The rise of solar is 'jeopardising the grid' and it's a lesson for Australia - <AUTHOR> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-01/rise-of-rooftop-solar-power-jeopardising-wa-energy-grid/11731452 <comment><USER3> Strong motherfucking opinion warning.

South Australia is the driest state in the driest continent. It's the most perfect place for solar power. Australia as-a-whole is a perfect place for solar power.

A university lecturer of mine got one of the first solar panel installations in South Australia, it was mentioned in the local Adelaide paper, that's how much of a big deal it was. This was around 20 years ago. Twenty years!

South Australia (still) has some of the highest priced electricity in the world. There's been talk of privatization as the cause of this, which has been somewhat debunked[0], and the primarily agreed reason for the high prices is what's referred to as "gold-plating of the network" in which there was an agreement that the 'poles and wires' companies could not lose money on any infrastructure investment they committed to - the regulator would allow them continually increase the prices they charge in order to cover the cost of the infrastructure investment[1][2][3].

So, despite how perfect Australia is for solar power, private or commercial, despite the fact that solar panels have been getting commercially installed on private homes for 20-odd years, and despite the networks being given carte- blanche for infrastructure investment, somehow, Australia is un-prepared for a flood of solar power.

The various organizations that are meant to be on top of this shit have been asleep at the wheel for fucking YEARS. This was highlighted by the big power failure in South Australia in 2016 when a number of wind farms shut down due to 'safety settings' being set at overly paranoid parameters, which was a problem that had already been solved in Europe (the frustrating irony of this is that the wind farms were being blamed for the power failure, when the actual situation was that the wind farms could have PREVENTED it, if their configurations were 'best practice' \- the problems in the electricity network that caused the wind farms to trip were powerful winds that took down some big-arse transmission lines)[4][5]

Australia's issues with renewable energy are entirely of their own making. And it's far more likely attributable to incompetence than malice. I'd almost prefer it was malice because malice comes and goes. Incompetence is systemic.

Off on a tangent, here's my 10-years of electricity usage / costs investigation: [http://electricity.atcf.com.au/economics/](http://electricity.atcf.com.au/economics/)

[0] [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-25/fact-check-does- priva...](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-25/fact-check-does- privatisation-increase-electricity-prices3f/6329316)

[1] [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-02/senate-inquiry-to- pro...](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-02/senate-inquiry-to-probe-gold- plating-of-electricity-networks/5786578)

[2] [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-25/grattan-urges- consume...](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-25/grattan-urges-consumers-to- be-compensation-for-energy-grid-22g/9585284)

[3] [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-04/energy-policy- solar-e...](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-04/energy-policy-solar- electricity-bills-air-conditioning-costs/9298346)

[4] [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-28/wind-farm-settings- to...](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-28/wind-farm-settings-to-blame-for- sa-blackout-aemo-says/8389920)

[5] [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/19/south- au...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/19/south-australian- windfarms-revise-safety-settings-after-statewide-blackout)

<comment><USER4> The argument for Solar always sounds a lot like terra nullius, that was used to dispossess indigenous Australians of their land, and later their land rights.

Australia is a MASSIVE country, that is largely uninhabitable by humans. It is estimated that 75% of the species on the continent are undiscovered: [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-07/75-per-cent-of- specie...](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-07/75-per-cent-of-species- unknown-fact-check/5649858)

Large scale solar is likely to cause problems for large numbers of native species. YMMV in how important you find that, but to me personally it is a huge issue.

<comment><USER5> They did the analysis for the Square Kilometer Array. WA came up as the perfect place for this kind of construction because of the lack of ecosystem to interfere with. Politics then moved half of it to Africa _sigh_.

If you had to pick somewhere in the world to build enough solar arrays to power the entire planet, WA is the perfect spot for it.

<comment><USER6> Actually, politics moved half of SKA _to_ Australia, South Africa won the initial site selection ([https://www.nature.com/news/south-africa-wins- science-panel-...](https://www.nature.com/news/south-africa-wins-science- panel-s-backing-to-host-ska-telescope-1.10205)).

The site evaluation itself states both sites are about the same, and I think I've read that the eventual political compromise means there will be less RFI overall, at the unspoken cost of some simultaneous coverage of the targets.

<comment><USER5> interesting. That's not the version of events I heard from some of the people involved ;) But I heard it in WA, so they may have been audience-pleasing

<comment><USER6> On just merit it seems to have been a rather close thing (though South Africa was the better site), which I think was known in advance. So the entire process was pretty highly politicised; you can find much more information here: [https://www.skatelescope.org/site- documentation/](https://www.skatelescope.org/site-documentation/) though there is quite a bit of reading between the lines.

Of note to the sort of sociological questions we are discussing here, I note not only is the Site selection report ~200 pages, but also fairly interesting is a 16 page "Report on Validation of the SKA Site Selection Process". This comes with a lot of other documents as appendices, but also lays allows one to make out the timeline a bit more.

The final site report is from February 2012, while an "evaluation plan" was set in November 2011, and a " _Revised_ Plan for SKA Site Selection" approved in May 2011. The Siting Group was created in 2010, to help with the "final" site selection. All this paints a picture of a somewhat fluid process.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "excess solar power from households and businesses spilled uncontrolled on to the system, pushing the amount of power needed from the grid to increasingly low levels.... The only way to manage the solar was to scale back or switch off the coal- and gas-fired power stations that were supposed to be the bedrock of the electricity system."

Wow, that sounds like a great problem to have. Note the aggressive rhetoric ... 'spill', 'uncontrolled','pushing', 'bedrock', 'solar smashes utility finance'. Well-crafted FUD from ABC's Mercer, _if_ he wrote it all.

Coal and gas being endangered sounds perfect, if you give a rat's ass about climate change. But let's do everything we can to get in the way of progress by painting the result as blackly as possible. Maybe instead of pushing that excess onto the grid, people can sell it their neighbors instead ... or 'the industry' could install more batteries to store it in.

<comment><USER8> > _" excess solar power from households and businesses spilled uncontrolled on > to the system" ... Wow, that sounds like a great problem to have._

It's also a problem that has already been solved at the technology level.

Australia just needs an equivalent to California's updated "Rule 21" regulations for smart inverters, which came into force in 2019. These rules require inverters to support "remote control" management by utilities, so that their output can be throttled back in low-demand scenarios.

Rule 21 also specifies features like dynamic volt/VAR (dynamic reactive compensation), so inverters actively work to _stabilise_ the grid in the event of voltage deviations, as well as ramping and "ride through" requirements to prevent large numbers of inverters tripping simultaneously during voltage/frequency deviations which could result in a cascading fault.

<comment><USER9> Yes, that is in fact exactly what the original article is arguing - that the stability of the Western Australian grid requires a switch to "smart" solar which the grid operator can remotely curtail the output of on demand. Hence all the rhetoric about how excess power "spilled uncontrolled" onto the grid which the previous comment complained about.

This is also not, in fact, a good situation to be in. The stability of the power grid depends on balancing supply with demand in real time, and if that can't be done then the whole thing fails. Not only that, the old-fashioned gas and steam power plants have inertia that helps stabilize the grid and as that decreases overall stability margins fall. I think wind farms can emulate this inertia to a certain extent, but that doesn't always seem to work so well...

<comment><USER10> Wind mills have to be designed to deliver inertia, older mills generally aren't as this wasn't an issue when they were built. If you have a grid that relies primarily on solar, you might want to build dedicated flywheels to keep it stable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> So, "jeopardising" in the seense that, say, me driving west on a road which comes to a north-south "T" in the road, would be "jeopardising" the car's safety...if I don't turn the car in an appropriate manner when I get to the "T". Yes, if you add solar with absolutely no changes elsewhere to accommodate that, you will eventually have problems.

But, that's like saying smartphones jeopardized the cell phone infrastructure, which they did except the cell phone companies added capacity. Bicycles can jeopardize the road network of a city if they become widely used, and you don't do anything (e.g. bike lanes) to accommodate that change. Every change in technology can jeopardize the network it is part of, if nothing else is changed to accommodate it.

But, you know, there are several (already known, developed) methods of handling this (big batteries, utilities being able to turn off your solar like they can currently remotely control my thermostat). It seems a bit of an overstatement to say that it's jeopardizing the grid.

<comment><USER12> The powers that be in Australia are very, very, very friendly (read: in bed with) the coal industry. For the last 5 years they have been doing everything possible to discredit renewables, and there is a lot of money at stake.

It's a fascinating view into what happens when a few very rich and powerful people control essentially all the media in an entire country.

