A History of the Wolf - <AUTHOR> https://www.historytoday.com/archive/natural-histories/history-wolf <comment><USER2> The wolf has and is still persecuted by man, mainly for perceived financial and political reasons today but the negative propaganda and irrational emotion from the middle ages and beyond still lingers in the general population...

[https://www.wolfawareness.org/issues](https://www.wolfawareness.org/issues)

I live in wolf country and in the winter have seen formed packs of 15 or more wolves doing the rounds on my property. If I am out and about walking in that woodlands it is something to be aware of and like any wildlife should be treated with care and respect but moments of brief fear and potential, rare danger is not a reason to eliminate them mercilessly.

This country is also ranching country and yes, every year, ranchers loose cattle to predators such as wolves, cougars and grizzly bear, our neighbors lost 1 cow and had another seriously injured from a wolf pack early this winter. I can appreciate their desire to protect their livelihoods and bovine charges but when it comes to wolves the response to these incidents, many times is motivated with extreme prejudice and their counter measure responses typically far disproportionaly outweigh the losses for a year.

<comment><USER3> I agree with you that modern outrage about wolf reintroduction is probably misplaced but I'd be hesitant about dismissing historical reactions.

If you're a subsistence farmer (of which there were many in the middle ages) losing a cow a year might mean starvation. And I'd wager there were more wolves around back then.

Eradication was a short sited policy, but maybe not irrational.

<comment><USER4> In modern times we have more problems with feral hogs. They will root up and destroy acres and acres of crops. They're also incredibly quick to multiply as they can breed year round and have about 2 litters a year at 5-6 piglets per litter. In many states it's legal to hunt hogs year round as a result.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> For anyone interested in wolves, or who enjoyed the History Today article, there's a talk on youtube by Nick Jans about a wolf in Alaska. Jans wrote a book called "A Wolf Named Romeo". Romeo was a large, black, lone wolf that for some reason started (limited) socializing with people and their dogs, mostly during winters in Juneau at Mendenhal Glacier, where area people went for recreation. Nick Jans' talk touches on many of the issues described in the History Today article. Romeo the wolf was eventually killed by hunters, and the town erected a statue of him.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Szhc2wEKEJE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Szhc2wEKEJE)

Some scenes of Romeo are here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H98D23Eb9Ow](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H98D23Eb9Ow)

</comment><comment><USER6> Fascinating read. It shows how effective the biblical rebrand of wolves was that I didn't know wolves rarely ever kill people. I presumed they'd be really dangerous for people.

<comment><USER7> Wikipedia: "In France, historical records compiled by rural historian Jean- Marc Moriceau indicate that during the period 1362–1918, nearly 7,600 people were killed by wolves".

<comment><USER8> 14 people a year. Doubtless more people were killed by falling roofing tiles while walking down the street over those centuries.

<comment><USER6> I guess 1 a month isn't nothing but it is not much. Especially during a period where I'm sure people died pretty easily from a lot of other causes!

Is it just me who thought wolves were dangerous for people, or did you too until you looked it up?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Didn't know wolves were behind so many origin stories for different peoples around the world

Only thing missing in the article is some hard numbers, like how many there used to be and there are now</comment>


Learning Advanced JavaScript - <AUTHOR> http://ejohn.org/apps/learn/ <comment><USER2> This is really informative. Being able to edit the examples like that reminds me of the W3c site on crack :). It's silly but I think the colors and fonts have something to do with it.

One thing though, on Chrome (Mac 5.0.342.9 Beta), intermittently I can't click next to get to the next slide, I get the following error: /apps/learn/jquery.chili.js:241 Uncaught ReferenceError: $el is not defined. This does not happen every time.

<comment><USER3> i ran into some points where i would get stuck on a slide, but refreshing fixed the issue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I went through the entire thing before and learned alot. I highly recommend it.

</comment><comment><USER5> Feels very similar to The Little/Seasoned Schemer, I'm sure with a bit more prose this could be the new equivalent. The hard part is coming up with an alternative to all the elephants.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, I thought about the same book as well :-) I love this kind of tutorials

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I must be missing something here: all I see are the slide titles, the code area, and the results underneath. I see no explanatory text anywhere, though the HTML source for each slide is full of it. :-(

Running Firefox 3.6 on Windows XP if that makes any difference.

<comment><USER6> There is NO explanatory text anywhere.. which HTML source have you seen? The tutorial is really just title, code area and results :-) This is a "learn by example" tutorial, aimed at who already knows a little javascript.

<comment><USER8> I started this tutorial with zero prior knowledge of Javascript, but I have still learned a lot from it. I am now 2/3 of the way through. The challenge of guessing what will work helps to keep me engaged. The extra time that I need to spend on a slide, compared to someone who already knows a little Javascript, is probably paid back in extra retention. I love this tutorial and am excited about adding a little Javascript to my projects.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Never a bad suggestion but it's still a dupe

[http://www.google.com/search?q=site:ycombinator.com+http://e...](http://www.google.com/search?q=site:ycombinator.com+http://ejohn.org/apps/learn/&num=100&filter=0)

</comment><comment><USER6> This is really very nice. Made me learn a lot. It also reminded me of "the little schemer" :-)

</comment><comment><USER10> Does anybody know of any other such tutorials? Thanks in advance for the help.

<comment><USER11> I enjoyed Eloquent Javascript. <http://eloquentjavascript.net/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> i hadn't thought about caching results from a function before. that's pretty cool.

<comment><USER13> It's called memoization

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The closure section needs work. My closures never look like that. I have functions that return functions to create my closures, usually via a library via dojo.hitch, $.hitch, or goog.bind.

<comment><USER15>
      window.setTimeout(function(c){return function() {
        c.doSomething();
      }}(this), 1000);

Mine usually look like that. Using any library to do that seems like overkill to me.

<comment><USER14> Well a hitch or bind function delivers more than just ability to create quick closures. It lets you define the functionality you want in a named function, allowing for code re-use and more readable code. Also I'm obviously not using the library just for bind.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do I become a better team lead for a small, junior dev team? - <AUTHOR> I'm a senior developer at a small startup managing a team of three co-ops and one junior dev. My team members are great: eager, smart, curious, and effective. I rarely have to teach them how to solve a problem; they naturally research and implement solutions.
But I didn't get a CS degree because I'm great with people. I've had some limited management experience, mostly interviewing applicants and running standups. I'm now responsible for the performance and well-being of a team of junior devs, and I'm definitely out of my comfort zone.
I want these guys to succeed, and I want to succeed in helping them succeed. But I'm mostly flying by the seat of my pants and I'd like to learn from others who have been in my shoes.
What are some good resources I should look at? What are some things I might be neglecting that I need to pay attention to? How can I best be effective in my new role? <comment><USER2> Flying by the seat of your pants is completely normal. Read about "imposter syndrome". Obviously you can still improve, and you will.

Some basic suggestions:

You'll learn from experience while you go, far more than from reading books (although that's still good). The fact that you're asking is a good sign. Find a mentor and meet them regularly, in person. You'll benefit from an external perspective.

Work out how to support your team while keeping everyone's expectations realistic. It's easy to burn yourself out by taking on too many responsibilities. In cynical workplaces, this can lead to you being hung out to dry and alienated, which is thankfully rare in my experience.

Short (5 minute) meetings at the beginning or end of the day are better than hours of chat. Usually.

Your job includes removing your team's barriers and problems. Ask them what they are.

Figure out what motivates individuals and empower/enable them to get it.

Praise in public, criticise (constructively!!) in private.

Constructive criticism: extremely hard to get right. Sensitivity is critical. Ask for training. Objectives need to be S.M.A.R.T. Don't dwell on the negatives. Find ways to reach the positive. You will never perfect this.

Protect your team. Do it without pissing off your colleagues and superiors. This is not easy :)

The best managers I've known have qualities that I know when I see, but would struggle to define. Breezy, friendly but professional, reliable, genuine, clear understanding of both big and small picture... difficult to cultivate all this but not impossible.

Get up from your desk. Meet people in person. Meet your mentor in person. Walk and talk instead of email/slack. Skype is not "in person". Your interpersonal skills will improve.

Finally: things will go wrong. This is painful. It happens to everyone, don't beat yourself up. Carry the good things with you and learn to let go of failure. I'm still working on this one!

Anyway. That's a scattergun offloading of some highlights I've learned. There's no recipe, but there are some basic ingredients. Oh... everyone's different as are their circumstances, and none of the above may apply.

Good luck, you can do it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for this reply. You got what I was getting at but didn't articulate. I appreciate it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Read this [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/33369254-the-manager- s-p...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/33369254-the-manager-s-path)

I wish I had it 5-6 years back when I stepped up as TL (it wasn't written yet).

Actually you might as well get your team members to read it too. Unlike the title might make you think - book covers both management and tech (individual contributor) paths.

