Capitalism is becoming less competitive - <AUTHOR> https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/10/10/capitalism-is-becoming-less-competitive <comment><USER2> Two words: Regulatory capture.

I can't turn my hobby/side gig into a small business without navigating a bunch of bureaucracy to obtain 9001 permits, some of which are inevitable "may issue". Assuming I made it through that I'd be subject to all sorts of government oversight to the point where I either have to sink all the resources I would spend growing my business on compliance or just not think about it and hope that by the time anyone notices my business is big enough to afford the cost of compliance. For programmers, lawyers and other occupations that don't deal with physical things the issue isn't as big but for blue collar businesses this is a big deal. You literally cannot hope to comply with everything when you're in the boostrap phase and that dissuades a lot of people from striking out on their own.

The fundamental problem here is that laws and regulations written to deter some mega-corp from systemically being sleazy to make a buck apply equally to small businesses. turns out it's only the mega-corps that have the economics of scale to make compliance possible while still making a profit.

<comment><USER3> On the other hand, small business owners shouldnt be allowed to be sleazy either.

Maybe to stimulate small businesses, the government could advise business owners how to navigate these regs, something like a social worker for a business?

<comment><USER4> The classic example would be food companies requiring the use of a commercial kitchen for selling food to the general public. There are a lot of fledgling businesses that have been shut down immediately because they cannot build capital while they are still in their cottage stage. While it is perfectly fine to invite my neighbors over and cook for them, it immediately crosses the line when I want to sell to them. I think it would be smarter to have progressive laws based on the number of servings instead of immediate high barriers to entry. So you still need to use a commercial kitchen, but only once you serve more than say 5,000 customers per annum. I think most people would believe that this is reasonable. There are countless industries that I think should have similar cottage exceptions.

<comment><USER5> I'm not sure why you even need to accept the premise. Why is using a non- commercial kitchen sleazy? Such a regulation doesn't make much sense to me for either small or large businesses.

<comment><USER6> The regulation exists to keep people safe. Poorly handled foods kill people.

Now, if there are high capital requirements for starting a restaurant, it sounds like there is a market opportunity for someone to make a low-capital way to try out restaurant concepts. That's sort of what has happened with food trucks. In Austin, many storefront restaurants existed as food trucks first. Presumably, they got to see that they were a hit without having to spend a ton up front.

<comment><USER5> I'm still not following. Is it harder to mishandle food in a commercial kitchen? Why is the regulation against non-commercial kitchens, and not just against mishandling of food, if that's the issue?

<comment><USER2> >Is it harder to mishandle food in a commercial kitchen

Not really. The main difference is that everything you use is better designed to be easy to clean and hard to break by someone putting in less than minimum effort. For a small business that isn't being lazy to the point of negligence there's really no difference. The same standard of cleanliness is indeed possible in a noncommercial kitchen but beyond a certain scale it's not cost effective. Also, it's not a binary thing. You have tons of hole in the wall restaurants that use a mix of commercial and noncommercial facilities and equipment. Somewhere that serves ice cream will probably have commercial style freezers and mid-high end consumer grade stuff for everything else. You don't need stainless counters to prepare ice cream and you don't need a three bay sink or a commercial dishwasher to clean ice cream scoops. Bars in places where they're forced to serve food by law often only have consumer grade equipment for the preparation of said food.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> How competitive is capitalsim anyway? What's the best measure for it?

When I look out in the economy I see massive industries that are being protected by their governments for various reasons: some of it political, some of it effective lobbying.

In many sectors private companies are building off of a platform that their government has provided for them. For instance, the NIH is a major contributor to pharmaceutical research, yet once a new drug comes to market, the profits all go to the private company and the tax payer is essentially charged twice for access to the drug (cost of research and cost to buy the drug).

I had one idea of what a free market was growing up, but as I've learned more about the global economy it seems like the idea of a free market was just a clever ruse.

<comment><USER8> "How competitive is capitalsim anyway? What's the best measure for it?"

I look at stuff like this among a group of suppliers:

1\. What suppliers offer in terms of product, capabilities, etc should be going up.

2\. If comparing two versions of something in No 1 overtime, then...

      2.1. Quality/reliability/security should go up over time.

      2.2. Price should go down.

3\. Customer service should improve over time given it's an easy differentiator.

4\. Convenience of any aspect of the business should go up over time. Low- hassle in general.

You'll find in monopolies or cartelized oligopolies that these are all bad or move super slowly in a way that keeps everyone high margin. In highly competitive industries, things move fast with many players having low margin.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Technology is playing a role. So it size.

Google/Amazon/Facebook/Netflix/Microsoft can drop a few million bucks on a team of developers trying to squeeze some lemon for an additional drop of juice. I've been on teams before where a 1% increase in success of our software would pay for the team twice over. There were dozens of teams beside us all doing the same thing.

A small business competing in the same market cannot do that, and so they find themselves fighting a far more efficient giant.

</comment><comment><USER10> Better title: Corporatism was never competitive

</comment><comment> purple-again Interesting article. I wonder if anything major happened in the world around the early 90's that could help explain why the big winners around the world were suddenly able to use their economies of scale to grow even larger over the next three decades...

<comment><USER11> Globalism, essentially.

<comment><USER12> internet? or more than that?

<comment><USER13> End of communism in Europe, open China, various free trade agreements...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> At its best, regulatory capture is a mean to achieve basic quality assurance; at its worst, it is a fence to protect the richest. Our mileage may vary, we see the world through our own experience and rightly so.

</comment><comment><USER15> Why is this post flagged ?

<comment><USER16> I'm guessing "off-topic"[1]

1 - [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> How much of a role does secret government intervention play?

That is, we know the US government interferes in markets in secret. There have been lots of revelations in the past few years about how the CIA boosted jazz and modern art during the 50s to appear new and modern relative to communist countries of the day. The NSA advised the creators of DES about how to make it better. There have almost certainly been other secret and larger interventions.

Has the CIA/NSA/whatever intervened to an extent that the resulting markets are inefficient?

We'll probably never know, but my guess would be that at least secret interventions have favored certain companies to the detriment of others in the same market.

</comment><comment><USER18> One thing that people seem to skip in Capitalism is the idea that you can't have a tone of regulations. It appears the U.S. version of capitalism is continuously granting the "winners" in sectors with such strong regulations that it's limiting newcomers -- making it less competitive.

The current fashionable thing seems to be claiming that we need to become more socialistic. Which IMO is just an attempt to fix over regulation with more regulation... so down the rabbit hole we go.

<comment><USER19> It seems like it's not more regulation vs less regulation but rgulation in the interests of society vs regulation in the interests of the powerful. America has very lax rules on political donations from corporations, allowing almost unlimited lobbying. Plus a two-party system and the ration of population=>votes being very uneven.

<comment><USER20> regulations seem insanely hard to design well. It's very easy to claim you're regulating for the good of society, but have said regulation have a completely different effect. They're far from a panacea.

<comment><USER19> The way I think about it: you have lots of problems in society which are prisoners dilemma in nature.

The only way for the prisoners to escape their fate is to have some external authority fix the incentives and that's basically the law.

Three ways to use the law: Regulation Sueing people for damages Complex contracts

There are situations where some of these work better than others and we just need to pick.

It's really hard to imagine sueing for damages working precisely for something like preventing air pollution, the chain of causation is too long. You have no choice other than regulation.

There's this libertatian politics common on HN but I've never seen a convincing argument of how you solve air pollution using 2. or 3. Imo you will always need regulation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Is it still Capitalism when the government prevents the "fair market" from operating by issuing all sorts of subsidies, and allows all sorts of exemptions to let specific employers avoid having to pay certain taxes, giving them a competitive advantage over companies that don't get those exemptions?

How Government Creates Inequality - David Cay Johnston

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VApBedmawnM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VApBedmawnM)

<comment><USER22> Is it still Capitalism when private companies lobby governements to implement subsidies ?

<comment><USER21> that exactly johnston's point, in case you misunderstood political intent

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Saying that regulatory captured capitalism has failed is like putting Michael Phelps in chains, throwing him into the sea and claiming that swimming has failed.

<comment><USER24> Marxists would counter that capitalism will lead to a oligarchic elite, or at the very least powerful industries which will seek to influence and capture the political and regulatory system using the excess value taken from labor. So, it's like timing Phelps in the rapids leading to a waterfall and blaming the waterfall only for the rapid plunge.

<comment><USER23> Also a Marxist would claim that life is a zero-sum game. In the 21st century is extremely easy even for a small kid to see how this is obviously wrong.

With it being a fundamental statement in their philosophy, I don't quite know what to say.

<comment><USER25> Life being a zero sum game is not a fundamental part of Marxism.

<comment><USER23> Really, then why nowhere in this philosophy creating new value or new means of production is considered?

It is class struggle and for someone to have something they must take it from someone else. It is disgusting how pure evil like this is masqueraded as philosophy/ideology.

<comment><USER25> > Really, then why nowhere in this philosophy creating new value or new means > of production is considered?

Uhhh, it is. It's just that those who create new value are the wrokers making that happen, not the holders of capital.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Is it still Capitalism when there is regulatory capture?

<comment><USER27> To the extent that regulatory capture is itself an inevitable outcome of capitalism, maybe.

<comment><USER28> You can't have regulatory capture without regulations!

That is mostly tongue in cheek of course, but it does really bring up a point in that if there were stringent controls on regulation it could help minimize the issue. And if nothing else there's some beautiful irony in regulation being in need of regulation.

