This is the obvious conclusion. As the US trashes its own research ability other countries can offer good conditions to the scientists. I've never seen an own-goal so great.
The entire NPM ecosystem is a garbage fire. Who cares about whatever 'principles' it supposedly has? Other than avoiding malware I can't think of something I care about less than whatever principles NPM / JS developers in general have because they've mostly been bad so far.
I wouldn't be surprised if principles in this case leave us with thousands of spam packages degrading the node ecosystem forever. It'd be exactly what I expect. So I guess I should thank the principle of consistency.
I know it's a meme on HN to rant about the terrible JavaScript ecosystem and how bad JS developers are, but I would ask that if you're going to do it you be specific about what you mean instead of just generally accusing it of being "bad".
It's not even that I disagree, it's that it's a conversation killer. "The JS ecosystem is bad" has no response someone could make besides "no it's not", which is boring. "The JS ecosystem encourages using a million tiny unmaintained packages and that is bad" is a much more interesting statement that can spark a useful discussion.
We can empirically observe that NPM-sphere is relatively alone among software ecosystems to have this particular problem.
This is an indication that the problem is either with some facet of NPM itself, javascript the language or js programmers, as that is what distinguishes the ecosystem from e.g. Maven or Pip that do not suffer from the same problems, at least not to the same extent.
However, going from this observation to isolating causal factors is a lot harder, and randomly guessing isn't very likely to hit the mark.
It's two things really: a small standard library and sheer size of developer community. JS has way more developers than any other language. But if you search for "$PROGRAMMING_LANGUAGE supply chain issues" you literally find reports for all popular languages.
[1] claims that half of Python packages have security issues.
[2] says that the Rust supply chain has security issues.
You're doing it again, though: are "this particular problem" and "these problems" the tea.yaml spam? The million tiny packages problem I mentioned? The fact that people online will generically attack the ecosystem without being specific about their complaints?
I'm not asking for solutions, and I'm not asking for people to identify casual factors. I'm asking for people to put a little bit more effort into their criticisms of the JS ecosystem than just "it's obviously and empirically a dumpster fire".
A lot of people have already been very specific in many other threads -- "the JS ecosystem has way too many and way too small packages and there's zero curation".
Not sure what your seemingly intended moderation is supposed to achieve but the complaints towards the JS ecosystem have been very clear for no less than 10 years.
So we're specifically talking about the tea.yaml spam. More than any other topic that seems like one that is worth digging into details on rather than just shrugging and saying isolating causality is hard.
If we look at the chart in the original article [0] that this one is a follow up to, the NPM spam suddenly picked up around the end of February, with new packages per day first doubling and then tripling. So this 70% figure is specific to the last 6 months, not something that has been the case with the ecosystem for a long time.
That makes tracing causality much simpler: the Tea protocol seems to be pretty clearly the source of the problem. The big open question is why NPM, but the way that people jump to the conclusion that NPM being the target of this attack must have something to do with the flaws in the ecosystem smacks of victim blaming. Isn't it just as possible that NPM was targeted because it's huge? If you're going to run a massive spam campaign you do it where the people are.
Could NPM learn from this and start controlling spam better? Yes! But That's not the same thing as attributing this tea.yaml nonsense to systemic flaws in the ecosystem—spam prevention has to be balanced with usability, and the balance was pretty decent until 6 months ago.
> The JS ecosystem encourages using a million tiny unmaintained packages and that is bad
continuing on this, I wonder if this is a cultural thing or if there are actual technical choices made in NPM that play a role. Could NPM change something in their package management to change this? Should they?
it's language-cultural. to "publish a package" in Go simply means having a public git repository. and yet, nobody who writes Go imports packages. it's well-understood that if you can't write something like leftpad (or many other JS packages) yourself in your own codebase in a few lines, you're an absolute nonce. Javascript developers on the other hand tend to skew towards the juniors in our broader ecosystem, and they seek easy and quick prestige, which leads to "star farming"/"download farming"
... _what_? i don't think you parsed my comment correctly at all
to address the part of your comment that doesn't make my head spin: only very occasionally do i see senior Go developers import 3rd party libraries. i'm just speaking from my experience
The JS ecosystem doesn't have any singular bad feature that other languages do not share.