<comment><USER4> Another good read:

[https://www.amazon.com/Managing-Humans-Humorous-Software- Eng...](https://www.amazon.com/Managing-Humans-Humorous-Software- Engineering/dp/1484221575/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I haven't been in that precise position, but I have been in other leadership positions. The biggest lesson I've had to learn is: it's all about the people. First and foremost, leading is a social skill (although there are of course technical components involved too). As a leader, your job is to care for your followers. For a person who is as task-oriented as I used to be (and you seem to be similar), that is a tedious lesson to learn. But once you've learnt it, it turns out to also be very rewarding to you personally.

Two books that really helped me:

\- The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership (John Maxwell)

\- Leaders Eat Last (Simon Sinek)

<comment><USER6> This.

Empathy (i.e. the ability to understand what's going on in someone's head) is a key leadership trait in my opinion. The good news is that you can develop this skill.

First and foremost, listen. Use 1:1 meetings to talk about _how_ the person is doing, not what they're doing. Ask open-ended questions. One of the most underused and most powerful questions in the workplace: "how does that make you feel?"

Pay attention to weak signals, like someone changing their daily routine, being snappier than usual in team meetings, etc. Learn how the people in your team usually behave, what they like and don't like.

Then, put yourself in their shoes. This is easier than you think: if you're used to writing code, chances are you can emulate pretty complex systems in your head (like the behavior of the piece of code you're working on). A normal human being is a complex system that you can learn to emulate, by which I mean that once you know how someone usually behaves, what motivates them and so forth, and you know their current situation (see step 1: "listen"), then you can take a pretty good guess at their internal state.

Once you know how your team works, both as individuals and as a team, your job is simply to keep them in a state of maximal happiness. And they will move mountains.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think you've taken a great step already - asking for advice and learning from others.

As soon as we realize that we're not alone and there is a wealth of information to learn from, we are taking a proactive step in becoming better leads.

I would also suggest; \- Host regular (perhaps every two weeks) meetings to discuss how the team are feeling. Gather their feedback and make changes based on it.

\- Do some light reading in your downtime on the topic.

\- Try to think in their shoes. Imagine what it would feel like working for you if you were one the dev team. That will allow you to appreciate where they are coming from.

All in all, be positive!

Ensure every complaint is met with a positive response. Make everyone feel valued. Always listen to their opinions.

Have fun!

</comment><comment><USER8> The Manager's Path by Camille Fournier This book validated a lot of my fears and concerns. It also gave me much more insight to see how other managers/directors above me see my role - rather than just focusing on your reports.

Also, join Rand's manager slack. [http://randsinrepose.com/welcome-to-rands- leadership-slack/](http://randsinrepose.com/welcome-to-rands-leadership- slack/)

Even if you only have time to lurk on that slack, the discussions have been incredibly illuminating for me!

</comment><comment><USER9> Be kind but consistent. When I have had drama it tended to be over non- technical issues such as pay, time-off, notice period, stuff like that. It's best your team respects you first and likes you second.

</comment><comment><USER10> Read a lot! A lot! psychology and relationship books (even the ones that are about romantic relationships)

</comment><comment><USER11> Hey I this is legit the same thing that I said to someone else that had a similar question here and I think it addresses your questions..

\---

I am not sure what role you are actually in with this start up but at the end of the day its really going to be more about what you enjoy more... HOWEVER, here are my two sense from my experience of the years. I am going to assume that this "tech lead" has the potential of growing into a CTO role or some exec/admin role within the organization structure. Regardless everyone in this situation will reach a bridge where they are going to have to pick management or a "hacker" that is always going to stay in the code regardless of the transitions. I personally have chosen the technical route in the situations. Here are some bigger points just to outline..

1\. Set the team culture.. it speaks volumes having the highest role also on the ground with everyone else (as much as they can) 2\. Choosing to not be part of code will create risk for yourself and for the company, especially if you were a vital part of the scaling 3\. No one needs to be a delegator full time.. or better yet, just don't be. 4\. A PM role is a FULL-TIME role.. can it be done part time? Of course.. but its going to be half ass and that person will not have a full picture of the current state of the software, the team pulse, the product pipeline, and ect. 5\. Do what you have to do to make things work but have a clear path insight collectively. Your role may be a hard to define role overtime, especially as a CTO but there are many members of a software dev life cycle for a reason. There is risk of things becoming detrimental if clear processes aren't the goal. 6\. Be protective over your time. Allocate at least 4 hours of your day to code even if you wont be able to get all that time in. At least you are communicating the need and importances of your contribution. 7\. GET A MENTOR! Get someone that knows what they are talking about and don't just take anyone.. Thing through what you need in a mentor and ask for one. You need a sounding board, but just be careful of conflicts of interest. 8\. Focus on knowledge transfer and team processes so the team and software can scale. This is one of the harder parts and should be leaning on whoever is leading the operations to collaborate with. 9\. Use agile + JIRA and if you have the company funds add Confluence.. and get your team on the same page.. YES there are other options. I am really not debating that but these are solid solutions that are going to assist the PM and the entire team as you all develop procedures.. 10\. It doesn't exist unless its a ticket.. I would be sensitive and put thoughtful effort when introducing non-technical people to the software dev life cycle. However, user contracts/requirements, tasks, bugs, QA, design, etc are all HUGE influences of how well your team will do over time. Build a culture around that.

Thats enough even though I have a bit more too say.. at the end of the day you will figure it out. I think the better leadership choice is to keep as much of your time in code as you can as well as the bigger picture while at the same time, develop the processes to allow for scaling in all areas..

Hope that helped!

<comment><USER11> Sorry for my typos as well.. clearly didnt edit and I am headed to bed! Hope the points were clear enough to resinate with you

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> > But I didn't get a CS degree because I'm great with people.

Shots fired

<comment><USER2> Yeah, I think this line is easily misread. I suspect the meaning is: "I have a CS degree, but my people skills need work".

<comment><AUTHOR> In all honesty, it's more like, "my people skills need work, so I got a CS degree"

<comment><USER13> Well... don't feel alone.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Non-technical mistakes made by programmers - <AUTHOR> http://www.makinggoodsoftware.com/2009/07/07/5-top-non-technical-mistakes-made-by-programmers/

<comment><USER2> I am less a fan of "top N _whatevers_ done by _whomever_" lists--seems like an outline looking for content.

But he does link to the "egoless programming". I remember when that kind of chatter came out--probably concurrent with "The Psychology of Computer Programming". I remember thinking then, and still wondering, why there aren't similar essays about "egoless management" or "Becoming an Egoless Executive".

Just wondering.

And on that topic, I think that separating criticism of the work from the criticism of the programmer/author/poet is a dicey thing indeed. I wonder if doing so is just pretending.

</comment><comment><USER3> On communication...

I'm not so sure that programmers are _bad_ communicators, as much as they just don't communicate in the same way those they're communicating with do.

I know that I have absolutely NO problem whatsoever communicating abstract and/or complex technical concepts to and with my my peer group; I also have a hell of a time trying to figure out what some of my users are trying to tell me.

I think too many people are quick to jump on the

"Programmers (or just tech people in general) are JERKS! They're unhelpful and they always push back! They're arrogant!"

While these traits might describe _some_ programmers. They also describe some accountants, and some architects, and some mechanics, and some janitors, and some widget makers.

It's frustrating sometimes that the burden falls on the programmer (or tech) to try and find a metaphor that the user understands, rather than the user trying to have a _basic_ understanding of their computer.

I'm currently working on a project that involves processing some really big datasets (okay, probably not that big for some people around here...but bear with me..). It starts as some text files with ~260 million rows of data. We're just in the beginning/test/planning phase, and this will eventually grow to >1 billion. People (non-tech) people in our group keep INSISTING that we use _this_ database engine, or THIS hardware configuration (raid 0...which as already failed). They refuse to listen to those of us that know what we're doing. They insist that all of this data should live in one huge table (rather than our suggestion of either scaling it our horizontally, or using a directory tree and supplementing it with an index that lives in a database).

Does this mean that we're bad communicators? I think not. I think that there is SOME burden to make sure that everyone understands everything that falls on us, but certainly not all of it. We need to be met halfway.

The same goes for the ego. Do I have a huge ego? No, but I know for 100% certain that I'm more knowledgeable about these things than some of my colleagues. I also know that I am no expert on it. I'm open to suggestions, just not those that aren't based in any sort of basic understanding.

<comment><USER4> The lay crowd doesn't have time/experience/inclination to understand the minutia, that's why they defer to the specialist.

Therefore it is always the responsibility of the specialist to communicate necessary information in a way that's generally understandable. Since their definition of 'basic understanding' will never match yours, you should be prepared to explain each necessary component from the ground up until they _can_ understand the issue at hand.

And the lay are perfectly justified in asking questions/making suggestions _even if they don't have the first clue what the implications of their suggestions are_.

