G20 nations triple coal power subsidies despite climate crisis - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/25/g20-nations-triple-coal-power-subsidies-climate-crisis <comment><USER3> Whenever I talk to (privileged) people here in the US about this, I try to bring one point across. As a whole, people are in too much pain and stress to have any appreciation for a climate crisis. Whatever you may think, as a whole, people have to deal (personally and emotionally) with (sometimes perceived) much bigger crisis than that of the climate.

As long as people live pay-check to pay-check on the brink of no health- insurance, the brink of missing mortgage- or rent-payments and ending on the streets, the brink of high medical bills, the brink of 15k a year preschool expenses, the brink of retirement ... There is always a crisis stressing people out because there is nothing but yourself to fall back on in the event of a disaster.

And since nobody is politically (dare I say globally) willing to provide relief for such kind of warranted fears and concerns for ones individual future, people have to room to spend more on the perma frost, Florida homes or an underwater New York.

<comment><USER4> The thing is, a lot of the necessary changes will have no impact on ordinary people's lives. The UK is now up to more than 50% clean electricity for instance, and most people are not aware it has happened. And the UK is not even using the cheapest forms of electricity production much (hydro because it doesn't have the right topology, solar because of the high latitude, onshore wind because of population density and political decisions).

Those renewable sources of electricity - solar, onshore wind and hydro - <USER2> now the cheapest way to produce electricity full stop, even ignoring the pollution externalities of the alternatives, and countries that have access to those resources do not need to sacrifice anything except a bit of technocratic hassle to get to a high level of renewable electricity.

Getting to net zero carbon in total (including heating and transportation) would be expensive with current technology, but probably won't be very expensive given the technological progress which can happen over the next 30 years, if we do the basic things right, follow a reasonable pathway, and give companies plenty of time to make investments and incremental progress. It's highly likely electric vehicles will be cheaper over that timeframe, for instance.

Your point is true, and it excuses a lack of pressure from the public, but it doesn't excuse the media lying to their audience to gratify them. Nor representative politicians who are meant to use their own judgement remaining ignorant, and avoiding the boring technocratic steps necessary to help, or even just allow, the transition to take place.

<comment><USER5> Part of the problem is that many people who are passionate about battling climate change see the "no (significant) impact on ordinary people's lives" as a really bad thing.

I've come across this time and time again. "Electric cars/planes are not a solution because it keeps lifestyles the same! There MUST be lifestyle change to battle climate change."

It's baffling because it's so tone-deaf to the general public. It's as if there's a complete lack of understanding that wide acceptance of climate solutions is necessary for gaining the political capital to actually fight climate change.

<comment><USER6> Maybe they are thinking about such things as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox) , or [https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets- physicist...](https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/) . Or perhaps they feel the modern lifestyle is not delivering happiness. Or, to be more specific, they may be noting as J.S. Mill did that paradoxically technology was improving and at the same time people were working more.

<comment><USER5> That's why we need tech that doesn't emit net CO2 at all, not just Priuses and improved combustion efficiency.

The analogy would be the development of non-ozone-depleting refrigerants. Technology which emits greenhouse gases should simply be replaced with that which doesn't OR the greenhouse gases must be captured after-the-fact (and the emitters must fully pay for it).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think the bigger problem is that everyone wants certain kind of lifestyle of which they are inspired from Instagram/youtubers

Even if there was no Instagram or YouTube, we'll still have companies bringing American product to local market and promising better life tho this is amplified exponentially through social media now.

But we must ask ourselves, how many people sporting millionaire lifestyle can this earth take?

No matter where I go, every student is reading the art of hustle, rich dad poor dad, fake it till you make it, dreaming of renting ferraris, living in vilas and jet setting everywhere around the globe, buying whatever they want whenever they want to do some cool thing similar to fidget spinner.

Now, as India and China are growing coming online, everyone there is also inspired by American habits, look at the 3d printing channels, so many channels from developing countries are copying their American counterparts and printing so much ABS/PETG. Now this is simply an example.

It's human tendency to copy those who you think are better than you in your limited worldview. It is justified in mind easily.

So we must ask, can this planet afford everyone to live like an American millionaire?

Edit: Downvotes are raining on me. I am not against America or India or even china, you can replace them with any developed - developing country pair.

I am simply saying at present, planet can't ensure same lifestyle for everyone without destroying itself. Yes, with technological advancement and political will, it will be possible in future, but are we forgetting the article we are commenting on.

<comment><USER8> Yes if we innovate our way there. We cannot ever stop the human desire for a better life not should we, the power of mankind lies in our ability to innovate around d challenges. We fixed the ban population crisis with the green revolution. New energy sources like nuclear can give everyone the quality of life they desire and deserve. Asteroid mining can be a revolutionary source of resources. And we don't know what humans could invent next. But we need to support science and education to make this future happen

<comment><USER9> ah the extreme techno-optimist position.

> We cannot ever stop the human desire for a better life not should we

i think the goal is to redefine what a better life looks like. like, maybe it's not one of increasing consumption, but one of community and connection and ecological harmony.

<comment><USER10> Ah, the omniscient position. If only everyone behaved like me, the world would be a better place.

I'll continue to define what a better life looks like for myself, and I'll continue to respect the right of others to do the same, thank you very much.

<comment><USER9> > I'll continue to define what a better life looks like for myself, and I'll > continue to respect the right of others to do the same, thank you very much.

do you think that if everyone behaved like this, the world would be a better place?

<comment><USER10> Of course. How could we presume to know what's best for people we don't even know?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's a shame this journalist doesn't seem to have investigated at all _why_ these governments have increased coal subsidies. Surely there's a reason, and it's the reason that needs political support to tackle.

<comment><USER12> It's a combination of reasons present to different degrees depending on the nation in question. These include:

The political fallout of allowing these industries to fail (coal production and power generation make up a large portion of economic activity in many rural regions, with workers in these industries having little transferable skills.)

Strong protectionist incentives given that coal power is relatively cheap and can enable lower costs in energy intensive industries such as steel manufacturing.

Security of supply - having some domestic capacity is always preferable to being totally reliant on imports.

Opportunity cost - emissions tariffs have generally been on the increase so it makes sense to pollute whilst it's still relatively cheap.

<comment><USER13> I can think of at least one hypothetical, which is _good_ news, related to security of supply:

With an ever-shrinking share of the market, coal is no longer financially sustainable - the stations are only used in times of absolute need. They are usually off, but the government pays to keep them available.

<comment><USER14> Good point, it's relatively easy to get to 70/80/90% renewables. Its that one week in January, where its cold, the wind isnt blowing, it's cloudy and your nuclear reactor is down for whatever reason.

 _But_ most countries seem to be shifting to gas away from coal in the short term, wouldn't gas generation be better for that kind of situation, ie if you have mothballed gas and coal generation, why keep the coal around?

<comment><USER15> Gas is no better than coal from climate PoV, and it is much harder to source locally in many countries.

<comment><USER16> Nope. Gas is _much_ better than coal from a climate POV.

Natural gas is basically methane, CH4, when you burn it you're making CO2 and H2O (water) and you get energy out from both these changes.

But coal is much nastier, not only is there nitrogen and sulfur in there (which are both going to produce poisonous gases you'll need to do something about) but the ratio of carbon to hydrogen is much worse so we produce far more CO2 for the same amount of energy production.

Shutting coal plants and building gas plants instead makes a big difference. Not enough of a difference to prevent catastrophic climate change, but a big step in the right direction compared to subsidising coal.

<comment><USER17> yep, and not only sulfur and nitrogen but also radioactive!

[https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html](https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Underlying reports are linked, which is nice, and they're even CC licensed: [https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/resource- document...](https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/resource- documents/12745.pdf) and [https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/resource- document...](https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/resource- documents/12744.pdf)

The "why" and "how" are more complex. The figures include lending as well as direct subsidy. Both China and India have been building at a high rate.

> With regard to domestic public finance identified, India provided the > highest amount of support identified by far, at US$10.6 billion per year > (2016–2017 average). However, it must be noted that these findings are not > directly comparable between countries; one reason behind such high numbers > in India is that its banking system is dominated by government-owned banks > which were nationalised in the 1960s and 1980s. These banks, despite being > majority government-owned, operate predominantly as commercial entities > rather than as banks driven by government policy

> In its National Electricity Plan, India still foresees new capacity > additions for coal – 45.9 GW from 2017–2027 – but this is dwarfed by planned > additions for renewable energy, with 275 GW targeted by 2027 (CEA, 2018)

<comment><USER19> I made a spreadsheet here comparing comparing countries climate policies including fossil fuel subsidies:

[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vTaPmBiFIbPq...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vTaPmBiFIbPqzc1KLWHDgFVESLw9Ay7TtGGoDlIeza1XPpFPi5Abv7_nl1yLsImqBQozEgbi6O1klE_/pubhtml#)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> _Climate apocalypse_.

We have approximately 4-5 years left to mobilize massive de-carbonation in order to stave off the _worst_ effects of climate change [0]. It's already too late to avoid 2C warming. Even if we stopped instantly today the feedback loops have been in gear for years.

Small, incremental changes are not what I was hoping for.

[0] [https://www.earth.com/news/5-years-mitigate-climate- change/](https://www.earth.com/news/5-years-mitigate-climate-change/)

<comment><USER21> I don't think we have 4-5 years left, I think we're already 10 years beyond the point of no return. I'm not a climate scientist so my opinion bears very little weight, but I think we lost the battle when the Siberian permafrost started thawing.

