Amazon Plans First Air Cargo Hub - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-com-plans-first-air-cargo-hub-1485901557 <comment><USER2> Good choice on CVG. I live in cincinnati and ever since they started signing exclusivity deals with delta, service options have declined, forcing other airlines out, leaving a biggly(largely) vacant airfield.

<comment><USER3> Wasn't Cincinnati the alternate choice for hub by Fred Smith and colleagues at the founding of FedEx?

<comment><USER4> If my memory is good on the subject, I think it was because CVG was a much bigger Delta hub at the time that it was hard for them to turn it into a shipping hub and not disrupt passenger traffic.

Now that Delta has vastly scaled back operations at CVG... time's right.

<comment><USER3> I found a response from essentially the horse's mouth #1:

"So, there were about three candidate locations, Memphis and, as I recall, Cincinnati and Kansas City. The Memphis airport had some old WWII hangers next to the runway that FedEx could use for the sort center, aircraft maintenance, and HQ office space. Deal done -- it was Memphis. That's how the decision was really made."

#1 [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9282104](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9282104)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Could mean that they want to coorporate with DHL to some degree? DHL doesn't have a big network within the US, but they do have a lot of capacity Asia->US. So perhaps they'll use DHL to get goods to the US and use their cargo planes/fleets from there. That way they have to pay less to DHL and don't have to build up capacity to ship Asia->US as well.

Guess makes sense for both parties, DHL doesn't lose out (they didn't deliver for Amazon anyway) and Amazon can focus replacing what they pay most for, getting goods from import to the customer.

</comment><comment><USER6> OT: For what it's worth, the "web" link to do a google search of the article no longer brings up search results that show the whole article.

<comment><USER7> It did for me.

<comment><USER8> If I click over from the search with uBlock enabled (in Firefox), I can't read the article.

If I then turn uBlock off, go back and click over again, I can read the article.

This isn't very surprising when people are giving conflicting reports about whether they can view some link. Hopefully everyone on the site that runs an adblocker sees my comment and stops whining about WSJ links (hah!).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I like Amazon. But, wow, sure does seem like some serious vertical integration.

<comment><USER10> This was inevitable. Shipping stuff with a third party is incredibly expensive. You're essentially paying for their logistics and channels. Amazon has more than enough money and data to build this themselves, and doing so will save them a significant amount over time

<comment><USER8> UPS and FedEx don't really seem to be printing money. I would think that Amazon tends to be one of their worst customers (margin wise).

Obviously Amazon still benefits if they can capture some of that margin (and probably from being able to specialize to themselves and find efficiencies there), but is it a huge opportunity or is it just a worthwhile place to optimize their business?

<comment><USER11> Anecdotal , but I heard from UPS employees that they essentially break even on their ground network, and essentially all their profit comes from airmail. FDX might do slightly better on their ground, given they pay their drivers < 1/2 of what UPS pays.

<comment><USER12> Interestingly, if Amazon scales back on UPS and FedEx as they ramp up their own logistics, this would leave both companies with a lot of excess capacity and infrastructure to maintain unless there is equivalent growth from the rest of the market. Given how much Amazon ships, that a big potential problem. It also gives Amazon even more leverage with both shipping companies when it does need to use them.

I'm curious if this eventually could create market problems like we are seeing with excess shipping capacity. The World Container Index hit a 5 year low this past year due to excess capacity.

<comment><USER11> I'm thinking network capacity is easy to sell off / write-off in domestic shipping, isn't it ? Trucks and trailers are "consumables" (not sure what the proper econ term is), UPS could just stop buying new trucks for a while (not the case with cargo jets though, those will burn a hole in anyone's pocket).

I think where it counts is the "last mile", similar to the cost of telecom. But I dont see that many package car drivers being laid off, since the demand is "inelastic". The driver still needs to cruise the neighborhood whether 1 guy or 100 guys are getting packages. If UPS's volume gets cut by 20%, there's no way they're going to need to cut 20% of their drivers.

What I predict amazon will do is just have delivery stations. I would gladly drive a mile or two to pick up my stuff from an automated locker, versus contend with some of the tricks that I hear about so much with at-home delivery (that I'm thankful has never happened to me).

If you eliminated the "last mile" package cars, all you'd need is hubs (which UPS is well on their way to fully automating for pkg sorting), long-haul drivers/pilots, and a few delivery drivers to load up the "automated lockers" in each neighborhood.

Re: world container index, I'm assuming that includes marine shipping, which should be independent of amazons network?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Well as long as they ditch USPS I'll be happy. I really want to support the idea of a federal postal service, but it consistently sucks in comparison to UPS.

<comment><USER14> USPS could do a few things to improve and they really aren't that big. For the following examples consider this: I live on a "no outlet" road. Meaning 100% of traffic is for the 20 houses on the street and not through traffic. And of the local traffic it is extremely minimal, we have more kids playing on the street than we have cars.

1) Stop being lazy. For example, I ordered something from Amazon and even though I have Prime, I paid for next day delivery. It was something I really needed. I rushed home that day excited to finish a project. Looking out the window I watched the USPS guy drive right past my house. A short while later I got a notice from Amazon that my package wasn't delivered due to an obstruction blocking my mailbox. I go out to the mailbox and look around trying to figure out what the obstruction was. The only thing I could figure out that would be possibly considered an obstruction was the trash cans I had just taken out that were about 5 feet to the left of the mailbox.

2) Consider somethings could possibly be fragile and take that into account when handling. For example, earlier this week I had 2 "large" flat envelopes delivered that were clearly way too large for my mailbox. Instead of considering that the contents may be fragile the USPS guy just jammed the envelopes into the mailbox the best he could making them into a crumpled mess.

<comment><USER15> It's not about laziness. Fedex and UP ruthlessly measures the efficiency of their drivers by timing their every single activity. This information is displayed in real-time to managers back at the warehouse, who can see, for instance, if a particular delivery is taking longer than average.

This is why many drivers game the system by skipping deliveries that they think will take too long, or (for packages that require signature) wait for only ~5 seconds after knocking on the door before deciding that you must not be home.

<comment><USER16> Wouldn't that then imply that you would get worse service from Fedex and UPS, where the drivers have more to gain by cutting corners? But the reality is really the exact opposite.

<comment><USER17> It's highly dependent on where you live and the individual driver assigned to your route.

I used to absolutely wonder in confusion why people complained about the USPS - where I grew up it was always cheaper and generally more reliable than UPS or Fedex. Plus if you ever had to go into the Post Office the people were downright pleasant and competent.

Then I moved to Chicago, and I instantly realized the reputation was deserved. It was essentially two entirely different postal systems, you would simply not recognize them as the same "company".

UPS and Fedex I've both had utterly fail for me living in different locations, just lazy worthless drivers happened to be assigned to me.

I will say all the complaining about "leaving packages to get stolen" needs to stop - if you're concerned get a box to put them in. Otherwise it's not reasonable to have these guys wait on you to come to to door. Sure it's only 30 seconds, but that's 30 seconds multiplied by 200 each day. Sure there will be some shrink just like a retail store, but it's still overall much more efficient.