<comment><USER13> That pretty much describes governments around the world, it's nothing exclusive to Australia unfortunately.

<comment><USER14> Hmm, I'd say Australia's mining industry holds a significantly more hefty sway over politicians than it does in other countries, just because of how much of Aussie's GDP is based on mining - plus how the miners have attempted to controk the media there: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Rinehart#Business_career](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Rinehart#Business_career)

> In 2010 Rinehart took a 10 per cent stake in Ten Network Holdings; James > Packer had acquired an 18 per cent stake in the same company shortly before. > Since then she also acquired a substantial stake in Fairfax Media. Rinehart > was a major player in the media and no longer limits her interests to the > mining business. In February 2012 she increased her stake in Fairfax to over > 12 per cent, and became the largest shareholder of the company. Fairfax > journalists were reportedly fearful that she wanted to turn them into a > "mouthpiece for the mining industry". In June 2012, she increased her stake > further to 18.67 per cent, and was believed to be seeking three board seats > and involvement in editorial decisions in Fairfax's newspaper division. > Negotiations between Fairfax and Hancock Prospecting broke down in late June > because of disagreements over Fairfax's editorial independence policy and > other issues relating to board governance; chair Roger Corbett subsequently > announced that Rinehart would not be offered any seats on the board. After > failing to get board representation she sold her shareholding in 2015.

<comment><USER15> In Canada you have one family that owns almost all the news media in the country and also Reuters. From what I understand they are the 5th richest family in the world.

<comment><USER16> 27th according to Forbes [0].

[0]: [https://www.forbes.com/profile/david- thomson/#2d5599fa5628](https://www.forbes.com/profile/david- thomson/#2d5599fa5628)

<comment><USER17> But 5th according to Reuters!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> What a dumb article.

To begin with, nothing is jeopardising the grid right now in Western Australia, it is running just fine.

The claim seems to be that if we do not account for the increasing share of solar power in the future generation mix, then we may grid stability have problems sometime in the future...

Given that the solutions to such problems are well known and inexpensive - <USER2> about we don't plod stupidly into the future? Was that ever the plan?

And the "lesson for Australia" is what, exactly? Plan ahead?

</comment><comment><USER19> >On those days, excess solar power from households and businesses spilled uncontrolled on to the system, pushing the amount of power needed from the grid to increasingly low levels.

>Ms Zibelman said WA's isolation amplified this trend because the relative concentration of its solar resources meant fluctuations in supply caused by the weather had an outsized effect.

>The only way to manage the solar was to scale back or switch off the coal- and gas-fired power stations that were supposed to be the bedrock of the electricity system.

>The problem was coal-fired plants were not designed to be quickly ramped up or down in such a way, meaning they were ill-equipped to respond to sudden fluctuations in solar production.

Sounds like it's time rebalance the system with lower baseload assumptions for coal and gas plants. I'm quite sure the incumbents are loathe to suggest that since it means investment in buffers to soak up so-called excess power from solar panels and splitting the profit with solar panel owners.

<comment><USER20> How does a lower baseline estimate factor in when you have a particularly cloudy day or week?

<comment><USER21> Traditional power plants are perfectly able to adapt to weather patterns. Weather forecasts on a time scale of 12 hours or a day are very accurate. For very shorts fluctuations you can always buffer into batteries.

The _real_ problem is that fossil fuel plants are designed to be profitable at high load factors. Building a coal plant and only running it at 50% load is not profitable.

<comment><USER20> Traditional power plants have never had to deal with weather patterns that can significantly increase or decrease output, no?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> In 2008, when I was working in geothermal in Australia, I was at a meeting where the 2008 AUD price of a transmission line was quoted at 1.4 million/km.

Multiply that by 1100 or so km across the nullarbor (rough guess; what really matters is the path between closest transmission lines of sufficient capacity) and you begin to see the scale of the problem.

Oh, and Australia has roughly the land area of the lower 48 of the US, with roughly the population of Southern California. In other words, it's bloody empty.

<comment><USER12> I'm originally Australian and a huge hot springs nut. Out of curiosity, where in Australia is there geothermal potential?

<comment><USER22> There's theoretical potential pretty much everywhere -- in that hot rocks exist underground, and some form of permeability can be created. Economical potential is quite limited, and technology dependent.

In particular, the Cooper Basin project, while technically viable with demonstrated generation capacity, died after failing to get investment needed for a transmission line. At the same meeting I referred to in my top post, I also heard that the CB project was about 600 km away from the nearest transmission lines.

N.B. I was not working on that project, so my knowledge is not firsthand.

Birdsville Qld, is still the only operating geothermal power generation plant in Oz as far as I'm aware.

If you are only interested in hot springs, there are developed baths on the Mornington Peninsula in Vic.

<comment><USER12> Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Funny how things are a matter of perspective. I view the baseload / coal generation as what is jeopardising the grid. It can't react to fluctuations in demand or supply so it's just not a tenable solution for a modern power grid where demand is intrinsically variable.

Having said that, I feel like some regulation mandating a certain amount of storage be supplied with rooftop solar wouldn't be a bad thing. It doesn't seem responsible to set up generation capacity without the storage to buffer the effect of that capacity's generation on the grid.

<comment><USER24> Sorry not everyone in SW Australia has a solar energy supply, so just because you have that advantage doesn't mean others should have to suffer with blackouts. Has the whole world forgotten how to compromise and work together as a society rather than "my solar tribe" vs "your coal/poverty stricken populace who can't afford solar roofs tribe". I thought you Aussies were more civilized than us people in the States.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> This really is just another poor-me major piece of spin that we Aussies have had to cop in the media in the last decade - following on from these other two gems: 1\. too much air-conditioning is overloading the grid; 2\. the power bills have been high because they've over-spent on the grid (apparently preparing it for future demand); 3\. too much solar is stressing the grid... Looks like the grid is the weakest link. Time to go off grid perhaps?

1\. could be loosely verified - mid-day black-outs were a common occurrence on extremely hot days in Sydney, esp. in the noughties. Or was the grid just not up to it? Lucky they over-spent on it. 2\. price gouging is still be rampant, the rates are still as high as ever, and solar feed in tariffs are a joke; If we're swimming in free/cheap electricity, where is the lowering of the rate? and why is green energy still much higher for the consumer? Good reasons I'm sure... probably something along the lines of "the grid can't handle it".

3\. Given that we're now (apparently) swimming in all this extra grid-damaging power, maybe it was the solar that really stopped the blackouts - after all, the air-con comes on when the sun shines! Just tell everyone to turn on their air-con. That should solve it!

Good luck to anyone trying to get a clear answer on any of it - like it's been noted, too many vested interests in politics and the media. My view: go-off grid as soon as you can.

</comment><comment><USER26> Just researched this today after talking to some Aussies about it!

The problem is that Australia is so married to coal that they have no national electrical grid strategy, including transmission line investment, so it's harder to get generation to load centers ("follow the sun" generation"). They also don't have natural gas to fill in when renewable generation dips (unlike the US).

The solution is going to be a lot of utility battery storage (Hornsdale Power Reserve Tesla battery is currently being expanded, for example), more renewables, and actual transmission infrastructure investment.

<comment><USER27> that comment (while technically correct) is undoubtedly from someone who has obviously never driven across the nullabor.

<comment><USER26> Haven't been through the Nullabor myself, but I can't imagine it's so treacherous that you can't drag a few five inch HVDC conductors through it (which only need to be buried, no concrete channel or conduit required, to support ~2500MW of transmission capacity).

If I recall, that's where the latest Mad Max film was filmed.

<comment><USER28> It's not that it can't be done, it's that the Nullarbor is 1,100 km of _absolutely_ nothing. More broadly, it's ~3000 km from Perth to Adelaide, vs ~4000 km for the continental US.

Also, the last Mad Max was mostly filmed in Namibia. The older ones were filmed in Australia, notably Coober Pedy, which is north of Adelaide and not near the Nullarbor.

<comment><USER12> > _Also, the last Mad Max was mostly filmed in Namibia. The older ones were > filmed in Australia, notably Coober Pedy, which is north of Adelaide and not > near the Nullarbor_

The originals were filmed just outside Broken Hill actually. There is a sign on the highway way to Mildura, and there is a big lot where you can see some of the props from Number 3 (notably the plane). I grew up in Mildura.

