Oil's Collapse Is a Geopolitical Reset in Disguise - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-04-29/covid-19-oil-collapse-is-geopolitical-reset-in-disguise <comment><USER2> I found this part really interesting: "For dozens of oil producers, the plunge in oil prices is devastating. No major oil producer can balance its budget at prices below $40; according to the International Monetary Fund, with the exception of Qatar, every country in the Middle East requires at least $60, with Algeria at $157 and Iran at a whopping $390. The average Brent price of oil over the past month has been a hair above $20."

It's fascinating the cost of extracting oil is so high in Iran in particular, a country that is under constant sanction by the US. I wonder how much of the cost is due to the sanctions and disturbance in trade (ie Iran cannot import key technologies), and how much of it is because Iran's oil deposits is just "harder" to drill.

<comment><USER3> Iran's oil is not expensive to extract. These aren't marginal break-even prices on each barrel of oil...rather they're how much their current oil production would have to be sold for in order to balance their national budget, which includes defense and healthcare and whatnot.

79% of Iran's exports are unrefined crude oil: [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Islamic_Republic_of_...](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_Exports_Treemap_2017.svg) (edited to 2017)

Countries typically "go bankrupt" in a practical sense (with very noticeable real-world effects on the local citizens) when their foreign reserves run out.

<comment><USER4> Why can't they just take loans like most Western countries do to balance their budget? The UK has been running at a deficit (£55 billion in the last budget) since 2002.

Based on my back of the napkin math, the UK would need to export it's oil (yes, the UK is a net exporter of oil) at $350/barrel to cover that.

<comment><USER3> > Based on my back of the napkin math, the UK would need to export it's oil > (yes, the UK is a net exporter of oil) at $350/barrel to cover that.

In a vacuum this isn't really a good-faith argument. It can be used to illustrate limited concepts, as another user did in this thread, but it's not really a valid point in general for anything. That's because the question of "what price of oil does [country] need?" only makes sense for countries where the supermajority of their GDP is based on resource extraction.

UK to Iran is not a great comparison because only 4.5% of UK's exports are crude oil. [https://oec.world/en/profile/country/gbr/](https://oec.world/en/profile/country/gbr/)

Second, trade only makes up 30% of the UK's GDP, meaning it can and does better leverage its domestic production to meet domestic needs.

Lastly, the UK has not been nearly as dependent on exports to balance foreign reserves as Iran is. Due to its uncommon status as a global financial hub, I think it has other ways to ensure it can continue to finance trade.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I found the word 'climate' appears once in the article. Which is more times than it appears in the comments so far.

So, perhaps, not that much of a reset in terms of keeping fossil fuels in the ground. And it's such a fine time to address that question.

</comment><comment><USER6> Additional detail: The author was one of the architects for major pieces of the Iraq war, including the surge.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meghan_O%27Sullivan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meghan_O%27Sullivan)

<comment><USER7> To me the most relevant part was this:

> She was an assistant to Paul Bremer in the Coalition Provisional Authority. > She was Senior Director for Iraq at the United States National Security > Council.

Around that time, Bremer decided to bar former ba'ath officer from either serving the new military or getting pension. That decision almost single- handedly created the backbone of the terrorist networks that would become ISIS.

People from that admin should be shunned from any published analysis but failing that, I am happy that forums like this allows us to augment their biographies.

On the other hand, I have yet to see a Bloomberg article not about finance that was not misinformed. Those about tech especially are pretty bad, and every time I dug a bit around their geopolitical analysis, I was pretty underwhelmed.

<comment><USER8> "People from that admin should be shunned from any published analysis"

Interestingly, it was GWB that also put a lot of effort into pandemic preparedness. See: [https://georgewbush- whitehouse.archives.gov/homeland/pandemi...](https://georgewbush- whitehouse.archives.gov/homeland/pandemic-influenza.html)

History is kind of a weird place.

<comment><USER9> GWB is war monger and torturer.

Sure he may have done some things that are good, but he made many horrible decisions.

<comment><USER10> Among the good things, George W. Bush contributed more to the fight against HIV/AIDS than any other president. [1]

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President%27s_Emergency_Plan_f...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President%27s_Emergency_Plan_for_AIDS_Relief)

<comment><USER11> I can't find the full funding breakdown, but I'd guess Obama contributed more. Purely as he had 8 years to Bush's 5 though.

<comment><USER12> George W. Bush held office for 8 years. You may be thinking of his father, George H. W. Bush.

<comment><USER11> Bush started that program in 2003.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> People are really optimistic in the industry. I am active in petroleum circles and many are convinced that this is another temporary downturn and we'll always need oil.

All I see is public sentiment turning against fossil fuels and an inevitable death for 90% of the industry as we move away from petroleum. We only use something like >20% of raw petroleum for plastic and medicine and such. And the price curve is not linear, so the oil necessary to satisfy the first 20% of today's demand is probably priced some absurdly low number, my gut says less than $20.

It feels like our entire geopolitical system is crumbling. A vulnerable state had been brewing for a long time. Coronavirus was the trigger. Perhaps the american hegemony was not sustainable, or recently became such. For those unaware, petroleum really does factor into a lot of worldbuilding that we do in the middle east. Major shifts in oil markets typically mean major shifts in geopolitics.

Interesting times ahead.

<comment><USER14> 5 billion people on planet earth living in poor countries do not care about the negative effects of oil. They are making quite a lot more money and want to buy cars.

If the last 30 years was about the rise of China, the rest of the century is going to be about the rise of 'the rest of the world'.

Pre 2000 it was as if these places didn't exist - they had no money. Just people in huts.

But now they want Hondas and iPhones and there are a lot of them.

The US was 1/3 of the world economy, but less than 10% of it's population. Not it's like 22% of world economy.

This is the 'macro macro' thing that will be the biggest driver of everything.

<comment><USER13> The entire global economy is grinding to a halt and we may be sitting on top of a global depression for years to come.

Those 5 billion are going to have to wait. Also, it may be harsh but if history is any indication, these people are unlikely to gain access to oil themselves - which means they're dependent on probably their neighbors (developing countries probably are sensitive to shipping/deliver charges) which means that their demand is subject to international sanctions if, say, G20 decides to wean the globe from petroleum. So if the west decides no more fossil fuels, these people will likely stay in huts until they stumble upon reserves in their country (unlikely) or find another civilization-sustaining energy source.

You think oil dependence will last forever? Also with the rise of the internet, you don't think people in developing countries are likely to give preference to renewables if the price is within reach? Everything's getting cheaper.

<comment><USER14> No, they will get the oil, and low prices will only expedite that.

Nobody, not the entire EU/West and certainly not anyone else is going to say to poor Africa and Asia: 'you can't use Oil', moreover, nobody is going to send troops to Nigeria to stop exports, or embargo Indonesia and Pakistan or wherever from receiving oil.

It's like telling 5 billion people they can't use tapped water or water wells that they have to 'figure something out'.

It's a non-starter.

The only shift will be economic - either Oil is too expensive - or - in some situations, solar might be cheaper. Which it will be, but for the most part, there is no end in sight to oil.

If there is a magic leap in solar and battery tech, and China pumps out super cheap electric cars that can be re-fueled cheaper than gas and there's enough sunlight, that would work. But that's not in the cards.

<comment><USER15> > It's a non-starter.

If half a year ago someone would tell me that the entire world will be shut down because of some kind of a flu, I wouldn't even consider this: it's a non- starter. And yet here we are.

I can easily imagine a mind shift amongst current world powers that will be strong enough to reduce fossils usage to half of existing levels. And since they have all means to enforce this on developing world, I wouldn't dismiss this possibility.

<comment><USER14> A 'Deus Ex-Machina' argument is not an argument.

Yes, we could invent some magical technology tomorrow that solved all of our energy problems, but lacking divine intervention - there is no foreseeable path in which the Oil stays in the ground.

Telling the 3rd world they must stay poor because 'we already used up all the Co2 emissions' is not going to work. Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Iran, etc. etc. will sell Oil to willing buyers.

<comment><USER15> > Telling the 3rd world they must stay poor because 'we already used up all > the Co2 emissions' is not going to work.

Why not? To sell oil you need massive and fragile infrastructure in place: pipelines, storage tanks, terminals, etc. This infra can be easily controlled. As soon as world powers decide that the damage done to the planet outweighs economic effects of cheap energy, they can easily impose global limit on oil trade. Which can be enforced by both economic and military means.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The shift from coal catapulted.. it took years. First, technology had to shift to oil as a commodity beyond oil bunkers for battleships. Second, the nation states had to get out from ruinously bad national oil deals which also led to the Pahlavi regime, hatred of the British in Iran, the CIA and other bodies. This was not a catapult. It was a long slow dangerous and corrupt slide.

<comment><USER17> This sounds very important, but somehow very scarcely known. Could you point to some sources about this?