<comment><USER18> > Otherwise it's not reasonable to have these guys wait on you to come to to > door. Sure it's only 30 seconds, but that's 30 seconds multiplied by 200 > each day

The only place I've had packages left outside is in the US. In every other country, every package that doesn't fit in the mailbox requires you to come to the door (or in many cases, it will require you to pick it up at a local postal pickup point, usually a nearby supermarket/convenience store/gas station)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Will Amazon eventually buy one of these carriers? Or maybe start their own thing?

<comment><USER7> From the article, it seems clear they want to start their own thing. "Amazon's goal is to eventually haul and deliver packages for itself as well as other retailers and consumers—making it a direct competitor with UPS and FedEx, according to people familiar with the matter. "

<comment><USER20> The question is will they pay their drivers and sorting facility workers as much as UPS and FedEx. A UPS driver makes $25-$30 which isn't a bad gig, and FedEx pays around the same. Even a part time sorting job is a pretty good job for a college student.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Seems like an interesting story, too bad I cannot read it even after trying the google search workaround.

<comment><USER22> [http://archive.is/miR4p](http://archive.is/miR4p) should work

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> You can google the title to bypass the paywall.

<comment><USER6> If you know how in a way that actually works, I'm all ears. WSJ seems to rarely, if ever, work for me googling the titles these days.

<comment><USER8> Try turning off your adblocker for WSJ.

<comment><USER6> Tried accessing it via incognito - that didn't work either</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why Online Education Won't Replace College — Yet - <AUTHOR> http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Online-Education-Wont/133531/

<comment><USER2> Conversations with other students and faculty are a critical part of a college education. Certainly indispensible for sci-tech. Decades later I'm still remembering valuable tips and tidbits that profs threw at me during out-of- class discussions. If you come to class prepared, you can raise questions that can double the effectiveness of a course.

People just there for a degree might manage with online courses. People who love learning and are absorbing a discipline? Not so much. And thus, maybe, higher education will once again live up to its best potential ... not cranking spare parts on an assembly line.

<comment><USER3> Not only are conversations and discussion critical, so is the feedback the professor gains from the students. Many online-replacement articles are student centric - I have not yet seen an article that analyzes the impact on those who teach.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Disruptive technologies typically a) have weaknesses, and b) offer a product that is inferior in some respect.

That doesn't stop them decimating the old industries. Online education is more flexible, more accessible and far cheaper than traditional education.

Issues like "how to mark papers" are soluble. Cheating in exams can be resolved the same way other organizations solve it: by running some exams in controlled environments. Plenty of organizations do this now: the institute of actuaries, the international baccalaureate, etc.

If I could short traditional universities it would be the trade of the decade.

<comment><USER4> One thing that concerns me about this is how will research get funded. Currently undergraduate students cross-subsidize research.

<comment><USER5> Increasingly what the tuition dollars actually fund is layer after layer of bloated administration.

Teaching and research are generally the first thing to get cut when budget cuts loom, never the hordes of junior associate vice subdeans.

Even when you get a research grant a large percentage of it (30-50%, sometimes) gets chopped off for "overhead" (i.e., the aforementioned hordes of administrators).

I don't know if MOOCs per se are the answer -- likely they're part of it, but not the whole solution. However, I do know that higher ed is ripe for disintermediation.

Basically, you've got a group of customers who are used to paying tens of thousands of dollars for a service, while the people who actually produce the service are getting paid a very small percentage of that. The situation is especially striking when it comes to large lecture classes of the sort common at the various campuses of Enormous State University. You've got sections of 250 students or more (maybe a thousand or more students across all section), each of whom is paying on the order of a thousand bucks to sit in a large lecture hall and listen to the professor. So maybe $250K per section, or a million for the whole course. The adjunct professor teaching the course is probably getting paid ~$2k-3k per section. If that reminds you of the situation that formerly prevailed in music and book publishing, it should.

Accreditation is the sticking point. That's going to have to be revamped or an alternative mechanism will have to be devised.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > Computers can't grade everything... Papers are out of the question.

I'm currently taking a Coursera class where I write an essay each week. Then my essay is reviewed and graded by 4 other students. I grade 4 other students' essays. This works really well.</comment>


How to Communicate Traction to Investors - <AUTHOR> http://www.quora.com/Brendan-Baker/Startups-How-to-Communicate-Traction-to-Investors

<comment><USER2> I was half expecting a post on how to continue communicating traction to investors that invested in you. Settling on some good metrics and then iteratively reporting on them is a bit of an art. It takes preparation to agree to the metrics that are useful, automation to collect the metrics, and historical analysis to bring meaning to the performance.

</comment><comment><USER3> Be prepared, bring in the numbers.</comment>


Ask HN: Your thoughts about a job hunting startup - <AUTHOR>

Hi HN,
I would like to know your thoughts about my new startup idea. It is a job hunting / search site.
A little background:
It would operate in a rather small country, about 2 million people (where I happen to live).
The reason I'm interested in building that kind of startup is because the competition is small. Only 2 real competitors. And I genuinely believe I have unique ideas, which should give me that should give me an advantage. I have talked with a lot of people who have been looking for a job and I think I have a solution for the problems they are facing with the competitors. I'm not here asking to validate my idea, rather than ask you opinion and some questions.
My question is that how should handle the beginning. It's a bit of a egg/chicken problem, because in order to get people who are looking for jobs, I need job advertisements and vice-versa.
A solution would be copy some amount of job advertisements from competitive sites.
But is it legal? Or ethical? Your thoughts and opinions.
And maybe someone has any advice to give me regarding my start-up, what to avoid, should I even start it all? Has anyone been in that kind of business maybe to share some of his/her experience.
The main reason I'm so interested in the idea is because as I stated above I truly believe I have good ideas to make job hunting more pleasent for job seekers and for the people who are looking to hire.
Thank you in advance. <comment><USER2> "But is it legal? Or ethical? Your thoughts and opinions."

The way I see it,

Sometimes you have to break the rules a little bit to succeed as a small startup.

"It is a job hunting / search site."

There are a million job search sites. My advice is to pick a niche.

<comment><AUTHOR> I believe the size of my country is niche already :)</comment></comment>


WW2 Spitfire Pilot Mary Ellis Dies - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44962253 <comment><USER3> "Up in the air on your own and you can do whatever you like. I flew 400 Spitfires and occasionally I would take one up and go and play with the clouds, which was so delightful and lovely, I can't tell you how wonderful it was"

(From the video embedded in the article)

<comment><USER4> I found the segment in the video where she recounts an encounter with a German plane while flying, and attempts to wave it away (shoo!) to be hilarious.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I would recommend for any HN user that hasn't done it before, to go and fly a plane.

There's something so surreal about flying, having the freedom to move across 4 axes (and more if you fly a helicopter), compared to the two that your car gives you.

