Most of the images are hard to figure out. For example, if the picture of the cat was not next to a C, I would have thought it to be a monkey. I would have assumed the dog to be actually a pet cow. The blade of the so called axe does look like a beaker or an old fashioned fountain pen ink bottle pouring out yellow ink or paint.
I’m not sure how well it will work but NYC is experimenting with supervised consumption centers. The goal is twofold: Reduce overdose deaths by having trained medics on hand and convince users to enroll in rehabilitation programs.
How harmful is lead in solder used to join copper pipes? Lead free solder was mandated only around 1986, so presumably there are a lot of copper pipes around using solder containing lead.
The exposed/wetted area of a soldered joint is pretty damn small and I’d expect those 40 year old joints have reached an acceptable steady state by now.
That’s not an excuse to use leaded solder on supply pipes as plumbing with lead-free solder is perfectly easy, but I don’t sweat* the old copper pipes in my 1920s home.
I'd imagine the extremely tiny portion of solder exposed to the water supply is nothing compared to the "lead-free" brass fittings which were permitted to contain various non-zero amounts of lead depending on the year, and still do.
you have two problems with new formulations though. one is lead-free solder seldom works as well as the box claims. two, antimony is somewhat concerning from a toxicity standpoint though i'd say less than lead
i wonder if we don't just quit and go to brazing all joints. rod is pricier than solder and takes more heat but probably less toxic and certainly more dutable
Tin/silver soldering (~95/5) would probably be better than brazing for water supply piping as brazing will tend to anneal the hard drawn copper tubing, which isn’t desirable from a strength standpoint.
non-zero harm but it's necessarily a lot less than making the whole thing out of lead. think about the difference between a square inch of lead exposed per joint versus many square feet. not a one-to-one comparison since the shear stress at a joint will be higher, but such a relatively smaller area it will have a relatively tiny impact.
Most dishwashers are connected to hot water. Some higher end dishwashers can work with cold water, but the cheaper ones don’t. Does this mean using a dishwasher is a problem as well?
If you have hot water, why wouldn't you use that for the water connection?
My dishwasher has a heating element, but the colder the water is, the more it has to work.
So if it's cheaper to use gas-powered hot water from the boiler than to heat it electrically, why wouldn't you? And it's there in the kitchen right next to the sink which has hot water available anyways, so it's kind of a no-brainer.
Yes, I'm in the US -- you can see on a kind of average dishwasher installation manual [1], it specifically instructs you to connect it to a hot water line.
Yeah, the standard advice is actually to run your kitchen faucet on hot until you get hot water, before you start the dishwasher.
I'm always rinsing off the bigger gunks of food with hot water anyways as I load the dishwasher, so it's hot already.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter that much. The main point is just, if you have hot water available, it's hard to see why you wouldn't take advantage of that.
I’d assume that wasting a lot of hot water before running the dishwasher negates any price benefits from heating the water with gas instead of electricity. Not to mention the CO2.
> If you have hot water, why wouldn't you use that for the water connection?
Two protein related reasons: hot water can denature detergent enzymes making them less effective, and hot water can cause food proteins on the dishes to harden and set.
European manufacturers claim that detergents work better when starting the program with cold water, and recommend doing so. The situation might be different in the US, where using the hot water seems to be the norm.
Probably not. Most of the water runs off the dishes. A very thin film remains that evaporates in the dry cycle, and even at that a lot of it will bead up and run off completely.
I have found that new dishwashers with good eco ratings leave easily detectable amounts of soap on the dishes. Even apart from any health impact, I make it a point to never use them on their default eco programming, but switch to sth that uses more water. I want my dishes clean, that includes soap residue.
I got rid of a perfectly fine 35 yo dishwasher that cleaned fine even without soap, due to heat and water use. I got rid of it because it was loud, but I always wondered if running it without soap was perhaps not as eco friendly as a modern washine using less heat and water.
Use less soap. I use about half as much and the dishes come out fine. I've had better luck with liquid based soaps too as they mix immediately with the water.
I use either Cascade powder or the Walmart brand equivalent and only put a teaspoon or so of powder in the cup per load and a few dozen granules of powder on the door for the prewash.
While I would be willing to pay a fee to use Signal, most people won’t and then Signal would turn into a deserted landscape full of privacy nerds who only talk with each other. On the other hand, being better at soliciting donations more often would be more helpful. I’m a regular Signal user and didn’t even know I could donate.