<comment><USER18> Despite being very much an apologist for and champion of the oil industry, Daniel Yergin's _The Prize_ is outstanding.

Vaclav Smil's _Energy and Civilization_ and books on energy transitions gives a mostly energy-physics and technological bacground on the coal-oil transition (and ag-coal previously). Manfred Weissenbacher's _Sources of Power_ adds in some of the political dimension.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> There's a current idea that the USSR collapsed due to oil shock:

[https://thetyee.ca/News/2013/03/13/Soviet-Union- Oil/](https://thetyee.ca/News/2013/03/13/Soviet-Union-Oil/)

The actual scientists say it's more complicated. As you should expect:

[https://carnegieendowment.org/2017/03/29/formation-and- evolu...](https://carnegieendowment.org/2017/03/29/formation-and-evolution-of- soviet-union-s-oil-and-gas-dependence-pub-68443)

</comment><comment><USER20> Mexico is planning to build a new refinery, while oil is key it is also important to mention which countries have the technology to process this extra oil into products. Mexico depends on US technology to do this for their gas. Once they built the new refinery this no longer going to happen. Something important to consider for our balance sheet and American workers

<comment><USER17> One refinery won't change the world overnight.

There are already multiple refineries in Mexico: [https://argus-public-assets- us.s3.amazonaws.com/2018/07/17/2...](https://argus-public-assets- us.s3.amazonaws.com/2018/07/17/20180717wheremexico%E2%80%99spresident- electwantstobuildrefineries17072018054506.jpg)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_refineries#Mexico](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_refineries#Mexico)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> What happened to Iran between 2018 and 2019?

The author links to data [1], which states that Iran needs $319 / barrel oil to balance its budget. Between 2018 and 2019, this number jumped from $67 (In line with the rest of the region) to $244.

I feel like this statistic was trotted out and means something different from what I'd casually read it as.

Iranian exports fell significantly between 2018 and 2019 [2], it seems because of the fallout of the Iran nuclear deal and resumed sanctions [3]. There was a 69% decrease (1800 units to 570 units), which, means the calculated number would be ~3x higher, or about $211 a barrel. Which means the "statistic" doesn't really tell us what we think - that Iran can only profitably produce oil at >$200 a barrel - but that US sanctions have crippled Iran's ability to use oil as a primary source of national income.

To be fair, I'd love to see the author do the math on US oil. Actually, I'll take a stab at it. If the US tried to balance its physical budget (Let's say $984B in 2019 [3]) based entirely on increasing the price of current US oil exports (770,000 barrels a day [4]), how much would the price of oil need to rise?

770,000 barrels a day * 365 = 280M barrels of oil

$984B/280M barrels of oil = $3,514

The US would need to make an additional $3514 per barrel of oil to balance its physical budget, which is an increase from $63 a barrel to $3,577 a barrel.

Can you imagine a journalist writing this as a supporting figure? "US, implied to be a failing state as it is the largest number here, requires $10,000 a barrel oil to balance budget". Yes, that statement is a bit biased, but I'm willing to defend that this is how the US media most often interfaces with Iran.

One critique I would expect is along the lines of "Iran is more dependent on oil for its economy". Iran's GDP is 23% oil [6], whereas the US is around 8% [7]. I think the story still stands out as a bit insane, even if we adjust for "Expected contribution by GDP %", which would still put us well-north of $1,000 a barrel oil.

I don't mean to state that this is my fully-formed opinion, yet, but I think it is worth discussing these either (A) misleading (B) uninterpretable without far greater work "data facts" actually add little value to the story, and instead (seem to) further a narrative. This is in opposition of the traditional scientific approach, where we state our expectation and validate or invalidate that conclusion, with the author being expected to prove instead of just say something with "QED" implicitly attached. This critique, now, seeks to be a more general one: Data-driven media seems be misunderstood as a narrative where the data is in the driver's seat -- in reality it has let anyone ride shotgun as long as they get along with the driver.

[1] [https://data.imf.org/regular.aspx?key=60214246](https://data.imf.org/regular.aspx?key=60214246)

[2] [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/IRNNXGOCMBD](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/IRNNXGOCMBD)

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

[4] [https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42735](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42735)

[5] [https://countryeconomy.com/raw- materials/brent?dr=2019-11](https://countryeconomy.com/raw- materials/brent?dr=2019-11)

[6] [https://tradingeconomics.com/iran/gdp](https://tradingeconomics.com/iran/gdp)

[7] [https://www.api.org/news-policy-and-issues/taxes/oil-and- nat...](https://www.api.org/news-policy-and-issues/taxes/oil-and-natural-gas- contribution-to-us-economy-fact-sheet)

Edit: Formatting

<comment><USER3> There are definitely some ideas worth talking about here. But at the end of the day, Iran will be facing a foreign-reserve crisis in three years if it can't find ways to balance the national budget. It probably has 3 years at current rates to improve the situation before it faces difficulty importing goods essential to its economy and welfare.

<comment><USER21> That's true in a global context, and I think warrants a discussion. I expect, however, in this article that the discussion would be accompanied with the obvious related fact: this statistic is mostly caused by US geopolitical policy by decreasing the number of barrels which can be exported.

A US writer supports the header "Prepare for more fragile, or even failed, states and the risks that can accompany them.", with these facts. I find it quite disingenuous, I'd be happy to discuss that if we disagree.

The language makes people (Some of them even in this thread) think that there is something intrinsic to Iran as a state, rather than just US geopolitical policy causing chaos for banana republics and oil adversaries of the US. Overall, the fact isn't linked at all to oil's current collapse (Which is the article's context), as Iran is still in a horrible spot even if the price doesn't collapse.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Time to buy oil stock.

Tesla is the only real electric hope, and they have many many years before they supplant combustion based vehicles.

<comment> core-questions Pretty much. As soon as we all get moving again, the demand is going to ramp back up to previous levels; higher in some cases as industries work harder to fill backlogs. It's not like all the oil-consuming things have disappeared in two months.

<comment><USER23> I think the ramp will be much longer and gradual than people expect though.

<comment><USER24> News I've read in the UK over the last week includes BA laying off a quarter of its staff and stopping flights from Gatwick, Rolls Royce laying off 3,500 staff, Airbus contemplating layoffs. These people put their money where their mouth is and they don't see a quick recovery.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> There's a thing I don't understand and could use some explanation.

Didn't this same thing happen at a lower level in 2014, when Saudi Arabia pumped a lot of oil to international markets to bankrupts American shale oil producers? And didn't the price go back up after some time when the Saudi government couldn't afford breaking up OPEC?

Why can't the same thing happen now? The price and supply of world oil is almost completely controlled by Saudi Aramco, and there's nothing preventing them from increasing the price in the future.

<comment><USER26> 1\. It takes time to adjust to demand changes and they're hoping covid19 restrictions ease in a reasonable time frame and demand goes at least partially back. 2\. Russia started flooding the market prior to this to disrupt the saudis and US oil producers. Cutting production would need their collaboration or they've ceded market share and influence to Russia.

<comment><USER25> Like that very article says, Russia needs a much higher oil price than most countries in the Middle East to keep a positive balance.

Demand will come back after the pandemic is over, and the Russian government can't flood the market for very long.

<comment><USER27> They can flood the market for as long as they have foreign reserves. Over the last several years, Russia has steadily reduced its budget's dependence on oil revenues, and bolstered foreign reserves/gold. They probably do have enough foreign reserves/gold to outpump the Saudis and drive the price so low that the Saudis start burning through their own reserves.

And I believe Putin has a stronger grip over his own people than MBS, so in a race to the bottom I think Russia could definitely come out "on top".

I really dislike the article's mention of "balanced budget" oil prices, it distracts from more salient arguments when presented alone. For proper analysis, the author should have provided more numerical data, like foreign/gold reserves, budget comparisons (historically, and across countries), etc.

>> Demand will come back after the pandemic is over.

Man, I go back and forth with myself/other people over this all the time. I think there's a significant risk that energy consumption will be lower in the temporary short- and mid-term futures, and slight risk that energy consumption will also be lower in long-term future.

Take a look at US consumption: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#Pr...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#Primary_energy_consumption) [https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec1_7.pdf](https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec1_7.pdf) We still haven't reached 07/08 levels of energy consumption, of which 67% is nat gas/oil. I also read a while back that US households have steadily decreased their individual usage of energy post-2008, despite economic gains. I forget where, I think it was in an article about nuclear power plants.

With that said, I think global outlook (for oil consumption) over the next 5 years is not good for developing economies. Their economies will suffer until developed economies recover and stimulate their under-developed economies. However, long-term population growth in SE Asia and Africa will demand greater energy consumption and I believe economic growth in these regions will be the primary drivers of greater oil consumption. That's because renewable energies will be much, much more expensive than non-renewables (until we tax the hell out of them) and developing economies must pursue the most cost-effective alternative.