Instead, what it does have is a huge prevalence of those features, and minimal size of a "safe space" where one can have some confidence they will not appear. Both of those are quantitative differences, that people can not summarize in a short comment, and people can easily dismiss with (misguided or dishonest) counterexamples.
So, what you are asking for is a full blown large scale study of several ecosystems. Somebody may do something like that, but not for a comment, and not because you asked.
I ask because I don't believe the JS ecosystem is notably worse than the Python ecosystem or the Java ecosystem and I'm tired of the meme of railing on JS developers when what people are really railing against is developers in general.
All ecosystems that are sufficiently popular have terrible problems. They have different problems, but none is consistently pleasant to work with. Out of all of them, though, JS gets singled out for constant attacks because... reasons.
I just want people to identify what those reasons are so we can have a conversation about them rather than just endlessly repeating the meme.
Its not about principles in some abstract sense though, its terms if use. Package authors need to know what the rules of the road are when dedicating time to publishing to npm, and package users need to know how much they can rely on the packages they depend on still being there tomorrow.
It'd be one thing if npm added audit warnings along the lines of "3 dependencies are likely spam." It'd be a totally different story for npm to remove them automatically based on a toolset used, in the GP example.
HPV vaccine has to be the biggest bang for buck. To anyone reading this, you should get it at any age because you likely haven't been exposed to all the strains that e.g. Gardasil-9 protects you from. You should also get it if you're male despite it being initially known as the cervical cancer vaccine because HPV causes oral cancers and you also don't want to potentially be a carrier.
Thank you for your writing. I'm sorry it has come to this, and I don't quite know what to write other than that you've provided lots of valuable insight to an area I was unaware of.
And how exactly is using an adblocker depriving the website owner of revenue if you simply close the tab instead? And 'annoying ads' are the precise reason I use an adblocker; if they were as intrusive as google's ads from the early 2000's I would hardly care, but we've long careened past that. I'm unsure the premise of your argument makes much economic sense.
Before trying to answer you, let me just reassure that I am not, by any means, preaching that people should stop using ad blockers. I was just sharing how I manage to not bother using one anymore.
You're right that using an ad blocker isn't worse than closing the tab when it comes to revenue that comes from actually clicking on the ads. And I can only assume that's how it works, I don't know.
What I was trying to say is that authors intend to share their content with ads. It's like having the ads there is what they're charging me for their otherwise free content. Not that I click on the ads. Not that I even read the ads. Just to have the ads there.
Half the time, it doesn't bother me too much, and I consume their content to their terms.
However, many sites are unreadable with so many ads. So, using an ad blocker would help me consume their content, yes. And since it's very rare for me to actually click on an ad, it wouldn't make much economic difference to them anyway.
The central point of my comment wasn't about this, though. It was that most of the internet isn't worth reading. So when I'm faced with content I'm not willing to "pay" for by having all the ads on my screen, it's okay to just let them go. It doesn't really matter. They won't be missed.
So I prefer to see the ads from those I keep reading, just because it's what they've implicitly asked to do by sharing their content.
Then again, this is not an advice. I'm not defending a point. That's just what I've been doing.
Ignoring unrealistic preparations for most of us (such as bunkers and whatever else), an adequate supply of food and water to handle disruptions to logistics for a realistic amount of time must surely be the lowest hanging fruit (e.g. a month?). This is fairly trivial if you aim for things like rice and pasta, and if the grid goes down for longer than a month a lot of us are dying regardless of how we prepare.
In Oregon, after some severe forest fires, ice storms that shut down whole towns, and the possibility of a Cascadia Subduction Zone event (ie, ~9.0 earthquake) They recommend keeping supplies for 2 weeks to allow time for local areas to get regular supplies of food, water, etc. https://www.oregon.gov/oem/hazardsprep/pages/2-weeks-ready.a...
Homes being prepared also dramatically reduces the need for distributed aid to these people. That could mean that labour to restore minimal infrastructure is more available. Feeding people in situations like that takes immense effort.
For a world affecting CME, it might take a month but a 9.0 magnitude earthquake is not going to destroy the entire world, so you don't need a years worth of food before help arrives. we're talking about a little extra bit of water and food, not an underground bunker. Help from outside the affected area will be coming.
The water seems like the hard part. Are there any tricks for cheap, safe hydration for a family?
I guess we could just start building walls of unopened water bottles in our basement…
(In my teens I saw a family friend had a bag full of food supplies. I asked someone if that was a prep bag, and they said yes. I thought they were a bit weird. Now I’ve come full circle browsing Amazon for cheap doomsday food.)