No, but they are better designed in ways that allow them to clean well with lower power consumption. The tub is better insulated for example and they don’t waste energy on a heated dry cycle. That energy allowance can be better utilized in the main cleaning cycle.
The high efficiency toilets use less water but higher pressure which means they still work quite well. Apparently they still make toilets which use the old design but still use less water. They have to be flushed a few times though. I assume they are significantly cheaper because why else would an ex-landlord have installed that in my apartment back when I was renting?
Also worth checking your dishwasher manual to see if it has a minimum temperature requirement for the incoming water. If it does, run the kitchen faucet till the water gets as hot as it can before starting the dishwasher. Many cheap dishwashers have a heating element which cannot heat the water to the required cycle temperature unless the incoming water is hotter than a certain temperature. More expensive dishwashers can work with cold or hot water.
My belief is that manufacturers use the same heating elements between europe (240V, but often piped to the cold water line) and North America (120V, but usually piped to the hot water line).
No matter what, North American dishwashers will only be able to draw 1500w, and probably less because they're not always on a dedicated circuit, and have other power needs than just heat. So it's probably not a "cheap diswasher" vs expensive one issue.
The amount of water heated up in each cycle is small enough that 1500W is not the limiting factor. Maytag recommends connecting to the hot water outlet and recommends a minimum temperature of 120F [1].
The Miele user manual for their USA models recommends connecting to the cold water inlet unless the hot water is known to be heated by a very efficient source [2].
It doesn’t. They just assume that the user is looking for the most efficient solution. There are pros and cons though. The delicate crystal cycle uses a very low temperature and will only work with cold water. Some of the faster cycles will only be as fast as claimed if the supplier water is already hot.
I haven't checked code - but since my wiring had the dishwasher and garbage disposal shared on a single 20A, I would expect that each now have a requirement to not consume more than 1200W.
At 1200W and a 2.5 gallon wash cycle, I'd expect heating from 70 to 130F would take about 20 minutes. Unless the pre-rinse cycle was extended, I would expect this would mean the soap was released at the start of the wash cycle before the water was to temperature.
Why would it be the only option? It seems to be the standard in Europe, but not sure why you couldn’t connect it to the hot water line instead. This is especially true if you have an efficient hot water source like solar or a heat pump water heater.
You have to hire (or be) a plumber to make the change. Often getting access to the pipes can be tricky. Depends on how your house is though. Sometimes this is as simple as connecting the hose to the other valve already in place, sometimes this means opening up the wall to get access to the pipes.
Normally the only pipe that's available to dishwashers is the cold water pipe.
However, even if you had hot water available, it would actually be to hot. The hot water entering can be much hotter than the required 30C for the lowest setting, so the dishwasher would need to cool the water.
In the U.S. dishwashers are almost always installed directly next to the kitchen sink, where either the cold or hot line can be easily tapped with a tee valve. I guess plumbing/kitchen layout is done differently in Europe.
As for heat setting, what’s the reason to be concerned with tap water being too hot? I don’t think plumbing code would allow water to be available at the tap that was hot enough to actually damage any type of utensil/drinkware/etc? I presume the only reason there might be a lower heat setting is simply for energy savings, which is kind of moot if you’re instead pulling hot water from the efficiently heated water supply.
To be fair, that is how commuter trains in the NYC metropolitan area work. The fares are higher during rush hour to discourage people who can shift their schedule from traveling during rush hour.
A big proportion of the opposition is coming from New Jersey where former Governor Chris Christie systematically diverted public transit funding to constructing more roads leaving NJ Transit with a maintenance backlog, inadequate infrastructure and unhappy workers who were poached by the MTA. This resulted in a mismatch where the infrastructure is designed to favor driving on one side of the river and a fee designed to discourage driving and encourage public transit on the other side.
There's more reason for NJ residents to take issue with this. In central jersey, it costs at least $20/person for a round trip ticket. If you go with your family or a group of friends filling a 5 seat car, the train costs $100 just to get into the city and then get hit with whatever additional costs you have for the next few subway rides. Gas, parking, and
carpool bridge/tunnel toll prices don't add up to anywhere near that amount.
The reality is that this ends up being a regressive plan where high income earners benefit and everyone else just has to deal with increased burdens.