Getting up in an aerobatic plane is even more fun. The feeling when you're in the middle of a barrel roll, pulling 1 G so you still feel stuck to the seat, but when you look outside everything is upside down, it's amazing.

<comment><USER6> Airplanes are generally considered to have 3 degrees of freedom: Pitch (elevators and or ailerons), yaw (Rudder), roll(ailerons).

Speed can increase lift but so that might count, but pulling back on the stick does the same thing as moving the wheel to adjust elevator trim.

<comment><USER7> 6 kinds of freedom: rotation for all 3 axes, and change in velocity along each of the 3 axes.

Cars have two kinds: steering and change in speed. Planes have about 4: pitch, yaw, roll and thrust.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> One quote really put her age in perspective: "Older than the RAF by one year." Remarkable.

</comment><comment><USER9> Dan Snow, the historian behind the History Hit Podcast coincidentally interviewed her last week. You can get a link to the podcast here: [https://www.historyhit.com/podcasts/](https://www.historyhit.com/podcasts/)

Quite a lady and a sad loss.

</comment><comment><USER10> from the obituary at [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england- hampshire-43518517](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-43518517) :

The work was "exhilarating and sometimes very dangerous", she recalled. Pilots often flew unfamiliar aircraft, guided by the "Ferry Pilots notes", which gave landing instructions.

"We'd say to each other, 'Oh look what I've got, look what I've got'. And that was terribly exciting. Sometimes frightening as well because the aeroplanes were all different. You'd get out of a Tiger Moth into a Wellington bomber and then into a Spitfire."

Based at an all-women's ATA pool in Hamble, Hampshire, she recalled that she flew "about 1,000" aircraft during the war including 76 different types.

Mary Ellis came close to death on several occasions.

She was shot at over Bournemouth, possibly by friendly fire, and had a near- miss as she landed in fog at the same time as another Spitfire coming in the opposite direction.

She also survived a crash-landing when the undercarriage on her Spitfire jammed, causing the engine to overheat.

<comment><USER4> > She also survived a crash-landing when the undercarriage on her Spitfire > jammed, causing the engine to overheat.

That is interesting. How is the undercarriage and engine of a Spitfire linked together, such that jamming the undercarriage could cause the engine to overheat?

<comment><USER11> It must involve airflow to the radiator but it's hard to see how when you look at pictures, though some models have intakes that could possibly get blocked.

[https://www.quora.com/World-War-2-What-was-that-box-under- th...](https://www.quora.com/World-War-2-What-was-that-box-under-the-wing-of- some-Supermarine-Spitfire-models)

It's quite tricky to Google as there are simulators that have users experiencing problems with overheating Spitfires.

<comment><USER12> Indeed, if the wheels are stuck half open, they disturb the airflow to the radiators. Radiators where of course as small as possible [1], since they cause a lot of drag.

[1] They also used pressurized glycol-water cooling, coolant temp was something like 135 degC, allowing a smaller radiator than atmospheric pressure water.

<comment><USER13> On the contrary, the radiator on the spitfire could actually provide positive thrust, simply because it took in cold air at the front and put out hot air at the back.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meredith_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meredith_effect)

<comment><USER12> Well, yes, but for the same engine with the same waste heat removal, a bigger radiator doesn't help. It would be worse, actually, since you have the larger drag, and the Meredith effect would also be smaller since you'd have a larger volume of air passing through, but heated less.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Its amazing what war can do to equal rights. Britain had the planes but it was short on pilots- the battle of Britain was a war of attrition.

<comment><USER15> WW2 military planes were at the limits of a man's strength. Flying those airplanes in combat or in an emergency is very physical.

For example, a B-17 could fly with only one outboard engine running. But the pilot could barely hold the rudder in position to do it, and would trade off with the copilot. Women don't have the lower body strength to do it. Flying a damaged B-17 is just not possible without the leg and upper body strength.

There was an episode of "Aviation Disasters" where a piston airliner had some severe damage, I don't remember just what, just that the pilot had to desperately muscle the controls for a couple hours.

This all changed, of course, with the advent of hydraulic boost. With fully powered surfaces, the "feel forces" on the stick were faked by the "feel computer". By the time I worked on the 757 flight controls, the "feel forces" had been dialed back substantially to accommodate female pilots.

<comment><USER16> I would be careful to say _Women_ , as a group, cannot do something because of their physiology. Sure, many women have a hard time flying older planes. I would think many men would have had the same problem. If a woman really wanted to, I should think she could work hard and overcome those difficulties.

<comment><USER17> >I would think many men would have had the same problem

But not on average. The average woman is physically weaker than the average man. Which means, on average, women lack the body strength needed.

Why is HN getting infested with "muh feelings"? I don't know why people get so offended by basic facts.

<comment><USER18> " _Women don 't have the lower body strength to do it._"

" _The average woman is physically weaker than the average man._ "

Excellent motte and bailey ([https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey)).

<comment><USER19> I don't see how this is a Motte and Bailey. The first quote is just a more specific statement than the latter. They both say the same thing: that the average woman's physical capacity is not as much as the average man.

<comment><USER18> The original statement was, "[All] Women don't have the lower body strength to [fly any WWII-era military airplane]." This is a very strong statement, clearly too strong to be supported. (I mean, the article. And all the aircraft delivered from factories by female pilots. And those Soviet combat pilots. (But everyone knows Soviet women were big and beefy, right? Right?))

The second statement, on the other hand, "But not on average. The average woman is physically weaker than the average man. Which means, on average, women lack the body strength needed," is much easier to support (in fact, I'll accept it as true). It also _looks_ like it offers support for the original position.

Unfortunately, it doesn't. It serves only to divert the argument from an unsupportable position to a supportable one. That is why it is a logical fallacy.

<comment><USER19> > "[All] Women don't have the lower body strength to [fly any WWII-era > military airplane]."

No. You're significantly altering the statement with the words you're injecting. Consider this:

"Dogs have four legs."

Would you correct people and point out that there are amputee dogs with fewer than for legs? Most wouldn't, because referring to a group without a qualifier is understood to refer to the majority or state that something is the norm, not that it applies to literally every single item in that group.

<comment><USER18> So you are arguing that the original statement should be interpreted as something like, "[Normal] women don't have the lower body strength to [fly normal (?) WWII-era military aircraft]?" That doesn't seem to be a wildly meaningful statement without an addition, "[but normal men do]."

Unfortunately, that latter addition doesn't work; according to [1] (an interesting document), 60% of RAF crews were rejected on medical grounds.

So we are seemingly left with, "[Normal] women don't have the lower body strength to [fly normal (?) WWII-era military aircraft], [but superior men do]," which once again is approaching the "so what?" stage.

<comment><USER19> Again you're finding objections not in the words that were actually written, only in the in the ones you have injected. Here's the full paragraph in the original comment:

>For example, a B-17 could fly with only one outboard engine running. But the pilot could barely hold the rudder in position to do it, and would trade off with the copilot. Women don't have the lower body strength to do it. Flying a damaged B-17 is just not possible without the leg and upper body strength.

