occurs in stroke affected patients...they will completely ignore their affected side...to the point of turning their head and looking the opposite way all the time.

..Nurses have to place all items of use i.e.bedside locker, table etc over to the affected side to re-orientate  them.They will use a mirror too to help.

I have also seen a meal been eaten completely in half....definite line...and only half the plate of food actually eaten...like the other side simply doesnt exist.
"
askscience,"No, like hearing sounds when you're not actually hearing it. I grew up wearing hearing aids but stopped when I developed tinnitus (ironic that you brought that up) but when I see a police car or ambulance go by me, I almost can hear the sirens but I know it's my brain telling me I should be hearing the sirens as they go by and it's being simulated in my head. 

The same can be true for me when I read lyrics and I almost can ""visualize"" the sounds, such as the song being sung, in my head and more. 

I have tinnitus whenever I have high blood pressure and it's way different from auditory hallucinations. Tinnitus is like a sound being ""repetitive"" and drawn out in a monotonous tone, at least for me. "
askscience,"It is called 'Neglect' and as someone else wrote below, it can happen after a stroke.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/brain-babble/201208/hemispatial-neglect-one-sided-world

Dr Lisa Geneva, an American scientist who taught Neuroanatomy at Harvard, wrote a (fiction) book from the perspective of someone with this condition. It's called 'Left Neglected'. She wrote 'Still Alice', too, which was really good and got made into a film (the book was written from the perspective of a professor diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease).

If you're interested, it might be worth taking a look! Hope this helps."
askscience,"I have experience with deafness. One of the things I've learned about deafness, and that you non-deafies should know, is that there is a disconnect between hearing and comprehending what you hear. For my hearing friends, they may not be aware of the processing time to understand the words being said, because you understand sounds better, and you're just so much more skilled at it, it's almost instantaneous. For all practical purposes, words come out of someone's mouth, and go into your ears as words.

However when listening to speech, deafies on the other hand, have to consciously and constantly interpret sounds to words. Just noise comes from people's mouths, and there is extra processing time as we try extrapolating the meaning of this bit of sound, and matching up every other bit of sound to the shapes their mouth is making. Sometimes it's easier than others. Familiar people we usually understand better.

So one day I'm going down the grand canyon. I get a little ways down, and btw I brought no food or water and it's July. So after a while, probably from the exercise in lots of direct sunlight, plus dehydration, I start hearing things. It was very dim at first, like background noise. But as I continued I finally noticed it, and it sounds like voices. I try to pay attention to these voices but nope I couldn't tell what they were saying at all. Shouldn't you be able to understand voices in your own head? I puzzled on that question the rest of my time in the grand canyon (all day long)."
askscience,"That’s really interesting and I’ve never really thought about it. Yes, voices  can be heard by people who were born Deaf. In fact, all of the people I have worked with that had auditory hallucinations were born Deaf, but that’s not to say it’s always that way. All I know, is they are able to understand that it is a voice and they are able to tell me what the voices are saying to them. The hallucinations are internal but if they have never heard spoken language, I’m not sure how they are able to identify the words being said. Except that most Deaf people have some experiences with speech therapy so they have familiarity with how words are supposed to sound. Ive always thought it must be really scary for a Deaf person to have auditory hallucinations even more so than it would be for a hearing person. Hearing people can hear other sounds as well and a coping skill typically used is other sounds to try and drown out the voices. Deaf people have no way of doing that and the only sounds they can hear (if they are profoundly Deaf), are the voices. "
askscience,">Deaf people also do have auditory hallucinations (hear voices) as well. This is because auditory hallucinations are from an internal stimuli (in their brain) and not an external stimuli (an actual noise).

It seems that this is not the case for all deaf people - especially given the fact that if you were born deaf, you never developed the neural connections to experience sound. Anyone who is not fully deaf or had hearing earlier, though, could have true auditory hallucinations. [Here's](https://mosaicscience.com/story/can-deaf-people-hear-voices/) one article I found which is summarizing some research. Relevant excerpt:

> “Deaf people who had never heard did not experience true auditory hallucinations,” says Joanna. For this group, communication came via the mind’s eye: visual hallucinations of moving lips, or disembodied hands and arms making sign language movements.  

I decided to comment to clear this up because some people might get the impression from your comment that people who were born deaf and have never ever heard anything could still hear but only via hallucinations, and this is not the case."
askscience,"If they're profoundly deaf from birth then no.  OP's comment was not fully clear - auditory hallucinations are only possible in deaf people that have heard before. Lots of deaf people actually just have really, really weak hearing, like how a lot of blind people can still sense some light or shapes. So even if you are deaf from birth, in that your hearing is practically useless, it's possible to still be able to hear really loud noises. You'd have to be 100% deaf from birth to have no chance of audio hallucinations."
askscience,"That cannot be right though. According to the equivalence principle, all charges should fall at the same rate independently of their charge.

This is actually a rather subtle question, because we have to consider observers that are not inertial with respect to one another. In the rest frame of the charge free falling, there obviously is no radiation emitted. On the other hand, we can think of an observer ""at rest"" with respect to the source of the gravitational field, say for instance an observer standing on the ground on Earth, is recording the charge accelerate as it falls, and therefore should record radiation emitted which objectively carries energy. That means that the energy transported by the radiation is actually created by the (non inertial) change of referential. And that also implies that energy is not locally conserved when doing referential changes in the presence of a gravitational field, energy in this context is only conserved globally.

Honestly none of this is easy conceptually, not to mention actually doing the calculation. I think the initial answer sort of brushed off a valid question. It is irrelevant whether gravitons exists or not, the question still stands, there is a mathematical formalism to perform the calculation, and even worse, the same question applies without invoking gravitons, just about the acceleration of a charged mass."
askscience,"This is a shockingly unsettled question in the literature.  I was looking into it recently and there are 4 cases to consider:

Free falling charge and free falling observer: no radiation, everyone agrees, just due to the EP  
Supported charge and free falling observer: radiation, everyone agrees, due to EP  
Supported charge and supported observer: no radiation, everyone agrees, but the technical account is that the charge *is* radiating, but only into an area  behind the observer's Rindler horizon

Free falling charge and supported observer: unclear.  The classic Rohrlich paper/wikipedia/various SE posts all say yes, it does radiate, see also https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0006037

but other papers say no, eg:

https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9405050  
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0506049  
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9910019  
https://arxiv.org/abs/1509.08757

Personally, I don't understand how it can be yes.  The EP says free fall is not a state of proper acceleration, so there can't be radiation, and this has to be an observer independent fact."
askscience,"You can actually see further than 13.8 billion light years because the universe is expanding. Light travels at the speed of light, which is one light year per year. So the furthest distance that light can travel in the history of the universe is 13.8 billion light years. But in 13.8 billion years, the universe has expanded a lot. The object that the light came from can be more than 13.8 billion light years away. So we can see objects that are now further than 13.8 billion light years away. Taking this into account, the furthest object you can possibly see is about about 50 billion light years away.

In practice though, the universe was opaque in very early times, so when we look at very large distances we just see a uniform ""wall"". This is the cosmic microwave background. Note that you don't need an exceptionally good telescope to see that far - the limiting factor in telescopes is more about brightness than resolution, and this background is fairly bright.

And yes, if you were sitting at a star 200 light years away, you could see Earth as it was 200 years ago, although you'd need a very very good telescope to get enough resolution."
askscience,"Think of it like this: Hold a ball at arm's length away from you and take a picture of it. Hold that picture at the same distance. That picture is the light waves coming towards us.

Now pull the picture to your face and roll the ball away from you. You're seeing an image of the ball where it was at first - But we can agree that the ball is now further away from us, right? So we're looking at an object ""father than the speed of light.""

... or, that's my understanding of it. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me."
askscience,"Its kinda like stretching an elastic band.. Put 2 dots, and have a snail crawl from 1 to the other.. If you stretch the elastic in the right way, you can make the snail much quicker from point a to point b then what it normally would.

Yes, light can only go the speed of light in this universe, but if the universe itself is growing, the relative speed of the light will be faster then intuitively possible, much like the snail on the elastic band."
askscience,"The universe appears to be infinite. The Big Bang wasn't an explosion where everything started in one place and started moving away from each other at some speed. Instead, it was an early state of the universe where everything was very dense and uniform, but the universe was still infinite in size. Then everything expanded in all directions at the same time, with everything getting further away from everything else, and the universe got less and less dense over time.

It may be helpful to think of the expansion of the universe as ""everything getting less dense"" rather than ""the universe getting bigger"", because it's hard to imagine an infinite universe ""getting bigger"".

But yeah, things can be any distance away at all. We just can't see them unless they're close enough for their light to reach us."
askscience,"In nutshell:  
  
The universe's ""expanding"" basically means that more and more space appears between any two points, bringing them farther away. This ""more space"" appear slowly, but constantly. The longer the distance, there is more space appearing, bringing them farther away, ""stretching out"" the universe.  
  
Now imagine a star which was at 1 billion light years away from us (don't forget: a light year is a distance: the distance which a photon cover during one Earth-year). The photon left the star and started to travel to us. If the universe wouldn't expand then it would arrive at our eyes 1 billion years later. However, the universe is expanding: at each time unit, the photon has to travel a little more as more and more space appearing between us and the photon. At distance big enough between us and the distant object this effect creates more than 1 light year worth of space between us and the photon trying to reach us: this means that this photon can never reach us. This basically creates an event horizon: a ""bubble"" where no outside information can ever reach us.  
  
So, nothing travels faster than the speed of light, yet object is getting away from us faster than the speed of light. The most distant object what we saw (the light basically emitted not a long after the Big bang itself) is very, very, very far away from us now, as more and more space is appearing between us and this light emitting object.  
  
This is how possible that the photon was emitted 13.8 billion years ago, yet the object which emitted it is now 50 billion light years away from us."
askscience,"You'd need a very good telescope indeed--and a very large one.

At 200 lightyears, being able to resolve objects spaced even a meter apart would require a resolution of about 1.09×10^(-13) arcseconds. Using diffraction-limited optics, your superscope will need a primary mirror at least 91.7 million kilometers across. Or 9.17 *billion* kilometers across, if you want one-centimeter resolution. Ten kilometer resolution, enough to see cities, would only require a 9,170 kilometer mirror.

Still, you should go ahead and spring for the heavy-duty tripod though."
askscience,"The universe is expanding at a constant speed (67km per 1m parsecs), it's the observer who percieves it as faster than light because the farthest objects seem to be moving away faster. They are not, but it seems that way to us.

Imagine firemen holding a blanket and every fireman backing away at the same pace. To each fireman it would seem his speed to be relative to his neighbor's speed. To someone in the middle, everyone would be moving away at the same speed. But if you were to place a small ball on the blanket between the observer and the firemen the ball would appear to be moving away slower than the firemen, even though the blanket ensures that the speed is constant. Special relativity tells us that nothing can move faster than light,  but general relativity tells us that since the blanket is stretching it doesn't matter what the speed of light is.

And I just made a simple concept seem even more complicated. Sorry."
askscience,"Let's say that there was a massive telescope that would let you zoom at a 1800's town and it's people - how is it possible that you would see people walking and doing their chores, considering that a person reflects a limited amount of photons and each goes in a different direction - which at a massive distance means that they are spreading to different regions of the universe?

In fact, shouldn't that be a factor also when looking  at big objects billions of light-years away? Even with a couple of lenses side by side."
askscience,"The universe is indeed expanding faster than the speed of light.  

The light from the most distant objects we can see has only been traveling for about 14 billion years (lookback distance) but we figure the most distant objects we can see are actually about 45 billion light years away (comoving distance), because all the space in between has been expanding in the meantime.  Since the universe is expanding everywhere all at once, a large portion of what we can see is already receding faster than light.  At some point in time, we will never receive light from those objects ever again."
askscience,"It's counter-intuitive, but the definition of ""brightness"" that matters here does not actually go down with distance. The amount of flux you get *per square degree of view* is constant, excluding stuff like dust in the way etc. That's way a wall doesn't get hugely bright when you place your eyes against it.

So yeah, the *total* flux you get from an object decreases as 1/distance^(2). But if it's a resolved object, that emission is spread out of some number of square degrees of sky. If the object is 2x closer, then you get 4x as much flux, but it's also spread out over 4x as much of the sky, so the actual brightness in terms of flux per square degree of sky is constant. And that definition of brightness is actually the natural one that we use to say how bright something is - for the reason I stated above, that using the total flux means that a wall gets ""brighter"" if you are closer to it, which isn't the case.

However, this is only for the peak brightness you can get with a telescope. The brightness you see through a telescope depends on the magnification, provided you want your image to be in focus. There is a peak brightness you can see at a certain level of magnification, and the bigger the telescope, the higher magnification you can get at this peak brightness. So you do want to have a big telescope, to make sure you can get enough magnification without making the image really dim, but also to make sure you have enough resolution to actually see anything. Of course you can just take a really long image if it's too dim, although you won't see much detail if you're trying to photograph individual people."
askscience,"Thanks for the reply, but my question was probably more basic or dumb than you realized. I meant that if a surface reflects light - and if  
 light is particles/waves, and there's say 1 million photons that spread like billiard balls, each to a different direction, so they would spread so thin, that there is no coherent image to see. Or is there some physical reason that makes the photons to ""stay in shape""?"
askscience,"Sure, you do get down to a limit where you can count the individual photons you're getting - we actually do that in high-energy astronomy where we can detect each x-ray photon individually and measure them one at a time. But if you have a big enough collection area and collect photons for a long enough time, you'll get enough to form an image eventually.

But yeah, if you're giving off maybe 100 W of light, then by the time you're like 50x the distance to the moon, that's like one photon per square metre per second. So you would need a *huge* telescope to really collect enough to make an image."
askscience,"Are these calculations based on technology we have today, or is this just a general calculation that no matter how much technology we have, the fact would be we'd need a 9 billion kilometer wide telescope?  I know you mentioned diffraction-limited optics, not sure if that answers my question and I just don't know enough to know that it does lol

The reason I'm asking is if you think of the televisions from the 90's when I was young, they were big (say, 50"" or so and square), but the resolution was terrible (about 480p), now we have smart screens on our phones that are 4-5"" and have 2k resolution at nearly 600 ppi.

If say in 100 years the trend keeps going, could this 9 billion kilometer wide telescope possibly be, say, 30-40 meters wide, or again, is your calculations not limited by technology?"
askscience,"[Angular resolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_resolution) is limited by the nature of how electromagnetic waves propagate. It varies according to wavelength; my figures are for visible (specifically blue) light, and near-infrared light would require perhaps 25 times the aperture to achieve the same resolution.

You can enhance the resolution of acquired images with modern image processing techniques such as deconvolution of the point spread function, but *CSI:Miami*-level ""enhancement"" is still science fiction and probably always will be.

That being said, a 40-meter telescope might someday be able to *detect* a brightly-illuminated city on the dark side of a planet 200 light years away, but it would not be able to *visually distinguish* two such cities a few kilometers apart."
askscience,"There are a couple of problems:  
1. The sun is way brighter than the earth. 50 light-years out it will overwhelm the light from earth.  
2. The earth spins. Your window to see the earth from a telescope would be very limited.  
3. The motion of the earth, in both, its orbit and spin would make the picture very blurry if you were tracking a city.  
4. The atmosphere would also add distortion. This is why we have telescopes on top of mountains and in space for looking further away."
askscience,"The microwaves were emitted by gas from the early universe, though they weren't microwaves yet - they were higher energy photons that got redshifted over time. But this early gas was so thick and dense that it was opaque, so we can't see further back in the universe than that point. The further away things are, the further back in time you're looking. So when you look far enough away, the universe turns opaque, and the ""surface"" of that wall is what emits the cosmic microwave background"
askscience,"It's because light gets scattered off of ions [(Thomson scattering)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson_scattering).

Before the cosmic microwave background was emitted the Universe was so hot that all the (hydrogen) atoms were ionized, so there were a lot of free electrons so light could only travel a short distance before being scattered. As the Universe expanded and cooled the electrons joined with protons to form hydrogen [recombination](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology\)) and light was able to travel freely.

[After about one billion years the hydrogen was actually largely ionized again by stars and galaxies, but the density is much much lower due to the expansion of space.]"
askscience,"To add, the telescope would see things that were 50 years old from when it took the picture, but since you can't send the telescope out there in any less than 50 years, you'll never be able to see into the past. If you magically send it out at light speed, then it takes a picture and send it to you, the image will be of the time you sent the telescope out, and you'll get to see it 50 years after that. Or in other words it will be a digital mirror. 

Upon some reading, the quasar is only active on the order of millions of years. That might be enough to get life started, but probably not to get some weird civilization of intelligent beings evolved just in time for their sun to disappear."
askscience,"Engineering?

Chernobyl was based on a stupid reactor type that is not built any more. In addition the operators were actively overriding multiple safety rules and mechanisms - something that won't happen any more because we have an example how that can end. Another accident like Fukushima is not completely impossible if something really bad happens (like one of the most violent earthquakes and tsunamis in recorded history). Chernobyl will stay a unique event.

It is very difficult and problematic to assign numbers to big accidents. They are so rare that there is not enough data to determine it experimentally."
askscience,"Fukushima is a great example of nuclear safety: the plant had countless safety violations, was hit by a massive earthquake followed by several huge waves of a tsunami, the emergency generators failed.... it was just the worst case scenario, really. 

The Japanese have been criticised for hiding the scale of issues, with international reports including things like ""it could cause up to 200 deaths from cancer"" and similar. There are about 500 disaster related deaths reported so far, but that includes deaths from anything related, including workplace accidents or people who died during the evacuation in a car accident. 

In other words, the worst of the worst case nuclear disaster that has happened once in the past decade and was caused by every possible issue is about as a decade of coal mining deaths in America. "
askscience,"The tsunami Wall was originally based on certain historical estimates. As new models for wave runup were made, they twice upgraded the height of the wall to exceed the computer model estimates of the worst tsunami run up. 

In 2009 they actually had a new wave model that almost perfectly predicted the 2011 tsunami. It seemed so extreme they had an independent performing a study to confirm it before they upgraded the tsunami wall again. That study was complete the week before the Fukushima accident, there wasn’t any time to act on it. 

In my opinion, after the 2009 analysis, they should have implemented or been forced to implement comprehensive compensatory actions to ensure adequate core cooling even if there was a large water run up event. They didn’t consider the possibility that the emergency batteries could be flooded, which greatly complicated the event. Their severe accident guidelines also were not in accordance with industry standards and not maintained, something that the chair of the boiling water reactor emergency procedure committee told me last month was a huge shock to him. He ended up going to japan for 4 months to help them stabilize the plant. "
askscience,"Deaths caused are not the only metric of a nuclear disaster. Do coal accidents render large areas of inhabited urban land unsafe for extended periods? I suppose Centralia is an example of that, but I think the Fukushima exclusion zone is much larger.

[Fukushima exclusion zone](https://blog.safecast.org/2013/12/current-fukushima-exclusion-zone-map/)

Edit: I understand that global warming is a problem that needs to be addressed, and that nuclear power may be an important part of that. But dismissing the Fukushima accident because of the small number of deaths is ignoring the 150,000 people permanently displaced from their homes and the large exclusion zone that won't be lived on again for over 100 years."
askscience,"Boiling water reactor Mark I and II containment systems are innerted with nitrogen so that they cannot have an explosion inside the containment. And they didn’t. The explosions were due to the containment to being operated over 3 times their design pressure while being overheated, causing leaks. The hydrogen that leaked out is what exploded. But these weren’t containment system explosions. 

Post TMI didn’t require passive hydrogen converters. You needed approved hydrogen control systems. For the older bwrs you inerted the containment, and you had to be able to utilize vent/purge of the containment to prevent exceeding the detonation limit. Mark 3 bwrs and the ice condenser PWR plants had to use hydrogen preigniters and recombiners, along with limits on hydrogen generating materials. Large dry PWR containments had no special limits but did require vent and purge capability, as those units should not be building up enough explosive capability to damage the containment. 

This is all about the containment though. It doesn’t address hydrogen leaks from the containment. 

After Fukushima, foreign plants started requiring passive hydrogen recombiners, but that’s not universal. "
askscience,"This is how I saw it years ago. But it turns out for an autonomous diagnostic AI to be safe and effective, you need to take into account where it is used and how you acquire the ""bunch of medical data"". Because we focus on bringing specialty diagnostics to primary care it needs to work in primary care - with the staff already there.

​

So that actually required an assistive AI coupled with a robotic camera to help primary care staff that never took images of the eye before take high quality images. 

​

Again because of the environment it will be used in, a probability output was not deemed appropriate, so it actually outputs a clinical decision with a referral recommendation. "
askscience,"No issues with primary care docs, because they typically feel uncomfortable making this decion. So they are used to referring these patients to specialists like me - and now they can do it while the patient is with them. That is why I used the term ""diagnostic superpowers"" for the primary care provider (can be RNPs also).

​

There are different views on the training data for machine learning - we focus on high quality data rather than large quantities of data - though we still used over 1 million samples to train the detectors."
askscience,"Good question. The AI system is not perfect, just as doctors are not perfect - as you can see in the discussion section of the paper. SO this will happen.

There are two real-world scenarios in which this can happen with the autonomous diagnostic AI as currently cleared:

1. more than mild diabetic retinopathy is detected by the AI system, patient is therefore referred by primary care to an eye care specialist such as me, who then concludes the retina is normal - this will happen in about 9% of cases given the 90.7% specificity. Patient hears that everything is OK after all and that they need to be reexamined in 12 months (in the US at least)
2. more than mild diabetic retinopathy is not detected by the AI system, patient is not referred and just happens to be examine by an eye care provider for another reason who discovers diabetic retinopathy. This will happen in about 13% of cases overall, given the 87.2% sensitivity, and we saw this in about 2.6% of cases with the worst disease given the 97.4% sensitivity to vision threatening disease.

edited typo"
askscience,"I'm a FM doc-in-training.  AI does not scare me.  There is more than enough work to go around.  At the end of the day, for me personally it is not about ""getting the diagnosis right"" but much more about the relationship with my patients and helping them through the various events and stages of their lives.

An AI that takes over the 'hard medicine' part of my work would simply free me to work more on the relationship part, and helping my patients in-between times (you know, the hard stuff like actually changing diet and lifestyle).  Hell, I might even be able to do housecalls, wouldn't that be amazing.

An AI -- by definition -- will never take over the vitalist aspects of medical care, for those patients who want it.  For the scientific/non-vitalist aspects of medical care, I'll take all the help I can get.

That said, if you're a GP who only does algorithm medicine (as many are) yes, AI might be a concern.  Most aren't concerned, but I feel that is because they do not appreciate the scale and capability of the technology at play.  (Perhaps more importantly, where the technology will be in a few more years.)"
askscience,"I don't understand why this would or should scare GPs?

First of all it still has to be administered by a GP and doctors (probably rightfully) have a cartel/monopoly on giving medical care and advice, by law. As a result this would only make GPs more productive and additionally able to focus more on the truly difficult cases or the ones requiring a lot of personal attention. Alternatively, it would help them spend more time hearing out patients that have complex problems and giving more personalized care while letting the bulk of ordinary cases be handled by this AI.

Eventually if this was everywhere and made GPs much more efficeint, we would want a few less GPs but this is not a problem as there are way too few GPs at the moment anyway and this shortage is only growing. If this brings down the cost of healthcare, this is good for America and good for the world.

Currently we have no idea what to do when the current population bubble all gets old and we don't have enough young people to take care of them. However if you make the labor of taking care of the elderly more affordable and more efficient, you don't need as many people to do it and thus our societies could continue to function."
askscience,">  however, the fact that you're there in the first place is the part that would shift.

Oh absolutely.  I have no illusions about what my status or clientele will be once AI becomes the dominant prescriber and implementer of medical care.  

At the same time, however, AI cannot cover *everyone.*  There will always be a large population of technophobes, as well as people who live in areas too rural or poor to support the use of advanced technology.  I didn't sign up for the paycheck, so at the end of the day if I'm paid in dollars, bitcoin, or fresh chicken eggs, I'll be perfectly happy.

There is an innate human drive to seek counsel, solace, and healing from a doctor figure.  This is at least thousands of years old.  Considering the ability of (good) veterinarians to calm animals while working on them, it probably predates us as a species.  Computers will never fill that niche, any more than ebooks will ever completely replace real books.

Speaking of books, the market pricing of ebooks is the principle reason I am completely not afraid of AI.  If you go on Amazon, the price of a Kindle book is often just a few pennies cheaper than the actual book.  You can usually buy the used book for much cheaper.  Ebooks should be almost free, but they are not, because of arbitrary fees set by publishing houses.

AI medicine will also have very large fees associated with it.  We will be able to provide medical care more effectively and more cheaply than we can right now, but the costs associated with technology-based medical care will be high.  Very high.  High enough that I'll always have a job and more work than I will ever accomplish.

We're still trying to convince people to use *vaccines* which are a demonstrably safe form of medical care that has been around for a century.  If this many people don't trust vaccines, how many more will be hesitant to trust a robot over a family doctor?"
askscience,"OP said this a number of times throughout the AMA so i'll reiterate. This does something that the GP can't, it doesn't make the GP obsolete, it's a tool they use on the patient instead of sending them to a specialist. They couldn't diagnose these conditions in their office in the first place and now they can, so GPs are certainly better off.

It can be argued that it could make specialists obsolete but for now it's a step to free up specialists to deal with, well... more specialized cases.

If an AI could ever entirely replace a medical specialist then it's reasonable to assume that most human activity could be entirely replaced as well so there would probably be more pressing issues at that point."
askscience,">While the FDA trial was not designed to compare, here is what is in the paper:  
>  
>""The results of this study show that the AI system in a primary care setting robustly exceeded the pre-specified primary endpoint goals with a sensitivity of 87.2% (>85%), a specificity of 90.7% (>82.5%), and an imageability rate of 96.1%. Sensitivity is a patient safety criterion, because the AI system’s primary role is to identify those people with diabetes who are likely to have diabetic retinopathy that requires further evaluation by an eye care provider. Previous studies have shown that board-certified ophthalmologists that perform indirect ophthalmoscopy achieve an average sensitivity of 33%,\[27\] 34%,\[28\] or 73%\[9\]  compared to the same ETDRS standard.""

(quoting myself from another post)"
askscience,"Not sure what you mean by benchmark. In our study we took a sample of 900 people with diabetes. Our paper cites studies of other sets of people with diabetes, showing how ophthalmologists perform (the 33%, 34%, 73% sensitivity) on detecting diabetic retinopathy according to the same reading center standard. Ophthalmologists are highly specialized physicians whose expertise it is to diagnose eye disease including diabetic retinopathy. 

There are studies of non-ophthalmologists performing similar tasks, and typically their performance is lower than that of ophthalmologists.

Does that answer your question?"
askscience,"A few years ago I owned a 10 inch reflector telescope. I did some looking around to find the most distant object that an amateur astronomer could hope to see, and found [quasar 3C 273](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3C_273) seemed to be it. 

2.4 billion light years out.

Then I did some math to put it in perspective. If you created a model of the universe in which the distance from the Earth to the Sun was 1 inch, then 3C 273, in your model, would be past Neptune in the real world. Think for a minute how insanely *bright* that object must be, to be visible at that distance. (If you brought the quasar to about 34 light years from Earth, it would be about as bright as the sun in our sky. For comparison, our sun is about 8 light *minutes* from us.)

>Say you teleported to some observatory 200 lightyears away and were able to use a telescope to look back at Earth. Say you could also zoom in enough to see cities.

Someone crunched the numbers on this, I think on Reddit, a little while back. Turns out the size of lens you'd need to be able to do this, would be so massive it would collapse itself into a black hole."
askscience,"Never found it. It would have looked just like a dim star.

For objects you can't see with the naked eye, there are some techniques for finding them in the telescope. Usually you use ""star-hopping"" to find it. You first locate some known, visible stars that the object you're looking for is near. Look through your telescope and you can see dimmer stars, then keep referencing your star map, matching up the patterns, and slowly make your way from star to star until you land on the object. This is made trickier by the fact that everything in your telescope is reversed and upside down, so you have to keep that in mind when moving your scope.

Also I had a [Telrad finder](https://agenaastro.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/o/f/ofin-te-tel-1s_6.jpg) on my scope that helped. It has illuminated bullseye rings, the rings are (IIRC) 1, 2, and 4 degrees diameter. So if you know your object is 2 degrees from a star you can see, you set that star on the largest ring and then your object should be in the center.

It's pretty thrilling to spend some time doing this, and have it pay off when you finally check your eyepiece and BOOM, there it is! Takes practice."
askscience,"That gives me an interesting thought. With the large number of rogue planets we expect to exist, it seems possible there could be some that happen to be close enough to a quasar to get energy from it to support life. 

I'm not sure what the wavelengths would be like, or if it might be hostile to life. But the energy might be there and life might be able to evolve. 

Weird thought. No nearby planets, no seasons. "
askscience,"I operate a nuclear plant that came online around then. 

Here’s the main difference. My unit requires active power to sustain critical safety functions, and we have events that require human action within 2-10 minutes. The plant has a slew of automatic safety systems, but they are dumb systems that trigger on specific signals and have no ability to monitor the overall health of the plant and make intelligent decisions, they are only there to deal with immediate plant stabilization until us operators can take control. 

Meanwhile, new plants are walkaway safe for days or weeks, and in certain cases, indefinitely. They require little or no electrical power to perform critical safety functions, and can be made safe using pre built external fire truck hookups. 

Please feel free to ask questions. "
askscience,"Depends on the event. For a large break LOCA I’m supposed to have RHR heat exchangers in service within 10 minutes to remove decay heat and maintain containment pressure/temperature within limits.

For a non complicated event you may not need to do anything. Plant scrams and self stabilized. 

It’s all very event based. Additionally, while safety analysis assumes no operator actions for 10-30 minutes and only minimal actions after that, operators can perform more effective mitigation actions by being able to diagnose the event. So an example, is if you blow a reactor coolant pump seal, you’ll have a small LOCA, causing a high drywall pressure eccs initiation signal. The operators can diagnose this event and isolate the pump loop and stop the leak, preventing the eccs from initiating. The plant stays safe with no human action, but with human action you have a much less significant transient, no cold water injection of lower quality water, no loss of non vital systems due to load shedding and emergency response sequencer logic. 

Boiling water reactors in particular also have 90-120 second time critical actions in the event the reactor does not shutdown when required, which is to prevent significant core damaging oscillations and instability. 

I’ve seen 16 scrams, and only 1 required significant operator actions to stabilize the plant. Typically you just watch the plant take care of itself and take the follow up actions. "
askscience,"It’s not really feasible. For non safety control systems, putting digital upgrades in can easily run 15-20 million. Safety related digital systems with logic controls is far far more expensive. Another issue is you need more data from the plant for a control system to make smart decisions. Our last digital upgrade reused most of the old instruments and cabling, if we wanted to get more data to it to make smarter decisions we were looking at large increases in price. Instead we found relationships between various parameters that allowed us to indirectly infer reactor power (rather than directly sending a reactor power signal to our feed water system) and gave us similar functionality. 

But the regulatory requirements, data and inputs required, and testing puts these types of upgrades out of reach for economic purposes. Additionally generation 2 reactors are not designed with passive safety features. That means you need pumps to work, valves to operate, which may require human intervention if the automatic controls fail (which they do from time to time). In a plant with passive safety functions, you generally only need one or two things to work and you get hours or days before you have to make major decisions or intervene. In active safety plants, like all generation 2 plants, you can uncover the core and breach the reactor vessel in 45 minutes to 2 hours depending on plant type, so if a valve motor fails you don’t have passive safety backing you up until you can fix it. You need an operator to go out there and manually open it. 

Just a quick chat about digital systems, the software quality assurance and digital system integration requirements are very challenging, and even non safety systems can require extensive paperwork and testing. The fear with these systems is that a software flaw is a design flaw, and the error it causes will happen simultaneously in all redundant channels of the system at the same time when it is triggered. The potential for common cause failure frightens the us nuclear regulatory commission and is why many plants stopped doing digital upgrades and instead pay large sums of money to get old 1970s solid state circuit cards refurbished. "
askscience,"They aren’t taboo. They are uneconomical in most places. It costs so much to build nuclear units that it doesn’t make short term sense, even when nuclear is the better long term option, and that’s especially true in merchant markets. 

At least in the us, the huge increase in “fracking” and the US becoming a major natgas producer has shifted the market. the expanded use of natgas plants (especially combined cycle plants which are 50-60% cycle efficiency) has driven electricity costs low enough that coal and nuclear struggle in both short and long term cost projections. Additionally there is much less risk to building a natgas unit compared to a nuclear unit. It takes 3-5 years to build a 1 Gw combined cycle natgas plant which can be operated with less than 50 total staff and costs 4 billion usd. A 2 GW nuclear plant may come online in 8-12 years, with significant regulatory hurdles, 16-22 billion usd cost, and 800 staff. So there’s a huge difference there and that’s before you even consider the long term costs of spent fuel management and site disposal. You take on huge liabilities before the unit is even finished building. 

Economics have killed nuclear. The taboo has mostly gone away in most of the US. And overseas we are seeing a lot of nuclear expansion. "
askscience,"> 1 Gw combined cycle natgas plant which can be operated with less than 50 total staff [...]. A 2 GW nuclear plant [...] 800 staff. 

Wow.  I had no idea that staffing requirements were *that* much larger for nukes.  What's the rough breakdown between physical/engineering requirements and regulatory requirements here (for staff)?

I'd always assumed staffing requirements for nuclear plants would be somewhat higher, but factor of 8 (for equal power) is way out of the range I would have guessed.


Cheers,

Michael
"
askscience,"Well....typically the largest driver for staffing is meeting minimum ops/security staffing, and having sufficient staff for emergency response purposes. Emergency response requirements drives a large amount of minimum staffing. Those positions are used and needed for other stuff though. 

It’s really hard to say without going into the nitty gritty details. From a pure legal perspective, you have to maintain the stuff above. Minimum operations staffing is typically 3 senior reactor operators, a shift technical advisor/engineer, at least 3 field operators, 2 rad techs, a chemistry tech, and 1 or 2 maintenance techs. Like that’s bare minimum. Plus you also need a fire brigade staffed (we use field operators for it at my station, but it’s different everywhere). 

But you have a ton of required maintenance you have to do, much of which is regulatory driven. You have Engineering, which you need a full time technical staff because you literally can’t change lightbulb designs without a 100 page change package (seriously.....took a colleague of mine almost 2 months to change the approved design for light bulbs in the plant to switch to LEDs). Then you get new regulatory stuff, or INPO/fleet requirements and projects, and it becomes overwhelming. 

One big thing that hurts, is the nrc has kind of extended their oversight outside of the reactor system. Example: if you have a turbine control valve fail which causes a reactor scram, the nrc can give you violations for that. Even though the plant is designed to be safe in that condition explicitly, the fact that you failed to do adequate preventative maintenance on a power generation asset which led to a reactor scram is a violation of maintenance rule. You never lost a safety function, never lost operability if any license required system, but it’s still an issue. So you have all this required preventative maintenance you have to do in the power production side of the plant which anywhere else you would just run to failure or until a major scheduled maintenance outage. 

"
askscience,"Decomposition is an exothermic process. A common problem where large piles of wood chips are stacked (mulch piles, etc). With enough air into the pile and enough decomposing material, fire can and does happen.

 decomposing material also releases methane, which in the right environment can be ignited by sparks from a convenient rockfall.

It’s even been discovered that spontaneous fission reactions have take place in pockets of fissile ore that reach critical mass."
askscience,"Don’t know about op but I can answer for my country. It’s not usually hot here. We usually get a couple of weeks in the summer of good dry weather where we can cut and dry the hay before storing it. A neighbouring farmer had his hay shed catch on fire because of this during rain shortly after bringing all his hay in.

It was funnily enough the rain that essentially caused the whole thing. He had made the hay and usually if it’s sunny you leave the bales out where they can dry in the sun. Unfortunately it was set to rain a few days after he baled the hay so he brought it in early when it was still wet and stacked them tightly in his shed. One or more of them started to essentially rot in the middle where or was wettest and warmest and the bacteria responsible for the rotting gave off enough heat to cause the bake to catch fire"
askscience,"When I was a kid I used to look for snakes in my neighbours garden as his compost heap of cut grass was always warm which reptiles love. One day I stuck my arm into it and nearly burnt my hand. I got inquisitive, took pitchfork, stuck it in to the big pile and lifted it up exposing the middle: it immediately burst into flames. I dropped the fork and it all went out. Walked away whistling, never told anyone."
askscience,"It can happen in winter also, the outside temp doesn't matter much. I had a compost pile next to my garden that let off lots of steam in the winter when the conditions were right. It never caught fire. In hay barns when damp hay or straw starts to rot, sometimes the hay doesn't burst into flames but smolders until finally going out on its own leaving a black charred hole in the stack of bales or loose mound. Most of the time you just get moldy hay though."
askscience,"My municipality is heavily forested and many of the neighborhoods are old and built in amongst the trees, rather than modern developments where everything is clear-cut first. As a result we have leaf collection provided by the counties around here in the fall. If you drive past any of the waste transfer sites you can see massive piles of wet leaves smoldering as a result of the same process. Always wigged me out as a kid."
askscience,"Thank you! Let me ask another question: when two protons crash in an particle accelerator, for example, do they have enough energy to ""break"" each other apart as if they would collide inside their orbitals would imply the strong interaction doesn't have enough time to repulse them - or would the breaking into quarks be a result of the strong interaction getting so repulsive(as to counteract the protons getting closer and closer) that the energy generated would explain it."
askscience,Two protons in colliders don't have orbitals. If they have sufficient energy the protons can get destroyed and you can get a few to tens of new particles (sometimes more than 100 at the LHC). At this energy level you are more looking at collisions between quarks and gluons - that they happen to be in a proton doesn't matter much as the proton binding energy (and all other potential energies) is tiny compared to the energy from the accelerator.
askscience,"What about the mechanism in which atoms nuclei are shot with protons or neutrons(transmutation for example), the reason protons or neutrons can be removed from the nucleus this way, can be explained by the strong interaction being repulsive at small enough distances? Meaning that the proton shot manages to get so close to the other proton, that the repulsion generated is larger than the binding of the proton being shot at and the nucleus it is bound to."
askscience,"Nuclear reactions occur at much lower energies than LHC collisions. But both attractive or repulsive interactions can cause nucleons to be knocked out of some target nucleus in a reaction. The repulsion of the NN force at short distances isn’t really directly observable in the case of a reaction between a nucleon and a nucleus of A > 1, because you can’t pinpoint locations of individual nucleons within the nucleus.

For reaction theory calculations, you often have phenomenological optical potentials that describe the interaction of the incoming nucleon with the entire target nucleus. The optical potential is complex, so it allows probability flux to leave the elastic channel, and go into reaction channels."
askscience,"> The repulsion of the NN Force at short distances isn’t really directly observable in the case of a reaction between a nucleon and a nucleus of A > 1, because you can’t pinpoint locations of individual nucleons within the nucleus.

In that case, would you have a different answer for the first follow-up question I asked?

I also don't think I completely understand your second paragraph, but I guess it's on the realm of quantum mechanics?"
askscience,"/u/mfb- answered the question at HEP energies (TeV), and I'm answering at nuclear physics energies (MeV-GeV).

The two-proton system has no bound states, but it has at least one resonant state that can be populated (the diproton). There is also a reaction channel, where the protons combine to form a deuteron in a weak-mediated reaction. This happens in the sun, but the cross section is too low to observe it in accelerator experiments.

If you collide protons at nuclear physics energies, you'll mostly get elastic scattering (Coulomb and/or nuclear, depending on their relative kinetic energy). You'll also get some resonant diproton production, and deuteron production, both with extremely small probabilities.

At higher energies, you can start to probe the valence quarks within the protons. You can flip one of their spins, and turn a proton into a delta resonance. You can have all kinds of weak reactions, where some number of quarks change flavors, and turn one or both protons into some other heavier hadron.

At extremely high energies, you'll start to smash apart protons, as mentioned above.

>I also don't think I completely understand your second paragraph, but I guess it's on the realm of quantum mechanics?

Yes, everything discussed here is quantum. Classical mechanics can't really describe anything in nuclear or particle physics."
askscience,"> If you collide protons at nuclear physics energies, you'll mostly get elastic scattering (Coulomb and/or nuclear, depending on their relative kinetic energy).

Correct me if I'm wrong, would this mean that Coulomb scattering would occur in lower kinetic energy levels, whereas nuclear would occur on higher, but yet, nuclear energy levels?


> At extremely high energies, you'll start to smash apart protons, as mentioned above.

What force is responsible for that?"
askscience,"The F-104 does *****NOT***** have small wings. It is a very deceptive looking aircraft.

An F-104 has 200 sq ft of wing area for a 6 ton plane. An F-15 by comparison has 600 sq ft of wing area for an 18 ton plane. A 747-400 has 5600 sq ft of wing area for a 180 ton plane.

So a 747-400 a jumbo jet has smaller wings than the F-104 relative to the weight they carry.

The F-104 is just a full sized jet engine with parts from a 1/3rd scale plane attached to it. If you remove the engine and cockpit there is very little else to the aircraft."
askscience,"The mass of a plane has very little to do with flight.  It's about the lifting coefficient of the plane, and the power to weight ratio.  The design of both the F-15, and even a 747 have much larger lifting areas including both body and wings then a Starfighter.  The F-104 is basically a jet engine with some control surfaces strapped on compared to any other comparable 1950s through 1970s military aircraft."
askscience,"The body area isn’t particularly relevant to the performance of an aircraft. The thing that matters for limiting performance is the drag for the body. You could easily make the fuselage volume 10x bigger and if you reduce it’s drag you end up with higher performance. That’s why you’ll never see such a number. The ratio can be arbitrary and change with few consequences like with extended fuselage models.

The wing shape definitely plays a role in efficiency vs performance though. The F-104 had a comically inefficient wing. It was so thin that [the leading edges](https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-8a68a20f38d41d01a5e46ebc47886fce-c) had the profile of a knife and needed protective covers on the ground."
askscience,"Wingspace is only half the battle. The thickness of the front compared to the back makes a massive difference. 
The planes you mentioned, their wings are proportionally smaller to weight, but they are much thicker. The pressure differences, and of course the drag as well, are considerably better.
A DC-3 has VERY thick wings overall. Which is why it can takeoff in shorter spans than a ww1 fighter even gross weight. The tradeoff being very high drag and slow flying overall. But its practically a helicopter empty takeoff.

The f-104's wings, much like the f-5 or f-20, are razor thin. No angle of attack much at all. Its lifting muscle is pathetic. Probably stalls at 220mph or more gross weight.
Its built for speed and high-G high speed based maneuvers only. Not my cup of tea at all, but i can respect purpose-built aircraft.
"
askscience,"A conventional round fuselage, such as the F-104 has, produces negligible lift, but the F-15's body actually does produce useful amounts of lift. The lifting body design is the reason an Israeli F-15 made it home despite having a wing sheared off almost at the root in a midair collision. The pilot didn't realize how much of the wing he'd lost until he landed, and McDonnell-Douglas engineers said it couldn't fly until they saw pictures. After some wind tunnel work, they found that the lifting body design was more effective than they thought."
askscience,I was at the Cleveland airshow last weekend and saw a lot of C130s and thought they would be huge. They were obviously larger than the average military plane but when I saw the size of the C5M (Super)galaxy I was blown away. Compared to the size of the C130s parked next to it my mind was blown. I swear you could fit 2-3 C130s inside the Galaxy/Supergalaxy if you folded their wings up.
askscience,"At an air show years ago, I had a great time walking around an F-16. Standing under the wing, I had to put my ear on my shoulder to fit. After that I went over to an F-15 and had to stretch out my fingers to touch the wing. The F-15 is *huge*. 

Someday I hope to do such a walkaround of an F-22. They seem to be of similar size to the F-15, but I've not googled the specs. *Definitely* sexier, though. "
askscience,"C-130: F-150 of the sky.  It can go off-roading and haul some stuff for the weekend.  C-17:Semi-Truck of the sky.  Still pretty flexible in where you can drive it, and you don’t even always need pavement.  You can take the whole house with!  C-5: freight train of the sky.  You can only go certain places because you’re so big, but you can move an entire construction crew, including all their vehicles!"
askscience,"1 and 2 ejects for my relatives respectively. They both went on to pilot  F4 phantom II's;

Apparently a difference of night and day; but then again, as germans do, they got them delivered with all these cool useful gadgets, that was not in the contract (might have this a bit wrong/backwards), then paid more money to have them removed; only to have them bought again at a later date and reinstalled at a premium. 

​

Apparently they were a technological joke compared to the Turkish F4's, in terms of capabilities; but then again the turks used to steal the german firefighting equipment every-time the germans brought that stuff with them, cause the turks did not really have any."
askscience,"Even more importantly, in times of war you want to save your pilots at any cost. It's relatively easy to make new planes, but training new pilots takes a lot of preparation and time.

That's basically what led to the demise of the German air force after a few years of WWII - keeping experienced pilots in the field too long and having too many of them killed, losing their experience and ability to teach new pilots better, thus resulting in badly trained rookie pilots entering the field against professionally trained allied pilots.

At the beginning of WWII the German air force had some of the most experienced and best trained personnel worldwide or at least in Europe. IIRC, In the early 40s, when the British and Americans were training their new pilots  extensively (up to 100-300 flight hours before entering conflict), the German air force was burning through their experienced pilots on the front lines and throwing in inexperienced pilots at something like 20-30 flight hours.

Keeping that in mind the post-war Starfighter fiasco would have had really bad effects in war times, especially considering that air superiority was necessarily required to deny attacks of superior Soviet mechanised ground forces. "
askscience,"There's lots of different rules... But it's all trade offs. Big thick wings might have more drag but they can carry lots of fuel and stores etc. Large wings can give excellent turn rate but terrible roll rate etc.

The area rule is worth looking into though. Basically if you cut an airplane up like salami, you want the total area of each slice to be the same - even if the shape of each slice is wildly different."
askscience,"Anderson's Intro to Flight might be the best option for the basics without the prerequisite knowledge. 

In reality, fixed-wing aircraft design books (that really address the basics of why they be how they be) are senior-level undergraduate texts because the chain of prerequisites goes roughly like Calculus + Physics > Differential Equations > Fluid Mechanics + Mechanics of Materials > Aerodynamics > Stability and Controls + Vibrations + Aerospace Structures > Flight Mechanics > Design.  

Aerospace undergraduate design ""capstone"" courses really earn the moniker. Sadly, I can also tell you that most fresh graduates with a bachelor's in AE still won't be able to answer many of the ""why"" questions simply because there are so many considerations. "
askscience,"As discussed elsewhere in the thread, if the F-104 didn't actually have small wings for its size (200 square feet for 6 tons empty / 13 tons MTOW) then the F-102 *definitely* didn't have small wings for its size (660 square feet for 9 tons empty / 11 tons MTOW). In fact, its wings are [larger than that of the ATR-42](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATR_42#Specifications) while the ATR's MTOW is over 18 tons. 

The F-102's troubles were elsewhere. "
askscience,"On a related note, that's why the T-38 supersonic jet trainer, which was designed around this same time period but is still used today to train USAF pilots, seems to have such stubby wings and aerodynamically is a very high wing-loading plane.

It was meant to emulate the flight characteristics of the F-100, F-102, F-105, and other high-speed-optimized interceptors. No fly-by-wire, HUD, or leading-edge extensions like nearly all frontline US fighters now have. Nor does it have automatic flaps like its derivative, the F-5 Tiger II (also known as the ""MiG-28"" in the movie Top Gun).

For those reasons, though, it is incredibly unforgiving at low speeds and especially low altitudes. Many T-38 pilots have been killed in the landing pattern as a result of pushing bad approaches. You're rolling the dice if you develop a high sink rate and don't execute a stall recovery.

That being said, if you can fly a T-38, you can fly just about any pointy-nose fighter. It's only now that the fleet is now on average 50+ years old and there is an increased need for undergraduate pilots to learn more complex sensor and systems management that the USAF is seeking a replacement."
askscience,"Nope!

So we're going to pretend the Earth is a perfectly rigid body that can stop on a dime, while the people on top are not attached at all, and also there's no atmosphere. If the Earth suddenly stopped moving, the people would continue to move forwards at their current velocity. Is that fast enough to escape the Earth?

The emphasis here is that you would continue to move *at your current velocity*. If you're not escaping the Earth right now, then your speed is below escape velocity. The Earth stopping won't make you speed up. Think of it this way: if the surface of the Earth was moving close to escape velocity, then the Earth would be basically flying apart.

I'll give you some numbers to get the scale of it anyway. The Earth's equator is about 40,000 km around (that's more or less the original definition of the metre). The Earth rotates about once every 24 hours (it's actually slightly faster than that - a day is 24 hours because that's relative to the Sun and we're moving around the Sun, but 24 hours is close enough for this estimate). 40,000 km/24 hours = about 460 m/s, or 1,700 km/h, or 1,000 mph. It's somewhere between mach 1 and mach 2 at sea level. By contrast, escape velocity is about 11 km/s - that's about 40,000 km/h, or 25,000 mph. And just to orbit in a circle means you have to go at about 8 km/s. The Earth's rotation is fast enough that it *does* matter which direction you launch your rocket - it makes like a 10% difference in speed - but it's still on the level of a supersonic jet rather than an interplanetary rocket."
askscience,"You doing it wrong the earth is no longer moving.
Escape velocity is affected my the earth's momentum. so you take your weight and the speed we travel while on the earth around the sun to calculate our momentum. Then you need to calculate how far earths gravity would let you travel before it reasserts itself on your momentum.

Also depending what side of the earth you on.
You may just get slammed in to the ground."
askscience,"Nah it's a coincidence. The rotation speed at the equator happens to be about 5% of escape velocity, which is ~1/20th. We divided the day into 24 chunks because 24 is a nice number with a lot of factors. 1/20th is just sort of close-ish to 1/24th.

Venus has about the same escape velocity as Earth, but is tidally locked and rotates once every 240 days. The rotation speed at the equator of Venus is about 6,000 times lower than its escape velocity."
askscience,"Ha! Just a coincidence (it's also not precise). The units end up the same, which is helpful, you're going to have a speed when you calculate EV, and circumference/hr is a speed.

And EV is based (in part) on the radius, and circumference is as well, of course, so you've got at least one common variable. But it stops there.

The mass of an object affects EV, so if the planet was denser or lighter, the relationship would be thrown off without the circumference changing. The hour is also arbitrary here.


"
askscience,"If the earth stopped rotating, from your point of view you would be launched at close to 1000mph at the equator. A little less the further north or south you were. Provided you weren’t splattered against anything you would gain some altitude and decelerate but would probably not even get close to leaving the atmosphere. Just a pretty long ballistic arc. You would get pretty hot too I imagine. 

Edit: I was wrong, at most you would just skip along the ground at high speed but you would not get launched into the air at all. "
askscience,"> you would gain some altitude

You wouldn't. If you're not fast enough to gain altitude now, you wouldn't be fast enough to gain altitude when earth stops spinning. Your trajectory is only influenced by the spinning insofar that the spinning determines your velocity. If earth suddenly stopped without you sticking to the surface, your velocity wouldn't change at all, so your trajectory would also stay the same (except that the ground would now slow you down due to friction, so you'd be even less inclined to gain airtime)."
askscience,"On a much smaller scale, I'm reminded of an accident involving the attack submarine [USS San Francisco](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_San_Francisco_(SSN-711)) which struck a seamount while moving at nearly 35 knots.

For those inside the sub, in their own reference frame, they would have felt relatively motionless, like sitting in an office building. When the sub struck the side of an undersea mountain and came to an abrupt stop everyone on that sub was suddenly hurled at the nearest bulkhead at nearly 40 mph.

Everyone on board was injured, though amazingly only one sailor died. "
askscience,"The difference is right now our velocity relative to the earth is zero. If the earth stopped spinning our velocity would remain the same, but our velocity relative to the earth would drastically increase and our momentum would carry us in a straight line tangential to the surface of the earth, which from our perspective would be into the air. Gravity would force that into an arc meaning we would spend some time in the air at least. Realistically yes, the surface is uneven so the friction of the initial drag against the ground might prevent lift off or you may just skip off rag doll style and fly in a long arc. "
askscience,"You're right, of course. They're both analogous to the whole ""Earth suddenly stops spinning"" scenario.

But at least in a car you can look out the window and see the world rushing by. There's an obvious sense that you're hurtling down the road.

But in a sub it would seem (not completely, but relatively speaking) motionless, kind of how we feel standing in our kitchens or sitting at the desk at work, right up to the sudden stop."
askscience,"Our momentum is already moving in a straight line tangential to the surface of the Earth. The only thing keeping you on the Earth is that gravity is already curving an arc into your path, and that arc curved greater than the surface of the Earth. Since your velocity and the effect of gravity would not change if the Earth stopped turning, your path through space would be unaffected. The only thing that'd change is the topography under your feet.

If you were on a flat surface such as a lake or salt flat, the only way you'd lift off is if your tangential velocity was greater than escape velocity (about 8km/sec at sea level). Since it's not, you'd smear/tumble along the ground, but otherwise continue on your arc (which due to gravity is a sharper arc than the curvature if the Earth).

The only way you'd gain air is if you were standing on top of a hill or building, or bounced off something."
askscience,"Our velocity relative to the earth's surface is irrelevant for our trajectory. Our trajectory is determined by our position and velocity relative to earth's center of mass, which does not depend on how fast the earth is spinning. Our velocity relative to the earths CoM is already non-zero, and our trajectory would already describe an arc - except that every point on this arc is *below* the earth's surface. Since we can't just penetrate the surface, our trajectory is instead determined by the surface. But this holds regardless of how fast the surface is moving relative to us."
askscience,"Or kind of dry while they also go flying through the air, with a continent full of debris chasing them. 

So maybe dry, but not so fine?

Edit: Reading some of the other posts made me realize that I should clarify that by “flying through the air” I don’t mean lifting off the surface. More like, if you were on the edge of the ocean you would now be on the edge of a slope where the ocean used to be and thus perhaps only briefly airborne until you met sand/rocks/etc."
askscience,"Earth spins at about 0.5 km/s, moves around the Sun at about 30 km/s, and moves around the galaxy at about 200 km/s. So you're dominated by the motion around the galaxy there. Of course, velocity is relative, so this isn't the ""real"" speed of Earth, because there is no such thing as a ""real"" speed, just speed relative to other things. The Milky Way is moving relative to Andromeda etc too so you can keep on going."
askscience,"I'm going do a quick and dirty estimate assuming the earth is flat, and that an average male is jumping an average height; 0.5 meters. Given 9.81m/s² gravitational acceleration, we can solve for initial upward velocity, and more importantly, time in the air:

Vert. Velocity = sqrt(max height * g * 2) = 3.13 m/s

Air time = 2 * Vertical Velocity / g = 0.64 seconds

1000 mph is 1467 ft/s, or 447 m/s. In that 0.64 seconds, our jumping person will land about 940 feet or 286 meters from where he jumped up. Given the relatively close proximity, it is safe to say that our assumption regarding the earth being flat is close enough.

When impacting the ground, he'll now be moving sideways at 447 m/s and downward at 3.13 m/s. Clearly, survival is not possible in this scenario. Remember that orbital velocity at sea level is about 7900 m/s, so we're only traveling at 5.7% of the required speed to simply maintain a fixed distance above the ground. Even if someone did jump up and that velocity was instantly attained, the orbit would be elliptical, such that the orbital height will reach zero every single orbit...
"
askscience,"I’m really surprised by how many people don’t understand the sheer magnitude of everything on the planet tumbling out of control on the crust at that velocity.  

Smash your finger with a hammer at 10km/h. Ouch.   Now do that to your whole body a hundred times.  While inside your vehicle tumbling for a full minute against a mountain while another mountain of everything you own follows you and falls on top of you as if dropped from a great height. 

Meanwhile, large boulders are flung off their mountains at over 1,000 km/hr causing sonic booms across the entire terrain shattering anything fragile or malleable.  Then landing into whatever they hit peppering impact craters the size of tall buildings in every direction. 

Sand and glass flung hundreds of feet in the air blocking the sun for weeks and turning all water bodies smaller than Lake Michigan into a muddy soup.  Plus, it’s raining debris. 

All caves collapsing or filling with water. 

Meanwhile every single continental fault and mountain range buckles for hundreds of miles or separates causing shelves of continent to slide for hours into the ocean. 

The tops of all active and inactive volcanoes are sheared and begin to spew magma high into the air.  

But we’ll ok okay, right?  "
askscience,"**Edit: NVM, on second thought even if the earth is a sphere it's way too close to flat on our scale (and with gravity) to matter.**

Even with gravity wouldn't a person in the middle of a perfectly flat parking lot still lift up from the ground before curving back down and going splat? I would imagine that kind of momentum would be enough to do that if we applied it to a person right now in the same location.

"
askscience,"Thank you! The part I don't understand are the comments further down that you wouldn't gain *any* altitude. Wouldn't the trajectory of your sudden relative momentum be a parabolic arc (like a discus thrower) - and at [up to] 460 m/s? In gravity weak enough that we can gain a few feet of altitude just by jumping while standing still, it's hard to visualize why that trajectory and momentum wouldn't buy us *some* altitude."
askscience,"there would be no vertical lift as such, but if you were going fast enough, and there was nothing to your east blocking your flight then you would get some apparent lift the further you travelled due to the earths curvature.

Unfortunately you wouldn't be moving fast enough. If your forward speed is enough that your fall rate from gravity is less than the earth's curvature, you are looking at being in orbit. In this case the orbit would see you come back to (exactly) the earths surface and you would almost certainly impact something to the west of your start point! This is also ignoring any air resistance which would slow your orbit to at least some degree and cause your orbit to move to below the earths surface, which will mean impact with the ground even if you don't hit a vertical object on the way. "
askscience,"Depends if the atmosphere stops rotating too.  If it stops, then the plane is suddenly going to be moving 1000mph quicker relative to the air (edit: I suppose the opposite is true if you are traveling East to West, you would lose 1000mph of velocity, which means you are now traveling backwards by several hundred mph.  So... Bad), which I would imagine is far above what an airliner is designed to handle.  If the atmosphere keeps going, then it would be like nothing happened initially, but then it works probably get extremely turbulent very quickly since there are now 1000 mph winds covering most of the globe.  

Very far north or south flightpaths would be better, but anywhere close to the equator would be bad."
askscience,"Two details:

The entire air and water mass would ALSO be going at that speed. So stop the earth? Gratz, you got an ocean going over 1000kph, and its coming for you, if the splat and the air mass at 6 times hurricane speed (and 36 times more energy) didn't get you first.

Btw of all the people, the ones most likely to not die immediately would be esquimos. They'd be going a LOT slower. Plus they'd be going along a very flat surface you can slide in.

A much greater percentage of people in siberia, alaska and so on would survive. Those on the equator, or up to say 30th parallel would be right and truly f...

People on planes could also have a chance... very small one."
askscience,"If the parking lot was flat, no. You would move in a straight line and be pulled down by gravity (which has a much slower acceleration than the lateral g-force you're experiencing in this moment). If the parking lot was curved to match the earth's curvature, you would in theory lift off slightly, but the scale is so huge that I doubt you'd notice it. Plus you're flying east at 1000mph and you would travel 366 feet in 250 milliseconds but fall 4 feet in that same time. The earth's curvature isn't nearly enough to lift you off the ground at that speed. You'll just skid along the ground until you're smashed by something larger than you."
askscience,"I get the feeling the plane would just get ripped apart by the turbulence before it could even slow back down to a reasonable speed to land. 

If the Earth stopped spinning, you would essentially get 1700km/h winds on the surface the instant it happens. While at higher altitude, the impact might not be immediate (since the air would just get tossed in the same direction as the plane), there is inevitably going to be some nasty aftermath.

Just picture a 1700km/h winds blowing on a mountain. That would create a high pressure front, and huge updraft, which is eventually going to spread and create turbulence in high altitude. When this kind of dramatic event would happens all across the globe, and you're in for a nasty storm."
askscience,"The Earth's equator rotates faster than the speed of sound. Therefore, of the Earth stops rotating but not the air, shock waves would be launched at the ground air interface. These shockwaves would propagate upwards from the Earth's surface slightly faster than the speed of sound. The air behind the shock waves would be hot and dense. At some height, the shock front would dissipate into a regular sound wave of large amplitude, with a wind following the wave, moving at almost the speed of sound. The air plane would probably be hit by this intense wind coming from below. I would not be surprised if this wind tears off the wings of the plane, but I'm not sure about that."
askscience,"In case it's unclear, though: if we ignore atmosphere, obstacles, the sun/moon/etc, and other such complications, then whether you would escape would actually [not depend on the angle at which you are ""launched""](https://www.quora.com/Why-does-escape-velocity-not-depend-on-the-angle-of-projection). Sent straight up with a smidge more than escape velocity, you just keep going out in a straight line, forever slowing down but at a *decreasing rate* that can never overcome your kinetic energy.

Launched on a tangent, you end up with a curved [hyperbolic path](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_trajectory) that the planet's gravity is never able to bend back toward itself. But the threshold velocity is still the same."
askscience,"You'd die there too. All the water in the North and South would be pulled towards the equator since the momentum of the equator would pull the water away. You'd be in the ocean but it would half empty out. This would be fine. Then it would fill in again. That would not be fine. Tsunami after tsunami would obliterate anything on the oceans in the north or south.

Maybe Antarctica, at the pole would be fine. You want to be away from any large mass of water. "
askscience,"Related... if the earth stopped *orbiting*, then people on the lucky side of the planet would be flung skyward at roughly 30 km/s, or three times escape velocity. People on the unlucky side would be turned into a thin paste.

Ignoring the fact that the ""lucky"" ones would be killed instantly by the g-forces and almost certainly incinerated, I still don't think they'd manage to actually escape earth's gravity, since they would have no sustained thrust, and air resistance is a thing. But I could be wrong!"
askscience,"Probably best case scenario (for a given interpretation of ""best"") is standing on a roof in like New York, from which you would find yourself suddenly and rapidly projected out over the Atlantic (or is it LA & the Pacific? I can never keep that straight in my head) at a few hundred feet up. Seems like there'd be a tiny chance (if you had enough of your wits about you as you hurtled through the air) that you could get yourself into a diving-ish position and survive contact with the surface of the water."
askscience,"Thank you for this comprehensive answer!

Follow-up question: Let's pretend the earth is perfectly round and you are like 1mm thick and there are no objects you can crash into (and no other forces involved), so you get thrown sideways at 460 m/s - perpendicular to earth's core, so you'd be moving away from the curvature of earth. What would be your highest altitude following your ballistic curve?

Here's what I mean in paint: https://i.imgur.com/0Rk02hr.png"
askscience,"Did you ever stop to think that the supposed 'leaking o-ring' on Challenger would have had to be perfectly aligned with th LOX tank, then shoot a narrow jet of flame across six-feet of near vacuum slip-stream roaring by at 2,000mph and then magically burn through 3-feet of structural foam and thick stainless steel of just the aft O tank, but the shuttle disintegrated from up at the forward pylon and never achieved 25,000mph escape velocity?"
askscience,"Depends on whether the ocean is considered to be part of ""the Earth"" or not.  Presumably, since there is a distinction between ""the Earth"" and objects on the surface, a line has to be drawn somewhere. So, if all the water stops too, then you would just zip forward at several hundred mph.  And yes, I know that even in this scenario, the boat would be ripped apart from all the sudden extra drag on the hull.  It's a silly conversation in general."
askscience,"Because the start point has a velocity vector in the ""zenith"" direction (outward direction away from the body being orbited). This forces the orbiting object to ascend to a higher orbital height, while simultaneously decreasing to a lower forward velocity. At the highest orbital height, where the speed has decayed to a minimum, the actual speed is now insufficient to maintain that orbital height, and the orbit decays again back to the minimum height, regaining the forward velocity it had lost at the same time. It is important to note that the maximum altitude is called the ""apogee"", and the minimum height is call the ""perigee"". Assuming that the person jumped perfectly straight up, the apogee will occur on the opposite side of Earth from where he was when the jump occurred.

All this, of course, assumes zero drag or other losses of energy!

I highly recommend checking out /r/KerbalSpaceProgram/ for a fun way to get hands-on experience with these concepts."
askscience,"This right here, the effects of sudden stoppage of spinning, is waaaay more interesting. Equatorial oceans suddenly moving at a 1000mph. People just flying across the street and into a tree, or fence or building...if the building is there. Massive buildings ripped from the foundations, rolling and shredded into short-lived half mile-wide shrapnel storms. I would imagine a lot of top soil just ripped from the ground and, depending on bedrock undulations- sliding to a stop or ramping up in the air hundreds of feet. Even at 45 degrees latitude(between Rome and Paris), you're still going ~500mph.

The northernmost permanent settlement in Nunavut, Canada is at 82 degrees lat- there, you'd be going ~90 mph. Imagine skipping across the ice (or rocks) at 90 mph. Very few, if any survivers, lol."
askscience,"Yeah I always think of a similar scenario!

What if you take the velocity of a particle in a particle accelerator on earth, the rotational velocity of the earth, the orbital velocity of the earth and solar system and imagine they are all instantaneously aligned so that their tangential velocities all point in the same direction. Then add that to the velocity at which the Andromeda galaxy is approaching us at. Then imagine a solar system in Andromeda with exact same fortuitous alignment of tangential velocities all the way down to the particle in the particle accelerator.

It seems like the two particles should be moving towards each other at several times the speed of light. But are they actually or is there some weird time dilation thing going on where they somehow actually aren't?"
askscience,"The wind would be caused by the atmosphere stopping.  Currently our atmosphere is moving along at roughly the same pace we are, which is why you have calm days.  The plane is moving relative to that atmosphere, so if the atmosphere itself is moving 1600+kmph, and plane is moving 500kmph relative to it, and the atmosphere stops, it'll be just like if the plane were traveling through 2100+kmph winds.

This is all based off a shaky understanding of the nature of the atmosphere, so take it with a healthy dose of salt.  Someone confirm or correct this please?"
askscience,">If you're not escaping the Earth right now, then your speed is below escape velocity. The Earth stopping won't make you speed up. Think of it this way: if the surface of the Earth was moving close to escape velocity, then the Earth would be basically flying apart.

But the Earth stopping will make you speed up *relative to the Earth*, which is what's important in that context.

The Earth couldn't escape itself because it can't move relative to itself."
askscience,"If the dirt was allowed to slosh and slow to a stop our bunker would be smashed flat in a horizontal landslide. There’s no amount of reinforcement that can hold back that much dirt goin 1000 mph.

I was going with te “all of the dirt magically stops at once” because otherwise what part of the Earth “stops rotating” if the dirt can still move?

Just the mantle? Just everything more than x feet down? "
askscience,"Basically, a nuclear attack sub ran headlong into an undersea mountain in 2005 because the charts they were using didn't indicate anything was in the way. Other charts did, but that info didn't make it onto the charts they were using. The captain was relieved of command, six others charged with dereliction of duty, and they nearly lost the submarine. It cost around $79m to fix it, even though it was slated to be retired after 2017 anyway. You'd think that there is some type of fancy equipment to help keep a submarine from running into a mountain, but... "
askscience,"People in planes would definitely have the best chance. The entire plane and people and air would continue in the same direction, so the people in the plane wouldn’t even know what happened at first. 

If they could stay above the debris until the entire atmosphere had calmed down, maybe they could survive. I’m guessing it would take weeks, but the wind ripping over a mountain range might make enough of an updraft to keep a plane up without fuel. At least once the air is moving sub sonic. "
askscience,"I don't think you would experience any g force in this scenario. G force is experienced due to acceleration, and your speed has not changed, only the speed of the planet below your feet. The way you would die is being smashed to pieces in the ensuing maelstrom of debris, or as the previous commenter described. Or, if you were lying on the ground, I imagine you would almost instantly become a mile-long smear."
askscience,"The Earth is a ball of rock with groves filled with water. 


If that stops spinning, that water suddenly doesn't have a reason to stay where it is, anymore than a person or object on land would. 


All bodies of water would do the same thing a tuppaware full of fluid does if you're transporting it in a car (without a lid, you daredevil you!) and have to suddenly slam on the breaks."
askscience,"Now, if we weren't to ignore the atmosphere, I believe the first thing you'd notice, other than you're now being flung at up to 1,000mph, is that the air would also suddenly be moving at 1,000mph. To put that in perspective, the fastest hurricane ever was clocked at 190mph. Depending on where you were as this happens, debris would likely rip you to shreds before you even hit the ground again. If you were in your home, depending on the criteria for the earth stopping instantly including structures or not, you'd either splat through the wall as if hit it at up to 1,000mph, or the house would fly apart as well accelerated to 1,000mph."
askscience,"I had thought that the rotational force of the earth also counteracted it's gravitational pull as well. Much like if you are on the edge of a spinning disc, like a Merry-go-round, you are pulled away from the center of the disc. Is this correct? And if so, once everything stopped moving from the momentum of the earth's rotation, would we all be squished? Or at least heavier than we were when the earth was moving?"
askscience,"Since your trajectory would be tangential to the surface, the ground is at least for a moment, moving away from you. The problem is that it's not falling away from you very quickly, so you'd still be on the ground. 

Essentially, it's the same thing as an orbit. You need to be going so fast that the ground falls away faster than you fall toward it. At the Earth's surface, that would require going 17,500+ mph. And you'd only be going 1,000 mph. So, you splat."
askscience,"Almost no one actually lives above the artic circle or in the southern hemisphere. 85% of the planet lives within the band that would make you instantly travel between 500 and 1000 mph if the earth stopped turning. So not literally _just_ people at the poles, but you'd have to be pretty close to the poles for you to have a chance. Even at the 80th parallel (the pole is 90, equator is 0), you'd be moving at about 180 mph, which is easily enough to kill you.

Here's a cool calculator.

https://www.vcalc.com/wiki/MichaelBartmess/Rotational+Speed+at+Latitude"
askscience,"Your highest altitude will be whatever it was when you start.

I'm not sure exactly how to calculate it, but one crude method might be to think about the horizon: The line between a point on the horizon and your eye is a tangent to the surface of the Earth (theoretically - there's air refraction and land masses and other nonsense we'll ignore).

Rounding, quite a bit, if you assume you're two meters from the surface, the horizon is about 5 km away. So over the course of 5 km, the surface falls away by two meters. Or, in other words, to maintain or gain altitude, you'll need to cover those 5 km in less time than it takes for an object to fall two meters.

The bad news is - that's about a half a second, and you'll only make it 250 meters or so in that time. "
askscience,"Which thing? If the earth stopped spinning, it would only have a tiny effect on the Moon, since the tides would go off. Measurable, perhaps, but not significant.

Then, if the Earth stopped in its orbit around the Sun?

Not for any reason I can think of. The moon would stay more or less in its current orbit around the sun, which is to say, our orbit around the sun. Just without the wobbles of being in orbit around Earth. 

The Moon's orbital velocity around the Earth is 1 km/s, and the Earth/Moon system is orbiting the sun around 30 km/s. So depending on when it happened, it would only shift between 29 and 31 km/s. Might get a little more elliptical, but it wouldn't be far off."
askscience,"Yeah, but what is the axle connected to? Hypotheticals are only interesting or meaningful if they specify things like that. Otherwise it's just imagine whatever you want and you can't really say anything specific. 

If the axle is connected to the core, very different things happen. It it's attached to everything through the axis, how thick is it? If it's only a few miles thick it probably wouldn't affect people at the equator that much or slow rotation, but it would certainly tear up an area near the poles, probably making some kind of lava-lubricated bearing. "
askscience,"Considering you are going nowhere near orbital velocity, you will fall faster than the tangent moves away from the surface. So to correct my earlier statement, you would gain zero altitude precisely.

If you were on a huge flat frictionless skating rink on skates (pointed East),  you would just start moving really fast. You would be slightly lighter, but wouldn't leave the ground. 


**Edit: More info: **
Orbital speed is higher the closer you are to earth. The ISS orbits at about 7.6km/s. The moon orbits at 1km/s. So orbital speed at the surface is somewhere higher than the ISS. 

But the Earth turns at most 0.47km/s, which is how fast you'll be moving if the Earth stops. Since you're moving tangent to the surface, you have to move faster than the ISS just to maintain your altitude (say, you pull up your legs when the Earth stops). To gain any altitude, you have to go faster than that."
askscience,"> Your highest altitude will be whatever it was when you start.

I don't think so - imagine going with a really high (or infinite) speed. You're constantly moving away from earth then and thus constantly increasing your altitude.  
But then imagine going a really really slow speed like 5 km/h, then either you are right and you basically just drop to the ground, or there is like a super tiny short moment right after the start where you are just ever so slightly higher than at the start because of the curvature of the earth.  
I don't know which hypothesis is true and it would really be awesome if someone with a nice physics background could solve this using some formulas. (which is not too easy since the direction and even strength of the gravitational force is constantly changing as you are moving).  

I might try some numerical approximations with a small script later... :D"
askscience,"The poles are rotating. And very slowly, since they make one full turn every (about) 24 hours. Picture standing on your toes and turning around at this rate and you'll realize anyone at the poles probably wouldn't even notice.

Alternately, think of standing at the very center of a merry-go-round; if it's going fast and suddenly stops, you'd be fine (maybe stagger a bit, because it spins more than once every 24 hours), but anyone standing near the rim would probably fall over. The further you are from the center the faster your speed changes, and the Earth is very big."
askscience,"There’s plenty of tidal resonances that are theoretically possible! 5:3 is another relatively common resonance. A 2:1 resonance is actually less stable than a 3:2 resonance so a planet would never go from 3:2 to 2:1, but a 1:1 resonance is almost always favored over 3:2. 

In general there are two main causes of a planet “settling” into a 3:2 resonance, instead of slowing all the way to 1:1. This can happen if the planet has a relatively massive permanent asymmetrical deformation, or if the planet has a high orbital eccentricity. In the first case: the planet will likely stay in a 3:2 resonance without shifting to 1:1 since the “stability” of the 3:2 resonance depends on the deformation of the planet which will likely never change. In the second case, however, highly eccentric orbits will tend to circularize over time meaning that the 3:2 resonance will become less stable and the planet will eventually begin to settle into a 1:1 resonance.

When talking about the solar system, however, this is completely useless information. The circularization timescales for terrestrial planets are generally much much longer than the predicted lifetime of the sun, so mercury will likely never slow to 1:1. This information does, however, become useful when talking about red dwarf systems! Since red dwarfs can theoretically live to be hundreds of billions if not trillions of years old then there’s plenty of time for eccentric orbits to circularize! 

I would share some math, and go a bit more in-depth, but I’m currently in the process of publishing a paper on this exact subject!! So there’s only so much I can say."
askscience,"Follow up to this, in a much broader viewpoint, the earth is moving around the sun and the whole solar system is moving around the center of the galaxy. If all forces are assumed to be tangentially perpendicular, in how many reference frames would the earth need to stop movement in to overcome that exit velocity? 

First: rotation, not enough
Second: speed with respect to mars or Jupiter around the sun.
Third: velocity with respect to sun
Fourth: velocity of sun (and therefore by massive assumption the rest of the solar system) compared to a nearby solar system
Fifth: velocity with respect to the actual center of the galaxy"
askscience,"If Earth's orbit around the sun were suddenly stopped, however, objects on earth would more than achieve escape velocity relative to Earth's surface: Earth's orbit around the sun is almost 30 km/s, 2.73 times escape velocity. I'd guess people on the face of the planet pointed in the direction of our orbit would simply be ejected out of the atmosphere assuming there's nothing over their heads, everyone on the opposite side of the planet would simply be pulverized into whatever is under their feet, and the people on the ""sides"" would be a crapshoot depending on where they're standing and what's in their way."
askscience,"The question was ""if the Earth stops moving""... as in the planet.


The responses have been discussing humans and buildings and water and everything else. 

> drawing arbitrary lines like ""the Earth stops moving but all the people on it don't""

The premise is that suddenly, there's no more spin. The earth's rotation is abruptly halted. Ergo, it stops moving... and like the bus that suddenly slams on its breaks, everything inside it suddenly experiences a big acceleration.

That's physics. The only way for everything to stop at once (the planet, the people, etc) is if it's really gradual... "
askscience,"Does the explanation also account for the massive Tsunami's that would also be generated? Oceans which were moving at Mach 1.5 (approximate) prior to the stop would unleash torrents of water.

Normal tsunami's move around Mach 0.7. The North Pole would also likely become the World's largest iceberg.

As mentioned, storms would also be caused of a magnitude that would make a category five hurricane seem like a gentle breeze.

I short, the only thing that may survive is some of the sea life, and even that is open to speculation."
askscience,"Compared to whatever absurd speeds were mentioned before? Hell yeah. My car can hit 150 top speed, so if the Earth were to suddenly stop spinning and I was at top speed going the right direction, it would essentially be like getting in a collision at 30mph. Much more manageable than being instantly hurled at the nearest wall or object at Mach 1.

Then again, if the Earth stopped spinning, I suspect the lack of atmosphere would be a much bigger problem anyway."
askscience,"Well it depends on what stops really. If you take the idea that everything solid or semi solid connected to the earth's core stop at once, then it should not move. However, if only the core or mantle stop moving... the crust might just peel like a potato all over the place. 

If only the core stops, it will still be a world ending scenario, but a tad slower I presume. The mantle inertia might even transfer some of its speed back to the core and make it somewhat move again. "
askscience,"I figure most people will die in milliseconds. A few people who happen to be on high ground and have a clear line of sight to the east might survive for seconds as they fly through the air. People in airplanes at cruising altitudes might have a minute before the turbulence breaks up their airplanes. People at the south pole would probably avoid a quick death, but I suspect that debris-filled winds would get them in under an hour. Even people on the ISS would be doomed one way or another--the ISS is in a relatively low orbit and it's conceivable that the atmosphere would be disturbed enough to increase drag and bring it down in days or weeks. Even if that didn't happen, they would die from a lack of food/water/air and no where safe to land in under a year. "
askscience,"You wouldn't get smeared, at first. Think about any rotating sphere that is covered in liquid, regardless of gravity, objects in motion tend to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. Water will fling right off a rotating sphere. Putting it in context, given that gravity is 9.8m/s/s and the Earth would come to a complete stop from 447 m/s, you will be imparted with nearly 46 G's of force and you will break from the Earth's gravity. You would effectively be launched due East. Now, everything else would be moving with you, the crust of the Earth included. It seems more likely that the entire Earth would in a sense behave as if it 'exploded' and then if gravity was still having an effect, when everything lands, things would get 'smeared'.

No need to be on a building, you gon fly, and then ded."
askscience,"It depends how deep the bunker is. The closer it is to the Earth's core, the lower its rotational momentum, and therefore the less affected its occupants will be by the cessation of the Earth's spinning. The occupants would probably melt within a fraction of a second at that proximity to the core, but since the spin is ceasing instantaneously, maybe a fraction of a second is all you need to say you survived! Just be sure to say it quickly."
askscience,"Given the rate at which the rocks around you heat up and the issues of pressure turning oxygen poisonous, you’re not getting out of the crust, much less near the core. Unsurprisingly, there is an XKCD for that:

https://what-if.xkcd.com/135/

The deepest hole on Earth is a bit over 12 km deep, which is a literal rounding error compared to the radius of the Earth. The equatorial radius is about 22 km larger than the polar radius, which is still just a few tenths of a percent of the total.

That borehole is only about as wide as an open hand, too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole

Even if you dealt with the pressure and temperature within your bunker, as the rock surrounding it heats up and the weight of the rock above increases it will start to behave like a plastic and squeeze your bunker like a pimple. Ocean pressure is crazy, but rocks are denser than water."
askscience,"I could definitely be wrong but I believe the air wouldn't immediately react to the sudden change in earth rotation speed due to newton's 1st law . Have you ever tried to rotate a glass of ice water to get the straw closer to you; only find that the straw barely moves in the direction you turned it. 

I thing something similar to the following video would occur would the balloon pilot if the earth suddenly changed speed. 

https://youtu.be/HH4zU76cffY
"
askscience,Satellite dish is needed only for high bandwidth needed for video transmission which is encoded with minimal error correction so that you can pack whole video signals into the bandwidth. You need the dish to receive such video transmission because you want to receive every bit of it clearly. GPS signal is just text. They can pack hell lots of error corrections and repetitions into the bandwidth. The GPS chip inside your phone use such error corrections to compensate for low signal power. This is all possible thanks to the ultra-low noise amplification transistors inside the GPS chip. 
askscience,"To triangulate, you have to know the position of the satellites with a very high accuracy.  Satellites drift all the time, so you need an updated (minutes or hours) position for each one.

The satellites themselves broadcast that data, but it's kinda slow, and your device can't tell you your position until it gets all the data from each satellite it wants to use.  This is how all GPS units originally worked, and basic hand-helds still do.

But, for devices connected to the internet (like a cellphone) you can download updated, precise location data for every satellite in the GPS system, very very quickly.  Then you can ignore the slow positioning data and just pick up the time signal.  

End result is your device can report your position within 2-3 seconds instead of 30-40 seconds."
askscience,"> that got me interested, please elaborate Captain?

At least in the group of people I worked with, we tended to refer to satellites as ""birds"" so finding the satellite was basically ""acquiring the bird"" and uplinking was ""squirting the bird"".

In terms of what the GPS satellites transmit, they transmit a timing signal that allows for the locating function. They also transmit the almanac of the coarse orbital data for all the satellites as well as the fine ephemeris for itself. This is why if you take a GPS receiver to a new location (a few hundred km from the last place it was powered on) or turn it on after a few weeks off, it takes forever to acquire its location. What it's doing is running a cold start procedure, where it searches all possible satellite codes until it locks on, then it has to wait to download the almanac (which takes 12 minutes), and then get the fine ephemeris data for all the satellites."
askscience,"No, it's not the same. Sleep is a complex neurological state that we've only recently begun to understand where, while there is no alert consciousness, the brain is still cycling through a series of neurological activity (the chief of which, at least as far as day to day relevance goes, is memory reorginization and conversion of the day's memories and information to patterns more reliable for retrieval) as well as monitoring for extreme inputs from sensory capabilities (ie loud sounds or sudden body movements will awaken the sleeper). 

Loss of consciousness from lack of oxygen or through the use of psychoactive substances is a different mechanism that involves actually shutting down gross neuronal activity. In the case of oxygen deprivation, you're literally starving the brain of oxygen, forcing it to shut down processes in a survival-dependent manner. Brains take a lot of energy, but someone in a hypoxic environment can still survive if there is enough oxygen to maintain cardiac and respiratory function (though how long and at what cost are definitely things to consider). 

Your entire brain goes through neurological rhythms while asleep. If you're inducing loss of consciousness, the resources necessary for those rhythms to occur are being cut off. 

I'm not the biggest fan of brains-as-computers analogies, but I'll make a simple one here: You can shut down a computer by yanking the cord out of the wall, or by shutting it down through the OS. It's off either way, but one of those ways can cause the computer to malfunction depending on the state it was in when the shutdown occurred, and how often that method of shutdown is employed. "
askscience,"Medications release chemicals into the brain that affect the brains natural chemistry to what it would be when falling asleep naturally, essentially prodding it along. However as with anything changing brain chemistry it becomes harder to recover the more the medication is used and the brain would eventually become dependent on it. The chemical is no longer released by the brain as it has learned that it will be administered via foreign sources (the pill/tablet). So long term use can be very harmful."
askscience,"Also, being knocked unconscious via traumatic brain injury is yet different from fainting (due to low blood pressure, hypoxia, etc.). 

They're also dangerous in different ways. As long as the issue causing the hypoxia or low blood pressure is fixed in a timely manner, fainting is unlikely to cause any permanent damage (unless you hit your head on something).

A traumatic brain injury is, in general terms, at least partially permanent (the injury persists, brain can learn to work around it)."
askscience,"Just so you know, you lose zero, and I mean ZERO time while knocked out. It's why so many fighters seemed confused when they come to. It's like, hey I was just punching you two thousandths of a second ago, why am I looking at you from the mat??

The experienced fighters will recognize the confusion as the sign they were knocked out, since there is no actual like, remembered trigger? Either way it's something I've always found interesting."
askscience,"Analogies with computers work in reverse too.  We were taught modern computer architecture by comparing it to the function of the brain.

In reality though, the brain is more similar to a massive network of computers than a single one. 

This is even more apparent in a recent experiment
where researchers used 80000+ processors over 40 minutes of real-time to simulate the biological processing of ~1% of the brain over one second.

Apparently, in a real brain there are as many neurons as there are stars in our galaxy and each of those neurons are ""networked with"" about 10000 others.

The complexity and sophistication of a human brain is just mind-boggling."
askscience,"I’d just clarify that narcotics and alcohol are not medications do **not** necessarily follow this mechanism. A glass of wine before bed more likely functions by relaxing or depressing other stress stimuli that are keeping you awake: literally inhibiting an inhibitor to normal sleep function. In moderation, this should be safe and possibly even healthy, in that sleep is critical to normal function and activates repair mechanisms in the body. However, drinking until you pass out can be more akin to a concussion than normal sleep. "
askscience,"my oral surgeon said they actually stop the drip early, before they have the last couple stitches in, so it's easier to wake up. as I was waking up I faintly recall someone saying ""go back to sleep"" so I happily obliged and drifted off for another couple minutes. no idea if I woke up 2 minutes early or 20, though. but by the time they wanted me out of the chair and over to the recovery area I was mostly mentally all there again, I remember it all pretty clearly after being told it was time to get up. I did remember totally wanting to sleep for an hour or so though. I dozed a bit in the recovery area but I'm pretty sure that was more like normal sleep because it did actually feel like time passed. but I have absolutely no memory of anyone shoving 6 cotton balls in my mouth, but there they were, all wedged up in those holes in my jaw."
askscience,"my oral surgeon said they actually stop the drip early, before they have the last couple stitches in, so it's easier to wake up. as I was waking up I faintly recall someone saying ""go back to sleep"" so I happily obliged and drifted off for another couple minutes. no idea if I woke up 2 minutes early or 20, though. but by the time they wanted me out of the chair and over to the recovery area I was mostly mentally all there again, I remember it all pretty clearly after being told it was time to get up. I did remember totally wanting to sleep for an hour or so though. I dozed a bit in the recovery area but I'm pretty sure that was more like normal sleep because it did actually feel like time passed. but I have absolutely no memory of anyone shoving 6 cotton balls in my mouth, but there they were, all wedged up in those holes in my jaw."
askscience,"my oral surgeon said they actually stop the drip early, before they have the last couple stitches in, so it's easier to wake up. as I was waking up I faintly recall someone saying ""go back to sleep"" so I happily obliged and drifted off for another couple minutes. no idea if I woke up 2 minutes early or 20, though. but by the time they wanted me out of the chair and over to the recovery area I was mostly mentally all there again, I remember it all pretty clearly after being told it was time to get up. I did remember totally wanting to sleep for an hour or so though. I dozed a bit in the recovery area but I'm pretty sure that was more like normal sleep because it did actually feel like time passed. but I have absolutely no memory of anyone shoving 6 cotton balls in my mouth, but there they were, all wedged up in those holes in my jaw."
askscience,"Absolutely true. I actually started writing about this, but it was running longer than my original comment. 

Alcohol has one of the [worst safety margins of any recreational drugs. ](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4311234/#!po=25.0000)  There are many methodologies to estimate this, but in general the Therapeutic Index is [the ratio of the toxic dose over the therapeutic (or recreational) dose. ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_index#Safety_ratio) Toxicity is generally estimated as lethality in 1% of the population. 

Alcohol, heroin, cocain, and nicotine come in <=10. Most drugs are 10-100. THC/LSD are around 1000. higher is safer (lol). The small ratio strongly implies that toxic effects (i.e. sleep impairment) have already started by the time you start feeling any effect. Definitely by the time you’ve got a buzz going. 

On a population level (availability vs. toxicity), alcohol is the [most dangerous recreational drug](http://bfy.tw/Jmp7) by an order of magnitude. But I’m not going to try to nanny redit. A glass of wine 1-2x a week is likely cool for most people who would follow conservative medical advice on reddit. As a public service, i will provide the best scientific evidence available from a quick check of the primary biomedical literature:

___


Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2013 Apr;37(4):539-49. doi: 10.1111/acer.12006. Epub 2013
Jan 24.

[Alcohol and sleep I: effects on normal sleep.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23347102)

Ebrahim IO(1), Shapiro CM, Williams AJ, Fenwick PB.

Author information: 
(1)London Sleep Centre-Neuropsychiatry, London, United Kingdom.
info@londonsleepcentre.com

This review provides a qualitative assessment of all known scientific studies on 
the impact of alcohol ingestion on nocturnal sleep in healthy volunteers. At all 
dosages, alcohol causes a reduction in sleep onset latency, a more consolidated
first half sleep and an increase in sleep disruption in the second half of sleep.
The effects on rapid eye movement (REM) sleep in the first half of sleep appear
to be dose related with low and moderate doses showing no clear trend on REM
sleep in the first half of the night whereas at high doses, REM sleep reduction
in the first part of sleep is significant. Total night REM sleep percentage is
decreased in the majority of studies at moderate and high doses with no clear
trend apparent at low doses. The onset of the first REM sleep period is
significantly delayed at all doses and appears to be the most recognizable effect
of alcohol on REM sleep followed by the reduction in total night REM sleep. The
majority of studies, across dose, age and gender, confirm an increase in slow
wave sleep (SWS) in the first half of the night relative to baseline values. The 
impact of alcohol on SWS in the first half of night appears to be more robust
than the effect on REM sleep and does not appear to be an epiphenomenon REM sleep
reduction. Total night SWS is increased at high alcohol doses across gender and
age groups.

Copyright © 2013 by the Research Society on Alcoholism.

DOI: 10.1111/acer.12006 
PMID: 23347102  [Indexed for MEDLINE]



"
askscience,"Yep. Had my wisdom teeth removed and had to be sedated for about an hour. Last thing I remember was them putting the mask on me. Next thing I remember was them taking off the mask and me thinking they were just readjusting it and asking when they were going to start because I was really nervous. Was shocked to find out they were all done. 

Was also in a car accident several years ago. Car had structural damage and I was able to walk away with a bad case of whiplash, so it wasn’t a horrible accident, thankfully. I was knocked out, though. 

I don’t even remember getting hit, I just remember being stopped in traffic and then hearing this loud, godawful sound. Next “second”, I was wondering why my headband had fallen off and was on my face, the doors for the storage under my car stereo were open, why my car was halfway in the other lane at an angle, and why there was a woman with a very worried look knocking on my car window. I have no idea how long I was out and it took me a minute to realize that I had been hit. 

Pretty scary shit. "
askscience,"Yep. Had my wisdom teeth removed and had to be sedated for about an hour. Last thing I remember was them putting the mask on me. Next thing I remember was them taking off the mask and me thinking they were just readjusting it and asking when they were going to start because I was really nervous. Was shocked to find out they were all done. 

Was also in a car accident several years ago. Car had structural damage and I was able to walk away with a bad case of whiplash, so it wasn’t a horrible accident, thankfully. I was knocked out, though. 

I don’t even remember getting hit, I just remember being stopped in traffic and then hearing this loud, godawful sound. Next “second”, I was wondering why my headband had fallen off and was on my face, the doors for the storage under my car stereo were open, why my car was halfway in the other lane at an angle, and why there was a woman with a very worried look knocking on my car window. I have no idea how long I was out and it took me a minute to realize that I had been hit. 

Pretty scary shit. "
askscience,"Yep. Had my wisdom teeth removed and had to be sedated for about an hour. Last thing I remember was them putting the mask on me. Next thing I remember was them taking off the mask and me thinking they were just readjusting it and asking when they were going to start because I was really nervous. Was shocked to find out they were all done. 

Was also in a car accident several years ago. Car had structural damage and I was able to walk away with a bad case of whiplash, so it wasn’t a horrible accident, thankfully. I was knocked out, though. 

I don’t even remember getting hit, I just remember being stopped in traffic and then hearing this loud, godawful sound. Next “second”, I was wondering why my headband had fallen off and was on my face, the doors for the storage under my car stereo were open, why my car was halfway in the other lane at an angle, and why there was a woman with a very worried look knocking on my car window. I have no idea how long I was out and it took me a minute to realize that I had been hit. 

Pretty scary shit. "
askscience,"Yep. Had my wisdom teeth removed and had to be sedated for about an hour. Last thing I remember was them putting the mask on me. Next thing I remember was them taking off the mask and me thinking they were just readjusting it and asking when they were going to start because I was really nervous. Was shocked to find out they were all done. 

Was also in a car accident several years ago. Car had structural damage and I was able to walk away with a bad case of whiplash, so it wasn’t a horrible accident, thankfully. I was knocked out, though. 

I don’t even remember getting hit, I just remember being stopped in traffic and then hearing this loud, godawful sound. Next “second”, I was wondering why my headband had fallen off and was on my face, the doors for the storage under my car stereo were open, why my car was halfway in the other lane at an angle, and why there was a woman with a very worried look knocking on my car window. I have no idea how long I was out and it took me a minute to realize that I had been hit. 

Pretty scary shit. "
askscience,"Reddit apparently lost a long comment I just wrote about alcohol’s terrible [margin of safety](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4311234/#!po=25.0000), where I broadly agree about balancing relaxation vs. REM interference. It turns out a [recent review paper](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23347102) found that 1 drink seems OK. 2-4 had less REM% but more sleep overall. Not good, but not as bad as I’d have expected. 

You are over generalizing across a huge range of types of narcotics, especially with regards to dosage. I doubt that the effects on sleep are well established for many drugs simply because almost all drug studies are effectively banned in humans and bureaucratically difficult even in animals. Results for alcohol are mixed even with a $500 million yearly budget for NIAAA. As one counterexample, a [recent review of cannibis and sleep](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28349316) suggests that high CBD strains may actually promote REM sleep.

I’m not suggesting drugs are great for sleep or anything, merely advocating that we stick to scientific answers here. 
"
askscience,"I've passed out from blood loss. It was my final exams week. Went a night with very little sleep. Skipped lunch and breakfast except for a coffee to study/review. Had a friend convince me to donate blood. I lied to the doctor that was checking my blood and doing the test questions when he asked stuff like, ""Did you get plenty of sleep? Eat a big meal? Drink lots of fluids today?"" Shortly after the donation process started...my attendant left to go do something so I was left unattended. At some point I was unconscious and then suddenly woke up to the attendant pressing on my chest really hard with a big block of ice. It seemed like an instant but it was literally the greatest feeling in my life. Like my brain was instantly refreshed, clear, and charged to 100%. I doubt you can get anywhere near that feeling without using drugs or being put into the same state I was in. The Doctor had even asked me if I experienced the feeling. She mentioned that it feels like the greatest night of sleep in your life. "
askscience,"Your sleep theory is just one of many theories on what happens in our brains during sleep! We can measure the stages of sleep and record them, but as to what is going on in there, there are some other theories as well! Some theorists claim its a time where the neurons in the brain randomely fire! Sleep is so interesting. And its interesting that we force ourselves into unnatural sleep patterns to accomodate for our 9-5 work days of productivity!"
askscience,"Very interesting. Does this mean that when you pass out due to drugs or alcohol, you are not entering a state of rest that the brain needs to continue functioning properly? Lack of sleep can cause all kind of issues (hallucinations, impaired cognitive function, etc)- does passing out from intoxication cause you to ""lose sleep"" and make the situation worse, or is it just the damage cause by the substances themselves and their effect on the brain?"
askscience,"Alcohol is a poor choice for (quality) sleep induction for a variety of reasons but I would note that there's lots of brain chemistry that inhibits the chemicals that inhibit sleep onset. In some senses, sleep could be seen as the normal state!

I guess all I mean there is that something that *causes* a certain action and something that inhibits the things that normally inhibits that action are functionally similar and not at all uncommon. We see this everywhere from muscular triggering to sensory actuation."
askscience,"If you fainted from low blood pressure in the brain, that would be enough to blank out your memories of actually falling to the ground.

I've tried this too once, stood up quickly and everything went grey, and next thing I knew I was face down on the floor. I didn't really hit my head apparently, judging from the lack of pain, but the moment between standing up and being on the floor never registered. A friend of mine was in the room and he said I was only out for a second or two, so I think it was equivalent to being choked out rather than being knocked out by a hit to the head.

Watch some MMA knockouts vs choke outs. Getting choked, you're fine a few seconds after being let go. Getting knocked out, you're usually confused and groggy for a while after. "
askscience,"> you lose zero, and I mean ZERO time while knocked out

wait... that's gotta be a typo, right? You lose *more than* zero time when you're knocked out - you lose the time you spent knocked out, which is to say, you don't experience (or remember experiencing) the time you lost while knocked out, and that length of time is more than zero.

right? so you *don't* lose zero time while knocked out. You lose more than zero, and I mean MORE THAN ZERO time while knocked out. Right?"
askscience,"The brain more or less floats in a water balloon. It can resist a lot of motion, but it can't stop it entirely. Any severe enough change in motion that can cause a concussion will have the possibility of knocking you unconscious when the brain hits the skull wall. That's why the classic ""hit to the jaw"" is a knock out button, it whips your head back and the brain can't get out of the way fast enough.

​

I think it's the neural overload that comes with it being stimulated by a physical shock."
askscience,"They're just too simplistic most of the time and more importantly, they often can't be extrapolated. Quick example off-hand: individual parts of the brain can often be repurposed and used to compensate for damaged brain tissue - if part of your CPU, HDD, RAM or GPU is fried, the computer probably doesn't work at all. 

They're okay to quickly elucidate confined and simple concepts, but if you try to extrapolate them or dive deeper they often fall apart. 

They're fundamentally different systems, but they're pretty similar on the surface and the public has at least basic familiarity with them, which is why they're not entirely worthless, despite the predisposition to be misleading. "
askscience,"I'd say a better analogy is suspending or hibernating the computer versus unplugging it from the wall. When you suspend/hibernate the computer, it's still on, the state is saved (in RAM or on disk respectively), and it's polling for input (keyboard, wake on lan, etc.). This is fairly similar to our sleep states (hence why suspend is usually called ""sleep"") in that the computer is still on and easily woken in case of ""extreme"" event like a keypress.

Unplugging a computer prevents it from being woken at all; not even pressing the power button from an off state can turn it on.

Filesystem defragmentation is something else entirely and has to do with arranging segments of files sequentially on spinning disk drives for faster/more efficient access. I suppose this could be analogous to the rearrangement of memories, but there's nothing actively preventing you from using the computer during defragmentation (and most filesystems (and anything on a solid state drive) don't require defragmentation anyway; NTFS is the only one I can think of that requires active defragmentation)."
askscience,"If I look at my subjective experience of my consciousness I dont think I can separate it and alertness, it is in the nature of consciousness to be alert just like it is the nature of light to illumine. How much stuff the light shines upon may vary. Also funnily enough from the subjective point of view of consciousness/alertness it never goes off or comes on, it is ever present and unchanging in its own experience of itself."
askscience,"Unfortunately I haven't read too deeply into what gamma-ray bursts *can* do, aside from complete and utter annihilation ^which ^would ^technically ^stop ^the ^spin, ^amiright? I just know they're produced from some of the most energetic events in the known universe, which in itself can cause physics to go all whoppy-doodle, so it *seemed* like a plausible *ass*umption to me.  

Now I wonder how massive an object would have to be, how close, and in what nature the event would have to be to just ""overwrite"" such spinning on such grand scale... Albeit minute in a cosmic sense, huh?  

Thank you so much for the reply!\^_\^"
askscience,"I was thinking that too, but as u/Sideswipe0009 mentioned, the ""celestial body passing too close for comfort"" - which would be ^I ^*think* a type of Tidal Disruption Event, but on a **much** ""smaller"" scale (also not an expert, just a nosey bugger) - could be the cause behind Venus' inverse rotation compared to Earth's own.  

I know the occurrence in itself would be a majorly rare phenomenon, if it were to happen in the first place, but just our existence is a one-in-a-can't-think-of-a-number-big-enough occurrence, and the universe is unfathomable in size, so who knows?\^_\^  

Thank you for chiming in!"
askscience,"Made me think of Scholtz's star that passed nearly 50 AU to our sun 700,000 years ago. Now i'm just imagining if it was closer and much bigger. Red dwarfs can be pretty hard to spot, so I don't think its too far of a stretch to wonder if we have had one or several giants that grazed to close long ago.

​

Impact rates on the earth, moon and mars suggest there is no long period perturbers out there like nemesis (last time I read about it anyway) but I don't think that discounts rouge flybys."
askscience,"Collision with large celestial body at a perpendicular opposite earth's rotation with a little bit more than the earth's current rotational energy.

A similar collision is theoretically responsible for our current rotational speed, and the existence of the moon. To better help understand how destructive this would be: [The asteroid responsible for the KT extinction may have made Earth's crust act like a liquid](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/22/503013290/scientists-say-dinosaur-killing-asteroid-made-earths-surface-act-like-liquid). [The planetesimal Theia would have called that some ""pussy bitch shit"" and *made the crust liquid for millions of years*.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Big_Splash_Theia.gif)

Don't worry. Something like this cannot currently happen because nothing is big enough in our solar system. Rogue planets aside (which we would detect the gravity of approaching long before it hits), all the really crazy collisions finished up billions of years ago."
askscience,"And the most amazing part about it is, even with all our ""advanced"" detection and monitoring systems we have, we could have a ""visitor"" fly by through a ""void"" of our solar system - or even outside of it - and that ""visitor"" have so much mass that its gravity could nudge us ever-so-slightly towards or away from our star, and utterly wipe us out and we be none the wiser.  

Well, amazing or terrifying, depends on your outlook."
askscience,"The lightning strike has causal effects before we hear it. Star collisions don't have causal effects until we see them. The lightning also has no causal effect on us until we observe it - it isnt meaningful to talk about it existing prior to observation, as it was not part of our causality until then.

What about things that happen beyond the cosmic event horizon, where observations will never reach us due to the expansion of space? 'When' did they happen? The danger of saying something happened before you observed it is that 'when' becomes ill-defined for unobservable phenomena, where if events happen *when* you observe them, a phenomenon you cannot observe simply never occurred in your causality.

Time and causality are relative."
askscience,"A causal effect cannot give you simultaneity.

This is very elementary relativity. Or not even that because Newtonian mechanics tells you the same. The light needs time to reach you in your reference frame, therefore the event you see now happened in the past.

> What about things that happen beyond the cosmic event horizon, where observations will never reach us due to the expansion of space? 'When' did they happen?

With *your approach* you couldn't even assign a time to them. Do you think that makes sense?

Cosmology makes ""now"" a bit more difficult, but you can consider the same time since the big bang in reference frames with vanishing dipole moment of the CMB."
askscience,"You cannot assign a time to them, either. Anything beyond the CEH is ill-defined in yours - however, if events occur when they causally do, those objects effectively don't exist, as they are not observable. In yours, they will never be observable but still effectively exist, so the time they occur is ill-defined as they are not nor ever will be part of your causal reality.

It doesn't make sense to talk about events occurring before they are causal. It doesn't make sense to even consider events that will *never* be causal.

This *is* basic physics, and I'm unsure why you are dismissing simultaneity. The time events occur differs from observer to observer. In our reference frame, something happens when it is observed. Happening before that is meaningless.

You are effectively proposing absolute time... which is bizarre."
askscience,"> You cannot assign a time to them, either.

I just described how you can.

> It doesn't make sense to talk about events occurring before they are causal.

It makes sense and it is routinely done.

> and I'm unsure why you are dismissing simultaneity.

I'm dismissing your misconceptions about it.

> You are effectively proposing absolute time... which is bizarre.

I'm not.

Look, I can help you learn about relativity. But I won't continue this discussion if you keep insisting that your misconceptions have to be true because this is a waste of time. Go read a book about relativity. The first few pages should be sufficient."
askscience,"So the short answer is that there is no exact solution to the Einstein field equations involving two black holes (and there probably never will be). This means that we wont know the exact form the geodesics will take. 

But we can make solid guesses and do numerical calculations. The best source for these considerations I have found is [here](https://arxiv.org/abs/1010.5260). However, this review focuses mainly on the gravitational waves produced by these mergers. It does, however, consider your final question in one of the last sections. In general, the amount of electromagnetic radiation given off will depend on the size of the hole and the presence of an accretion disk or other matter between the holes. Also, this radiation is expected to arrive at the same time as the gravitational waves since they both travel at the speed of light. Any deviation from this would be evidence for some speculative physics theories like de Sitter Relativity or Causal Dynamical Triangulation. Also, keep in mind that since light always travels the same speed it will not be ""accelerated"" like you mentioned. It can experience red- or blueshift though.

Also, we can make some good guesses about the geodesics, and the paths of light, that occur in this system. There will not be any (observable) figure 8s since if it is meaningful to say they occur it would be within the event horizons of the merging black holes EDIT: this is not true, I don't know if there would be any stable photon orbits and what they would look like. Also, a lot would depend on the size of the holes since for supermassive black holes the local curvature outside the event horizon is extremely close to flat. This means that if not for the presence of other matter you would not experience any trauma from being between the two edges of the event horizons, no matter how close they were, and you wouldn’t necessarily see any extreme optical phenomena when you look away from the holes. But from other perspectives or smaller black holes, there would probably be some very weird and extreme gravitational lensing. Light sources behind a single black hole will appear from a distance as an [Einstein Ring](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring). But from behind the merging black holes, they might make an [Einstein Cross](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_Cross) or even something weirder since the distribution of matter is elongated but in a more interesting way.


"
askscience,"You have to remember that our assumption is that roughly speaking, time and space switch roles beyond the event horizon, in that space becomes unidirectional. But there still must be a geodesic it's just that it's different in the same crazy way that everything else is.

The geodesic is no longer a spatial feature, rather it's a temporal feature. And maybe the word anti-geodesic would be more appropriate. Any acceleration just takes you to the singularity in a shorter period of time. The way to survive the longest is by having zero acceleration.

So, instead of there being a fastest way from point A to point B, there is only a slowest - the anti-geodesic. The other possible paths would be time dependant rather than space dependant. With the various paths consisting of the non-accelerating path, plus the infinity of other paths that would change your temporal position based on acceleration."
askscience,"I'm going to drop you in a deep lake with 300lbs of lead on your back.

Anything you do, or any possible momentum you hot the lake with won't matter as far as ""will you hit the bottom"" but you could try to swim out, or thrash about which would take you along a different path. 

But there's still a minimum and maximum time to bottom for you, and there's no way you're not hitting the bottom.


It's like that. Say an object/particle crosses the event horizon at a perpendicular angle, it's going to make a straight line to the singularity.

Say that same object crosses at a large fraction of c on a tangent. It may very well make it around a few times. It still gets to the center eventually, but even a photon at c if it's on a path that crossed the event horizon that path gets to the center. That path just might be 'orbiting' the core 100,000,000 times.

The reason you can't get a 'stable' orbit inside the event horizon is you need to be traveling at c exactly tangental to core but any path that meets that criteria would be definition just graze but not cross the horizon."
askscience,"That didnt really address my point. That every possible path is directly (as in a straight line) towards the singularity. I didnt say anything about how long it would take.

> The other possible paths would be time dependant

But is there time inside the horizon? how does causality function inside the horizon, where there is no longer a possibility for causal relations to happen? or any and all causal functions happen at the same time"
askscience,"We're using words like space and paths, so the assumption was that you were indeed talking about spacetime, which time is inherently a part of. And if we look at the various equations that describe what spacetime beyond the event horizon *might* look like, then typically the roles are reversed for time and space. So not only would time still exist, but it would be traversable.

Causality doesn't depend on *time*. Causality is a law that applies to *spacetime*, in that depending on your point of view, cause and effect might appear very different to you compared to a distant observer. But no matter how much you might disagree on duration, length, etc, you will agree that the causal spacetime event proceeded the effected event.

How would this look to us beyond the event horizon? Hell if I know. But if we're using the framework of relativity to describe an event horizon, causality doesn't cease to exist. It might be super weird from our point of view, but that's true even outside the event horizon depending on an object's relative motion.

And in any case, also remember that an object's worldline doesn't have to be perfectly straight toward the singularity. It just inevitably moves closer to the singularity no matter what its velocity or acceleration is. And even if the paths were perfectly oriented toward the singularity as a rule, two objects that crossed the event horizon at the exact same instant don't have to reach the singularity at the same instant. Thus there is a *slowest* way to the singularity (which would be the analogue to a geodesic, just with an opposite sign) and infinite ""paths"" that would cause you to arrive at the singularity at different, earlier moments.

The area beyond the event horizon is presumably still curved spacetime just with space becoming time-like and vice versa. It's hard to describe everything up there with words, but if you look at the equations and consider how they apply for us here in ""normal"" spacetime, then just flip the signs on certain equations, or switch the roles of certain variables and you can begin to imagine what it might be like beyond an event horizon."
askscience,"There is not infinite curvature at or within the event horizon. This only occurs at the singularity, and is not a prediction of the theory as much as mathematical evidence that the theory is an effective, but known broken one. The event horizon for a sufficiently large black hole wouldn't even be noticed by an observer falling in - this would break one of the core invariance principles from which GR was derived in the first place."
askscience,"Spacetime is a great show, and I've probably seen all of those. I'm also pretty sure they haven't contradicted anything I've said. Here's an article I just found on Cornell's website with one Google search, maybe you'll believe them since they explain things better than I do. Especially the last statement:

>If you think about it for a while, you'll be able to come up with loads of strange situations that can happen inside a black hole--but none of them will be logically inconsistent


[What happens to spacetime inside a black hole?](http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/89-the-universe/black-holes-and-quasars/theoretical-questions/455-what-happens-to-spacetime-inside-a-black-hole-intermediate)

And an edit: This is the last reply I'm going to make, unless you happen to include the relevant equations that describe what you're talking about."
askscience,"I think some of the confusion here is that you are imagining that things become so completely different inside an event horizon. Nothing very special happens from the perspective of someone falling into a blackhole. With a large enough black hole, the tidal effects can be made arbitrarily small, so even somewhat inside the event horizon, locally, nothing would appear amiss. From your perspective time moves forward as normal, and there is causality. The only difference of course is that all causal paths eventually lead to the singularity. "
askscience,"This mainly goes to show how big a problem shrink-wrapping is in paleoart.  Dinosaurs are frequently drawn to look as lean and muscular as possible, almost to the point of having zero fat reserves.  Like [this delightful illustration here.](https://wi-images.condecdn.net/image/p0wm8oY6jJw/crop/1620/f/ju_paleoart_p264-265.jpg)

The album is from a book called All Yesterdays, which also presents speculative reconstructions of dinosaurs as different from the picture I linked as real animals are from those in the album above."
askscience,"Right? I was just thinking that fatty features like breasts and waists and butts or cartilage like noses and ears wouldn't survive as well and might be more guesswork. maybe the tailbone would be more pronounced as a nub rather than totally buried. the nose would be pushed up like a chimp nose. the ears might be pointed, or missing, or the wrong size. the hands might have less webbing and be more bony like the grasping hands of bush babies or other small primates. the feet might have the toes fused more. and the lips and eyes might be all wrong! giant marble eyes with thin little lids, sticking out too far. and big wide lips that go all the way back to where the molars are.

it would look terrifying"
askscience,"I have a feeling you are not at all familiar with Science, let alone paleontology.  You can do quite a bit with ""just three or 4 bones,"" if you have [the right bones, and/or teeth](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qW256pUdYg), as the case may be.

No one takes ""3 or 4 bones"" and makes a model of a dinosaur or other animal de novo.  Those few bones will have to be strongly linked to some other known creature before they can be used to try to flesh out a model of the individual those bones came from.

I'm a research scientist so I know how rigorous is the process to get something published, let alone develop a model that requires very many publications of reproducible data reviewed by skeptical peers before it is seriously considered in your field. I don't expect laypersons to appreciate this process, so I understand the layperson's strongly held skepticism of something they really do not fully understand. "
askscience,"Yes, it should be noted that every shrink-wrapped animal in that album is a mammal.  I'd mostly agree with what you said, but I want to point out some exceptions that in my opinion are significant.

I'd argue that there are numerous examples of reptiles that are not at all shrink-wrapped, like the [Argentine tegu](https://bugwoodcloud.org/mura/ECISMA/assets/Image/dirtydozen/tegu/red_tegu.jpg) and the [American alligator](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cy2akN2bTX4/maxresdefault.jpg).  We do see extreme shrink-wrapping in birds, but this effect is offset by their feathery coverings, so this should be reflected in paleoart as well.  I'm using the term shrink-wrapping to describe an actual phenomenon in living organisms, but really the term only applies to how artists depict an animal.  I'm not exactly sure what term you'd use to describe a lack of non-boney accoutrements or excessive fat reserves.