Yea it also ignores that if everybody stopped riding the $100 train then you’d never actually be able to drive into the city, let alone park anywhere for under $100.
Also, this is a deliberate choice. They can improve train services and lower costs. Idk why people who ostensibly are market oriented are so fixated on current prices and assuming they can’t change or be improved upon. Germany is an example $49 for a ticket for all (I think) transit.
Another thing while I’m at it - how much does your car, insurance, gas, maintenance, tires, and other things cost? How much money per month are you paying to pay for the roads and highways? Etc. It’s hard to do a fair apples to apples comparison here either way.
Yeah, everyone also ignores that public transport can be supported through taxes and operated at a loss.
In the US, we have a weird obsession with all public goods/services paying for themselves. We should ditch that, operate at a loss, and pull the difference out of progressive taxes.
There's no reason your CEO or office shouldn't foot part of the bill to transport you into work.
Heck, were I king I'd fund public transport 100% from taxes and do away with ticketing. Imagine how much less money we'd pay on road maintenance, police doing traffic duty, running ticket stands/etc. Not to mention the air quality improvements and environmental impacts.
The weirdness of the obsession is even stranger when you compare it to basically any other public service. Like, are schools supposed to pay for themselves? Airports? City infrastructure like streets, parks, and rec centers? The military?
No, of course not. All of these things are essentials for the which the benefits are felt across the economy, but those benefits are far too diffuse to be individually tallied up and toll-boothed— which is of course why they are (generally) financed out of the general tax base rather than by private industry.
I've heard an argument that schools are supposed to pay for themselves. The idea is that people who go to school end up in a higher tax bracket, so it's an investment, not merely public good. Similar arguments are made for parks and recreation; more open space, less noise, so less stress-induced heart attacks, which means more years being a taxpayer.
I think this is a toxic way of thinking of things, but I guess it allows even the most greedy politician to live with himself for not opposing schools.
Exactly— that's a "diffuse" benefit, and indeed the same logic that most of the world also applies to healthcare, though introducing that to a US-centric discussion just muddies the waters, for obvious reasons.
In much of the world, yes, airports are supposed to pay for themselves through landing charges, retail, etc.
In many countries, airports are privately owned and operated and make a profit. The US is, perhaps, a bit unusual in that airports are owned by governments and often subsidised.
Honestly though, you see a strong movement, especially on the right, to privatize and have those perks "pay for themselves" all the time. I've been to many state parks that require an entry fee, many city parks that require a parking fee (and are impossible to get to ootherwise). School vouchers are a first step toward full privatization of schooling.
I agree with your sentiment but let's not forget that people have been trying to fence off the commons for ages now.
> There's no reason your CEO or office shouldn't foot part of the bill to transport you into work.
This is how it works in the Netherlands. Transportation to and from work is required to be paid by the employer, and importantly, the employee gets to decide how they commute.
If I want to take the train from the other side of the country everyday, my employer needs to foot the bill. With a subscription, this is around €350/month for a 2nd class ticket. If I want to drive, the company must pay the kilometer rate set by the government.
To help control costs, some employers may offer company cars to employees, but in my experience it is mostly used as an employment benefit and a tax write-off. Both parties save on the tax burden while the employee also gets access to cheap and reliable transportation.
If the US implemented a requirement to reimburse employees for their travel to and from work, the amount of public infrastructure would explode.
The average commute is about 20 miles; 40 x 40 cents = $16/day (there and back). $80/week or $320 per month for an employee that lives, on average, pretty close to where they work.
A unlimited pass for the Dallas TX public transit system is $192/mo. So an employer could save 50% of the transportation costs by encouraging employees to ride the light-rail and the bus.
Unfortunately, we all know that there's a lot more that goes into incentivizing people to use public transportation. Walkable destinations, sidewalks, mixed zoning, etc etc all play into the decision, but if 3000 people are lining up to outside the same bus stop every day, some business is going to open up nearby to take advantage of the increased foot traffic.
To bring this back around, forcing employers to pay for transportation is a good way to incentivize public transit by making the companies goals in line with that of the municipality. If the city has better public transportation infrastructure, everybody wins!
The 49 EUR/month ticket in Germany covers all local transit, and you can generally piece together regional trains to get across the country if you’re patient, but it doesn’t cover the InterCity Express, InterCity, or some long-distance regional trains.