It's clear that the commenters recognizes that flying the aircraft pushed male pilots to the extremes of their physical ability, "...the pilot could _barely_ hold the rudder in position..." Furthermore this is in reference to combat situations (a plane with 3 of 4 engines damaged). You're complaints about this comment do far have been that it:

* Denied the existence of _any_ women that could perform these tasks. This wasn't claimed, see the "dogs have four legs" comparison.

* Claimed that women couldn't fly "normal" WWII aircraft. No, the commenter highlighted a combat scenario of flying a damaged plane that pushed pilots to their physical limit.

* That the average man could be a pilot. I don't see where this is claimed in the original comment. It actually states the opposite, that piloting in combat demanded peak physical performance.

Again, the Motte and Bailey only exists if you're injecting some other message. The point is simply that piloting a WWII aircraft in combat was physically extremely intense and demanded physical ability beyond typical women (a point corroborated by your evidence that even most men were rejected for their physical condition).

<comment><USER20> Right, because _subtlety_ and _implication_ aren't a part of communication, especially in English, which is so _precise_ that sentences in it are practically computer code.

<comment><USER19> I wholeheartedly agree that implication is important. That's why the interpretation of the original comment you have made in this reply chain is ineffective. It fails to adhere to the commonly understood implication that unspecified references to a group refers to the majority or the norm - <USER2> every single member of that group.

"Dogs have four legs" != "Every single dog that exists has four legs"

<comment><USER20> Sure, sure. The following is just as true then:

>For example, a B-17 could fly with only one outboard engine running. But the pilot could barely hold the rudder in position to do it, and would trade off with the copilot. _Men don 't have the lower body strength to do it_. Flying a damaged B-17 is just not possible without the leg and upper body strength.

Because, as you say, dogs =/= all dogs (and _men_ =/= _all men_ ).

<comment><USER19> Sure. The statement that, "men don't have the lower body strength to do it" is true. That has no impact on the veracity of the original claim that, "women don't have the lower body strength to do it".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Non-combat

<comment><USER22> What is the point of this comment? The title is completely accurate in stating that she was a WW2 Spitfire pilot. There isn't any implication that she was a combat pilot.</comment></comment>


Sending Email from EC2 - <AUTHOR>

What do you do to send email from EC2 instances? What are your thoughts on Amazon SES (Simple Email Service)?  If you use an external service, which one? How hard is it to configure sending email to an external SMTP server? <comment><USER2> The limit for SES is 10,000 per 24 hours as dirktheman said; you can request more but I haven't needed to yet so I don't know what that entails.

We use sendy.co - it's software you install on your own server (EC2 in your case, I use Rackspace), configure it to use SES and off you go.

I have since gone so far as to code my transactional emails (new user signed up, etc...) to use SES with their PHP samples - It was easy.

I like SES and Sendy so far; we've been using it for a few months now with no problems. Hell of a lot better then trying to code an email campaign system myself and after the initial $60 for Sendy, your just paying the email fee for SES which is so low its negligible.

</comment><comment><USER3> What kind of emails are you going to send? If they're just transactional emails or a reasonable amount (I believe it's 10,000 per 24 hours when you're starting out with SES, not entirely sure though!) of mass marketing emails it's fine. Inexpensive, pretty easy to set up and deliverability is fine so far.

<comment><USER4> Yep. SES has been brilliant for me so far, especially when you take into account the price.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I use [http://mandrill.com/](http://mandrill.com/) . No problem with it yet and it's quite generous in terms of free allowance.

</comment><comment><USER6> I use sendgrid.com to send e-mail from my ec2 instances.</comment>


Golfing for Cats - <AUTHOR> http://addiator.blogspot.com/2008/01/golfing-for-cats.html <comment><AUTHOR> he British humorist Alan Coren was told the books that sold best were those about golfing, cats and Nazis. The result was a book of short stories entitled Golfing for Cats. You can see from the cover picture how he fitted in the Third Reich.

My favorite story from the collection is 'Owing to circumstances beyond our control, 1984 has been unavoidably detained'. The idea is that a British totalitarian state would never work. How could it, when nothing else does?</comment>


Amartya Sen: The economic consequences of austerity - <AUTHOR> http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/06/amartya-sen-economic-consequences-austerity <comment><USER2> Fascinating how the meaning of the word 'austerity' has drifted away from the meaning of 'austere'. A balanced budget doesn't seem very 'austere' to me.

Many people arguing against balancing budgets (or 'austerity' if you will) do so because the first budgets to be slashed are usually things where the benefits are long-term, such as education. But it's a false dichotomy that these are the only choices.

Then there's the economists, who will pull out some toy model and claim xyz is good/bad. Too me it seems more like religions (being a Keynesian, Austrian, etc), where people search for facts that confirm their positions.

The problem with most macroeconomic theories is that they ignore too many important details.

So for example, you can borrow money to invest in the future which is usually good in the long run, or you can spend it on things you don't need such as hosting international sports competitions, ineffective military equipment, ... This means you can come to completely different conclusions as to the effectiveness of government spending. In the words of Warren Buffet, we don't talk about 'quality' of GDP enough.

There's a nice paper by Mankiw on the topic of science vs engineering in economics:

[https://www.nber.org/papers/w12349](https://www.nber.org/papers/w12349)

<comment><USER3> Austerity is a religion in Europe and it's strongly supported by Germany, which is the leading economic powerhouse and major EU creditor.

If you look at the surplus it works well for their exports but the salaries are at the same level they were in the 90s. So although unemployment is low and exports were going strong (hence corporations like BMW and Mercedes are making huge profits) the salaries were largely at the same levels. The German government decide to keep the surplus instead of spending money in local and foreign investment which keeps virtually the EUR low. It's a policy heavily criticized by both USA and European economists.

One might argue that these choices worked very well for Germany. Not very well for the rest of the Eurozone, especially the Mediterranean countries, which found themselves having huge deficits. The EU has structural problems which the German model speed up.

<comment><USER2> First, i'd like to state that i'm talking about austerity in general, not about Greece in particular. Greece needs a debt restructuring, there's no way around it.

The whole reason for all that austerity was that some countries were unable to refinance their debt and other countries are afraid they might not be able to refinance in the future. Refinancing debt in hard times becomes harder yet if it is externally financed.

You need to convince someone to lend you money if you want to run a deficit.

Love it or hate it, the Germans don't like a soft currency. The reason is probably the prelude to the rise of Hitler, which was marked by hyperinflation from printing too much money. It has been in their "DNA" since WW2, and no amount of economic handwaving is going to change that, at least in the forseeable future. In practice Germany has had a budget deficit nearly every year of course (such is politics), they just aren't that big.

The reason Germany joined the Eurozone was the absence of debt mutualisation. The Bundesbank warned that this was hard/impossible without political union, but they were ignored. And so, here we are.

<comment><USER4> Some claim the Germans intentionally inflated their currency to stiff the French who held crippling levels of debt over the Germans.