Sorry, for the long response, I just love this shit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> > _How might the United States and its partners prepare for more turmoil in > these countries..._

Serious question: who, exactly, are the United States' partners these days?

<comment><USER29> The 5 Eyes? NATO?

<comment><USER30> 5 eyes are more of client states than partners at this point. That's not to say they have no utility, far from it, I think they are very potent. It's just that 'partner' is not the right word to describe them. I say this mainly because they don't seem to have opinions about foreign policy other than the one set by the USA. A better example of a partner in my opinion would be Germany, or France. As for NATO, The only countries that need it are the USA, UK and the Eastern European countries. For western and southern Europe, NATO seems like a gym membership they haven't gotten to canceling. That's not to say member states are not partners or friends of USA, just that they know they can create something better for the current reality. Change was always inevitable, but GWB and Trump might have accelerated it to reckless speeds.

<comment><USER31> My country, New Zealand, is in the 5 eyes. Other than intelligence, we have very little military interaction with the USA. Apparently they won't even allow us to buy high tech gear because we ban US Navy nuke ships from visiting. We are a long way off from being a client state.

<comment><USER32> But probably not big enough to be a partner?

(I'm from Australia and would consider the "client state" assessment for us to be fair.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I haven't been able to find a nice breakdown of the reasons behind the price decrease that wasn't driven by reduced demand.

So my understanding is that SA increased production because it couldn't get Russia to limit its output? So they crashed the market with the hopes to bend them to their will. If so are they basically signalling that they can survive such conditions but Russia can't? Or what's going on here

</comment><comment><USER34> It's times like these that I really wonder where all the oil peak guys are who you used to see crawl out of the woodwork whenever anyone talked about oil. Now they're suddenly quiet.

They used to predict doom and gloom due to an oil shortage, but what we got instead was doom and gloom and an oil glut. Where are they now?

<comment><USER35> Hubbert peak oil theory seems to not really hold water in retrospect. People try to say the peak is just delayed as we're finding more oil reserves or because there's been a big switch to renewables. I think his models assumed a very different metrics for oil supply and distribution that don't seem to apply today. This podcast from a few years back goes into a lot of it: [https://youtu.be/0wlNey9t7hQ](https://youtu.be/0wlNey9t7hQ)

<comment><USER36> Not an expert, but the doomsday peak scenario seemed predicated on no fundamentally different oil sources becoming available (e.g. shale).

As it played out, fracking technology matured, and a lot of additional supply was "added" once the price crossed a threshold.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I really appreciate this piece as there's a lot of the world of oil I don't understand.

One thing I don't understand is, why is it favorable for OPEC not to cut supply? Is it they want to crush all non OPEC based producers? Or are their buyers forced to buy at a particular price so they don't care if they keep producing?

<comment><USER38> ArsTechnica / Wired has a good article out about just that question. One reason that isn't economic (and there are many economic factors a play here too) is that if you stop pumping oil, you can potentially damage the well. This would make it more difficult to reopen the well in the future when the prices improve. This also tends to affect smaller producers with fewer wells and thus more risk of one of them is damaged.

(This is related to why haven't wells shut down in response to the drop in price, as opposed to simply producing less oil from existing wells.)

[https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/heres-why-the- world-...](https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/heres-why-the-world-is- still-producing-more-oil-than-it-needs/)

<comment><USER39> Isn't another solution to just let the oil go into the ground, and stop worrying about destroying earth? I can imagine Trump getting rid of all environmental regulations. How likely is that? (I'm on the environmental regulations side of course, but I'm quite worried that this will be the logical next step).

<comment><USER40> Sure but how will that make money for the well operator? I understand what you're saying, but what actual legal/political/economic framework are we talking about?

<comment><USER39> Right now the operators have to pay for the storage as far as I know. The game is not about making money, but at least not losing. That's why I'm afraid that some people would rather make an environmental disaster than to pay for a company to store the oil. But of course I don't know anything about the oil industry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> the dollar is too strong, it means you get less for your production ( barrel of oil) than you used to. so little, that you might not be able to feed the people in your country that pump the oil.

a strong dollar creates problems for the entire rest of the world. this is how the king of the throne applies coercive force to the 'developing world'. because their own currencies are even that much shittier, so they CHOOSE to rely on the dollar. because...it's far more useful than trying bilateral trade ( oil for food) , which isn't so easy, using a currency is far better, and if you think it's not, try bilateral trade, see what happens. in the rare cases that it may work, you'll have the u.s. navy knocking at your door too!

</comment><comment><USER42> The premise of this article is a bit dicey. Sure nobody can sustain oil below $40, but it will be back there within a year.

</comment><comment><USER43> How many resets have we had already?

</comment><comment><USER44> _given President Putin's need to demonize the United States_

I am curious how exactly Putin/Russia are demonizing the US?

<comment><USER45> Recently, one of the most famous russian movie directors, who's also very close to the government (and also heads a "copyright protection" agency that gets 1% tax on all writeable media - because they could be used, to, you know, pirate movies) said in his own TV show, on state television, that Bill Gates wants to implant chips into people to earn crypto. In general, state media is full of conspiracy theory level of propaganda - with aliens, lizard people and secret world government.

<comment><USER44> Is this the best you can come up with? This is not Russia demonizing the US. This is conspiracy theory coming out of tinfoil hat public from everywhere including US.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> A fresh look the news we heard on May 1st

Why do you think Trump phoned Saudis with such a strong threat when:

1\. He previously showed no regard for how US oil industry fares, beside taking credit for it doing well

2\. US oil industry is screwed below $40 except for the most productive wells in Texas. US shale is screwed below $60.

If his actions can't do a thing to really positively affect US oil industry, why he even tries?

Answer: [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8232865/amp/Donald-...](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8232865/amp/Donald- Trump-Vladimir-Putin-four-phone-calls-past-two-weeks.html)

So, Trump does 4 phone calls with Putin, then a single one with a right away direct threat to Saudis.

You don't need to think for long what it means.

</comment><comment><USER47> This sounds like an opportunity for someone to kickstart a whole new post- petroleum industry.

How? Use the sun, wind, tide, nuclear, geothermal, space-solar, anything, to produce electricity, in order to crack hydrogen from water, and jumpstart the hydrogen economy. And will also need to begin mass production of fuel cells to get it cheaper.

This proves that the world does not need oil, if an alternative energy source can be harvested.

And along the way, it can possibly topple the biggest superpower on the planet. As well as effectively neutering the major countries with massive petroleum reserves.

I can only think of one player that can achieve such a monumental task. And even then, I doubt that they are that bold.

</comment><comment><USER48> How is it possible to talk of the future of oil and ignore the elephant in the room?

<comment><USER49> Like you just did?

<comment><USER48> Can't you see it?</comment></comment></comment>


Sony stopped by hackers - <AUTHOR> http://deadline.com/2014/11/sony-computers-hacked-skull-message-1201295288/

<comment><USER2> I'm surprised the story hasn't had more traction.</comment>


The Next Big Thing: The Elastic Social Network - <AUTHOR> http://blog.windsoc.co/2011/05/16/the-elastic-social-network/

<comment><USER2> Not a new idea. Just hard to program.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think the first generation don't need to be as technically sophisticated as most people think. Get users in quickly (social logins), and let them pop out just as easily, even to the point of closing their profiles out until they get back. I think things like proximity detection or automatic social graph relevance algorithms are add-ons for later.

<comment><USER2> Good point. So what would be someone's motivation for "popping in"?

Meet someone new? Go bowling? What's the mentality behind a sign in?</comment></comment></comment>


Quitting over decline in quality - <AUTHOR> http://robinjulius.com/2014/12/10/quitting-over-decline-in-quality/

<comment><USER2> If you're fastidious about code quality then working in a startup that doesn't have a huge runway of cash in the bank is the wrong place for you. Sometimes you _have_ to compromise what you're making in order to keep your head above water - "Done is better than perfect" to use the appropriate startup adage. If the money isn't there then the quality of the code won't matter. You can always go back and improve quality when things are better.

As a developer rather than a founder you need to ask for as much transparency as possible. Your job is to spend the appropriate amount of time on a feature to make something that works and is " _sufficiently high quality_ "; the founders job is to give you enough information necessary to make that decision (or to make that decision for you if they're technically capable).

<comment><AUTHOR> That's so true.

Down and dirty and out the door may be the only solution when you're a startup because they need to get money in the door.

" _Sufficient high quality_ " was not in question ever as they just needed to get code out of the door and if the solution required you to do the worst hack then so be it.

Shouldn't there be a fine balance between these?</comment></comment>


Endgame: how Australian preppers are bugging out and hunkering down - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/29/end-game-how-australian-preppers-are-bugging-out-and-hunkering-down <comment><USER2> > Earlier this year the hands of the Doomsday Clock moved to two minutes to > midnight, as atomic scientists announced that the world is closer to > annihilation than it has been in decades.