I used to be a logistics officer for an Infantry battalion.
Most of the comments down thread underestimate water consumption. Depending on the climate, you'll want the following daily quantities [1]:
- 2-3 gallons for drinking
- 1.5 gallons for hygiene (can skip for a while)
- 0.5 gallons for food prep
The planning factor for military operations was 8 gallons per person per day. Water is heavy—8 pounds per gallon—and acquiring, storing, and moving it is a large effort.
I don't think you can blame inch-pounds for this one- even though we rationally know it is heavier than most materials we don't "think of" water as heavy because modern society gives us the luxury of seldom having to handle more than a thirty minute or so supply of it at once.
then again, anyone with a garden or balcony that has to be watered with a watering can can [sic] attest to how heavy a little bit of water is. If you have a small 100m² garden and it rains a modest 1mm (per m² that is) that's 1L/m² equivalent to 1kg/m² or 100kg total mass of water. When it has rained 1mm people call it "three drops of rain" and they will have to water their plants anyway. That's already 10 cans @ 10L each to lug around.
The other kind of people who know about the weight of waters are people with campers / trailers and people with fish tanks in their apartments. The maximum allowable size for a fish tank in the middle of the room is not that much.
I wasn't actually commenting on the "heavy" part but the "8 pounds per gallon" part. I can do these conversions on demand but, besides never being the native way I think personally, there are simply more numeric conversions you have to do when you use this system whether or not it's native to you.
It's just as simple, frankly. A gallon is four quarts, each of which is two pounds of water. A quart is two pints: and a pint's a pound, the world round (Yes, most of us are aware of the irony of that couplet).
These are all things which are generally known to Americans. But HN has an international audience, for whom "gallon" is presumably somewhat vague.
> 8 gallons per person per day. Water is heavy—8 pounds per gallon
The average person needs far less than 65lbs (30kg) of water per day, which is a third of the average male weight in the US.
By medical standards humans need more like 8lbs (under 4l) per day for men and 6lbs (under 3l) for women. Less if your rationing and not exerting yourself.
The normal amount in disaster preparedness is 1gal per person per day. The problem with the larger amounts is that people see they need huge amounts and don't do anything. Better to get started storing 5-7 gal for each person.
The way to allow for extras is to store water for a longer length of time. If recommended value is two weeks, and it is in my area, then a month is a good buffer.
8 ga of water per person per day is completely insane in disaster scenario. 2-3ga for drinking a day? Medical professionals recommend less than 1 for a normal person.
Keep in mind military operations generally aren't supposed to be disaster scenarios. And someone marching 10+ miles a day in full kit, possibly through heavy terrain or while under fire, is probably going to sweat a lot more than a normal person.
Walmart sells 5 gallon water totes for $15. that is essentially 5 days for one person. We have a few on hand (family of 4 plus dog) and every six months or so, I empty them, clean them, and re-fill them. Also, there are gravity filters that work great if you have things like creeks near you.. Berkey Filters are pretty good for filtering out contaminants, as well as 2-bag gravity filters that are really popular with backpackers because you can fill the dirty bag up, hang from a tree, and do other things while the clean bag fills.. (not an endorsement, but their pictures show nicely how they work) https://www.platy.com/filtration/gravityworks-water-filter-s...
I've got one of these in my garage. It provides a lot of piece of mind knowing water is solved for. I not a "prepper" by any means, but, realistically I need water every day or I will die. Spending a few hundred to ensure I don't die from dehydration during a natural disaster seems worth it.
If there is no AC, and you are exerting yourself a lot (no car or transportation is down, more work to prepare food, even having to take a dump outside), 5 gallons is barely enough for one person to drink per day. You'll be sweating a lot more in those conditions.
Another example is food in winter months. During a disaster, even with winter gear, your houee may not be heated. If it is -20C inside, your body will need more calories.
If you're having to go outside to cook, to expel waste, and maybe even to go find snow to melt for water, you're going to need 3x your caloric intake.
You have to plan for worst case usage per day, not best.
> 5 gallons is barely enough for one person to drink per day.
OK, no. If you're running a marathon, in hot weather, you're at maybe a liter per hour. Unless you plan to run 20h marathons and the sun never sets, 5 gallon is well beyond drinking needs.