So it’s a good way not to worry about how Berlin transit pricing works if you’ve already have a Deutschlandticket to cover a Nuremberg-area commute, but getting to Berlin from Nuremberg still requires an ICE ticket… or a lot of patience.
I agree - takes almost 3 times as long than with an ICE.
It might be interesting to people that if you buy early enough the prices get stupidly cheap. I bought a ticket in march for May and the ticket for a Nuremberg - Frankfurt ICE would have only cost me 12,90EUR. I splurged for 1st class (instead of just seat reservation) at 22,90EUR.
So if you say visit Germany by plane you are probably booking that early as well - do yourself a favor and just book a couple of train trips early as well. That way you can save on car rental for a couple of days. The website to buy train tickets at is bahn.de
Price orientation for those of you who don't regularly use German trains: the impulse buy price for me for this route today, a BahnCard 50 holder, is 35.50 EUR, while it would be 71.00 EUR without the annual discount card, which is expensive enough that it only makes sense for people who live here and use long-distance trains a fair bit.
> Another thing while I’m at it - how much does your car, insurance, gas, maintenance, tires, and other things cost? How much money per month are you paying to pay for the roads and highways?
Not to mention the driver’s costs are artificially reduced because they benefits from externalities that are distributed across everyone, particularly pollution and climate change. Driving would be a tad more expensive if you had to pay for carbon sequestration for every gallon of gas you burn.
Even better would be if office workers whose jobs can be done from home could fill out paperwork to pass along that carbon sequestration to their employer when they are required to come into the office. Why let the companies that are responsible for all of the transport and traffic off the hook?
Very neat idea. I think if employers were required to realize economic impacts of commutes they’d be a lot more open and judicious about who they require to come in to the office. Being able to effectively price in the cost of the commute and potentially saving money via tax credits or something is cool.
On the other hand this presents a bit of a problem for, say, Boeing or Honda or Caterpillar who require workers to physically be present. I guess you could argue well then they should figure it out, but that probably results in private transit infrastructure and company towns and those probably aren’t a good path either.
One thing that kind of sits in the back of my mind is that you can effectively create a rat race about going to the office since ostensibly the C-suite team will have the company pay for their commute and then so on and so on as more people demand the company privilege of being able to go to the office.
NJ Transit allows kids under 11 to travel free with a fare paying adult on weekends and holidays. MTA charges them $1 but makes the discount always available.
How do you get the $1 price for kids in 2023? Currently the rule is “Up to three children under 44 inches tall ride for free when they’re with a fare-paying adult.” https://new.mta.info/fares
Because people from NJ put billions into the NY every year via income tax (no reciprocity with NY, hell they’re even coming after new work from home people) and tons of tourism etc. Its in NY’s best interest to accommodate NJ.
but on the other side people living in NY have to endure it. You can not just make the people living downtown dependent on the woes of the commuters. I can not imagine driving into NY as a large share of commuting mobility to make sense...it's just too big and dense
Yes, but it’s complicated by the fact that a lot of infrastructure funding is done at the federal level, which should in principle care about people in NY and NJ equally.
At least one of the entry points to that relatively small area is a border crossing between NJ and NY, so I think even if the feds don’t own the infrastructure involved (IDK if they do or not), they at least had to sign off on it.
This is a great example of how, even when one buys the idea of giving rights to individual states over the federal government, the US state borders are rather unnatural. Someone living in Jersey City and someone living in Manhattan have an incredible amount of shared economic interests. However, the Manhattan resident shares a state government with people living in Buffalo instead. This happens in plenty if places in the US: We have more than one multi-state megalopolis, and along with it, metro areas over a million residents that are split in such a way that they count little in their respective state governments.
In most of Europe, borders have had a whole lot of time to align economic development and political organization. But the US, unlike its corporations, is against reorgs. The fact that we even get to discuss state rights for something that could be a municipal matter is, in itself, a problem.
Yes. NY and NJ are fully independent and equal sovereign entities from one another. In general, most of the public road infrastructure is built and maintained by state and local governments (though there is some federal funding provided). Same with public transportation.
The main complication comes from the interaction between the states and the federal government.
It's unevenly distributed. I live in a suburb of Philadelphia and I can generally get around by bike, with a relatively frequent train into the city. I use my car something like once a week.