> As global anxiety takes hold, an increasing number of people are preparing > for the worst-case scenario

Am I the only one not in the loop whith this?

And if we're really facing 'global nuclear annihilation' I don't think grownup men running around the bush with plastic compass and god damn bow, roleplaying Metro 2033 are solution to this.

<comment><USER3> Prepping is an individual solution to the threat of societal collapse. In the grander scheme of things, it can be seen as an anti-solution. It gives some people the idea that they've got an escape hatch. If you think you can run away, you'll be less inclined to fight for a solution that avoids collapse.

Luckily, the article differentiates here and doesn't feature hardcore fatalists only. And in my view, just thinking about what living outside modern society encompasses will actually help people understand what they got. And why they should fight for it.

Personally, I need insulin. So I'm committed anyway. I can't just go hide in a bush for years on-end.

<comment><USER4> >In the grander scheme of things, it can be seen as an anti-solution. It gives some people the idea that they've got an escape hatch. If you think you can run away, you'll be less inclined to fight for a solution that avoids collapse.

It comes off like you're saying "well if shit really goes south I'm screwed so these people should be too". A few thousand preppers who are too busy prepping to "fight for a solution" isn't gonna make the difference between shit going south or not.

Not to be an ass but the kind of people I picture saying something like that are stuffy politicians who likes to use phrases like "antisocial behavior", "community norms" and "if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem" and who is completely out of touch with what shapes the decisions of everyday people.

If someone wants to prep for something that's highly unlikely to happen then I see no problem with that. If anything their prepping stands to be useful in a hurricane Katrina type situation. What's the problem with that?

<comment><USER5> > It comes off like you're saying "well if shit really goes south I'm screwed > so these people should be too"

I think it's more a recognition that we are social creatures, and that the minimum-viable unit of social reproduction is the village cluster, not the lone-wolf individual.

The notion that these folk are going to "survive" in any meaningful sense is a fantasy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > "We live in an era that, within 15 minutes' notice, nuclear weapons could be > crossing the continents bringing about great devastation. Yet we deny this, > go about our business.

Also every person you pass on the street can end your life in minutes or less with few dollars worth of steel. Yet we go about our business.

That possibility is just the cost of living near people. With nukes "near" means "on the same planet".

<comment><USER7> And the irony is that though in theory your local _n_ is smaller than that of the entire globe, in reality the number of people who _could_ launch an ICBM is miniscule while, as you point you, you typically are in proximity to quite a few on a given day (even in Australia).

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I am completely unprepared for any degree of civilization collapse.

Articles like this, however, make me wonder if there is a strategy that will leave me more prepared than the average person, but not involve devoting my entire life & pool of resources to a bomb shelter in the outback. We insure against other unlikely but catastrophic events through various types of insurance - are there any demi-preppers out there?

<comment><USER9> I still believe that this is 90% of "preppers". They study it for a week, make some arrangements an then just let it go. Revisit those arrangements once a year or so and you are golden.

Generally you aim at basics.

* About 3 weeks worth of food (2000 kcal/person/day)

* Week of water (gallon/person/day), some basic water filtration (Sawyer squeeze)

* Some preps may be more in line with local climate (backup heating for cold environments)

* Evacuation bags are very common and are also known as BOBs (but most are garbage with lots of guns and no water). Still good to make some with copies of important documents, some water and spare clothes. Just get your old spare bag and unused clothes, no need to overthink it.

* Think about having more first aid material and skills

* Hygiene can be pain once your toilet does not flush anymore and you can't wash your hands, make some arrangements for that too (ie. bucket and plastic bags are way better than nothing)

* I'd also consider tools, such as headlamp per person, other depends on location and needs. Axe can be useful even in city in case of earthquake. Fixed blade knife is probably most versatile tool and Morakniv companion for 15 USD is usually sufficient. But I would suggest some practice here too, you don't want to get cut during temporary service disruption.

Good luck. As German governmental pamphlet states "Germany is ready, when every German is ready". Replace with your own country :).

<comment><USER10> I don't care about the overly sensitive downvotes because HN has been turning more into Reddit anyhow but - you left out firearm.

In any "without rule of law" scenario you need a real means of protection. While this may be a shocker to some people if you try and fight with a knife, even if you have edged weapons training, there is a great chance you are going to bleed as well.

I hope people who have had the state tell them they don't need a firearm never have to figure out that should have been their own choice to make.

<comment><USER11> And this is the problem with preppers in general. I don't know if it's too much Walking Dead or just a mindset they have to start with, but as someone else pointed out they seem to be far more obsessed with guns than with clean water, sanitation and heating.

Guns aren't very common in my country so I'm not worried about gun-toting locals rampaging around. Sure, a few might raid a military base or a farmer's shotgun cabinet, but statistically I think my family would be under _far_ more threat from hypothermia, cholera or an infected scratch.

<comment><USER10> What is it you think happens to your police and government guns when there is no rule of law?

I'll give you a hint, there's a reason the Taliban was walking around with Soviet era AK-47s, and Isis was walking around with US-made M-16s.

<comment><USER12> I'm going to post this elsewhere in the thread, but a comment on Metafilter from someone who survived the siege of Sarajevo: [https://www.metafilter.com/78669/What-if-things-just-keep- ge...](https://www.metafilter.com/78669/What-if-things-just-keep-getting- worse#2430771)

"Guns and weapons helped no one directly and were even of little to no use in the defense of Sarajevo, since they were toys compared to the shells, bombs and high-powered armaments of the attacking forces."

<comment><USER13> There's a broad category of social turmoil that is life threatening but not quite the magnitude of "professional military starts attacking citizens." Say bands of political extremists of whatever flavor start attacking towns, or other smaller-scale (in comparison to outright civil war) acts of violence erupt. I don't dispute your anecdotes from the Balkans, but using it as blanket proof to say that firearms won't ever be of benefit in times of civil unrest is not effective.

<comment><USER11> You are right, but that's not really an apocalypse but a localised civil war. Admittedly, it would be good to be prepared for that, but I think leaving the area altogether would be a more optimal solution than grabbing weapons.

<comment><USER13> Sure, but leaving the area means abandoning a place of shelter, community, and potentially a decent chunk of supplies. I agree, plenty of disasters wouldn't warrant use of firearms, but having them and not needing them is considerably better than needing them and not having them. Seems like one is strictly better than the other. I suppose possession of unnecessary firarms could risk having them stolen or otherwise ending up in the hands of people doing harm - but seeing as 30-40% of US households possess firearms, this is a moot point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> A blog post I ran into a while ago and found very sensible: [http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/prep/](http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/prep/)

You don't have to be a nutcase to prepare for disasters.

</comment><comment><USER15> The irony of this is that what I have seen from modern societies in collapse* is that people band together more with their neighbors or tribe and there is less place for individuals. So maybe it is not going to be you running around in the woods with a bow, but instead a big group from a nearby camp (or a wandering tribe) dragging you out of the woods to pump water or prepare food. Collapse may be disappointing for prepers.

* I am thinking Katrina, Iraq, Syria-- modern places where things have really fallen apart.

<comment><USER16> yea if you want to prepare for a doomsday, #1 priority is meet and know your neighbor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Well, there is some sense to this. Supposing TSHTF event happens and it is a nuclear war, there is a good chance that Western Australia will be passed over in everyone's haste to kill off more threatening enemy targets first.

</comment><comment><USER18> "He acknowledges there might be stigma attached to the word 'prepper' but stresses it is just about being prepared – whether that is for the armageddon or just for a flat tyre is up to the individual."

In the US, at least, I recall the term 'prepper' coming along relatively recently, as a softer, more friendly-sounding replacement for the previous term, "survivalist," which had acquired a connotation of "irrational, paranoid gun hoarder type."

Is this a case of the "euphamism treadmill" in action?

<comment><USER13> I guess one should reserve whatever connotation that comes with the word "prepper" until after hearing about the event for which this person is preparing. Preparing for many natural disasters (earthquake, tornado, hurricane) is very sensible for people who live in said areas. Some man made situations (infrastructure failures, fires, etc.) as well.

I don't know if it's a case of euphemism treadmill. The older term, "survivalist" doesn't seem to have the same negative connotation (but does have the different connotation of focusing more on survival in nature rather than survivng disasters in society).

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The nice thing about urban preppers is _that 's_ the place to go in a doomsday. They have a ready supply of water, canned goods, and ammo.

I am sure some preppers will in fact be ready, guns loaded, and should not be approached. These are also likely to be the ones avoiding urban areas anyway. But the ones I know (fortunately none of whom read HN AFAIK) well enough to know their prep...are unlikely to actually have their guns readily available.

</comment><comment><USER19> Everyone has a hobby. This seems like a pretty bloody useful one.