Because suggestions should be treated purely on merit, not source. If the receptionist asks "Raid 0?" your answer should be as tactful, careful and considered as if the smartest geek you know had said it.

Much of the rest of your comment deals more with 'playing well with others', rather than communication itself.

Lay people dictating technical solutions despite warnings from their specialists isn't miscommunication; it's someone being a shortsighted, micromanaging dick.

<comment><USER3> I think my delivery here might have been a bit..bad.

I'm not talking about specialists giving abstract data to non-specialists. I'm talking about users that refuse to learn how to use outlook because they can just ask somebody else. This mentality of "I don't want to learn" usually leads to the belief that the person doing it for you is bad at communicating.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I would put "wasting time following content-free links" near the top of that list.

<comment><USER6> Just under "Assuming the demo won't end up in production"

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Nice to see someone talk about all the "other stuff" once in a while.

"#1-Lack of discipline" and "#2-Big egos" are not non-technical skills. They are personality traits and apply to everyone.

"#3-Being a bad communicator" - absolutely! In business situations, sometimes it's half the battle.

"#4-Forgetting about the customer". If you're in business this should always be #1.

"#5-Not prioritizing the work properly", another bad habit that applies to almost everyone.

I think OP missed the #1 (closely related to the Customer) non-technical mistake made by programmers: systems analysis. Determining _what_ to do before determining _how_ to do it.

I've seen plenty of bad software, but I've seen just as many projects fail with good software written to do the wrong thing. When we learn to spend more time on the "what", the "how" invariably gets easier.

<comment><USER8> Understanding a customer's needs is perhaps the greatest skill a developer can learn. I once met a colleague who refused to work on a project until they explained to him what it was for, why they needed it, and how they intended on using it. It took me a year or two to really understand how wise that was. Of course, we're assuming the customer knows what they want. (PT: They don't.)

<comment><USER9> I find one of the biggest challenges, and best skills to develop, is getting the customer to describe the problem they're trying to solve rather than the solution they think they need. My job, as a Software Engineer, is to figure out the best solution for the customer's problem, not just to implement the solution the customer requested.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> 3.- Being a bad communicator. Focus. They just talk about what is need to be understand.

Perhaps this person needs to reflect on this themselves.

<comment><USER11> The writer is spanish. Presumably, english is not his first language.</comment></comment>


Yanis Varoufakis opens up about his five month battle to save Greece - <AUTHOR> http://newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2015/07/exclusive-yanis-varoufakis-opens-about-his-five-month-battle-save-greece <comment><USER2> Discussed yesterday: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9877189](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9877189).

</comment><comment><USER3> Difficult not to love how he discusses everything with a very different language from traditional politans (or I would say, professional polititians). He sounds true and honest, and by no means a radical inciendary that wants to destroy the EU and the Euro. His political career has been cut short by massive pressure from all sides but he has gained sympathy for Syriza's cause worldwide in a very short time and nonetheless make progress in negotiations despite having everyone against his ideas in economic institutuions.

I'm sure we'll miss Varoufakis and I hope his style - be like a common mortal - permeates politics everywhere.

<comment><USER4> "True and honest"? Are we reading the same article? He sounds like a bitter extremist who doesn't know how to control himself in order to reach a certain goal, but instead like either a petulant child or an autistic person (depending on the day of the week, it seems) can only repeat 'the Greeks voted for no extra cuts yet stay in the Euro so we should get it' (no shit? and I'd like a pony) and 'my economics paper says xyz, I want you to reply to each point I made'. Uh no buddy, that's not how the world works.

<comment><USER5> Can't decide if you're more insulting to those who are autistic, to those who believe in democracy, or to those who are in academia...

Yanis Varoufakis' problem is that he was playing a different game. He was trying to be an economist and do the right thing for Greece when the Eurogroup was playing politics and trying to punish Greece. They never were interested in economics or a prosperous Greece, only in maintaining the power structure across Europe.

<comment><USER6> Absolutely my reading of the situation too. I hear these two sides of the argument "Greece is a petulant and lazy bad state, hit them" and the one I subscribe to "let's forgive Greece, it was on the banks to lend stupid amounts of money to them".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> While I agree with some of Varoufakis ideas (e.g. that Greece may be better of leaving the Euro, since internal devaluations are hard), he doesn't portray the other side objectively.

Many of the suggested improvements are objectively sound, e.g. property taxes, tax collection in general, normalized VAT, reducing government corruption and red-tape, removing various monopolies, etc.

Greece is the most corrupt country in the EU[1] and also one of the worst for doing business in general[2]. It also has one of the lowest levels of productivity.

It's been ~5 years since the first bailout, yet Greece haven't made much progress. Many of the suggested improvements require a simple pen stroke by the parliament. No wonder Germans get tired bankrolling all of Greece.

[1] [http://www.ekathimerini.com/155963/article/ekathimerini/news...](http://www.ekathimerini.com/155963/article/ekathimerini/news/greece- seen-as-most-corrupt-country-in-eu-transparency-international-finds)

[2] [http://www.doingbusiness.org/data/exploreeconomies/greece#st...](http://www.doingbusiness.org/data/exploreeconomies/greece#starting- a-business)

<comment><USER8> To be fair, the vast majority of the bailouts have gone to paying back debts. Those debts were held with corporate German and foreign banks.

And here is the kicker; Those debts are now held by the ECB, which, is not supposed to be a lender of last resort, but now has become one by default. The corporate banks are now safe and have extricated themselves from the risky position they found themselves in 5 years ago.

The ECB doesn't care either way. Schauble secretly welcomes a Grexit, because without external support Greece can't move to a new Drachma. The logistics are just impossible by themselves. Schauble wants the rest of the Eurozone to witness what will happen when you exit the Euro without support (it won't be pretty).

Hi there France btw. You still like you early retirement, large civil service employment, string unions and social state? Well, you're number one on their hit list.

<comment><USER9> Yes, Varoufakis mentioned: "Based on months of negotiation, my conviction is that the German finance minister wants Greece to be pushed out of the single currency to put the fear of God into the French and have them accept his model of a disciplinarian eurozone." ([http://yanisvaroufakis.eu/2015/07/11/behind- germanys-refusal...](http://yanisvaroufakis.eu/2015/07/11/behind-germanys- refusal-to-grant-greece-debt-relief-op-ed-in-the-guardian/))

A bit like nuking Japan was the first shot in US's Cold War against USSR. (But fortunately not as immediately violent.)

<comment><USER10> The analogy with actual war is I think far less unreasonable that it at first sounds. I-don't-know-who said "The First World War was fought with guns, the Second World War was fought with tanks, the Third World War will be fought with banks."

I don't mean to say that this is any kind of tinderbox situation. But it is crystal clear to me that it's at the very least a first-world country being forced by a hegemon into neo-colonial vassal-hood/debt bondage, something that is quite shocking to see, especially when there are no standing armies in sight.

And the violence is _real_ , in that Greece is suffering a humanitarian crisis that will only deepen. Actual people will die prematurely, and others' lives will be wrecked, for Schaeuble's example to pay off, as much as newspapers like to abstract this fact behind phrases like "deep pension cuts".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I wonder what effect the current EU "offer" to Greece will have on Britain's vote down the line, or on other states that may now have second thoughts about joining the euro. From my (American) perspective, it looks like being part of the Euro means giving Germany an awful lot of influence over your fiscal policy.

<comment><USER4> Of course, that's why the Greeks so desperately wanted to get out of the Euro, and why new countries have to be added to the Euro by beating them until they join.

Oh wait, no.

Despite all the 'omg the Germans are holding poor pplz hostage!', the Euro has massively lifted the economic prospects of tens if not hundreds of millions of people in a measly 10 or 15 years. Ask the Polish how bad the Euro has been for them, for example. The fact of the matter is - if you want to play, you have to abide by the rules. And I for one am glad that at least the Germans have the spine to say 'this is what we agreed on, no you're not special and we're not going to give you special treatment that we wouldn't give to many other countries that are in much worse shape' (like in Africa or Asia). Ffs, even some of those countries are less corrupt than Greece.

So, just because the Germans have gotten so much flak over the last few weeks, here's another sound: thank you, you guys do what others talk about but fail to uphold. (much like how the US is the only one with enough spine to actually go to war when it's necessary, but that's another topic...)

<comment><USER12> > Ask the Polish how bad the Euro has been for them, for example. Poland isn't > in the Euro, its currency is the zloty.

<comment><USER4> Uh oh, you're right and I was even in Poland not that long ago, I meant in the EU, but still an egg on my face.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Reading all these heated discussions on HN, I find them to be extremely polarized ("good Germany/bad Germany") and missing the essential component: Greece is not a country that can sustainably live without working hard. Why do so few people mention that almost 75 percent of Greek pensioners retire before the age of 61?