<comment><USER2> Automatic, mandatory scheduled review for regulations and mandatory sunset provisions for laws would be a damn good start. It would solve a lot of social issue too.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


What's Wrong With Killing Hookers? - <AUTHOR> http://insertquarterly.com/2013/05/06/whats-wrong-with-killing-hookers/

<comment><USER2> GTA players kill hookers. But they also kill police officers, businessmen, joggers, and old ladies. In the upcoming game they will also kill animals. The only thing they don't kill is children, because they don't appear in the games (if they did, they wouldn't be any safer).

This has nothing to do with sex workers' otherness.

> _There aren't consequences for these actions. You can always load a previous > save, or you can always wake up at the hospital after you reach five stars > and lose the chase._

What separates the real world from a game is not that one has consequences, but that in the game you are killing simple computer programs, whereas in real life you'd be killing real people, like you.

Moreover, the games we're discussing are RPGs. When you play them, you are playing the role of a villain. This is analogous to reading a book or watching a film with an anti-hero, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

</comment><comment><USER3> The article misses the point.

There is nothing wrong with killing in-game characters. It doesn't matter if they're innocent sex workers or children or pedestrians. It's part of the game.

The problem is that games handle this kind of violence so poorly. There's no examination of why someone might be a sex worker; what they do to protect themselves; what the consequences are to them for being sex workers; or to you for using a sex worker.

These characters are disposable, and that's what's wrong with them. Their disposability reflects how real people are thought of by game creators and players.</comment>


Photos Reveal More Than 200 Arctic Lakes Have Started Bubbling with Methane Gas - <AUTHOR> http://www.sciencealert.com/photos-reveal-more-than-200-bright-blue-arctic-lakes-have-started-bubbling-with-methane-gas <comment><USER2> Worth noting: a massive volcanic eruption of sulfur in Siberia ended almost all life on Earth once. It rained sulfuric acid with the pH of lemon juice worldwide and everything died, it took 10 million years for diversity to start building again.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian–Triassic_extinction_...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian–Triassic_extinction_event)

<comment><USER3> Honest question, how far could we live if all human resources were dedicated to create structure, devices and tech for high pH (and low biomass I guess) environment ?

<comment><USER4> You mean low pH? High pH would be almost impossible to adapt for.

But, we will probably start living (and growing crops) indoor before we fully adapt (require knowing about plastics). We can probably adapt crops in a couple of decades if current science survives.

<comment><USER3> yeah, high acidity - low pH

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Summary points:

> _The lakes are a type of thermokarst lake, which form when thawing > permafrost causes the surface to collapse and fill in with meltwater. These > ones are bright blue and bubbling, because of methane that 's leaking into > them before escaping into the atmosphere._

> _Researchers announced that they 're also monitoring around_ 7,000 _gas > bubbles or 'pingos', which have formed in Siberia and are at risk of > exploding to form huge craters._ > [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13941923](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13941923)

> _Methane is roughly_ 30 _times more potent than_ CO2 _as a heat-trapping > gas._

> _By_ 2100, _up to_ 205 billion T _of carbon emissions will be released by > permafrost if climate change continues to intensify._

> _Previous research had suggested that a global temperature rise of_ 1.5°C > (2.7°F) _would be enough to start the melting of Siberia 's permafrost, and > scientists are concerned that these lakes and pingos are a sign it's already > happening._

> _What 's interesting is that the satellite data suggests the leaks are > happening year-round in these regions, even at temperatures close to_ 0°C > (32°F).

<comment><USER6> You left out:

 _They aren 't entirely sure what's causing them, but the hypothesis for now is that it could be related to seismic activity.

"For example, over one of the gas deposits (in Yamal), lakes are located along two lines ... looking like a giant cross," Bogoyavlensky told the Siberian Times.

This suggests "genetic connection of craters with deep faults in the Earth's crust, but to confirm we need to conduct thorough seismic research"._

<comment><USER7> The future in increasingly clear, and utterly terrifying.

I hope you're right, but suspect the "but maybe not!" discussions about the local details in different areas are less important than finding solutions to the big picture that we do understand.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I can just see it now... natural gas companies decide to frack the arctic, accidentally triggering hundreds of irreversible methane releases.

Edit: okay I looked this up and of course it's already a thing.

[http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green- tech/en...](http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-tech/energy- production/frozen-fuel4.htm)

<comment><USER9> > Edit: okay I looked this up and of course it's already a thing.

As in the concept exists? It's most certainly not a practical or economic thing.

You should look at how deep sea drilling economics were rattled due to fracking. O&G prices need to rally a hell of a lot to make this profitable.

<comment><USER8> The interest exists. If it did become profitable, I wouldn't put it past them to go for it.

I used to think that stuff like this was crazy, now I'm not so sure: [http://www.astrobio.net/news-exclusive/pies-in-the-sky-a- sol...](http://www.astrobio.net/news-exclusive/pies-in-the-sky-a-solution-to- global-warming/)

<comment> T-A Once burned... [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-10/big- oil-a...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-10/big-oil- abandons-2-5-billion-in-u-s-arctic-drilling-rights)

<comment><USER8> May this be the beginning of the carbon bubble pop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I have a question

Methane (CH4) is said to be 30-105x more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

But burning it produces energy and CO2 as a byproduct.

So wouldn't it make sense to use it and burn it at these lakes instead of letting it escape? Even if you do not harness the energy.

<comment><USER11> The problem is doing it at the scale required.

The East Siberian Arctic Shelf alone has an estimated amount of 50 to 800 gigatons of CH4. Current atmospheric concentration of CH4 is about 5.

I think our best interest is to stop or slow down the process and try to find out a solution. And that is achieved by keeping the permafrost frozen.

One solution could be using metanotrophs, which are unicellular organisms that eat methane. The advantage over reacting chemicals is that they reproduce on their own. Maybe we enhance them through GMO to make them have a higher fertility rate.

<comment><USER10> But the fire would just spread and burn it all.

Your idea is good too, they also engineered bacteria to eat plastic in the great pacific garbage patch.

<comment><USER11> Problem is that fire would also increase temperature reinforcing the methane release.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> If this somehow magically inspired people around the world to literally abandon modern life, you'd still be seeing the current trends coast for at least a couple of _decades_. Needless to say, far from anything like radical change, we're continuing full steam ahead.

</comment><comment><USER13> I'm not a survivalist, but it seems that at some point you just have to start preparing for the inevitable. So buy land and water rights inland??

<comment><USER14> How do you supposed you are going to survive without all the affordances of some kind of civilization. Do you imagine some kind of postman or waterworld type of thing?

I'm pretty sure either we all make it or none of us do. There is no escaping the inevitability of mammalian biology. You need to keep your body at a certain temperature and it's looking more and more like that is going to be impossible in the new climate regime.

<comment><USER15> Why the armageddon claims ? You realize humans have previously coped just fine with water levels meters higher than they are now I hope.

So given that the worst IPCC predictions only predict about a 2m water level rise, and that so far the first 20 years of those predictions turned out to have been WAY overblown, I think we'll do just fine as a species, even long term.

In fact, even if worst comes to worst, medieval water management techniques will in fact be able to prevent any coastline encroachment until well into the 2200s. At that point, I think we may put some thought into adapting, and I bet we'll be able to come up with something (or we could just move a few cities. That too has been done before. Okay, okay, more than "a few". And no, we won't run out of arable land, or water, or ... I mean it's unknown of course, but it's not out of the question that the planet actually becomes more hospitable to humans with higher temperatures. Certainly in a few regions that will be true, and maybe globally).

TLDR: you will be perfectly fine, even under the worst of the worst predictions, and so will California beachfront property, or Manhattan, or ... at the very least for 4-5 generations.

<comment><USER16> This figure [0], which you can read more about in this summary [1] compares the predictions from the IPCC third assessment report with satellite observations. It shows that the observations track the upper end of the predicted range from the third assessment. If you want more detail you can find the original report here [2].

It is difficult to resolve that observation evidence with your claim that "the first 20 years of those predictions turned out to have been WAY overblown" \- if anything, the predictions were too conservative.

[0] [https://skepticalscience.com/images/SLR_models_obs.gif](https://skepticalscience.com/images/SLR_models_obs.gif)

[1] [https://skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise- predictions.htm](https://skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions.htm)

[2] [http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/](http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/)

<comment><USER15> You know it's posts like this that give climate science a VERY bad reputation. I've got a degree in statistics, so I read your post and immediately 3 alarm bells go off.

It is WIDELY known in scientific circles that IPCC predictions have a bit of a nasty habit of having, firstly, very dubious statistical underpinnings (which is another way of saying their methodology is complete shite). Secondly, without making any political claims, they systematically overstate the problem by a LOT. This is purely a statement based on the numbers they put out, and I imply no ulterior motive on their part. But their predictions do all seem to error on one side, never the other.

And yet here you are, making the exact opposite claim to what I know to be true. But there are a few alarm bells. You disagree with how I thought I know the world to be, and you make an oddly specific cherry-picked argument. Here's what I mean:

1) broad claim that would barely gain support from the rest of your argument. Illustrating correctness from cherry-picked data points is an argument that does not belong in science.

2) very weird pick of the predicted and evaluated variable (obviously the main predicted climate variable is "temperature anomaly", so why don't you go for that one ? Is this a case of "we got the basics of our prediction wildly wrong, but in this long list of things we touched on sideways we lucked out ! We were right after all !" ?)