Also, the latest was filmed in Messum Crater in Namibia, I spent some time exploring there too - (bottom half of this post/pictures) [http://theroadchoseme.com/riverbeds-and- craters](http://theroadchoseme.com/riverbeds-and-craters)

<comment><USER29> The first film (pre-apocalypse) was actually filmed mostly in and around Melbourne. I grew up in Warrnambool and Horsham so any trip to Melbourne would take you through some of the filming locations along the old Western Hwy. The first film was really about 70s Australian car culture and filled with utes, panel vans and of course big V8s. More early Fast & Furious than the later dystopian theme.

You're correct about the second being up Broken Hill way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Solar did not just rise mysteriously - it was driven by government policy, first by huge feed in tariffs (US$270/MWh) and later with massive rebates.

"West Australians who applied for rooftop solar panels from the 1st of July 2010 till the 30 of June 2011 could lock in a 40 cent feed-in tariff for 10 years and those who applied in July 2011 could lock in 20 cents for 10 years." [1]

"The current Rebate subsidises 54% of the price when purchasing a Solar System for a home or property." [2]

[1] [https://www.solarquotes.com.au/systems/feed-in- tariffs/wa/](https://www.solarquotes.com.au/systems/feed-in-tariffs/wa/)

[2] [https://www.solarmarket.com.au/wa-solar-rebate- scrapped/](https://www.solarmarket.com.au/wa-solar-rebate-scrapped/)

</comment><comment><USER31> Reading all the comments, remote, cheap powered Western Australia sounds like the perfect place to set up shop if you're a super villain. (There's only so many extinct volcanoes to go around.)

If it weren't for that pesky non-compete clause with the evil villain run government.

</comment><comment><USER32> This sounds like the "Utility Death Spiral" and also happened in Germany, Hawaii, and Nevada.

Best article on it IMO (2014): [https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/this-is-what- th...](https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/this-is-what-the-utility- death-spiral-looks-like)

tldr:

Renewables require additional grid maintenance costs (storage + two-way distribution) while simultaneously prompting more consumers to buy less conventional energy from utilities. Historically, utilities made money from selling electricity. Now they have fewer customers and higher costs. They have to charge higher prices to the fewer customers. Then more people want to choose renewables. This keeps going until the utilities bankrupt.

The solution is to change the business model for utilities, which are regulated monopolies. So it's a policy question. Absent strong leadership, the utilities tend to claw back against renewables instead of innovating (saga of Nevada)...

fun fact: this is named after ants, where some species will literally march around in circles to starvation if the pheromone scent trails get tangled up.

<comment><USER33> This is exactly right. There's utility in being an as needed source of power as well as storage point. There's so many different types of storage options as well. There's batteries, liquid potential energy storage, potentially flywheel but this hasn't worked out too well, there's adding wind capacity.

As a business model they get to charge for storage maintenance and generation when needed. Storage is a consistent amount of money with extra coming in from power generation as needed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> On the other hand, if a technology requires higher levels of organizational competence than is available from the government of a major first-world country, maybe it isn't ready for primetime.

</comment><comment><USER35> An interesting technical problem to face, but it had to be solved eventually.

All sorts of solutions need to be combined to upgrade the the grid to something which is ready to accommodate so many renewables. Breakthroughs in battery technology need to happen very soon (globally). Hopefully the push from large nation states and the accompanying investments in it will make this possible.

An interesting problem here is energy security, especially for places like hospitals or the military. You do not want a country who's critical infrastructure relies on the power generation of suburban rooftop solar but unfortunately the large amount in WA, Aus seems to indicate that might be a possibility.

At the very least, a move away from coal is needed. Even though natural gas isn't ideal as a final destination, it might be needed in the iterim. Quick fire up/down during rapid demand change periods is needed to allow the shift to renewables to happen. Sadly, building natural gas generators - even if with the aim of supporting renewables long-term - would probably be met with opposition by some on the eco-left in WA. Worth a shot though.

<comment><USER36> Nuclear requires something to help load follow too since reactors don't throttle quickly. The French use hydro and import/export.

Load leveling is a problem that must be solved to go beyond fossil fuels, and even without climate concerns we will run out of cheap easy fossil fuels eventually anyway.

<comment><USER37> Reactors _can_ throttle quickly. The current designs just don't.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> Const-me Can't they do something useful with the energy?

E.g. aluminum is used everywhere, the ore is also everywhere it's 8% of the crust, the major cost to convert ore into metal is electricity. Can't they engineer a robotic aluminum factory which scales fast enough to capture the cheap power?

<comment><USER30> If you invest in a aluminium smelter you will want to run it 24/7, not just when there's cheap power. Also Australia enjoys the most expensive power in the world because of grid costs.

<comment><USER38> Modern aluminum plants can operate in a fairly wide band around "expected power" and are often used in a load shedding/load taking capacity to use excess capacity or make up for lack of capacity. They get cheaper electricity prices to pay for that grid stabilization service.

It seems that at least some of australias smelters haven't caught up with that development yet: [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/31/austra...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/31/australias- aluminium-sector-is-on-life-support-it-can-and-should-be-saved)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> This is another real-world example of why our lack of energy storage is becoming a crisis. Without energy storage, large amounts of wind and solar energy will wreck our power grids. We must build more storage immediately to prevent a climate crisis.

This is why our project, Terrament, is studying this problem and working on a solution. [https://www.terramenthq.com/](https://www.terramenthq.com/)

<comment><USER40> I'm curious how you approach the earthquake problem with underground pumped hydro storage?

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> > The only way to manage the solar was to scale back or switch off the coal- > and gas-fired power stations that were supposed to be the bedrock of the > electricity system.

Oh no. What a tragedy.

<comment><USER28> The problem here is the fluctuations in supply: you still need that coal & gas power for when renewables aren't producing. And the specific problem is that coal plants are not good at starting up and spinning down rapidly.

Gas plants, however, are quite fast, so if this leads to coal plants becoming obsolete, that's win all around even if it requires more gas power in the interim.

<comment><USER42> The Big Battery of South Australia seems to be working.

<comment><USER43> Are you talking about the Elon Musk's project that can store 3 minutes of South Australia's electricity needs?

<comment><USER44> No, they're talking about the battery that has taken substantial costs out of the network by providing the stabilizing supply when there are swings in demand.

The battery was never meant to supply "South Australia's electricity needs" and quoting that shows how the anti-renewables lobby in Australia has corrupted the debate.

[https://reneweconomy.com.au/how-the-tesla-big-battery- kept-t...](https://reneweconomy.com.au/how-the-tesla-big-battery-kept-the- lights-on-in-south-australia-20393/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I would love to see all this surplus energy used in direct-air-capture stations to pump CO2 from the air and transform it (either store it as a liquid, or convert it into plastic precursors, etc).

</comment><comment><USER46> Should say better and smarter management. It should not be accusing the solar panel. Computer jeopardising a lot of things otherwise.

</comment><comment><USER47> Need to make big accumulator. Problem solved. xD</comment>


Quote Stream - Push real-time stock quotes in JSON over web-sockets with node.js - <AUTHOR> http://nodesocket.github.com/quote-stream/ <comment><USER2> A quick note for anyone thinking that this could help you build that finance app you've been putting off - getting actual real-time stock quotes legitimately is actually fairly expensive/involved.

Screen scraping Google / Yahoo finance and using that data in an app is (I believe) explicitly against their TOS. Whether or not they ever enforce that is another story...

The actual real-time data streams are highly controlled and regulated by a few big players.

(Just my $0.02 after having looked into it about a year ago for a social investing app I was building)

<comment><USER3> That data is also 15 minutes old (or older!) from what I recall. Probably not your best choice for anything remotely "realtime".

As parent said, you're better off getting a real market stream which will probably use FIX: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Information_eXchange>

<comment><AUTHOR> It should be realtime (not delayed 20 minutes), we will find out in 8 minutes if this is true. :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Confirmed real-time, just streamed in:

        {
    	"ticker": "AAPL",
    	"exchange": "NASDAQ",
    	"price": "598.86",
    	"change": "-9.48",
    	"change_percent": "-1.56",
    	"last_trade_time": "Apr 19, 9:30AM EDT"
        }

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> But, and correct me if I'm wrong obviously, this isn't sending quotes to the client real time, it's just sending them in 5 second batches?

I guess I'm struggling to see how:

"Stock quotes are pulled from Google Finance and are real-time."

and

"By default stock quotes are fetched every 5 seconds, and pushed to the client."

Work together...

Great work on sharing the code though, thanks.

<comment><AUTHOR> In finance, real-time quotes means not delayed by 20 minutes. The price returned should be real-time in those terms.