</comment><comment><USER20> I hear people say they're ready to survive off the land in a remote location, and I wonder why they don't just move there now & start doing it.

<comment><USER11> What's more, how are they going to make it out of the city on clogged highways? Especially when the ICBMs are already airborne?

I live in the country already. We have chickens, and a well. We won't get murdered in the urban panic. We will probably last a few months... and then die of disease or starvation like the rest.

<comment><USER21> I used to live in the country, and had to re-assess my assumptions when we had a several day power outage due to a blizzard. We had propane at the old farmhouse, but with no power to run the furnace/blower, I could only run the range (and a small portable propane heater with some spare tanks). There was no power for the well either. After that, every time the power would go out, Wife or I would immediately fill up the bathtub with all the water that was in the pressure tanks. We looked into solar, but the power spikes needed to start a well pump (or furnace fan) can be pretty high, and need quite a bit of amperage to get going.

<comment><USER11> Yes, electricity is a massive problem. You need solar or a wind turbine, and a lot of car batteries too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> A government report estimated 90% die off after 1 year if the lights go out due to solar flare or EMP. You can get a basic 1 year supply of food that will last 20 years in cool storage for under $1000 shipped. That is 3 months for a family of 4, cheap insurance and peace of mind.

<comment><USER23> You also need a cool place to store that food, which probably costs a lot more over twenty years than the food.

<comment><USER24> And enough people skills and/or guns, ammo and training to protect that food. After all, all that 90% of people aren't going to just lie down and die.

<comment><USER22> To each his own. Just because someone doesn't believe in guns or defending their own property doesn't mean it isn't prudent to have a small emergency stash of food.

<comment><USER25> But also, just because some people don't believe in guns, doesn't mean we should avoid mentioning it. Defense is still an important part of preparation, and guns are the best tools to accomplish that. If someone wants to reject that form of defense on philosophical grounds, they're welcome to, but it's still worth mentioning them as resources for people who may not have such fixed philosophies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> didn't expect theguardian to report on oddballs as if they're the norm for something bigger. everyone have hobbies

</comment><comment><USER27> The preppers hunker down the un preppered become migrant caravans / climate based migration is already happening</comment>


Foursquare Cofounder Naveen Selvadurai Opens Up About His Exit - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcompany.com/3015183/foursquare-cofounder-naveen-selvadurai-opens-up-about-his-exit-i-wanted-to-stay

<comment><USER2> Whatever may have conspired at 4sq. we will never know. That said Naveen comes across as genuinely nice guy in this interview. He doesn't indulge in name and shame tactics. He is obviously hurt, which is understandable but he is not dwelling on that issue. I look forward to what he has in the bag for future and I'm sure it will be as successful as Foursquare.</comment>


Homeland Security Warns 3D-Printed Guns Are "Impossible" To Contain - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/23/homeland-security-reportedly-warns-3d-printed-guns-are-impossible-to-contain/

<comment><USER2> I'd say "duh" but thats too obvious :)

If you're looking at a threat model for this, its exactly the same as a Zipgun and in fact it probably costs a heck of a lot more than a zipgun so its even less likely to be used. Zipguns have existed for over a century so its not like this is some huge threat.

This is only a problem if you believe guns are {evil, sentient, bombs} or something. The problem is always the wielder, never the tool, so if you account for that you will always be prepared for any type of weapon...

<comment><USER3> I agree with your main point that this is a no brainer. I also think that the "wielder" is part of the problem. However, I don't understand your point about "wielder vs tool". This is something i have heard a lot of pro-gun people say over and over again. However, that point only makes sense if guns are a general purpose tool (such as a 3d printer or a computer), but they are not. Guns are tools only used for killing. IMO, when it comes to civilian use, they are at best used to fulfill an antiquated hobby and at worst used to kill people.

Edit: back on main topic, if only mpaa and riaa would admit the same thing about their struggle against the bits.

<comment><USER4> _Guns are tools only used for killing._

Not true. Sport-shooting of various sorts is a very popular past-time. You have things like skeet shooting[1], ISSF shooting competitions[2], IPSC Practical Shooting competition[3], etc.

And some of the contexts in which they are "used to kill" are hardly negative: hunting for food (very commonplace in many areas) and self-defense come to mind.

No, a gun may not be "general purpose" in the same way a 3D printer is, but it certainly has no inherently malevolent intent.

[1]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeet_shooting>

[2]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISSF_shooting_events>

[3]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Practical_Shootin...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Practical_Shooting_Confederation)

<comment><USER3> dang it, sry for my use of the word "only". However, what you mention here is one of the things i had in mind when i said "antiquated hobby".

<comment><USER4> Fair enough. Being something of a firearms enthusiast myself, I don't exactly agree, but I can see where you're coming from.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Its hard to print bullets, why don't they just give up on regulating guns, and regulate bullets?

<comment><USER6> Practicality? The US civilian sector alone manufactures 11-12 _billion_ (sic) per year (and we get tasty leftovers from manufacturing for the military on their equipment at Lake City, plus there's imports), and that number will be going up somewhat as e.g. Remington expands their Arkansas plant. Then there's the problem that ammo, if stored in minimally good conditions (cool and dry, of course), lasts a _very_ long time. A lot of WWII era ammo is still fine and functional, although disfavored because most of it uses corrosive primers.

This is recognized in the near total deregulation in the US of ammo after it leaves the manufacturer, you don't need any special license to sell it, although shipping of course requires proper labeling (an ORD-M sticker) and must be by ground.

Oh, yeah, the leftover brass of centerfire guns and brass and plastic hulls of shotgun ammo can generally be reloaded a number of times, that's completely unregulated beyond again the usual safety stuff, primers and smokeless powder are somewhat more dangerous when packaged in bulk vs. as part of finished rounds. And more on longevity: my father is still reloading shotgun shells using powder from Hercules (now Alliant) casks bought plus or minus WWII (!)....</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How would you split ownership in this scenario? - <AUTHOR>

My friend, who is the CEO of a company in this industry that this startup will be in, and I came up with a great idea and we're going to pursue it. However, he wants to split it 50/50 but I'm not comfortable with that because<p>* I don't have a job so I have more to risk<p>* I will be the one developing the product (he is non-technical)<p>* He is already running another company, there's only so much time he can invest in this one<p>What he brings to the table is strong connections within the industry. He'll be able to get a lot of customers on board initially. Do you guys think 50/50 is fair in this scenario? <comment><USER2> The problem you have here is not that you're unemployed and your prospective partner isn't (that actually hurts you, as it decreases your opportunity cost). Rather, the problem is simply that your partner isn't working for the company.

The tricky issue here isn't the split. If you think your partner is going to add significant value to the company (and: you clearly do), stop obsessing about the split, because how you carve up equity isn't going to change your outcome _nearly_ as much as how well you two work together. Both negotiating for a better split, and, worse, executing the company as an unequal partnership are going to cost relationship capital. Save that capital for something that really matters.

The tricky issue is vesting. DO NOT ENTER A PARTNERSHIP WITHOUT VESTING. Anyone who gets equity, YOU INCLUDED, needs to be on 4-year vesting. Since you can't really "vest" someone who isn't even working for the company, you have a bigger problem than the split.

My suggestion is, don't offer your prospective partner any equity until they start. That default starting equity, while significant, won't be equal to yours; it'll be, as Joel Spolsky puts it, "second stripe" equity. (Joel's stripe examples are 50/10/10/10/10/10, but you'd obviously change that; perhaps 30/20/10/10/10/10).

At the same time, offer them an option to purchase equity equivalent to yours (ie, to buy 5% of the company). The price of that option should capture the value of the time you spent working on the company PLUS the added risk you took; think of it as a premium on your salary to prevent the partner from waiting- and- seeing how well things go before joining up (if the cost of the option was just your salary, it would be dumb for them to pay it until they had to, and they'd be disincentivized from joining).

Be aware that your prospective partner is probably going to balk at this, in which case, oh well; there's lots of ideas out there. If you're not in a position to amicably walk away, no-harm no-foul, you have no business negotiating at all.

<comment><USER3> These are some creative structuring ideas. In addition, you could keep the 50/50 split and structure some sort of "promote" or disproportionate share of the company after a return of capital or above a certain value. For instance, you guys could be 50/50 up to a $10 million valuation. After $10 million, you could be entitled to an extra X% as an incentive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Different people will have a different of opinion on this. As full disclosure, I am NOT a fan of 50/50 splits in general and have had my fair share of businesses and startups.

Here is my take:

1\. Your first bullet point is irrelevant. You not having a job doesn't mean you couldn't get a job to lower risk if thats the way you think (although thats not a good way to think at all). Him having a job doesn't mean much. What matters is what you each bring to the table and what you contribute. If your argument was more base on time commitment rather than risk, I'd agree.