Just north of me is a car sewer though, so your point stands.
NYC transplants always like to make this argument.
I would rather see lots of smaller cars and more ridesharing services. I think that would be even better than trains. Its my unpopular opinion but I would say in an ideal world, get rid of the trains.
NYC is a perfect place to roll out a driverless car taxi service. You can make it so that you don't need to own a car but when you're traveling with people there is no argument; a car is better however you get it.
I've lived in the NYC area my whole life and somehow, its always the people that just moved here from ohio or california that come up with the half-baked traffic solutions and push them.
Get rid of buses and trains and replace them with 3 types of vehicles, 2 person, 4 person and 8 person. Keep reserves of vehicles in the train tunnels.
How can the contributors of HN not see a perfect application for variable packet sizes?
Would you also ban all private automobiles? I don't know how you're going to accommodate 1.3 million _extra_ car trips per day that currently (well, pre-covid) are handled by just the Lexington Avenue line alone. That's an insane amount of traffic. Streets would be completely gridlocked.
The parent you replied to was talking about NJ and people in NJ who own cars being accommodated by NY. Your comment was about how people choosing to drive in don’t consider the cost of buying a car. I’m saying no one buys a car to drive in. They already have one because having a car is awesome if you live in NJ.
90% is just about everyone. There are poor people that can’t afford cars and also NJ has cities like Hoboken and Jersey City that are more like being in NYC.
What else do 90% of people agree upon? We should put 90% of transit funds to car things but we don’t. That 10% is basically over served when you look at it this way.
But yeah policy should be built around what 90% of people think. In this case it’s that people want cars. And it makes sense because they make life so much better.
I have a car but that doesn’t mean I want things built around cars. I have a car because I need it not because I want it. Having to have a car makes my life actively worse.
You’re making a significant leap by assuming that car ownership implies car support.
Yes, and that's sort of the point. We have become unable to build transit infrastructure due to cost disease.
Making it worse for cars in the short term without any concept of how we will make transit better is not great.
Sure we're going to collect money.. estimated at $1B/year, and then what?
More $3B/mile boondoggles?
Maybe we'll have a new subway line funded by the year 2100.
You really think traffic is filled with 5 people in a car? Try looking around in a traffic jam, it’s like 95% 1-2 people occupancy. At 5 people, just paying the congestion charge starts to make sense. Also you could always split the difference, driving some of the way and parking along the PATH line, ie at Harrison parking is $10-15 per day and PATH fare is $2.75 per person, it’s still possible to get in cheaper and faster by public transit even in contrived situations like this.
In addition to what others have said: everything you've said is a reason to lower end-user public transit costs, not lower car tolls. A well-structured scheme here would simultaneously disincentivize individual car traffic and use some of the funds from that disincentivization to subsidize public transit.
But if there are 5 people in a car, the congestion pricing ends up costing each person less than it would cost someone driving alone. In a way, this discourages people using the road space inefficiently in favor of people like you and your friends who are using it more efficiently.
This is great for New Jersey, let's keep those dining and tourism dollars local, build up more businesses, create jobs so people don't have to commute to NYC. Time to bring in a new NBA team!
I live in NJ and in work downtown Manhattan. No one is commuting by car into downtown Manhattan. The rich take a helicopter. PATH is $5 per person roundtrip without discount. The only people (with enough time on their hands) going to that area by car are tourists, party goers, and college students. For businesses (e.g. trucks) the toll cost will be minimal.
> In central jersey, it costs at least $20/person for a round trip ticket. If you go with your family or a group of friends filling a 5 seat car, the train costs $100 just to get into the city and then get hit with whatever additional costs you have for the next few subway rides. Gas, parking, and carpool bridge/tunnel toll prices don't add up to anywhere near that amount.
Drive to a PATH station in newark, hoboken, jersey city, etc. Take the PATH train to manhattan and save $75. Profit.
The opposition from NJ is the double dipping of already high bridge and tunnel tolls along with the new congestion toll. They also have a really meager fixed discount for motorcycles which has diminished in value as the tolls have risen over the years.
I’m extraordinarily noise sensitive and I find this appealing for emotional reasons. But I don’t think it’s good policy nonetheless. IME motorcycle drivers are generally among the most respectful about the noise they make, relative to all drivers of all vehicle types. They scoot through and move on.