<comment><USER5> In finance, real-time means receiving each tick or trade record. Aggregating prices over 5 seconds and sending that data every 5 seconds is "aggregated data over 5 seconds".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I caught the stream changing things up right in the middle? What is the deal with this? -- ie this was on the main page where it is looking for AAPL and not MSFT

{ "ticker": "MSFT", "exchange": "NASDAQ", "price": "31.26", "change": "+0.12", "change_percent": "0.38", "last_trade_time": "Apr 19, 10:17AM EDT" } { "ticker": "AAPL", "exchange": "NASDAQ", "price": "598.27", "change": "-10.07", "change_percent": "-1.66", "last_trade_time": "Apr 19, 10:17AM EDT" }

<comment><USER7> Came here to say the same thing (including trying MSFT) :)

Also, the URL "<http://xhv51cz0.nodesocket.com/quote-stream/MSFT/> works but "<http://xhv51cz0.nodesocket.com/quote-stream/MSFT> does not (without "/" in the end)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This would be neat if it was secure, unfortunately anyone can look up your server from source and message it anything they please.

</comment><comment><USER9> On a related note we put out a tech demo showing nodejs and socketio recently. <http://www.webdigi.co.uk/fun/space/>

It uses iPhone accelerometer to control the ship on your browser game!

</comment><comment><USER10> Weeeeeeeell damn...

I had exactly this idea a few weeks ago, and never put any time into it.

Just goes to show you...

This is pretty cool, good work

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah it's was a fun little project, hopefully useful for somebody. ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I guess this data can only for personal use but not public. Am I right?

<comment><USER12> It's taking the data from google.com, for example [http://www.google.com/finance/info?client=ig&q=AAPL](http://www.google.com/finance/info?client=ig&q=AAPL) which AFAIK isn't a public Google API. As noted in other comments, real time quote APIs tend to be subscription services that are somewhat expensive ...

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Cool demo, but a real-time quote is measured in the ~20msec range. A real-time trade would be <50msec round trip.

A real-time quote provider is someone who's server is physically connected to a direct exchange feed, as in you have a 5' wire running from your box to one of the CME's servers, not someone who's obtaining web-based delayed quotes.

<comment><USER14> To expand on this a bit:

Within the US there are a number of ECNs/exchanges. Each one publishes there own order book including prices and sizes on each side of the book. To get the most accurate information possible on market prices, you need to have a direct connection to each exchange and usually, you want to be co-located within the same data center as them. Unless you're a market maker, high-frequency trader, or run an institutional electronic trading platform, this level of data is not necessary.

For most human traders, a consolidated feed is sufficient; that data comes from an authority called the CTA. From wikipedia: "Since the late 1970s, all SEC-registered exchanges and market centers that trade NYSE or AMEX-listed securities send their trades and quotes to a central consolidator where the Consolidated Tape System (CTS) and Consolidated Quotation System (CQS) data streams are produced and distributed worldwide." The consolidation process delays the data by ~100 ms. This is still considered real-time by many people including professional traders.

Most HN readers are getting a conflated version of the consolidated feed. Google's "real-time" feed falls into this category and adding 5 seconds doesn't really matter at this point.

<comment><USER13> > For most human traders

You're living in the past.

> The consolidation process delays the data by ~100 ms. This is still > considered real-time by many people including professional traders.

A couple of months ago we achieved round-trip [cleared] trades between Tokyo and New York of under 50ms. That's your barrier to entry.

You're not in business if you're looking at an average of 100ms.

<comment><USER15> I'm not sure if this is possible. According to Wolfram Alpha the distance between NYC and Tokyo is ~10879 Kilometers (as the crow flies, not as the cable lies). The speed of light in Kilometers per second is 299,792.458

If we evaluate (10879 / 299792.458) * 1000 = 36.28. This is for a single leg. So we get 72.57 milliseconds just for as the crow flies transport. This does not include other factors that contribute to latency (network, processing, etc.)

For "round trip" as you say then this number should be multiplied by 2 as it has to go NYC -> Tokyo, Tokyo -> NYC.

Have you developed some sort of faster than the speed of light communication mechanism we haven't heard of? Inquiring minds demand to know.

Edit: One possible explanation is that you are using multiple time sources that are not synchronized. E.g. if you send a FIX message to an ECN and use the clock available on your machine and then use the ECN's timestamps somewhere in your calculation this renders the measurement invalid because you can't ensure that your clocks are synchronized.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you build a service? - <AUTHOR> I have an idea for an eCommerce web app that I want to launch either late this year or early next year (I'll be testing and such before then). There will be a self-hosted solution for open-source lovers, and a hosted service for people who don't want to deal with setup and maintenance.
My question is this: How do I actually get started with the hosted service? I've never done anything like this, so some pointers would be much appreciated. I plan to use DigitalOcean because I love their offerings.
Actually, one more thing! Every store would be a sub-domain, like how accounts are on deviantART. Need to figure out how to make that happen automatically via sign-up though. <comment><USER2> For the hosted service, you'll want to determine what are some of the core functionality that your users will care about.

For folks who don't want to do deal with setup and maintenance, they could be a completely separate crowd than the folks who will be downloading your open- source version.

You'll have to balance the needs of both audiences. What's critical will be to start chatting with people to get an idea of what they want.

Inexpensive options like DigitalOcean are great (we're on there as well) for testing out ideas. However, you'll have to balance technology choice, ease of implementation and costs as well.

Feel free to shoot me a message if you wanted to chat further.

<comment><AUTHOR> Actually, how do I send messages on HN?

<comment><USER3> Not possible, click on their profile name and hope for a way to contact to them personally or comment under them to request a contact or comment under them with your contact.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> for the sub domain part you can use a wild card sub domain

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

<comment><AUTHOR> Huh, that's interesting. Thanks for the link!</comment></comment>


Grammar Puss: The fallacies of the language mavens (1994) - <AUTHOR> https://newrepublic.com/article/77732/grammar-puss-steven-pinker-language-william-safire <comment><USER2> Funny I read the whole thing thinking that this is like The Language Instinct by Pinker and then at the end saw it was by him. That explains why nothing but one point in it was new to me.

The point that did spark my interest was that it's not rules that are important but expressing yourself as a writer (or speaker), which most people are poor at.

Pinker is good, Christopher Hitchens was good, George Orwell was excellent at condensing ideas down into clear, lucid pros. Our own Dijkstra is probably admired mostly for his ability to write so clearly regardless of the topic. Hacker News's Paul Graham's success as an author of articles seems to me to be 80% his writing abilities and 20% actual valuable ideas.

That comes down to the really important point for me. It doesn't matter how good your ideas are if you can't communicate them, they'll just sit in the shed propping up cobwebs. You may get lucky and someone else does it for you. If there's a "one thing" that language teaching efforts should be focused on, it's getting your point across effectively.

<comment><USER3> In an essay in Harper's titled "Tense Present"[0] David Foster Wallace, in addition to surveying the prescriptivist/descriptivist landscape, has an aside where he describes a conversation he has with black students of his who write in "standard black english" (vs "standard written english"). It manages to touch on language, class, clarity of communication and political correctness in a way that still seems timely today. Plus it's funny.

It begins at the bottom of pg. 16 in the PDF (or pg. 53 in the magazine).

[0][https://harpers.org/wp- content/uploads/HarpersMagazine-2001-...](https://harpers.org/wp- content/uploads/HarpersMagazine-2001-04-0070913.pdf)

<comment><USER4> Thank you for that! I'm a huge fan of DFW and somehow I hadn't read this yet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> My wife and I discus this all the time. She's in the "descriptive rules" camp, and I straddle the line.

The advantage to prescriptive rules for language is that you don't lose the context of a language over time or distance. My hope was that the popularity of the web would make it easier to communicate and understand each other, and also that languages would mature to the point where we could read historical documents without a language barrier.

Instead, it seems like language in popular use seems to have evolved more quickly, we're not as good at communication as before, and we collectively choose our words less carefully out of a smaller pool.

Or maybe I'm just getting old and cranky.

<comment><USER6> > The advantage to prescriptive rules for language is that you don't lose the > context of a language over time or distance

That's assuming that even works. I'm not sure it's clear prescribing language rules has ever worked at stopping the natural evolution of language. Most grammar nazi's (if there's a less politically laden term, let me know) focus on a small amount of "common mistakes" but don't seem to care or even notice the avalanche of tiny changes to language occurring at the same time. And do they win with regard to the changes they do focus on? Even in 1874, the "correct" way to say people are building a house in the passive voice was "the house is building", which even in the most formal communications has been completely replaced with the nonsensical and uncouth "the house is being built".[0]

0: [http://volokh.com/2011/01/15/the-best-writers-say-the- house-...](http://volokh.com/2011/01/15/the-best-writers-say-the-house-is- building-not-the-house-is-being-built/)

<comment><USER7> > Most grammar nazi's (if there's a less politically laden term, let me know)

Well, from the article, grammar maven. That said, grammar nazi nicely codifies quite a few thoughts very succinctly. Given the content and theme of the article, I'm now fairly certain since you brought it up the whole point of calling the person a grammar maven is a subtle in-joke about grammar nazis, and how that's as good a name as any, and better than most. Why else focus on someone that self-described as a grammar maven, and call out the _Yiddish_ origin? It's likely in my mind the original person described themselves that way with grammar nazi firmly in mind, which makes the in-joke all the better when used in this article.