Also, the prehistoric mammals we depict in paleoart tend to be from the glacial Pleistocene, so naturally they're drawn with lots of fur.  Popular depictions of older Cenozoic mammals like this [Hyaenodon](https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/cooldinofacts/images/4/45/H._gigas.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20120115130555) and this [Chalicotherium](https://dinosaurworld.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Chalicotherium-2.png) are pretty badly shrink-wrapped."
askscience,"Yeah, totally agree.  I was just saying it makes sense why early artists who tried to depict these animals did so the way they did.  If they are going from just the skeleton, it's very hard to figure out what something actually looks like.  Ears, noses, boobs, dicks, anything not from the skeleton is just conjecture.  But with more and more info and these better preserved fossils, we can get closer to filling in that gap.
"
askscience,"This book was written and illustrated to show how we revolutionized out thinking of dinosaurs in the last 30 years. It is essentially pointing out how drawing dinosaurs in the Jurassic park or earlier popular styles were terrible in their shrinkwrapping. It is pointing out how wrong our previous media representations have been and demonstration why the whole ""But they looked COOLER when I was a kid, I am going to stick to that"" mentality can detrimentally effect paleontology as a whole."
askscience,"All very good points! I'd like to add another: the energy of photons within the 400-700 nm (ish) range is conveniently on the order of electronic transitions within small organic molecules. Higher energy light (UV, for example) typically has enough energy to start breaking down certain molecules (despite a greater degree of scattering through tissues limiting its depth of penetration), while lower energy light (beyond the infrared range) would not be able to excite the types of molecules in our photosensitive cells (rods and cones in the retina)."
askscience,"Right, that is a biological limitation (physical chemistry) of  detecting high energy UV light, which would likely inherently require a higher turnover of protein synthesis to recover proteins / cellular damage. 

​

That being said, we also have engineered proteins used for EM imaging, which is extremely high energy, called miniSOG ([source](https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001041)). It's a little more complicated than I am describing here, but I am referencing it just to show that from a theoretical perspective you are right, but it is still possible to produce proteins that are responsive to high energy radiation despite those limitations. "
askscience,"That's maybe accurate how it was 100 years ago, but these days we have fossils detailed enough to see the ear bones, feathers, skin... We can read a lot into bite marks, footprints, and so many more things, compare them to modern animals.

We can look at bones and determine how much it's carrying, figuring out how large of a muscle connected to it. We can look at the teeth and deduce their diet and thus their body plan. 

And all of this can be reviewed together and compared to really understand it.


So this is a cool idea, but these days, it's just not true. 

"
askscience,"I feel like in general with the anti scientific sentiment over the last several decades people’s understanding of what we know and understand is unbelievably out dated. I mean we’re living through a golden age of astronomy but people dismiss then foundations of the science as little better than guesses even though they continued to prove themselves out.  I love that we have proof of blackholes. How cool is that! Scientists predict this seemingly nonsensical thing, but that’s what the math shows. And now here we are , able to see their impact on astronomical bodies.  One cool example is the black hole at the center of our galaxy who’s gravity is so immense that it’s causing the nearby stars to zip around it at unbelievable speeds. "
askscience,"As long as we have reproducibility crises like social psychology has right now, and as long as nutrition science keeps doing whatever nutrition science does, the general public will still be skeptical of science. Science as a vehicle of social learning still needs a lot of improvement; I read yesterday that there's an entire journal edited and funded by supported of Myers Brigg and by sales of the indicator. (Journal of psychological type). 

I'm not somehow shitting on science as a whole, I'm just playing a bit of devil's advocate here."
askscience,"I don't think these people have the scientific literacy to figure that out. There's plenty of rigid science that is beyond doubt, and there will always be science that isn't all that pure. 

The issue is that people have been taught to distrust their government and corporations, I think. 

When he government is spying, listening to lobbyists, giving contracts to friends, testing diseases on its own people... What reason do people have to believe them that they should get a flu shot?"
askscience,">	Flipflopping between “this is good for you” to “this kills you” to “this is good for you” again makes anyone mistrust.

But that’s typically the fault of science reporting, from the university press release to the mainstream media, feeling the need to sensationalize and define some absolute result. The actual scientific papers are usually cautious about their conclusions, and wouldn’t really conclude something like “X is good for you”. 

EDIT: [Relevant PhD Comics](http://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174)"
askscience,"I think peoples problem with the scientific community actually has more to do with how bizarrely and smugly entrenched scientific dogma can become, and how any scientists introducing radical new concepts are deemed ""outsider scientists"" are usually mocked out of hand. No matter how valid or invalid their point or theory may or may not be.

Which I imagine strikes a lot of average people as pretty unobjective, odd, hypocritical, and confidence shaking. What considering how many times in human history outsider thinkers have introduced concepts that were initially almost instantly dismissed by mainstream science because it didn't fit into whatever model of reality was in vogue at the time. Only to eventually have the current model be proven wrong and the old way of thinking fall into archaic or pseudo-science. Sometimes after 100's of years of barking up the wrong tree because of it.

I think scientists need to emphasize far, far more that there are things that are nonsense to them in science as well. But that it just means we don't know how something works yet, or that some of our general assumptions may be mistaken or not accurate enough.

Otherwise to most people I think a lot of science just comes across as self assured, smug elitism based on a lot of opinion, and a handful of facts. Instead of the process that it is.


Oh and maybe it's also time to finally admit just how personally and emotionally invested scientists can become in developing a theory."
askscience,"I still see ""wrong"" (aka outdated) depictions of dinosaurs by scientists getting made. Less for sure. But I still see them.

Them fat reserves often get forgotten about even by them. Since we only recently discovered just how much fat a lot of dinosaurs were carrying around.

And don't even get me started on feathers and feather like structures, and how inconsistently professionals get what species had those right.

From what I've seen dinosaur reconstruction is currently in the middle of an update. Not done with it.
"
askscience,"
Remember there is a difference between scientific reporting and scientists them selves. Most scientific papers are incredibly careful with their claims. 
Those theories that are outliers may prove themselves to be correct and in fact that’s exactly how science works. 


How science safely informs society is through consensus. The reason it’s so critical is because lay people aren’t actually qualified to determine which argument is right. Because no matter how many analogies are used, the underlying science and research are complex. That means these ideas (particularly those that make big claims) need to pass through the review process, attempts to reproduce the findings and looking to other fields that would corroborate the new ideas. Eventually when an idea is correct and stands up under rigorous inspection, that moves to the new consensus point. 


Honestly I used to see science the way you’re describing but the more time I spent studying science on my own, the more a realized that it’s often scientific reporters trying to bring in ad revenue than the scientists themselves who bring the big claims. 


The reason scientists who side with the consensus are so confident is they know how much evidence and study it took to make that understanding the consensus.  Yes, scientists are people too and it can become personal. But the *vast* majority of scientists stick to their own field and just try to follow where the evidence leads."
askscience,"I went to a private Christian high school in the late 80’s so I’m more than passingly familiar with it. I agree obviously about the alliance, but these are sincerely held beliefs by the majority of conservative Christians.  I remember evolution being mocked well before the Reagan era. This was already part of the Christian world view, I think a push was made in the public schools as a part of it, giving us things like “teach the controversy “."
askscience,"Even on those the arms and heads are cut super close to the bones and there’s no idea of frills or feathers or anything like elephant noses or rhino horns that may possibly have existed. Imagine T Rex with a prehensile nose that took the place of arms. (Chances are the skull would not support that but the fossil record wouldn’t keep a trunk we haven’t thought about intact either)

So they were reconstructed saggy bags of meat and skeletons, but mostly browns, greys, and greens. Which makes sense if you look at modern lizards but not if you look at whales or kiwis.

Don’t get me wrong, I love dinosaurs and now I want to ask what your favorite one is because in baggy meatspace I never get to talk about this, there are so many possibilities that are being proved/disproved everyday and without imagination and very specific science to investigate it we would be at serious loss.

(So, what is your favorite dinosaur?)"
askscience,Speaking as somebody who moved from true science with a degree in chemistry to social science with a degree in sociology.  The issue isnxt that social science has false conclusions.  The problem is that there are far too many variables to account for.  In social science we look at a person with every second of their life being a variable.  True psychologists or sociologists would never present something as absolute truth but merely as a widespread pattern that may apply to others.  The real issue is people taking that idea out of context and saying that this pattern applies to all regardless of background.
askscience,"
>The issue is that people have been taught to distrust their government and corporations, I think. 
>

Taught in the sense that they made the connection themselves, I'd say.

Another example is in the media, where a person presenting an argument has their argument refuted by discrediting the person with whatever dirt they can find. This is a staple of politics.

""My point is that global warming is happening under all our noses""

""Yeah but one time you used baking soda instead of baking powder, so what do you know anyway?""
"
askscience,"I don't think people have the stomach for (pardon the pun) thorough nutritional science.  There are just too many variables at work and until we can account for all the variables in a system, it will be easy to dismiss as ""bad science"".

My personal opinion is that this area could revolutionize the world in the areas if sustainability, health, and medicine.  Designing the sensors that could analyze the chemicals and their reactions in real-time is a bit of science fiction at the moment.  There us considerable work and money that would have to be applied.  There isn't an apparent need right now so the status quo will continue.
"
askscience,"The pressure difference is 1 only atmosphere, which is about 15 psi. Not much less of a difference than your average car tire to the air around it. Coupled with the hole being very small compared to the volume of air in the station, it's going to to take a long time to pull it all out.

Edit: Reminded by another poster that I was being silly about gauges, a 30 psi tire is actually 30 psi difference with the atmosphere, making the pressure difference of the ISS to space about half the difference of a car tire relative to air, even less if you run a higher pressure than 30."
askscience,"Air pressure needed to hold something up reduces as its containment surface increases. 

An average car with smaller tires needs a greater psi because it has limited surface area within the tire, but in contrast 10psi in a larger tire can hold up a greater weight. The big yellow backhoes with huge tires that are used in excavation can have as little as 20psi. So you are correct in that commonly psi for standard cars is in the 30-50psi range but in the same breath many, many tires operate on a much lower psi scale. "
askscience,"You don't come into contact with Space. It's literally just a vacuum. So no, the exact same space is in a vacuum chamber here on earth.

What I think you meant is, is that the first time a person has been exposed in a vacuum, at that altitude?

Depends, lots of pilots have been exposed to very-high altitude / near vacuum environments - it really depends, there's no line in the sand for what counts on this one."
askscience,"I find it baffling that some people almost go out of their way to intentionally misunderstand these things. I have people in my life who do that a lot, and lately I've just started avoiding talking with them about many subjects, simply because they *have* to be technically correct about everything.   
It's like common parlance doesn't exist, and they need to show their superior knowledge. Even if the information is understood by all, parties. Not to mention it derails a conversation real fast. "
askscience,"[Well there was this one guy in 1960 that came pretty close.](http://stratocat.com.ar/artics/excelsior-e.htm) Pretty crazy story that was kept secret for a very long time.

> Excelsior III, launched from Tularosa, New Mexico, carried Kittinger to 102,800 feet. During the ascent, the pressurization in his right glove failed and his hand began to swell. It reached nearly twice its normal size and was very painful. Afraid that he would be ordered to jump early because of the malfunction, Kittinger did not report the problem until he was at altitude. Seventy seconds before jumping, he cut away the radio antenna to prevent hitting it. For the first time in the flight, Captain Kittinger was truly alone."
askscience,"E is the heaviest commonly found on pickups. C is much lighter duty.

My understanding, which may be wrong, is that the letter rating is an old school thing and not as applicable to modern day tires. All it represents is the number [layers?] of belts. This might be expressed in the number of ”ply”, 8 ply or 10 ply. 

Today tires will also be rated in carrying capacity of load. You can find D rated tires with the same carrying capacity as an E rated tire, but it will be filled to a lower PSI, experience more sidewall flex, and it will weigh less. 

That's my understanding, there are also speed ratings. Those are another thing."
askscience,"One factor may be that the hole, which was actually in the Soyuz orbital module, isn't thought to have been made in orbit but rather was drilled in the metal and improperly sealed (presumably with some kind of rubbery sealant) during the Soyuz spacecraft's construction. So as far as the mechanical behaviour of the Soyuz's hull goes, there's no sudden failure and no chance for a crack to propagate. A round drill hole will spread out any stresses, unlike the sharp edge of a crack that concentrates stress enabling the crack to grow."
askscience,"No, what you're not getting is you don't ""come into contact with space"" - it's like, if I'm in a room with a light on, and someone opens the door I don't come into contact with darkness.

And if I'm in a warm room, and someone opens the door to a cold one, I don't ""come into contact with cold"" - yes eventually I get cooler, but cooler than what - my original temperature? At what point did I ""touch the cold""?

This is why saying someone came into contact with space doesn't make sense."
askscience,"The pressure in a tire is what's holding the vehicle up, as well as giving the tire the right ""shape"" for good traction and even wear. The heavier the vehicle, the higher pressure needed for both of those things. Heavy truck tires are filled to over 100 psi for that reason.

Tires are rated up to a max safe pressure because they can be used on a range of vehicles. But the correct pressure is largely determined by the weight of the vehicle. So go by what the owner's manual says."
askscience,"Odds are that would be a situation of choosing the wrong tire for the vehicle. Just because it fits doesn't mean it's right.

But there are times a certain tire's ideal pressure will vary from the vehicle manufacturer's recommendations -- especially with specialty tires or extensive vehicle modifications. Most times the tire manufacturer will provide the correct pressure for a given vehicle. If you get into really crazy stuff it's an educated guess with some trial and error."
askscience,"You're pretty much right on. I don't work for our seals division (which supplies seals for Boeing and NASA) but have worked with them in my BU, which is medical applications. There are tons of rubbers that O-rings are made from, from 14B to chlorobutyl to viton, to ePTFE which is a great temperature resistant sealing material. It's also ridiculously expensive so its only used when temperature swings are at play. Viton/ePTFE would be my materials of choice here due to their fluoropolymer nature which is very temperature stable."
askscience,">Arguably it would feel very hot after a while.

Even assuming (This wasnt the case) a 2mm hole was facing directly at the sun, its 2mm. Very, very little energy, even in space would be hitting you in the first place, and it would take hours to heat your finger any appreciable amount. That and you would have not only the rest of your body to act as a heat sink, you have the entire ISS. 

My understanding is that your #1 concern, besides the whole ""Leaking air in space"" thing, is a tiny chunk of dead skin from the slight pressure limiting blood flow. It would take some serious willpower to prevent moving your finger a fraction of a millimeter for a couple hours."
askscience,"The sum of the kinetic energies of the products, minus the sum of the kinetic energies of the reactants is called the ""Q-value"". This is the net amount of energy released by each individual reaction.

For thermal neutron-induced fission of uranium-235, the Q-value is about 200 MeV, on average (average because there are many possible final states).

For fusion of deuterium with tritium, producing a neutron and an alpha particle, the Q-value is about 17 MeV."
askscience,"I see... I'm getting a bit confused because in this book that I have it defines the mass difference (aka mass excess aka mass decrement) as Delta = M - A where M is apparently given by the semi-empirical mass formula and A is the mass number. Then the book gives the energy of a neutron, using this Delta, as 8.0714 MeV. I'm not sure how they arrived at this value. From my understanding, mass defect has an associated binding energy which tells you how much energy is needed to free the nucleus into individual nucleons. But a neutron is already free so how can it have a mass difference whose corresponding energy is 8.0714 MeV? "
askscience,"Ahh okay so the mass excess aka mass defect is not the same thing as binding energy? So it is possible that there is mass excess but not binding energy? E.g. a neutron has mass excess, since its mass isn't exactly 1 amu (which is defined in terms of carbon-12) however it doesn't have binding energy, since it is a lone nucleon. So the binding energy and the mass defect expressed in terms of energy (via mass-energy equivalence) are different? "
askscience,"The mass defect is the difference between the actual mass of the nucleus, and the mass of Z isolated protons plus N isolated neutrons.

The mass excess is the difference between the actual mass of the atom, and A atomic mass units.

Typically everything is calculated in terms of atomic rather than nuclear masses (so electrons are included), but the contributions from the electrons are often cancelled out when you take differences, and contributions due to electronic binding energies are on the order of eV, so they’re often neglected."
askscience,"The pressure differential between the ISS and the vacuum of space, as well as the size of the hole are all factors to consider.

What you see in the movies with massive decompression due to a small, even moderately sized hole, are pretty much fiction.

Fill a balloon with water and poke a hole in it with a needle and you'll get a sense for why it took so long for the air to escape from the ISS."
askscience,"Heck, take two balloons filled with air, poke one down where the rubber is thick around nozzle and the other in the main body of the balloon. On the one where the rubber is thicker the balloon will slowly deflate, while on the other the escaping air through the stretched balloon will cause the hole to tear itself bigger until it's big enough for the air to all escape quickly. 

The size of the hole is only as important as the strength of the material the hole is in. This hole was drilled through metal so the metal wasn't going anywhere to allow the hole to expand (that said, I doubt there'd be much of the ISS's inner surfaces that'd be thin and flimsy enough to rupture from the air like a balloon skin, even if the pressure was higher inside)"
askscience,"The hole was roughly 2x2mm. A portal-type door is roughly 24x48 inches. Iirc, they said it would take a week to evacuate the station of air with the small hole. Given that timeline, the ratio of the surface areas of the two holes,  and the number of seconds in a week, also assuming the two volumes are equal, a door-sized hole would evacuate in about 9 seconds. Does that track with what you saw in the movie?"
askscience,"> Fill a balloon with water and poke a hole in it with a needle and you'll get a sense for why it took so long for the air to escape from the ISS.

But how much pressure is in a water balloon? Better fill an old bicycle tire up to 1 bar and poke a needle through it. It takes quite some time for it to leak out. You can even calculate the air volume and compare it to the ISS."
askscience,"The pressure difference between inside and outside the space station is only one atmosphere. That's comparable to the pressure difference for a submarine under 10 meters of water. You wouldn't expect a 2 mm hole in the side of a submarine 10 m under water to cause rapid, catastrophic flooding either.

[Here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byford_Dolphin#Diving_bell_accident) is a somewhat famous example of a catastrophic decompression accident involving a 9 atmosphere pressure difference, and also a larger hole."
askscience,"Fun fact: the watches astronauts wore on the moon (Mostly Omega Speedmasters, one experimental Bulova watch) were basically just strapped around the wrist of the space suit with a cushioned Velcro patch over them to prevent damage. This is because the pressure differential between atmospheric pressure and space is smaller than the pressures the watches were built to handle under water. Counterintuitively, a watch is actually under less stress in the vacuum of space than at ordinary SCUBA depths. Interestingly, there were a few instances of the crystals of watches popping out of the case because they are designed to resist pressure inward, rather than outward."
askscience,"Yes it is, to quite a large degree. Geneticists know this in part through studies of twins: identical twins, who share 100% of their genetic variants, have more similar intelligence than fraternal twins who only share 50% of their genetic variants. Estimates of the heritablity of adult intelligence are in the range of 70 – 80%. This means that 70 – 80% of the variation in intelligence within a population is due to genetic differences. (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Estimates )

Researchers know intelligence is largely based on genetic factors, and are currently trying to identify which genes are most important. One of the most recent papers can be found here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-018-0152-6

The abstract, for those interested:
>Intelligence is highly heritable and a major determinant of human health and well-being. Recent genome-wide meta-analyses have identified 24 genomic loci linked to variation in intelligence, but much about its genetic underpinnings remains to be discovered. Here, we present a large-scale genetic association study of intelligence (n = 269,867), identifying 205 associated genomic loci (190 new) and 1,016 genes (939 new) via positional mapping, expression quantitative trait locus (eQTL) mapping, chromatin interaction mapping, and gene-based association analysis. We find enrichment of genetic effects in conserved and coding regions and associations with 146 nonsynonymous exonic variants. Associated genes are strongly expressed in the brain, specifically in striatal medium spiny neurons and hippocampal pyramidal neurons. Gene set analyses implicate pathways related to nervous system development and synaptic structure. We confirm previous strong genetic correlations with multiple health-related outcomes, and Mendelian randomization analysis results suggest protective effects of intelligence for Alzheimer’s disease and ADHD and bidirectional causation with pleiotropic effects for schizophrenia. These results are a major step forward in understanding the neurobiology of cognitive function as well as genetically related neurological and psychiatric disorders."
askscience,"In the most technical sense, no, the evidence does not seem to indicate that it is possible to make yourself more intelligent. However, your ""general intelligence"" is not the only thing that determines how well you can learn things. Having lots of background knowledge and diligently studying is important too. 

Often, when a person rapidly learns a new subject, it's not just because they're intelligent, it's because they have lots of little tiny bits of knowledge that help them make sense of new knowledge. For example, if two English speakers are learning French, but one of them already knows Spanish or Italian, they're definitely going to learn French faster than the other person. The same thing applies to math, chemistry, you name it. The more you learn, the easier it is to learn more by relating it to things you already know. 

I've encountered people who claimed to be ""dumb"" because they had trouble grasping some complex concepts, when in fact they were just missing the basic knowledge that was needed to understand."
askscience,"That makes sense, it's like a foundation to build on.  

 how exactly would you be able to identify someone as more intelligent by their genetics?  I'm a bit confused.  If two people (one with the genes, one without) were put in a course in which they both had no background knowledge and they were given the same amount of time and materials to study, how would their performance differ?  I'm not sure how intelligence is actually being measured here."
askscience,"Measuring intelligence by how well a person does on any one specific task doesn't work very well, since lots of factors besides intelligence will affect their performance. We measure intelligence by testing people on a LOT of different types of problems (verbal comprehension / reasoning, logic, mathematical reasoning, spatial reasoning, etc.), so that we get an overall estimate of their learning / reasoning ability that is less affected by how experienced they are (or any specific deficits they have) in any one specific area.

This is related to how we know there actually is such a thing as general intelligence: If you take a million people, give them all a test with many different kinds of problems on it, and look at the results, you'll notice something: on average, people who get one kind of question right tend to get other kinds of questions right too. People who are good at spatial reasoning are, ON AVERAGE, better at verbal reasoning (and so on) too. The only way to explain that is that there must be some kind of general ability that people have, that is used for all different kinds of mental tasks to some degree. We call that general ability *g*, or ""general intelligence."" We can even mathematically estimate how much of someone's performance on a task is explained by *g*, and generally it's about 50%. So when it comes to solving difficult problems, your performance is about half due to your intelligence, and about half due to how diligently you work at it, how hard you study, how much relevant knowledge you've collected.

Note that testing someone's intelligence doesn't directly tell us if they have ""smart genes."" From other studies, we know intelligence is about 70-ish percent genetic, so if someone is especially smart (or dumb), all we can say is ""it's probably about 70% due to your genes, and probably about 30% due to your upbringing / nutrition / education / etc.""

Just knowing that our intelligence is heavily influenced by genes doesn't tell us which genes. There have been studies that compare the genomes of smart and less smart people, but that kind of thing is WAY harder than it sounds. Sometimes a trait is basically determined by one or two genes, like eye color, and it's super easy to figure out which genes. Intelligence is NOT like that. It's more like trying to figure out exactly what causes some states to have higher rates of smoking than others. So many things influence it, and some things might only affect that under certain circumstances... And that's basically what bioinformatics is about."
askscience,"Just a warning.  What you write, although well sourced, isn't universally accepted.

This book review gives a decent outline of the controversy in this field:
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/books/review/Holt-t.html

Also, an example of how these numbers get misinterpreted:  

You might think that we could design a DNA test for babies and predict that one person will have an IQ of 120 and another 90.  However, it's probably more like the DNA test will be inaccurate for everyone in the normal range, but can predict someone with Down's syndrome, who will score 40 on an IQ test, quite well.  The outliers contribute a lot to the variance.
"
askscience,"I believe the point of confusion is related to the wave and particle nature of the photons and how we choose which interpretation to deal with based on the situation. If you oscillate a bunch of charges at a low frequency you produce a radio wave, which are basically photons with very low frequency. The gif provided by noun_exchanger is similar to what happens when there is a change in current in a wire and an EMP is produced. What I think noun_exchanger wants to know is if it's possible to measure the time interval of this EMP on a quantum scale from a single charge."
askscience,"This is much closer to what I'm getting at. Basically, it seems if you translate that mechanism of producing EM radiation as seen in the gif to a single charge going around and around in a circle pattern, it will be continuously oscillating the electromagnetic field (aka emitting waves). And from the little I understand about the discrete nature of photons, this can't be the case because photons are discrete chunks of energy, not continuous waves. 

The follow-up questioning I had with /u/mfb- is basically: if the gif accurately represents how photons are produced, the wave can't be continuously emitted, they must be emitted in chunks and therefore possibly have time intervals between their emissions .. or else it's continuous. I don't really care WHEN the photons are emitted, I'm just looking for someone to confirm or deny that a finite amount of photons must be produced and the gif model is not entirely accurate at presenting how a single charge going around in a cyclotron emits energy. Either that, or I'm going mad trying to understand this stuff."
askscience,"I'm not concerned with when or how many photons are being produced by a single electron circling around in a cyclotron, I just want to know if the gif is consistent with the photon nature of EM radiation. If the gif presented a single charge moving around in a circle geometry with this same wave-like EM emitting mechanism, it would be **continuously** emitting waves - which from what I understand about the discrete nature of photons - can't be the case. Photons are discrete energy chunks... and the gif would be presenting continuous oscillations in the EM field if it showed a charged accelerating around in a circle pattern. Is the gif an inaccurate way of viewing **discrete photon** emission, or did I am going mad here?"
askscience,"I'll just kind of copy paste a bit from my previous comment: I'm not concerned with when or how many photons are being produced by a single electron circling around in a cyclotron, I just want to know if the gif is consistent with the **photon nature** of EM radiation or if the gif is strictly showing some ""classical"" model of EM radiation that doesn't make sense to apply literally to photons.

If the gif showed an electron circling around in a cyclotron and it showed this same EM wave producing mechanism, it would be showing continuous waves being emitted... which seems to be inconsistent with **discrete photon** behavior. 

"
askscience,"Okay, I can accept that every moment in time contributes to photon emission, but ultimately I think my question had the most to do with viewing the gif as a complete picture of how photons are formed/emitted. /u/mofo69extreme indicated the gif only shows classical EM wave behavior, and does not attempt to visualize any quantum behavior associated with the discrete nature of photons. Is that an accurate statement in your opinion? 

If the gif showed the charge in constant acceleration on a circular path, it would be creating continuous wave patterns in the surrounding EM field - which, in reality, is not the complete story. There is some discretized nature to the created EM waves that the gif is not showing, correct?"
askscience,"Yes I understand photons are oscillations in the electric/magnetic field, right? The gif is showing the propagation of a single wave in this field. Could the single wave not be considered a photon to some extent even with an ill-defined frequency?

My concern with the visualization in the gif is if we take the lone charge and make it continuously accelerate in a circular path. It would seem to be emitting continuous waves a la classical EM radiation, but really there is some other aspect to it that is more quantum in nature - and the gif seems to be missing something or is misleading if I'm trying to conceptualize the quantized nature of photons. I understand the electric field and the visualization is the original gif are a piece of the puzzle, but is it not an incomplete picture?"
askscience,"Well the simple answer is yes, if you take someone who has depression or whatever and run them under various diagnostic tools while they are ill and after therapy (or during drug treatment that is working) there are clear differences. The other posts show the topic as a whole is more complicated but the way I see it is you asked a direct question and the direct answer to it is yes, even if you need more context to really understand it. The hippocampus enlarges, the amygdala shrinks, you'll find alterations in connectivity e.g. the vmPFC-amygdala pathway etc."
askscience,"Where do you read the requirement that the changes have to be the same for every patient? Why do we need to specify what the exact changes are? The question only asks if there *are* observable changes with recovery, which there obviously are unless you're suggesting depression has no physiological basis in the brain at all. Answering this question does not need us to be able to diagnose depression with an MRI, not even close. You're answering a totally different question to the OP.

You also didn't answer my question, simply repeated your answer."
askscience,"> The hippocampus enlarges, the amygdala shrinks, you'll find alterations in connectivity e.g. the vmPFC-amygdala pathway etc.

Are there longitudinal studies that show changes in the volumes of these structures/tracts that change as a consequence of depression? Merely showing a difference between two groups is not the same as predicting a change in an individual.

If a group of patients with MDD has smaller amygdalae than a group of controls, this could have been a structural difference that is unrelated to MDD, or that is not causal of MDD but a consequence of some other process. It is plausible that remission of depression would not ""reverse"" the smaller amygdala."
askscience,">as the brain's structure is changing continuously.

You're not wrong, but you are grossly overexaggerating the degree of the daily changes within the brain that occur as a result of everyday life. The changes you're referring to are nowhere near the scale of the ones that are thought to occur in association with depression. Eating lunch is going to make you gain weight, but it is not going to add inches to your waistline. "
askscience,"> Are there longitudinal studies that show changes in the volumes of these structures/tracts that change as a consequence of depression? Merely showing a difference between two groups is not the same as predicting a change in an individual.

I was just giving examples of what might change off the top of my head. There are studies which clearly show changes particularly with successful antidepressant treatment. They compare endpoints, not populations. But since depression describes a set of symptoms rather than an etiology, the same changes will not be observed for everyone although changes *are* observed.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4630287/ sums it up nicely.

> If a group of patients with MDD has smaller amygdalae than a group of controls, this could have been a structural difference that is unrelated to MDD, or that is not causal of MDD but a consequence of some other process. It is plausible that remission of depression would not ""reverse"" the smaller amygdala.

Okay but I'm not saying every single known physiological correlate/predisposition/consequence of depression is going to recover, as if it was never like that. So I'm not sure what you're getting at.

> There is no change, or cluster or changes, that you could claim as diagnostic of remission of depression.

> If you're going to say any change in brain structure is a change in depression then you're going to have a bad time, as the brain's structure is changing continuously.

Yes there is no cluster of physiological changes that can consistently be applied to everyone because depression is not a single disease. I'm not saying *any* change in brain structure must be related to changes in depression (given there is a clinical improvement) as we have research which shows what changes observed with treatment are specifically associated with improvement.

I was too quick to say ""yes"" when I should have said ""yes, if you include connectivity and activation which are related but not the same"" but your requirement to diagnose the presence or remission of depression physiologically is not strictly necessary because the question is about observing changes, not diagnosing static states of depressed and not depressed. If you could diagnose these states then yes you could compare them and say ""these are the possible changes"" but what I'm getting at is that you can also observe the changes through treatment as they happen without knowing beforehand which ones are actually contributing to depression. It can be done both ways."
askscience,"This is super interesting! I found another higher tier paper supporting that one:

[http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/12/20/1321060111.short](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/12/20/1321060111.short)

​

However, this has to do with testosterone levels, which is not the same that muscularity. And moreover, I didnt find any paper in which they actually measure the sickness frequency with testosterone levels. Given the inverse correlation with inmune response found in those 2 papers,  we should expect that the frequency is higher, but we don't know if testosterone is having a protective effect through another pathway."
askscience,"> I'm sure you can logic through a dozen reasons yourself why this is worthless to base an argument on

I don't see right now why is it so worthless, can you elaborate? 

I mean, if you look through the history of art, it is clear that muscular men have been considered attractive for quite a long time now, I would say enough to allow natural selection. 

And it makes sense that in more ancient times, being fit and muscular made more sense as a positive trait as it does now (because wars and manual labor were more common)."
askscience,"That sounds like a massive reach from the data. Lower CRP and WCC count does not necessarily mean impaired immunity in any meaningful sense, and in fact could be read the other way around - infections progress to a more severe stage in lower muscle mass patients requiring and causing higher levels of CRP/WCC. High CRP and WCC is strongly associated with mortality in infection, so it doesn't seem clear to me that high levels should be seen as a good thing, even if they are high for a purpose.

Unfortunately I don't seem to be able to get that abstract to see if the study design mitigates this at all."
askscience,"ok, throwing out the quick obvious ones...

- throughout most of human existence, females have NOT been the ones picking mates, so what surveys of females currently show regarding male attractiveness has little weight in this argument

- in fact, (esp the european) humans are among the minority cases among mammals/animals where there is clear evidence males have been doing the picking, as several female phenotypes have clearly been selected for/against (e.g. enlarged breasts and buttocks, gender preferential paleness of skin (incl possibly hair and eyes as well), thorough suppression of female ovulation, progressive selection of neotenous characters for female 'beauty', 'feminity', voice etc... likely because human survival was so difficult, foraging males had such high mortality, and females/children were so often and so completey dependent on male provisioning, that males were in a position to select for desirable female characteristics for at least thousands of years, long enough for those male preferences to be conspicuous in female anatomy!

- further, even if you were to dwell on that, its obvious the bigger preference as seen in action vs what ppl say in surveys, is that the biggest bias on women's willingness to attach with males to create children/families is still on men's wealth/resource, which is turn is most correlated with intelligence and social abilities

- evolutionary timescale is in the tens of thousands to millions of years, and there we have pretty clear understanding of what exactly was most important to male success over this time, as you only have to look at what has been most strongly selected.. and those are straightforward.. more intelligence, better disease resistance, ability to digest more foods.. in summary, it has been a pure selection for survival, the pesky business of 'who do the ladies want' has been a far secondary concern

- further, survival for humans has most directly been predicated on food availability and needs, so 'muscles' are always in direct conflict with survivability across droughts, cold snaps, famines etc.. i.e select those who have the least necessary muscle mass to survive to keep food requirements low.. indeed when there's excess food, storing that as fats is a much more efficient use than making muscles, as any muscle mass actively needs to burn food all the time, which ofc helps us understand some of the 'why's behind the modern obeseity epidemic"
askscience,"That abstract seems **highly** questionable to me, as CRP and WBC are extremely nonspecific blood tests that can be elevated or suppressed for a lot of different reasons. Having a slightly lower WBC does not tell you anything about whether your immune system is stronger or weaker.

In order to prove that excess skeletal muscle mass suppresses immune system function, you would have to show evidence of increased infectious disease incidence, prevalence, or mortality in very muscular individuals. To my knowledge, there is no high quality evidence in humans that supports this.

Obesity correlates with a [significantly increased risk](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23974637) of [death from influenza](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27385315). Obesity is correlated with [severe soft tissue infections](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28069657), [urinary tract infections](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26518067), and [sepsis mortality](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29677586).

Only non-influenza pneumonia appears to be less severe in obese patients, a finding known as the [obesity survival paradox](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24722122).

So from a MD standpoint it seems highly implausible that obesity would be protective against infectious disease, or that lean muscle mass would confer susceptibility to infectious disease."
askscience,"> throughout most of human existence, females have NOT been the ones picking mates.


I don't think that's clear.  Since pre-historic/pre-agricultural societies represent most of our time on the planet, theories about the overall societal context in which we evolved are quite speculative.  There is evidence against female choice, and evidence that supports female choice - but I'm not sure anyone knows enough about those trends to discount female choice as a major force in early societies.


It's also important to note that societal domination of an individual woman does not usually mean that female mate preferences are inert.  Female desire is often integrated into matchmaking/arranged marriage practices in formal or informal ways. The fact that a boy is good-looking and lovable etc. will usually raise his value in an arranged marriage market.  Furthermore, only a small minority of observed arranged marriage systems do not give the woman veto power over a match.  I'd wonder whether there are any societies that developed their matchmaking methods with total disregard for the possibility that woman's rejection of her husband, based on lack of attraction, could screw things up.


I don't buy entirely into the idea that immediate-return hunter gatherers were a bunch of slutty egalitarians.  However, we have evidence of practices that obscure paternity, and a lot of practices that give opportunities for sexual promiscuity.  We also know that general egalitarianism correlates with more freedom for women - and if these societies heavily tended toward egalitarianism (as suggested by proponents of H-G egalitarianism like Peter Gray and Christopher Boehm),  we could imagine that this would dispose them toward greater expression of mate choice."
askscience,"The relvant span for evolutionary history, the kind that is relevant when discussing genetic reflections of observed behavior as here, is far far longer than any cultural history we currently have clear evidence for. For that span, we search for the effects in biology itself, hence the mention of actual observable sexually selected for traits in humans males/females, (and as opposed to traits selected for direct survival value). And that shows an abundance in females as mentioned above and a relative paucity in males. That alone is overwhelming evidence that at least in humans, in relevant latest evolutionary history, the sexual selection pressure has been disproportionately on females, which an only come about if males are doing most of the picking, and consistently for long periods of time. For instance, disproportionately big human female breasts offer no survival value, they exist so far out of the norm in humans compared to all other mammals, solely because men selected for those."
askscience,"> For that span, we search for the effects in biology itself, hence the mention of actual observable sexually selected for traits in humans males/females, (and as opposed to traits selected for direct survival value). And that shows an abundance in females as mentioned above and a relative paucity in males. That alone is overwhelming evidence that at least in humans, in relevant latest evolutionary history, the sexual selection pressure has been disproportionately on females, which an only come about if males are doing most of the picking, and consistently for long periods of time. For instance, disproportionately big human female breasts offer no survival value, they exist so far out of the norm in humans compared to all other mammals, solely because men selected for those.


That's contentious because traits that represent male attractiveness and traits that represent increased ability to compete with other males (or thrive in other ways) often overlap.  If a woman picks the guy who can win a fistfight, that doesn't mean that she hasn't made a true choice, and also doesn't mean that a man who can fight isn't required to win the affection of women in order to mate.  A physical anthropologist is limited in determining whether such a trait is a result of force or choice - that's one reason why we go back to the cultural data, even if it's quite thin."
askscience,"Climate change will have weird effects on hurricanes that are not well understood. There is significantly more energy in the atmosphere because of it, but hurricanes are caused by a very complex mix of many factors like temperature gradients, wind shear, ocean temperatures and currents, the jet stream, etc. All of these are likely to change in a warmer world, but some of them will have an impending effect to hurricane development while others will worsen them. All said, the threats from global warming are significant and existential, but mega hurricanes aren’t likely to be a big part. "
askscience,"Hurricanes are not becoming more frequent nor are they expected to. At least the last two IPCC reports have stated that hurricane frequency will either remain steady or decrease. But intensity is and is expected to continue increasing in a warming world.

​

Tropical cyclones and climate change (Knutson et al, 2010) - [http://shoni2.princeton.edu/ftp/lyo/journals/Knutson-etal-TCClimateChange-A-NatGeoSci2010.pdf](http://shoni2.princeton.edu/ftp/lyo/journals/Knutson-etal-TCClimateChange-A-NatGeoSci2010.pdf)

​

""However, future projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2–11% by 2100. Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6–34%.""

​

Response of Tropical Cyclone Activity and Structure to Global Warming in a High-Resolution Global Nonhydrostatic Model (Yamada et al, 2017) - [https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0068.1](https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0068.1)

​

""The model projected that the global frequency of TCs is reduced by 22.7%, the ratio of intense TCs is increased by 6.6%, and the precipitation rate within 100 km of the TC center increased by 11.8% under warmer climate conditions.""

​

Dealing with current trends we see the following:

​

Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years (Emanuel, 2005) - [https://nature.berkeley.edu/er100/readings/Emanuel\_2005.pdf](https://nature.berkeley.edu/er100/readings/Emanuel_2005.pdf)

​

""Here I define an index of the potential destructiveness of hurricanes based on the total dissipation of power, integrated over the lifetime of the cyclone, and show that this index has increased markedly since the mid-1970s. This trend is due to both longer storm lifetimes and greater storm intensities. I find that the record of net hurricane power dissipation is highly correlated with tropical sea surface temperature, reflecting well-documented climate signals, including multi-decadal oscillations in the North Atlantic and North Pacific, and global warming.""

​

Deconvolution of the Factors Contributing to the Increase in Global Hurricane Intensity (Hoyos et al, 2006) - [http://faculty.jsd.claremont.edu/emorhardt/159/pdfs/2007/Hoyos%20et%20al.%202006.pdf](http://faculty.jsd.claremont.edu/emorhardt/159/pdfs/2007/Hoyos%20et%20al.%202006.pdf)

​

""The results show that the trend of increasing numbers of category 4 and 5 hurricanes for the period 1970–2004 is directly linked to the trend in sea-surface temperature; other aspects of the tropical environment, although they influence shorter-term variations in hurricane intensity, do not contribute substantially to the observed global trend.""

​

The increasing intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones (Elsner et al, 2008) - [http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/\~kossin/articles/nature07234.pdf](http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~kossin/articles/nature07234.pdf)

​

""We find significant upward trends for wind speed quantiles above the 70th percentile, with trends as high as 0.3 ± 0.09 m s-1 yr-1 (s.e.) for the strongest cyclones.""

​

Trend Analysis with a New Global Record of Tropical Cyclone Intensity (Kossin et al, 2013) - [http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00262.1](http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00262.1)

​

"" This additional homogenization step is found to measurably reduce LMI trends, but the global trends in the LMI of the strongest storms remain positive, with amplitudes of around +1 m s-1 decade-1 and p value = 0.1. Regional trends, in m s-1 decade-1, vary from -2 (p = 0.03) in the western North Pacific, +1.7 (p = 0.06) in the south Indian Ocean, +2.5 (p = 0.09) in the South Pacific, to +8 (p < 0.001) in the North Atlantic.""

​

Trade-off between intensity and frequency of global tropical cyclones (Kang et al, 2015) - [http://myweb.fsu.edu/jelsner/PDF/Research/KangElsner2015.pdf](http://myweb.fsu.edu/jelsner/PDF/Research/KangElsner2015.pdf)

​

""We calculate an average increase in global tropical cyclone intensity of 1.3 m s-1 over the past 30 years of ocean warming occurring at the expense of 6.1 tropical cyclones worldwide.""

​"
askscience,"If the Gulf Stream is disrupted, the maritime climates it warms will turn more like Alaska or Newfoundland (this is the scenario that's fictionalised at the start of The Day After Tomorrow). The disruption is from changes to currents in the Atlantic, which alter in salinity because of lots of melting ice entering the sea. So global warming causes ice melt causes local loss of a heating current.

Heaven only knows what that would do to the Atlantic hurricane season..!"
askscience,"The search for dark matter comes from a discrepancy between how much mass we think there is in certain cosmic structures (such as galaxies) based on what we can directly measure and how much mass we think there is based on the motion of objects that we observe.

We can estimate the mass of something like a galaxy by measuring the amount of light it emits (and correcting that for distance) using the knowledge that we have on the structure of stars and how mass and light emission are related.

But we can also look at the gravity exerted by cosmic objects. The heavier something is, the larger its effect on the motion of nearby objects (among other things). So by analyzing the motion of cosmic objects, we can estimate masses as well.

And when we put these two approaches next to each other, they don't match. At all. Estimates based on gravitational effects suggest a mass that is much higher than estimates based on direct observation of emissions.

There are two reasonable explanations for this large discrepancy. Either there is something there that we can't see, but that's rather heavy. Or our theories on how gravity, stars and other cosmic objects work are wrong.

This issue was first raised in the late 19th century. Since then, our knowledge of astrophysics has increased enormously, thanks both to theoretical advancements and to powerful observational tools. But with every advancement, the mass discrepancy remained. And with time, astrophysicists have gathered more and more evidence to support the idea that there indeed is some form of matter that we can't readily detect with our telescopes and other equipment.

So we don't know for certain that dark matter exists. However, by now it is by far the most plausible explanation for all the observations that suggest there is a more matter in the universe than what we can directly observe. And as such, it has become the mainstream consensus that some type of matter probably exists that is hard to detect, but is present in large quantities in and around galaxies.

The fact that we don't know what this matter would consist of makes searching for it rather difficult, which is why dark matter is one of the most important open problems in astro- and particle physics."
askscience,"While black holes don't emit light, the area directly surrounding a black hole, the so-called ""accretion disk"", contains very hot and dense gases that emit a large amount of radiation, typically in the x-ray part of the spectrum. This allows for detection of black holes by x-ray observatories.

In addition, black holes are by their very nature compact and localized objects. The observations leading to the missing mass point to a mass distribution of dark matter that is smoothly spread across a galaxy."
askscience,"The mass of planets is just too low. Planets are *tiny* compared to stars. Even if every star were orbited by fifty planets the size of Jupiter, all those planets together would still have only a tiny fraction of the required mass. 

If you imagine the planets being massive enough to make up the difference, they would become so massive that they start undergoing fusion. Those would no longer be planets; they would be stars, and we'd have been able to see them. 

Cosmologists have also considered the possibility of ""rogue"" planets floating around outside solar systems. The problem there is that you'd need zillions of rogue planets to make up the missing mass. If they were that numerous, we would at least occasionally be able to detect some, by seeing them pass between us and a distant star. We have looked for this effect, and have not observed it. That means rogue planets  are not nearly common enough to be the explanation. "
askscience,"All of the scientist jokes out there\* are centred on the theme that astrophysicists are used to working with a sample size of one.

In their pre-Kepler defence, the Sun is a super-boring star that's slap bang in the middle of the main sequence, so it's not a terrible single sample. Now that Kepler has done its thang, our Sun is just one example out of thousands, and they too came up orders of magnitude short.

​

\*or at least that's what an astrophysicist told me after he heard the Scottish cow joke."
askscience,"Melted paper is certainly possible.
Burning only happens in the presence of oxygen, so remove oxygen and heat anything high enough and it will melt.

The factor which decides which materials behave which way in the presence of oxygen depends on which of the two phenomena requires the least amount of heating for any given material, as this is the one which will happen before the other has the chance to.

For example, if a material would need to be 1000K to melt, but could burn at 700K when oxygen is present, it would burn before it melts, leaving you with the product of combustion.
However, another material may melt at 700K and require a theoretical temperature of 1000K to burn it. In this case it would melt. The liquid may then burn at some temperature, which may not necessarily be the same temperature as the one theoretically needed to burn it."
askscience,"What you would most likely see is that the intermolecular forces holding the polymer strands of the paper together would break first, which would cause the paper to melt.
Then with more heat added the chemical bonds of each strand would start breaking down later.

However, it is also entirely possible that for some polymer strands may be configured in such a way that the intermolecular bonds holding each strand together ‘outlast’ the chemical bonds of each individual strand. But this scenario is far less likely as generally the intermolecular bonds are far weaker."
askscience,"If oxygen is present, the wood will be undergoing combustion and those gasses are carbon dioxide amongst a few others.

If it is in a vacuum, you are melting and then evaporating the wood (you would need ridiculously high temperatures for this) and you would be getting gasses from breaking the intermolecular bonds of the chemicals that makes up wood.

It may well be the case that you ionise the chemicals in the wood before they evaporate, I’m not 100% sure."
askscience,"As far as I'm aware, we still don't *quite* know.

Compared to humans, we've known for some time that insects are generally more resistant to ionizing radiation, and multiple hypotheses have been proposed to explain this radioresistance.

For a long time it was thought that because actively dividing cells are those most sensitive to radiation, insects would succumb less as, unlike humans with our leagues of constantly dividing cells, insects undergo discontinuous periods of growth (only with every moult). But this whole organism approach to radioresistance was tricky to interpret, as the physiology between us and, say, invertebrates is very different.

At a cellular level however, experiments on cells controlling for proliferative rate have revealed that insect cells are *de facto* more radioresistant than human cells, leading us to believe division rate actually might only have a little to do with it. When you blast human and insect cells with ionising radiation, the DNA within the insect cells itself undergoes much less damage, and what damage is present is more effectively repaired. Likewise, those same insect cells experience lower oxidative stress as a consequence of radiation exposure (radiation triggers the production of rather harmful reactive oxygen species that, amongst other things, trigger cells to commit [apoptotic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apoptosis) suicide). 

So yup, it appears the suite of repair enzymes insects utilise are simply better at dealing with DNA damage, explaining why insects have greater radioresistance. As for the evolutionary reason why they're more efficient, we're still not quite sure.

___

^**Sources:**

[^(Cheng, I.C, Lee, H.J. & Wang, T.C. (2009)^) ^(Multiple factors conferring high radioresistance in insect Sf9 cells. *Mutagenesis* 24 (3)^), ^259-369](https://academic.oup.com/mutage/article/24/3/259/1074431)


[^(Bianchi, N.O., Lopez-Larraza, D.M. & Dellarco, V.L. (1991)^) ^(DNA damage and repair induced by bleomycin in mammalian and insect cells. *Environ Mol Mutagen*. 17, 63-68)](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/em.2850170110) ^((research gate) [^here](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227933716_DNA_damage_and_repair_induced_by_bleomycin_in_mammalian_and_insect_cells)^)"
askscience,"Insect DNA is much simpler than humans, plus simpler body, and organs means they can take more damage without dying.

Look at experiments were a beheaded cockroach  survived for days, and was even able to copulate, and reproduce.

You have to kill a majority if cells in most insects before they die, whereas in a human death of a small amount of cells causes a deadly malfunction. 
The most sensitive parts of the human body are highly specialized internal organs, insects simply do not have. (Liver, spleen, bone marrow,....)"
askscience,"Hmm, it's tempting to think the presence of a chitinous exoskeleton might have some influence too. Alas, I've failed to find any evidence to support the claim. If anything, according to [this](https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/P1731_web.pdf) sourced from [here](https://inis.iaea.org/search/searchsinglerecord.aspx?recordsFor=SingleRecord&RN=26023735), marine invertebrate chitin shells readily degrade under exposure to ionising radiation; though a contradictory claim by [this material science paper](https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2FBF02515335.pdf) seems to suggest the material itself is quite resistant (in either case, structural resistance doesn't mean it blocks its passage, or anything). I'm a bit out of my depth on this, so haven't really a clue, sorry!"
askscience,"I remember a genetics tutor I had talking about this. Someone had asked him some speculative question about organisms in higher radiation environments and whether they'd evolve faster and his answer was along the lines of "".... probably not, organisms seem to be able to dial up or down their DNA repair mechanisms to an almost arbitrary extent, there seems to be some happy-medium mutation rate that organisms tend towards""

Even humans living in areas with very high natural background radiation appear to respond differently to radiation exposure:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11769138

>People in some areas of Ramsar, a city in northern Iran, receive an annual radiation absorbed dose from background radiation that is up to 260 mSv y(-1), substantially higher than the 20 mSv y(-1) that is permitted for radiation workers. Inhabitants of Ramsar have lived for many generations in these high background areas. Cytogenetic studies show no significant differences between people in the high background compared to people in normal background areas. An in vitro challenge dose of 1.5 Gy of gamma rays was administered to the lymphocytes, which showed significantly reduced frequency for chromosome aberrations of people living in high background compared to those in normal background areas in and near Ramsar. **Specifically, inhabitants of high background radiation areas had about 56% the average number of induced chromosomal abnormalities of normal background radiation area inhabitants following this exposure.**

There are organisms that were found living inside a running nuclear reactor, extremely radioresistant and capable of using some kind of melanin-like compound to harvest energy from the radiation. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptococcus_neoformans


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermococcus_gammatolerans

>While a dose of 5 Gy is sufficient to kill a human, and a dose of 60 Gy is able to kill all cells in a colony of E. coli, Thermococcus gammatolerans can withstand doses of up to 30,000 Gy, and an instantaneous dose of up to 5,000 Gy with no loss of viability. 

(on a related note there's at least one [hyperthermophile](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperthermophile) bacteria that can not only survive autoclave themperatures but can reproduce while the autoclave is still running. )

>able to double its population during 24 hours in an autoclave at 121 °C 

Living things are awesome."
askscience,"Oxidative stress usually refers to [Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_oxygen_species).  Generally, peroxides, superoxides and oxygen radicals, rather than O2.   

Having more O2 in tissues may indeed have an effect on ROS generation in irradiated tissues, as you suggest.  However, there are also many biochemical mechanisms for neutralizing ROS.  These mechanisms can be quite different among different species.  Plants are both the most susceptible (due to photosystems harvesting light radiation, as food) and the most resilient (protective biochemical adaptation).  Insects, plants and mammals would have some common and some unique ROS detox biochemical pathways.  

Another difference may be diet.  Plants produce antioxidant molecules (eg Vitamins C and E).  Differences in animal resistance to radiation may relate to food sources and quantities.

​"
askscience,"Some of my research is in radiation dosimetry. Here is some reasoning behind effects which arise solely from the size of the organism.

1. A mean free path (mfp) is the average distance that a particle travels through some medium before interacting with an atom or molecule in that medium. If radiation passes through an organism or any medium without interacting, there is exactly no effect on that organism or medium.

2. Ionizing radiation is simply a particle with enough energy to ionize an atom or molecule. (It also must either be charged or create charged particle upon interacting, but I'm only saying this to be thorough.)

3. Higher energy generally means a longer mfp. 

4. If you compare two organisms of different sizes, the smaller one is simply a smaller medium which has shorter paths for radiation to traverse.

5. Most of the ionizing radiation we care about has a mfp on the order of centimeters. The probability of some ionizing radiation interacting in the smaller organism is just lower. 

Of course, this doesn't consider different biologies of organisms. That also can be a factor. To compare an organism's susceptibility to radiation damage, you have to look at its size, the type of radiation it's exposed to, it's biology, and it's stage in it's life cycle. 
"
askscience,"> As for the evolutionary reason why they're more efficient, we're still not quite sure.

Could it simply be quantity of cells and trying to balance risk of cancer vs risk of radiation?

> those same insect cells experience lower oxidative stress as a consequence of radiation exposure

When insects arrived in the Carboniferous period in which Oxygen levels rose [75% higher than today](http://forces.si.edu/atmosphere/02_02_06.html). Could they have evolved to better repair from the damages of oxidation and never lost the ability?"
askscience,"It's very interesting how there is a clear relationship between body mass and radiosensitivity among multicellular animals. To the best of my knowledge, no one has a proven explanation for why this is. But as a radiation oncologist, my scientific wild-ass guess is that larger animals trade radiosensitivity for cancer resistance.

Larger animals are paradoxically less prone to cancer than smaller animals. It's such a bizarre yet consistent phenomenon that it has a name, [Peto's Paradox](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3060950/).

An insect is a small-bodied and short-lived animal, which means that it is relatively insensitive to cancer risk. An insect's cells can express very high levels of DNA repair machinery. Even if those DNA repair mechanisms were highly error-prone, the insect is very unlikely to die of cancer before it naturally dies of old age. On the other hand, an insect with low levels of DNA repair would be much less likely to survive a caustic chemical or radiological (inculding sunlight) environment. So evolution favors the higher level of DNA repair.

A human is a large-bodied and long-lived animal, which means that we have to be relatively resistant to cancer or else we would never live as long as we do. A human cell with severe DNA damage is better off dying through apoptosis or immunological cell killing, so that it does not create a risk for malignancy.

If a human expressed extremely high levels of error-prone DNA repair, he/she would become more cancer-prone and his/her fitness would decrease. On the other hand, humans with low levels of DNA repair would minimize their cancer risk, in exchange for being less capable of tolerating chemical or radiological/solar injury. So evolution has given humans a low (but functional) level of DNA repair.


One of the things we know about DNA double-strand-break repair is that it can always make mistakes. Despite the classical textbook description of ""error-prone NHEJ repair"" and ""high-fidelity HR repair"", [both pathways have nonzero error rate](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4052342/) and can cause permanent genomic alteration.

In addition, any cell with a radiation-induced lethal double-strand break (DSB) would likely have a much larger number of non-DSB DNA lesions. [Clustered base damage](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0936655513002471) is an active subject of research in radiation therapy and space medicine.

Again, repairing a clustered-damage site could result in permanent genetic alteration, which could lead to cancer. A long-lived mammal may not want their cells to repair clustered damage as efficiently as possible. Our cells may prefer to sacrifice themselves in order to promote the lifespan of the individual.

-none of this is backed up by hard evidence, it's a hypothesis, but it makes sense to me-"
askscience,"Considering that the most common form of DNA-damaging radiation on Earth is ultraviolet light, and UV has very little penetration into biological tissue, it's quite plausible that a thin carapace would greatly mitigate DNA damage from the Sun.

That said, most of the strongly-ionizing radiation comes from cosmic sources or inhaled/ingested sources. Cosmic rays are very deeply penetrating and no realistic amount of biological tissue is going to block them. Inhaled and ingested sources deliver a dose from within, so skin/carapace thickness is irrelevant."
askscience,"Could the radioresistance of insect cells have evolved in response to an atmosphere that absorbed less radiation? That is to say, the common ancestors of insects that are not the common ancestors of larger, more radiosensitive, creatures developed the trait due to different environments... My immediate thought is water. That insects started crawling on land when the sun was more of a deadly laser than when the fishies started flailing about on the hard-bit-that-leave-home. "
askscience,"> Look at experiments were a beheaded cockroach survived for days, and was even able to copulate, and reproduce.

This is because in insects the brain in the head does not control all of the nervous system, but only a handful of functions. They have various ganglia throughout their bodies that control most of their functions, including movement, sexual function, etc. I don't really think this has any affect on resistance to ionizing radiation. "
askscience,"In addition to the path length, it's also something to consider that an organism with more cells exposed to radiation simply has more chances of harmful radiation damage.

From radiation that gives an incidence of 1 mutation event per 1000 cells; an organism with 1031 cells (c. elegans) should get around 1 mutation, and an organism with 37 trillion cells (an estimate of humans) should expect 37 billion mutations.  Obviously not all mutations are harmful or lethal, but by simple numbers, 37 billion chances at a deleterious mutation for the organism as a whole is a lot worse than one.  And that's without adding in path length or looking at repair biology."
askscience,"Radiation can be measured in a lot of different ways, especially when measuring its effects on things. Radioactive materials both emit some level of radiation as well as decay at some rate, living organisms have a tolerance for both a momentary dose of radiation as well as accumulating radiation over time, and  there's different wavelengths to work with too.

For different reasons, but to a similar effect, electricity has a ton of units too. Because of all the ways it can affect other things and be affected, and how different properties of it will be responsible for different effects, it's impractical to measure it by just one or two units."
askscience,"Absorption is the fundamental principle of radiation shielding. If ionizing radiation is going to pass through you, there are two possibilities. It is absorbed somewhere along the way, or it carries on through. If it just goes through you are fine. So you only have to worry about it being absorbed. 

If it is going to be absorbed then you need to make sure it doesn't interact with anything important. Since all that we can control is the probability of something being absorbed, not what it is absorbed by. As such we maximize the chance that it is absorbed by something we don't care about. Say a big block of lead.

That is why radiation shielding is almost invariably a big dense block of metal since that is the cheapest and easiest way to achieve that effect. Though huge bodies of water or oil are sometimes also used.

As for making the chitin radioactive. It might, but if it did it would be only very slightly radioactive.

Chain reactions like that we see in nuclear weapons only happen because the output of one decay is enough to push other nuclei over the edge which only really happens with large nuclei like Uranium and up.

Chitin is made of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen. While all of these have radioactive forms, we see in Carbon, for example, the isotope carbon-14 is only very slightly radioactive. It decays so slowly that we can use it to work out when things died from millions of years ago. And even then, these small atoms simply don't have enough energy (unless you put your poor insect into a particle accelerator) to put out anything ionizing, it's no threat.

That said, I honestly don't know how effective a radiation shield it would be. That depends on its density, and since chitin is a messy bio-polymer, and only really exists in thin layers, I can't really say.

I'd guess that it has some effect, but the effect size would be so small that useful results would be very very difficult to get. Other factors would be more important. Has anyone looked at a correlation for genomic length and radiation resistence?

"
askscience,"The basic difference is between physics and biology.
And there are different standards, like between Centigrade and Fahrenheit for temperature.

Physical units:

The original unit was the roentgen, which measured ionization in air of x-rays = 2.58×10e−4 Coulombs/kg. It's now obsolete.

1 rad is physical, defined as 100 ergs deposited per gram in CGS units. In animal tissue, it's about 1.04 Roentgens

The SI (International System, more common in Europe)) preferred to measure the same thing as Joules/Kg, and called it the Gray, which is equivalent to 100 rads.

But more relevant for biology:

Different kinds and energies of radiation (eg alpha, beta, and gamma rays) can have very different effects, mainly related to density of ionization.

So they defined the rem, (roentgen equivalent man) as the dose of any kind of radiation that will give about the same biological effect as 1 rad of x or gamma rays. Each kind of radiation has a conversion factor from rads to rem called the RBE (Relative Biological Effectiveness) 

And the SI unit for that is called the Sievert, which = 100 rem.

Other units are used just to describe how active  radioactive isotopes are:

the curie (Ci) is 3.7×10e10 decays/second, but the SI system defined the  becquerel (Bq) as 1 decay/second , so they're usually talking about Giga Bequrels (GBq)

Eventually they ran out of dead physicists to name things after, so they quit."
askscience,">  Having more O2 in tissues may indeed have an effect on ROS generation in irradiated tissues, as you suggest.

Exactly, which is one reason why (as far as I remember) oxygenation makes a huge difference to radioresistance in tumors.

> However, there are also many biochemical mechanisms for neutralizing ROS.

Yeah, and thanks for the interesting overview. I still wonder which factor is most important (and if there is any difference between vertebrates and invertebrates in terms of typical cell oxygenation."
askscience,"It would be possible contingent upon ionizing radiation being a major factor in natural selection - if lots of insects are dying from radiation, preventing them from reproducing.  Only the resistant ones would survive and reproduce.    


I personally think if they are more resistant, natural selection is selecting on something else, which just happens to confer resistance to ionizing radiation too - difference in cellular biology that happens to benefit them. "
askscience,"I'm not the best suited to give an in-depth explanation, but I would note that angiosperms as a whole are relatively recent in the evolutionary timeline of plants, which have been around for about 480 million years.

The first flowering plants diverged from gymnosperms about 200-250 mya, and angiosperms became widespread about 120 mya (so about the last quarter of the entire existence of the plant kingdom).

Poaceae (the family that contains grasses) was originally thought to be around 55 million years old, but older fossil evidence keeps turning up. Plant structures associated with grasses have been found in fossilized dinosuar feces dating back to 66 mya, and revised dating of the rice tribe and fossil evidence of mammals with apparent grass-feeding adaptations have pushed the origins of Poaceae back to around 100-120 mya, about the same time that flowering plants became widespread.

As far as the make-up and distribution of plant communities prior to the emergence of grasses/grasslands/angiosperms in general I really don't know. Nor do I know much about erosion and soil formation at the time plants first began to colonize land."
askscience,"> Poaceae (the family that contains grasses) was originally thought to be around 55 million years old, but older fossil evidence keeps turning up. Plant structures associated with grasses have been found in fossilized dinosuar feces dating back to 66 mya, and revised dating of the rice tribe and fossil evidence of mammals with apparent grass-feeding adaptations have pushed the origins of Poaceae back to around 100-120 mya, about the same time that flowering plants became widespread.

This is correct, but I feel needs to be added to: there is an important difference between the evolution of grass and the emergence of the grassland. It took grass a while before it was truly defining it's own biome. Last I heard was around 25 mya, but that may have been since updated."
askscience,"That’s all correct (with the caveat that others have mentioned of *grasslands* being a more recent phenomenon and a different thing than the emergence of grasses themselves).

Ground-covers in the Cretaceous and earlier appear to have largely been ferns, mosses (true mosses and club-mosses), and biocrusts (mixtures of lichens, algae, liverworts, and mosses).  Given the relatively early dates of flowering plants there were undoubtedly some forbs mixed in as well, but not in significantly highe enough densities to leave a strong fossil record.  It would not be surprising if there were some small, ground-cover adapts confiers or conifer relatives, but I’ve never read of those being found.  In more damp areas horsetails would be common as well.

Ferns, once established, can be extremely tenacious (as are horsetails) due to their rhizomatous growth (a network of tough underground stems from which new plants can grow even if they are broken).

Picture [a landscape like this one](https://www.flickr.com/photos/7leagueboots/4918049904/in/album-72157624784344336/), but with the trees replaced with conifers instead, or the sword fern and redwood/Douglas fir forests of the Pacific Northwest (at least for wet areas)."
askscience,"I suspect it depends a lot on the type of fern, but where I took that photo (Appalachian Trail in Shenandoah NP, Virginia) and elsewhere along the East Coast the lack of apex predators and the resulting [overpopulation of white-tailed deer seems to a major driving force](https://extension.psu.edu/controlling-understory-fern-competition-for-regeneration-success).

Many types of fern (and things like hobble-bush) are not preferred forage for the deer.  They selectively eat what they like, leaving the plants they don't, which gives those plants, ferns especially, enjoy a competitive advantage as a result.  Hay-scented fern is one of the ones that's often considered a ""problem"" fern in that part of the US.

On the West Coast it's a bit different, the old-growth tall forests are dark which limits what can grow in the understory.  Certain ferns tolerate the dark well and grow so densely that they effectively drown out other plants.  Not all others, obviously, but enough so that they dominate.

Situations like this are why the occasional blow-down is so important in old, primary growth forests.  Blow-downs open up the forest to light and promote the growth of important species that have been sort of ""waiting in the wings"" for the opportunity to grow.

[Allelopathy, of a more chemical nature, also plays a part, particularly in the case of bracken ferns](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226278266_The_allelopathic_mechanisms_of_dominance_in_bracken_Pteridium_aquilinum_in_Southern_California) and studies have been done on a wide variety of other ferns, indicating that this is a trait that is widespread.  Of course, it's a mix of factors that leads to suppression of other plants, in the linked paper one of the findings was that small animals sheltering in bracken fern stands foraged on seedlings and suppressed the growth of certain plants as a result.

Like a lot of things, the full answer is complex."
askscience,"So if I have two stars, one light year apart, and this is more of a though experiment than an actual situation, and they wink into existence at the same time, It would take one year for those stars to have any type of gravitational force on each other? 

And to expand, from the perspective of each of those stars, would the other one not even ""exist"" for the first year since their light would need a year to travel to the other one?  "
askscience,"I suppose that's a variable I did not take into consideration. Perhaps I overestimated the influence the Earth has on the moon simply because it's so close to us. Makes me think of all the other variables like what if the earth vanished when the moon was in orbit away from the sun as opposed to moving toward it. Altenratively if it made a full stop before being affected by gravity again.

Thank you for your answer!"
askscience,"The earth orbits the sun with a speed of ~30km/s.  
The moon orbits the earth at ~1km/s.  

So if the moon is going ""forwards"" when earth vanishes, it has an orbital velocity of 31km/s around the sun, if it goes ""backwards"" in that moment, it's 29km/s. So it would only get to a slightly different orbit depending on the time earth vanishes. Movement perpendicular to its current direction (towards the sun or away) will only make the orbit more elliptical, but the average orbiting distance stays the same cause the speed stays the same.    

To fall into the sun, a body needs to get rid of all the speed it's currently orbiting with."
askscience,"Earth's orbital speed round the Sun is 30 km/s . The Moon's orbital speed round the Earth is 1 km/s. So if the Earth vanished, the Moon's orbital speed round the Sun would be between 29 and 31 km/s, not a huge difference. (I think that wouldn't be enough to make the Moon cross the orbits of Venus or Mars but I'd need to check.)

For other moons the effect could be more dramatic. Io and Europa orbit Jupiter faster than Jupiter orbits the Sun, so if Jupiter vanished then those moons could be put on an escape trajectory, or a retrograde orbit round the Sun, or if the position is just right they could impact the Sun after Jupiter's disappearance."
askscience,"Suppose the Moon, or the Earth, or any object significantly less massive than the Sun winked into existence 1 AU from the Sun, with a heliocentric velocity of zero.   

Ignoring the minor effects of the other planets, that object would immediately begin accelerating toward the Sun at puny 5.93 mm/s^2.    As the object approaches the Sun, its acceleration and speed increase further, decreasing its distance even faster, in a positive feedback loop. 

Q. So how much time will elapse before our magic object impacts the Sun's photosphere ?

A. TBD"
askscience,">If the Earth vanished, the moon will simply continue orbiting the sun with minor changes to its current trajectory.

To put numbers on ""minor changes"":  the Moon would enter an elliptical orbit whose distance from the Sun was never more than 14% different from if the Earth's orbit now.  Whether it would go closer to the Sun or farther depends on where the Moon was in its orbit when the Earth disappeared, but it wouldn't get anywhere near Mars or Venus.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vis-viva\_equation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vis-viva_equation)"
askscience,"The mass of the earth and/or moon is nothing compared to the mass of the sun so the mutual attraction stays roughly the same. 

The escape velocity from the sun does not depend on the mass of the object orbiting it, assuming the object has no significant mass compared to the sun. Escape velocity from the sun from earths position is about 40 km/s and earth/moon orbit is 30 km/s so you need at least 10 km/s extra in the right direction."
askscience,"A shell or ball is what you'd expect if the particles don't collide with each other. This is why you can get elliptical galaxies - stars almost never collide and don't even have close encounters very often, so once you get a ball of stars, the stars will just keep on buzzing around in a ball for a very long time. This is also supposed to be the case for dark matter. The dark matter particles don't really collide with each other, so they just stay in a big puffy ""halo"" around the galaxy.

However, the dust and rocks and moonlets in a planetary ring *can* collide with each other. So if you some particles in a ""polar"" orbit, going up over the north pole and back around the south pole, and other particles in an ""equatorial orbit"", going in circles around the equator, then these particles will smash into each other. Unless all the particles are orbiting in the same plane, their orbits will cross and they'll collide. These collisions transfer momentum between the particles, and also get rid of kinetic energy. Eventually, through enough collisions, everything will settle down until you get a disc or a ring. Then all the particles can have nice circular orbits without bumping into each other. (Another way to think of it is this: you can get rid of energy, but you can't get rid of momentum. A ring or disc is the lowest energy system you can get while still conserving angular momentum).

This is true for more than just planetary rings. Gas and plasma particles in space will bump into each other too. So when you get a lot of gas coming together to form a galaxy - or, on a smaller scale, a chunk of gas coming together to form a star - it will also collapse into a disc. For a galactic gas disc, this will collapse to form stars, so you get a disc of stars. For a stellar gas disc, this will collapse to form planets, so you get all the planets within the same plane. It's not that the stars or planets need to be in a disc - neither really is good at collisions - it's that the gas they formed from was in a disc."
askscience,">So if you some particles in a ""polar"" orbit, going up over the north pole and back around the south pole, and other particles in an ""equatorial orbit"", going in circles around the equator, then these particles will smash into each other.

Does the spin of the planet also play a role? Do any planets settle with just north-south ""polar"" rings, or some other angle, or does the equator always win?"
askscience,"Angular momentum without dissipation just gives you ellipsoids - it doesn't explain discs. You need a way to get rid of the kinetic energy, and that means your particles have to collide with each other. If the ring particles had a small enough cross section and a low enough density that the collision rate was extremely low, then they wouldn't be in so thin a disc, even with the same angular momentum."
askscience,"Accidentally deleted my last post.
I asked: “Is this like, a really complicated way of explaining angular momentum? Because angular momentum is actually the reason for discs forming and planets orbiting in the orientations that they do.”
Thanks for the response. In the case of planets that we know of, are there any instances where there are clouds of dust surrounding a planet that are not moving toward disc-shapedness? I feel like angular momentum is more important than collisions. Collisions are going to happen, yes, if the density of the cloud is great enough and the particles can collide, but they wouldn’t even be hanging out in the same place if not for gravity/angular momentum. "
askscience,"We don't see this around planets, but that's because the matter is collisional. But we do see blobs of stars. Elliptical galaxies do have angular momentum - they're often ellipsoidal - but because they're not collisional they don't collapse down into a disc.

Basically, angular momentum stretches things out equatorially, but collisional dissipation flattens things vertically. If you don't have angular momentum, dissipation causes everything to collapse into a point. If you don't have dissipation, then you have a big puffy ellipsoid. So you really do need both to get a thin disc or ring."
askscience,"The debris that formed the planet basically never have _perfectly_ equal angular momentum in all directions (a total angular momentum of zero).  As the particles form the planet and ring, the ""left over"" angular momentum is what determines the axis of rotation.  It's not that a certain axis is favored not to cancel out, it's that a certain axis tends to have a bit of surplus after all the cancellations happen."
askscience,"Much of its mass, yes, but perhaps not most. 

I'm guessing that physics models would permit an axial-spin-changing collision that could have possibly been a glancing blow. 

In this case, the impactor may have shattered and mostly continued flying on, along with a good chunk of Uranus.

Sure would have been something to see from a half-million miles away or so (and with all sorts of filtering and radiation shielding up. Don't need no Terminator 2 playground scenes, nosirree).

 

"
askscience,"This is fascinating and seems obvious now that I've read it. I feel a little silly for not knowing this previously.

I get that the ring exists because it's stable (stuff not bumping into other stuff). Why does it settle into such a narrow band? It seems like would have a wider band of stuff all going parallel and in the same direction? Maybe because any debris not parallel by even a small amount will eventually disappear due to collisions? 
And based on this, would we expect the width of rings to get narrower over time?   "
askscience,"Because it's not the whole story.

Very simply put, It's because when a system forms, it starts by matter spiraling inwards. An accreation disk is flat, not round.

Eventually you end up with a body (in this case Saturn) that is spinning. Some matter stayed in orbit and didnt spiral inwards, these condensed in to moons (not counting captured ones). 

Some of the matter that stayed in orbit was however so close, that the gravitational pull stopped it from condensing (they were below the roche limit) and you wind up with rings. These rings *do* pull on eachother, so they will eventually be in the same plane."
askscience,"Imagine the whole debris cloud spinning around a common axis. Everything is (on average) drawn towards the Center of the cloud.


When everything is spinning, there is a virtual force acting away from the axis in a perpendicular direction. That means that each particle exactly on the ring plane has a chance of both the virtual force and gravity cancelling each other out (or almost doing so), while every particle outside that plane experiences a net force ""south"" or ""north"", towards that plane, which has no chance of being cancelled out by anything else. Eventually, everything that is not in the ring either collects into the central planetary mass, drifts away into space, or joins the ring in some way."
askscience,"This is not necessarily true. There is evidence to suggest that Saturn's rings are quite young. In fact, a captured asteroid could result in an orbit that brings it close to the Roche limit long after the formation of the planet, thus producing rings that are not related to the rotation of the planet. However, there are tidal effects with the rings that can slowly shift their axis to align with the rotation axis of the planet.

The key thing here is Uranus. Uranus's high axial tilt suggests that some kind of large collision resulted in an unusual rotational axis, potentially after the formation of the planet. However, the rings of Uranus are equatorial, as are the orbits of most of the moons (approximately). IF Uranus's axial tilt occurred after formation of the rings, then there needs to be some mechanism by which the rings rotated with the planet.

More information is needed. An interesting discussion on this topic is here: https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/8112/how-long-do-planetary-rings-last"
askscience,"It's not ""just"" a ball of gas. Uranus gets thicker and thicker as you go deeper into it and you'll hit a ""mantle"" of ice that's the vast majority of its overall weight. There's also an iron core.

A planetoid would cause some heating and major wind if it just hit the upper atmosphere layers, but if it slaps into that mantle really hard, it'll do pretty major things to the planet."
askscience,"The comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 didn't go through Jupiter...  It most definitely impacted. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet\_Shoemaker%E2%80%93Levy\_9](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Shoemaker%E2%80%93Levy_9)

At enough pressure, and enough speed of the impactor even hydrogen gas acts like a solid.

And even the Earth's own very thin (relative to a gas giant) atmosphere is enough to make a large-ish body stop before getting too far down, as we saw with the Chelyabinsk meteor, which exploded 18 miles above the ground. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk\_meteor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk_meteor)

Each of these objects hit enough ""stuff"" to be stopped and release a huge amount of kinetic energy... I consider that an impact, despite not touching anything that I'd consider solid.  


(Though, to be even more pedantic than I have already been, I used the word 'collision' rather than 'impact'... Whichever verb we use, though, the result is the same: Uranus' atmosphere is more than thick enough to stop anything that it touches, and with explosive results.)"
askscience,"Another more condensed way to say it (perhaps less intuitive though) is: 

The debris cloud stars out shell-like. Through many collisions the particles exchange momentum back and forth.  When two particles collide, they preferentially cancel the parts of each other’s momentum vectors that are directly opposite of each other.  The cancelled momentum never comes back into the system.  All the momentum that remains in the system after many collisions is the angular momentum that lines up with the overall system aggregate.  Particles with aligned momentum rarely collide because they are orbiting in exactly the same direction.  

(Orbits will all circularize because of a similar mechanic, I believe.  Orbits that cross other orbits due to lateral (radial) motion will bleed out of the system over time until only circular orbits are left.)

A disk-shaped cloud is the resultant shape where the particles all have aligned angular momentum."
askscience,"well rings can either be from the early stages of planetary formation or the rings could be the result of moons colliding or breaking up. In the first case if the ring is formed during planetary formation it is likely that the angular momentum of the ring and the planet is aligned, so the ring will coalesce around the equator. 
In the latter case the ring will have the same angular momentum as the moon. Moons tend to orbit in the equatorial plane so the rings also tend to coalesce in the equatorial plane. But if the moon is not orbiting the equatorial plane neither will the ring. 

However I believe that tidal forces may force the rings into an equatorial orbit. But as far as I know it is also unclear how long rings can last. Saturns rings for example a thought to be quite old, but some researchers believe that rings cannot last billions of years. So it is still an open question to some degree. "
askscience,"Friction isn't the only force acting on two colliding objects in space. At high mass and low distance, gravity will also help to attract large masses. You are correct in saying that the collision will spread out the masses of both bodies. However, you have to look at the velocity of the colliding object relative to the planet's frame of motion. After the collision occurs, any debris traveling faster than the escape velocity of the new center of mass will continue away from the planet. The rest (and probably most) of the mass, will either compress together to form a new planet, or continue to orbit the new planet as a moon or a ring. "
askscience,"Nope. Most planet's and moon's gravity is strong enough to keep all its dust, rocks, ice, etc on the surface. Most large rings are caused by moons (like most of Saturn's) or planets (the Sun's asteroid belts) breaking up. There are some rings that form from stuff knocked off or ejected from moons. Usually this second type of ring is formed from volcanos/geysers (like [Saturn's E ring](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enceladus#Source_of_the_E_ring)) or meteor impacts (like  [Chariklo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10199_Chariklo)) rather than the centrifugal like your spinning ball analogy. "
askscience,"That's because Saturn's rings are mostly formed by bodies that have ventured into the Roche Limit of the planet where the gravitational force from Saturn exceeds the the gravitational force that's holding the body of the smaller object together. Hence breaking said object into smaller pieces.

There's only a fixed range of distance from the planet where this can occur. Thus all of the potential orbital rings would eventually collide with each other.

And as for the Roche Divisions, it could have been possibly been made by gravitational forces from Saturn's moons. The different densities of the materials could have formed layers as a result. "
askscience,"> IF Uranus's axial tilt occurred after formation of the rings, then there needs to be some mechanism by which the rings rotated with the planet.

Let's suppose that Uranus had rings prior to impact when it still had a ""normal"" axial tilt/rotation direction.

I would imagine a smaller planet impacting Uranus hard enough to knock it sideways would produce a TON of debris, which would be going every which way in orbit.  All this debris would collide with the existing ring, and eventually the whole mess would coalesce into a *new* ring, the one we see today."
askscience,"Please correct me if i misunderstood your post, but that isnt how the discs are formed. Planetary disks are formed due to immense gravitational pull on an orbiting body, such that the gravity felt by the orbiting object at opposite poles and the equator are are different, and over time the orbiting object gets stretched out over the length of the orbit. It has nothing to do with planetary bodies coliding together."
askscience,">This is true for more than just planetary rings. Gas and plasma particles in space will bump into each other too. So when you get a lot of gas coming together to form a galaxy - or, on a smaller scale, a chunk of gas coming together to form a star - it will also collapse into a disc. For a galactic gas disc, this will collapse to form stars, so you get a disc of stars. For a stellar gas disc, this will collapse to form planets, so you get all the planets within the same plane. It's not that the stars or planets need to be in a disc - neither really is good at collisions - it's that the gas they formed from was in a disc.

could it follow that the universe is also disc shaped? "
askscience,"As others have said, yes. The Solar System formed from a cloud of gas. One day, some part of that gas became so dense that its gravity caused more gas to fall into it. This was a chain reaction, making more and more gas fall into the dense area. This dense area became the sun.

But some parts of the cloud didn't fall into the proto-sun, and instead began to orbit it, in the same direction that the proto-sun rotated. After many, many years, the gas cloud was compressed into a disk around the proto-sun. This is called the proto-planetary disk. All of the objects in the Solar System - the planets, asteroids, and comets - were derived from this disk. They began similarly to the sun, as dense areas in the gas that attracted more and more gas. But they couldn't get as big as the sun, since the majority of the material had been eaten by it.

This is why the sun, planets, and most asteroids rotate in the same direction. The disk spun in the same direction as the proto-sun, and most of the objects from the disk inherited their spin and orbital direction from it.

In fact, most of those objects still orbit the sun on a single plane - the ecliptic. The ecliptic was defined by the direction the proto-planetary disk spun 4 billion years ago."
askscience,"This remains the prevalent theory, but at the last Uranus meeting I attended, there were several other very 'interesting' ideas, including that there were two moons, one of which was captured and one which escaped (explaining the lack of a large moon at Uranus), and more than one large collision (the theory argued that one impact would only have tilted the planet so far over, so you need more of them).  As ever, Uranus drives controversy!"
askscience,"To add to this, when an object is traveling slowly through the atmosphere the air has plenty of time to get out of the way. Speed that object up enough and the air has more trouble getting out of the way of a moving object and compresses. Once this pressure builds up enough it can very much be like running into a solid. Much like the difference between running your hand under running tap water vs running your hand under a pressure washer."
askscience,"That impact is both improbable and unlikely, and if you have ever played with a top, the impact kinetic energy has to go somewhere, so Uranus would oscillate wildly on a constantly changing rotation axis, also it would have absolutely no effect on the orbiting ring, which would then no longer be in the same rotational axis as Uranus itself, if, as you state the 'accepted theory', Uranus was collided with. That's the Tower of Babylon which is modern Science. Anything they can't explain, they come up with theories that don't match observed phenomenon, which is supposed to be the basis of all rational knowledge, then those 'Oh look, a squirrel' theories become the 'Given Wisdom' issued from the Holy Ivory Tower Pulpit.

A more accurate theory is that an extra-solar system agglomeration of rocks and ice flew too close to Uranus on that ecliptic, then gravitational forces ripped it apart, then captured the fragments in orbit as they dissipated kinetic energy in collisions, with the remainder fragments ripping back off into the original extra-solar system orbit where it came from. The rings are a cosmic 'skid mark' if you will."
askscience,"That doesn't fully explain it though.  With your hand moving through the air, the air just gets pushed out of the way.  With the speed of an impactor on a gas giant, it is going so fast that the air can not get out of the way fast enough and so it compresses in front of the object.  This compression is actually what causes the vast majority of the heat when a spacecraft reenters the atmosphere."
askscience,"The slowest that something could hit a planet is from orbit around that planet...  which is still VERY fast.

The closest that a moon can orbit is the Roche limit: ""The distance in which a celestial body, held together by its own gravity, will disintegrate due to tidal forces exceeding its gravitational self attraction"" (Wikipedia).

For Saturn, that's 60,267km. (Depending on the moon itself, of course. A dense moon will survive closer than a loosely packed one.)

The orbital period for such a body would be 4.19 hours. That means that the slowest a moon can orbit Saturn is about 14,376km/h, or 3.99km/s.  This is in contrast to the speed that most objects strike Saturn, going at least at its escape velocity of 35.5km/s.

Once a moon gets closer than its Roche limit, it breaks up, with about half the mass raining down on the planet, and the other half being boosted to a much higher orbit.  This happens to be one of the older and most widely taught ideas about how Saturn's rings were formed.  (And we get the term Roche limit specifically from Edouard Roche proposing this idea.)

As for how it would look...  Probably not as dramatic as the Shoemaker-Levy 9 comet, but would last much longer in duration.  When objects hit the atmosphere, the compression of gasses in front of them will heat everything up until it either explodes or slows down to its terminal velocity and drops below the cloud layers, never to see the light of the sun again.  


Edit to add:  


Note that the 4km/s speed is the speed to stay in orbit at the Roche limit.  Once the moon starts breaking up, parts of the moon will go into eccentric orbits, dipping down to the planet's cloud top and back again.  At 60,000km away from that cloud top, chunks will be accelerating up to 20km/s when hitting the atmosphere...  keeping in mind that the US Space Shuttle Orbiter's safe deorbit speed was 7.8km/s and needed special heat shields to keep from disintegrating."
askscience,"The larger rings are often formed from the same cloud that formed the planet, so they start out with the same - or at least a very similar - angular momentum, which means that they share the rotational axis of the planet.

Theoretically, a ring can also be accumulated over time from material foreign to the planet itself, and might not necessarily be aligned to the axis, but given that most of the material that could realistically form a ring (instead of orbiting asteroids or small moons) originated in the solar system, it is likely that all rings that can exist already exist, and share the solar system plane.

[edit] Except for Planet ""It's not a phase mom!"" Uranus."
askscience,"Another thing others haven't mentioned is conservation of angular momentum. Imagine you have two identical rocks spinning in opposite directions at same speeds. If they were to collide and merge they will form a bigger rock with exactly zero spin. In general, whenever two objects collide the ""amount they spin"" (called angular momentum - which depends on their mass, shape, speed and directron of rotation) always stays the same.

So if you have a giant cloud of rocks orbiting a planet that keep colliding and tending towards rings, the total (sum) angular momentum of the final rings will equal the sum of the angular momentums in the original cloud. So if the cloud is rotating along the same axis as the planet (which they usually do, as the planet and the rings-to-be are usually created from a single, bigger pile of stuff), the rings will to."
askscience,"Fun fact: collisions are the go to answer for most wonky things in the universe.

Why does Uranus have a weird tilt? It was hit with a big rock.

Why does venus rotate backwards? It was hit with a big rock.

Why are there rings around gas giants inside of and orb of debris? A bunch of small rocks hitting each other.

Why is the solar system flat? A bunch of big rocks smashing into each other.

Why does the earth have a large moon relative to its size? It was hit with a large rock.

Why is Mars lopsided? You guessed it... big rock.

Granted, this is a little over simplified, but whenever something new is discovered, it's almost a knee jerk reaction to ask if it can be explain by a collision, by a bunch of collisions or by an even bigger collision."
askscience,"No, those would not be dynamically stable and therefore decay until only the net angular momentum was left, ie. in just one direction of rotation. 

What would cause the dynamic instability to decay? The same kinds of events that cause the ring in the first place and continue to happen in our own solar system still. Nearby planets and their passes and alignments, solar wind and radiation intensities, and tidal forces from whatever major bodies the rings are orbiting will decay the momentum of the ring bodies, at different rates. Any body that loses energy more than others spirals inwards toward the parent mass. That would make bodies pass through counter-revolving belts and rapidly destroy them until only net angular momentum was left.

There's actually bunch of other interesting mechanism that would bleed out that imbalance, but the bigger picture that probably helps understand better is that a system with total component angular momentum much larger than net momentum is inherently dynamically unstable (eqv to not being in lowest energy state), and a whole host of secondary and tertiary mechanisms that are available to it to decay energy states will ALSO end up decaying its total angular momentum till its closer to its lowest state."
askscience,"I think the other thing going unconsidered in a lot of this is just how much more dense everything is there, especially further down. It's not like thinking about gas and liquid as we understand it on Earth. I don't understand hydro-physics or anything, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night and I'm pretty sure that stuff is closer to a solid on Uranus than it is here. "
askscience,"It's impossible for objects in stable orbits on different planes to be going parallel; the orbital planes would be tilted at different degrees and cross over each other. Every stable 2 body orbit, be it circular or elliptical, has to have its major axis pass through the center of gravity of the system (barycenter) - which in this case is effectively the center of the planet.

So in this example, if you were take an object orbiting at the equator and place another copy appreciably further north or south in space with the exact same mass/velocity/direction, the pull of gravity is no longer perpendicular to the prograde (forward) direction of its orbit.  It will continue to be pulled straight towards the planet's center of gravity at every point on its path, which is in a NEW direction relative to its old orbit, so it will course correct and end up in a stable orbit in a new plane that is higher on one side and lower on the other with the axis passing through the barycenter again - and this will inevitably cross over the old plane at 2 points and have potential for more collisions."
askscience,"> With your hand moving through the air, the air just gets pushed out of the way. 


Eh, it gets pushed out of the way *faster* than this happens with a meteor hitting an atmosphere, it's deflected over a shorter distance, but there's still air being compressed in front of your hand, and that *is* the mechanism for feeling resistance when you stick your hand out the window. The difference is one of magnitude, not kind."
askscience,"With telescopes, yes, definitely. 

A large enough impact on Mars could cause it to brighten temporarily so that it might be noticeable to the naked eye. But that would be a catastrophic event. In 30 to 50 million years, Mars' moon Phobos will impact Mars, which might be visible to the naked eye, depending on if Mars is even visible from Earth. 

Most impacts on our moon aren't visible to the naked eye, though many are witnessed by astronomers and amateurs with telescopes each year... but there have been day sightings of lunar impacts, with one of the first recorded happening in 1178.

Beyond just seeing impact events, there are unlikely to be any other effects that anyone would notice from Earth. Space is big. Other planets, even our moon, are very far away. "
askscience,"Yes, much as two roughly Mars-sized objects once collided and were destroyed, but only the most energetic debris could leave the orbit they were in, so most of the whole mass of crap was still in roughly the same orbit around the sun and eventually formed two objects: one large one that had most of the iron found in the two original planets, and one without much iron; the Earth and Moon, respectively.  "
askscience,"Impact on an atmosphere is basically an extreme form of aerobraking; the heat of the compressed atmosphere plus the high rate of deceleration both contribute their own hazards to something doing the aerobraking.  For that reason, Apollo spacecraft coming back from the Moon had a narrow range of angles at which they could hit the Earth's atmosphere.  Too shallow they either skip off or fail to slow their descent and are cast up into another orbit (not to be lost forever, but up their much longer than they need to be, most likely) and too steep, they'd have to deal with both heat and deceleration.  The heat would kill them first, but a perfect heat shield won't save you if you hit so fast the atmosphere is compressed into something of a higher density than you. "
askscience,"I see your flair so I may be digging my own grave here, but yet I'm surprised you only touched on the reason why things like Saturn's rings, the solar system, or galaxies are all flat, and instead gave a misleading answer of 'collisions'. The reason this is misleading is that if no  'collisions' could occur - ie hypothetically imagine particles/debris could pass right through each other - you'd *still* end up with a flat ring system. The reason I keep quoting the word collisions is that you should have specified that *the vast majority* of all of these collisions are elastic non-contact collisions, not regular physical collisions where 2 things smash into each other.

The real answer has to do with conservation of angular momentum, which you briefly mentioned but didn't elaborate more on (and you should have). Fundamentally, in a 3D world the vector expressing total angular momentum of a system of objects in 3D space will lie on a 2D plane. I don't know much more about this other than that is just how the mathematics work, sorry. In 2D the angular momentum is still on a 2D plane, but in 4D the angular momentum is on 2x2D planes. The dimension of the total angular momentum of a system will always be in *n-(n%2)* dimensions for an *n*-dimensional system.

[This](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmNXKqeUtJM) video should help clarify more by what I mean and why the total angular momentum is the key to flat (2D) systems of objects in 3D."
askscience,"Which is exactly what happens when you stick your hand out of the window. You compress the air in front of your hand and you feel an increase in pressure. Heat is also formed, just not to the level of an object in space interacting with a planets atmosphere. It's a better example than water because *it's exactly what's happening* just on a lesser scale. 

If you had your hand out the window and accelerated a car to 17,500 mph your hand would incinerate. /u/Treshnell is correct."
askscience,"Collisions alone will not produce an equatorial orbit for rings or constituent debris.

This must rely on some interaction with the centripetal equatorial bulge and/or solar tidal bulge of the planet.  I think that an object in a random orbit with a polar component will be travelling fastest north/south over the equator because it is accelerated towards the bulge.   Collisions will tend to remove more north/south momentum than east west and eventually the resultant gravel will coalesce into equatorial rings over the bulge.  

Not 100% sure about this explanation, but something along these lines.  "
askscience,"If it were large enough it would have a gigantic amount of momentum. Momentum is mass times speed, so at a constant speed the momentum will increase ()^3 =cubic. The atmospheric drag will be related to the surface area so it will probably increase ()^2 =square. (I am not sure if this still applies at this scale). So there could be a size of an object that is big enough (not necessarily bigger than a gas giant) that could go through. But then again gas giants (may?) have solid cores (metallic hydrogen?) that would impact with the large object. Fazit: i dont know."
askscience,"Yes.  By knowing how fast an object orbits.  The heavier a planet (star, black hole), the faster things go at specific distances away.  


For instance, an object orbiting 42,157km from the center of Earth will orbit once per day (geosynchronous orbit).  An object the same distance from the center of Saturn will orbit once every 2.5 hours.  If we didn't know the mass of Jupiter, but we saw that an object 42,157km from the center of Jupiter orbits once every 1.34 hours, we can calculate that Jupiter is 318 times more massive than Earth."
askscience,"Not disagreeing, just pointing out that while sticky fish eggs is a theory it does not appear to have been scientifically proven one way or the other.  I.E. These researchers were not able to find any scientific studies that had been conducted to prove the theory.
They do point out that it has been tested on aquatic invertebrates 

[Dispersal of Fish Eggs by Water Birds – Just a Myth?](https://www.unibas.ch/en/News-Events/News/Uni-Research/Dispersal-of-Fish-Eggs-by-Water-Birds-Just-a-Myth.html)

""Small lakes with a surface area of less than 100 m2 represent the majority of global freshwater ecosystems. Many of these lakes are found in remote, often mountainous areas with no inflow and outflow. Yet in most of these lakes, there are fish. So how do fish reach lakes and ponds that are not connected to other bodies of water?

This question was already addressed by some of the leading natural scientists of the 19th century such as Charles Darwin, Alfred Russel Wallace and Charles Lyell, who all came to the same conclusion – water birds must be responsible for fish dispersal.

And they had a plausible explanation for this: fish eggs of some species are sticky and can survive for some time out of water. The theory is thus that the fish eggs stick to water birds’ feathers or feet; the birds then fly from one body of water to the next, where the fish hatch from their eggs.


A study carried out by environmental scientists from the University of Basel has now shown that although the research community considers this to be a proven theory, no studies have been published to confirm it.

To objectively measure the lack of evidence, the Basel research team conducted a systematic literature review. The result shows that no in-depth scientific studies exist to prove that water birds disperse fish eggs.

To rule out the possibility that the unsuccessful search was due to their method, the researchers also used the same approach to look for evidence of the dispersal of aquatic invertebrates. In this case, they found numerous scientific publications supported by experiments and field studies."""
askscience,"It initially seems that the article is supporting the opinion/theory of water birds carrying the eggs, yet focusing on the fact that no studies have been done to prove or debunk that theory.  So the article offers literally no opinion and no explanation for the lack of opinion, ie: it is too difficult to determine which birds might come in contact with which species of fish egg, then track that bird, then find the isolated body of water in which the eggs are released, then track said, specific eggs to ensure they didn't come from another source, and then determine if the eggs are viable and if the species of fish hatched from those eggs are in an environment suitable to that species, etc.  Why not treat it like the theory of gravity?  Eggs and fish can't walk.  Therefore to occur in isolated water bodies they must be carried.  Barring humans hiking into the deepest mountain forests with home depot buckets full of Frye, or bears carrying pregnant fish from lake to like in a bucket brigade, seems birds are the most likely and only reasonable answer."
askscience,"Here is an answer on this topic from archaeologist [Morley Eldridge](https://independent.academia.edu/MorleyEldridge)



In western North America, there is incontrovertible evidence that aboriginal people were stocking high mountain lakes. The anthropologist James Teit, a Franz Boas protégé, was married to a N’tlakapamux (Thompson) woman in the southern interior of British Columbia, Canada, during the late 19th century. A Scottish mountain man/rancher, he spoke several “Indian” languages fluently. He lived with aboriginal people while working as a packer and big game hunting guide. He was passionate about what we now call traditional knowledge, and wrote reams on this for the next 40 years. Here is a quote I found buried in a text where he rather tediously lists all the superstitions that regulated life after one’s spouse died (this is from memory as I am at home, I’ll edit to put the exact quotes in tomorrow _now done_):

pg 333 “If a widower transplanted a trout into another lake, before releasing it he blew on the head of the fish, and, after having chewed deer-fat, he spat some of the grease out on its head, so as to remove the baneful effect of his touch. Then he let it go, bidding it farewell, and asking it to propagate and become plentiful.”

pg 348: “Indians have a custom of taking live trout from lakes or streams, and transplanting them into lakes where that are none. Sometimes the fish propagate and become plentiful where introduced. The fish thus treated are supposed to be caught and handled by a person who is clean or not tabood….”

This was published in 1900 in “The Thompson”, a Jesup North Pacific Expedition publication from the American Museum of Natural History. It was written long before any economic claims of aboriginal people gained the legal and political significance they have now. Its not written in his sections on the economy, but in the section on birth, childhood, marriage, and death. He has several other references to this practice. Few other anthropologists spent sufficient time to gain the knowledge he had, and his work is exceptionally detailed.

While glacial isostatic depression or ‘fish rain’ might be possible explanations, its a much simpler and obvious explanation that they were carried live by people and over thousands of years, where environmental conditions allowed the fish to survive, they did. People are exceptionally clever at this sort of environmental modification."
askscience,"Given that birds constantly have to preen themselves, especially waterfowl to maintain the oils necessary for waterproofing, I find it  extremely unlikely that an egg would stick to a ducks leg longer than one or two cleaning cycles.

So an egg would have to survive that, getting dried out between lakes and somehow be in water at the time of hatching.

Unless there is evidence of it occuring, I think we should leave this as myth spread by the uninformed."
askscience,"Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but this doesn't seem like a particularly difficult hypothesis to test.  Choose some birds, see if they fly between lakes.  If they do, that's step one. Step two is to occasionally capture some birds and examine their feet/feathers for some roe.  If some is found, great. That would lend credence to the possibility that viable eggs could be transferred from lake A to lake B. 

Another avenue, though, would be to study exactly what species of fish are more abundant.  Are the more pervasive species all helpful to humans, or are there many species of fish that humans don't use that are also spread around?  If it's the former, then the ancient human-dispersal hypothesis would hold water (ha!), but if it's the latter, the bird-dispersal hypothesis would be more logical."
askscience,">Barring humans hiking into the deepest mountain forests with home depot buckets full of Fry

But we in fact know this happens, there's no shortage of historical examples.  Though it was usually done before home depot buckets were around, they often used milk cans and similar tins in the 1800's for example.  Another good piece of evidence for this is that what you often find are trout...and trout are a fish people love to eat, and also a fish that does not have sticky eggs. 

"
askscience,"Not at all. Seasonal overflows offer crayfish the opportunity to migrate up system, I've watched it in the jungle, they carry eggs under their carapace and could easily carry sticky fish eggs as well. The only other theory holding water is fresh-water mussel spawn stick to gills of stickleback fish as they migrate upstream during seasonal overflows, that's why you find these sessile species far up stream systems. But they have to stay wet and be oxygenated, and bird feathers repel water. "
askscience,"I would choose ponds frequented by birds, then introduce modified fish populations (some harmless genetic marker).  Continously harvest and check fish in nearby bodies for the offspring of those marked fish.

At the same time, introduce fish with a different marker in ponds devoid of aquatic or semi-aquatic birds, and look for the same result.  If your fish marked for propogation by birds spread and the others don't, it may be more likely."
askscience,"I see what you mean.  Could we instead create the conditions?  Artificial ponds, controlled fish populations of promising candidates, trained, trackable birds.  It might be doable efficiently, since fish can be grown in very controlled environments.

Accelerate the process by choosing species that procreate ideally and frequently, birds that are most suitable, and maximize exposure.  Try to show that different species of fish and birds DON'T transfer eggs.  If eggs or fish show up in control pond/s, you've found something suspicious.  You can compare it with bird tracking as well."
askscience,"Certainly.  These have to be controlled ponds, ideally artificial or at least terraformed for our purpose (i.e. for our chosen fish, birds, stability, and reproduction).  Not impossible.  

In that sense, you wouldn't expect people to be introducing their fish into these ponds, and if they did, you wouldn't expect them to be those marked fish from your other ponds.  Another check is bird tracking.  If you can show that there were no tracked birds who had gone from another pond to that pond, you know it was contaminated somehow, however unlikely."
askscience,"The premise is that fish can be found in very remote lakes without inlet/outlet streams, though.  Certainly many lakes in the Adirondack region have been stocked by adventurous humans, but what of spring fed lakes and ponds in Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Alaska...areas where a hike-in stocking would take weeks of trudging and carrying and caring for fragile eggs or Frye? If you've ever flown over such wilderness, you'd see the impossibility of such stocking.  Even with today's technology the only way to stock certain lakes is via airplane.  Which would further support the bird theory, keeping in mind a trout carried by a bird of prey like an eagle, hawk or gull, could easily be dropped while carrying eggs, if initially caught from a nearby lake or stream."
askscience,"It's absolutely the case that people spent days hiking up into the mountains, or using mule trains, to get fish to remote bodies of water throughout the late 1800's and early 1900's in the mountain west.  Fish are also dropped by airplane. 

Here's an article on fish stocking in remote areas  https://thefisheriesblog.com/2012/01/16/high-sierra-trout-stocking/  and a map of the part of the sierra nevada that was historically fishless http://www.highsierrahikers.org/fig2fishless.gif

Also, trout don't carry fertilized eggs, so the ""bird transport"" theory for adult fish also requires both male and female fish to accidentally dropped into the lake at about the same time. 

However, it is worth noting that some apparently isolated bodies of water are actually connected during floods

"
askscience,"You can not see an object going inside the event horizon of a black hole. From your point of view, it would take an infinite amount of time to reach the event horizon, because it would seem to be slowing down. 

However, the actual reason why you would not see it, is because the light that comes from that object reaches you with lower frequency (gravitational redshift), until a point that the wavelength is sooo large that no instrument would be able to detect the light."
askscience,"I've never understood the 'will take forever for an outside observer' statement.  That only works if they accelerate infinitely toward the event horizon.  Take a look at galactic cores.  We think they're supermassive black holes that formed by swallowing other mass.  If it took forever for things to cross the event horizon to grow the supermassive black holes, then from external observation points we should see no supermassive black holes.

I also thought that as far as time dilation goes, if entity A is under increased gravitational forces and entity B is under significantly lower gravitational forces, then entity B's observation of entity A is that it moves slower.  See the plot line of the movie ""Innerstellar."""
askscience," We do not actually ""see"" black holes. We just detect their gravitational interaction with other elements close to them (e.g, Sagitarius A\*), or the material that is starting to fall into them (e.g, accretion disks). Also, the objects are not being accelerated by themselves, they are free-falling into the black hole.

Second statement: indeed some of the ideas of Interstellar are correct, and that is the direct cause of the redshift that I explain before. If you have a laser with certain frequency/period emitting in a intense gravitational field , for an external observer the measured period is higher, just because apparently the time runs slower when looking at the emitter."
askscience,"""See"" was the wrong word, but the point stands.

The problem that I'm trying to point out is that it doesn't make sense to me for it to take forever for an object to cross the event horizon, as viewed by any observer, which is how the original comment was interpreted.  This seems entirely wrong...

Time is relative, but its flow remains fixed for the distant, stationary observer.  We can say that time is moving normally for the external observer and is dilated for the one accellerating toward the black hole, increasingly so as they approach the singularity or the speed of light, whichever comes first.

For the observer falling into the black hole, my understanding is that their perception should be as if they are traveling faster than the speed of light (if spaghettification wasn't a concern) and that everything around them should seem to happen incredibly fast and/or blueshifted, though warped is probably a better word.

For our external observer, they will see the falling observer move faster and faster as it accelerates toward the event horizion.  Additionally, photons emitted by the falling observer are more and more redshifted to distant observers at less dilated spacetime. This continues until the spacetime at the event horizon prevents any photons from escaping at all.

...so what part do I misunderstand? 

"
askscience,"Doesn’t it simply mean that the information that an object fell into the black hole can never reach external observer?
If so doesn’t it mean that from the point of view of such observer (eg us) a black hole could never ‘grow’ after its initially formed ?
I always wondered about this:) 
also won’t uncertainty principle mean that at some point this object can cross the horizon ?
Not a physics grad so my thinking is most likely naive"
askscience,">Doesn’t it simply mean that the information that an object fell into the black hole can never reach external observer?

Indeed that is what it is happening.

>If so doesn’t it mean that from the point of view of such observer (eg  us) a black hole could never ‘grow’ after its initially formed ?

That it is a really good question that I have asked myself so many times and I do not have a clear and convincing answer. But my guess is that we actually see a black hole grow because, although it would take an infinite amount of time, the material that is falling into the black hole already adds mass to it, if you look from far enough. However, I do not feel that this is a good answer... 

>I always wondered about this:) also won’t uncertainty principle mean that at some point this object can cross the horizon ?

No, because the object apparently is frozen, but from its point of view (where this quantum consideration should be done) it does not feel any special effect after entering the horizon. Furthermore quantum effects in the proximity/interior of a black hole is not easy/possible to study with our QM and GR theories.

​"
askscience,"I was rewatching walking with dinosaurs a few months back, and they suggested that sauropods did it from behind with the Male on top - like most quadrupedal animals today. I think they suggested that females had reinforced hip and spine bones to help them support the males weight. Also that it didn’t last very long. Though this was a TV show made nearly 20 years ago (which took an amount of artistic license) so the scientific consensus may well have changed since then.

Edit: here’s the link to the clip (https://youtu.be/-mv_v4ltSrY). Again this is a 20 year old show, but it positioned itself as a natural history documentary programme."
askscience,"This post has attracted a large number of anecdotes, puns and simple joke 
comments. The mod team would like to remind you that comments on r/askscience are expected to answers questions with accurate, in-depth explanations, including peer-reviewed sources where possible. If you are not an expert in the domain please refrain from speculating.

So far 80% of the comments have been removed. If you are going to comment with ""carefully"" or ""loudly"" you will be pleased to know that you are the 50th user in that thread who is trying to make this joke. "
askscience,"Well then. Birds are dinosaurs, so everything we know about birds falls under the purview of your question. However, for extinct forms, we can also make inferences using a technique known as [phylogenetic bracketing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_bracketing). 

Dinosaurs are [archosaurs](http://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/what-are-archosaurs/), the two living representatives of which are crocodylians and birds (see also our [FAQ on why birds are dinosaurs](http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/wiki/biology/birds_are_dinosaurs)). If there's a character that both groups have, it was likely present in their common ancestor. Things like a four chambered heart (which evolved independently from the mammalian heart), [unidirectional airflow in the lungs](http://mappingignorance.org/2013/03/29/triassic-lungs-unidirectional-flow-in-alligators-breathing/), and nest-building/parental care are present in both birds and crocodylians, so they were probably present in their common ancestor. That means extinct dinos likely had those traits or lost them secondarily. We have fossils that confirm these some of inferences, like brooding of nests. 

Interestingly, we've also recently found that alligators are monogamous over multiple mating seasons, as are many birds, so that could have implications for how we look at extinct archosaur behavior. Alligators will also show nest site fidelity, coming back to the same or nearby areas over multiple nesting seasons. Many crocs have [complex mating rituals](http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/05/alligator-mating-physics/) as well, so these also seem to be ancestral to archosaurs. 

As far as dinosaur reproduction goes, we've found a lot of similarities between the reproductive tracts in birds and crocs. For example, [alligators and birds form eggshells in similar ways](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1547315).

Most [""reptiles""](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauropsida) have [hemipenes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemipenis), which are paired copulatory organs that are everted for mating. This is not true of archosaurs. Most birds have lost their penis, but some retained it (ducks and ratites like ostriches and emus are two examples). I don't know of any fossil dinosaur genitalia, but birds (those that have a phallus) and crocs each have a single phallus rather than the hemipenes of extant lepidosaurs. That's likely what other extinct archosaurs probably had. However, given the range in variation that we see in living birds alone, I'm sure dinosaur genitalia existed in all shapes and sizes.

In short:

- Dinosaurs probably ancestrally had penises similar to crocodylians and some birds, but they could have been lost in lineages like they were in many bird groups.

- At least some brooded their nests.

- They probably had mating displays like birds and crocs do.

- Some may have been monogamous over multiple mating seasons like many birds and crocs.

[This article](http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/2012/02/the-anatomy-of-dinosaur-sex/) similarly covers these topics.
"
askscience,"Extinct is one of those complex terms, I joked to a friend once that humans stopped evolving not because of any biological process but because we are to vain to call ourselves anything else.

My question would be more what dinosaurs did birds evolve from and did all birds come from one group. There is definitely a line that probably looks like gallimimus(butchered name), moa, ostrich and emu.

But what about chickens, peacocks etc. Did different group of birds come from different dino stocks.

Wait can different bird types mate?"
askscience,"Birds are dinosaurs, full stop. They’re theropod dinosaurs in the same way monkeys are all mammals. Not all dinosaurs are birds, so many groups of dinosaurs are extinct and don’t have living representatives. But yes, dinosaurs aren’t extinct. That extinction event wiped out a lot of things that weren’t dinosaurs, and it didn’t kill all the dinosaurs. It’s far more complex than is popularly portrayed, and we don’t fully understand the patterns we see. "
askscience,"Birds aren't descended from dinosaurs --- they *are* dinosaurs.  They're the one group of dinosaur species that wasn't wiped out, and since then they've diversified and flourished.

Take a look at the second paragraph of the wikipedia article on birds (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird):

> Reverse genetic engineering[3] and the fossil record both demonstrate that birds are modern feathered dinosaurs, having evolved from earlier feathered dinosaurs within the theropod group, which are traditionally placed within the saurischian dinosaurs.

EDIT: Also, it's kinda cool that that means that some of the most intelligent living animals are dinosaurs."
askscience,"There was a research topic posted at reddit some time ago, perhaps a year or two, that pointed out that genetic analysis and fossil evidence shows that several lineages of birds, at least four, survived through the K-P extinction event.  It kind of blew my mind because I had always thought the diversification of birds happened later.

The big question, that we really don't have a good answer to, is why several species of birds, some of them not very flight-worthy (chickens, for instance), survived the extinction event, but non-avian theropod dinosaurs did not.  What were the key differences that made the avians capable of surviving and the terror beasts not so much?

From the descent, it appears that only one species each of monotremes, marsupials, and mammals survived.  That too is curious."
askscience,"There was a research topic posted at reddit some time ago, perhaps a year or two, that pointed out that genetic analysis and fossil evidence shows that several lineages of birds, at least four, survived through the K-P extinction event. It kind of blew my mind because I had always thought the diversification of birds happened later.

The big question, that we really don't have a good answer to, is why several species of birds, some of them not very flight-worthy (chickens, for instance), survived the extinction event, but non-avian theropod dinosaurs did not. What were the key differences that made the avians capable of surviving and the terror beasts not so much?

From the descent, it appears that only one species each of monotremes, marsupials, and mammals survived. That too is curious.

"
askscience,"Roosters and hens both have cloacas - one reproductive and waste tract. Based on the post above, we might infer something about dinosaur mating from chickens. Here's a description ([source, emphasis added](https://animals.mom.me/reproductive-system-of-a-rooster-7896371.html)) 

**Reproductive Process**

**When a rooster mates with a hen, he will climb on top of her back and place a foot on each of her wings, forcing her tail feathers upward so he can press his cloaca to hers.** The rooster ejaculates and transfers the sperm, and he hops off. *Often he will perform a victory dance of sorts, hopping around and strutting*, while the hen unruffles her feathers, flaps her wings and walks away"
askscience,"Aves is simply the crown group of birds. When you look at the larger group Avialae, you see an awful lot of birdlike creatures that are extinct, so it’s not as clean as *things that looked like birds did fine*. I’m not sure how other members of Avialae track with the K-Pg, but I wouldn’t characterize everything other than crown-group birds as “terror beasts” (which I realize is an English translation of “Dinosauria”). Other avialans are just as birdy as Aves, and in fact if you ran into a non-avian eumaniraptoran on the street, chances are, your brain would think “bird!” 

Squamates survived, but groups like mosasaurs were lost. Pterosaurs had declined in diversity, but the remaining pterosaurs didn’t cross the K-Pg boundary. Lots of crocodyliform groups were lost. 

Monotremes and marsupials are all mammals. We normally talk at higher than the species level for these events, because single species are generally too short-lived to be a good indication. Groups like monotremes, multituberculates, gondwanatheres, metatherians (including marsupials), and eutherians all cross the boundary, but I think some groups were lost and some regions were impacted more than others. "
askscience,"Yes, they could've only evolved from non-extinct species. There have actually been multiple mass extinction events (one of which was a global rise in temperature and release of greenhouse gas through natural means) throughout the history of the Earth where a majority of all species were wiped out, leaving all we see to have evolved from what was left. There was one actually where all but 5% of the world's species died out. It's very interesting and worth looking up."
askscience,"I want to add that birds don't show up well in the fossil record because they have weaker bones that don't hold up as well over millions of years.