In my view, even an instantaneous 100% reduction in carbon emissions (including the sudden disappearance of all cattle) will not stop the northern ice cap from disappearing completely, and the methane deposits under it will easily follow. Because of the location, my expectation is that these emissions will significantly alter the path of the northern jet stream, affecting the climate all over the northern hemisphere.

But, hey, what do I know, right?

<comment><USER22> The "thawed permafrost = permafucked" hysteria is not based on science. The IPCC, etc. include feedback loops into their calculations.

<comment><USER21> "Not based on science", how? I have stated my observations, and have formed a hypothesis from them. The first part of my prediction is untestable because of a precondition we cannot meet (an instantaneous 100% reduction in carbon emissions), but the latter part is testable.

Let's just wait 20-30 years for the permafrost to thaw, and then re-analyze the jet stream, shall we?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> And then people complain when these things happen: [https://www.dw.com/en/coal-protests-in-germany-climate- activ...](https://www.dw.com/en/coal-protests-in-germany-climate-activists- storm-garzweiler-mine/a-49313892)

<comment><USER24> I wonder when this[1] stops being satire.

[1] [https://www.theonion.com/last-ditch-climate-change-report- pr...](https://www.theonion.com/last-ditch-climate-change-report-provides- locations-of-1835244382)

<comment><USER25> Nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

<comment><USER26> Gotta use Nukes, they're the green bomb. No CO2 release.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> For what it's worth, China is actually more CO2 efficient compared to Western nations at similar levels of development in the past:

[https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/05/25/china- is...](https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/05/25/china-is- surprisingly-carbon-efficient-but-still-the-worlds-biggest-emitter)

<comment><USER28> That's good news but didn't they just finish putting more CO2 into the atmosphere then all developed countries combined over 100 year in like the last 10 years?

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/07/01/china- emits-...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/07/01/china-emits-more- carbon-dioxide-than-the-u-s-and-eu-combined/#2114269b628c)

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/business/china-davos- clim...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/business/china-davos-climate- change.html)

<comment><USER17> yep, and a lot of that has to do with starting in the 2008-2009 global economic crisis and (still continuing) stimulating their way (and arguably by secondary effect our way) out of it by consuming huge amounts of steel and concrete

[https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/business/worldbusiness/15...](https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/business/worldbusiness/15iht-g7.4.20200268.html)

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

[http://www.globalcement.com/magazine/articles/1054-global- ce...](http://www.globalcement.com/magazine/articles/1054-global-cement- top-100-report-2017-2018)

[https://www.caixinglobal.com/2017-10-17/slowing-china- steel-...](https://www.caixinglobal.com/2017-10-17/slowing-china-steel- consumption-stymies-global-demand-growth-101157487.html)

[https://www.rfa.org/english/commentaries/energy_watch/chinas...](https://www.rfa.org/english/commentaries/energy_watch/chinas- economic-stimulus-spurs-climate-costs-01072019105749.html)

[edit] formatting

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> While 150+ years of GHG emissions have put us in a terrible situation, reducing emissions or even reaching zero emissions will not solve climate change much like removing your foot from the accelerator would not prevent a car crash.

The current 415ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere will break havoc for centuries to an unknown extent. Self sustaining climatic systems have already been triggered (Arctic ice, methane, etc) and due to climate lag the changes we are seeing in the climate today are from the emissions from about 40 years ago. Bad news is we have emitted more GHG in the last 40 years than the previous 150 years before that.

Finally we don't really know for sure how much warming there is today since the cooling effects of aerosols have been difficult to calculate, and there is some debate whether the preindustrial baseline picked by the IPCC is correct. We could already be at 2ºC of warming today.

If anyone wants links of all that just ask.

<comment><USER30> I agree with most of this but I find the analogy with a car crash quite misleading. There will be no specific point in time in the future when we will fall off a cliff. It will just get progressively worse. What we can do is slow the worsening down and give ourselves and future generations more time to adapt.

<comment><USER29> There are definitely climate "cliffs". See climate tipping points for example that could lead us into a runaway greenhouse effect.

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

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I'm actually pro making carbon emissions tariffs, and then subsidising coal.

The subsidy can be made the same size as the tariff, but reduce over time.

It also gives the coal plants a massive incentive to look for ways to increase efficiency. If they can generate slightly more power from the same amount of emissions, they will make lots more money.

<comment><USER32> Why would you ever give aid to the dirtiest source of electricity? Coal use will accelerate future catastrophes and cost WAY more long-term than any meager benefits until 2030 or whenever they are banned.

It's simply immoral to suggest coal subsidies. Renewables are much cheaper and far better for the planet and local air pollution. Anyone who is willing to give anything to coal at this point is selling 1000's of years of emissions for 5-10 years of coal-worker and coal-owner subsidy. It's disgraceful coal still gets subsidies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The importance of fossil fuel subsidy reform is overstated. Burning fossils fuels causes climate change, which has costs estimated to be in the trillions.[133] Some people refer to these negative externalities are "subsidies for fossil fuel"[134]. Perhaps it's fair to refer to the amount untaxed negative externalities as 'subsidies', but some people might think that these 'trillions in subsidies' refer to funds in government budgets to directly lower the price of fossil fuels that could simply be cut.[135] But direct government support and tax breaks for fossil fuels that could be cut amounts to 'only' about $330 billion per year globally, according to a new study in Nature.[136] This means that unfortunately, fossil fuel subsidy reform will not increase the price of fossil fuels by trillions, because negative externalities (e.g. climate change and disease) make up most of these trillion dollar figures.

Would cutting these—still considerable—subsidies reduce emissions substantially? The Nature study suggests that global subsidy removal would only lead to a small, 1%–5% decrease in global CO₂ emissions. Only a small share of this can be influenced by policy in advanced economies: There are $43 billion in subsidies, amounting to 13% of global subsidies, within Europe, North America, and the Pacific OECD, and this number is not projected to grow much in the future. In fact, EU member states and G7 nations have pledged to end fossil fuel subsidies by 2020 and 2025 respectively (although they are currently not on track to fulfill this pledge).[137] Advanced economies might be able to use their influence to push fossil fuel subsidy reform in emerging economies, but this would be hard because even though it would have many benefits,[138] they are nevertheless often seen as regressive[139].

The Nature study has been criticized[140] for leaving out some subsidies, such as capacity market payments to ensure the constant electricity supply, public finance, and investment by state-owned fossil fuel enterprises. Others estimate subsidies in European countries alone to be $138 billion a year.[141] But even if we were to use these higher estimates to naively extrapolate them to get a rough upper bound of the direct government support in all advanced economies, then this number would probably not be much higher than the $330 billion. Thus, advocacy for subsidy reform in advanced economies is unlikely to reduce emissions by much more than 5%. Because phasing out these minor subsidies is theoretically equivalent to a very small tax on carbon, it will not substantially stimulate the kind of energy innovation that could spill over to emerging economies. Thus, the net benefits of advocacy might be lower than other policy areas.

Reducing emissions by 5% is not insignificant and worth promoting, especially if broad support can be garnered from both environmentalist and libertarian camps to end support of fossil fuel subsidies. Also, any country can unilaterally cut their fossil fuel consumption without the need for international coordination. But because the world must lower emissions to zero or even negative emissions soon,[142] phasing out fossil fuel subsidies can only be a small part of the answer. It is not the silver bullet some advocates claim.

All citations and more effective climate policies can be found at: [https://lets-fund.org/clean-energy/#h.jf0xbaac5xn6](https://lets- fund.org/clean-energy/#h.jf0xbaac5xn6)

</comment><comment><USER30> Adjusting your lifestyle and behaviour in line with climate goals is not about making a difference. It's about being a decent person. You don't throw litter into the street even though it's a drop in the ocean. You don't bully somebody just because everybody else does, even though it makes little difference. You do the things you do because you are a good decent person.

If you know about climate change and you still fly, invest in fossil fuel, consume extravagantly [edit: or anything you know has a large impact and you could reasonably do without (no, I don't know how to define reasonable in this context)] you are just a bad person. Sorry.

edit2: I am just saying this because I am desperate. And scared.

<comment><USER33> Why stop there? Are you currently using solar power? Do you use the bus instead of walking? What's your food habits - do you eat meat? What clothes are you currently wearing? Where do you live? How large is it? Does it need heating or air conditioning?

You're drawing the "this makes an awful person" line at a super arbitrary point.

<comment><USER30> I was expecting a reply along these lines. Just because you don't kill yourself to eliminate all emissions doesn't mean you shouldn't try to do what you can.

<comment><USER33> I'm just saying - you're a bad person. Sorry.

<comment><USER34> I don't know if it's your intention, but it comes across to me that you're advocating doing nothing, which strikes me as bad.

<comment><USER33> I'm not - we absolutely need to do something. What I am advocating against is drawing an arbitrary line in the sand and going "well, I don't still fly, invest in fossil fuel, or consume extravagantly, therefore I'm fine and a good person." Even if you do those things, you're still going to be part of the problem.