I'm actually fairly pleased with that interpretation (whether it's true or not), as it opens up a whole layer to the article I wasn't thinking of and quite enjoy. I wouldn't have thought of that at all if you hadn't brought up the term in a way that made me examine it, so thanks. :)

<comment><USER8> From the article below:

To counter the negative connotations evoked by the term "grammar pedant" and to celebrate their pleasure in language, they invent playful monikers such as "grammartiste", "grammagician", "grammardian angel", "grammar groover", "grammartuoso" and "grammasseur".

[https://theconversation.com/in-defence-of-grammar- pedantry-7...](https://theconversation.com/in-defence-of-grammar- pedantry-78670)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This reminds me a lot of music theory. I used to think of the elements of western music as being prescriptive, like major and minor keys and functions. But I came to understand that the most groundbreaking treatises on music theory were originally descriptive, before becoming understood as prescriptive. Great artists found ways to innovate new practices, and eventually theory began to fragment as it became seemingly impossible to create a coherent set of rules to cover all popular music, even though so many idioms are shared between genres.

And what's particularly fascinating to me is the fact that music can't really even be said to communicate ideas. So it's a bit of a mystery why it should have idioms to begin with. And yet...

</comment><comment><USER10> I'm all for verbing nouns, but the person who decided "decisioning" should be a word needs to be disciplined severely.

<comment><USER11> I see what you did there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> > _What is behind this contradiction? If language is as instinctive to humans > as dam-building is to beavers, if the design of syntax is coded in our DNA, > why does the average American sound like a gibbering fool every time he > opens his mouth or puts pen to paper?_

Because just having language faculties doesn't necessarily make you smart or informed or well-read, nor it makes you someone that pays attention to what they say and how they say it.

Sex is an instinct too -- but how many do it badly?

<comment><USER13> > Sex is an instinct too -- but how many do it badly?

Nature has a different definition of 'good' sex. Something like 'productive', as opposed to 'enjoyable'.

<comment><USER12> That's my point too. Nature has a different definition of good language too. A human ape barely being able to communicate is enough, eloquence is not necessary.

<comment><USER13> Hmmm, I suppose it depends on whether 'eloquence' contributes to intent / being understood.

I'd also argue that a second form of evolution now exists - "memetic" evolution, of which language is the medium.

<comment><USER12> > _Hmmm, I suppose it depends on whether 'eloquence' contributes to intent / > being understood._

It might, but it probably goes beyond the mere "understood", so it's more cultural than necessary for evolution beyond a point.

(Same with sex though: as parent commenter noted, being good at it is not any great evolutionary advantage. Just being able to do it to reproduce is enough).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Meta: It's interesting to note how different the writing is 20 years later. It seems like it's much more complex than most writing today.

Has our writing improved in clarity or has it gotten simpler? (or was this similarly far from the mean in its time?)

<comment><USER15> I'm pretty sure it's a product of our withering attention spans.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16>
      > So just because "Al Gore and I" is an object
      > that requires object case, it does not mean
      > that "I" is an object that requires object case.
      > By the logic of grammar, the pronoun is free to
      > have any case it wants.

This is the only part of the article that seems controversial to me and I cannot explain why it seems wrong!

The closest I can get is to suggest that a paraphrase of "Give Al Gore and I a chance" is "Give Al Gore a chance, and me too" and that this intended meaning is what constrains the pronoun to be "me".

</comment><comment><USER17> I was hoping this article was about analytic philosophers.

</comment><comment><USER18> I also urged my dear friends to take it easy with their agressive attitudes towards those living at the edge of language correctness; language is a living organism, it changes in time. And as long as we convey the meaning of what we are trying to express on the other side it is ok. And for sure not to be responded with active/passive aggression as I see it so many times.

</comment><comment><USER19> "Authority and American Usage" is generally better. [0]: [http://wilson.med.harvard.edu/nb204/AuthorityAndAmericanUsag...](http://wilson.med.harvard.edu/nb204/AuthorityAndAmericanUsage.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER20> > treating "bummer" as a sentence

I've never heard a complaint about that.

It seems as much a sentance as "Sorry" or "Okay"

<comment><USER21> Though I would say those are also not quite sentences.

It doesn't matter.

I in my book it is more productive to teach people something like "All sentences must have a verb. But that doesn't mean you always have to speak in sentences." than to teach something like "Any reasonable utterance is a sentence, but we can give you no clear guidance on what that means".

<comment><USER9> But at that point, a sentence just becomes a purely theoretical concept, rather than a complete class.

Human expression is maddeningly difficult to cleanly categorize, eh?

<comment><USER20> True.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Firefox Jetpack For Real Time Squarespace Traffic Monitoring - <AUTHOR> http://bustedloop.com/blog/2009/7/9/squarespace-jetpack-alpha.html

<comment><USER2> Trying to parse this headline, I ended up with something like "Firefox hires a guy in a real jetpack.. to monitor time square's traffic?!"

<comment><AUTHOR> That would be infinitely cooler</comment></comment>


Why Apple can't be too worried about Android - <AUTHOR> http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2011/02/05/why-apple-cant-be-too-worried-about-android-3-0-honeycomb-tablets-taking-away-ipad-sales-part-1/

<comment><USER2>
        That effort in "market share voodoo," being propagated by Garner and other
        corporate data flack firms, desperately attempts to hide the failure of
        actual Android licensees, from Samsung's disappointing profits to
        the shaky position of Motorola and Sony Ericsson.

Hmm. Why did their list not include HTC, who make $65 profit per unit, mostly on Android phones? (cf. <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2172598>) It's quite true that most Android mfers are making wafer-thin wargins or even small losses, but ignoring the mfer who is raking it in?

Cherry-picking piece, lots of analytic problems, not really worth reading.

<comment><USER3> If the vast majority (all but one according your post--and I have no data to refute that claim) falls within the set and he leaves out the one--is that cherry-picking or simply discarding an outlier? I'd argue it's the latter.

<comment><USER4> Considering that on the other side of the argument is a single data point, Apple, I can't see how leaving out even a single company producing Android products makes sense.

Furthermore, I don't understand why so many people appear to have a desperate need to try to paint Apple as dominant and unable to fail. Wether there are more Apple handsets or Android handsets, the fact that you can even make the comparison clearly shows that Apple is no where close to dominant in the mobile market.

Everyone also forgets that RIM still has a large market share, despite their OS lagging Android and iOS in features. The market is anyones game at this point and we should all be happy for the competition that exists. That competition will create cheaper and better products for us all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Gosh, I'm an Apple fanboy with the best of 'em, but I can't help reading Dilger like an autistic kid writing from his parents' basement: yes, much of what he's saying might be true (can't fact-check it all), but the spitefulness, anger and slant is so strong it's almost unreadable.

Why not just present the facts as you see 'em, and, if you're right, people will give you due respect for your vision.

<comment><USER6> exactly

ITT: mac4lifer loves mac

/not exactly breaking news

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> You know, often I see these long speeches, always in retrospect about how one technology won over the other with a myriad of reasons.

In almost all of these cases, the winners had one thing in common: They had better user interfaces. Not quality, not specifications, but user interface.

All the google vs altavista, facebook vs myspace, iphone vs android and so on, always seem to end up with the simpler and more effective user interface winning. The post-analysis always points to a huge confluence of things happening, but for now I'll stick to my simple rule:

Software that is easier to use and gives the user what he wants faster (and has the same feature-set and price) than another equivalent software will always become more popular, given enough time.

<comment><USER8> I almost agree about google. Yes google had a very very simple interface but surely pagerank must have played some part in its success. A page with a single text field doing altavista like search would not have gone far right?</comment></comment>


Domain name cloud.io sells for $45,000 - <AUTHOR> https://flippa.com/4427064-550-000-exact-searches-month-5-64-cpc-billion-dollar-industry

<comment><USER2> Does a domain name really matter this much? I mean if you have an established brand it might make sense to spend a lot to get your name but cloud.io? Dropbox started as getdropbox.com, Box started as box.net, and a number of newly-launching services use stuff like:

* getX.com

* goX.com

* Xnow.com

* Xapp.com

* etc...