2\. I HIGHLY disagree with this argument. A lot of HN love to downplay the non-technical founder (with good reasons) but a valuable non-technical founder who have the skills (which many who start out don't) is worth their weight in gold as well. The non-technical argument here is more of a bias use case than a fair assessment of what each is bringing to the table and how that will contribute towards the startup.

3\. This one is valid. As someone else noted, check for liabilities regarding this. The fact that you are going to be putting in more time makes it somewhat valid that the split should not be 50/50 starting out. Unless he is investing some money and willing to put in equal time, among other things, it would be very difficult to justify a 50/50 partnership. That said, if you value and trust him, and he does bring the goods as you say (not just perceived), then you will need to figure out fair compensation otherwise.

TL;DR 50/50 probably doesn't make sense in this case but some of the arguments presented are invalid in my personal opinion.

<comment><USER2> Equity splits have at least as much to do with risk as they do with contribution. But it's risk in a more general sense; you don't get compensated for being so financially insecure that the venture might wipe you out completely. Instead, it's "risk" that captures opportunity cost.

Unfortunately for the poster, despite the fact that his prospective partner already has a well-paying job, his risk in starting this company could be _higher_ , because the opportunity cost to an established CEO of joining on with an unproven venture is very high. CEO's tend to "trade up" to other CEO roles at established companies.

<comment><USER4> I think doing a startup is risky for a lot of people in general. Comparing risk in the manner the OP did is poor. I think to succeed you have to have a certain level of risk tolerance. There are a lot more things to consider and compare than who risks more financially or in opportunity cost. Getting into a startup requires more commitment than that in my personal opinion.

Now if you're talking about risk appetite in doing things and jumping into a startup, then I'd agree risk is a factor worth taking note of.

<comment><USER2> "Contribution" can actually be measured in terms of risk; the risk is the opportunity cost of the value of that contribution to any other business you had the option to be a part of.

Risk is more important than your writing seems to indicate. Equity isn't an achievement award.

<comment><USER4> I think you read my comment wrong then. I never undervalued risk in any way. I agree its one of the most important factors. But I think the type of risk is more important than what you lose out on as opposed to the other guy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There was a discussion a few days ago about splitting shares : <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4379079>

CodeCube provided a link to Joel Spolsky's answer on how to do this. He speaks about your specific case where you'd work full time on it while your co- founder does not : [http://answers.onstartups.com/questions/6949/forming-a- new-s...](http://answers.onstartups.com/questions/6949/forming-a-new-software- startup-how-do-i-allocate-ownership-fairly/23326#23326)

</comment><comment><USER6> I think you guys should sit down together and write down a list of what you will be contributing to the company. Im sure it will become very clear as to how you should break up the company. In my opinion after reading your post it doesnt look sound like you should be splitting the company 50/50

</comment><comment><USER7> Vest his 50% equity but instead of using time, use "customers" he bought on board(or define a different way to measure his value) and decide an amount of customers he should bring in order to make it worth those 50%.

Give him them the equity that he deserve based on this performance. :)

</comment><comment><USER8> If he's CEO but not the owner, be careful about non-compete provisions in his employment contract which might create legal liability for your company in the future, especially if he brags about bringing "lot of customers" with "strong connections within the industry".

</comment><comment><USER9> Can you acquire customers on your own? If your product truly solve a problem, it doesn't need someone with "strong connections"

</comment><comment><USER10> If he also puts in a few million dollars, you might consider it. But otherwise, no.</comment>


Ask HN: Any free e-mail clients with scheduling and tracking? - <AUTHOR> I once tried Polymail when it was early in their development, and I thought the UI was pleasant and the features were great. But at that time, it was still buggy and I had a hard time integrating my work and personal e-mail accounts smoothly, so I gave up.
But now I have use for such features but can't find anything convenient/free that does this.
Do any of you use a client or tools that do what I'm looking for? <comment><USER2> HubSpot Sales, free edition can do that</comment>


I tried to find out how much my son's birth would cost. No one would tell me - <AUTHOR> http://www.vox.com/2016/5/5/11591592/birth-cost-hospital-bills <comment><USER2> My company has developed several tools to answer these kinds of questions. One of which is publicly available and done for a non-profit: [http://guroo.com](http://guroo.com), which lacks provider specific detail, but has averages for many different types of services by geographic area. It is a neat tool, that is a step in the right direction, but is unfortunately not very actionable. The data is based on 40 million insured individuals.

Another tool has provider specific detail, but is only available to the members of select insurance companies. It uses data specific to that company's historic provider data and negotiated rates.

More employers are moving to high deductible health plans with health savings accounts and are looking for insurance companies to provide more tools to help guide members choices. Giving members increased incentives to make good healthcare decisions doesn't do any good unless the members have the tools needed to make informed decisions.

</comment><comment><USER3> the real answer is: they will charge as much as your insurance will accept. Then your insurance will "negotiate" a lower amount based on their leverage, data and other closely guarded policies.

</comment><comment><USER4> If the FTC can force Funeral Homes to make their prices public ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funeral_Rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funeral_Rule)), then why can't they do the same for hospitals?

<comment><USER5> Because a funeral is 1 service and something like a birth could be 100 different services with different experts and requirements that are impossible to predict beforehand..

<comment><USER4> I understand that entirely. But not publishing their prices before hand _at all_ seems to me, in a word, deceptive.

<comment><USER5> In theory, the hospital should be able to provide a minimum price based on the standard order set for labor and delivery -- "If you have a natural birth in the hospital, and you spend 1 day in the room, 2 days in recovery, only use these drugs and receive these tests, your visit will cost $XX." But that isn't really helpful since most births will vary a substantial amount from the 'basic' plan. This gets back to why insurance exists in the first place, if the average price for 10 births is $10,000 -- that could be 10 births at $10k or 9 births at $1k and one at $91k or literally anywhere in between.

<comment><USER6> but that data could be really useful - the average cost is $x, the median is $y, and you could do standard deviations too. Or you could give even more detailed info

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> As a Canadian this is something that would have never crossed my mind. I just go to the hospital/doctor without any thought of how much it's going to cost me. I suppose this is why "home birth" became a thing.

</comment><comment><USER8> Can't find out medical prices? But conservatives tell us again and again that we have by far the best medical delivery system in the world. I guess the conclusion is that medical corporations (which is what hospitals are these days) work better when they don't have to reveal what they are charging.</comment>


The Set-Up-To-Fail Syndrome - <AUTHOR> http://hbr.org/1998/03/the-set-up-to-fail-syndrome

<comment><USER2> As somebody who was recently let go, and can relate to much of what the article states, I have to say that I disagree with the premise (at least in my case).

My experience pretty much ends at #5 in the cartoon, I don't really relate to anything beyond that. But I do feel I was in the state of not bringing up issues, running faster and making less progress, and generally not cooperating in the team because I had messed up a few things, and new the boss wasn't happy with my performance, at the same time, neither was I.

I look at this as just a puff piece to make those who have let go feel better about themselves, though maybe some bosses will take it the other way and start to recognize these symptoms and work with their subordinates better. I in no way blame my boss for my performance, or for firing me.</comment>


Word Frequencies in Front Page HN Titles - <AUTHOR> http://chegra.posterous.com/word-frequencies-in-front-page-hn-titles

<comment><USER2> A bunch of meaningless words, ("You" and "for" rank highly? No, really?) but a few that stick out are "how", "google" and "new".

It also drops off pretty fast. You'd think you'd see a lot more reused words.

The graph is also pretty poorly designed. The most important elements (the words) are aligned vertically, which means you have to turn your head to read them. Why not put the words on the Y axis?

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, I was checking for these so calling meaningless words. I realise when I write "You" in my blog post it gets more views. Some persuasion book I read a while back say copywriters use that all the time. But yea, I edit words that are interesting to me based on my past experience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> You need to massage your data to get more meaningful results.

It might be interesting to compare your word counts with the word counts from a general-purpose word corpus, then pick out words that appear more frequently by a statistically-significant amount. Something like Amazon's statistically improbable phrases algorithm.

<comment><USER4> I'd suggest, as a simple heuristic for ranking words for improbability/relevance, contribution to K-L divergence from the frequencies in the general-purpose word corpus:

P _ln(P/Q)

where P is the frequency of the word in the narrow corpus (HN titles)

and Q is the frequency of the word in the general-purpose corpus

(formula doesn't work if Q is ever zero; this won't happen if the broader corpus includes the narrower one, as it should, but as a practicality, just make Q:=(1-a)_Q+a*P for small positive a to simulate merging the smaller corpus into the larger)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kullback%E2%80%93Leibler_diverg...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kullback%E2%80%93Leibler_divergence)

Anybody with more time than I have at the moment want to code this up?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Pretty cool, but you might want to do some more filtering to allow for more meaningful words.

<comment><USER6> Yea, I suggest you remove stop words.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm surprised apple isn't more frequent.. I feel like it's only that on HN.