3) You pick the "third assessment report". How did the first 2 predictions fare ? (this is useful in more ways, because those can of course be evaluated against more data than this one)

4) You picked the third assessment report. Was this even a prediction ? The comparison stops in 2002 on your linked graph. When was AR3 released ?

Let's take the easiest one of these questions and check it out. The fourth one:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Cli...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Assessment_reports)

Okay so the prediction of the IPCC from 1970 to 2002/2006 (different datasets) has a publication date of 2001. Whereas from all the IPCC predictions there are plenty available to do better checks of their accuracy. Very, very suspicious. So really, there's only a single datapoint in there (for both series) that is actually a prediction (ie. not known at the time of publication, and only 1/7th of any of the data is predicted. Furthermore, the graph neglects to point out where this prediction actually started, which probably led you to make the wrong conclusion)

Now let's look at alarm signals 2 and 3 and let's actually evaluate IPCC accuracy. Blogposts made by others you probably found by Googling your wanted conclusion are apparently allowed in support of one's argument, so:

[https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus- cli...](https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-climate- reality/)

Oops ...

"Based upon these and other lines of evidence (laid out in our numerous scientific publications, books, blogs articles, social media (see publications listed here and here for example)), we conclude that future global warming will occur at a pace substantially lower than that upon which US federal and international actions to restrict greenhouse gas emissions are founded."

So in conclusion, your main claim, that the IPCC reports contain accurate predictions, aside from being overly broad, is weakened by your listed sources. It is also widely known to be wrong, and indeed on closer observation it is wrong.

(I have in fact ran the numbers myself, and concluded that IPCC methodology is crap, and it has in fact had predictable results : disastrously wrong predictions. The IPCC would have to be correct for tens of thousands of years from this point forward to make their "95%" predictions actually correct in 95% of cases)

Another non-political interesting factoid: the IPCC has stopped giving values for the climate forcing variable in their latest report. I would just like to point out that this is not the correct way to inspire confidence in one's predictions.

And there are people, even in my own university that won't just make claims like yours, outrageous and wrong, but actually use the administration to suppress people correcting them. A decent portion of the statistics/math and some in the physics department have suddenly found themselves defending basic math. Whilst none of this of course reflects directly on the science behind it I would just like to make a final point that climate science was recently (few years ago actually, I'm getting old) relocated in my university. It used to be part of the science department. It is now part of the humanities. You know, where theology and philosophy goes.

Do you wish to retract your statement ?

<comment><USER16> >> You know it's posts like this that give climate science a VERY bad reputation. I've got a degree in statistics, so I read your post and immediately 3 alarm bells go off.

You've got a degree in statistics, and I have a PhD "in" Oceanography, does it make a difference? Not really.

>> It is WIDELY known in scientific circles that IPCC predictions have a bit of a nasty habit of having, firstly, very dubious statistical underpinnings (which is another way of saying their methodology is complete shite). Secondly, without making any political claims, they systematically overstate the problem by a LOT.

The IPCC produce assessments of published research, but do not, as a body, perform research, or make predictions. Their methodology is to assess existing research, and to attempt to construct a representative summary. This is pretty much the only way one can conduct a literature review, so it is difficult to see why you would describe it as "complete shite".

>> And yet here you are, making the exact opposite claim. But there are a few alarm bells. You strongly disagree with how I thought I know the world to be, and you make an oddly specific cherry-picked argument. Here's what I mean:

I haven't made any claims, or disagreed with anything, I simply referred you to published literature on the subject which you mentioned.

>> 1) broad claim that would barely gain support from the rest of your argument

I don't understand what this means - I was only trying to provide you with some of the observational evidence relating to your claim.

>> 2) weird pick of the predicted variable (obviously the main predicted climate variable is "temperature anomaly") so why don't you go for that one ? (Ie. is this a case of "we got the basics of our prediction wildly wrong, but in this long list of things we touched on sideways we lucked out majorly and see ! We were right after all !" ?)

I "picked" the variable you were talking about: sea level rise ("So given that the worst IPCC predictions only predict about a 2m water level rise, and that so far the first 20 years of those predictions turned out to have been WAY overblown, I think we'll do just fine as a species, even long term." for reference).

>> 3) You pick the "third assessment report" (which is actually the fourth, because counted from 0). Pray tell, how did predictions 0, 1, and 2 go ?

Your claim (which I read as being that the first 20 years of sea level rise predictions were "WAY overblown") is incorrect (putting philosophical points about the nature of truth to one side). I know it is incorrect, because I have read so many papers, and been to so many talks, that describe evidence to the contrary. I typed "sea level rise predictions" into google, because I know that skepticalscience have good articles that explain the various issues, and I found the one that I wanted. I can go and find more, if you really need it.

>> 4) You picked the third assessment report. Hmmmm. Was this even a prediction ? The comparison stops in 2002 on your linked graph. When was AR3 released ?

See above. But: it is the tide gauge data (in red) that stops in 2002, not the predictions. The comparison I referred to was with the satellite data (in blue), which continues to 2009. If you can't be bothered to find out what happened to the tide gauge data then let me know, and I'll look into it for you, for both our sakes. I can, however, be fairly confident in suggesting that it's probably not a grand conspiracy.

>> Let's take the easiest one of these questions and check it out. The fourth one:

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

>> Okay so the prediction of the IPCC from 1970 to 2002/2006 (different datasets) has a publication date of 2001. Whereas from all the IPCC predictions there are plenty available to do better checks of their accuracy. Very, very suspicious. So really, there's only a single datapoint in there (for both series) that is actually a prediction (ie. not known at the time of publication, and only 1/7th of any of the data is predicted. Furthermore, the graph neglects to point out where this prediction actually started, which probably led you to make the wrong conclusion)

I can't understand what you're trying to say here. What does "different datasets" refer to? What is the "single datapoint"? The prediction on the graph I linked to is the gray band - it is fairly clearly marked, and I would recommend reading the article to understand the context. You seem to have misunderstood what was prediction and what was observation. I haven't made any conclusions, only referred you (both indirectly and directly) to the conclusions of experts in that sub-field.

>> Now let's look at alarm signals 2 and 3 and let's actually evaluate IPCC accuracy. Blogposts made by others you probably found by Googling your wanted conclusion are apparently allowed in support of one's argument, so: [https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus- cli...](https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-cli..).

>> Oops ...

You do understand, right, that the graph I showed you demonstrates that the models are underestimating sea level rise? In other words, it is showing that the models used to compile that figure, which were state of the art at the time, were relatively poor (though not terrible) predictors of sea level rise - something we can probably agree on!

>> "Based upon these and other lines of evidence (laid out in our numerous scientific publications, books, blogs articles, social media (see publications listed here and here for example)), we conclude that future global warming will occur at a pace substantially lower than that upon which US federal and international actions to restrict greenhouse gas emissions are founded."

You can claim that the page I linked to and the page you linked to are comparable if you wish. One reports the synthesis of the efforts of thousands of scientists around the world who are ostensibly apolitical, the other the work of a group of people who have an explicit political agenda. You can draw your own conclusions about their respective credibility.

>> So in conclusion, your main claim, that the IPCC reports contain accurate predictions, aside from being overly broad, is weakened by your listed sources. It is also widely known to be wrong, and indeed on closer observation it is wrong.

You seem to have misunderstood the figure - I described how above. The only sources I listed were those for the figure.

>> (I have in fact ran the numbers myself, IPCC methodology is crap, and it has in fact had predictable results : disastrously wrong predictions. The IPCC would have to be correct for tens of thousands of years from this point forward to make their "95%" predictions actually correct in 95% of cases)

What numbers have you run yourself? Your second sentence must be misphrased, or I am simply incapable of understanding it - it appears to fundamentally misunderstand the meaning of a predictive distribution.

>> Another "non-political" interesting factoid: the IPCC has stopped giving values for the climate forcing variable in their latest report. I would just like to point out that this is not the correct way to inspire confidence in one's predictions.

You should review Chapter 8 of "The Physical Science Basis", titled "Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing". Find it here: [http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/](http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/)

>> And of course, there are people, even in my own university that won't just make claims like yours, outrageous and wrong, but actually use the administration to suppress people correcting them. A decent portion of the statistics/math and some in the physics department have suddenly found themselves defending basic math. Whilst none of this of course reflects directly on the science behind it I would just like to make a final point that climate science was recently (few years ago actually, I'm getting old) relocated in my university. It used to be part of the science department. It is now part of the humanities. You know, where theology and philosophy goes.

Which university is that?

>> Do you wish to retract your statement ?

See above.

<comment><USER15> So you make a dubious and suspect, wrong, claim, and you refuse to retract it. So now we know. So I guess this is not a mistake, you have a conclusion and you're ok with misdirecting people to show you're "really right".

Got it.

I'd ask you to just stop talking about science, but I guess that'd be too much to ask ?

<comment><USER17> Your refusal to engage with the points enumerated by the parent poster erases your credibility. Dunning and Kruger are vindicated once more.

<comment><USER15> I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say ... there is a simple reason I refuse to engage. Here's how, at an extremely high level, IPCC predictions work :

A = state of the world (co2 levels, climate, current avg temp, ...) "input" so to speak

B = temperature anomaly ("output" of the model)

C = sea level rise, and other consequences

IPCC models work like this A -> B -> C.