So the link between true birds and the larger group of dinosaurs is a little hazier than you would expect from another group, say mammals. We have a better record for the evolution of mammals (heavily based in jawbones and teeth) than we do for birds. In fact, teeth are so important that one group of proto-mammals, the cynodonts, are named after how they were first identified:

New Teeth. They have diverse teeth instead of a more reptilian single tooth which is just repeated over and over.

We could look at teeth for birds, too--when did dinosaurs start losing their teeth and getting true beaks? It's hard to tell because it's harder to find those teeth without a skeleton along with them."
askscience,"I never said they were? 

You were the one who used birds and crocodiles to talk about archosaurs and thus make inferences about dinosaurs. 

Hippos and bats aren't humans either, but all three are examples of mammals just as birds, crocodiles, and dinosaurs are all (based on your comment) archosaurs.

I see from your flair that you are an actual scientist. I definitely am not, so I defer to your expertise of course, but my analogy seemed like a good way to contextualize what you were saying. Sorry if I was mistaken.

Tl;dr - I thought archosaur : bird/dinosaur/crocodile :: mammal : bat/human/hippo

Edit - thinking about it, crocodiles aren't dinosaurs, but birds are. So maybe a more apt comparison would be primates: apes, humans, and baboons? It's kind of interesting to think about it that way since humans are obviously apes so it seems redundant. Is that how you feel when people ask you questions about dinosaurs as though birds don't belong to that group? "
askscience,"Life was also far less diverse back then. What we’ve gathered from fossils so far shows a huge lack in biodiversity.  Now whether that is a result of remains failing to be preserved or because of an actual lack could be up for debate. However we all share common ancestors. Ultimately we’re all descended from this one type of fish that got uppity and developed early limbs.  

Though I would like to question the conclusion being based on crocodiles. Crocodiles existed at the same time as the dinosaurs so it’s possible that their habits and anatomy were very different from their far larger cousins."
askscience,"Generally speaking, a chicken on a farm has little chance to demonstrate intelligence.  People who have deliberately interacted with chickens to study them have had different results.  

>[The birds were significantly more likely to peck at the second key, which offered a greater food reward but after a longer delay time. In other words, they showed self-control – a trait that some biologists think hints at a degree of self-awareness.](http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170110-despite-what-you-might-think-chickens-are-not-stupid)

There's an example of mindful pecking."
askscience,"It seems like none of the living descendants do anything like how salmon reproduce. From what the OP said about phylogenetic bracketing, it sounds like it's unlikely that dinosaurs would have done something similar... but evidently, bird sex doesn't lack for variety.

That said, there weren't really aquatic dinosaurs. There were large reptiles like Plesiosaurs, or dinosaurs documented to be close enough to water to use it as a food source (Baryonyx). I'd suspect something would need to be primarily aquatic to have a water-based reproductive method."
askscience,"> Dinosaurs are 
> archosaurs
> , the two living representatives of which are crocodylians and birds (see also our 
> FAQ on why birds are dinosaurs
> ). If there's a character that both groups have, it was likely present in their common ancestor.

Just to be clear, isn't it the case that it's only true phylogenetic bracketing when the extinct species is descendant from the last common ancestor of the two extant species?  (E.g., there is a more recent node on the phylogenetic tree from which birds and crocodiles descend, and the argument applies to dinosaurs that are also descendants of that node.)  In particular, it is *not* the case (as one might mistakenly infer from your language above) that if an extinct species has two extant descendants then anything shared by those descendants was also probably present in the extinct species."
askscience,"I’m not sure what you mean. You look at taxa that are more basal and more derived with respect to the taxon of interest. If a trait is present in both taxa of your bracket, you can infer that it was present in the common ancestor of both groups *and* not lost in the descendants of that common ancestor. This allows you to generate hypotheses about traits that you can’t directly observe, and it can inform future work. One example would be parental care in non-avian dinosaurs. Both crocodylians and birds exhibit parental care of their young, and we now have [examples of this behavior in non-avian dinosaurs](https://naturalhistory.si.edu/exhibits/backyard-dinosaurs/how-did-dinosaurs-behave.cfm). Obviously this isn’t going to work all of the time, and with a group as diverse as Archosauria, we know there will be a ton of variation. 

Beyond that, I’m not sure what you mean. What more recent recent common ancestor exists of crocodylians and birds?"
askscience,"In the context of the fiction /u/superflyguy87 is remembering (Halo), I think the device is more or less stationary and building up a sufficient charge to make a fictional ""slip space transmission"" (faster than light communication) to a set of predetermined coordinates. It also used that time to map out the stars and work out its currently location, it's a sort of homing device that was attached to an enemy (human) ship.  

A real word analogue would be if we had something like an orbiter around Proxima Centauri that didn't have enough power generation to make constant transmissions to Earth and have them be distinguishable from noise, so instead it gradually stored up energy in a cell or capacitor and used that to fire shorter burst transmissions at Earth. "
askscience,"Every nucleus has some number of protons (Z) and some number of neutrons (N). The total number of nucleons is A = Z + N.

An element specifies the Z, but it doesn't specify the N (or by extension, the A). 

Different isotopes of an element have different N, but the same Z.

Because the name of the element specifies Z, in order to talk about a specific nuclide, you have to specify the N as well. Or you can just specify the Z and the A, and the N is determined by N = A - Z.

In your example of uranium-238, the 238 is the A of the nucleus. Uranium always 92 protons. Uranium-238 has 238 nucleons. So that means that it's the isotope of uranium with (238 - 92) neutrons.

[Here](https://www.nndc.bnl.gov/chart/) is a chart where you can see every known isotope of every element.

>Are only nuclear elements capable of having a number?

I don't know what you mean by ""nuclear elements"", but every element has multiple isotopes.

>Could there be something like iron 222 or something?

No, there can't be iron-222. The stable isotopes of iron are around iron-56. If you try to add too many neutrons to an iron nucleus, you'll reach a point where any additional neutrons you add cannot form bound states with the nucleus. It's not known experimentally where this occurs for iron (it's known for elements up to fluorine), but it's almost certainly long before A = 222."
askscience,"> I don't know what you mean by ""nuclear elements"", but every element has multiple isotopes

I meant like heavy elements that could be used in fission (IE uranium, plutionium, etc.) or light elements that could be used in fusion (IE hydrogen, helium, etc.); I don't believe that you could make a nuclear fuel out of iron so that's kind of what I meant.

> No, there can't be iron-222. The stable isotopes of iron are around iron-56. If you try to add too many neutrons to an iron nucleus, you'll reach a point where any additional neutrons you add cannot form bound states with the nucleus. It's not known experimentally where this occurs for iron (it's known for elements up to fluorine), but it's almost certainly long before A = 222.

But there could be an iron-x then? Let's say Iron 12 or something? Any element can be/have an isotope?"
askscience,"Think of it like trying to build a tower out of dry-ish sand - no matter how careful you are to pack your sand well and stack it carefully, eventually you'll get to a point where adding more sand means that it will just fall off the sides of the tower instead of actually making the tower higher. To remedy this, you can start with a larger base or build a shorter tower.

It doesn't matter how hard you try, eventually you'll get to a point where the nucleus will reject additional neutrons, and they'll effectively just get pushed out, which is why it's so difficult to do something like add 100 extra neutrons to iron."
askscience,"You can't have Iron 12. Iron has 26 protons, so the lowest you could go would technically be 26, but the iron nucleus would become too unstable well before you got to a nucleus of only 26 protons. The lightest observed isotope of iron is Iron 45 which has a half life less than 2 milliseconds. Iron 54 is the lightest stable isotope. The heaviest is Iron 72 which also has a half-life measured in milliseconds."
askscience,"To put it simply the number is the weight. An atom of U-238 weighs about 238 atomic mass units. A proton and a neutron weigh roughly 1 amu each. 

So hydrogen would be H-1. Deuterium would be H-2. Tritium would be H-3. Goes all the way up to H-7 but H-4 and above the atom breaks apart in about .0000000000000000000001 seconds.

It's just a way of presenting the info that can be done with every isotope of every element, doesn't have anything to do with the isotopes stability."
askscience,"Most marine life won't have a problem.  Fish swim a little deeper.  They are generally keep away from surf zones, if the zone gets bigger they move out and down.  

In extreme winds the surface of the water turns to a froth layer a couple of metres thick, ""too thin to swim in and too thick to breathe"" according to my old oceanography lecturer.  Sea mammals can't breathe would drown.  They may be able to get to land and head inshore. 

Things get really bad where the water meets the land.  Here an enormous amount of wave energy gets dissipated destroying all sorts of stuff.  Many thing die.

Sea birds can't cope with this very well.  Old Navy sailor friend told me that you know when you are in a really bad storm when an albatross lands on the deck. "
askscience,"You can breathe before a couple minutes after going down. Maybe your instructor was talking about hurricane sized waves. A couple minutes is a very long time to not be able to breathe and people would die all the time if that were the case.

Edit: especially when you are doing a strenuous activity. Try running 100 meters then holding your breath for two minutes and see how that works out. "
askscience,"I don't think that is true unless the water has some sort of contaminant. This is Nazare one of the bigger waves in the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRJ87fzQ8Qc

There is a lot of foam but the guy's head is clearly visible and clear of the water. 

Surfers do get held underwater by large successive waves sometimes but it's not the foam on the surface that causes them to drown, it's another wave and the circular hydraulics of the waves.

I've been held under surfing, it's scary but you are well below the surface of the water. "
askscience,">In extreme winds the surface of the water turns to a froth layer a couple of metres thick, ""too thin to swim in and too thick to breathe"" according to my old oceanography lecturer.  Sea mammals can't breathe would drown.

Does this still happen when the hurricane is out in the middle of the ocean? Do Sperm Whales have to get out of the path of hurricanes? Or does this mostly effect more coastal mammals like seals? "
askscience,"It has been done, see JATO pods and the Messerschmitt 163 for example. The issue is that it is very inefficient for planes. 

Rockets have to carry their own fuel and oxidizer. But since planes by definition stay in Earth's atmosphere they can just use the oxygen in the air to burn the fuel in the engines. 

The only advantage of rockets in the atmosphere (for missiles and such) is that they can be made relatively simple and can provide great acceleration which is useful when you are trying to catch up with another aircraft.
"
askscience,"This is basically what is done right now. That's called a ramjet if you keep it simple. It has no moving parts but can only work at high speed. If you want something that works at lower speeds you need a compressor for the air which makes it a regular turbojet.

You can get fancy like with the SABER concept where you liquefy the oxygen out of the air before burning it but then it gets very complicated."
askscience,"Depends on if it is sessile (attached) or mobile, and a dozen other factors. In Florida Bay, we tend to see the water literally get sucked out between the Florida Keys if the storm passes to the west. This exposes everything on the bottom and, if it’s long enough, itlll die. 

We saw massive sponge die offs due to this [ETA: after Irma]. Hurricanes also move a ton of sentiment at times, which can scour the bottom life, or bury it, or just remain suspended and “choke out” corals and sponges and sea grasses by denying their ability to photosynthesize or suspension feed efficiently. 

There were many reports of small fish kills due to surge pushing them up on land, again these were mostly the little critters that hide near the bottom nearshore (catfish, pin fish, sea horses, etc), not so much larger snapper or tuna or things like that. Lots of conch, sea stars, urchins, etc were washed ashore."
askscience,"Yes! And this bias is something that we do have to take into account. Different methods for detecting planets have different biases, so we always have to account for that if we're trying to make statements about the population of planets as a whole.

The transit method works best when the planet is big enough to create a noticeable drop in the star's brightness, and when the planet's orbit is rapid enough that you can see lots of transits happen. You also need the planet's orbit to be lined up with our line of sight - i.e. the orbit is edge-on. So we're biased towards large planets that are close to the star. However, this method is quite sensitive, and we can actually see more than just the hugest and closest planets, but it definitely is easier to see the huge close ones.

Radial velocity measurements are even worse for this. For these, you look at how the star moves towards and away from you. We can see this with the redshift and blueshift of specific lines of radiation from the star. But again, this is easiest if the planet is huge and close to the star, so that it has a significant effect on the star. This method isn't quite as sensitive, so what you end up finding is a lot of ""hot Jupiters"" - i.e. massive planets really close to the star.

Another method is *direct imaging*, where you try to actually see the light of the planet directly. Here, it's easiest if the planet is *far away* from the star so that you can separate the images and not get blown away by the star's light. It's still easiest to see big planets, especially if they're hot and bright, but in terms of distance we get the opposite bias - it's easier to see distant rather than close planets. It's also easiest when the planet's orbit is *face-on*, because then we can see the planet go in a nice ellipse in the sky.

There's also microlensing which can be used to detect planets, but it relies on star systems just happening to line up at the right time, and while it's quite sensitive, it doesn't detect very many planets per year.

So yes, the various methods do create a skewed view of planets, and we really need to be careful what information we take from what we see. But bias is a universal problem in astrophysics. For example, the easiest stars to see at a large distance are the brightest stars, so we have to remember that the further away you look, the more dim stars you're missing etc. But in terms of planets, it means that we would still have difficulty finding a lot of the planets in our solar system, and instead find large planets that are really close to their stars."
askscience,"That's pretty off-topic, but you can see some simulation results [here](http://www.illustris-project.org/media/) - what you get is a filamentary structure that's uniform on very large scales. You can see a map based on observations of real galaxies [here](https://www.sdss.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/orangepie.jpg) - this big black slices are regions that aren't visible because the Milky Way is blocking the view.

Basically, the universe is supposed to have this filamentary structure uniformly everywhere. There is no centre to the universe - the universe is actually thought to be infinite in size. It's best not to thing of the Big Bang as an explosion of stuff flying outwards from a point - it's better to think of it as the universe as a whole getting less dense over time, as everything stretches away from everything else."
askscience,"Some suggest that cataclysmic events in the Earths prehistory could have wiped out the trace of possibly undiscovered ancient civilizations. Think about how quickly we went from Benjamin Franklin with a kite, simply theorizing about electricity being used for energy, to a few hundred years later (or 12-15 generations if you think about it like that) we have super computers, are on the verge of AI, and are able to genetically alter our DNA. I don't think its crazy to assume that there have been advanced technological advances in ancient history that have been lost with time. And I'm pretty sure the estimates for modern humans is at least 100,000 years, with new evidence coming out every day pushing that date further back. The peopling of the americas is even under scrutiny right now with finds in [California](https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/04/mastodons-americas-peopling-migrations-archaeology-science/) and more pushing it back to even past 100,000 years.

In the words of Graham Hancock, ""we are a species with amnesia"" and I believe the whole of our understanding of ancient cultures lies in the shadows."
askscience,"You don't understand what I mean. Maybe their culture was less materialistic and more focused on knowledge and spirituality. Just because they don't have machines or fun little gadgets doesn't mean they weren't advanced in their thinking and abilities. Perhaps they valued oral tradition over the perils of written texts ability to fall into the wrong hands. There are many possible reasons for why an advanced civilization outside our realm of understanding wouldn't have left behind your idea of advanced technology. Also, how much evidence would be left in an area such as [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzTRGECqgGY), where the landscape itself was devastated by flooding at the end of the last ice age?"
askscience,">Satellites would be extremely obvious.

Yes, this is a good one, even though depending on how many thousands of years we're talking there might not be any left because they will have lost speed and burned up in the atmosphere or crashed back to earth where they got burried. Do you happend to know how long the average satellite today would stay in orbit once it isn't maintained anymore? I'm curious.

>You would expect to find various metallic relics on Earth.

Like what exactly and for how long?

>You would expect to find many exploited resources underground.

Mines collapse and disappear. You wouldn't know about the missing recources if you don't know they were there in the first place.

>A rapid change in CO2 levels in the past would be easy to find.

Yes, and if you look at the record we do find those too, but they can be explained through other natural processes as well. 

I'm not arguing for OPs ancient advanced civilization btw, but I think it's impossible to disprove it. Just like it's impossible to really disprove anything. I don't really see any reason to believe that there ever was such a civilization of course, because there isn't any proper evidence for it. "
askscience,"Our geostationary satellites are expected to stay in orbit for millions of years at least. Not in a perfect geostationary orbit but still in an orbit.

> Like what exactly and for how long?

Everything, for a very long time (just gets harder to find over time). Remains of buildings, cars, tools, ... we would (will?) leave behind a geological layer of processed metals in many places.

> Mines collapse and disappear. You wouldn't know about the missing recources if you don't know they were there in the first place.

But you do. We never exploit the full deposit. We take out the core where it is worth the effort and leave the rest. Finding hollow deposit for various resources would be very curious.

> Yes, and if you look at the record we do find those too, but they can be explained through other natural processes as well. 

Nothing as rapid as currently."
askscience,"> Our geostationary satellites are expected to stay in orbit for millions of years at least. Not in a perfect geostationary orbit but still in an orbit.

Could you provide a source for that? I was of the opinion that they'd still be affected by ever so slight atmospheric drag. Impact with dust/debris/meteoroids might slow them down and push them off their orbit further over centuries. Wikipedia further says this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit#Orbital_stability

>Everything, for a very long time (just gets harder to find over time). Remains of buildings, cars, tools, ... we would (will?) leave behind a geological layer of processed metals in many places.

Yes, we are doing that now. Plastics for example last for a long time. Simple metal structures not so much. But things can fossilize and would then survive in the geological record for millions of years. Might be interesting to look into this, I only know of organic material fossilizing like wood and bones for example. 

>But you do. We never exploit the full deposit. We take out the core where it is worth the effort and leave the rest. Finding hollow deposit for various resources would be very curious.

It's not as easy as it sounds. After sufficient time has passed it will be hard to tell what's natural and what man-made. These ""hollow deposits"" will collapse over time, or get filled up. Have a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dike_(geology) There are many ways something like it can and does occur naturally. 

>Nothing as rapid as currently.

I'm unsure if that's true as of now (you're probably confusing it with the predicitons), but it's also not really important for the argument. A previous advanced civilization might have been smarter than us and stopped emitting so many greenhouse gases before they even got to the point of a feedback loop of a shrinking albedo effect, increased permafrost methane release aso."
askscience,"Atmospheric drag is completely negligible at geostationary orbit. [LAGEOS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAGEOS) is expected to stay in orbit for [about 8 million years](https://ilrs.cddis.eosdis.nasa.gov/missions/satellite_missions/current_missions/lag1_general.html) - at an altitude of just 5800 km.

> Wikipedia further says this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit#Orbital_stability

That part is about staying geostationary - above the same spot on Earth. The satellites won't do that long without fuel, but that is not what we are talking about.

> Plastics for example last for a long time. Simple metal structures not so much.

Unlikely that plastics will last so long. Bacteria are evolving to break down some types of it already. Metals can stay for a long time. We should add glass to the list.

> It's not as easy as it sounds.

I didn't say it is easy.

> A previous advanced civilization might have been smarter than us and stopped emitting so many greenhouse gases before they even got to the point of a feedback loop of a shrinking albedo effect, increased permafrost methane release aso.

Sure, not every civilization must have increased the CO2 level. Just like not every civilization must have launched satellites, exploited ores, invented plastics and glass and so on. They are still potential things how such an earlier civilization could be studied today."
askscience,"OK, interesting. I somehow thought the orbit would be less stable.

>Unlikely that plastics will last so long. Bacteria are evolving to break down some types of it already. Metals can stay for a long time. We should add glass to the list.

Really depends on the exact material. There is no large scale breaking down of plastic by bacteria yet afaik. Most ends up in ocean sediment now. Some metals last long, others not so much. Glass isn't too bad.

In the geological record you'd also find traces of C14 and other radioactive isotopes if they had atomic bombs. And much more actually. If you find it an interpret it correctly that is. Geology is messy and we haven't come very far in that field yet."
askscience,"Why can't you go through these infinitely many ""halves"" in a finite amount of time? 

Let's say, for simplicity, that you're running to the bus stop at a constant speed, and you stop when you suddenly hit the sign, or something. So, you're running from position 1 to position 0 (note, I reversed this), say the units are meters. If you're running at, say, 1m/s, then the time it takes for you to go the first half, from 1 to 1/2, will be 1/2 a second. The time it takes for you to go the second chunk, from 1/2 to 1/4 is 1/4 of a second. The time it takes to get from 1/4 to 1/8 is 1/8 of a second. This pattern continues. The time it takes you to get from the chunk 1/2^(n) to 1/2^(n+1) is 1/2^(n+1) of a second.

What, then, is the total time of the trip? You would have to sum up all the times together. The times for each chunk are 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32, etc seconds each, so the total time will be

* 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 +...

where the sum goes on infinitely. This is a very classic [Geometric Series](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_series), and adds up to a finite value. That finite value, in this case, is 1. So after 1 second, you will have gone through all of these infinitely many halfway points and gotten to the end (which makes sense, because you're going 1 m/s for 1 meter). So, even though there are infinitely many halves to go through, it takes a finite amount of time to get through them all.

This situation is also known as [Zeno's Paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes)."
askscience,"The universe is not made up of Planck pixels. The Planck length is just the length scale at which our laws of physics break down. At such short distance and time scales, the uncertainty in momentum and energy becomes so huge that you are approaching black hole densities. Where quantum field theory relies on a flat spacetime, that can no longer be guaranteed. So yes, there's a lower measurement limit in our understanding of physics, it has no bearing on whether the universe is discrete or continuous."
askscience,"If it approaches a finite values by a finite time, then it realizes that finite value in that time. 

We can argue that this actually isn't the definition of infinity, and it is more subtle than this, but we'll gloss over that. Just because you have an infinite amount of things, doesn't mean you can't squeeze them all into a finite space. There is no end, but there is an ""after"" for them. There are infinitely many values in the sequence 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32,... but these are all bigger than 0, so if we are at zero then we are ""beyond"" them. 

Moreover, the universe isn't a computer game where you have to compute everything about every frame. It literally takes 0 time to go through each of these steps, so none of them have to be ""done"", we're just *describing* them using these infinite sums for our own understanding. Finally, it doesn't even make sense irl because you can't talk about infinitely fine slices of space or time this nonchalantly.
"
askscience,"By the classical definition, what you’re really doing is taking a limit. You construct a sequence of partial sums, call it Sn. S1 is just the first term, 1/2 in this case, S2 is the sum of the first 2 terms (3/4) S3 is the sum if the first 3 terms (7/8) and so on. The sum of the infinitely many values is the limit of the sequence Sn as n grows large. 

"
askscience,"The problem arises when you try to shoehorn physical things like lightbulbs into abstract mathematics.

Either it is a physical lightbulb, or it is a mathematical, abstract lightbulb.

If it is a physical lightbulb, then its behavior is constrained by physics. At some point the switching back and forth will be rapid enough that the electric fields do not have time to propagate between the contacts and the lightbulb and drive a current; so there is a maximum upper limit to the rate at which bulbs switch on and off, which is set by the material properties of the bulb and the wire lengths etc. Once this maximum limit is reached, it will continue switching back and forth at that rate.

Otherwise let's consider an abstract lightbulb that is not constrained by physics. Then the question reduces to asking: what is the limit of the sequence (0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1...) at infinity? The answer is: ""undefined"". This is a clear, precise answer, and since it is not a physical lightbulb, this answer is perfectly acceptable."
askscience,"This is the [Thomson Lamp Paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson%27s_lamp). There is a difference between the Zeno situation and Thomson's lamp. The main difference is that of convergence. Zeno's paradox represents a convergent sequence, and so we can talk about the end product. Convergence is basically synonymous with the existence of an end result. Thomson's Lamp represents something where there does not exist an end result.

It's kinda like that joke about mathematicians going to a pub. The first orders a pint of beer. The second orders a half a pint. The third orders a quarter of a pint. Etc. The bartender then just pours two pints and gives it to them. This works because there is an convergent ""end result"" to this infinite process. If a similar situation happened, with a mathematician coming into the bar at faster, and faster rate, asking for the light to be on or off, then the bartender would just have to throw them out because there is no end result that they are all gravitating towards.

So processes things like this are only mathematically valid if there is convergence. Of course, none of these things are physically valid, because you can't chop things up infinitely small like that. A similar situation is that it is mathematically valid to take a solid sphere, break it up into a few pieces and put it back together as two spheres of the same volume as the original one. Mathematically valid, but not physically."
askscience,"As the others say, this fundamentally changes the problem. You could see it this way: It takes a finite amount of time to flip the switch, and so it would suddenly take forever to reach the bus.

Even if we consider the abstract, math-like situation where the flip is infinitely fast, you're basically asking if there is an odd or even number of terms in an infinite sum, which is like asking if infinity is an odd or even number. That doesn't make sense, since infinity isn't a number. It's like asking if the stegosaurus is an odd or even dinosaur.

Still, it's a good demonstration of the counter-intuitiveness and basic difficulty of understanding infinity."
askscience,"Yes, it infinitely approaches 1 without reaching it throigh basic addition. The sum of all the numbers ultimately leads to (n-1)/n through direct addition, regardless of how large n is.

Using some fun maths, you can instead convert that infinite sum into a simple formula, and cancel out the infinitely recurring fractions.  A simple way you look at it - set the first sum to a variable (x=1/2+1/4+1/8+...), pull out a common fraction (1/2) and get a second formula (x/2=1/4+1/8+1/16+...), and then solve for x (x - x/2=1/2) ,  (2x - x =1) , (x=1).

I'm hoping nothing is wrong there, I'm still groggy and don't want ppl up my ass about maths."
askscience,"Then the answer depends on what you mean by ""smallest possible"".

For processes that take place over shorter timescales than the Planck time, our understanding breaks down. We cannot predict the results of an experiment that takes place over that timescale. In that sense, the Planck time is the ""smallest possible"" time, although it's not really a sharp boundary -- the lower and lower we go the worse our predictions get.

If you are asking: is time discrete and pixellated? And if so, what is the smallest time step? Then the answer is -- we don't know. All our current highly successful theories of physics are built on the assumption that time is continuous and not discrete, so there is no smallest time step. (Otherwise it becomes mathematically complicated). We do know that the theories break down at some point, but if we ever have a complete theory of everything, then it is not known whether this final theory will feature discrete time."
askscience,"That just goes to the second point they made. At that point it goes to abstract mathematics and has no really physical meeting. It's the same as asking ""what is the largest integer?"" It has no real meaning because by definition there can be no largest number.

Asking if the ""largest number"" is even or odd goes against the axiom that there does not exist an upper bound to the number of integers. If you are working in a framework which is based on A, B, and C, asking yourself ""how would this framework behave if A is false"" is meaningless because if A is false, you are no longer working in the same framework."
askscience,"Just for clarity: the *finite sum* 1/2 + 1/4 + ... + 1/2^(n) can be rearranged and subtracted like you say (since it's just normal addition!) to give us a value of 1 - (1/2)^(n) for any finite n. Indeed, 

1/2 = 1 - 1/2,

1/2 + 1/4 = 3/4 = 1 - 1/4,

1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 = 7/8 = 1 - 1/8, etc.

Now the *infinite* series is defined as the limit of all these partial sums. It is easy to see that the 1/2^(n) term can be made arbitrarily small; for any tiny distance d away from 0, we can make 1/2^(n) smaller than d by picking 2^(n) greater than 1/d, i.e., n greater than log_2(1/d) = -log(d)/log(2). So the limit is 1."
askscience,"Eh, I'm not too sure this can be done meaningfully. Movement can occur on really small length scales -- we are already able to measure subatomic movements, and if you are liberal with the definition, much smaller movements. Even the Planck length isn't a limit, because it is only our understanding that breaks down at that point. If you ask the question: ""Are movements smaller than the Planck length possible?"" then the correct answer is not ""no"", the correct answer is ""we don't know""."
askscience,"Not reaching the end, or approaching a limit, is different than a limit not existing. Some common reasons a limit would not exist are it's not bounded (think f(x)=x, it just gets bigger as x gets bigger) or repeating series (1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, .... for example has multiple converging SUBseries but does not have a limit for the series as a whole)

Also these concepts are definitely something that someone with a GED education could understand but math can be a bit counterintuitive and until you actually formally work out something, it can be easy to misunderstand or not totally grok a concept. I love the idea of people that haven't traditionally thought about these things pushing themselves to really think about the concepts. "
askscience,I was coming from a position that since one cannot take an infinite amount of step (only approach a value) that theirfor time has to be discrete . Obviously I can't test my hypothesis since I don't know physics but all your answers definitely gave me a deeper understanding in a subject I'm not familiar with.  Thank you. Now I know that planck time isn't what I meant. But it's an amazing concept.
askscience,"I don't see the distinction to be honest and I will argue there is no distinction.

If I break down action A into discrete sub-actions D_1, D_2, ..., then there is no distinction between performing action A and performing actions D_1, D_2, .... They are both equivalent/identical.

The resolution to this seeming paradox is that the sum of an infinite number of discrete values can be finite and hence the sum of an infinite number of discrete actions can result in one single finite action."
askscience,"You're right. The whole (or natural, as they're called) numbers have a certain (infinite) cardinality, which is often referred to as Aleph-0. The real numbers (which is the set of all possible numbers, decimals, the pi kind of strange numbers and all that) are more in number than this Aleph-0. This was proved by Georg Cantor, in what is called the Diagonal Argument. 

The set of real numbers between 0 and 1 has the same size as the set of ALL possible real numbers (yes, this seems crazy, but it's true) so that number is indeed larger than the size of the set of all whole numbers. "
askscience,"Sort of. You're referring to the [cardinality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality) of the sets of those two types of numbers, which is basically the size of the sets. Whole numbers (integers) are [countable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countable_set). Real numbers are [uncountable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncountable_set).

The intuition is that you can ""count"" all of the whole numbers without skipping any if you have an infinite amount of time. I.e. if you start counting at 1, you can pick a number and know that eventually you'll reach it. You can't do that for real numbers."
askscience,"Think of it this way

Between 0-100 there are 100 whole numbers

If we also include all 0.5 numbers, there are twice as many numbers between 0-100

All fractions between 0-1 are 1 divided by one of these numbers. For the first set, there are 100 but for the second there are 200 fractional numbers. So if we limit the whole numbers 1-100 but say that the fractions can be 1/1.5, 1/2, 1/2.5 etc etc there are more numbers between 0-1 than whole numbers 1-100

Its the same thing for infinity, just with way more numbers. Not all infinite sets are equal in size if that makes sense. Hopefully this helps but im not sure i explained myself well"
askscience,"Adding to that, while irrational numbers are not countable the way that whole numbers are, that does not mean there are *more* irrational numbers than whole numbers.  They are both still infinite and not traditionally comparable.  All it is saying is that we can make up a rule where every rational number maps to a unique natural number, or every integer maps to a unique natural number, but we can't make up a similar rule for all irrational numbers.

Edit for correctness: it's easy to map any irrational to some natural number, but we care about that natural number being unique in the mapping/one-to-one."
askscience,"There is no paradox

> If I break down action A into discrete sub-actions D\_1, D\_2, ..., then there is no distinction between performing action A and performing actions D\_1, D\_2, .... They are both equivalent/identical. 

I should have worded what I said better, but here's what I was getting at:  


Assume running to a bus stop is action A, where a1 is running halfway, a2 is running half the remaining distance, etc. Obviously performing all a\[1-infinity\] is identical to performing action A.

If you have an infinite amount of discrete divisions b1, b2, b3 that doesn't mean that there is necessarily any action B which corresponds.

There are some infinite series that have a definite value (1/2 + 1/4+ 1/8 ...) and there are some which don't (1-1+1-1+1...)

In this case there's selection bias. You know that we can run to a bus stop, because we have observed that phenomenon. You also know that there's an infinite series which corresponds to it because it's intuitive and easy to visualize. Your mistake is that you assume another infinite series must have a distinct end result

​"
askscience,"I never understood why this is a paradox. The infinite series approaches 1, but never arrives. The person walking 1 m/s is never constrained by that fact because at a constant speed you just blow through the infinitely large number of calculations at the end. And who is to saw he actually touched the sign? That type of measurement could never be made. 

But the original post presumes you're spending a fixed time during each increasingly small distance, when in fact you're spending less and less time until you eventually stop or use blow through the limit. "
askscience,"Not sure if this correct but I remember doing this proof in my undergrad 

Sum from 1 to inf( 1/2^n ) = (1/2 + 1/4 + ...)

Let S = Sum from 1 to inf( 1/2^n ) 

S = (1/2)(1+1/2+ 1/4 +...)
2S=(1+1/2+ 1/4 +...)
2S-1=(1/2+ 1/4 +...)
2S-1=S
S-1=0
S=1

Expand to any sum in the form 1/n
S=(1/n+1/n^2 +...)
S=(1/n)(1+1/n+ 1/n^2 +...)
S*n= 1+1/n+ 1/n^2 +...
S*n -1= 1/n+ 1/n^2 +...
S*n -1 = S
S*n-S=1
S(n-1)=1
S=1/(n-1)


The the trick of the proof is to recognize that you have the same sum on the right hand side after factoring out the fraction "
askscience,"No, it's more like the [Grandi Series](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandi%27s_series). Turning the light on is a +1, turning the light off is a -1. The sum then oscillates between 0 and 1. Some of the more creative ways of assigning a value to the Grandi Series are invalid because of [reasons Thomson laid out himself](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson%27s_lamp#Mathematical_series_analogy). If a sum diverges by going to infinity, then it is still a valid sum with a value. A sum is ""invalid"" if it never approaches any value, even infinity. 

It's also actually a little bit like the [graph of sin(1/x)](https://www.desmos.com/calculator/t8hohza1hs), which can have some [weird properties](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topologist%27s_sine_curve)."
askscience,"I'm going to use the more standard form of 1+r+r^(2)+r^(3)+...=1/(1-r).

What you have [is the idea of finding the value](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_series#Formula), but a key, important part of this is [actually proving that S exists and is finite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_series#Proof_of_convergence). What you have done is show that if S exists and is finite, then it must be 1/(1-r), but there are cases where S is not finite. Take, for instance, r=2, which is the series 1+2+4+8+... In this case S is infinite, so it cannot equal 1/(1-2)=-1. But, given [different number systems with different geometries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-adic_number), this S *is* finite and so it equals -1."
askscience,"This kind of reminds me of the 

.333333~ + .66666~ = 1

Thing. Similar concept that infinite numbers when added together can equal a whole number. The way the above made sense in my head was to think of it like:

1/3 = .33333~
2/3= .66666~

And because 1/3 + 2/3 = 1

.33333~ + .66666~ must also = 1

Might be basic to some in here, but that sort of blew my mind the first time I heard about it.

P.S. I couldn’t figure out how to do the bar over the numbers on mobile so the “~” is meant to mean infinite.


"
askscience,"The only thing I’ve ever taken away from any discussion about Zeno’s paradox is that time and space must share either discrete units of measurement that correspond, or must both be infinitely divisible. 

Otherwise you’d get a disconnect at the smallest units of distance and units of time. 

Like, if the Planck length is the smallest unit of distance, then the smallest unit of time must be the time it takes to traverse one Planck length at c. 

Perhaps that’s just really obvious and I’ve wasted everybody’s time. "
askscience,"It depends on the light bulb. If it's a florescent or another type with a significant start up time, it will appear to be off due to the fact that it was eventually in a state where the switch was being flipped faster than it could turn on. If the bulb has a negligible start up time, it will appear to be on due to our persistence of vision. 

Our measurement of it affects our perception of it."
askscience,"Using the set of most commonly used mathematical axioms, this series is divergent.  There are other sets of axioms that can be used in which this series is convergent, and so it would make sense to assign a value to the final light, such as 1/2 or 1/4.  None of the possible sets of axioms is more or less correct than any other, it just changes the nature of what things like equality mean within that set of axioms, and there is usually a trade off between the ""value"" of the results that can be obtained.  Ie, within complex analysis, it would make sense to assign a value to the infinite sum of 1+2+3+4...=-1/12, and this ends up providing some pretty insane insights into the distributions of prime numbers among other things, but obviously conflicts with our ""instinctual"" idea of what the sum of the natural numbers would be."
askscience,"You don't use the mappings to compare some set to another set, you use a mapping from one set to a cardinal to establish its cardinality. Then you can compare the cardinals with each other.

We don't even need that either, because there is clearly a relationship. The simple fact that there does not exist a surjection N-->R means that R is larger than N, because that's exactly how mathematicians define ""larger."" It exactly coincides with how we define size on finite values too, so it's not artificial or anything."
askscience,"But even if you remove the countability distinction from it, it seems intuitive that there is still a significant mathematical difference between say, the number of whole numbers and the number of whole numbers divisible by 2. Both are countable, so that's not the deciding factor. Yet one is N (infinity) and the other is N/2... infinity/2, which is still infinite but in some meaningful way less than the other infinity. Or is all such distinction lost without the countable vs uncountable boundary?"
askscience,"The Planck length isn't the smallest unit of distance, it's just the unit of distance which comes naturally from the ratio of several universal constants.

That is, no matter what system of measures you use, physics has several universal constants. Whether you're using Metric units or Imperial Units or Thargoid Traditional Measures, you'll get the same value of c, the same value for the permeability of vacuum, the same value of Planck's constant, etc. If you take a ratio of these fundamental physical constants such that it works out to units of speed, you get the Planck length."
askscience,"Cardinality is one notion of size, and a convenient one for a variety of reasons.  It is not, however, the only one.

In terms of cardinality, the whole numbers and just the even numbers have exactly the same size.  Its unintuitive, but so is infinity.  Keep in mind that ""same size"" means ""for every unique natural you present me, I can provide you exactly one, unique, even natural to pair it with"" and that _is_ true.  

Having said that, ""measure"" is also a way to ... Well, measure size.  The open interval (0,1) has the same cardinality as the reals, but has measure 1, and so is in that sense smaller than them."
askscience,"Why should it? Not everything is a two-way consequence. For example, let's say any person who has his brains splattered over a wall is most probably dead, and that this is always true. The opposite won't necessarily be true.
There's different symbols to write it too. A => B means if A happens, B must happen. But this does not imply that B => A.
If B happening means A happens, and the reverse is true, then you write it A<=>B. "
askscience,"Fun thing to think about in relation to zeno's paradox, the atoms and molecules that make us up can never actually touch anything. They can get close, but due to the magnetic field, they cannot touch. So, in line with Zeno's paradox, if you define ""reaching a point"" as touching that point, you actually never will.

On an atomic scale, the closest you can ever get to touching someone else is when your DNA intertwines with someone elses when you have a child."
askscience,"Sure! Don't worry if you didn't get it, it's fairly advanced math, which is why it is used as a nice ""in-joke""...

Let's begin with a simple example: consider the series:

1 + (1/2^2 ) + (1/3^2 ) + (1/4^2 ) + ... = 1 + 1/4 + 1/9 + 1/16 + ...

If you know a little math, you will recognize this series. The result if adding up all the infinite terms is exactly equal to (pi^2 )/6, which is just a beautiful result.

Now, imagine replacing the exponent in the denominator of each term. In the series we just saw, the exponent was 2. Let's ask the question -- what is the sum of the series, as a function of this exponent (call it s)? Clearly at s = 2, the sum is (pi^2 )/6 -- what is it at other values of s? This is called the Riemann zeta function. For s > 1, it is defined this way:

zeta(s) = 1 + (1/2^s ) + (1/3^s ) + (1/4^s ) + ...

At all values s > 1, the sum ""converges"" -- that is, it has a well-defined, finite value. Successive terms grow smaller and smaller. If you are patient enough you can get the answer to whatever precision you want by just punching in enough numbers on a calculator.

At s < 1, the sum **doesn't** ""converge"" -- it has no well-defined finite value. Even if you are infinitely patient, adding successive terms of the series will keep on making the sum larger and larger and there is no upper bound. This is easiest to see for negative s : imagine s = (-2), for example. Then the sum becomes 1 + 4 + 9 + 16 + ... which clearly keeps on growing larger and larger as you add more values.

However, there is a piece of wizardry in mathematics called [""analytical continuation""](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_continuation). Briefly the idea is this -- we know the value of the zeta function for several values of s (for example s = 2). We can then extend this ""backward"" to obtain a **unique, well-defined** value for the zeta function at s < 1.

Then, even though the sum 1 + 4 + 9 + 16 + ... is not well-defined, we can abuse the symbol ""="". We claim that this sum ""is equal to"" the value of the Riemann zeta function at s = (-2) -- and, voila, where you first had an infinity, you have a useful number!

And, using exactly the same trick, you can magically make the sum ""1 + 2 + 3 + ..."" well-defined -- by calculating the zeta function at s = (-1) ! Do you see how?

As it happens, the value of the zeta function at (-1) is (-1/12), which explains why it is meaningful to write (1 + 2 + 3 + ...) ""="" (-1/12), explaining the joke :-) Note that this needs to be used in the correct context, which is why I included the scare quotes around the equal to sign, otherwise people can misinterpret this.

You could be forgiven for asking what value all this abstraction has in actual applications. You may be surprised to know that it actually appears in several theories in physics -- such as the explanation for the experimentally observed [Casimir effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect), and more speculative models like string theory. In fact, the magical number (-1/12) is actually related to why many string theory models work only in exactly 26 dimensions -- not in 25 or 27 or any other number."
askscience,"Mathematically, “0.000...1” would be the limit of

    (1 / (10^x))

As x goes to infinity.  This limit is 0, and it’s possible to prove that analytically in a general way, but that doesn’t really explain much.

Another way to think about it is that two values A and B can be considered equal if there is no number C that can “fit between them” (`A < C < B` or `B < C < A`).  Because there is no fixed value larger than 0 and smaller than `(1 / (10^x))` for an arbitrarily large x, they *must* be equal."
askscience,"Yeah that's what I had issue with, guy above me is the one that suggested there's no distinction between an infinite set of discrete actions and a single action being broken down into infinite sub-actions. I was just trying to point out the flaw in his logic. His statement leads to the idea that there's not really such a thing as infinity and its use is simply a less-than-accurate description of a single action every time, which obviously isn't the case."
askscience,"I was scared of 2k or 2k+1, integer k answers due to the possibility that you could define odd as 'not even'.

But I think that's actually a different, just as solid approach -- if even numbers are 2k and odd numbers are 2k+1, you're going to have to find an integer k s.t. 2k = infinity or 2k+1 = infinity. Integers are closed under multiplication and addition, so there is no such k. Therefore, infinity is neither even nor odd.

(To anyone arguing about the physicality of the light bulb and light switch, you're dodging the actual question.)"
askscience,"I think you're mistaken in saying that relativity is wrong. Relativity is limited in that it does not describe quantum behavior in the sub-atomic realm. It is, however, very useful, tested and ""proven"" in the realm in which it was intended to be applied. Just because the theory is not a universal field theory doesn't make it wrong. More generally, our current understanding of physics is not wrong; it is limited. And, spoiler alert: it always will be. As our understanding deepens, we'll be able to see further, to smaller/bigger scales. It's turtles all the way down!"
askscience,"The very short version is, there is a sense in which 1+2+3+... corresponds to -1/12. It's not equal to it under most reasonable definitions of what this summation means but if you wanted to give it any sort of finite value then -1/12th would be the most reasonable. There's a lot of problematic ""proofs"" of this however. Mathologer made a good (but long) video on it [here](https://youtu.be/YuIIjLr6vUA). It's long but not difficult, there's just a lot to be said."
askscience,"Great explanation of how infinitesimally small,  infinite steps, and a finite distance are one lens through which to see the situation Something to consider:  if the traveler (the one traveling one meter) is oblivious to the way you are dividing their travel, they can simply see:  first half:  ½ second.   second half: ½ second. A constant travel rate holds in each lens. and this helps see, in detail, the ""other perspective."" 

​"
askscience,"It's entirely possible to have sequences like (0,0,0,...,1) with an infinitely long string of 0s before the 1. These transfinite sequences are used all the time in set theory as a natural extension of the usual natural-number-indexed sequences. The reason these are not used in decimal expansions of real numbers is because, well, there's no convincing reason to use them. The real numbers as a system are useful and mathematically interesting; any number system where 0.000...1 represented a well-defined value not equal to 0 would not be the real numbers, and would probably not be as useful or interesting."
askscience,"You can find a function that maps elements, so you absolutely can compare cardinalities.

In fact, the proofs I'm familiar with that prove the irrationals have the CoC do so by demonstrating that there are fewer rationals than irrationals.

Additionally to that, the point of cantors theorem is the relationship between countable and uncountable infinities: that the CoC has the cardinality of the powerset of a countably infinite set and that powersets are always larger.

The fact that one is larger than the other, and specifically has more elements, is embedded in their definition."
askscience,"Cardinality is really the same concept as the normal, intuitive definition of the size of finite sets. Whenever you say a finite set A has size n you are implicitly saying that there exists a bijection A-->n, where n is the nth ordinal. Cardinality of infinite sets is the same thing; it's not a different concept, you just stop restricting your domain of discourse to finite sets alone. So when you say that some infinite set A is larger than some other infinite set B then that makes complete sense even if you haven't defined cardinality, because there is really no other natural way to define size."
askscience,"Only if you could have fractional times. But that would imply that there were real world times smaller than the unit you chose to divide. If there weren’t, then your physical distance must not be the smallest physical distance. 

Dunno. I’m just an accountant. It seems to me that Zeno’s
Paradox allows one to arrive through intuition st the idea that time and space are inextricably linked.  That’s the coolest thing I’ve discovered on my own. "
askscience,"It depends a lot on what you mean. In the standard interpretation of the definition of real numbers it's not clear what question you're even asking.   


However, there are non-standard reals which allow for things like infinitesimals. I'm reasonably certain that in that non-standard model one can make sense of your idea. Levi-Civita fields look a lot like what you are discribing. Though I'm a lot more comfortable with the ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreal\_number](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreal_number))\[hyperreals\] as they allow for ease of doing calculus with them."
askscience,"Yeah. Here's a good way of looking at it.

Picture all the natural numbers: 1, 2, 3, 54656, ...

Now flip them all around, so you get 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.54656, ...

Seems like that's all the numbers between 0 and 1, right? Nope. See, there are also *irrational numbers*, things like the square root of two, which is actually impossible to represent as a finite decimal. √2 = 1.41421356237..., and it just goes on forever, never repeating or forming a pattern of any kind. There's no equivalent natural number that can flip around to replace something like (1-√2). That's where all the ""extra numbers"" come from."
askscience,"Are you moving the goalposts on purpose, and misquoting Wikipedia to win an internet argument?

What’s being debated here is whether Zeno thought it was a paradox. Not whether it is, in fact, a paradox (which it clearly isn’t). And the resounding answer is yes - he thought it was a paradox because he lacked the mathematical tools to resolve it.

It’s hilarious that you cite Wikipedia and apparently haven’t read through the first paragraph:

>	Zeno's paradoxes are a set of philosophical problems generally thought to have been devised by Greek philosopher Zeno of Elea to support Parmenides' doctrine that contrary to the evidence of one's senses, the belief in plurality and change is mistaken, and in particular that motion is nothing but an illusion.

But hey, Wikipedia, right? Let’s turn to another [source](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/):

>	Zeno sought to defend Parmenides by attacking his critics. Parmenides rejected pluralism and the reality of any kind of change: for him all was one indivisible, unchanging reality, and any appearances to the contrary were illusions, to be dispelled by reason and revelation. Not surprisingly, this philosophy found many critics, who ridiculed the suggestion; after all it flies in the face of some of our most basic beliefs about the world. [...]
>	In response to this criticism Zeno did something that may sound obvious, but which had a profound impact on Greek philosophy that is felt to this day: he attempted to show that equal absurdities followed logically from the denial of Parmenides’ views. You think that there are many things? Then you must conclude that everything is both infinitely small and infinitely big! You think that motion is infinitely divisible? Then it follows that nothing moves! (This is what a ‘paradox’ is: a demonstration that a contradiction or absurd consequence follows from apparently reasonable assumptions.)"
askscience,"No, I wouldn't quite put it that way, because that makes it sound as if mathematics itself gives you different answers depending on ""circumstance"". That's not correct.

Here's how I would put it: the sum of an infinite series is a subtle thing. It is always well-defined for convergent series and has nice reasonable properties -- for example you can shuffle around any of the terms. But the sum of a divergent series can be defined in a few different ways that may lack these nice properties.

Taking one approach, it is clear that the sum of all integers diverges -- I can always take enough integers for the sum to be greater than whatever finite number you give me. In that sense the sum is ""equal to"" infinity.

Another way of defining that sum is to take the analytic continuation of a function where it is defined, and then pretend that the functional form holds even where the function is not defined. Using this approach the sum of all the integers is ""equal to"" (-1/12).

It's the definition of ""sum"", not the definition of ""equal to"", that changes. I glossed over that in my original explanation.

The amazing thing is that this other definition of sum turns out to be not only physically meaningful, it can be measured experimentally."
askscience,"This is similar to the solution to the Painter's Paradox of [Gabriel's Horn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel%27s_Horn).

> Since the horn has finite volume but infinite surface area, there is an apparent paradox that the horn could be filled with a finite quantity of paint, and yet that paint would not be sufficient to coat its inner surface. The ""paradox"" is resolved by realizing that a finite amount of paint can in fact coat an infinite surface area — it simply needs to get thinner at a fast enough rate. (Much like the series 1/2N gets smaller fast enough that its sum is finite.) In the case where the horn is filled with paint, this thinning is accomplished by the increasing reduction in diameter of the throat of the horn."
askscience,"Reminds me of the Mathematician vs Engineer joke:

A mathematician and an engineer are sitting at a table drinking when a very beautiful woman walks in and sits down at the bar.

The mathematician sighs. ""I'd like to talk to her, but first I have to cover half the distance between where we are and where she is, then half of the distance that remains, then half of that distance, and so on. The series is infinite. There'll always be some finite distance between us.""

The engineer gets up and starts walking. ""Ah, well, I figure I can get close enough for all practical purposes.""

"
askscience,"This reminds me of [Cantor's Diagonalization Argument](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_diagonal_argument), which inadvertently demonstrates that there is no such number by trying to enumerate all the real numbers. Every real number can be seen as having an infinite number of digits after the decimal, even if all the digits past a certain point are 0. Therefore, no real number has a ""last"" digit, and therefore we cannot set the ""last"" digit to any particular value (1 or otherwise). "
askscience,"There are different proofs for showing that the halting problem is undecidable. A proof I know uses reduction of the diagonal language to the halting problem. For that language, you can show it's undecidable via set cardinality.

Another great use of set cardinality in that field is to show that undecidable problems must exist. It's quite simple: You show that the number of problems (which are each represented by a language) is not countable while the number of Turing machines (problem solvers) is. As each solver solves exactly one problem, there are more problems than we can solve using our computing methods."
askscience,"Not just 1 and 2, but also 2 and 3, and 3 and 4 and so on... till the known infinity of whole numbers. Each of the individual sets has as its size the same ""number"", and you just added that number to itself infinitely many times, BUT SOMEHOW ENDED UP WITH THE SAME NUMBER! The math of infinities is very crazy and runs incredibly counter-intuitive to the way we learn to count as children :)."
askscience,"My question was about physics, and your answer was about math, so you didn't really answer the question. Nevermind though, it was actually a lot simpler than I thought. Even if you have an ideal switch that can flip on and off instantly, a wire with zero impedance, and an ideal lightbulb that can handle an infinite amount of voltage, you are still limited by the speed of light. Once the switching reaches a certain frequency the electromagnetic field propagation will not be fast enough to reach the bulb and the bulb will remain off."
askscience,"Thanks, I was about to write something similar, I was perplexed that no one mentioned it earlier. 

There were two opposing opinions amongst Greek philosophers. One exemplified by Zeno, Parmenides and the other Eleatic philosophers that change was impossible, that there existed no void. And another exemplified by Heraclitus that change was constantly happened, ""that a man does not step in the same river twice"" and such.

It is unfortunate that we are not educated in thinking like the old philosophers where physics and maths were married with philosophy.

Many of the paradoxes we know come are in some ways polemical thought experiments meant to deny the wisdom of rival schools of philosophy. "
askscience,"Except that the words we use for size all refer to a thing's finite extent. If I add an element to a finite set, I can say that the new set is larger than the old set. You can't do that with infinite sets. The set of positive integers is the same cardinality as the set of positive and negatives. The problem is that you can't treat infinity like a number, because it isn't one. Cardinality is the natural extension of our concept of size, but infinities don't play by the same rules as finite numbers.

>Cardinality is really the same concept as the normal, intuitive definition of the size of finite sets. Whenever you say a finite set A has size n you are implicitly saying that there exists a bijection A-->n, where n is the nth ordinal. 

No you aren't. That's a far more general understanding size than most people commonly use. "
askscience,"I'm not making a mathematical point, I'm making a linguistic conceptual one. The English words relating to magnitude are most commonly associated with ideas relating to finite amounts. You can't treat infinity or infinite sets with the same rules as you do finite sets, so the common understanding of these terms doesn't map directly onto infinite sets. 

If mathematicians choose to use common English words for magnitude to describe infinite sets, that's fine, but it's a technical usage that diverges from the common one. "
askscience,"[Infinitesimals are indeed valid!](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreal_number)!

Keep a few things in mind though:

An infinitely small number is not necessarily the smallest number. If we say some number x is infinitesimal, x/2 is another infinitesimal, and so is x/3, and so one. You could also have a number be infinitesimally small compared to an infinitesimal, and so on. Hyperreal numbers have this branching hierarchy all the way down, and up into infinite values as well.

Another thing is that numbers, from the conventional views of most mathematicians and scientists, have no real world meaning in and if themselves. Some people believe numbers exist out there, such as mathematical Platonists. But most view math very differently. Maths some would say is a language, a way of talking about things that happens to have rigor built in. Some say maths is more of just an extended and particular sort of logic, we are drawing conclusions from axioms after all, but maths has special assumptions logic does not. Some also argue maths is like a story or a game, where we are defining different rules and playing by them to see what happens. And you can have entirely different rules to found maths, so there isn't one superior game so to speak. Mathematical truth is not contingent on physical reality in most conceptions, nor visa versa.

So, there are hyperreals which contain infinitesimals, but no really interesting and consistent systems that extend the integers or the reals contain a ""smallest number"" (to my knowledge). Also it's maths so none of it has an intrinsic physical meaning according to most.

Make of that what you will."
askscience,"That is a very good, and reasonable, question to pose to someone who is not a mathematical Platonists. I think it depends on what you mean by ""no tie"", and what you are calling ""pure math"".

First of all, if anything is predicted by pure maths, it is already true by that formal system, and experiment is unnecessary. What will happen, however, is that scientists will develop an intuition of physical phenomenon from working with and trying to conceptualize and understand them, and then will take a leap based off a simple assumption or assumptions and develop the math based of those assumptions (like in Special Relaitvity, Einstein could tell from experiment and his intuition that the relativity of velocity and the constancy of the speed of light were simultaneously true, so he worked forwards from those assumptions and found the math that described that sort of system).

For the Euler's formula example, you're asking more about the unreasonable effectiveness of maths in the field of science I think, which is an interesting and ongoing area of debate. Why does maths best phenomenon, and not some other system or language or whatever you call it? Why when we take what we know and extend with mathematics do we get often very reliable new info? Perhaps it is because math is strongly related to logic, and we are more or less just logically extending from simple assumptions. If you moreso meant how do mathematical structures invented a hundred or more years ago not find their real use until much later, yet still do eventually find use, remember that there are a lot of maths that doesn't one day connect, and we have being toying with stuff for millennia. Look at many of the abstract algebra systems which exist and find no particular use value, they are just pretty. Maybe one day they will all find use, but it is no guarantee, and if we keep inventing maths, and maths is formal systems, sometimes those systems will describe things that actually happen by sheer numbers alone. Though maybe resorting to probability to explain the effectiveness of maths is circular hehe"
askscience,"That's why math seems like magic to me. Maybe we are  just ""extending our logic"", but it appears to me that the only reason our logic can be applied to understanding the laws of the universe is because the universe is built off of the same logic, and we can comprehend logic because we are part of the universe. I like thinking of the development of math as a journey to discover how the universe was created, because it makes it way more interesting and it actually makes more sense than explaining it as ""oh it just happens to work out that way because we can use logic"". "
askscience,"Mathematics proposes systems that may or may not exist in the real world. When physicists discover things from math, it’s because they picked a mathematical system (model), tested how closely it adheres to the real world system, and decided it was a good model. Sometimes they are right on the mark, and everything that’s true in the model is true in the real world. Sometimes they are wrong about the model, and at some point realize they need to pick a different one."
askscience,"This is something that has been discussed quite a lot. Some see it as miraculous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences


Some, like Quine, see math as being justified just that extent that it underpins physics.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25171232

In general though, ask yourself how you would describe the universe if not mathematically. Say you had some other system that conforms well to how reality works. Wouldn't that just be another way to do math?

Still another way to think about it is that we can only reason about the universe in ways that we can reason about the universe. If the universe required some descriptive method that is wholly inaccessible to the human mind, we wouldn't be able to describe it (not entirely impossible). We can describe math though, so if there are some parts of the universe that an be described by math, math seems to the reasonable tool we should use to describe it."
askscience,"> If math has no real tie to physical world, how is it that physicists discover things based on pure math, then end is proving it true with experimentation?

Saying it has no tie is not correct.  The more correct way to say it would be a 'loose tie'.  For instance, the Ideal Gas Law is PV=nRT.  But, gases aren't always ideal, so to speak.  But many times it's close enough."
askscience,"It does mean that there are or at least could be other ways to describe the universe. I mean, language has described the universe without formal maths for years, unless you are being as vague as all counting is maths, in which case then I would say that that has more to do with how our brains are hardwired.

Also, I don't understand what you mean with your 1+1=2. If you define what 1, 1, and 2 are, then it is by rote definition that 1+1=2. It is similar to the fact that ""All bachelors are unmarried"" is true. Sure, but it is a tautology, a bachelor is by definition an unmarried person. 2 is by definition the successor to 1, and +1 is by definition that act of applying the successor operation ones. I agree that the universe behaves consistently even outside of our observation, but as soon as you apply mathematical description to it, that is tantamount to acting as if it is observed."
askscience,"> surely the problem is finite rare minerals, expensive production and expensive maintenance of those solar panels.

1. Silicon solar panels contain no rare minerals.  Older thin-film cadmium telluride (flexible solar) panels relied on a heavy metal *and* a rare earth element; this type of panel is nearing obsolescence.  Silicon solar panels are 100% recyclable and more material goes into making the glass than the cells themselves.  The chemicals used in production are overwhelmingly mundane and are literally the most used chemicals in the world.  Things like sulfuric/hydrochloric/phosphoric acids, lye, etc.  Literally *everything* involved one of those at one point.

2. [Solar is the cheapest energy source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Levelized_cost_of_electricity_Germany_2018_ISE.png).

3. Solar panels need no maintenance.  You can wash them off every once in a while but other than that they run 30+ years without even being looked at, so I have no idea where you got the idea that maintenance is expensive.  The whole point of solar is that the ongoing costs like fuel or maintenance are so close to zero as to be ignored completely.
"
askscience,"Because part of the state of the particle is its spatial wavefunction.

Particles in quantum mechanics don't generally have well-defined position, so when we say that two particles are ""in the same position"", we mean that they have the same spatial wavefunction. Two identical fermions can only be in the same position if they have different spin projections, or another difference in some additional quantum number that they may have (isospin projection, color charge, etc.)."
askscience,"The Pauli principle only prevents identical fermions from occupying *exactly* the same state, but the antisymmetry of fermion states also creates an energy cost for them to occupy *similar* states. In this case, similar means that they have strongly overlapping wavefunction, or they’re “close together” (as well as all other quantum numbers being the same).

This is referred to as “degeneracy pressure”. It’s a quantum effect that is basically the resistance of identical fermions to occupying similar states. The PEP doesn’t fundamentally prevent them from occupying similar states, only the *exact* same state. But it costs energy to increase the “similarity” of their states."
askscience,"One thing I always wondered is how does Pauli's exclusion principle apply to composite vs atomic particles.

Take Helium-4. As a whole, it's a boson. But bosons can occupy the same quantum state. Doesn't that imply that one could compress an arbitrary amount of Helium-4 matter to the diameter of a single proton or neutron?  Clearly that's not the case. So does Helium-4 behave as a boson at certain distances between protons, but as they get closer together, they start behaving like fermions due to the individual prons and neutrons being fermions?"
askscience,"> Doesn't that imply that one could compress an arbitrary amount of Helium-4 matter to the diameter of a single proton or neutron?

This is called a Bose-Einstein Condensate. They exist. 

> Clearly that's not the case.

You probably think this because you believe the 'diameter' you alluded to to be a fixed quantity. However, in the process of making BECs the 'diameter' (extent of the spacial wavefunction of the atom) of the atoms increase and overlap. 

All in all, remember the uncertainty principle. The more you try and trap an atom by reducing its speed to zero, the larger its 'diameter' becomes. "
askscience,"You would be right in free space. But if an electron is confined to a star, it's wave function is bounded, and this boundary creates a discrete spectrum of possible states, that are occupied from the lowest energy up.

The conductive electrons in a metal behave like this, too. They are not confined at any one place, but are smeared out over the whole metal. This is described by their electronic band structure:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic\_band\_structure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_band_structure)"
askscience,"This is the right answer, and it's a great example of the concept of how different physics can emerge at different energy or length scales. If one works purely in the high-energy particle physics regime, one gets QCD physics (quarks which are fermions), while if one works in the classical regime one gets a classical Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution (distinguishable bosons). But for low temperatures at normal pressures, you get Bose-Einstein physics (*indistinguishable* bosons!).

The energy-dependence of physics is a very important concept which has not been properly stressed to the general public imo."
askscience,"One thing that's been getting me, that I can't seem to find a reason for, is how the nuclear shell model is rationalized in addition to Pauli Exclusion.

The justification being that we observe nuclei with a number of protons or neutrons in a similar ""magic number"" pattern as electrons. From there, you make the assumption that protons and neutrons each have their own orbitals based off of the same spherical harmonics equations that led you to electron orbitals, populate them, and lo and behold, you have some way to predict stable nuclei based on proton/neutron configuration.

What I don't get is how there wouldn't be any proton or neutron orbitals that are shared by the same two nucleons (in terms of quantum numbers) using this model. Especially for the low-energy orbitals where the difference in energy between any two orbitals is at the highest.

Edit: Magic numbers"
askscience,"The nuclear magic numbers are not the same as the atomic magic numbers, because there are some key differences between the nuclear mean field and the atomic mean field, including the opposite sign of the spin-orbit interaction.

But anyway, I’m not exactly sure what you mean about protons and neutrons sharing orbitals. The set of proton and neuron orbitals are approximately copies of each other, except for small differences due to the fact that protons have electric charge.

A proton and a neutron can occupy the same state, because they are not identical to each other."
askscience,">But anyway, I’m not exactly sure what you mean about protons and neutrons sharing orbitals.

Sorry if I wasn't clear there. I mean that, in the absense of Pauli Exclusion, why wouldn't we see multiple protons sharing the same proton orbital, or multiple neutrons sharing the same neutron orbital?

Also, is there still an exchange interaction that goes on with protons or neutrons that are in these orbitals, similar to the one in electrons that gives rise to Pauli Excvlusion?"
askscience,"Good catch, there are different limits here, as you might have assumed from reading my comment. If one increases the energy/temperature while keeping things dilute (the spacing between individual helium-4 atoms is large compared to hc/kT) then you get classical physics, or as I said, distinguishable bosons. In contrast, if you ramp up the temperature while keeping the spacing between the bosons close to or under hc/kT, which is what occurs in the LHC for small amounts of time, one gets QCD physics instead. 

(For reference: k=Boltzmann's constant, c=speed of light, h=Planck's constant, T = temperature)"
askscience,"I think the best way to answer your question is to take a simpler system that exhibits the same phenomenon of an ""emergent boson"". The simplest case is two fermions that form a dimer.  So you can ask 

""How does the fermi-statistics of individual atoms affect the behaviour of a dimers at low energies""  
(This is basically the BEC-BCS crossover) 

I cannot find a nice discussion of this, unfortunately. I think given a week and some napkins to write on I could sketch something out for you, but it would probably be a bit too mathy for r/askscience. 

Does anybody have a nice succinct explanation? "
askscience,"> How can a combination of fermions turn into a boson?

It doesn't literally become a boson. When you have an even number of Fermions and they bind together into some bound state, then there will be some size (and corresponding energy scale) that characterizes, on average, how close to each other those fermions are in this bound state. So, this lets you identify 2 regimes within the physics of how these bound fermions interact with other objects.

The 'low energy' regime is characterized by interacting with objects that are much larger than the average distance between your bound fermions. These larger objects will not have enough energy (per particle) to separate out the individual fermions from one another (to convert length scales to energy scales, think large debroglie wavelength (per particle) -> small average momentum (per particle) -> small average energy (per particle)). They will only be able to excite the *collective* modes of the bound fermions. That is, this larger object can affect basically all of the fermions at the same time, but it can't affect just one of them and leave the others alone. The physics of that will be *effectively* bosonic because the fermions, when considered as a single collection, have integer spin. 

However, as you increase the energy of the object that you're interacting with, the dominant length scale of the interacting object decreases such that it becomes small enough to interact with just 1 fermion in the bound collection (or just 3 fermions, whatever) and not all of them at the same time. Now, you can resolve the underlying fermionic structure of the bound state, and the physics at that high energy scale will obey fermi statistics.

As I've portrayed it (and in reality), the crossover is entirely continuous. There is no magic energy at which the system switches from acting like a boson to acting like a fermion. It's just that at very low energies you can describe the system as effectively behaving like a boson, and that description breaks down more and more as the energy scale increases."
askscience,"neutron stars occur when the gravitational pressure is so great that it causes the electrons to collapse into the protons, creating a neutron in its place. Without the outwards pressure from the Pauli exclusion principle of the electrons, the star can become much more dense than normal matter. However the size of the neutron stars is still limited by the Pauli's exclusion principle for the neutrons. 

As for a black hole, we don't really know what is going on. This is where the whole question of making quantum mechanics mesh with general relativity comes up. "
askscience,"For stars, only two-body orbits are stable. Small objects can work in a three-body system (e.g. the Trojan and Greek asteroids), but stars are too massive for that to work.

However, you can *nest* two-body orbits to get more stars in a system. If you have two stars orbiting around each other, then the third star could be so far away from the system that those two stars effectively feel like one body, and you get a stable orbit. Alternately, the third star could be so close to one of the stars that they feel like one gravitating body to the other star. You can keep on going like that to add more and more stars to the system. Similarly, planets will have stable orbits if they are either so close to one star that they can stick to the star and follow it around, or so far from the whole star system that it all just feels like a single big messy star that they can orbit around.

[Nu Scorpii](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nu_Scorpii) is a *septuple* star system. It consists of a 3-star system and a 4-star system orbiting around each other. The 3-star system consists of a 2-star binary and third star. The 4-star system consists of a 3-star system orbiting with a fourth star, and that 3-star system consists of a binary star and a third star. So that's the sort of hierarchy you have with multiple star systems."
askscience,"from u/ctothel :

>The two groups are 150 times further apart than the sun to Pluto

You'd get minimal heat radiation from the far group.  As longs as you got appropriate solar energy to be a habitable system from the near group you'd be fine.  they'd need to be tightly enough grouped that the orbit treated them as one gravity well to inhabit with a stable orbital path.  I don't think they'd likely be uniform visibly though."
askscience,"> Nu Scorpii is a septuple star system.

1 of only 2 known. The other being AR Cassiopeiae; which is a bit more complicated than Nu Scorpii with 3 main sets instead of 2; consisting of a triple system (AB) with two binaries orbiting each other in a matter of days and a third star orbiting once every half millenia; then there's two stars (C & D) that orbit each other every few millenia, and orbit AB like every half a million years. And two other stars (F & G) that orbit AB ever 400,000 years or so."
askscience,The minimum stable orbit radius for a small circumbinary (orbits a binary pair) object is about 6x the orbit radius of the binary it orbits. I'm not sure how it changes for large objects but I expect it is fairly similar or a little higher. So assume that each heirarchical layer has to be 10x bigger than the one below. That ratio is small enough to fit 4 stars inside the orbit of Mercury with a total mass the same as the Sun without destabilizing Mercury's orbit
askscience,"It could get quite interesting. To be stable, your planet's orbit needs to be dominated by one star or one group of stars. *But* the brightness of a star is extremely sensitive to its mass - if a star is twice as massive, it's a *lot* more than twice as bright. So even if your orbit may be pretty straightforward, a massive distant star can create a lot of light and make an interesting day/night pattern. "
askscience,"This is explaining how your body is able to cool even if the temperature is higher than your body temperature. However OP was asking why we feel colder specifically when it's windy.

Gases are very bad at conducting heat, because of their low density - air molecules interact at a low rate and because of that, temperature spreads (or dissipates) more slowly compared to solids or liquids. Your body on the other hand will very quickly heat the layer of air directly covering your skin. Without wind you are basically sitting in your own bubble of warmth. When that layer of air gets constantly replaced by wind, a steeper temperature gradient is maintained.

With warm wind, a related effect gets important: when sweating, the air layer around your skin is quickly saturated with water, thus exchanging that layer helps your sweating. Similar to how it is harder to sweat in a tropical climate with high humidity which will generally feel worse than dry heat."
askscience,"It's more the movement of air over your skin making it easier for the sweat to evaporate.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor_pressure

If you look at the red dots, you can sort of think of the phase change as diffusion, except there's an equilibrium where there's a lot less water in the gas phase than the liquid. If there's a breeze, you get a local drop in vapor pressure (less dots in the gas phase) so more water needs to enter the gas phase to restore equilibrium. The phase change still requires energy, though, and it takes that energy from your skin. "
askscience,"Yeah, water transfers heat something like 20x more efficiently than air.

But even without water, the effect is still noticeable with enough wind, as long as it's cooler than your body. I have a motorcycle, and without a windproof jacket, anything below 75F (24C) is uncomfortable.

Conversely, when it's more than 95 or so out (35C), it doesn't matter how fast you go. At 100+mph, it's still like riding in a furnace."
askscience,"To add to this, air is a pretty good insulator. That's why double pane windows work to keep cold from seeping in through glass windows (or actually the heat inside escaping). There is a layer of air between the glass working to insulate your house.

And so your body warms up the air around you, and it can't get far. But then the wind blows it away and there is new air to warm up. "
askscience,"if you want the science words to google:

* forced convection (what it's called when you're cooling/heating something with a moving fluid, especially look at what a *heat transfer coefficent (HTC)* is)
* hydraulic/thermal boundary layer (BL) (the region in which the heat transfer effect occurs. The *Dittus-Boetler* correlation is a famous correlation between BLs and HTCs)
* Laminar vs Turbulent BLs

If you _really_ want to learn more, any intro to/fundamentals of heat transfer textbook worth its salt will have at least a chapter on forced convection. You can usually find free PDFs of good textbooks around the interwebs if you know where to look."
askscience,"True, but that doesn't *seem* like it would be a huge contributor.  But apparently I'm a huge nerd, so....

I used the calculator [here (WARNING: Excel DL)](http://minerva.union.edu/hollochk/c_geochemistry/other_programs/black_body_radiation.xls) and plugged in 400 K, which is 127 degrees C.  VERY hot coffee.  It gives a total radiant power of 1450 Watts per square meter, which is actually a lot higher than I thought it would be.  I have a moderately big bottle of Gatorade on my desk and a tape measure in my pocket, and I ballparked the area at about .06 square meters (30 cm circumference, 20 cm height, I assume the slant of the bottle cancels out the bottom.  Talking about orders of magnitude anyway so....¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯).  .06\*1450 = 87, so we're looking at about 87 watts of heat put out by our lawsuit-worthy coffee.

Going further, my bottle says it holds 946 mL, which I'mma call 1L.  Specific heat of water is about 4 J/mL/deg, so to drop 1 degree, we gotta drop 4000 J.  Let's say we're only radiating at 80W; that would mean that it only takes 50 seconds to radiate away 1 degree!  That's a LOT faster than I would have thought, a whopping 72 degrees in an hour!

Now obviously there's a lot of napkins involved here; it's hard to even know what the biggest handwave is.  The inner chamber surface area could probably be off from what I calculated; who has a 1L thermos, anyway?  I didn't even look at radiant heat from the environment, which will be considerable, given that room temperature is 3/4 our coffee's temperature.  And of course as it cools, the rate of radiation falls.  Well, one of these can be handled easily; 300 K in the spreadsheet gives 459 W/m^(2), meaning that we should just go ahead and use 1000 W/m^2 in the calculations above.  A drop of 1/3 in radiation translates to a 1/3 drop in the temperature loss, so we're down to 48 degrees per hour.  Still a lot, but not quite as insane.

So yeah, I guess the moral of the story is that if you try to keep something piping hot for much longer than it takes to drink, you're gonna have a bad time."
askscience,"These heat transfer comment chains always go this way. 

Let’s take a double metal walled coffee cup that has styrofoam between the walls. That’s going to be pretty good insulation. And your coffee is going to stay pretty warm. 

An improvement is just an air gap. Why?  Because you are eliminating conductive heat transfer through the styrofoam. With an air gap you have only convective heat transfer and radiation. 

Now, Argon is better than air, because it’s less dense (making convection harder). And a vacuum is better than Argon. Because no gas at all means no convection. 

EDIT: The two paragraphs above aren’t quite right. Convection IS the word that describes transfer from a solid to a fluid.  But it has been correctly pointed out that in still fluids and small gaps, they behave like conductors.  So in the two walled coffee cup example, we are governed mostly by conduction. The gist of the points still stand: styrofoam worse than air which is worse than Argon, however. 

But here’s the thing - the jump from styrofoam to an air gap is a BIG improvement. The change to Argon or a vacuum is only a slight improvement over still air. If you put coffee in any of these three (still air, Argon, or vacuum) it’s going to be hours before your coffee is cool enough to drink. AND Argon and vacuum are both extra manufacturing steps. So you pay more for these but don’t GET much in return. 

And of course someone says radiation. While technically correct, the mass and temperature of your morning joe isn’t so much that you should worry, or even mention, radiation at all. You’re morning joe isn’t close to the temperature of the sun, folks. 

So while Reddit has this love affair with technically correct is the best kind of correct, it can also be misleading when SCALE is ignored. 

Rant over. Go find a cheap, double metal walled coffee tumbler and don’t worry about Argon and vacuums. That’s marketing. (I’m looking at you, Yeti and Starbucks). "
askscience,"Well remember, I'm actually also being a bit facetious; 127C is literally above boiling, and by a significant amount, in the realm of refreshing drinks, so yes, the radiation and so cooling rate will be much higher than you might expect for typical real world.  A more reasonable 350K = 77C gives a net heat radiation of only 400 W/m^2, which translates to 20 degrees per hour.  The big thing that's being glossed over at this point is the exponential slowing of cooling rate, which would take a little more than just algebra to deal with."
askscience,"It will not. It certainly always happens, to be sure.  I don’t want to give the impression it doesn’t. But the amount of heat lost due to radiation is a drop in the bucket compared to conduction (coffee to container to table it is sitting on) and convection (coffee to container to the air around it). 

Things are also misnamed. Your car has a “radiator” that cools your engine. But it’s not giving up heat (much) via radiation. It’s giving up heat through convection (a gas or liquid being the transfer component). When your car is sitting still, it is free convection. This means the gas or liquid is doing what it wants. When your car is moving or the radiator fan is running, it is forced convection. 

Now - let’s really blow your mind.....  you’re about to eat a most awesome grilled cheese sandwich with a bowl of tomato soup.  Your soups too hot, but if you don’t eat it soon, you’re cheese will get cold. Should you stir your soup?

The answer is maybe.  See, stirring the soup will add kinetic energy to the soup. Which should heat it. But .... stirring it will ALSO aid the convection to the air from the surface of the soup being exchanged by stirring.  Your bringing hotter soup to the top, and that temperature difference also plays into how much heat transfers. 

So .... slowly stirring your soup will add kinetic energy, raising the temperature BUT will aid convection at the surface, lowering the temperature. And the heat loss via the stirring through convection will exceed the heat gain by the kinetic energy of stirring. 

Now, if you observe this and decide your REALLY hungry and want your soup RIGHT NOW and your really want your soup cold and you realize stirring it cools it off, you may decide to go all in and stir with an outboard motor. You may find that you make your soup HOTTER. Because the kinetic energy of stirring via outboard exceeds the heat lost due to convection. 

Heat transfer class makes a lot of mechanical engineers rethink their career choice.  It’s not the easiest subject. :-)"
askscience,"I apologize, I’m not near my heat transfer book where I can look up the actual coefficients. But I googled a few sites. The problem is the convective coefficient depends on a few things such as pressure of gas, any flow, and even the actual temperature difference. So it’s not one number, but a range. 

Given this, I’m going to simplify ....
If we call the heat lost through a pane of glass 100%, then the heat lost through a double pane window with air is roughly 2.5% of glass alone. And were we to use Argon it would be 1.3%

Argon is clearly better. Half that of air. But, if I put all three next to each other and had you feel them, you’d probably say plain glass was bad and could not tell the difference between Argon and air. 

Again, my heat transfer background isn’t in gases, it’s been a while. But I do know a good bit about manufacturing. I could see (given Argon and air being so close) a window maker TELLING you it was Argon when it was just air. How would you even check?  Both would feel MUCH better than what you are used to. 

But ... your air window would get that internal condensate (I have observed this myself in Windows). 

The thing I’m curious about - I could be an above board window maker and put Argon in there.  How would I KEEP it in there?  It’s a glass window with a plastic frame which is going to have different expansion rates (glass to plastic) with just day/night temperature changes. That’s seems like a hell of a seal to maintain ....

We need us a dude in the trade. You all have exhausted my knowledge on the topic at this point .... ;-)"
askscience,"No, you should run with that. In addition to forced (aided by a fan, say) and free (just sitting there doing what it do) there is open (like a bowl or a river) and closed (like a pipe, or the AC in your home) systems. 

So we have now introduced you to four combinations. 

You take your plane turbine in closed pipe system and you could just pump your soup into your stomach.  At that point, I’m not so sure the temperature would matter.  It would get by your mouth so fast it wouldn’t burn it. (You can quickly tap a hot iron to see if it is on without getting burned).

We’d need a biologist in here now to comment if we would “feel” boiling tomato soup in our stomachs. Not sure if there are nerve endings in there. 

Or, you could try it. :-) And report back. 

"
askscience,"The coffee cup itself is also radiating heat, which is absorbed by the coffee (and the other parts of the cup). And not all the heat lost via radiation from either is truly ""lost"" unless the container is 100% transparent to infrared as the heat radiates off in the infrared spectrum. So it's not as simple as ""this is how much is lost per unit time"" even assuming a linear rate of cooling. All the factors I've mentioned would slow the rate of energy loss from the coffee, so it'll be quite a bit slower than 20K/hour from just radiation."
askscience,"And another thought. ...

If you lose the seal on an Argon window, I can see it exchanging with regular atmospheric air. Especially if the window was at a lower pressure.  Which would pull in whatever the current humidity was and condense on the inside. 

But what if you used dry air?  (You’d dry it at the factory with a dryer). If that seal broke, would it exchange like Argon?  Seeing as how air is air ... that may fair better long term than Argon. 

Again, I don’t know gases at all. We need a dude/dudette in the trade who knows the warranty data. "
askscience,"Small but important note: Heat isn't energy. Heat and work make up the total change in energy of a system in contact with another. This can be seen in the basic formulation of the first law of thermodynamics,

    ΔE = q + w       

which states that the change of energy in a system is the sum of the energies transferred through heating and work. (What's implied there is that the energy of a closed system is always conserved, which is the big takeaway from the first law).  The delta in front of the E term (delta meaning the change in something) implies that energy is changing due to q (heat) and w (work). You cannot define a change without like terms (i.e. final - initial values of the same variable) OR something that is itself defined as the change in something (which both heat and work are). The fact that heat does not require initial and final values to denote a change should tell you that heat is not an energy.

So, to wrap up, the kinetic energy of the photon (which is just energy in a specific context, there is only energy, no different forms apart from human distinction) is absorbed by an atom/molecule and that atom/molecule then begins to move (vibrate). Those vibrations are what we feel as warmth. It is incorrect to say the kinetic energy is converted to heat, but it's correct to say that the energy from the sun is transferred to the object via heating, which in turn raises the object's kinetic energy, causing it to increase in temperature."
askscience,"Many insulated glass units (IGUs) have a material called desiccant within the void space to absorb potential moisture, regardless of which gas is used as filler. For brand new windows this is mostly a non-issue, but as windows age and the seals start failing, water vapour inevitably enters this space and the desiccant mitigates the vapour from condensing on either of the glass panes, effectively extending the service life. Ideally there would be a vacuum in that void space, but unfortunately the pressure difference would likely cause one of the glass panes to crack/break."
askscience,"True. Our common sense is also skewed by the fact that we’re typically walking around in environments that are colder than us (unless it’s >98° F). As warm blooded mammals, we need to dissipate excess heat to a heat sink. My understanding is that moving that fluid (air or water) will increase the heat exchange rate (ignoring evaporative cooling effects), trying to bring our bodies and the environment into equilibrium. This is good in sub-body temp environments, but is very problematic as soon as temps approach 100° F.  It basically pivots from walking around in a nice cool heat sink to us becoming the heat sink in a convection oven. 

[edit: a word]"
askscience,"Good info. My question still stands - how long does the Argon last?  I’d imagine pretty long. I can’t keep track of all the responses - but the Reddit Borg Collective intelligence is now certain that with any leak, it will eventually get replaced with air. That should depend on the size of the leak. 

Somewhere else, someone pointed out that they include desiccant to help with the moisture. 

Given all of this, while vacuum would be better than Argon, I don’t think I’d want vacuum long term. If that seal deteriorated, it would actively suck in air that could be moist. 

I’d be curious as to the finished cost of Argon vs dry air.  I think the insulation difference would be negligible. "
askscience,An important reason that many other replies have missed is that moving air has lower pressure than still air. With low air pressure it is easier for liquid to evaporate. it is the same reason why water boils at a lower temperature at high altitudes. There is less air pressure on the surface of the water therefore it takes less energy to transform it from liquid to gas. After that transformation the energy is removed from the surface of the body and you feel a decrease in temperature
askscience,"You're almost always sweating, even if it's not literal drops of water coming out of your skin, small secretions are always happening for something known as homeostasis, where the body keeps internal temperature (among other factors) inside a very narrow range. So the body is always actively cooling the body if the external temperature is more than the body temperature (sweating etc), and if it gets too cool, it slightly warms it, which overshoots the temperature (delay is response to stop warming) and it cools it again in the cyclical pattern around the mean temperature which is characteristic of these homeostatic mechanisms in our body. Of course this is what I know, and my knowledge is limited."
askscience,"I’d also argue it’s kind of similar to the fact that if you’re cooling your home with air conditioning during the summer and you open the door on a hot day, you’re letting hot air in, not cold air out. On the other hand, if you’re heating your home in the winter and you open the door, you’re letting the hot air out and not the cold air in. The same goes for your body. The laws of thermodynamics. 

Edit: Also want to add that in terms of the human body, this feeling of change in temperature is just your body’s method of working to maintain homeostasis. Or in other words, it’s thermoregulation. Our bodies and the cells in it are constantly working to adapt to our external environment."
askscience,"Radiation r/vandweller sub guy chiming in here. 

Question about radiant barriers such as reflectix.  

They all state that an air gap must be present, but how small can that air gap be?  Reflectix states that it has to be a 1/4"" gap.

Why 1/4""?  Does it have to do with anything related to the IR spectrum and the wavelength that IR energy is transmitted at, or is it a 'round number' that people can understand and adhere to?"
askscience,"Woah, hey, misinformation... You still get conduction through fluids like air. Convection only occurs if the fluid is moving, which is a possibility for the thermos because of buoyancy, but not a given. In fact, for tall and narrow enclosures, the heat transfer rate with natural convection is considered to be very well approximated by conduction. (Bejan, *Convection Heat Transfer*)

Now, looking at conduction only: If the entrapped air is at, say, 25degC, the thermal conductivity is roughly 0.026 W/m.K, vs. polystyrene (styrofoam), which is 0.033 W/m.K. So moving to just air from styrofoam is a 20% decrease in thermal conductivity (which is linear with heat transfer rate).
"
askscience,"Humidity is directly related to temperature, so unless there is an odd temperature drop during the day, you are correct.  Humidity starts high in the morning and drops as the day warms up.  As the day cools, humidity will rise again.  This is also why you get dew on the grass only in the evening/night.  The surface of the grass has to cool down to the ""dew point"" which is essentially the temperature where humidity reaches 100%.  The dew point, or vapor pressure, does not change as temperature rises, but it will decrease when temperature falls below dew point--because water is now condensing out of the air."
askscience,"From my recollection of building Science courses, the third pane actually provides fairly negligible increase in insulating performance, especially when considering the added cost. It would be far more efficient to provide a second low-E coating on the second pane of a double pane window. Triple panes are more beneficial for noise reduction in particular, and I feel like I remember it being something to do with stronger pane in large windows"
askscience,"Yes, though it is more useful to think about a minimum mass rather than a minimum radius. ""Brown dwarfs"" are the intermediate between large gas giants and the smallest red dwarf stars. There is some fuzziness about where the boundaries lie, but ~80 Jupiter masses marks the point where hydrogen fusion occurs in the core.

Brown dwarfs (and some gas giants) are able to sustain lithium fusion for a bit but the available lithium runs out real quick so it isn't a long-term power source."
askscience,"The brown dwarfs form the same way stars do: a cloud of gas collapsing due to gravity. The gas comes from the original Big Bang or from previous generations of stars that blew off some/all of their mass. The majority of the original Big Bang gas was just hydrogen and helium with smaller amounts of some of the heavier elements including lithium. Some of that primordial lithium has stuck around.

While the lithium is burning, the brown dwarf has an extra source of internal energy supporting it against gravity, so its going to be a little hotter and maybe larger in size. Fuel runs out, stuff cools down and maybe contracts."
askscience,"Thank you! I've always wondered about the opposite end of the star size chart! I appreciate the response.

The scale is always tricky when it comes to visualizing (much less fathoming!) the sizes and masses of things like stars, especially from a teeny tiny human perspective.

So, if I may (for example), offer a ""primer/starter scale"" —something I can (more or less) wrap my brain around:  If  ≈1M Earths (my turn to fuzz!) could fit inside our local star (Sol). How many Jupiters would fit in our local star?

These might help me better comprehend the scale of ""~80 Jupiter masses"" as the [admittedly, fuzzy] size of a red dwarf.

Thank you!"
askscience,"Lithium is generated via fusion, so that's how it gets there. The difference between these stars and others is the pressure/energy(?) In the brown dwarfs are not great enough to fuse to higher elements. 

When the energy of lithium fusion runs out it will probably look something like a white dwarf.

I don't really know this too well, but I also think that the time for the brown dwarf to run out of fuel would be ridiculously long, even compared to normal stars, because Fusion run slower the smaller the star."
askscience,"Just to expand on this answer, its the water availability, rather than the total water content that is important. Water with a high salt or sugar content has a lower water availability, and is harder for cells to grow in. Its not that different to how we can't survive from drinking salt water. This is why, for example, pickles in brine will last longer than a cucumber sitting in a jar, despite the higher water content in the former. Its also why jams last much longer than the fruit they are made from, because the sugar concentration is much higher."
askscience,"A little late to chime in here, but I agree with u/antiquemule in that salt does not lower the evaporation temperature of water (addition of a solute to a pure solvent raises the boiling point, known as a ""boiling point elevation"").

In terms of evaporation, this could also be described by considering the vapor pressure of the solvent, and the effect of adding salt to pure water would also be the same as above--salt in your water leads to a lower vapor pressure, i.e. fewer water molecules are coming out of solution and entering the gas phase (link with a cute little animation to describe this: [https://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/solutions/colligv.html](https://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/solutions/colligv.html)).

But, I think u/MarvAlice had a valid point about the salt helping the water to evaporate. The mechanism might be more related to changing the osmotic balance of the system and drawing water out of the meat/fruit. Bringing this water to the surface of the food, outside of the intact cells, would help the water inside the food evaporate faster. So, both parties are making good points. :)"
askscience,So it's thought it came from the same area that Ebola came from in Kenya although they are not really sure. As humans continue to expand and occupy new territory which was formerly jungle and wilderness we put ourselves at risk for contact with animals that may carry new diseases.  Add globalization and a new virus in the jungles of Africa continent could easily spread worldwide very quickly.  I just read a book called The Hot Zone by Richard Preston.  In it he follows the beginnings of Marburgs virus and Ebola as well as touching on HIV aids.  It's thought that human contact of blood form an infected animal. Possibly monkey.  FYI. That book is horrifying.  Makes you realize how fragile we are and how close we are to another global epidemic.  
askscience,Expanding human population into an area where no humans lived before.  Ebola and Marburgs and HIV /AIDs have similiar traits. So it's probably that they all came from a parent strain and that evolved to different virus through mutations.  Remember that the virus is a living organism and it wants to survive. It can only do that through a host.  As its primary host starts to have a lower population it's looking for a new host with a greater population (as animals get crowded out and their population shrinks human populations are expanding) making humans a perfect home for the virus to live in. Hence they mutate to find new hosts.  It's only a matter of time before one of these mutates into something easily transmittable and knocks out half the human population. Scary thought yet probable.  
askscience,"Thats kind of a complicated question. SIV is many different strains of a virus type that actually infect like 40 or 50 known simian species. There is actually some evidence that cross over events to humans has happened multiple times in history, with only the two that we know as HIV 1 and 2 causing the current epidemic. From what i understand there are similar (and possibly related?) immunodeficiency viruses in other mammals. "
askscience,"Most diseases are more easily transferred between similar species (ignoring oddballs like leprosy), and Africa is home to chimps and binobos, which are the primates most closely related to humans.  Throw in gorillas and the rest of the primates in tropical Africa, and that's a lot of possible diseases to catch. 

Also, proximity to the other species and ease of transmitting the disease to other populations are also important components.  The combination of bushmeat being a thing in Africa at the same time that a person can get to pretty much any part of the world in a day or two increases the chance of a disease catching on.  For all we know, the Han did come across a disease like ebola or HIV and it wiped everyone out before it could spread very far.   "
askscience,"You might want to actually read the article before making an outlandish claim. From the BBC article itself: 

>""Public health campaigns to treat people for various infectious diseases with injections seem a plausible route [for spreading the virus].

It would have to be something with a very high risk factor, like sharing needles, to cause a large scale outbreak. That chances of men contracting it from women are so infinitesimally small, that this route of transmission would be virtually impossible to cause an initial outbreak.  

"
askscience,"Goddamn dude, I studied Viral Pathology in college. Maybe you should actually try reading some of the aforementioned books and maybe actually read the articles yourself.

"" AIDS spread quickly, as carriers of the disease travelled along its length on board cars and trucks, from populated areas to more isolated rural areas. Prostitutes at truck stops helped spread the disease even faster, and it is also referred to as the 'AIDS Highway'""

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinshasa_Highway
"
askscience,"Sex is not the only thing common to an area where prostitution is high. Drug use is extremely prevalent, as well. Linking the spread to prostitute activity doesn't necessarily link sex as the greatest spreader of the virus in that particular scenario. One could speculate that males passed it to the women prostitutes more readily through sex and they in turn spread it through the sharing of infected needles. There could be other factors at work. Correlations do not always give clear causation. "
askscience,"Where did I say that ""sex"" was the causative factor? I made a simple statement of fact. The origins of the original HIV pandemic have been traced to the Kinshasa Highway region of the Congo. An area rife with prostitution which helped fuel it's spread.

It seems like there's some kind of strange mental gymnastics going on in the thread where some people are bending over backwards to deny that female heterosexuals are incapable of transmitting HIV to hetero male partners. IS this some kind of weird red pill thing on Reddit? "
askscience,"It does require a preferred frame, which means there is only one foliation into spacelike hypersurfaces over which the particle trajectories are actually classically deterministic (which is the essential promise of the interpretation).  Working in other frames, the Bohmian trajectories zig and zag in random, unpredictable ways.  In particular, this can be understood via working out the pilot wave trajectories in EPR experiments.  If one could observe these trajectories, one could use these random zigs to figure out (by process of elimination) which frame was preferred.  But it is also a requirement of the interpretation that one can't ever access these trajectories at the level of granularity required to achieve this.  So strictly speaking it is not consistent with SR, but the problem can be kept under the rug for practical purposes. Whether this is philosophically acceptable is up to you. And pilot wave adherents tend to be willing to abandon exact Lorentz symmetry as a guiding principle.

But preferred frame aside, remember that the pilot wave interpretation is also presented in terms of fundamental particle-like entities, while the union of quantum mechanics and special relativity produces quantum field theory, where particles are not really fundamental in this sense. To the extent particles exist at all in QFT, they instead are more like structured patterns in the fields.  There is no broadly accepted or worked out pilot wave interpretation of quantum fields, and the idea is not particularly promising.  The basic problem is that in QFT there is no analogue of QM's position operator. In QM, particle position can make sense as the defining hidden variable in all cases.  In QFT, there is nothing that can perform this role.  

Additionally, there is no known way to do particle creation and annihilation in a classically deterministic way, even in a pilot wave interpretation. So when we demand this other important feature of QFT, the whole endeavor to save classical determinism fails anyway."
askscience,"> If one could observe these trajectories, one could use these random zigs to figure out (by process of elimination) which frame was preferred. But it is also a requirement of the interpretation that one can't ever access these trajectories at the level of granularity required to achieve this. 

Thanks! That is very informative. How does pilot wave theory require that we cannot detect the zigs and zags with enough precision to find the preferred frame?"
askscience,"If you have absolute Newtonian time anyway, absolute simultaneity is ok.  The issue here is really with violations of relativity of simultaneity, with how nonlocal HVs bring back a secret sort of absolute simultaneity in SR.  With access to the HVs of spacelike EPR pairs, you can figure out *the* hypersurface foliation, the unique definition of simultaneity in which the laws of physics are classically deterministic.

But maybe you're thinking of an application of Galilean relativity outside the Newtonian context which I'm not considering?"
askscience,"I think what I'm asking is just whether the laws of physics in a pilot-wave formulation of a QM system depend on the frame of reference even if you have Newtonian time. Are these ""random zigs"" only necessary to mesh with the relativity of simultaneity in a Lorentz-invariant theory, or are they present to introduce a preferred frame even if you're just working with a Galilei-invariant Hamiltonian with definite particle number?"
askscience,"The zigs are not due to Lorentzian relativity, they are due to how we try to preserve classical determinism in light of entanglement and Bell's theorem.  So I would say the zigs still occur in Newtownian spacetime, but they don't represent problems there, due to the preexisting absolute simultaneity.

But let me flesh out the argument in more detail and you can decide for yourself.

Consider the Bell state |UD> + |DU> where we are being good Bohmians and only thinking about position observables, so U (D) = **exits** the upper (lower) port of the SG device.  Remember our goal is *classical determinism* for the HVs.  So knowing the state of our HVs at t1 must be sufficient to predict the HVs at t2.  This means a real Bohmian Bell state looks like

|xUyD> + |xDyU> where x and y represent the pre-existing HVs (u or d) for each particle.  Essentially u (d) = **enters** the upper (lower) port of the SG because in BM, this is how spin measurements are actually cashed out.

If we have the state |uUdD> + |dDuU> there is no issue, and everything is classically deterministic in all frames.  u always determines U, d always determines D.  But Bell's theorem requires that we cannot always have it like this, or else we would have a local HV theory.  Sometimes, the preselected state has to be, eg:

 |uUuD> + |uDuU>

In this case, if we can ""see"" the HVs, we see one particle go through the SG normally, but the other one gets kicked off its trajectory so it exits the unexpected side.  Again, remember we are after classical determinism, so we have to decide once and for all which particle gets kicked.  The solution is to say the first one we measure goes through normally, the second gets kicked.  This is a nonlocal deterministic solution, but also an absolute order of spacelike events.  Whenever we would locally ""see"" a kick, we would know that this measurement happened absolutely after the partner's measurement.  Alternatively, we need to pre-declare a preferred foliation to simulate deterministic Bohmian time evolution of EPR pairs.

In a Newtonian spacetime though, I think this is fine because there is already supposed to be absolute time, so we just use that foliation.  I believe this only jeopardizes our expectations of Lorentzian spacetime."
askscience,"Yes, where did all the antimatter go? It's a good question and the answer is both disappointing and interesting: We don't know. In (astro)physics, this question is referred to as the ""Baryon Asymmetry Problem"" because of the apparent asymmetry between baryonic matter (everyday matter composed of quarks) and antibaryonic matter (antimatter composed of anti-quarks).

It's natural to assume that matter and antimatter would be created in equal amounts in the big bang. Yet all we see around is regular matter. One of the possible explanations for this is that matter and antimatter don't behave exactly the same way. That is, that the symmetry between matter and antimatter is broken. Physicists refer to this symmetry as charge/parity-symmetry (CP), which expresses that the laws of physics are the same when you replace a particle with its antiparticle and flip the spatial coordinates.

We know from experiments that CP-symmetry is violated in some cases. The rules apply slightly differently for matter than for antimatter in those cases. However, these CP violations are relatively small and the ones discovered thus far are insufficient to properly explain the matter/antimatter asymmetry. It is, however, the most promising research direction as particle physicists search for more interactions that violate CP-symmetry.

An alternative explanation could be that there are regions in the universe that are antimatter dominated in the same way that our neighborhood is matter dominated. From a long distance, matter and antimatter appear the same, so it would be hard to directly detect large concentrations of antimatter. However, if there are antimatter dominated regions, then there are also border areas where the transition from matter to antimatter takes place. These areas should have a mixture of both and therefore should see plenty of annihilation effects. Matter/antimatter-annihilation produces light that we would be able to detect. Despite searches, no regions have been found that look like these border areas, so if they exist, they most likely only exist outside the observable universe.

"
askscience,"Yes, it's possible. Extraordinarily unlikely to happen, but possible. The problem is that the probability we happened to end up in one of those by chance pockets is so, so incredibly tiny that physicists really don't like it as an explanation. It would be sort of like flipping a coin a million times\* and getting heads every single time. Sure, it *can*, technically, happen, but after the first hundred thousand heads you'd probably start wondering if maybe the coin isn't fair, or maybe it's a double-headed coin, or something besides attributing it to pure chance. "
askscience,"I guess I'm not imagining it as a small unlikely pocket, but rather enormous bubbles (Trillions?) of lightyears across so that most observable universe-sized volumes are contained within a homogenous form of matter, and it's actually an unlikely possibility to be near one of the boundaries.  I'm picturing something like the next scale up from a galaxy filament; incomprehensibly enormous structures of either matter or anti-matter. Pure speculation and I don't know how we could ever test such a hypothesis, but if the universe is truly infinite and flat, it would seem a potential explanation."
askscience,"> However, if there are antimatter dominated regions, then there are also border areas where the transition from matter to antimatter takes place. These areas should have a mixture of both and therefore should see plenty of annihilation effects. Matter/antimatter-annihilation produces light that we would be able to detect. Despite searches, no regions have been found that look like these border areas, so if they exist, they most likely only exist outside the observable universe.

This is an interesting idea but I have to wonder, is this really a necessary result of there being pockets of both? As I understand it, just from this solar system to the next is light years. So if we then imagine from this galaxy to the next, or from this supercluster to the next etc could it not be simply possible that the distances are great enough that this can't be noticed? Doesn't empty space in our solar system have an extremely low amount of matter in it, like a few hydrogen atoms per square meter or something? Is there even less outside of the solar system? Would that even be enough to notice the transitional zones really far out? 

Also from what I understand, collisions of larger objects isn't something that is happening very quickly, most objects that were going to collide quickly already have by this point right? Clearly the earth and sun are not colliding anytime soon, and we have no reason to think anything else is colliding with us soon. Nothing substantial in mass anyway. So for these even larger systems, collisions are probably even more rare perhaps? Right? Or wrong? 

I think it important to consider that maybe the universe is infinite in size as well. There seems to be no reason to think it couldn't be. That's an interesting idea because if the universe is infinitely large, we could expect that everything that can possibly happen by it's laws not only has already happened, but will happen again, an infinite number of times. Such is the nature of infinity. 

Even if the ""big bang"" theory is correct, it could just be that this ""primordial singularity"" or whatever it's called was only one such event among many others separated by distance, more than there are atoms in our observable universe. Or even if there was only one, it could have happened in a cyclic fashion an infinite number of times before. 

One other weird thought, if matter can become energy from the two colliding, matter and antimatter, is there some way energy can turn back into matter?"
askscience,"> This is an interesting idea but I have to wonder, is this really a necessary result of there being pockets of both? As I understand it, just from this solar system to the next is light years. So if we then imagine from this galaxy to the next, or from this supercluster to the next etc could it not be simply possible that the distances are great enough that this can't be noticed? Doesn't empty space in our solar system have an extremely low amount of matter in it, like a few hydrogen atoms per square meter or something? Is there even less outside of the solar system? Would that even be enough to notice the transitional zones really far out? 

While interstellar (and intergalactic) space has extremely low particle densities, they are not zero and these areas of space are extremely large. The sheer size of these regions compensates for their low density to the point where if there was some matter/antimatter border region, we'd still expect to see some kind of signal caused by annihilation events.

> I think it important to consider that maybe the universe is infinite in size as well.

There is no indication that it is.

> One other weird thought, if matter can become energy from the two colliding, matter and antimatter, is there some way energy can turn back into matter?

Sure. This is done all the time in particle accelerators, like the LHC at CERN. Particles are accelerated to very high energies and then made to collide. This produces a whole slew of new particles, with a combined mass that can easily exceed the masses of the two source particles. For example, the Higgs boson has a mass of 125 GeV/c^2 and is created in the collision between two protons, each having a mass of less than 1 GeV/c^(2)."
askscience,">I guess I'm not imagining it as a small unlikely pocket, but rather enormous bubbles (Trillions?) of lightyears across so that most observable universe-sized volumes are contained within a homogenous form of matter, and it's actually an unlikely possibility to be near one of the boundaries.  I'm picturing something like the next scale up from a galaxy filament; incomprehensibly enormous structures of either matter or anti-matter. Pure speculation and I don't know how we could ever test such a hypothesis, but if the universe is truly infinite and flat, it would seem a potential explanation.

By definition we have zero information about the region outside the observable universe, so we could never test hypotheses about stuff outside it. Now, at the moment it is expanding so we could get additional information over time, but the observable universe will also eventually start contracting.
"
askscience,"That still has the same problem (actually it's even worse): how do those bubbles form? Forming by chance is even more staggeringly unlikely than our universe alone forming out of just matter. Basically, the larger the volume of matter-only space you need, the less likely it is to happen by chance. Physicists could maybe accept it if those early fluctuations had formed matter/anti-matter pockets the size of galaxies today. But it isn't: it's at least the size of the entire visible universe. And since the formation of matter/anti-matter in the early universe happened well after inflation or anything else that could turn tiny pockets of homogeneity into large ones, "
askscience,"No, because there's energy being added with every piece that falls over. Putting a domino piece upright increases its potential energy compared to it laying flat on the ground. When a piece is tipped over, that potential energy is converted into kinetic energy by the force of gravity. If the pieces are correctly positioned, the falling piece should gain enough kinetic energy to tip over the next piece, which in turn will also have its potential energy converted into kinetic energy.

So in theory, a well constructed domino line should be able to go on indefinitely."
askscience,"Um, yeah, in the whole system, I agree the energy has to go somewhere, but I mean looking per domino in a hypothetical infinite, straight, domino chain.  Yes, in a finite domino chain the last piece shoots forward and undergoes much more friction than the rest of the pieces (or like in a curve as we see in this video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9tOF1J6sFc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9tOF1J6sFc)) but not per piece in the straightaway sections.

​

Edit: I keep thinking about this, and now I'm not so sure.  My line of thinking is thus: if the energy isn't being dissipated at a constant rate (through mostly heat, like you say) than would the propagation speed increase?  Now I wish I had a set of dominoes to test if the last one shoots out further as the line gets longer! :-)"
askscience,">The clearest statement is that there is no dynamics associated with such a state

The classical analog of an s-orbital isn't just a particle sitting still, if that's what you're getting at. Its orbital angular momentum is zero, but its kinetic energy (taking the quantum expectation value) is not. You can imagine a classical object moving in and out radially through r = 0. It's still moving (and hence, ""dynamics""), but it has no orbital angular momentum."
askscience,"Okay, this really is splitting hairs. There is no orbit you can draw that is isotropic when time averaged and yet lacks angular momentum. With wave phenomena one can ascribe the ""kinetic energy"" term to an energy penalty for being sharply located (i.e. having a non-zero square of gradient is a no-no). That's not the same as dynamics, there's not a meaningful time dependence to, for example, the radius of an s-orbital. It's not like a experiment can exist that will catch an ""orbiting"" electron at an in-opportune point in its ""orbit""."
askscience,">Okay, this really is splitting hairs.

There aren't really any hairs to split. You made a completely vague statement. What does ""dynamics"" mean to you?

>That's not the same as dynamics, there's not a meaningful time dependence to, for example, the radius of an s-orbital.

If ""dynamics"" means ""nontrivial time evolution"", then that's true of any stationary state. Why did you single out s-orbitals?

>It's not like a experiment can exist that will catch an ""orbiting"" electron at an in-opportune point in its ""orbit"".

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Scattering experiments can indeed probe the distributions of the electrons in position and momentum space. You can easily calculate the momentum-space wavefunctions of electrons in bound orbitals of arbitrary L, and you will find that they are indeed ""moving"" even for L = 0."
askscience,"Agreed but then there's a very real point that a more classically friendly object can acquire a very real angular momentum from scattering off an electron in an orbital where L isn't 0. Take for example a photon where there's a real association with angular momentum and classical polarization. 

Take for another example something like Spin-Transfer Torque(STT) it's pretty impossible to deny that one can associate a very real angular momentum in a case like that."
askscience,"Sure. Can we agree on the statements: 1) every stationary quantum state has time dynamics, 2) generally that time dynamics vanishes when brought to measurement and thus is largely academic, 3) historically, order-of-magnitude estimates for these states were made under an assumption of meaningful classical arguments of an orbiting object, 4) those classical arguments have proven themselves to be wrong, 5) despite those arguments being wrong, there ARE time dynamics (see 1), 6) but those time dynamics can't be meaningfully attached to the classical ideas that spawned 3)"
askscience,"If I'm understanding your question correctly, it's because when you bring two orbitals on separate atoms close together, they mix because the symmetry of the total system is no longer that of a single atom.  Every orbital (in molecular orbital theory, at least) will have a symmetry that depends on the symmetry of the molecule as a whole.

That's a consequence of the symmetry requirements of the overall wavefunction, where  **𝚿** (a,b) = -  **𝚿** (b,a)."
askscience,"No. Valence-bond theory is a working approximation that can predict some but not all molecular geometries but not a whole lot else (e.g. MO explains aromaticity, conjugated bond systems, inorganic complexes with > 8 valence electrons, boron allotropes, kinetic effects of substitution in SN2 reactions). But the theory itself is wrong or incomplete: covalent bonds do not form discretely between overlapping atomic orbitals with nonbonding electrons smushing them off to one side. In most polyatomic molecules, the bonding orbitals span across the entire molecule, and the symmetry of the molecule’s geometry determines the types of bonding that can occur between atomic orbitals.  

Valence bond theory is to MO theory what Newtonian physics is to relativity: accurate and useful within certain limits, but fundamentally untrue. 

But yes, the orbitals supply the probability of finding an electron in a location. If psi is the wavefunction, then | psi^2 (x,t)| is the probability that the electron exists at x at time t. That’s from the postulates of quantum mechanics, though, not valence bond theory or MO theory. "
askscience,"Hey, what an extensive response. First, let me thank you for the time it must have taken to write that masterpiece. Here's my riposte.

I didn't understand the question the OP was asking, and I was hoping that my stab in the dark would bring some clarity to that question. As for your rejection and your assertion that VESPR has nothing to do with the answer to the question, I suppose you would know the correct response to this query better than I would. Naturally, I agree that the theory is incomplete, as all theories are incomplete; some theories are more useful than others, but a scientific philosopher rejects all theories.

I'm glad you brought up Newtonian physics, since I believe Newtonian mechanics are fundamentally true, especially within the limits where that theory may be applied. What's interesting is that, for example with electron flows, the same principles apply as apply with, say, the flow of water through a pipe. And the way we understand the one invisible system is by comparing it to something we can observe and measure and with which we are familiar. Wave physics is similar in this regard, transverse waves like the ocean and, oh what's the other one called, like sound waves?

Edit: They are called longitudinal waves.  


@Moira  
Perhaps you are correct. I compared the quantic behavior of electrons to a probability field. Probability is something I know about from statistics, while I learned about fields when studying electromagnetism."
askscience,"This is an overlapping subject, whose contents might be taught in either a quantum mechanics course in a physics department or in a physical chemistry course (I think) in a chemistry department. The basic notion of the mixing of energy levels due to interactions is very fundamental in quantum physics, and needs to be understood by any physicist or chemist who works with quantum systems.

The properties of the electronic configurations in molecules is more in the realm of chemistry departments/journals than physics, but there's no hard line. I had a quantum professor in my undergrad physics department whose PhD was in chemistry, and we covered a lot more properties of molecules than any course I TAed for in grad school."
askscience,"It doesn't even have to hit us.  It can just wander in the general neighborhood of the Sun and disrupt our orbit so we get ejected from the solar system.  Not even within the solar system, depending on the mass. Then we freeze to death as the Sun gets farther and farther away.  Life is truly tenuous. Solar and wind is great but to be free of the Sun we'd need fusion and on a huge scale.  Even then we'd be limited to small, livable areas and wildlife preserves."
askscience,"> there is a chance a whole STAR hits our planet?

Well yes, duh! There's an estimated 100-400 billion stars in the Milky Way. All whizzing around just looking for a planet to slam into. Heck, as lunchlady55 says, they don't even have to hit us directly to cause an extinction-level-event. 

However, stars have a couple of qualities that do allow us to conclude that there is no imminent danger from being unduly affected by the passage of a nearby star:

1. They're really, really, far away. 4 light years away at the closest and that one isn't even headed directly for us.

2. They're very bright, so they can't sneak up us. It also makes keeping track of them fairly easy.

Thus, through diligent research over several centuries our courageous astronomers have determined that no star will come closer than ~3 light-years for the next 100,000 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Near-stars-past-future-en.svg

After that all bets are off."
askscience,"I'm just calling attention to that fact that it could disrupt the solar system with out entering it.  That paper also describes the perturbation of TNOs, not planets, so I'm not sure what the exact parameters would need to be to disrupt the inner solar system.  The positions of the planets are chaotic and can't be predicted on long time scales (millions of years.) It's even [possible that Mercury could be ejected even without external disruption on a long timescale.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability_of_the_Solar_System#Mercury%E2%80%93Jupiter_1:1_perihelion-precession_resonance).  A slight nudge from a passing star could have catastrophic effects."
askscience,">  The positions of the planets are chaotic and can't be predicted on long time scales (millions of years.)

Technically correct, but the main effect is an unknown location within the orbit. In other words, it is hard to predict how many times Earth will orbit the Sun in a given time, but it is easy to predict Earth will roughly keep the same distance to the Sun (slightly receding in a predictable way as the Sun loses mass)."
askscience,"It depends on the location. Here on Earth, if the rest of the Milky Way and its satellite galaxies vanished we'd just have the Moon, the naked-eye planets, and two faint fuzzy bits of light (M31 Andromeda and M33 Triangulum) readily visible to the naked eye, with a few more visible to someone with really good night vision.

Pick a rogue star in a random spot in the universe and I'd expect something similar. In a rich galaxy cluster you might see dozens of fuzzies, whereas in much of the universe you wouldn't even see anything outside your solar system.

