11 ms·

Articles like this make me want to get a NYTimes sub, excellent reporting on something mundane with enough statistics to make it worth the read. If we ban shoe

Articles like this make me want to get a NYTimes sub, excellent reporting on something mundane with enough statistics to make it worth the read. If we ban shoes now, will we ban other augments in the future? Will this stunt the progression of such human performance augmentations?

dandr01d 8y ago
Did you get a subscription or not?!
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
djohnston 8y ago
i think at a competitive level we have already crossed this threshold, as we have barred j-blade runners from competing against full-legged humans at the highest level. i think it's totally justified, but i don't think it will have any effect on the advancement of prosthetics, which pave the way to performance augmentations.
meritt 8y ago
I'd love to get a NYT sub but they operate like SiriusXM when it comes to cancellations. You have to talk to a human, during business hours, and you have to fight with them for 15 minutes to get cancelled (meanwhile they offer you continually cheaper rates to stay on, so if you pay rack rates you're clearly overpaying in the first place). If they offered a way to self-manage a subscription that I could cancel at any time (e.g. Netflix) and a fixed rate so I knew I wasn't overpaying. I'd love to sub.
- softbuilder 8y ago
  This was how they lost my business forever a few years ago. I had to tighten spending for a bit so I called to cancel, thinking I'd be able to renew in a few months. The experience was horrible.
- ndrake 8y ago
  I recently cancelled via online chat. Only took 5 minutes.
  - lancewiggs 8y ago
    But why should it take longer than 2 messages? Why chat at all?
    - ada1981 8y ago
      Why not talk a bit and make a new friend?
- crypt1d 8y ago
  Is such a cancellation model common in the US? I didn't think anyone does that anymore, except maybe porn sites. Its a really cheap sales tactic and would probably dissuade me from subscribing in the first place.
  - lfowles 8y ago
    My cable provider requires calling in to downgrade services, but adding them can be done with just a click online! I've also seen it occasionally for services like eMeals.
    - fma 8y ago
      Same with my security provider, SimpleSafe. Gotta call during business hours to cancel for "security reasons", but you can resubscribe or add new features online. The only secure part of canceling via phone is you give a security code... And that code is shown if you log in online.
- ryanlol 8y ago
  Can't you just quickly dispute the charges online with your CC provider until the company accepts your cancellation?
  - jopsen 8y ago
    The problem is that they obscure prices, try to avoid cancellation.. Scammy tactics is dishonest, and that's not a good start for a news source. (I have problems finding a gym, because I prefer to do honest business - without obscure pricing)
  - tedunangst 8y ago
    You can do that too, but I still think you should tell others that it's difficult to cancel. That's the important part. :)
- jopsen 8y ago
  Exactly, the business feels dishonest. How is that a good start for a newspaper?
- csmajorfive 8y ago
  If you subscribe in the mobile app, you can self-manage the subscription through iTunes just like any other app.
- kqr2 8y ago
  If you are in California, then there is a new law effective July 1, 2018 that says they must let you cancel online: https://www.cnet.com/news/companies-must-let-customers-cancel-subscriptions-online-california-law-says/ https://www.cnet.com/news/companies-must-let-customers-cance... In this article, it specifically mentions how difficult it is to cancel a NYT subscription.
exhilaration 8y ago
It's worth it. They run sales all the time, I've been paying $7.50/mo since January for a basic online subscription. There's enough new content every day that you'll never run out of interesting stuff to read. Just sign up for a free account and watch the promotional e-mails for a sale.
- 1337biz 8y ago
  If they would really focus on interesting articles like these I would follow that. But their political bend has just become too pedantic. Of the big paper WSJ is for me the last one readable as I find their slight conservative bend a lot less obnoxious in their tone.
  - dmix 8y ago
    Agreed, I subscribed to NYT since subbing was an option, and read daily for a decade, until they decided to double down on partisan politics (I presume as a business decision over quality) since the last US election. The switch was very noticeable if you were paying attention. Maybe coinciding around the time the new Arthur took over as lead... I too switched to WSJ and don't mind paying the extra cost. I miss the days when NYT feigned neutrality and focused on the balanced reality of stories over fermenting outrage via opinion pieces packaged as breaking news. You can still find the good NYT content as the pop up on content filters like HN, Twitter, and Pocket without having to put blinders on to ignore half the other content on the site.
- taurath 8y ago
  Also you can read offline after a refresh. Biggest feature for me
- jopsen 8y ago
  Last I tried I had to immediately cancel on principal since the pricing was deliberately obscured. Credibility was lost before I could even read the articles.
  - Swizec 8y ago
gascan 8y ago
We seem to take it very much case by case. Running efficiency augments are controversial. Drugs are verboten. But better bicycles are OK, and football players can wear eyeblack and grip-enhancing gloves. The closer a sport is to pure human performance, though, the more sensitive we seem to be about it. Perhaps out of a sense of continuity through the ages. Yeah, we train better than Athenian athletes. But we still run the same way with the same air and the same gravity. I'm not terribly worried about stunting development of augments; it's practically the DoD's charter to develop and productize unfair advantages.
- my_username_is_ 8y ago
  As another example of equipment that is banned because its technological advancements are deemed to give an unfair advantage, take a look at golf. Equipment manufacturers need to get their products tested & approved by the USGA in order to be allowed in many tournaments. Clubs or balls that fly too far when you hit them do not get the required approval.
  - matwood 8y ago
    And the USGA actually took away the stomach/gut putter.
  - danieltillett 8y ago
    In golf this makes sense as it is far easier to replace your clubs than make a new course.
- slg 8y ago
  Swimming had this exact same issue a few years ago with the new full body suits that reduce drag too much. Each sports handles this differently and most decisions seem completely arbitrary with the biggest deciding factor simply being tradition. For example, no one cares that swimmers have always shaved their entire body and/or worn a cap to prevent drag. However the new suits just provided too big of a single jump to not require an immediate response. One of the weirdest arbitrary decisions is the difference between almost universally banned "blood doping" and almost universally allowed "platelet-rich plasma therapy". You can draw a patient's blood and put it in a centrifuge to separate out the red blood cells from the platelets. Reinjecting the red blood cells is doping while reinjecting the platelets is an acceptable medical treatment.
ccmonnett 8y ago
If you like this, you (and many others here) may also enjoy this great visual breakdown of how the American economy has changed since the recession in 2008: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/06/05/upshot/how-the-recession-reshaped-the-economy-in-255-charts.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/06/05/upshot/how-th... P.S. I am also a happy NYT subscriber. +1 for supporting high-quality journalism!
- chiefalchemist 8y ago
  Post-college (late 80's) I was faithful subscriber to the NYT. Over time the quality and quantity drifted down. Eventually, I put my confirmation bias aside and took my attention elsewhere. It's rare I regret it.
chriscampbell 8y ago
I bought a NYT sub with Sunday delivery for $20 a month, worth the price. Lots of great in depth investigations and articles.