And unless you're able to exert yourself at that level at all, this isn't the "worst case", this is pure fantasy.
And if you're preparing for -20C in your house, I recommend investing in insulation, not more calories stored away. (I also question 3x, the figures I've seen point to 2x, with exertion somewhat counteracting cold)
If you drink ~19 litres (5 US gallons?) of water every day you will not survive long. That’s about an order of magnitude more than is recommended under normal non-strenuous conditions.
I drink may be two liters of water per day. Unless Google lies to me, 5 gallons is almost 20 liters which would be enough for 3 weeks for me with rationing.
You can also use the filters with alternative housings that are far cheaper if aesthetics aren’t a concern. I’ve seen people use food safe 5 gallon buckets for example. It’s much cheaper and works just as well in emergency situations. You do need to be careful about light penetration of the translucent bucket wall.
Another cool thing is that you can make (in a pinch, I wouldn’t recommend this over berkey filters) filters from the same type of bulkheads berkey uses attached to home-made ceramic filters. They work remarkably well in emergencies and are trivial to make if you’ve got clay and a hot fire. There’s definitely trial and error involved for getting perfect seals, and some advanced DIYers I’ve seen used glazing to create a more easily sealed rim which can have a plastic tube jammed into it for a friction fit, which then attaches to the inner part of the bulkhead.
Totally unnecessary if civilization is working but awesome if things go sideways and you’re out of filters. There might be better methods too, I haven’t looked into it for years.
Backpacking water filters aren’t all that expensive and work fine with most water sources. Wouldn’t produce enough to shower in but certainly enough that you could survive in a disaster.
I've got an assortment of backpacking/camping water filters, but don't live especially near a water source, so my days would revolve around walks to the nearest creek. (2 km away) A cargo bike would help a lot there.
If the municipal water is still functional but non-potable, a LifeStraw Max gets you effectively unlimited water on-demand for most sources of contamination.
You could collect rainwater, but realistically water outages are usually not "the taps are dry", but rather "the water treatment plant failed so we can't guarantee the water is safe to drink."
> You could collect rainwater, but realistically water outages are usually not "the taps are dry", but rather "the water treatment plant failed so we can't guarantee the water is safe to drink."
This happened literally last month in the region where I live, and yes "the taps are dry" is exactly what happened.
The water treatment plant staff detected high levels of toluene in the river which feeds the plant, so as a preventive measure, they shut down the whole thing. It took several days until they managed to get the toluene levels in the river low enough that adding activated charcoal to the water intake could get rid of the rest. In the meantime, there was no water being pumped into the system, and once your building's water tank ran dry (the size varies depending on the building), there was no water anymore (unless you hired a water truck to bring water from a nearby city).
And that's not even the first time this kind of thing happened around here. A couple of years ago, another water treatment plant in the same region (fed by a different river) had trouble due to high levels of geosmin in the river, and they also had to shut down for a while. The result was the same, taps running dry once the building water tanks get empty.
Not to mention that pumping water needs lots of electric power. Not only at the water treatment plant, but several other places in the system need to move water against gravity, or increase its pressure.
I do collect rainwater! (In the summer months, at least.) Have a system cobbled together based on bluebarrelsystems.com
Though disaster preparedness and water efficiency are a bit at odds. For the former I'd want to keep all my barrels mostly full, but for the latter I want to keep them empty enough that rainfall events aren't overflowing them and wasting water.
Sure, but even with my regular water usage, the LifeStraw Max filters would last me over a year, and it works via water pressure. There isn't really any disaster scenario where I'm remaining in my home and need to purify water via burning wood.
I wouldn't think backpacking water filters would help much in for getting water from rivers / ponds in an urban/suburban environment? They'd take care of particulate matter and microbes but I doubt they'd do much for chemical contaminants.
Also, most filters can filter bacteria and cysts, but can't filter out viruses. Many say viruses are not an issue in the backcountry (but I still use purifying tablets), but if you're taking water from a suburban stream during a disaster, I'd definitely want to make sure I'm not ingesting whatever viruses the guy upstream deposited when he used the stream as a toilet.
> The water seems like the hard part. Are there any tricks for cheap, safe hydration for a family?
You already have the equipment for that. Your existing hot water heater stores enough drinking water for a month at least, probably more if you ration carefully.
we got the smaller 42 gallon one, and.. with two people and a pet... it might last a couple weeks tops, I'd think, if we rationed (~2-3 gallons per day?)