If a rogue star is near a large galaxy (say if it's been ejected from said galaxy) then said galaxy would look much like the Milky Way or Magellanic Clouds, just a different shape."
askscience,"That's the limit for oxygen, but that doesn't need a space suit to be corrected: a simple oxygen mask will suffice. For mountaineering, it's considered particularly daring to go up an 8000er without any bottled oxygen. If you have a plentiful supply of oxygen, the bigger issue to face will either be the cold - which depends fully on how well wrapped up you are- or the pressure. At this point the question becomes: what altitude can you survive at without a [pressure suit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_suit)? That article is a decent read to get a general idea: it suggests the [""Armstrong Limit""](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armstrong_limit) (19000m) as the hard limit for survival without a pressure suit, even with supplemental oxygen. This point is where water will boil at just 37C (human body temperature)."
askscience,"Hmmm. I'm not sure I buy into this entirely. When you say ""space suit"" I assume you mean full-body pressure suit, which maintains a minimum amount of atmospheric pressure on your entire body all the time. You can avoid altitude sickness without a pressure suit at altitudes far in excess of 26k, you just need a pressure breathing apparatus. This would be a fitted face mask that allows breathing of pure oxygen under pressure. Here's some info about [aviation oxygen systems](https://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/pilotsafetybrochures/media/Oxygen_Equipment.pdf). This FAA pamphlet says a pressure demand regulator allows flight above 40k ft.

You can, in fact, avoid death even at zero pressure for quite some time if you have pressurized breathing apparatus. Human skin is gas tight, but [requires the mechanical compression afforded by a full-body pressure suit to prevent swelling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_suit).

USAF pilots do not wear pressure suits unless they fly above 60k feet. "
askscience,"Slight correction. Among many of the experienced in the community not using oxygen isn't seen as daring, it's seen as sensible. If you can't make it up without oxygen, you shouldn't be going up. If you go up relying on oxygen and you run out, which does happen, you will die. Unfortunately it's lead to a black market of oxygen on Everest, where people will essentially sell life to a dying person for whatever they feel they can get."
askscience,"Sort of both.

If you go up without, your body adapts a bit if done right, but also if you do reach a point you can't deal with, it's more gradual and you simply drop back down to where you were last ok.

Go up with oxygen and you're on it all the time. Peoples bodies rely on it, you even sleep on it past a certain height, and if you're beyond a point where your body could naturally cope when you run out, you're too far out of your safety zone to make it back down before bits start failing and you die.

If I ever have a crack at Everest I'm not going near the stuff."
askscience,"Time is not some weird abstract thing, time is how long a process takes (e.g. ticks of a clock). You measure how long something takes by starting to count clock ticks at the start of a process and you stop counting at the end of the process.

Time dilations means that the time it takes for any process (including clock ticks) to occur in one system changes when measured with a clock in a different reference system. Discussing whether this means that all processes run slower or whether time runs slower is purely tautological."
askscience,"We define time. Therefore one second is always one second no matter where you are in the universe. Any effect of gravity, is in the instrument used to detect as well as our perception of that instrument. Time does not actually slow because we define time. 

For instance, if we lived elsewhere in the universe what we would define as one second may differ, but that will always be one second in ""that time."""
askscience,"We don't only ever measure one process. And furthermore, the effects of time dilation were mathematically predicted before being confirmed experimentally, based on the fact that the speed of light is constant in all reference frames. If you're going 50% the speed of light, and you observe a photon to be moving away from you at the same speed that someone standing still sees it, the only way for that to happen is if you are experiencing time slower."
askscience,"That's not how things work. One second at 50% the speed of light has been *mathematically proven* to be longer than one second standing still. If you're going 50% the speed of light, and you observe a photon to be moving away from you at the same speed that someone standing still sees it, the only way for that to happen is if you are experiencing time slower. And since the speed of light is constant in all reference frames, that's exactly what happens."
askscience,This is still just perception of time. I'm not saying you are incorrect. I'm saying you are misrepresenting the concept of time. Relativity is real. We can assume with little doubt that Einstein's theory is accurate. What you can't change is what is defined as one second. That would be the same as saying one meter is actually 1.2 meters in space. It's not and that doesn't make any sense to say it is. 
askscience,"I'm familiar with length contraction and my claim would be it's the exact same argument. We can perceive measurable differences in time, weight, length, it anything else we are choosing to measure with. Whatever the case though, the perceived difference in measurement is a result of outside influences and not a change in the ""object"" we are measuring itself. So, with length contraction specifically the measured object returns to it's normal ""state"" in each environment it is tested in. So again, it's not that the definition of 1 meter changes a high speeds, it's that our perception of that definition changes. Essentially to provide a most accurate comparable measurement, we would need to refine what a meter is in various environments. If we took that step, the measurement of the object would come back the same as the original control measurement. Therefore, if we did see an measurable change in length we could assume it is due to a physical force of some sort. 

To your first point, I do see a difference in your two points, but again only in measurement. If we maintain a certain frame of reference for everything we perceive, and then we experience a new frame of reference where literally everything takes longer then it absolutely does feel like time has slowed down. It ""feeling that way"" is just our perception. You said it yourself. Everything just takes longer. 

I'm typing on mobile so apologies for formatting and grammer issues. "
askscience,The decay process isn't slowed - it occurs at exactly the same rate in its own frame of reference. It's only when observing it from a different frame of reference that it appears slow. This is what relativity is - there is no absolute time reference. You can't say that your time reference is the correct one and someone else is on the 'wrong' time. From their perspective the reverse is true. You both have your own time (and length scale) and you can use special or general relativity to transform measurements from one to the other.
askscience,"Reading this comment, it seems to me that you believe that the laws of relativity can be used to model our observations, but reject the common explanation that time moves at different rates at different reference frames. Is that correct? Would you say that there exists a singular ""true"" reference frame? Or rather do you believe that the truth is only expressed in a reference frame in which it is local, and all observations in nonlocal reference frames are distorted, and GR models that distortion? Please let me know."
askscience,"I guess the latter would be closest to my thoughts on it. To put my argument in its simplest form, I mainly believe that there tends to be a generalized misrepresentation of the concept. It comes down to saying 1.0 seconds is 1.2 seconds or 1.0 seconds feels like 1.2 seconds. Personally I equate it to framerate. 30 vs 60 offers a very different experience for the same 1 second representation of time. 

I feel like this comes to a head with the twin theory. I view time in this theory as a ""cellular second"" or the rate at which our ""cells"" decay and ultimately kill us. If we accept two twins are going to live exactly 1 million cellular seconds, then those two twins will die at the exact same ""time"" relative to when they begin no matter where they are in the universe. However in relation to reach other the experience could feel very different. Thoughts?

I haven't quite figured out my thoughts with the twin theory perfectly. I'm certainly open to criticism if I've missed something. "
askscience,"I see. Your problem is one of the language used to describe the physics, not so much the physical laws themselves. As with much of modern physics, there exists a certain dogmatic interpretation which is propagated amongst science enthusiasts and even some scientists that are less conformable with nuances in interpretations. These individuals often confuse doubt in interpretations with doubt in the laws themselves, and often react with vitriol more appropriate for Flat Earthers than people confused about relativistic interpretations. When people believe these things dogmatically instead of with nuance, it is easy to fall into trouble. Think of all those people that claim centrifugal force doesn't exist, when it clearly appears in derivations in rotating reference frames. Their zealotry can actually impede them from accepting that both descriptions are equivalent.

Personally, I'm less certain about how to interpret the twin paradox. To model the acceleration requires GR, which I'm less familiar with. I know that the experiment has been conducted multiple times with atomic clocks, but there are a number of atomic phenomena (i.e. tunneling, entanglement, etc) that do not exist on the macroscale. I would be interested to know if the experiment has ever been conducted with bacteria. I think that would put my mind at ease about the twin paradox once and for all."
askscience,"Say you have 2 clocks, one orbiting the earth and one on the surface.  The  one on the surface will experience more gravity and because electrons have mass the orbit of the electrons in the atomic clock  will be slightly displaced by the gravity as compared to the one experiencing less gravity  in orbit.  Is this effect completely swamped by the more powerful nuclear force acting on the electrons so that it is impossible to measure or is it accounted for?"
askscience,"Yes the binding forces inside atoms overwhelmingly swamp out gravitational effects. A common comparison is done for the attraction between an electron and a proton. Doing it quickly at ~1 femtometer, I get the electrostatic attraction at ≈3×10^(4) N and the gravitational attraction at ≈1×10^(-37) N. So gravity is around a factor of ≈3×10^(-42) weaker than electrostatic attraction. Even considering entire Earth's gravitational attraction, the ratio of that to the electrostatic attraction is ≈3×10^(-34). This is why gravity is so negligible at small scales.

We can also see that the properties of atoms in higher gravity environments - like the Sun - behave in exactly the same way as they do here on Earth.

With regards to Special Relativity, you can detect time dilation occurring in [Cosmic Muons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_testing_of_time_dilation#Atmospheric_tests), which are fundamental particles as far as we can tell.

For General Relativity, we see other predicted effects like frame-dragging (see [Gravity Probe B](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B#Experimental_setup)).

Edit: Just to clarify; atoms do behave differently under differing gravitational fields. This effect, [gravitational redshift](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift#Experimental_verification) is one of the tests of General Relativity. However, if you subtract this effect you see the same behaviour as in a lab."
askscience,"This depends very much on the orbit's characteristics, i.e. how high it is.  In low earth orbit, at about the altitude that the International Space Station orbits (~400km), gravity is still ~90% of that experienced on the surface.  But an object in a geostationary orbit (~36,000km) experiences less than 3% of the gravitational acceleration it would on the surface.  Both are equally in orbit and ""endlessly free falling"", though frankly the ""endlessly"" bit is pretty suspect for objects in LEO.  The decay rates are just too high."
askscience,"All of this is false. The satellite in orbit will have the faster clock.

The satellite’s clock is slowed relative to us as a result of special relativity (it is traveling quickly relative to us).

Our own clocks are slowed relative to the satellite’s clocks as a result of being deeper in the gravity well of Earth (general relativity). 

In this case, the effect of the gravity well contributes more than the effect of the satellite’s orbital velocity (about ~6X more), so the satellite’s clock is faster than ours. Not slower."
askscience,"Depends on the orbit.  Low orbit objects are moving very fast, and really aren't all that high up in the scheme of things, only about 250 miles, so the effect from the speed wins out.  So on the ISS, clocks run about 0.0000000014% slow.  In higher orbit, the orbital velocity is low, and the satellites are much higher up, so the effect from gravity wins out.  The GPS satellites for instance about .000000044% fast.   Which is why I specified low orbit. "
askscience,"Lightning bolts don't ""go"" anywhere, they're just the visible glow of ionized air. Lightning happens when the electric potential difference between clouds and the ground is too high and the air can no longer sustain it. The air breaks down, forming an ionized channel (the lightning bolt) that allows current to flow until the two regions are at the same potential. Afterwards, there is no potential difference and therefore no discharge. The air that made up the lightning bolt is just normal, non-ionized air again and some electrons have been transferred to the ground."
askscience,"Well, the electrical charge disperses from the point it ""hits the ground"" and since the ground would considered to be at 0 volts and the bolt at tens of million volts, it will depending on the resistance of the earth, take some distance before the voltage reaches zero.

If you stand close to the ""hitting point"", the potential between your feet can reach to high values and a current will flow up one of your legs and down the other. So even if the bolt doesn't hit you, you can get electrocuted this way.

This is the reason to why some advice says to run away from dangerous spots with only one feet on the ground at the same time.  "
askscience,"It does. His answer is highly misleading because it focuses on the luminous affect you see (the lightning) not the collection and flow of electrons that occurs to balance the potential difference which causes the lightning bolt.  
For starters, the electrons flow up from the ground to the sky.  
  
Once the voltage potential is high enough it starts to ""break down"" air by ionizing it. This ionization causes the air to glow purple because that's the color ionized (atmospheric) nitrogen is. (One of the running jokes in the energy-systems group is ""If you see purple, hit the deck."") In weather parlance these purple, ionized bits of air are called *feelers* and they will seek from the clouds down and from the ground up. When two feelers touch you complete a circuit and a massive flow of electrons shoots through the ionized air, which is a conductive plasma, and that causes the highly luminescent lightning bolt. This whole process takes a few microseconds.  
  
The same thing happens, on a much smaller scale, when a capacitor fails (and sometimes explodes.)"
askscience,"Think of it as a giant capacitor, so clouds are charged and so is the ground, but the charge is opposite. Now this means that charges particles want to travel to the other side (so electrons are negative so they want to go to the positive charged zone). Now they can't because of the air between them acts like a wall. So the charges build up.     

Now every medium has different resistance to a charge flowing through it. So when the charge exceeds the limit it goes through it anyways, and all at once. Imagine it is like a balloon holding the air back until there is too much. This is what you call lightning. So all that's happening is the charge hits the ground and then spreads through and disperses. "
askscience,"It’s not so much that the person is more conductive than the ground, what he’s referring to is what’s called a “voltage gradient”. Think of the strike point as the bullseye on a target. Let’s say at that point there is 1 million volts if potential, and radiating out from that point, there are rings of decreasing potential say 800k, 600k, etc. this is caused by differences in soil composition and other factors. So if you had one foot in an 800k gradient, and one foot in a 600k, boom you now have 200,000 volts of potential between your feet, and you’re going to have a bad time."
askscience,"The flow of electrons is from the ground up.  
[Because of a quirk in how electricity works/was-discovered we measure it ""backwards"" so the current flows down from the sky to the ground.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_current#Conventions) This is because we discovered ""electron holes"" before we discovered electrons.  
  
*Feelers* are extended from both the clouds down and the ground up and once two of them touch it completes a circuit and that causes the lightning bolt."
askscience,"It does disperse through the ground. Say you were to meter from the center of the bolt to 1' away and it read 100v (just a number, not scientific), when you would meter between 1' and 2' away out would be 50v (again, nowhere close to realistic numbers). When we're digging out primary feeds, which are usually 13,200v, it's extremely dangerous to stand near it incase you break into a wire. 



Another coolish thing: say your standing close to a machine that hits a 13kv line. If your feet are equidistant from the wire, you'll be fine (usually) because there's no differential between your feet and no potential for the electric to flow through. If you're standing with one foot closer however, your closer foot is going to have a greater potential than your back foot and you become a short in the circuit. "
askscience,"The lightning bolt is the ‘dispersal’. The opposite charges attract each other and electrons gather, usually at a high conductive point on the ground (lightning rod) or the low point of a cloud.  The bolt reduces the total electrical potential.  If you feel your hair standing on end from electric charge and you are near a storm, get down and away if you can.  After the bolt your hair would return to normal if you are still alive. "
askscience,"Objects rubbing together can generate an electric charge.  This means that some objects end up with more electrons than other objects.

If you have a thick rug or carpet, you can drag your feet around on the carpet for a few minutes to build up static charge on yourself, then touch a conductor (door knob, etc) to equalize the charges.  There's a little zap that happens.

When a lot of objects start to rub together, you can get bigger zaps.  Clouds are the same as us, rubbing our feet on the carpet.  Eventually they have so much charge built up that the ground (the doorknob) can exchange this extra charge with the clouds.

For this to happen, there has to be a path through the air for the extra charge to flow.  Normally the molecules in air aren't very good at this, but with enough charge build up, they'll form a path and the lightning will strike along that route.  Big zap
"
askscience,"No the other way around. Electrons flow up from the ground to the cloud to rebalance the electric potential.  
The feelers are the result of the electric potential overcoming the *dielectric strength* (insulation) of the air and ionizing it (turns it into a conductive plasma) and they reach in both directions. Once two of them touch it completes the circuit and the bolt of electron flows up. Note that is backwards from how current is defined because we discovered electron-holes before we discovered electrons."
askscience,"Clouds actually shed electrons as they move and rub across the atmosphere. This makes them become more and more positively charged. Every material has a *dielectric strength* which is a measure of how insulating it is. Once the cloud sheds enough electrons to overcome the dielectric strength of air it starts to ionize the air, which makes it glow bluish-purple because ionized oxygen glows blue and nitrogen glows purple. This is when the feelers happen and they both reach up from the ground and down from the sky. When two of the feelers touch it completes a circuit and a massive bolt of electrons flows up from the ground to the sky."
askscience,"Most is cloud-to-cloud.  
To answer GtC vs. CtG you have to be a lot more specific in your terms and definitions.  
The electrons flow from ground to cloud. Current is defined ""backwards"" so this means the current flow is from cloud to ground.  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_current#Conventions  
  
I'm do not have sufficient knowledgeable of atmospheric science to say the electrons never flow from the cloud to the ground but I don't see how that could ever naturally occur. It might happen if, say, you detonate a nuclear bomb in the air (as an EMP pulse generator). A lot of people seem to confuse the reaching out of the feelers from both sides to means the current flows both ways (it doesn't.)  
  
If you stop and think about this for a moment you'll also realize that it cannot possibly be the flow of electrons that causes ionization because there's almost no flow during the feeler stage. It must be the exchange of photons that causes ionization and to really blow your mind it's not even real photons it's so-called virtual photons. (Which frankly is more demonstrative of our primitive understanding of physics than anything else, maybe quantum-gravity and E8 will help us understand what is happening here better in the future.)"
askscience,"Somewhat, yes.

Air normally tries to stop the current from flowing, but when electricity has enough energy, it 'zaps' the atoms in the air and uses the zapped atoms (which are no longer 'entirely air') to make the wire.

Imagine that you have a water system with a paper plate stuck in the middle of a pipe. If you have enough pressure in the pipe, the water will tear a hole *through* the plate and keep going to where it wants to be."
askscience,"If it were a perfect system then theoretically yes, but the rings are not perfect circles, and you would most likely have zero time to react. If you actually survive/are un-injured by the initial strike, then you likely were already standing within a single gradient. This knowledge is mostly useful in knowing that you should hop away from the site on one foot. This also applies to downed power lines or other large sources of unchecked electrical power."
askscience,"The charge (electrons) physically move from clouds to ground (or vice versa). The Earth is one huge conductor, which is why it's used as ground potential so often, eg. the neutral wires in your house are literally connected to a huge stake in the ground outside your house.

Voltage [is just a difference in charge potential](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage), so it doesn't ""go"" anywhere, it just equalizes once the charges move.

IIRC the clouds have so many electrons from [friction transfer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triboelectric_effect) with the wind, causing such a high (negative) potential."
askscience,"Yup, got bit by a brown recluse deep in the high desert of Texas. Had to cut necrotic flesh off my forehead using a Leatherman and signal mirror while walking the three days back to my car. Cool scar, great story and the thing just fades away. The scar on my leg I got tripping over a rock when I was eight? That one looks like it happened three weeks ago."
askscience,"I know it's a subjective kinda thing, but I classify a violent death as pretty much any death where your conscious the whole time, in agony with little ability to stop it, feeling every bit of pain whilst you die, and no way for you to come to terms with it before it actually ends.

Deaths where one second your there and the next your not, as I said while can be perceived as outwardly violent, eg dying from the blast of a nuclear explosion, isn't so much inwardly as you never experienced anything, just  one second your alive, the next your dead.

"
askscience,"Its not necessarily more conductive but just another path for current to take. People say current follows the path of least resistance but really current follows all paths its just that most of it follows the path of least resistance. Lightning bolts contain a tremendous amount of current, think thousands of amps, but even 0.1 amp will probably kill you.

The resistance of the body can be estimated as 500 per leg and 1000 for the torso. That's only 2000 ohms and you could easily have 2,000 volts potential difference between your feet, and I've heard estimates many times higher than that. From there use V=I*R and you easily get 1A of current and a trip to the morgue."
askscience,"But even with a voltage gradient across your feet, if there's less resistance within the ground, the current is going to go that way, right? The same way that there's a voltage gradient across a column of air during a lighting strike, but if there's a handy water-laden tree in the way, the charge is going to go through that's arboreal path of least resistance even though the voltage gradient still exists in the neighbouring air."
askscience,"I would argue that your definition of a violent death could be better described as the difference between a good (or easy) death (there one moment, gone the next) and a bad (or hard) death (alive and aware for _way_ too much of it).

You can have violent good deaths, and non-violent bad deaths.

But we would probably agree on what kinds of deaths we really, really don't want, even if we use different language. :)"
askscience,"Average temperature is correlated with latitude, but it is not directly controlled by it. See [this map](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Annual_Average_Temperature_Map.png) of average temperature across the globe.

How hot and cold air are able to move across land matters a lot. So things like plains and mountains change where the air can go. Ocean temperature also matters, and similar to the air, there are currents and parts of the ocean are warmer or colder because of those currents than you would expect just based on latitude alone. Here's [a map](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_surface_temperature#/media/File:SST_20131220_blended_Global.png) of that."
askscience,"The southern tip of Chile is ~6200 km south of the equator. The southernmost point of the Canada US border is ~4900 km north of the equator. The longest straight stretch of border in the west is ~5400 km north.

Buenos Aires and Edmonton are about 210 km apart for what it's worth

E: ugh, you said Argentina not Chile. I can't be bothered to figure out the comparison for Argentina. . "
askscience,"Yeap, generally due to their inexperience and therefore lack of fear of our species. They can be fairly easily deterred though (not speaking from experience I have to say). As far as I know (from nature articles and documentaries  etc) tigers are the biggest killers of humans, another animal that we're actively driving to extinction. Two huge predators, beautiful but deadly, that our activities are having a huge impact upon. I really wish humans would wise up and protect and actively preserve animals. Makes me sad

Also for bonus and less cuddly man eater check out [gustave the croc](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave_(crocodile))"
askscience,"Well, technically the biggest animal killers of humans are mosquitos, who may have killed half the humans ever born.  Tigers do reap a decent harvest to this day but so do hippos. 

Polar bears enjoy a fair amount of protection these days.  Have a friend who worked in northern alaska and he said that if you shoot a polar bear, you'd better have bite marks on your ass or you could be looking at prosecution.  This even though polar bears will pursue you actively, so it's on you to retreat to a vehicle or scare them off.  "
askscience,"The Antarctica current which encircles Antarctica ensures that no part of Antarctica is ever allowed relief from freezing, but it also kind of keeps the cold bottled up there. There's little circulation forcing the cold northward ever, it just spins around Antarctica (with the fastest ocean currents and wind speeds of any ocean, due to no land mass blocking it's path). Antarctica had forests before it split from south America and the unimpeded current was allowed to form. Now the only plants are a couple of small flowering plants in the Antarctic Peninsula. It is also speculated that the formation of the unimpeded current 20 million years ago is what triggered the current ice age."
askscience,"You should see a map of the amount of snowfall it takes to close schools on average. The Pacific Coast sticks out like a sore thumb, closing with much less snow than anywhere at that latitude on the continent. Not sure why this is. The California current is actually cold. The Alaska current is warm (it keeps anchorage livable), but I don't think it begins until nearly the Canadian American border."
askscience,"> https://slideplayer.com/slide/5286448/17/images/19/Global+Temperature+Ranges.jpg

Sorry Guys but all the temp maps I I have seen on this thread are so wrong about Europe...

It looks like temp in UK are thesame than South of France or Spain... Ain't possible...

Even between north of France and south of France the difference is massive. something like 10-15 degres difference. on all these maps, including top post, it seems the temp is quite the same or few degres."
askscience,">and being on the West coast they dont get the severe winters like out East.

I think that was the point. People don't guess Seattle because it's hard for people to associate Seattle with being very far North, since it's not known for getting much snow or very cold weather. So hearing that Seattle is the Northern-most MLB team can help serve as a teaching moment for people to disassociate latitude with temperature patterns."
askscience,"Thanks for pointing this out. For any non-Europeans reading this, Galicia is wetter, windier, often colder and even more miserable than Britain, which is really saying something. Speaking of, the climate in mainland Britain varies pretty wildly (compare the microclimate of Cornwall to say, Aberdeen) and it's a fraction of the size of the Iberian peninsula. Spain is nice (and actually I love the wind-whipped misery of Galicia) but anyone expecting a climate similar to Andalucia in Northern Spain is in for a big shock."
askscience,"I lived in Marbella, Anadlucia for a few years so it's synonymous with Spain for me. But yes the north of Spain (I've been there a few times) is absolutely beautiful. 

I also just said ""California"" - just like how you said Spain isn't just Andalucia, California isn't just LA. You have Northern California which is also extremely similar to Northern Spain in climate and terrain. I just didn't include that part to not make my comment longer than necessary. But yes, California overall is similar to Spain overall."
askscience,"Areas that are located very far from large bodies of water (like central Russia) generally see large swings in temperature over the seasons. The oceans act as a heat reservoir and help moderate the hot summer or cold winters, evening out seasonal temperature shifts.

This is similar to why deserts experience big temperature swings between day and night. No moisture in the air means that there is nothing to hold onto heat that was accumulating during the daytime."
askscience,"It annoys me that nobody has given you a decent answer yet, so I'm going to make that happen by offering some incorrect guesses.  That oughta flush our expert.

I think that Poland happens to lie just south of one of the larger unobstructed north-south air currents in Europe.  It originates in the Arctic, hops the small land bridge at the Swedish/Finnish border, gains strength as it blows south through the back-end of the frigid Baltic, and then disperses over Poland with virtually no vertical geography to stop or slow it down.

There, that's not the right answer, but it might buy us one a little later.  "
askscience,"It [doesn't look that asymmetric to me](http://folk.uio.no/sigurdkn/world_temperature_mirrored.png). The bulk of south america matches up pretty well with most of the USA and Canada when flipped around the equator. The very tip looks a bit warmer, but it's very thin and therefore very coastal, and if we compare it with the west coast of North America at that latitude we see similar temperatures, albeit not stretching as far from the coast there."
askscience,"“Skin contains the pigment melanin which is activated by exposure to light. The palms of your hands and the soles of your feet have much thicker layers of skin due to their regular contact and friction with other objects (the ground, tools, etc). Melanocytes exist in the dermal layers of your palms and soles, but are buried beneath the more callous layers and are rarely directed at the sun. You could in theory try to tan your hands but the results would be pretty minimal compared to the rest of your body.”

[sauce](http://health.answers.com/mobile/Q/Why_cant_you_get_a_tan_on_your_palms) "
askscience,"Friction is how we hold things. Our palms are actually designed to be higher friction than other parts of our skin -- that's the function of fingerprints.

Maybe you're thinking friction = rubbing? That's not actually what we mean -- friction is the property of something that prevents things from sliding past each other easily. When you rub two things together rapidly, heat is generated due to the energy used to overcome friction."
askscience,"How is this wrong? It's basic anatomy. The skin on your palms and soles of your feet is genetically/structurally different than on the rest of your body. It's literally just called thick skin vs thin skin. The thick skin has a much thicker layer of dead keratinocytes (stratum corneum) that covers up the stratum basale/spinosum where melanocytes that produce melanin and make skin dark exist.

The melanocytes produce melanin in RESPONSE to UV so, if UV can't reach them as much, then they'll produce less melanin. So the melanocytes would produce less melanin and also be covered in a thick layer of keratinocytes and keratin coated in lipids which typically look whiter."
askscience,"Melanocytes secrete the melanosomes to the keratinocytes which then carry it „up“ as they travel through the different layers of skin. 
That they are located at the bottom of the epidermis (stratum basale, just above the the dermins) is irrelevant to the color of the skin. 
Furthermore, the keratinocytes being exposed to sun is the actual stimulating factor for melanocytes to produce melanin. Again, it doesn‘t matter by how many cells they are covered as they don‘t need direct sun exposure to produce melanin. 
I sadly don‘t know the answer to OP‘s question, but yours is definitely not correct, or at least not the full story. "
askscience,"So is the extra dead skin with no melanin literally white? Translucent? 

If my palms have the same dead melaninless layer as someone who's black why is there no notable contrast between my palms and arms but there is on a black person?

I guess what I'm saying is, shouldn't my palms be even MORE white? I have so little melanin to start with that the skin on my palms should look nearly completely melaninless to the point where I should have palms that look made of paper or are just super see through?

In reality my palms are slightly darker and pinker than the rest of my arm."
askscience,"IIRC some neurohormone (melanocortin?) stimulates melanin production when it's being released, but only for dermal tissue that's growing right then. So any dermal tissue that grows entirely because of—or coincidentally during—melanocortin release, will end up dark.

It's why pregnant womens' areolae end up dark—the tissue grows and stretches, and melanocortin is active at the time, so the new skin is dark.

It's also why certain scar tissue or stretch marks can end up dark, if the scar's healing or the skin's stretching is occurring during melanocortin release.

Now, although we don't really fully understand human sexual-arousal neurology, we know that activation of some of melanocortin's receptors tends to make people (more) horny. There was a [drug made to exploit that effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremelanotide).

So *my guess* at an explanation here, is that skin that grows (or regrows due to use/abuse/scarring/stretching) entirely *while* you're sexually aroused... where that sexual arousal was being stimulated by melanocortin production... might end up growing in darker."
askscience,"I thnk this is incorrect. 

Melanocyte precursor cells are in the hair follicles. No hair, no melanocytes. We have no hair on our palms....ergo no melanocytes...ergo no pigment. In the rest of our skin they migrate from the hair follicles to the nearby skin after differentiation....also...in people whose hair has gone completely white, they are generating no new melanocytes, and they have an age-related version of vitiligo (pigment loss) in which the skin is pink and white in splotches. Look at some white-haired person's skin sometime..."
askscience,"""Very early in the process one of the scientists, Mac Hadley, who was conducting experiments on himself with an early tool compound, melanotan II, injected himself with twice the dose he intended and experienced an eight-hour erection, along with nausea and vomiting.""

It works!

Also, ""A New Drug Application of bremelanotide for female sexual dysfunction was accepted by the FDA in June 2018 with a PDUFA date set for March 23, 2019"", so that is still to come in the US, at least."
askscience,"The problem of telomeres shortened by aging or chronic inflammation (smoking, certain infectious diseases...) is that the shortening actually protects against cancer, since the highly mutated cells are unable to replicate. You could potentially activate telomerase (which increases telomere length) in aged people, potentially holding back aging worst traits but that comes at an increased risk of cancer. For that purpose CRISPR is not needed, there are better theorical tools for that (which don't work exactly well in humans for now) 

That said, CRISPR should be great to treat telomere diseases such as dyskeratosis, which are manifested early in life. 
"
askscience,"im not sure its the same as unused sperm. sperm will die because of lack of androgens (male sex hormone) while breast tissue will die due to a decrease in stimulating hormones (oxytocin). 

also, there is a thing called the ""blood testis barrier"" that stops communication between the body of the male and anything inside the reproductive track in the testis. that barrier is very strong. removal of dead sperm is much more difficult than removal of normal dead cells "
askscience,"The cells in the breast that produce milk are going to either commit suicide (this is called apoptosis and is completely normal) or the connections between those cells and neighboring cells are removed and the cells die of starvation. Other cells come in and destroy the junk that’s left behind and will get rid of most of the harmful stuff left behind. The clean up cells and the remaining cells will most likely take up and use the nutrients left behind. The destroyed cells are replaced with fat cells. 

Breast milk contains protein, fat, and carbs. ~~All of these things can be pushed into the blood stream and easily degraded by the liver or just released in the urine.~~ 

Edit: a lot of the time, any milk left over after weaning will leak out of the breast. unless the ducts in the breast that carry milk to the nipple are blocked, there will be discharge. release of milk is caused by a few mechanisms and it takes a while (up to months) to destroy the majority of milk producing cells. 

Edit 2: those clean up cells will do all the work (macrophages), VERY little of those proteins, fats, or carbs will enter the blood. "
askscience,"Technically, you can. The cells don't actually stop you, although they try to keep the company running as best as they could. Not sure if that's why you cry though. In fact when you are feeling suicidal, the body almost always come with a strong desire to reproduce, in an attempt to pass the genes down to the next person. 

Not all genes make it to the end, but there is some sort of common agreement where every gene is given a fair shot down the transport train. Unfortunately also, this desire to reproduce as you are suicidal comes off as desperate in modern context. There's a lot of things we misunderstand about the human body actually =)"
askscience,"Hormone changes in pregnancy specifically block the release of milk while at the same time increasing milk production. The interaction between all of these hormones are crazy. some hormones that have nothing to do with breast/milk development act to increase mammary development just because there is so much of them circulating in the blood stream. (these hormones do have a similar structure but do not assist in breast/milk development when hormones levels are ""normal""/non-pregnant)

technically, breast feeding can work as contraceptive. but a woman would need to breast feed about 10+ times per day for extended period of time each time. super hard to pull off"
askscience,"According to the MSDS of [HTH](http://fileserve.newporthigh.co.uk/Manuals/Volume%207%20of%208/Buckingham%20Pools/16.%20HtH%20Calcium%20Hypochlorite%20tablets.pdf), the source of chlorine for the disinfectant is calcium hypochlorite. It also contains some calcium hydroxide and calcium carbonate to keep the pH above 7 which prevents the creation and release of poisonous chlorine gas. I couldn't find any information on Clarity as a pool disinfectant. However, it is likely that the Clarity brand contained [Dichlor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichloroisocyanuric_acid) which is an acid based pool disinfectant (pKa = \~6 for the non-chlorinated isocyanuric acid - dicloroisocyanuric acid will definitely be much more acidic). Mixing the acid pool disinfectant with the calcium hypochlorite produced green chlorine gas, which you observed, and a lot of heat.

​

EDIT 1: Are you sure Clarity is specifically a pool disinfectant? I did some more digging and found a general peroxide disinfectant called [Clarity](http://www.peroxychem.com/chemistries/peracetic-acid/products/clarity). Peroxides also react with hypochlorites to generate heat but oxygen gas instead. This also removes the chlorine source giving dissolved chloride. I'm now unsure how the chlorine gas (which it what you seem to describe) is produced.

​

EDIT 2: Clarity is most likely trichlor or dichlor which produces chlorine gas and a lot of heat when mixed with hypochlorites. This seems to be a very explosive reaction. see this [video](https://www.chemaxx.com/pool_chemical_explosion5.htm) posted by u/Vew below."
askscience,It is also possible that the Cal hypo product added with the small amount of water added a lot of the heat too. I worked for a pool company and the first thing they explained was how if you add small amounts of water to Cal hypo products they have a nasty tendency of catching on fire or exploding. Since I'm not the smartest of people a couple of the other employees and me tested this and it quite violently set on fire I'm sure with the other product it just made it more violent.
askscience,"I didn't dig into what is in the mixtures but if there were any Nitrogen  containing items in the mix then he likely made [trichloramine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_trichloride).  I've made this in the lab before from hypochlorite (household bleach) and ammonia salts in the presence of acid.  The acid drives the hyochlorite to Cl/Cl2 which then reacts with the nitrogen to sequentially create the chloramine species (NH2Cl, NHCl2, and NCl3).  I was only working with probably 100ml of bleach and made 1-3ml of NCl3.  

NCl3 is a primary explosive and will detonate violently on shock or heat.  It is also not miscible in water so it aggregates quickly at the base and doesn't take much to make a big boom (don't ask me how I know).

Edit: The NCl3 is denser than water and would collect at the bottom of the bucket creating the pressure needed to cause the explosion/fragmentation of the bucket.

Edit2: I put it in a top level comment but its confirmed here. https://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/9131"
askscience,"There is a mystery I can solve for once!

Whatever he did created NCl3... which is a liquid.  The heat boiled some of it, creating a gas that was likely mixed with the chlorine gas, but most of it would sinc to the bottom, being denser than water.  It's pretty volatile stuff, and the water itself would act as the seal.  If enough of this liquid built up at the bottom of the bucket, and then it got set off somehow.  Since it is sensitive to light, heat, and shock, it would be pretty easy for that to happen."
askscience,"Ran a  pool store for some time. This reaction is *exactly* why we tell people not to combine the three primary types of solid chlorinating pool disinfectant.

Somewhere I have a picture of a 4"" charred hole in a concrete pool deck (the verge around a typical in-ground pool). This was a result of some genius mixing powdered MPS, dichlor, trichlor, and calcium hypochlorite. His excuse was that he wanted the most effective granular shock possible. I suggested he just add them to the pool next time like the damn instructions suggest.

Edit: another key detail that might help explain the chain of events...

Hydrochloric acid (sold as muriatic acid) was also present. The man was adjusting his pool pH that day. It was found to be far too low (5.5), so he possibly used *waaaaay* too much HCL."
askscience,"My question is, where the hell is the Consumer Products Safety Commission when you need them?  This is apparently a really common situation, and it's super deadly.  One of these two chemicals should be banned, or both need to have gigantic banner warning labels on them telling you not to mix them.  Like, ""THIS IS A CLASS A CHLORINE COMPOUND.  DO NOT MIX WITH CLASS B CHLORINE COMPOUNDS.""

This kind of fuckup should not be possible in a modern society. "
askscience,"So the government should step in and ban the sale of 1 of 2 kinds of pool cleaners (despite both having different use cases) or require even larger warning labels (that still wouldn't be read) to fix a problem killing, maybe, a handful of people per decade?

Keeping in mind that approx. the same number of people will be killed or rendered vegetative by brain amoeba from swimming in lakes each decade.

Life is risky, no one gets out alive. Hopefully OP learned a lesson about reading warning labels on things sold as ""Dangerous Chemicals""."
askscience,"I can only speak anecdotally here.

When I made it, I added ammonium chloride to bleach in a round bottom flask then added a few ml of HCl.  Quickly topped with a condenser to cool any escaping NClx back into to solution and let it stir in an ice bath for a while until the solution stop being cloudy.  The output went to a water bubbler to trap the Cl2.  I was able to pipette the NCl3 out with a glass pipet into a glass vial covered in foil without issue.  It sat out for about a day that way at room temp.

Later I went to transfer some via syringe to measure it and that's where I hit the problem.  I tested it wouldn't react to the rubber (its highly oxidizing) and I tested it wouldn't react with the metal in the syringe.  However when I pierced a septum to inject the sample, the needle cored the septum blocking the syringe exit.  The simple act of pressing on the plastic syringe with tip blocked detonated the sample in my hand.  Luckily it was only about 50 microliters.

The rest of the sample we just threw on a paper towel and burned for disposal. The towel just burned like it had some alcohol on it.

tl;dr its pretty darn sensitive.  Just leaving it in light, dropping it or putting some pressure on it makes it explode.  Fire is apparently ok."
askscience,"Explosives explode even if they are just sitting out in the open. Chlorine reacts rapidly in certain situations, one of which the OP seems to have created - so just sitting in a bucket with an open top wouldn't prevent it. It's possible he mixed them in just the right amounts for such an explosive reaction, and that you and I might not be able to replicate the reaction. It's also possible that the older chemicals had decomposed or reacted with air or other things in the environment to make new chemicals and that the new chemicals helped set off the reaction. But all of these things can happen and have happened, but its usually pretty hard to figure out exactly *what* happened. So the general rule is *do not mix chemicals,* unless you are absolutely sure you know what chemicals you're mixing and what they are made from, and you know what will happen when you mix them and are trying to achieve that result."
askscience,"I don't see how what u/agate_ said was unreasonable or unnecessary intervention by the government. If you're not a chemist and you go to a pool shop to buy ""chlorine"", it's completely within reason to expect that these different ""chlorine"" products are equivalent and would pose no hazard upon mixing. Judging by other comments in this thread, it seems to be more common than you'd expect. I think a large label saying do not mix class A with class B type warning is a great idea. 

There's a difference between typically encountered ""dangerous chemicals"" (bleach, drain cleaner, HCl, solvents etc.) and ones that to the layperson appear to be the same thing yet when mixed result in the formation of an impact, light, and temperature sensitive primary explosive. 
"
askscience,"They actually do say exactly that right on the sides of chlorines. The brand I buy has a huge warning on the side AND a sticker on the top. I know because when I did the exact same thing as the OP (like a complete moron) I thought the same thing, then went to check the container out, and lo and behold it was marked all over.

Sometimes you just can't stop stupidity no matter how hard you try."
askscience,"Someone should probably be researching this at the very least. It seems like we have a good idea of what happened from the discussion in this thread, but as with all science we could be totally off the mark and when it comes to explosions it's important to understand why exactly they happened so they don't happen again.

This is something that seems like a very easy mistake to make, and if we don't change something it will almost definitely happen again."
askscience,You've got it. I made this mistake once by mixing the chlorine and acid in the bucket together instead of separately.  Massive overflowing cloud of green gas came flowing out and then it started violently boiling over and sloshing.  Never exploded but I bet it could have been nasty if there wasn't water in the bucket. The cloud dispersed eventually and the bucket calmed down.  It was warm to the touch.  Now I'm careful to mix everything separately.
askscience,"I work in a field closely related to drinking water treatment.  This sounds like a reaction we work with fairly frequently called quenching since Sodium Hypochlorite is one of the main treatment chemicals.  Calcium Hypochlorite reacts similarly, but for reasons that are beyond the scope of this course you don't need to worry about quenching Calcium Hypochlorite.  The point of this reaction is to get the chlorine out of the solution to stop the decay of the Hypochlorite and see what's left over.  

If what u/Appaulingly says is true and the Clarity has Peroxide in it, then OP likely quenched the calcium or sodium hypochlorite, whichever it actually was.   You can also quench sodium hypochlorite with acids though, so any of those theories as to what's in the Clarity will provide the same reaction.

The quenching reaction is typically violent and it releases pure chlorine gas, which is poisonous.  When you quench, you typically add the quenching agent drop by drop to the Hypochlorite and do it under a fume hood so you don't poison everyone or make the beaker explode.  It sounds like whatever was in that Clarity basically quenched the whole bucket at once, which created a ton of chlorine gas and nuked the bucket.

And that's the bell!  Everyone remember to drop your homework in the box on the way out and remember the quiz on Friday!"
askscience,"These reactions are thoroughly understood, but the circumstances in which they took place are not. Strictly speaking this would be public safety research, not chemistry research.

And yes indeed almost all cleaning compounds with have a giant warning label not to mix them with other cleaning compounds, but the average person probably doesn't understand that two similar products by different brands are actually different chemical compounds.

In theory additional research shouldn't be necessary, but we now have empirical evidence that it might be."
askscience,"That's not how public safety research works.

As an individual, you are responsible for keeping yourself safe. The responsibility of the entity in charge of product safety however, is to reduce the overall risk of injury/death to zero. Obviously that's impossible, but it's still the goal.

This research isn't ""done,"" that's not how research works either. We are currently in a thread that provides evidence that this research is not done, and unless OP is lying, which I don't think is a reasonable assumption, then it is complete proof that this research *isn't* done.

Edit: [Here](https://www.chemaxx.com/images/walmart29a-Blue-Green.jpg) is a side-by-side photo of the labels, taken from [this](https://www.chemaxx.com/pool_chemical_explosion5.htm) website posted elsewhere in this thread. 

Also from that website:

>Since both products are sold as a form of ""pool chlorine,"" consumers most likely would not expect them to be incompatible with each other and might even consider them to be the same pool chemical product.

>Consumers need to be aware that these seemingly similar pool chemical products are explosively incompatible. Chemaxx believes that short of drastic measures, the ordinary consumer is not likely to appreciate the full seriousness of the hazard via conventional warnings."
askscience,"Former pool store employee here: we do!  All employees are trained on not storing different types of chlorine (or any sanitizer) next to one another, and to make sure to tell customers not to mix it when buying.  With cal hypo and tri-chlor (among others), we also would tell customers not to mix either one in a bucket first, due to the heat caused by the reaction with water.  This was basic training before any employee was allowed to talk to customers.  
  
Cal hypo specifically we were told was very dangerous to mix or spill, and to store it at least five feet from any other sanitizer.  "
askscience,How does 1 person write all that nonsense without reading a single word I wrote???? The manufacturer (for that matter the entire world since these reactions have been known about for decades and studied in depth already by scientists around the world) already did the research and posted warnings on the containers tell you not to mix those products. And linking partial pics instead of the full label is just trashy of you.
askscience,"So force is just mass times acceleration as depicted in F = m*a. Since you are interested in a falling object the main source of acceleration is gravity. On earth gravity is relatively consistent and the variations that exist are negligible. Thus F = m*g, where g is roughly 9.8 meters per second. So a falling object will always exhibit a force of 
F = 9.8*m (neglecting all forms of wind resistance etc). So the real variation in falling objects in this scenario is the mass. Things with larger mass exhibit more force when falling than things with smaller mass. When you add in the variation of height of free fall it doesn’t change the acceleration or the mass so force remains constant. 

"
askscience,"[As an aside, if you want to have a character like \* show up, you need to type an escape character like \ before it; e.g., \\\*. This is because reddit interprets \* differently from regular characters, to allow for some formatting. One asterisk marks italics, two marks bold, and three marks bold italics:

\*italics\* gets rendered as *italics*  
\*\*bold\*\* gets rendered as **bold**  
\*\*\*bold italics\*\*\* gets rendered as ***bold italics***

So, because you tried to write F=m\*a, followed by text and then F=m\*g, what you got was F=m*a, followed by italic text and then F=m*g.]"
askscience,"It's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the end.

The gravitational force is mg, but that's pretty harmless. The higher the fall, though, the longer gravity has to speed you up.

When you hit the ground, your velocity has to go back to zero in a very short distance (say, 1 metre). The ground pushes back on you to do this. The faster you were going, the harder the ground has to push, and the more damage it can do.

Worse, gravity affects every atom of your body the same, but the ground is only pushing on the bits of you touching it. So the force from the ground distorts your shape, breaking skin, stressing bones, moving organs around and pressing them against each other, just generally doing stuff your body isn't happy with."
askscience,"First, because I tent to ramble, TL;DR:  The higher you fall from, the more kinetic energy you build.  Your body has to absorb all of that energy to come to a stop.

Ok, so...for the following calculations, I'm ignoring air resistance and terminal velocity, just to simplify things a bit.

Kinetic energy (the amount of damage a projectile is capable of inflicting) is equal to one half the mass of the projectile, times its velocity squared.

The acceleration due to gravity near the Earth's surface is equal to roughly 9.8 meters per second squared.

What that means is, for every second an object is falling, you add 9/8 meters per second to its speed.  After one second, 9.8 m/s.  After 2 seconds, it's 19.6 meters per second.  After 3, it's 29.4 meters per second.  And so forth.

Ok.  Now that we got that out of the way...

The higher you are, the more seconds you're falling.  The formula for how long you fall from a given height is h = .5a * t^2.  H is the height of the fall, .5a is half the acceleration (4.9, in this case), and t is time in seconds.

So, for a hundred meter fall, it's ~ 4.518 seconds.

Ok, so now we know how long we're falling.

4.518 * 9.8 = roughly 44.276 m/s.

A 10 kg mass moving at 44.276 m/s carries 5 * (44.276)^2, or 9801.998 joules of energy.

The same mass falling half the distance, or 50 meters, carries roughly 4900 joules of energy, if I'm doing the math correctly.

In both cases, that's how much energy your body has to absorb on impact to come to a stop.  Well...your body and the ground, but still.

Now, I don't know how many joules it takes to shatter a femur or detonate a spleen (which is almost, but not quite exactly what would happen in either scenario), but I'm pretty sure it's less than 4.9 kilojoules.  That's a bit more than a gram of TNT (If I did the math correctly) for a 50 meter fall, according to Wikipedia.

"
askscience,"That's not true. Force is an instantaneous property, it doesn't make sense to talk about it over a time period like that.  If you simplified things drastically and assumed you stopped instantly when you hit the ground, then both acceleration and force would be infinite.  The property you are looking for is impulse, which, like momentum, is what you deal with when you are talking about forces, accelerations, etc. over time periods.  For example: how far does a baseball go when you hit it? You need can't get the answer just from force. You need force + time, i.e. impulse."
askscience,"A high impulse is only dangerous over a short time i.e when there is a high force, similarly a low impulse over a very short time is also dangerous. The magnitude of force applied is what matters. if you stopped instantly on hitting the ground then the force applied as you said would approach infinite which would kill you, if there was a slower stop then the impulse would be the same but the much lower force would mean you survive"
askscience,"The RWR (radar warning receiver) basically can ""see"" all radar that is being pointed at the aircraft. When the radar ""locks"" (switches from scan mode to tracking a single target), the RWR can tell and alerts the pilot. This does not work if someone has fired a heat seeking missile at the aircraft, because this missile type is not reliant on radar. However, some modern aircraft have additional sensors that detect the heat from the missile's rocket engine and can notify the pilot if a missile is fired nearby. "
askscience,"I mean you don't really need it to be autonomous

​

\- stick a couple of camera pods onto the plane. one on top, one on bottom, that can swivel just like a real pilot's head, and have them follow a drone pilot's head movements. Have the drone pilot's view switch between the two pods automatically based on where he's looking so he's never obstructed by the nose or wings of the plane

\- equip each camera pod with two colour cameras for depth perception, two low light cameras for night flying, and an IR camera that can overlay hotspots on to the colour/NOD picture (some [civilian NVG sets](http://www.nitevis.com/images/DSNVG_Image_03.jpg) already do this) so all the hot bits like enemy plane exhaust or incoming missile exhaust glows red

\- put your best fighter pilots in command of these things, who can now fly with better situational awareness and no G-force restrictions (other than what the airframe can handle), and can take control of any plane on the planet instantly (although obviously the closer the better, before they have to deal with input lag). They can get shot down as many times as you like and you'll never lose them, and can even switch to take control of the next reinforcing set of fighters if the first set the were flying were shot down, so you basically have aces flying every plane, especially in low intensity conflicts where the chances of more than 10 of your planes being in immediate combat at any time is low

​

Pretty much the main drawback is it isn't a closed system. Something can jam the signal between the pilot and the plane much more easily than jamming a self contained AI program that's already in the plane instead of being transmitted to it"
askscience,"Not sure if anyone had mentioned this but there was a US jet shot down in I think was Bosnia by an anti aircraft gun with radar detection. The jets were flying the same path so the Bosnians locked on to the jets once or twice to make the pilots think the the system that can tell they have been locked on was malfunctioning. Then they shot one down, there’s a doco on YouTube."
askscience,"This isn't exactly how it went. Some did feel that way, but ultimately parachutes basically doubled your odds of dying. You could only use them if you bailed out of your plane while it was straight and level, as far as I remember. And they were unreliable, being designed for stationary balloons, not planes that were on a crash course. Your odds were legitimately better if you attempted a controlled crash, which is a lot less dangerous at the low speeds biplanes flew at. Germany was the only country to have parachutes on planes and they did not work very well.

Experienced pilots were very hard to come by. For many countries, pilots had a **much** higher death ratio than men in the trenches. It was in everyone's best interests to keep them alive as effectively as possible."
askscience,"How do you communicate between the plane/cameras and the pilot?

There’s a signal that has to be sent (high bandwidth as it requires video at a minimum, and likely sound as well). 

This communication is not instantaneous. It likely needs to be encoded and beamed to a satellite in space, then beamed back to the pilot. The pilot needs to make his/her decision based on what is seen or heard.  Then the pilot needs to input his commands. 

The time between each signal sent and received isn’t trivial. It takes time on the magnitude of seconds. 

I’m not a fighter pilot, but I imagine if I’m a second or two behind the fight with a human enemy, the enemy that’s seeing and experiencing everything firsthand is going to win. "
askscience,"The real problem here is not cost its the lead time training a new pilot and experience loss from losing the first one.

An F35 takes 41,000 man hours to build but can be built in a couple of weeks. Pilots take 2.5 years to train meaning your down a pilot that entire time. Additionally training that pilot is going to tie up the time of both the machines and other pilots you still have decreasing operational effectiveness. Furthermore, if you lose too meny veteran pilots you will begin to lose the institutional knowledge of how to effectively fight in the planes. 

TL;DR: Replacement of pilots carries a logistical cost that makes sacrificing a plane to save the pilot appealing despite the price tag. "
askscience,"That's if you send it to a satellite in space

if you only used these drones in areas with supporting aircraft to bounce the signal, similar to AWACS planes now, except with the function of just collecting drone signals and sending them to nearby airbases with drone pilots, say, ones in a 500 mile radius from the drone for minimum lag, that delay would be tiny.

​

it would still be there, but even just seeing the red flash of a missile launch from your IR camera will gain you back more reaction time than you lose, and having the situational awareness and maneuverability advantage a drone could give you will always be better, because instead of having to quickly react to bad situations like losing sight of the guy you were fighting to the background and then being surprised when he shows up in your blind spot, you just won't have to react to to those situations because he'll be showing up on your thermal the entire time and you don't have a blind spot, so you wouldn't lose sight of him in the first place"
askscience,"that's the other downside of human controlled drones

You have to make a system for that drone to communicate with the guy on the ground hundreds of miles away. That system will almost definitely have to include a ""middle man"" to capture the signal, restrengthen it, and make sure it isn't blocked by the mountains or the horizon. This middle man will probably be a plane, so it has as few signal obstructions as possible, and each plane will probably be bouncing the signals of an entire area of operation's worth of drones, with maybe another one or two planes up in the sky as backups if that ones has problems

​

you take those communication planes out or find out a way to jam them, even in a way that just decreases the number of updates per second a pilot gets, and the strength of your entire drone force in that area goes down massively"
askscience,"Because a plane that is returning to base is a plane that is not performing useful duties.

I can understand the concept of what the other guy was saying, but I have a different idea.

If we have systems that can detect those things, why not design a plane that has a small turret that can fire small rounds at the incoming rockets? I wouldnt want it automatically firing, but target tracking would be good.

Maybe even slowly work on it until it is automatic, but idk.

How dumb is my thought? Or is that basically just what chaff is?"
askscience,"sure, but then now you have to add extra space and weight for them and their life support, and their ejection system, and their controls, and you can no longer undeniably out-turn any enemy human piloted plane just by not having to worry about pilot blackout, and you again face the possibility of the pilot not making it out alive to use all their combat experience to win the next fight they get into

​

I totally get where you're coming from, and I'm sure the main reason the F-35 *didn't* end up being pilotless was because they had this same discussion and determined it just was too risky at the time of development with there being too much lag or too many links in the chain that were vulnerable to electronic warfare or just outright destruction of those communication pathways, but it's just cool to think of the advantages and disadvantages of each system, and what it would take to make a different system viable"
askscience,"No, the problem with AA missile is that they can turn harder and accelerate faster then a fighter.

However, missiles are limited in size and hence in fuel and every mile and every maneuver wastes precious energy.

So an aircraft has two ways to defeat a missile. 

* Miss-guide
* Waste energy

 By wrong radar targets(caff, decoy), wrong infared targets(IR Flares) or Jamming. On the other hand there are evasive maneuvers that try to waste as much energy as possible(sharp turns) or in some cases even outrun the missile.

This however all depends on energy the missile has left. A 60mile missile may intercept a target after 40 miles and only have enough energy to turn sharply once. The same missile might be almost unavoidable at 20 miles.

Even though getting closer means the attacking fighter is more exposed to incoming fire.

It all depends on the situation.

​"
askscience,"I don’t know of automatic maneuvers, but fighter pilots are trained in maneuvers that the body can’t handle for special situations. For instance, some high g turns to evade SAMs can cause so much blood to leave your head that the pilot is temporarily blind. If you listen to recordings you can hear some pilots time the maneuvers to know when to level off and regain vision or breathing. Or their wingman will tell them when to level off. "
askscience,"My issue of drones in war is the removal of the human life as a cost.  A society that doesn't experience loss of life when they make war will inevitably become corrupt and become a threat to the world at large. 

Nothing more than tyrants who order the deaths of their enemies without fear of reprisal who've become numb to the horrors and suffering they inflict.  Sooner or later, they'll see their enemies as sub human and won't hesitate to use more and more extremely destructive measures such as nukes."
askscience,"UAV Engineer here, there are several interconnecting factors.  
   
1. There is a huge debate and a lot of moral and ethical issues if a machine is given the power to decide whether to ""take the shot"" and possibly kill a human being.  
2. You can put a human at the other end of the computer like at a desk in base. But comms tech have limitations such as latency and fixed lag. This will hinder the agility of the drone. Imagine playing FPS with a constant lag, it is REALLY incapacitating.  
3. Comms jamming. Makes your entire fleet/squadron useless. (Then the Qn: how about fully autonomous and self-localized computing w/o comms. Ans: See point 1 and point 4)  
4. Dogfighting. The AI required for LIVE dogfighting is very complex. Flying in free space with just control surfaces is VERY different from Computer game simulation.  
   
Edit: formatting
   
 "
askscience,"Infrastructural hurdles aside, situational awareness is possibly the next largest issue, for both manned and autonomous operational schemes. Looking down a straw is fine for relatively level flight, comparatively slow targets, and effectively safe skies--not so much for near-peer adversaries in contested environments. The lack of vestibular and proprioceptive input with current ground control schemes is also another potential consideration--core senses that to a certain degree do play a role in situational awareness and split-second combat decision making.

Being able to rapidly process and synthesize the amount of information needed to form a coherent picture of the space and situation around you is difficult enough for human pilots, requiring considerable training and the ability to adapt and function with an incomplete picture. We'll likely have trained software systems that effectively duplicate human combat pilot capability eventually, but that is definitely not an easy challenge."
askscience,"This is the key advantage of armed UAVs. None exists at the moment (that I'm aware of), but if pilots were removed from fast jets, those aircraft could pull significantly more Gs than a manned aircraft and would have a much better chance of dodging ordnance.

The reasons this hasn't been done yet are:

1. There are serious legal and moral questions about allowing robots to make autonomous combat decisions; and

2. There are some things that humans can do better than algorithms - such as cooperate and make 'intuitive' decisions."
askscience,"Radar works by directing energy at something and then picking up the signal that's bounced back - as in /u/Terr_ example, the flashlight sends out a beam of light energy and your eyes pick up the light reflected off whatever the beam hit.

Electronic Attack (a component of EW) works, among other ways, by detecting the flashlight being pointed at it and returning fire with one of those old searchlights from WWII, effectively blinding you, except with electronics it fries the circuits, destroying the sensor."
askscience,"to piggy back on Crudboy's comment. 
radar's have two main modes of operation - search & track.  Imagine you're in a pitch black area, you can see that someone has a flashlight and they're sweeping it side to side - that's search mode.   
now imagine they're pointing the flashlight in your eyes and keeping it there as you move - that's track mode and what is called radar lock.   

the RWR system can tell the difference and will warn the pilot when the mode changes
"
askscience,"The days where aircraft were dogfighting and dodging around the sky are long gone. Fights between modern jets happen at great distances. The definition of a *short range* air to air missile is a missile designed to kill a target at *30 kilometres or less.*

If flares and chaff won't save you, a barrel roll won't either. Planes are comparatively fragile and missiles aren't designed to actually hit a plane. They use proximity fuses to explode when near a plane, which is all it needs.  


Direct hit missiles are mostly reserved for tanks and other armour. Easy targets with thick skins."
askscience,"Well what you're suggesting is essentially an air-to-air capable drone, and they are in development. However, you vastly underestimate the cost of training pilots. Even purely from a monetary standpoint, it is a significant percentage of the cost of a 5th gen fighter. Not only that, but the turnaround times on training versus replacement are vastly different, you can't just train new pilots like you make new planes. Finally, if pilots know that as soon as they get in the plane, there's a good chance their own plane will kill them if they engage in aerial combat, then they probably won't engage, or they won't join, or they will just refuse to get into the plane.

Wildly impractical. I know I wouldn't get into a car as a driver if you told me in an emergency situation it will perform a manoeuvre automatically that may kill me."
askscience,"You are correct. With the advent of computer aided stability systems, fighters can be designed so that they are unstable. First (US) aircraft to do it was the f-16,which...had a few bugs early in development that caused several mishaps and earned the aircraft the moniker ""lawn dart"" because it had a tendency to nose down and crash with its tail in the air.

Between that and advances in auto pilot systems (mostly on the civilian side), you could make an aircraft that could take off, fire weapons at a target, return, and land with little human help. But that is a far cry from the situational awareness required in combat, which is why our drones still have humans at the controls. "
askscience,"Yes, back in Vietnam the idea that a missile only plane the F-4 Phantom was used. This quickly was found to be a very bad idea because the missiles used at the time weren't as accurate as advertised and there were more MiGs than the F-4 had missiles. A hard point attached external gun was added to the F-4 and every fighter jet since has had a gun in its design. The only exception to this that I know of is the F-117 but that wasn't a true fighter as it had no air to air ability and due to fuel constraints only could carry one bomb for actual missions."
askscience,"Most fighter aircraft now carry a cannon of some variation. Some countries have thought about ""equipped for, but not with"" a cannon, with the intention to put it on if necessary later. But it turns out the cheapest way to maintain the aircraft balance was to just buy the gun to put in.

The F-35 is one of the first new fighters to be designed without a gun, but a gun pod is available for the variants that don't have an internal gun."
askscience,"> Plus going unconscious is not good. There's no ""it's okay he's just knocked out"" in real life.

Passing out due to a temporary lack of blood to the brain is not amazing for you, but if it is for a short period you will be absolutely fine. It's not at all equivalent to being knocked out by blunt force to the head.

I have no idea whether modern fighter planes can, will or should do automatic manoeuvres that make their pilots unconscious but the idea isn't absurd just on the grounds that ""going unconscious is not good"".

However my amateurish guess is that a missile that just has to move itself and a little payload of explosives will always outrace and outmanoeuvre a plane that has to carry a pilot, weapons, ammunition, fuel for it all and so on."
askscience,"Hi, RF radar engineer here. Modern cruise missiles are extremely hard to out-manoeuvre, something that movies and games get wrong.  Missiles hone in on the infra-red wavelengths emitted from the engine. Special systems called Infra-Red counter measures (IRCM) use lasers to ‘blind’ missiles by shooting them with infra red signals at a higher power than those emitted from the aircraft. This allows them to be set of course and steered away from the aircraft. Its such an incredibly effective technique that an aircraft equipped with an IRCM system should never have to perform an evasive manoeuvre. 

Edit: first sentence originally said ballistic missiles, I of course meant cruise missiles. "
askscience,"When a Radar locks a target, this is what's called STT or Single Target Track mode. The Radar focuses all it's energy on the one contact in order to receive near real-time range, speed and position information (Sometimes other information too). This is detected by the RWR as a large, continuous radar waveform. Each radar produces a different waveform, which is how threats can be identified.

Once a missile is fired, depending on the type of missile, the radar waveform my change again to 'illuminate' the target for a semi-active radar homing missile - or to send additional data to an active radar homing missile to update it on the enemies position. The RAR can listen to the waveform and decide what the threat radar is doing.

Not all missiles require a radar to lock a target to fire, however. Some missiles can fire on targets that have merely been scanned by the radar, and not locked. A good example of this is the AIM-54 Pheonix missile used by USNavy F-14 Tomcats."
askscience,"Missiles are generally more maneuverable than the planes they are fired at.  They are lighter, faster, and have a higher thrust to weight ratio.  Imagine - is there anything that a tanker truck could do to avoid a motorcycle determined to catch it?

Even more interestingly - missiles (generally) don't ""touch"" the airplane and then blow up like a hand grenade - or an RPG where there is a ""button"" on the nose that makes it blow up when it touches something.  Rather missiles can tell how far away they are from the plane, and when they get within say a hundred feet they explode projecting a cone of shrapnel at the plane.  Imagine if instead of trying to grab the Road Runner from atop an acme rocket, Wile E. Coyote instead had a shotgun and as soon as he got close he blasted the Road Runner with the shotgun."
askscience,"Drones in full rate production right now are designed for long-duration loitering and are therefore pretty low-speed, mostly turbo-prop.  They're also almost all used against ground targets (although i think an MQ-9 got an air-air test kill the other week).

​

Lots of air-superiority UCAVs are being developed, but none are particularly far along.  


Oh, and in the important bits of UAV operation they're directly piloted by humans, avoiding the moral conundrum of letting machines decide to kill humans. Air-air combat would be challenging to achieve without automation, due to satellite latency and general importance of speed in being successful."
askscience,"I'd think it'd be doubtful too, but not because for not knowing how long the pilot would be out. If the choice is between getting hit by a missile and blacking out for a variable amount of time then blacking out is the easy choice. The bigger problem would be the risk of false positives. Having the plane automatically take control from the pilot and perform a maneuver that has a high chance to cause them to black out would be a dangerous system to have installed. It could also be something that is targeted directly. Tricking a plane to knock out its pilot could be highly beneficial.

However I could see such a system as something that the pilot could initiate."
askscience,"I swear I saw a video of a head position/vitals/response detector that would apply power, keep the nose up, sound an alarm, shake the stick and possibly waggle the wings a little to prevent the plane from *crashing* if a pilot in a single place plane went lights out. Any fighter pilots here?

Not far fetched as these days the pilot flys the computer (FBW) and the computer flys the plane. Also I have read that nowdays, any fixed wing plane that can land on a carrier, can land *itself* on a carrier."
askscience,The probability of a hit in that mode is very low. The target would need to be maintaining the same height and speed as the view the amraam seeker has is quite small. The money maker is AWACS led targeting.  Radar off aircraft fires on the target having been data linked it's location by an AWACS hundreds of miles away. AWACS continues to data link the missile until the seeker sees the target. Target can't act against the AWACS as it is too far away. 
askscience,"So I had an opportunity to talk to an F-16 crew chief when they first arrived. Fly-by-wire is what you guys are talking about.  Pressure on the stick is translated to movement by the computers to move control surfaces. He told me when the A models first arrived the stick was rigid and the pilots had a very difficult time judging how much control input they were giving the aircraft. It led to over Gs and botched maneuvers and injuries. One of the very first upgrades they have the aircraft was to add very slight movement to the stick.  It fixed the issues. 

The F-22 also had some mishaps during testing. It has porpoised down to the runway and iirc a programming error during a test flight multiplied the pilots inputs by a high multiplication. He went to level the nose out and it pulled negative 13 Gs and he went to correct it and it pulled positive 11 Gs. All in like 1 second. He passed out and the plane went into a holding pattern at an assigned altitude until he came back. Plane structure was fine other than the hard points had minor cracks and the pilot has busted blood vessels in his eyes. 

Edit: as pointed out my phone auto corrected fly-by-wire to fly-by-night. It's fixed now. "
askscience,"Negative, all evasive maneuvers are accomplished by the pilot. Usually the other pilots flying together will verbally tell a targeted pilot to ""break left/right"" in order to dodge the missile by turning harder than the weapon can. 

The only exception might be terrain avoidance used for flying low to the ground. I'm not sure if fighters have this system (TCAS), but I know most of our heavy aircraft do (at least in the military). My knowledge is limited, I only work bombers."
askscience,"It's important to note that an RWR can only tell the pilot about things it can detect a difference in - you'll really only get a lock warning if the aircraft locking you up switches to single-target mode (where his radar directs all it's energy into one target only).  If he stays in scan mode and let's his computer ""track"" your position digitally, you won't get a lock tone, just the scan warnings.

With a hostile Russian aircraft, the IRST sensor won't trigger the RWR at all, so even if you know he's there, you won't know if he's planning to shoot until he does."
askscience,"It's actually quite an interesting problem and there's a bit more to it than just maximum G's. In a nutshell to directly answer your question in order to keep them a light as possible aircraft are designed to break only a bit higher than the the pilot breaks. As a result the maximum G this theoretical system can turn at before the plane falls apart around the unconscious pilots is really only a bit higher than what the pilot could tolerate anyway.

The question of ""if it would actually help anyway"" is really, really complicated; missile guidance and control is a really fun topic.

For some numbers, most fighter aircraft airframes are designed to withstand a maximum maneuvering loading of say 15gs and this is sensibly based in human endurance; there's no real reason to design it any stronger and that would make it much heavier.

A SAM or air to air missile can maneuver at >60g.

An aircraft simply cannot hope to purely ""out G"" a missile. No pilot or airframe can survive 60g.

However! That is not the only determining factor of if the missile can maneuver to hit. Turn rate is a function of velocity squared and G loading. Turn Rate = Velocity^(2)/(gravity * G loading).

This means that, for example, an F15 at cruise speed can actually turn a smaller radius than than an AIM9x at its top speed despite the fact than the missile can maneuver at ~5x higher G's.

However Mk2! Consider than the AIM9x's motor has burnt out shortly after launch and so its technically gliding into the target and so has probably slowed down a fair bit by the time it's reached its target. Does that put it in a situation where it can now out turn the aircraft? Maybe, maybe not.

However Mk2 Mod 0! Turn rate isn't the only determining factor for if the missile will actually hit the target. A very basic terminal guidance algorithm is called Pro-Nav (short for proportional navigation) guidance. This guidance algorithm basically holds the angle that the missile sees the target as a constant. If this angle is constant then the missile is tracking the most efficient course into the target at that point in time since it must be closing purely in distance.

What this effectively means is that because the missile is chasing the target it doesnt need to turn as fast. Does that put it in a situation where it can now hit/get close enough to the aircraft? Probably, maybe not.

This is where the tricks a pilot can come into play. If the missile is a long way off, in Pro-Nav a course change by the target will require a correction for the missile; and this uses energy of which the missile has a finite amount of, and the jet has fuel to spare. A bunch of jinking could make these corrections burn the kinetic energy of the missile up hopefully enough that it runs out of steam before it reaches the target.

However Mk2 A2! Missiles nowadays don't purely rely on Pro-Nav guidance and will use some other mid course guidance algorithm before swapping to a terminal guidance algorithm like Pro-nav. This is where the GNC engineers earn their wage. We are just as aware of the ways to try and defeat missiles as pilots are (probably more so!) and have no intention of letting them have an easy time dodging. The goal is to ignore the jinking and figure out what the pilots doing long term until you're close enough that the missiles lower turn radius but very high closing rate (from the terminal guidance algorithm) means the pilot can't maneuver out of the lethal radius of the warhead in time. Sure the pilot can maybe turn tighter than the missile, but usually the missile doesn't need to turn as much sinces its chasing and a near miss is good enough with the warheads they are carrying.

The end result is an envelope that says ""This missile can probably hit this aircraft going this fast if launched from these distances and angles. Probably"". The designers/analysts of these systems are *very* aware of these envelopes and are most definitely classified!

High G maneuvering to escape destruction was far more important in cannon/machine gun combat, not missile combat. If you can turn faster/tighter than the other guy close behind you, he can't shoot you. If you're interested in this sort of system, have a read about the auto pull up system on the [Junkers Ju-87](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_87#Basic_design_(based_on_the_B_series)) dive bomber from WW2. That aircraft has a near system to allow the aircraft to pull out of the dive bomb run if the pilot suffered G effects. Pretty neato, and fairly unique as far as I know

Source: Am aeronautical engineer and have worked on missile seeker guidance algorithms

Tl;Dr Aircraft aren't designed to take much higher G's than the pilot and theoretical system wouldn't really help that much given how missile guidance works. "
askscience,">This quickly was found to be a very bad idea because the missiles used at the time weren't as accurate as advertised and there were more MiGs than the F-4 had missiles. A hard point attached external gun was added to the F-4 and every fighter jet since has had a gun in its design. 

this is half facts. yes the navy and the air force struggle with early missiles and both of them came up with 2 different way to solve it. the air force put a gun pod on it as a band aid and requesting a new version of phantom with guns meanwhile the navy built a think tank /fighter school that create a doctrine to optimize the missiles. the results are the K/D ratio of USAF phantoms were not changed meanwhile the navy K/D goes up to 12 migs to 1 phantom.

also, that fighter school is called ""top gun"". a name that you might know.    "
askscience,"while BVR might be what aircombat looks like with 4th generation fighters, with 5th generation fighters, some people argue that BVR will actually be less of a thing, and WVR may actually happen a lot more often than you would think due to them being much harder to target for BVR. WVR will be significantly more deadly due to the extreme lethality of modern WVR weapons and targeting systems on these aircraft so its unlikely aircraft will truly merge and get into a turning fight - if that were to happen though, it would almost certainly have to be a 1 circle scissors fight - any 2 circle fight would likely lead to attrition as both pilots would easily be able to target and hit the other."
askscience,"No. A maneuver like that would carry a significant risk of stalling the aircraft and if the pilot is passed out then there’s no way of knowing if they’d be able to recover the plane to stable flight or if they’d even be able to wake up before a crash (fun fact, when they were experimenting with the F-16 program a big problem was that the modern systems allowed for maneuvers well above what the human body could handle so they had to ad manual resistance to the controls otherwise it was too easy for a pilot to accidentally pull a high G turn stall the plane and pass out). Usually if a pilot knows there is a missile like that they will try and use countermeasures to break the lock stuff like chaff to confuse the radar, or flares to throw off a heat sealing missile ( attack helicopters do this too especially when coming in on an attack run to help prevent getting shit down by a manpad), pilots may also try and make maneuvers to break the lock such as taking a sharp enough turn that the missile can’t track it anymore or going close enough to the ground that the ambient heat messes with the heat seeking system. You also want to keep the conscious and aware since they might have to eject immediately either after they’re hit and they realize they can’t limp back to base, or if the pull a maneuver to dodge the middle that results in an unrecoverable loss of control. A lot of the modern stuff is kinda stuck in a theoretical lurch though as we haven’t really seen large scale air to air combat between near peer forces since Vietnam, so who knows exactly how well modern missiles and countermeasures will actually work."
askscience,"Those corrections are because fighters are typically designed to be *un*stable.  Meaning, any disturbance will actually push the plane further and further out of equilibrium rather than return to it.  Maneuverability and stability are opposites; the more stable your airplane is, the less maneuverable it will be, and vice versa.  Correcting for this requires constant minor control inputs to fix any disturbance before it gets out of control.  Think of trying to balance a stick or something upright in your hand.  This is *exhausting* for a human to do on by itself, let alone on top of any other high stress task for hours on end, so the fly-by-wire systems constantly adjust the control surfaces by itself to hold the fighter steady."
askscience,"It's possible but not likely that it would be immediate death. Anti air weaponry is typically low explosive because it doesn't take much damage to take an aircraft down, just damaging it significantly is good enough and the goal. Also in most combat scenarios, the missile will hit the engines.

Also, I'm not sure the aircraft is going to be able to out maneuver the missile, what you would hope for is to somehow maneuver quickly enough to get out of sight of the missile's tracking system. However that won't really happen considering the missile can out maneuver the aircraft and is much faster than the aircraft as well."
askscience,"Those systems do exist. The JU87 Stuka famously pulled out of dives on its own (provided the pilot clicked the bomb release button while the dive brake was deployed). It wasn't hugely precise, but it could pull harder than the pilot, allowing for a lower and more accurate release.

Some modern fighters like the F16 and F/A18 trialed systems that would save the pilot from hitting the ground completely automatically. Called GCAS, there's [footage of it saving a pilot who blacked out on youtube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkZGL7RQBVw). I'm not sure of its current status, it may be in widespread use already."
askscience,"Realistically there's not really any chance you'd be in a position for it to happen.

But, a Heatseaker has a IFF (identification friend or foe) before launching the missile, after firing the missile it is locked onto its target and will go after that, but if it looses the infrared lock (or something hotter comes along), it will go after the next heat source which can be a friendly plane as the missile only cares about the heat source of whatever its following once launched and has no distinguishing abilities on its own. 

The main issue with the missile hitting the aircraft that launched it isn't that it can't happen due to mechanics, but it's somehow physically doing some movie type maneuver to make the missile curve round and hit the plane that launched it "
askscience,"Yes, but you CANNOT skip the 2.5 years in any way, whereas 41K man hours means that if you have 41 people doing 60 hour work weeks, you're done in 4 months. It doesn't scale indefinitely, but it does scale.

Also, the supply of skilled pilots is considerably more limited than the supply of materials to build fighter jets. Just the amount of people that can handle the G-forces a figher pilot must already limits the amount. 

​"
askscience,"In real life, the idea is always to avoid a strike. Either through electronic warfare, blinding the missile, decoys, or maneuvering. Possibly soon, it will involve destroying the incoming missile.

Thoughts on defense against ground based anti-aircraft defenses have varied over the years. Initially it was all about going higher and faster. See the transition from B-36 to B-52 to B-70.

Then it was thought that the SAMs had gotten too good for that to work, so they decided to try low and relatively fast (but still subsonic, because it's hard to move supersonic down low). Turns out this is a mistake for two reasons: SAMs weren't actually that good, as evidenced by the later stages of the Vietnam war, once doctrine caught up with reality. Low and fast doesn't give you as much time to think of options as high and fast, because the missile doesn't have as much time to hit you. And going low exposes you to a lot more potential anti-aircraft fire. The big expensive SAMs required for defense against high altitude bombing might not work so well down low, but you can give cheap SAMs to a bunch more people, and even use stuff otherwise considered obsolete (radar guided artillery cannons).

This last problem wasn't realized for a while (not until OIF, roughly). It wasn't what spurred the idea of every fighter being Stealth, but it definitely didn't hurt. SAM defense now is mostly: try to avoid where it's defending, and when you can't, make sure the SAM site isn't there to be defending.

Heading for the ground might still be helpful, but more for being able to turn your potential energy into kinetic energy in order to run away better."
askscience,"Fighters rely on several things to evade radar guidance systems.

1. Radar jamming. Some more modern aircraft radars are capable of entering a “jamming mode” where they can interfere with the incoming radar signal. The F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning both have this, and some other older US fighters have been upgraded with it.

2. Pilot evasive maneuvers. A fighter jet will never be completely out of the control of its pilot, even if the automatic pilot is engaged, mostly because of the idea that you always want a *person* making decisions about when to employ a weapon system.

3. Chaff. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaff_(countermeasure)

Basically a short range projectile that contains metal or plastic fragments that can disrupt missile radars."
askscience,"He has a safety harness keeping him strapped to the rocket.  When he fires he is knocked off the harness and cooked in the rocket's exhaust as the safety harness keeps him tied to the rocket.  The rocket races forward straight while the road turns and slams into the side of a cliff - exploding and cracking the side of the cliff.  Wile E. Coyote peels off the side of the cliff, and falls down onto the desert floor below with a little mushroom cloud.  The force of his impact expands the cracked cliff face and a huge chunk of rock detaches and falls down, right onto our unfortunate predator. "
askscience,"easy - if the radar signal power level fades in and out - it's sweeping (looking for a target).  if the signal is strong & continuous it's locked on targeting you.

Edit - clarification on fades in and out...when the enemy's radar is pointed at you, the radar signal will be clear and distinct, when it points away from away from you the signal will be weaker and somewhat fuzzy since what you are sensing are jumbled reflections.  "
askscience,"Not out of the realm of possibility in the near future.  As it turns out, however- airplanes are designed with the pilot in mind. The airplane is usually stressed to 8-10 G forces- about the same as the pilot. Combine that with the short duration of the maneuver and it’s unlikely that the maneuver would incapacitate a pilot.  The F-16 currently has “computer in the loop” flight controls which help prevent controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) via Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance.  "
askscience,"The f18 super-hornet knows if you pass out though. If you release grip on the sticks it will just fly straight and level. This is not what that plane wants to do, without the flight computer if you took your hands of the sticks for long it would just tumble out of hte sky. They also auto launch, so when you are comming off the carrier the pilot doesn't actually control the aircraft. You will see they actually hold onto the handles during launch and only grab the controls after they start to pull up off the end of the ship. "
askscience,"Public knowledge? No. In reality? Probably.

Despite what people say here g force recovery times are fairly reproducible and consistent for a trained pilot. Modern jets monitor their pilots internals and can fly themselves for the most part. From an engineering perspective there's no real reason why the jet cant make the maneuver and fly itself until the human regains control.

That being said you could just make the jet fly itself with no pilot but to answer your specific question yes I'm sure this technology exists in a lab somewhere. I'm also sure it's in use in some aircraft."
askscience,"I don't think that's accurate either. The A-10C, for example, has multiple countermeasure modes; Manual, Semi-Automatic, and Automatic. In the automatic mode, the CMSP will automatically select the correct counter measure profile based on what the system *thinks* was shot at you, and then automatically dispense those countermeasures without the pilot having to do anything.

Semi-Automatic mode will automatically select the counter measure profile for the pilot, but the pilot will have to manually press a button to begin dispensing counter meausres.

And in Manual mode, the pilot has to select both the counter measure profile and manually activate it. "
askscience,"Perhaps you're envisioning a situation like a dog fight or near range shot where the attacker and target both are aware of each other. Future combat might not be like that. 

A stealth fighter might not turn on their radar at all because doing so also gives away their location. They might rely on passive data or data from other aircraft. Firing from >50 miles away. The missile turns on radar last mile or so. But yes according to public data, bvr shots have a ~60% kill rate."
askscience,"While you are technically correct “cone of shrapnel” isn’t a valid way to describe the warhead action of a missile, depending on the missile type it could be a radial fragmentation (bunch of metal cubes blown out in a circle around the missile), to continuous rod (basically an expanding buzz saw rotating at high speed).

Again depending on the missile depends on the warhead (and even different models of the same missile can have different warhead types), and my comments reflect knowledge of US based missiles only."
askscience,"To clarify one point: the RWR cannot always detect when the radar has switched from scanning to a lock because there are different ways of locking up a target. The RWR generally knows when the aircraft has been locked because the locking radar narrows the radar sweep so instead of scanning the area immediately around the target, for example, once every two seconds, it scans that area several times per second and continually adjusts the focus of the sweep to keep it centered on the target.

Modern ""conventional"" (versus even more modern active electronically scanned array systems) radar systems can guide active radar homing missiles (i.e. those with their own onboard radar in the seeker) within the shorter acquisition range of the missile (a little over a few miles) with only a ""soft lock,"" which involves having the aircraft's onboard computer extrapolate target movements. The target can't tell the difference, so you don't know when you're locked/launched on versus just being scanned until the missile seeker goes active very roughly ~10 seconds from impact. This is all very fuzzy information, though, since all of this is still largely classified and it's hard to find definitive public information.

I have no idea how this works with AESA systems since they scan ridiculously fast all the time."
askscience,"Yes, but most missiles will burn through all its fuel in matter of seconds. After that, it'll lose its speed quickly. If the pilot have ample warning time, a proper maneuver can force the missile to bleed its speed to the point that it can no longer catch up with the aircraft. Missiles don't ""chase"" planes the way movie portrayed, unless the targeted aircraft is very close to the launching point, the missiles will basically be ""gliding"" toward the aircraft by then because after the burnout, it no longer have the power. It'll be more like a tanker truck encountering an out-of-fuel motorcycle that still have a lot of momentum from prior speeding. "
askscience,"Taking it a bit further, different radars operate on different frequencies. You can tell what kind of radar is pointing at you based on that. In the flashlight analogy, you could think of it as color of the light (that literally is the frequency of the light actually). And if you know that a green light is a search radar, and a red light a guidance radar, you can then know if you're targetted or just being spotted.

Taking what /u/__redruM said also, its important to note that besides just exposing you, radar exposes you at much further distances than its capable of seeing. Again, the flashlight analogy works well. A flashlight really only illuminates everything for a few feet in front of you, but someone a mile away might be able to see the flashlight when its pointed in their direction. The person with the flashlight can't see this other person, but this other person can see them (or at least the light of their flashlight). Radar works the same way."
askscience,"Not sure about missiles, but the technology is there to terrain avoidance. Auto GCAS (ground collision avoidance system) has already been credited with saving a number of pilots.

""Once the program recognizes the aircraft is likely to crash, it prompts the pilot to evade either a ground crash or a controlled flight into terrain situation. If no action is taken, Auto GCAS assumes temporary control, engaging an autopilot maneuver to roll the aircraft upright and initiate a 5-G climb, diverting the plane and pilot out of harm’s way.

After putting the aircraft on a safe trajectory, the system then returns aircraft control to the pilot.""

https://www.acc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1026196/point-of-recovery-ground-collision-avoidance-system-saving-pilots-lives/    article about it

https://youtu.be/WkZGL7RQBVw       video of it in action, referenced in article. You can tell when the pilot passes out based on his breathing. You can hear another pilot yelling ""two (his callsign sully-2), recover"" as he dives below the ""floor"" of the exercise, 12,000 ft (numbers on the right side). The x across the screen with ""fly up"" is the auto GCAS kicking in, with an audible tone and verbal warning ""pull up."" The other pilot calls ""knock it off"" (cease activity due to a safety concern) and tells him to ""get yourself back above the floor"" (return to the airspace they're cleared to be in)"
askscience,"The radar warning receiver is simply a series of sensors that are capable of measuring the wavelengths/frequencies of incoming emr (electromagnetic radiation). They are capable of sensing emr in the range of the electromagnetic spectrum that is used for radar, and they send the raw data to a computer in the plane.

The computer is able to take parameters such as frequency, wavelength, and power, and identify not only what mode the radar that is painting the aircraft is in, but what type of radar it is, and from that information what type of plane is locking you up or searching you. The way this is accomplished is a combination of really good programming, and military intelligence to gather information on enemy radar systems and their specific radar signatures. I'm not sure the exact methods they use to build databases of different radar patterns, but I'm sure there is a huge amount of human effort and money that goes into the construction and maintenance of an RWR system.  


​"
askscience,"'any danger' is too broad of a hand-wave my dude.
even 'medical danger' is broad enough to include the uncertainty in recovery latency resulting in further weapons vulnerability, aircraft malfunction, and crashing.

Yes we know 'knocked out' doesn't imply death, except in totally complicated scenarios or something.... like being in a plane, hurtling through air at supersonice speeds, that may or may not have just evaded a missile, it relies on you waking up within a 100ms-2s to qualify as 'fault tolerant'."
askscience,"Yeah, missiles have gotten a lot better, on both sides.  The F4 occasionally ended up in gun range in very large part *because the Migs needed to be in gun range*.  Both sides use missiles, now.

Most fighters still have guns mainly because they're occasionally called to fire at soft targets where a missile wouldn't be appropriate, like strafing an enemy ground position or shooting down a non-threatening air target that isn't worth the cost of a missile."
askscience,"The sensors for detecting IR missile launches are generally looking for a UV burst as the rocket motor ignites, rather than a heat signature. While IR missiles aren't particularly long range, they're likely launching from multiple kilometers away and detecting a small heat signature at that range with a wide field of view system is seriously difficult. On the other hand, picking a bright flash of UV (that tends not to come from many other sources) is relatively easy. 

Of course, this can be taken advantage of. If someone on the ground was to be say, arc welding, it can set off the IR warning system within a limited range."
askscience,"The Russians were working on a HUGE (like 1,500 lb) anti-radiation missile with a 400km+ range specifically for the purpose of engaging AWACS (and possibly tanker, homing in on emissions like TACAN) aircraft.

Even if they couldn't reliably kill AWACS it would force them to evade and be less effective. I'm pretty sure the program ran out of money before anything was fielded but the concept wasn't totally ludicrous.

Another plan that I don't think ever got beyond planning was a turbine powered cruise missile-like first stage with a solid rocket second stage that lit off when near the target."
askscience,"And to extend it to stealth/radar cross section: imagine you're wearing a white t-shirt. You'll be seen much sooner than if you were covered in all black clothes. That's the difference between radar reflective and radar absorbent material.

Now imagine you're covered in mirrors carefully angled away from the guy with the flashlight. That's stealth shaping. The nightmare there is you have to make sure that every edge is perfectly fit so it doesn't glint."
askscience,"I would not be surprised if we find that we need a second human either in the aircraft or remotely to be a drone/sensor/weapons operator and the pilot does piloting.

Managing the cloud of drones that operate sensors, carry additional fuel and/or weapons and fly on hostile airspace is a complex task. Some of the theories blending drones, stealth fighters and non-stealth weapons trucks is interesting. Can't wait to see how it all settles once the technologies mature."
askscience,"Adding to this, the RWR does it magic by analyzing a radar transmission mainly through its frequency and pulse rate.  It will compare this data with a library of known radar signatures and present this information to the pilot.  If an unknown radar signature is encountered, I imagine some sort of heuristics is used.  There is little to no information in this area that is available to the public for obvious reasons.  The frequency and pulse rate of a search radar is generally not the same as they are for a radar that is used to ""lock on"" to a target.  Certain frequencies are good for searching for a target but not good enough to guide a missile to hit a target.  Other frequencies are just the opposite.  You can see evidence of this in articles about stealth detecting radars.  They never mention how good it is at shooting down a stealth airplane.  Pulse rates are generally higher when a radar is ""locked on"" to get the most up to date information to get the best chance of hitting a target with a missile.  

 Just having a RWR does not automatically mean a pilot has a clear picture of all radar activity in the area.  During the Yom Kippur War, the SA-6 made its combat debut and spanked the IAF because they did not have any information on its radar signature.  The effectiveness of a RWR is mainly dependent on the signature library.  A library is worthless if there are no books in it.  One can imagine how some of these signatures were acquired and what is required to keep this information up to date.

​"
askscience,"Generally no, there are various ways of reducing/eliminating interference, to allow friendly forces to recognize their own signals, and to hopefully prevent enemies from spoofing or jamming. There are a range of frequencies available, schemes that may jump around or sweep across frequencies, ways of coding the signal to make it stand out, and equipment able to detect which direction a signal is coming from.

While you could jam a target's radar systems, you probably wouldn't try this at the same time as attempting your own radar lock, unless you were certain the two systems wouldn't interfere with each other. There is also the risk of weapons being trained on anything emitting radar (e.g. anti-radiation missiles)."
askscience,"It is avoidable for ground sites, thats how the Serbian air defence network was able to do so well with essentially obsolete equipment vs NATO air power during the breakup of the former Yugoslavia.

Just because they didnt WIN (yeah, winning vs any coalition involving the USAF, let alone their allies aint happening unless you're a nuclear power) doesnt take away from the achievement of what they did do, which was drastically reduce the effectiveness of NATO's airpower during the campaign."
askscience,To piggy back on tasteslikesardines comment. The search radar is pulse and the tracker is CW (at least on the last system I worked on). We used to set the radar to work before fitting it on the type 42 destroyer. One way to test the tracker was to scan for a nice fast flying aircraft and get a missile lock on it so the tracker could track. This worked fine and didn't upset anybody until the air-force started flying over. The tornado crews were not happy when the alarms all went off. I later worked with one of the navigators and he told me the adrenaline rush was very difficult to come down from and that we were very lucky they never flew with live missiles because they would probably have just fired on us as an auto response. We still thought it was funny. Ground crew don't often get one up on the fly boys.
askscience,"> The pulse radar range of the AWACS is over 400mi

Is it true the AWACS could focus on a plane and dial up the power until the electronics are all fried and the pilot can no longer sire children?

I think I read that in a Tom Clancy book. He talks about them using it as a way to express displeasure (you're getting too close to the mother ship!) without shooting them down and starting a war."
askscience,"I have a family and am the primary breadwinner. I understand that it is supposed to be a 'threat' but it is something I couldn't do.

Just yesterday I went to see a doctor for it as I was referred to them, and their response to 'Ive had physical therapy, which made it worse, ive had muscle relaxers, which didnt help, ive had nerve relaxers, which helped only a little, a mixture of the two which worked but made it hard for me to make it to the bathroom, much less function at work, ive had several different anti inflammatories because 3 differwnt doctors thought it was a swelling of a muscle aggrivating a muscle at the base of the head that was aggivating the nerve cluster. Thosr never helped. Ive also been perscribed a medication for nerve pain and depression, but after two weeks i couldnt handle the insomnia, the mini blackouts, the dizziness, the heat waves, and the like. Ive also had 2 injections of some steroid which made things worse, and had Xrays and an MRI which showed nothing.'

And the fucker responded with 'Its your posture, im gunna refer you to a physical therapist, and give you a steroid injection for today'.

I kinda just threw in the towel on the whole institution for the moment. I guess I will work like always, maybe black out from pain every once in awhile, lose tons of sleep to the pain, but ill be damned if Im gunna put more money into getting told 'Hey theres nothing wrong' and have to deal with those symptoms anyway.

Maybe ill get into illegal narcotics (/s). More than likely though ill just be miserable and depressed though. And its tough to explain to people that I usually hover around a 3/10 pain for a normal day, but that usually goes up to a 6 by the end of the day, and can hover at a 8 or 9 for several days at a time, and that the pain is depressing me, not some sycophantic self loathing (though i figure we all have our fair share of that)

Sorry for the wall. Felt like venting.

Have a good day m8."
askscience,"It's the R-37, its operational range is somewhere between 150-400 km. While 400 km is doable for a missile that large, being able to target an AWACS from that distance is unrealistic since an interceptor's radar can't hope to match AWACS' huge radar. The launch would definitely be noticed. 

R-37 is reported to have a speed of around Mach 6, or about 2 km per second. So if an AWACS is exactly 4 km, it'll still take almost 3 minutes and a half for the missile to travel that distance (and I'm ignoring the fact that the missile will already ran out of fuel like a third of the way before and is just ""gliding"" at this point), I wouldn't doubt that even a 707 could evade a missile very low on energy from that range with that much warning time. The escorting fighter would be throwing chaffs to distract it away as well. 

It is possible to build a cruise missile that can targeted other aircraft, however, those will have a large RCS and could be shot down by an escorting fighter. That's why the idea doesn't really lift off. "
askscience,"Satellites will only have a limited window of visibility as they pass over, possibly not enough to coordinate the engagement. You'd also need a lot of them to have sufficient coverage. Closest I've read to that is signals intelligence satellites detecting the radar emissions of warships. As they're slower moving, you can lob a missile in their direction (from an undetected submarine for bonus points) and it'll generally be in the right place when it arrives. "
askscience,"No worries! I would hate to see someone wander into trouble because they thought it’d be safe. 

The difference is send versus receive.  Pilots want to know when they’re being targeted by shoulder launched weapons as well as big SAM sites. As to how the pilot or the aircraft responds, I would hazard to guess is based on aircraft configuration, model and experience. I would imagine, since the frequencies of police RADAR are known, it is negligible these days. 

The effective range of many modern police RADAR units are usually around a mile, but the actual range the beam can travel is significant (technically infinite, until reflected, refracted or absorbed). This is usually why car RADAR detectors go off for no explicable reason. "
askscience,"At peak output they will only be producing 17 per month for the F-35. What is the max they could feasibly produce per month? 50? Let's say 50 planes per month for 2.5 years. That is 1,500 aircraft produced at a cost of $120 billion. 

Individual pilots may take longer to train but you can train thousands of them at a time if necessary. Over the same 2.5 year period you can train 1,500 pilots for just $3.9 billion, a tiny fraction of the cost of the aircraft. Let's include the statistical total value of a human life which is between $7 and $9 million. Let's say they are all really exceptional people worth $18 per head. That is a total net value to society for 1,500 pilots including  training investment, lifetime support to include college, and total lifetime potential future earnings of $30.9 billion dollars.

I'm not saying we should view human life as an expendable commodity ever but as a statistical matter for war planning on average an 80 million aircraft is worth 4 to 7 times as much as the pilot that flies it."
askscience,Humans and chimps mate all the year round so there’s not really a season where it is favourable for mating. If there was a particular bad time of year for babies to be born i.e. depths of winter in the arctic circle then it would be common sense make things easier by not mating 9 months earlier but this is a conscious decision and not a biologically driven. Anyone who has tried for a baby knows there’s a few days every month when the chances are highest when the woman is in oestrus which is probably the closest thing to a mating time.
askscience,"What you're describing are [tangent circles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangent_circles). The circles touch at exactly one point.

Algebraically, we can write the equations of the two circles as:

(x - x_1)^(2) \+ (y - y_1)^(2) = r_1^(2)

and

(x - x_2)^(2) \+ (y - y_2)^(2) = r_2^(2)

where the first circle has center (x_1,y_1) and radius r_1, and the second circle has center (x_2,y_2) and radius r_2.

If we look for values of x and y that satisfy both of these equations, there are three possibilities:

1. There are no solutions. The circles do not touch.
2. There is one solution. The circles are tangent.
3. There are two solutions. The circles overlap."
askscience,"But what is the value of the point at which the touch? That’s always bugged me. 
The only equations I have seen basically are to determine whether or not they touch. And that’s the basic answer I get from a lot of math teachers. But what is the value of the point? Can it even be measured, or would that be an example of a value not zero, but just above? "
askscience,"It's not permitted. Two figures are considered litterally ""the same"" in that case. I'm afraid I can't explain it better than this since english is not my native language. e.g.: two squares having the same size and the same (obv bi-dimensional) position on the plane are exactly the same object on the plane, unless you are switching in a 3d space where two squares having same starting two coordinates and size may float one on top of the other (from a top-down perspective). In that case ""the same"" square would be a square with all the equal three coordinates. Same for a 3 object. 

Sorry if I made any confusion. Maybe someone else can be more clear :) "
askscience,"I am hoping that someone who Knows will post.  I've only seen the ""trick someone into sticking their arm in"" method.  If we could lure mosquitoes into drinking from tubs of blood, it seems to me that that provides a method for annihilating mosquitoes.  Some Africans bleed their cattle rather than slaughtering them.  So that's half of the job done, right? The other half is putting something into the blood that will make the mosquitoes die or fail to breed.  Maybe HFCS. (j/k)"
askscience,"Idk why it was tagged as math, but even still, I would assume, not necessarily pool, that was more of an example, but, sphere or circle. Either is the same. But when you talk about a point, a point has to have value, either 0, which means there is no point, or 0.0000001(with infinite zeros) being the smallest amount of contact possible, which technically, should be an infinitesimal, correct?  

But the question remains, if two perfect circles, or spheres, are tangent, there is contact, so the value, so to speak, cannot be zero. That would mean they are not tangent. 
They touch, meaning, the circumference of each touch, but how much touches? If they were tangent squares, than, whatever the value of a side is, would be the value of which they make contact. "
askscience,">a point has to have value

Define ""value."" There's a mathematical concept of ""measure"" which is probably closest to what you're trying to say.

>either 0, which means there is no point

Why can't there be a point? Points have 0 length, width, or height. In terms of measure, a single point has 0 measure. In fact, there are infinite collections of points which have 0 measure.

>0.0000001(with infinite zeros)

This is not a valid real number. Every digit must occur a finite number of places after the decimal. At what position does the 1 occur?

>infinitesimal

Infinitesimals are generally not considered to exist in standard real analysis (essentially the study of real numbers and functions on the real numbers). There are ways to formalize the concept, but for non-experts its best to forget about them entirely."
askscience,"You won't find your answer because you're using mathematical models to describe physics, without taking into consideration the validity of your models. In maths, there is only one point. In reality, you'll never have a perfect circle, and you need to take into account elasticity, perhaps even quantum phsyics to study the very close point of impact, for all I know. There will always be a reason why it'll never truly be a point of impact. It's like trying to apply 1+2+3+.. = -1/12 to your everyday life. It holds some value but you've got to be very careful about how to use your mathematical results in the reality.

​

That being said, it's considered as a point for physics, and you can calculate the distribution of energies with a -point- of impact. But again, it's just a model. Not reality. Reality is, your circumference is practically impossible to determinate, as there are too many factors."
askscience,"Yes.  The given age of the universe is in the frame of reference of minimal motion relative to the cosmic background radiation.  This means that if we look left, right, up or down we can't tell the difference between the temperature of the background.  If we had a large motion it would be blue-shifted in some directions and red shifted in others.  

It is also given relative to being in an area with no strong gravitational fields.


If you were travelling with a high speed relative to the background you could calculate a different ""local"" age of the universe.


If you were stationary in a strong gravitation field and you would also calculate a different age of the universe, however this would not help you much, as you would be dead."
askscience,"No, because strong in this case refers to how strong gravity can be.  Just as 600km/s ( our speed relative to CMB )  is crazy fast in comparison to 0m/s, but basically a rounding error in comparison to 300,000km per second, so is 11.2km/s ( escape velocity of earth ) basically 0 in comparison to the escape velocity of a neutron star (100,000 to 150,000 km/s), the strongest gravitational field one can be stationary in.


"
askscience,">If you were travelling with a high speed relative to the background you could calculate a different ""local"" age of the universe.

>If you were stationary in a strong gravitation field and you would also calculate a different age of the universe, however this would not help you much, as you would be dead.

Given the length of a human life and the necessary speed/acceleration to achieve the first option, would this really be less deadly than the second option?"
askscience,"You should see the NASA sat loop of the winter, spring, summer, fall cycle of vegetation dying then growing but instead you see the Co2 levels dramatically rise and by mid summer you se O2 levels dramatically rise.

Pretty awesome satellite loop. 

Edit: I’ve posted the link three times but I had somebody PM they are not showing up, the links.  I’ll try this...


https://youtu.be/x1SgmFa0r04

https://youtu.be/2BWWrJr6TJw



Can you all see this???


Edit: now I can see the messages people are posting pop up on my phone but as soon as I tap to see they are gone.  Something is going on."
techsupport,"So my gaming PC is relatively new, I built it about two years ago. It’s always run without any issues but today it decided to go Awalt. 


I turned on my PC and went to the widows login screen and put in my password but as soon as I was in my home screen my mouse stopped working. It’s a wired mouse that I’ve had for years but the light on it turned off and it wouldn’t move the cursor. I disconnected it and connected it to another PC and the mouse worked fine. I tried connecting it to other USB ports on my pc but I had the same issue. I then decided to turn the pc off and on again but when I turned it on again it gave me a prompt saying there was no signal input, it also won’t respond to my keyboard.


TLDR: my pc won’t respond to anything plugged into it"
techsupport,"I clicked on a link today and some people said this was a keylogger i scanned the URL on virustotal but i dont really understand much about this stuff i would appreciate if anyone could tell me if this link is safe or not. Here is what i got when i scanned it.

http://imgbc.com/images/U6FY3FK/

Serving IP Address

95.142.32.180

Status Code

200

Body Length

5.55 KB

Body SHA-256

21e48444e3251b11b8e9f2a640e7d180e030bf779809f986f386b9f8893c8c0c

Headers
connection: keep-alive 
content-type: text/html 
date: Sun, 02 Sep 2018 21:41:11 GMT
server: nginx 
transfer-encoding: chunked 
vary: Accept-Encoding 
x-powered-by: PHP/7.1.21

"
techsupport,"I've done everything I could to prevent updates beforehand, and it sitll faield on me.

I had the update disabler service running.

I had the windows update service disabled and set to no retry.

I had stopped updates from the task scheduler.

I had applied all Windows Update registry settings I know of.

I had set a metered connection.

And probably more.

I NEED to stop this update from installing. What can I do, right now, that would stop it from installing, and prevent it from happening again? I'm in a position right now that I can't afford an update, and this is my number one priority. As you can tell, I took preventative measures, and it still found a way through. I cannot explain how desparate I am. How can I stop this update?"
techsupport,"So I'll start with I have the basics of networking down, I've been through network+, started dabbling in cisco ios, but know absolutely nothing about networking on the scale of an ISP.

So here's where the meat is, I live in an area where we have a ""private"" ISP, as in, not comcast or TWC or something, and for the last week or so I started noticing some weird behavior from my home network, my google homes would often say there was a problem, and games would drop connection randomly, but I never lost any packets, I had a ping test running for like 1000 iterations, and had 0% packet loss. Speeds were exactly what they should be, but still just weird stuff was happening, my security cameras upload clips of motion to the cloud, and they were coming in corrupt. I tried a new router, then eliminated the router and connected to the modem and was still having issues, such as one game in particular wouldn't connect. So I finally tried connecting to a VPN, and suddenly, the game connected, I wasn't getting horrid DNS resolution times randomly (which I had tried different DNS servers both at my computer and at my router, to no avail), everything worked perfectly...

So I went out and bought a router that has a VPN client so I could blanket my network with the VPN, and suddenly my google homes are working perfectly again...

​

My question is this, how the hell did a VPN fix my issue? Is it something with their routing? One person said that they got someone to tell them that they were taking the Data Blockers (apparently used to keep internet only customers from getting cable?) off everyones lines, as that was part of the issue? I feel like there's enough I don't know about the infrastructure, that the info about the data blockers could honestly go either way, it could be related, or it could be BS.

​

I know this is a crazy long post, and ultimately, it doesn't matter, they say they know what the issue is, but I'm just supremely curious, and I really want to know what they fucked up. I'm making an assumption of course that they fucked something up, because their whole operation seems to be poorly managed.

​

If I haven't given enough info for someone with behind the scenes knowledge to make a guess, I'm sorry, please let me know if there's something else I could give you."
techsupport,"I've put my PS4's IP into the DMZ. Didn't work.

I've forwarded all the ports listed on portforward.com. Didn't work.

I drilled a hole in my floor to run an ethernet cable directly into my router. Didn't work.

I bought a new router. Didn't work.

I recently switched ISPs from Xfinity to a local company that runs my city's municipal fiber network. I called them and they said there was nothing they could do since I wasn't using their router.

I'm completely at a loss. I don't know what to do. Please send help.

EDIT: After some tweaking and troubleshooting, I got a call back from my ISP, which is a miracle considering it's Labor Day. Basically they have everything locked down tight on their end so I have to pay a couple extra dollars a month for a static IP address. Thanks everyone for taking the time to respond! Your help was very much appreciated!"
techsupport,"So I got this ""system mechanic"" program I saw recommended, thinking it'd clean up my pc a little bit. Well it fucking did.

Started up the pc today, what do I see?

 Everything has been restored to what's basically a fresh install of windows, my desktop's all fucked up, seemingly random icons are still there (I had like 40+ icons, like 10 were left, I don't know by which criteria). 

All of my settings are gone (stuff like not adding -shortcut when you create a shortcut).

The ""downloads"" folder from quick access has been defaulted to ""default"" I guess, making me think I lost all my downloads, but no for some reason it just made the other one default.

I lost all my documents in the my documents folder.

Lost all of the browser settings. Literally. Like I reinstalled firefox. Also chrome and IE even though I don't use them.

What can I do at this point?

Edit: System restore fixed a lot of shit, I spent an hour fixing up the numerous small problems it didn't fix (like only being able to access reddit for some reason, every other site would get stuck at TSL handshake)."
techsupport,"This is a prebuilt pc which says a lot about my building knowledge

So I have the Corsair CX750M, 750W PSU (https://www.komplett.no/product/773377?noredirect=true#)

The gpu I am switching from is the gtx 780 which is connected to a 8pin, and a 6pin. But the new ASUS GeForce GTX 1080Ti ROG Strix gpu I bought needs two 8pins.

I have that x2 6pin to 8pin adapter it came with. Maybe there is something clearly I don see here that would connect them together. My first thought is to connect the 6 pin that my gtx 780 used to the adapter that came with the 1080 ti, but this wont surely work?"
techsupport,"So completely out of the blue, overnight my computer stopped functioning properly and everything really las behind and I have no idea what the issue might be. Everything is fine for the first couple minutes after booting up but that’s when everything starts to slow down. I noticed that when I open task manager during the initial start up the disk usage percentage shoots up to 99% but then gradually makes it way down then starts to fluctuate a little bit. I have 16 GB of ram yet 33% of memory is being used while nothing but background processes are running. I did notice a bit of a weird Grinding noise coming from the computer but after looking into it further the noise was coming from the Corsair liquid cooler and when the fan was unplugged the noise stopped but the computer continued to be slow. I’m not sure what kind of issue this could possibly be. I’ve cleaned out the inside, made sure the sata/psu cables were in tight, ran CCleaner, scanned for viruses with malware bytes and nothing turned up. I’m wondering what kind of issue this may be, whether it’s a disk, cpu, or memory issue.



Specs:


i7-4790k(never overclocked)
Gtx 1070 strix
16 gb ram
650 gold evga psu
"
techsupport,"Motherboard: asrock z77 extreme4
Video Card: MSI R6950 Twin Frozr III 
PS: Antec Neo ECO 620C

So I put my computer in sleep last night, but wouldn't wake this morning. I reset it, but nothing would display on my monitor, can't even see bios menu. I've tried a bunch of the solutions I've seen online and nothing has worked. I know my monitor & hdmi cables work, as I tested them with my laptop. My computer's fans turn on and led lights come on, but nothing for video input.

Also my error code on my motherboard led screen say A2, which is an ide/sata issue but unplugging my hard drive and optical drive didn't work. Also all the problems I've found online all seem to deal with new builds, while I've had this pc for almost 6 years now, and quit working overnight.
"
techsupport,"Hello there, first time poster.

I have a Lenovo Y50-70 laptop that I use mainly for gaming. Under CPU+GPU load, the CPU is severely overheating, so much that even at minimum frequency (800MHz) and on a cooling pad it goes up to \~70°C. GPU doesn't throttle but still heats up to \~85°C.

I have recently cleaned the insides free of any dust and the fans are seemingly working properly, so I believe the culprits to the poor heat dissipation are 1) the air extraction located on the hinge (!), and 2) the thermal compound gone bad.

Since I obviously can't do anything about the first one, I was planning to buy some Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut, but I remembered I had some ProlimaTech thermal compound remaining in a syringe that was bundled with my heatsink from 5 years ago.

So my question is : can I use this 5-year-old thermal compound to put into my laptop, or should I just buy a new syringe ?

EDIT : added details about the ProlimaTech compound

----------

Thank you all for your input. I have decided to go ahead and buy new thermal paste to replace the old one."
techsupport,"As the title says, I have a black screen since yesterday. The computer was working just fine the day before, temps were normal, everything was ok. Tried to boot it yesterday morning but the screen just stays black. Every fan and LED work. I tried to change my GPU, still a blackscreen. I then tried another monitor, still a black screen. Switched from DVI to HDMI, no results. I also tried to remove a RAM and then the other just to be sure, still no luck. Tried to plug my GPU into the other slot without success. I read somewhere that a dead mobo's battery could cause a black screen, so I decided to remove it for 2 hours and then plug it back, no difference. Note that the mobo's battery has a brown mark on it so it may be dead for good but could it rly cause a black screen ? I'm not sure if it's relevant but I can still open my CD/DVD drive. The computer does the same old sound it has always made, the only notable difference is the black screen.

My specs are :

Mobo : MSI 970A-G43
PSU : Corsair CX 430
GPU : Geforce GTX 1050 2go OC edition (The GPU isn't connected to the PSU)
CPU : AMD Fx6300 Black  Edition
Ram : 2x Gskill RipJaws DDR3 1866
OS : W7 64 family edition premium

As you can see the computer is pretty old, but it has always been clean.

Any help is appreciated, thanks a lot to everyone who take the time to help me!

"
techsupport,"**Solution** So, I opened up the computer to check the battery (somehow only broke one clip), and as /u/fuzzyspudkiss suggested, the ribbon cable connecting the power button to the motherboard has come detached. Put it back in place, and now we’re up and running again! My guess is he fucked it up by opening the computer, got scared, and tried to blame it on a “what’re the chances???” software problem. Thanks for everyone’s help and suggestions. As an aside, I chewed my roommate out and he bought me two sushi rolls for dinner tonight!

I’ll be straight up. I’m not naturally inclined towards computers, but I can usually figure things out with a bit of reading. I’m totally stumped on this one though. 

My roommate just got a job in IT, and loves messing with computer shit. I was complaining about a sluggish laptop, and he asked me if I wanted him to “tune up” my laptop. I said sure (that was fucking stupid). 

I don’t have a clue what he did or how he got to disabling buttons and keys and shit, but he someone got the main power button disabled. He also left the laptop sitting out over night without a charge without turning the switch back on. I guess it was low enough on battery that it went into hibernation/died. 

Anyway, I can’t get it to do anything without that button. I’ve tried hooking it up to my desktop, but because it was a budget Dell, the only possible connection was either HDMI or USB, and since the computer is off, neither of those were helpful. 

Any ideas?

Edit: the laptop is a Dell Inspiron 13 7000 series; Reg model: P69G"
techsupport,"Hello guys, I have a problem configuring a raid0 setup. 

My motherboard is de SLI x99 Krait edition, and my windows 10 is installed on a m.2 drive on board. I have 4 separated ssd's connected via sata, and I want to make a raid0 out of them.

I followed the instructions I found online, set the bios (updated to last version) to RAID mode, CTR+I on restart, configured the raid and selected the drives, then exit. When I restart in RAID mode, I get a message of wrong booting device, but even selecting my os drive on the boot menu gets me the same message. When I set the bios to AHCI I can boot normally, but the raid isn't working. If i go again to RAID mode, and enter the raid setup with CTRL-I, the status on the RAID says ""FAILED"".

Can you guys give me any advice?

Thank you!
"
techsupport,"Hi Guys! I'm new on building a PC and I just purchased a new Motherboard but when I plugged all my previous peripherals, There's No Post and Monitor is always shows Power Saving mode. I Tried changing Cmos Battery, Reset it, Reseat my Processor, Used my PSU from my other PC, Change Ram slots, Use my other VGA, Changed my Power and Monitor cables but to no avail still shows no Signal. I dunno what to do and I'm stuck on this PC for 3 days already :(

Here is my Specs

Mobo: ASRock H61M-S
CPU: Intel i5-2500k
RAM: 2 x 4gb Corsair Vengeance 1600MHz
PSU: Antec 520w
VGA: PowerColor Radeon HD 6570 2gb

Thank you in Advance!"
techsupport,"I've had this printer for a few years and it worked well for the first year or so then just stopped printing. It kept giving me errors and I didn't know why. My bf finally figured it out (stupidly simple problem) it had a spring that got jammed in the rollers that take in the paper. 

So by this time it had sat for a few months not being used and the ink had not yet dried up completely (surprisingly) and it worked again! I didn't need to use this printer for a few months again as I had gotten a job and wasn't doing my art as often. 

Fast forward a maybe 4-5 months and I needed to use it to scan something and it now won't connect to my laptop. I know the ink is dried up now and I don't need to print anything I just want to scan something but it doesn't even show up on my computer while it's plugged in and on. The big red \[X\] is flashing and the 2 ink drop icons are flashing because it has no/dried ink but I should still be able to scan things. 