dandr01d 8y ago

Did you get a subscription or not?!

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

djohnston 8y ago

i think at a competitive level we have already crossed this threshold, as we have barred j-blade runners from competing against full-legged humans at the highest level. i think it's totally justified, but i don't think it will have any effect on the advancement of prosthetics, which pave the way to performance augmentations.

meritt 8y ago

I'd love to get a NYT sub but they operate like SiriusXM when it comes to cancellations. You have to talk to a human, during business hours, and you have to fight with them for 15 minutes to get cancelled (meanwhile they offer you continually cheaper rates to stay on, so if you pay rack rates you're clearly overpaying in the first place). If they offered a way to self-manage a subscription that I could cancel at any time (e.g. Netflix) and a fixed rate so I knew I wasn't overpaying. I'd love to sub.

softbuilder 8y ago
This was how they lost my business forever a few years ago. I had to tighten spending for a bit so I called to cancel, thinking I'd be able to renew in a few months. The experience was horrible.
ndrake 8y ago
I recently cancelled via online chat. Only took 5 minutes.
- lancewiggs 8y ago
  But why should it take longer than 2 messages? Why chat at all?
  - ada1981 8y ago
    Why not talk a bit and make a new friend?
crypt1d 8y ago
Is such a cancellation model common in the US? I didn't think anyone does that anymore, except maybe porn sites. Its a really cheap sales tactic and would probably dissuade me from subscribing in the first place.
- lfowles 8y ago
  My cable provider requires calling in to downgrade services, but adding them can be done with just a click online! I've also seen it occasionally for services like eMeals.
  - fma 8y ago
    Same with my security provider, SimpleSafe. Gotta call during business hours to cancel for "security reasons", but you can resubscribe or add new features online. The only secure part of canceling via phone is you give a security code... And that code is shown if you log in online.
ryanlol 8y ago
Can't you just quickly dispute the charges online with your CC provider until the company accepts your cancellation?
- jopsen 8y ago
  The problem is that they obscure prices, try to avoid cancellation.. Scammy tactics is dishonest, and that's not a good start for a news source. (I have problems finding a gym, because I prefer to do honest business - without obscure pricing)
- tedunangst 8y ago
  You can do that too, but I still think you should tell others that it's difficult to cancel. That's the important part. :)
jopsen 8y ago
Exactly, the business feels dishonest. How is that a good start for a newspaper?
csmajorfive 8y ago
If you subscribe in the mobile app, you can self-manage the subscription through iTunes just like any other app.
kqr2 8y ago
If you are in California, then there is a new law effective July 1, 2018 that says they must let you cancel online: https://www.cnet.com/news/companies-must-let-customers-cancel-subscriptions-online-california-law-says/ https://www.cnet.com/news/companies-must-let-customers-cance... In this article, it specifically mentions how difficult it is to cancel a NYT subscription.