The genius move I heard of was to throw a few 5-gal jugs of water up in your attic (!!!). It's relatively shelf-stable, standardized size, and "in case of emergency" you can even use it as a gravity-flowed spout to fill smaller containers below.
I've taken to trying to have a minimal set of 4 one liter steel water bottles hung in the closet (grab + go) all the time. So convenient to be able to "just grab some water" on the way out the door, and is the start of a solid emergency prep station.
If it's kept in plastic containers, it's probably only good for a year or so before enough stuff leaches into the water that it'll last off and funky. The time period decreases significantly if your attic gets hot (like a lot of them do).
I want my regular drinking water to be as free of microplastics as possible, but is contamination from plastic containers dangerous enough to be of any concern during an emergency situation?
If one is going to do that, I'd strongly recommend putting them in some kind of basin that can hold the water if it escapes from the jugs, or sturdier containers, or both.
At least in the US, water jugs are generally very flimsy. An attic is likely to have wide temperature variations throughout the year, and leaky water jugs up there could cause some expensive damage.
Yeah we had plastic jugs in our cool basement leak all over the concrete floor — I can’t imagine the disaster that would be to have plastic jugs in my 140F attic with resultant leaking down from the ceiling
One option is to do what quick-service restaurants (e.g., Subway) do for chips, cookies, drinks, etc.: keep a hefty supply of product on hand, but consume it first-in-first-out (FIFO, like a queue). During times of stability (when supplies are available), add new supplies to the "back" while you consume from the "front".
I've got a 1000 litre / 250-ish US gallon rainwater collection tank. While I wouldn't want to start there for drinking water, it would do for quite a while if I boil it.
We do get power failures, so it's mostly been for some garden watering, and being able to flush our toilets during an outage. We're on a well, and the pump needs 220v. I suppose I could get a better generator too, ours only does 120v.
That's true! It hasn't been a huge issue, we tend to mitigate basically by filling some pots with water when a storm is coming. (Usual outages happen in high winds, we have overhead lines and many trees.)
You have to have the right kind of ground to drill with this. I think lots of gravel and rocks won’t work well. Never used it myself but was considering it in the past.
Or with an adapter hose you can connect a standard propane tank. If you get the right connector bits, you can use propane with either a dual-burner Coleman-like stove, or with a minimal Jetboil-like backpacking stove.
With a different adapter one can refill camping canisters from a standard propane tank. One "usually" gets away with refilling empty canisters, but these aren't legal for transport in an automobile. Presumably with reason, as in the odds aren't as good as skydiving. I recommend the DOT approved:
Flame King Refillable 1LB Empty Propane Cylinder Tank
I'm not entirely clear on what your question is, but reused single-use propane canisters are lesser for three reasons.
1. The propane they are manufactured with is carefully dried, but propane out of bulk tanks is not. The single use tanks have thinner walls with less corrosion protection because the high-end propane doesn't need it.
2. The safety over-pressure valve on those tanks has similar design constraints and may corrode shut with un-dried propane. Sometimes people damage those valves while refilling.
3. It's easy to overfill those little tanks such that high temperatures can cause over-pressure problems. Due to (1) and (2) the built-in safety measures for refillable tanks cannot be assumed.
I was questioning the idea that having a refilled tank in your car is more dangerous than skydiving. I think it is fair to presume it has some non-zero risk.
I was questioning if that risk is meaningful, or if it is like a prop 65 warning on every building you enter, and most products you purchase.
Googling around I was able to find 1 death associated with refilling a DOT-39 container [1], which is scary shit. However, it seems to be caused by a poor coupling, refilling inside, with an ignition source. This could have happened with any container including a certified refillable one.
Yeah I looked into those, but in practice it seemed easier to just get a 5lb propane tank for camping that I get refilled at the same place I fill my 20lb tanks. (Plus I'm not clear about the legality of the Flame King ones in Canada, with the result that there aren't any reputable sellers.)
If I really need to go light I'm carrying isobutane canisters or using an alcohol stove.
That’s an interesting point, I hadn’t considered that.
It should be noted for other readers, that it’s processed oats that have been treated with steaming and an extended heat treatment that are safe to eat as is. That said, “overnight oatmeal” is still not recommended.