<comment><USER9> in your opinion, what makes someone part of the solution?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Scientists Patch Photosynthesis Glitch to Make Plants Grow 40 Percent Larger – E - <AUTHOR> https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/283193-scientists-patch-photosynthesis-glitch-to-make-plants-grown-40-percent-larger <comment><USER2> Who's to say it's a "glitch" and not a feature? What if this "glitch" provides greater resilience to climate change, and we edit out the very thing we need to keep eating despite our past mistakes? I would like to see a greater understanding of biology before stuff like this makes it out of the laboratory. Our species is a child playing with a box of matches.

<comment><USER3> My scary thought is if this dramatically increases the availability of food and the population rises. Then it fails later because it turns out that adaptation was to prevent some weird virus from destroying the plants...</comment></comment>


Collector will help you collect money - <AUTHOR> http://getcollector.com/

<comment><USER2> My initial reaction was that this must be the tech startup version of a collection agency. Like the ones you sell your debt to who harass people to pay up (I assume there's eventually visits from some sketchy looking guy who says something about "kneecaps"). You might want to reconsider the terminology here.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi, We're definitely not a collection agency or something. I can see why you were thinking that if you read the website that way ;). You can compare the platform with what Paypal does with their "donate"-button. Only now you're not stuck to Paypal and you can pick the payment providers you would like. Besides that we do have eye for design, customer support and what donations should be about.

But for further releases I will take another look at our terminology and references with more images/screenshots of our application.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I really hope this actually already built and not some sort of "launch-rock page to see if theres buy-in" lean methodology thing going on here

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi, no we're already building the application right now, all designs and wireframes are already done. Our planning is to launch around this July/August

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> What does this do that other crowdfunding sites don't do?

<comment><USER3> Agreed. This site has nothing to show us on how its going to "collect". The standard "Hey, share this with friends and get them to donate too" is not ground-breaking. I've seen some REALLY cool ideas in this space and they never saw the light of day since the person(s) didnt want to take it places</comment></comment>


How Woz, Gil, and Ellen's SPAC went splat - <AUTHOR> http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/17/technology/lashinsky_aquicor.fortune/index.htm <comment><USER2> "When a management team with a reputation for brilliance tackles a business with a reputation for bad economics, it is the reputation of the business that remains intact."

Warren Buffett could have warned them.</comment>


Ask HN: Best keyboard layout for programming - <AUTHOR>

I usually use nordic layout, but it seems like some of the special characters is more convenient on a US layout. <comment><USER2> When it comes to understanding the features and tradeoffs of keyboards for programming, I've never seen a better resource this Xah Lee's Keyboard pages [1].

One of the big things I learned is symmetric C- and M- for Emacs.

I like the MS Natural Ergonomic 4000 because it is designed to sit in a person's lap. I can't describe how much better this is than VT100 knockoffs. And it's not absurdly priced [from a price anchoring perspective].

[1] [http://xahlee.info/kbd/keyboarding.html](http://xahlee.info/kbd/keyboarding.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> sadly it is hard to get US layout keyboard on a laptop, when you live in a Scandinavian country

<comment><USER4> It may not be a solution for you, but AFAIK, all online Apple stores let you select a U.S. keyboard for all laptops (I just checked a single laptop on both store.apple.com/se and store.apple.com/no) at no additional cost.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> programmer dvorak

your fingers will thank you.</comment>


West Virginia paid $22K each for Internet routers - <AUTHOR> http://wvgazette.com/News/201205050057

<comment><USER2> I hate to be "that guy" but the story submitted here was published, "May 5, 2012" I am fairly certain it would have been posted here already.

<comment><USER3> 5 months ago, 141 comments: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3962029>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Is this plain stupidity or was corruption involved?

The thing that annoys me most about this is the political "equal opportunity" drivel.</comment>


Just What Does it Take to Present at the NY Tech Meetup? - <AUTHOR> http://www.centernetworks.com/meetup-ny-tech-friends

<comment><USER2> I really love the way Allen's shining a light on the underbelly and back corridors of the Web 2.0 world - especially on his Twitter - <http://twitter.com/centernetworks>

That said, I'm starting to realize that networking and social connections are what make the world go around. The world doesn't work on fairness or ideals. People get into positions because they're friends with those in power or can use their connections to "grease the wheels." Even organizations and events that claim to be fully democratic rarely are.

Seth Godin's new "Tribes" schtick seems to say that people like to form together into "tribes" that then support each other and the leader(s) of that tribe. Whether that's a tribe of Seth Godin supporters, a tribe of NY tech elites, or a tribe of higher-ups on this very site, it doesn't matter. People are going to stick into tribes, people will brownnose, and people will use their contacts and networks to get an advantage. Is it really worth exposing if it's going to always happen?

<comment><USER3> I think there's value in documenting and discussing this sort of thing.

If it won't always happen (or will always happen but is one of those things that earns a degree of passive (or active, depending on the example) condemnation when it does) and people don't like it, the discussion might bring about change. If it will always happen, or even if Tech NY doesn't change, it might still help the reader better understand the context, be it the NYC startup scene, their own tendencies and "tribes", or something else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I tried to present Fleaflicker 3 times at NY tech meetup and was never selected. Some of the presenters that were picked instead were worthwhile, others weren't.

</comment><comment><USER5> Instead of getting all upset about not being in the right circle of friends, why not just work your way in? They seem like alright guys.

Also, even from an outside perspective (I don't live in NYC) it's really obvious they are all friends. Just read their blogs.</comment>


Which of the Basic Assumptions of Modern Physics are Wrong? - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/05/24/fourth-fqxi-essay-contest/ <comment><USER2> I'm convinced that even if someone did prove that a basic assumption of modern physics is wrong, it would automatically be assumed in turn that the author is a crackpot, hence the work can be ignored. I'm convinced that the physics community isn't interested in the slightest in new ideas. Of course I'm automatically a crackpot (even beyond a conspiracy theorist) for even suggesting that.

As an example to how bad things have become in the realm of physics, it's safe to say that the vast majority of thinking adults believe that black holes exist, because so much major media has told them so. But when you look deeper you find that there's no definitive evidence. Sites like the Chandra X-Ray Observatory admit that, deep in their FAQ, but in words that many people can misconstrue as a technicality. When I point out in physics discussions that that there's no definitive evidence of black holes, I'm automatically labeled a crackpot, especially by the working physicists. One of my books suggests that this is a grant problem, as in black holes bring in a lot of grant money, so physicists must be careful to pretend that black holes are a definite reality in nature.

<comment><USER3> I don't see that to be the case. Physicists have been giving their utmost to try to crack open the standard model and prove it wrong for decades. And the same is true elsewhere as well. We thought we had a pretty good grasp on the nature of the expansion of the Universe, but it turned out that the expansion is accelerating. That was a huge reformulation of cosmology. We thought we knew about planetary formation, but once we started finding exoplanets we discovered many of our assumptions were wrong.

As far as black holes, we have not 100% direct evidence of them, but we do have many independent and very strong lines of indirect evidence. For example, we can see stars in orbit around an incredibly massive object at the center of our galaxy (Sgr A*) that is not luminous. There are no models that make sense for anything that could be so massive and so dark. Black holes are the only theory which fits all the evidence we have, that's how science works.

<comment><USER4> Well, that's how physics works. Physics is stupefyingly strict about its methods. Most sciences don't put quite as much value into models. The problem is that in a desire to strictly follow the method, physicists have become complacent with regards to extraordinary claims. Sure, the universe is full of dark matter, connected by tiny strings, in between folded up dimensions, but gravity is leaking away into parallel universes, since that's what the model predicts (rather than it just being a mathematical anomaly arising from botched assumptions). It's comparable to an economic model that describes inflation as the work of invisible leprechauns who increase prices during the night. Sure, it might make accurate predictions, hell, it might even be true, but you should not put any value into it unless there is evidence that the universe actually works in the extraordinary way the model claims it does.

Biology has followed a much better path over the past century, and biologists are rapidly building up an extremely thorough understanding of how biological systems work without relying heavily on algebraic models. Physics fails to provide explanations for even the most basic physical phenomena like motion. It's effectively just assumed to exist as a law because some authoritative physicist said so and all other models rely on it.

<comment><USER3> Sorry, I don't mean to be insulting, but I find this to be quite laughable. Firstly, neither string theory or "gravity leakage" or more than 4 dimensions of space-time are even remotely accepted theories in physics or cosmology. The theory of dark matter is supported by many hugely disparate lines of evidence. It's the only theory that makes sense given all the evidence.

As for the supposed superiority of biology, I offer up this essay that has resonated with me (especially Fig. 3 at the end): [http://protein.bio.msu.ru/biokhimiya/contents/v69/pdf/bcm_14...](http://protein.bio.msu.ru/biokhimiya/contents/v69/pdf/bcm_1403.pdf)

Biologists might be making great strides, but they have quite a long way to go.

<comment><USER5> > Firstly, neither string theory or "gravity leakage" or more than 4 > dimensions of space-time are even remotely accepted theories in physics or > cosmology.

So tell me please: Why are people like Brian Greene able to obtain the funding to make TV series like <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/fabric-of- cosmos.html> and get public speaking engagements like [https://secure2.convio.net/ata/site/Ecommerce/3120701?VIEW_P...](https://secure2.convio.net/ata/site/Ecommerce/3120701?VIEW_PRODUCT=true&product_id=3796&store_id=9341), when they should be getting the popular attention of a Usenet crackpot?

<comment><USER3> Are you implying that TV funding is tantamount to scientific authority? Are we to believe dragons and white walkers are accepted scientific fact along with mitochondrial eve being a cylon hybrid?

Don't be ridiculous.