My computer info (what I can tell):  HP 15-f387wm  Windows 10 

​

I can't afford a new better all-in-one printer but this one keeps giving me issues. Please help if you can! "
techsupport,"I made a post here yesterday about how I think maybe my GPU is broken. Turns out afaik it's working fine, so I tried to look at other possible solutions. I started Golf with Friends again and took a look at task manager, the moment I started Golf with Friends with 2FPS I also noticed  that my CPU was running at full speed, 100%. Idle (not running the game) It's at 15-20%. As I stated in my previous post, I got a local PC shop to put my pc back together after I moved overseas, and the only thing they had to do was reapply thermal paste and connect my CPU cooler and GPU to the machine again. Is this just a case of someone doing a bad job with the thermal paste, or can it maybe be software related?"
techsupport,"Hi,

I'm getting 50 FPS less than I should on games such as Fortnite. I got the PC today, and compared to other PC's with the same GPU and CPU, I am getting worse performance.

Specs:- MSI 1080 Aero OC- Ryzen 7 2700x- 16GB of RAM @ 3000 Mhz- 600W EVGA BR Bronze Rated 80+ PSU- Prime B450-Plus Motherboard

My 1080 reaches a MAX temp of 82 degrees and I put everything on the highest settings (EPIC) at 1080p on Fortnite, but I don't think there is a problem with it as my clockspeed is 1800 Mhz which is good (or is it?).

But a big problem I think is that on Windows 10 it says that I have 16GB of RAM, but only 8GB is usable. AND on CPU-Z it says that my RAM only has a speed of 2133 Mhz. In the BIOS, I set the AI Overclock Tuner to D.O.P.C and it says the Memory Speed is 3000 Mhz, but what I found weird is that when I exited, it says I changed the AI Overclock Tuner from Auto to D.O.P.C but it doesn't say the Memory Speed changed. Then I manually changed the Memory Speed and it still doesn't pop up. My BIOS is up to date.

Will the RAM problem give me a decent sized decrease in FPS?

For extra info, I bought a cheap Windows 10 licensing key and installed Windows on a USB on another PC and transferred it to my new PC. Maybe it's the OS?

Thanks a bunch guys!"
techsupport,"One example is: If I have Windows XP Professional, the only Windows Vista OS types I can upgrade to are Vista Ultimate and Vista Business. for any other vista edition it needs to be a clean install.

I do tech support for work and i'm looking for an easy reference guide so I don't have to look this crap up every time I have a customer or client with a specific upgrade path I haven't been exposed to yet. Lets just say my boss/coworkers aren't all that helpful because sadly I know more than them about computer tech support. it's kinda sad.

this kind of thing is easy to find for the windows editions i'm most likely to find out there, but for editions like the enterprise edition and the education edition, it's a little harder. I'm looking for an all-inclusive reference. I'm sure there's probably an official windows support webpage somewhere that has this information, but I guess my google search ability just doesn't cut it."
techsupport,"TL;DR I have bad wifi when other people use it at same time, I want to get ethernet to computer but wifi is a floor up and I cannot move it! I need help finding a solution!


Ok hopefully this post won’t get too long. I live in a house with 4 people and in a 3 story house a big basement (where my computer is), main floor (where wifi is), and upstairs. Basically I am a big gamer and most games i average around 30 ping when it is just me on the wifi but as soon as another member of the house starts streaming Netflix or even something as simple as google my ping skyrockets and I cannot preform any tasks. I have the ability to move the wifi router to my basement and plug in ethernet that way and my wifi is amazing even if 2 other people are streaming or playing games. But the downside of moving the router is this ruins the wifi in the top floor where the other person who mainly uses the wifi works/plays. I was thinking about getting a 50 foot ethernet cable and just running it across the floor but it would probably be a huge eyesore and the other people wouldn’t like it. I started doing research and heard about this thing called a wifi bridge and you can plug it into a wall socket and then get ethernet from there. Not sure if this is the best solution or even if this would work. I would love help and if i need to give more specifications just let me know!

"
techsupport,"About 2 months ago I dissasembled my dad's old PC, and it had a 320 GB drive. My friend is really tight on storage on his PC, and I want to give him this drive, but before that I want to wipe it. Problem is, it has a virus on it (Same virus that made headlines in 2016 that infected a ton of hospitals and requested ""ransom"" to unlock it). How do I wipe it without nuking my own hard drive?"
techsupport,"I just got a new laptop that I'm going to use to record gameplay and then transfer the footage to my desktop to edit. 

I originally planned to record the files directly onto an external hard drive so I could just transfer them from there to my desktop. However, I've tried this before, and it is much slower than recording to an internal hard drive. 

My next thought was to record onto an internal hard drive then take the hard drive out of my laptop and use an enclosure for the transfer. I'm going to be doing this weekly, though, and I feel like taking apart the laptop that often could shorten its lifespan. 

Another option would be to use ethernet to connect the two computers and transfer that way. I've heard mixed things about this, and I haven't researched it extensively. 

The final option I know of is to use a USB 2.0 bridged cable to connect the computers and transfer that way. This seems the most simple, but probably the slowest considering it's 2.0. 

If there are any other options that would be better than the ones I listed, please let me know. If not, which of these is the most efficient? "
techsupport,"So a couple of days ago I bought an ASUS USB AC68 wifi adapter. At the time I was deciding between the USB and PCI-E versions but I stuck with this out of convenience. 

​

When I got home, I plugged it in, installed the drivers and it worked. However my download and upload speeds were much slower than expected. Looking up the wifi status from the Network Connections window, it says the connection speed is 1.3Gbps. However when I use [speedtest.net](https://speedtest.net), I only get about 50Mbps download. I tried the adapter with my macbook, leaving the adapter in the same spot, and got 170Mbps download. The next day I tried it with my brother's laptop about 2 feet away from the router and only got 50Mbps again. 

​

Is there a reason for the difference in speeds on Mac OS and windows? Should I exchange this for the PCI-E one? 

​

I have tried reinstalling the drivers, using the realtek driver, clearing my cache, turning off IPv6, and googling over and over with no results. 

​

If anyone can point me towards a good solution or explain what is going on, that would be amazing. I am pretty unfamiliar with how all this works. It isn't anywhere near the advertized 1300Mbps speeds but even getting close to my macbook's speeds would be enough for me to not feel like it was a waste of money. "
techsupport,"Hi,

It all started while playing a game (zynga poker). One day I noticed my chips were gone. I contacted support which returned said chips and suggested using 2-factor auth, changing psw, etc... I'm already cautious, like not clicking on any advertisement on requests or anything else, nevertheless, you guessed it, a few days later same happened. 
At this point, I'm not even mad, but quite curious how this can even happen again and where I can look further.

I always log out from that profile and the psw is not stored. I delete  history daily. 
I have an up to date av (kaspersky), win10 is up to date.
As suggested I ran malwarebytes which found adware.elex.shrtcln, HitmanPro as the av didn't find anything. 

At this point, as said before, I don't care anymore for any chips, but I wonder wether it is my whole system that is compromised, in which case I guess I'm in for a reformat/reinstall or just my chrome/facebook. Any ideas, any guesses?

Thanks for reading

"
techsupport,"Hi,

I'm wanting to wipe and do a clean install on my laptop. There's too much junk and whatnot, and at this point I feel I'd be better off wiping and reinstalling the programs I need, and copying a backup of my files onto the machine.

My main queries are:

I have my OS installed on an SSD, but also have a 1TB HDD, so I'm a little unsure what to do there.

Windows 8 came preinstalled and did not ask me to create any installation files - not sure if that's just an antiquated process.

It is a laptop made by Gigabyte and has some software on it which controls the bluetooth, fans, webcam etc. Again, not sure what would happen there.

Any advice on this topic would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!"
techsupport,"Soo earlier today out of the blue Google stopped working on my PC. I was talking with some friends on discord, and they were able to hear me. I decided to reboot my pc. Now I don't have a connection at all. Just to be clear, I have access to the internet on other devices, so it isn't the router and my wifi adapter has signal, my PC is just not connecting to the internet. Thanks in advance for all help!

Update: It's fixed now! Thanks for your help!"
techsupport,"Alright, so i've been having a bunch of problems with a laptop a currently mainly with cs go. i've been only getting about 22 fps max. so i opened task manager to see what was going and i saw that my gpu on my apu was only using about 15% while playing  cs go. Cpu usage was at around 95% and ram usage was about 80% while playing cs go. Can anyone help me to get better fps?.

Laptop Specs:

AMD 6th 9200 R4 APU

4gb ram

ATA 500gb hard drive"
techsupport," 

No matter what I do on my gaming computer I can't get the internet to stay consistently within a good range for me to game. I'm about 50 feet from the router, every other computer in the apartment gets between 80 mbps to 106 mbps, I updated all my drivers. and yet my down speed is still around 2 mbps and maybe 10 mbps up.

I'm at my wits end here, i've tried multiple different methods, i even tried using a wifi extender. No dice.

I ran a full scan using BitDefender. No viruses or malware.

Any advice? Anything I haven't tried?

EDIT: to all of you telling me to get an Ethernet connection: if that was an option, OBVIOUSLY I would do that"
techsupport,"Hi.

So yesterday I finally decided I should change my cpu cooler. 

Opened the computer, unscrewed the cooler, and after removing it, noticed the cpu was gone. So I looked under the cooler, and there it was, very firmly stuck. 

I had to spend a good ammount of time heating them up with a hair dryer to make it budge and removing it.

Then I put the cpu back in its socket, after removing the remaining thermal paste and applying a new one. And I tried to install the cooler, and did it wrong, so I removed it and the cpu was stuck to it again, though this time it was easy to unstick. But now everytime I'm going to try to install the cooler, the cpu's going to stick to it, and there seems to be no way to make the cpu just stay on its socket.

But anyway, I decided I should at least try to see if the computer even boots before I spend hours even trying to install a cpu that could have been too damaged by my clumsy attempts to even work anymore.

So I put it un the socket, without the cooler, try to turn the pc on, with every intention of shutting it down immediately.  But nothing happened. 

No fans spinning, no light inside the case, nothing, except a few two leds lit on behind the case and some peripherals lights (keyboard and mouse).

I really don't know what to do. Is it the power supply that stopped working for seemingly no reason ?  Is it the cpu that's too damaged and the mobo that stops even the psu from running when it doesn't detect a cpu? Is it something else?

I'm getting seriously depressed with this. Please help.


Cpu: Ryzen 7 1700
Mobo: asus prime b350-plus. 


**EDIT: Thank you very much for your help everyone. Turns out a got a few bent pins, and they're fairly microscopic, so I think I'm just going to bite the bullet and buy a new one, hoping it's the only problem and I don't have to change the motherboard as well.**"
techsupport,"I recently got [this computer](https://www.ultrabookreview.com/19725-asus-tuf-fx504ge-review/) and I've been having this issue and I don't know how to fix it. I've looked it up in some forums online  but I can't seem to find any solutions.

​

So the issue is, if I have my computer's brightness set as let's say 0%, the lowest, whenever I open certain games the brightness changes to max.

​

So I am looking at the screen with minimum brightness and when I alt-tab into the game, it remains at 0% for less than 1 second, sometimes more, but then it rapidly flashes and changes to max. So that's what makes me believe it's an actual problem since I can see how the game would look at minimum brightness but then it changes to max. If I alt-tab back out, it goes back to whatever I set again.

​

I've tried some games to see if it would be the game's issue (even tho I don't even that many installed right now) and the issue happens consistently in games like Overwatch and Dark Souls 3. It does NOT happen in games like Battlerite or Warframe. So it definitely doesn't happen in all games.

​

[Here's a shitty video that I made to ilustrate the problem.](https://streamable.com/3d6mi)

​

In the video, the brightness is set to 0%, I alt-tab into Overwatch in fullscreen, the screen flashes and the brightness goes up, I change it to windowed mode and the brightness goes back down to 0%, now when it goes back to fullscreen it actually remains in 0%, I have to alt-tab back out and in again for it to happen again.

​

Any help would be apreciated."
techsupport,"I have [PC \(64 Bit Windows 10 pro home\)](https://i.imgur.com/CidkK2L.jpg) and an AMD A-10 R7 4 GZ processor with 16 GB RAM. I've been playing on this for the last 4 years, but ever since a few weeks ago (8/27/18), I haven't been able to run Rocket League or any other games (Borderlands, Darkest Dungeon, etc.) for more than a few minutes. My game keeps crashing and my system automatically shuts down. I notice when it'll shut down by frame rates skipping, the game slowing down, and then the computer shuts down. I have never had issues with this before, and have been able to run RL for hours upon hours before this with the game playing smoothly. I have updated everything and removed programs that I don't use. 

The RAM is being recognized. In a [previous post](https://www.reddit.com/r/RocketLeague/comments/9c99sv/technical_help_needed_pc_keeps_restarting_after_a/), someone recommended replacing the power supply, and I've replaced the power supply to a 600W power supply (EVGA 600 B1, 80+ BRONZE 600W) and this problem still exists. I'd rather not scrap this system and build/buy another one if there's a fix. I've reseated the RAM, and checked to see if the GPU is seated properly and it is.

I have not tried thermal paste, but I'm willing to try if you guys suggest it. I'll use the ""pea method"" to use it if needed.

Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks!

Edit: Temps w/o game running: https://i.imgur.com/36WUVoA.jpg

Temps w/ RL running: https://i.imgur.com/mR4Pt9Z.jpg

Edit: Ended up buying a new graphics card that fixed the issue. Thanks to /u/itsmeurbrothr for your help."
techsupport,"My pc tends to be absolutely fine until a W10 update (one happened recently that I've been experiencing issues with). Post update I get hard resets while playing the same games that were previously stable. Once my pc resets, it doesn't boot to Windows again and I have to switch off/on the psu to restart. 

Only happens when I'm gaming (currently playing Warhammer Total War). I have no overclocks, and I built the rig myself so no bloatware or 3rd party drivers. Everything is up to date since windows updated. I have checked psu voltages in the bios and gpu/cpu temps and everything is within acceptable bounds. Memory is checked and fine, so are my drives and event viewer shows no relevant errors/warnings. I have reseated all power cables to make sure. 

All the Google searches I have carried out seem to point towards overheating/hardware issues but I've checked/monitored everything to within acceptable levels and it's only happening when I play warhammer total war. Same thing happened when playing The Division about a year ago. I played that fine up until a windows update. Haven't been able to play it since.

I'm happy to provide any details needed to help diagnose. I'm stumped.

Edit:
System specs:
AMD FX8350. 
ASUS M5A78L-M/USB. 
16gb Kingston predator 2133 (running at default 1333mhz for compatability). 
Asus strix gtx 970. 
Corsair HX 850 PSU. 
Kingston hyper x 120gb SSD (OS install). 
Seagate barracuda 1tb (steam library). 
Windows 10 home. "
techsupport,"Hi,

I am an IT Apprentice at a medium sized office, currently on my own as the rest of the department is on leave. 

This morning someone tried to print something that got stuck in the spooler queue and prevented everyone from printing. I had no luck removing it from the queue via: see what's printing -> Cancel documents.

​

Fresh out of ideas I decided to restart the Printer Spooler on the server (Win server 2012).

The service shut down fine but afer restarting it, it has been stuck on ""Start Pending"" for about 4 hours now.

""sc query spooler"" returns the state of: <NOT\_STOPPABLE, NOT\_PAUSABLE, IGNORES\_SHUTDOWN>

net stop/start spooler tells me that the service is stopping or starting and to try again later.

​

I am a little bit out of my league here. Is this normal for a service to take so long to restart? Could something be preventing it from restarting?   


I plan to stay late and restart the server this evening outside of office hours to see if the service will start on boot as usual. Is this advisable?

​"
techsupport,"Ok so I'm gonna have to admit it at first... I'm a dumbass.  I was installing an elgato HD60 Pro and I had that in the PCIe slot under my MSI Aero GTX 1080, had the HDMI plugged in and everything but no  output (I had the hdmi cables messed up I realize now) so I unplugged the HDMI cables from the GPU but one of the cables would not be removed from the GPU.  Turns out it was one of those cords that you have to push in the little button to release it, something I didn't notice until after I pulled... a lot...  I realized it had a release and once I pushed it, the cable released normally.  Now, however, the GPU does not work at all.  The mobo is ok since I plugged in my RX 580 and everything runs fine, but I get no output when I plug the 1080 in and the fan does not start.  I'm hoping the problem I created I can fix, as the card is a second hand card from a friend and it has worked fine for months.  Please, if you know a fix like maybe just a capacitor or something to repair, let me know.  Appreciate it."
techsupport,"This issue has been happening for around a month now, whenever I play a GPU intensive game I loose video signal until the PC is rebooted. It can happen after 30 minutes of playing or after hours. Temps are pretty warm, but not hot enough to be the issue (80-84c under full load).

​

I was told today to increase the core voltage on the card by +15mV which I have done and it hasn't lost signal yet, however its too early to tell if its fixed or not. I'll play some games later and update the post on if it happens or not.

​

Just want some opinions on what you all think the issue could be, and if the +15mV increase does fix the problem why has it suddenly required this voltage increase when the card has been fine for years beforehand?

​

Thanks.

​

Specs:

EVGA GTX 780TI Superclocked Edition

i7 2600 @3.4ghz

12GB RAM

Corsair TX850M PSU 

2TB HDD

Windows 10 Pro"
techsupport,"I am using Windows 10, DVDStyler, an external Asus SDRW-08D2S-U DVD drive, and whatnot.

Everything else works, but twice now, that's two wasted DVD-R discs, it's failed at 95.06%. I tried reconnecting my disc drive, I've plain just tried again, but it just doesn't work. The only ""successful"" DVD burnings I've had have been making an ISO in DVDStyler and burning it with ImgBurn or just with Windows' default burning thing. Not Media Player. Just the option when right-clicking an ISO. These turn out to be data discs that won't play on my PS2, and probably not on a DVD player either. You have to navigate to the file on the PS3 to watch the video, and it doesn't include the menu I put hours into.

 50.11% done, estimate finish Wed Sep 19 20:28:29 2018
 55.02% done, estimate finish Wed Sep 19 20:28:06 2018
 60.18% done, estimate finish Wed Sep 19 20:27:46 2018
 65.09% done, estimate finish Wed Sep 19 20:27:29 2018
 70.01% done, estimate finish Wed Sep 19 20:27:13 2018
 75.16% done, estimate finish Wed Sep 19 20:26:56 2018
 80.08% done, estimate finish Wed Sep 19 20:26:43 2018
 85.24% done, estimate finish Wed Sep 19 20:26:30 2018
 90.15% done, estimate finish Wed Sep 19 20:26:19 2018
 95.06% done, estimate finish Wed Sep 19 20:26:07 2018
\\.\D:: ""Current Write Speed"" is 8.2x1352KBps.
:-( unable to WRITE@LBA=1d76e0h: Tidsgränsen för semaforen har uppnåtts.
:-( write failed: Tidsgränsen för semaforen har uppnåtts.
\\.\D:: flushing cache
:-[ FLUSH CACHE failed with SK=6h/POWER ON, RESET, OR BUS DEVICE RESET OCCURRED]: En enhet som är ansluten till datorn fungerar inte.
\\.\D:: updating RMA
\\.\D:: closing disc
mkisofs: Broken pipe. cannot fwrite 32768*1
Failed
"
techsupport,"Hey everyone!  
Recently my friend was able to procure a  Packard Bell Legend 933 Supreme. I have been helping him try to get it to function once again.

  
Here are the specs:  
\- Intel i486 processor  
\- Some network card  
\- Some motherboard with the tag 'PheonixBIOS A486SX'  
\- A 270 mb hard drive  
\- 640 kb of RAM

  
Here's the problem:  
 It turns on to the boot screen does a memory check beeps screen flashes Phoenix logo is gone and it says missing OS  
This, coupled with drive errors whenever a load is attempted.

  
Here's what we've done:  
\- Re-formatted and installed Dos 6.22 on the hard drive  
\- Cleaned the read write heads of the floppy drives  
\- Shut off the floppy drives entirely and try again  
\- Removing the networking card  


Any help is appreciated, thanks!"
techsupport,"This is my first time posting here and I'm not very good with computers, so be gentle :-)

I have two computers, one is a Mac running windows 7 and the other is an Asus running 8.1...
I want to upgrade both of them to Windows 10, but there are a lot of programs and files, on both computers, I don't want to loose in the process...

Is there any free way to do this?
I only have a windows 7 product key...

Thanks in advance! "
techsupport,"downloaded the patch and these are the instructions 

I got up to Open a command prompt window with administrator privileges. That I can do but dont understand how to ""Run the executable file from the common prompt""

It gives the example 82579VSKUW64e. I see that file but dont know how to make it go. 

THanks!


----------------------------------------


Tool to update the NVRAM for the Intel® 82579V Gigabit Ethernet PHY
Copyright (C) 2012 Intel Corporation

Three tools are included, to support three different operation systems (Windows 32 bit; Windows 64 bit; DOS).

Steps to run the update tool:

1.	Download the utility from the Intel download center
2.	Select the correct tool file name based on the operating system installed
3.	Open a command prompt window with administrator privileges
4.	Run the executable file from the common prompt
5.	The NVM image will be updated. Reboot the computer for best results.

Usage: [Tool_file_name] [options]
            -log [filename] - generate log info
            -report [filename] - generate report file
            -nosilent - display the user interface

Example command line using the Windows* 64 bit operating system:
	82579VSKUW64e -nosilent 
"
techsupport,"Hello, I purchased a new M.2 NVME SSD drive today.
I'm trying to clean install Windows 10 on it, but I'm unsuccessful.

I boot up the disk with the installer, choose the SSD drive, click ""next"", then it performs the installation. After it's done it's going back to the installer like nothing happened.
And then when I choose the SSD drive again, it says 
""Windows cannot be installed to this disk. This computer's hardware may not support the booting to this disk. Ensure that the disk's controller is enabled in the bios menu""

What can I do to be able to install Windows on the SSD?"
techsupport,"I have a computer connected to a domain. The startup page of google chrome is the domains home page. I need to change this on this computer only, I have got the adm file for gpedit and changed startup pages, went to registry and changed startup page, and disable edit access for all uses and set owner to none, my admin account, and trusted installer, but it changes on startup of chrome on all of these. How can I disable domain control over chrome but leave my local admin polices working?

Edit: I do not have a domain administrator account, so I can only make changes this computer."
techsupport,"​

Hello. Ive had my PC for nearly 4 years and I've encountered an issue that is driving me up the wall.

Every  time I am playing a relatively demanding game (Black Desert Online,  Rainbow Six Seige) my PC will stop and freeze entirely with no forewarning after about an hour of playtime. No bluescreens, no error codes, no frame drops prior, no  signs of hardware stress prior. Everything just stops, my computer stops  responding entirely. Again, with no indication as to why.

Things I have done to attempt to resolve the issue:

I  contacted support for Black Desert Online (this game is where I  initially had the issue) they told me it was an issue with my windows  install. I re-installed windows. The issue still persists.

I have re-seated my RAM, and I am open to more suggestions.

I suspect it may be something to do with my hard drive failing. My computer runs on a single 1TB HDD

I have run CrystalDiskInfo

[See Here](https://imgur.com/a/QId1lCD)

[And Here](https://imgur.com/a/p8Oz3R2)

I have updated my GPU Drivers.

My Partlist is

* AMD FX-8350
* R9 280
* 8 GB DDR3(?) RAM
* 700w Power Supply
* 1TB 7200 RPM HDD

I am open to any suggestions, and I am desperate for help."
techsupport,"So I went to turn on my inspiron 7567 and I heard a sparking sound. I know that's not good. So I immediately turn it off and open it up, and a loose screw falls out. and i look closer to where it came out from and see this. https://imgur.com/3ERz8qr What should I do? Is my laptop a write off? Any Help is appreciated. I really hope I don't have to get another laptop..."
techsupport,"Been on Amazon for over an hour and cannot figure out wtf kind of adapter to make my wife's 2nd monitor work properly.

PC has a VGA port, monitor has a DVI-D port. I need male to male, every adapter I find seems fine, but it says it only works with DVA(monitor) -> VGA(pc) and not VGA(pc) -> DVI (monitor

Can anyone please point me in the right direction? Would prefer a cable over an adapter as I may need to buy either a VGA or DVI-D cable as well.

THANK YOU!!!"
techsupport,"I decided to run a long HDMI cable from my PC to my living room TV. I'm trying to decide whether I should get a 40 feet cable just to be safe (if I decide to move my PC further away later or something), or try to keep it as short as possible (will have to measure, but probably around 20-25 feet)

I'm doing it mostly for 4k gaming on my OLED TV in the living room. Would that work?

Also any difference between doing this with a PC vs PS4? Would one work better over the other for any reason?

Also, these cables will be running through the walls. Does that have a further impact?"
techsupport,"My phone has been alerting me lately that Snapchat's doing stuff in the background. When I look at the permission history log, it reads: ""The apps below were detected using permissions in the background. [...]"" 

It then lists three seperate times on the 21st.
One time yesterday.
Five times today.

All of these were of Snapchat using my camera when I didnt have it open. It's a little funky. Is that normal? If I disable its permissions then I cannot use the app to communicate with friends. Can anything be done? (I have an s9 if that helps. I've only ever recieved these notifications on this phone.) Thank you in advanced! 😊"
techsupport,"This is a weird question, not sure if this is even the right forum but here goes. I had an iPhone repaired at a shop. The device started malfunctioning after the repair so it brought it back. It did not before the repair. They repaired it but it continued malfunctioning. I brought it back and they refused to fix it and said I'd have to contact corporate for a solution. At that point, they were closing and I couldn't come back that week so I decided to keep it there while the issue got resolved. I declined to give them the password because of work info on it. Corporate ultimately would not do anything about the stores refusal to fix it so I told them I'd be disputing it with my card and determining if I would take them to small claims for the cost of the device. I cannot pick up the device until later this week, so it's now been there for almost 2 weeks and it'll be 3 weeks until I have time to pick it up again. Even though I did not give them the password, I typed it in front of them and in front of their camera and I'm sure with technology today they could easily brute force it? It's only a 4 number password. How can I determine that? Considering how heated things have gotten between us and the fact I told them I might sue.... it seems plausible they could have done something and just want to know how to determine if they did. "
techsupport,"My webcam goes haywire unless I bend the display a little bit backward (pressing the wire in I am guessing) but I can't figure out how to get into the top bezel because there are no screws and I don't want to break anything for my stupid webcam. Does anyone know how I can get into the display bezels without ruining or breaking anything during or after if there are no screws?

The screen bezels look like [this](https://www.trustedreviews.com/reviews/gigabyte-p35x-v6) 
"
techsupport,"Keep in mind that I JUST turned it on after it being off for almost 2 days. My laptop is an ASUS and it IS pretty old, around 5 years or so, but I had also somewhat recently put on new thermal paste (within the last two years or so?) and I added a tiny bit more ram (just 6gb to 8gb is all) [https://imgur.com/DUut2eE](https://imgur.com/DUut2eE) the only thing that is open right now is opera with only like 5 tabs open."
techsupport,"Recently (in the past week) my pc has been freezing randomly and then bluescreening with this error. It doesn't happen often, once a day at most, and usually just tends to happen when I'm browsing the internet and not running any high demand programs or anything. Here is a screenshot of what the memory dump of the crash shows. https://i.imgur.com/LVftb9r.png
I've updated my GPU drivers and a few others, any more advice would be appreciated. Hopefully it's not a hardware problem."
techsupport,"I've been trying to figure out what is happening to the space on my hdd as it seems to be vanishing. I don't know what is going on. 

I'm running Win 10 pro, and the C drive is an ssd. I've been running a lot of Blender and UE4 projects from this disk for a few months, could I somehow be killing sections of the HDD and they are just being cut off?

edit: Thank you for so many helpful answers, sorry it took so long to mark it as solved. Everyone had helpful information, and my hdd was kind of a mess all over the place lol."
techsupport,"I have an msi gs60 6qe ghost pro laptop (for 3 years) , recently i had trouble booting up , and decided to update my bios. 
so i downloaded all updates from msi website and started installing them chronologically, but i think i made a mistake and jumped one, resulting in a blank screen , can't access bios (no screen lights or logo) keyboard lights and fans are working but nothing else.
i disassembled every piece, cleared  cmos , took ssd and hdd out , and drained the battery with no luck.
What should i do ? "
techsupport,"So i've been having huge problems with microstutter happening like every 0-1.5 sec, it's incredibly annoying and makes csgo unplayable, it happens in GTA V aswell.

What i've done so far:

Formatted the computer, clean OS barely anything running.

Turned off speedstep in BIOS

Turned Power mode on in nvidia windows settings.

Modified settings in nvidia control panel

Turned on XMP for ram in BIOS.

Upped the fanspeed on GPU as it was running a little hot so I thought the problem was cause of the heat.

Installed correct and latest drivers(I think(?) I used driver booster that installs all drivers in one go.

Specs:

Gtx 1080

I7 7700K 4.6 with turbo.

16gb 2400mhz ram

Help me lads, this is really annoying me."
techsupport,"I updated the bios on my asus p6t to the newest from asus website. After posting it gets stuck at blinking cursor on a blank screen. It won't boot from ssd or USB. Same results on i7 920 and x5660. Any help is appreciated.
Just tried to boot on the second latest bios same issue.

Update: I got it to install Vista from USB. It is running normal. Not sure how to get windows 10 on, it has the same install issue on other versions of windows. "
techsupport,"I switched to a static IP, turned off my firewalls, and opened a port yesterday so my friends could play with me. It worked and all, it was cool. Im logging back on today and they couldnt connect so I ran a test on a website but it says my port is closed. I have a xfinity router. I went into my router to check and according to it, the port is open, and the port info has not changed. what could be the issue?"
techsupport," similar maybe but how you get infected is different

iirc  and i may be wrong here but viruses are like the comon cold or flu they spread just by contact you dont need to do anything for it to spread and are usualy more damaging.   malware usualy spreads by intent ie something you install, view or watch will infect you but it wont spread elsewhere unless you install, view or watch the same thing on another machine, malware is usualy just a nuiscence or inconvience

dare i say it but if you google ""difference between virus and malware"" you will get a better idea ;)"
techsupport,"I asked about the mainboard pins because I’ve had first hand experience building a new pc and fucking it up. In my case the pc would post with ram in one slot but not the other. 

I asked about the cpu plug because it’s surprisingly common thing for people to forget. 

It may be a good idea to update your post with specifically what tests you’ve done, so people know. I see you’ve posted some things on there and also said that you’ve done everything. 

Do you have access to another computer to format a flash drive and download a new bios to? Most new mainboard have some way of flashing the bios without fully POSTing. Like a specific port on the mainboard or a button somewhere on it. "
techsupport,It seems most likely that they're load balancing multiple internet connections in order to supply enough bandwidth to all of their customers. I suspect that something with their load balancing is breaking your connections.  In some load balancing situations the balancing happens on a connection basis so if a game or service establishes multiple connections for one session and sees you coming hopping back and forth between multiple public IP's it could look like a man in the middle attack is happening and you connection could be dropped. An example of what I'm talking about on a straight forward level is that FTP establishes a connection on port 21 over which all communications for setting up the data transfer and file browsing occur. Actual data transfers occur on a completely separate port / connection. So if your port 21 connection was coming from one IP and the data transfer was trying to be established from a second IP a good FTP server would drop your connection because the connection could be compromised. A VPN would resolve the issue because it would funnel all of your traffic out of one single public IP. 
techsupport,"Never mind my other question i checked my roaming folder for any suspicious files and ran a few antivirus scans and didnt find anything. My system looks to be running like normal the usage of my ram/cpu/gpu didnt go up so i think im all good. Normally i dont click on random stuff i dont know i just messed up this time without paying attention to the link.
Thanks for your help :)"
techsupport,"While that is a public address, if you got that by going to ip4.me, then there's no guarantee that that's your router's address.  An ISP performing CGNAT will present a different IP address to sites like that than what's assigned to your router.

AC1350 is a speed rating.  TP-Link has two routers with that speed rating.  I'm guessing you have either the Archer C59 or C60.  I think they have a similar UI.

You want to look for the IP address listed under the Internet heading in this [screenshot](http://screenshots.portforward.com/routers/TP-Link/Archer_C59/Basic_Network_Map.jpg).  Alternatively, the IP address is also listed in the Internet section in this [screenshot](http://screenshots.portforward.com/routers/TP-Link/Archer_C59/Advanced_Status.jpg)."
techsupport,"I have no idea what kind of modem it is. It's a rental from my ISP and there are no identifying markers anywhere on it. No brand, no model, no serial number. All I can tell you is it kind of looks like a mini version of an original model Playstation 2. If it does have a router built in, then the guys who installed everything made no mention of it.

As far as the second part goes, how do I go about doing that?"
techsupport,"(assuming you're running windows), try this

hit the windows key+R at the same time, the run box will pop up

in there type in cmd and hit enter

in the command prompt box that comes up, type ipconfig and hit enter.  in there should be something along the lines of Ethernet Adapter, and it will give you an ipv4 address.  Is that the same 209.206.x.x, or is it a 192.168.x.x, 10.x.x.x, or 172.16.x.x?"
techsupport,"You probably have some sort of Arris cookie-cutter bullshit gateway from Comcast. I guarantee it says ""Arris"" somewhere on it. 

Call Comcast, tell them you need your gateway to be setup for bridge mode. Once you're in bridge mode your gateway will act as a general modem which will allow your router to do all the work. 

Do you have voice and internet or just internet? If the latter, just buy yourself a Motorola 6121/6141/6181 depending on your current speed. Most people don't need more than a 6141, 6121 is really cheap off ebay. 

Once you have a Moto your modem portal will be: http://192.168.100.1/

Default gateway will *probably* be: http://192.168.1.1/

But you can Run > CMD > ipconfig /all > it will tell you your default gateway. 

Otherwise if you have voice, make them set it to bridge mode. Job done. "
techsupport,"> I have no idea what kind of modem it is.

Does it provide Wi-Fi?  Does it have multiple Ethernet ports?  If either of these are true, then it has a built-in router.

> As far as the second part goes, how do I go about doing that?

Some routers have an Access Point (AP) mode setting that you can just turn on.  I think your TP-Link lacks this setting.  The other way to do it is to disable the DHCP server, set its LAN IP address to an unused address in the ISP router's subnet but outside of the DHCP server range of addresses. Finally, connect one of the TP-Link's LAN ports to the ISP modem/router.

But don't do that without first confirming that the ISP modem has a router.  After all, your original problem is port forwarding.  You'll still need to set up port forwarding on the ISP router."
techsupport,I've figured out that it's a Calix GigaHub 812G-1. I was able to log in to the setting for it and put the PS4's IP into the DMZ and it didn't work. This thing has 4 ethernet ports on the back. Ethernet 1 plugs into my tp-link router. Ethernet 4 plugs into my cable box in the living room. I'm almost positive when they installed this a couple weeks ago that they said Ethernet ports 2 and 3 are inactive.
techsupport,"If the PS4 is connected to the TP-Link then it's sitting behind a double NAT setup.  Since you seem to have access to the port forwarding settings on the Calix, I would go ahead and convert the TP-Link to an AP, as per my instructions.

Once you make the AP conversion, you'll have to force all devices connected to the TP-Link to acquire new IP addresses.  Rebooting them will work as well as disconnecting and reconnecting them from the network.  The devices should obtain IP addresses in the subnet provided by the Calix.  Proceed to set up port forwarding.  Or enable upnp on the Calix if you like."
techsupport,"1. Log into the Calix.
2. Find its LAN IP address and subnet mask.  It will probably be something like 192.168.1.1 and 255.255.255.0.
3. Look at the DHCP server settings and find the range of IP addresses.  It might be, for example, 192.168.1.2 through 192.168.1.100.  Pick an address outside of this range.  Don't use the Calix's IP address, either.  Use something like 192.168.1.200.  This is the address that you will later configure on the TP-Link in step 6.  

  If the ending address on the DHCP range goes all the way to 192.168.1.254, then you will have to change this in order to free up an address.  You can change it to 192.168.1.250.  Then you can use 192.168.1.251 on the TP-Link.  If you change this, then make sure to save/apply it.
4. Log into the TP-Link.
5. Go to *Advanced > Network > DHCP Server* and uncheck *Enable DHCP Server*.  Click *Save*.
6. Go to *Advanced > Network > LAN*.  Change the IP address to the address you picked in step 3.  Click *Save*.  Your connection to the TP-Link will stop working at this point.  That's ok.  You're done changing settings.
7. Move the Ethernet cable from the TP-Link's Internet/WAN port to one of its LAN ports.
8. Force devices to obtain new IP addresses.  Make note of the new IP address on the PS4.
9. Set up port forwarding to the PS4's IP address.  Or enable UPnP.
10. Check NAT type on PS4."
techsupport,"That's a Calix Gigacenter 844e my dude. It's a router itself. This is your problem, your ISP leased you a router and you've connected your router to it. Unhook your router and plug straight to it or unhook the Eth cable from the Eth-WAN port on the 844 and plug it into your router. Should solve your problem.

The label with the device information is underneath the stand btw. It should slide back, then down to remove it.
"
techsupport,"Yeah, your cpu is getting so hot it's throttling its self to stop it from causing damage.

Generally in laptops this is because debris has built up in the heatsink.

You can blast it with compressed air, although blasting a fan with compressed air can make it spin faster than it should, but it's better to open up the laptop so you can properly clean it out.

Cpu should be at 85c max under full load, and never above 90c."
techsupport,"Semi modular, so it has the main power cables mounted permanently. But you lost the box/bag that came with the PSU? Even the extra cables?...

Well the cable you linked says it's for CXM, but it's the incorrect 8 pin cable. That's the CPU version, so it won't fit. You'll need the PCI-E/pcie/6+2 cable. 

https://www.corsair.com/eu/en/Categories/Products/Accessories-%7C-Parts/PC-Components/Power-Supplies/Type-3-Sleeved-Black-PCI-E-Cable/p/CP-8920111

[edit] Also make sure that any cable you order says it's compatible with CXM. Even all of Corsair's own models don't have the same pinout, so incorrect cable could fry your parts..."
techsupport,"Yes it dries out, or sets as it loses it loses  moisture content, but that doesn't make it any less efficient as a thermal bridge.  
Thermal paste's job is to provide an interface between the heat source and the heatsink that is free of any microscopic air pockets. The paste doesn't need to be 'wet' in order to do that, it's initially moist  to make application easier, that's all. 
How 'dry' is the copper core of your waterblock/heatsink? Does that need moisture content to be effective too? "
techsupport,"[A quote from somebody with a similar level of experience to myself:](https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/does-thermal-paste-expire.211716/#post-3269043)
  
>There is a common misconception among enthusiasts who are not formally trained in electronics that because the ""exposed"" edges of TIM turns hard or becomes ""crusty"" that the product between the mating surfaces has somehow become ineffective. THAT IS NOT TRUE! Remember, the most efficient transfer of heat occurs with direct metal-to-metal contact of the mating surfaces.  
The purpose of the TIM is ONLY to fill the microscopic pits and valleys in the mating surfaces to displace any insulating air that may have been trapped within. Years later, the TIM is still there and if the bond is unbroken, air cannot get in and occupy the same space. Therefore, the TIM does NOT need to be replaced just because years have passed - even if it dries out!"
techsupport,"So, now you are saying that you looked over the shoulder of people who were hired to develop a securities trading platform.   

You did not in fact ""Develop"" a securities trading platform. You were not even heavily contributing to such a system. The scary part is not that you inflated your position. It is that you have such a lack of understanding of what it takes to develop such a system that you spent 2 seconds thinking that the lie would work.   

Over a year into a CS degree .... ?   

Get your money back, they are doing a horrible job of educating you."
techsupport,"Thank you, and sorry for the time it took me to respond. Let me explain a little. I already had a raid0 on that set of disks, but I had to clear the CMOS of the bios due to some problems that were preventing my pc to boot. After I was done, the system wasn't recognizing the RAID, but I didn't reinstall windows or anything.

As my windows installation didn't change (and the raid was working in this current installation before the CMOS clear), I'm not sure formatting in RAID mode is going to solve anything?"
techsupport,"I'm sorry I'm so insistent, but I really want to understand this. The raid I had before the CMOS clear, was being recognized by my current windows installation, so, why was my windows booting with a raid before the CMOS clear, but not after? Why reinstalling windows would fix this? Wasn't my current windows recognizing the old raid?

Anyhow I'll try first the registry method, and if non of this works, I'll have to reinstall windows with the raid mode on the motherboard to see if this works..."
techsupport,"Very cool website! I just finished it and here are the results! 

https://gyazo.com/37a418c905b76ba8ed2b11fc15cdc771?token=569aede693434fcccb2f6813c3518ea7

Definitely looks like I'm gonna need a new drive soon in fact, this is how bad it is:

https://gyazo.com/f9717d7d0dd8c81b74b883f660a28471

Do you think I'd get by with a 250 gig SSD as an addon or should I get a 1 tb HD and transfer everything to that? Maybe I'll get a larger one like 500gigs SSD.

Computer is gonna be 7 years old this november, pretty happy with the investment this far."
techsupport,"Gtx 660, I got a 650ti is my secondary PC. Great card.

Yeah SSD will be fine in that PC. Should make a massive difference with load times.

I don't know what the deal is with your drive performing so badly. Does your pc take a long time to boot? Either way just to be safe make sure anything on that drive that you wouldn't want to lose is backed up... and do it yesterday. It's possible the drive is about to become defective.

If you can a 256gb SSD paired with a 1tb HDD is good. 256gb is fine for windows and all your programs and one of two more commonly used games. Any more than that though then you want to start looking into more space. If you don't use your PC to store large files you might not even need the 1tb drive.

But 100% get an SSD either way."
techsupport,"nah I wasn't talking about a conflict, I meant the bios option that disables the onboard GPU. In any case, if you had no signal with the GPU either then it's not that. 

Next thing to check for no signal would normally be ram, I'd ask you to use each ram stick, solo, on each of your slots and see if you can boot, tedious but works most of the time. However, I'd like you to try another monitor if possible, or another device on this monitor. Make sure the monitor works."
techsupport,"I can't see it in the geforce experience window, no. I also have minecraft which is in the geforce experience window, so I'll try that real quick.

Just checked, Java (Minecraft) seems to be using the GPU, a bit laggy in the beginning but works fine after a few seconds on fancy (high) graphics. I tried running Overwatch through the geforce experience but that opens and then closes right away, and League of Legends gives me an unknown DirectX error when I try to go into a game."
techsupport,"I collect vintage computers, and will also look around on the HDD. If I find anything that looks personal, I will delete it, of course, but I'll never wipe the drive. (I try to preserve them as they were. Overwriting the HDD snd installing a new OS is kind of detrimental to the value, in my opinion)    

Smut is of course also removed... after a backup copy is made to a separate HDD...    "
techsupport,"There should be something in the contract about the data on the machines. There are three things you can do: 1) Delete the data with a tool. 2) Keep the drive 3) Shred the drive.

1) takes a while. The usual method with several overwrites (which isn't necessary anymore these days) take several hours.

2) You'll accumulate a lot of drives in your cupboard.

3) Most secure method.  
We had just yesterday 95 desktop PCs and 30 netbooks removed from our office: they will all be shredded..."
techsupport,"Restore to factory settings typically would just reinstall the OS.

If you want to ensure that no one can access your files, you need to overwrite every sector of the drive. There are various software packages that will do this, example blancco. Or you can use a magnetic degauser. If you dont do this step, even if you reinstall windows, you will have data remnance on the drive that with the proper know-how and tools can be retrieved. "
techsupport,"a single pass will remove the recovery availability to 99% of the world, and the methods used to recover past that are looking at missed tracks, looking at individual bits on the drive, and trying to guess their previous state via damage and such to the platters, and a few other *very* time consuming, and *extremely* expensive methods.  The single pass zero will ensure that joe schmoe with recuva or Rstudio won't be able to recover anything from the drive.  That is who you want to prevent recovery from.  If the governments of the world are after you, you have other problems, because they probably have a copy of the drive already.

If you really wanted to be sure, a 2 pass zero write will probably hit all the missed tracks.  "
techsupport,"Where I work we used to wipe the drives oureslves and then let the leasing company take the computers back.  Certain areas where I worked (law enforcement) drives were physically removed from the leased computers and physically shredded. 

However know, for all but the most sensitive data, they just do crypto shreds. SO all drives are fully encrypted, and when the computer is off lease, the key is destroyed. The problem with software wiping drives is the time it takes is immense, a 1tb drive can take 24+ hours easily. Crypto shred is instant. "
techsupport,"If it helps any, your information was probably already out there.  When [equifax was hacked](https://money.cnn.com/2017/09/07/pf/victim-equifax-hack-how-to-find-out/index.html) not too long ago pretty much all of American people with credit history of any kind's personal information including SS# was made available to whomever really wants it.  SSN was never a good method of securing information.  The federal government has done little to resolve this, so the best you can do is lock your credit reports which is an inconvenience and also a financial impact when you need to unlock them to secure new credit (buying a cell phone service, opening a store credit card for taking advantage of a 0% offer, new car, new home, etc).  

Search equifax hack and what to do to lock down your credit, the news article I linked above had a few pointers."
techsupport,"If you want Windows 10, just ignore the Win7 COA sticker and reinstall with the same edition that you upgraded to (whether it is Home or Pro). Windows will automatically activate it for you using a digital license linked to your hardware.

If you instead want Windows 7, reinstall the same edition with the 25-character product key in your COA sticker that will look like this: `8F24T-PM7HQ-F24G4-HV9GF-CCQB6`

*Edit: Clarification. Also, updated the key to look more realistic. There is no concern for piracy though, as the key was generated in a truly random manner, and it was revealed via ShowKeyPlus to be an invalid key.*"
techsupport,"A wifi bridge won't help you and could actually make things worse.

The problem isn't your coverage (since you state that when others aren't using the wifi, it performs well). A wifi bridge is just a bandaid to make make a signal go further.

Basically, the problem is that wifi can only talk to a single device in a single direction at any give time. When one of your housemates is watching netflix, your router spends a lot of time talking to netflix-housemate and not as much time talking to you. If you introduce a wifi bridge, now the same problem of having to take turns talking to the wifi bridge and your housemate still exists, but if that wifi bridge is on the same wifi channel, it will actually decrease speeds even more, since the wifi bridge and the router will have to take turns talking from the router, to the bridge, to you.

So!

What could actually help you is to get a second wireless access point installed at the same point as your current router on a different channel (the existing one could be on channel 1, and you could put your new access point on channel 6 or 11, but not any others), or as you said, figure out how to fish ethernet through the walls (this can require special tools, I don't really recommend it unless you're ambitious and unfazed by cutting into drywall and sticking hooks into walls, patching things up etc... or hire someone ese to do it!)

Some higher end all-in-one routers have multiple access points built into them, but you might also figure out how to plug in an access point to your existing router if you really like the one you have now. 5 GHz would also work if you're able to get a signal, but since you said you're in a basement, best to stick to 2.4 GHz probably."
techsupport,"Well, potentially, you wouldn't have to get anything! but it depends on your router, and it's likely you have a router that doesn't support multiple access points. Even if your router has 2 antennas sticking out of it, one is usually for 2.4 GHz (goes through walls easier) and one is for 5 GHz (only really good if you're in the same room or have thin walls...). And the firmware will need to support multiple access points. You should probably at least check!

As for 1 6 11, look at [this](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Qpy93I6HBz8/UZ4resFCJbI/AAAAAAAAB-k/wNZyaZhgGOQ/s1600/2-4GHz5GHz_tmb.png). There are 11 different channels you can use, but channel 2 still interferes with channel 1. There is no reason to use channel 2 ever. or 3 or 4 or 5 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10. Only channels 1, 6, and 11 are ""clean"" channels. So you could be on channel 1, and everyone else could be on 6."
techsupport,"Never responded to this one though “Wait so I won’t have to get anything but just make sure that the multiple antennas are configured to different frequencies! This would be awesome how the heck do you do this and what do you mean about the channels 1, 6, 11 being safe to use and 3 independent. Does this mean that 3 would be the one just for me and others would use channels 1, 6 and 11”"
techsupport,Are you hacking or attempting to use a hacktool on the game you are trying to play? if BattlEye is flagging or preventing you from playing the game its because its seeing something suspicious. If you are being forthright and not trying to cheat and this continues to prevent you from playing I encourage you to reach out to Ubisoft or whoever and see if they have suggestions. Other than that unfortunately this issue is way to vague to solve over Reddit. 
techsupport,"It's true.

Some people and a manufacturer apparently stated that you can mod the BIOS to use 8th on an otherwise 6/7th board.

Anyway,you shouldn't use the 8700K since:

1. It will have a very high TDP and I am not sure your AC adapter to handle.
2. The heat it outputs will be too much for those tiny heatsinks.
3. That laptop has began to choke with the 7700K from what I can see online."
techsupport,">I have my OS installed on an SSD, but also have a 1TB HDD, so I'm a little unsure what to do there.

You reinstall on the SSD after wiping it (with the installation medium), and completely ignore the HDD. If it doesn't have OS data on it, it's irrelevant here.

>Windows 8 came preinstalled and did not ask me to create any installation files - not sure if that's just an antiquated process.

You download new installation files from the inet. Updates and so on. Never use old installation files, always download current ones unless theres a good reason not to.

>It is a laptop made by Gigabyte and has some software on it which controls the bluetooth, fans, webcam etc.

Windows Update takes care of that. If it doesn't, go to GB's website and look around for the drivers. But it almost always works with the automatic driver download.

Media Creation tool: https://www.microsoft.com/software-download/windows10

You download this, it will download the installation iso and give you the option to make a bootable usb. Then boot from  the usb and follow the instructions."
techsupport,"What bloatware would remain? There is no malware on my laptop and I'm not having any issues with Windows. It's just an absolute ton of programs which have been installed over the years and some messy directories which I want to start from fresh with.

I'm downloading the media creation tool now. I'm just worried about screwing something up, which would really mess me around. I'm probably being overly worried though."
techsupport,"You responded to yourself so I never got notified that you'd responded at all. 

Perhaps you've solved this problem by now, but if you haven't you might try this: In Device Manager, under the Properties tab for your Synaptics device, choose ""Uninstall"", and agree to do it. Restart Windows. Upon restarting Windows will find the device, see it as new hardware, and install the driver(s) for it. Sometimes this is the only fix needed for a malfunctioning device."
techsupport,"You don't usually, a bottleneck means your system isn't good enough. You can try to do a system cleanup to see if it helps, maybe a malware scan 

Edit: that CPU is very poor as far as performance is concerned, and 4gb of RAM is very low too. If you turn visuals down to low or maybe medium and turn your resolution down to 720p you should see okay performance, but that laptop doesn't seem good for gaming based on specs."
techsupport,"Going to interject, as I did buy ""Cat-7"".  Pretty sure any cables you see on Amazon that claim to be cat-7, and arn't the weird ass new connector, are just labeled as such, and are actually cat-6 or 5/5e.  (Mine don't seem much nicer than the 5/5e, and don't seem as fancy as the 6's I have from reputable brands.  Also, yes, they are likely chinesium. It was a year or 2 ago, and I have 150/5, so still well below limits of even 5e."
techsupport,"Couple notes:

• You can get shielded Cat6, but it isn't required by Spec and most of it isn't.

• Cat7 isn't really a thing yet.  It is, but it's effectively not.  It's not really in-use anywhere, and it's more of a spec hypothetically than a real product.  Most of it you see is just a marketing gimmick.

• Cat5 vanilla will do gigabit over shorter distances

• Cat5e is rated for gigabit over 100 meters

• Cat6 vanilla is rated for 10gig up to 55 meters unshielded

• Cat6A is rated for 10gig up to 100 meters unshielded


Cat5e is absolutely fine for home gear right now if we're talking just using a long patch cable.  If you're going to actually run a real in-wall drop onto a wall-plated keystone, go ahead and do Cat6A since the price difference isn't severe and you'll be set for eventual 10G in a few years."
techsupport,"If by gaming, I assume applications heavily affected by latency like First-Person-Shooters, you will never be able to play on WiFi unless it is less than a meter from the access point (even then packet loss can still cause a serious detriment). If you are concerned about the cost of a really long cable, you can consider getting a DIY Ethernet kit for $50. You can easily get 300ft of cable included in a kit. Buy some cable wood staples and run them along the ceiling and out of the way.

My router is also 30ft-40ft from my office (1970s design) in my apartment and I would never stand a chance for being able to game on the wifi due how congested the airwaves are. 

If you want more information on a kit a and how to put a cable together, I'd be happy to guide you through it."
techsupport,"If your dongle can do 802.11n, go for a 2.5 Ghz channel. Choose a channel with least overlap. 802.11n is good for up to 150Mbs usually. Then disable the 5Ghz on your router, or keep it enabled for other devices. Some routers have a DMZ setting. Disable it. Caveat. Disabling DMZ comes with risk. Google the risk and decide if it's worth it. Also. Read up on QoS settings if you have that option in your router."
techsupport,"Distance isn’t going to make his dl speed a 5th of the upload speed and depending upon the construction of the walls, 50ft on 5ghz should not be much of an issue. I’m guessing but I kind of doubt he’s literally 50ft away anyway, due to the typical layout of an apartment. It’s possible. 50ft by itself isn’t an issue, in the real world environment with walls and such, yes 50 is getting to the limit, but it isn’t surpassing it. (Assuming average conditions) it’s common to be able to easily get 75-100’ft of stable signal on 5ghz. I’m currently approx 45ft from my WiFi and doing 35-38ms ping with good speeds.

If it’s truly “solely” a distance issue he should be able to replicate the same behavior on another computer or his phone."
techsupport,"A shitty equipment wouldn't support the 1gps fiber network we give all our business customer nor if the wifi was shitty would their wireless television receiver working correctly. 5ghz is just too unstable and short ranged to be used reliably. Putting 2.4 and 5 on a same name / password would at least ensure he always get the less unreliable on depending on where he is at, and if every other computer in his house are in wifi and running 80-100mbps except him, his d'ongle might be defective, he's already tested multiple thing, outside a clean windows install to remedy any leftover drivers and be anew, the cheap 14$ amazon d'ongle would be my concern. "
techsupport,"If your 5ghz wifi is only reliable up to 20 feet, then yes, it is very shitty. That’s not a slam against you or your equipment, that is just a fact. Multitudes of other vendors are able to provide stable connections much further than that. 

OP already mentioned trying 2.4 and getting similar results, and I totally agree, it is most likely his adapter, which was the entire point, that it is NOT the distance, causing his particular issue. "
techsupport,"DMZ is an alternative to port forwarding. Some DMZs open all ports available for a single IP on a LAN. It ""should"" enable a more efficient traffic exchange between the device and the network, and is often set up to decrease latency and related slow downs. It's sort of a last ditch effort for gamers. Of course putting a device in the DMZ comes with evident risks when you consider unsecured ports. Monitoring the port traffic may reveal issues that are affecting the network and help decide if the risk is worth the advantage."
techsupport,"The latch probably still works, but AMD CPUs (and rather old Intel CPUs) with this kind of latching design are known for not holding the CPU in place firmly enough when removing a cooler.

As long as the CPU has no bent pins (probably not if it still inserts just fine), you didn't put uncalled for amounts of pressure on the CPU, and you didn't install it in an incorrect orientation, then booting with it !if even possible), you should be good.

This old latching design always sketches me out when yet another CPU rips right out of the heatsink, too. Sometimes removing a cooler in a rotational manner can help, but I feel it could also makes things worse.

Anyway, insert the CPU after unlatching properly ( the plastics should shift), then insert the CPU, then latch it again. I don't think you'll have broken this mechanism. 

The latching pushes the CPU pins firmly against the socket, so that it can have proper connectivity. Of you started the system without latching the CPU, I'm not sure what results that could have. Best case undetected CPU, worst case perhaps damage (not sure)"
techsupport,">As long as the CPU has no bent pins (probably not if it still inserts just fine), 

Turns out it does. And the pins are pretty microscopic on that cpu, I don't think I can repair them, a credit card can't even fit between the rows of pins. 

I think I'm just going to bite the bullet  and buy a new one, and hope that's the only thing that is damaged.

"
techsupport,"It could be significant if it was throttling power, but more than likely it was just shifting when running the various tests.  67 is a tad higher than you would want ideally, but prime95 is synthetic load and you likely aren't hitting that in gaming.  Thermal throttling on the 8350 shouldn't start until reaching 72C.  To confirm, you can use AMD Overdrive to check, if you wanted to.

Its also a good sign that the CPU could keep up and the system didn't restart during this test.  

How long does it usually take to restart on you when gaming?  I ask because I'm a bit suspect of the Power Supply at this point.  It could be that the fan on it isn't working quite as it should and takes a hit when it overheats.  We have had two in our office do that now - the fan stops working and the systems would just randomly reboot when doing anything intensive for a while because the Power Supply would overheat.  

Its also still very possible there's a driver conflict or something as well, since this started happening after a Windows update.  Typical culprits would be audio drivers or chipset drivers.  Sometimes Windows updates things it shouldn't.  If that is the case, typically a stress test like prime95 would run fine because its not stressing out other stuff or testing audio drivers.  Big thing on Prime95 in this regard is to make sure the threads aren't dying (ie all cores staying at 100% through testing).  Typically I run Prime95 for about an hour to test CPU/Ram stability, but problems will normally show up within the first 10-15 mins if its a clock/stability issue.

I think the Heaven benchmark is still free to use - that would be a pretty good test to run as well to see if you can pinpoint the problem to any particular area or for a certain amount of time.

Otherwise, the next step would be checking through the errors in the logs in the Administrative tools to see there are any critical errors possibly related to drivers coming up.

Oh and if your BIOS isn't up to date, I would get it updated to the latest version.  I had a personal computer at home flip out on Windows 1803 until I updated the BIOS to the latest version.

That gives you a few areas to look at, let me know if you have any questions."
techsupport,"Ok, so i have stripped and cleaned all case fans and dust traps.  There was a fair amount of buildup.

I have now managed to get to 15 mins on Furmark with no crashes.  Max temp was 57 degrees @ 65% fan stable throughout.  I was seeing minor variances in the clock speed - 999 - 1050mhz.

PSU fan is spinning up when placed under load and PSU doesn't feel hot to the touch.

I'm hoping the clean up has sorted my issues (maybe some un monitored part of my mobo was overheating?), but i won't be certain until i play a game for 1+ hours, which i won't be able to do tonight.  I'll try tomorrow and see if i get another crash and confirm back then.

EDIT: Managed about an hour on total war. No crashes. I'm hoping this is sorted and was an overheating issue. Either way, I owe you for guiding me through this. I appreciate all the help and advice. "
techsupport,"Obviously I cant say for how the infrastructure is set up and file shares and so on.

If you think it would be a quick reboot and everything work after you could consider asking the CEO for confirmation to reboot the server at X time for a downtime of file access for 15m etc.

Emails are not on this server? If they are then yeah illd just leave it till out of hours.

But remember to get confirmation for everything for CYA. You are an apprentice and realisticly shouldnt be doing any of that stuff with out someone overseeing you.

So what I would do is send a email to someone who has the power/auth to restart the server like your IT Manager or CEO. Explain that you have this issue and you can only resolve this by restarting the server, outline what it will inpact and why you want to do it out of hours. Also explain any concernce you may have when the server comes back online so they know the full scope of issues that may happen.

"
techsupport,"It's a bit of an old server unfortunately. When I have rebooted it under supervision from my manager before it has taken up to 30 mins for a full update/reboot.  


The IT dept currently consists of myself and my manager who is out of the country on leave.

My acting manager is form the finance dept but has been very supportive and I have permission from them to reboot the server after office hours. It suits me tbh, could do with the overtime. 

Our email is web based but our end users store all their files on the server instead of locally so I can't really justify office hours downtime.

I am currently putting a guide together to send out to the whole office so they can direct connect to the printer for the time being.

If the issue escelates after rebooting the server I will consult my acting manager and either continue to direct print until the IT manager returns or seek 3rd party consultation.

​

Thanks again for your advice. I seem to have things somewhat under control now :)"
techsupport,"The Laptop and Desktop are both Y520 for some reason.  https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/desktops-and-all-in-ones/legion-desktops/legion-y-series-desktops/Legion-Y520-Desktop/p/99LE9Y50275

I was just trying to find more info about it.  What is the maximum supported ram?  I know it only has two slots but will it handle 16gb sticks?  How big is it?  I want to put it in a new case, but is it some proprietary MB that will not fit in a normal case?  Can it fit into a mATX case?   I am sure I can open it up and see all the slots and what all is on the board but if I had a normal tech sheet it would tell me everything I need to know."
techsupport,"Yeah, I saw that but because of the way other stuff is worded I think it means the most you can buy it with. Like for the graphics card it mentions the 1050 and 1060 but those are your only options. You can not buy the desktop with more than 16gb. But I wasn’t sure if that was because that’s the only way they sell it or if it’s because that’s all it will work with. I might just start with a new MB instead of a case. "
techsupport,"Seems like you already had the failing Dp-connection on your 1080. Saw your post 35 days earlier. Ik think this correlates to your current problems.

I'm not sure if MSI would've accepted the RMA claim with just the DP-problems.. but i do know that a lot of people got their card swapped because of it. 

If you tried to yank the DP cable out, you problably mangled one of the pins inside of the connector, shorting the connector. Not deadly, but the card then refuses to boot/recognize."
techsupport,"You've mentioned that the fans didn't spin when you powered up the computer. A quick Google around found that most 1080's have 60c fan limit. all temps under that threshold won't let the fan spin. 

* if you remove the PCI-E cable from the GPU, does it beep when you try to boot the computer? if yes, means that the 1080 do is active and is now screaming for electricity. if not, yeah then it's problably dead. 

* does your motherboard has post LED's? 

a BIOS reset could fix this, but you did mention that your RX580 isn't causing a problem in the same slot. So i guess this won't make a difference, but also couldn't hurt much."
techsupport,"Pretty sure the video I linked will still apply.  You just remove screws from the bottom and using something skinny (like a guitar pick) to pry the bottom shell away from the keyboard bezel.  This will reveal all the internals.  The hard drive is held in place by a screw or three.  You just swap the mounting bracket surrounding the drive over to the new drive you want to put in, then just screw everything back together.  Since the new hard drive will be empty you'll need to use recovery media to reinstall Windows."
techsupport,"I apologise for it taking longer than a day. I've been very busy.

I was able to successfully make a DVD with three shorter videos and a menu on it, and it plays on my PC, PS2, and PS3. I assume it will also work on my Blu-Ray/DVD player and anywhere else I might want it to work.

These clips are just a few minutes each; they're my best YTPs I've ever made.

I know the main project does not exceed the size of the DVD. It's probably just too big for DVDStyler to handle burning as a single clip. I'm leaning towards rerendering the main film in two parts, splitting them where a bit of a pause or stumble wouldn't disrupt the flow of it, but since that takes time and might not work, I'd like your opinion first.

I would of course make it go from first to second part automatically, but since it's physical media, this won't be seamless, ergo finding a good spot for it."
techsupport,"Hm. With an old 486, there are some trouble-shooting steps that a lot of younger PC builders might not remember. It *sounds* like your PC isn't detecting the OS, but that could be due to a bunch of different factors. 

1. Did you check the HDD power connector and make sure that you plugged it in correctly? Some older Molex plugs weren't keyed and you could reverse the power plug, shorting or frying the drive. That's more common on floppies than HDDs.  
2. Is the HDD's master/slave jumper on the right pair of pins, and is it on the correct header of the IDE ribbon cable? 
3. I *think* that with a 486 you're past the era of having to manually set IRQs, but are you able to get into the BIOS and verify the HDD is detected? **[Here's](ftp://ftp.packardbell.com/pub/itemnr_old/ch1bios/ch1bios.pdf)** a manual for the old BIOS settings. Make sure these all make sense for the hardware you have. Consider setting some of these to low-end defaults or bare-minimum settings before you try to 'go big'.  
4. When you formatted the drive it sounds like you used reasonable contemporary software. Are you sure you formatted it FAT or FAT32, and that you created a successful MBR? I seem to remember that manually building the MBR was a pain in the old days. 
"
techsupport,"Jurph has a good set of steps going here. I'll add one to check:

5. Does the system have a battery backup for the CMOS RAM? There are essentially two types: on-board, and external. The ""external"" is still inside the chassis but is not mechanically fastened to the mainboard. It might be a plastic battery holder with leads connected to the mainboard. The ""on-board"" is directly attached to the mainboard, usually with solder on older systems and a clip on newer ones.

​"
techsupport,"> I think that with a 486 you're past the era of having to manually set IRQs, but are you able to get into the BIOS and verify the HDD is detected? Here's a manual for the old BIOS settings. Make sure these all make sense for the hardware you have. Consider setting some of these to low-end defaults or bare-minimum settings before you try to 'go big'.

Presumably they had to have done, if they were able to install DOS on it from floppy.

edit - hold that thought...just read the rest of the thread.  "
techsupport,"Have you tried a new harddrive?  The description sounds like an HDD issue...  


To test: Load a version of DOS straight from the Floppy and see if it runs that way.  Back in the day, before harddrives, you'd load your DOS via the floppy, and apps from additional floppies you'd put in would be loaded off those disks...  


So if the memory is good, you should be able to load an OS into memory alone.

​"
techsupport,"Sorry, I was using [executable.exe] as a placeholder for the name of the executable file.  Sorry if that threw you off.

The command prompt in any OS will have a working directory: a directory that is currently selected that will be used if you type a relative filename.  For example, if I am currently in ""C:\Windows\"", typing ""cmd.exe"" would try to call """"C\Windows\cmd.exe"" if such file exists.

Trying CD [directory] would change that working directory, alternatively you can just call a executable by using it's full file name "
techsupport,"Assuming you're on 64bit windows? Extract the exe to your desktop or in a folder. Open command prompt and use the command cd to change directory. You can just copy what I did just make sure it's your username. Obviously it will fail to install since I don't have the network card installed. Have you tried just double clicking the exe? I don't see why it wouldn't just run on it's own.

https://i.imgur.com/CCLVbY1.png

cd C:\Users\YourUsername\Desktop\update

Enter

82579VSKUW64e

Enter

"
techsupport,"I can't actually I don't have an imgur or nothing. But I've literally told you everything it says, its all one big volume, says ""14.4 GB free"" which is about right for a 16GB drive, but when I plug it in, Windows doesn't recognize it, so I go into disk management, and it says ""healthy primary partition"" and that's it. I can't delete the volume, I can't shrink it or even create new partitions anymore, whenever I go to format it, it acts as if it's being formatted, but when its done, nothing actually changes. I've tried quick and full format. 

Hey one thing I forgot, I did try out Etcher.io a while back, and flashed a Linux Mint iso onto it, could that be why it can't be deleted? Does etcher make things permanent or something? "
techsupport,"Windows 7 has no USB3 drivers, you need to do some trickery to get them to work past boot. That board has no USB2.

I have a whole toolkit for getting windows 7 working on Ryzen. Do you have an older functional computer you can use to set it up?

In general, transferring a drive to a new system without properly configuring it first never works well. You need to do some prep. PM me if you want the kit and instructions, it is fairly automated.

Use windows 10 as a last resort, it is a disaster compared to 7, especially for the inexperienced user."
techsupport,"I asked if I could control the computer beyond the bounds of the domain rules, as this computer is need for a special project, and I am the local site administrator. I have a domain account, but it has barley more power than a normal domain account. We need to access incognito mode and I want to switch the home page to our local server, as the computer is used for cyber security penetration testing for our site. I will not any credentials, as this is not a normal thing that I will do, so I do not need credentials to log in. I have a local admin account that I use, and it works for everything that I need to do. I don't see why I cannot use that to change OU, because I can use it to disconnect from the domain."
techsupport,"I’m with /u/Monkey525. It’s not that what you’re asking to do isn’t possible it’s that you’re the “site administrator” but don’t know how to do these things. Your domain admin can do targeted or loopback policies fairly trivially if this was really necessary.
 
As for using the admx or changing the permissions on the key, Domain Policies take precedence over local policies so you’re not going to be able to block domain policy (with some rare exceptions). Instead of focusing your energy on that why not find a way to work within the parameters you’ve been given? For example, you could edit the chrome shortcut and append the website of your choice so when someone clicks to launch chrome it launches the website you specify."
techsupport,"> Do you have the TV set to output audio via SCART?

I'm not sure it can output audio. In the TVs settings it says ""analogue and video input from analogue or video devices"". I have used SCART in a similar way before and have managed to output audio and video. Is it possible the TV don't support output over SCART

> Also, can your DVD player even receive an input from SCART? Usually they're only output on players.

I think it can. I've set it to ""TV in"" mode which i assume is for the SCART (i tried the other modes too)"
techsupport,"Off the top of my head, you are either overheating or your power supply is failing.  
  
First thing to do is check your cpu/gpu temps while you are gaming. [Core Temp](https://www.alcpu.com/CoreTemp/) for your CPU temps and [MSI Afterburner](https://www.msi.com/page/afterburner) for GPU temps.  
  
Max temp for your CPU is 60c and try to keep your GPU around 85c or less. If your temps are under those listed then I would swap out your power supply.  
  
I doubt your hard drive would cause you to crash once your game has started. Once you are gaming most of the game should be loaded in to RAM, which leads me to believe you are suffering from heat build up or your power supply is struggling to keep up as it slowly dies. 
"
techsupport,"Yes, that is exactly where you want to be. Be warned, it may take some trial and error.  
  
The idea is less power = less heat. Your CPU may perform just fine at a lower voltage, but it could also cause instability. So you might have to play around with it a bit.   
  
The goal should be to keep your cpu under 60c during load, with the highest core frequency and lowest Vcore possible. Kinda like overclocking in reverse. "
techsupport,"Whats my solution then? :/

I had everything working great until my wife got a new work laptop/docking station that she uses at home and all of the ports changed up on me.

Should I just look into buying her a video card with dual DVI? The mobo is VGA and DVI. Do I need and stop relying on the integrated graphics of the CPU/Mobo?

The goal is to basically allow her to use dual monitors for work and for personal use. Work is fine, but the VGA to DVI is fucking me up. She just changes inputs on the monitor to switch between the laptop or desktop.

Maybe I should look into a KVM switch solution instead? She doesn't exactly like having to change the input via the monitors.

Thanks"
techsupport,"These motherboards are pretty darn rare as the 7567 are still relatively new.

Dell demands a full 700$ instead of fixing one single damaged piece on your motherboard?

Holy crap we have a Apple copycat!!!!(that kinda rhymes).

Seriously though,laptop companies are becoming douchebags because:

1.They lock down the BIOS and HW upgradeability as much as possible(like soldering things for example).And give users a middle finger in the face when trying to upgrade.
2.When users have a busted capacitor,instead of soldering a new one,they will ""Oh,we are sorry(input bullshit reason) and so you will have to pay(input x higher than 500$)."" or ""Fuck off and buy new one"".

Instead of copying what makes Apple great(brainwashing their users) they copied everything else that makes Apple crappy-Louis Rossman."
techsupport,"Why don't you part the parts and case,sell it and the motherboard too?

Save a little bit more and combine it with the money from this crap and get yourself a better one.

Besides,stay away from Dell.They are plagued with issues this year and I don't think it's going to better.One guy whom I knew had his Dell G7 shipped with the underpowered PSU.They refused to replace it even after acknowledged that this is an issue."
techsupport,"So one hd and one dvd. Toshiba need to be in the list of bootable devices. If it is, then you may have a problem with bios settings. A hd missing boot partition would show a clear error about device being not bootable. If so, take note of actual settings, and look for bios reset. You'll loose config, but may solve your problem. Also look for the error log if you have one."
techsupport,I was going to say you don't have to connect that PC to the router upstairs you just need to connect anything that can connect via Ethernet to the router to verify that you can even get an Ethernet connection from the router.  Network troubleshooting starts at the hardware level.  What have you done to verify that the cables are working cables?  Have the powerlinks been working with other devices so that you know for a fact that they are not the issue?  You have to rule out all the hardware issues before you even look at software.
techsupport,"https://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/hdmi_2_1/

>HDMI® Specification 2.1 is the most recent update of the HDMI specification and supports a range of higher video resolutions and refresh rates including 8K60 and 4K120, and resolutions up to 10K. Dynamic HDR formats are also supported, and bandwidth capability is increased up to 48Gbps

Older cables cannot drive 48G. You cannot run 4K at 120 fps, which is required for 3D 4K. I know that for a fact because I had to buy a new cable for my PS4 Pro. But you'd rather deny what I'm saying without any proof than believe the people who make the specifications."
techsupport,">You do not need a new HDMI cable for Ultra HD 4K **(probably).**

> Update 1/2017: A new version of the HDMI spec has come out, called HDMI 2.1. For most people it's way beyond what they'll need at home, but there are some new features and a new cable type that's good info to know.

The article just disproved itself twice. Older cables CANNOT drive 48G, it's a fact. Yes, most people think getting an expensive cable with weird certifications will improve their connection, and that's just plain wrong. The fact remains, not all cables support the newest HDMI features."
techsupport,"1.2/1.3/... are specification versions. They're revisions of the standard, not cable ""versions"". They dictate how the format works for specific purposes. A device has to implement the latest revision to use those features.

The cable itself is just an interface + copper wire, and the interface itself has not changed AFAIK (even if it has, it's retrocompatible) . Nevertheless, the cables that were produced before certain revisions of the HDMI standard do NOT support 48Gbps transmission, so you cannot use them with 4K120."
techsupport,"> I've only ever recieved these notifications on this phone.

I suspect that it's because this phone is the only one where the security holes have been patched. I think Snapchat has *always* been doing this, but with your new phone, you're being alerted when it happens.

Kind of like Facebook, and their app that uses the microphone to eavesdrop on users.

There's very little you can do.   

* Write a message to snapchat, give the app a 1-star review and then:
 * Stop using it
 * Keep using it."
techsupport,">Kind of like Facebook, and their app that uses the microphone to eavesdrop on users. 
  
As much as I detest Facebook, and recommend that everybody stops using it; this is a complete myth.  
Snapchat isn't secretly using your camera without your permission, either. The app simply takes a little longer to close than usual, so remains running for a short time once you exit it. This is all the phone is reporting. 
It's an enhanced security feature that people are misinterpreting. "
techsupport,"Or I'm on my way to work, and I'd rather spend my time relaxing than appeasing the temperament of some random Reddit techlad who's convinced themselves that Snapchat, Facebook et al are accessing our HID's remotely.  
  
But, I guess if you're *that* certain of the nefarious intentions of Snapchat/Facebook/Instagram/etc, then your only option is to delete your accounts and never use these services again. 
  
On you go then. There's a good boy! "
techsupport,"I think you need to figure out if it's the problem exists within the XP image or if it's the VM host compatibility to XP. 

Do you have Windows XP installation media? Can you confirm your VM can run Windows XP by installing XP to a blank / clean virtual disk? If it works, then we can look at how you're making your VHD. If it doesn't work, then we can troubleshoot your VM platform more. "
techsupport,"I've already sent it back one because the ssd pooped and we thought it was the mobo. I can't go another 3 weeks without my computer right now as I'm at Uni.

I love the laptop except for what you just said about the portability for cooling. I have to undervolt, cut off the turbo, cooling pad, and repaste to keep it below 90c.

But the portability and performance is unmatched. It has a 1070 and it kicks butt. "
techsupport,The details in the dump files for that particular bugcheck code can often be helpful. If any .dmp files exist in **\Windows\minidump** we can try a manual analysis. If you'd like someone here to do a manual analysis you can upload the minidump folder and its contents to a cloud drive or file sharing service and post a download link here. You'll probably need to copy (not move) the minidump folder and its contents to your Desktop and work with the copy to avoid file permission issues.
techsupport,"We might be able to get some more useful information from the dump file but 0x133 bugchecks with a 1st parameter of 0x1 usually don't pinpoint the driver or device causing the timeout. 0x1 means it's a cumulative system timeout rather than a particular driver timeout. I'd likely be able to see what drivers your system is loading, whether or not you're using the latest BIOS for your motherboard, and whether or not anything is overclocked (intentionally or unintentionally.)

The instructions in my original reply are what I'd recommend doing to make the dump file available."
techsupport,"Thank you, I was able to get the dump file.

It is a 0x133 bugcheck with the first parameter of 0x1. The automated analysis is blaming the Nvidia driver as the culprit but I don't think it actually is the problem. Per the Microsoft documentation, the only real way to figure out who is to blame is by doing an event trace which we may need to do eventually. However, I can see that you are running a very outdated motherboard BIOS. According to the dump you're currently using the 1.70 version (2015/09/23) and the latest is 7.20 (2018/03/13) which you can see [here](http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/B150%20Pro4D3/#BIOS). I prefer to be running the latest BIOS on my own systems simply to have the system as stable as the manufacturer have been able to make it. Is that something you're comfortable doing?

edit: Are you actually using an Nvidia GPU? The link to your build suggests you have an AMD GPU."
techsupport,"It's certainly possible and where I would start. There are some problems which can only be fixed by a BIOS update and scheduling/timing issues are among them. ~~I'd suggest using the Instant Flash method which would involve downloading the update, unzipping the contents to an empty flash drive, and then using the Instant Flash tool in the BIOS settings menus to perform the update.~~

edit: The documentation for the Instant Flash options seems to suggest the update can be downloaded from within the BIOS settings menus as long as you have an Internet connection. I'd want to do the update from within the BIOS menus if possible as that seems to be the most reliable method."
techsupport,"Let it dry for days. Numerous days. Air flow, warmish air. Rice is a joke. It has no real dessicant properties.

Go to a pharmacy or craft shop, and buy silica gel if you want (or the dehumidifying stuff for your closet.) Seal it in a bag with some.

Or just natural air dry. 

Shake it, tip it, in case water did get inside.

Have a folder on your computer ready to copy to; you may not have long.

If it appears ok, use it as second/unimportant backup, because you can't really trust it now. "
techsupport,"Pagefile is not for power loss. It's overflow for the memory system. When you have a lot of programs and files open, you can have a higher requirement for memory than you have memory. The least used pages are stored on the pagefrile to make room for more active pages. When the machine needs one of these pages it's brought back into memory and something else is swapped out. This technique is called [virtual memory.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_memory)"
techsupport,"As /u/AttackTribble said, `pagefile.sys` is for virtual memory. It is for when you accidentally overflow the amount of memory you have. By default Windows sets to be dynamic in side which can cause it to grow out of control if you have limited disk space. If you have more then ~4GB of RAM, you can safely set this to a static size of 4GB, otherwise set it to the amount of RAM you have.

`hiberfil.sys` exists because you have Hibernation turned on. Hibernation is a feature on Windows that essentially allows Windows to dump everything in RAM to disk (into the `hiberfil.sys` file) and then shut down. RAM is a volatile memory storage medium, which means it is erased when it loses power. So this allows Windows to save its current state and completely shutoff power. You can use Sleep mode which is a low power mode, but still uses power, or just shutdown all the time. If you do not want Hibernation and want to reclaim the space used by `hiberfil.sys`, you can open an Administrator CMD prompt and run the following command

    powercfg -h off
"
techsupport,"> By default Windows sets to be dynamic in side which can cause it to grow out of control if you have limited disk space. If you have more then ~4GB of RAM, you can safely set this to a static size of 4GB, otherwise set it to the amount of RAM you have.

TBH, it's really dumb to mess with your vm settings, just let windows manage it. It's extra dumb to just set it to a set value of 4gb or to set it equal to the amount of ram you have because some random dude on the internet told you that was a good value. "
techsupport,"Back during Win9x up to XP, keeping your Virtual Memory to 1.5 times your RAM resulted in substantial performance gains. This was to reduce the amount of times Windows needed to pull from Virtual Memory on what was typically a 5400 RPM hard drive transferring at about 100MB/sec

That being said, you are right that it is silly to mess with Virtual Memory settings for marginal performance gains now, especially with solid state drives that are far faster than mechanical drives, as well as the OS able to process data faster thanks to multi core processors."
techsupport,"> Back during Win9x up to XP, keeping your Virtual Memory to 1.5 times your RAM resulted in substantial performance gains.

I remember those days. I also know that now just about anything a random person does to vm settings based upon random advice from the internet is almost always universally worse than just leaving it setup to be managed dynamically by windows. 

In the XP days, Windows was a little more conservative with using space because drives were smaller, so while the dynamic generally worked out OK, going ahead and telling windows to use several gigs of your space for swapping worked out better. Nowadays, Windows has no problem using up your harddrive, so people are trying to solve the opposite problem by telling it to use less, and yet also think that will make things faster somehow. The people that turn off swapping altogether suffer from a different problem in that virtual memory works somewhat differently than they think, so they still aren't getting any of the gains that they imagine by trying to force windows to not swap at all. 

As someone with a CS background and a tech support background, its super frustrating to read some of the misguided advice in this sub. "
techsupport,"This ""some random dude"" has been building computers for almost a decade and has a degree in Computer Science so it is not just dumb estimation or guess. I know how virtual memory works.

The pagefile/swap storage is a way to make sure you OS does not completely crash when you run out of memory. Ideally the amount of space you need for pagefile/swap storage would vary from person to to person and use case to use case. Ideally, if you want to optimize your pagefile the best you can, you would want to know the total possible memory your system is going to use at once, add some padding to that, subtract how much RAM you have and that is the size of your page file (https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/motiba/2015/10/15/page-file-the-definitive-guide/).

*If* you have a HDD or high capacity (512GB/1TB) SSD, then yeah, you should not mess with your pagefile, just let Windows manage it. That is what I do on my desktop at home. The issue is that a lot of Windows laptops often come with 8/16GB of RAM and only a 256GB SSD or even 128GB just to say it has an SSD. 128/256GB does not go very far on a modern system. Windows + a couple of games + Microsoft Office + some pictures, movies and that space is gone. Often times, consumer laptops have more memory than most people need and less storage space than people need so it is not the worse thing in the world to statically set your pagefile size. A consumer laptop that is not running VMs, server applications or any other large memory intensive tasks will never overflow your virtual memory space faster than your OS can yell at you for running out of memory. 

4GB is a reason balance between having a decently sized page file to give Windows time to react to running out of memory and at the same time not consuming your whole 256GB SSD. This gives you 12 GB virtual memory (on 8GB systems) or 20 GB virtual memory (on 16 GB systems). My Surface Book follows into this bucket (8GB of RAM, 256GB SSD), and a 4GB pagefile is perfect for my Surface Book. "
techsupport,"No, that's not what a pagefile is. It is part of the computer's memory system, and is usually in use all the time, not just when the power is off.

Here's an analogy. Say you're working at your desk, which can hold eight pieces of paper or eight books at one time. When your desk fills up, the next time you need to look at something, you first need to move a piece of paper off of your desk. You pick a document that you probably won't need for a while and put it in a filing cabinet. 

A page file is something like a filing cabinet.

[Moderately geeky explanation](https://www.howtogeek.com/126430/htg-explains-what-is-the-windows-page-file-and-should-you-disable-it/)


"
techsupport,"Try that on a 60Gb boot drive...

Also, on mechanical drives it is STILL better to set a fixed swap amount. When the queue of your drive is full the last thing that you want is to resize a big file, specially if the drive is close to being full.

It's fine to manage a crapload of servers, so you're surely aware that  some big ass setups would do perfectly fine on a 60Gb boot drive. Windows though? Nope.

**EDIT:** Thanks for the downvote. :)"
techsupport,"VMs are another story, RAM aside. To keep it short, an SSD's performance will suffer the closer it gets to being full, and 60Gb ain't enough for windows, it will fill up with temp files and updates before you realize. 60Gb simply isn't enough for a full win 10 install, let alone an enterprise. And i'm not bashing microsoft just because, i use windows myself, but with enterprise level hardware? Why?

EDIT: Just to be clear... a 60GB **parition** on an SSD is not the same as a physical SSD itself.

"
techsupport,"Okay, I had chilled a while on the comp, then stutters came back when I was ingame again, I closed all programs and then opened them back up one by one and i'm pretty sure it reacts on my chrome tab with netflix up because each time I open it I get stutters and each time I close it it's smooth, gonna try another browser.

EDIT: seems to be because of chrome + netflix, doesn't stutter with Edge."
techsupport,"Usually it's written on the motherboard itself, but GPU might be blocking the part of the motherboard that has the text. But you probably have P6T if that was the BIOS it allowed to flash.

But did you change BIOS boot settings after the update? For example you might have had either old style IDE disk management enabled instead of newer AHCI. Or even RAID mode. Those aren't compatible with each other."
techsupport,"That’s probably the problem, chances are another device has the same IP or is trying to use it, please leave it dynamic on the computer (in control panel) and restart, whatever IP your computer gets then keep it, it means the router has it free then go on your router and set your devices IP address to reserved, then the router will associate the port with your IP Internally and it will never change. 

"
programming,"There's a hotkey that will print random Bible verses. Along with religious themed games.

There's a whole bunch of random games built-in actually, quite interesting stuff, and remarkable when you consider it's all one bloke doing it alone.

He got banned from here long ago but Terry's threads were interesting from a purely technical point of view and sparked healthy debate regarding how to deal with his outbursts/behaviour which obviously was quite offensive at times.

I remember people praising him and saying nice words only to get a reply that was nothing short of outright racist contempt and somewhat scary. He was a complicated person. 

https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/38u4zc/flight_simulator_and_first_person_shooter_in/"
programming,"Hardly true. Modern systems just have like thousand times more stuff than Terry's, and they support multiple programming languages out of the box, and have like zillion times more applications which are actually good for something rather than just childish toys.

And some of the more serious stuff he likes to talk about, like the *compiler* called HolyC, is also worthless. It's just a lexer married directly to a code emitter, just going straight to spewing out assembly for each lexed token. He remarked somewhere that he had to change C grammar a little to make it work, like casts are written after expressions so that you can just spew the assembly that does the cast after expression is evaluated. It's all done with number constants that represent the opcodes put straight in the program source code, `*dst++ = 0x12; *dst++ = 0x34;` style. And of course, since there's no AST, no inlining, etc. the performance of HolyC is going to be terrible. I don't think you can even call it a JIT, because it's too primitive for that. It's really just a fast single-tier AOT compiler that eagerly compiles any statements it ever sees and dumps them into a global namespace.

I don't understand why anyone thinks TempleOS is worth anything. Nothing in it will be adopted by anyone else. It's literally like going back 30 years in time in terms of programming in both good and bad. Good in that it's simple, alright, but bad in that it's clearly insufficient basis for building actual applications. The low audio & video standard it imposes on itself already kills the operating system for any practical purpose.

It's literally all because Terry regressed as his illness took over and went back to his fond memories of being at school learning assembly and hacking the Commodore 64 and consequently imagined it was god telling him that this was the correct, holy way to do things."
programming,"Give me Puritans, for sure. They believe I'm going to hell -- which means I'm not their problem, long-term. They believe in redemption -- which means that I can apologize and at least potentially *have my apology accepted*. They believe in argumentation[0] to the point that they think any slob with a bible can argue on an even ground with a thousands-of-years-old established authority. Meanwhile, SJWs think there are things I can't argue about (not *oughtn't*, which is bad enough, but *can't* because by nature I am *incapable*) based on my sex and skin color. Not only will they never forgive my slightest offense against their cause, but they'll even try to fuck over my children for it, decades later. Even a few minutes alone with an SJW is enough for a normal person to become ""a Nazi"" who ""should be punched"" and ""not given a platform"".

Most importantly, Puritans had an entire world full of clear, known adversaries, so they didn't need to dig around looking for enemies under every rock. SJWs have positions like ""uh, good things are good?"", ""hate is rilly rilly bad"", ""you should be nice to people"", ""if someone says he wants to commit genocide, that guy, he's not a good guy"" -- which has basically **no opposition anywhere on Earth**. Puritans have the devil. SJWs do not have a Shitlord King somewhere. Neither do they have the Shitlord King's four heavenly generals to fight. Nor their eight celestial henchmen. Nor their sixteen vile assassins. Nor--anything. There's no Shitlord Army. Even the small number of people who will cop to positions like ""Nazis? Yeah I read a book, it sounds interesting"", or ""Racism? well if 'racism' means 'wanting picket fences and peaceful neighborhoods', then yeah I'm racist af"" -- even these guys are few enough, or in hiding enough, that SJWs feast on their own most of the time. They're just *beasts*.

0\. I wish I would never have to say this, because it implies that people *don't*, which is far more of an absurd position than any position on the afterlife. It's at least not a performative contradiction to speculate about the afterlife."
programming,"I really do believe something along these lines could work and be a positive influence. Can you imagine writing serious software for a corporation whose legal department forbids you from using almost any software released or licensed in the last N years? Say because the company is a heavy weapons manufacturer, or uses slave labor, or is a government contractor working on mass surveillance tools? What if even operating systems and database software and compilers for common languages were subject to similar, enforceable restrictions? These companies would barely be able to function.

But this license in the post is too zealous. Alcohol and pornography? I don't see how these things are harmful. It sounds more like Christian morality than a genuine attempt at ethics in software. Something like this would need to be the minimum of what everyone can agree is unethical, not the maximum of what anyone might believe is unethical. Murder, injury, abuse. Not fucking beverages.

There's even an apparently serious discussion taking place in the issues for this Do No Harm license about banning processed food companies. It's impossible to take this seriously. "
programming,"> But this license in the post is too zealous. Alcohol and pornography? I don't see how these things are harmful. 

Yes, well that's the key to it all isn't it? _You_ don't see them as harmful and so you think it's wrong to ban them. These people do see them as harmful and so think it's right to ban them. Personally, I don't want either of you to have any say whatsoever in who gets to use what software. Because I don't trust either of your sense of what's just and unjust, it'll just end up with you trying to force personal opinions onto everyone else."
programming,"I appreciate your attempt. But if any point in the license even has to be opened to discussion, then I think that including it would doom the license to failure.

I really encourage you to stick with the obvious things. Use restraint. Stick to obviously, directly harmful actions. Some very valuable software advice applies here: Limit the scope of your project.

Also, consult a lawyer. Preferably a slew of lawyers. I could write up some fantasy ethical-use license, too, but I'm not a lawyer and I don't know how to write a license that makes any legal sense.

Later, after the first license targeting directly and indisputably harmful actions finds any kind of acceptance and actual use among developers, which will be a challenge in itself, then maybe people will be ready to consider taking another step and targeting actions that cause indirect harm... Though, honestly, I don't think you could ever sell me, personally, on a license that targets things like gambling or pornography or alcohol. While they certainly can cause harm, the participants are consenting adults. As a consenting adult, I _like_ drinking and gambling in moderation. I wouldn't want to make my software inaccessible to these industries, and I would be annoyed at developers who did so. I don't blame alcohol manufacturers for drunks; I blame drunks for drunks. I don't care as much for pornography, but I think a lot of sex workers would be pissed off if developers started adopting a software license that interfered with software or websites they use and made their lives more difficult."
programming,"But that's exactly it. You criticized the implementation when the problem is with the concept itself. Your criticism was that they were against different things than what you're against. The problem is that _everyone_ is against different things than you're against to some degree or another. 

It's trivially easy to image a similar implementation that bans the use of a software by companies that support gay people, pushed just as seriously and with _the exact same sense of self-justification_ as yours supporting a version that bans war profiteers. 

Edit: for posterity, this was the response he PM'd me. I'll let him have his last word in public. 


>Because banning gay rights would fall under the category of targeting ""only things that everyone can agree are unethical"". Sure.

>At first I convinced myself that you weren't arguing in bad faith. Being a dumbass for the sake of getting a rise out of people who give a shit. It didn't look like a habit when I checked in suspicion, and most people who do so do almost nothing else.

>But I don't believe that anymore. You aren't this stupid. Grow up and find less pathetic things to do than wasting the time of people who are trying to do something positive.

>Or maybe you are this stupid. Maybe you'd have to be, anyway, to choose to be such a waste of air. Either way, you aren't worth any more of my time. You aren't worth anybody's time. Bye.
"
programming,"Yes, but you will likely see better performance from a switch, where the compiler can use its heuristics to determine the optimal look-up strategy.

With more complex sets like MIPS which require masking and operand analysis to determine the instruction,  a switch is far faster than the alternative.

I'm also not used to seeing the term 'native code' used in a low-level discussion. That is usually reserved for high-level languages. By definition, *any* valid sequence results in valid machine code - otherwise you aren't compiling. However, array-of-function-pointers isn't always the fastest solution. O(log n) can be faster than O(1), as Big O notation doesn't reflect speed, but scalability."
programming,"They're aware of it, and in many cases the compiler will *not* emit a jump table. It depends on the data and the context.

Are you seriously implying that on x86, 1 instruction is always faster than 2? Because I can trivially show situations where that is not the case, as not only do instructions have different base costs on x86, but they don't have constant costs due to the fact that the execution rate is dependent on a *ton* of factors.

Heck, if some of the functions it would call would be faster inlined, you've eliminated the compiler's ability to do that if you use a jump table. The core rule when writing code is *don't try to be smarter than the compiler*. Past that, jump tables aren't always appropriate (nor can they always work).

Allowing it to inline would probably be the fastest approach, particularly if the switch is the *only* place calling these functions. Forcing inlining would generate pretty fast code."
programming,"„he core rule when writing code is don't try to be smarter than the compiler.”
So why are we optimizing the code?

„Are you seriously implying that on x86, 1 instruction is always faster than 2?”
I know

„Heck, if some of the functions it would call would be faster inlined, you've eliminated the compiler's ability to do that if you use a jump table”
Bullshit, you cannot inline indexed switch case without JMP instruction(compiler have to use at least one short JMP). For better code maintability it is also better to avoid huge switch statements"
programming,"I've now discarded two lengthy responses due to just getting cranky about this. I've resigned myself to the apparent reality. My job is to make code that makes money. If a quality of the code cannot contribute directly to the bottom line, I will not get reasonable traction on it and will ultimately be frustrated. Business just doesn't care. Some would argue business shouldn't care, and that has some merit, but is, I think, highly subjective. 

What I wouldn't give for a job with documented use cases, intelligence about how customers actually use the product in the wild, and a strategic plan to keep that product fresh and relative for the foreseeable future. Instead, I'll just be over here working around the abandoned products intermingled with the abandoned refactors, all living in this monolith that appears to function on inertia alone. Damn, it's depressing."
programming,"
>Do you think making software that makes more money now, but looses money in the future is better than one that makes little money now, but sets up possibilities for more money in the future?

* *Making software that makes little money now* -> you might not survive or somebody else might overtake your market share, thus you may never get to that hypothetical future where you make more money.


* *making software that makes more money now, but looses money in the future* -> your are buying yourself a fighting chance and with more money now, give you a chance to pivot when necessary or hopefully, spend the resources required to pay that tech debt in the future and avoid the hypothetical future of ""losing money""

Does NOT mean you should get away by writing shitty software and create an Everest of tech debt. "
programming,"> Is it like ""throw all crappy code out and start again""

Yes, this is a possibility although it would be more gradual than immediately starting from scratch.

> ""use our existing tech to do something new"". 

No, is actually was thinking about pivot on the business sense. Realize things are not working well, so you need to change a lot of things in your feature & functionality need to be thrown away & rewritten.

Yes, you need some good base code for things that you keep and reuse. But the ones that are thrown away will be pointless.

You do need a balance.
"
programming,"> I've resigned myself to the apparent reality. My job is to make code that makes money.

I've worked in different domains (applied science, industrial services, industrial components, libraries for web development). What I can say is that the balance of different qualities depends greatly on the environment in question. There are environments which require a lot more quality than others. And one caveat: Making high-quality software can be boring at times. Yes one might use automated testing but it is the developer which needs to write all these tests. 
"
programming,"Maybe you should consider working for a startup? Your code has a real impact on the bottom line.

>What I wouldn't give for a job with documented use cases, intelligence about how customers actually use the product in the wild, and a strategic plan to keep that product fresh and relative for the foreseeable future.

As an early engineer at a company, you can help set the precedent for this moving forward. Although startups can often push for deadlines, you can push back to keep your code quality high and well documented."
programming,"In my experience, the people who are good at thinking up product and hacking out a first-to-market solution are not the same kind of people who are good at making reliable high quality software. This is fine and I accept that. What I struggle with is that the former don't seem to know this or understand where they fall in this grouping. And, since they tend to be founder types, and are often still in control some years down the road, that same mentality is deeply engrained in the organization and there's little hope of turning it around."
programming,"> What I wouldn't give for a job with documented use cases, intelligence about how customers actually use the product in the wild, and a strategic plan to keep that product fresh and relative for the foreseeable future. 

Let me inform you that users typically dread product updates.  They don't want their tools to be ""fresh"", they want them to be familiar.
They don't care about new whiz bang features in their software; even if its clunky and slow, they prefer the process they have mastered rather than having to learn something new.

"
programming,"I'm going to jump far outside software development for the moment.  What would you do if you could borrow an unlimited amount of money, on a brain-dead idea, at effectively zero interest rate (still true after adjusting for inflation), via a corporate shell (so you could capture all the profits but externalize all the risk)?  Why, [pets.com](https://pets.com), of course! ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pets.com](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pets.com))

​

Artificially low interest rates have produced a cascade of bubbles in which business models and products which could never see the light of day, or would be quickly bankrupted out of existence--taking ""management"" to ridicule and unemployment...likely for the rest of their lives.    As Warren Buffet likes to say ""It is only when the tide goes out that you discover who has been swimming naked"".

​

Anyway, wonders of the internet or not, we are also living through a complex series of bubbles (only some of them directly economic)....  In the business environment for at least 20 years actual ""saving"" has been a complete loser strategy, and even investing based on careful analysis and testing of market needs and real profitability has not been able to keep up.  People have been FORCED to speculate and, as the more conservative speculations dried up, the speculation has become more wild.

​

In software we are seeing this as throw crap at the wall and if it sticks at all ""ship it!""   No matter that, over longer time frames, it costs far, far more to maintain software than to hack it out - and that some of the crap being churned out is going to harm or kill real people.  User interfaces are being gratuitously being changed for the sake of ""new"" but with no real additional functionality anyone much really wants; Tesla becomes worth more than all the car companies in the world (as if there were barriers to entry which Toyota or BWM couldn't - and won't - surmount with near trivial ease when they decide to do so); and United punches out, while Wells Fargo simply steals, from its customers to net impunity.

​

The current era of morbidly obese software and systems which cannot be comprehended by ANYONE (see [https://medium.com/message/everything-is-broken-81e5f33a24e1](https://medium.com/message/everything-is-broken-81e5f33a24e1) for a check up from the neck up) WILL pass.  The trick is to survive it with decent development skills and some perspective and honor intact.  I won't claim that is trivially easy."
programming,"> Does NOT mean you should get away by writing shitty software and create an Everest of tech debt.

*triggered*

This is becoming a serious frustration at my current position. We've got a 13-year-old codebase, most of which lives in a single repo that covers way too much ground. And I run the team that ostensibly owns this codebase.

The problem is, the people who wrote the majority of this monolith are now the executives of a fast-growing company, so their expertise is mostly inaccessible. Instead, as I keep hiring people for my team, I have more and more people writing super defensive code, because it is hilariously easy to accidentally break a feature you didn't know existed. Hell, I've been here five years and I still routinely discover new features.

The frustration is that I can't seem to get traction for taking these problems seriously. Every time I bring this topic up with my VP, I get some version of ""well we can't just stop and rebuild everything"" or ""what specifically would you change?"" Not that these aren't valid points, but I'm not trying to propose specific action, I just want some recognition that this situation is not good, and will only get worse as we keep growing. Maybe if we can agree on *that* point, then we can start figuring out what to do about it.

But instead, I just get an endless stream of feature requests conjured up by internal people based on what they think customers want, sometimes, in direct contravention to actual user research we've done. And when I'm not getting those, I'm getting sporadic complaint emails from the CEO about how someone on my team ""reinvented the wheel."" Sometimes it's because they didn't know the wheel existed in our enormous codebase, other times it's because the wheel the CEO wrote ten years ago is wobbly and does four or five magic things that don't apply to the use case we had, and the developer was too scared to try and refactor.

Maybe my problem is that I care too much. For the moment I'm going to continue vocally complaining about the problems, especially when one of my devs gets unfairly targeted when really he's a victim of this kludgebase, while pushing things out the door, but maybe I'll just give up on that and go with the flow.

More likely I'll go somewhere else. It's been a good run, and I've enjoyed working here, but lately, I dunno. I used to brag about working here, now I complain about it."
programming,">  even if its clunky and slow, they prefer the process they have mastered rather than having to learn something new.

That is not true. If the new software is actually more performant the will like it. This can be possible keeping the UI the same

If the UI is slow or part of the slowness or needs an update, as long as it offers the same functionalities at the same place and the app is faster / more responsive then users won't mind a UI change

What they do mind is a UI change just for the sake of it and in many cases making the app slower and harder to use. 

The office ribbon is probably one of the few exceptions that in the long run was better than the old stuff and users simply complained because it worked differently. People adjusted quickly and the complaining died down rather fast.
In contrast Windows 8 was a complete disaster making it different and worse. Harder to use and slower to use."
programming,"Having been developer #2, #3, and #5 and a succession of startups, I don’t think this is true. If I ever want to do any code base health work with an eye to long-term maintainability, it must be justified in terms of immediate business needs or benefits. That’s typically easier with web because any reduction in bloat cuts down on load time, which helps with SEO,^1 but there you’ve also got a lot of technology churn. 

Part of the problem is that managers unfamiliar with tech will ask why you didn’t do it right the first time (I did, given the requirements of the time, but that answer gets old after a while), but more often it’s just a question of priorities. With startups especially keeping up with or getting ahead of the rest of the market is crucial, and even when your boss understands tge importance of code quality, those improvements will be deferred indefinitely because new features take priority.


^1 Don’t tell me if this isn’t true or overstated. It’s the only excuse for refactoring I have left that gets any traction with management."
programming,"Just on your first point, I think the distinction is between business-person and professional. The business person sees technical work as a means to an end (e.g. valuable benefits, in the opinion of customers). A professional see technical work as valuable in itself. These might also be characterised as marketing vs engineering. You need both.

Honestly, if you look at the merits, the business person is actually doing good in the world, whereas the professional is just obsessed with some abstract, impersonal notion of ""good"".

To your second point, over time, one expects code quality to become more important... but it really depends on how settled the business and business environment really is. Typically, businesses do not last forever, and it's because they don't adapt. That is, a focus on what people actually want is crucial. However, I agree that it does shift somewhat towards code quality, and founders might not shift enough.
"
programming,"Depends on your available funds and the market. As a startup yes you need to release it and get some income and market adoption.

As a big company entering an existing or new market, it's better to think about maintenance cost up front also because you already have experience in it and the funds. Plus a shitty product in a new market can impact your brand in your existing market.

In the end the best way would be some form of risk balance but because that is hard to do, bean counters just look at income and hence you will always have to delivery quickly and it's always the ""Quality"" aspect of the project management triangle that loses out. 
And no, this also applies to stuff were lives are at stake. Just see the tesla model 3 braking issue. If a software update can reduce your braking distance greatly, then you clearly risked lives with shitty software."
programming,"Like you said, the software is just a product, same as physical products, and none of those are perfect in every aspect. You always want to make great product, but reality is, it is just a product, and most likely your software needs to be equalent of mcdonalds vommit triggering burger, rather than 100$+ steak from fresh, high quality products at top end restaurant.

Same for software. I only wonder, how people, who create physical products, feel about their products being shit quality/knowing about their defects/bugs/etc."
programming,"There’s truth to what you say. At the same time, I want to push back a bit, because software and technology are also *immense* drivers of efficiency gains. We joke about disruption but so many conveniences of modern life are driven by someone having a software idea, which changes everything. Investors maybor may not be better off by putting money into 10 or 20 startups hoping they hit it big once, but the economy over all certainly is. "
programming,"I understand your frustration. How about coming up with concrete proposals to fix areas you are not happy about? It's much easier for a VP to give you time and resources when you have a concrete plan, that includes the costs and the benefits. I know this hard to do in software, but it might be easier if you pivot this from a business point of view. Give them a choice they can say yes/no to. Hell, even better, give them multiple choices (cheap, somewhat cheap, expensive) and make the ""somewhat cheap"" option the most attractive.

I am not trying to downplay your frustration, I am merely pointing out that your boss's are no longer developers and are properly approaching things from a business point of view. I'd guess they expect you to come up with a plan. From my experience; they don't want to ""figure it out"" and ""come up with a solution"", they want you to propose a solution and then agree to it (or not, but then at least you tried).

EDIT: start small, fixing these kind of long term issues in a massive code base is tough. go for fixes that are cheap but have a high impact."
programming,"Yeah, it's hard for me because when I started here, it was kind of a dream job. I'd gotten burned out on dev work in general and this place let me do dev work that was related to a hobby/passion of mine. And as a bonus, it was frankly a great software shop, too - I had a lot of leeway to propose and implement improvements and refactors, I got regular raises and bonuses - in short, I felt like I was contributing cool things to a larger cool thing, and getting recognition for it, both in the sort of emotional kudos sense and in the bank account sense.

I still like the company and its business. I still like a lot of the people I work with/for. But the last year or so, I feel like things have changed, and not for the better. I feel like I'm less of a contributor and more of a trained monkey - ""the business wants this, we're going to do this."" My gripes about our codebase are a prime example.

I've stayed here far longer than any other dev job, for all the good reasons stated above. I do feel invested in the company, and I do want to keep making things better, but eventually I'm going to get tired of supposedly being a technical expert and team lead, but practically getting shut down when I advocate from those perspectives."
programming,"The problem there is that even I don't understand the big picture here. I feel like it would be myopic for me to propose solutions which, in the real world, affect teams other than my own, and probably in ways that aren't obvious to me. The basic thing here is that while my team is ostensibly responsible for web-facing stuff, part of the codebase we own is core to the business and affects other teams as well.

Basically, right now I feel like I'm a sort of ""unknown unknowns"" spot when it comes to figuring out a path forward, and I've got so much pressure on my team and I that the idea of having time to get with the other team leads and hash out next steps seems impossible. And it's hard for me to put a lot of effort into that when I don't even feel like there's agreement that there's a problem here.

All that said, I *do* think that I need to do a better job of forming cohesive arguments, both in terms of describing the problems I see and some semblance of a strategic path forward. I think I take for granted a little too much that my VP will agree with my technical observations, since he came up in the org the same way I did.

I guess what bugs me is not that the business doesn't just do what I say we should do, but that I feel like my concerns are dismissed outright with no real consideration. I know good and well I'm regularly not going to get what I want, but the way these conversations are going lately, I don't feel like my input is valued at all."
programming,"From the medium article you linked:

>Every malware expert I know has lost track of what some file is, clicked on it to see, and then realized they’d executed some malware they were supposed to be examining.

I've done this, though I'm no expert by any stretch of the imagination. The day NIMDA struck I had Apache, so it wasn't a real issue for me. Except that after seeing logs being hammered I visited one of the sites it was coming from. Malware was a lot easier to manual clean up back then."
programming,"Getting a feature out the door a day or two faster won't make or break the startup. Those deadlines are determined by management, but as an early engineer, you often have just as much say as they do.

Just stand firm when it comes to needing to keep code quality high, or better yet, don't consult them at all about any refactoring needs (if they're not too severe) - just incorporate it into your feature implementation estimations from the get go.

Keeping code quality high directly translates to fewer bugs and faster development time in the future (sometimes by multiples of 3 or more), so severely sacrificing code quality in order to get a feature out is almost never worth it (or if you're forced to, it should be made a priority to refactor the implementation immediately afterwards).

If the codebase is already in a great state, it's a lot easier keeping it that way as well for your team. "
programming,"> I feel like it would be myopic for me to propose solutions which, in the real world, affect teams other than my own, and probably in ways that aren't obvious to me. The basic thing here is that while my team is ostensibly responsible for web-facing stuff, part of the codebase we own is core to the business and affects other teams as well.

As an outsider, to the whole thing. Can you propose a solution to split what effects others?  Kinda like a system where the frontend and backend is intertwined, a split between frontend and backend, since different teams are working on it anyway. "
programming,"Start your own software company. Then you’ll have an entirely different perspective. Or just pretend like you own the company you work for. 

It is very easy for us developers to get on our high horses about all the things we think matter. But when you strip away all the bullshit and are just left with the question: how does this help us make payroll? Things become much clearer. 

It’s also interesting how few developers are willing to die on the security hill but will wail about documented requirements or time for refactoring etc. 

Anyway, nothing will make you appreciate the relative value of your favorite developer priority like trying to cash flow it. "
programming,"What I find interesting is the unsolved main issues that are exposed over time. A great current example is a whole raft of race conditions in one component that have been there since the beginning, but have been exposed and widened by changes in performance of another component. Now, tasked with cleaning up this mess, the tests and documentation would do a lot to tell us what the underlying intent was, what the expected behavior is, etc. Instead, we have to do our best and hope we don't break a whole ton of customers. The original authors believed they had solved the main issues, but in fact hadn't. So it goes."
programming,">Just stand firm when it comes to needing to keep code quality high, or better yet, don't consult them at all about any refactoring needs (if they're not too severe) - just incorporate it into your feature implementation estimations from the get go.

This is exactly what I do as well. No one asks a chef to skip cleaning his workplace because there are tables waiting. A clean kitchen is part of their process. It's not an option but a requirement. 

Stakeholders want developers to cut corners because some inexperienced developer once told them that it is possible to cut corners without any problems. Let that not be an option in first place. 

Having a clean codebase with well thought out variable names and properly abstracted class hierarchies are definitely giving me, a developer, less grey hair. And that is actually helping me be more productive. That's all the reasoning and justification I need. "
programming,"This echoes my experience pretty deeply. Do we work together? Probably not, we've only been at this for 10 years, not 13... lol. 

I'm lucky in that my immediate manager understands -- he believes we should be investing in improving the code so that we become more flexible, can deliver faster, etc. and he's seen it work in this code base. It helps that there are *so* many field escalations that we really can get some traction for fixing things, and we work in dead code deletion and refactors as part of that whenever we can. But we're fighting an uphill battle."
programming,"Once the speculation ends, there will be no replacement for it. I've seen people turn recently away from established high-reliability methods to ""we'll just use OSS stuff""[1]. They do this not because they think there's any productivity gain; they do it because it feels ""more egalitarian"". 

[1] you can do hi-rel with *some* OSS stuff, but not all. The vast thrust of OSS pays no attention at all to high-rel. 

Our whole discipline is at serious risk. "
programming,"As the pace of change accelerates, long term investment becomes less important (because less predictable).  
We might see a new domain of professionalism, at a higher level of abstraction in some sense, that can endure across at least some of these changes.

And, in the race to the bottom, customers pay less for lower quality. This is ironically driven by lower wages, caused by concentration of wealth, won in the race to the bottom.

*I'm here all week, try the lobster.*"
programming,"> What I wouldn't give for a job with documented use cases, intelligence about how customers actually use the product in the wild, and a strategic plan to keep that product fresh and relative for the foreseeable future. 

Or hell, even just a two-page vision outline or project definition. It's baffling how often we're set to work making something without anyone having a clear picture of what we are supposed to be making. 
"
programming,"> Maybe my problem is that I care too much. For the moment I'm going to continue vocally complaining about the problems

Did that, got fired. Kept telling my boss that the code base is bad and needs to be refactored. People around me who were already working on it weren't bothered by it. They are all still there, I found a different job where they actually care about code quality. Win-win I guess."
programming,"'It's not fair. When we screw up, it's fair, we have to fix it. But it feels less fair when we have to fix someone's else's problems.""'

Oh Linus, you're funny. There's only one fix for this. You should make your own open source hardware. You make some chips, spend your money on it and then when they are done and a minor flaw is found that you had the foresight to make fixable in software, I'm absolutely certain you'll decide 'No, such a thing would not be fair to make linux fix this. I will instead take all these chips back, build more and pay my own money to ship them back and forth so people can have working computers without linux having to lift a finger.' And don't forget to pony up for new motherboards in systems where the CPUs are soldered down."
programming,"I'm guessing there'll be a ton of these counters, which help in maintaining the aircraft. Same in most Machinery, its an easy way to assess the various state of the machine components without shutting it down and opening it up. The push now is to dd machine learning on top of telemetry instead, so that parts can be maintained via predictive analysis.  