I’d definitely like to charge drivers for their relative noise impact, but I’d start with the recreational sports car drivers and work my way up to industrial vehicle operators who don’t seem to give any fucks, before I even bat an eye at anyone on two wheels.
In NYC specifically, by far the loudest vehicles are dirt bikes — people ride them through streets with absolutely no regard for safety or pedestrians, running reds and honking and revving their engines. I think what you have said is generally true in other US cities I’ve been to though.
I can definitely acknowledge this varies by location! I’ve been in Seattle for 20 years, and only in the last year or so have I come to terms with the completely superfluous sports car noise as a normal thing here, but it was everyday life in Virginia when I lived there the 20 years prior.
> IME motorcycle drivers are generally among the most respectful about the noise they make, relative to all drivers of all vehicle types.
I don't think we live in similar countries. In the US an astonishing percentage of motorcycles are illegally modified to be louder. In NYC there are four loud vehicles, the Lamborghini Aventador, Nissan GTR, the Dodge Challenger Hellcat, and motorcycles. Of these only GTRs behave more obnoxiously than motorcycles (though Hellcat drivers are in close competition). In NYC they like to coast down the street in groups revving their engines, they especially seem to love triggering car alarms.
On the other hand in Asia I've never seen this behavior from motorcycles.
Less wear on the roads (due to dramatically lower weight). Less space taken up, more efficient in urban scenarios. Tolls, especially bridge tolls, should scale with the weight of the vehicle.
They’re not as bad as cars but they still take up a fair amount of space and pollute (noise, fumes) heavily. A modest discount seems appropriate but they definitely should still cost more than transit.
Seems like it would be easy enough - you register your car, each model has an average and max decibel rating. Your congestion charge includes a factor for that - Harley's pay a bigger markup and EVs pay next to nothing for that particular thing.
It’s too easy to modify the exhaust on a motorcycle, so I don’t think this would be practical. Local laws here are very strict about noise levels, and vehicles are inspected regularly, yet still there are a lot of drivers with modified machines that can wake up the dead when revved.
They do not pollute heavily fume-wise, and most motorcycles other than Harleys or sport bikes with racing exhausts with the dB component removed are not that loud. I get 60 mpg and the engine is efficient. A car gets half or less that mpg, so is 2 to 3X more polluting than a motorcycle when you have 1-to-1 driver/passenger comparison. 2 people on a moto is even better than a car.
Most motorbikes I’ve been near have had significantly more smelly exhaust than a modern car. I don’t think their catalytic converters are as efficient, or maybe they’ve been broken?
Anyway, I don’t think the fees aim to improve pollution, just congestion.
Motos emit less CO2, but more NO, however, most motos are now adopting the EU emissions standards with Euro 5 for motos, so I think that gap is not as bad as when Myth Busters did their episode on it.
Motos are certainly less congestive especially with most cars being single driver and no passengers going into NYC.
If you do the math on the CO2, the emissions per passenger mile is significantly worse for a motorbike than for subway or bus -- regardless of the power source for the train or bus.
But, again, I don't think this proposed fee/tax is aiming at pollution or carbon emissions per se, more at the congestion itself.
Do you have a citation for the MTA poaching unhappy NJT workers? I've only seen people leaving the MTA for NJT, and not a single instance of the opposite.
Talking about the decline of NJ Transit and the specific gubernatorial policies that led to it is relevant in a debate about congestion pricing. This would have been the case even if he was not a presidential candidate.
I think it’s availability heuristic. There are lots of people I don’t criticize because they’re irrelevant. As soon as they make themselves relevant…they are opened up to both more enthusiasm and critique.
If nobody was talking about Christie, it's because 95% of what he did only impacted NJ. This is a spillover, because it happens to be related to a megacity doing something for the first time in North America.
But, beyond that, when people start running for president, people start talking about them. Criticisms or not. No one talked about Joe Biden doing anything from the start of the 2016 election until he announced in 2020, in spite of having been a major political player for decades.
Until primaries are over, primary candidates of national parties mostly attack their opponents… (hint: their opponents are other candidates in their primary)
A more charitable interpretation is people have suddenly been reminded that he exists and of what he did. I don’t think that anyone is getting paid to do propaganda against Republican primary candidates on Hacker News. That goes doubly so for candidates that have a functionally zero percent chance of winning (Christie knows that - he’s just there to attack Trump).