<comment><USER5> Nice straw man!

And how many dragons and white walkers and Cylons are featured by Nova specials, the Discovery Channel, and get pop-sci articles written up in Scientific American?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The real problem is testing 'theories merging'

There are several areas where relativity and quantum mechanics merged, for example, in the discovery and theory of antimatter

But most of the experiments of relativity were on 'big things' like planets, and quantum mechanics on 'small things'

And between them, the real mystery: gravity. General relativity knows a lot about what gravity _does_ but not so much about _where it comes from_

Edit: fixed GR for SR

<comment><USER7> s/Special relativity/General relativity

Special relativity ignores gravity altogether, whereas general relativity sneaks gravity into the relativistic framework by equating it with curvature.

Both theories are, to me, frustratingly intangible. Like you said, we don't really know where gravity comes from. Really, we don't even have any sort of good intuitions for how to describe what it is. Stuff resists being shoved around. Stuff also attracts other stuff to itself. Einstein tells us these are both symptoms of stuff being curvature. It's all a bit too abstract for my taste (that is, I hope a more tangible/intuitive model will eventually win out). Field equations are predictive but not really descriptive. Is there a mechanism in there somewhere?

<comment><USER8> The problem with tangible/intuitive models is that our sense of what is tangible/intuitive is based primarily on our millions of years living in the Newtonian realm of the universe.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> jarek-foksa Pardon the silly question, but what is the actual meaning of "right" and "wrong" in physics?

I would expect a model which works in all possible conditions to be right, but clasical physics breaks when you reach the speed of light or atom level scales.

Also, my intuition tells me that there can't be two completly different models that are describing the same thing and both of them are right, but we have e.g. definition of light as EMV and as a stream of particles.

So it's enough for physical model to work only in specified conditions to be considered right, but "Basic Assumptions of Modern Physics" must be ultimately right (must work in all possible conditions)?

</comment><comment><USER5> Wave-particle duality is nonsensical. It certainly makes a lot less sense than "there is an as-yet unknown kind of medium that supports the propagation of waves".

</comment><comment><USER9> Somehow, I suspect that we are missing a dimension or two altogether and that will 'fix' most of our shortcomings in understanding the Universe.

<comment><USER10> Isn't that the running joke with string theorists -- if stuff doesn't work out, add another dimension.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Which of the Basic Assumptions of Modern Physics are Wrong?

As a Sci-Fi fan, "Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light" would be a nice one to be wrong

<comment><USER12> I'm sure this theory will be proven to be not entirely correct someday. As a corollary, I expect that e=mc^2 will also be slightly modified.

<comment><USER13> I don't know from what background you're making that statement but in general it's good for people to know that E=mc^2 only when the object is at rest, otherwise you must account for momentum. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence#Applicability_of_the_strict_mass.E2.80.93energy_equivalence_formula.2C_E_.3D_mc.C2.B2)</comment></comment></comment>


"Every Eatable Necessary to Complete New Year's Dinner" - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.loc.gov/inside_adams/2018/12/every-eatable-necessary-to-complete-new-years-dinner/?loclr=eaiab <comment><USER2> (Refers to a 1918 grocery print ad in the Perth Amboy Evening News)</comment>


Bill Gates made his fortune through sheer robber-baronry - <AUTHOR> https://threader.app/thread/1304811968398729218 <comment><USER2> Bill Gates was just extremely brutal and cold, both in his personal relations and in business practises.

Elon Musk, or Steve Jobs have probably been just as brutal but at least they innovated and created cool stuff. They have/had vision.

MS under Gates was special in that they didn't come up with anything very innovative. MS totally lacked vision. They first killed innovative competitors, then maybe incorporated parts of that innovation after delay. Gates was incredibly knowledgeable and intelligent, but not visionary. Tech was only secondary consideration to business. MS under gates was technologically underwhelming and super dull. After Gates resigned from his position as Chief Technology Officer in MS, Microsoft's as a tech company started to improve almost instantly.

<comment><USER3> Most people when they think innovation they think in terms of product, not process. From a process pov modern software engineering exists on a planet created by Microsoft. Commercial EULAs, shrink wrap software, platform effects, developers as customers, etc, etc were mostly Microsoft innovations.

Microsoft executed. They executed mostly well and sometimes brilliantly. Because if the processes are good enough for long enough product innovation can be secondary.

Apple eventually became Microsoft and that's how they beat them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If I had known how Gates would spend his fortune, I wouldn't have spent all those years griping about Micro$haft.

<comment><USER5> I believe he has the soul of a gamer. (heck, he ran a regular poker game at Harvard).

And when he was immersed into the money-making game, he was all in, willing to do anything to win.

But when you eventually beat the game, you don't get that thrilled anymore, there's no big challenge ahead. You can play for a while to see how far can you go, but it ends up being boring after a while.

So, I think he moved on to basically a real life version of reversal Plague Inc (instead of trying to infect everyone, he tries to beat a disease). This is a harder challenge in many ways, because he needs to deal with tons of geopolitics, international affairs, research and development, human behavior, etc.

If you see it from that perspective, you can still see that he is still a hard player, but this time, he is playing a game that can be beneficial for everybody, not just himself.

<comment><USER6> > real life version of reversal Plague Inc

To be pedantic, Plague Inc is just a reversed clone of the board game Pandemic.

But overall, I think you're spot on with his motivation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Aside from the resentments of the author, I have to agree that antitrust has been weakened in recent decades. This is just simply a fact. Some of you may think that is a good thing, but you have to admit that it is the case.

</comment><comment><USER8> "A conspiracy to modify Windows so Netscape-rendered content would appear "degraded""

This sounds like what Apple is doing right now and everyone keeps defending it when it actual fact it's even worse.

Degraded non safari web browser performance on iOS ring a bell?

<comment><USER9> >> _This sounds like what Apple is doing right now and everyone keeps defending it when it actual fact it 's even worse_

What is it exactly that Apple is doing that you are referring to (I honestly don't know)?

<comment><USER10> Preventing third party jit, thus forcing chrome and firefox and other non- safari browsers to use webkit for their implementations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> If someone is interested, that particular transcript can be found here:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- srv/business/longterm/micr...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- srv/business/longterm/microsoft/documents/gatespart5.htm)

A fascinating read.

</comment><comment><USER12> Gates used Microsoft to learn to create and then play the IP monopoly game, and then used their gains to started building a bigger and bigger warchest. Does anyone have examples of dominating-intellectual-property -oriented VC- funded tech acquihires/acquisitions before Microsoft?

<comment><USER12> the digital* IP monopoly game

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> The concept of 'corporate personhood' is the single most damaging and unjust legal construct of the century. Less than a couple of centuries ago, our ancestors understood that corporations were an unnatural idea which did not fit neatly within the framework of capitalism; so this status was reserved for large scale government projects and had very specific constraints and mandates imposed upon them. It wasn't until much later that corporations became the go- to strategy for any business.

It takes 5 minutes to realize that corporations don't make sense as a concept; the main benefit of a corporate structure over private business structures is limited liability... Why in the world would we need to shield people from being held liable for decisions that they made??? This is absurd.

The concept of a corporation is nothing but a way to deflect blame away from real individuals who actually exist and to redirect that blame towards a fictitious entity which is impervious to any kind of meaningful worldly punishment.

<comment><USER14> The coastal inferno, the Gulf hurricanes, widespread protests and riots: are these actions of the invisible hand? This year's election is a choice between the status quo which brought us here, and a corrupt tyrant who will consolidate the profits to an even smaller class of elites. So, let's focus on Gates: the kindest, gentlest, robber baron. This century's Carnegie.

He's plainspoken on the issue, really. If he were a politician, he'd be restricted by laws and diplomacy and dealmaking. As a rich bastard, he can traipse around and wield unilateral power wherever he decides to shower with pennies. Of course, Bezos, Zuck et al have the same power. But they don't even bother to pretend that they give a shit about non-billionaires.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is what he wrote about in a longer form here: [https://onezero.medium.com/how-to-destroy-surveillance- capit...](https://onezero.medium.com/how-to-destroy-surveillance- capitalism-8135e6744d59?gi=sd)

This is also what Matt Stoller is writing about, the "monopolisation" of the world, particularly in tech of course: [https://mattstoller.substack.com/](https://mattstoller.substack.com/)

Funnily, I've recently read "Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism" by Lenin. Multinational companies were called trusts, monopolism was called imperialism, and train, coal and steel was since replaced with telcos and internet but it's incredibly apt at describing our world. Even the "systemic banks" were mostly the same 100 years ago : BNP, Deutsche Bank, Société Générale, JPMorgan...

<comment><USER16> Thank you, both links led to thought-provoking articles.

> "..The rule of law against the powerful has collapsed in America."

> "Monopolism makes companies act like mafias, stupid and lazy, with an > emphasis on abusive commercial practice rather than technical or > organizational excellence."

> "Surveillance capitalism is everywhere. But it's not the result of some > wrong turn or a rogue abuse of corporate power — it's the system working as > intended."

\---

Here's the whole pamphlet by Lenin:

Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism - [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp- hsc/](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/)

I'm no Marxist by any means, but I think it's possible to appreciate some of these insights into society, without dismissing (or agreeing with) the ideology that it's become.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> And ever since, tech companies - for the most part - have been much less naive about what can happen when tangling with politicians, especially the W.DC type.