This doesn't make the service any less legit in my eyes and I know that if they are successful they will pony up for the X.com URL. You'd be better off building a product that people want than wasting all your money on a domain...

<comment><AUTHOR> I think you have a good point but if you think of it in terms of marketing costs, $45k for a domain is very little and will go a long way.</comment></comment>


I Tried to See Where My T-Shirt Was Made - <AUTHOR> http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/india-garment-factories-sumangali <comment><USER2> Come on, ladies and gentlemen, the fine submitted article is about stark conditions in _India,_ where "Western capitalism" was specifically rejected, and socialism embraced, as an economic model after independence in 1947. The comparison with Taiwan (where I have lived, twice) is instructive. Taiwan too, under the China Nationalist Party (KMT) dictatorship, had a period of governance that accepted Sun Yat-sen thought and dabbled with a lot of socialism. (That the field of Taiwan's flag, formally the flag of the Republic of China, is red is no accident. The KMT was very much part of a worldwide socialist movement when it was founded.) Meanwhile, as the mainland fell to the Commmunist Party of China and then Stalin's invasion of South Korea from the north began, the United States felt constrained to prop up Taiwan, and one way it did so was by promoting land reform in Taiwan and local free and fair elections. Gradually, Taiwan became more "capitalist," and it went from stark poverty (being poorer in my wife's birth year than some newly independent countries in Africa) to prosperity. Taiwan hasn't had a garment industry like that described in the submitted article for a long, long time. Essentially everyone who gets online to discuss issues on Hacker News probably uses an Internet device with multiple components made in Taiwan and traded in international trade.

Trade is the foundation of capitalism, not exploitation. (The references for this, of course, are the writings of Adam Smith and David Ricardo.) India (and also much of South America) specifically rejected this wisdom during much of my lifetime, and now those countries have to play catch-up. They still have time. They won't have stark poverty forever if they learn from the examples of other countries, just as Taiwan did.

<comment><USER3> Thank you for being a voice of reason and empiricism in this thread. Seems like too many people took a class in marxist sociology and all of a sudden see the whole world in terms of The Capitalists and The Exploited Class.

EDIT: Taking a class in economics and thinking everything has a monetary value attached to it, or that homo economicus actually exists would obviously be just as bad.

<comment><USER4> Personally I don't agree with Marx a lot (I'm more of a Groucho Marxist and am therefore not allowed to join any club that would have me as a member), but I do have Marxist family members and know a fair amount of what it is and what it is not. India is definitely not an example of a Marxist state.

edit - Folk keep framing stuff in the economic dogma-battles of the superpowers in the 19th and 20th century, but to me the problem is 14th century economics combined with 21st century logistics. Retaining a caste system in a world of global networks can give you a fucking big pyramid and systemise abuse on an unprecedented scale with the money that flows in from those outside the structure.

<comment><USER5> Not only that, if I recall correctly there's actually a few Maoist groups in India that are trying to start a revolution as well... They certainly don't see India as anything but capitalist.

<comment><USER6> Indeed, the communist party in India is about as militant as they come. You're probably referring to the naxalites[0], they're not shy about targeted violence[1], especially since they're active in a lot of poor, "backward" [2] areas that go ignored by the central government until there is an industrial resource to exploit.

[0] [http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naxalite](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naxalite)

[1] [http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naxalite%E2%80%93Maoist_insur...](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naxalite%E2%80%93Maoist_insurgency)

[2] [http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-09-27/news...](http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-09-27/news/42427766_1_special- category-status-raghuram-rajan-backwardness)

Edited to include a reference to "backward" \- a term used in official language.

<comment><USER5> Yes, this is exactly what I was thinking of, thank you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> NPR's "Planet Money" podcast team decided to sell t-shirts and did a similar project where they researched and followed the production process from start to finish. Some of the interviews have been pretty interesting:

[http://www.npr.org/templates/archives/archive.php?thingId=19...](http://www.npr.org/templates/archives/archive.php?thingId=190719989)

The NPR staff wound up working with Jockey to have the shirt made and that obviously opened up a lot of doors to the production facilities and interviews with factory workers, etc.

The Mother Jones article reminded me, I guess, that Jockey's hand in the NPR access had a non-trvial amount of P/R influence in the project.

</comment><comment><USER8> The thing that people don't realize is that exploitation is the foundational structure of capitalism, and 'civilized' wage work is only removed from the examples in this story by a matter of degrees. The current capitalistic structure is only a moderate change from the old-fashioned slavery it came from directly.

We clearly need to apply science and technology directly to human needs rather than relying entirely on outdated systems like money that primarily enforce hierarchies. In previous eras where the only means to an end was raw human labor, perhaps this type of system made sense. In our contemporary society with our technological capability it is absurd. Too bad that people can only see that when it involves the most extreme cases.

<comment><USER9> Capitalism is the only system that has a proven track record of bringing people out of poverty. Many industrial nations had a garment industry phase and graduated from it.

We have had experiments with other systems than Capitalsm, and some of them are still running. Korea is split in North and South, the southern part is capitalist, was in garment manufacturing and now has an exceptional level of wealth, while the northern part is communist and has become one big concentration camp.

I hope you won't bother pulling a No True Scotsman here, because the list goes on.

<comment><USER10> North Korea is not communist. Read the book The Cleanest Race to see how U.S. analysts really see North Korea. There are no communist countries today. It's fun to talk about capitalism in the abstract like it doesn't keep monarchism in the closet, underdevelops Africa, props up lackey dictators in the Third World, depends on colonialism/imperialism to get rich, and turns to fascism when in crisis. I'm sure mafias have made life better too for people but that doesn't look at the whole picture. Where would your bought off Scotsmen be if he wasn't capitalism's shock troops who invaded South Africa,Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or the Americas and kept police order in India, the Middle East, and Asia?

<comment><USER11> There are no communist nations today because communism failed, utterly and often spectacularly, usually because some asshole came to power who was more interested in furthering his own agenda and increasing the power of himself and his friends than in doing what was actually good for the people.

This always occurs because in order to transfer to communism, an intermediate government is necessary to take power from the evil capitalists, consolidate it, and distribute it throughout the people before volunteering to dissolve. In practice, this never occurs. Where power is centralized, sociopaths will congregate, and the first stage of the transition to communism is nothing if not the centralization of power. Thus, communism has always failed under the weight of despots, and will always do so as long as that is the case. There are no benevolent governments, period.

Meanwhile, though capitalism is surely far from perfect in its implementation, every nation which has embraced it has done remarkably well relative to those which embraced its ideological opposite. No, it's not perfect, but it's obviously preferable to communism. I give those who sided with communism or socialism before 1980 or so the benefit of the doubt, as they were not privy to the vast evidence that we are today of communism's many failures. On the other hand, I immediately write anyone off who still believes communism > capitalism to be a delusional idiot who is almost certainly not worth arguing with.

<comment><USER10> Communism is not for you buddy, you're not the same class as those toiling in India or other Third World nations. With its proven track record of defeating imperialists and for those with nothing to lose and first world nation traitors, it has still proven viable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> And this is typically the end game for capitalism and globalisation. Can't see it changing without everyone working together and by nature that isn't going to happen if capitalism is in place.

<comment><USER13> To misquote Churchill "Capitalism is the worst possible system, except for all the rest".

The problem here is more a lack of strong mechanisms to set and enforce standards along with a host of deeply rooted cultural norms (especially the dowry system) that are easily exploited.

<comment><USER10> Because the fat imperialist says capitalism is the best we have to keep it for all time until our star goes supernova? Our rooted first world lifestyle is the strong mechanism enabling these sweat shops.

<comment><USER9> I agree.

A better argument is that free trade based on voluntary transactions is the only just and moral system of allocating resources, in theory and in practice.

<comment><USER14> Without further qualifications, I too agree completely. However, to me it's both sad and funny how twisted the meaning of "free" and "voluntary" become when used to defend (liberal) capitalism. This is a general remark, it's not meant as an attack of how you use these words (I wouldn't really know).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Almost 90% of the sports jerseys are produced from Southern part of India where the situations and characters mentioned in the article are still alive.

Multinational garment companies like Adidas, Nike, Puma etc. should have stricter vigilance towards exploitation of employees. Young girls are prone towards exploitation and they are willing to undergo this as they are desperate for money.

And, blame parents too!