They got B wrong. Therefore arguing about how C is really matching quite well is both wrong and, frankly, somewhere between very misguided and dishonest.

This is also a fraudulent way people sometimes defend their models, especially in economics. Sure they got the thing they predicted itself wrong, but out of the 100 things they made claims about using their faulty model, they got one or two right ! See ! They were right all along ...

Particularly bad examples are the many economic models that predicted productivity recovery since, oh, since 2000 at least. They got everything wrong, but they got, oh, say they got the gold price rise right they predicted due to their prediction of rapid inflation. Unfortunately there was a gold price rise, yes, no rapid inflation was observed though. If you believe models like that you will die a poor man.

Unfortunately, no, they weren't. It is perfectly normal for a few out of large amounts of claims to hit bullseye, even if they're based on entirely wrong data. Obviously their results, even the ones that -so far- hit bullseye, have zero predictive power.

<comment><USER17> If you understood the models well enough to critique them you would be a scientist in that field, and presumably your criticism would be in the form of an academic paper. However, you are merely a pseudointellectual science denier with an exaggerated sense of your own expertise.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Can we harvest this methane gas and use it as an energy source?

<comment><USER19> That's what natural gas is. So, in theory, yes.

The problem is that, as a gas, and as a gas that's emerging in an uncontrolled fashion across a large area which is poorly developed, far from infrastructure, and in many cases hostile to development.

Most natural gas is harvested from the same types of formations as those which form oil-bearing rock: a reservoir covered by some trapping (nonpermiable) formation, which releases gas only when tapped by a drill pipe. That is, the point of emission is very much a point.

The areas are also _already_ being developed for oil, have access roads, labour, and infrastructure. As such, it's generally easier to capture and store the natural gas.

And _even then_ , for much of early oil extraction, natural gas was flared off, because it was too difficult to capture, store, and transport it. Excess oil could be (and was) stored in impromptu open lakes formed by bulldozed earth. Gas requires airtight containers, and is far easier to manage when pressurised (300 atmospheres) or liquified (-162C).

Doing _all_ of this in the Siberian tundra is a major challenge.

Flaring off the excess would be far more viable, and even _that_ is a challenge.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> > high sulphur levels caused by the leaking methane.

What does this mean?

<comment><USER21> Biogenic CH4 often contains H2S.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Get a cool email id. "email@example.com" - <AUTHOR> https://coolmail.id/ <comment><USER2> Why would someone use this for $7/month? Or even if it was free, how is it a better alternative to countless other email services?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hi HN, I am Vasanth, this is my weekend project. Let me know your feedbacks.</comment>


Ask HN: How does Django in Windows compare with Django in Linux? - <AUTHOR>

As a non-tech founder, I feel a bit out of line bringing up the idea of switching to a Unix based development environment to my CTO when all I have to go on is perception.  This perception is likely in large part from hanging around HN / Reddit and reading discussions that involve developing on Unix.  So my question is: are there compelling reasons for why many coders (particularly web developers) seem to prefer Linux over MSFT?  Are there any tangible benefits to one approach over the other, not including cost concerns? <comment><USER2> a) There are a bunch of open source tools that are not well supported on windows. So somewhere along the way you might run into software that you need but doesnt work out of the box on windows. b) Linux distros have package managers which make the task of setting up development libraries a breeze. On windows youre still stuck installing each library by hand. c) If what youre doing is very well defined and all the technical pieces have windows installers then theres not much of an advantage moving to linux. d) If youre using the windows .net stack then again youre probably better off sticking with windows.

</comment><comment><USER3> The one thing about Linux is that you have full control. When you're with Windows or any other closed source system, you have to issue bug requests to the company to fix it. And chances are that they might not fix it. With open source, you'll just need to find someone smart enough to fix it. There's also limitless possibilities in terms of customization of the technology to suit the system you're trying to build. For that, I would pick Linux. And yes.. package managers and unix tools make it a breeze to deploy.</comment>


The science behind Dance Central 3's "Make Your Move" game mode - <AUTHOR> http://penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/dance-central-3

<comment><AUTHOR> Since I have spent a considerable amount of time in my own work trying figure out how to algorithmically determine that two functions are "similar enough," I'm very curious to know more. Specifically, what exactly is their model of position and velocity, and then how exactly do they score two attempts to recognize them as the same. Alas, that's probably valuable information they wouldn't publish.</comment>


Google's Nest fiasco harms user trust and invades their privacy - <AUTHOR> https://blog.malwarebytes.com/security-world/2019/03/googles-nest-fiasco-harms-user-trust-and-invades-their-privacy/ <comment><USER2> I have said this before: the reason why people find a hidden camera much worse than a visible camera is simple. People aren't dumb, they make _trade-off choices_. Of course they could spy on you with a visible camera, too. But either you know and don't care and still buy the damn thing or you don't. Knowing means in this case being able to _make an informed_ decision. Not informing customers about a camera inside a home device feels like they don't want you to consider this fact in your decision making...

<comment><USER3> I agree with you in principle, but I think the Nest actually only includes a hidden microphone, not a hidden camera.

<comment><USER4> This is something I always ask people with those little "camera blockers" attached to their laptops: "How do you block the microphone?" and "Which is worse? Recording video of you all day, or recording audio of you all day?

<comment><USER5> That's a good point. I think it varies from person to person.

Part of my reason for blocking video is I can never figure out when videoconferencing tools will default to transmitting video, which I never want, before I have a way to turn it off.

Also, I don't think I'm a high profile enough target that somebody would bother sifting through everything I say in front of my laptop for something interesting.

Capturing images every minute or so and looking for something embarrassing (someone showing lots of skin) seems much easier for malware to automate.

<comment><USER6> > _I don 't think I'm a high profile enough target that somebody would bother > sifting through everything I say in front of my laptop for something > interesting._

The threat model is closer to automated transcription, global history search, and parallel construction.

<comment><USER5> I think that would be hard to pull off in the US, where I live. There are enough paranoid infosec people that would spot the data transmission or CPU usage.

But certainly no harm done in muffling or ripping out a mic if you're concerned!

<comment><USER7> Why would anybody bother trying to hide traffic? Lots of apps already waste bandwidth and CPU to exfiltrate a wide variety of data, often sending it straight to Facebook[1]. They simply relabeled it "analytics",

[1] [https://media.ccc.de/v/35c3-9941-how_facebook_tracks_you_on_...](https://media.ccc.de/v/35c3-9941-how_facebook_tracks_you_on_android)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I suspect this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but I still don't get the fuzz. People buy crap like Amazon echo left and right, and have been carrying little computers with microphones and an internet connection around all day for even longer. Apart from the fact that any sane person shouldn't trust any google product value their privacy in the first place, how many people are there consciously not buying a smartphone in fear of it being used to spy on them, then go buy this nest product and feel safe about it.

I might be an asshole for it and rightly so get down voted, but I really feel schadenfreude from this story. And maybe now some more people will learn their lesson. You can tell a toddler a dozen times that the stove is hot. They really only learn after they touched it once.

<comment><USER9> _little computers with microphones and an internet connection around all day for even longer_

The difference is that we _know_ our phones have microphones and cameras and internet.

The reason people are upset is because there was no way anyone would know they added an internet-connected microphone to their home with this device unless they opened it up and reverse engineered the firmware.

If anyone can prove that these microphones were turned on without the owner's consent — even just for "telemetry" or "quality assurance" — then criminal charges will follow.

<comment><USER8> > The difference is that we know our phones have microphones and cameras and > internet.

The question is, does that really matter? Isn't that just something you tell yourself to feel like you're still in control, ahead of the game? I have two colleagues who in general are pretty concerned with privacy, data protection etc. but still bought an echo. Then countered my surprise with the same argument: at least I know it's listening and how it works! Like somehow, that knowledge makes you immune to the Problem. In reality, you don't suddenly behave differently at home. You won't think twice before saying something. You just managed to fool yourself enough to deal with that cognitive dissonance.

And I'm all for charges against google here, I mean I dislike them more every day because of _something_ they did, including this story. It's just funny that some people still think you can trust them in any way.

<comment><USER10> > The question is, does that really matter?

I absolutely think it does.

I have also bought an Amazon Echo, but I unplug it when it's out of use for extended periods of time.

I wouldn't purchase a similar product from Facebook, because I trust Amazon with my personal data more than Facebook.

I've never purchased a Smart TV that contains a microphone.

Just because I make some decisions _you_ disagree with in balancing my privacy and convenience trade-offs doesn't mean I should be prevented from making those decisions at all.

<comment><USER9> _I have also bought an Amazon Echo, but I unplug it when it 's out of use for extended periods of time._

I was given a Google Home for Christmas, and won't even take it out of the box. I'd give it away, but that not really solving the problem.

 _I 've never purchased a Smart TV that contains a microphone._

My LG has one in the remote control. But I disallowed the TV from my home wifi about a year ago. I don't trust LG, and looking through the 53 screens of Terms of Service LG thinks need to agree to just to watch TV, I probably did the right thing.

<comment><USER11> > I'd give it away, but that not really solving the problem.

This implies that your moral judgement must apply to whoever you gave it to. Why?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > _While collecting data on users is nearly inevitable in today's corporate > world, secret, undisclosed, or unpredictable data collection—or data > collection abilities—is another problem.