</comment><comment><USER18> The loan to buy dos gets all the storytime usually. So some airing of the part about putting ibm through the ringer. Yup. The applied practices of capital.

</comment><comment><USER19> Let's forget about the tens of thousands of companies that thrived and hundreds of thousands of jobs created for Bill Gates' horrible ways. And the fact that they willingly paid because they thought having Microsoft products was better than not having Microsoft products. No one benefited from his robber-baronry and everyone was forced to use Microsoft technology, even Apple, and those products brought no value to no one. Oh man, I can't even believe he would ever want to donate half of it to the prosperity of humanity either. What good does that do?

<comment><USER2> You use incorrect reasoning.

You should think in the terms of opportunity cost.

I'm convinced that there would have been more jobs and innovation without MS monopoly. MS under gates killed and slowed down progress in personal computing. They didn't innovate.

<comment><USER19> I actually don't think it was a monopoly. I think it created an opportunity for someone else to create better software. But instead we wanted to get rid of the so called monopoly and we secured Microsoft's position in the market. So if you want to talk about opportunity cost and state that Microsoft had a monopoly, then the opportunity cost is that we didn't let another better company take its place naturally and we spent a lot of tax payer money in politics to take care of a problem that didn't need intervention. I firmly believe we wouldn't be forced to use Microsoft today if we chose to do nothing.

<comment><USER19> What I mean is, we secured it by forcing them to create better products, so we made Microsoft more desirable for consumers. If someone dislikes Microsoft's monopoly and Bill Gates' fortune, then I'd argue intervention made it worse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> News?

</comment><comment><USER21> "THE ENTIRE TECH INDUSTRY FITS AROUND A SINGLE TABLE." Is incredibly reductive.

</comment><comment><USER22> The author comes across as a petty, vindictive person.

</comment><comment><USER23> Threader is pretty interesting. It not only makes it generally easier to read (save from any mistakes in the scraping or formatting) but also allows for reading a twitter thread without the distraction of twitter itself, designed to pull you into their ecosystem after you've finished the thread.

<comment><USER24> > without the distraction of twitter itself,

[https://nitter.net/search](https://nitter.net/search)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> It's reasonable to ask about the exact meaning of the word concerned given the situation.

Also all the things mentioned are pretty standard these days.

<comment><USER26> Has the term been used to describe some other behavior since I learned about it in 5th grade History class? I'd love to learn what else it's used for, if so

<comment><USER25> It's not clear who "you" refers to in this context. Is it Bill Gates? Microsoft? Does concern mean, "I sure hope they don't succeed" or does it imply active steps?

<comment><USER27> In fact the meaning is completely clear in the context of the recording and the events that preceded it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> You cannot get ahead in society without making someone somewhat worse off.

How many you made worse off, and how much you made them worse off is a function of how much you got ahead and in how much time.

"Free-market is not a zero sum game", is a lie that morons that go by the name of 'economists' like to tell you. The world economy is growing by a minuscule amount of 4% every year. Yes it's pretty much a zero-sum game, when some grow way more than 4%, and others less, or even grow negative.

When CD tech became widespread, the VCR industry went out of business. When DVD tech came along, CD industry went out of business. Online streaming put pretty much everyone else out of business.

Do you not call this making people worse off? I do.

Is it a bad thing? that's a different question.

<comment><USER29> While inventing the printing press certainly put many scribes out of business, few would call it zero-sum or robber-barony. The amount of new wealth generated was exponential. That is still happening. 4% growth per year is over 10x in an average person's lifetime. Even accounting for inflation, the amount of wealth per capita is always increasing with technology and innovation.

You allude to the fact that you don't consider it to be a bad thing at the end, but even calling it a zero sum game is plainly wrong.

You are right about one thing, though. The incumbents are made worse off by a better innovation. Sometimes that comes in the form of mom and pop shops, sometimes big slow corporations. However, the positive net wealth gains and the fact that this is the only way to achieve progress makes it seem worthwhile.

<comment><USER13> There has been no economic growth at all over the past 5 years and possibly much longer (if you account for possible market manipulations by reserve banks). If you measure the market cap of the biggest corporations relative to any scarce commodity like Gold or Silver, the charts would be totally flat. If you measure stock prices in terms of cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, then stock prices have been dropping rapidly.

It doesn't make sense to measure stock prices in terms of fiat currencies anymore because the Reserve Banks of the world can and have printed unlimited amounts of it. You should only measure the price of stocks relative to the value of scarce assets which have a stable intrinsic value (which is not the case for the dollar or any fiat currency).

In Venezuela, the stock market yields hundreds or even thousand of times your investment per year if returns are denominated in the national Venezuelan Bolivar currency; this is way higher than any ROI you can get from any modern stock markets in the US or anywhere else... It doesn't mean that these companies are good investments and are actually growing (they're not; they're tanking just like Venezuela itself).

If you think this is not what's happening in the US, just consider that the price of US stocks are strongly correlated with each other... This is totally consistent with what's happening in Venezuela; the degree of correlation in price of unrelated stocks tells you the degree to which the so-called 'growth' can be attributed to currency inflation.

<comment><USER29> Try benchmarking the latest and greatest desktop computer from 5 years ago against what you can build today. Try using a 5 year old smartphone versus a new one. Count how many skyscrapers have been erected in big cities that didn't exist 5 years ago. You are arguing about some different topic, such as currency manipulation and the implications of government debt.

However, total wealth certainly hasn't been stagnant, which is what this thread is about.

<comment><USER13> Wealth is about value. Personally I never cared much about the latest smartphone, I wouldn't mind going back to my phone from 5 years ago. As for skyscrapers, as COVID19 has shown, we don't need most of them (since people can just work remotely). The money would have been better spent on giving millenials higher salaries (or better, investing more in independent startups) so that they could afford to buy their first house in the suburbs instead of keeping them enslaved to their landlords and their corporate paymasters in the city centers. In terms of the things that actually matter, wealth hasn't grown at all.

I can stack millions of rocks on top of each other into a giant pile but that doesn't mean I've been productive or that I created any wealth if nobody benefits from my pile of rocks or if people are coerced into accepting its legitimacy as a measure of wealth.

<comment><USER29> Wealth is about _perceived_ value. What you personally perceive as valuable is different than the majority of participants in the economy, so trying to enforce your judgments upon the system to show that no value was created is pointless. You clearly have many gripes with various aspects of the economic system, but my point is that value is still being created. I've created a ton of value since 2015. The professional hardware and tools I use have improved tremendously since that time. While the exact value below the paper wealth numbers may be difficult to ascertain, it doesn't mean no wealth was created. It should be obvious that things are still advancing to someone in the tech space.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


2048 for physicists - <AUTHOR> http://milrivel.github.io/LHC/

<comment><USER2> This would been cooler if it actually followed physics in some way other than simply using physics terms. Combining 2 gluons makes a proton? This variant is just nonsensical.

<comment><USER3> 2048, the "has this ship already sailed or can I still get on" version.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> As others have said this game has nothing to do with physics except for the names of the tiles.

If the progression followed particle masses it would make a tiny bit more sense but it doesn't. The neutrinos for example, are much lighter than their counterparts. I guess that masses would not make sense to use since the Higgs boson is not the heaviest known particle at 125 GeV, that distinction goes to the top quark at 173 GeV.

A more realistic game based 2048 and physics might be hard to make. Colliding particles does not work according to some recipe like: electron+positron makes a muon or something like that.

Instead there are a large number of possible recipes(Feynman diagrams) for every collision. In fact we have can have any reaction that is allowed as long as you conserve energy, momentum, angular momentum, electric charge and a few other exotic quantities. Each of these reactions can be assigned a probability and you cannot know beforehand what the outcome of a certain reaction will be. Adapting this into a 2048-style game is not obvious.

A game that would actually work is adding up neutrons and protons into atomic nuclei. Having a nucleus with 2048 nucleons is of course not very realistic but if you add in the decay of unstable isotopes only reaching Uranium-238 may be hard enough.

</comment><comment><USER5> Could someone please make a meta-2048 where each possible tile is one of the different versions of the 2048 game?

<comment><USER6> Here you go: [http://jffry.github.io/2048-Meta/](http://jffry.github.io/2048-Meta/)

(I admittedly did very little for this: [https://github.com/jffry/2048-Meta/blob/master/js/html_actua...](https://github.com/jffry/2048-Meta/blob/master/js/html_actuator.js#L64))

<comment><USER7> Haha, nice one :).

Now, could someone make _recursive 2048_ , where the tiles are _instances_ of 2048 game and the whole thing loops on itself, the top game being also the bottom one in one branch of a tree?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Huh, turns out I actually don't give a shit about the numbers and I just like mashing bright colours together.

</comment><comment><USER9> I thought the Hexagon 16384 game was pretty innovative, as well as some other 2048 forks, but this is just getting out of hand.

<comment><USER10> I actually think this is quite clever. It's not a tech improvement but its a domain shift that fits well. I took something from it, in a different way than other clones did.

<comment><USER11> His combinations make no sense. Just a random strings.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Apps are now memes

<comment><USER13> Really tells you something about the cost of development over time. 10 years ago this would have sounded insane.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> That was a lot of fun. It would be nice to have a small explanation of the particle equations on the page for the non-physicists in the audience.

<comment><USER15> That wouldn't make much sense, seeing as these combinations aren't physically accurate. You don't make an electron neutrino by combining two electrons, for example.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is oddly much easier to understand and focus on.