The steaming and heating steps allow oats to be shaped, modifies the flavor, kills the many possible pathogens present (like ecoli and salmonella) and deactivates enzymes that would cause spoilage.
Truly raw grains should not be eaten. For example in the US the biggest danger of food poisoning from eating raw cookie dough, typically comes from the flour not the eggs. Incidentally, simply baking flour does not render it safe until moisture is added: https://ag.purdue.edu/news/2021/04/Home-kitchen-heat-treated...
I should also add that things like dry kidney beans contain toxins that need to be soaked and heated to boiling for a sufficient amount of time to destroy, otherwise even just a few can cause severe intestinal distress.
That's not what the cited article says. Instead, it says:
“But it’s not that simple in flour because Salmonella is more heat resistant when moisture is low. We still need more research data to confirm how hot you’d have to get the flour or how long you’d have to hold it at that temperature to make the flour safe to eat.”
You said "baking does not render flour safe". The article says we still need more research about "165 degrees", and does not even say baking flour at 165 degrees is unsafe. In other words, it could render it safe, we just don't apparently know.
>the grid goes down for longer than a month a lot of us are dying regardless of how we prepare.
This. When trying to make provisions for even modest disruptions, you quickly realize how herculean a task it is to be truly prepared. Unless you're already a self-sustaining farmer with a well/water source and other resources or (ideally) billionare-bunker capable, you can see how prepper-ism becomes a lifestyle beyond prepping for a relatively short period.
Making a choice between living life as it currently is and being prepared to survive indefinitely is a hard fork in the road.
If you are in the US, the best preparation you can have is to be able to relocate during an emergency. Do not get stuck in Katrina so to speak. Having transport to other parts of the country is the best bet.
Not sure if and how modern cars with all their electronics might be affected. Also maybe have some paper maps and a compass somewhere (and know how to use them!) and don’t purely rely on GPS.
Also trash bags to shit in. Put it in your toilet, close the lid on it, boom you can shit in the comfort of your bathroom in a relatively sanitary way.
I guess that's one upside of living off of city water / sanitation. In my circumstance I wouldn't have a change of living due to well water pump being easily run from solar collected electricity. It would only have to run the pump a few times a day to keep the well bladder tank primed. Same thing for the mound system as the pump only needs to run a few times a day during normal operations. This could just be run once at the end of the day to bring the final holding tank down to a normal level.
I'm in the same boat, and have a lot of power failures. So when I replaced my tank, I made sure I went for a 80gal size / 40 gal badder. I also upped my pressure from 30/50 to 50/80, so that I have more pressure in there regardless.
But I've noticed a disturbing trend. A lot of people now have "continuous" pump/tank setups. A little pressure tank the size of a 20lb BBQ propane tank, just to allow for pressure stabilization, and a weaker pump. I guess cost is the motivator.
I had an irrigation guy try to sell me on the "continuous" pump setups. While you minimize some of the internal infrastructure - I agree with your take. The continuous system puts a ton more strain on the pump. The other piece is lift - even at 70 psi water pressure diminishes quite a bit if you're traveling three floors (basement, 1st, 2nd).
- water purification/iodide tablets
- Sawyer mini (life straw works too) to filter the water
- rations
- camping stove, white gas, waterproof matches, lighter
- I may or may not have a firearm and may or may not bring it when me and my non-white partner go camping in eastern Washington/forks ....
- Tanked water heater for potable water
- fire extinguisher (granted I leave that in the car when camping)
- poop bucket
- solar panel+back up battery, assuming they survive any issues with the storm. I'm hoping a townhouse has enough barriers to protect against radiation given I keep the camping gear in the basement
I should probably print out some maps of things like resoviors, ports, and other critical infra/services in my area at some point.
I can't speak for the US but people absolutely do not act like this in Europe (and Europe has some of the most arrogant self-assured service workers on the planet depending on the country - I won't name names but you can probably guess which country has the most extreme and limiting arrogance around what should or should not be done with coffee).
I use it for work so much I’d gladly pay way more than $20 just for access to GPT-4. It’s pretty terrible at programming but it still saves me loads of time generating the easy functions.
Anything remotely complex I still do by hand. But holy shit its nice having something do my boilerplate.
Why should we have sympathy because of an artificial constraint on the supply of taxi drivers? They're really nothing special except by being in an artificially protected market.