<comment><USER16> If you think Addidas, Nike, Puma etc. don't already know exactly what is happening in this factories, and even further - outsorce their production to EXACTLY those unethical factories, you my friend, are just deceiving yourself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> > just a quarter of the $105 a month she was promised, about $0.84 a day.

It really bugs me when reporters use inconsistent units to exaggerate a point. Yes, the pay difference is horrible, but it sounds almost as bad when you say $25.20 per month, and that is a less misleading way to describe it.

<comment><USER18> I read that differently to you - the words "a quarter of $105" instantly tells me $25.20 because it's such an easy calculation, whereas telling me an extra stat like what that is per day is something I hadn't already worked out myself.

<comment><USER19> Well, not _that_ easy. A quarter of 105 is 26.25.

<comment><USER18> Hah, I copied rather than calculated :( Point still stands that it's easy to see roughly what it is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> HN users should be wary of cheap clothing the same way they are of free online services.

They cut those costs _somewhere_.

<comment><USER21> I always find it amusing if people claim (just an example) "I would never buy Apple/Nike/++, they employ child workers, it is awful" and then they go to the supermarket, buy the cheapest meat/vodka/sugar/coffee they can find, or they buy a cheap $99 tablet/smartphone/TV from india/china/malaysia, or they buy $3.99 t-shirts/pants/shoes from throwaway stores. As if somehow these products can be produced at such low prices without affecting quality and wages of the workers behind it.

<comment><USER22> One thing to remember is that you must start somewhere. Overall, it's way better than not doing anything.

<comment><USER23> I don't see how. Whether you buy it from Nike or (insert lesser known shoe company with same policy), there's really no difference.

<comment><USER22> Can't say I have an example but let's hope there's at least one company who cares about that. Some industries actually changed to accomodate for those that care. A good example: food companies. At least in Europe it's quite easy to buy from companies that care about the environment, animals, lack of chemicals, etc. Eventually this kind of thinking will expand to other industries.

Update: I tried to search for a couple of minutes for more responsible brands, apparently New Balance makes some of their shoes in the US: [http://www.zappos.com/search/made+in+usa/filter/productTypeF...](http://www.zappos.com/search/made+in+usa/filter/productTypeFacet/%22Shoes%22/orig/made+in+usa?zfcTest=sis%3A0#!/made- in-usa-men-sneakers-athletic-shoes/CK_XARC81wHAAQLiAgMBGAI.zso?t=made+in+usa)

<comment><USER24> American Apparel is a famous example. Though their marketing may be subject to discussion, their production practices are admirable.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Apparel#Production](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Apparel#Production)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> How would you find clothes that have not been manufactured by slaves ? In Switzerland I can buy from Switcher (switcher.ch), which markets clothes "made with respect", and I just found out about the Fair Wear Foundation, which has a short list of member brands (www.fairwear.org). As pointed out in this thread, just buying more expensive clothes may not make a difference.

<comment><USER26> A friend of mine has a (very small so far) ethical underwear company called Who Made Your Pants ([http://www.whomadeyourpants.co.uk/](http://www.whomadeyourpants.co.uk/))

She started it because she realised that in the UK marketplace it was very hard to buy underwear that didn't come from sweat-shops, even if you were prepared to spend a bit (or a lot) more. So these are made here in the UK, by disadvantaged women who get to learn a skill and take home some pay.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I can't help but read this and wonder whether "Aruna" actually exists, and, if she does, whether all the details about her are as described. That's the legacy that Mike Daisey has left us with.

<comment><USER28> With a distrust of stories about labor exploitation? That's the wrong message to take from someone lying to you. Be less credulous about people's stories in general maybe, but restricting it to stories about labor is as reasonable as being racist because a black person bullied you in high school.

<comment><USER27> Not really the same thing - It's not that I don't trust monologuests (sp?) as a class of people, and, indeed, the writer of this article, Dana Liebelson is a reporter in Mother Jones' Washington bureau.

It's more along the lines of living your entire life without locking your doors, and then, one day getting burgled, and thereafter making a point to lock your doors when you leave.

Or getting mugged at night, and not walking down that dark street anymore.

Perhaps it's a good thing that I don't just automatically take things at face value; I'll admit to having listened with rapt attention to Mike Daisey's performance on NPR - he's really quite talented - maybe there was a positive takeway, Mike Daisey was like a vaccine, I'm now more resistant to false reporting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Oh. Mother Jones. Well, that's about on the level of the National Enquirer for me, so I'll pass.

</comment><comment><USER11> Ugh, motherjones, that perpetual bastion of leftist bullshit!

Why is this tripe being upvoted here on HN? You might as well have posted something directly from Rush Limbaugh's blog (or website, or whatever he has). It's crap.</comment>


Why Kim Dotcom hasn't been extradited 3 years after the US smashed Megaupload - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/01/why-kim-dotcom-hasnt-been-extradited-3-years-after-the-us-smashed-megaupload/ <comment><USER3> When will the US DoJ hire a decent PR firm? Again and again during these three years they've made cock-ups that push people (like myself) towards supporting Dotcom even if we don't particularly like the guy, and even if we think for the actual charges he's likely in the wrong.

> _In the forfeiture case, prosecutors will argue why Dotcom's claim on the > frozen assets should not be allowed—and therefore forfeited to the US > government—under the "doctrine of fugitive disentitlement." That idea posits > that if a defendant has fled the country to evade prosecution, then he or > she cannot make a claim to the assets that the government wants to seize > under civil forfeiture._

Hooray, a loophole in the laws that might let them seize his assets: call him a fugitive! Even though he hasn't visited America one single time in his life. And even though he is still in the country where he calls home, and has done for more than a year before this case started.

Maybe it's not the DoJ's fault, maybe Dotcom and his lawyers (and PR) are really, really good. But nearly every story in the past 3 years has made him look good and them look bad, which shouldn't be the case when you've got a government department charged with delivering justice against a guy with a track-record of being an asshole and breaking the law.

<comment><USER4> It doesn't help their case in my mind that they probably broke the law with the seizures they performed: I was using Megaupload to store backups and distribute files I legally owned, such a game maps or documents.

During their raids, they seized the funds used to provision the servers, failed to preserve the data, went so far as to prevent efforts on the part of Megaupload to return the data to me, and failed to allow for any sort of process for me to claim it before the servers were destroyed.

That data wasn't specifically targeted in a forfeiture action, nor was it specifically accused of being infringing. The US government simply destroyed my data as part of their raid against Megaupload without any concern for the fact I was engaged in legal business with them, and simply using them for remote storage.

Nevermind that they induced a foreign government to illegally spy on one of their residents as part of a copyright enforcement action. That's just hideously ugly.

<comment><USER5> I would be nice if there was a way to calculate the amount of financial damage the US government did to legitimate users of the Mega Upload Service.

The US government should be held financially responsible for these.

Plus you could consider the failure of the US governments preservation of Mega Uploads data as destruction of evidence.

If the evidence is not present during the trial it didn't exist.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This was insightful for me:

""Congress, initially as part of the War on Drugs but later expanded to include most federal offenses, criminalized almost every financial transaction that flows from funds that are the proceeds of 'specified unlawful activity,'" Bruce Maloy, an Atlanta-based attorney and an expert in US extradition law, told Ars by e-mail.

"In simplest terms, if you possess funds from a crime and do anything with the money other than bury it in the ground or hide it under the mattress, you have committed a new crime. Spending the money is a new crime, opening a bank account is a new crime. These expenditures do not have to be in furtherance of the original crime, but my recollection is that here it alleged that they are. In short, throwing in a money laundering allegation is quite common in US federal indictments."

Page Pate, another Atlanta-based defense lawyer who has also worked on international extradition cases, agreed. "It's almost automatic to add money laundering charges to any offense whether it's drug-related or not," he said. "I haven't seen it that often in criminal copyright cases. The US has been very aggressive in adding money laundering and forfeiture in criminal cases.""

Ain't it great, War on Drugs?

<comment><USER3> I'm against the war of drugs, but not sure it's to blame here. A law criminalizing the use of illegally-gained funds is a useful law for them in general, and it happened that their big focus at the time was the war on drugs so that's where they'd get the most use from it. But as far as I know, it was never claimed to be only for the war on drugs, and they didn't attach it to the war on drugs as a smokescreen the way they attached the Patriot Act to terrorism.

I could be wrong about that, but as far as I'm aware it was an innocent connection to drugs. After all, if you are impeaching civil liberties you may need a smokescreen like drugs or terrorism, but making it illegal to use illegally-gained funds is something I suspect most US citizens would be OK with immediately without the need for deception.