While I do think debt relief is a necessary tool, I also believe that we should hear much more about what the country will do to improve productivity and work harder.

<comment><USER14> Greece functioned OK before the euro. They devalued the drachma every now and then to keep themselves competitive. While never the model of operational efficiency, they chugged along before they were saddled with debt in the mid 2000s - debt spent mostly on buying military equipment and other unnecessary stuff FROM GERMANY and other EU countries with Greek decision-makers decisions being "incentivized" to do so. Ordinary people did not see much of this money. And the money spent on bailouts since 2010 was just bailing out private banks and saddling euro taxpayers with the bill.

By the way, Germany is not exactly a stranger to corruption (compared to other northern states in Europe):

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

<comment><USER15> Greece functioned "OK" if a low standard of living, rampant inflation and pervasive lack of access to credit for businesses or individuals is "OK".

Of course is better than blowing up a giant credit bubble and then popping it when it goes wrong, but it's not very nice.

> debt spent mostly on buying military equipment and other unnecessary stuff > FROM GERMANY

I hope you realise how ludicrous this sounds. Granting them victim status because they just couldn't resist those submarines and tanks despite not being able to pay... If you are looking for large unnecessary contributors for Greek debt, why don't you start at the $15bn Olympic Games (no doubt they were forced on Greeks by the German manufacturing firms, too).

> Germany is not exactly a stranger to corruption

Sometimes orders of magnitude matters. It does matter whether the rate of tax payment non-compliance is 5% or 50%, even if it does not fit the narrative of moral equivalence.

<comment><USER14> >Greece functioned "OK" if a low standard of living, rampant inflation and pervasive lack of access to credit for businesses or individuals is "OK".

They still have all of these things. Plus 25% unemployment (50% for young people), and debt equal to 180% GDP (soon to be 200%).

It takes two to tango. I was not trying to grant them victim status, I was just pointing out that German (and other EU businesses/banks) are not exactly blameless (ever heard of predatory lending?)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> While I am not a big fan of austerity, one can ultimately only spend what you got. There were several months in which the Greece government had broken with the austerity agreements but in exchange did not manage to achieve anything which could be called an improvement of the country income situation. As a consequence the gap between income and spending even widened without giving positive impulses to the Greek economy.

<comment><USER17> > While I am not a big fan of austerity, one can ultimately only spend what > you got.

Wrong. You can always print money if you are the sovereign.

<comment><USER18> Printing money is like robbing those who still have cash as the currency is devalued. And it doesn't change a thing if you owe money in foreign currencies.

Otherwise, Japan et al. would have long ramped up the printing presses.

<comment><USER17> Most of the japan debt is in yen and they have been running the printing press in overdrive for the last 25 years or so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> What he says is very damning. If true, it shows that the EU leadership is not interested in the welfare of the members at all, and is very worrying.

</comment><comment><USER20> Does this mean that Democratic countries that are part of the Euro are rendered unable to listen to the wishes of their citizens and must instead act as despots on behalf of Germany?

If so, I don't see this ending well.

<comment><USER21> Every borrower of money has to come to terms with the lender, or there will be no money.

<comment><USER22> Never had this been true in history. Bankruptcy and debt forgiveness have happened regularly through history. And if those don't happen, usually revolution or war is a consequence.

<comment><USER15> It is true, though. Bankruptcy (or its polite cousin "debt forgiveness") happens when the money tap gets turned off.

If you want the tap to keep running, you have to be able to compromise with the guys at the source and at least pretend to care about repaying it.

<comment><USER22> I agree with this in individual cases.

But we are talking about an economic union among states where the biggest state is quick to socialize banking losses among the poorer states, and makes it a morality play about "Those dirty Southerners".

That's a pattern that doesn't end well unless someone is smart enough to hit the partial reset button.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> For those who are just catching up, I found the following article enlightening on the Greece situation:

[http://www.pragcap.com/greece](http://www.pragcap.com/greece)

..especially the following line: \- The EMU is a single currency system just like the USA is. The reason the USA works and the EMU doesn't is because the USA has a system of rebalancing whereby poor states get more federal funding than wealthy states.

<comment><USER24> In the EU poorer states get more funding too. One line explanations for a fictive problem are most likely wrong.

<comment><USER25> The grandparent is basically right.

The Euro is flawed by design. Flow capitals works against the Euroarea. For instance:

The interest rate convenient for Germany is not the interest rate convenient for Spain. What do you think are the rates chosen by the Central European Bank? (clue: the ECB is in Frankfurt)

This shouldn't be more problem that the Fed rate affecting New York and Florida for instance, but there is not a common fiscal policy like in the States.

What happens is that capital in the banks of the north search bigger returns in hot economies (south countries) and create bubbles (Florida again?).

When the crisis arrive, we lend public money to (Greece for instance) so they can return the money to the (private) banks and, in a sleight of hand the fault is all of the lazy south Europeans.

<comment><USER26> _(clue: the ECB is in Frankfurt)_

Sure, physical location is paramount...

Let's count the members of the main decision-making group of the ECB, the Governing Council.

Two Germans. Twenty-three non-Germans.

<comment><USER25> Sure, physical location in Germany is just by chance..

"Let's count the members of the main decision-making group of the ECB, the Governing Council. Two Germans. Twenty-three non-Germans."

No, let's count hard data better.

Here, from a nobel prize: [http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/one- size-fits-on...](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/one-size-fits- one-redux-wonkish/)

And here (a little dense maybe): "Overall, the concern that the ECB rate aligns more with the Taylor recommended rates of the core countries than with the peripheral countries appears to be supported by the data[..]" [http://econ.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/Srivangipuram.p...](http://econ.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/Srivangipuram.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Egoistical showman. Not able to listen. Not able to compromise. Using inapropriate language (waterboarding, terrorist - insulting people who endure real waterboarding and/or are hurt by terrorist). Doesn't stop shooting at Schäuble (Germany), but in truth he was opposed by 19 European countries. External pressure is needed.

Stoneage lefties like to discuss, well, preach, all day long while spending other (EU) citizen's money. Greece will be saved when he and the anarcho- communist-syndicalist grufties start to modernize greece, e.g. do something again the blatant corruption, burocratie and tax evasion instead of hindering startups, business and innovative people. Imho.

<comment><USER5> And this response shows that you know nothing about economics or finance.

> do something again the blatant corruption, burocratie and tax evasion

Corruption and tax evasion are an economic problem, not a moral one. People decide whether or not to pay taxes based on many factors - convenience, value, habit, punishment, etc... In a 'developing' economy, like Greece, if there's a history of not paying taxes, you need to provide incentive to pay taxes. Because if you all of a sudden raise taxes and enforce it hard, you don't get tax evasion - you get capital flight, which is much, much worse for the economy. And it's all too easy to move around in the Eurozone.

> Stoneage lefties like to discuss, well, preach, all day long while spending > other (EU) citizen's money.

Greece did not spend other EU citizen's money. They sold bonds at the market rate to banks and investors that BOUGHT them, and their debt spending was entirely sustainable up to the financial crisis (not sure if you've heard about it) which rocked the whole world. The troika bailed out those banks, with the vast majority of the "EU citizens' money" going to those banks and only a fraction of this money ever made its way to Greece.

> instead of hindering startups, business and innovative people

You know what hinders startups, business, and innovative people? A repressive tax regime. Like the one the troika imposed on Greece...

<comment><USER28> > Corruption and tax evasion are an economic problem, not a moral one.

Not true. The Greek state has traditionally been seen as an enemy of the citizen and something to take advantage of. This is due to the muchtar system established hundreds of years ago by the Osman empire, establishing clientilism. E.g. Estonia is much better on all these metrics, but income levels are similar or below Greece.

> Greece did not spend other EU citizen's money

They took advantage of having access to "Germany's credit card", with interest rates dropping from 25% to 5% post Drachme. Then they proceeded to consume that money. Even in 2014, the public and private consumption relative to net national income was at 114% [1], a completely unsustainable level. If Europe wasn't financing elevated standards of living for Greece before the crisis, they certainly did in the last few years.

[1] [http://www.cesifo- group.de/ifoHome/publications/docbase/deta...](http://www.cesifo- group.de/ifoHome/publications/docbase/details.html?docId=19161354)

> You know what hinders startups, business, and innovative people? A > repressive tax regime.

New York and California have comparatively high tax rates, enormous housing costs and expensive wages. They seem to be doing just fine. Also see Germany, Austria, Switzerland and all of the Scandinavian countries.

<comment><USER5> > New York and California have comparatively high tax rates, enormous housing > costs and expensive wages.

That's why I'm bombarded with ads that brag about NY's startup program that allows you to operate for 10 years with NO taxes?