However, if we can't even prevent simple mistakes like this getting into live machines, we'll only be adding more complexity to a system we already can't manage."
programming,"In an airplane you have a lot of time-dependent stuff - computations for velocity and radar, but also a host of devices and interfaces where you say, ""If this doesn't respond within X amount of time or is giving garbage answers for at least Y amount of time, treat the device as defective and escalate the alert level"". You use a separate, elapsed-time-only clock for that stuff because a regular, UTC-based internal clock may need to be reset or changed periodically. Allowing resets of the ""wall time"" clock means you can't guarantee that it's continuous and strictly monotonic, so for stuff that's sensitive to elapsed time but not wall time, you use a separate clock that does make those guarantees."
programming,"I do a lot of work on industrial automation systems that have the dynamic duo of millisecond-level response times and 16-bit words.  Counting every millisecond, you overflow a 16-bit counter in about a minute. And 32-bit math is available, but 32-bit timers are not, while 16-bit timers are dirt cheap.

The typical response is that you make your counters resilient to overflow, or reset them when they are about to do so.   

If the problem occurs once a minute, you will experience quickly whether your overflow math works correctly or not, and be able to depend on it.

248 days is long enough that the authors could have shipped it with a broken overflow protection and forgotten to check that it worked. "
programming,"Nope. 

But they are powered down completely at the end of a sequence of flights. Most airports don’t have departures scheduled between 1am and 5am or so local time, so if an aircraft arrives at 1am they will park it and power it off until the next flight several hours later. 

Back on the other hand, the Dreamliner is a long distance aircraft that will often fly overnight across oceans, so it will often depart at 9pm and arrive at it’s destination at 6am local time, whereupon it will be turned around and fly another long distance flight. So in that case, it wouldn’t be powered off in between flights. 

But airliners need pretty constant maintenance. Again, that’s part of the reason that flying is so safe. But the 787 has exceptionally long maintenance intervals by design. I think the target 787 was something like 1000 hours of use between line checks. I don’t know what the maintenance interval is in practice, and different systems require different periodicity checks (I.e. an engine may be swapped in that requires a check every 1000 hours but when it was swapped in the engine had 500 hours on it and the airplane’s last check was only 200 hours ago... so that bird may get it’s next line check at 700 hours) ... but airlines do try to synchronize them. 

So it’s not unrealistic for the Dreamliner to hit this limit, but they aren’t rebooted between each flight. 

Unless it’s an Embrair. (That’s a pilot joke...)"
programming,"Meant what I said. It’s not unrealistic because the normal maintenance interval is more than the reboot time. The Dreamliner is a high hours, low cycle (aka long distance) airliner. If an airliner is on the same route flying across the Atlantic (I think JFK->Frankfurt is a 12 hour flight, for instance) and they turn the plane without rebooting at each end, then it would take ten days to hit this limit. "
programming,"1. Multiword arithmetic creates the possibility that you can update the low word of a set but not the high word (or vice-versa), and if another process reads that value in the mean time they get a bogus result. You can't just lock the other threads because that will cause potentially vital sensor information to get delayed or even lost.

2. In all likelihood, this clock runs on a simple digital accumulator, similar to most quartz watches, instead of a general-purpose CPU."
programming,"So why not just have the counter reset once it hits the top value and calculate the difference between the two points?

That's how we do it, and I work for an aerospace company. This will have been written up in a problem report and will be fixed when the next package deems it. 

Unless they realise that 248 says is an unachievable time between resets. 

Or of course, that the reset that does occur is not detrimental to flight. You can have in flight resets. That's why you have multiple channels. 

"
programming,"It's a question of semantics, really. Take GCC's `fwrapv` option, for example: it's not standard C, so we can call it C-with-GCC-extensions or C-with-overflow or OverflowC or even ""G"" ... with well-defined signed integer overflow.

What's important is whether it's well-defined on the exact platform they're targeting. If they're targeting standard C? It's undefined. If they're targeting Ada? It's an error. If they're targeting a custom language that's effectively <standard language> + overflow extension? It's well-defined.

Portable, standard C is important. But sometimes the nature of embedded programming means you have to use a platform-specific variant. I hope that's not the case for a safety-critical device...

In the context of your original comment, it could even be raw assembly for whichever ISA, with well-defined overflow.

Side note, even with Ada, apparently [non-conforming/non-standard compilers exist](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/324771/why-is-overflow-silently-allowed-in-ada) which will not check for overflow. I'd certainly not recommend relying on this behaviour, but it's there."
programming,"Would you accept that [it's well-defined in C#](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/26225119/is-c-net-signed-integer-overflow-behavior-defined)?

My point in both the original and followup comment is that there is no universal rule that signed overflow is undefined. Heck, it's definitely well-defined in x86 assembly, and almost certainly most others.

At the end of the day, standard C is just one of the few languages that have arbitrarily declared it undefined *within that language* (and said declaration can be 'overridden' by the derivative language that's not-standard-C implementated by some compiler).

In fact, ""undefined behaviour"" itself in this sense has absolutely no meaning outside of standard C (or a slightly-different meaning within standard C++). Because that phrase itself only has that meaning within the definition of the Standard. Even your Ada example is well-defined. An error condition, but well-defined.

What you've said is completely correct with respect to standard C."
programming,"> but think for a moment how are you going to implement this sort of counter?

> Your options are to increase the number of bits used, which puts off the overflow, or you could work with infinite precision arithmetic, which would slowly use up the available memory and finally bring the system down. 

I think the author doesn't quiet get just how much additional time adding a few extra bits would get you. If 32 bits gets you 248 days then a 64 bit counter gets you just under 3 billion years. 1 bit more and the sun would be gone before the plane ever needs to be restarted. 

"
programming,"And what if that part was spec'd to use 90% of it's capacity with the 32 bit program written for it? What if that check put it over capacity and now you need to design for a whole new part? What if the components that interact with this chip can't interact with our upgrade without major changes? 

Work in industry for a few years and you will run into this problem *all the time*. 

Problems are defined, and a part is procured that will solve that problem. Usually after a vigorous attempt to simply the problem and save cost on that part. You can't just buy something that's twice as good as you need for every piece of your project, your costs would balloon like crazy, and your competition would laugh all the way to the bank! "
programming,"> Work in industry for a few years and you will run into this problem all the time.

You're a cantankerous one, aren't you?  I've been a programmer for 29 years; not really sure if that's a ""few"" or not.  I'll agree that there are occasions where it works out like you describe, it's not the average case at all.  If you're running that close to the edge as it is, you are running lots of other risks too."
programming,"That edge might not be very risky, depends on what the device does.

You both make good points, problems like this happen all the time but solving them the straightforward way also happens all the time, and generally being so close to the edge that this sort of change might be a problem means there are other risks as well, however it's common for a lot of your work to be on the edge of some intersecting tradeoffs. It's just the nature of the beast that most of the work happens where both solutions require more work. "
programming,"If you wanna move content around depending on screen resolution, without tons of css hacks and duplicated content and even then you cannot really move content around, you can really only show, hide and position, but if you have to move an inner div into another div then it's impossible without javascript. It's not something common to do, but it has its usecases, but you can avoid this with a completely better design, soooooo I guess your question is still valid.
"
programming,"> Have you ever heard of SASS and LESS?

Sure. You can learn a domain-specific templating language to make your domain-specific config language a bit less painful (they don't fix the box model but I'll grant that they remove some of the repetition). Or you can learn a general-purpose programming language and use that to replace all your domain-specific config languages (possibly using ""internal"" DSLs for DSL-shaped problems). I know which I prefer."
programming,"A lot of it is a lack of good CSS knowledge, and hand wavy excuses. I see a tonne of examples of JS used for layouts where basic flex would have done it.

That said there are a couple of specific layouts which are downright painful to do in CSS. There are some specific tweaks which are just nicer if you have JS powering it. Another is if content has to be somewhere entirely different; like moving from a pane to a sidebar depending on screen size."
programming,"Lots of developers do all kinds of stupid stuff. From smooth scrolling to dynamic loading of images, adaptive menus and other attention grabbing things.

All that said, I can't really say his sites are the easiest to read/use. There are a lot of things developer can do without making sacrifices. Take his blog for example:

- Black on white is usually too much contrast and hard on the eyes;
- Poor use of negative space for grouping content and making it easier to read;
- Tables should be used to present data which belongs in tables, for example things he expects us to compare to one another. Instead he used different colors and style in a single sentence making comparison hard;
- etc."
programming,"> ""Laziness"" is meant to be about automating work in order to do less in the future. Not learning css doesn't fall into that, you're doing at least as much work in js as you are in css. Maybe even more, depending on how much wheel reinventing you're doing.

Disagree, because in a general-purpose programming language a lot of what you're doing can be general-purpose. E.g. if you learn how to give different rows of a table alternating colours in CSS, that knowledge will only ever be useful in CSS, whereas if you learn how to apply different functions to alternating elements of a collection in JS, that's a reusable technique that you'll use again and again."
programming,"CSS is spectacularly bad: cognitive isssues, lack of typing and validation, far-distance effects, high redundany, silent corruption, inefficient both at runtime and design-time ...

The worst thing is the unexplainable idea that styling properties should go into it's own syntax and namespace. In the original concept of a markup language, this is what markup attributes are for - why it had to go into it's own ad-hoc syntax isn't clear. Actually, SGML had already stylesheets (rule-based assignment of attributes) over 30 years ago."
programming,"That still sounds like you're just trying to use one hammer everywhere. Yes, in your example it works in both paradigms. But what about something simpler, like setting text size or spacing? You've learned to... set object properties?

I also don't understand your aversion to DSLs. Just because it doesn't map 1:1 to another problem doesn't mean you aren't learning. Plenty of other platforms use similar configuration files for setting constants, display information, styling, etc. It's a good way to separate business and display logic, especially when the current trend is towards declarative UI definitions. Using CSS is just another type of this. Trying to fit everything into general purpose programming is just ignoring this (imho) very important facet of software engineering. It also ignores one crucial skill for any engineer: knowing how to pick the right tool for the problem.

But in the end, I'm just a faceless moron on the internet that honestly was more concerned with how you interpreted a quote than how you solve your own issues. You do you. "
programming,">  But what about something simpler, like setting text size or spacing? You've learned to... set object properties?

Well, that's a vital if basic skill. A programming language should make the easy things easy and the hard things possible; CSS might succeed on the first but a language that does both stands you in better stead.

> Plenty of other platforms use similar configuration files for setting constants, display information, styling, etc.

Agreed, and again I've found they do more harm than good. DI container wiring, test case definitions, web routing, business rules, translations: you're better off just using a programming language.

>  It's a good way to separate business and display logic, especially when the current trend is towards declarative UI definitions. Using CSS is just another type of this.

Config files can make sense for something that's purely an inert value, but as soon as you have any kind of logic or transformations you can't do them declaratively and it's a mistake to try. Declarative UI definitions are a great idea, but any halfway decent programming language makes it easy to express plain values in ordinary code.

> It also ignores one crucial skill for any engineer: knowing how to pick the right tool for the problem.

Programming culture is too focused on choosing between A and B, and doesn't pay enough attention to whether A should even be in your toolbox at all. Given limited time available, deep knowledge of general-purpose tools is more valuable than knowing a big range of special-purpose tools."
programming,"Most are, I don't see why you need a half dozen crappy javascript libraries to render some text and a few images.

I'd fully support a lightweight no clientside scripting code version of websites. Just static HTML, images etc. I don't want or need dynamic ajax postbacks happening every few ticks so some bloated website can track my exact cursor position and spray data at 100 odd random tracking and advertising domains.

Just opening the reddit homepage (old.reddit) i got 140 requests, thats exactly 139 too many for what is actually required."
programming,"According to your posts, you're most likely a DBA or a backend dev. Have you ever worked on the front end of a large scale (say, 1m loc or so) web application? The solutions you're discussing are paramount to allowing for good architecture in the world of large web apps.

And actually, think about the backend! If reddit made one request to the backend to create the front page, that means the endpoint serving that would have to be extremely specific to your specific use case (I'd guess logged in, desktop, chrome, subscribed to less than 250 subreddits). Will there be a different endpoint if you're not logged in? What about if you're on a tablet and need different information than a desktop (or at the very least, the tablet engineers want less information, for example).

You have to make abstractions that make sense.

Also are you using the old layout and RES? If so, you're the one making more than half of those requests, not reddit. "
programming,"> According to your posts, you're most likely a DBA

Correct and no I avoid the web layer as it changes too frequently but have worked with plenty of apps exceeding a couple of million LOCs. I am not using RES.

The vast majority of web apps do not need constant call backs, sure if there is a live chat client then yes but reddit does not have that.

It's just a waste of resources and very few developers actually understand the libraries they use so its very insecure. Who knows what time bombs and backdoors exist in such packages.

>The solutions you're discussing are paramount to allowing for good architecture in the world of large web apps.

Good architecture comes with minimalist design in terms of code. Everybody knows the the more lines of code you have generally increases the number of issues. Saying that using someones multi MB javascript file you downloaded from some website is good architecture is dumb.

>And actually, think about the backend! If reddit made one request to the backend to create the front page, that means the endpoint serving that would have to be extremely specific to your specific use case (I'd guess logged in, desktop, chrome, subscribed to less than 250 subreddits). Will there be a different endpoint if you're not logged in? What about if you're on a tablet and need different information than a desktop (or at the very least, the tablet engineers want less information, for example).


All the post titles etc come from one HTTP request which renders that entire paragraph irrelevant. 

>that means the endpoint serving that would have to be extremely specific to your specific use case

Yeah... you can do crazy thinks with code - like detecting the user, or the device etc and customising the response based on that, you do not need multiple entry points to do this."
programming,"CSS, JS, and images can all be inlined into HTML. IMO, it's probably better not to inline them because it prevents the the browser from caching that content separately from the rest of the page. But I think it is fair to ask that most websites serve just _one_ CSS file and _one_ JS file per page - it's trivial to run a script that bundles all your assets into one file. Maybe even one image per page (by collapsing images into a spritesheet)."
programming,"Yes, no jquery means support for a shit ton of browsers/versions have been dropped. Stuff like jquery meant multi browser support more than anything else.

Even then, moderns browsers are just as much dog shit as any old internet explorer version. The amount of unsupported stuff is just enormous. I wrote a simple website with editable data table, tested it on chrome, and guess what, it doesnt work on any other browser..."
programming,"That works fine and well in personal projects, or even projects with a more high-level timeline/budget consideration, but for day-to-day site modifications it's a hard sell.

If they want a datepicker and you say you can roll one up in 2-3 hours, but random Joe pops in and mentions he can have it in 5 minutes and ""only"" weigh the website down by 50k of jQuery, you know which one they'll pick."
programming,"Browser compatibility is the best it's ever been, and almost nothing jQuery does in terms of browser compatibility is necessary to retain your sanity post IE 10 (which you really shouldn't bother supporting anymore except for *extremely* specifically targeted userbases). If you're having major problems with compatibility, you're either supporting dead browsers or using cutting-edge features that aren't ready for prime time yet anyways - 99% of compatibility issues on the web are minor unimportant implementation differences or revolve around CSS prefixes."
programming,"Tbh, this could well be a perfect use case for Svelte and other ""framework-less frameworks"" - basically, they use a compiler to turn framework-based code into single files that contain all the DOM manipulation code necessary (and only the DOM manipulation code necessary) to run the application in the browser.

I could see that being used to build a series of tiny components that have the development benefits of a larger framework, but the size benefits of raw DOM manipulation."
programming,"> you are bound to hit some sort of funky edge case within the next 14 days that you hadn't considered

**Bug Report:**

Days, Months and Years that are prime numbers can't be entered

**Fix**:

Added an additional field so the user can just enter the next possible date and then use this field to subtract hours to get to the desired date.

**Note**:

Hours have to be entered in octal"
programming,"You can sideload extensions if you really want to.

Edge supports WebExtensions (mostly, but that's a different story). There's all sorts of hilarity involved in that spec, since Google wants you to use `chrome.` in all your extension stuff and the spec says to use `browser.` since that's, you know, *the standard*. Writing something to *the standard* will mean your extensions don't work right in Chrome. This means that it's fairly easy to pull in extensions from Chrome and get them limping along in Edge. 

The store is actually kinda nice. I have a habit of feeding money to various free software projects that put their software up on it to legitimize it as a means of pushing money at those projects. "
programming,"Well that seemed... vitriolic. Let's take a look at what the author is actually complaining about, which was announced a little less than a year ago:

https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2017/11/engaging-users-through-high-quality-amp.html

So, as the author says, Google wants AMP pages to have feature-parity with regular pages. Specifically, from the spec:

> Users must be able to experience the same content and complete the same actions on AMP pages as on the corresponding canonical pages, where possible.

So that's the extent of the information from Google—they've changed the AMP spec to require feature parity. If a website doesn't adapt to the new spec, Google will return their regular site in the search results instead—much like if they took the author's suggestion and didn't use AMP. As confirmed in the above link

> AMP is not a ranking signal and there is no change in terms of the ranking policy with respect to AMP.

Now, the author is absolutely correct that you need AMP to show up in things like the Top Stories carousel, so that's not to say that AMP is meaningless but:

 * For any site not using AMP already, this has no effect whatsoever

 * For any site currently using AMP, I think it's hard to argue that an incomplete version of the site provides a better UX than a feature-complete version. Google wants AMP pages to be useful. There's a lot of complaining in this thread about how AMP pages are annoying, and frankly I tend to agree, but it stands to reason that a lack of feature parity is a contributor to that.

Then for the second half of the article it devolves from actual if editorialized information to garbage like 

> Dance, Dance for Google

and

> “Don’t wear that dress,” Google is saying, “it makes you look cheap. Wear this instead, nice and prim and tidy.”

Ironically, this is right after talking about the possible benefits of using AMP, and without any explanation in between of why it's actually bad. That's not to say that there aren't reasons, but rather than discuss them, the author just rants about how Google can't tell him what to do. "
programming,">“Don’t wear that dress,” Google is saying, “it makes you look cheap. Wear this instead, nice and prim and tidy.”

​

I didn't read everything, but I don't need to ! If the author says that Google is trying to choose the dress I use, I tell ""GOOGLE, this guy right here is done wearing dresses  .!. !!!!"" !

​

Since the author doesn't seem to be from a major corporation, he is totally legit and has for sure my best interest at heart !"
programming,"I mean if you expected an objective ""both sides"" piece when the title is ""Google AMP Can Go To Hell"" I don't know what to tell you. Any reader should immediately understand that they're getting a opinion piece not pbs style objective reporting. 

And for the record people *should* be hyper sensitive to this kind of thing. ""Let's wait and see, we don't know if it's evil or not"" doesn't really work in these scenarios since by the time you find out if it's evil or not it's too late to really do anything about it. 

Amp definitely seems to be an erosion of the decentralized web and people *should* be up in arms about that. If it's not the burden is on google to prove that it's not. The mega corporation doesn't get the benefit of the doubt."
programming,"> I mean if you expected an objective ""both sides"" piece when the title is ""Google AMP Can Go To Hell"" I don't know what to tell you. Any reader should immediately understand that they're getting a opinion piece not pbs style objective reporting. 

I know what to expect if I see an 'article' on buzzfeed too, that doesn't make the article any less shit or any closer to actual worthwhile journalism. Even for an opinion piece, the author couldn't even be bothered to actually make their own case, instead mostly just harping on ""how _dare_ google tell me what to do"", while ironically making an actual case for AMP usage immediately prior. The title is also just misinformation, the author's speculation being presented as fact.

> Amp definitely seems to be an erosion of the decentralized web and people should be up in arms about that.

The announced change does nothing to push more people to AMP. It only affects companies already using it or planning to use it. AMP has no new effect on SEO compared to before. I can absolutely understand pushback against the privileges AMP already enjoys in the Top Stories carousel (and arguably the caching by google that people are complaining about in this thread—as others have said, this site would haven't had any issues with the 'hug of death' had it been an AMP site), but this 'new' development doesn't give AMP any more privileges than it does before, it just seeks to improve the spec. Of course, I don't expect the author to know that, considering they only found out about this yesterday from panicked clients rather than months ago when it was announced. In fact, I'm almost certain that they never bothered to read the actual announcement even after the fact, given their speculation that

> Google is going to keep pushing. I expect those messages to turn in to warnings, and eventually become full-fledged errors that invalidate the AMP standard.

which needn't be speculation because google already said exactly what they'll do in their announcement:

> Where we find that an AMP page doesn't contain the same critical content as its non-AMP equivalent, we will direct our users to the non-AMP page. This does not affect Search ranking. However, these pages will not be considered for Search features that require AMP, such as the Top Stories carousel with AMP. Additionally, we will notify the webmaster via Search console as a manual action message and give the publisher the opportunity to fix the issue before its AMP page can be served again.

I wouldn't be surprised if the article is an attempt to save face with their clients (or their boss) by shifting the blame for their clients being blindsided away from them not keeping up with industry news and towards google for making the change at all. "
programming,">AMP has no new effect on SEO compared to before.

Sure, it doesn't *now* but there's absolutely *nothing* to stop google from doing it in the future. Have we not learned by now the foolishness of simply trusting a big tech giant not to do the wrong thing? How many times must we be facebook'd to learn?

Even in google's own house, once android became the king and not the challenger, how quickly they shifted to stifling competition. Moving key apps from open source to proprietary; preventing manufacturers from making devices that *don't* carry google apps. 

Given the chance they'd use AMP in a similar fashion. That's not cynicism, that's just business. 



> I wouldn't be surprised if the article is an attempt to save face with their clients (or their boss) by shifting the blame for their clients being blindsided away from them not keeping up with industry news and towards google for making the change at all. 

I find it very interesting that many of the comments bashing the article in some way suggest the author is just a shit programmer blaming google for their shitness. Definitely interesting.  "
programming,"The ""why it's bad"" is as follows:

- Google supposedly wants a more homogeneous web. Other than a lot of sarcasm talking about this as a bad thing, no discussion of what's bad about the web being a bit neater and more well-structured. There certainly _are_ arguments about why it can be a bad thing, but the author doesn't present them.

- Google is telling him what to do and he doesn't like that.

He might be being sarcastic for most of his praise, but sarcasm isn't an argument. Sarcasm is him pretending it's obvious why he's right rather than him putting any effort into actually showing it. After that point, it's just a full-on rant of ""fuck you Google"" and that certainly isn't an argument either."
programming,"The point is, the announcement the article is purportedly about is pretty much irrelevant to any of his actual complaints, and he makes a very poor case for his actual complaints. I'm not going to argue that AMP is amazing, but the author sure didn't do anything to convince me I should hate it. I think I disliked AMP more before I read the article than after (and after I did some of my own research since the article did so little to actually inform me).

> I find it very interesting that many of the comments bashing the article in some way suggest the author is just a shit programmer blaming google for their shitness. Definitely interesting.

That's because the author wrote a shitty article that provided very little of substance to actually argue against, particularly when the article is at least nominally about an event that's largely irrelevant to what he's complaining about. He didn't give any technical argument about why AMP is bad, but just plucked at people's emotional response to big companies doing things and was _real sarcastic_ when he talked about AMP's selling points. Then he went on a big ""fuck google"" rant without an ounce of substance for the remainder of the article. Further, _because_ what the article is nominally about is so much removed from his actual complaints about AMP, his issues with the actual change in AMP as opposed to AMP as a concept come off as unsubstantiated and we're left to come up with our own reason for why he's complaining that AMP wants feature parity now. Considering it's obviously more work, laziness/incompetence is an easy answer to believe. The fact that the site went down is also not an irony lost on anyone."
programming,">The fact that the site went down is also not an irony lost on anyone.

See like, comments like that just come off as desperate. You're better off just leaving that out. 

I've seen several companies that specialize in building websites half ass their own site. Those aren't billable hours and you hardly expect any traffic at all for a site like that. 

Heck if the site didn't go down and I was a customer I'd honestly have to wonder how much extra I'd was being billed for *my own* site for scalability I never need. "
programming,"Excusable or not, it doesn't make the site going down due to an article decrying a technology that could have prevented it any less ironic. If I get shot talking about how bad bulletproof vests are, it doesn't matter if I had no reasonable expectation of getting shot, it's still ironic. 

Truth be told I don't have a strong opinion on AMP. I was never trying to convince anyone that AMP was great because I have my own reservations and AMP isn't something I have to deal with enough personally to care to argue. But I do have a strong opinion on sensationalist clickbait that substitutes a bunch of nothing for any actual argument, so I thought I'd point out the article for what it is and try to temper the nonsense with some actual facts. But perhaps if you nitpick enough sentences put of people's comments about how shitty the article is, it'll suddenly change from an angry substanceless rant to a well-reasoned argument about the implications of Google's support for AMP."
programming,"This is exactly what I was thinking while reading. And it's all very well saying it's an opinion piece, but other than 'amp is bad', he hasn't really presented any other opinions here.

The Web has definitely become a bloated mess; websites don't load significantly faster now than they used to before broadband, because they stuff their pages with gigantic, unoptimised images and tonnes and tonnes of useless javascript. It's insane how huge these websites really are, many of them surpassing in size great works of Russian literature!

Now that's not to say I agree with Amp. I don't think the answer to this is another js library. If Google really want to force websites to clean up their act, and I think this is a good idea, they should start de prioritising any website with more javascript than a novel. That would be a fucking great start."
programming,"If you're looking for feature overviews or technical pro's and con's, you're doing it wrong.

This is about control.

Google decides what AMP means, so if we as a community let it grow too big, eventually Google won't be afraid of using AMP for ranking, better ad revenue, etc, effectively killing off those that don't bend the knee.

So don't let them, if you want a lightweight site, build a lightweight site on your own terms. Don't bend the knee for the megacorp while it still doesn't cost you much, trying to fight 5 years from now when do something awful might be too late and be a life or death decision for your company. "
programming,"> Excusable or not, it doesn't make the site going down due to an article decrying a technology that could have prevented it any less ironic. If I get shot talking about how bad bulletproof vests are, it doesn't matter if I had no reasonable expectation of getting shot, it's still ironic.

Right, but the irony doesn't make you wrong in that instance, so pointing it out in the context of talking about the validity of the argument is a dick move."
programming,"I'ved worked in three countries in my life. My home country Germany, the US (Seattle area), and recently I've moved to Tokyo. The US beats Germany or Japan in salaries no question, even if you factor in the cost of living like the absurd rent by a huge margin. 

But there's a few things the US couldn't compete on which is why I eventually moved on. The work culture is crazy (which might sound ironic given Japan's reputation, but it's not so bad in an English speaking software job). American companies push like crazy, it's competitive, very individualist. Often I felt people were put in charge for very wrong reasons. I've also never seen so much inequality in such a rich country. Well it wasn't for me. 

Here in Tokyo rent is really cheap (they actually build housing here, crazy idea!). There's public transport going everywhere, everything is in walking distance. No car needed, at all. It's the cleanest city of its size I've ever seen. No matter what job people do they always do it with a lot of care. This might not be important to everyone, but you can't really replace it with a large salary. "
programming,"US salaries and particularly those in the main tech cities are still waaaaay ahead of general European salaries. Even as someone with fourteen years of experience I could make 4x more than I am now moving to the US and I'm making 4x more now than I did when I first started. I think there are two main drivers, competition for staff and culture. The first is kind of obvious there are a lot of people crammed together in these tech hubs and big companies with deep pockets buying their way into staff. Secondly the culture in these cities towards Software Engineering is much different. It feels like the UK and Europe still view programming as a cost center and that it's a low status white collar job. That's not really the case in tech hubs abroad.

I do feel that there is more to life than making lots of money though and am pretty sure that I'm settled where I am with a good quality of living.

As an aside it's pretty depressing that 21k is still a starting salary in the UK. My first proper games job was in Dundee which has a low cost of living and I was paid that much over a decade ago!"
programming,"There are multiple factors at play here.

**The tech culture is different.** In the tech hubs in the US companies are looking for ""top"" programmers, whereas in Europe many companies are just looking for average programmers. There's still a culture in Europe of programmers being commodity workers, and unions often push toward *harmonizing* the salaries. Except in Finance; in Finance salaries are 2x/3x that of regular programmers, because FinTech also aims for ""top"" programmers, and has the means to do so.

**The work culture is different.** In Europe, you work 40h and call it a week. Work is often 9 to 5, and employers are very comprehensive about family emergencies. I am in the Netherlands at the moment, and I have seen people advising the boss' boss that they couldn't attend the meeting at 6PM because they had to pick up their kids; and the boss' boss would just smile and reschedule the next day. In the US, work weeks are closer to 50h/60h.

**The cost of living is different.** Even in the US, the cost of living varies greatly from city to city: Seattle, LA, NY are much more expensive that Chicago or Denver. Rent and transportation are generally big differentiators; and areas where living is more expensive must compensate by offering higher salaries. I used to live close to Nice (Riviera) in a quiet area, within biking distance of the beach and work, and it cost me about $650/month to rent a 50m^2 apartment... which I found expensive, actually. A quick at San Francisco, for the same surface, gives me a low bound of $2,500/month. Well, of course I'd be looking at an extra $24,000/year after taxes to cover the costs.

**Insurance/Pension.** In Western Europe, you'll get basic healthcare and pensions by default. And as a software engineer, you can generally pay a little extra to get better healthcare (options include: eye and teeth care, as well as physio) and higher pensions. I had a French colleague working in the US for two years; he and his wife had a baby there, and he estimated that it cost him $10k overall in medical care (he was reimbursed by the French social security... after 2 years because bureaucracy). In France, you'll rarely see someone over 65y working, and 70y only work in very specific positions (PhDs, CEOs, ...). The average retired persons are not rich, but a retired couple typically earns enough to make a decent living, especially as healthcare is *still* free even if you're not working.

*Note: said colleague mentioned that as a European, a good plan may be to work 10 years in the US out of university, before coming back to Europe to fund a family. In the 20-30 range and without kids, healthcare is often a non-issue, and you still have time to work on your pension.*"
programming,"* Yes, they still pay for healthcare. In US even with the best insurance you'll still get a higher out-of-pocket than in countries like France (not sure about UK). It's just that it will be capped, something like 10k or 15k of max out of pocket but that might not include out-of-network. Because you do have to care whether your doctor is in the network of your insurance or not... And the most renowned surgeons are not (because they're too expensive)

* Rent in London or Vancouver is not cheap, but it's still way lower than SF.
"
programming,"22k in pounds or 22k in USD? In the US a ""game engineer"" usually makes around 50k - 60k and that's low; that's why indie games became so huge because the actual skilled engineers figured out they could just self-publish for way way more.

Also ""game development"" is so broad it's not even funny; engineers working on the core engine are likely making six figures, engineers working on game mechanics less, and ones doing scripting and level editing are likely making the lowest.

Games also can launch in a variety of quality states and typically companies producing them instead offer higher benefits in terms of stock over base salaries due to games initial investment.

Remember, software engineering is a business before anything else; no one wants to pay you for something no one wants and the quicker you learn that the quicker you learn how to exploit that for a higher income."
programming,"£22k. I only know british and european developers, really. A friend tells me that I should be applying to work in Sweden, as he works there as an engineer and finds it to be brilliant. They seem to pay better on average.

Yep, game scripting pays pretty badly. A friend interviewed at a big scottish games company as a scripter, and was offered just above minimum wage for his age bracket.

I'm sadly aware. Thankfully I'm in an OK position for negotiating for my graduate salary, as I've had two industry jobs already. :)"
programming,"* How will you distinguish [http://www.pool.ntp.org](http://www.pool.ntp.org/) vs [http://pool.ntp.org](http://pool.ntp.org/) ?  One takes you to the website about the project, the other goes to a random ntp server. 
* Why is www hidden twice if the domain is ""www.www.2ld.tld""? 
* ""[subdomain.www.domain.com](http://subdomain.www.domain.com/)"" displays as ""[subdomain.domain.com](http://subdomain.domain.com/)"". 
* The domain [m.tumblr.com](http://m.tumblr.com/) is shown as [tumblr.com](http://tumblr.com/), two totally different sites. 
* Enter into the address bar:  [http://www.example.www.example.com](http://www.example.www.example.com/)  It shortens it:  [example.example.com](http://example.example.com/) 
* The site ""[www.m.www.m.example.com](http://www.m.www.m.example.com/)"" should not show up as ""[example.com](http://example.com/)"". 

Wow."
programming,"    #if defined(OS_ANDROID) || defined(OS_IOS)
        // Eliding the ""m"" subdomain on Desktop can be confusing, since users would
        // generally want to know if they are unintentionally on the mobile site.
        if (subdomain == ""m"")
          return true;
    #endif    

Man that comment shows them almost getting it. It doesn't matter what device I am on, I always want to see exactly where I am or at least have the option to.

Or maybe I want to decide myself which ones I want to see and which I don't. Hard coding this badly thought out arbitrary logic into the browser is just awful."
programming,"On the upside, if www disappears for the UI from users, at least it might be more noticable if a phishing site used wwwexample.com to fake being example.com. Generally speaking the more text in the UI, [the less people tend to read anything particular from it](https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/26/designing-for-people-who-have-better-things-to-do-with-their-lives/). This is not to say Chrome's current implementation of this is any good, I haven't tried in depth yet, and above examples suggests it's far from perfect."
programming,"Trivial subdomains or not - it's not the job of the _browser_ to decide these things. I got equally annoyed at Firefox doing ""magic URL"" bullshit until I figured out how to turn it off.

If your users aren't getting to your site because of poorly configured subdomains, that's entirely _your_ problem. Browsers attempting to ""fix"" what they see as ""user error"" is one thing, but to not allow an option too change that... That's just not cricket.

This type of bullshit, if it must exist, should only happen when the initial request fails, or by offering a clickable prompt to the user to switch to the ""canonical"" domain."
programming,"\> chrome 69 is not doing that. Only subdomain is getting hidden. 

Exactly. Thus wwwexample.com would more visibly stick out to casual users, who are now usually not seeing the ""www"" anymore, thereby possibly increasing the chance they become suspicious.

There are of course still a myriad of other things you can do to create fake domains for phishing URLs, so I'm just mentioning above as one consideration in the Pros Cons sea."
programming,">specially because most people won't know about this change

I was not suggesting that anyone would need to consciously know about the change. We agree that casual users won't. What I was suggesting is that there might be a chance that ""wwwexample.com"" would start to stick out more than before to casual users, because ""www."" becomes more uncommon. (Emphasis on *may*, as originally mentioned, because to know for sure we'd need to do user testing to get statistical values.)"
programming,"> I can't believe entering a FULL URL causes Chrome to search for it.

This is one of the behaviors of Chrome that I hate the most.

I write in a full URL, and the site says timeout, connection refused or whatever, because I wrote the wrong port or something. I add a port number and suddenly Chrome does a google search for something it considered a valid URL only seconds ago."
programming,"> Doubt it, most users likely wouldn't care. Especially because most people won't know about this change unless they care because they're devs

Previously users had a chance of understanding how the address bar worked. I mean... Most people didn't, but they *could* if they wanted to and put in some effort.

Now it's going to be pure magic pixie-dust black-box voodoo made by Google which seemingly works randomly.

Good luck trying to make *anyone* outside Google understand the address-bar now.

Phishers are going to *love* this."
programming,"I swapped a month back myself. The performance is incomparable and the extensions available are far better. Only downsides Ive dealt with is that the hangouts extension is somehow worse than chrome, meaning I actually have to run chrome in the background. That and downloads are surprisingly annoying by comparison. 

Theres no way to make the default ""save"" for certain extensions (For ""security""... how even?), and I cant believe how much I miss the download bar. I feel like a savage having to actually open my downloads folder."
programming,"> How will you distinguish http://www.pool.ntp.org vs http://pool.ntp.org ? One takes you to the website about the project, the other goes to a random ntp server.

When you write either in the address bar, it takes you to that URL. It just shows them as the same address.

But since clicking is much more of a rage than writing addresses manually, I think the big problem is that you may be on a different site than you think you are. You probably don't know where the clicked link pointed and unless you double click the omni box, you won't know since there are multiple alternative ""trivially"" named sites that would also render to the same."
programming,"No, they are still working on replacing them. This is the first step, next is that you will just type 'google' or 'facebook' and it will bring you directly to the website that Google think you want.

And obviously this 'text' to 'url' translation will be driven by Google Search. Either it will be completely secure and somehow companies will have to pay or register to Google so Facebook will open Facebook.com, which would be bad for small companies, communities or persons. Or it will be a proxy of the 'I' m lucky' search feature, so it will be even less secure because people will find ways to abuse the search IA like they do for the YouTube one. Either way, Google will controls the Internet.

The same guys blaming gouvernements about net neutrality. "
programming,"It just opens up another form for phishing though.

Every page that gives a user a subdomain, and allows them to create their own sub-subdomains are at risk.

Lets take Azure as an example (I don't know for sure if the they allow users to create sub-subdomains):

Lets say I own the `example.azurewebsites.net`-subdomain.

Lets assume that Eve own the `www.azurewebsites.net` or `m.azurewebsites.net`. Eve can now create her own sub-subdomain called `example`, which would become `example.www.azurewebsites.net`, but Chrome would display it as `example.azurewebsites.net`, but that is MY url with HER content."
programming,"Are you fucking dumb? Does my post look like a reply to nothing to you? Did your awareness teleport to it with no other experiences permitted? Do you think the leaves of a tree might have something to do with the branches and the trunk of the tree?

Fucking hell, why is it only this website that induces such idiocy in its users? I thought it was only a massive experiment in censorship. Clearly there's more going on."
programming,"I can complain or be angry without hating right?

I think you are the problem here. You are the one wishing to destroy dissent and attacking people who disagree with you. You are the one saying this place should only consist of people who agree with each other. You are the one asking for a safe space where nobody is allowed to complain.

You guys are worse than the SJWs you guys hate so much. "
programming,"Except that you don't contribute anything, *all* you do is complain.

About 90% of your posts are harassing other people, or trying to rile people up.

All of your posts can literally be summarized as:

* Screw Microsoft.
* Screw Google.
* If you disagree with me, you're an evil SJW-hater.

I feel like you are one of those people on GitHub who literally doesn't contribute *anything* other than editing files to make them more politically correct, and then pats yourself on the back about it for a job well done. And when things doesn't go their way, raises a mob on Twitter, dox the person, and tries to get them fired because they dared disagree with you.

All you do is troll. You're not contributing to the community. The ""this guy and his pumpkins"" guy contributed more."
programming,">Except that you don't contribute anything, all you do is complain.

>About 90% of your posts are harassing other people, or trying to rile people up

So  by using the statistics you pulled out of your butt I do contribute about 10% of the time and therefore your first sentence is a lie.

>I feel like you are one of those people on GitHub who literally doesn't contribute anything other than editing files to make them more politically correct, and then pats yourself on the back about it for a job well done. And when things doesn't go their way, raises a mob on Twitter, dox the person, and tries to get them fired because they dared disagree with you.

Do you not realize the irony of calling for a safe space from me? That you don't want to be criticized at all and yet want to spew your bile all over the place?

Sorry dude. The internet is not supposed to be a safe space. You are going to get criticized whether you like it or not.
"
programming,">So by using the statistics you pulled out of your butt I do contribute about 10% of the time and therefore your first sentence is a lie.

It \*\*may\*\* be pulled out of the butt, but is there only two states (contributing/not contributing) to get that logic of yours (10% wasn't described, but you assumed it's contribution because there is no other choice)? Or he said that 90% of posts are harassments, therefore other 10% can be anything, with exception of contribution (because he stated that you don't contribute)

I'm sorry but you're applying the logic the wrong way. And what worse - you doing it in the PUBLIC place, while trying to cover your unpopular (in this place) opinion (judging by karma), and that after you're really threw few insults at people! Why?"
programming,">It **may** be pulled out of the butt

It is pulled out of your butt. At least be honest enough to admit that.

>I'm sorry but you're applying the logic the wrong way. And what worse - you doing it in the PUBLIC place, while trying to cover your unpopular (in this place) opinion (judging by karma), and that after you're really threw few insults at people! Why?

My comment karma is over 18000. My comment karma on this subreddit is 4997.

So according to your chosen metrics I am very popular."
programming,"I'm sorry for not describing it even further, but:

\- **""This place""** refers to this very reddit post. It's explicitly applies to the **""karma""**, which means **""karma in this post""**, which is -44 at the moment of my comment.

Now lets see

>trying to cover your unpopular (in this place) opinion (judging by karma),

​

>My comment karma is over 18000. My comment karma on this subreddit is 4997. So according to your chosen metrics I am very popular.

\- I'm talking about your opinion on this current topic being unpopular, you're talking about YOU being popular, see the contradiction?  My chosen metric says what i intended it to say.

​

>It is pulled out of your butt. At least be honest enough to admit that.

I took a brief glance at what can be identified ""insult"" in this post, and I think he made very good estimate, actually.

​

And don't forget that I actually said that your use of logic in

>I do contribute about 10% of the time and therefore your first sentence is a lie.

is wrong, and provided logical reasoning behind my statement, which is

>Is there only two states (contributing/not contributing) to get that logic of yours (10% wasn't described, but you assumed it's contribution because there is no other choice)? Or he said that 90% of posts are harassments, therefore other 10% can be anything, with exception of contribution (because he stated that you don't contribute)

and I have yet to hear any arguments against that. You dug to deep into other details and missing the point of this debate!"
programming,">- ""This place"" refers to this very reddit post. It's explicitly applies to the ""karma"", which means ""karma in this post"", which is -44 at the moment of my comment.

Oh by this place you didn't mean reddit or /r/programming but this particular post. 

Got it. Now I am getting some clues as to how you think. This is very helpful.

Yes I knew I was going to be down voted because I know how strong the circle jerk on this subreddit it. I could have made an angry post about thow blue haired kids with the pierced noses and gotten a +44 karma. I have lots of karma to burn and I really don't care what angry old men think of me so I felt fine about saying this change doesn't bother me. 

Trust me, I know how angry your type gets, I sometimes visit /r/thedonald to keep up to date on you guys."
programming,"Thats really off the topic yet again. i don't speaking about your karma with exception of points in this only post pointing on opinion being unpopular (maybe only unpopular only in this subreddit, maybe even only in this very post)
I just described my way of thinking to you and directly stated which elements I used and why to derive such statement in first comment and i just patiently waiting on your arguments about your statement:

>User said you dont contribute at all and 90% of your comments (in this post) are insults. You stated that undescribed 10% therefore are contributions which contradicts his first statesment. I stepped in and said that's not a contradiction, because that 10% can be anything with exception of contribution, there is actually more than two things that comment may be (for example offtopic without insults or trolling, being on topic but just playing semantics or repeating other comments, with same or different wording), so 10% can be non-insulting AND non-contributing. Which means user doesnt contradict himself.

If you have any difficulty with understanding the meaning of my why of thinking - just write it in reply, format it into list if there is too much."
programming,">Thats really off the topic yet again. i don't speaking about your karma with exception of points in this only post pointing on opinion being unpopular (maybe only unpopular only in this subreddit, maybe even only in this very post) I just described my way of thinking to you and directly stated which elements I used and why to derive such statement in first comment and i just patiently waiting on your arguments about your statement:

That is simply incomprehensible.

You are talking about my karma but not talking about my karma? 

>If you have any difficulty with understanding the meaning of my why of thinking - just write it in reply, format it into list if there is too much.

You don't make much sense at all. Maybe it's a generational thing I don't know. You seem to be obsessed with popularity and talk about karma and then claim that you weren't talking about karma.

You sound like an old man with alzheimer's or a trump supporter to me.
"
programming,">As if chickens can pick their eggs and leave the farm at their will.

I never hired myself at any company or firm; I *got* hired.

Likewise, leaving a workplace because you don't like the job is **not** a luxury most can afford.

I did, three times, decide to quit a job despite having a permanent contract. Why? Because I could, not needing to support a family, and because I did not need to worry about finding a new job.

Lastly, are you trolling? Or do you not see how many software engineers are being abused like some sort of cattle?

"
programming,"Why do you think I am trolling? You are comparing people with free will, and highly qualified on top of that to literally enslaved animals. I am not saying the position of the developer in the current job market is perfect, but compared to many other professions it is okay. 

Leaving a workplace because my objectives do not align with my employers' is not a luxury for me, it is a necessity. Maybe not short term, but medium term it is definitely doable, especially if you are experienced. Yes, I got hired too, but I will never adopt that victim mentality ""being abused like some sort of cattle"". 

Staying at a place where you hate the job is bad for you, bad for your employer, and bad for your family. I am not saying you have to throw a hissy fit and slam the door, but you can be strategic about your life, unlike the animals in the farm."
programming,">enslaved animals

You mean.. animals in husbandry? Do you not know the proper word, or is your perception of the world radically out of line with that of 99.5% of humanity?

>but compared to many other professions it is okay

In many professions in the USA it is really horrible. So, being just horrible in comparison, I would say it is relatively okay. Just like getting shot in your guts is quite okay compared to being shot in the face.

>Leaving a workplace because my objectives do not align with my employers' is not a luxury for me, it is a necessity. 

You are exactly **wrong** (which is adjacent to right, but with an impassable border) It is a luxury to be able to make choices that prevent you from suffering! If less lucky, you will have to endure the suffering to survive.


>but you can be strategic about your life, unlike the animals in the farm.

Some people literally cannot leave their job without facing the consequence of being homeless, defaulting on loans, losing their insurance and not being able to let their family leave in dignity.

What choice do such people have? - In fact, the human ability to reflect upon one's situation, consciousness, compounds to that misery.


**You are only right for your (and mine) privileged situation**

This privilege is a result of our 'being skilled and wanted' by employers. To those who are not both skilled and wanted, strategy here is a useless thing that does not help them.

That we **can afford** strategy, that *is our luxury/privilege*.

That said, I have had to fight to get this privilege, and switching/quitting jobs is what got me here. But you can't just get move around in this (or any!) industry easily if you depend on your paycheck too much.



"
programming,"\> Software developers **produce** the things that are sold.

I find that this is very rarely the case.

when its a software company, then yes you are a profit center and you get treated as such. But most companies , a software developer creates software to help the business run. Most executives can connect more than two dots, so all they see, is that you cost money because they don't make money off the things you make. Sometimes, it's a situation where you are needed for regulatory reasons and you are hired because ""They have to"" and they don't see the value."
programming,"So you wrote all of that just to try to make that you thought to be a clever point about the wording of a title that was clearly just meant to draw attention... when the article itself immediately states that they're referring to capital specifically?

""A majority of companies say lack of access to software developers is a bigger threat to success than lack of access to capital.""

It's like right under the title of the article in the first bullet point dude. "
programming,"> My setup

Are you trying to convert an existing project to typescript?

I've never done it actually, just went straight with typescript from the start, but you could probably do it if you create a new project with https://github.com/wmonk/create-react-app-typescript and then just rewrite existing components in typescript. You don't need any experience with webpack.

>making typescript harder to work with along with React

Haven't experienced that. It may make the code more verbose at times, but that's it. Also some libraries may not have the typings and you need to write them yourself, but it's rather rare."
programming,"Thanks for your input, it is invaluable.

It's not that I want to migrate an existent project. It's just that I've experimented enough that I know exactly what I want to start with, for a bigger project of mine.

I've actually started working with https://github.com/kitze/custom-react-scripts#readme that allows me to enable/disable features I need much more easily than create-react-app with its default scripts does.

So, you don't think I'll have compatibility problems always trying to babysit webpack with that?

I might as well give it a try :)"
programming,"People have been complaining about Java's type system issues for literally decades (generics implemented via type erasure is one big oof).

To be fair, yes, it would be more accurate to say that I wouldn't exactly point at Java as a stellar example of *compile-time* type safety - and since TS really only exists at compile time that's the only comparison you can make. In addition TypeScript's type system is unsound by design. "
programming,"Microsoft has always really nailed developer tools *when they put their minds to it*.

Cynics will point to stuff like their C++ compiler being years behind, and that's a fair criticism, but their C++ compiler has never been a priority for them.  If they *did* make it a priority to make a truly world-class modern C++ compiler, I've no doubt they'd have a compiler that could stand toe to toe with the best compilers very quickly.

Their biggest flaw in the past was that the business always forced them to tie their tools tightly to the Windows bandwagon.  Now that they're all about Azure and have been let off the Windows leash, the tools they put out are finally able to be used by a wider audience."
programming,"`any` is an escape hatch that's in there solely to ease the ramp onto the language from a legacy JavaScript code base.

Putting the compiler in strict mode disables the implicit `any` type (and with the recent `unknown` type which fills the niche `any` previously filled but without any of the non-type-safe baggage, it's likely a future version of the compiler will have an option to disable *explicit* use of `any` too)."
programming,"Depends on the library, I guess. Type-unfriendly APIs (methods which may return different types depending on arbitrary characteristics of the input, for example) can be hard, and lack or low quality of third-party definitions (DefinitelyTyped) is also a hurdle.

But I’ve been fairly happy with Angular and Node development in the last several months; most of the time I managed to find good dependencies, and built-in first-party definitions, while still rare outside of the Angular world, is getting noticeably more common."
programming,"Hey! I work with typescript and react together every day and yeah definitely try it. You can either incrementally migrate a js project to typescript or start fresh with ts. Webpack isn’t the biggest problem. Typescript will emit JS via tsc but there are great typescript loaders. 
I’m on my phone right now but will update this comment with more info at work in the morning. Typescript is seriously awesome though, for client and server side code. "
programming,"TS+React works great in my experience. React has pretty complete type definitions, as does the surrounding ecosystem. As a beginner, I was able to get all of my components fully typesafe by just studying the type definitions of the libraries. Of course, nothing's perfect and you might occasionally run into an issue where you need to give the compiler a hint or nudge, but the error messages are usually pretty good at providing guidance toward a resolution. As the other poster mentioned, if you use `create-react-app`, there's no need to deal with webpack directly.

Good resources:

- https://github.com/sw-yx/react-typescript-cheatsheet
- https://github.com/piotrwitek/react-redux-typescript-guide
- https://medium.com/@martin_hotell"
programming,"Big thing is just having the ide tell you the type of something.

I found myself jumping back and forth between files a bunch when developing or debugging. Checking the properties on some object, or forgetting the parameters to a function. With everything properly typed, I can often cmd+space and get exactly the answer I wanted.

Integrating a compiler to your CI also means its very hard to have a simple mistake get into production. We definitely had a few flubs that should have been caught in code review or a unit test... but nobody found it. Turns out machines are useful to check for correctness.

And then there is refactoring. When the ide has a better idea on what your code is doing, its refactoring tools are more useful. And if you forget something the compiler yells at you. I like to aggressively refactor, but in JavaScript I wasn't confident in doing that. Now with typescript I have that confidence back."
programming,"TypeScript has had `--strictNullChecks` for years. It forces null checks at compile time. It's also flow based, so once the null check is made the compiler knows it's no longer nullable.

Because it's flow based it allows code like this ...

    const foo : Foo|null = getFoo()

    // Compiler forces you to check if it's null before use.
    if ( foo !== null ) {
        // Compiler knows it's not null here.
        foo.doSomething()
    }

There is also *A LOT* of type things you can do in TypeScript which you cannot do in Scala.

Edit; and actually the `: Foo|null` type declaration isn't needed since TypeScript will infer it. I only put it there to drive the point home."
programming,"> Cynics will point to stuff like their C++ compiler being years behind, 

I've had much worse experience with mac compilers because their systems ship with ancient versions of clang or gcc, and updating them seems to be very difficult. Speaking as someone who doesn't have a mac but got lots of github issues because mac devs couldn't compile code that was using the filesystem API. No issues on windows and linux."
programming,"Yeah, IDE/editor support won't rival that of VS Code + TypeScript, but will be far more lightweight than IntelliJ and Scala IDE for example.

Scala.js is simply phenomenal, I wish I could I use it on the frontend for current project, but it was already written in TypeScript + Angular before I came onboard.

Really the biggest win with Scala.js is that it is Scala (an oft repeated phrase in the community). Sometimes I'm not sure if I'm working on the frontend or the backend. Code sharing is really nice, no need to duplicate model definitions, form validations, or any other shared data, it's all the same.

With Scala on the backend and TypeScript on the frontend we've got tons of duplicate code, it's a mess.

TypeScript is awesome in its own right, but the sheer number of runtime errors I've gotten over the past year makes me crave full-time Scala/Scala.js where runtime errors are an absolute rarity.
"
programming,"Turbo Pascal 6.0 + Turbo Vision versus C, the choice is obvious for anyone that cared about security and productivity on MS-DOS and later Windows.

I saved money as high school student to then buy Turbo Pascal for Windows 1.5 with Object Windows Library, a couple of years later.

The only big problem was portability to other platforms, hence why eventually I became a C++ fan, because after tasting Turbo Pascal in no way I could be happy with C."
programming,"Same here, those manuals were massive -- I think I got a used copy for maybe $125. As that was before the modern Internet, manuals like that is all you could pour over as selection of software books at the local library was rather poor (like the 3-volume ""100 BASIC games"")

My next bible was ""Advanced Programming in the UNIX Environment"" which shaped me even more. Sadly Richard Stevens' life was cut short.
"
programming,"Does it have to be that he made a disingenuous switch ""to stay relevant""? Or, could it be that: 

- He didn't care about relevance? Or, 
- He genuinely was interested in the new challenges inherent upon a change in platform? Or, 
- He was simply offered a good-paying job at a company he wanted to work for, with the freedom to design something he might like to design? Or, 
- He was intrigued by the unique challenge of trying to make something really good out of JavaScript? Or, 
- He wanted genuinely to help the wide world of frontend developers by giving them what would become TypeScript? "
programming,He had said in an interview that when he moved from Borland to Microsoft the main motivation wasn't money but the impact that MS had on the industry which would mean that his work would affect more people. Probably this is the reason why he switched from C# to TypeScript. Arguably contributing more to C# which is already full featured (and still developed by other people) wouldn't help as many developers as introducing TypeScript
programming,"I probably didn't describe it properly. I know about async-await and promises and I use them regularely in javascript. However, C# extents this to parallel threads as well, not only async functions. You can await an async function, but you can also await a parallel running task until it is finished. 

This is not possible in js, at least not readily available without workarounds. You could probably create a promise that resolves once a WebWorker posts a finish message, but that's extra work and comparatively cumbersome.

edit:

Example: 

async but single-threaded, works in js, and C#:

    var result = await doSomething();
    
async and multi-threaded. 
await t waits until the seperate thread for Task t has finished, without blocking the current thread. only works in C#. Would love to have this in JS.

    SomeType result = null;
    Task t = Task.Run(async () => {
    	result = await doSomething();
    });
    await t;


(var instead of let because that's what works in C# & JS)"
programming,"no, not exactly, he went to a crater of a dormant volcano and lived there for 7 long years, he slept on the rocks and ate snakes and scorpions, there he engraved the entire text of Pascal compiler on the walls 300 ft tall with a chisel made of a meteorite, and then ran it  in all in his mind countless times until there was not a single bug left in his code and 3 mile radius, then he forged a 3'5 disk out of the magnetic ore and used a lightning strike to inscribe the code on it, and then he came back to our world and gave it to humans"
programming,"Yeah man these guys are the worst! Little fucking cry babies that got nothing better to do. Most black people are not even bottered by this. Companies need to stop giving these crybabies what they want all day. You're offended by something? I got news for ya: nobody gives a damn fuck, you little shits. 
This world is fucked with the generation of pussies to come. I hope I die way before they take the lead, cause lets be real, who wants to live in a world full of pussies that get offended about things that don't matter all the damn time. 
And finally I'll leave y'all with a question to make you realise how dumb and shitty you are. You say you're all for black people right's don't ya? Then why the fuck aren't you in Afrika helping these black people with actual problems instead of getting offended. Bloody fucking hypocrits that's what y'all are. Your generation disgusts me."
programming,"It was a joke. But in all honesty, I may want to block things like this. It's a degenerative, dark and downward spiral induced by people like Guido van Rossum who live in SF, where most have a politically correct agenda. I mean: We remove a scientifically accurate term, putting actual effort into completely removing said term from a codebase, just so people feel better? Really? Where does it stop? I tell you where: It stops until no words are left. People are going to die because of this trend and the people helping to spark this trend have no idea what kind of future lies ahead. I think they are stupid and have limited to no ability to think outside of their own emotions. I'm getting scorched for this on Reddit for saying this, but I'm not backing down. I'm tired of this shit."
programming,"Soo, guido says ""There is no point in continuing the debate. We’ve all had our say.""

If you look at the actual bug on BPO, where they all had their say, [most of the people involved seem to be against it, yet the ex-BDFL closes the issue saying that there is no need for a discussion to be open](https://bugs.python.org/issue34605)

For someone supposedly retired from ruling the Python development, the authoritarian spirit seems to live on. Perhaps that's why "" vstinner added the skip news label 5 days ago""."
programming,"Not only that the thread has posts showing exactly why this is bad. Not to mention with each change to Redis, python or others anyone who wants to upgrade now has to go through and change those terms in their code. How can company docs talking about Redis slaves and masters? If I'm new and I learn Redis they are called Parent and Replica so already it's out of sync now. That's not wasted effort ripping throughout tech?

​

Postmaster? Master Craftsmen etc, should these be changed? It's not like you can find and replace due to this other terms so it is wasted effort to go patch these out. Just look at the Redis PR it's a nightmare.

​

And why does the OP keep saying it's for diversity? Which race of people historically have never been enslaved by another? This is non-sense."
programming,"> And why does the OP keep saying it's for diversity? Which race of people historically have never been enslaved by another? This is non-sense

I couldn't agree more. It really shows that there is no diversity involved in this, it's pure egoism – ""it means these things to *me*, I don't care if it means different things to *you*"". I'm obviously biased since I'm an evil privileged asshole who disagrees with this change, but to me it seems like more of an opposite of diversity."
programming,"> Well yeah most ""anti-diversity"" people tend to be pretty racist

What you say here is imho the root of the problem at hand: the idea that if someone disagrees with you on a sensitive issue then they're evil and not worth listening to. It shuts down all the actual discussion we could have had, because why talk if you know you're right and everyone else is wrong? And how is that different from ""women shouldn't vote because they have no idea about politics"" and all those other idiocies we supposedly grew out of decades ago?"
programming,">Postmaster? Master Craftsmen etc, should these be changed?

I mean...America (assuming most of the developers on this project are American) has a pretty deep and unusually recent history with slavery and an even more recent experience with the brutal racism that followed the Civil war as a result of slavery being ended.

America has no such history with postmasters or craftsmen.

Seems unsurprising that some Americans may not want references to slavery that in their code, but would be ok with the other terms you listed.  

I wouldn't be surprised if Germans were opposed to using the phrase ""The Final Solution""  no matter what the context was because of the history with the phrase. 

>And why does the OP keep saying it's for diversity? Which race of people historically have never been enslaved by another? This is non-sense.

Many races have been enslaved, but few as recently as black people in America, and its not like freedom really followed with the end of slavery. It makes sense that this is particularly fresh in people's memories compared to other races. "
programming," The **Slavery** Abolition Act 1833 (3 & 4 Will. IV c. 73) abolished **slavery** throughout the **British** Empire. 

​

 Thirteenth Amendment in **December 1865** formally ended the legal institution throughout the United States. 

​

It's not been longer since slavery legally existed by far than the difference in time between other countries ending the practice. Though many today in 2018 still do practice slavery.

​

Are there any people alive that were slaves in the US or owned slaves in the US?

​

This is about controlling language and controlling people and nothing more."
programming,"> What you say here is imho the root of the problem at hand: the idea that if someone disagrees with you on a sensitive issue then they're evil and not worth listening to.

Nice try but no. If they disagree with me on whether or not I have a right to exist around them based on the color of my skin, I think they're evil and not worth listening to. 




"
programming,"> America has a pretty deep and unusually recent history with slavery

There's slavery *right now* in Libya. There's slavery in immigrant communities in the West. There are also things that you might strain yourself to describe as possibly *marginally* worse than forced labor. I dunno, forced prostitution?

> not like freedom really followed with the end of slavery.

There are conditions that I would not hesitate to describe as *at least* as bad as ""having to sit at the back of the bus"" all over the fucking world. I dunno, getting bombed? Living in a warzone?

> It makes sense that this is particularly fresh in people's memories compared to other races.

This is like journalists justifying paying attention to something ""because it's controversial"" when they're making it controversial and could at a whim suck the oxygen out of their own controversy by focusing on anything else.

If you dropped it, it'd be dropped. And if you dropped it, you'd have more time for issues that are actually pressing, issues that people *can't* turn off simply by not paying attention to them."
programming,"> There's slavery right now in Libya. There's slavery in immigrant communities in the West. There are also things that you might strain yourself to describe as possibly marginally worse than forced labor. I dunno, forced prostitution?
> 
> 

This only adds to the list of reasons why Master/Slave should be banned. There is still slavery going on today. Imagine someone escaping captivity as  a child, getting a CS education and a job, and having to use the Master/Slave terminology given their past.


"
programming,"Yeah and how about when they go to movies and see people die. That would be just awful.

How about when when a female ex-slave Libyan PHD of CS goes to a feminist convention and they're talking about 50 Shades of Gray. Alpha and Omega cringe.

How about when she walks by a [place of faith that isn't her own] and remembers that people exist who disagree with her even about the nature of the cosmos and the afterlife? What a blow."
programming,"> If they disagree with me on whether or not I have a right to exist around them based on the color of my skin, I think they're evil and not worth listening to. 

I thought we're talking about diversity as in “the word diversity we put on our flags to justify our arguments” rather than the actual idea of diversity - that's how I read Ruttur's comment anyway.

And as said before: when people tell you “shut the fuck up, you're white” in the name of “diversity” you may end up developing a certain antipathy for the movement as a whole and the bullshit phrases they flail around: even if you stand by their message with your whole heart."
programming,"He didn't say it was insignificant, he said it's not the best date to go by because the amendment wasn't the end of the widespread discrimination of black people. Part of the reason slavery is still part of the discussion in the US is because in large parts of the country, there was still a lot of discrimination and no way for black people to be a full part of society. That was only legally ended with the Civil Rights Act, which was only 50 or so years ago. And that's just legally, not in society as a whole.

He was crass about it, but he has a point."
programming,"You are exactly right. We have to do something and stop the slavery going on in the world.

Changing Master/Slave terminology so that former slaves are not offended by those words is something. It is not going to stop slavery, it is not going to free any slaves and I doubt former slaves even care about this terminology being used, but it is something.

Congratulations, you did something. I hope it makes you feel good that you did something, because that is the important part here, right? Feeling like you did something."
programming,"It's not about discrimination, it's about slavery. The date it legally ended is what we were discussing. /u/whenthethingscollide doesn't like it because it proves him wrong. He thinks slavery was only recent in the US but I just showed it was only outlawed 32 years earlier in the UK, not long. Your points are completely irrelevant. Either people were discriminating or even segregating people, but those are not slavery and slavery wasn't legal which was my only point. whenthethingscollide lost so hard all he has is ad-hominem which is admission of defeat, so thanks.

​

The terms master and slave have nothing to do with racism, you are trying to make it about racism because you want to control language. But in reality there were white slaves as well."
programming,"Nope, it legally ended. I already said things don't go away overnight. In fact my point was that it didn't end overnight when the UK outlawed it either. You're the naive one to assume I was stating otherwise. Were there slaves in the 1950s? No? less than 100 years ago? No? not that recent then.

The fact something is illegal is not irrelevant. It's the first and important step in doing away with slavery. It's saying the Government no longer endorses the practice. Are you really this dense? There is a reason you are the down voted one."
programming,"If your point is that there's still slavery today, that's fair, there is. However, that makes the change in terminology more relevant imo, not less.

If your point is that slavery and the widespread segregation of black people stopped in 1865, and that because of that it doesn't matter, I don't agree with you. If you never allow yourself as a nation to move on, then it doesn't matter how long ago it was, because it's still relevant.

And yes, there were white slaves, but the slavery in the US was remarkable *because* of its systematic racism. So comparing it to others is not very helpful. It's just not the same. "
programming,"Words can and do have different meanings. A method of overcoming the type of fears like hearing words you don't like is facing them. If someone is so damaged by the words slave and master with alternate tech definitions, I think they have bigger problems in their life to tackle. We do not need to change everything just because someone finds it offensive. If it's blatantly derogatory, sure that's reasonable. 

Anyone can find anything offensive. We do not model the entire world after each person's problems. We don't abolish working in offices because some people are agoraphobic. What if I grew up with abusive parents to the point I have PTSD? Should we now stop using the word Parent because I find it offensive or hurtful? That's the point, you have to draw the line somewhere. Slave and Master are not fundamentally offensive terms."
programming,"You're kind of changing the subject here. But sure.

We do not need to change everything just because it's offensive, you're right. However, it is common courtesy to make some effort not to be offensive, and since this is a really small change, why not? Seriously, why not? 

Just like we don't have to change everything, there's no need to whine about everything either. And yet the latter is happening more and more. Sometimes things change, sometimes they don't, there's no need for lines in the sand because it's something that happens organically. If nobody wants it, it doesn't happen. If a sizable group does, it happens. 

And a term doesn't have to be fundamentally offensive to be changed. I don't think fundamentally offensive terms even really exist in that sense, because like you said, words mean different things to different people. So wherever the line for changing a term is, it's not that. "
programming,"Well, it's defined as ""involuntary servitude"" rather than outright slavery in the constitution, hence the ""nor"" part of the amendment.

They're not technically owned since they weren't explicitly purchased or exchanged for goods at any point prior to their incarceration and involuntary servitude, thus they aren't technically slaves in the sense that they're bought and sold, they're just worked against their will.

In the colloquial sense you may very well call them slaves not unlike wage slaves and child factories in the third world or the historical pauper prisons, but in the strictest legal sense not really."
programming,"It is my understanding that the following quote from the constitution shows that slavery is legal as a punishment for crime:

> Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime [...]

Based on the placement of the comma, it would seem to me that the entire previous clause (clause?) ""Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude"" is affected by the other clause (clause?) ""except as punishment for crime."" Meaning that both slavery and involuntary servitude are legal as punishment for crime. And from the perspective of the enslaved/involuntarily-serving, I would say they're rather similar predicaments. "
programming,"This is interesting, because it's a question of linguistic interpretation.

Like who would you say are the gentiles in this sentence:

>Neither the families of Bob nor of George, who were of the gentile persuasion, had ever gone to a synagogue.

Arguments can be made that it refers to George's family as the gentiles or that it refers to both. It's kind of open to interpretation. The 13th amendment, it must be said, was poorly punctuated that way.

Given that white prisoners were never really bought and sold like slaves historically though prior to the amendment, I would argue the original *intent* was to make an exception for the involuntary servitude part as opposed to slavery, especially since the exception is presented as its own separate clause, but legally either argument could hold for debate.

Even emphasis when read aloud would change the interpretation - putting particular emphasis on ""except"" changes the meaning implicitly to refer to both slavery and involuntary servitude, but reading it flatly as a run-on, it could easily be taken to mean the exception only applies to the involuntary servitude part.

It's an interesting question and a technical loophole in the amendment."
programming,"> That’s under “involuntary servitude” though, not slavery.

Both the wikipedia page [on the 13th amendment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Penal_labor_exemption) and the wikipedia page [on penal slavery in the US](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labor_in_the_United_States) take it for granted that this reading is wrong.

My understanding was that the prevailing view of prisoners' rights for a long time was that expressed by the Virginia Supreme Court in 1871, that prisoners are slaves of the state; this hardly seems to have been something they could have been happy to say if the text was clearly to be read as you say.

Do you have some ruling or some other reason in mind for reading the amendment this way?

Anyway what do you propose the intended legal distinction is between 'involuntary servitude' and 'slavery?'"
programming,"I suspect the parent's downvotes were due to the assertion that major Linux distros would refuse to build something with Clang rather than GCC, which seems to be mistaken. To use Debian as an example: there have been efforts to compile the Debian archive with Clang since 2012, one of the release goals of Debian Jessie (released in 2015) was to support Clang as a secondary compiler, and Debian maintains a page at clang.debian.net to track the Clang build status of every package.

This isn't to say that Debian *won't* use GCC to build Firefox; in fact I suspect they will. But there's nothing to say that GCC's position is unassailable, or that major distros are opposed to using Clang in principle.

(I also wouldn't be all that surprised if by now there exist libraries out there that *only* build with Clang rather than GCC, in the same way that 6.2% of the Debian archive only builds with GCC rather than Clang. Not sure what Debian's policy there is about packaging such libraries.)"
programming,"FOSS is running on stupid these days. Gnome and FDO are both running around like meth junkies trying to get everything moved over to Meson, that in turn is built on Ninja, that in turn is build on Python.

That is a massive change from the largely self hosting and C based GNU tool chain.

Frankly i am worried about what insanity Linux (the kernel) will get wrapped up in once Torvalds hands over the keys. He already shot down having the build system being based on Python once."
programming,">> primary compiler for your language on a platform
>
> GCC is not ""the primary compiler"". It is a primary compiler. There is no official compiler of the C language, and there is no official compiler of the C++ language.

There most definitely is such a thing as the primary compiler *for a platform*. Solaris had one, Windows has one, HP-UX had one, … and so do Linux distros. In the latter case it’s usually GCC because it’s the one *free* compiler that builds the kernel. (There are reports that ICC can build it too but it’s out of the question to use that for a distro.)"
programming,"Clang is an overall performance win over gcc, especially with LTO and PGO. Offering the clang version of Firefox on a distro means it's faster for end users.

Linux distros saying ""we prefer to build everything using ONLY gcc because we've always done it that way"" seems short-sighted to me.

I'm not saying drop gcc, I'm saying support clang as a first-class citizen too, and let some packages build with clang by default.
"
programming,"> FOSS is running on stupid these days. Gnome and FDO are both running around like meth junkies trying to get everything moved over to Meson, that in turn is built on Ninja, that in turn is build on Python.

First of all ninja is not python, and second how DARE they use a meta-build system. Surely you don't believe that the autotool gnu garbage is the pinnacle of build systems, do you?"
programming,"reposting my comment from above, regarding compiling the Linux kernel with Clang:

> There winds up being complicated support matrices based on target ISA, kernel configs, kernel LTS branch, and compiler version. Focused on arm64 and x86_64 at the moment. My x86_64 and arm64 clang built kernels run reliably (posting from one).
> 
> If you or anyone are interested in tracking progress or reporting bugs, I'm trying to keep track here: https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues

Recent changes in the kernel make me highly suspect that ICC is incapable of compiling the upstream kernel at the moment, but I've been making a true effort to find anyone who does use ICC so they can help test patches."
programming,"From an OLD version of GCC (6) to the latest version of Clang.

Current GCC version is 8, and there's been a lot of optimization improvements since version 6 released 2+ years ago.

Now they stated that they tried using GCC 8.2 but they had problems, and I'm sure they did because a project of this size/complexity always have problems with working with updated toolchains, as shown by how PGO is only available on Linux at the moment in Firefox builds when using Clang/LLVM.

Now Mozilla devs has already stated that they want to only support Clang/LLVM going forward, citing how it makes their job easier, and I'm certain the reliance on Rust which depends on a LLVM frontend in order to compile was part of the decision.

In other words, GCC (and Visual Studio) was going to be deprecated no matter what the results were, thus I doubt there were any particular effort made in making it compile under GCC 8.2, which means we don't actually know if it would have performed better or not."
programming,"> Recent changes in the kernel make me highly suspect that ICC is incapable of compiling the upstream kernel at the moment, but I've been making a true effort to find anyone who does use ICC so they can help test patches.

Yeah ICC is kind of a mystery compiler. I suspect Intel uses a specially prepared kernel tree or at least sticks with one target version for some time.

I’ve never seen it in the wild though. It’d be surprising if they maintained GCC compat at a level that allowed them to build each rc the moment Linus pushes it."
programming,">Clang is an overall performance win over gcc, especially with LTO and PGO.

GCC also has LTO and PGO, and again the comparison here was between a old version of GCC against the latest Clang/LLVM toolchain.

>I'm not saying drop gcc, I'm saying support clang as a first-class citizen too, and let some packages build with clang by default.

Well, unless a package explicitly requires Clang/LLVM then I see little reason to build it using that if your default compiler toolchain in your distro is GCC, which is almost always the case. Maybe that will change, but it would likely require something to motivate such a move, like if Clang/LLVM would start delivering better overall performance, which from my experience is not the case right now. Also Clang/LLVM not being able to compile the Linux kernel is a likely stumbling block for distro wide adoption."
programming,"Well, Clang is not LLVM, and Rust has it's own frontend for LLVM, so I don't see why the requirement on LLVM would imply that you'd use Clang.

So unless there's a specific reason like performance, I can see why you'd prefer using your system default compiler toolchain as far as possible.

However, given that Mozilla is planning to no longer support any toolchain other than Clang/LLVM, there is now very good reason to adopt this toolchain for this package unless you want to carry a potential maintenance burden."
programming,"\> Well, Clang is not LLVM

Clang is the primary front-end to LLVM. It's the only compiler front-end that's an official subproject of LLVM.

\> and Rust has it's own frontend for LLVM, so I don't see why the requirement on LLVM would imply that you'd use Clang.

I'm just saying that you probably already have Clang installed if you have LLVM and Rust installed.

\> So unless there's a specific reason like performance, I can see why you'd prefer using your system default compiler toolchain as far as possible.

Clang wins in performance, compilation speed, error messages, static analysis, and extensibility, just to name a few.

\> However, given that Mozilla is planning to no longer support any toolchain other than Clang/LLVM, there is now very good reason to adopt this toolchain for this package unless you want to carry a potential maintenance burden.

Exactly!

I'm just saying that it's not like Mozilla switched to some obscure compiler that no distro has. They switched to a compiler that's widely used and already well-supported on every distro. Supporting it doesn't seem like it should be a big deal.

​"
programming,">I'm just saying that you probably already have Clang installed if you have LLVM and Rust installed.

Typically you will only install the packages you need, you do not need Clang to make use of LLVM, but even if your assertion is true (which seems quite likely), I don't see why you'd use it for your distro packages unless they need them to build, if your default compiler toolchain is GCC.

>Clang wins in performance, compilation speed, error messages, static analysis, and extensibility, just to name a few.

When it comes to performance, that's certainly not my experience, granted I only benchmark on x64 (and using the latest upstream toolchains), but for all the cpu intensive stuff I routinely build and benchmark, Blender, emulators, archivers, GCC still wins in performance (~5-8%) which includes using PGO and LTO (PGO is also very slow with Clang/LLVM compared to GCC during the profiling run). That said, Clang/LLVM is undoubtably improving and getting closer to GCC in performance, I'm eager to try out the imminent Clang/LLVM 7 release.

Compilation speed is better in Clang/LLVM although it's not as pronounced these days, same for error messages and static analysis (most stuff available for Clang/LLVM seem to have been ported to GCC as well).

>Supporting it doesn't seem like it should be a big deal.

Not sure what you mean by 'supporting' here ? Like you said, more or less all distros offer Clang/LLVM."
programming,"> That's the gist of it, but remember that inlining is probably the number one most important optimization available because it opens up so many other opportunities for the compiler. 

FWIW, I did some experiments a while back to measure the impact of different optimization levels on one of my code bases. My memory is that `-O0` to `-O1` had the largest effect (compared to O1 to O2, or O2 to O3, and the different was fairly large), and about half of that effect went away if I also passed `-fno-inline` alongside `-O1`.

(This was several years back now, to give some perspective.)

On a different topic, there are some optimizations that compilers can theoretically perform if they know what a function does (or more to the point, what it *doesn't*) even if it's not explicitly inlined. As an example, consider the following (dumb) code:

    int plus_one(int x);

    int twice_plus_two(int x)
    {
        return plus_one(x) + plus_one(x);
    }

The generated code for `twice_plus_two` [makes two calls](https://godbolt.org/z/rjS-ax) to `plus_one`, as you may expect.

With GCC and Clang, it's possible to annotate the declaration of `plus_one` as such:

    int plus_one(int x) __attribute__((const));

The `const` attribute tells the compiler that the function's behavior depends only on the argument, and there's no side effects. So it knows that the two calls of `plus_one(x)` will both return the same thing, and [it doesn't need to call it twice](https://godbolt.org/z/NIJleR):

    twice_plus_two(int):
        sub     rsp, 8
        call    plus_one(int)  ; eax := plus_one(x)
        add     rsp, 8
        add     eax, eax       ; eax := eax + eax;
        ret                    ; return eax

Now, what happens if we have the body of the function available?

    int plus_one(int x)
    {
        return x + 1;
    }

With that, then `twice_plus_two` [just inlines the calls](https://godbolt.org/z/VKeoN3) and we don't get something that's interesting for this discussion. However, what happens if we can prevent that?

    int plus_one(int x) __attribute__((noinline));
    int plus_one(int x)
    {
        return x + 1;
    }

Now the compiler can't inline the call inside `twice_plus_two`, but the compiler still figures out that it's `const` and only makes one call to it. Actually it [does even better](https://godbolt.org/z/ruTrWD):

    twice_plus_two(int):
        call    plus_one(int)
        add     eax, eax
        ret

The extra stuff it can get rid of I think is because it knows the size of `plus_one`'s stack frame and knows that both frames can fit into x64's redzone; with `-m32` as well, the two versions are just one instruction different.

Obviously this is stupid example and I'm forcing no inlining by hand, but there are cases where the compiler would refuse to inline a function for one reason or another and yet still benefit from reasoning based on knowing what it does."
programming,"nope - even if you call for instance `gcc foo.c bar.c`, things in bar.c won't be inlined in foo.c:

    $ echo 'int bar(); int foo() { return bar() + 1; }' > foo.c
    $ echo 'int bar() { return 0; }' > bar.c
    $ gcc -O3 -shared foo.c bar.c

gets you the following generated code: 

    0000000000001110 <foo>:
    1110:	48 83 ec 08          	sub    $0x8,%rsp
    1114:	31 c0                	xor    %eax,%eax
    1116:	e8 15 ff ff ff       	callq  1030 <bar@plt>  // the function call to bar
    111b:	48 83 c4 08          	add    $0x8,%rsp
    111f:	83 c0 01             	add    $0x1,%eax
    1122:	c3                   	retq   
    1123:	66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 	nopw   %cs:0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
    112a:	00 00 00 
    112d:	0f 1f 00             	nopl   (%rax)

    0000000000001130 <bar>:
    1130:	31 c0                	xor    %eax,%eax
    1132:	c3                   	retq 

now if we throw in -flto... `int foo() { return bar()+1; }` becomes a simple `return 1;` :

    0000000000001100 <foo>:
    1100:	b8 01 00 00 00       	mov    $0x1,%eax
    1105:	c3                   	retq   
"
programming,"C++ works on .cpp files with no knowledge of other .cpp files. This is because in the 80's a typical computer didn't have enough RAM to look at a CPP program as a whole - this is the reason .h files exist. A whole bunch of modern parser performance (compilation time) optimizations depend on this property today, so the behavior is retained. In C/C++, a single .cpp file (and any .h) *is* the current set of files being compiled - it constitutes an entire program (that is missing imports). The linker is responsible for taking all the resulting .o files and creating the final ELF/PE. The fact that you can pass multiple .cpp files to the compiler is merely a convenience - you could make multiple individual calls to the compiler, the only difference would be more lines in your build script.

WPO/LTO is typically implemented by having the compiler emit some form of [IR](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_representation) to disk, instead of a .o - or IR in addition to the .o. This gives the linker more information than just machine code and allows it to optimize across program boundaries.

It doesn't seem right if you're used to other programming languages because you can't compile modern languages without having every file as an AST in memory at once."
programming,"Yes, very much. As explained in the other replies, the `__attribute__` applies to the function type itself. It's also a separate meaning of const:

> Many functions do not examine any values except their arguments, and have no effects except to return a value. Calls to such functions lend themselves to optimization such as common subexpression elimination [which is what my example demos]. The `const` attribute imposes greater restrictions on a function’s definition than the similar `pure` attribute below because it prohibits the function from reading global variables.

https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Common-Function-Attributes.html#Common-Function-Attributes

A `const` qualification on a variable's type means that variable cannot be changed, but nothing about the function's behavior other than how it interacts with that variable. Even `int plus_one(int x) const` if it were a C++ member function doesn't correspond -- that is just applying C++ `const` to the target of `this`.

`__attribute__((const))` here has an entirely different meaning that... IMO doesn't really make much sense namewise, but what can you do."
programming,"> `int foo() const`
> 
> can still access data from outside the function, it just can't change it.

Even that is too strong. The only time I know `int foo() const` to be legal in a C-family language is as a member function in C++:

    class C {
        int foo() const;
    };

In that context, the only thing that the `const` means is that the function cannot change member variables of the given `C` instance; basically, the type of `this` is `C const *` as opposed to `C*`.

However, `foo()` is still allowed to read *and modify* global variables, if there was a non-`const` pointer parameter it would be allowed to modify the target of that pointer (ditto C++ reference), it can even still modify `mutable` values of `this`, it can even potentially `const_cast` the constness of `this` away and modify contents (though in that case you're starting to toe the line of undefined behavior). None of this is legal in an `__attribute__((const))` function."
programming,"> C++ works on .cpp files with no knowledge of other .cpp files. This is because in the 80's a typical computer didn't have enough RAM to look at a CPP program as a whole - this is the reason .h files exist. A whole bunch of modern parser performance (compilation time) optimizations depend on this property today, so the behavior is retained. In C/C++, a single .cpp file (and any .h) is the current set of files being compiled - it constitutes an entire program (that is missing imports). The linker is responsible for taking all the resulting .o files and creating the final ELF/PE. The fact that you can pass multiple .cpp files to the compiler is merely a convenience - you could make multiple individual calls to the compiler, the only difference would be more lines in your build script.

So I just have to #include all my code into one *.cpp file, got it!"
programming,"Interesting explanation, and reminding me of getting to grips with Z80 and 6502 assembler as a wee teen.

A related question: When you speak of the compiler and the lengths it goes to in its quest for the perfect optimisation, is that really in effect internally just a whole bunch of if()'s and switches for all those attributes and flags and the infinite variety of code it may encounter, or is there real hard core magic going on? "
programming,"The most profitable optimization in LTO probably comes from being able to inline functions across code generation units; in C and C++ these are usually files (usually), in Rust they are crates (sometimes parts of a crate).

But that's not the whole story. LTO is done in the linker not the compiler and that really matters because the linker has final visibility information for all symbols in the program; it knows everything that's going into the program and knows you're not going to create a library so it can internalize aggressively. [Teresa Johnson has a great example of this in her CppCon talk about ThinLTO](https://youtu.be/p9nH2vZ2mNo?t=341).

LTO can also produce a smaller statically linked binary, even though the conventional wisdom is that inlining causes code bloat other optimizations that shrink code size often win out in my experience (~10% reduction for an 11 MB stripped static binary)."
programming,"Yeah. If your tight loop calls functions from other .so or .o files, you can expect a huge speed gain. Even if you don't hit the magic instruction combo. Bye bye call and return jumps, stack manipulation for parameters, wiping registers, etc. Constant parameters can be propagated. Bigger chance for the loop to stay in L1 due to fewer cache entries needed for code.

For programs that mostly wait for I/O (disk, user input, etc), one may not notice much though. The CPU must be the bottleneck."
programming,"I didn't mean it was dumb in the sense of not reflective of something that could happen, just in the sense of the specific example I had, which wasn't reduced from a real-world case or something like that. :-)

You *do* have to be a little careful with the `array[0]` example though. The subscripting function is *not* suitable to be marked with the const attribute (""Note that a function that has pointer arguments and examines the data pointed to must not be declared const"" from the [GCC docs](https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.7.0/gcc/Function-Attributes.html)), though it could be `pure`. (Thinking about it now, I wonder if this is why `pure` denotes what it denotes -- it was very strange to me that `const` has the name it does, and it is what I think of as ""pure."")"
programming,"Since LTO runs at link time, you generally know what will be exported (i.e. only main() in an executable, only visible/exported symbols from a library), so even ""extern"" functions can be mangled freely.

In contrast, when compiling an amalgamated source file normally, anything with external linkage - any non-static function, and e.g. all classes outside anonymous namespaces - needs to be preserved. It can still be optimized internally, but the external interface has to stay the same in case there will be another object file included in the link with references to it.

I think when a function is external, compilers also generally avoid inlining its code since it would need to keep the outlined copy around anyway."
programming,"I bet it's something with a ton of branches that can be optimized out. Like:

    int align_size(int x) {
        return ...;
    }
    int compute_size_of_something(int base, bool needs_x, bool needs_y) {
        int size =  HEADER_SIZE + align_size(base);
        if (needs_x) size += align_size(get_configured_x_size(base));
        if (needs_y) size += align_size(get_configured_y_size(base));
        return align_size(size);
    }

    void do_something() {
        int buffer_size = compute_size_of_something(sizeof(what), false, false);
        char buffer[buffer_size];
        // ...
    }

could easily translate to something like:

    sub rsp, 30"
programming,"No. From the description of `pure`: ""Many functions have no effects except the return value and their return value depends only on the parameters and/or global variables. The pure attribute imposes similar but looser restrictions on a function’s defintion than the const attribute: it allows the function to read global variables.""

`pure` can also read the values of the target of pointer parameters but `const` cannot. (So `foo(int * p) __attribute__((const))` can't do `*p`, basically.)

This was surprising to me initially, but maybe it makes a little sense if you start thinking about what you could actually mark as `pure` in each case, especially given the pointer argument thing. For example, `operator[]` in a C++ vector class can't be marked as `const` but is `pure` by GCC attribute names."
programming,"Oh yeah, that's pretty easy actually, especially in loop-free code. But compilers will do a bit of unrolling even in the loop case. The primary optimizations there are constant propagation and constant folding.

For example, I grabbed a popcount function from [here](https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/population_count), then modified it to add 2 in each iteration instead of just 1 in order to maybe foil some Clang heuristics that might make this easier for it.

Looking at the [GCC-generated assembly](https://godbolt.org/z/m1uwoz) if we call that with constant values, GCC will unroll the loop 17 but not 18 times it seems. Look over to the generated assembly on the right, and you'll see that the smaller values just load a fixed value into `eax` which is used for the return value and then returns, no real computation is done. But 18 and 31 do stuff.

[Clang constant folds completely in all of the tested cases](https://godbolt.org/z/UqcAip)."
programming,"> It doesn't seem right if you're used to other programming languages because you can't compile modern languages without having every file as an AST in memory at once.

D has interface files (`.di`), which are like header files in C++, in case you want to compile every `.d` file separately. You can generate interface files from your sources automatically.

They aren't used that much anymore, since it's easier to just work with sources.

Also, I don't know if they are enough to release binary-only libraries that people can use on various environments."
programming,"You can optimize and inline code from a statically linked library. You could do it from a shared library too if you have access to it during the compilation, but that would bring a lot of issues if your functions depend on some external state so I don't think it's done in practice. Usually functions you'd want inlined are in the .h file so there's no need to do that though."
programming,"> why does the tech community matter more

That's like polling the population about the importance of crumple zones in their sedans, then asking ""why does the engineer community matter more?"" when the opinions are different. The answer is that the engineer community understands things about a somewhat-complex topic that the layman might not.

As an aside: if the only thing that differentiates two ""communities"" is subject-matter expertise, then you're not talking about different communities."
programming,"I'd argue that the people upset here don't understand this at all. 

You poll engineers about crumple zones because they have done research to identify the effectiveness of that safety feature. But that's not what is happening here. The actual research demonstrates that URLs are *terrible* as a security indicator. Even active security professionals cannot use them properly (clear example is SSLstrip). Laypeople are even worse. Laypeople don't even understand the difference between those two URLs, so how could they make decisions based on that information? In fact, I'd wager that laypeople are a teeny bit better at using URLs to detect phishing when there isn't ""https://www."" in front of the URL string. This makes the domain be right at the front of the URL, which is the relevant bit for phishing anyway.

This is more like having a button in your car under the dash that you can press before an impact to reduce damage but only automobile engineers know about it and they still always forget to press it anyway.

The engineering community is upset because ""I'll get confused when I visit one of the few websites where these resolve to different IPs"" not out of some opinion that this change is bad for the general population."
programming,"I don't think that's why the technical community is upset. I think the technical community is upset because Google decided to change this without community consultation, and the technical communities understand how this *will hurt* in edge cases.

I agree that URLs are a terrible safety feature. But unlike crumple zones, *they're all we have*. We're not going to improve them by removing relevant information! We're certainly not improving them by removing information which is potentially the *only chance* a user has at realizing they are being phished. (I'm talking about user-controlled sub-domains here).

If you want to reduce noise (a noble and *great* goal), do something like Firefox does: Put the protocol and subdomains in a grey colour, and crank the contrast on the domain so it pops. Firefox also greys the path. This way, users can super easily tell what the domain is, and whether they're being phished (doesn't help against user-controlled subdomains, but at least the information is still there)."
programming,"What consultation would you have wanted? Google says ""Hey we are planning on doing this, WDYT? BTW here is a lit review of all the papers that show how shit people are at using URLs for anything meaningful?""

When you make a product for 1b people it becomes impossible to consider edge cases. Yes, some people in the tech community will get annoyed. It will cause some dev some pain when he forgets that the www is hidden and is confused when his tests aren't working. But the outrage I have seen has largely been people claiming that this will hurt ordinary people. I have seen zero evidence of this. In fact, the literature that I have seen seems to suggest the opposite."
programming,"I am absolutely 100% confident that if you polled users about the difference between ""http://foo.com"" and ""https://foo.com"" the overwhelming majority would say ""there is no difference"". The ""https"" is literally just noise for people. Why does the tech community matter more?

I am absolutely 100% confident that if you polled users about the difference between an ""artery"" and a ""vein"" the overwhelming majority would say ""there is no difference"". The difference is literally just noise for people. Why do doctors matter more?

I am absolutely 100% confident that if you polled users about the difference between ""tension"" and ""compression"" the overwhelming majority would say ""there is no difference"". The difference is literally just noise for people. Why do structural engineers matter more?"
programming,"""hey folks, we're thinking of doing this for reasons x, y and z. We're aware of issues a, b and c. Please comment if you're aware of other issues, or if you of examples where the impacts of these issues are greater than we're aware of.""

I am aware that Google's use case is different from most simple due to their size. However, they were wrong on eliding the ""m"" domain, and they could have avoided this hotfix if they *just talked to the community first*. People being upset that they didn't *isn't unreasonable*."
programming,"I don't understand this.

Ultimately the URL bar is not being used by experts. If people were making a product for doctors and did not distinguish between arteries and veins that would be bad. But if people were making a children's game and did not distinguish between arteries and veins that would not be bad. 

I'd understand this much more if the change was happening to a system that was primarily used by web developers and admins. But it isn't. It is happening to a system that is primarily used by people who have no use for the difference between these two URLs. 

Error messages for JS code executed in my browser is not displayed by default. I need to click some buttons to open the dev console. This information is useful for web devs. It is useless for 99.99% of users. Therefore, it is hidden. How is this any different?"
programming,"It isn't trustless in reality though. Bitcoin needs nobody to own 50%+1 which actually has been violated and everyone basically said ""OK we're going to trust the guy who's running more than half the end points as the alternative is my Bitcoin is worthless"".

Also Ether got forked because of a chain of dodgy transactions and everyone decided to just trust that the fork was at the correct point. Other than the people who didn't trust it and maintained the old blockchain as classic.

Crypto is absolutely riddled with trust in practice."
programming,"It's an emerging technology that also happens to be incredibly complex. It's not going to be perfect on the first try, and people are going to make mistakes. The important part is the idea behind it and the problems it's trying to solve. When I hear people lay down that narrative, along with stuff like ""oh well clearly crypto is unsafe, look at all the crypto that was stolen in all those hacks!"", usually ending up boiling it down to ""it's a dumb technology that's fundamentally flawed and anyone who advocates for it is an idiot"", when I hear that, I just think that people are fundamentally misunderstanding the problem. Yes, those are obviously huge issues. But they aren't issues in the overall technology (if you can call it that), they're just issues in implementation.

All those exchanges that got hacked? That's not a problem with bitcoin or ether or any other crypto, that's an issue with how those companies handled security, and it's an issue of not having a mature platform where people can actually store their crypto securely. Most people keep their crypto on exchange-hosted wallets instead of cold-storage, which is an inherently much less secure practice. But there's a simple reason for that. It's way more convenient. Once we have secure and convenient ways to store it, that will no longer be a concern. (Or at least a much smaller one).

Another thing people like to argue is ""it has no inherent value"". You can tell your electricity provider that all that power you used to mine crypto ""has no inherent value"", but I doubt that'll work out too well. The ""value"" it's given is based on the cost of mining. And mining is basically just another way of saying ""running the system"". Now one problem that exists in most cryptocurrencies today is that mining uses way too much power and there are more efficient ways to do it. But again, it's an emerging technology. People will keep figuring out better and better ways of doing it, and it'll become more and more efficient.

One of the problems, I think, is that people think of it the same way as ""money"". But it's a totally different animal. The way I think of it is, money is like math, where crypto is like programming. Math is great and fundamental to so many things, and you can do a lot of great things with it. But then programming *uses* math, or maybe I should say math is an important component of programming. But it can also do soooo many things that math can't. Or at the very least makes it immensely easier.

I don't know why I felt the need to write all that out, I guess I just followed the thread of where my thoughts were going. But if nothing else I hope I gave you a bit of a different perspective on the matter.

And just a side note, ""riddled with"" means there's an abundance of something. I'm guessing that's not what you meant ;)"
programming,"This is nothing to do with exchanges getting hacked. This is to do with the fact in the real world the ultimate condition in which the ""trustless"" quality of Bitcoin falls to pieces has actually happened. That is an issue with Bitcoin.

In the end everyone has assumed nothing bad happened during that incident but it is proof positive that kind of end of days failure condition is achievable in the real world."
programming,"23 guidelines is way way way too many. Here is the simplified guidelines:

1. **Keep it simple**. Functions do only one thing.
2.  **Names are important**. So plan on spending a lot of time on naming things.
3.  **Comment sparingly**. It is better to not comment than to have an incorrect comment
4. **Avoid hidden state whenever, wherever possible**. Not doing this will make rule #7 almost impossible and will lead to increased technical debit.
5. **Code review**. This is more about explaining your thoughts and being consistent amongst developers than finding all the bugs in a your code/system.
6. **Avoid using frameworks**. Adapting frameworks to your problem almost always introduces unneeded complexity further down the software lifecycle. You maybe saving code/time now but not so much later in the life cycle. Better to use libraries that address a problem domain.
7. **Be the maintainer of the code**. How well does the code handle changes to business rules, etc.
8. **Be aware of technical debit**. Shiny new things today often are rusted, leaky things tomorrow.

​"
programming,"Totally agree on number 3. I've far more often seen incorrect comments than seen a piece of code and wished for a comment. 

Write simple code. If you really need a comment to explain what you're doing, maybe think about why that is and simplify your code. If you absolutely need to add a comment go for it but now this comment has to be maintained alongside the (probably overly complicated) code."
programming,">  Most comments found in code are low-level documentation, made redundant by the code itself---if the code was written to be readable in the first place.

Wrong. Comments in the code explain the decision process - why exactly you're doing it, what were the prerequisites, what implicit constraints, and so on. They also include the account of your experiments that lead to the decisions made, they include profiling data, mathematics before it got mutilated beyond recognition by the optimisations in your code, with all the intermediate steps. They may include copy-pasted paragraphs of the specification documents you're implementing, so you know exactly what the code was supposed to do, what version of the spec it's taken from, and so on. Just having a pdf file somewhere attached to a wiki page does not help at all and is guaranteed to get stale in no time.

"
programming,"Yeah, it's one of the signs of a developer fresh out of university. A good rule of thumb is to have a function short enough that it all fits on the screen at once, and then include a comment above the function describing what it does (if the function name is not obviously clear; no need to document a simple getter) what it's inputs are, what its outputs are, the side effects, if there's any exceptions to be aware of and any other gotchas you might not expect. Documentation systems like javadoc/phpdoc/jsdoc make it easy to include the right information.

The only reason to document an individual line is if it's doing something clever or weird that's not obvious from looking at it. Mostly as a warning to the next person that comes along and thinks ""That's weird; we should change it"".

Some types of comments belong in the commit logs and not the source code. Particularly ""why"" comments."
programming,"Method names explain the what. Your code explains the how. It's usage explains the why. None of this necessitates comments. Your code is not to be read by non-programmers, you don't need to explain every little thing.

I can see the need for some comments but ""more comments than code"" sounds like utter lunacy. Your code would become unreadable just based on how spread out it is between comments.

And then someone needs to update your essay of comments for a minimal code change. But bad comments don't cause compiler errors/crash the app so they are significantly harder to catch than bad code and now your essay is distracting, and incorrect."
programming,"> It's usage explains the why.

No. Never. Unless you code some CRUD crap, the ""why"" part of the story is the most complicated one.

It might involve explaining the mathematics *before* it became code - with all the intermediate steps. It might involve referring to a number of papers. It might involve citing specification paragraphs you're implementing.

Also, there are always some implicit constraints that you cannot infer from the code, and yet you assume them when you write it - you must document them explicitly.

>  but ""more comments than code"" sounds like utter lunacy.

Sure, go and tell Donald Knuth he's a lunatic, and you know better because you can code hipstor webapps.

> Your code would become unreadable just based on how spread out it is between comments.

If code is only a small part of the story - yes, it must be thinly spread inside the comments, where its contribution to the story makes sense.

What is more readable? TeX, or anything you ever wrote? Can you ever achieve the same quality? Are you willing to write cheques to anyone who discover a bug in your code?

"
programming,"It depends on people who are reading the code. If they're not used to using CVS, yeah - nobody will look at commit messages.

In your case, if people don't update comments, they will soon get out of date and misleading. 

>Also, you must have more lines of such comments than the lines of code - seems a bit too heavy for the commit messages.

Didn't really get the meaning of that. Usually, I commit in atomic manner and trying to do it quite frequently. This way you have all the changes (sometimes spanning multiple files) with a message in one commit. I find it really useful and this approach helped me and the others to find reasons for decisions made in the past."
programming,"> In your case, if people don't update comments, they will soon get out of date and misleading.

And comments are much more likely to get updated than any out-of-source documentation - because they're visible in a diff, so anyone reviewing your code change will notice it.

> This way you have all the changes (sometimes spanning multiple files) with a message in one commit. 

This way you're having a mess, instead of a consistent *story*. And comments must tell a story, something you can read sequentially.

You still need commit messages, of course, and they must duplicate some parts of your story, but still, the story must be told.

"
programming,">It might involve referring to a number of papers. It might involve citing specification paragraphs you're implementing

That's a single comment.

I never said all comments must go, this is an obvious case where a comment is useful.

>Sure, go and tell Donald Knuth he's a lunatic, and you know better because you can code hipstor webapps.

Lot of assumptions here, plus a strange idolisation of Knuth. The man is not infallible and programming has come a long way since Knuth (also, can you point to where he actually said that comments should outnumber lines of code?).

>What is more readable? TeX, or anything you ever wrote? Can you ever achieve the same quality? Are you willing to write cheques to anyone who discover a bug in your code?

Again, you have a bizarre idolisation of this guy and I fail to see how writing lots of comments equates to bug-free code."
programming,"> That's a single comment.

And all such comments are likely to be bigger than your actual code (unless you're writing some really inefficient verbose code).

> The man is not infallible and programming has come a long way since Knuth 

Mind naming a single code base with the same level of quality as TeX and Metafont?

> also, can you point to where he actually said that comments should outnumber lines of code?

That's a consequence of using Literate Programming properly. And if it's not always true for the code Knuth wrote himself, keep in mind that this code is in very low level languages (Pascal and C), so the ratio definitely should get biased towards comments for the less verbose higher level languages.

> and I fail to see how writing lots of comments equates to bug-free code

So, you cannot show me a bug-free code without literate comments? As expected. So, until you find an example of the opposite, we have to assume that Literate Programming was a major contributing factor to producing a bug free code."
programming,"Just remember the golden rule of comments: ""Explaining **WHY** something was done is a million times more useful than **HOW** it was done."" The *how* is contained within the code if you look hard enough, the *why* is lost forever if it isn't written down.    

e.g.      

     // We loop over the employees         
     for(var n = employee.Count; n > 0; n--)  { ... }        

Vs.    

     // Inverted because list comes down in reverse-alphabetical from employees view
     for(var n = employee.Count; n > 0; n--)  { ... }    

One of these is useful insight, the other is obvious.     "
programming,"> And all such comments are likely to be bigger than your actual code (unless you're writing some really inefficient verbose code).

A link to a paper or a spec is bigger than your code? Right.

> Mind naming a single code base with the same level of quality as TeX and Metafont?

No, because your bizarre infatuation with the work of one man is completely irrelevant. 

> So, you cannot show me a bug-free code without literate comments?

That is not even remotely related to what I said. You have presented this false equivalency of ""more comments = fewer bugs"" with nothing more to back it up than ""I love Knuth"".

Tex by the way, despite your obsession is [not magically bug free](https://github.com/latex3/latex2e/issues) because of the amount of comments.

I'm done here, if you have nothing more to add than fanboying over Knuth and assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is a web-dev and somehow beneath you then you are obviously beyond help.
"
programming,"> No, because your bizarre infatuation with the work of one man is completely irrelevant.

TeX and Metafont are both large code bases that are bug-free. You must be totally fucking retarded to dismiss this fact.

> is not magically bug free 

Just fuck off already you retard. If you see no difference between LaTeX - a huge collection of macros on top of TeX, and TeX itself - you're not worthy of any civilised discussion.

Also, only such a retarded piece of shit like you are would have ignored all the arguments I carefully listed and reduced everything to ""Knuth is great""."
programming,">  you're not worthy of any civilised discussion.

And you're obviously not capable of it. Literally took you two messages to resort to insults because you just can't deal with opposing views.

And when you can't get your point across?

> You must be totally fucking retarded

> Just fuck off already you retard.

> Also, only such a retarded piece of shit like you.

Well done on your ""civilised discussion""."
programming,">  because you just can't deal with opposing views.

No, because I do not want to talk to a brainless demagogue scum. I do not want to waste my time on a shit like you.

> And when you can't get your point across?

Of course it's impossible to get your point across when you're talking to a retarded demagogue who ignores all the arguments. This is when the only course of action is to say ""fuck you"".

> Well done on your ""civilised discussion"".

You little piece of shit excluded yourself from a civilised discussion the moment you started to ignore and twist the arguments. Do not expect to be treated as a human being when you do such things."
programming,"Having a background in didactics/teaching, I understand the rationale behind making you put a lot of comments explaining your intentions in code assignments. It lets the teacher better understand the thought process behind what you did, (partially) prevents you from just copy-pasting code you don't understand and saying it works without knowing why, and forces you to think about your code as you have to explain and justify what you did.

However, to be effective as a teaching tool, it should be made clear that it's not something required (or desirable) in a real-life situation."
programming,"I feel like this is too broad a statement. In a super complex codebase, you want to be able to get a general gist of what is happening in the code. The examples here of opening files and looping are one thing, but when you're dealing with a text processor it's kind of important that you explain what some things are doing.

A comment like this is immensely helpful, but it doesn't explain why at all. The ""why"" is implied by the context of the code.

    // Get the amount of glyph advance for the next character
    end_bytes = Types::UTF8::NextUnsafe( c, 0, glyphVal );"
programming,"When I was starting out in uni, we would often write out the functionality in comments first, then implement that. That way I'd end up with a lot of comments. At the time, the 'what' was actually not obvious to me, so it was still useful.

Nowadays, the majority of the comments come from GhostDoc that generates it based on the names of the methods to appease the style cop. 

Only in the rare cases where something is not obvious through naming do I still write comments. This is usually determined by having to debug through said code and not finding it obvious at that time. During development it is all very clear of course what I am doing :P"
programming,"I once inherited a C# project where virtually every operation looked like this:

    Console.WriteLine(""About to instansiate HelperClass"");
    using (var writer = acquireFileWriterBySomeMeans()) {
      writer.WriteLine(""About to instansiate HelperCLass"");
    }
    // create an instance of HelperClass and store it in helperClass variable
    var helperClass = new HelperClass();
    Console.WriteLine(""Created instance of HelperClass"");
    using (var writer = acquireFileWriterBySomeMeans()) {
      writer.WriteLine(""Created instance of HelperCLass"");
    }
    // ...

The code was buried in so much noise.  All of the logging was the first to get refactored: NLog in this case.  Then after we understood what it was doing, we ported it over to some much less verbose scripts.

I even [posted one of the snippets from the program up on /r/ProgrammingHorror](https://www.reddit.com/r/programminghorror/comments/5d657p/im_so_sorry_this_is_so_long_but_the_more_you/)."
programming,"Your specific example could probably be solved by using a small function with a good name, but I agree with the general principle. Sometimes the what can be really hard to understand. The readability of PostgreSQL's code base for example is helped by comments like below.

    	if (write(fd, shared->page_buffer[slotno], BLCKSZ) != BLCKSZ)
    	{
    		pgstat_report_wait_end();
    		/* if write didn't set errno, assume problem is no disk space */
    		if (errno == 0)
    			errno = ENOSPC;"
programming,"> Your specific example could probably be solved by using a small function with a good name.

That's a good point and I was thinking that, but really what's the difference?

If the code isn't being reused then it seems like a stylistic choice kinda.

But yeah, your example is also good. I think a lot of the time when a comment is explaining ""what"" it's in the sake of keeping the code brief and simple."
programming,"> So plan on spending a lot of time on naming things.

This is a big one.  You feel stupid sometimes spending a long time just trying to name a variable or function, but often that time spent is worth it when you come back to the code much later.

Having said that, sometimes if something is hard to name, it's because you're either doing something too complicated in too few steps, or because you don't really understand it right.

> It is better to not comment than to have an incorrect comment

Also, never comment if what the comment is saying is obvious to someone reading the code.  Like ""loop over the entries in the list"" or something stupid like that.

A comment should be for documenting the thoughts of the person writing something, like ""note: this list is sorted here because we need to do X later on"".

"
programming,"> time savers

They potentially open your code up to security holes, they bloat your code and now you have to keep on top of the version numbers or resolve compatibility issues if 2 dependencies use the same dependency.

It saves time right now.. yes, but in the grand scheme of things, no. I speak from experience with Java, but look at the mess that Node is in right now because of going completely bonkers with dependencies. The leftpad debacle was hilarious... the advice should be to use dependencies sparingly."
programming,"There are real exceptions to this, e.g. Quake's `Q_rsqrt`:

    float Q_rsqrt( float number )
    {
	    long i;
	    float x2, y;
	    const float threehalfs = 1.5F;

	    x2 = number * 0.5F;
	    y  = number;
	    i  = * ( long * ) &y;                       // evil floating point bit level hacking
	    i  = 0x5f3759df - ( i >> 1 );               // what the fuck? 
	    y  = * ( float * ) &i;
	    y  = y * ( threehalfs - ( x2 * y * y ) );   // 1st iteration
    //	y  = y * ( threehalfs - ( x2 * y * y ) );   // 2nd iteration, this can be removed

    	return y;
    }

Anything that relies on theoretically-derived results needs to have the 'how' explained."
programming,"I have to agree on #6. My pet peeve are test frameworks which are huge black boxes that call your code and prevent meaningful debugging without providing almost any tools for the most time consuming part of testing: designing and writing test cases.

In comparison, I’ve recently had to implement some USB stuff on an embedded platform at work. The entire USB stack is just four moderate size C files (and one for the register level hw interface). It’s refreshing to see things done sanely for a change."
programming,"Is this kind of code still used today?

Or does the compiler automatically do these optimizations?

Also I think here is the modern / more accurate way to do it today by-hand if anyone was curious. From [here](http://rrrola.wz.cz/inv_sqrt.html)

    float inv_sqrt(float x)
    { union { float f; uint32 u; } y = {x};
      y.u = 0x5F1FFFF9ul - (y.u >> 1);
      return 0.703952253f * y.f * (2.38924456f - x * y.f * y.f);
    }"
programming,"No, on x86 we use the `rsqrt` instruction. On platforms without hardware support, we'd probably make do with a `sqrt` + `div`, or if necessary a more legible application of Newton's method. There aren't very many applications I can think of in modern computing where you'd need a fast but inexact inverse square root on very slow hardware.

And even if you were writing out Newton's method by hand, there's no way a compiler could 'optimize' to this code—it would both have to figure out you were trying to perform an inverse square root and then decide to replace it with an approximation. Conceivably, your language's standard library could include it, but that would be surprising, to say the least.
"
programming,"I used to almost *never* comment my code. Then, I read the SQLite and Reddis codebases, both of which were pretty heavily commented. I found the comments added a ton of value. I currently work in a fairly large JS codebase. The lack of types + lack of comments makes it super hard to figure out what's going on and why. There's a lot of inconsistent abstraction. Even simple, file-level comments would be nice.

Honestly, my opinion on comments has flipped. I now comment quite a bit."
programming,"the difference is that your very simple function is now trivial to understand because its name explains what the cryptic one-liner is doing.

When you'll encounter this function in the wild, in the middle of a big class, you'll be glad to understand what it does in a glimpse instead of googling what `Types::UTF8::NextUnsafe( c, 0, glyphVal );` does and probably lose 10 minutes for something of no interest.

It helps on onboarding new devs, it helps for you when you come back on your code in 6 months, it helps your coworker who will have to touch this class next week for the first time, it help newbies who don't know jack about UTF8 encoding... Overall you gain in productivity for the whole team."
programming,"well, for starter if this code used meaningful variable names, it wouldn't need most of its comments. Look at how easier it is to understand the mergesort function than the merge one, only because the most complicated parts are moved to a merge function. 

I've done this really fast, and there's probably big mistakes in it, but simple renaming variables, extracting bits of code into functions is making a BIG change. Each function in itself is pretty easy to understand. And the only comment left explains WHY it's done this way.

    void merge(int array[], int start, int middle, int end) 
    { 
        int i, j, k; 
        int first_half_index = middle - start + 1; 
        int second_half_index =  end - middle; 
    
        first_half_array = make_half_array(array, start, first_half_index)
        second_half_array = make_half_array(array, middle, second_half_index)
  
        array = merge_back(array, start, first_half_array, second_half_array)
    } 

    void mergeSort(int array[], int start, int end) 
    { 
        if (start < end) 
        { 
            // Same as (start+end)/2, but avoids overflow for large start and middle
            int middle = start + (end - start)/2; 
     
            mergeSort(array, start, middle); 
            mergeSort(array, middle + 1, end); 
  
            merge(array, start, middle, end); 
        } 
    } 

     make_half_array(array, start, end)
    {
        i = 0; 
        temp_array= [];
        for (i = 0; i < end; i++) 
            temp_array[i] = array[start + i]; 
        return temp_array;
    }

    merge_back(array, start, first_half_array, second_half_array)
    {
        i = 0;
        j = 0;
        k = start;
        while (i < first_half_index && j < second_half_index) 
        { 
            if (first_half_array[i] <= second_half_array[j]) 
            { 
                array[k] = first_half_array[i]; 
                i++; 
            } 
            else
            { 
                array[k] = second_half_array[j]; 
                j++; 
            } 
            k++; 
        } 

        array = copy_remaining_elements(array, k, first_half_index, i)
        array = copy_remaining_elements(array, k, second_half_index, i)
  
        return array;
    }
 
    copy_remaining_elements(array, k, first_half_index, i)
    {
         while (i < first_half_index) 
        { 
            array[k] = first_half_array[i]; 
            i++; 
            k++; 
        } 
    }
"
programming,"A disadvantage is that it's possible, over time, for the code and the comment to become disconnected.  Here's a contrived example:

    // Get the amount of glyph advance for the next character
    end_bytes = Types::UTF8::NextUnsafe( c, 0, glyphVal );


Commit Message: Quick fix for an issue where invalid glyph values were causing problems.

    // Get the amount of glyph advance for the next character
    if(isValidGlyphVal(glyphVal)) {
        end_bytes = Types::UTF8::NextUnsafe( c, 0, glyphVal );
    } else {
        log(""Invalid glyph value"");
        end_bytes = 0;
    }


Commit Message: Support the ability to offset glyphs by a constant factor.

    // Get the amount of glyph advance for the next character
    glyphVal += OffsetVal;
    if(validGlyphVal(glyphVal)) {
        end_bytes = Types::UTF8::NextUnsafe( c, 0, glyphVal );
    } else {
        log(""Invalid glyph value"");
        end_bytes = 0;
    }


Commit Message: Generalize glyph offset calculations.

    // Get the amount of glyph advance for the next character
    glyphVal = applyOffset(glyphVal, [](auto x) { return x + OffsetVal; });
    
    if(validGlyphVal(glyphVal)) {
        end_bytes = Types::UTF8::NextUnsafe( c, 0, glyphVal );
    } else {
        log(""Invalid glyph value"");
        end_bytes = 0;
    }"
programming,"> Get the amount of glyph advance for the next character

Idk what in the hell you're trying to say here, but the code looks like you're trying to get the next codepoint?

glyphs != codepoints.