<comment><USER6> So how US managed to survive without that law for all the years? I can't imagine the law was necessary for anything, except that it allowed US to prosecute those who'd be off the hook otherwise. So yes I do believe it was the "War on Drugs" peddled as the rationale for the law: "look these drug guys are slipping away, we have to make a new law and get them with it."

<comment><USER7> A lot of the financial transaction laws are contemporaneous with RICO, and were aimed at organized crime which is as a huge problem back then. Mafia families were conducting hits in midtown Manhattan back in the 1970's, in highly public places like high end restaurants. This is pre-1980's escalation of the drug war too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> 1\. Because he had a lot of money to spend on lawyers

2\. Because there are some fundamental issues - slowly getting cleared - <USER2> issues of search, procedure, etc

3\. Because the legal system can take a bloody long time to achieve anything

</comment><comment><USER9> Tons of money to fight the extradition + him being good at exploiting the US gov hate of the people to make himself look like a freedom fighter instead of the greedy scumbag that he is via well done PR campaigns.

</comment><comment><USER10> Might be that thing where in exchange for working for them you get to keep your freedom.

<comment><USER11> >where in exchange for working for them you get to keep your freedom.

I'm not sure that's how freedom works.

<comment><USER12> That is how it works, see Federal Sentencing Guidelines Section 5K1.1: [http://www.ussc.gov/guidelines- manual/2011/2011-5k11](http://www.ussc.gov/guidelines-manual/2011/2011-5k11)

I don't think that is the case with Dotcom at this point.</comment></comment></comment>


IAC Finally Kills Off Bloglines - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2010/09/10/exclusive-iac-finally-kills-off-bloglines/ <comment><USER2> Did a mockup for a new type of reader: [http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/archives/2010/09/10/4765/time-f...](http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/archives/2010/09/10/4765/time- for-a-new-type-of-feed-people-reader) Probably a dumb idea :)</comment>


The thoughts running through our heads are more varied than we might suppose - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190819-what-your-inner-voice-says-about-you <comment><USER2> Practice meditation long enough and you will know what a shitshow the mind is at any given second. Go even further, and you'll start to pick up on the shit- tornado the subconscious mind is.

</comment><comment><USER3> Fulltext of the 2013 article about rates varying 0-100%: [https://www.gwern.net/docs/psychology/2013-hurlburt.pdf](https://www.gwern.net/docs/psychology/2013-hurlburt.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER4> In my opinion, the conscious thoughts you have are just echoes of your mind. When you "talk to yourself" you already know what you are going to say, you might as well just stop as soon as you notice doing that.

<comment><USER5> For me, that's never been true at all. Imagine your thoughts being like a barrel full of fish. Vocalizing your thoughts is then akin to reaching down into that barrel and plucking out the exact fish you were looking for.

Now if you wanted to describe the the color and species of said fish, it's easier when you're holding it rather than attempting to do so while it's swimming around with every other fish.

<comment><USER6> Paradoxically, if you want to find something, it helps if you say it, so its easier to find the fish if you're already talking about it.

[https://theweek.com/articles/476117/talking-yourself- secret-...](https://theweek.com/articles/476117/talking-yourself-secret- finding-missing-car-keys)

<comment><USER4> Makes sense. Our brain is an interconnected mess that self activates different path of neurons. So if you try to remember where you put your keys, saying the word, looking at an image of keys or hearing junbling keys might lead to the memory of where you put your keys.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I watched a youtube video where a passerby was being vox-popped for tv about football. He says something to the interviewer and you can see a lightbulb go on in his head and he then looks at the camera and says "that's actually a good point". The interview went viral because it was such a funny moment.

<comment><USER8> Do you have a link?

<comment><USER9> maybe this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEz5GfZUnBU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEz5GfZUnBU) went viral in ireland for the accent and the novelty of seeing a city centre addict being interviewed about football on tv. The point where he strats realizing he is making a coherent point starts around 50 seconds in.

<comment><USER7> Yes that's the one, well done for finding it!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> >unsymbolised thinking, a trickier concept to get your head around, but essentially a thought that doesn't manifest as words or images, but is undoubtedly present in your mind.

I've always been good at producing mental white noise (or TV static), for lack of a better term. I wonder if it's actually unsymbolised thinking. When I'm not actively thinking, there's just a massive wall of static. In these moments, I'm not thinking of nothing but I'm also not thinking of something.

<comment> hamster-wheel I've noticed this effect after a really good movie or book. I can almost "feel" my brain thinking, ticking over and assembling meaning from what I've just seen (and can even sense "eureka!" moments), despite having no conscious awareness of the thoughts themselves (just TV static).

It also seems to happen more with foreign films, perhaps as they require an extra layer of subconscious analysis to parse the message by separating it from its cultural shell.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Might be interesting to build a mobile app similar to the beeper mentioned in the article—maybe add a notes tab for users to write down their thoughts. I could see possible benefits including increased mindfulness and ability to live in the moment.

<comment><USER12> Because nothing says living in the moment than writing down what you are thinking into your smartphone for later!

<comment><USER13> I feel like this article is trying too hard. I've kept a journal with thoughts from the day for years.

<comment><USER4> The best thing to take away from that article is just how much difference there is in type and frequency of how people think.

We all assume that our inner lifes are similiar and it's always interesting to me to discover new facets of personal differences.

<comment><USER13> I see. I didn't really think about that, my line of thought has always been that there's no one like me so of course there's deep differences between how people think.

Is this where the "millennial snowflake" idea comes in?

<comment><USER4> Did you really think that the fundamental way your mind works must be different or just what you think and/or how you approach a topic?

If it's the first, yeah, that's a pretty entitled snowflake perception of yourself.

<comment><USER13> It's not that I think I'm specifically different, I think that everyone "thinks" differently, and I incorrectly assumed everyone thinks like that.

<comment><USER14> Sometimes it seems as if everybody thinks differently, but then popular trends (or politics) seem to show the opposite, and personal interactions with some people suggest very little thinking at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> For anyone wanting to understand thought and the way we acquire knowledge, I would highly recommend the book The Tree of Knowledge ([https://www.amazon.com/Tree-Knowledge-Biological-Roots- Under...](https://www.amazon.com/Tree-Knowledge-Biological-Roots- Understanding/dp/0877736421))

</comment><comment><USER16> I have a fairly consistent meditation practice, and sometimes when I'm tired, my "inner voice" contains, in addition to random snippets of half-formed thoughts, snippets of languages that I don't speak. Usually Spanish. Has anyone else experienced this? What's up with that?

</comment><comment><USER17> Reflecting on my own though it, it's mostly wordless—images, wordless but coherent brain states, even physical money Harrie states, all anchored by a key frame word here and there.

</comment><comment><USER18> there are two types of thoughts: active and passive

passive thought probably makes up 80% of our day</comment>


An R API wrapper for NHTSA motor vehicle recall and complaint data - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/statwonk/openNHTSA <comment><AUTHOR> Would love some help on this if anyone else is interested in the data. As an aside, I put some new FP techniques to use here, critiques welcome.</comment>


What to Do with Your Feminist Anger - <AUTHOR> https://code.likeagirl.io/what-to-do-with-your-feminist-anger-8b75d2660a13 <comment><USER2> If Jack was talking and gets interrupted by Jane, do you say, "Thanks, Jane. Jack, I was interested in what you were saying before you were interrupted. Could you continue?"?

If not, I think your practice is obnoxious.

</comment><comment><USER3> Anger is toxic.</comment>


Show HN: Open source at companies (Alpha version) - <AUTHOR> https://www.goopensource.dev <comment><AUTHOR> My web app is offering an update for newly published opensource by companies additionally it's a good place to find a company where you want to work in the future because they have a lot of cool open-source projects to offer. It's very hard to figure out what companies have been published for certain technologies like new programming languages or configurations languages, for example, it took quite a long time to see the benefits of "Golang" in usage. Actually most of these companies are not listed anywhere on famous platforms like LinkedIn. This is a very earlier phase of this app and I want to publish a lot of new features that everyone is capable of understanding the benefits of this app.

I will be very happy if you could provide some feedback about this app :)

Thank you for your support!

Best regards, Donutloop</comment>


Justin Kan's founders guide to raising a series A - <AUTHOR> https://blog.atrium.co/the-founders-guide-to-raising-a-series-a-venture-financing-1de4f5aff312 <comment><AUTHOR> It's been quite a few years since I tried to raise a Series A but this account really resonates with me. Probably the best guide of its type that I've ever read. Written if you don't know by a guy who has already sold one unicorn and invested in another.</comment>