exhilaration 8y ago

It's worth it. They run sales all the time, I've been paying $7.50/mo since January for a basic online subscription. There's enough new content every day that you'll never run out of interesting stuff to read. Just sign up for a free account and watch the promotional e-mails for a sale.

1337biz 8y ago
If they would really focus on interesting articles like these I would follow that. But their political bend has just become too pedantic. Of the big paper WSJ is for me the last one readable as I find their slight conservative bend a lot less obnoxious in their tone.
- dmix 8y ago
  Agreed, I subscribed to NYT since subbing was an option, and read daily for a decade, until they decided to double down on partisan politics (I presume as a business decision over quality) since the last US election. The switch was very noticeable if you were paying attention. Maybe coinciding around the time the new Arthur took over as lead... I too switched to WSJ and don't mind paying the extra cost. I miss the days when NYT feigned neutrality and focused on the balanced reality of stories over fermenting outrage via opinion pieces packaged as breaking news. You can still find the good NYT content as the pop up on content filters like HN, Twitter, and Pocket without having to put blinders on to ignore half the other content on the site.
taurath 8y ago
Also you can read offline after a refresh. Biggest feature for me
jopsen 8y ago
Last I tried I had to immediately cancel on principal since the pricing was deliberately obscured. Credibility was lost before I could even read the articles.
- Swizec 8y ago

gascan 8y ago

We seem to take it very much case by case. Running efficiency augments are controversial. Drugs are verboten. But better bicycles are OK, and football players can wear eyeblack and grip-enhancing gloves. The closer a sport is to pure human performance, though, the more sensitive we seem to be about it. Perhaps out of a sense of continuity through the ages. Yeah, we train better than Athenian athletes. But we still run the same way with the same air and the same gravity. I'm not terribly worried about stunting development of augments; it's practically the DoD's charter to develop and productize unfair advantages.

my_username_is_ 8y ago
As another example of equipment that is banned because its technological advancements are deemed to give an unfair advantage, take a look at golf. Equipment manufacturers need to get their products tested & approved by the USGA in order to be allowed in many tournaments. Clubs or balls that fly too far when you hit them do not get the required approval.
- matwood 8y ago
  And the USGA actually took away the stomach/gut putter.
- danieltillett 8y ago
  In golf this makes sense as it is far easier to replace your clubs than make a new course.
slg 8y ago
Swimming had this exact same issue a few years ago with the new full body suits that reduce drag too much. Each sports handles this differently and most decisions seem completely arbitrary with the biggest deciding factor simply being tradition. For example, no one cares that swimmers have always shaved their entire body and/or worn a cap to prevent drag. However the new suits just provided too big of a single jump to not require an immediate response. One of the weirdest arbitrary decisions is the difference between almost universally banned "blood doping" and almost universally allowed "platelet-rich plasma therapy". You can draw a patient's blood and put it in a centrifuge to separate out the red blood cells from the platelets. Reinjecting the red blood cells is doping while reinjecting the platelets is an acceptable medical treatment.

ccmonnett 8y ago

If you like this, you (and many others here) may also enjoy this great visual breakdown of how the American economy has changed since the recession in 2008: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/06/05/upshot/how-the-recession-reshaped-the-economy-in-255-charts.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/06/05/upshot/how-th... P.S. I am also a happy NYT subscriber. +1 for supporting high-quality journalism!

chiefalchemist 8y ago
Post-college (late 80's) I was faithful subscriber to the NYT. Over time the quality and quantity drifted down. Eventually, I put my confirmation bias aside and took my attention elsewhere. It's rare I regret it.

chriscampbell 8y ago

I bought a NYT sub with Sunday delivery for $20 a month, worth the price. Lots of great in depth investigations and articles.