<comment><AUTHOR> Apple has mix feelings on HN. Compared to Google which the majority would say they love.</comment></comment>


A New Yorker's Quest for the Perfect Amount of Noise - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/issue/46/balance/noise-is-a-drug-and-new-york-is-full-of-addicts-rp <comment> white-flame There's a nice Veritasium video of an anechoic chamber here, with different people's reactions to it: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXVGIb3bzHI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXVGIb3bzHI)

I've been in sensory deprivation tanks, but never in an anechoic chamber (yet). However, I'm sure I'd love it.

Many people live their life fleeing themselves, fleeing the thoughts in their head, and fleeing the realities they don't want to face. However, if you're emotionally healthy and are purposeful in establishing your identity and life direction, silence is simply golden. Not just auditory, but visual, social, and conceptual.

Because of this, I don't think that there can be any singular preferable amount of noise for everybody. If there's some average, plenty of people will still find it distracting and grating, while others would find it too quiet and uncomfortable. Plus, I doubt it stays consistent even for a given individual. When you're stressed, you might want more quiet... or more distraction, depending on your preferences and reactions.</comment>


Raspberry Pi moves manufacturing to the UK - <AUTHOR> http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/1925

<comment><USER3> This is great news for RPi team and for uk manufacturing. I've been saying for over a year now that if there is a reasonable level of automation then there is no reason why china should be cheaper than the uk.so long as you can maintain a robust supply chain of components (I should think using a sony facility is beneficial to this) then it can work out great.

We priced our product for uk and china and china was infact more expensive because of the way they price plastics. Sometimes UK is best

<comment><USER4> I completely agree but it's not just wages and taxes.

China has _everything_ they need to bleem out consumer electronics indefinitely. They source the materials within China and they produce [most of] the components in China. It's all there under one currency.

I love England but we don't really have the rare earth metals required to do this stuff. We need to import them and that means paying China more money. Often more money than it would be to have them fab the whole thing in the first place.

I agree that this is something that needs to happen eventually. If the world keeps paying China to make everything they __will __end up owning us all. On paper they probably already do.

<comment><USER5> "bleem"?

<comment><USER6> It's clear from context that it's a perfectly cromulent word.

<comment><USER7> True, but using unusual words embiggens the chance that your audience might not understand. The only regular use of bleem Google finds is for a PS1 emulator.

<comment><USER8> There's also this bleem[1], but that wouldn't make sense either.

[1]: [[http://www.strangehorizons.com/2000/20001120/secret_number.s...](http://www.strangehorizons.com/2000/20001120/secret_number.shtml)]

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I spoke with Raspberry Pi about this for a news story I wrote. They said this about manufacturing: "The temptation is always to push manufacturing to a low- cost region, but I think with the right attention to detail there's no reason British manufacturing can't compete in a global marketplace," Eben Upton, founder of the Raspberry Pi foundation told ZDNet UK on Thursday. "It shows that British manufacturing can be competitive." ( [http://www.zdnet.com/raspberry-pi-manufacturing-comes- home-a...](http://www.zdnet.com/raspberry-pi-manufacturing-comes-home-as- production-shifts-to-uk-7000003839/) )

Are there similar moves underway in the US?

<comment><USER10> Yes, it's actually a White House talking point this week: "Since February 2010, the U.S. manufacturing sector has added roughly 500,000 jobs, the fastest pace of job growth in the sector since 1995".

<comment><USER11> I think there has been a general recognition that rebuilding local supply chain in manufacturing is essential. Especially in the industries where this is still possible.

Cheap labour only helps if two years of labour is cheaper than a machine that can do the work. The machines get cheaper and labour gets more expensive. It obviously doesn't mean a lot of the low skilled jobs are ever going to return to the countries they have left, but at least it creates opportunity for an ecosystem of local suppliers and innovation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > we had been unable to find a British manufacturer [...] who believed that > the project would be enough of a success for them to risk line space for us.

I think that sums up current European attitudes to manufacturing and capitalism all too well, sadly. Note how they eventually ended up with a Welsh factory... owned and run by Sony.

And what does a supposedly business-friendly government do? Worry about building houses. Sigh.

<comment><USER3> Well, our ageing housing stock, escalating house prices and lack of urban social mobility does warrant focus on housing, the knock on effects for the construction industry also show this as being a sensible economic policy as well as solving an increasing socioeconomic problem.

I'm not sure how using a Welsh factory shows how this government is anti capitalist or anti manufacturing - given that Wales is in the UK and it is the UK government I don't think it matters where it is in the country. The factory is probably based there as a result of the government incentives about a decade to fifteen years ago which were introduced to get large corporations to base operations in areas of Wales who had been relient on the mines and who, at that time, had spiralling unemployment.

Alos, The EU isn't anti manufacturing. Everyone is looking to the German model (high value manufacturing) as they are the only one bucking the downward trend and actually growing. The UK itself still has a very healthy manufacturing sector - I forget the exact figure but it makes up a double digit percentage of our GDP so it is not insignificant at all.

I agree more could be done to improve the position of manufacturing but to look at the Chinese model and say "hey, we should have all the back here" is not the answer. Electronics, chemicals and high end goods we should have but let china make the Barbie Dolls and cheap tat, that's not what we should be aspiring to.

<comment><USER12> My point was that it's not a British factory: it's a Sony-owned plant that happens to be in the UK at this point in time. Sony is a Japanese-American corporation; all this chest-beating is quite unwarranted.

The point about capitalism is that "Euro" capitalists don't want to face any risk, as this story proves: British money didn't want to back the Pi when it was unproven, and even now they could only find Japanese-American money.

I live in the North-West of England. I'm surrounded by modern (and mostly empty) high-rise developments built in the last 15 years, alternating with cheap new low-rise which have been rebuilt from scratch on the ashes of failed towns, and they're slowly decaying again, because the problem is that you can't maintain a nice house without a nice job, and construction jobs are not even for local people these days.

the sort of jobs that provide social mobility are in services (as we all know on HN), in high-quality manufacturing, and in the public sector; and it's clear this government has no idea how to help those sectors.

<comment><USER3> I would argue that it is a british factor, regardless of the name above the door it is based in the UK and as a result help the UK economy.

The reason for all those empty buildings is due to an old insurance policy (now illegal) that meant developers could build and insure against it being empty ... essentially the insurance company pays the rent if the building is empty and as such there is no incentive for the developer to actively let it out.

Setting up a line like this is expensive and unless you are willing to foot the bill for the factory setting up the line then it is understandable that most factories would decline the work if they thought the market opportunity was small of the business plan was weak.

Either way I think we both agree on this being a good thing but we don't know the context in which the work was previously declined

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Now I'm imagining Maurice Moss examining his frotzed Raspberry Pi board, finding the "Made in Great Britain" badge, and shaking his head in resignation.

<comment><USER14> Same for Dr Von Braun :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> With all of the manufacturing issues the RPi team has had, I can't help but think what a tremendous PIA building something reasonably sophisticated is.

Kudos to the team for taking on such a difficult and worthwhile project and putting up with all of the issues. Even if the RPi in and of itself isn't successful, it's definitely brought these kinds of small, cheap simply computers to the forefront of many minds and that's a good thing.

</comment><comment><USER7> Hopefully this brings more control over the production by the RPi team. If something is going wrong, it's a lot easier to take a trip down the M4 (or the train) than it is to fly to China and sort things out.

<comment><USER16> I wouldn't be so sure of that with the currently absurd amount of roadworks on the M4 ;)

<comment><USER7> Being infatuated with Top Gear, I have to imagine your name means you are an AI that James May built to do the boring things humans do like spend time online while he's away in the garage or doing another special on planes. Therefore, with you being an extension of Mr May, I have to say I agree with your proposal to charge councils by the minute for not having roadworks done properly. Imagine how well funded the Raspberry Pi Foundation would be with just one trip from Cambridgeshire to Wales!

[http://www.topgear.com/uk/james-may/james-may-road- pricing-2...](http://www.topgear.com/uk/james-may/james-may-road- pricing-2007-04-01)

<comment><USER16> Haha, I do share the same surname & hair style so you're not too far off!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Fantastic news and glad they have been on the case about this since day one.

Two things out of this whole affair that stand out are:

1) UK Manufacturing clearly needs a better way to make its services available so people can utilise them, the goverment should be helping in this area. Wales have done alot to promote manufacturing and probably has a fair chunk of the UK production, the whole of the UK should be made more aware of this local resource.

2) TAX on a made product compared to the bits to assemble said product. From the current standing it is more cost effective to make products outside the UK as apposed to buying in those parts seperately and in bulk and making the product localy TAX wise, this is again another area the UK goverment has to address.

But the reality of bring some types of manufacturing back localy, even if driven by some of the lesser reasons makes sence.