A smart-home speaker shouldn't be secretly hiding a video camera. A secure messaging platform shouldn't have a government-operated backdoor. And a home security hub that controls an alarm, keypad, and motion detector shouldn't include a clandestine microphone feature—especially one that was never announced to customers._

This sounds too much like trying to move the overton window for me. If the next generation of smart devices is advertised as "no hidden cameras and microphones! (we'll just spy on you with the _visible_ cameras and microphones)", I don't think this would be a win.

<comment><USER13> > _If the next generation of smart devices is advertised as "no hidden cameras > and microphones! (we'll just spy on you with the visible cameras and > microphones)", I don't think this would be a win._

Agreed but we have to consider that it's entirely plausible that we're in the minority in this line of thinking.

<comment><USER12> True of course, but what specifically makes you think that?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> These companies want it both ways - they hide behind their terms of service etc. saying consumers should actually read this stuff and be inforned, and then when they get busted for failing to disclose something it's "oops, our bad, we didn't think anyone cared"

</comment><comment><USER15> Are these Nest products sold worldwide? I recently worked on a product that included a microphone as an integral feature and we were told that in order to sell it worldwide we had to include a physical disable switch for the microphone in order to be able to sell it in multiple countries. Even though nobody who ordered the product would ever disable the microphone. How does Google get around selling their devices without even announcing there is a microphone in it?

<comment><USER16> No different than a lot of products with microphones that are sold worldwide with no disable switch. Sounds like you had a product manager or someone that just really wanted a switch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I am quite convinced that consumers don't care all that much. I certainly am not. I trust Google not to fuck with stuff. When they do, I'll kick up a fuss.

The degree of "you should be panicking" around this is annoying to me.

<comment><USER18> Yeah, this doesn't seem like a big deal to me, and i haven't seen any outrage from actual customers of the product. All the outrage seems to be coming from bloggers who are taking this as justification for their existing "google is a privacy threat" stance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I think that experience with abandonware will for long scare away regular people from all that IOT stuff.

My own position has for long been that all that IoTness needs to be "invisible," or otherwise it turns the thing into an annoying toy:

I've seen people throwing away their smart assistants already. A lot of people get quite surprised that the famed speaker is far more than just a speaker and tries to insert itself into your breakfast conversation. And those annoying, repeated "Internet connection failure," I think a few people threw them out just because of that.

</comment><comment><USER20> There was a perfectly good reason for the microphone to be there, and there was a good reason why it wasn't mentioned (though it probably should have been). I'd hardly call the event "trust shattering".

<comment><USER21> I agree they were being dramatic, but Google still violated the trust of many people. Accidentally or not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> As long as "It's better to apologize later than to ask permission" is free or cheaper than doing the right thing, this is what we get.

</comment><comment><USER23> A product release in an established organization goes through legal checklist. It could have been one of those "our checklist for search, chrome, nest etc. can be same". I am not defending nest. Just saying that sometimes these get bypassed, people move to other jobs, new folks come in, someone finds out and damage control begins.

</comment><comment><USER24> Google should put its actions where its mouth is: can I return the device and get a full refund?

<comment><USER25> Call and ask?

<comment><USER24> I don't own one :-).

Edited to add: A bold move by Google would be a public announcement that you may return the device for a full refund.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> We are at the last decades where privacy is somewhat possible. It is downhill from here.

</comment><comment><USER27> Let's start with the obvious question - why all of those sensors require internet connection AND accounts. Seems absurd.

</comment><comment><USER28> >"The on-device microphone was never intended to be a secret and should have been listed in the tech specs," a Google spokesperson said. "That was an error on our part."

I don't know, it sounds believable. Maybe they put it there "just in case", but didn't want to put it in the list of specifications because it had no software support, and having it there would've mislead customers who could've thought the microphone was functional software-wise.

<comment><USER29> "Unexpectedly smart" and "hidden, software enable-able features" are both anti-features of security hardware.

I don't think Google deserves the benefit of the doubt anymore: these untruths happen with _every_ product, and they're _always_ in Google's favor. There's a consistent pattern of Google specifications, documentation, etc being knowingly untrue.

The only "error" is Google got caught deceiving people, again.

<comment><USER30> What do you think was the secret nefarious purpose for this hardware?

<comment><USER31> To develop some opt-out feature in the future that will record audio as often as possible, activated by an update with this information hidden behind a long wall-of-text terms of service that nobody will read.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Cameras and microphones must come with physical switches to turn them off, not software switches.

<comment><USER33> The OpenBSD people implemented an interesting insight recently. Now a microphone attached to a OpenBSD system does not work by default. You need to actively turn on a sysctl as root to activate the microphone. So to get eavesdropping access on a default OpenBSD system you need to root the system, which makes that access somewhat harder to obtain.

The moral here is that microphone access should be treated differently than access to the rest of the audio system. You can get more protection through software than we normally get.

<comment><USER32> Any software switches can be subverted by malware. But not physical ones. Physical switches and a light (like video cameras used to have when recording) are simple, cheap, and effective. I don't understand why companies don't add them to allay their customers' fears.</comment></comment></comment>


FailCon 2011 – Uber Case Study – Travis Kalanick - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QrX5jsiico <comment><AUTHOR> Quite the story of ten years of failure, from Uber founder Travis Kalanick...</comment>


The principal programming paradigms - <AUTHOR> https://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/paradigmsDIAGRAMeng108.jpg <comment><USER2> The diagram appears to be missing Dependently Typed programming languages.</comment>


Costco Convinces Brands to Cannibalize Themselves - <AUTHOR> https://napkinmath.substack.com/p/how-costco-convinces-brands-to-cannibalize <comment><USER2> Costco holds a special place in my heart. Even though I'm single I still get most of my groceries there. I've been going to the same two locations for +3 years and I've seen very little employee turnover; the employees seem genuinely happy to work there, as opposed to other big box retailers such as Target or Wal-Mart, whose employees are often lackadaisical or barely out of training.

I haven't had 100% success with all of their products, but the vast majority of the time I do not regret my purchase. I know that I'm getting a solid (if not stellar) product in that segment, as opposed to, say, Amazon, which in 2020 is basically making me pay $120 for Prime for the chance to play Russian roulette with their products, even the name brand ones. I will probably cancel Prime since it encourages unnecessary consumerism (at least it does for me) and the price has gone up 200% since my student discount is no longer applicable. Long live Costco! :p

<comment><USER3> I went to a Costco the other week, after all the pandemic policies were put in place, and I love it!

They finally enforced social distancing. They do crowd control, to limit the number of people allowed inside. Even the checkout lanes, are staggered to enable more social distancing between people.

Now, I can actually breathe while inside Costco, since not every single damn person inside with a buck, is up in my business and bumping me with their shopping carts.

I used to dread going to Costco, because of all the over crowding.

There are some silver linings to this pandemic, and this is one of them. I hope they continue to enforce these policies long after this pandemic is over. Give people some space!

If anyone reads this, and works for Costco, then I hope you can relay this message up to corporate and customer services.

<comment><USER4> sometimes. I've noticed they don't do the social distancing all day long.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Okay, sure, but Costco's real strength isn't people's abstract trust in the quality of the Kirkland brand, but the fact that there's (1) heavy curation, leaving very little selection, which limits consumer indecision and raises the stakes for suppliers; and (2) an extremely accommodating return policy, so you can truly rest assured that you're made whole.

Lots of other stores have a money-back guarantee on their private label stuff, but are you really going to return a bag of $2 chips to a grocery store? But you've probably returned some big-price item to Costco before, so you likely have experience with the process. And when your purchase is closer to fifteen bucks instead of $2, you're a lot more likely to want the satisfaction guarantee. Costco gives you that, and you know in your heart that you're likely to actually use it if the item really doesn't work for you.

As for curation and selection, there's no more than two choices at Costco for every product category. Instead of buyers checking every shelf and variety and sizing of 6 different brands of the same thing before they buy, they make only two binary choices: Do I need this? Do I want the cheaper one?

Conversely, this means that your manufacturer's coupons, your rotating sales, your TV spots are all practically useless for tipping this market segment your way. As a producer, only way in to this near-captive market is to already be the leader, or to agree to make the Kirkland. Wouldn't you rather try than to be shut out?

<comment><USER6> I once left a $60 item in my cart in the Costco parking lot. It was a lot to me at the time because I was still unemployed after college. I didn't realize I had left it until I got home. I went back to Costco and looked around in the parking lot to see if I could find it, then I went inside to ask if someone had brought it in. I asked if they could refund it so I could immediately buy another one, and they let me. I don't think any other store would have allowed that.

I'm now a high-earning adult who regularly goes to Costco with the original intent of buying two items, and leaving with a $200-$400 receipt. I know it's kind of pathetic, but spending money at Costco makes me really happy. I've spent an average of $5000 a year at Costco since I started working in tech. Easy to remember since I get roughly $100 back every year from the 2% on the Executive card. I've only returned like five products total ever, and none of them were pricy.

I'm going to be sad when Costco starts to suck. It can't last forever.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Great topic to focus on. It's often said that Kirkland vodka is Grey Goose, didn't know that about other products.

Costco seems to have a unique position among modern big box chains for having a good reputation on ethical issues like worker's compensation (at least pre- pandemic), and this seemingly agreeable business relationship with brands is another example.

<comment><USER8> Grey Goose is one of the worst vodkas on the planet according to most blind taste tests.

<comment><USER9> I am an actual vodka drinker and disagree. Grey Goose is actually really good vodka.