[http://startup.ny.gov/](http://startup.ny.gov/) [http://esd.ny.gov/BusinessPrograms/Taxes_Incentives.html](http://esd.ny.gov/BusinessPrograms/Taxes_Incentives.html)

Anyhow, like I said - businesses and people will pay taxes if they see value - beyond NY's tax free startup program, those are the 2 most populous US states (access to labour). That is a competitive advantage. There's also easier access to financial capital - another advantage.

People don't necessarily go to where the taxes are the cheapest - they go to where there's the best combination of access to labour, capital, customers, taxes, etc... (or they stay put if they think their current location is 'good enough')

Think of human behaviour as a maximization curve - a constant attempt to attain maximum "utility" of our time.

> E.g. Estonia is much better on all these metrics, but income levels are > similar or below Greece.

Estonia, business-wise, seems to have quite a few things going for it.

[http://www.lowtax.net/features/Estonias- Advantages-571583.ht...](http://www.lowtax.net/features/Estonias- Advantages-571583.html)

Just reiterates what I'm saying - paying taxes is based on a number of factors, none of them morality (not on a large scale anyway).

Edit - if Greece wants to collect more tax money, they need to provide a good reason for people to pay tax money. Given that the world is a big place and anyone with enough money can move quite easily, it needs to be a more compelling reason than the fear of punishment.

<comment><USER28> > if Greece wants to collect more tax money, they need to provide a good > reason for people to pay tax money

I agree on this one. I would not want to give a corrupt government my money. But then again, this is due to ethics - if not the taxpayer's, then the government's. You will find the topic of corruption mentioned in the "Ethics" section in this world bank report. [1, page 11]

[1] [http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/civilservice/rsGerman...](http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/civilservice/rsGermany.pdf)

<comment><USER5> It was a very brief mention.

Most people don't decide to pay or not pay taxes based on perception of corruption, but rather what they perceive they're receiving.

In Canada, we generally are content to pay taxes because we get such benefits as free health care, cheap medicine, free primary and secondary schooling, subsidized post-secondary schooling, and our cities are generally quite clean with good infrastructure, which is a good accomplishment considering our population density is very low.

My wife is from a third world country where almost no one pays taxes. Then again, what do they get? Infrastructure is non-existent (roads are all gravel or dirt, power is on about 50% of the time, no potable running water, police are non-existent, etc...). This is the conundrum of development economics - how do you go from this stage of development, to a new stage where people pay taxes so the government can provide services? With no services people will avoid taxes, with no tax money the government cannot provide services. The answer of course, is that it's difficult and takes time.

Corruption is an easier problem to solve, but difficult to implement. To get civil servants to stop accepting bribes you need to pay them enough that losing their pay is actually a punishment, or punish them enough that the threat of jail time counters the benefit of accepting bribes (or ideally, a bit of both).

Anyhow, neither problem can be solved in the amount of time that the troika has expected Greece to solve them - and they ARE economic problems, not moral ones.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Deutschland deutschland uber alles, but with banks instead of tanks.

"The European Union as we have known it ended over the weekend. That EU project was all about the gradual convergence of equal nations into an "ever closer union". That's finished now."

[http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/tormenting-greece-is- about...](http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/tormenting-greece-is-about- sending-a-message-that-we-are-now-in-a-new-eu-1.2283593)

</comment><comment><USER30> Based on this interview, it looks like Tsipras is solely to blame for the Sunday's disastrous deal. I think his career will be finished after the deal passes.

</comment><comment><USER31> its quite sad, but the West has been showing its liberal democracy is in a gradual and obscure decline(like in this case).

</comment><comment><USER32> I had such high hopes for Varoufakis and now I can't agree with a single word he says.

</comment><comment><USER33> "Greek Debt Crisis Deal Is Reached, but Long Road Remains (nytimes.com)"

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9879815](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9879815)

</comment><comment><USER34> Disclaimer: my parents are Portuguese and I visit Portugal regularly.

I understand his feelings, I don't understand his reasoning.

I understand his feelings because there is a lot of unfairness going on: big economies (e.g.: France, Italy) are treated with more leniency and tolerance than small economies (e.g.: Portugal, Spain), simply because they're far more important to EU. It is humiliating and Greece should feel it even worse.

I don't understand his reasoning because for the indebted countries there are only 2 objective choices: it is the EU way or the highway. The EU simply can't accept that Greek voters just decide to quit the treatment but remain in the Eurozone because the voters of Portugal, Spain, Italy and other countries would do just the same. It would have been the end of Eurozone.

Varoufakis and Syriza should have started a Grexit strategy from the early beginning. They didn't, so Germany saw they were bluffing and won the game.

Greece lost because Varoufakis didn't understand what was at stake.</comment>


Mozilla Starts Petition to Oppose the Earn IT Act - <AUTHOR> https://darkrebel.net/mozilla-starts-petition-to-oppose-the-earn-it-act <comment><USER2> It seems to me that being constantly on guard for these incursions is a losing strategy: We will eventually lose, maybe as soon as the next emergency omnibus package gets passed in response to a crisis...it might be a better strategy to push for new legislation that explicitly enshrines these rights to encryption, privacy, so forth, into law as an extension of the 4th amendment.

</comment><comment><USER3> The current reminder that hating the 4th amendment is bipartisan.

<comment><USER4> How so? We all hate to be secure in our persons? Or are you looking at other clauses of that very brief paragraph?

<comment><USER2> These kind of laws seem to get bipartisan support from lawmakers, has been my experience.

<comment><USER4> Oh. Yeah - that makes sense.

<comment><USER2> As to why they do, that is an interesting question.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's unfortunate that the terrifying implications of the Earn It act don't translate well outside of tech circles.

It's of course worthy of much more coverage than it's getting, cheers to Mozilla for furthering the conversation.

</comment><comment><USER6> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23703367](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23703367)</comment>


Ask HN: Are we in an AI / ML bubble? - <AUTHOR> As in title. Is there a systemic over-valuation of companies in these spaces? <comment><USER2> I doing high-end amateur photography and there are plenty of tools that are able to enhance (sharpen, noise reduction, color correction) imagery using AI that was not possible before.

I took AI/DL course before and professor demonstrated from scratch how to build an algo and train model capable of amazing upsampling of imagery.

Hence - bubble or not - there are lots of useful, practical benefits to this today.

</comment><comment><USER3> AI is too big a term, Its like asking if there is a math bubble. AI is a lot of different disciplines.

There is likely a mis-prioritization of applications in the market.

You should look at bubbles in the context of applications, and perhaps dependent on strategy separately. Context ~ Health, AutoBI, NLP...; Strategy ~ unsupervised, explainable, deep, symbolic...

Another way to look at this is identifying Misery stocks. If the economy takes a hard dip, what will continue to be funded. Those are misery stocks. Some AI will survive misery at varying levels, others will not.

</comment><comment><USER4> There are very few "AI companies". True AI companies are research labs like DeepMind and those AI consultancies. Both of these make money from PR and hype. Other than that, some video/image analysis and processing companies, e.g. face recognition solutions, come to mind as exceptions. The other kind of company that depends on the recent AI developments is infra. They are selling the "shovels" for others to buy into the hype.

Other companies that brand themselves as AI do so for PR purposes. Most of them don't use AI, use robust techniques that have been around for many decades, or use it only to justify their pitch. Their product would be just the same with rule-based systems or without any kind of ML.

<comment><USER5> This, precisely.

I would add, there are some DL/ML business components which are in heavy use in some industries which given the companies size are giant productions deployments of "IA" (not expert systems or other automation technologies), so you could say we are actually living somehow in the principle of a golden age of "IA" (DL/ML techniques), but DL/ML techniques - at least what is known publicly to be the state of the art - has some practical limits (i.e. power consumption to traing useful models), but workarounds for those limits are being heavyly studied or solutions are being tested (as we speak indeed).

What's here for sure, it's a golden age of data: you can extract (meta)data from almost everything running on a CPU/GPU, the "likes" in everything are the users training models, not exactly the models you imagine (because you can associate/correlate some scenarios - "a birthday party at the office" \- with others you would think are a lot different - "a christmas party at the bar" \- but they'are not so different actually, and the features found by the training are more or less - it should be a % - interchangeable.

So yeah, every "like" out there is training something behind the scene.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Yes, because everyone is now 'An AI company' to woo investors, yet they don't contribute to AI research.

If this hype-cycle doesn't sound ridiculous, I've also heard that my local grocery store is using deep-learning + kubernetes to scale their supply chain systems. They told me that they're writing a Medium blog-post about this which is coming soon /s

</comment><comment><USER7> No its just getting started, the world is still largely almost all unstructured data that needs to be structured

</comment><comment><USER8> Yes, but this is to be expected. I think we are nearing the 'trough of disillutionment' in the Gartner hype cycle.

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

</comment><comment><USER9> You need to have/generate meaningful data at significant scale to really be a company where AI can make a big difference.