<comment><USER17> I came here to say that. Looks like the colors are all that's needed for the game to be playable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Are the collisions at least plausible?

<comment><USER19> > Are the collisions at least plausible?

No. And I'm kinda disappointed about it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Looks like we have solved the origin of the universe. Everything is just one massive 2048 game.

<comment><USER21> 2048's all the way down

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Can you use a larger font? It's OK for the words to go to two lines.

<comment><USER22> Yeah, maybe just use the symbols and have that as "alt" / accessibly text.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Does anyone have a overview of all the 2048 offsprings created so far?

<comment><USER24> Some can be found on [http://2048.directory/](http://2048.directory/)

There's also a subreddit: [http://www.reddit.com/r/2048](http://www.reddit.com/r/2048)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> [https://i.cloudup.com/BdsYF1nusy-1200x1200.png](https://i.cloudup.com/BdsYF1nusy-1200x1200.png)

<comment><USER26> That's wrong. I already looked, and you still won and lost at the same time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I realized that 2048 has quickly become the first code-meme of HN.</comment>


Magic Leap Could Be Looking at an $8B Valuation - <AUTHOR> https://backchannel.com/magic-leap-could-be-looking-at-an-8-billion-valuation-28eaa0294ad1 <comment><USER2> I was, at one point, very excited about this company, to the point where I recommended a colleague join the company (she thankfully did not). I strongly believe there's only so much vaporware that the general public will accept, and Magic Leap has definitely overstayed that period.

If they aren't more honest about their _current_ progress and more realistic with their near-future plans, they'll end up cratering their reputation with the public before they even have anything off the ground. At that point, it might not matter how many billions they have in the bank if they ruin their reputation to do so.

Worse, if they don't get in front of their persistent vaporware problem, they could find themselves in the dust by the time they do come out with a product. Microsoft has already released their first version of the HoloLens, and is said to be working on their next version at full steam. By the time Magic Leap comes out, Microsoft might already have a compelling ecosystem and device portfolio. Other companies are joining suit.

It'd be nice if Magic Leap showed the public the same thing they're showing these investors - clearly, their demo is convincing some supposedly smart people to pour lots of money in, so why can't they show the public?

<comment><USER3> Pretty much. This is pretty much a classic analysis of execution risk. The company spends so much time in development that the market passes them by. One of my favorite poster children for this is Plastic Logic.

I have no direct knowledge of anything that Magic Leap is doing so I can only speculate. My speculation is that they have raised too much money, and as a result they lost their edge. People are naturally more productive when a deadline is looming, especially if it is an existential one, and startups typically have a limited amount of cash before they have to raise more or die. But sometimes startups get enough money that they can operate for years before they die, and then their delivery deadlines seem to ooze out to years.

It can happen easily enough, if you have to deliver next year, and your schedule it tight, then you start narrowing the scope of your delivery. That naturally prunes the things that are less critical to your success from the delivery and focuses the team on the critical bits. If your delivery is in two years, there often is pressure for some "quick wins" which are features which are not critical to the product but easily completed to show progress. As a result you make lots of progress on things which are not part of the critical path. It can make an engineering team feel good ("Hey, look at all this stuff we got done!") but it pushes off the question of whether or not they can even _do_ the critical bit.

One unexpected side effect of this I saw in a company I advised was that the group working on the critical bits were penalized in terms of recognition for not getting more done (even though their part of the problem was much harder) and some key members of the group left, putting the critical pieces in still more jeopardy.

What I'm trying to say is that taking a big funding round is exceptionally risky for people who haven't managed through the sorts of ups and downs a startup has to weather. Magic leap took in a _lot_ of money early on. That sets the stage for disaster. Not that the problem will actualize; People go out sailing on the San Francisco Bay without enough life vests for the people on board every day and that situation only occasionally intersects with an event that results in the loss of life. But once you've left the dock without enough vests, you have just increased the importance of the competence and abilities of your crew without necessarily realizing it. So to with startups that take too much money, they increase the importance of having a management team with exceptionally good discipline.

We will get to see how it turns out for Magic Leap.

<comment><USER4> >One of my favorite poster children for this is Plastic Logic.

Basically the entire organic transistor community has a solution in search of a problem. Not really an issue limited to Plastic Logic.

<comment><USER3> Agreed, but PL had an excellent product, the flexible e-ink display, that had they sold it as a component[1] they could have funded any number of future products. Instead they felt they had the funding and runway to build the entire experience and dominate the e-reader market with a more durable, less expensive, and larger format product.

The interesting bit was that they were not wrong, _if_ they could do all those things they could have dominated the market. But they had too much money relative to the market window. As a result they spent way too much time working through product issues that were completely unrelated to their game changing display and once full color tablet readers were a competitive threat they had too much margin pressure to recoup any of their development costs.

[1] And yes, I met with their VP of Marketing/Product Development and explained this to them when they had time to take the advice, but they did not.

<comment><USER4> I agree, they tried to do more than they should have.

A general issue I see, however, is that the real world need for flexible displays is far more limited than earlier projections suggested. If you switch to a rigid display, there is no reason to use an organic transistor back plane - that's where things start to unravel. PL were not even the first company in that space. There also were Polymervision and a couple of others.

<comment><USER3> It is quite difficult to predict exactly the road not taken, I realize that PL's demise may have been written long before they chose the path they chose. That said, I could see other markets, markets that have yet to be exploited, which they might have reached. One was the 'flimsy', a bare bones e-reader so simple it could be sold very cheaply if its display was built using roll to roll printing technology. It was the 'e-reader as printer' something that sat perhaps in a network connected cradle with the 'smarts' and you printed to the display and then could detach it and take it with you. With a flexible display you could feed in a new display like you would a sheet of paper, with either a set of contacts along one edge or the driver in the surface on which the sheet rested. Lawyers carry around literally pounds of paper for trial, putting all of those in a dozen e-readers so that you could have all the interesting pages up to read at the same time. That would be something.

The key though is cost. A slam dunk product would cost what the Boogie board does ($30) have 200dpi+ resolution and let you write on it with a simple stylus.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "But wow, the demos! I played a shooting game and designed a universe of stars and planets that stretched across a living room wall. I watched a boxing match on the desk in front of me, and saw a friendly droid wave up at me from beneath it. One scene in particular moved me: a firefly buzzing around the room. It looked real–there was no pixilation. Its wings were faintly translucent. I held out my hand and the bug flew down to perch on my index finger. I had injured this finger in an accident five years ago, and since then, it has had no sensation. But as the firefly perched on it, even though I _knew_ it was just a hologram, I felt the slight tickle of its legs. Magic Leap had tricked my brain into telling me that my finger tingled."

\- [https://www.wired.com/2016/04/went-inside-magic-leaps- myster...](https://www.wired.com/2016/04/went-inside-magic-leaps-mysterious- hq-heres-saw/)

Uhhh....right...

<comment><USER6> I don't find that very hard to believe considering it's sometimes possible to use something as simple as a mirror to trick the brain into correcting phantom limb pain:

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> You have to look at this valuation (and things like Facebook's Oculus investment, etc.) as these big companies trying to figure out what is going to come after smartphones.

Whatever does is going to print money and own an ecosystem for a couple of decades. What is that worth?

Today:

Apple's about to cross the $1 trillion cumulative revenue milestone iOS.

Android's generated revenue of $31 Billion [2]

In a world where Apple is suing Qualcomm for $1B over fundamental networking chips. Even if MagicLeap does nothing but license their patents to all the other tech players, could they still be worth $8B dollars?

1 - [https://9to5mac.com/2017/01/11/apple-1-trillion-in- revenue-f...](https://9to5mac.com/2017/01/11/apple-1-trillion-in-revenue-from- ios/)

2 - [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-21/google-s-...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-21/google- s-android-generates-31-billion-revenue-oracle-says-ijor8hvt)

<comment><USER5> Apple didn't invent the smartphone. Nvidia didn't invent the GPU. Facebook didn't invent social networks. Google didn't invent the search engine.

Pioneeering is expensive and usually doesn't pay off as well.

<comment><USER8> There's an old saying: "you can always tell the pioneers, they're the ones with all the arrows in their back."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I used to think the company was called Magic Leap because their technology made images magically leap out at you. I didn't realize it referred to the magical leaps their valuation would take.

<comment><USER10> When I read Magic Leap, my head reads it Major League" all the damn time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> $8B Valuation and no product in the market. It sounds crazy for me. Can somebody put some sense here for me?

<comment><USER12> Sure, look at a comparable "AR" company. Snap generated $150M in revenue last quarter, and is valued at $24B (market cap).

Magic Leap would need to generate $50M quarterly, or $200M annually to sit at a comparable valuation multiple. Given that the "AR" market will be in the $billions for yearly revenues, I think this valuation is totally feasible. But that is still an assumption nonetheless. Facebook, Google, and Microsoft will play in the mix, but a billion dollar "AR" market will be big enough to sustain a few large players.

Obviously only time will tell as it's impossible to evaluate what Magic Leap is actually developing and selling at this point.

PS check out the comments on this thread that got flagged off the front page earlier today: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14343480](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14343480)

<comment><USER13> The problem is that AR can't make things dark. You can add light, but you can't take it away without blocking whatever you're looking at.

Whether that's an extremely serious hindrance to the AR movement remains to be seen. Adding text overlays would be most of the benefit of AR, but there might be optical reasons why you can't just block out some light and then overlay text in a readable way.