And let's be clear, you cannot just group all vodka into one category. There is potato vodka, wheat vodka, rye vodka, and even other grain (and fruit!) types.

Belvedere is one of the most expensive vodkas yet has a somewhat particular taste due to being rye vodka. It's not my favorite but I appreciate it for its unique characteristic..rye vodka has an interesting and wonderfully complex taste. Rye whiskey is quite nice too.

Contrary to common perception, a good vodka isn't supposed to be tasteless - grain neutral spirit does not mean tasteless. It's called a spirit because even after the triple distillation, the "spirit" of the grain would still remain. And not every one is going to agree on which vodka tastes best because it's the same as if I tried to find the best flavor of ice cream.

More important than preference for taste, good vodka has more distillation, less impurities, and thus leaves less of a hangover due to less tax on the liver and other organs.

If you actually want a tasteless vodka you can buy what is termed an ENS, Extra Neutral Spirit. [1,2] Spirytus Wesoly is a very high quality ENS that sells for around $15 a liter. It is a potato vodka made in Poland, 192 proof 96% ethanol. The remaining 4% percent is almost entirely distilled water.

Similar American-made Everclear is 190 proof 95% ethanol produced from corn. In constrast, unlike our Polish competitor, Everclear is sweet, sticky, and has a hint of sickly corn syrup in its taste profile. That 1% difference combined with the choice of a sweet corn versus starchy potatoes, makes for a vastly inferior product. But corn is subsidized in the U.S, so it makes sense from a business standpoint.

If you wish to drink a 96% vodka without causing internal chemical burns, add some filtered water to dilute it to around 30%-40% ethanol. You should notice no grain taste at all - truly neutral. But not very enjoyable, at least in my opinion. It lacks character, rather hollow. Economical though..and has a range of other uses. I personally use it as a thinning agent in my custom e-liquid/vape-juice recipe that consists of about 20% ethanol, 70% vegetable glycerin, and 10% distilled water by volume. I also have it for use in making hand sanitizer and as a safe wound disinfectant.

I wrote a blog post [3] a while ago on how methanol and other alcohols can seep through skin and poison one's body. This is why, aside from ethical reasons, I no longer use deodorants like Old Space Classic, that are formulated with methanol aka denatured alcohol aka wood alcohol. Methanol isn't suitable for food or beverages, making it a cheap industrial chemical, a convenient substitute for ethanol if health is disregarded. Methanol and other alcohols like isopropyl get converted by the liver into formaldehyde and acetone respectively, among other toxic metabolites. Over time, if one continues to use methanol based cosmetics, they are effectively mini/micro dosing a toxin daily, by transdermal means. [4] Sure, for most cosmetics, whether it be hair spray, lotion, or deodorant, it is a rather small dose of methanol, but why consume toxins even in small amounts, if avoidable? The big businesses like P&G are just doing it to make even more profit at the possible expense of your health. Toms of Maine on the other hand, uses ethanol because they actually don't roll dice with their consumer's health. Big biz is always playing shell games with risk reward balances. It's death by 1000 paper cuts corporate directing.

For the same reasons, I highly suggest buying an ENS like Spirytus for use in your medicine cabinet in lieu of isopropyl which metabolizes into acetone. $15 for a liter of alcohol is actually not much more expensive than the price per volume for those plastic bottles of isopropyl. Mind you, HDPE (High Density Polyethylene) is chemical resistant, but lower density plastics, typically the more flexible kind, are vulnerable to reaction with strong solvents, acids or bases. Spirytus is sold in a glass bottle, entirely inert. Anyways, there's so many things wrong with the average risk most of us don't even know we've been subjected to. I think I've sold you on pure ethanol by now..

Hope you understand why vodka is made and marketed the way it is...

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

[2] [https://www.ethimex.com/blog/2019/07/22/the-complete- guide-t...](https://www.ethimex.com/blog/2019/07/22/the-complete-guide-to- neutral-spirits-for-beverages/)

[3] [https://churchofthought.org/blog/2020/04/25/cruelty-free- deo...](https://churchofthought.org/blog/2020/04/25/cruelty-free-deodorant/)

[4] [https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and- availability/fda-u...](https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and- availability/fda-updates-hand-sanitizers-methanol)

<comment><USER10> I found your comment really interesting; I'm replying to let you know that Tom's of Maine was acquired by Colgate-Palmolive in 2006, so keep an eye on the labeling.

<comment><USER9> Thanks for the heads up. I wasn't aware of that acquisition.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I don't understand the section on how the economics work.

This French vodka maker doesn't quit selling vodka under their own brand. They just also sell some as Kirkland. So don't they have to keep doing a bunch of marketing so that their brand-name vodka keeps selling in all the other stores? How do they save any money on marketing?

I would guess the real reason it works is that it opens up a market of people who wouldn't buy name-brand vodka at (say) $29.99/bottle but will buy Kirkland vodka at $19.99/bottle, yet without cannibalizing their ability to keep selling it (in other stores and in Costco) to people who are currently paying $29.99.

Or another theory is that many Costco buyers aren't vodka experts, so there is some degree of randomness to how they pick vodka. If there are 10 brands of vodka, selling under the Kirkland brand and their own means they are 2 of the 10 brands instead of 1 of the 10, so to the extent that people pick randomly, they get picked twice as often. (It's like buying two raffle tickets.) A similar effect would apply to people who cycle through brands of vodka.

<comment><USER12> He is working out marketing costs per item sold. The marketing costs for the white brand is almost 0, since Costco does it.

<comment><USER11> Yeah, that must be what the article means to say. I think I was just stuck on phrasing like "brands don't have to spend nearly as much money on marketing".

I'm not sure I'm convinced that per-unit is a great way to analyze marketing costs since if you air a TV ad, it reaches a segment, so to me it seems more like an annual cost or something. But I do get what it's saying now.

<comment><USER13> The underlying theory behind marketing is that more marketing = more sales. With the exception of brand-building marketing (like CSX railroad sponsoring the PBS news hour), which is more aimed at boosting stock prices, product marketing is generally based on a cost per impression, with impressions converting to sales at some fixed rate.

This is all to say that marketing costs are budgeted as incremental costs of sales. So, if you find a way to sell more product without increasing your marketing budget, that's basically free money.

<comment><USER14> But if those sales are displacing sales of your own products, which is the premise of the article, is it really free money?

<comment><USER15> Depends on if the money saved on marketing and gained by white label sales (if the bottle cost more than $19.99 to make they probably wouldn't do so) minus the money from lost sales to the white label. The site below lists most 5ths (750ml) at under 3 pounds or under US$4, even for top shelf. Say that is doubled by transit costs or tripled after marketing/etc to about $12, it's still about half the white label cost so I'd argue they don't lose money making bottles for Costco.

For marketing, let's assume that cost of maintaining the relationship and dealmaking is written off and 0. If you consider Costco/Kirkland marketing at least in terms of buyer awareness it may be a net gain as for $0 they get that Kirkland trust.

For white label, they may split production/sipping costs with Costco or just provide the final bottle with split profit. Either way, each bottle may return 50-60% as profit or about $12. I can't find anything in detail on how brands split profits or if Costco takes a flat cut though so let's say 50% cut to Costco

I also didn't find anything quick on if white label sales cut into private label but as the white label is only Costco I'd guess the impact is not severe and if the private label is known might even be a boost at outside liquor stores. Even with

For their own sales, take a bottle cost of $30 - $12 to produce for a net of $18. For white label, $12/2 or $6 in profit. So perhaps their private label is 3x the profit ($18 vs $6) so as long as the white label sales don't eat more than 1/3 of the private label sales (and I'd say across the nation it won't) then they come out ahead. But either way they make money and have a huge partner with massive sales to produce for which I'd take as a win for long term revenue stability.

[https://www.lovebrewing.co.uk/guides/still-spirits- liqueurs/...](https://www.lovebrewing.co.uk/guides/still-spirits- liqueurs/cost-of-producing-spirits-liqueurs#.XxhsKflKiiM)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Isn't it pretty common for food manufacturers to white label their product for generic brands? IIRC this is hardly specific to Costco/Kirkland.

<comment> mark-r The difference is that other white label brands aren't expected to maintain or increase the quality from the name brand. It isn't unusual for white brands to be absolute trash in comparison. I have a friend who refuses to buy the Target store brands because he's been burned so often.

<comment><USER17> Target brand is trash, Safeway brand is trash, and WholeFood's 365 is trash (also other wholefoods brands but I haven't verified those)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It's a good story, but the whole premise seems to be based on a couple of anonymous reddit comments..

<comment><USER19> I've seen similar things reported in other venues that weren't sourced from reddit.

</comment></comment><comment> mark-r Costco has done a fantastic job of product selection. I've never been unhappy with anything I've bought there. If it's on the shelves, I'm going to trust that it's a decent quality for the price, no matter what brand is on the label. That consistency is key to making the private brand strategy work.

</comment><comment><USER20> Never been to the US or Costco, so can't comment on the quality there.

But no matter how your international impression of Aldi and Lidl is, in Germany a few (or a lot) of their products are exactly that, rebranded versions of stuff that would cost 50% more if it had the original packaging, in another supermarket.

<comment><USER21> The US now has Aldi and Trader Joe's here. One is owned by Aldi North and one is owned by Aldi South. I forget which is which.