Few companies build products that generate or interface with data at that level.</comment>


YouTube Music is here - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/12/9723496/youtube-music-app-offline-background <comment><USER2> Google is all over the place with it's music services. There are 3 apps you can use now to play music on your phone Google Play Music All Access, YouTube, and YouTube Music.

It seems like 10 years isn't enough time for Google to figure out how to integrate the YouTube and Google brands together.

<comment><USER3> As an intense fan of electronic music with big, scattered collections across Spotify, soundcloud, iTunes, YouTube links, and Facebook groups.... If YouTube Music would just give me a soundcloud interface with youtubes music, I'm not sure I would ever need another service. But I can't even make playlists with this?</comment></comment>


California to become first U.S. state mandating solar on new homes - <AUTHOR> https://www.ocregister.com/2018/05/04/california-to-become-first-u-s-state-mandating-solar-on-new-homes/ <comment><USER2> This is one of those things that sounds nice at first - especially as a soundbite. But, it's clearly a NIMBY move to protect existing home owners financial asset. It's a clever trick to protect existing home owners even more by making new development even more difficult and expensive while making it look like it's an environmental move. Tack on $30k in expense to any new home development and (probably) some lovely legislation about how it has to be installed. On top of this, now they're "encouraging" all-electric homes. What does that mean?! No gas range?! Please, god, no. Why not enforce this legislation on existing home owners, raising the property tax to fund solar farms, enforce better building standards on existing homes, or /something/ that would actually have a substantial effect on the environment? Cause, that ain't helping existing home owners or helping push their home prices even higher.

As a renter who wishes to have a home /somewhere/ in the bay area, this is killing me inside. The existing home owner lobby is so ridiculously strong here. California has the Superman of home owner lobbies. Each day, it's nailed into me that Prop 13 will never go away and home prices are just gonna keep climbing so that non-1% income outsiders cannot get them. Meanwhile, estates will be passed down generation by generation tax free and with no reassessment.

<comment><USER3> Adding $30k to your mortgage would cost like $150 a month extra or so. It will produce about 15,000 kWh per month, which is about $150 off your electric bill.

<comment><USER4> Why isn't everyone installing then? There is a net cost somewhere.

<comment><USER3> A ton of people are installing them! Only on hacker news is rooftop solar some kind of horrible socialist boondoggle.

edit: to answer your question more directly: many people just won't be bothered to install them or don't think of it, or can't get the financing easily. For some people the numbers don't work out, because their roof is old or they don't get enough sun or their electric bill is already low.

<comment><USER5> On the flip side, if you bought a house from an old engineer who converted the entire house to electric appliances, and you bring your own electric dryer, and you have a family of 4, and a/c, in California, rooftop solar is dead obvious.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'm certainly a big fan of solar power, but rooftop solar is a little silly. Rooftop solar would make sense if we had some shortage of land and couldn't just fill up empty fields with panels, but that's not the case. It's much cheaper for utility companies to buy up big plots of land than it is to try to figure out how to outfit odd shaped surfaces with panels.

California is really missing the forrest for the trees here. There's so much low hanging fruit (things that could kill two birds with one stone) that they're ignoring. If the state would focus on higher density living and public transportation over imposing regulations that will drive more people away and lower the standard of living for those who remain, then we would see a much bigger global impact on reducing climate change. Because of this, more people will decide to live in Texas instead of California, where they'll run their air conditioners 10 months out of the year in their huge, inefficient houses which draw power from coal plants.

<comment><USER6> >If the state would focus on higher density living...

>...where they'll run their air conditioners 10 months out of the year in their huge, inefficient houses

The type of people that live in huge inefficient homes are generally also the same type of people that don't want to live in high density areas. California could turn open fields in to solar farms like you mentioned, but that requires that someone foot the bill and also build the infrastructure for it. "Forcing" people to put solar panels on their own home solves both of those problems. It also makes you more immune to losing power in a natural disaster, of which California has plenty.

I'm not saying I'm even for this issue, I don't live in California. But your view is extremely negative and ignores the negatives of your way while also ignoring the positives of the way mentioned in the article.

<comment><USER7> > It also makes you more immune to losing power in a natural disaster, of > which California has plenty.

Unfortunately, this is generally not the case. Most grid-tie solar inverters do not support disconnected operation. They all have anti-islanding features that disconnect the solar panels when the grid goes down (to prevent back-flow into the grid that could injure linemen working to repair outages). There are a few inverters that include an emergency-outlet on the inverter that works when the power is out, but you have to run an extension cord from the inverter to the devices you want to power.

It is possible to buy a hybird off-grid inverter, but they are much more expensive than either plain grid-tie or off-grid, and the power company is going to scrutinize their installation a lot more closely.

<comment><USER8> >(to prevent back-flow into the grid that could injure linemen working to repair outages)

Back-flows from generators, solar and other home power sources are not really an issue. It takes a specific set of circumstances where there's both equipment failure and the utility worker fails to check if lines are live.

Basically, the resistance of the entire neighborhood is indistinguishable to a short from the perspective of the breakers on your power generation equipment.

Still, you shouldn't back feed because we live in a society where everyone must play by the rules of idiots regardless of whether or not they can prove themselves to be otherwise. Therefore you cannot be trusted to flip switches properly yourself and I must advise you to use a proper transfer switch.

<comment><USER9> Aren't shorts very _low_ resistance? I'm not an electrician so maybe I misunderstand here.

What would be the benefit of me "properly flipping switches" in the context of a natural disaster? What if I am not home?

<comment><USER10> Yes, and so is a neighborhood. A dim lightbulb has a high resistance. A bright lightbulb has a lower resistance. Multiple bright lightbulbs in parallel, measured together as one, have an even lower resistance.

<comment><USER9> I don't follow. How does a neighborhood become both high and low resistance?

<comment><USER11> Where did anyone imply that?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Israel mandated roof top solar water heaters for a while (since 1980 according to [0], but essentially every building built since 1960 or so has one). It's relatively cheap, pays for itself in 3-5 years, and is carbon neutral. This stores energy as hot water, not using PV panels (such as those discussed in the article). A relatively small panel per apartment is sufficient.

I do not claim that the California directive is sensible, but it is worth comparing to a somewhat similar directive that has been in place for 40 years with great effect - reducing grid energy production by 8%, saving everyone money (if the article is to be trusted), and only being a minor eye sore ....

[0] [https://www.reuters.com/article/idUS311612153620110318](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUS311612153620110318)

<comment><USER13> Residential solar thermal no longer makes any kind of economic sense. These existing mandates only show how government regulations can serve to ossify bad practices and harm innovation.

<comment><USER14> > Residential solar thermal no longer makes any kind of economic sense.

[citation needed]

<comment><USER15> Not a citation, but when I last looked at it for a cabin, the plumbing costs, pumps, and extra stuff required in addition to the normal heater drove the cost so high that it was just cheaper to add more PV panels, which have been coming down because they are made in great volume.

Someplace without freezing weather, or someone who might just say "too cloudy too long, no warm shower today" might have a different calculus.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is a deeply flawed idea. As bad as LEED.

Specifying HOW to go about being energy efficient is the entirely wrong approach. Instead specify a minimum energy efficiency per square meter and let home builders sort it out.

By specifying minimum efficiencies builders are free to adopt new technologies, new methods as they come along or use alternate means which are more suitable for a specific project.

For example I live near a river and intend to use micro-hydro for my electricity. Do I still need to have solar panels? Or will the legislators need to add in a thousand exceptions to the rules?

<comment><USER17> I agree, this is ridiculous California virtue-signaling at its finest and will result in a heck of a lot of unintended consequences (just like prop 13 has) - meanwhile many of the houses in my city were built in the 30s and 40s and have plaster walls, no insulation, no heat return, single pane glass etc which results in easily 10x more energy use for heating than modern construction would, but can't be rebuilt with modern materials because of the expense and difficulty of building new homes thanks to wrongheaded legislation like this.

<comment><USER18> Not really. You can blow in insulation into walls and attic. Air seal the house. Replace the windows with better ones. These regulations do not drive up the cost to upgrade existing houses.

<comment><USER8> When the regulation requires that modifications bring things up to the new code and you've got decades of regulations like that piled up the most reasonable options are touch nothing or rebuild the entire house

<comment><USER18> In most places you are not forced to upgrade everything to code just because you added insulation or new windows.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Many people have expressed concern that this will make houses less affordable. That's not clear to me, at least in the case of people who borrow most of the money for their house (which is the vast majority).

The solar part of this adds about $15k to the cost of the house. That's about $75/month on a 30 year fixed mortgage at current rates.

Much of that, if not all or more, comes back in savings on the electric bill.

Doesn't that mean that for most single family home buyers the difference will mostly just be a slightly higher down payment?

<comment><USER20> Yes...$15k on a house is a non-trivial amount.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> It is a great idea, as there are two other benefits:

1\. Transportation of over large distances has efficiency loss on electricity and requires more cumbersome infrastructure.