It might turn out that AR only works well at night, when it's dark.

<comment><USER14> It can make things dark. Have you seen the dimming windows in 787?

<comment><USER15> That's not good enough to work.

For a more complete answer: [http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/abrash/why-you- wont-see-hard-...](http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/abrash/why-you-wont-see- hard-ar-anytime-soon/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I went to a VR talk by Ted Schilowitz last week (futurist at 20th Century Fox, formerly of RED Camera) and he was raving about Magic Leap's tech. He said it was actually as good in person as the demos would suggest. I was surprised to hear this because I had previously come to the conclusion this was just a visual Juicero.

<comment><USER17> Possible explanations:

a) They gave him some stock

b) He doesn't really understand VR/AR at all

I spent an hour or so going through the about 1000 people listed as working at Magic Leap on Linkedin the other month. I had a wow moment back then. So many deeply unqualified people for something like this. I think the number whose _subject areas_ could even be relevant to the development of the tech was like at most 20. Out of about a thousand.

Why not have a peek yourself?

[https://www.linkedin.com/search/results/people/?facetCurrent...](https://www.linkedin.com/search/results/people/?facetCurrentCompany=%5B%223098033%22%5D)

(I see 1062 people at the moment.)

The profiles of the rest of the people seemed like they were hired to create cool demos. So many graphics designers, motion designers, PR people, marketing people etc etc.

<comment><USER16> a) Quite possible. I think he had an NDA with them. b) No, I think he gets VR/AR, he had some interesting points and claimed to spend his entire workday with various VR/AR devices (lots of early prototypes)

Your analysis of Magic Leap's employees is really interesting though, how complete do you think it was? I mean they must have more than 20 engineers working on it, what percentages did the employees break down into in terms of engineering, design/visual arts, office staff, etc.?

<comment><USER17> I didn't create a detailed breakup by field. The number of about 20 (very rough number) that I mentioned was for the number of hardware/optics people.

There are a shitload of VFX/HR people/people managers though.

<comment><USER18> I have heard from someone I trust who worked there, that the office is very crowded, noisy and chaotic, and it's difficult to get any work done because there are so many people chattering and having phone calls and meetings. The term "turkey farm" came to mind.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I've played with a Mircosoft Hololens dev kit and, even though it's clearly a first version (field of view is tiny, relatively low res, etc), the potential applications for a second or third generation version are _immense_. It's not hard to imagine AR headsets replacing monitors entirely with a short period of time. That's a _big_ market. If Magic Leap have something better they could well be on to something that justifies a crazy valuation.

</comment><comment><USER20> TLDR; This seems to be the only new information in the article:

 _I asked a few folks, and discovered that the company is raising funds again. The D round, I'm told, isn't locked up yet, but it will value Magic Leap at $6–8 billion. Once again, the Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba will lead. (Alibaba's executive chairman Joe Tsai sits on the board along with Google's Sundar Pichai.)_

<comment><USER21> I wonder what exactly they're showing to these investors. We as the public know nothing, but people keep poring in money.

<comment><USER18> My theory is that they built a swimming pool with a thin surface that looked like a wooden high school gym floor, then bought a real whale to jump up through it. And they bread tiny little elephants, and children with really big hands, and combined them together.

[https://www.magicleap.com](https://www.magicleap.com)

<comment><USER22> > tiny little elephants

Tiny little lighter-than-air elephants.

<comment><USER21> I mean if they had the a semi working prototype of a device that was the HoloLens but more like a pair of RayBans then I could completely see investors just throwing money into the furnace with them but are they stuck on the sunk cost fallacy? What the hells happening in Ft. Lauderdale

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The amount of money this company has raised without putting a product to market is unprecedented. The track record for startups raising tons of money pre-launch is spotty to say the least. At what point does potential have to face reality?

<comment><USER24> I can't understand what they think the market is going to be. I very much doubt they will make money from the hardware (they'd need to shift a serious number of units), they will want to make money from the software (just like PS4, XBOX, Nintendo)

But without the product in developers hands, software is going to take years to create. Look at VR, devs have had VR kits for, what? three years or so and still content is thin on the ground. Nothing compelling with a consumer buzz like Zelda or Halo did for the consoles.

I want AR to be a thing. I don't think this cloak and dagger secrecy is doing them any favours. They can't possibly live up to the hype.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Either "the emperor has no clothes" or they are starting a revolution only comparable with the multi-touch one. No middle point here.

<comment><USER26> The hype reminds me of the run-up to the launch of the Segway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> You can argue that this will fail, but I love it how they are trying to go for something big.

<comment><USER28> That kind of thinking can be used to justify just about anything. That's nonsensical. The issue I have is that they seem to be deliberately misleading investors based on what has leaked out. They are certainly trying to mislead the public with their claims.

<comment><USER29> Investors get to try it out. They're not trying to mislead investors via leaks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'd rather buy Craigslist. At least they make 600M+ profit yoy.....

<comment><USER31> Thats why they ain't up for sale!

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Technical Illusions is in this space and they seem to be going after a realistic goal. TI has a product that projects an image by reflecting off of material. They have working demos. Magic Leap seems to be creating AR by projecting a pixel onto your eye. That is a much harder problem that results in low field of visibility, low resolution, and short depth of field...at least from what I have been able to read.

</comment><comment><USER33> I don't know if the $8bn figure is rational, but listening to Graeme Devine talk about about magic leap's vision for the future of mixed reality gives me an idea how they're managing to part people from their fat investment dollars.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SNdrEGSVUY&t=1h39m32s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SNdrEGSVUY&t=1h39m32s)

</comment><comment><USER28> An $8 Billion valuation on a company that:

        - Has no products.
        - Has done no public, verifiable demos of real tech even.
        - Has no verified technical innovations even as far as I know.

Something is seriously, seriously wrong in the valley^H^H^H^H^H^H tech investment world.

Edit: Clarification since Magic Leap isn't a valley start up.

<comment><USER34> The ML HQ is in FL, and their investments are overwhelmingly from corporate venture. Other than an office on the peninsula, and Sundar on the board there is nothing Silicon Valley about them.

<comment><USER28> Ok I will reword; there's something very wrong in the tech investment world. I'll edit the post.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> At some point people will stop pouring cash into this money hole.

</comment><comment><USER36> Benedict Evans has tweeted glowingly a few times about Magic Leap, following product demos. I sceptical but I trust his opinion, regardless of the fact that he works for a16z

<comment><USER37> I'm sure a lot of Theranos investors had good things to say about the demos they got from them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Has anyone tried developing anything for Hololens? Want to know how was the experience and how do you see the application ecosystem moving there

<comment><USER39> [Disclaimer: This is based on playing with developing for the Hololens for all of 3 days]

Until we have some absolute killer -- and I really mean killer -- APIs for image recognition and AI, their use is going to be rather limited. It is telling that the vast majority of demos that they have used to demonstrate Hololens would actually be more compelling as VR experiences. Navigating the solar system, the human body, or the silly shooting game they used to demo it a few years ago are all fine uses of the technology, but they don't in any way meaningfully interact with the world around you -- which is ultimately the value add with AR as opposed to VR.

When I used it, all I could get as a developer was a mesh with the surfaces that the Hololens had recognized in the environment. That is really good for properly occluding objects and allowing things to appear in real space; it is insufficient if your goal is to actually meaningfully interact with the world. I don't just need to know there's a wall there; knowing that it has a TV in the middle of it is important if I want to build an experience to accompany a live sports broadcast. This technology will really shine when we can, with incredible speak and accuracy, put a Hololens on and instantly know that its in a living room, and that the object in front is a coffee table, and there's a picture frame on it, etc.

We do have a lot of this capability already available, but to me the key leap that is missing is a way of accessing and using all of that in a coherent and easy way as a dev.

<comment><USER12> Check out PTC ThingWorx Studio. They're working on 3D CAD recognition and tracking tech for industrial and enterprise use cases. One of the more advanced products on the mkt based on my research (I think they're still in private beta though).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Are (sales > 0)?

<comment><USER41> currently (products < 0)

<comment><USER42> How does one generate a negative number of products?

<comment><USER43> At least an amount of people would say that the demos are a sham - that'd be one way of generating negative products.

<comment><USER44> Apologies for correcting but it's "a number of people", not "an amount". "People" are countable.

<comment><USER43> Pedantry at it's best, but I can honestly say that I've learnt something :)

[http://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british- grammar/amou...](http://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british- grammar/amount-of-number-of-or-quantity-of)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> They make nice bubbles... :)

</comment><comment><USER46> Tech doesn't work. Tech can't work. It is all hype and a dream. Just like Theranos.

Those who invest deserve what comes with it....

</comment><comment><USER47> 2nd Theranos, Clinkle, Color

</comment><comment><USER48> This company is a laundering scheme for millionaires

</comment><comment><USER49> Mind blowing</comment>


Adobe Launches CSS Regions Prototype - <AUTHOR> http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/cssregions/

<comment><USER2> Dear Adobe: Please stop trying to make the web into print.

Serious Comment: This is a custom WebKit build and they are apparently proposing a spec to add "Regions" to CSS, which seems a rather vaguely defined effort to bring print type layout conventions to CSS. Flowing content from one box to another seems like it would be user-hostile to the usual goal of reading articles. I seriously can't think of a good reason why this is needed, anybody have any ideas?