Trader Joe's is well know for their store branded food items.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> The one thing about Costco that's annoying is how they double check your receipt on the way out and kind-of make you feel like a criminal that can't be trusted.

<comment><USER23> I find it nice that they do it - one of the things they check for is items that you purchase via cardboard card (laptops, gift cards, gym memberships, etc...). I'm always surprised that people find it so offensive that someone is double checking that you got all your items while double checking that you aren't stealing. I've never once felt like a criminal. Proud member since 2001.

<comment><USER24> They're checking for theft no matter what they claim.

<comment> blaser-waffle For sure. But they're checking _everyone_ , and mostly for optics. They're not singling you out, and it's not like waiting in line for 45 minutes for the TSA to frisk you.

And most of the time they're not even checking, just looking for obviously sketchy low-hanging-fruit and spooking the half-hearted crooks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Are we sure this is not a Submarine (PR-placed) article?

"In a normal Costco purchasing example, a company might sell their product for $0.95 and Costco might retail it for $1.00. This would result in a 5% margin (in reality the margin is a bit lower, but let's use these numbers for estimates)."

That just rings really false to me.

<comment><USER26> They actually list their margins in their normal SEC filings. For merchandise it's usually around 11% on average. Obviously it will be higher or lower than that for specific products. Costco is able to have margins way lower than retail average (Target runs around 28% for comparison) by having much lower per-revenue dollar operating costs and by doing an absolutely stupid amount of revenue per location (a single location will average close to $200M in sales per year).

<comment><USER27> Costco has been annoying the drugstore industry by marking up the drug section at the same markup as the rest of the store. Markups at CVS, etc. are much higher. Costco has a smaller selection and only sells the big sizes, so it works out well for them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I stopped going to Costco when I realized 1) I couldn't get a parking space without 10 minutes of driving around looking and waiting for someone to pull out. 2) I couldn't pay for my items without waiting on line for 10 to 15 minutes and 3) Most items are a little bit to a lot cheaper at normal supermarkets if you wait for a sale and stock up.

Costco has some unique frozen foods I like, and good prices on some fresh meat, but #3 above meant it was rarely worth going for more than 2 or 3 items, and #1 & #2 above meant it would always be a much bigger hassle than 5 minutes at the normal grocery store.

Although I fully recognize that the above times are probably highly dependent on the setup & how busy my local Costco stores are. If I could get in and out of Costco as quickly as the grocery store (I drive by both on my commute home) I'd still have a Costco membership.

<comment> crooked-v The real value of a Costco membership is in the ancillary non-grocery stuff, like cheap glasses and contacts, discounts off high-end electronics, money back on plane tickets and rental cars, etc.

<comment><USER29> Yeah the PS4 and XBox gift cards tend to justify the membership cost on their own for me, so everything else feels like a bonus, and I don't feel bad about wasting money buying something somewhere else even if it's a bit more expensive since the Costco membership is already paid for.

<comment><USER30> Huh. I think we get 10-15% off iTunes cards sometimes, but not Xbox. I would say the bifurcation into Gamepass vs Xbox Gold may reduce the value of any discount, though.

<comment><USER29> It's been quite a while since I last used the deal since I've not been in the store. I think the last time I used it was something like $80 for $100 in playstation store gift cards, but I think I'm more used to the 10% off as the general rule for their gift cards.

ETA: I just checked online and they're only 10% off (both Xbox and PS).</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Little Printf - <AUTHOR> http://ferd.ca/the-little-printf.html <comment><USER2> Wow. I'm a college student, but I still feel like a kid. This seems to pretty much sum up every reason I decided not to study computer science and make a career as a developer. I love computing, but I have just gotten tired of the billions of js frameworks and wars about how everything anyone tries to do is wrong. Little printf strikes too close to home. This is a fantastic piece of writing.

<comment><USER3> > the billions of js frameworks and wars about how everything anyone tries to > do is wrong

IMO...

This isn't universal. HN is one of the places where it is the worst. I probably wouldn't be fighting with Go right now if it weren't for HN; I'd probably be using Java. Staying up to date isn't really as important as it appears. There are people having successful careers with COBOL right now, and while that may not be where you want to go, switching between JS frameworks does not sound any better. And you can basically ignore the JS frameworks. They don't matter.

Because of HN I switched from TextMate to Sublime Text to Emacs to Vim. What did I get out of it? Not a thing. Maybe I can type a little faster when I am in vim. But mostly I just get annoyed when the rest of the OS doesn't support the shortcuts that I am now used to. I switched from Mac to Linux to Mac. I got nothing out of it, except that now I get more annoyed when I can't do something on my Mac that I was able to do on Linux. Don't do what I did.

I think it's completely possible to be a developer without all this, as long as you can recognize when you are wasting your time.

<comment><USER4> > Don't do what I did.

I try. I don't think going from a GUI editor to Emacs was a complete waste of my time and I still like it a lot BUT whenever you make that kind of switch you gotta stay out of the "this is the best thing ever" mentality. Instead of seeing $EDITOR as the Holy Grail that cannot be eclipsed by anything (which is false) I see it as my favorite tool in a toolbox. I like it but I also recognize it's just one of many tools and it's not always the one I should use and getting frustrated at the differences is pointless.

That last bit took a while for me to realize. I think what helped was seeing other people code without my favorite editor with an IDE or something. Watching Notch coding an FPS using an IDE caused quite a few of us in the HN thread that followed to just kinda take a step back.

I'm still relatively new to programming so hey thanks for the advice.

<comment><USER5> I started using Emacs 20 years ago and have happily stuck with it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Quote of a friend of mine: we developers keep solving problems we would not have without developers.

I really like this quote, because I believe that it's nearly impossible to stay motivated fixing stuff over and over again in similar ways, year after year.

At some point you need to realize, that the systems we created can not give you complete fulfillment. There's always something better, faster, nicer. "The grass is greener over there" kind of thing.

I found my peace by being part of a family with 2 kids, doing fun game projects after hour when everyone's asleep and getting into drawing and music. Programming can be fun, but it's not the end of it all.

<comment><USER7> > we developers keep solving problems we would not have without developers

I genuinely don't understand. Do you not consider the organizational problems of society to be worth solving?

<comment><USER6> There was a time, when not every household had a computer. A time where kids were playing without stuff supported or made by computers. Not everything was better back then, but the world did not collapse due to unoptimized processes. In contrary, I believe that alot of things were more 'personal' in the past, but this is highly subjective.

Technology made alot of stuff possible which would not be possible without technology. But the tradeof is, that we must live with systems which increase in complexity each year we use them. And there's no end in sight.

We developers in some way are trying to get out of the hole we dug ourselves into. Think about this the next time a framework comes along which solves all problems of the previous one. At some point you'd wish back the former days, when everything was simpler...

<comment><USER8> From my perspective - there was a time, when not every household had a computer. I lived in that time. And compared to today, I'd absolutely hate it to get back.

But I also hate how the world is different from what it could be if we as a whole cared about actually solving real problems instead of making money. The world could be optimized more. It's not. We've created lots of cruft and triviality. Even our tools of social interaction are designed to be barely working, the minimum amount of value that will still make people use it so that they can be monetized.

We've created really powerful technologies. And we're using them to like 5% of their capabilities for actually making the world better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Nice characterizations but the conclusion was only empty "human face" platitudes for me. I'll take the reminder that we should believe in the end result we're accomplishing and not only obsess about making the tools we're working with or system we're working on better as an end in itself.

<comment><USER10> And it also doesn't seem to recognize that for some (many?) that tech can be an end by itself. If your goal is business or to ship an app, this might not be true. But there should be no shame, no regret, in only being interested in tech for its intrinsic merits, independent of "results".

<comment><USER8> Hell, this is the reason a lot of programmers begin programming. Personally, this is the reason I started programming and sadly 90% of jobs that are in the industry _feel_ like utter bullshit to me - I simply can't be passionate about that new sports webapp (I hate sports) or inventory management something something. Especially webdev, of which I did most commercially, feels utterly awful to me. Of course those projects are important to someone, they may be passions of many people - just not of me personally. This creates a lot of tension and unease for me as an employee, especially now that us geek programmers are outnumbered by 'professionals', who came here to do jobs for money.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Fantastic little parable. Saw a part of myself in quite a few of those.

One I'd like to add is the developer who's so enmeshed in maintaining FOSS software that all they can do is label & triage tickets but never quite find time to start fixing them. I've found myself caught in that lately and am trying to figure out how to chip away at the ever-growing Issue Monster I've let form.

<comment><USER12> This is where a junior developer can really help, even if it's junior in the sense that they are not as familiar with the project as you are. There is no better way to become familiar with the true problems and priorities of a project than to triage bug reports from the people actually using the software. You may be too deep into it to see that.

Don't prioritize based on what is the "fun technical challenge" but instead figure out how you can get users to be happier with what you are building. Also remember that sometimes the answer is code, and quite often it is documentation or a code sample showing the "right" way to do it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I would say the observations that little printf brings up have happened to me in various points of my life.

And those nasty habits (ie trying lots of new crap.. complaining about existing crap) typically surface when I don't have a real problem to solve.

And that is the problem... my business is doing well but I just don't have any serious problems that are interesting to solve other than sales/marketing. I'm just not creative enough to find/create a problem worthy to solve that are not completely a mismatch to my current predicament (like I could leave my discipline and maybe do something else but I have obligations).

I really wish I had more creativity.