2\. Less heat on the neighborhood as some of that energy is absorbed into electricity instead of being bounced off to the surrounding. Having normal tiles that just absorb heat will increase the temperature of both the building and the surrounding environment. (requiring even more energy to cool off).

During the summer, NYC, especially manhattan, is famous to have 2F higher temperatures that it normally should have just because of the heat radiation from the building, pavement, and air conditioners.

Requiring a rooftop garden on large buildings is another interesting idea.

<comment><USER22> > Transportation of over large distances has efficiency loss on electricity > and requires more cumbersome infrastructure.

On a rooftop, you have the more significant inefficiencies of trees and suboptimal angles. In a field, you can optimize for efficient collection, and you can even install pivoting panels (much more cheaply than on a house, anyway) which can optimize collection throughout the day.

Even if the transmission loss is larger than the gain from optimal positioning (and I doubt it is), it's all marginal compared to the maintenance difference (having a technician walk out to a panel in a field vs setting up appointments with home residents, driving out to their homes, climbing on their roofs, additional risk of injury for the technician from falls, risk of damaging homes, etc).

<comment><USER23> No affiliation with this project, but you do know that it is possible to tilt the panels. ([http://www.heliowatcher.com](http://www.heliowatcher.com)) >We designed and built a system to automatically orient a solar panel for maximum efficiency, record data, and safely charge batteries. Using a GPS module and magnetometer, the HelioWatcher allows the user to place the system anywhere in the world without any calibration. The HelioWatcher then calculates what the sun's current location is and orients the panel to the appropriate angle

<comment><USER22> Yes, I am aware. I mentioned it in the second sentence of my post:

> ... you can even install pivoting panels ...

And like I said in my post, installing these is _cheaper and easier_ in a field than on every home. For one, you only need one "tilt computer" module that can determine the optimal angle for all of the panels in the field. More importantly though, moving parts will wear and break eventually, and it's a lot easier (and safer!) to walk out into the field and service them than scheduling appointments, driving to customers' property, climbing on roofs, etc.

Just for fun, I've built these. You don't even need a GPS module nor magnetometer, you just need a few light sensors, one or two small motors (depending on whether you tilt in one dimension or two), and a couple dollars' worth of standard electronic components.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> California is too big to do state-level regulation. For Bay Area homes this is pretty insignificant and possibly positive (sometimes regulation might be more efficient), but adding $20-30k to houses in less-expensive parts of the state is crazy.

This should have been done at the local or regional level, if at all. California should remain one state, probably, but add regional regulatory entities between counties and the state.

<comment><USER25> > California should remain one state, probably, but add regional regulatory > entities between counties and the state.

We could accomplish this by giving regional government authorities like the Association of Bay Area Governments more authority. Essentially the metropolitan areas become like city states. The state could set certain goals (reduce carbon by this much, increase housing by that much), but it would be up to regional government to specify implementation details.

<comment><USER24> The question I'd have would be should there be: 1) direct democratic participation in those authorities (elected by the residents of the area), or 2) should they be selected by the subsidiary jurisdictions (counties/cities), 3) or by the state (legislature or governor).

The state government seems dysfunctional in a lot of ways, so while maybe goals could come down from the state, the actual authorities should be 1) or 2). Maybe some combination.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This is interesting to me, because I've been advocating for a similar law for a while now, with a few crucial differences:

I propose we make a law that says any home that sells for greater than the Freddie Mac super conforming loan limit (currently $679,650) must be retrofitted to have a net energy draw of zero or less from the grid (with rules about exceptions for shade and roof angles and whatnot).

This would solve a lot of problems with this bill: It would exempt all the folks who are selling cheap homes throughout the state, it would apply to both old and new homes, and it allows for new technologies that don't exist yet or are cost prohibitive, instead of require solar panels.

It wouldn't really affect prices much, because there is already a flattening at the Freddie Mac limits, and when you get to the super conforming level, a solar install only represents 5% or less today (but I imagine the prices would fall with economies of scale).

</comment><comment><USER27> I think this is quite interesting, but despite being a strong fan of solar power, I don't think this is a great idea. There are plenty of homes in areas of low insolation (under trees, facing the wrong way) and this becomes simply a pointless tax for them.

A specific solar _incentive_ (payable only on new construction if you'd like) based on yield would make more sense.

</comment><comment><USER28> This is how you build wealth as a society. Californians should be proud. The housing crisis is a separate issue. This policy decreases the TCO (cost) of housing by planting a money tree on the roof. Rooftop solar is great for consumers because it avoids the ~30% efficiency loss to heat that you otherwise pay using transmission lines. Mandating BIPV at the design/build stage improves aesthetics & resale value.

</comment><comment><USER29> My view is also that it would be better policy if the california government taxed all homes and generated a certain amount of revenue which they could use to generate certain percentage GW of solar power( A goal they should set for themselves). That way it is fair to all, the problem is also solved at scale which is important as opposed to mandating new home owners only which I am not sure is that efficient

</comment><comment><USER30> Isn't this going to just exacerbate California's housing crisis by making homes more expensive by default?

<comment><USER31> Look at the price of residential-zoned lots versus the price of a finished home. The cost of a house isn't in the building.

<comment><USER32> This will add $20k to $30k. Even in the Bay area, that's substantial. Especially when you are already on the edge of affordability.

<comment><USER33> The cost of the solar panels doesn't necessarily come out of the buyer's pocket. Instead, the cost could come out of the previous landowner's profits, if prices are mostly determined by what buyers can afford. In other words, the land drops in value by the cost of the solar panels that will have to be installed on it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I'm really interested in seeing how this will play out if solar continues to get cheaper.

I'd imagine that at a certain point, the panels themselves will be cheap(er) compared to the installation cost (so that the cost structure changes to favor the most efficient installation/maintenance regime), and that residential- scale solar will be uneconomical compared to large-scale installations in the desert, where you can get a couple of hundred megawatts all in one place getting the advantages of optimal weather, easily-installable sun-tracking, and more regular maintenance than what you'd get on a 1,500 sqf roof in SF.

It's entirely possible that, 10-15 years from now, this ends up being a "tax" paid by all homeowners to the residential-solar-installation industry so that they can put solar panels on roofs that will never earn their money back, just so that the homeowner can displace what might be equally clean energy generated elsewhere.

</comment><comment><USER35> Is roof top solar going to help anything? It's my understanding that roof top solar does little to reduce peak loads when the sun is not out. But decreases demand during the day. Meaning you need coal plants standing at the ready to catch the peak.

<comment><USER36> The article addresses this question.

"While net-zero remains an admirable goal, getting there is not yet cost- effective, state officials and experts said. And it fails to address the state's ultimate goal of curbing global warming.

Because electric utilities now rely on renewable energy for much of their power, daytime energy already is quite clean, said McAllister, the lead state commissioner on energy efficiency.

At night when there's no solar power, people come home, turn on the lights, the TV and possibly the air conditioning and start pulling power from the grid, he said. Some gas-powered generating plants then are fired up to help meet that additional load, boosting carbon emissions.

"That additional (home-generated) solar kilowatt-hour isn't worth very much because it's displacing what is already clean energy," McAllister said. "That net-zero home is not a net-carbon-zero home.""

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> This will go down as one of the most successful special interest industry lobbying win of all time. And one of the industry lobby representatives quoted in this article has the gall to say this isn't enough. But just a "compromise".

<comment><USER37> Funny, but it's not gall -- that lobbyist is paid well to be constantly pushing the Overton Window of acceptable policy towards ever more crony capitalism. Why stop now? Why stop ever?

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Typical politics. Increase the costs of building homes in a housing poor area while claiming to help the environment. The increased new development costs is likely the entire motivation(i.e. market manipulation).

</comment><comment><USER39> If this passes, Tesla is going to make a _killing_ on solar roofs:

[https://www.tesla.com/solarroof](https://www.tesla.com/solarroof)

<comment><USER40> Not really as their roofs are extremely expensive when compared to traditional roofing material and solar panels.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Did we examine the full ewaste impact when the cells need to bring disposed of? Are we sure that the net CO2 in the manufacturing process is carbon negative? Does the manufacturing, shipping, installation, and disposal process release heavy metals or organic solvents into the environment?

I want clean and efficient energy, but I want it to be good for the environment, not worse, and it appears none of this was studied nor confirmed.

And also once again, California is ensuring that low income families cannot afford to buy a home as an investment to exit the poverty cycle. From requiring new homes to have an EV jack in the garage, to solar cells on the roofs, the continually make sure that equality is out of the poor's reach by force of the law.

</comment><comment><USER42> Tangentially - how about mandatory rainwater storage? A sink for rain to reduce flooding, and a source for grey-water (non-potable water, although residential purification is entirely possible) to alleviate pressure on reserves in times of drought.