🇺🇸 is one ""glyph"" (grapheme in Unicode parlance), except in reality it's 2 codepoints.

`U+1F1FA` and `U+1F1F8`

which in UTF-8 are encoded as 2 sets of 4 ""code units"" aka bytes.

in UTF-16 it's encoded as 2 sets of surrogate pair encoded ""code units"" aka ""short"" (tho I really hate that term)"
programming,"LOL. Again - a separate document is much more likely to get stale, when your implementation starts to drift from the ideas explained in the paper.

In the literate code you won't be able to review a code change without noticing that there is a comment nearby that is obsoleted by the change.


Take a look at Axiom (although you're unlikely to have a mental capacity to dig into this kind of a code base)."
programming,"I did read all of the comments and it looks like you were on the losing side of the argument and then you turned into a huge asshole and started personally insulting the guy because he didn’t agree with you.

Come to think of it, I’m currently talking with you in *another* thread about literal programming. It’s cool that you like it but it’s not cool to turn into a dick like you did to this guy just because whoever you’re talking to doesn’t like it."
programming,"> started personally insulting the guy because he didn’t agree with you.

I do not care about disagreement. He did not disagree - he dared to dismiss the arguments and resorted to trolling.

> just because whoever you’re talking to doesn’t like it

There are tons of valid reasons for not liking it.

But dismissing TeX as an example of a bug-free code base, because there are tons of issues in LaTeX - it's just a plain trolling. As well as dismissing all the arguments as ""you simply like Knuth"".

The fact that TeX is bug-free is a serious argument, and it must be discussed seriously, not dismissed with this retarded false superiority that idiot demonstrated. "
programming,"> LOL. Again - a separate document is much more likely to get stale, when  your implementation starts to drift from the ideas explained in the  paper.

​

Yes, which is why a link back to the paper is likely better. As I said, IF you are trying to summarise a paper you have obviously gone way beyond the scope of a comment and it would make sense to be a separate document since any change to the code invalidates it. Even if you don't update the documentation, you can still see where the code came from. Stale comments are more confusing since the assumption is that they are reflective of the current code.

​

I can see that this is hard for you to grasp but actually reading a message before sending a dumb knee-jerk response would probably help you a lot.

​

>   Take a look at Axiom (although you're unlikely to have a mental capacity to dig into this kind of a code base).

​

Is this another code base that is provably bug-free simply because of the volume of comments? Because at a glance, they are not immune to redundant comments stating the obvious, mistyped comments, or incorrect comments. Also, separate conversation but why is anyone using SVN anymore?"
programming,"> ​Yes, which is why a link back to the paper is likely better. 

It's even worse - the external document is immutable. 

Only if you implement it 100% faithfully, which is unlikely. Otherwise you *must* duplicate the reasoning from the paper in your comments, adapting it to your specific needs, and modifying as your code and requirements evolve.

> Even if you don't update the documentation, you can still see where the code came from. 

By all means, link to the original paper. But keep your local elaborate explanation up to date.

> Stale comments are more confusing since the assumption is that they are reflective of the current code.

Stop referring to this strawman argument. Comments are not going to be stale if you follow the proper literate programming discipline - any code reviewer will immediately see that comments were not updated when a code is changed.

> Is this another code base that is provably bug-free simply because of the volume of comments?

No, it's just a code base that is easy to read and that makes little sense without all the literate comments.

> Also, separate conversation but why is anyone using SVN anymore?

Commit hooks. Small checkout size. More centralised control. That's the usual reasons in the industry. 

As for the open source projects - it's just inertia. Say, LLVM project was trying to move away from Subversion for years now, and still could not do it."
programming,"Also a common way of programming (I originally read this in Code Complete back in the early-mid 2000s).  Especially useful in languages which can be obtuse or where syntax would slow you down.

Write out your logic in single-line comments in your primary spoken/written language (e.g. English).  Do this, then that, start loop, end loop.  It keeps you focused on what you're trying to accomplish without getting bogged down in syntax.  Then convert the comments into real code.

(Still useful as a technique as I enter my 3rd decade programming for a paycheck.)"
programming,"1.30 is in beta now, but we haven't prepared the release notes, so I don't have a full list handy. But I do know one large thing: the first chunk of procedural macros. More specifically, attribute-like procedural macros and function-like procedural macros in item position.

1.31 is master, so hasn't been finished development, so it's impossible to say everything. But the biggest thing is that it will be the initial release of Rust 2018."
programming,"Editions are for backwards-incompatible changes. For example, adding async/await as keywords. ( Which is not compatible because they used to be valid identifiers. ) 

Any crate can declare which edition it belongs to, all rust compilers will be able to compile all editions that are older than them, crates of different editions can be linked together, and any new features that are not backwards-incompatible will be added to all editions.

Or, to put it more simply: On *Edition 2018* release, the only difference between it and compiling edition 2015 with the same compiler is that you can no longer use async as an identifier. Later, async will be introduced as an actual keyword.
"
programming,"I have many complaints about this article but I will put most of those aside and focus on one thing HTML as a data contract for API endpoints. In either example the JSON or the HTML the code breaks when the data contract is changed without the consumer realizing it. The author claims html is better because its structure can change, but fails to realize he has changed the data contract compared to json by using queryselector on attributes instead of using an object graph with a specific structure. If you change the name (the data contract) it still breaks.

Not only that you lose all benefits of generating an object graph and instead do a really naive search for all this data using attribute names so you can hydrate some other data structure. 

Lastly this isn't an html exclusive thing all of what was done could be achieved using xml, and xsl paths.

There are many other problems with this article but I chose to cover the points relevant to his core argument of using html as the data contract at API endpoints."
programming,">but fails to realize he has changed the data contract compared to json by using queryselector on attributes instead of using an object graph with a specific structure

Can you elaborate on this part?

>There are many other problems with this article but I chose to cover the points relevant to his core argument of using html as the data contract at API endpoints.

Can you please point out the other things you believe are problems with the article? Thanks.

​"
programming,"by using just query selectors for attributes the data contract is no longer reliant on the object structure. Essentially its just a dictionary at this point because that is how you are accessing and treating it by doing query selectors on just attributes.

It also has the downside of not utilizing any of the performance benefits you would get from actually using the tree structure it creates in memory when creating a DOM document, and only does slow lookups.

Also the author implies a few things that are untrue. HTML has versioning that is breaking. You can't reliably mix html from different versions and have it render reliably. 

Another annoying thing is...if all you are doing is looking up elements based on attribute values and grabbing their values use xml and xsl it is more expressive and essentially a less strict version of html that will have less overhead. 

Overall I got the impression the author only had a shallow understanding of what he was discussing.

Lastly I would ask you to just imagine any scenario more complex than the contrived ones he described and talk through what is going on. You would load an html into a document object creating a tree like graph. Instead of taking advantage of that tree like graph you access the data with dictionary like calls using only attributes and their values, that don't take advantage of the structure to speed up looking for the data. You then take that data and either directly modify or in a lot of cases hydrate another object because it is unlikely you made an api call and only care about 1 discrete property of an entire document."
programming,">It also has the downside of not utilizing any of the performance benefits you would get from actually using the tree structure it creates in memory when creating a DOM document, and only does slow lookups.

Do you agree this is a tradeoff of micro optimization over decoupling? If that's so, isn't decoupling better than micro optimization if you want to read a website's workflow that is a very small payload? The post argues in favor of maintainability and decoupling over performance. The same can be said about [this](https://medium.com/@fagnerbrack/html-and-state-a-challenging-way-to-look-at-web-performance-e3084fcff70d).

>Also the author implies a few things that are untrue. HTML has versioning that is breaking. You can't reliably mix html from different versions and have it render reliably.

The post says, and I quote: ""The most common workaround for a fragile API ... is to [start sending versions](https://twitter.com/fielding/status/376835835670167552) in URLs or headers"". It doesn't say anything about the DOCTYPE. Versioning in the message is totally fine.

>Another annoying thing is...if all you are doing is looking up elements based on attribute values and grabbing their values use xml and xsl it is more expressive and essentially a less strict version of html that will have less overhead.

In that case the browser can't render XML for humans. If you use HTML, you can use browser rendering AND an API foundation that allows you to create metadata in the markup itself. The website already have a workflow, it's very easy and convenient to just code that workflow for machines to use. Use tags to render information for humans; attributes to provide metadata for machines.

Does that make sense?"
programming,"Your ignore my first and probably the most important point....this solution doesn't solve anything.  By only utilizing the query selector with attribute value pairs your treating your data like a dictionary. it is equivalent to as if the document was a dictionary and you were doing Document['class=""something""']. The data contract is now a dictionary not a rich object graph. The data contract still break down if an element changes. 

You haven't decoupled anything you have simply changed the data contract. 

To your last point if you have found a use for an request that can server as both a data feed for an api endpoint and a user accessible web page more power to you...but I don't think that need exists. XML is readable enough, and accomplished the same thing the author is trying to do with his narrow use of query selector but better, and without the extra rules html has.

EDIT: sorry for any typos or bad grammar."
programming,">The data contract is now a dictionary not a rich object graph. The data contract still break down if an element changes.

You're right the contract is a dictionary of key/value pairs, but why does that matter to the post?

I don't understand how the data contract still breaks down if an element changes, in fact what do you mean by ""breaks down"" exactly? Does the code throws a runtime error ""Cannot find property x of undefined"" or it just doesn't find the element?

If the value of the ""class"" changes, of course it's not gonna find the element. However, it's not gonna ""break down"" the code as if you were looking up the properties like this: ""regions.Sydney.latitude"". If one property changes, that's a runtime error, it breaks everything. If you use querySelector, though, it doesn't break everything. The code doesn't find the element it's looking for but it still works as if the element is not there.

>To your last point if you have found a use for an request that can server as both a data feed for an api endpoint and a user accessible web page more power to you...but I don't think that need exists. XML is readable enough, and accomplished the same thing the author is trying to do with his narrow use of query selector but better, and without the extra rules html has.

Yes you can use XML in a new end-point, the cost here is that you have to create a new representation of your website when you already have one. Why create a new end-point when you can just enhance your existing one to expose the workflow to non-visual clients? The need doesn't exist because many people are used to bear the cost of creating new end-points without realizing it. There's no need to do that in many circumstances."
programming,"The important part isn't that my javascript code for this particular situation doesn't break. In fact the not breaking when the data isn't there is a probably a worse situation than the code breaking because it is likely masking an exception. 

An API is an application programming interface. An interface is a contract of behavior. When you set up your data contracts at your endpoints it is important that between major versions you honor that contract. If you tell a consumer to get this data look here, then move it while it might not break if you are doing it with the query selector method, you have breached the contract. That is all that matter. 


"
programming,">The important part isn't that my javascript code for this particular situation doesn't break. In fact the not breaking when the data isn't there is a probably a worse situation than the code breaking because it is likely masking an exception.

Totally agree. That's an obvious fundamental principle of relying on data that is essential for the application to work. If the data isn't there, you don't want to mask an exception. Ever. However, you would never code in a way it can evolve into an architecture that have to rely on that kind of coupling in the first place. That's the wrong way to do things.

That statement seems like a [straw man](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) to what we're really talking about here. Which has nothing to do with cases where the data you rely on is essential to the application. I'm talking about designing a non-visual client that will work even if the data is not there. The Sydney latitude example shows if the latitude is not there it doesn't need to show anything. Also, you can change the structure of the HTML and as long as it respects the contract, it won't break. The non-visual client doesn't care about the structure, it only cares about specific attributes.

>An API is an application programming interface. An interface is a contract of behavior. When you set up your data contracts at your endpoints it is important that between major versions you honor that contract.

Do you mean major versions of the website, the client or the URL? There's a big difference here. Version the message or the client, not the website. Everybody loves to version the website in ""/v1"" end-point. That's completely wrong and misses fundamental understanding of how the web works.

>If you tell a consumer to get this data look here, then move it while it might not break if you are doing it with the query selector method, you have breached the contract.

Can you elaborate what you mean by that paragraph? It's too confusing and I can't understand it, sorry.

​

​"
programming,">This almost make it sound like you care more about your consuming code and less about the API itself.

Of course I care about the consuming code because that's the client of the API! It makes no sense to design an API that is not to make the life of the consuming code easier.

>You can always null check on javascript object.

Do you mean ""if (!prop) { do somewthing? }"". If you mean that be aware that's additional code that needs to be tested. You don't need that. Code that doesn't exist is the code you don't need to debug. You can write code that can last forever, [look at this](https://levelup.gitconnected.com/how-to-write-code-that-will-last-forever-f8c4b1c0c867).

>Many applications need data to be in the apis they are calling if it isn't there it is often an unrecoverable exception similar to a database connection failing. It isn't often just oh well wasn't there lets continue on our merry way.

Those application bind domain-specific logic into the message. If you write a client against a message that has the domain model bound to it, then you're doomed to have to version URLs because every change in your API will break clients, you're also doomed to create specific code like ""if (domainProperty) { doSomethingWith(domainProperty) }"" and have to test it. That's just a waste of time. If you code against a hypermedia format like what querySelector does, in the end you only have a Facade and you change your whole format without breaking clients (as long as you keep the contract).

>As I understand this you want to be able to 'ehance' existing endpoints to also work as datafeeds. That is just blurring responsibility of the page/endpoint for a minor gain of convenience for the developer. At the same time it pushed the responsibility of consuming the 'API' in this new way that is inefficient and verbose onto the consumer... I don't see the benefit of this maybe I am missing the point.

The point is cost of change and maintainability. You don't need to maintain multiple end-points to provide an API for your website's workflow (I mean ONLY the website's workflow). You already have one and that's the website itself.

>I'm sorry I simply don't agree with you or the author

Sorry I didn't put the disclaimer, but I'm the author. I assumed the Reddit username and the medium account would give the hint. Is there a way to mark the post as ""OC""?"
programming,"> Totally agree. That's an obvious fundamental principle of relying on data that is essential for the application to work. If the data isn't there, you don't want to mask an exception. Ever. However, you would never code in a way it can evolve into an architecture that have to rely on that kind of coupling in the first place. That's the wrong way to do things.

 > That statement seems like a straw man to what we're really talking about here. Which has nothing to do with cases where the data you rely on is essential to the application. I'm talking about designing a non-visual client that will work even if the data is not there. The Sydney latitude example shows if the latitude is not there it doesn't need to show anything. Also, you can change the structure of the HTML and as long as it respects the contract, it won't break. The non-visual client doesn't care about the structure, it only cares about specific attributes.

First of all you're right you don't code in a way that relies on a specific implementation, you create boundaries between appropriate layers. A consumer could just say oh that data doesn't exists anymore, or it moved somewhere else, but they shouldn't have to. You establish a contract of how the data feed is gonna look, stuff like this data can be found here it will always be there, this other piece can be found here it may or may not exists. The producer of the data doesn't just say well the consumer shouldn't have relied on the data being in that spot its on them. That bogus.

The point of a data feed is to provide data. If a database connection fails we don't say you shouldn't have coded in a way that relied on a data connection, we throw an exception and hopefully have system that notifies someone the database is down. When the application needs to data to achieve its core goal that is unavoidable there is no coding around it that is a hard dependency. You should keep the app from blowing up but that doesn't mean it can continue execution as normal.

> If you tell a consumer to get this data look here, then move it while it might not break if you are doing it with the query selector method, you have breached the contract.

What I mean is if a producer of data tells me I can find the data I need somewhere, and then changes that I'm sure as hell not gonna be relying on that data feed anymore. You cannot violate a data contract once it has been established. 

EDIT I edited my previous post after you responded to it(didn't realize you had) moving it here for clarity.

> If the value of the ""class"" changes, of course it's not gonna find the element. However, it's not gonna ""break down"" the code as if you were looking up the properties like this: ""regions.Sydney.latitude"". If one property changes, that's a runtime error, it breaks everything. If you use querySelector, though, it doesn't break everything. The code doesn't find the element it's looking for but it still works as if the element is not there.

This almost make it sound like you care more about your consuming code and less about the API itself. You can always null check on javascript object. It is just the same. But if it doesn't error when you expect data to be there that can be a worse issue. Many applications need data to be in the apis they are calling if it isn't there it is often an unrecoverable exception similar to a database connection failing. It isn't often just oh well wasn't there lets continue on our merry way. 

I'm sorry I simply don't agree with you or the author. As I understand this you want to be able to 'ehance' existing endpoints to also work as datafeeds. That is just blurring responsibility of the page/endpoint for a minor gain of convenience for the developer. At the same time it pushed the responsibility of consuming the 'API' in this new way that is inefficient and verbose onto the consumer... I don't see the benefit of this maybe I am missing the point.

"
programming," > > This almost make it sound like you care more about your consuming code and less about the API itself.

 > Of course I care about the consuming code because that's the client of the API! It makes no sense to design an API that is not to make the life of the consuming code easier.

I'm sorry I was a little unclear here. I should have said it kinda sounds like your saying the only thing that matters is the client. Your client does all the work what the endpoint returns doesn't matter in the slightest you just search for magic strings and if they are there act on it. There is no API in this scenario, just an html scraper. No-one can ever build anything that relies on the data being there so it is extremely limited in its uses. 

Saying it works as long as no-one changes the class name is equivalent to saying a json payload works as long as the structure doesn't change. 

> Those application bind domain-specific logic into the message. If you write a client against a message that has the domain model bound to it, then you're doomed to have to version URLs because every change in your API will break clients, you're also doomed to create specific code like ""if (domainProperty) { doSomethingWith(domainProperty) }"" and have to test it. That's just a waste of time. If you code against a hypermedia format like what querySelector does, in the end you only have a Facade and you change your whole format without breaking clients (as long as you keep the contract).

First of all the point of any API is to expose a consumer to a domain that they are interested in and give it a way of interacting with that domain. Second it sounds to me like you are advocating that your html just exists as normal and sometimes it might contain information that your 'client' is interested in and the client can scrape for that. In that case you haven't created an API you created a framework within your site.  "
programming,"The HTML doesn't have domain specific logic in the structure, but in the metadata.

>Every attribute value that you use to select elements in an HTML document is the equivalent to having specific keys in a JSON document.

It is, the difference is that you have to create a new end-point to produce that JSON and maintain that. There's no point to do that if you can just enhance your HTML with meaningful information that other clients can understand, with the benefit you already have a Facade to lookup for it (querySelector)"
programming,">you create boundaries between appropriate layers. A consumer could just say oh that data doesn't exists anymore, or it moved somewhere else, but they shouldn't have to. You establish a contract of how the data feed is gonna look, stuff like this data can be found here it will always be there, this other piece can be found here it may or may not exists. The producer of the data doesn't just say well the consumer shouldn't have relied on the data being in that spot its on them. That bogus.

I don't understand this part: ""stuff like this data can be found here it will always be there, this other piece can be found here it may or may not exists. The producer of the data doesn't just say well the consumer shouldn't have relied on the data being in that spot its on them. That bogus.""

Can you elaborate? Thanks."
programming,"Another thing, slightly off topic but since you are bringing it up I will just mention it. It sounds like you misunderstanding what testing should entail. When testing you aim for 100% code coverage. That doesn't mean every single function must be tested in isolation. It means the tests you write hit all parts of the code. 

A lot of the code you would write to get results matching your queryselector example is setters, getters and if statements. You would probably have to write little to no additional testing for it because it would ideally be executed when your other test were run."
programming,">So add metadata to JSON and it's exactly the same thing

Exactly. If you want to create JSON and serialize/deserialize from HTML feel free to do it. But why?

Here's the point quoted from the post:

>Given there’s a significant cost to adopt the right JSON specification to communicate information between computers and pick the right client, prefer as a sensible default to enhance the website’s HTML and leverage a battle-tested specification that is already there.

You can use JSON, it's just that the Web doesn't have enough specifications, clients and tools to support it. What people end up doing is to create an API structure that is rigid and specific to each website and write code against that structure. Then you see the problems as with the ""Sydney latitude""."
programming,"Schema. Data should have a defined schema. If the producer defines a schema and then violates it, the producer shouldn't just say, well the consumer shouldn't have relied on the data being there the fault is all on the consumer. 

Also if you don't define a schema and just shove meta data anywhere sometimes the data exists sometimes it doesn't. You haven't created a meaningful data-feed, and in fact your haven't defined a contract of behavior so you haven't even created an Interface. You just left breadcrumbs someone might be able to follow if they have an intimate knowledge of the system."
programming,"I guess we agree on the need for a schema. That's a fundamental of how XML works and how we can design clients for it. The context of the post, though, is for those who are used to create JSON APIs without schema/specification and therefore might be well served with just enhancing the HTML markup. Sometimes even if you already know all this, enhancing the HTML markup is a very good scalable solution for certain kinds of clients, like a client that only needs to read information from the website or just simulate what a user can do."
programming,"An example is kinda of hard to show for this, because I would essentially be showing the lack of a test on some specific function then arguing since it is a simple function and it is called in many other tests that pass I can assume it is working as intended as well.

But just for example, say I wanted to create a specific object structure from some other object, and for certain properties I want default values instead of null values. 

I create a function buildA(b) this function does the proper null checks and sets all the values. This function is essentially only null checks, and setters. Do I really need to test this function in isolation or is it enough that my other tests which are utilizing this function return expected results?

This is a pretty contrived example. If you want a better Idea I would head to respected projects on github and check out their unit tests. 

Integration testing gets a bit trickier because you have to test for side affects as well."
programming,"Yes schema is important, but I feel like your post ignored or missed the fact that putting metadata into html elements and searching for it by attribute isn't honoring any kind of schema. Yes it doesn't violate the html schema, or break the page. Yes if it disappears your client code looking for it won't choke. But you have essentially given them a bunch of client secrets and said go find the data at the end of the rainbow, and at any moment that rainbow might disappear.

It isn't creating an interface because there is no contract of behavior, it is a simple lookup and that API already exists it is called query selector. Don't get me wrong that might be fine for your cases. But it isn't a replacement for an API. "
programming,"I'm sorry, there is a communication problem here. Your post showed examples of scraping specific data out of a payload, but now you are talking about using elements to show workflow and indicate where following some element will bring you. 

What your comment just described is that your client would need to know there is a cart page, and .prefix-cart will take you there. 

So does the client already know the site structure it just wants help navigating it? If this is the case, just give the client a routing table don't put any of those attributes in the html and inspect the urls in the anchor tag against the routing table to find out where it would take you. 

I feel like something just isn't getting communicated correctly here. We are both using the wrong language and talking past each other."
programming,">What your comment just described is that your client would need to know there is a cart page, and .prefix-cart will take you there.

I never said that. I mean that the client needs to know where are the triggers to go to the cart page. A good example is the ""a\[rel=""cart""\]"" attribute. You can just get that element (querySelector(""a\[rel='cart-page'\]"")) and follow the link without having to know the URL of the cart page.

If you give the client a custom data structure like a routing table it adds more maintenance burden to the whole system. The HTML spec already have a lot of stuff to assist non-visual clients, see [https://www.w3.org/MarkUp/1995-archive/Elements/A.html](https://www.w3.org/MarkUp/1995-archive/Elements/A.html)

>I feel like something just isn't getting communicated correctly here. We are both using the wrong language and talking past each other.

I'm just talking about how the web was intended to work, that's it.

​"
programming,"If I give a contrived example it is not because I am advocating to do something that way. It was simply to illustrate a point. No-one would or should write a test that just sets values and does a couple of null checks. 

You will have other code that executes that code piece, and as long as your aren't doing weird reflecting or injection on that object, the code executing it passing successfully is enough.

Yes your past post makes sense, that is essentially what I am saying, except with one caveat utility functions sometimes needed to be tested in isolation, since they are essentially a subdomain within a project whose usefulness is in helping your other code pieces succeed.
"
programming,"I am well aware that html has many tool to assist non-visual clients. I work on sites that have to be 508 compliant. There is a well defined schema for telling those clients how to read html documents.

rel='cart-page' is meaningless unless you know to look for cart-page and what that means. Also it is a misuse of the attribute. rel has a limited range of acceptable values. Really everything you've  describe so far should be going in data attribute.

If you are defining what pages exists, and how to know an elements leads to it, then an api that defines a routing table schema for a client to consume is, for most site frameworks, a one off that never needs maintainence. Most frameworks for building website you could easily just define areas of your site as you making them, and generate the routing table on application start it would have the correct urls everytime it started....this is getting a little off topic though.

My point is...the client in this scenario is required to have some knowledge about what cart-page means. Or is the scenario your describing the reverse where it would crawl all pages, and associate the links after based on the rel attribute? 

Basically I'm struggling to see how rel='cart-page' or anything similar tells the client anything about the page it is visiting unless it has prior knowledge, and if the idea it to associate that link with the cart page, as the client crawls the site....the normal way to do that would be just let it crawl and on the actual page put that information in a meta tag."
programming,"It's a breeze with any language with good quasiquotation - there is no difference. Just like you're unlikely to use low level list manipulation in Lisp (cons, car, cdr, ...) when you can use quasiquotation, you won't need to go into AST implementation details in more complex languages either.

Scala and Rust, unfortunately, do not provide really symmetric quasiquotation, and their macro expansion is inferior to Common Lisp. But, for a language with the same kind of macro expansion semantics (including lexically scoped macros and an ability to control the expansion order), all the same stuff you're used to in Common Lisp is still applicable. Have a look at the [examples](https://github.com/combinatorylogic/mbase/blob/master/src/l/lib/pfront/extensions.hl) of Lisp-style macros implemented as syntax extensions (never mind that there is a Lisp underneath...).

There is one huge issue I have with metaprogramming on top of raw S-expressions: location metadata. There is simply nowhere to stick it in. You're losing it quickly, so your macros cannot provide nice and clean error messages. 
"
programming,"> I wonder why you've chosen a lisp underneath... 

Just one simple reason - to be able to grow a language incrementally, from scratch.

Otherwise, if you already have a sufficiently powerful language, you can jury rig macros on top of it, without ever having to go through Lisp.

> Still, why anything different from S-expressions hasn't caught on in practice for code juggling?

Inertia. Most people who know what to do with macros are coming from the Lisp culture, so they'll naturally stick to Lisp.

There were actually alternative streams of work - see Nemerle and Converge for example."
programming,"Not sure if you’ve heard of it, but (Haxe)[https://Haxe.org] has a macro system which is implemented as a special runtime with full access to the standard library and the AST as generated by the compiler. It’s a feature built in to the compiler.


It’s an incredibly powerful system when combined with other compiler features, like the completion server (which provides auto completion data for IDEs and such). One of the samples on the Haxe site shows how you can add google search results to any IDE that implements autocompletion using the compiler services.


So with that you get to use a modern and comfortable statically typed OOP language (which supports cross compiling) while you do meta programming stuff, all without damaging your parenthesis keys."
programming,"Everyone knows the semi-colon key is reinforced by manufacturers on standard keyboards.

[Generic functions](https://haxe.org/manual/type-system-generic.html)

> can you invoke the compiler programmatically at run-time to optimize just-in-time generated code?

Probably... Haxe doesn't have its own runtime, it's a language specifically designed to be cross-compiled, like Typescript ([except it supports more than just Javascript.](https://haxe.org/documentation/introduction/compiler-targets.html)). 

So where/how your code runs depends entirely on the target. If you are targeting an interpreted language like Javascript, it should be trivial to generate some Haxe code and run it through the compiler. You may even be able to generate an AST and pass that to the compiler directly rather than having to mess with the syntax of the language (although AFAIK the compiler doesn't currently have that feature).

The hard part I guess would just be to manage reloading the code after building it, as each target would have different requirements. The C++ target would be a pain in the ass because compilation is so slow. Totally possible though!
"
programming,"Sorry, I probably didn't provide the context, didn't mean that kind of

generic functions but rather multiple parameter dispatch methods as in

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

​

Look, Haxe is cool and interesting thing in its own right.  But it's

at the mercy of the host and if your host is not Common Lisp, you

can't provide portable run-time invocation of (host) compiler.  And I

don't mean run-time interpretation like eval, but a real compiler with

optimizations and native code generation (and which is fast, as is the

case for CL compilers - in part because they can be invoked to compile

a single jit generated function)."
programming,"The point of this survey is supposed to be how much a developer should make. Two developers, both with equivalent skills, would be expected have different salaries if one programmed while managing a team and the other had no other duties.

Same with system architects. No one would question that that's a development role, but that's often a highly-paid role compared to a standard developer, even though they both might have the same laundry list of skills. The closest thing to ""system architect"" in this calculator is ""full-stack developer"". Whatever the hell that really means, since it could cover dozens of different skills."
programming,">Their list of roles is laughably myopic and obviously biased towards web,

Honestly that's about representative of most programming gigs when talked about in the net, so maybe that part is accurate :(.  

It's a bit odd to me. Networking is supposed to be extremely effective, but how to people in more ""niche"" (if we're calling anything outside of mobile and web ""niche"") domains  even find each other to begin with? "
programming,"Hi guys. Just wanted to share some of the work we've been doing at Reddit on the iOS application. As much as this is, this is just a sample of a lot of the other work we're doing. I hope you guys find this interesting and informative to see how an app with millions of users is built and maintained.  


If you're interested in hearing a more in-depth audio interview of this work you can find it here: [http://insideiosdev.com/evolving-mobile-architecture-at-reddit](http://insideiosdev.com/evolving-mobile-architecture-at-reddit)"
programming,"“The terminology has been a point of contention in the tech community for nearly two decades and now it was just removed from one of the most popular programming languages in the world.”

Can anyone remember *any* controversy about this terminology in the last 20 years? Because I’ve been in this industry longer than that, and cannot remember a single conversation, blog post, tech journal story, user group discussion where this ever came up. I call bullshit.

This entire bugaboo has been fabricated out of whole cloth by power-seeking leeches who are determined to undermine open source as they have done in so may other areas of society. It will not stop here. They will move on to the next hill of offense, and will not stop until the entire we forget what this project is for, and whom it serves."
programming,"Primary/replica does a **horrible** job as a replacement to master/slave in a lot of cases.

For example, a database replica is an exact, 100% copy of the master database. That's what the word replica means -- an exact copy of something else.

Master/slave very frequently has nothing to do with replication -- it's commonly used as the master being source of truth, the tie-breaking voter, or the entity that controls or otherwise orchestrates the slaves, etc."
programming,"Old timers sometimes hate change and see it as an affront to them personally. Change for the sake of change is almost certainly bad, but if two words ignite bad feelings in part of the community then changing them surely isn't the death of the python programming language.

Or maybe it is, what do I know. The whole thing is funny to me, but then again my ancestors weren't bought and sold like cattle within the last 200 years."
programming,"Eh, it's just terminology.  It's been around forever, at least since IDE drives were designed and I'm sure long before that in CS.  

I can see where it can make people uncomfortable.  Words have meaning.  Besides, the powers that be change terms regularly.  Things like the industry name itself going from Data Processing to Information Technology to Information Science to Data Science to all sorts of other ones in the middle that I've long forgot.  "
programming,"It's a gigantic waste of time and resources for completely irrational reasons, and accomplishes nothing. That's the problem. It's sole purpose is controlling the behavior of other people.

It should never be anyone else's problem that someone is irrationally offended.

On the other hand, refusing to change accomplishes great things: It shuts down these idiots and prevents them from moving on to the next irrational nonsense. The world shouldn't have to change because a handful of people with mental illness can't handle the words ""master/slave""."
programming,"Changing a couple lines in documentation using find all occurrences is so hard? Wew. Of all the fields that need to change their vocabulary we are probably most capable of updating.

It accomplishes making certain parts of the community more comfortable. I'd think it's very rational to be offended at something that happened to your ancestors < 4 lifetimes ago and which often occurs as human trafficking today.

They can handle it. It's not about that. It's about creating a more comfortable atmosphere in a field that is predominantly white guys. "
programming,">Besides, the powers that be change terms regularly.
  
Who are ""the powers that be""? Textbooks will continue to use master/slave. Some languages will still continue to use master/slave, while others come up with their own obscure replacements. In most cases, those new terms are *less* descriptive, and even straight up confusing. It makes communicating about these topics super difficult if you and me are trying to discuss the same topic, yet we use completely different terminology to describe it, and that terminology doesn't even make sense in the context of our conversation. "
programming,"> completely irrational reasons

This is a huge fucking understatement. Might as well remove the words from the English language entirely, because it's no less offensive for them to appear in the dictionary than it does for them to appear in the source code of a programming language.

> It should never be anyone else's problem that someone is irrationally offended.

Couldn't agree more. And my guess is that this is the complaint of a VERY small number of ultra thin-skinned people who probably make their work environments hostile for everyone else because of how easy they are to offend. 

*Out of principle* we should not be catering to such a thin-skinned vocal minority like that. At all. 

Why? [Because giving in to people like that has real, damaging consequences for others](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/how-dongle-jokes-got-two-people-fired-and-led-to-ddos-attacks/)."
programming,"> It accomplishes making certain parts of the community more comfortable. 

The obligation is on them to change and deal with it, not the rest of the world. I hate the song ""Safety Dance"" by Men Without Hats, but I don't insist that the world change for my benefit.

> I'd think it's very rational to be offended at something that happened to your ancestors < 4 lifetimes ago and which often occurs as human trafficking today.

Except that using these words has ZERO to do with human trafficking today, or what happened to their ancestors in the far past.

They are words, no more, no less, and they happen to accurately describe this technical situation.

The only thing that matters is someone's intent to offend. It NEVER matters if someone's offended for irrational reasons. It's their problem to change their own behavior and deal with other people. Otherwise, it never ends. The only reason these people are offended is so they can have a power trip and control other people. NOTHING is accomplished by giving in to irrationality and a huge amount of harm is done."
programming,"I really don't see the connection to open source here. Indeed I'd argue this kind of stuff is perfect for open source.

Changing some words after a reasonable issue being posted is kowtowing? I guess I've been confusing normal courtesy with kowtowing all my life.

If they were asking for architectural changes *without reason*, sure. But this is a mild inconvenience for us, and a reasonable if small increase in QoL for others (especially maybe someone recovering from modern human trafficking, let alone African Americans at large).

I'm not missing the point at all. I'm arguing that the changes are *so* simple that changing them for even a couple people (not, ya know millions of people) is reasonable and shows empathy and awareness of history and sociological realities."
programming,"If I asked you in a technical interview to tell about a time you had to deal with an insanely difficult challenge in programming and you said that some languages use the term master/slave and others use the term parent/child for the same thing, I would think you were a complete moron. Anyone who thinks this is a genuinely difficult problem to overcome needs to find an easier profession/hobby that doesn't involve constant change and learning new concepts and terms."
programming,">that doesn't involve constant change and learning new concepts and terms.
  
Except we *don't* need to learn ""New terms"". Some terms are changing, some are the same, and things are becoming less internally consistent. Have you read the discussion behind these python changes? The words ""Master"" and ""Slave"" are still used numerous times, and the devs have said they won't change. It only makes programming and python less consistent, and confuses new learners. If everyone agreed on these changes I'd be fine, but even *just python* can't agree on new terminology.   
 
Change for the sake of change helps no-one. Trying to insult my intelligence because I won't needlessly stop using a word like ""Master"" because someone claims it's *only* related to slavery is ridiculous. Does that mean I'm now offending people if I refer to someone as a ""Master craftsman""? "
programming,No because they are always used to describe something so the fact they are used for many things is not an issue. Good and bad are used for many things but it is accepted that what makes a car good and what makes a bridge good are very different. Nobody is confused about that. It does not lend any clarity. This push is done by people who are addicted to *feeling* like they are improving the world but they are too lazy to do anything that actually helps people so they change words in open source projects.
programming,"> The obligation is on them to change and deal with it, not the rest of the world. I hate the song ""Safety Dance"" by Men Without Hats, but I don't insist that the world change for my benefit.

Why? There are more slaves today than there are developers. It’s not the rest of the world changing, it’s a relatively minuscule community of people who are *constantly* evolving their vocabulary anyway.

>Except that using these words has ZERO to do with human trafficking today, or what happened to their ancestors in the far past.

Human trafficking is often just a euphemism for slavery. Just look up human trafficking victims 2018 and you’ll see slavery, forced labor, sexual exploitation. Slave isn’t in great company there. It stems directly from their use in the past, and refers to the same notion, if not the same practice, today.

>Otherwise, it never ends.

No it does end. There are gradations here. Language evolves, *constantly*. What is so wrong with changing a couple words. Even 10 words. There is nothing irrational about the history of language and its use for oppression, and there’s nothing irrational about changing some words in documentation on the reasonable assumption it might make a large population of potential devs more comfortable."
programming,"I never said you needed to stop using the word master, and I never said that these changes are a good idea or help anyone. My objection was to your claim that these kinds of changes cause any sort of task related to programming in Python to be ""insanely difficult"". These are minor changes that are at most a minor inconvenience. You are insulting your own intelligence when you claim that confusion around these terms will actually cause you any problems in real life."
programming,"Power seeking leeches determined to undermine OSS... Yikes.

The only possible problem I see is that now there are multiple terms for the same thing - but that happens all the time in programming anyway. Every other language has their own term for a package or library.

There is no grand conspiracy to destroy OSS. Changes like these _really_ aren't unreasonable.

This is _not_ censorship. It's not ""you can't say those words,"" it's ""we have better, less provocative terminology, so we should use that instead"".

Let's resolve real problems before worrying about an imaginary ""SJW agenda."""
programming,">My objection was to your claim that these kinds of changes cause any sort of task related to programming in Python to be ""insanely difficult"".
  
Again, go read the public discussion yourself. Some of the top developers of Python said that lots of occurences won't be changed, because it would require a lot of work to re-write large portions of the language. Do your research before talking out of your ass.
 
These aren't minor changes, it requires rewriting parts of code that are at the core of how Python functions. This isn't just search and replace, jeez. "
programming,"In the US that’s down to 35, and down globally. Regardless mining wasn’t primarily inflicted on others based on their race, and isn’t a practice anathema to freedom, democracy, etc. Child labour is wrong, you’re right. We don’t name things child labor, or rape, or murder (we use kill, but that has a lesser connotation than murder and is also something which effects uniformly).

Mining is a job, with the possibility of safety, providing for a family, and most importantly freedom, etc. Slavery isn’t."
programming,"Here's the problem: someone who takes offense at the words Master/Slave because of their connotations in recent *American* history is too narrow-minded and self-centered to deserve any decision-making power. 

Expressions referencing slavery are part of the vernacular of every major language because slavery was familiar to every major society in human history. If slavery evokes visions of enslaved Africans in the American South in the antebellum era, feel free to picture enslaved Northern Europeans in the Roman era, or enslaved Jews in the biblical era. If you're concerned about this terminology normalizing or whitewashing the horrors of slavery in the US, you're being a pompous American imperialist who assumes ours is the only history that matters. 

Using 'Slave' in figures of speech and programming vernacular is not going to normalize or excuse slavery any more than the even more prolific use of ""Kill"" in programming lingo is normalizing murder. 

I agree that slavery is awful. 
I agree that it can be unpleasant to have something so dark baked into our language.
I agree that changing the wording is not that big of an inconvenience. 

But I think that the people pushing for this change are ignorant pricks who barely believe their own nonsense and really just like bossing people around. I don't want to enable that kind person. "
programming,"> Here's the problem: someone who takes offense at the words Master/Slave because of their connotations in recent American history is too narrow-minded and self-centered to deserve any decision-making power. 

Why is it not the opposite?

Different races doesn’t make it right, and I have made repeated mention in other comments of modern global slavery which these days often affects Asians. 

Also I don’t think there’s much bossing happening here. He made a request to a public forum. Many other contributors agreed with him. It’s not just a couple people taking over open source software, it’s the maintainers and the community who say, ""not a bad idea"". It’s another PR/issue like any other QoL change."
programming,"> How does changing two words with plenty of synonyms undermine ""open source""?

You're completely missing the point: The controversy has nothing to do with words, or synonym scarcity.

The whole problem is the concept of kowtowing to pressure groups whose motivation and goals are completely unrelated to, and often contradictory to, the goals of programming, and open source.

If someone's suggestion doesn't improve the programming language, tell them to get the fuck out.
"
programming,"Political correctness has its place, but this isn't one of them. 

In something so trivial as long-established terminology, that's explicitly unrelated to the derogatory or racial connotations they're subjectively correlated with, it makes absolutely zero sense to sacrifice anything of significant value (including time or maintenance overhead) solely for the sake of idealism which _hinders_ the progress of these projects.

Some people I know feel strongly about racial or gender-oriented issues that are very controversial today. For the most part, I lean toward the side of equality in this regard and believe in treating people with respect regardless of orientation, gender identity, race, etc. and my own personal opinions toward them. 

I genuinely question whether or not being transgender is really a solution to the identity issues that transgenders have, for example.

If they decide to discuss that with me and are OK with me explaining my views, I'll respectfully convey my views on that. 

But I also understand that what I hold is taken to be among others as an opinion and nothing more, for better or worse. 

What I don't believe in, though, is applying purely subjective meaning and idealism to things which aren't demonstrably perpetrating the ideas that the idealism claims to be against."
programming,"both clang and gcc do this : 
 
    $ cat foo.c
    typedef const char* cstring; 
    cstring x = 123;
    $ gcc -c foo.c
    foo.c:2:13: warning: initialization of ‘cstring’ {aka ‘const char *’} from ‘int’ makes pointer from integer without a cast [-Wint-conversion]
     cstring x = 123;
                 ^~~
    $ clang -c foo.c
    foo.c:2:9: warning: incompatible integer to pointer conversion initializing 'cstring'
      (aka 'const char *') with an expression of type 'int' [-Wint-conversion]
    cstring x = 123;
            ^   ~~~
    1 warning generated
"
programming,"I understand, but one of the cornerstone of programming is ""DRY"" (Do Not Repeat Yourself). I gave a particular example, but you can generalize it other cases. For instance, the Windows API does lots of this and uses lots of typedef aliases for simplifying and making easier to read the code. For instance, LPVOID is void\*, LPCSTR is const char\* when unicode is not defined, LPCWSTR is cosnt wchar\_t\* (Unicode 16 bits) and so on. The code should not be cryptic or hard to read as human time is expensive and lots of studies have shown that developers spend a lot of their time reading code.

​

By using type aliases you can replace the type if it is no longer suitable, the OpenGL C-API also does it as the type GLFloat which is an alias to float can be changed depending on the compiler settings, architecture or future need. "
programming,"Ok. There a lots of cases where type aliases can make the life better and code easier to read and change. 

Another good case to use type alias if function pointer.

For instance: 

`// Cryptic` 

`double findRoot(double (*mfun) (double), double a, double b){`

  `....`

`}`

​

`tyepdef double (*MathFun) (double);`

`or`

`using MathFun = double (*) (double);` 

`// More readable` 

`double findRoot(MathFun fn, double a, double b){`

  `....`

`}`

 Another legitimate situation to use type alias for pointer is when passing (void\*) opaque pointers to pass around C++ objects in a DLL or C-structs and you cannot mix them.

Other example where you can find lots of typedefs is the the Win32 API Windows API which uses LPCSTR for const char\* and LPCWSTR for const wchar\_t\* or LPCVOID for void\*. LPCSTR communicates the intent to the reader that the function expects a NULL terminated string.

​"
programming,">I understand, but one of the cornerstone of programming is ""DRY"" (Do Not Repeat Yourself).

Writing `const char *` instead of `LPCSTR` is not repeating yourself. If you want to avoid repeating yourself, you are looking for type inference, not type aliases.

>For instance, the Windows API does lots of this and uses lots of typedef aliases for simplifying and making easier to read the code. For instance, LPVOID is void*, LPCSTR is const char* when unicode is not defined, LPCWSTR is cosnt wchar_t* (Unicode 16 bits) and so on.

These are **awful**. They really are. The Window API is notorious for being one of the most awful APIs to read code from, ever. That's not just the type aliases of course, there are lots of other issues like the many functions that have half a dozen mandatory NULL parameters, but it's part of it.

>The code should not be cryptic or hard to read as human time is expensive and lots of studies have shown that developers spend a lot of their time reading code.

`const char *` is not difficult to read. It simply isn't. It's extremely common in C code. If that's something you have difficulty reading, you are a new and very inexperienced C programmer. 

>By using type aliases you can replace the type if it is no longer suitable, the OpenGL C-API also does it as the type GLFloat which is an alias to float can be changed depending on the compiler settings, architecture or future need. 

No you can't. Doing so would break ABI compatibility, which is unacceptable. The OpenGL `GLfloat` type is not going to change. It will always be a 32-bit single-precision floating-point number. Changing it would break *hundreds of millions of lines of code*.

The Windows API has a `WORD` typedef. The idea was that it would change to whatever the natural word size of the processor is. So on 16-bit platforms it was a 16-bit integer, but would be a 32-bit integer on a 32-bit version of the API and a 64-bit integer on the 64-bit API. Needless to say, it's still 16-bit and always will be. "
programming,"Well it's simpler relative to SGML, of which XML is the subset disallowing tag-inference (tag omission such as in HTML) and other short forms, as a well as custom Wiki syntaxes (short references), stylesheets (SGML LINK), and a whole bunch of other things.

Though arguably, by not supporting these authoring-oriented features of SGML, XML makes an ok delivery format, but certainly not a great authoring format. Which is why we're using markdown and other Wiki syntax for actually writing text when SGML had integrated Wiki syntax parsing and conversion to angle-bracket markup over 30 years ago. But since XML (XHTML) also hasn't replaced HTML as delivery format on the Web (its original stated goal), it shouldn't be considered a ""Web"" standard anymore (only full SGML can parse HTML based on a formal standard). Consequently, W3C has [winded down its XML activity recently](http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/201807/msg00025.html). The remaining bits of XML on the Web are for SVG and MathML, and W3C's SVG WG has recently published an [SVG 2 candidate recommendation](https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/CR-SVG2-20180807/) that essentially *removes* features from SVG 1.1 and 1.2 that weren't supported by browsers anyway (which while disappointing and frustrating to those who worked on it is still an ok result for the SVG WG given that browser vendors indicated they don't want to work on more SVG features)."
programming,"It mandates *commas*, not colons. But it says nothing about number format (e.g. decimal separator). CSV files written by Excen in one country can be read incorrectly by Excel in another country when one uses comma as field separator and dot as decimal separator, while the other uses semicolons and commas, respectively.

Interesting how they intend the presence of a *header* and the *encoding* to be specified in a MIME type parameter instead of in the file itself.
"
programming,"No it isn't sane in and by itself. It's an artifact of XML being specified as a strict SGML subset, and the deliberate choice of the XML designers to not support SGML end-tag minimization. In SGML, you can just use

    <numberOfAxes>6</>

or even just

    <numberOfAxes>6

(with the proper declaration allowing end-tag omission for `numberOfAxes` in place) to express the same logical document. Or you could use SGML short references and other more exotic minimization features to change the appearance of the `numberOf` element more drastically.

Also, SGML has *concurrent markup* (not widely used, though). Concurrent markup allows things such as

    <(DTD1)p>And the Lord said,
    <(DTD2)q>Read my lips: Do not murder.</(DTD1)p>
    <(DTD1)p>Be nice to each other instead.</(DTD2)q>
    And the people said ""Amen.""</(DTD1)p

(*taken from <http://xml.coverpages.org/DeRoseEML2004.pdf>*) where text can be tagged in an overlapping fashion such as would be useful for marking up poetry, speech, and eg. postal addressing data."
programming,"> Guess what - all the comments ever made by the self confessed retard are offtopic, everywhere.

All the comments of you being derogatory and insulting users are off-topic as well. 

You make zero sense and have no argument or leg to stand on. Try again.

The thing that differentiates between you and me is: You get pleasure of being rude and insulting other users 24/7. I get pleasure by being retarded. Big difference.

Now go repent and speak to a counselor. "
programming,"Well the CoC itself is fairly harmless. Its a bit to over specific for my taste since that's going to spawn issues a la ""please also include my specific characteristic"" at which point it becomes a maintenance load.

The single biggest problem with it is the CoC maintainers behavior wherein they infer a grand signoff of all their political kinks from maintainers including their CoC.
The contents of it are cool, i just wished the maintainers would stop pretending to be lead figures in a revolution backed by everyone using their CoC template."
programming,"Is that true? Let's find out! Comments from the linked thread:

> * Linus has gone full tumblr reddit SJW basedboy libtard bugman cuck

> * he was always a SJW, except instead of getting triggered by the patriarchy he was getting triggered by some freetard shit

> * Fuck! Linux is now cucked and castrated. How will we ever recover?

> * He apologizes for his autism, despite the fact he'll always be as autistic as ever. What a pointless expression of nothing.

> * Next up: Linus suggests to the Linux Foundation to route money to outreach programs for n\*\*\*\*rs and tra\*\*ies

> * Everything in tech is so cucked and SJW nowadays. What do we do now?

> * Yep, we're fucked. It's done. Over. Literal blue hair tra\*\*y shit has made its way into Linux.

Made it through about a quarter of the thread, but it's more or less the same three or four sentiments repeated through to the end."
programming,"Fairly harmless? There are fairly harmless CoCs like the one used by the Ruby community, or even Django's, but the ""Contributor Covenant"" is not.

It focuses heavily on the appearance of collaboration, and bans behavior based on what some third party may find offensive, rather than focusing on the intent of the speaker, and the context in which the interaction happened. The list of ""unacceptable"" behavior is open to interpretation too, despite that one of the main arguments pro-CoC is that adopting one would reduce friction when people from different cultures interact.

That wouldn't be that bad, boring, maybe. Given that what to some people is friendly banter, to other people watching may be insulting. Or talking about diets, which may be offensive to people who are fat. I mean, just avoid talking about anything other than development in the context of the project, or in project related channels (like an IRC off-topic channel)... but that's not possible as the scope also includes public spaces, and is also open to interpretation. So if you say something unpopular on Twitter, or in a public forum, then you could be infringing in the CoC. It has happened a few times already.

Finally, why all that confidentiality when someone reports something? In all countries with rule of law that I know of, when there's some problem and someone takes into court (to be judged by a third party, which would be the TAB in Linux's CoC) some issue, litigants are public, the hearings are public, and results are public too. But here it's not, you expose anyone to some vaguely defined anonymous judgement, and expect me to believe that its contents ""are cool""? They aren't."
programming,"I think it's a mistake to take 4chan seriously. With that site being as anonymous as it is, you don't have fixed identities on the posters, and you don't know who is saying what, and how seriously. These posts are like the chaos of elementary particles coming out of nowhere and disappearing back into nothingness, at best surface-level reactions to whatever is happening elsewhere, and specific kind of surface-level reactions of that which are only permissible on site like 4chan to begin with.

Consider them the fools to kings; just idiots babbling with equal measures of truth and madness."
programming,"I agree, but what amaze me is the amount of these people around. I could understand a small closed chamber of people sharing the mindset, but not thousands and thousands of people rallying to the point they are nearly as active as here. This elitism ""don't show emotions, don't show weakness, harass anyone that does, don't help others"" mindset is clearly disruptive in our society, and their amount seems to only keep growing."
programming,"> Given that what to some people is friendly banter, to other people watching may be insulting.

While there are limits to what is reasonable, being respectful to people who are offended by things that don't offend you is _literally the whole point_ of community codes of conduct.

If you think there are specific places where it has been mis/over-applied, argue those specific cases.  Banning trolling or using ""be excellent to each other"" as a motto should never be controversial steps for open source communities."
programming,"> the commenter [taking pleasure] in others suffering … is [not] a sign of good community

While I agree on the principle, is this really the guy you wanna single out for that? Schadenfreude is a significant part of reddit and a part of life, and people enjoying seeing bigots react to not being allowed to openly engage in harrassment is probably the least important societal problem I've heard of. What does it say about this community, if the one bit of schadenfreude we target as ""not okay"" is some guy pointing out bigoted reactions to a relevant discussion topic and taking pleasure in doing so?

As for the linking to 4chan: it's a reasonable concern, but it's relevant in the sense of illustrating how (badly) the greater community is reacting to the new CoC. So on the grounds of relevance, there's good reason to be linking to it. And disallowing inter-community links on principle sounds like a bad policy liable to segregate the internet even more than it already is."
programming,"That the intolerance paradox is in itself a paradox is an admission that the axiomatic definition is incoherent.

Do mind though that Popper's paradox cannot be used in the realm of speech. The intolerance he's talking about in that passage of the book is physical in nature, it's the silencing in itself that is intolerant, to reverse the roles is a misconstruction of the point of the whole thing. If people are illiberal and use violence then we must use violence to defend liberalism is his point. But absolute freedom of expression is part of liberalism in this context.

Mill's more coherent anyway."
programming,"Yep, he said that. And whether he's 100% engaged or 80% engaged or worse, you won't know until decades later when Linus talks about it in some interview. ""Yeah after the entire leadership turned on the emotional blackmail, I just stopped caring. My first act was to take a break. The world didn't end. I put more work onto other people and explained that I was raising leaders, or sometimes that I couldn't respond to the work in a CoC-compliant manner. Gradually I made a game of narrowing down what work people wouldn't take from me, and seeing how long it could go undone. People would ask for direct feedback and I'd just not give it, and when challenged--well, you know, I don't want to be *toxic*. After all the abuse I got, it was fun to just sort of ride the project, to be the only one that knew I wasn't completely in it. And then when [name redacted due to laws of time travel] committed the patch would go on to kill the project dead, I saw the problem right away--I can say that now, I checked with my lawyers very carefully--but I left it alone. Nobody else saw it. Then [date redacted] happened."""
programming,"I believe that only Linus himself can understand the pressure of being who he is and being responsible for the Linux Kernel.  I don't live too far from where Linus lives here in Oregon and I can say that at least he gets paid well to do what he does, and he lives in a VERY nice place in this world.  He is truly one of the most important people in the world, and that's a burden he must carry.  In my own position I probably have something like .001 percent of the same burden and it's all I can handle."
programming,"Two can play at this game.

""Honestly, I wish people close to me had been more straightforward with confronting my leadership style earlier on. A lot of the problems that I blew up at were relatively minor, and they drove away large numbers of talented developers who ended up performing really well in other projects. This worked in two stages - people whom I personally offended, and people who heard about my reputation and chose to stay away. If I'd been able to lead better, those people would have provided valuable work for Linux instead of working elsewhere. I could have provided the exact same feedback and kept my high standard for code quality, but it was gratifying to be an asshole to people regardless of the consequences."""
programming,"Indeed. And you could look for evidence for your obnoxiously silly fantasy by looking for talented developers who were driven off. The best source of that might be successful people reminiscing about having decided to not go into Linux development. But you have to question how sincere they are about pinning that on Linus -- it's an easy thing to *say*. You can also look for remarks from new Linux developers. ""The Bill-and-Ted CoC that Linux had terrified me, but when I heard that they swapped it out for the one by the SJW that got fired for making people uncomfortable at Github, I knew that Linux would finally be a safe space for people like me.""

My prediction could probably be falsified with just a chart of posts by Linus over time to the mailing list, before and after this announcement. If he's about as active, then it's hard to argue that he's significantly less engaged. If he's significantly less active, you could still suggest that he is just as engaged and just as *effective*, but is only saying less to avoid ""being toxic""."
programming,"We'll have to see, but I see this as him committing to refrain from ""Mauro, shut the fuck up"" rather than ""I'm too scared of being perceived as abusive to hold a high standard of code quality and critique Mauro's shitty code.""

---

My fantasy is silly and obnoxious, but so is yours. 

Anecdotally, I've never been in an environment where someone goes ""lol fuck it, I'm not allowed to be a jerk anymore, so I'm just going to let things go to hell."" I *have* been in multiple environments where complacent management allowed a project lead to be a thundering asshole, and the project failed because all of the decent people promptly found new jobs."
programming,"Honestly in the long run this would be a good thing, for him to hand stuff off. The man isn't going to live forever, and we are going to need a Linux to exist for a good long time. It's best that there are 100 people that, together, can do everything Linus does and can hand off their knowledge to others so it doesn't have to die. It's fucking dangerous to put all your eggs in one basket with one developer."
programming,"Readability is totally dependent on a length. If one concept is expressed in longer than what you can read in a single glance, or even worse, in more than one page, you'll spend more time reading and understanding it than if it is short and simple.

If something needs clarification, if there are important details - split. Tell the long story short first, then elaborate bit by bit. That's another thing where Literate Programming shines, and the ""clean code"" approach fails."
programming,"Ah, it's simple... once you understand what is going on :-)

""Simplicity"" is always a judgment relative to what you know already. 

And no, I don't enjoy APL code.

Anyway, the point was: Too verbose and it's hard to read. Not verbose enough, by using too many symbols, and it's hard to read. Code is different from what you are used to, and it's hard to read. Even if the code is well written, if you see it the first time, and there's no view-from-above introduction in the comments, it's hard to read until you've read enough of it and know your way around it.


"
programming,"> ""Simplicity"" is always a judgment relative to what you know already.

Simplicity with a huge context is not a simplicity. That's why the simplest possible language is a language that speaks in terms of your problem domain - this way you stay in a single, minimal possible context. While a complex language with complex rules, that you must keep in mind *in addition* to the complexity of the problem your code is solving, will never be ""simple""."
programming,"Well, yes and no. I'm just talking about what I thought people were talking about. Yes in that I agree with you completely. No in that there is a pretty common opinion that you don't need to specify the type of something because the language can do it for you in one way or another. That's what I thought this was about.

So, take JavaScript, for example, they have `var` with no type specified and *get along just fine* (right?).

In C#, fairly recently (at least in that it wasn't in the initial few versions of the language) a `var` keyword was introduced to let programmers let the compiler infer the type. It's main use is for anonymous types, but people use it for everything. Why write `int` or `string` or `SomeClass` when you can write `var` and it gets used pretty heavily for that.

I didn't read the article that closely and thought the argument was about *that* not the action of typing out code. Although, they are connected in that one of the main arguments for `var` is that they don't have to type out types the compiler can infer.

Anyways, yes, I agree with you completely on:

> Those bear semantics - and therefore do not contribute to verbosity. If you remove the types, you'll have to convey the same information otherwise.

And that was my point about types. I get tired of people saying types don't really matter."
programming,"Yes, they use a signed integer in Unix. As well as in NTP, and in fact most standards of representing time, as shown in the [Wikipedia article I have already posted](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem). It is a signed integer because [early C did not have unsigned integers](https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/25361/why-does-unix-store-timestamps-in-a-signed-integer), and also allows representing time before 1970, which might have been an important consideration since [computers were in use before Unix](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_operating_systems).

Please, before you post comments or criticisms like these, educate yourself on the subject of discussion. It shouldn't be a shocking revelation that the affected standards use signed 32-bit integers. It has been stated multiple times at this point, including the aforementioned Wikipedia article. "
programming,"I really agree with this. As a relatively new programmer, I don't really get why everything is so slow. A Pentium G4560 can run modern AAA games no sweat, but it struggles when trying to render a web page with a few too many checkboxes? Really?

When I make something, I want it to run well on the ""crappy low-end"" laptops sporting A6 processors. Whenever I see the slightest stutter, I try to fix it. But unfortunately sometimes I simply can't get around the limitations of whatever framework I'm using.

I think back to when I used Windows XP and browsed the web with ease. These days, websites are functionally and even sometimes visually the same, yet it stutters like mad. Why? I can't even run the Reddit redesign or Discord on a $300 laptop without wanting to shoot myself.

The waste of resources is completely ridiculous and unnecessary. Hopefully as we continue to come towards limitations in hardware improvement, we'll be forced to make improvements in the software."
programming,"1) Game engines are a colossal task in and of themselves. Where one person can create a webpage in minutes a game engine was built by dozens of employees over a year.

2) Hardware is specifically built to make games faster since it's the driving force of hardware improvements.

3) A webpage with too many checkboxes? It's not the checkboxes it's the ads running in the background, bad decisions by devs to make ajax requests every time the mouse moves or other such non-sense. Most reasonable websites run perfectly fine on my computers."
programming,"The trick is that games can sacrifice whatever else needs to be sacrificed to go fast. 

If they need to render that checkbox as one static image on top of another static image... ship it. Vs the browser has to follow a spec. If the spec says so, then they have to dutifully generate just the right soft drop shadow and pixel exact 1px edges on the checkbox, with exactly the right CSS transform tween when you click it, whether it performs well or not. And the specs multiply, now there's decades worth of specs layered up on top of one and other, and they all have to be followed as exactly as possible.

That's for browsers of course. For desktop applications... they don't have nearly as many excuses."
programming,"> As a relatively new programmer, I don't really get why everything is so slow. 

It's very simple: programmers get paid to deliver a piece of software/functionality, and stop once it works on the target machine. A $300 A6 laptop is not the target machine.

That's also what business expects. If you are assigned a task and will take 2-3 times as much time as others because you are optimizing everything, it will reflect badly on you.

Or think about it this way. You and your competitor are both building an app that will slice your bread. After 1 year, your competitor has a slow 1.5GB app running in Electron debug mode. Millions of people buy it since it's the best thing since sliced bread eh.

Meanwhile, after 2 years your 1.2MB app of handcrafted assembly does the same thing. Just like 101 other knockoffs that were slapped together in the mean time. A few people find your app and are amazed, but you have nowhere near the market share as that ""unoptimized piece of crap"" #1 competitor."
programming,"> If you are assigned a task and will take 2-3 times as much time as others because you are optimizing everything, it will reflect badly on you.

This just means the costs are not assigned properly.  Right now, it's the end-user who pays the cost, in frustration, delays, crashes, and other effects of bloat.  The ads and privacy mining still function and pay the bills, all the competitors are slow for the same reason, and people have been frog-boiled into thinking this is just the way computers work.  

It's the tiny, tiny minority of us who remember the world where optimization was necessary simply because of resource scarcity who understand, and we're even a small minority in tech circles, unfortunately.  We have yet to reach the right watershed moment that forces optimization for other reasons."
programming,"I disagree with some points. Sometimes there are more added features that is not visible in the apps. Security patches are increasing computational and memory costs, which is the best example here. 

If you compare website today with win95 era, it's vastly different. Resposive layout makes everything easier. Have you remembered how much css hacks are needed until css3? Now we can use \`calc\` css3 feature to mitigate some. WebSocket and localStorage are features that is hidden, but not useless and not free.

Media are getting better, such as higher res images averagely. 3d models get more polygons.

Though I agree with text editor one, for developers there are some improvement in past year with VSCode (or more native sublime text), even MS visual studio is improving in performance.

And in case of pushing the limitation of optimization, I thing Factorio is somehow achieving it with how big scale it can get in one game."
programming,"The Factorio developers have done all sorts of optimization work. I estimate the maximum usable factory size now is about 100-500 times what it once was.

For example, conveyor belts are now timer-lists. They wrote a blog post about this. Originally, conveyor belts would scan for items sitting on them and update their position, every game tick. Now, placing an item on a conveyor belt adds it to a priority queue, and the game calculates at which tick number the item will reach the end (or next checkpoint), and doesn't touch the item that tick number - or if it's currently on screen or being affected by something other than a conveyor belt.

You can make huge train networks and the game internally constructs multiple layers of graph structures, each one having less detail than the last. Then it computes a path on the least detailed layer and uses the more detailed layers to refine it, instead of computing the path on the most detailed layer.

One alien will roughly follow the path of another nearby alien going to the same target. This saves on pathfinding computation because the following alien doesn't need to run the pathfinder at all. That's why aliens travel in groups (that and the obvious reason of having more firepower).

It makes use of the Data-Driven Design and Structure-of-Arrays patterns. Each electrically powered object has an ElectricEnergyAcceptor (not actual name) object associated with it. Except all of these are actually stored in a vector in the ElectricityNetwork object. Every tick the electricity network runs through all the energy acceptors on that network, utilizing space locality. There's a *whole lot* (or maybe just a moderate amount) of special case code for when you plug an object into two networks, which is possible to do and works seamlessly, in which case one network has to update an acceptor owned by a different network."
programming,"> Security patches are increasing computational and memory costs, which is the best example here. 

No, they're the *worst* example. Paraphrasing [DJB](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_J._Bernstein): correct software is software that satisfies the requirements. Secure software is software that satisfies the security requirement. Security requirements are a subset of all requirements. Therefore, correct software is secure.

This is not just trivially true. There are practical implications as well: security breaches always trace back to some *error* in the program or it's dependencies somewhere. Even Spectre and Meltdown trace back to a CPU design error, or at the very least a mismatch between the assumptions programs make, and how the CPU actually works.

Now, the easiest way to make sure your software is correct is to make it _small_. Little source code, few dependencies. Of course, one gotta have features, but security isn't one that generates bloat. (Except when you use encryption, but even that takes very little code.)
"
programming,"I'm not saying that security patch bloats the software, I said it is increasing processing cost.

I don't really know about inner working of CPU and details of meltdown / spectre. AFAIK for meltdown, it is exploiting optimization hack of intel CPU. CMIIW, that optimization is to bypass security procedure that is costly. I think the patch is turned off that optimization hack, so it's performance is down by 30%, which does not happen to ARM CPU. I'm not examining too deep into Spectre, I just learn that spectre affect both intel and arm, and no solution for it. I think both are not a good example since it just affect intel's and not arm, so it's just design mistake from intel.

However for website, it is more or less true. From user authentication alone, there are encryption with bcrypt or argon2 which is costly (in performance), and minimum session / cookies authentication. There are more authentication in form of jwt, oauth, public / private ssh and two factor auth. And we still need to protect against xss, csrf, input tempering and many more.

In my experience, developing framework / package that handle all (or most) of those security vulnerabilities, which usually can be configured is not easy, and usually bloated. Now if every developer will develop their own security implementation to avoid bloating code, we don't know how many vulnerabilities will present for their non-tested implementation. Not to mention how many developer hours will be poured into that.

So yes, in some cases it isn't but in many cases, usually security patches bring size and cost up. Not big, but adds up.

And no, to cut times needed and to apply ""don't reinvent the wheels"", avoiding dependencies isn't the answer either."
programming,"> I'm not saying that security patch bloats the software, I said it is increasing processing cost.

Spectre/Meltdown issues are the only kind that makes stuff slower. At the software side (and 99.9% of vulns are about software screwups), there is no need for such penalty (though checking your bounds systematically does help prevent some mistakes).

For web site, yes, password key derivation is expensive. That's about the only expensive crypto operation ever (there's crypto currencies, but they're just wasteful madness). Session cookies however are not passwords, so you can just hash them."
programming,"This is so painfully stupid. Argh. And the fact that a bunch of people here support this drivel is a great example why most software developers are code monkeys and should never have a place in management or leading positions.

Planes, cars, and what have you are designed that way because it makes sense economically. Their quality is measured by getting the most output with the least input, i.e. ROI. If one actually measured software projects in the same manner, then one could argue that many of those bloated popular projects are extremely well-designed.

The author and their supporters are free to spend 10 times more dev time to speed up their programs by 30% and make them 40% lighter to do what? To lose to a competitor's product because they're over 10 times cheaper and have been on the market way longer but take 2 seconds longer to boot up?

Get your product to the market with as little work as possible, then start improving and optimizing as needed.

​

>The real problem is that programmers have spent far too much time worrying about efficiency in the wrong places and at the wrong times; **premature optimization is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming**.

\-- Donald Knuth

​

EDIT: To the downvoters, [here's](https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/9go8ul/software_disenchantment/e66oluw) a good explanation. Much better than I can be arsed to write. "
programming,"Well, you seem to only have read the comments, or... maybe like half of the first paragraph of the article.  It's not about comparing programs to cars.

Anyways, you are not less confused than the people you claim to be confused.  You don't understand what value is, and, subsequently, count it wrong.  You think, that the value of a program is entirely defined by market in an unsophisticated ""supply and demand"" kind of way.  Here's the first obvious problem with it:

by what time do you stop counting the income produced by the program?  Most profitable software today is sold as subscription, not an OTC package that is sold in a single transaction and then forgotten entirely.  Corporations love subscriptions!  But... this creates a problem.  An OTC purchase may pretend to put a very exact price on a product (although, even before subscription became so popular, good sales / marketing people understood that there are also things like ""customer loyalty"", ""perception of quality"" etc. which weren't easy to put a price on); with service-based economy of software, how are you going to measure it?  Ever heard about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Petersburg_paradox ?  It is applicable to our situation in the following way:

The more you improve the quality of your product, the greater the reward will be, but, improving quality infinitely will most certainly prevent you from being rewarded for it.  So, you need to find the right time to stop.

Which brings us to the second problem with your argument: very short intervals used to develop software.  This is just a historical artifact of how taxes are levied, how our education system is designed and many other things.  For agricultural economy it makes perfect sense to tax everyone once a year, because, it, basically, repeats on a yearly cycle.  Many other businesses have even shorter cycles, so quarterly planning makes perfect sense.  But R&D doesn't really work that way.  It may take decades... or days.  Unfortunately, it's mostly decades, and not days.  Similarly, education system, because of its own similar incentives, uses very short cycles to produce anything worth of grading.  Even though learning times today are at their historical maximum, the cycle time is, perhaps, at its minimum.  In other words, students are tasked with exercises which they have to complete in 15 minutes, or an hour, at most a day.  A week-long project is a huge event!  The timing aspect is never made explicit in education system, and so a lot of people fall into this trap of thinking that what they studied is, in principle, always done in short intervals, that there's something to show after each such interval, and that the individual value of these time slices can be integrated to obtain the tally.

Long story short: if you base your value judgement on short-term, close-term estimates, you will most likely miss the bigger picture.  You will be like the million of others working on a transient and an uninteresting problem of designing an e-commerce web-site, a problem that didn't require even a 0.01% of attention it is given, while, for example, tremendous gains to public health can be had, if anyone was willing to invest into automating hospitals, or governments, or designing more efficient agricultural systems etc."
programming,"Not writing slow code in the first place doesn't require any additional effort and the decisions that have the largest impact won't be found in a CPU profile for someone to optimize later.

> ""The conventional wisdom shared by many of today’s software engineers calls for ignoring efficiency in the small; but I believe this is simply an overreaction to the abuses they see being practiced by penny-wise-and-pound-foolish programmers, who can’t debug or maintain their ""optimized"" programs. In established engineering disciplines a 12% improvement, easily obtained, is never considered marginal; and I believe the same viewpoint should prevail in software engineering."" - Donald Knuth"
programming,"Nobody writes slow code intentionally. If writing slow code and writing fast code took the same effort, as you claim, people would alway write fast code. Obivously, it does take effort to write fast code and even more effort to write fast code that's maintainable (see the quote you posted). 

What's key is whether that additional effort is worth it. It is, if there's demand for it. If there's no demand because users don't particularly care for that optimization, then it's a waste of resources.

As a programmer I share the desire to write beautiful optimized code. As a businessman I think that it is a reckless waste of resources."
programming,"\>  discovering 

So at the time they thought it's a good idea, they didn't intentionally go ""Let's use Python, because screw fast programs"". 

​

They later realized Python was simply not enough. To come to that conclusion before writing any code, they would have to expend a ton of effort. Arguably, the entire project is them finding out that Python isn't enough for their case. 

​

It's literally a counterpoint to your ""writing fast code doesn't take any additional effort"". "
programming,"I know it isn't intentional. I just don't see any indication that the tradeoffs are even considered. It would be hard to justify [25,000 allocations per keystroke](https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/chromium-dev/EUqoIz2iFU4/kPZ5ZK0K3gEJ) as helping the code base be more maintainable.

The problem is worse for dynamic languages. Without changing any of the logic but rewriting a few lines to not be actively hostile towards the JIT/GC the difference can be closer to 50,000%. That is a *qualitative* improvement in what your application is capable of, what hardware it can run on, and how the rest of the code can be structured (goodbye cache invalidation). An extreme example but not a hypothetical one.

Optimizations are a different issue. Go ahead and use bubble sort if it makes sense for whatever reason."
programming,"Ah a classic rehash: guy from the “software is art” camp upset with the reality that “software is business.” There’s so many economic reasons why things are the way they are. Better than fast code is maintainable code with test coverage. Get it out the door, optimize if there’s a need with the peace of mind that you aren’t breaking business requirements. Premature optimization is a waste of time and resources. I’m all for eliminating “dirty hacks” culture and addressing technical debt regularly, but there’s a middle ground that this author, who wants everyone to more or less altruistically optimize their code for the unnecessary god of speed and tiny size"
programming,"Which part of my response seems like I didn’t read the article? I simply disagreed. The guy wants me to optimize all my apps. My boss wants me to get it out the door. I want to do other things in my spare time than optimizing apps that my boss owns. So during the work hours, i do what boss man says. I make the code as good as possible, i push back and demand when things need to change. But at the end of the day, I do what my boss dictates which is what the business dictates because I have neither the control nor the power to do otherwise without working overtime. And I already work overtime on what the boss man says. "
programming,"More important than discussing the hierarchies of business structures and the risk analysis of consistently fighting with the guy who pays me, I'd prefer to address the fact that I disagree with the guy in the article. Viewing speed and memory consumption as the main metrics for software quality is far from holistic. There's never been a free lunch, so let's look at tradeoffs. And when we look at tradeoff's, let's consider them from the perspective of the business, which is guided by opportunity cost aka the ""the benefits an individual, investor or business misses out on when choosing one alternative over another.""

1). Optimization vs developer time spent doing literally anything else aka new features. While the author draws the comparison to cars, where speed and fuel consumption are the selling points, I find this to not really work in software. Have you ever sat in a sales meeting for a software product? I've sat in as a technical aid on sales presentations for a Cash Management platform for business banking. Trust me, no one gave a shit about the time to First Meaningful Paint. All they wanted to know was whether our dashboard widgets could be dragged around b/c the competitor's can. Features sell.

2). Optimization vs maintainability. In DonaldKnuth's paper ""StructuredProgrammingWithGoToStatements"", he wrote in 1974: ""Programmers waste enormous amounts of time thinking about, or worrying about, the speed of noncritical parts of their programs, and these attempts at efficiency actually have a strong negative impact when debugging and maintenance are considered. We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time: premature optimization is the root of all evil. Yet we should not pass up our opportunities in that critical 3%.""  Take using an ORM for example. In a new system that is iterating and frequently changing, handwritten SQL is not insulated at all from these changes and requires much more time to maintain and change than using an ORM. You can always drop into raw SQL when needed, but that case generally won't present itself until there's load, at which point it's not premature. 

3). Optimization vs time not in the market. Software has a lot of competition and achieving market share is probably priority number 1 in the beginning of a startup. Look at the history of Windows. That's why facebook champions the phrase ""Move Fast and Break Things."" Both of these companies succeeded because they achieved market share, even if the product had bugs along the way. What do I need to optimize when there's 100 users on my system? Let's assume for a second that I'm releasing an app that no one is using. Let's say I could write a REST endpoint that achieves a business need in 1 minute that suffers from an N + 1 problem using my ORM, or in 8 hours with raw SQL since the query is highly dynamic and requires a lot of edge case handling around optional parameters when building the SQL String. I'd argue pragmatism says slap a TODO: optimize this n + 1 query and get your product out to market. You'll only have trouble under load. And needing to optimize due to load is almost always a good sign because you're probably making money at that point. 

4). app payload size vs maintainability, correctness, and time to market. Jquery increased payload size but made cross browser compatibility so much easier to achieve. Nowadays, people are migrating from backend generate html with doc.ready run, small individual js files to using tools like react, ember, angular, etc. These tools majorly increase payload size. But, state management in a highly dynamic, feature rich web application is so terrible when there's two sets of truth, the DOM and your JS. Again, if we consider point 1 that features sell, having a tool that allows us to write any feature with relative easy as quickly as possible helps maximize this. 

So while the author is all upset that things aren't optimal, it's not really hard to understand why things are why they are. I think choosing optimization for the sake of being perfect is an incorrect choice and makes no sense in the business world, the world in which most software developers work. So, I'm going to continue doing what my boss says because these choices are in fact the right choices for the business."
programming,">Souq is an Arabic shopping website... it's entire fucking market is the middle east.

That is why I said middle eastern countries... that is where this censorship is coming from.

>I've come to the conclusion that you have have no idea what you're talking about. Amazon apparently has more power than the Western Powers to change opinions in the middle east.

They should. They have the ability to act unilaterally. If they actually exercised their power instead of letting countries hold customers hostage from the internet they could hold the internet hostage from those countries. A handful of tech companies could cooperate and effectively force a country off the modern internet if they wanted to. 

""End censorship worldwide or else""

But they don't have the guts to do it apparently ""because quarterly profits could go down a few percent"" when they should be worried about growing exponentially over the next decade. Quarterly profits be damned.

You don't grow exponentially when you are afraid of governments. You grow exponentially when they are afraid of you. 

But according to you ruthlessness is not good for business. Caving in to everyone else's demands is."
programming,"Where are you getting $100 on the dollar in a week from this?  


Risk/reward analysis:  


Action: Amazon allows Signal on their platform.  
Risk: Blocks of datacenter IPs get firewalled by nations. Huge loss of revenue to Amazon's customers, leading to loss of trust, and leading to loss of revenue and political clout to avoid such situations as customers move to competitors.  
Probability: Low.  
Reward: $1,000/mo., gross income, not pure profit. (I'm being generous.)  


Action: Amazon kicks Signal off of their platform.  
Risk: Loss of Signal's sales, about $1,000/mo.   
Probability: Certain.  
Reward: They get to continue providing services to companies that have customers in the interested nations.  


Whether I agree with state-level censorship on a personal basis or not (I don't), it's not a personal decision. It's a legal and financial decision."
programming,"You are missing that it is a game of chicken. No government wants their whole populace angry with them over breaking the internet to stop a chat app. Especially when blocking Signal just gives Signal the impetus to improve their tech to be more resistant to this kind of blocking. It is a temporary fix for them at best.

Not caving means these governments (and other governments) are less inclined to try to stop them in the future for fear of punishment."
programming,"These governments are already risking upsetting their populations by censoring domains in the first place.  


These governments are the ones less likely to flinch, and already have state sponsored news to spread propaganda...  ""On News at 11, the popular online store [Souq.com](https://Souq.com) was caught spreading pro-terrorist propaganda.  Technicians for the store claim that American hackers were responsible, and are working to clean it up. To protect our people from American hackers, the store and several other similarly hacked sites that use the same hacked datacenter have been temporarily added to the national firewall until it can be thoroughly cleaned up.""  


And, since Amazon would be blocked, they won't be able to say ""Nu-uh, they're lying!"""
programming,"Which is why INFORMATION technology companies need to work together in solidarity, even with competitors, to be rabidly anti-censorship. Censorship is bad for all of them, both financially and philosophically. If they shut down Amazon and lie about it Google's front page needs to tell people their government is lying to them and censoring Amazon.

You also are underestimating the population placating effect of entertainment media. Shut off all video-streaming, porn, and video-games in the United States and there would be mass violence in the streets within the week. I am sure the middle-east would be even worse, even faster."
programming,"Amazon's AWS only serves about a third of _cloud_ computing.

If a region's version of Netflix gets shut down from this, I'm sure they'll switch to a different cloud service quickly, and start building their own dedicated data centers to keep it from happening again.

China is fine with cutting off Google...  They've done it before, even after it got big.  Why wouldn't the UAE?

By taking a stand against censorship, all that these companies would be doing is driving that country's population to doing business with companies that are fine being censored.

And, it's not like sending messages through chat applications are the only way to spread subversive messages.  Steganography can never be blocked.  Just make an account of a photo sharing site, send a ""normal"" image to the people you want to talk to, and when you want to send something secret, post a version of that image that has a hidden message encoded in it.  It's very easy to do, extremely difficult to detect, and impossible to prevent.

You don't need to risk blocking the mom-and-pop webstores that are renting $20/mo AWS servers over it.  You don't need to risk getting huge shopping sites shut down.

It's important to work against oppressive regimes.  It's not tech's job, and it's not worth risking taking tech away from others who need that tech to support their livelihoods.  What happens if Souq.com gets shut down there?  The Amazon execs mumble about quarterly profits and thin bonus checks while shuttering warehouses, and the local warehouse workers don't get paid."
programming,">Amazon's AWS only serves about a third of cloud computing.

Amazon + Google + Microsoft gets you over 75%. Why shouldn't they work together?

>And, it's not like sending messages through chat applications are the only way to spread subversive messages. 

I don't think you understand what they are afraid of. It isn't subversive messages hidden in plain sight. It is quick-and-easy honest communication that frightens them. That is why they want to shut down signal. People know the thought police can't monitor it so they are free to speak their mind to each other. Then the people aren't censoring themselves out of fear and they can't have that.

> China is fine with cutting off Google... They've done it before, even after it got big. Why wouldn't the UAE?

The UAE is not China. They are far more reliant on companies outside their country for IT. It isn't like they have a thriving tech industry ready to compete. A conglomeration of tech companies could and should certainly push them around to do the right thing."
programming,"FYI, omitting the ""genes"" metaphor, this is called a production rule system, and it's a classic approach to AI: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production\_system\_(computer\_science)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_system_(computer_science))

Basically, we have a bunch of when-x-do-y rules, all of which get tested on each tick. Whenever a rule fires, some custom code reacts and does something, whatever. This usually involves some changes to the ""knowledge base"" or some other state.

With regard to shared global state - that's actually a traditional weakness. Rule systems that have a lot of global state which enables/disables different rules become pretty difficult to debug as they grow large. It's like having global variables in code which controls flow of execution - not ideal.

By the way, as an amusing anecdote - the original Age of Empires in the late 90s implemented all of the strategic AI as production rules. There's not much info left on that, but those scripts were huge and pretty complex. Some intro material can be found here: [http://aok.heavengames.com/cgi-bin/forums/display.cgi?action=ct&f=26,29,,30](http://aok.heavengames.com/cgi-bin/forums/display.cgi?action=ct&f=26,29,,30)"
programming,"Hey, thanks for the input!

I was not made aware of the similarities to production rule systems whilst I was developing the initial idea and asking for opinions, but thanks for bringing it up.

I did have plans to add rule priorities and inhibitors (the latter of which is more of a concept found in DNA), for better conflict resolution.

To help allay your second concern of shared global state being a weakness: someone had already made this observation, and suggested adding name-spacing or sub-states so that every action (rule) can voluntarily limit itself to an independent nested sub-state (addressed as `state.substate.variable`, etc). 

While I like this idea very much, it would require deep immutability of the state objects, which I was hesitant to add without careful consideration because of performance reason.

> By the way, as an amusing anecdote - the original Age of Empires in the late 90s implemented all of the strategic AI as production rules. There's not much info left on that, but those scripts were huge and pretty complex. Some intro material can be found here: ...

I find this super interesting! This is exactly what I had in mind while coming up with this idea: to use it for dynamic multi-agent systems where agents can make informed decision while potentially interacting and exchanging information. (NPCs in a game come to mind).

The ability to recombine logic via sexual reproduction would mean that agents can reproduce and emergent behaviour can arise, potentially in a meaningful way, assuming that both parents share a common baseline of attributing the same meaning to the same variables, for example: NPCs with `health` and `stamina` in an RPG game.

Even simple mutations can be implemented by swapping conditions between two actions. 

But that's all theory for future development. To my knowledge, there aren't any software design patterns that encapsulate normal code this way and enable the paradigms of artificial life to be applied to normal code. 

Also, it seems that production rule systems are an interesting idea, but very underrated? Why is that?

P.S: I chose TypeScript for the reference implementation because it's easier to prototype in than a fully compiled language like C++, but still has static typing and well defined interfaces.

Thanks for taking the time to respond and for the constructive criticism, I truly appreciate it."
programming,"Well, it’s the oldest software pattern in history at an age billions of years old, which means it was quite literally “battle tested” by evolution for ages. 

This is a simplified version with major omissions and some adaptations/compromises/additions for use in state machines. The reference implementation is stable and has a relatively high code coverage in testing. (the core part at the very least)

The reason this version is alpha is that I wish to incorporate more ideas into the spec that could help make it more useful. That’s why I’m requesting peer review from other experienced developers with an eye for detail.

I might have overlooked something here and there. I’d like more input before making it official."
programming,"> That's not quite what I meant. Just that software patterns are typically a bit more cookbook-like, and are extracted from successful projects. This might be a bit wooly when compared with Flyweight or MVC.

That's true in a way, most patterns are much more established than what I have now, but it's still early to call this a well-established pattern. For now it seem more of a model for state machines than a conventional and generic software development pattern.

My original justification for calling it a design pattern is that it can cross language boundaries and be implemented in any Turing-complete language with the proviso of object/dictionary support or the presence of a similar feature.

> And to be clear you are modelling some aspects of evolution, at a relatively high level of abstraction, not implementing evolution in software. That's a really important distinction - the map is not the territory, and all that.

Yes, because I wouldn't call this a suitable approach for genetic algorithms, since the action blocks are treated as discrete/fixed units with fixed behaviours that can't be mutated by flipping a bit in a bit-string. 

While theoretically possible with JavaScript, this has very low chances of successfully altering the logic without rendering the code syntactically invalid. Unless we introduce a syntax-aware mutation algorithm to mutate the AST meaningfully and/or according to specific rules that are normally enforced in natural evolution by the laws of physics governing which amino-acids are physically possible at what position in a DNA/RNA strand. 

The only possible mutation available right now is exchanging activation conditions between two given actions, which is very weak in terms of GA development. 

(I have spotty knowledge here so please excuse any shortcomings in nomenclature or scientific inaccuracy on my part in the above paragraph. I study artificial life as a hobby I enjoy and nothing more)

The recombination aspect is still useful though, especially with how simple it is to compose a new state machine out of two distinct behavioural sets in the reference implementation with a single call: `const machine3 = machine1.recombine(machine2)`. The new `machine3` will exhibit the behaviour of both parents simultaneously. (with the possibility of emergent behaviour)

[Basic tests for recombination](https://github.com/voodooattack/when-ts/blob/master/tests/recombination.test.ts)

I'm writing a new, practical example that will use recombination in a meaningful manner, just give me a bit and I will post it here.

> But if we're going to go that route, does it out-perform simulated annealing? Most GA approaches don't. You may want to look at the GP literature - I think GP is closer in spirit to what you're trying to achieve than GA is.

Genetic Programming would be a better umbrella for this to fall under, so I agree on that."
programming,"I'll look into that book, thanks!

I also think GP would be more interesting if it could be applied to normal, every day code. And I agree with the problem with fragility, that's why there is no mutation involved, so no risk of things breaking from a syntax error or overtly complex mutation logic. For GP applied to general computing like this, every 'gene' should be well defined, perform a specific function, and make sense from a programming perspective. 

There is no place for mutation in this pattern just yet for a reason. Emergent behaviour can still be obtained by mixing and matching well-defined behaviour though. There is just no way for completely original behaviour/logic to evolve like in nature.

This is why I hesitate to call this a GP/GA pattern. It treads a very thin line between the worlds of GP/GA and traditional software, and can be tipped one way or the other by adding or removing features.

I just felt compelled to mention that mutation was possible."
programming,"Don't rationalize stupid and dysfunctional corporate practices.

Software projects require hundreds of man-years of work because the manager's pay grade depends on the number of his reports. This means that hiring 10 idiots to twiddle their thumbs is financially incentivized, while hiring one genius to code it in a weekend is punished.

On a larger scale, this pattern continues. Do you think Google would have a half a trillion dollar capitalization if they had 1/10th the headcount? Not a chance! (Note that the market in this case doesn't care what this horde of programmers is actually doing. Headcount == power == money, even if they're a negative contribution to productivity.)

Ultimately, this is a management fuckup, managers don't understand that there are different types of work. 

Routine (even if highly qualified) work can scale: if you're in construction, hiring more welders means more buildings built and more money made. 

Creative work can't scale: if you're a publishing house, hiring more writers won't net you more bestsellers or make you more money.

Programming is creative work that doesn't scale, even if the end result is just boring CRUD-type database stuff.

Managers are crap at managing, so give it several decades and a couple economic meltdowns before they actually start doing their job properly.
"
programming,"More writers  => more books => more money - at least if you hire writers that are good enough that it's worth printing what they write

More programmers  => more software built  => more money

It scales just as well as the welders in your example. You can't throw an unlimited number of programmers at one program or an unlimited number of writers at one book just like you can't throw an unlimited number of welders at one house and expect it to be finished faster in proportion to the number of people who work on it. But what you can do is throw an unlimited number of people at an unlimited number of projects and get unlimited amounts of money  ;)"
programming,"> Software projects require hundreds of man-years of work because the manager's pay grade depends on the number of his reports. This means that hiring 10 idiots to twiddle their thumbs is financially incentivized, while hiring one genius to code it in a weekend is punished.

This is true, but there's another reason why corporate managers prefer teams of 10 mediocre programmers (I wouldn't call them ""idiots""). The mediocre engineers can crank out features and will do what they're told. If one burns out, you still have nine, and you can replace the one. If the genius programmer finds something better to do, you're going to have a harder time replacing him.

The middle manager's job is to reduce operational risk, not enable creative breakthroughs. Companies don't want to invest in the latter. From this perspective, hiring under-impressive but competent people who will do what they're told is better than hiring the best, and (to be quite frank) dealing with their idiosyncrasies. Academia and secret government agencies will put up with top-notch people's intermittencies of performance; the next-quarter-focused corporate world will not.

Keep in mind, also, that managers don't solve problems or investigate opportunities based on expected revenue gains or cost reductions. They eliminate things that use up their time or cause them stress. Teams of business-grade engineers are more expensive but, once assembled, run fairly smoothly. Research-grade engineers have personalities, and who wants to deal with that?

I'm one of those ""elite"" programmers who has found himself, at the ripe old age of 35, chased either into a management role or out of the industry. I cannot deal with the idiocy of ""sprints"" and ""backlog grooming"", and I'm disgusted by the culture of mediocrity and fungibility that has conquered the software industry. The whole situation sucks. I don't like that it's the way I described it, but I recognize the situation for what it is.

> Creative work can't scale: if you're a publishing house, hiring more writers won't net you more bestsellers or make you more money.

I'm a writer as well as a programmer. Publishing houses technically don't ""hire"" writers. Writers are free agents. They're paid royalties on each book sold and, in most cases, get a (usually small, these days) advance against the royalties. They do not collect a salary; it's all based on the sales performance of the work, over which the author may have limited control. Good books can flop because of publisher fuck-ups. When that happens, not only does the writer go unpaid (except for the advance) but it's his career that suffers. Five years later, no one will know or care about the distribution snafu or the publisher's inability to get a second print run together, but every bookstore and publisher in the country will be able to pull his sales numbers, see bad performance, and turn him down.

That said, one of the main reasons you've seen credible writers shifting to self publishing (in fact, I'll most likely self publish my first novel) is because the arrangement between publishing house and author has shifted to a *de facto* employer/employee relationship, without the benefits. Book rights revert to the author when the work goes out of print. The problem is: today, nothing goes out of print, due to e-books and print-on-demand capabilities. If your publisher drops your series after the first or second book (which is common) then you can't resurrect it elsewhere, because they have the rights. It's also common for authors' contracts to include a ""right of first refusal"", which means that the publisher gets first dibs on the author's future work, which can only be shopped around if rejected by the author's ""home"". If the publisher declines to pick up future work, the writer has to overcome the negative social inferences; if the publisher wants the work, there's no incentive to offer the best deal.

In the old days when literal transoms existed and you could direct-submit your manuscript– when editors actually read manuscripts, instead of the 19-year-old interns of literary agents; and when rejections came with thoughtful notes instead of form letters– it wasn't so hard for an author to re-establish himself. These days, though, being dumped by an editor or agent is unrecoverable for most people in traditional publishing. Thus, publishing houses don't ""hire"" authors, though they can *fire* them. 

Now, as for the scaling of creative work... that's complicated. Literary success; commercial high performance; and top-quality, relevant writing are all quite rare, and seem to be often uncorrelated. (There are plenty of fashionable ""literary"" novels that won't be remembered in 50 years, though it's hard to know today which ones those are. The Manhattan literati are too invested in navel-gazing to know what's good.) There are critically acclaimed books that don't sell well; there commercially successful, terrible books; there are even books of high literary quality that go unrecognized even by the Manhattan types who claim rarefied taste. 

There's a lot of evidence that commercial powerhouses do scale. 

For example, James Patterson ""works with co-authors"" (note: the co-authors do most of the work) and puts out dozens of books per year for that reason: his name sells hard. When an author has a hit, the publisher will pressure him to put out another book within the next 12 months. (These deadlines are one of the reasons why second books tend to be shitty. And remember that ""a hit"" in publishing is a book that makes $100,000 in royalties... which is not quit-your-day-job money. So those deadlines are impossible to meet without cutting corners.) Big names scale, in terms of sales. 

I tend to think that commercial firepower doesn't expand the pool of potential sales; it simply draws share from elsewhere. But if you can get a commercial powerhouse to crank out five times as much work, you'll sell a lot more books. It might actually be better from the publisher's standpoint if the author is a mediocre writer, because his voice is more replicable and he can ""work with co-authors""– that is, dictate a high-level story and produce a style guide but leave the details to others. Not only are commercial writers' voices easier to replicate, but they write faster. Literary authors tend to put out one book every 2–3 years, because they do so much more revision. For example, I started working on *Farisa* in December 2014, and I'm aiming for an April 2019 launch. Now, that wasn't 4 years of constant writing, but some of the work is subconscious and it takes months for the mind to converge on the best way to solve certain story problems. Of course, you can't afford that expense of time for everything, because you do have to get the book out some time. 

My belief is that high-quality literary fiction expands the world's readership in the long term. However, literary fiction tends to be contrary to what's economical. You do 5–10 times as much work– mostly in the revision process; commercial authors do 2–3 drafts and hand the book over to an editor, while literary authors rewrite *ad nauseam*– and you won't recoup it in sales. If you're a literary author, you either need a permissive day job or one of the few ""slots"" publishers offer to talented writers who couldn't otherwise live on their writing. "
programming,"> The mediocre engineers can crank out features

No, they cannot. They crank out more bugs than they crank out features. 

> The middle manager's job is to reduce operational risk, not enable creative breakthroughs. 

See above. The current system is designed to *increase* operational risk, not to reduce it. But again, managers are paid bonuses when they ""fix"" problems they themselves caused, and punished for not causing problems in the first place. The increase in risk is intentional.

> Publishing houses technically don't ""hire"" writers. Writers are free agents. They're paid royalties on each book sold and, in most cases, get a (usually small, these days) advance against the royalties. They do not collect a salary; it's all based on the sales performance of the work, over which the author may have limited control.

Yes, which is why publishing is an industry that works (kinda), and programming is an industry that doesn't.

I suspect we will eventually move to a similar free agent system for programming too,.

> Now, as for the scaling of creative work...

LIke I said: ""creative work"" is not work that results in creative deliverables. It's work that has an unpredictable and highly variable output and thus can't scale with the number of employees. Programs aren't works of art, but programming is absolutely a ""creative"" profession.
"
programming,"I explicitly qualified it with ""at least if you hire writers that are good enough that it's worth printing what they write"" which means that the writers I talk about \*do\* generate money. And if you hire programmers that are worth what you pay them then they generate money too. 

But if you insist on hiring programmers and writers that cost more money than they bring in, I insist on hiring welders that often destroy what they work on."
programming,"""Writers that write stuff worth printing"" and ""programmers worth more than you pay them"" are extremely rare. It's not something you can train to become, there's a combination of training, psychological makeup and tooling that needs to come together to make it happen, and we don't yet understand how it all needs to come together.

""Welders that often destroy what they work on"" aren't welders at all. Not ruining what you weld is the basic prerequisite of being a welder in the first place. Anyone can become a welder if they follow a step-by-step process.

"
programming,"Welders can be trained and certified. The process works. If you want a good welder, you go out on the market and hire one for the going rates, check his certifications and start making money. (Or you hire a guy and pay for his certification process.)

In contrast: anybody can write, but people who write something that others are willing to pay for are super rare. There's no conceivable training process of certification that will make you into a 'bestselling author'. Publishing houses know this, and try to structure their whole business process around it.

Enterprise treats programmers like they are welders, but programmers are not like that at all. Programmers are like writers, and software will continue sucking balls until the IT enterprise restructures their whole business process story.

We are already kinda there: the good universities don't teach programming, they teach math, statistics and logic, and they have an introductory 'programming' course that's actually designed to flunk out those who can't hack it, not teach them programming. The good hiring managers hire programmers like we hire writers -- look trough a huge slush pile until you see some guy who writes code examples that you like.

But in general, way too much money is riding on the dysfunctions of the current IT enterprise, so things will really change only after software becomes so shitty and unmaintainable that a collapse of the shitpile will brings down the IT giants with it.

"
programming,"Hi author here.

We've created a new file format designed specifically for configuration: SAN (pronounce `/seɪn/` like sane).

You can find a Go parser here: [https://github.com/phasersec/san-go](https://github.com/phasersec/san-go)

Vim syntax here: [https://github.com/z0mbie42/vim-san](https://github.com/z0mbie42/vim-san)

And the repository of the spec with the discussed issues: [https://github.com/astrocorp42/san](https://github.com/astrocorp42/san/)

SAN  was created because of a need to have a Simple And Neat configuration  format (with comments, unlike JSON, easy to parse unlike YAML....).

The main killer features compared to YAML/TOML are the following:

* Designed to be **human to machine**, not only machine to machine (JSON, YAML)
* Indentation can be automated with a linter (think go fmt)
* Comments as first class citizens which means programs can manipulate and modify files with comments without destroying them.
* Safe
* Human and parser friendly
* No `null`
* Easy to use, even without syntax coloration

It's an open format and any feedback is welcome."
programming,"I like this format very much – I've in fact implemented in my own JSON-reader/writer to support comments, dangling commas, digit-separators, nan, inf etc. – but there's an inconsistency in the use of commas. In your examples it is possible to have a multiple key/value pairs on the same line if they are separated by commas, but commas are required after each value in lists when these are split across multiple lines.
Why not require commas only between multiple values on the same line and make them optional when split across several lines?

Also, the requirement that each value in a list must be of the same type will make some lists seem unnecessarily verbose. I can see some good reasons why you made this requirement (human readability / optimized storage in a parser), but think this also limits the format's usefulness for instance when a significant portion of the file's contents are of the comma-separated values kind. 
"
programming,"Json5 solves 2/3 of your issues off the bat. It still has trailing commas, but the last key can have one so that effectively eliminates the issue with them, more consistent with lists anyway. Keys don't have to be quoted if they are legal js identifiers. Comments allowed.

I don't really follow or agree with your last comment. The top type should be able to be anything, otherwise you break the simple recursive nature with a special case. You need arrays anyhow to parse out json so the special case doesn't make sense.

My first thought reading this article is that json5 solves all the same concerns cited here and does it in a more consistent way."
programming,"The need for heterogeneous lists arise very quickly in both statically and dynamically typed languages if the file is supposed to contain serialized data. For instance in C++ I might have a

    vector<tuple<string, int, bool>>,

and one obvious representation of this would be a list of lists of strings and integers. If I in Python do have a list such as 

    [""Mickey Mouse"", 1928, True]

how will I serialize it with san?

    {0 = ""Mickey Mouse"", 1 = 1928, 2 = true} ?

or is 

    [[""Mickey Mouse""], [1928], [true]]

legal?

In addition to this, a perfectly reasonable list of numbers such as

    [243, 81, 27, 9, 3, 1, 0.33333, 0.11111]

will be illegal in san.

There are many ways to implement parsers (in XML there's DOM, SAX, iterator-based ones etc. and there are equivalents for each of them for JSON), the homogeneous lists really only benefit the DOM-like parsers, and there you'll encounter problems anyway when a file has lists of lists or even lists of lists of lists.
"
programming,"SAN only targets the 'configuration niche'. We think a configuration file should be data, but data with a meaning. This is why we think disallowing Top level list or number or string... is a good idea because it forces to assign this value with a key which will give some information about the meaning of the value.  


JSON and JSON5 does supports top level values because they were designed for data serialization and exchange, not configuration"
programming,"Can't they please integrate clang into the release and also drop the unnecessary '.src' suffix ...

http://llvm.org/releases/7.0.0/llvm-7.0.0.src.tar.xz

It's not a huge problem that clang is not integrated into the tarball; and that there is a .src suffix part since I can either manually or in a scripted manner, change it anyway. But ideally upstream would do so.

Why should clang be integrated? The increase in size will not be that large (the .tar.xz is at 28MB as-is) but I really want to easily compare clang to gcc; and with gcc I get everything in one fat tarball archive, while selecting the languages I need via --enable-languages= )"
programming,"What the fuck are you talking about? And why the fuck do you assume that everyone who use llvm need clang? These are two different projects. Your complaints are dumb.

EDIT: and why only clang? Obviously dumb troll forgot about compiler-rt, libcxx, libcxx-abi, libunwind. Also, while you're at it, if you need to compare the state of the art performance, you must include polly as well, with all of its dependencies."
programming,"They do something like this in Rust, so ping /u/steveklabnik1.

My understanding is that, when ""middleend"" passes are needed, an intermediate IR (IIR?) is created that fits with the specifics of that compiler better.  For example, Rust has recently had a big push to use MIR, which, as I understand it, better fits the internal model of Rust (particularly when it comes to ownership).  This means that the Rust team can write a whole bunch of optimisation passes that work on the MIR using Rust-specific knowledge, then convert the MIR code into LLVM IR, then pass all of that down to the LLVM backend.  At that point, LLVM will do yet more passes (you can see why one of the criticisms of Rust is compile times!), and generate the best-optimised code that it can."
programming,"> That would be the optimization passes in the middle end?

Yes, optimisation and analysis.

> Sounds like a lot of work

Implementing all the optimisations that LLVM do on IR level is a lot of work. Much more work than writing a backend.

Not to mention that LLVM own native framework for constructing backends (SelectionDAG) is only suitable for very narrow kind of platforms, so a lot of backends also exist outside of LLVM standard approach (even some of those included into LLVM itself).
"
programming,"Rust has:

* AST: abstract syntax tree
* HIR: High-level IR
* MIR: Mid-level IR
* LLVM-IR: llvm IR

Source goes in, machine code comes out.

>  as I understand it, better fits the internal model of Rust (particularly when it comes to ownership).

This is... sort of true, and sort of not. That is, one of the goals when you write a multi-stage compiler like this is to make each IR *simpler* than the last. HIR is simpler than the AST, MIR is simpler than HIR, and LLVM-IR is simpler than MIR. Here's a rough way to think about each of them:

* AST: a direct representation of the source code, as a data structure. Name resolution is done on the AST.
* HIR: a simplified version, de-sugaring away some features. For example, `for` loops don't exist in HIR; [they're desugared to `loop` + `break`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/std/iter/#for-loops-and-intoiterator). Before MIR, all checks were done on HIR, and most of them still are.
* MIR: an even further simplified version, but most importantly, built along a flow-control-graph rather than as some sort of syntax tree. Borrow checking is done here. In the future, we plan to implement some optimization passes as well.
* LLVM-IR: most optimization passes, codegen.

MIR is sort of a ""core Rust"", once everything that makes the language actually nice to use is boiled away. So in some sense that is ""better fits the internal model"", yeah. But some tasks in the model are easier in other IRs; MIR expects names to be fully resolved, so writing the name resolution pass on it wouldn't make much sense!

If you or anyone else want to learn more about how `rustc` works, we have a book for that now! https://rust-lang-nursery.github.io/rustc-guide/ Here's the relevant sections: https://rust-lang-nursery.github.io/rustc-guide/hir.html and https://rust-lang-nursery.github.io/rustc-guide/mir/index.html

One last thing:

>  At that point, LLVM will do yet more passes (you can see why one of the criticisms of Rust is compile times!),

Sometimes, more passes can make things *faster*. It depends on a lot of details. Two examples:

Consider the case with one IR, and a pass that's over it. If the IR isn't great at representing the info that that task needs to do, this can be error-prone, buggy, and slow. If instead you convert that IR to one that *does* do a better job of representing the information for that task, the pass can be moved to that new IR, and might be much faster!

Alternatively, consider the reverse. Take something like dead-code elimination. Imagine you have one IR, where all optimizations are done. If you just generate tons of code, and expect those passes to remove un-needed stuff, that can take a long time. If instead, you introduce a new IR, and move the dead code elimination pass to that, you end up with *less* code in the later pass, and so all of those passes operate on less things.

Of course, in that simple example, you could move the dead code optimization first. It depends on what passes you're planning on doing, how they interact, what they operate on, how it makes sense to group them together... tons of stuff."
programming,"One thing to note is that outside of Windows, native code is all GCC or LLVM. For decades it was GCC being the main open source alternative. Now it's LLVM.

XCode, by Apple for building iOS and Mac OS apps, uses LLVM. Lots of Linux projects are capable of being built by LLVM or are built by it. LLVM is also slowly sorting out the embedded space where GCC has always been ahead.

Biggest of all is that Visual Studio proper, which has traditionally been MS C++, supports LLVM.

LLVM is silently huge."
programming,"I'm not sure - abstract hosting, maybe?

It's not without reason that ""naming things"" is often listed among unsolved problems in Computer Science, and it's only about half joke. 

My quibble with a lot of things that call themselves ""x-less"" is that it's kind of misguiding, and I'm a relentless pedant who's a lot of fun at parties thank you very much. Anyway, if the point is that you don't have to give a crap about the ""implementation"" of the hosting, we've had a term for that for decades, it's just plain abstraction again."
programming,"I am also a relentless pedant who is a blast at parties. Haha.

To me, even though it's misleading from a sense (there *are* servers) it's a layer of abstraction that makes it so you don't need to worry about the server portion of your code. This is a step up from docker which keeps you from needing to provision a server from scratch but standardizes the installation process. With serverless things we don't need to know anything about the underlying server.

So while the name is crappy it's got some momentum and I think it's good enough."
programming,"Yes it has some aspects and elements in common with an OS such as threads and scheduling for example.  But most if not all OSes have

* user/supervisor mode
* hardware memory protection; paging
* files and file system
* virtual memory; multiple address spaces

But my JVM, JOE, does not contain the above or need it to operate. It runs in a single address space. It uses the JVM and Java language for access control and memory protection. Everything in memory is an object with an identity. There is no anonymous memory or files. All memory management is done with a garbage collector. I believe it is more than just an OS."
programming,"> So while the name is crappy it's got some momentum and I think it's good enough.

I'm struggling to think of anything better, I don't interact with a server, therefore, it's serverless *to me*. I fully understand that's there is an underlying server hosting the code. 

I know being pedantic isn't the worse thing, but fuck me if I get annoyed with having to have this dumb fucking conversation with people at work and at conferences who want to correct me with: 

*bUT aCTualLy tHEre Is A serVER haha!!!1!* 

No fucking shit. The vast majority of people who engage with serverless know this. Pedants (like /u/robhol) get so caught up in being right that they fail to recognize that convention is dictated by usage. The term severless, as it stands, gets the point across so stop fucking worrying about it. The only situation you need to bring up the fact that there actual severs involved is *maybe* when explaining to non-technical stakeholders, that's it. 
"
programming,"The problem is not the fact that there is a CoC. The problem is the fact that the CoC in question applies to comments made outside the scope of the project. In particular, the author of the CoC tried to get a developer removed from the Opal project because of comments they made elsewhere.  If the comments had been made in a github issue, on an official mailing list, or in any other way relating to the Opal project, then I would agree that it would be inappropriate and the developer should face consequences. But this was a totally unrelated comment thread on Twitter.

As for where in the CoC it stipulates that your behavior is evaluated everywhere, I defer to [Paul M. Jones of the PHP project](http://paul-m-jones.com/archives/6214)

>Ehmke thinks of open source as a political arena. As such, one must read the Contributor Covenant as a political document, with political means and political ends. Specifically, it is a tool for Social Justice.

>As a tool for Social Justice, it recognizes no boundaries between project, person, and politics. This attitude is written into the Contributor Covenant with the text, “This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community.” So, when is a project participant not representing the project? The answer appears to be “never.”

And this isn't the first time it's happen. The awesome-django project had [an issue](https://archive.is/dgilk) opened with the following content:

>great project!! I have one observation and a suggestion. I noticed you have rejected some pull requests to add some good django libraries and that the people submitting those pull requests are POCs (People of Colour). As a suggestion I recommend adopting the Contributor Code of Conduct (http://contributor-covenant.org) to ensure everybody's contributions are accepted regarless of their sex, sexual orientation, skin color, religion, height, place of origin, etc, etc, etc. As a white straight male and lead of this trending repository, your adoption of this Code of Conduct will send a loud and clear message that inclusion is a primary objective of the Django community and of the software development community in general. D.

When the response was ""The pull request was rejected not the person, [and by the way] I'm not white,"" the follow up was this

>You are a member of the Django Software Foundation and are supposed to be setting the example. I will be forwarding the content of this issue to the Chair to evaluate your continued presence in the DSF. best regards.

CoCs should be about conduct as it relates to the project. Not as it relates to random discourse on unrelated sites. A CoC is a good thing. The spefic CoC that Linux has chosen to move forward with is dangerous."
programming,"> The problem is the fact that the CoC in question applies to comments made outside the scope of the project.

But the CoC explicitly says the opposite:

>> #Scope

>>This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community. Examples of representing a project or community include using an official project e-mail address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline event. Representation of a project may be further defined and clarified by project maintainers.

.

> In particular, the author of the CoC tried to get a developer removed from the Opal project because of comments they made elsewhere.

It seems like your beef is with the author of the model CoC Linux used, not with the CoC itself. 

"
programming,"That clause must have been added since when I read it. When I read it, the clause said this

>This Code of Conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community

That's what Paul Jones was referring to in this statement

>So, when is a project participant not representing the project? The answer appears to be “never.”

If this has actually been updated, I would feel a lot better about the new CoC. However what I suspect happen is that they ended up adopting an earlier verson, rather than later, the same as what happen to Opal. From Coraline Ada Ehmke, the author of the CoC in question:

>In the end Adam Beynon accepted a pull request to add version 1.0 of the Contributor Covenant to the project. It’s important to note that unlike version 1.3, the latest incarnation of the code, this early version does not include provisions that affect behavior outside of an official project space.

So it sounds like whether Linux adopted a newer, or older version of the CoC, it does not include behavior outside of the project. This is a good thing, but it sounds like it is not what Ehmke had in mind."
programming,"Why do people want a meritocracy so bad to begin with?

And it's not even like the Kernel project ever was a shining beacon of meritocratic ideals. Linus more easily fits the stereotype of a (benevolent) dictator. 

There are actually quite a few of projects with a strong maintainer as the gatekeeper, rather than a consensus driven meritocracy. Nobody seems to take issue with them.

Edit: That was an honest question btw. Please fill me in."
programming,"Meritocracy sounds good on paper.

It also has the added bonus that lucky people who already have some sort of power get to blame the unlucky for any differences in education and opportunity.  It's a pretty veneer over blatantly blaming the victim.

None of it is conscious...  At least, for me, being born white, male, and growing up with a computer in my house when others still had rotary phones, it honestly didn't occur to me that meritocracies are inherently classist.  I thought I was some hot stuff, being the ""smartest"" in my high school programming class, when I was really just lucky to be among the most experienced out of a very intelligent peer group.  What of those who were told to play with dolls instead of being shown how to solder?  What of those who didn't have a computer until they got sidled with a monthly bill for a crappy e-machines computer?

You and I know that a meritocracy is rarely fair, and often just the first clue that whatever community is shouting that they're a meritocracy is likely to be openly hostile and abusive... Which is, unfortunately, a realization that few who want meritocracies are able to make."
programming,"The authority in this instance comes in the form of those who would wish to oust politically inconvenient maintainers. I was highlighting the difference between random people and those who are ""part of the community"" for which the CoC is allegedly designed to protect.

The real hypothetical situation is the fantasy made up for which these CoCs have been the alleged saviour. Please show me these projects where there are racist, sexist scumbags making life a misery for people - or is all of this based on, as you say, preconceived ideas."
programming,"You're connected to the internet. You're being surveilled.

The major corporations' technical teams are all being staffed, increasingly, by FOSS advocates. The best talent in the nation tend to be FOSS advocates, and we are the people driving the technological developments the big corporations are making.

You might be surprised at just how hard we'll work to defend our rights. Many of us would never have gained the education to be employable by these companies without FOSS tooling and protections and we are now the majority developers in private industry.

They're not taking over us. We're taking over them.

Be calm. We got this."
programming,"The owners of the project can shut down a project on a whim. They can adopt and change the CoC on a whim.

There is no law that enforces this code of conduct, it is a social contract between peers and colleagues, one that is absolutely not enforceable by any government's laws.

You might want to think about whose propaganda you're buying into before you start calling other people tools. It might just be you who is being used."
programming,"One thing you need to set in your mind right now.

Linux belongs to us, the community who have adopted it industry wide. The community of users and contributors. It is the very nature of FOSS that the code belongs to the community.