This all said I would love for a Pi with more ram and also love a couple of network ports, make a lovely firewall unit then without messing with USB network adaptors. I'd also like USB3. So with that in mind maybe there is scope for a model C and D, idealy a model you can upgrade a little bit more in those respective area's. But if I had to pick anything overall it would be a little bit more ram. But there is nothing stopping me making my own board and modifications (skills pending), like most out there probably thinking about. Open Hardware schematics on github and group effort - anybody aware of any plans or projects along those lines?

<comment><USER18> 2) - Would not be such a good idea. Remember that a good chunk of these get exported to outside. Raising a protectionist barrier will just encourage other countries to do the same.

<comment><USER19> The current situation, according to [1], is that there is a higher import tax on _components_ than on _assembled boards_.

This is, as I understand it, because there's no import duty on components that are part of information technology products such as computers[2] - <USER2> components which are not yet part of such a product are subject to import duty.

To fix this we don't need to raise a protectionist import duty for IT products - we can just drop the import duty on electronic components.

[1] <http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/509> [2] <http://www.charleswalker.org/import-duties>

<comment><USER17> Maybe a better way to tackle this would be to balance things up by imposing a weight based import duty that we shall call the enviromental TAX. This would be the way to address this and also balance out the whole import/export aspect, especialy if every country sat down and looked it from a impact perspective. But in a way that if you import a product in component and in part form that they both at least cost the same import TAX wise, that would be a start at least.

But at the very least the current situation is only accomodating with large plants like Sony's who are able to talk to goverments about TAX breaks and deals to actualy make a plant and the cost of import viable. This needs to be addressed as a whole and allow even medium sized companies to compete, so that even little people have some hope.

Sadly until enough people that people listern to speak up this situation will just stagnate on as it is. I'm full of hope this news item may eventualy put some momentum behind the needed changes and at the very least get them on the table in goverment so they start to look at the issues.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> So happy they finally found a local factory, and one of great technical and "entrepreneurial" quality

</comment><comment><USER21> Since the dawn of globalization and the post-Cold war era, a number of countries are getting slot marked into particular sectors like: China for manufacturing, US for design, software, German auto mobile, India for outsourced services etc.

But to have a thriving and healthy society in a country, the variety is important so that people can pursue different interests and are not forced to migrate because there is no high-quality work in that area in that country.

Only way to do this is to protect the domestic market from foreign investment and give some time for high quality local players to grow. Then open for competition. But if a second world government does it, it is blamed for not allowing reforms and accused of denying progress to its citizens

So now another way is opening up.

So it is good for China too if such things happen. If a bunch of high quality companies open up in stuff that UK is traditionally known for (financial services?) then the balance will be stuck.

I hope financial institutions like IMF, World Bank take such things into count and come up with measures to increase variety in every country. It will make life a lot better for a lot of people.

</comment><comment><USER22> I don't understand this statement at all:

"Last year, when nobody had heard of the Raspberry Pi, we had been unable to find a British manufacturer whose prices per unit (especially at a point where we were thinking of sales in the tens of thousands, not the hundreds of thousands you're seeing now) would work for us, and who believed that the project would be enough of a success for them to risk line space for us."

Who wouldn't take one project because they were afraid you wouldn't come back for more? Is business so hopping over there that people scoff at a $1M deal because you may not come back later for a $5M deal? Or, were you actually asking them to reserve production, but that you might cancel before it started?

<comment><USER23> The key point I think is line space. Getting set up for production is quite a bit of work, and given that their new contract is for 30,000/month, the manufacturers clearly didn't want to set up an entire production line if they may only get a couple of months of usage out of it (since the original order would've been only in the tens of thousands).

<comment><USER22> That is the key thing I question and makes me wonder about EMS in the UK. There are literally dozens of vendors who would kill for that job here in the States - even without any guarantee of repeat order. There just must not be very many there in the UK.

(I do understand some of what it takes to setup and run a manufacturing line, I work with several EMSes both in the US and China and run a [smaller scale] electronics manufacturer.)

Edit: Before my comment is taken the wrong way, what I am wondering is if the UK has much capacity for mid-scale EMS/CEM, or if the industry there has been largely tailored towards the very big players. But, I'm pretty sure I misread the statement, namely that they meant that the only places willing to take the jobs were charging too much, rather than that no one wanted the job because it was too small.

<comment><USER24> drone, does 30 workers needed for 30,000 units a month for this makes sense ? it seems pretty high for an automated process.

<comment><USER22> It depends on the design (PTH or SMD). A lot of PTH takes a lot of people, as many parts still can't be machine-placed.

The facility we use an hour from us runs about 600 PTH units (about 40 components/board) on one assembly line with 10 people in about 4 hours. I doubt one would always work them at that level. Lead-bending, wave soldering is all pretty much automated.

The bulk of an SMD process is done by pick-and-place, our stuff gets run on 10,000+ CPH machines. You need one person to load/de-load panels and switch out feeders - and one person can work multiple machines if everything is set up right. The machines in general are really good these days.

Printing and machining the PCBs takes some time, but this is a process that can flow continuously once you let a little backlog build up at each stage. Electrical testing can be slow at the back-end, as is polishing board edges, packaging, etc.

I could see it taking 30 people to do 10k a month, but the same 30 people possibly capable of 60k+ a month. It depends on where you load them in the process. The more SMD the more volume you can get up to the testing/packaging stage. rPi is mostly SMD, with some PTH - so they have to mix the processes, but its really hard to avoid...)

Notably, however, if you look at the Hackberry (which I like better, btw!) the vast majority of the connectors are SMD. I wonder if the rPI could see some labor savings (at higher BOM) by switching to them.

One thing we've been working on in-house is making big automated jigs to program and test entire panels of devices at once, before they're de-paneled. These are really expensive to make though (think $5k+ per jig) - but they save us thousands of hours of labor a year. We're moving to make machines that can do it without jigs now. Fun stuff =)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Hopefully this will facilitate better placement and attachment of the c6 capacitor.

</comment><comment><USER26> The biggest thing to take away from this isn't just they get to say made in Britain but that they've created an additional 30 jobs. Not only are they making a difference in encouraging people to learn from the hardware but they're also now creating another positive effect on society through job creation.

Not bad for a small, charitable business.

</comment><comment><USER27> Does anyone know where BBC Micros were manufactured? Sinclair's ZX machines (and C5s) were made in Dundee.

<comment><USER28> I tracked down this snippet which says who built it:

"A feature it shares with the BBC is that it is an all-British product; designed by Acorn, it is being built by ICL and Cleartone with custom-built chips by Ferranti."

From this article: [http://www.stairwaytohell.com/articles/cr-BBCMicro- CToday.ht...](http://www.stairwaytohell.com/articles/cr-BBCMicro-CToday.html)

This from The Reg has detail on production and the race to win the place as BBC computer partner - [http://www.reghardware.com/2011/11/30/bbc_micro_model_b_30th...](http://www.reghardware.com/2011/11/30/bbc_micro_model_b_30th_anniversary/page3.html).

This guy, who appears to be an authority, mentions the above and AB Electronics, see <http://acorn.chriswhy.co.uk/Computers/BBCMicros.html>. He details info on the companies in the Acorn ecosystem, <http://acorn.chriswhy.co.uk/Companies.html>, but appears to miss out the suppliers ...

[http://acorn.chriswhy.co.uk/docs/Mags/AU/AU_Nov84_IndiaTakes...](http://acorn.chriswhy.co.uk/docs/Mags/AU/AU_Nov84_IndiaTakesOnBeebAssembly.pdf) gives detail of the Indian manufacture by Semiconductor Complex Ltd [under license from the American Rockwell Corp] and Mexican production by Harry Mazal (a company). It notes that the ULA will continue to be made by Acorn themselves (presumably in the UK).

> _In both China and India, the consumer markets are comparatively small, but, > as the Indian deal shows, the educational and industrial sectors are > massive. And both countries are crying out for western technology_ //

Talk about turn-around.

\--

Edit:

[http://yourcomputeronline.wordpress.com/2010/11/04/bbcs- prot...](http://yourcomputeronline.wordpress.com/2010/11/04/bbcs-proton- project-and-the-nuclear-family/) mentions:

> _Acorn will probably subcontract assembly to Cleartone in Abercarn; the > Department of Industry's £60,000 contribution meant that assembly would have > to be in Britain. It will be marketed under licence from a box number, by > mail-order._ //

Looking back <http://acorn.chriswhy.co.uk/Computers/BBCAI2.html> shows an Abercarn manufactured issue 2.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Great news! However, it would be even better if everything were made in the UK. Would be nice if the US could follow suit. Unfortunately it usually isn't good for business. But I don't believe that the government should interfere with free trade to promote such things.

</comment><comment><USER30> With robotics and 3D printing, we'll probably see a lot more on-shoring of manufacturing soon.</comment>