<comment><USER32> It's actually the opposite. In some parts of California, it's illegal to capture rainwater. Because it affects groundwater runoff and the surrounding ecosystem.

<comment><USER42> A typical failure to understand the law of unintended consequences.

The total volume of water consumed remains the same, but the water lost to evaporation & distribution leakage (collectively akin to the transmission losses for electricity mentioned elsewhere in this thread) means that not collecting rainwater is less efficient.

Then there's the flood damage caused when the increasing expanses of paved ground fail to absorb heavy rain that rainwater collection can help alleviate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> What's being missed in this conversation is that California is at "peak solar", meaning that having more solar is NOT good for the state.

We can't yet effectively store solar, so in the summer when everyone comes home, they turn on their AC's (in SoCal) and in order to be able to provide enough energy as the sun starts to set, Cal ISO ([http://www.caiso.com](http://www.caiso.com)) needs to tell gas fired plants to turn on (quickly) to have enough capacity in the grid. This causes--you guessed it--pollution.

Source: Worked 7 years for an ISO.

</comment><comment><USER44> Maybe we should do what 99% of economists suggest and just tax carbon instead?

</comment><comment><USER45> Way to make it even harder to construct new housing in California.

</comment><comment><USER46> Housing is already very expensive and you are going to make it even more expensive by ridiculous regulations like these ? What if I want a roof that is not ugly ?

<comment><USER47> Telsa's solar roof looks nice, though it's even more expensive...

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> With the mandate, it will take even longer for the homeowner to breakeven on the solar panel. Another reason why it paid to invest in politicians.

</comment><comment><USER49> That seems like a pretty significant government overreach. Forcing solar panels on every house just doesn't make sense, and I think people should have the freedom to chose whether or not they want them. Its fine to add incentives, but forcing them seems extremely especially when there are houses in very shady areas that will not benefit much from solar panels.

</comment><comment><USER50> Subsidize corporate profits, socialize losses, deinsentivize distributed local power, destroy the environment.

For an alternative view:[http://www.mojavedesertblog.com/2009/11/solar-energy- develop...](http://www.mojavedesertblog.com/2009/11/solar-energy-development- in-mojave.html?m=1)

</comment><comment><USER51> I wonder if a device could be built to generate power from earthquakes. Apparently southern California has 27 earthquakes every day. If a device could be built to harness that it could be useful. I know they're not all in the same place each day but 27 per day in such a small area may be enough.

<comment><USER52> issue is storage: you would get one stupendous burst of energy and then you would need to store it and trickle it out more slowly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Google has a tool called "Sunroof" that uses Google Maps satellite data to identify the best location to install solar panels on your roof:

[https://www.google.com/get/sunroof#p=0](https://www.google.com/get/sunroof#p=0)

</comment><comment><USER54> So in the middle of an epic housing crisis, California adds "about $25,000 to $30,000 to the construction costs" of a new home.

When in a hole, keep digging!

<comment><USER55> Even more than that once solar panel companies all realize they should increase prices since homeowners are obligated to buy from one of them.

<comment><USER56> I'm not sure why you are being downvoted. your prediction is hardly guaranteed but not entirely absurd either. it's nice to have a guaranteed market

<comment><USER57> See Pharma companies for an example of what happens when you have a guaranteed market that capitalises on research funded by the public. Solar is very similar.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> What's another $30k in home costs. That's less thank 1% of my $3.2 million home in Palo Alto ;)

Whatever you do just make sure the neighborhood is zoned single family. Multi family just doesn't have enough roof space.

</comment><comment><USER59> Anyone here using solar on their home? What did the initial investment cost?

<comment><USER60> Non-grid-tie set up here. 4 100 Watt Panels on mine, powers everything except for the propane. Generator for cloudy days. Total Cost: $2000 (wiring, kinda expensive MPPT charge, kinda expensive swing-capable brackets, kinda expensive inverter) already had the propane generator. After learning how to do this on an RV I've decided to never buy a stick home again since most states will require a grid-tie (which is the dumbest thing you can do)... So living in a trailer is the best way to live now.

<comment><USER61> Curious: what's wrong with being connected to the grid (assuming that's what you meant by "grid-tie")?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> It would have been better to adopt the passivhaus standard as part of the building code.

</comment><comment><USER63> Why does the state with the best weather and scenery have such a retarded government

</comment><comment><USER64> Do you want housing shortage? Because that's how you get housing shortage

</comment><comment><USER65> Doesn't mean much as long as they don't build enough new housing. Most important cities in CA are failing to add affordable housing.

</comment><comment><USER66> There's a genius way to lower housing prices. Why didn't anyone think of this before?

</comment><comment><USER32> Only new homes. In other words, NIMBY.

<comment><USER67> Which will be the first neighborhood to forbid solar panels, thereby forbidding new home construction completely?

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> Url changed from [https://www.engadget.com/2018/05/06/california-to-require- so...](https://www.engadget.com/2018/05/06/california-to-require-solar-panels- on-most-new-homes/), which points to this.

Submitters: since the HN guidelines call for original sources, we'd appreciate it if you'd scan an article for a link to one before posting. It's one step of manual web crawling in exchange for better content on the site—plus it's fairer to give credit to the original instead of a cribbed knockoff.

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

<comment><USER69> I don't understand your complaint, especially since the OC register article you seem to like for whatever reason is not the first to publish and is itself just a cribbed knockoff.

Are we expected to research every URL and find the first to report on it no matter what? Even if it's obscure, out of date, or wrong?

<comment><USER68> Scanning an article for a link to a more original source is one manual step. That's not hard, since one presumably reads an article before submitting it and the link to the other source is usually prominent, like it was above. Another recent case is [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17007441](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17007441).

If the earlier article is out of date or wrong, then presumably the new link includes significant new information, in which case it's not a knockoff.

The OCR article looked to me like original reporting, but if you know of another piece that it's copying, we can change the URL again.

By "cribbed knockoff" I mean the thing that media properties do where they lift material from somewhere, make a fig leaf's worth of modification, and publish it themselves. Some people call this blogspam, but that's a contested word. There are plenty of these sites. If knockoffs are all they do, we ban them, but some also publish original articles, and we don't want to exclude those.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> If you are fabulously wealthy that you can [have a latte each morning], let alone [buy it at Starbucks], you can afford [an additional tax on your latte for the peasant that got the coffee beans.]

<comment><USER71> A house in California costs ~4 orders of magnitude more than a Starbucks coffee every morning. Wildly different values of "fabulously wealthy" here.

<comment><USER70> A latte is $3.65. If you made your own cup at home, you would spend $0.05. Starbucks is 73x. I believe you need to stop buying lattes from Starbucks and start making your own coffee at home like I do. Stop being such an elitist. Get to work.

<comment><USER72> I make my coffee at home. Sustainable shade grown fair trade coffee in my parts costs $15.50 a pound. 17g of coffee for a cup is $0.58 per cup. So for sustainable coffee you are off by an order of magnitude.

<comment><USER70> My coffee is not for pretentious people.

[https://onlinestore.smucker.com/display_product.cfm?prod_id=...](https://onlinestore.smucker.com/display_product.cfm?prod_id=2234&cat_id=183)

$8.99 180 cups $0.04994 per cup

<comment><USER25> What is pretentious about buying products that attempt to be better for the earth, and better for your body? It's fine if "coffee is coffee" for you (heck, I've been known to skip coffee altogether in favor of caffeine pills), but there's nothing pretentious about being conscious of one's consumer choices.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> With big governments come big mistakes.

</comment><comment><USER46> Just how much more bullshit do we have to take from California's politicians ?

</comment><comment><USER74> California the liberal pro envoirmentalists.

The effects of their policy. High carbon output. High cost of living. High cost of energy. And as little bonus, water shortages.

Bad in every possible way for poor people living in California. Its truly sad state, specifically because all of these problems have extremly simple solutions.

\- Don't only force renewables, but rather allow all forms of new energy that are better then the current (don't close nuclear plants for example). This is also better for prices.

\- Allow more house building. No brainer.

\- Make a proper water market with block pricing so poor people have basically free water and water is directed where it is sensable. Farmers SHOULD consider water cost when making a choice of crops. People should pay to have a green garden and/or clean their car every day.</comment>


Show HN: Tool for making isolated YouTube playlists ideal for lectures - <AUTHOR> https://quickplaylist.me <comment><AUTHOR> This is ideal for avoiding distractions as a student while consuming lectures that I need for studying.

</comment><comment><USER2> This page gives me an SSL certificate error</comment>


Lead Designer from SingStar PS3 looking for Design work - <AUTHOR> http://www.newroyalstandard.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> Alex is a friend of mine (and a fellow New Zealander) who I worked with on SingStar. He has just become an independent contractor and could be of great assistance to any startup looking to get a great online image.

I hope that this HN "advertisement" is mutually beneficial both for Alex and any startups needing a great image.</comment>