Do you celebrate dictators? I don't. Do you think that communities have a right to set expectations from one another? I do.

It's okay for us to disagree here, of course. Maybe you think that dictatorship is a superior form of governance, and I won't hold that against you, but I see that you have the propaganda of the U.S. fascists coursing through your veins. You use the term ""social justice"" far too often. You have bought into the belief that you must ""fight against the left"" and somehow, this has become a part of that for you.

Are you actually a white supremacist? Because you've been drinking their Kool-aid, and everyone can tell."
programming,"Will you stop using the propaganda of fascists to make your argument?

I do not, inherently, believe that this document provides a potential for abuse. You and I simply feel differently about this. If it was legally enforceable, I'd be more worried, but it's a living document of a social contract agreed to by a FOSS community.

No. I'm not worried about this being abused, though I can understand why you are, and don't want to be dismissive of that.

You've linked me to a wikipedia page about surveillance disclosures. Can you expound upon why this is relevant to the conversation, or do you think I'm actually going to take the time to read this and that it will somehow convince me I'm wrong?"
programming,"Q.  Do you participate in any of the open source communities?  Because it sure doesn't sound like you do.  You bring up claims, but don't back it up with actual observed instances, just speculation about how it's broken.  Do you specifically object to Linus Torvald's administration of the Kernel, or Richard Stallman's management of the GNU userspace, or how Debian is run, or OpenStack, or Apache, or the GPL, or how Intel participates, or NVidia, or other hardware vendors, specifically, what?  

Open Source is managed, coordinated by trusted individuals who earned the respect of peers and generally operates as an open, academic meritocracy.  The converse de facto argument is that it actually works incredibly, astonishingly well and has been doing so for over 30 years; it's replaced nearly all proprietary OSes; just Windows & MacOS (based on FreeBSD) are left.  Hardware drivers that in the past were proprietary are now initially released as open source.  Within individual projects a contributor's feedback can be rejected and it can look like a mini-dictatorship.  It's not nihilism.  So you're free to go ahead and build your own Linux, and people certainly do.

Otherwise this is speculation without any real basis, which makes it an interesting philosophical discussion but there are other more imminent real-world issues to be concerned about.  You could equally well worry about a black hole suddenly appearing and swallowing the world because while also extremely unlikely, there's nothing stopping that from happening either."
programming,"I don't see anything wrong with that clause. I rather like it, in fact.

Okay... this is true, you're not wrong... I don't see how that has anything to do with FOSS communities choosing to adopt codes of conduct, but you seem to believe there's a connection.

Look. This is not legally enforceable, the government isn't involved with this. This is a community choosing to self-govern. You have to accept that communities will self-govern; you'll drive yourself mad if you have a problem with this because all communities do it to some degree."
programming,">Do you celebrate dictators? I don't.

I bet you do if they are Authoritarian Left or communist Dictators/Revolutionaries ,  like Chávez or Lenin or Stalin, 

you seem to support Authoritarianism as long as it is the ""correct"" kind. 

>It's okay for us to disagree here, of course.

Clearly you do not actually believe that, because anyone you disagree with you accuse of being a facist or white supremacists,  in your mind no one can possible hold a political opinion that opposes your perfect one unless they are facist or white supremacists.  


"
programming,"It may be good (or ok) in the long run.

But in the short term, I find this a total disaster.

Did we really want corporate-control over source code revision? I for one most certainly do not. We are being windowsified here, which actually happened to linux to a huge extent in the last ... hmm 8 years or so, give or take (accelerated past the systemd downgrade, but it started well before that; Red Hat has been pushing its corporate agenda onto Linux for a much longer time well before systemd, for instance. And they are really just preparing themselves for a merger similar to how the github start-up did too.)"
programming,"That's a matter of opinion, but fact is, GitLab has a powerful CI/CD feature set and it's very easy to use, Gitea does not have such a thing. If you want to use CI with Gitea, you have to setup another software and its integration with Gitea. With GitLab you don't have to do that, you get a powerful CI/CD system with tight integration into the main Git functionality, out of the box.

Also, integration with CI really isn't so great in Gitea. It's still not possible to configure pull requests merges to depend on a successful CI run, for instance. It's not even easily possible to check the CI results of the branch associated with a pull request. Overall, integration with CI systems is minimal, at best."
programming,"> I honestly don't understand why programmers are so dependent on external solutions these days

Network effect. I host my own repos on my VPS but I have to
sync them with external hosters like Github and, recently,
Gitlab because that’s where contributions come in. Sad and
unnecessary but it saves me the trouble of setting up and
maintaining authentication for others beside myself.

That being said, when contributing myself I vastly prefer
the patches-over-mailing list approach."
programming,"Yup, I work for GitLab, which pays me to spend part of my time working [upstream](https://github.com/prometheus/prometheus) on another open source project, hosted on GitHub. So I end up having to use both workflows every day.

There's basically zero chance this project will move to GitLab, we're far too dependent on the developer network.

However, there has been some discussion about making an open federation option for GitLab, or other source collaboration platforms. This way you can have the cake and eat it too."
programming,"Minix has slowly moved away from a teaching OS, and today it has dropped that goal entirely and is huge. Even the older versions of Minix are not as barebones as other teaching operating systems like MIT's xv6 which is under 10k lines of code (depending on how you count it, as it's a combination of x86, C, Bash scripts, and documentation). I don't know how the first ever version of Minix compares though since I haven't read that code. "
programming,"Writing a microkernel is in no way a shortcut. It takes more work than a monolithic kernel in that it has to do everything a moonlithic kernel can do while also wrapping each component in its own isolated process using message passing for everything. Want to call into the disk driver code from the file system process? Can’t do it, gotta wrap each end in a message transaction.

Also, using a certain language for implementation has nothing to do with having a microkernel. If it’s a compiled language, the end result is machine code regardless of if we’re talking assembly, C, C++, or Rust. 

Now, if you want to use standard library calls, you’ll have to implement them. But that doesn’t really have much to do with what kind of kernel you’re making."
programming,"SQL is old but it's certainly not dead. Google Cloud's BigQuery uses SQL, and in my experience it's performance and flexibility is pretty awesome. I'll admit that crafting schemas for each of your datasets beforehand can be a pain sometimes. However, once that schema is defined (properly) and the data is loaded, I've never had to worry about anything that wasn't business logic from that point on.

I'm still young (24), and am relatively fresh out of grad school. I have been doing data engineering/science for a threat intel company for about a year. Before I knew how to use SQL, as a youngling I did have an aversion towards using it because the vibe around it was that it was antiquated. After getting to know it better, I appreciate it a lot, its a powerful and expressive language. "
programming,"`fork/exec` is a mess and `posix_spawn` is a different kind of mess. Error handling is especially obnoxious in both cases.

A better API would look like this:

1. `CreateProcess(path, args)` creates a new process in a suspended state, and returns the pid.
2. Every syscall that you might run after fork including `dup2`, `setpgrp`, etc. takes a pid argument. These allow the parent to configure the child.
3. `StartProcess` starts the process up.

This resolves all of the nasty race conditions, page-table copying perf problems, and multithreading pain."
programming,"But isn't that what you essentially have with fork (create process) and exec (start process)?

  


If you are worried about multi threading race conditions etc then you can always create a dedicated thread to spawn processes if the original program is such a mess.

  


  


For MMU/page table CoW impact, well there are no easy way around that if you simultaneously want to control a child process and to isolate its memory from the parent."
programming,"So true. It's been frustrating talking to a lazy front-end student who only wants to work with HTML and CSS, hates JavaScript because it's too hard, and wishes he was learning a modern language like Python instead. He just expects to make 80k out of school even though he skips classes all the time and doesn't have personal projects.

He doesn't understand why I'm busting my ass learning about memory management and design patterns. Sigh. 

EDIT: Wow, I feel like these comments and downvotes mean I should have provided more context. 

1. I live in Canada so our salaries are significantly lower. This guy thinks he deserves the starting salary of the top graduates from the best university in the country and who live in one of its most expensive cities.
2. This student is going to barely graduate from a two-year community college in addition to not having any personal projects. 
3. This person does not want to be a designer. He is aiming to be a software developer. 
4. Yes, many of us are here for the money too but he isn't even trying to be passably decent at programming. Yet he likes to loudly spout his very misinformed opinions about things (like how learning JavaScript is a waste of time because ECMAScript is newer anyway).
5. I meant he is a front-end student who is lazy. Not that front-end itself is lazy. I know great programmers doing front-end."
programming,"That is to say they effectively are free sticks certain stage in a project. Our main page has been essentially doing to biggest overkill data query ever written for over a year, we want to optimize it for performance but at the time it needed to be right more than fast and the manpower for bother wasn't available. 

Some of us JS devs actually do know these things and also understand our company needs to sell or there will be no product to optimize. "
programming,"I'm scared because I half fit your description( I hate python and never skipped classes) and I had sorta hoped to be close to 80k sometime before I was 40 just due to the whole student debt thing. 

I also worked in college and didn't really have time for projects. Just saying not all of us fucked around, some of us just thought good grades and full time classes counted as going hard enough to earn a place in the field. Even now I'm mostly doing this stuff at work and focusing on other personal growth options, I'm hoping I can manage to stay gainfully employed that way"
programming,FWIW as a front end dev of sorts (iOS native) I’m always paying attention to resource consumption in the stuff I work on. I’m not happy to see RAM usage go above 50MB-60MB and if it ever tops 100MB-120MB without good reason it’s a travesty that I make a point of taking the time to fix. Same goes for CPU - if the app is idle there’s no reason for it to be taking more than 0%.
programming,"That can be said about anything programming related.  
  

Im not going to program my app to hit performance targets it will never meet before it needs to be refactored anyways.  
  

  
You know what is cheap? AWS bills. You know what isn't? Programmers.
You don't need to worry about performance until you can predict when it will be an issue, and if that prediction falls inline with project scope and budget constraints, then go for it."
programming,This problem does not really rely on JS devs themself but more on their environment. They have another focus. They need to prototype fast and achieve a lot of different features with waaay to less time. That's why many just install a npm package for everything which in turn adds another 100 packages. There are also not really many performant JS libs for different stuff. As an example you can take a look at CSV parser. Most of them use string manipulation instead of memory views. Same goes for typedarrays since only newer less mature libraries use them. SIMD hasn't even landed in JS yet and threads are only available in form of workerthreads which also have their limitations.
programming,">No matter how many managers are screaming at you, the first step is to reliably replicate the bug.

Yeah, and then fix it when it becomes an issue. Unless you know, up front, that this is something that is going to be used by millions of people, focusing on this is unnecessary. I would much rather the programmer focus on readability and maintainability than making sure it can handle a million users, when you currently have 20."
programming,"Yet most of those developers don’t know shit about how to take advantage of the CPU cache and by the time they need to optimize their software the best they can do is sort of “hot spot” optimization’s. 

Knowing even the simplest things like if you are an OOP developer, keep your objects size smaller than the cache and make sure you have good data locality will give you a significant boost in performance, make your code easier to reason about, and give you the ability to make better optimization’s if it’s needed later. "
programming,"Nothing really drove that home until I started doing embedded, where CPU time and memory *are* quite limited, and when you're doing serial protocols networking is its own insane beast (and your goal is to push low-res 60FPS video down a serial line to an architectural scale LED installation).

At the same time, when you approach it from the right mindset, a 16MHz embedded CPU can blow your *mind* with how fast it can run. Like there's no way I'd write a desktop application which can do temporal dithering 256 times a frame(15,000 times a second) to have a smooth transition in a LED controlled by a MOSFET. But on even a cheap Arduino, I have cycles to spare. On the flip side, trying to have a LUT to control the LED color pretty much fills the entire available memory."
programming,"I've never liked this phrase since I feel like it encourages a lot of bad code to creep into projects. Experimental and prototype can easily become part of a codebase. The end result being entire swathes of code need to be completely rewritten.

Over-optimisation is a thing. However, if I can spend 3 minutes looking at your committed code and immediately increase performance by an order of magnitude, then you are doing it wrong."
programming,"That was specifically and pointedly addressed in the article: 

\> Read the rest of Knuth’s paragraph about premature optimization.

He's absolutely right. Knuth's quote has been used without that extra context for too long and has caused real damage along the lines that /u/Caffeine_Monster points out here.

Optimization \*is\* important, because performance is important. It's still good advice not to do it prematurely, but where to draw that line is far earlier than many seem to treat it today.

For the record, the rest of what Knuth said was ""We *should* forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time: premature optimization is the root of all evil**.** Yet we should not pass up our opportunities in that critical 3%.""."
programming,"Which, itself, is because JS as a language is optimized for making it easy to write programs which are highly I/O-bound, rather than highly CPU-bound. Nowadays, with promises and async/await, it’s surprisingly easy to manage complex flows of user interaction, API calls, and other async behavior like accessing the filesystem.

For CPU-heavy workflows, I’d either recommend spawning a child process to do the work, or, if that’s still too heavy, doing FFI to a more suitable language.

In other words, if you use JS as an actual, y’know, *scripting language*, you’ll have a perfectly fine time."
programming,"No, he has clearly stated that he wants to be a software developer not a designer. I've told him he should look into UX/UI but he thinks he's going to be landing jobs as a programmer at a major company in the near future because he doesn't care to research the industry. He thinks IT is an instant get rich scheme.

Edit: He's somehow halfway through a front-end diploma but he doesn't actually understand what front-end means... He really couldn't be bothered to google IT concepts for more than 2 mins."
programming,"The original Macintosh ran at just under 8 MHz and had one-eighth of a Megabyte of RAM. (One eight-thousandth of a Gigabyte.)

It basically *created* the desktop publishing market and brought the concept of a windowing system (and a GUI, and mice) to the widespread general public for the first time.

All for the low low price of about $5900 in today's dollars.

When the 16 MHz Macintosh SE/30 came out 5 years later it was considered quite a screamer of a high-performance machine.

"
programming,"> Optimization \*is\* important, because performance is important. 

I think it is important to recognize what we are trying to optimize for, some possibilities are:

* CPU time
* RAM consumption
* HDD usage
* End-user time
* System latency (rather than throughput)
* programmer time during maintenance/enhancement.

For example when parsing user inputs in a form, it is best to have the parser optimize for end-user time and report every single error that it catches rather than optimize for CPU time by reporting only the first error (and then stopping the validation process).

​"
programming,"Do most new programmers really not know that? It's one of the first things I learned, but maybe that's because I used a good book (Principles and Practice Using C++), but I'm not even sure if it was actually in the book.

Also, to your second statement, I'm actually a js dev now, I switched after I saw there was more work as a web developer, but I would prefer software development eventually."
programming,"> Some of those four parts are going to aim at 1, 2, 3 or even all 4 of those groups. You might need several copies. Or just abbreviated versions. Or links to external versions.

Documentation is hard to get right and it only gets harder when documentation exists in multiple places.

Not that I've seen it implemented, but shouldn't it be possible to encode all your documentation in a single place with a formatting scheme (e.g. CSS classes, conditional display by URI) to show/hide content based upon the use case?

I won't claim to have a handle on the latest and greatest solutions but, if anyone has any suggestions which meet the criteria of encoding all relevant information in a single place and conditionally presenting it to users, that'd be much appreciated."
programming,"That's typically not a good practice. It is true that avoiding duplication is strongly encouraged in code and configuration. But different types of docs present information in different order, using different words, assuming different reader background, putting different emphasis. Good documentation will have references in all the right places to have the reader navigate it properly, where ""properly"" varies between types of documentation.

Essentially, yes there's duplication, with all the same problems (e.g. copies going out of sync, same mistakes having to be fixed in multiple places) but I haven't seen a better way of doing it. Trying to refactor like software frequently makes it an unreadable mess."
programming,"Easy to picture applying a taxonomy to the information set and using templates w/transclusion to generate docs if all the documentation were in a CMS, just wondering if a native application specific to technical documentation exists.

It may just be wishful thinking, but I've got to believe that the problem space of information architecture for documentation *must* have evolved beyond maintaining auto-documentation for code libraries + an API reference guide w/HOWTO's + an end user guide w/HOWTO's + sales documentation, etc."
programming,"I'd be very happy to see such a system evolve but like I said, I haven't seen one yet. It's possible that one is right around the corner, and you are more than welcome to take a stab at it. But understand that it is not just the technical part of organizing and labeling information: it also has a cultural component. You will have to build up a community of people who understands how to best author the information presented in a new medium. And those who can pass the knowledge on. That part takes far longer than the technical implementation. You'll need experience writing documentation that *others* find useful, and you'll need to ask yourself which part of it was the most tedious part. Finally, you'll need to automate away the parts you found tedious. As for me, I'll admit I do not even have a problem statement formalized enough, let alone a solution.

So no, I wouldn't say these problems ""have evolved"" to that point yet, just that they *can* evolve :)"
programming,"> but I've got to believe that the problem space of information architecture for documentation must have evolved beyond maintaining auto-documentation for code libraries + an API reference guide w/HOWTO's + an end user guide w/HOWTO's + sales documentation, etc.

I'm sure you can make some fancy flow chart scheme to acheive this, but at the end of the day the documents are separate enough in use case and wording to where each ""fork"" is different enough to justify some duplication.Remember, DRY's goal is to reduce redundancy, but redundancy isn't an objectively negative thing (just ask network engineers). 

The most optimal way on top of this would be to just make sure you can properly filter to exactly all the documents a change will effect. Which is non-trivial in and of itself."
programming,"There's only two forms of documentation that seem to remain useful after a year or so. 

First, straight documentation of all the supported functionality. Even when it is out of date, it provides useful insight to what you can do, or at the very least what it tried to do. 

Second, getting started tutorials. With any new piece of software it's sometimes hard to grok the basic syntax/use case/interface. Having a guide that lets you know how to use the very core functionality can make a huge difference. We've all opened a new tool/framework/application and thought ""okay, I know this thing was built to do X, the documentation says I need to just runX, but how and where?"" I often get over that first hump much faster with a few pages of setup documentation and toy examples. 

All forms of documentation are useful, but in my experience the other kinds they wilt so fast that all attempts to maintain them fail. "
programming,"As someone who recently helped a parent troubleshoot why Chrome still offered to autofill his passwords, even after he logged out (spoiler: he had logged out of GMail, not Chrome), I'm not terribly upset by this. There are a plethora of other browsers to choose from, if you are upset by this; or you can just use incognito mode if you want to sign in to a Google site but remain logged out of Chrome. 

Ultimately Chrome is a Google product, so it's not surprising for it to get this kind of integration."
programming,"And frankly how many users that would be ""fooled"" by that behavior are the same users who ever even think to sign out of chrome? I would imagine not a sizable portion.

And for the flak they get, they've committed to keeping chromium open source, and even use it, not chrome, as the engine for the webview on android. Not to mention all the other browsers (Brave) we've gotten as a result of Google doing the heavy lifting on a quality base for a browser."
programming,"Great post and totally agree.

Often times just think Google can't win.   It is like the same with AMP.  Mobile web was broken and they trying to fix is some how negative.  Google has even given AMP to MS.

But part of the problem is that we are getting a lot of negative posts on Google not because of the issue at hand but because they fired the women hating engineer.  This really pissed off the right wing.   "
programming,"I saw a quote the other day, probably around here that went something like:

> When your only objective is to get bigger, you're a cancer.

I used to, like I think many people, root for google. But google is not a single person with morals, it is a corporation who's goal is to get money. We need to keep our guard up against any company despite how well meaning they may appear because at the end of the day they're going to be looking for their best interests and their best interests are money."
programming,"It always was, from the get-go they sent all keystrokes from the address bar to the mothership without explicit consent. You might not have been formally ""signed in"" under your account but they know fine well who everyone is if you use any other services of theirs & have an account. I of course have one and do not log into it for search etc but I'm under no illusion that they aren't linking all of my search activity to my account anyway. 

All that's changed is they've moved this policy to be formal & legal (and therefore marketable). 

The sad thing is that just last week everyone was justly outraged that China was doing something similar regarding their web activity being linked to an identifiable persona. No one will care about Google doing it to us though. "
programming,"I'm not justifying it at all, quite the opposite, I'm saying that the privacy-aware user would have been best avoiding them anyway. Problem is that not everyone is aware of it, iirc this cropped up on the nerd blogs about 10 years ago and it's long in the annuls of history now. 

I have an unusual view on google: it's not that I don't *trust* them, I actively *distrust* them. This recent behaviour does not surprise me in the slightest as it's completely true to form for them. I expect this from them, I place them on a par with Facebook in terms of data-collection ambitions and breaching user trust. 

I do think it is worth remembering this context when criticising their latest nonsense as their past behaviour speaks volumes about their character. "
programming,"It's more likely Eric Schmit than Larry or Sergi. One of them is just a typical nerd, with no aspirations for wealth (cant remember which is which), the other just wants to build cool projects. Schmit's always been Googles driving force to grow it and slap as many products into the company.

Schmit changed around the time Apple kicked him off the board of directors, as it was clear he was about to have a massive conflict of interest. 

The new CEO since 2015, Sundar Pichai hasn't exactly reigned it in either, they're going full steam ahead with the inevitable antitrust lawsuit that'll be at the doorstep of mountain view down the road. They've already had a $5bn fine this year for antitrust issues in Europe."
programming,"Just FYI, you don't need to sign in to Microsoft to use Windows 10. The setup prompts *really try to convince you to do so*, but you can click on ""I don't have this person's sign-in information"" and then ""Add a user without a Microsoft account"" to create a purely local login account.

Whereas after reading this article I noticed that not only is Google signing me in automatically, but I really don't understand where it got my login information from. I usually use GMail only from Firefox and Thunderbird. Did Chrome scan the Windows registry or my FireFox/Thunderbird settings and pilfer my Google account login information from there?"
programming,"It isn't that amp as a concept is bad but it has had some interesting behaviors that have followed as a result.  The list below is just off my head so there is likely some details I'm missing. 

* It puts into play that someone can read your content without ever interacting with your servers (via caching).  
* It modifies the UX of the pages and your browser
* While google says that AMP doesn't impact your search rating, only speed does, there hasn't been a lot of evidence of that fact. 
* Overall it google into an even more powerful position in acting as a middle man in your content. "
programming,"I would say that Google (Alphabet) is inching closer to being broken up, but I don't think the American judicial system is configured for that right now. It wouldn't gain traction under the current regime.

Plus, Google is now the single highest spending lobbying firm in the U.S. So good luck with any lawmaking or accountability measures that would actually affect them in the states.

They've hijacked the free and open internet and replaced it with their version of ""free"" and ""open"" ""internet."" Now they have their sights set on government.

Pretty wild that they're considering moving into China at the same time they're wearing thin on Europe. Reminds me of something..."
programming,"> I really don't understand where it got my login information from. I usually use GMail only from Firefox and Thunderbird. Did Chrome scan the Windows registry or my FireFox/Thunderbird settings and pilfer my Google account login information from there?

No, Chrome did not scan your computer for a google account session cookie. You clearly signed into your Google account from within Chrome. Maybe you signed in to Youtube or something. "
programming,">  Is it time to run Mint?

My advice is to run Windows 10 ( for games ) and install nothing on it beyond VMware Workstation Pro ( buy a cheap key on ebay ).  Strip Windows from everything.

And install Linux under a VM and run it full screen. Saves you a lot of hassle dealing with graphics and gaming. And you can safely upgrade Linux version or try out new distros under new VMs.

Switch between VMs with CTRL+ALT + Left Arrow / Right Arrow, like your switching desktops.

No gain for MS because they can not read your VMs. But you have still full access to all your games at full speed. 

Its way easier for dealing with Linux issues when they pop-up."
programming,"AMP speeds up web pages in two major ways: (1) restricting what Javascript and asset files can be included in a page; and (2) serving the web page off of Google's own CDN servers. You can spend all day on an AMP-enabled site, and never touch the site owner's hardware or leave Google's hardware (all you see are copies that Google has cached). That's a lot of control over your own destiny to delegate to a third party, and Google encourages it by offering free premium SERP (search engine result placement) for AMP-enabled sites (right below paid ads, e.g. you can't beat it with just search-engine optimization techniques alone, like having the most relevant content for a given search query). It also causes various problems relating to usability (bookmarks, for example, aren't to the original page URL, and so don't reflect dynamic content)."
programming,">You clearly signed into your Google account from within Chrome. Maybe you signed in to Youtube or something.

What information do you base this on?

I am pretty careful about not signing into *anything* unnecessarily. I never sign into YouTube. (I used to have a fake separate account for YouTube.) I certainly never signed into **Chrome**. I almost never use Chrome at all. I nearly always use Thunderbird for GMail, and occasionally use Firefox to log into GMail for its better searching.

If I ever signed into my GMail account from within Chrome (again, not sure why I ever would have), I certainly would not have saved my password in the browser (just confirmed only 3 saved passwords in chrome://settings/passwords, none of them are google-related.)

Any ideas how to un-sign-in from this thing?

P.S. Just reviewed my entire Chrome history which goes back 2.5 months - I've never signed in to GMail, YouTube, or any Google service from within Chrome in that time."
programming,"I used KeePass prior to LastPass and it was good.  I switched because I realized that it’s becoming more important to be able to pass on specific account passwords in the case of emergency or in worst case death.

While that can be done with KeePass it requires a lot more technical knowhow on both the person setting it up and the person who will receive passwords.  While with services like LastPass you can setup a “dead mans” switch pretty easy where you can give another person the ability to request access and if you don’t deny it before a preconfigured amount of time they are granted access to all or a specific subset of passwords in your vault."
programming,"I never even considered that. But for myself, I don't even have any services in there that could be important in case I died... Unless someone wants to inherit my Steam collection. 

Also I don't think I would like to trust LastPass. It's too crazy centralized for my tastes. I bet they're a lucrative goal for crackers looking out for a crazy booty. Even if it means giving people malicious updates that leak encryption keys (which has happened before with applications)"
programming,"Same as /u/sleeplessone it was much easier to setup and having my parents and girlfriend all on different accounts means that should anything happen to any of us the others are able to access accounts. 

Also I am not running over to my parents every 2nd day to help them with KeePass. Lastpass is fairly intuitive for them and usually helping them consists of changing a url in lastpass. 

Also for $24 a year I'm able to hire a team of security experts that watch over our accounts and at least for now has a level of transparency I'm comfortable with. The Lastpass team is much more versed on security than I'll ever be, and while KeePass is sound it is usually user error and not encryption schemes that gives away the turkey. Not good for those who are security inept in the first place.

Sometimes you give up a little security for convenience sake and thus I will remain with Lastpass. "
programming,">What information do you base this on?

Three things: 

* it's well known that humans are unreliable witnesses
* you said ""I usually use GMail only from Firefox and Thunderbird"" which implies you don't always use Firefox
* Chromium is an open source project... if Chrome/Chromium were scanning your computer for session cookies for other browsers, that would be a MUCH bigger story.

There's 3 possibilities: You signed into Chrome a long time ago and forgot, you signed into a Google website more than 2.5months ago and then updated Chrome (which signed you into Chrome), or someone else did this for you (who else has access to your computer?).

But I guarantee Chrome doesn't dig into `~/.mozilla/firefox/[random].default/cookies.sqlite` to grab your sign in cookies.

>Any ideas how to un-sign-in from this thing?

Click the 3 vertical dots -> Settings -> Sign Out"
programming,"Do they? Their policy of not disclosing an upcoming phone in the release notes, even though that phone is plastered all over their freaking *landing page* sounded pretty robotic to me.

Humans are no good when they're forced to follow robotic policies.

_(Edit: I'm not really doubting they use humans. I'm doubting the usefulness of humans, given how little leeway the whole process gives them. A human following a pre-written, rigid procedure is hardly better than a bot.)_
"
programming,"And here I am, witnessing how Windows 10 has turned into a complete Ad for MS' services, pushing you to get Office and OneDrive all day long (like windows defender telling you your device is insecure since you're not backing up to OneDrive, or huge ads in explorer)

I really don't see myself going back to Windows full-time, and I do like my 2017 Macbook. Could be better, but could be way worse."
programming,"Windows 10 is totally fucked. I only use it for games and to rent HD movies on Amazon Prime. Linux is my daily OS now, and as a dev, it's great. Linux Mint w/ Cinnamon + proprietary nvidia drivers works incredibly well.

 That macbook pro, on the other hand, fails repeatedly with multiple monitors, constantly gets them mixed or randomly only drives one monitor (with the other saying ""no signal""), the keyboard is an insult, and it frequently crashes when asleep, forcing a reboot.

This is not the Apple of several years ago. Their once-great user experience is now in tatters.

I was a mac fanatic for almost two decades. I did not make the decision to leave them lightly."
programming,"You are a very good robot. You accept policy unquestioningly and assume anyone who sees a problem with it is a jerk.

The point of the entire submission is, though, that the policy is just stupid to begin with for reasons stated in the article. It does not make any *sense* - that last word being the important one. It's a rule for rule's sake. Apple gains nothing at all. (Reminder: context of the article, nothing is revealed, so this is not about Apple secrecy)"
programming,"> I just put Office 2007 on it.

I have a O365 subscription and it STILLS tells me to try it out, because the builtin app doesn't even check properly.

>Prevented that one from starting at boot/login.

Did that, and removed it from explorer sidebar. I hate having to do that though, and of course it came back after a huge feature update.
Can't get rid of the Defender alert forever though.

>Eh?

I think they reverted it https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/9/14872464/windows-10-onedrive-ads-inside-file-explorer


It's not a bad OS, it works and performs great. I don't even mind the preinstalled candy crush.

But I can't stand constant ads for a OS I paid full price for. (Built my own computer, bought a pro license from MS)"
programming,"Trying to argue that he is technically correct sounds more like you are more robot than me. 

As an obvious example, when he changed the wording, a robot would let him pass the test. 

To me, it sounds like this guy want to play “I’m smarter than you. I found a loop hole!” for no reason. 

He is like that annoying kids that tries to annoy you by pointing his finger really close to you and claim that he is not doing anything wrong since he technically isn’t touching you. 

It’s all subjective. So I’ll settle to agree to disagree. "
programming,"Well not a ""this was just a month ago!"" thing, but when the first new gen XPS line (so the 95xx and upward) came out, broadcom wifi support was pretty spotty on the mainline kernel and I had to do some messing around to get it worked out. Actually there was a whole list of stuff I had to do to get it setup properly on Arch. Granted, I bought my 9550 literally the day it was available for sale (so like Nov 2016), but laptops do seem to suffer more from the diversity of components issues in recent years than desktops."
programming,"That's because Theo de Raadt's warnings came true.

1. shitty vendors like Broadcom produce shitty products as fast as possible in order to get their components accepted by OEMs

2. because their products are hastily-churned-out shit, they need to do a lot of firmware patching after the fact

3. free OS'es are then in the position of accepting binary blobs or reverse-engineering or going without

4. [not part of Theo's warning:] Broadcom, the #1 cause of laptops not working well for free OSes today, is some kind of hero for deigning to give Linux its binary blobs"
programming,"This bad publicity is now part of the narrative. So I'm not convinced that even ""control"" has been achieved - not even a silly and self-destructive form of control.

What people keep forgetting, somehow, is that if you try to control something too tightly, you just and up squeezing it out of your hands. Or squeezing it to death. Either way, you lose control because you could not exercise it with restraint."
programming,"And yet some creeps back when I reinstall the os. I eventually remove all of it again, but it's annoying.

But fuck, I should not have to do that especially on a pro edition.
The O365 issue was the worst. I paid for it, and I had ads. Sure, removing the app fixed it but why, oh why can't the o365 installer I got from MS' website do that?


It got better, but early W10 had no QA at all. I'm no Windows hater, you won't get ""It's shit I went to linux kek"" from me. It actually pains me because Windows is a great OS under the hood, but MS keeps ruining it."
programming,"You're right of course, you *shouldn't* have to do all that. Especially not with the annoying ""Get Office 365"" apps after you actually installed the real deal. Incidentally, this was the very issue that prompted me to find out how to remove all that shit and make W10 actually usable.

But the sad fact remains that *so* many people who love to complain about these things are seemingly unwilling to ask the search engine of their choice how to actually *fix* them..."
programming,"If you want to use either UEFI mode without CSM (legacy BIOS support), or Secure Boot (which requires UEFI), I recommend to use GPT partitioning scheme.

With this setup, you don't have MBR at all. Booting in UEFI is being done using EFI partition (which has FAT filesystem), where all the installed operating systems put their boot files (e.g. EFI/Microsoft and EFI/fedora).

The best part is, that you do not need a special boot manager to choose your OS, most UEFI firmwares have one built-in. When an OS is installed, it will register its boot files with UEFI and use whatever boot procedure the OS wants - Windows will get its' NTLDR, Linux will get its' Grub and everyone is happy.

Also, if something happens, you can use the firmware to navigate all FAT partitions and manually choose .efi file to boot. Works from USB sticks too.
"
programming,">Do they? Their policy of not disclosing an upcoming phone in the release notes, even though that phone is plastered all over their freaking landing page sounded pretty robotic to me.

I'm a backend developer, but from my limited experience with App Store development, literally every tiny app update goes through a review process that can have a multi-day latency and involves someone opening your app and clicking through it, just in case you decided that this bug fix release of your e-commerce app was the one to suddenly include GIFs of throbbing veiny cocks and an elaborate guide on how to cook meth. "
programming,"I'd imagine Apple would object to this too, since he can't really promise compatibility with future releases without having used them?

I'm not familiar with what changes he had to make. It sounds like it was just a matter of making his app work with different size screens (""The iPhone XS is the same size as the previous generation’s iPhone X, and so no updates for it were needed."") Maybe he should have just said ""Added support for more screen resolutions.""?"
programming,"> Say that you support additional screen sizes and it works.

There are no additional screen sizes. Please do not mention hypothetical yet-to-be-released screen sizes.

> This guy decided to be an absolute ass and added immature changelogs to fuck with the reviewers (woo fight the power, that will teach apple).

It brought wider attention to the problem, and it forced a human working inside Apple to engage with it. It's not about ""sticking it to the man"", it's about bringing attention to the problem. When you don't bring attention to problems, those problems persist."
programming,"But this problem is here EVERY SINGLE YEAR. People tweeted about that too, people with FAR MUCH REACH that a developer being a jackass to a lowly paid employee.
Plus, this blog post came out the day Apple started allowing mention of XS and XS Max. So it's late.

>There are no additional screen sizes. Please do not mention hypothetical yet-to-be-released screen sizes.

And yet this was accepted. They're not even enforcing the ""changelog must document everything rule"". Stop acting like you're stupid to make your point.

I'm not arguing that Apple is in the right here, they're wrong. But that guy is a douche.

Yes, both parties can be wrong/stupid at the same time. World isn't black and wite."
programming,"> People tweeted about that too, people with FAR MUCH REACH

And yet this post has about 272 upvotes at the time I write this. So that suggests one of two things:

1. Some people weren't aware of this issue before now, hence invalidating the ""more reach"" argument.
2. Despite people knowing about this, it remains an issue, therefore it remains important to talk about it.

> being a jackass to a lowly paid employee.

No, being a jackass to the rules Apple set. The fact that a human has to deal with that is Apple's fault. You can't, for instance, sell people poison labelled as food and then complain when they are upset with your ""low-pay employees"". 

> Stop acting like you're stupid to make your point.

Stop throwing ad hominem shit around to make yours.

"
programming,... and? This is where we should think less of him for not immediately rolling over and just being a good cog? Dude's doing what's important to him. I will never understand why the internet is so full of people so hot to condemn a situation where a person is arbitrary and stubborn in response to some giant faceless corporation being arbitrary and stubborn. At least this dude owns his own personal grudge. What excuse does the department in the trillion dollar company have?
programming,"When someone is being a stupid ass, the most efficient way to get them to change is to be a bigger, louder, stupider ass until the problem is too obvious to ignore.  

This is the ""drawing dicks around potholes"" of software development. You can say drawing dicks on the road is immature, but if it's the most effective way to get a pothole filled, is it really the cock artist that is problematic?"
programming,"Sure you can claim support without testing.  If X uses Y and Y supports Z, then I can claim that X supports Z.  For example, I claim that my HTML only site works on all web browsers even though I didn't test all of them.  I used standard HTML and no fancy stuff so I am pretty sure my site supports even IE.

It's certainly possible that IE will misrender some paragraphs and anchors but I think it's so unlikely that my time is better spent elsewhere.

And of course, even if your test passes, that doesn't mean there are no bugs."
programming,"I also agree, at least with their first response. Their rational for denying the update wasn't that the new iPhone was un-released, it's that it was non-GM. You may have updated your app to be compatable with the SDK they have released for the new iPhone right now. But until they release a GM, the SDK is subject to change. If you submit your update now, then tomorrow they rework the SDK and the day after you get run over by a bus, your app will remain incompatable with the new iPhone on release day even though your release notes say otherwise."
programming,"> You're only focusing on minimizing the bad. What about maximizing the good?

Minimizing the bad is more important than maximizing the good, because Apple has weighted that the bad in this particular case is more important than the good.

> At the end of the day, I think the app developer is responsible for the app working. 

Apple has a walled garden. They certainly don't wont to have more problems than they already have. As you say:

> Apple review let's 1000s of bugs through

At least, by selecting not to allow reference to new models not released yet, they minimize their role in the bad part.
"
programming,"D is so much nicer to work in. Normal functions can be used at compile-time and run-time.

    import std.algorithm;
    import std.conv;
    import std.random;
    import std.stdio;

    string[] fizzbuzz(int n)
    {
        string[] output;
        foreach (input; 1..n+1)
        {
            output ~= input.predSwitch!(""a % b == 0"")(15, ""fizzbuzz"", 5, ""buzz"", 3, ""fizz"", input.text);
        }
        return output;
    }

    void main()
    {
        // Executed at compile time (using the enum keyword).
        enum compileTime = fizzbuzz(20);
        writeln(compileTime);

        // Executed at run time (using a random number).
        auto runTime = fizzbuzz(uniform(20, 30));
        writeln(runTime);
    }"
programming,">[giving answers to questions]

do you think any questions you had about the D code *didn't* have answers?

>that's part of the requirement

The requirements of FizzBuzz concern the output, only. They don't concern your code. Solving FizzBuzz with a %15 branch is a non-obvious enhancement that only goes unquestioned because everybody does it.

> I copied an example, but its trivial to change it to another number or make it arbitrary.

ugh. The point is, you're going *to one hundred*. That's the task and that's the task that you've implemented. But your code doesn't have 100, it has 101.

Python may be a more damaging language to the spirit than BASIC."
programming,"You're bringing up a bunch of points that are irrelevant to the point I was making.  I thought you were going to lead back to the original point, but you didn't.  I won't continue addressing your points because they don't add or subtract form my original point.   My point is that I agree with another user that this line:

    output ~= input.predSwitch!(""a % b == 0"")(15, ""fizzbuzz"", 5, ""buzz"", 3, ""fizz"", input.text);

is more difficult to read than this snippet:

    if (i%15)
        output ~= ""fizzbuzz"";
    else if (i%3)
        output ~= ""fizz"";
    else if (i%5)
        output ~= ""buzz"";
    else
        output ~= i;

which accomplishes the same thing.
"
programming,"I never said the guy's solution wasn't elegant.  I said it wasn't readable at a glance.  If there was a bug in his code, the line I pointed out would get an unfair amount scrutiny when debugging.  This is too simple of a problem to warrant the amount of thought that goes into reading that line.  Mental energy is a resource and I only want to invest it in complex problems.

I value readability for simple concepts.  I work in a team and I want to make it easy for my co-workers to review my code and maintain it, so I try and write readable code.  I also understand that some problems are more complex and need stronger abstractions in order to keep the complexity of the code reasonable.  For that, I sacrifice readabilty for elegance.

So let me ask you this, do you believe most people would find his code easier to read?"
programming,"It is not unreadable.  It is more difficult to read than it needs be given the fact that it does something so trivial.  IMO, it's bad practice to write code that is more difficult to read than it needs to be because most programmers work in team environments.  Many end up spending 3 hours reading code for ever hour writing it.

Notice that I could have condensed my previous paragraph into something that uses fewer words and clever tricks to really show off my command of the English language.  I didn't.  I tried to make it readable so you'd invest your mental energy absorbing the concepts I'm conveying rather than deciphering what I was saying.  I apply the same logic to code."
programming,"I kind of feel like the comparison between living in the bay and working an oil rig is off. Oil rigs are pretty dangerous, and working at a cushy tech job with ping pong tables and free food and whacky chairs to code in just doesn't seem equivalent in any way to me.

I get that sharing an apartment sucks, but people who work rigs can have 500 mile (one way) commutes. I work in the software side of the oil industry and the commute times of people is insane. People will take a 2 week on the job 1 week off schedule, which I think would be really hard if you had a family.

And even working a rig seems like nothing compared to working in an actual mine. I guess what I'm saying is that i get the analogy, but it seems a little dramatic/overblown."
programming,"\> Being a software engineer can be immensely more stressful than working a rig. 

Yeah im gonna have to call BS on that one. If you dont think working a rig is stressful, then you probably don't know anything about the industry.

I've worked in a factory, I've done landscaping, and I've worked at Starbucks. Programming is such a wonderful job, even with the stress, that I think people who haven't had to experience other jobs don't understand how lucky we are.

Each of my other jobs was immensely stressful, and i wouldn't trade my programming job for anything."
programming,"My wife is a radiology resident, she started about half a year ago.  Few weeks ago she asked me to come to the hospital to help her put in her work hours into the system.

When I saw how the system worked, I almost rolled on the floor, it was so bad...  Just to give you a taste of it: you cannot start or finish your shift at midnight sharp: zero considered a ""default value"" for time, and treated as if no input was provided.  There's no way to either print or email the report.  The best you can do is to print-screen it, and then email the picture.  And the list of ""features"" goes on.  This is fifth biggest hospital in the country.  It does most heart/lung transplants in the country etc.  It's not some backwoods hut nobody knows about.

The hospital computers run assortment of MS Windows versions.  Some even seem to run DOS (the secretery's computer didn't seem to have anything in terms of windowed UI).  There are variety of reasons why there's no Linux in this (or most any other) hospitals:

1. Was already mentioned here: no device drivers.  All device drivers are closed-source very expensive software.  Phillips, Toshiba and friends are very happy to keep it that way.  This allows them to sell a bunch of expensive hardware with updates, makes development cheaper for them, eliminates spurious competition.

2. Hospital IT is staffed with the least competent people you can find: pay is relatively low, no career prospects, no real opportunity or motivation to do things better because they are too heavily regulated, and the regulations come from non-experts.  Oh, I forgot, terrible working hours.

3. I'll expand on regulations: hospital IT doesn't really govern itself.  They receive orders from people who aren't experts in IT and have to deal with them somehow.  I.e. doctors decide which programs they want to use, which machines they need to run on etc.  So, if most doctors don't know anything but MS Windows, they will most certainly choose MS Windows for their OS.  Yet another problem: computers in the hospital are used by different doctors (doctors often need to switch locations), so the system must be usable for all people in the department.  You cannot just decide that individuals who want Linux will get it: there's no such thing as individual computer--they are all shared.

----

So, I hope the patient didn't die.  But, this kind of mishap seems like a miracle to me, given how bad the system is in general."
programming,"It's not just Windows, though. As time goes by it will be harder to find *any* OS that doesn't have automatic updates, and as Linux expands in the consumer space it will start to act more and more like Windows, because the people who are too ignorant to install security updates in a timely manner end up constituting a threat to everyone. You can defer/disable updates with Linux and OS X if you configure them right, but the same is true of Windows (provided you actually go back and install them later, at non-critical times). Really, the headline should just be ""hospital has inadequate IT staff"", because even a sophomore in college knows you have to configure your machines before using them."
programming,"It is genuinely baffling to me what the hell Windows is doing that takes so long: afaik the updates are already downloaded, so it should just be a case of backing up some existing files and moving in the updates no? One exception - that I find totally scandalous - is that one ""update"" might be a Malicious Software Removal Tool run, which takes an arbitrary amount of time to complete *but there is no indication whatsoever* that this is what's going on."
programming,"Again, what has that got to do with anything? They didnt loose control of the anestesia and the pc that went down had nothing to do with the anestecia. The only consequence of this breakdown is that the patient had to be put under again later to finish the procedure. 


Thats eanough of a problem in itself without people having to blow things out of proportion by extrapolating random shit from the article headline."
programming,"Heheh, story time: back in the day, I applied to Dropbox because they had a profile up for an ""experienced Pythonista"". I did the online screen, they seemed happy with my responses, told me they were looking forward to move on to the next phase... then a couple days later they email to tell me they had already hired someone for the position, that they'd keep me in mind for future openings, wished me luck with the job hunt, blah blah blah. 

A few days later, I see the news about Guido joining Dropbox and I was like ""oh... I guess if you've got *that* experienced Pythonista you would definitely stop looking"". I'm not even mad! :)"
programming,"I don't think it's a good argument because C people have been able to handle assignments being normal expressions for 30+ years.

You don't need the result, you throw it away and everything is fine.

I guess you want to argue that mixing side-effects and expressions is bad, but no matter how good the language is you need some side effects at some point because without side-effects the language can't do anything useful (like I/O). "
programming,"Because Python programmers expect `if a = 0:` to be get caught as an error. If you ask me, the right thing to do is to make assignment an expression but to not coerce anything anything to a boolean in conditionals, i.e. `if 0:` or `if None:` would become syntactic errors. That would be a breaking change, and so have to wait for a major revision boondoggle, but it would satisfy the needs of the assignment-as-expression people as well as the assignment-as-statement crowd."
programming,">  I want someone who ""knows"" what pythonic means

Not going to lie, I *hate* that term. That and `pythonista` drive me fucking crazy. It screams hipster douchey 'in crowd' mindset to me. 

I want someone at the helm who has both strong development and leadership skills. Someone who can guide the language in a sane way that keeps the language readable while also ensuring new features actually add value. The whole idea of code being 'pythonic' leads to weird shit like people using exceptions for control flow, using \*args, \*\*kwargs in non-library code where there are really only 3-4 parameters, using dictionaries where data classes/model objects would be more appropriate, etc.

That's not to say python shouldn't have its own coding style, but you can definitely write clean, PEP-8 compliant code that isn't 'pythonic' but is infinitely more readable and maintainable."
programming,"Python didn't originally have True and False, just 1 and 0.  When True and False were added, they weren't keywords, just global variables that could be reassigned (which they still can be in Python 2).

It didn't change because a lot of people prefer 

    x = []
    if x:
        pass

Instead of

    x = []
    if not x.empty():
        pass

Empty strings are also falsy.  I'm not a Ruby fan in general, but one thing that Ruby gets absolutely right (besides more obvious good decisions like implicit self) is that the only things that are falsy are ""false"" and ""nil"".  Everything else evaluates true."
programming,"""truthy"" and ""falsy"" values are still horrible design that leads to many, many, many bugs. a condition getting anything that is not a boolean should be a dynamic error and it's super easy to explicitly coerce and just makes the code more readable.

`if len(list) > 0:` or `if not list.empty():` are both more readable and less bug prone than simply `if list:` It's just a general source of bugs when people forget that one of the values they enclose is also falsy like people letting a lookup return None when the key is not found and then forgetting that the actual value can also be something like the empty string or 0 which test as false."
programming,"Yeah but that makes `=` an expression again.

The reason `=` is not an expression in Python that returns the value it assigns is because of the historical often-bug where people want to test for equality and mean to type `==` but type `=` instead.

In Rust `=` is not an expression for the same reason but there's no real prolem because actual blocks:

    let x;
    while {x = long_expression(); x} {
       actual_code()
    }

You can easily assign to x and still evaluate to x by just doing `{x = long_expression(); x}`"
programming,"So you allow `if (x=0)` and we're back to the same bugs again.

Basically, if you use `-Werr` you are not using a C compiler. It's a different language. You can enable `-Werr` on a single file with old code, but that's no different than compiling that file with a normal C compiler, and then compiling your own code with a C' compiler (where C' is the ""new"" language which does not allow dangerous things you don't like).

If your advice is to ""by default"" always compile with a non-standards conforming compiler, you might as well just call a spade a spade and say that you are using a new language. When needed for compatibility you could then just relax the language rules as needed.

Using `-Werr`  your code can break at _any time_. You never know. Because there is no `-Werr` standard. Why not simply standardize it, and call it a new language (because that is what it is)."
programming,"Making a new language is not easy. Python 3 cleaned up a lot of mess from Python 2, but it was a painful transition. Both C and C++ aim to avoid breaking backwards compatibility as much as possible. Plus since it's a committee with many people, you always have some (like IBM) that won't sign on removing trigraphs because they still support platforms without ASCII support.

Not to mention it's very hard to know when code is wrong and when it is intentional. Which is why people use linters that say stuff like ""you're doing this, is it what you actually intended?"". "
programming,"A classic compiler essentially translates source code into ""native"" or ""machine code"" (in a lot of modern languages it translates into p-code or bytecode, but just ignore that for now). This resulting machine code is what the CPU of the computer understands. 

So technically, you can compile a program, delete the source code, and delete the compiler from the computer and you could still run the native code that was produced by the compiler. 

So say you write a compiler in language A, that compiles the code for language B into native code for machine M. Initially, you would need the compiler for language A in order to build and *compile the compiler* that compiles language B. But once you have the compiler working, you could rewrite the compiler itself in language B, compile it with the compiler that you already wrote, and then you would no longer rely on the A language to develop your compiler for machine M."
programming,"This type of ""chicken & egg"" question is exactly why it is hypothetically possible for a compiler to contain hidden code that flows from one compiler to another to another. Even if you yourself compiled your compiler, the compiler you used for the compiler could itself be compromised, or that compiler's compiler's compiler, etc Ad infinitum.   

Point being is, unless you personally built the initial compiler from assembly then used that to start the compiler tree (and inspected all the source in the interim) every compiler that flows could be compromised and you'd never know.    "
programming,"An ELI5:

You can buy steel hand tools that we can't create from scratch raw metal ore.

You'd have to start with wood/stone tools and work your way back up through bronze and iron age tools first. Eventually, you'll have iron tools of sufficient quality to make your first steel tool, and of course your steel tools can be used to make more steel tools.

This analogy also kind of works in Minecraft."
programming,"[Reflections on Trusting Trust](https://www.archive.ece.cmu.edu/~ganger/712.fall02/papers/p761-thompson.pdf). Great (short) read.

>The actual bug I planted in the compiler would match code in the UNIX ""login"" command. The re- placement code would miscompile the login command so that it would accept either the intended encrypted password or a particular known password. Thus if this code were installed in binary and the binary were used to compile the login command, I could log into that system as any user.

​"
programming,"AFAIK C# does not compile to native.

What can happen is C++ with CLR can call native C++.

Essentially there's managed C++ where no memory can be dynamically allocated, and that can call unmanaged (native C++).

It's good if a C# really needs a performance boost, but there's still an overhead of changing data types. a std::string container in C++ needs to be converted to a C_str() and then converted to a C# String^ object.

I think it most use cases you're better off just using unmanaged  C# unless you really need some system calls that C# is incapable of making.

Edit: I stand corrected."
programming,"significantly slower than what?

also, if you're writing a language compiler, it's usually because you think that language is great, so why wouldn't you want to write the compiler in that great language?

bootstrapped / self hosted compilers are a traditional sign of language maturity. If your language isn't powerful enough for the compiler to be written in that language, is it really ready for the industry to use it to develop even more complicated applications?"
programming,"The first C compiler for a new platform is written in assembly and as barebones as possible - it doesn’t have to optimize or do anything fancy, it just needs to obey the language spec (or even just a subset) and generate the correct machine code.

That ultra-primitive compiler is then used to compile a fully-featured optimizing compiler written in C, which then compiles itself again so you have a version that’s now optimized. 

Then you’re off to the races and can start compiling other compilers for other languages in a similar process."
programming,"Compilers are actually rather primitive, you don't need too much of a language to write a compiler. Actually, you don't even need a Turing-complete language to write a compiler. So it's possible to bootstrap a self-hosting compiler from only a tiny subset of a language it's written in first, and then incrementally make it more complex. That subset can be implemented on top of some primitive inefficient interpreter, for example (e.g., grown on top of a tiny Forth)."
programming,"I actually was never able to understand this reasoning.

Writing a compiler is quite a specific problem to solve. You better solve it with a *specific* language that is a good fit for writing compilers. The language you're implementing is most likely designed for solving some other problems, not compiler construction, and therefore, the only languages that must be self-hosted are languages designed specifically for writing compilers (such as, say, ML)."
programming,"There are huge amount of AOT solutions for .net, but they're mostly target IL, not C#, because they also compile all libraries that come in IL form.

 - .NET Native for UWP - by Microsoft, compiles to single native exe
 - NGen - generates native libraries for IL binaries that will be loaded instead of IL code
 - CoreRT - new native runtime for .net core
 - Mono AOT - native compiler for Xamarin
 - Unity IL2CPP - IL to C++ compiler for Unity

"
programming,"> MLs aren't designed specifically for writing compilers,

ML was designed for theorem proving, which is pretty much the same thing as writing compilers.

> MLs are just meant to be powerful general purpose languages...

Nope, ML had a very specific design goal, nowhere close to anything ""general purpose"".

>  if you think other languages aren't as expressive, then why would you intentionally choose to use those less expressive languages?

Because their design goals are different. They can be less expressive in constructing trees and matching against trees, but much more expressive in, say, array- and vector- based computations. Not surprisingly, such a design goal does not match well with ADTs and pattern matching.

> They encompass a range of basic tasks,

Compilers are trivial. They're nothing but a sequence of tree rewrites. So, a language that is most suitable for writing compilers must provide very easy ways of constructing trees and pattern-matching tree structures. You can easily see how this requirement can contradict the other design requirements you might have for a language you're building.

> is the laborious process of implementing dozens or hundreds of optimization passes

And that's exactly why you need a *specific* language, to make this process less laborious. 

LLVM is a good example here. It's implemented in a language that is not very well suited for writing compilers, and it results in a horrible mess that InstCombine pass is. For the other parts, to avoid creating such a mess, LLVM resorts to using very high level DSLs instead (see TableGen).


>  but the language frontend is still written in the language being compiled.

Again, most languages do not have features that make writing such a frontend an easy task. More so, for most of the languages, their design goals directly contradict the needs of a compiler frontend.





"
programming,"I mean... that's a very real possibility. We've already thrown things like the voyager probes into deep space. There's a very real chance that we develop hardier probes, launch them out, and then nuke ourselves or cook ourselves with global warming. Hell even just on earth with the way automation's going, it's not long until we have manufacturing systems building and maintaining themselves. That's enough to build roboty things that could outlive us on earth."
programming,"> Every Wikipedia page refers to ML/Standard ML/OCaml as a general purpose language.

Also, they explain the history of ML creation - which was just a little DSL for theorem proving.

> since you were claiming it was designed for compilers, not theorem proving

Not a big difference. Also, ML is still not the most suitable language for compilers, actually, it's just way more suitable than the most of the others.

> Saying they're basically the same thing is not the most defensible position.

Ok, mind explaining the difference? Theorem proving boils down to rewriting trees, occasionally backtracking (hence, functional data structures). Compilation boils down to rewriting trees (and should have been backtracking too, but usually don't bother). Cannot see any fundamental difference here, backtracking or not, persistent data structures are useful for compilation too.

> How on earth can array and vector computations be unable to be implemented in a language that also has pattern matching?

Go on, extend Hindley-Milner to play well with, say, tensor ranks. I'm genuinely interested (in fact, I have a couple of passable solutions to this). Most likely, your solution will be too complex to really worth being implemented, just for the sake of self-hosting.

> Python is an extremely general purpose language that was never designed for vector math, but it's arguably becoming the backbone of scientific computation.

Python is a pile of shit, for pretty much any imaginable application. It's becoming popular because worse is better.

Now, have a look at a language that was actually designed for this sort of things - APL. Are you insane enough to write a compiler in an APL? Concatenative languages play well with array-centric computing, but are not so good for transforming trees.

> If a language supports operator overloading, then bam, it's suddeny great for vector math.

You have a very low standard of what is passable.

> Virtually every program needs to parse and manipulate inputs, whether it's a binary format on disk representing a database or a picture, or a message in JSON, XML, etc.

And yet, most of the languages do not have any proper features for doing it.

Also, why would you even want to parse JSON in a language built for array-centric computing, or in a relational language, or whatever else?

> I'm certain the LLVM developers would disagree wholeheartedly that C++ is not very well suited to writing compilers. 

And you're wrong. Come to a next LLVM meeting (such as EuroLLVM) and talk to people there.

Also, this is exactly the reason for TableGen, and its ever growing scope. I'm pretty sure one day it'll cover InstCombine too.

> If that were the case, it would have been rewritten, or at least new modules would be written in something suitable... 

There are other reasons - such as, performance requirements and availability of a toolchain for a diverse range of platforms.

> Authors of most languages think they're developing a great general purpose language,

Nope. Only the dumb ones. Those who actually know what they're doing are designing very narrowly scoped domain-specific languages instead.

> ""laborious"" means that it takes time and effort to do something. 

Also, it means that if you're writing your pass in C++, Python or whatever else unsuitable, your noise to signal ratio is too high. You're writing 90% boilerplate code surrounding 10% of something meaningful. That's laborious.

If your language is built with tree rewriting in mind, you'll have 100% meaningful code with 0% noise rituals, making your work far more efficient and your code much more maintainable and easier to comprehend.

> optimization passes take time to understand and implement. typing speed is not the limiting factor. 

Lol wut? Now you're claiming that a 90% noise code is only limiting your typing speed and nothing else? What about being able to actually *read* this code?

I recommend that you go and read InstCombine, and try to figure out what it's doing. Despite the actual meaning of all transforms there being dead trivial, understandable for anyone who vaguely remember the most basic algebra from school, the code itself is mostly a noise, and you must try really hard to see the trivial algebra through it. Now, with a suitable language, you'll see the rewrite rules immediately, like `a * 0 = 0` and so on.

>  but I recognize that our major compilers, interpreters, and JITs are almost all written in C or C++

For the reasons that have nothing to do with ease of implementation and maintainability.

> hey must not suck that much at manipulating trees, regardless of how narrowly you seem to view languages.

Yet, they do suck, and it's a major show stopper. Once again, see TableGen language - without it LLVM would have been an even bigger mess, and, likely, would have stayed a decade behind.

Same thing for gcc - if you think it's written in C, you're wrong. The most horrible parts (isel, for example) are implemented in ad hoc DSLs too.



"
programming,"Sure it does, or you could never pull yourself out of a hole.

The idea is to take some small part of yourself and move  it to a place where it can stay closer to your goal while you work on the next part. Like putting your pants or shirt on one limb at a time, or walking up stairs instead of hopping with both feet from stair to stair.

The bog example simply highlights the difficulty of that first step, to show that you have to break the problem down to get to the next level."
programming,"Sure, but that doesn't work in the specific example of trying to get yourself out of thick mud (swamp, quicksand, whatever you want to call it). Moving any part of you through the fluid in an upwards motion will propel you downward, and moving any part of you through the fluid downward only very slightly propels you upward - as you are fighting against gravity.

On top of that, any movement at all will cause you to sink faster simply because something needs to take the place of the mud you displace, and that's going to be more mud. Mud gets pulled down by gravity just the same as you do, so it'll mostly be more mud falling into those areas you moved from, causing a general downward motion, causing you to sink more.

What I've mostly heard from people is that the only good way to escape from such a situation is to use some sort of external support, like a rope tied to a tree that you can pull on to pull yourself up. But that only works because it's tied to something outside of the mud.

**Disclaimer**: I have no real-world experience with this. This is just what I've heard from people over the years, combined with a lot of thought put into it on my part for various reasons (I basically get bored sometimes and start thinking of various fictional scenarios, especially if I've seen something similar in a movie.. Then I start seriously thinking about them and various real-life implications. I might have too much time on my hands sometimes)."
programming,"The inbox sorts things so I see the latest reply first, so I responded to the second comment. I'll just quote my response here:

> Sure, but that doesn't work in the specific example of trying to get yourself out of thick mud (swamp, quicksand, whatever you want to call it). Moving any part of you through the fluid in an upwards motion will propel you downward, and moving any part of you through the fluid downward only very slightly propels you upward - as you are fighting against gravity.

> On top of that, any movement at all will cause you to sink faster simply because something needs to take the place of the mud you displace, and that's going to be more mud. Mud gets pulled down by gravity just the same as you do, so it'll mostly be more mud falling into those areas you moved from, causing a general downward motion, causing you to sink more.

> What I've mostly heard from people is that the only good way to escape from such a situation is to use some sort of external support, like a rope tied to a tree that you can pull on to pull yourself up. But that only works because it's tied to something outside of the mud.

> **Disclaimer**: I have no real-world experience with this. This is just what I've heard from people over the years, combined with a lot of thought put into it on my part for various reasons (I basically get bored sometimes and start thinking of various fictional scenarios, especially if I've seen something similar in a movie.. Then I start seriously thinking about them and various real-life implications. I might have too much time on my hands sometimes)."
programming,"Not really. The truth of it is that you need some external help first before you can stand on your own - and that's the case with 'bootstrapping' a compiler too. You first have to compile your own compiler with a *different* compiler, but *then* you can compile your own compiler with itself.

Sometimes in life we have to rely on others, and that's ok. Those who can do incredible things all on their own are to be commended for their feats, but that doesn't mean we should be ashamed of ourselves when we need others to help us.

It's folklore like the apparent source of the bootstrapping terminology that spreads this idea that we need to be able to do things on our own and not rely on others as much as possible, but in many cases that will get us killed, like if we try to actually pull ourselves out of a swamp by our bootstraps."
programming,"A similar (less nefarious) thing happened to my colleague. He worked on a self-hosted compiler, and he was trying to fix a bug to do with parsing numeric literals. Well, he thought he fixed the bug, but his tests were still failing. It turned out that the bug was causing his fix not to get applied when his compiler was compiled.

So he had to check-in/build with a temporary hack, and then apply the right fix once there was a non-buggy build of the compiler."
programming,"I would quote Stroustrup himself: (http://stroustrup.com/bs_faq.html#bootstrapping)

> # Which language did you use to write C++?
>
> The first C++ compiler (Cfront) was written in C++. To build that, I first used C to write a ""C with Classes''-to-C preprocessor. ""C with Classes'' was a C dialect that became the immediate ancestor to C++. That preprocessor translated ""C with Classes"" constructs (such as classes and constructors) into C. It was a traditional preprocessor that didn't understand all of the language, left most of the type checking for the C compiler to do, and translated individual constructs without complete knowledge. I then wrote the first version of Cfront in ""C with Classes"".
>
> Cfront was a traditional compiler that did complete syntax and semantic checking of the C++ source. For that, it had a complete parser, built symbol tables, and built a complete internal tree representation of each class, function, etc. It also did some source level optimization on its internal tree representation of C++ constructs before outputting C. The version that generated C, did not rely on C for any type checking. It simply used C as an assembler. The resulting code was uncompromisingly fast. For more information, see D&E.

It may feel cunning to some. And believe me, I feel it too.

It relies on the distinction between preprocessing and compiling. Since he is able to state the technical details of the distinction, I will give it to him.

It also relies on where to set the cutoff between ""C with some extension"" and ""C++"", and whether ""C with Classes"" fell into C++ age. With classes and constructors, I would accept it is quite different from C proper. So I will give it to him too.

So I would guess the C++-to-C preprocessor CPre was written in C. But once Stroustrup had that, he could start writing C++ apps, including Cfront."
programming,"C# always compiled to native code since the very begging, .NET never had an interpretation step, other than on the Micro Framework implementation.

You can compile to straight native code via NGEN, but since it requires code signing and you are limited in what you can do,  e.g. no reflection tricks, and only dynamic linking is supported.

This meant not many devs bother with NGEN other than for faster startup times of desktop apps.

Windows Phone 8.x used a native compiler called MDIL based on Bartok from Singularity project, where the Sing# was AOT compiled.

UWP makes use of .NET Native, which was inspired from the improvements moving from Singularity to Midori with SystemC#.

Mono has had limited AOT support from the early days, and Xamarin only deploys via AOT to iOS."
programming,"> The source code you pointed to isn't part of the JIT/VM/CLR though.

It's just not normally enabled.  But hey, an ARM build of the CLR doesn't have the x86 JIT either, so the definition of what is and is not the CLR isn't dependent on what's enabled in an individual build.

> It's an interpreter that interprets IL and is a lot (50-100x) slower than JIT.

Yeah, no shit, it's a fairly unoptimized interpreter.

> It's there in source code to make porting CoreCLR to new platforms (like ARM64) easier.

By building a version of the CLR with the JIT disabled and this enabled.  Bringing us to the fact that the decision of whether to JIT or interpret isn't intrinsic to the definition of the CLR, but a design tradeoff that can (and does) change depending on circumstances.  A CLR built with the interpreter enabled isn't any less of a CLR.

EDIT:  Continuing the idea that it's a design tradeoff, the .Net Micro framework, which runs the same MSIL, ships normally as an interpreter, with some work unfinished being done into order to add an AOT option.  The JIT once again isn't intrinsic in the definition of the CLR.

EDIT2:  The Mono CLR implementation also took a more Java-like model, interpreting rather than JITing on the first pass."
programming,"Ok, it's embarrassing - I cannot find links to this project now, and I expected it to be of a more high profile. Will dig links out later. Also, it is possible I remember the project name incorrectly.

In an essense, the tool I am talking about is a system of a number of very different CPUs (from different vendors, may include simulations running on alien ISAs), doing the same work in a lock step. When the output is different, the minority opinion is suppressed, and it is logged.

That experiment was made explicitly as a workaround for the Ken Thompson hack."
programming,"> Big fan of C# thought I wish it had an exponential operator

Are extension methods really so much worse?

    public static double Square(this double d) => d*d;

    public static double Pow(this double b, double e) => Math.Pow(b,e);

    double Example(double x) => x.Square() + x.Pow(x);

While we're at arithmetic, a bigger issue IMHO is the lack of a (usable) mechanism to abstract over numeric types. Thankfully, some form of type classes/concepts/shapes is planned for C# 8.
    
Edit: [Apparently cancelled for C# 8, and ""maybe"" for C# 9](https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/issues/110#issuecomment-419582966)."
programming,"> There are ways to check for numericness: https://stackoverflow.com/q/1749966/539997

I meant writing functions that are generic over the numeric type, not just checking if a type is numeric. It [can be done at near zero runtime cost](https://github.com/louthy/language-ext#ad-hoc-polymorphism) by simulating typeclasses with generic interfaces and typeclass instances with empty structs implementing the interfaces, but it's awkward to use (in particular, it usually breaks generic argument inference, so you have to specify all the types by hand).

Edit: For a glaring example of the sort of thing I meant that's not currently abstractable, see all the basically copy&paste overloads of [`Enumerable.Sum`](https://referencesource.microsoft.com/system.core/system/linq/Enumerable.cs.html#17ae8142727f08ee) and `Enumerable.Average`."
programming,"Yeah, I see what you mean. I had the same struggles writing operator overloads for a Vector class. You need a different set of operators for every type.

Another solution is to make a struct that has implicit conversion operators with all numeric types. Then you only have to define operators for your one numeric type. But then of course you have boxing and unboxing all over the place, which wastes overhead. And you're bound to hit some ambiguous method calls with simple operators if you don't scope things just right."
programming,"The point of infix operators is to make compact code that mirrors the formula you might see in a textbook or paper. The ultimate goal would almost be to write complex mathematical formulas in the LaTeX and have the compiler interpret that (kinda like a mathematica workbook).

Anytime you have to replace a well understood operator with a function name you have to mentally translate it and lose much of the value of having the operators.

That is the problem ""exp"" or ""pow"" functions. They are obviously necessary, but they aren't really what you want in a complex formula."
programming,"Won't happen in my lifetime mate; it's still got the stigma of being Microsoft for starters and until those higher up that can make tech-stack calls move on it won't ever happen.

​

C# is only better from a developers experience and that gap grows smaller with every release of Java that has syntax sugar.

​

I grew up as an engineer with C# in my life and I like it a lot; but NuGet isn't Gradle / Maven and is generally infantile in comparison and general frameworks / library unless they come from Microsoft are fairly poor. Java has the enterprise goodness and is generally not a supremely pain in the butt for building CRUD web-services.

​

At the same time it's 2018; dozens of languages capable of doing a majority of what most enterprises need solutions for."
programming,">but NuGet isn't Gradle / Maven and is generally infantile in comparison and general frameworks / library unless they come from Microsoft are fairly poor.

This certainly isn't true in 2018. Nuget is fantastic. Many great and reliable projects release their libraries on Nuget.

>  Java has the enterprise goodness and is generally not a supremely pain in the butt for building CRUD web-services. 

I don't really know what you mean by this. MS has made building enterprise level apps amazingly simple and fast. I *just* built a full DNC enterprise app in a week and a half. CRUD apps are a breeze in DNC.

​"
programming,"> It's not like ""brutal honesty"" and ""respectful communication"" are mutually exclusive concepts.

I disagree, ""brutal honesty"" is just an excuse to be a dick.

You can't be brutally honest and polite. 

Edit: some examples of what I mean by him being brutally honest

""That is either genius, or a seriously diseased mind.""

""So this patch is utter and absolute garbage, and should be shot in the
head and buried very very deep.""

He's saying what's in his head (honest) and is being a dickhead about it (brutal).

There is simply no need to be this mean. "
programming,"> It's not like ""brutal honesty"" and ""respectful communication"" are mutually exclusive concepts. 

Absolutely true, in theory. But the line is _extremely_ subjective: one man's brutal honesty is another man's disrespect. And what one man sees as brutal honesty _today_ can be disrespect _tomorrow_. This is where a lot of the trouble lies. Linus isn't wrong to think it's about ""being nice,"" as you put it, if that's indeed his position. "
programming,"Eh, Maybe ""brutal"" is a misnomer, but I always took brutal honesty to mean that you just state the facts and nothing but the facts, without throwing insults or sugar coating anything.

Regardless, I do agree that's what he should do from now on. No need to tell someone to shut the fuck up in all caps on a mailing list just to reject the pull request y'know. If he does need to tell off a kernel maintainer it's probably better to do it in private messages."
programming,"Though there's an argument for the shades of gray, if you've ever perused /r/linusrants, there was not a lot of gray.

> Of course, I'd also suggest that whoever was the genius who thought it
was a good idea to read things ONE F*CKING BYTE AT A TIME with system
calls for each byte...

gray.

> ...should be retroactively aborted. Who the f*ck does
idiotic things like that? How did they noty die as babies, considering
that they were likely too stupid to find a tit to suck on?

not."
programming,"Sometimes honesty hurts, but it is quite possible to be honest with someone about something that will hurt them *without going out of your way to hurt them.*

The latter thing is what's being asked of here.  It is possible to criticize code and coding concepts and coding design and system design and system*s* design and software architecture in ways that don't seek to cause harm.  This should be the goal of *every* developer.

We have to work together.  We shouldn't be jerks to each other."
programming,"Yet the people who use the term brutally honest to preclude their statement usually end up just throwing insults around.

I understand that ""brutally honest"" might mean to you that it's just honesty (which I would encourage in any professional setting), but the ones who scream the loudest of them being ""brutally honest"", are in  fact just trying to give a pre-emptive excuse for adding ad hominem attacks under the guise of brutal honesty."
programming,"You'll understand why doing that is actually worse for the company when you rise up the ladder and start being responsible for paying people and measuring things in man-hours.

A feature can take 20 hours and have brutally honest reviews. Or it can take 80 hours where everyone is skirting around the issues because Joe is sensitive. If the feature has a tight deadline, the 80 hours will have to be done in one week. And it is then, on that Sunday evening where you're hopped up on Monster Energy Drink and Starbucks, hating life, not spending your weekend with your kids, that you understand that you completely don't give one iota of a damn whether Joe's feelings are hurt when that's the price."
programming,"This is something that every single person alive should be doing. The fact that Linus **could** get away with saying something along the lines of ""fuck off, this is my project and I'll act like a dickhead if I want to"" without suffering any real negative consequences but chooses not to is admirable. I'd like to think I'd do the same if I were in his shoes, but I know I probably wouldn't. He gets a lot of respect from me for doing this."
programming,"yeah thats the nice guy routine some people pull when they're too anxious to take the conflict. 

Its often better that you take the conflict as early as possible. So you both get practice at doing it as smoothly and polite as possible while still communicating the understanding you have in a comprehensible way. The longer you wait the more annoying stuff piles up that you need to deal with.

I mean yeah, brush of a few things if they're just isolated incidents. But I think there is real benefit in resolving an issue that could cost more down the line if the issue is not resolved *right now.*

Knowing when that is takes real tact and practice."
programming,"There is a middle ground here between those two you put out. 

Besides as he's still leading the project he can just say ""no, for these reasons"", without having to be tactless in the approach. Him throwing around insults or not (as entertaining as I find them sometimes), won't change that. In fact the process of denying something will go much smoother if he doesn't needlessly piss-off the very people that are trying to contribute. Which is what he's saying in the article, that it's just a waste of time that can be better spent elsewhere. If being nicer is all it takes to accomplish that, what's the big deal?"
programming,"Or even decline with a comment

> Reading one byte at a time is going to have hideous performance consequences. Fix it.

Or, if you'd like to inject a little more personality:

> Reading. One. Byte. At. A. Time. Is. Slow. And. I. Can't. Accept. A. Change. That. Does. This.

You can even be more forceful:

> The choice to read data a byte at a time makes me concerned for the whole feature, to be honest. It shows poor judgement and that poor judgement is likely going to be seen in other design decisions.

People (not you, but other people) act like there is no middle ground between

> What the fuck? What the fuck did I just read? Get this fucking code out of the kernel and then go back to school and learn to be a software engineer all over again or else pick a new career.

and

> Awwww, thanks for trying. *hugs* I love you and your enthusiasm but this code is going to need a little tweaking before we can take it. But you get an official ""I contributed to Linux"" sticker anyway. Stay awesome!!!!!"
programming,"If it's stating actual facts but they happen to rub someone the wrong way then that's brutally honest.

Actively insulting a person while doing so is unnecessary.

For instance:

""This doesn't work for any use case, it needs to be re-written""

Is brutally honest.

However:

""Whoever the fuck wrote this must be blind, retarded, or a complete fucking moron. It works for literally zero use cases and is a massive fucking waste of time for everyone""

Says the same thing but is entirely unnecessary."
programming,"Then we appear to be in agreement. I see no need to skirt around the issue and agree that it doesn't help matters. I have no problem with brutal honesty as you seem to define it. Other people, however, seem to interpret ""brutal honesty"" as ""being an abusive asshole"".

In fact, *most* people seem to define it this way. Almost everyone I know who says they are ""brutally honest"" or ""just says it like it is"" is a prick a lot of the time."
programming,"> I looked at a random few posts and found nothing worth mentioning.

Wat? Like the top five before the ones after linus decided to step back because he was being too hostile include these:

> In fact, it is the
*documented* way to do it for gcc, when you are a f*cking moron and
use ""-fstrict-aliasing"" and need to undo the braindamage that that
piece of garbage C standard imposes.

#

> How did they noty die as babies, considering
that they were likely too stupid to find a tit to suck on?

#

> Your whole argument is FUNDAMENTALLY garbage. It's the Disney kind of
garbage. It was garbage back then, and it's garbage now.

#

> Oh, I don't want to be taken seriously by people who use gpg encrypted email. It's garbage and should be shunned as such.

And then the one about too many merges, which boiled down to really choosing the lesser of two evils, and didn't really warrant publicly shaming the dude."
programming,"> Of course, I'd also suggest that whoever was the genius who thought it was a good idea to read things ONE F\*CKING BYTE AT A TIME with system calls for each byte should be retroactively aborted. Who the f\*ck does idiotic things like that? How did they not die as babies, considering that they were likely too stupid to find a tit to suck on?

lol, classic Linus.

He censored the word ""fuck"", what more do you people want?"
programming,"> I have found that 90% of the time with a project when a PR gets rejected, it's pretty damn obvious to any developer other than the one who submitted it.

But that's also a pretty big issue, no? If I spend time on making a PR I'd at least want to know why it was rejected so that I can learn from it and improve myself (and for an OS project it's also in your own interest that the devs who want to take time to make PRs improve)."
programming,"> The choice to read data a byte at a time makes me concerned for the whole feature, to be honest. It shows poor judgement and that poor judgement is likely going to be seen in other design decisions.

Ironically, that one stings far more than being told I should be retroactively aborted.  At least with the latter, I can write it off as some angry dude blowing off steam.  With the former, I know he actually *meant* it."
programming,"I think the issue some people are taking is that they don't consider them unnecessary. I'd agree they're unprofessional and you could communicate more effectively with people by not doing it, but it's like describing a scene in a book in order to impress the point of that part of the plot. Plenty of people take issues with various authors' prose over this, and that's their prerogative. I just find that type of behavior quaint and amusing and am not offended by it. "
programming,"I don't think that's counter productive, but it's sort of to the point that people's reactions to some of Linus's more forceful rants are subjective and people claiming some type of authority over Linus being in the wrong is a large grey area. Where I work, we're brutal to each other. We're a walking HR violation, but nobody cares. You can get your point across here, denigrate the fuck out of people and have a laugh. The point will get through and everyone will get something to call back on at the person at a later time.

I think one big issue with Linus is that it's not an in person job sort of work, so getting people who are like minded is less likely to happen, so you're left with this type of over reaction to someone who's just naturally dickish. Where I work we have plenty of in person meetings first to make sure whoever the new guy is is going to survive in this environment."
programming,"It does though. It has to do with the nature of the honesty being insulting or aggressive on its own. Saying ""you were responsible for your parents dying"" is brutally honest because it is aggressive in how it is presented. There are countless ways to relate that honest statement in which it is not aggressive. You can phrase it more tactfully, it will still hurt someone, and not be brutal honesty."
programming,"This whole discussion is completely beside the point. Everyone here seems to think that what prompted Linus's rant was a patch that would add or change something to read one byte at a time. That's not the case.

The problem is that the change was reverting a previous improvement, because that improvement broke someone else's code (outside the kernel) that read something from the kernel one byte at a time. Because the Linux kernel has very strict rules about not breaking user space, the improvement *had* to be reverted.

So Linus's frustration is that the kernel had to keep bad code because someone else wrote awful code outside the kernel. That's what prompted his (completely unacceptable, yes) ""should be retroactively aborted"" comment, not a simple bad patch submission.
"
programming,"As someone who does code reviews/PRs daily, I close them occasionally without responding myself. Especially stuff that clearly isn't ready or was sent for PR primarily for informational purposes (which a few folks like to do). Often I do it because I was added as an SME for the project and someone else had concerns, so it was kicked to me for a better opinion, so no real response is necessary beyond completing or hitting ""needs work.""

"
programming,"It was a man who was suicidal, and Linus knew very early that he was going to reject the work, but didn't let the man know until it was either let it in the kernel or don't.

I think Linus is on the right track, keep doing what you're doing and tone down the outbursts.  Don't get rid of them, just tone them down.

And fuck anyone who thinks it should be any other way."
programming,"> R. e. a. d. i. n. g.  . o. n. e.  . b. y. t. e.  . a. t.  . a.  . t. i. m. e.  . i. s.  . s. l. o. w. 
 . a. n. d.  . I.  . c. a. n. '. t.  . a. c. c. e. p. t.  . a.  . c. h. a. n. g. e.  . t. h. a. t.  . d. o. e. s.  . t. h. i. s. ..

Fixed"
programming,"The reality is - we really don't know what happened.

If you claim it is from ""people close to him"" - why was this then not a problem for ""these people"", none of which you mentioned with NAME, for the last 30 years?

It just does not add up.



> But yes, finding fault in one's conduct,
> especially through public admission and
> discussion, is brave and commendable.

What ""fault""?

This keeps on being the problem here.

One says it is a fault - others say it is not.

And, again - nobody can explain the sudden 180 U-turn that happened here."
programming,"> Though there's an argument for the shades of gray,
> if you've ever perused /r/linusrants, there was not a lot of gray.

Eh - as I wrote before.

People only focused on his ""rants"" because it was fun to them.

They did not analyze the 99.95% of his other emails.

I think the whole ""analysis"" was super unfair and one sided.

There even was this feminist who wrote an ""AI"" (whatever that
means) to analyze ... Linus. Based solely on ... a selected
subset of his mails.

Wow. This is not how scientific methods are done ..."
programming,"If you're not going to read the fucking article, don't comment.  seriously.

quoted from the goddamned article.

> So that's my excuse for dismissing a lot of the politically correct concerns for years. I felt it wasn't worth it. Anybody who uses the words 'white cis male privilege' was simply not worth my time even talking to, I felt.

> And I'm still not apologising for my gender or the colour of my skin, or the fact that I happen to have the common sexual orientation.

> What changed? Maybe it was me, but I was also made very aware of some of the behaviour of the 'other' side in the discussion.

> Because I may have my reservations about excessive political correctness, but honestly, **I absolutely do not want to be seen as being in the same camp as the low-life scum on the internet that think it's OK to be a white nationalist Nazi, and have some truly nasty misogynistic, homophobic or transphobic behaviour**. And those people were complaining about too much political correctness too, and in the process just making my public stance look bad.

> And don't get me wrong, please - I'm not making excuses for some of my own rather strong language. But I do claim that it never ever was any of that kind of nastiness. I got upset with bad code, and people who made excuses for it, and used some pretty strong language in the process. Not good behaviour, but not the racist/etc claptrap some people spout.

> **So in the end, my 'I really don't want to be too PC' stance simply became untenable**. Partly because you definitely can find some emails from me that were simply completely unacceptable, and I need to fix that going forward. But **to a large degree also because I don't want to be associated with a lot of the people who complain about excessive political correctness**.

it would be a problem for him because he doesn't want to be seen that way, straight out of the fucking article you didn't read."
programming,"> The choice to read data a byte at a time makes me concerned for the whole feature, to be honest. It shows poor judgement and that poor judgement is likely going to be seen in other design decisions.

I really like putting it this way.

- It's still radically honest.
- It tells the (rejected) submitter what they need to do (probably back up, discuss some design decisions with other experienced developers before pushing for inclusion in the kernel)
- It's more likely to motivate the submitter to do even better work, rather than just getting angry, discouraged, and going home."
programming,"It's the very fact that Linus is damaging his own reputation to be an asshole which makes his intentions and standards crystal clear. Weight is added to what he's saying by the fact he's destroying social cohesion to say it.

Certainly it's great to see Linus finally aiming for less destructive communication strategy and to be less of an ass, but just wanted to point out the functional purpose of Linus's rudeness from a vaguely linguistic view point."
programming,">I'd also suggest that whoever was the genius who thought it  
was a good idea to read things ONE F\*CKING BYTE AT A TIME with system  
calls for each byte should be retroactively aborted. Who the f\*ck does  
idiotic things like that? How did they noty die as babies, considering  
that they were likely too stupid to find a tit to suck on?

Wow, I've never seen this before. That's pretty rough, though he does have a point. 

[https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/6/495](https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/6/495)"
programming,"No.  
They both serve the same purpose, tell you that things are bad, and you should think about what you did.  
  
Condescension is just a personal attack saying that you're too dumb/beneath someone else.  
  
The worse is emotionless, correct, deconstruction of the failure itself. If there's nothing but the fact, the person doesn't have a ""way out"", they just objectively suck, and did bad, instead of subjectively suck (while, also technically sucking), but, you can latch on the subjectively to save face."
programming,"So you’re saying that if I’m the senior on a project and someone submits a bad PR that if I walk over to them, and tell them that they should have been aborted, and that that abortion would have been better than this shit PR, that’s fine. I’m obviously just making a joke, right, so I can say whatever I want.

But if they get upset, then they’re clearly the one with an ego problem, since I’m just kidding, right?

Can you see how this just doesn’t really make sense?"
programming,"Yeah,  that's fair.  I had considered clarifying but other folks in the thread (e.g. [way2lazy2care](https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/9jd02s/linus_torvalds_ill_never_be_cuddly_but_i_can_be/e6qlc6y/)) have done a much better job of articulating it.

 Re: the above link,  I think it's fine to call someone's *code* stupid. Suggesting that the person who wrote it is too stupid to live? Not so much.  And frankly, it's unnecessary -  if the inventor, leader, and utmost authority on Linux calls my pull request stupid, I doubt there's any personal attacks you could tack on would make me feel any worse than I already did. It's the *honesty* that's brutal in ""brutal honesty"".

 

(I should note that if you were to check my post history you'd see I am a gigantic hypocrite that needs to do better)"
programming,"Quite ironic, but it's a truly worthy goal as a programming language creator: make something so popular that people despise it but still have to use it.

> Zig intends to be so practical that people find themselves using it even if they dislike it. 

At first it seems paradoxical, but if you think about it, let's review all the programming languages which have made it into the mainstream at some point or another:

Cobol, Fortran, Lisp, C, Shell, C++, Objective-C, Perl, Visual Basic, Java, Javascript, PHP, Ruby, Python, C#, Swift

Out of those, only Lisp, C, Ruby, Python, C# and Swift could be considered languages loved by developers. Most of the mainstream languages are widely despised, yet here we are, using these same old work horses..."
programming,"I think what he's saying and what you're saying are two different things. You're saying a language should be so popular, that people who hate it still can't avoid it because of its ubiquity. He's saying the language should have strengths that no other language can match, so that even people who don't like the language end up using it because it's the best tool for the job (SQL, Matlab, C). JavaScript is that language for me - I'll use it for coding interviews and such because it's so good for putting together short bullshit things that don't matter (aka 90% of websites)."
programming,"I think if you're going to create something, you should have it serve one niche particularly well instead of competing with other things sub-standardly.

C++ builds on C, and what you get is a weird combination of having all the technical limitations of C and all the highly advanced convolution that's been adding features for 30 years.

Have C serve its own purpose instead of having it try to be like other things that already exist."
programming,"C++'s lack of a standardized ABI and the need for a whole runtime that when you're in a complex ecosystem will inevitably clash with that from another library.  

Fortran doesn't have a standard ABI for anything that's inside a module, and the fortran standard library isn't standard. Different compilers also randomly append underscores to the end of things.

I'll confess I don't know anything about Rust - it's not used in my field at all as far as I know (astrophysics)."
programming,"The purpose is being a language that doesn't force you to write any which way that is entirely predictable, because you're the one making the functionality.

And the value of this goes extremely far. Far enough that the Linux foundation thinks it's the most apt tool to write the entirety of Linux with.

In the year 2018 with just under half a century having elapsed since it was created, there's inevitably parts of it which are impossible to construe as good compared to modern languages. Still though, the value of just having something simple and predictable is extremely useful."
programming,"> Sure, when [C] was new it had some solid improvements over a bunch of the existing stuff.

I wouldn't be so sure. Algol was a thing already, and Fortran was more amenable to compiler optimisations. There was also Pascal.

Sure, C gave more control over the PDP machines programs ran on. But there was a price to pay for this, in portability (integer sizes…), reliability (C has an insane number of undefined behaviour, and even back then had its share of (mostly pointer related) traps), and even performance (the compiler could assume very little, so it couldn't optimise much).
"
programming,"My understanding is that the compilers/optimizers for stuff like Pascal were pretty terrible back then and the compromises that C made were at least reasonable in light of not being able to trust the compiler to generate good code. Also, while Fortran is great for math and optimizes particularly well, it is rather painful to try to use as a general purpose language. It was certainly the best choice for mathematical software in the 80s though (and still is for some types of problems.)"
programming,"IMO:

Driven employees and co-workers deserve praise, but the underlying condition that forces their overwork needs to get resolved.  I'm currently in that situation, and to me, I expect it.  We have a ten-pounds-of-shit-in-a-five-pound-bag scenario, so nothing is as anyone would want.  We suffer through it, and we swim or sink depending on the fruits of our labor.

In corporate America, there's less reason for this as the companies are making money.  The work isn't literally existential, and the workers are also not typically owners.

That said, yes: overtime hurts your software and your team."
programming,"In software overtime is usually unpaid. For the worker it is effectively a pay cut since you've got more hours for the same rate. For the company it is the equivalent of a free, unpaid worker added to the team.

Working 45 hours instead of a 40 hour work week without overtime compensation is equivalent to taking 88.9% of your regular wage per hour. Working 50 hours for 40 hour's pay means effectively 80% wages per hour for the week.  Working 60 hours for 40 hour's pay week is effectively 66% wages per hour.  For convenient numbers, if you were making $100,000 per year that's $50/hour at 40 hour weeks. If you're working 45 hours your rate drops to $44.44/hour instead of $50. If you're working 50 hours your rate is $40/hour instead of $50. At 60 hours that's a rate of $33.33/hour instead of $50.

Many executives love it.  They see it for what it is: employees taking a voluntary and often substantial pay cut. If they can convince four people to work 50 hour weeks under the guise of ""a few extra hours"", that's equivalent to a free worker for the bottom line."
programming,"The executive who loves this is dumb: there is a definite and proven cost associated with overtime in the software industry.

Focus and creativity are limited resources for a human being.  After ~6 hours or so, a programmer begins to mentally fatigue and may contribute ""negative work.""  This could manifest in the form of less than elegant solutions, additional bugs, or even plain old distraction, boredom, and lack of progress.

This means: on average, a programmer who is working overtime will accomplish less, in absolute terms, than a programmer who is not working overtime.

This phenomenon represents a massive cost in the software industry and can become a self-reinforcing cycle that will kill your product's timeline and quality, the health of your employees, and eventually the health of your company.

Smart executive understands this and adjusts expectations accordingly."
programming,"I highly recommend contract work, especially if you're a senior engineer.  You can price in the cost of your benefits, you can set limits on your hours, and most importantly, you get paid for every hour you work.  Hell, you can even negotiate for a higher rate for over 40 hours (I've never done that, but I certainly get my hourly rate).  


Lots of companies will initially balk, some will remain firmly a ""no"", but there are just so many positions out there for senior engineers that you should be setting the terms.  There's been a lot of work out there to make it seem like the ceiling is rigid and that ""we simply can't""... it's bullshit in a lot of cases.  


Salary is a scam that needs to die, particularly with the law providing for 72 hours of work per week, or more, but it takes a much needed labor force to start setting the standard, particularly for those who have less clout."
programming,"> Driven employees and co-workers deserve praise

I’ve come to disagree with this over the years. The guy who works until 2am then humblebrags about how tired he is in the morning is turning out worse code than he would working sensible hours, making it impossible to plan for realistic team capacity, making other team members feel obliged to show similar “drive” especially when he is praised for it, and this makes the team feel subtly hostile to coworkers with families or other external obligations, and in most cases I’ve seen this “driven” employee is just acting out an unaddressed imposter syndrome.  There’s also a decent chance when you actually *do* have an all-hands emergency, that guy will choose exactly that moment to burn out (something about the overwork suddenly not being voluntary tends to make a big difference).

You love coding so much you’d do it without being paid?  Great. Get your own projects, then go home and work on them. "
programming,"I've worked with these guys in the past.  Luckily my current employer saw through it and eventually fired these people.  **Firefighting is one thing; being the arsonist firefighter is another.**

I had negative reviews in the past with comparisons of ""well, Kevin gets here an hour before you and leaves an hour after you.""  My response was always, ""if I wasn't fixing Kevin's work, I could leave 2 hours earlier.""

One of the best reviews I got was in the post-mortem for one of my production failures (I'm effectively a team of one, which sucks, but oh well).  One of the proposals was to hire another developer for my team.  It was eventually dropped because a colleague said ""his services fail _maybe_ once a month and he fixes them such that those failures _never_ happen again; it would be nice to hire another dev but it doesn't make sense.""

If you aren't fixing the problems that occur, then you aren't really helping out the cause.
"
programming,"I've seen three types in my fifteen years of software development. The driven employee working many hours, who is the one cleaning after messes from 9 to 5ers, the one who is creating those problems to be cleaned by 9 to 5ers, and the one who just enjoys working and contributing. 

The employee isn't at fault for being any of these types, it's their choice. Management is responsible though for making sure that 9 to 5ers stop cutting corners for the first type, speaking and encouraging the second type to slow down, and rewarding the third type appropriately. Management should also make it clear to others that it's obviously not an expectation for them to do any of this. 

Obviously this is naive to believe management will do this, just as it is naive for people to try to stop the driven type from changing their behavior. There's no good solution and just another impasse of life. "
programming,"1099.  Requires some type of entity, an LLC will do the trick.  And you apply regularly, just as you would any other job, but you insist on being contract.  You will probably get resistance, but if they need you, they can often make concessions, even after telling you it's not possible.  Keep in mind, the more senior you are, the better this works.  


There's no doubt some companies will pass on you, but it's kind of a nice weeder.  You really don't want to work for a place that is not willing to pay you for time you spend working -- at least I don't."
programming,"Salaried, and I don't mind working extra hours to do the work that needs to get done. We are a small team, and we have to stay that way to keep doing what we are doing. Sometimes deadlines are terrible, but we all put in some extra time here and there to do what needs to get done. It isn't about paying me more, its about our shared success in these endeavors. Perhaps that comes across as strange, but I work for a place that values me and pays well, and rewards hard work in that I really have no reason not want to work just as hard as the rest of the folks around me.

"
programming,"> What I really wish is we could get mandatory time and a half instead of straight time for OT.

Federal law ***requires***: 

> Unless exempt, employees covered by the Act **must receive** overtime pay for **hours worked over 40** in a workweek at a rate **not less than time and one-half their regular rates of pay**.

https://www.dol.gov/whd/overtime_pay.htm

If you're being paid straight pay, you're being underpaid for your overtime hours. File a wage claim."
programming,"> However, Section 13(a)(1) and Section 13(a)(17) of the FLSA provide an exemption from both minimum wage
and overtime pay for computer systems analysts, computer programmers, software engineers, and other
similarly skilled workers in the computer field who meet certain tests regarding their job duties and who are
paid at least $455* per week on a salary basis or paid on an hourly basis, at a rate not less than $27.63 an hour. 

https://www.dol.gov/whd/overtime/fs17e_computer.pdf

Developers are exempted if you make more than $27.63/hr"
programming,"While we are exempt from overtime pay requirements in Canada as well, we are NOT required to accept overtime.

Put through the wringer last year, 80hr+ weeks, getting told on a Friday afternoon that I could not go home until x is done, leaving Monday morning...multiple times etc. Got that shit done...never again but that's not the story.

After we delivered, I'm negotiating compensation for all the overtime. Owner is pissed because he just wants to compensate via our annual bonus. I make it clear that I _expect_ at a _minimum_ 1.5x pay for all the overtime. Throws back the exemption in my face, linking straight to the government documents doing so.

I made it absolutely bloody clear that while _YOU_ may not be _required_ to pay me overtime, _I_ on the other hand absolutely bloody well _DO_ require this and anything short of 1.5 is going to be a major problem.

Still got fucked, my bonus was exactly 1.5 times my overtime hours. So no actual bonus. And pissed off manager and ownership.

Then they were pissed when I left 6 months later, having still not gotten any time off to recover from the bullshit I'd been through and still getting pressured to work harder (more).

Fuck. That. Shit.

Demand what you're worth, and LEAVE if they refuse. Giving in once is like giving in to terrorists, it just enables them."
programming,"That is in my list of ""pros"", but looking at the big picture it kind of evens out. We have offices in the US so this is the differences we have:


Holiday: UK office gives 32 days, US office gives 15 days


Private health insurance: UK one is cheap with only £200 premium, covers pre-existing conditions, never have to pay out of pocket. US one is £2000 premium and doesn't cover pre-existing conditions.


Overtime: As discussed above


The list is longer but I can't remember off the top of my head "
programming,">	Implementing a B-tree this way, however, would be a mess. The value of a B-tree is in the contiguity of nodes — that is, it is the allocation that is a core part of the win of the data structure. I’m sure it isn’t impossible to implement an intrusive B-tree in C, but it would require so much more caller cooperation (and therefore a more complicated and more error-prone interface) that I do imagine that it would have you questioning life choices quite a bit along the way. (After all, a B-tree is a win — but it’s a constant-time win.)

Then what is that paragraph about?"
programming,"?

> Implementing a B-tree this way, however, would be a mess. The value of a B-tree is in the contiguity of nodes — that is, it is the allocation that is a core part of the win of the data structure. I’m sure it isn’t impossible to implement an intrusive B-tree in C, but it would require so much more caller cooperation (and therefore a more complicated and more error-prone interface) that I do imagine that it would have you questioning life choices quite a bit along the way. (After all, a B-tree is a win — but it’s a constant-time win.)"
programming,"> This isn't a language comparison; two different data structures are compared.

It's an investigation into why [the naive Rust version of their program turned out to be unexpectedly faster than the tuned C code implementing the same feature](http://dtrace.org/blogs/bmc/2018/09/18/falling-in-love-with-rust/). That is why the title uses the word *relative*, which would be entirely unnecessary if it asserted to be doing an ""absolute"" language comparison.

The very article points out that this is not a strict language comparison:

> So take all of this as disclaimer: I am not trying to draw large conclusions about “C vs. Rust” here. To the contrary, I think that it is a reasonable assumption that, for any task, a lower-level language can always be made to outperform a higher-level one. But with that said, a pesky fact remains: I reimplemented a body of C software in Rust, and it performed better for the same task; what’s going on? And is there anything broader we can say about these results?

But certainly the way a language shapes data structures availability and usage should be part of the comparison?"
programming,"That's a good question. What is that paragraph about? I cannot tell, because you can implement a non-intrusive B-tree with a nice interface in C just fine, yet the author thinks that data-structures in C **must** be intrusive, and that data-structures in Rust **must** not be intrusive; everything else is phrased as an anti-pattern in the article. This assumption underlies the apples to oranges comparison that is this article, and is incorrect.

Why does the author assume this? No idea. The author seems to be working in a particular field / particular programming sub-culture, where it is ok for people to put nodes of data in 4 different intrusive data-structures at the same time. I haven't check the links to the ZFS articles, but with such a system, every access to every node is going to trash the cache, so I just cannot imagine how something like that could ever perform well.

FWIW most C, C++, Rust, ... code I've used does not use intrusive data-structures. Non-intrusive data-structures are simpler, more cache friendly in general, and this results in better performance. 

Now, sometimes you need intrusive data-structures, and all languages have libraries for them (e.g. C++ Boost.Intrusive, Rust's intrusive-rs but crates.io is also filled with them), but just because you can use them, does not mean that you should use them by default.

OTOH, if the only thing you have in your toolbox are intrusive data-structures, then your code will perform badly in general, but that is just how hardware works and has nothing to do with programming languages."
programming,"Comparing apples and oranges. The author says that it would be hard to implement an intrusive B-tree in C, and then goes on to praise Rust for *discouraging* intrusive data structures. So why not write a non-intrusive B-tree in C? The author doesn't actually compare implementing the same data structure/API in both languages, because he seems to have decided based on no reasoning (at least none that is provided in the article) that the (in his words) ""Rust antipattern"" is the only way to do it in C, which is plainly false."
programming,"I would argue it is a language comparison to an extent, although it could do with an explanation.

---

The crux of the matter: **C does not have generics**.

This may seem far-fetched, until you stop and think: *how do you write re-usable data-structure implementations in C?*

One strategy, as noted here, is to implement intrusive data-structures:

 - provide an embeddable ""node"" structure, which has pointers to other ""node"",
 - let the user allocate/free their `struct` (which contain a ""node"").

The main advantage is that most of the functions to manipulate the data-structure can then be expressed in terms of this `node`, with possibly a function pointer or two (to provide comparison of two elements, in this case).

Unfortunately, this is only really useful for node-based data-structures: linked-lists, binary-trees, ... And as demonstrated here, node-based data-structures suffer from poorer cache behavior in general: less compact and with more indirection than array-based data-structures.

---

Why not implement a B-Tree specifically for the matter at hand, then?

Well, it's certainly possible.

It's also costly: a B-Tree is not a simple data-structure, it's actually way more error-prone than an AVL Tree. And a naive B-Tree may not perform that well either; there are tuning decisions to take, which require experimentation and measures.

It's much simpler, therefore, to pick a re-usable data-structure that someone else painfully debugged and tuned; though it may come at a performance hit.

---

Conclusion?

Languages with support for generic programming (C++, Nim, Rust) have a leg up over languages without such support when it comes to providing high-performance re-usable data-structures as libraries.

And that's very much a difference in languages."
programming,"Which is indeed what it means, and the author takes pains to qualify that one should be as skeptical of benchmarks as ever, and stresses in the conclusion that it would be silly to conclude anything about the absolute performance of any specific language based on this blog post. The point of the post seems mostly to muse about the role of language design influencing the solutions that a given language's practitioners will gravitate towards."
programming,"> the author thinks that data-structures in C **must** be intrusive, and that data-structures in Rust **must** not be intrusive; everything else is phrased as an anti-pattern in the article.

Nowhere does the author claim that non-intrusive data structures are an anti-pattern in C; the strongest language seen is ""[intrusive data structures] is a pattern we use a bunch"". The author claims that specifically writing an intrusive B-tree in C ""would be a mess"", but I don't see any way to interpret that sentiment as suggesting that non-intrusive structures shouldn't be done in C. Might as well paste his words in full here too:

*""This is a pattern we use a bunch in C: the data structure is embedded in a larger, containing structure — and it is the caller’s responsibility to allocate, free and lock this structure. That is, implementing a library as an intrusive data structure completely sidesteps both allocation and locking. This allows for an entirely robust arbitrarily embeddable library, and it also makes it really easy for a single data structure to be in many different data structures simultaneously.""*

We can dispute the wisdom as to whether or not this makes sense for performance purposes--modern CPUs seem to think otherwise--but that's separate from his assertion that libraries implemented as intrusive data structures make it easier for library authors to create robust libraries, as a result of delegating all the memory management tasks to their users. This dovetails into his argument about the role that languages play in shaping the habits of their users; intrusive data structures are certainly possible in Rust (his assertion of ""anti-pattern"" might be a bit strong here), but the language itself steers library authors towards other APIs. It's this latter argument that seems to be the intended takeaway from the article; all the performance stuff is mostly irrelevant to the point, and only shows the path that this train of thought has traveled."
programming,"There's no carefully-crafted deceptive comparison here; he's literally just using a common data structure from the Rust standard library, and he's comparing it to C code currently shipping at his company. It's not a synthetic benchmark, it's the exact sort of thing one encounters in real-world code. The author also discusses the different algorithms in use at length and is frank about the takeaways. This isn't a bamboozle or designed to make Rust look good; it's a surprising result that, the author concludes, perhaps we shouldn't be quite so surprised at."
programming,"Then this article is useless, because the author couldn't be bothered to choose the right data structure for the job. It's not a comparison between programming languages, but between data structures; and it didn't prove that doing X is easier than doing Y, only that this particular person happened to have X in his toolbox and chose not to go hunting for a better Y.

Which is my point. The article doesn't make a fair comparison, and isn't really comparing two different programming languages at all. I said it doesn't compare how easy it is to write an AVL tree in Rust and C, and if your response to my question is ""because it would be more effort than using code he had lying around,"" that only validates that statement."
programming,"The comparison isn’t about the languages in the abstract, it’s about real-world implementations. The C code is production code by an experienced C programmer, who wrote a naïve rust version, and was hoping it would be within 20% of his carefully optimized C. He was surprised that it was faster, and this post is answering the question “why?”

When writing real code, you often don’t have the time or ability to do the absolutely optimal thing. If rust makes an optimal thing easier to do, that’s an advantage for Rust, even if you could do the same thing in C."
programming,"If you're using C to drive Rust code, what useful thing does that tell you about C?   If you actually want to write real programs, why wouldn't you use Rust to drive Rust libraries, so you don't have the impedance mismatch?

It really feels to me like you're trying to dance around the fact that Rust made this specific task easier.  An early implementation from a novice to the language ended up being faster than what the same programmer implemented in presumably decent C.  

C could almost certainly be made faster than Rust, but until someone actually does that work, we won't know for sure, and the fact that a novice got such good results using built-in data structures speaks well of the language's implementation.  Getting good results without actually knowing exactly what you're doing is always a pleasant outcome.   

Yes, you can do the work and implement the same thing yourself, but that requires additional knowledge and a hand-rolled solution.  And, if your focus is 'production code', wouldn't that custom implementation be harder to maintain than just using the language's built-in structures?
"
programming,"I'm thinking in terms of, you need people to support rust, if everything is in C you will have a harder time making the company support rust than using its data-structures (you will also have to learn and be experienced enough to support code in it, and train people to use it too). So you can enjoy the benefits without changing a thing in the company. It's literally 0 cost with a lot of benefits and awareness of rust's power. It's way easier to go from rust libs to full rust than from C to full rust.

A library is a library, you shouldn't say, hey let's not make C programmers' lives easier with rust libs because they should be using only rust anyway...

It's hard to find those data-structures in C, hence why OP used AVL, but they wouldn't need to, they could have used a BTree from the start. If there was a good FFI to it."
programming,"Yes, benchmarking of production code, not of specific languages.

The naive Rust implementation was faster because you can easily use good data-structures.

If the C code was using good data-structures rust wouldn't win in the benchmark.

The benchmark wasn't about C or rust, it was about how trivial it is to use the appopriate data-structure, not just the one that's there. Like the case of this post.

AVL was only used because it was already implemented and tested, but BTree is, only in another language, if there was a C FFI BTree could be trivially used too.

So the benchmarks would be equal."
programming,"The article talks exactly how it's not about the language capability but how a naive implementation works in it.

It's investigating a case in which a dumb implementation was better than a optimized one, just because it was easier to use better suited data-structures.

A naive implementation in python may be faster than a optimized in C just because the data-structure used was better suited and using a good library in it is easier than using one in C."
programming,"In this case language comparisons between C, C++, and Rust, are virtually impossible.

Languages ""defaults"" and incentives to do things a certain way are critically important in the real world. And only the real world matters, in the end.

So yeah, if you obtain a certain perf profile most of the time in a language and another in the next one in most projects but merely for indirect reasons (and that's probably what will be the case here because of language ergonomics), then the ""merely for indirect reasons"" doesn't really matter.

And so given we never speak in formal logic language, we should not be pedantic over the resulting ""relative performance of C and Rust"" title: it is perfectly fine as long as practical concerns are addressed -- and if none are, it would not have been interesting except for maybe language designers; not the common case.
"
programming,"> For example for the method calling syntax, I usually prefer that the language sticks to one solution.

Modern languages like Scala, C#, Kotlin, Swift etc. are already doing what Nim does in various ways. Nim just made it less verbose and automatic.

> Or the templates/pragma/macros could probably fused into a single concept

Pragmas are like annotations and they supposed to be advanced and rarely used optimization switches.

Unlike macros, templates are simple and they should be used instead of macros when they fit for the task. Macros are for heavy metaprogramming and templates are for simple, everyday templating."
programming,"> Or the templates/pragma/macros could probably be fused into a single concept.

macros are much more capable and much more work. Templates are easy.

C, meanwhile, is a language with `goto`. So it doesn't *really* need `for`, `while`, `do ... while`, `continue`, `break`. That's all in the service of a ""giving special distinction to common tasks by making them easy""--a useless goal when you have this more powerful tool that can do all of those jobs."
programming,"> Modern languages like Scala, C#, Kotlin, Swift etc. are already doing what Nim does in various ways. Nim just made it less verbose and automatic.

I don't know about Swift, but in the others, you have to be explicit. You cannot define a function and call it with different syntaxes. To be able to call it as an extension function (that's what is called in C# and Kotlin at least) you have to define it as such."
programming,"One of the reasons I really like Nim is UFCS, to the point I constantly miss it when working in other languages (*especially Python*). Which of these seems more readable to you?

    len(func3(func2(func1(map([3,2,1], g)))))
    [3,2,1].map(g).func1().func2().func3().len()

Also, while templates and macros aren't quite the same (templates are generally used as type-safe, hygienic term rewriting rules, while macros are used as direct manipulations of your program's AST), I do agree it might be a good idea to have a single name for both of them."
programming,"> Templates are just much easier to write than macros, you need no macro knowledge to write a template.

I don't think macro are much harder to write (they shouldn't at least), the only additional concepts you need are quoting and interpolation, which everybody already knows already from strings. My point is that it's bit costly in term of language simplicity to introduce a new concept/keyword just to avoid quoting. But at the end it's just one of these trade-off, and Nim seems to be more on the side of not prioritizing simplicity too much."
programming,"You're straight-up wrong, macros require you to actually operate on and manage the AST. You are passed in \`Nim\_Node\` and you have to return a \`Nim\_Node\`. Meanwhile for a template you write the code you want copy and pasted into the callsite, and the instances of the parameter identifiers are swapped for what the callsite provided.

They are entirely different constructs and templates are overwhelmingly more simple to utilize. The Nim manual goes out of it's way to say that you should rarely define templates and even more rarely define macros. Procs with generics can do the majority of what you want."
programming,"I fail to see how this will ""fix"" the Internet. Let us say everyone is sold on Solid PODs. Let us say Facebook uses these instead of storing that data themselves. What is stoping them to (1) store a copy of my data that I allow them to access? and (2) share all this data with Cambridge Analytica? These few corporations that _now_ own all this data we wilingly share are still going to have access to all your Solid POD because they keep coming up with new tech and flashy things that need me to share my location data with them. So it still is a relationship based on trust, amd we know only naive people trust corporations and businesses in general.

Here is my solution: education. This is something each government has to handle through education. ""Repeat with me kids: There is no reason a bluetoothbrush needs my location!"""
programming,"Permissions are difficult. Maybe a toothbrush doesn't need location but it might be good to have access to current local time and time zone? 🤔 

I don't know much about electrical but I'd really like it if devices would switch to bring powered through the wall directly when connected to external power and stop charging the battery automatically at a safe spot (usually 80%) even if left connected overnight or in case of a toothbrush forever. "
programming,">how this will ""fix"" the Internet

Mostly this will increase running cost of Internet and networks, but customers might have more control over companies around them.

>What is stoping them to (1) store a copy of my data that I allow them to access? and (2) share all this data with Cambridge Analytica?

You need to sell your personal data like you sell anything else.

Exact price doesn't matter. What matters is liability.

For example, you might sell licenses. Facebook does shady things? Do not renew the license."
programming,">What is stoping them to (1) store a copy of my data that I allow them to access?

Access Control Lists, you can manage what you share with whom. Not every pod is necessarily open to the public. 

>and (2) share all this data with Cambridge Analytica?

You share personal photos in WhatsApp groups right? You can do nothing to prevent a friend from selling it. It just ***a lot less likely*** that a friend sells it then a giant corporation. 

Also, scraping and collecting from millions of different endpoints is a lot harder than closing a deal with a handful of companies "
programming,"> Why not have a central logger and have devices publish events in real time. Why would I want every single device I use to recreate basic event logging. Devices can publish data streams, they do not need to be intelligent to do this.

Interesting idea. So the device can only publish but not read... and we could simply use some kind of asset management to associate data from the device to some user account. "
programming,"OK so what you are saying is that POD technology basically means Facebook would be a thin client atop our decentralised data, right?

Most people publish what they ate, where, how much it cost and how many out of five stars they rate it. And they can own that information and share it with some friends. And PODs would be enough to handle this. Add strong encryption on top and most anyone not allowed to know would know is a list of IP addresses you comunicate with. OK, that makes sense.

But my impression is that this is a minor part of what people use the Internet for and some of those other things require centralised procesing and (at leas temporary) storage of data. Also a lot of this data is public by design, like this discussion.

I can also not imagine what displaying a thread of comments or a ""PODYoutube"" video would be like when you need to pull from multiple places around the globe _or_ 100k /r/aww users decide your cat is absolutely adorable.

And mostly I cannot imagine PODs ever working at scale because they still rely on rules and laws imposed by governments which are the real problem. It is an almost perfect technical solution that can only exist if the problems the current Internet has are solved first. Which is kind of a chicken/egg situation."
programming,"Yeah, the large scale aggregation part is still unclear to me as well. I was still planning on asking them for details on those problems, but I can imagine a fundamental conflict of constraints. 

The way I've envisioned this is demi-centralised features, in which the user can compose a service by mixing multiple providers e.g. the end user can choose between native youtube, reddit, disqus or local pod comments, third party rating systems etc.

On the last point, you mean people running pods not caring for local legislation? If so, would most of those regulations even be applicable for private individuals? I mean, if you're having a data leak on your computer, the gdpr regulations don't apply "
programming,"TL;DR none of these are rigorous measurements of popularity (but GitHub is the least worst of the three mentioned).

None of them are directly measuring the popularity of the language, they're all measuring secondary or tertiary data and then extrapolating based on arbitrary expectations of how their data maps to actual popularity.

GitHub measures how much code in a language is available on GitHub and how actively each codebase is updated, which is a useful thing to know, but is still not even close to an actual measurement of popularity."