<comment><USER2> Inflating away the currency had no benefit for reparations.

The details are here

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_the_Weimar_R...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_the_Weimar_Republic)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_reparations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_reparations)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Sen is being disingenuous when he compares the ratio of debt to GDP in 1948 (200%) and 1957 (120%), with 2010 (70%). The reason that, as he puts it, "the scare was not there from the late 1940s through the 1960s" is because the UK's debt level at that time was a legacy of WWII. The UK's national debt ballooned during WWII, peaking at 237% in 1946-47, then declined rapidly to less than 50% in 1973.[1]

He also fails to distinguish between the degree of austerity imposed in the UK and Europe. In the UK, the Conservative government has taken steps to balance the budget by reigning in public spending (benefits in particular) in order to cut the deficit. It is a world apart from the extreme measures that were imposed on countries like Ireland[2] and Greece[3].

For context: The New Statesman is a left-wing publication. The left-wing in Britain are deeply opposed to the (right wing) Conservative government's austerity policies.

1: [http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt_chart.htm...](http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt_chart.html)

2: [http://www.independent.ie/business/personal- finance/the-10-w...](http://www.independent.ie/business/personal- finance/the-10-worst-budget-blows-since-austerity-hit-30656061.html)

3: [http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/what-austerity- lo...](http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/what-austerity-looks-like- inside-greece)

<comment><AUTHOR> There is _no_ correlation between austerity and debt reduction: [http://equitablegrowth.org/2015/06/28/must-read-christian- od...](http://equitablegrowth.org/2015/06/28/must-read-christian-odendahl-no- correlation/)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9796611](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9796611)

In other words, austerity doesn't work.

<comment><USER5> Ironically, that graph is taken from an IMF paper[1], which outlines a model for the effect of fiscal tightening on the Debt:GDP ratio, under which said ratio generally (depending on the country's fiscal multiplier) increases in the first year after a fiscal tightening, then declines after year 2 (see figures 2, 3 and 4).

In other words, that graph _supports_ the idea that austerity helps reduce debt.

1: [http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2013/wp1367.pdf](http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2013/wp1367.pdf)

<comment><AUTHOR> The paper is about a model, not any actual data: the data don't support the thesis. Anyway, austerity at the zero lower bound is arguably insane, and imposing it on countries in recession is also arguably insane.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "Similarly, at the international level, the global free fall following the 2008 crisis was largely halted by the move, under the visionary leadership of Gordon Brown, for a meeting of the governments of the newly formed G20 in April 2009 in London, each promising to do its best not to feed the downward spiral by domestic complicity."

I think that is the first time I've heard Gordon Brown described as visionary. He's normally considered one of the worst post-war Prime Ministers.

<comment><USER7> You probably read too many UK newspapers, each of which decided to make a sustained attack throughout his leadership.

<comment><USER6> Well, living in the UK, yes I do.

And Brown decided to wage his own childish sustained attack on Tony Blair for the whole time he was Chancellor of the Exchequor as well.

But on top of all this, Brown was a bully to his subordinates as well.

<comment><USER8> He wasn't as bad as James Callaghan, John Major, or - IMO - Margaret Thatcher. And Blair was - and is - a war criminal.

The politicking between the two was juvenile, but I'd rather blame Brown for his insistence on semi-privatised (and ruinously expensive) funding for public projects through the misuse of PFI.

That aside, Sen may actually be right in that Brown kept it together after 2008.

The Tory press love to blame him for 2008 in its entirety, including the parts he had no control over. But that's because the Tory press is full of vile liars, criminals, and frauds. (Some of whom have spent time in jail now.)

A more sober assessment is less unkind to Brown as an economist - if perhaps not as a politician.

<comment><USER6> He could have made a very good academic. He's obviously a bright bloke. He appeared to be temperamentally unsuitable to leadership though.

To your other points:

\- Calling Blair a war criminal is just childish name calling.

\- Thatcher is one of the best post-war Prime Ministers, together with Clement Atlee, depending on your politics.

\- The left-wing press has its own share of liars and frauds. The Daily Mirror was at least as complicit as the Murdoch press in phone hacking. And Johan Hari, Guardian Journalist, is probably the biggest liar in journalism of moderd times.

<comment><USER8> It's not very realistic to write off Blair's record as "childish name calling."

We're still waiting for the Chilcot report, but the US side has more or less admitted that the pretexts for the Iraq war were made up nonsense.

At least half a million people died in that war, and the results for the region were catastrophic - although very profitable for certain contractors.

I'm not quite sure what else you need to describe someone as a war criminal. But it's not just my opinion: it's a sentiment that's been voiced in the House of Lords.

As for Thatcher - charisma hardly maps to competence, and many of Thatcher's protectees and associates were - let's say - questionable company for a moral leader, with some extremely unsavoury hobbies that are being investigated by the police. This hardly speaks well of her judgement or character.

The Daily Mirror has very limited political influence, and last time I looked there was no one from the Mirror in the Cabinet running Communications for No 10 - until they were tried and jailed.

It would be interesting to find out exactly how and where phone hacking started. I suspect it wasn't invented by the Mirror. Naturally I can't prove that. But I do know that as far back as 1994 journalists from another newspaper were handing out illegal addictive drugs in return for tip-offs. So phone hacking is just the tip of the iceberg.

And Johann Hari actually wrote for the Indie, not the Guardian.

Considering the Mail regularly "repurposes" content from the entire web without attribution, accusing him of being the worst journalist _ever_ is slightly hyperbolic - although to be fair the Mail does usually try to rewrite the content at least a little, which makes it okay, I guess.

<comment><USER6> >>It's not very realistic to write off Blair's record as "childish name calling." We're still waiting for the Chilcot report, but the US side has more or less admitted that the pretexts for the Iraq war were made up nonsense.

I don't think that's the case. Even countries that were against military action, such as France, believed Saddam had WMDs.

>>I'm not quite sure what else you need to describe someone as a war criminal. But it's not just my opinion: it's a sentiment that's been voiced in the House of Lords.

The same as for any other criminal - a conviction by an actual court.

>>As for Thatcher - charisma hardly maps to competence, and many of Thatcher's protectees and associates were - let's say - questionable company for a moral leader, with some extremely unsavoury hobbies that are being investigated by the police. This hardly speaks well of her judgement or character.

I suspect we won't agree on her political competence but if you implying some of her ministers were paedophiles, I suggest you also look at Grevill Janner (Labour) and Cyril Smith (Liberal).

>>Considering the Mail regularly "repurposes" content from the entire web without attribution, accusing him of being the worst journalist ever is slightly hyperbolic - although to be fair the Mail does usually try to rewrite the content at least a little, which makes it okay, I guess.

I think repurposing or copying content from other websites is not as serious a journalistic sin as inventing large parts of stories. Hari didn't just plagiarised, he knowingly lied. He also cyber-stalked people on wikipedia as well. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/20/johann-hari- fabrica...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/20/johann-hari- fabrication_n_904456.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Austerity yes/no is the economic equivalent of a bikeshed argument.