<comment><USER3> I think that with large screens becoming more available, it is not a bad idea to provide a way to create text layouts that go beyond the single column of text (making text lines longer hurts legibility).

We already have CSS3 text columns, but this proposal seems more general.

<comment><USER4> > We already have CSS3 text columns

Aka Multi Column[0]

And Grid Positioning[1] and Template Layout[2] and Flexible Box Layout[3]

[0] <http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-multicol/>

[1] <http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-grid/>

[2] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-css3-layout-20100429/>

[3] <http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-flexbox/>

<comment><USER3> nice. But I fear we will still be doing float-based layouts in a long, long time.

<comment><USER5> long, long time is well defined: IE7 being still relevant. (IE8 has support for display: table-* properties, so it gets much easier).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Access denied based on IP? Come on Adobe, are you bloody serious?

<comment><USER7> Does .nyud.net work for you? <http://labs.adobe.com.nyud.net/technologies/cssregions/> If not, here's Bing's cache: [http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=CSS+Regions+prototype&d...](http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=CSS+Regions+prototype&d=481916289438&mkt=en- GB&setlang=en-GB&w=9b2e842e,8b5c500d) (Google seem to have removed their cache links from SERPs).

Edit: was the page blocked or just the download?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This seems like an interesting idea, but the samples provided by Adobe are frankly terrible. The text just cuts off at an arbitrary point when the regions run out of room.

I have no idea how you would use this to lay out articles of varying length on multiple screen sizes – unless you use JavaScript to dynamically generate regions. And if you do, the whole point of doing this through CSS is pretty much lost.

</comment><comment><USER9> You can try this yourself, it looks pretty good to me. The webkit guys seem pretty impressed.

<https://twitter.com/beverloo/status/67946771208343552>

</comment><comment><USER10> I got an Access denied message.</comment>


This Device Could Provide a Third of America's Power - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-12/this-device-could-provide-a-third-of-america-s-power <comment><USER2> David MacKay's "Sustainable Energy - without the hot air" [1] does a good job of putting energy sources like this in perspective. Wave energy is indeed challenged by issues with mechanical parts; however, the reality is that there isn't much wave energy their to begin with. As MacKay puts it, "sun makes wind and wind makes waves" [2]. Waves are just diluted sunshine. Sandia National Labs does a good job of putting this into perspective, assessing solar electricity with a theoretical potential of 89,000 TW and ocean wave with 34 TW [3].

We could try to make the case that, despite the small potential, wave power is convenient to extract. We do this for hydropower, for example. However, where there are waves, there is wind. On cost and reliability, I don't see wave power ever being able to beat out offshore wind.

1\. [http://www.withouthotair.com/](http://www.withouthotair.com/)

2\. [http://www.withouthotair.com/c12/page_73.shtml](http://www.withouthotair.com/c12/page_73.shtml)

3\. [http://www.sandia.gov/~jytsao/Solar%20FAQs.pdf](http://www.sandia.gov/~jytsao/Solar%20FAQs.pdf)

<comment><USER3> Wind generators and some aspects of solar cells use rare earth metals. The big advance of this particular company is not using rare earth magnets.

<comment><USER4> Not sure that is true, the large generators don't use permanent magnets. Old school generators used a small DC motor with permanent magnets to power the field windings. However I think the generators in large wind turbines use an inverter to proved power to the field windings. (So that they can account for small mismatches between the line frequency and shaft speed)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If we were to do this on a large scale, how would it impact the waves we are seeing? Might that impact coastal wildlife? Might it even impact currents and weather patterns?

<comment><USER6> Some of the impacts are covered here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wave_power&sectio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wave_power&section=15#Challenges)

If done on the scale suggested in the article, it would be catastrophic; article infers that the whole ocean should be used as a source of engery, which is madness.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Are they saying it could provide a third of America's power (I'm guessing current electricity consumption) from America's coastal waters, or from the whole of the world's oceans?

<comment><USER8> The former, including your guess. They clearly say so in the video.

<comment><USER7> Wow. I literally didn't notice there was a video. Everything clickable just looks like an ad to me now

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> We don't need super-solutions/magic bullets for electric generation. Tidal could fill in where its best suited, such as Newfoundland. Imagine if we had:

20% Nuclear (been this for decades)

25% Natural Gas (27% now)

23% Wind (4% now)

22% Solar (1/2% now)

5% Tidal (none now)

5% Hydro (6%-7% for decades)

and no coal at all. (35%-50% for decades)

<comment><USER10> We kitesurf in a river mouth, the river is tidal. Behind the beach are a couple of pools that are huge, these get filled and emptied by the tide twice a day. The volume of water that slooshes out is amazing. Staggering. We love to kite there cos we convert the energy into speed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> How do these things stay on station? I live near the Gulf of Maine. When we have an ocean storm, the lobster buoys and sometimes the navigation buoys end up on the beach and have to be put back where they go. Other times they end just lost in the ocean.

Sometimes divers have to go find the lobster pots. Pots that can't be pulled are very wasteful.

Putting these generator things back might be quite costly. It will certainly create jobs for commercial divers.

How do they keep the cables (surface to that big old tire thingy hanging in the water) from getting tangled or broken in storms? That U. Maine wave tank should be able to help them figure it out; its purpose is storm simulation.

How do they get their power to a shore-based distribution point?

</comment><comment><USER12> This is a magnetostrictive generator. It's not "no moving parts", it's flexures instead of rotational joints. Historically, magnetostriction was a weak effect, but some new materials have improved the efficiency.[1] Still, operating at the ocean surface is usually a high-maintenance headache.

A no-moving-parts solution would be taking power from an ocean current by using it as the working fluid in a magnetohydrodynamic generator. That's a totally submerged system. The concept has been used in reverse to drive a ship, so this can work in seawater.[2] But it requires superconducting magnets, and all the cryogenics which go with that. If we ever get room temperature superconductors, this might be useful.

[1] [http://revolution-green.com/magnetic-energy-harvesting- using...](http://revolution-green.com/magnetic-energy-harvesting-using- magnetostriction/) [2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamato_1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamato_1)

</comment><comment><USER13> Here's a more detailed article about the device from The Economist: [http://www.economist.com/news/science-and- technology/2167761...](http://www.economist.com/news/science-and- technology/21677612-hitherto-obscure-piece-physics-may-be-secret-ocean-power)

</comment><comment><USER14> The UK's Witt Energy device can be used in marine and wave power applications - and can harness kinetic motion in all six degrees - using pendulums. See [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11514839](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11514839)

<comment><AUTHOR> Those devices are impressive and they probably work, but as the video correctly stated, the maintenance of those devices are the problem and makes them cost prohibitive. Typically, devices with moving parts have a shorter shelf-life, because of the hostile ocean environment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Magnetostriction is news now? See: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetostriction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetostriction)

<comment><USER3> They're doing it without high price rare earth magnets.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> ...could provide a third of America's _present_ power requirements.

<comment><USER17> U.S. energy demand has actually fairly steady. It was slightly lower in 2014 vs 2008. [http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=us&v=81](http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=us&v=81)

A wide range of things have been getting more energy efficient TV, lighting, computers, heating cooling, insulation, etc.

<comment><USER18> Does this account for things beyond electricity such as fossil fuels?

For example, the shift from using gasoline cars to electric cars would reduce the amount of electricity we use, but would increase the amount of gas. This could be a net good, if we assume that the electricity was produced in a cleaner way.

<comment><USER19> I think you mean increase electricity and reduce gas?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Every time I see a good article on sustainable energy I tweet it to Elon Musk.

</comment><comment><USER6> >> "That's 352,670,000,000,000,000,000 gallons just sloshing around out there."

^^ Stopped reading after this sentence.

<comment><USER21> >> Stopped reading

Stopped caring after seeing that

<comment><USER6> Your right, trying to exploit in an entire ecosystem for the benefit of a single species is a great idea.

<comment><USER22> That's literally what every species on the planet is trying to do, as well as they can.

<comment><USER6> All species self-regulate. If you feel you're able to provide notable research countering this, please do; happy to admit I'm wrong.

[https://www.google.com/search?q=species+self- regulation](https://www.google.com/search?q=species+self-regulation)

<comment><USER23> _All species self-regulate._

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Matthew_Island#Mammals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Matthew_Island#Mammals)

Also really fun comic about this: [http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/comics_en/st- matthew-island/](http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/comics_en/st-matthew-island/)

 _happy to admit I 'm wrong._

There you go.

Now before you start blaming developed nations about their energy usage, it is good to review the data persented here: [http://visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2007/12/09/comparing- po...](http://visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2007/12/09/comparing-population- growth-china-india-africa-latin-america-western-europe-united-states)

<comment><USER6> Here's an example of notable research, "Why most published research findings are false" \- note that it's been cited over 3000 times: [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=15681017780418799...](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=15681017780418799273&hl=en&a_sdt=0,47)

In my opinion, the event you references is not notable research.

<comment><USER23> I do not know where you live, so your exposure to the actual wilderness might be limited, but if you had any real exposure, you would know that without big predators (like wolves in the northern part of the world) or hunting, the herbivores would bread to use all the available resources they can get.

Yes, ecosystems (that is, set of different species including plants) self regulate themselves, but species try to maximize their numbers. If their numbers get too big, they starve and by some unlucky coincidences, they my become extinct due to resource exhaustion.

I actually hope that humans would be better in this.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>