<comment><USER14> You don't need creativity you just need to find a problem to solve.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9799007](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9799007)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Some of these characters are hitting a little too close to home.

What a great read.

</comment><comment><USER16> Did anybody read this and just feel sort of sad?

<comment><USER17> Isn't it the same with little prince? I remember how sad I was when I read that as a kid. Now I'm adult programmer and felt sad as well when I read this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The Dunning Kruger one was so on point, this is amazing.

</comment><comment><USER19> parallels with 'The Little Prince':

draw me a system ~ draw me a sheep

proud senior engineer ~ the king

rails -> nodejs -> meteor guy ~ the accountant counting stars

anyone have more?

<comment><USER20> "..based out of the Little Prince, because as in true software fashion, nothing is truly original.."

[https://youtu.be/EWdqtMdcNkE?t=23s](https://youtu.be/EWdqtMdcNkE?t=23s)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is a good story. After being a developer for 22 years, I got involved in education, and now I'm blessed to be in a great job at a great school. I still think software development is a good career with a lot of advantages over the alternatives, but I think this story is correct in that you should make sure to serve other people with your work rather than only your own interests and self-advancement.

</comment><comment><USER22> I had the great pleasure of seeing this read in person. It was brilliant.

<comment><USER23> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWdqtMdcNkE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWdqtMdcNkE)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Pick your tool and go build things with it. Don't get stuck in the hardware store quibbling over what kind of hammer you need. If the things you build turn out to have been good ideas then when you need to go back to the hardware store to find a hammer that is a better fit you might actually know something about which one you need.

</comment><comment><USER25> This reminds me of reading _why's stuff back in the day. Bravo.

</comment><comment><USER26> This just makes me a bit sad. The woman stuck in a job she hates fighting fires constantly... And the most the parable can offer is "sucks that you're unlucky"?

The best we can hope for, if we want to develop software for a living, is to live within our delusions and hope we're never unlucky then?

<comment><USER27> I would say it's a cautionary tale against making it so people get used to you accomplishing small miracles, or making sure everyone is aware you wouldn't tolerate only doing the tasks you hate forever.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Just one word "Mind Blowing". Complicated feelings of programmers and why we do what we do is explained in simple words.

</comment><comment> bulte-rs Why I'm leaving software engineering... :(

</comment><comment><USER29> This is beautiful.

</comment><comment><USER30> Hmm! I don't get it.

<comment><USER31> It's an apathetic exposé/critique of various roles in, approaches to and/or views of software development. "In the end though, it is only when you solve problems with a human face that you can feel truly right; What is essential is invisible to the computer."

<comment><USER30> I see. Personally I prefer to just be a developer, not worry about how other people are doing it wrong... though like anyone I have plenty of opinions on such matters.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I think the software architect role is outdated by now?

I've yet to meet even a CTO that doesn't get his hands dirty with code from time to time.

<comment><USER33> Not in government and large corporations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> The little printf interjected: No, that's not what I mean, and he then added I mean it's funny that tools are meant to solve problems for us, but for you, the tools themselves have become a problem.

HN homework should be to re-read that section a couple of times.

<comment><USER35> "The chief cause of problems is solutions." \- Eric Sevareid

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Loved the story :) it was nice to learn that ferd has studied in the same program as I did! I could relate a lot.

</comment><comment><USER37> The feels. 10/10 will read again.

</comment><comment><USER38> On a side note, love the font

</comment><comment><USER39> The link times out but based on the title, I like what they are saying.

<comment><USER27> There's a PDF version on S3, if that helps: [https://s3.amazonaws.com/ferd- ca/printf.pdf](https://s3.amazonaws.com/ferd-ca/printf.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> What a wonderful story. Thank you for lightening up my day.

</comment><comment><USER41> Regarding the printf (pre)history see my old comment:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3964475](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3964475)

printf is based on the idea implemented as early as 1956, next year it will be 60 years since!

       1956: Fortran I:
                PRINT 1, X
             1  FORMAT (F10.2)

Fortran was invented by John Backus and there was already a finished compiler in 1956.

I/O in the first Fortran, I believe including the FN.M syntax, was implemented by Roy Nutt, also one obvious genius:

[http://www.cap-lore.com/stories/Assembler.html](http://www.cap- lore.com/stories/Assembler.html)

"There were a few pages of description of a new assembler format for the IBM 704 that differed considerably from the NYAP that we were using." (That) "704 assembler, originally called SAP, was written in its own language by Roy Nutt."

<comment><USER42> That's very interesting, but other than in name not related to the article.

If you didn't read it I would recommend you do - it's possibly one of the most interesting and reflective things I've ever read about programming as a profession.

<comment><USER41> Consider it an addition to the type of the programmer: the one who stays by the original meanings of the names. Who still links to the Fortran libraries, writes mostly C and fondly remembers APL.</comment></comment></comment>


Microsoft's TellMe vs. Apple's Siri - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/microsoft/2011/11/26/the-difference-between-microsofts-tellme-and-apples-siri-is-an-ability-to-deliver/

<comment><USER2> Nothing more clearly demonstrates the widening gap between Apple and "the rest". I think we're entering into a new era where one company dominates the tech world not by ruthless business acumen, but by superb consumer products that work.</comment>


The missing method: Deleting from Okasaki's red-black trees  - <AUTHOR> http://matt.might.net/articles/red-black-delete/

<comment><USER2> Off-topic, but does anyone know in which application are the diagrams made? I hope not Photoshop/GIMP/Inkscape but something diagram oriented..

<comment><USER3> I made them in Keynote.

<comment><USER2> Thanks for the fast reply! :) Now when I look at the font I realize that they're done in Keynote.

Sadly there's no similar application for GNU/Linux yet...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Nice pictures! I wonder why non-Haskell versions of Kahrs' algorithm are so Byzantine.</comment>


Why Open Source Needs Marketing (Even Though Developers Hate It) - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescommunicationscouncil/2018/06/13/why-open-source-needs-marketing-even-though-developers-hate-it/#20b42d453425 <comment><USER2> Forbes is for 'Wall Street Wannabees' who cream their jeans over concepts like 'Marketing Share'.

Open Source enthusiasts and/or programmers don't give two hoots about 'market share' or 'user adoption'. As long as it's there for them to use, that's all that is necessary.

There used to be the derogatory question "When is it going to be the 'Year of the Linux Desktop'?" until the Linux-based Android monopolised the smartphone market.

One could just as well ask "When is it going to be the 'Year of the Mercedes on the Roads'?" except that people know that it's always the year of the Mercedes on the Roads, even if most people buy a Ford, GM or Chrysler.

</comment><comment><USER3> >user adoption won't happen without marketing.

I mean sure, if we describe "word of mouth" as "marketing". But God help me if I start seeing TV commercials[1] for Linux.

[1] they cost like $5,000 for 30 seconds at 8:30AM</comment>


Buckingham Palace Guard's band going geek - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGfdn2YJJwk

<comment><AUTHOR> I went to a software dev conference in London last week and stayed for some more days to do some sightseeing. Of course I also went to the changing of the guards at Buckingham Palace and when the band started to play I couldn't believe my ears...

Was pretty surreal and awesome at the same time. :D</comment>


Ask HN: What is the oldest code you wrote that is still running in production? - <AUTHOR> I'm curious to hear from both folks that have been in the industry for decades and those that are still relatively new:  To the best of your knowledge what is the oldest bit of code that you've written that you know (or believe) is still running in production?<p>For myself: I wrote a data management system for nuclear reactor steam generator inspection/repair  in VB6 from 1997-1999.  It has been running in production since then. <comment><USER2> 1994, lot of internal code for a then Austrian ISP, since bought by a competitor, but the code is still running I hear. (Voip regex routing engine for asterisk in C, a webmail in PHP, dns, lot of Perl stuff)

</comment><comment><USER3> Not a professional project, but an academic phrase generator I wrote to poke fun at a teacher in 1996-ish that my teenage friends and I deemed pretentious is still up and running:

[https://phrasegenerator.com/academic](https://phrasegenerator.com/academic)

Only the source words remain though - code was originally Cold Fusion I think, generated on the server; then ASP.NET & XML when everything cool had to be XML. Currently python / flask with the phrases generated in js.</comment>


Origin of new emergent diseases–Terrestrial or cosmic? - <AUTHOR> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7358766/ <comment><AUTHOR> I'm not sure what to make of this paper. It isn't April 1st.

The paper posits the hypothesis that passing through the cometary tail can deposit extra terrestrial organisms on to the planet, some of which might be the source of emergent Coronavirus and Candida fungal diseases.

</comment><comment><USER2> This paper is based in delusion and fantasy. There is clearly documented evolution of the Sars-COV-2 virus within captured bats in Wuhan well before the outbreak. The theory that panspermia triggered a global pandemic has zero real evidence supporting it, and this paper does nothing to advance the theory.

</comment><comment><USER3> While I appreciate the effort in this paper, the issue that strikes me is that all this complex (and let's face it, even yeast and RNA viruses are complex compared to their raw ingredients unarranged in functional units, the most likely form for those substances to be present in a comet) would in all likelyhhod be far different from anything we found here on Earth, where these things have been put through the evolutionary meat grinder for millennia.

I'd buy that our screening methods for emergent pathogens are lacking before I'd ever seriously consider extraterrestrial origin.

I buy into panspermia only insofar as comets are likely contributors of the building blocks of organic life... Not the fully assembled thing.</comment>