All the arguments about printing more or printing less money completely sidestep the real issue: how do you improve the productivity of the Greek economy. Economists have opposing theories that it's either really good, or really bad, to drop money from helicopters or just outright give it to banks.

None of these people are looking at the Greek economy saying "this is how they can double tourism", etc. Over the long term these are the decisions will create actual sustainable growth.

As for getting back the €360B, well, I wish all parties better luck with their decisionmaking next time. Seems like they need aid more than they need loans.

<comment><USER10> >Austerity yes/no is the economic equivalent of a bikeshed argument.

Well not really - it effects millions of people lives and billions / trillions in economic output and in the 1920's case led to Hitler and WW2. It's not like what colour to paint the bike shed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's worth noting that austerity is strongly correlated with GDP decrease only for those countries without an independent monetary policy (i.e. the eurozone). People have been worried about the zero lower bound but it doesn't seem to have had much of an effect in practice.

[http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=29692](http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=29692)

</comment><comment><USER12> > GDP per capita has risen far more slowly in the UK than in the US and Japan > (not to mention some of the faster-growing Asian economies).

Oh, I don't think you should cite Japan as any example anywhere. The financial situation over here is catastrophic, and there's not telling when the country actually hits the wall, but when it will it will hit it BAD. Demographic decline, Productivity stagnating, retirement paid by workers (less and less of them), humongous debt (spelling out default of hyper inflation in the mid term) - and a Nobel laureate should know that GDP growth is far from a good economic indicator...

> and austerity, as Keynes noted, is essentially anti-growth

Huh, does the author seriously believe that Keynes was constant in his beliefs? The guy changed his mind about many things thoughout his life: [http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/11/economic...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/11/economic- history-2)

<comment><USER13> > Oh, I don't think you should cite Japan as any example anywhere. The > financial situation over here is catastrophic, and there's not telling when > the country actually hits the wall, but when it will it will hit it BAD. > Demographic decline, Productivity stagnating, retirement paid by workers > (less and less of them), humongous debt (spelling out default of hyper > inflation in the mid term)...

Wait, if the UK, which doesn't suffer from these problems quite as badly, still has lower GDP growth than a country that does, that says something bad about UK's growth. So it seems clear then that the UK has done something badly wrong.

> GDP growth is far from a good economic indicator

It should be good enough. For one thing, large systematic movements in _any_ indicator can be used to measure things, and the indicator doesn't have to be totally precise for it to be useful.

<comment><USER2> Ah, Japan & GDP growth numbers, the perfect example :)

Are GDP numbers a good indicator of the success of economic policies? They aren't that useful if you ignore all the details.

Here is an example when comparing US and Japan GDP growth numbers:

[http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/es/article/10011](http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/es/article/10011)

"In summary, three structural factors seem to account for the difference in GDP growth between Japan and the United States in the post-1990 period: (i) the slow population growth in Japan, (ii) the employment rate, and (iii) the decline of average hours worked in Japan from a very high level to the level in the United States. It seems useful to consider these findings when Japan's experience is used to draw policy conclusions for the United States."

And yet we have been lectured by numerous economists (sometimes with Nobel medals on them) about the implications these raw GDP growth numbers supposedly have for economic policy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Having just finished the article a day or so later it occurs to me a lot of the problems occur because the situation is too darn hard to understand. 99% of people if asked to explain why increasing government borrowing in a financial crisis is a good thing in general if you have your own currency but increasing your personal borrowing is often bad would fail to give an answer that would pass an economics exam. Most elected leaders also. Hence the mess we have.

</comment><comment><USER14> To quote Margaret Thatcher: "You soon run out of other peoples money"

</comment><comment><USER15> Does Britain really have "austerity" when the total central government spending in 2015 is 39.4% higher than in 2007 at the height of our supposed prosperity?

</comment><comment><USER16> Keynes's record on matters of public spending and monetary policy is a shaky one (see broken window fallacy). Not only is any level of public debt a threat to long-term stability, it's immoral. Generally speaking it's not us, in the present economy, or the politicians who allow the debt to rise who have to pay it back. It's our children and grandchildren. Inter-generational debt just isn't right. New Statesman should have read some Hayek.

<comment><USER17> Nah, don't think so. Keynes might not have been right about everything but I think some of his ideas are the closest we've come to what could be described as a 'just' economy.

Indeed if we're going down this road then the broken window fallacy contains a contradiction (and so must be false) because it assumes full employment to reach its conclusion. Something that, should it be true, would probably cause the problem we're trying to solve to disappear.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Good piece of economic propaganda from first word to the last:

"Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen considers the alternatives."

There is no such a thing like Nobel price Winners. There are Winners of Central bank's created Nobel Memorial price that of course say what the Central Banks want.

To say that the crisis that we have today is the consequence of austerity is like saying that because you feel bad when sober the morning after getting drunk, the problem is being sober in the first place.

There is no Western country today that is austere at all. All of them are spending more money that they have, most of it on bad investments.

This always has ended on one place: destruction of capital. It should had been done in an ordered manner but they decided to kick the can ignoring the problem but making it worse in the future.

Instead of removing the bad investments from the system, they had used the working part of the system to save the bad, actually rewarding the bad actors(that made a killing at the start of the bubbles.e.g 20% profits per year in Greece real state).

When Greece was bankrupt years ago, the problem was not solved giving them more money, and indebting them even more.

The proper solution was to bankrupt Greece as soon as they could not pay. Of course this would have bankrupted the irresponsible French and German banks that lend money to Greece in the first place. "Saving Greece" was in fact saving French and German banks and allocating the losses on public hands.</comment>


The Playstation 4 has Already Failed - <AUTHOR> http://meltingice.net/2013/02/20/playstation-4/ <comment><USER2> _has Sony considered the actual value this feature adds to the console? It's superfluous, at best._

The features that excite technical people aren't always the same things that excite the average person.

Remember this description of the iPod when it was first announced? _No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame._

While most technical people look at something like another sharing button as another bit of stupidity, I guarantee you that there's some young person out there that saw the sharing button and thought to themselves "You mean I can chat with my friends and spend time with them while playing games and show them what I'm doing and stuff. That's awesome!".

The stupidest things like this sometimes really take off. It's just hard to predict.

I share much of your skepticism and am very underwhelmed by what little I've seen of the PS4 so far, but without seeing how it all fits together and seeing how normal people will react to it and what games are ultimately released it's probably unfair to label it a failure just yet.</comment>


Is it better for the environment to read your newspaper online? - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/id/2185143/

<comment><USER2> I don't know why I don't see this more often, but the environmental cost of a product is almost exactly equal to it's monetary cost.

Why? Because if you trace the cost of a product down to it's constituents almost every cost a product has is directly related to how much energy it takes to make it and it's parts. Even salary, because money spent on salary is based on prevailing wage, which itself is based on how much energy a person needs to live in their community.

Now obviously it's not perfect - in particular it doesn't include costs that are passed on to the public as a whole: most glaringly pollution of all types.

And possibly things that are paid for by taxes - although taxes raise the cost of the product and wages, so it's somewhat taken into account (as long as the product does not consume more than it's share of public funding).

But other than that it's very close.

So for the example here: if a paper costs $20 a month, but your computer costs $30 per month for service plus the cost of the electricity, plus the cost of the computer itself, it's a no brainer.

But you use your computer for other things too...

You want to know which car is better for the environment? (To make, not to run.) The cheaper one.

<comment><USER2> Appendix:

Part of the cost of a product is transportation. How much does it cost to transport something? The cost of the gas, plus the cost of the vehicle.

The cost of that vehicle? It's wages, plus the cost of transporting the parts, plus the cost of the metal, and the equipment used to make it.

The cost of metal? Energy used to power the machines that mine it, plus transportation, wages, and equipment.

Equipment? Wages, transportation, and base parts (plastic, metal, etc).

If you followed my thread, you see that every single cost eventually is the cost of fuel.

I haven't talked about wages yet. For the most part people spend all of their wages - what do they spend it on? Things. Things that have an environmental cost. Taking us back to where we started.

In an environment where wages are lower, it's because people spend less money on things, so those people are "better" for the environment.

I sometimes see environmentally friendly products that cost more than ordinary ones, and then I know they aren't actually that good for the environment.

There are two big holes here:

Pollution. Human misery.

A slave gets no wages (reducing the cost of the item) and also has almost no environmental cost. But the human misery is bad, and is not taken into account.

It's cheaper to make things if you don't care how much you pollute.

So the metric is not perfect, but it's very close (especially for comparing two products made in the same type of environment (pollution regulations, prevailing wages, etc)), and it's very available.</comment></comment>


Better Understanding Your Employee Stock Options - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@iancorbin/better-understanding-your-employee-stock-options-9c4b147b5ded

<comment><USER2> Good summary of stock options, but it leaves out some critical points. Namely that the amount of tax you pay depends a lot on when (and if) you choose to exercise your options. In order to get the best tax treatment, you have to own the shares for at least a year. Otherwise, it's basically treated like income. If your company is acquired for cash and you haven't purchased your shares, you will usually be cashed out immediately at the difference between the strike price and the purchase price.

In addition, you may owe tax at the time you exercise the options if your strike price is below the fair market value at the time of exercise (also depends on the type of options, there are two).

Also, you say that employees can't exercise options until they have vested. The truth is that you can early exercise if that's written into the stock plan. It makes things a tiny bit more complicated for the employer, but can provide a huge advantage to you. Many startup founders down't know about this, but will add it if you ask. Effectively you can buy all of your shares immediately, starting the capital gains clock ticking and eliminating any tax liability at purchase. If you leave, the company has the right to repurchase any unvested shares. The only downside is that you need to come up with some cash upfront.

</comment><comment><USER3> It seems to boil down to having to trust your employer to be honest to their word (and implications) about stock options and what their value really is. Even in the most trusted of environments, I still would not fully trust what comes out of the mouth of the person I'm interviewing with since they cannot speak on behalf of any outside investors, (other) founders, or anyone else with a stake in the company.

Given the nature of 99.9% of employer/employee relations, especially in salary negotiation, I would never personally place any value in stock options of any sort. There is simply no verifiable way to calculate what they are worth with a million different ways for them to become worthless and no accountability for a company to be entirely forthcoming.

<comment><USER4> This is an absolutely silly mentality:

1) A lot of people do make money off of employee stock, you just have to be reasonably intelligent about it. This blog post is a good way to model risk/reward.

2) Thinking of your employer as your enemy is a great way to set yourself up for failure.

3) Don't think of stock as worthless, think of it as a bunch of lottery tickets. It has some probability of being worth something based on the lottery.

<comment><USER3> The lottery comparison would be fair if the organization running the lottery was incentivized to not pay you if you won and could very easily, in both a legal and acceptable-in-the-course-of-businesss way, deny you your winnings. You are basically relying on a huge pool of people who are making the decisions to be a nice guy and true to their word.

I'm not suggesting you consider your employer an enemy, there's obvious a mutual benefit to you working there, but never should anyone assume a business has your best interests at heart because they almost never do.</comment></comment></comment>


How did that program manage to pin itself to my taskbar when I installed it? - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2014/12/30/10583474.aspx

<comment><USER2> The article links to his earlier discussion of notification icons. The "You have updates" balloon is notorious for giving little information about what to do next. I've received at least a dozen calls from my grandmother and aunt about this.

</comment><comment><USER3> The only apps I'm aware of that did this to me are IE and the Windows Store whenever you do an update (8.0 to 8.1, not security updates of course). So the Windows folks are saying you shouldn't do this but they're the ones doing it?

</comment><comment><USER4> > There is no real way of blocking this behavior other than giving guidance > not to do that.

I was disappointed by that. It's a security problem. If protecting even taskbar app list is a hopeless case, how are we supposed to have trust in security of any other data?

<comment><USER5> I don't see how they could protect from this though. When you install something, you have no choice but to trust the application. If you give it elevated access, then you are trusting it even more and it can do pretty much anything it wants to. I guess it's mostly an issue with installing "ad- supported" games and programs though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The only programs I know that pin themselves are Chrome and Firefox(?!). IMO all apps should have a pin to taskbar at the end of installation. I like them to be there, same as OSX.

<comment><USER7> _IMO all apps should have a pin to taskbar at the end of installation._

Opinions differ :] Please, NO. I am the one deciding what my desktop looks like. After all I am the one who uses it. Just like I detest the installers which slam their shortcut on the desktop without permission, I feel the same towards those trying to do that to the taskbar. Even more so, as it has less room. Put yourself in the start menu without explicitely asking: ok, you have to put it somewhere to be discoverable on Windows.

<comment><USER8> Agreed, but i would appreciate the option, disabled by default.

<comment><USER7> You mean system-wide? That would be nifty - but probably hard to accomplish in a way that can never be circumvented.

<comment><USER8> Well, yeah, that would be nice, but I meant as a "standard" installer option, like the "Add to start menu" and "Create Desktop Icon" options.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Coronavirus: From 93inf to 0 what did this Chinese City do to contain the virus? - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfsdJGj3-jM <comment><AUTHOR> I know many people are discounting chinese infection numbers because they are China but this is how they controlled the virus. The video is in Japanese with english subtitles by a japanese reporter.

</comment><comment><USER2> I have a hard time believing anything coming out of China these days.</comment>


The New San Francisco Suburbs, a Plane Ride Away - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304198004575172541279575622.html

<comment><USER2> I visited Portland for the first time last month, and was struck by how much it reminded me of San Francisco minus the worst things about San Francisco.

1\. San Francisco is a right bastard to get around since the various districts are spread out and separated by huge hills. Portland is easily walkable.

2\. San Francisco has slow, dirty, overpriced public transport. Portland has a convenient light rail system which is free in the downtown core area, and drops you right at the airport for a buck fifty.

3\. San Francisco is filthy. Portland is clean. San Francisco has aggressive panhandlers and crazy people everywhere, Portland somehow keeps most of 'em out.

4\. San Francisco is insanely expensive and only those earning multi-hundred-K a year can afford to actually buy there. Portland is nice and cheap.

5\. San Francisco has great scenery which is spoiled by tourists. Portland has perfectly adequate scenery which isn't.

Another nice thing: no sales tax. That means that you wind up paying what it says on the label and don't have to do the "compute in head and fumble with loose change" thing. Plus they've got good food, funky bars, and a classic video game arcade.

What they unfortunately don't have is a first-rate university, or anywhere else that might be likely to employ me.

<comment><USER3> They do have the best bookstore in the country, as well. Powell's deserves its reputation for depth.

<comment><USER4> If any hn readers go, be sure to hit up the technical bookstore a couple blocks away from the giganto bookstore. It is amazing. There are over a dozen rows of programming books, many with used copies right there beside them. Not just of old books, either. Last time I was there, I picked up a used copy of a book that had been published only four months earlier.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is a how a once-venerable tech city loses its significance. Suffocated by incompetent governments and an unwillingness to build, talent is forced to move elsewhere and ultimately shifts the center of gravity toward their chosen destinations.

I for one look forward to Portland, Austin and the rest picking up where San Francisco left off.

<comment><USER6> Actually the region seems more prosperous than ever.

I've never heard of an example of a city that died from high real estate prices. Do you know of any?

Empirically, what seems to kill cities is crime, or the death of some industry they depend on.

<comment><USER7> _I've never heard of an example of a city that died from high real estate prices. Do you know of any?_

New York in the '70s. I wouldn't call this "death" since the city came back, but I wouldn't want to repeat that debacle.

It's not high real estate prices per se that kills a city _per se_ , but real estate _volatility_. When real estate prices are high, repairs aren't made because there's no need to-- apartments sell themselves. When they're low and vacancy rates are high, repairs aren't made because there is no point.

High real estate prices and rents also impoverish a city; they draw money out of it, since most of the ownership is outside of it (cf. New York, where absentee assholes own most of the rental property). Some people in the city benefit, but the net effect is negative, especially since the young and talented are invariably on the butt-end of property prices/rents. During the boom, this isn't a problem, but after the boom ends, prices and rents remain high ("sticky" is the economic term) and this drains the city like a vampire.

Ten years later, due to disrepair, poverty, and exodus of talent, you have a shell of a city. Then the crime starts, and the city falls into an arrangement like New York in the 1970s nightmare.

What's difficult, if not impossible, to predict is when this transition will take place. It's likely to hit New York, but I have no idea if that will happen in 2011 or 2030. The tricky problem with bubbles (and New York real estate is still in a bubble, despite the semi-collapse of the national property bubble) is that it's very difficult to predict when they pop, although inevitable that they will.

<comment><USER8> _When real estate prices are high, repairs aren't made because there's no need to-- apartments sell themselves. When they're low and vacancy rates are high, repairs aren't made because there is no point._

How does that make sense? You're arguing that repairs are not worth it if it's easy to sell apartments (what does that mean? That the new tenants do repairs, or that everyone is willing to live with a leaky sink as long as they pay for it?). Or that repairs only happen when apartments can sell (so you'll only let the sink leak if you're going to live with it for a long time).

The utility of repairs can be positively or negatively correlated with real estate prices, but it's ridiculously unlikely for it to be both.

For what it's worth, I've lived in cheap and expensive parts of New York, and, miracle of miracles, people took better care of apartments they paid more for. As it turns out, it _really stings_ if you'd be able to rent someone a loft for $8,000 a month, but you can't because they saw that that ceiling was cracked. People paying $400/month for a room aren't nearly as picky.

<comment><USER9> Have you ever lived in a city like New York, San Francisco, Boston, etc?

You could list a catbox on Craigslist and get over $1000/month for it. You wouldn't even have to empty the dirty litter first.

What he's saying really is that cities are subject to boom/bust cycles like sectors of the economy, stock markets, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Somewhat OT, but I got weirded out by the story for a moment. It turns out that Scott McNeely != Scott McNealy (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_McNealy> \-- who almost certainly does not have any money woes whatsoever)

<comment><USER11> I agree. That really felt like I stepped into a parallel universe. Just got to my desk, cup of coffee in hand, on a Monday morning.

Weird way to start my week ;-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's not just in high tech that you're seeing that either. I work with several nurses that commute in from Houston, Austin and Portland. They make more working 12 hour shifts for 6 days in a row in the Bay area than they can make working a whole month in their home towns.

</comment><comment><USER13> Another advantage with the locations of Seattle and Portland in particular is that they're in the same time zone as Silicon Valley.

</comment><comment><USER14> The next San Francisco suburb? Austin Texas.

</comment><comment><USER9> The hyperinflation of coastal real estate and the super-concentration of talent in these places is getting absurd and insane.

<comment><USER13> _The hyperinflation of coastal real estate and the super-concentration of talent in these places is getting absurd and insane._

The latter leads to the former.

<comment><USER9> I'm quite aware of that. I just think it's too bad that the majority of America is a vomit of worthless and aggressively ugly sprawl full of lazy slobs that drive away any talent.

<comment><USER7> This "majority of America" has good mid-size cities that could be great but have a critical mass problem due to the suburban mistake (e.g. Minneapolis, Madison). The cities themselves are competitive with the nicest coastal places, and the people in them are smart, talented and interesting (although not quite as ambitious as on the coasts). The suburbs are depressing and hideous, as you described.

<comment><USER15> Mentioning Madison and Minneapolis in the same breath is silly. Sorry Madison, you are in no way comparable. Minneapolis is about twice the size , harder to spell, and prince can be seen here.

<comment><USER7> Fair point: they're cities of different sizes with different character. I like both, but they're different.

I was just using them as examples of beautiful cities with really interesting, vibrant cores but with depressing suburbs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The Northwest needs jobs, not parasites further inflating its real estate market. How about you move some companies up there too?

<comment><USER17> And I need a hot girlfriend, but that doesn't mean I will magically get one.

I, like the Northwest, needs to get my shit together and start behaving in such a fashion that I can attract what I want.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Micro web framework for low-resource systems – live example on ESP8266 - <AUTHOR> http://www.ureq.solusipse.net <comment><USER2> This looks good. Please email email@example.com if you would like us to send you a repost invite (part of an experiment we're working on).

</comment><comment> ju-st Unfortunately I only get timouts when I try accessing [http://esp8266.solusipse.net/](http://esp8266.solusipse.net/)

Is the webserver example from Github running on your ESP8266?

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry, during that time I had modem-related issues. ESP8266 was up for the whole time, but it wasn't accessible. Yep, it's the example from repository (slightly modified, I added some new features to prevent crashing under yesterday's big load from Reddit).</comment></comment>