The Wrong Time And Place: Why Wii Was Nintendo's Biggest Failure - <AUTHOR> http://liisten.com/the-wrong-time-and-place-why-wii-was-nintendos-biggest-failure <comment><USER2> At launch, the Xbox 360 sold about 1.2 million units in November-December 2005 [http://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_yoy.php?reg=Global&star...](http://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_yoy.php?reg=Global&start_year=2005&end_year=2006&console=X360)

At launch, the PS3 sold about 1.2 million units in November-December 2006 [http://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_yoy.php?reg=Global&star...](http://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_yoy.php?reg=Global&start_year=2006&end_year=2007&console=PS3)

At launch, the WiiU sold about 2.3 million units in November-December 2012 [http://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_yoy.php?reg=Global&star...](http://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_yoy.php?reg=Global&start_year=2011&end_year=2013&console=WiiU)

That doesn't look bad at all for the WiiU. Of course, it wasn't as successful as the Wii, which sold at launch about 2.9 million units in November-December 2006 [http://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_yoy.php?reg=Global&star...](http://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_yoy.php?reg=Global&start_year=2006&end_year=2007&console=Wii) but I'd say it was still pretty good.

Furthermore, we are still waiting for most of the interesting games announced for the WiiU to be released (Lego City Undercover, The Wonderful 101, Bayonetta 2), so I think it is far to early to say that the WiiU is a failure. If I remember correctly, many critics also were saying some time ago that the 3DS was a failure!

<comment><USER3> Well, as they say, the trend is their friend and the sales fell off a cliff.

>Nintendo's console sold just 57,000 units in January, managing to up that number to 64,000 in February.

By comparison, the 7.5 year old XBox 360 sold 302,000 and 281,000 in Jan and Feb respectively.

<comment><USER2> Yes, the numbers for the WiiU in January and February were pretty low. But, I think that it does make sense for a new console with practically no games available to sell less than a mature console with a catalogue of hundreds of games. As I said in my previous comment, I think it is still too early to know if the WiiU will be successful or not.

Also, it seems like the numbers you mention are for North America only, were the XBox 360 has been most successful. If you look at the global numbers, the WiiU still sold less than the XBox 360 but no so bad as it looks when looking only at North America:

XBox 360 January + February: about 850 thousand units [http://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_yoy.php?reg=Global&star...](http://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_yoy.php?reg=Global&start_year=2012&end_year=2013&console=X360)

WiiU January + February: about 400 thousand units [http://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_yoy.php?reg=Global&star...](http://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_yoy.php?reg=Global&start_year=2011&end_year=2013&console=WiiU)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Maybe it's the desire for official Nintendo games to come to iOS and Android that's coloring my opinions, but _it seems like the writing is on the wall for some form of mobile gaming to eventually and completely push consoles to the side._ "

I understand where this "Nintendo must get into mobile" idea comes from. Folks look around on the subway and see that everyone is on their smart phones, and many are playing games. It's still very unclear to me however, to what extent smart phones are affecting Nintendo's business, and how Nintendo should adjust their business model in response.

Nintendo just announced[1] that Fire Emblem: Awakening for the 3DS smashed franchise sales records, selling 180k copies in the first month (a month plagued by shortages[2]) and selling more than a third of those units via their own digital distribution store. For perspective the lifetime sales of the previous Fire Emblem title was only 250k.

This game is selling out at $40 and 1/3 of the sales are online sales that they don't have to share with anyone else (still $40!). One of the main reasons why I don't think Nintendo should become a software only is company that I don't see how they can remain as profitable if they had to adjust their prices for the realities of the iOS market and had to share their profits with Apple. The most profitable games on mobile stores are free to play titles, and while I think Nintendo should experiment here and develop their own F2P games to test that market, I don't see why they couldn't do that on their own platform.

[1] [http://venturebeat.com/2013/03/14/3dss-fire-emblem- awakening...](http://venturebeat.com/2013/03/14/3dss-fire-emblem-awakening- sells-180k-in-february-more-than-a-third-of-that-through-eshop/) [2][http://neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=511036&highligh...](http://neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=511036&highlight=fire+emblem+retailers)

<comment><USER5> Have you seen Square Enix's pricing in the app store? They charge 20-30 dollars a game. I think Nintendo could get away with a 30 dollar Mario game in the app store.

<comment><USER6> Nintendo currently sells Mario at $40. A move to $30 would be profitable if Nintendo makes 33% more sales (ignoring costs). Do you really think Mario would sell 33% better on Android than it does on the 3DS?

Mind you, the majority of Nintendo Fans have a 3DS already.

<comment><USER4> Another issue that is never addressed when discussing whether Nintendo should become a software only company and develop for mobile is whether their most successful products are even all that suitable for mobile devices. Would the user experience of playing Nintendo games actually improve on a touch screen smart phone?

<comment><USER6> Ironically, Advanced Wars and Fire Emblem, Nintendo's tactical RPG entires, can go on touchscreen just fine. A few others (such as Elite Beat Agents) would arguably do better on the Smartphone platform.

But this is definitely the minority of the games that Nintendo makes. The thought of playing something moderately fast-pace like "Mario Tennis" on a touch screen scares me. There isn't enough precision, and no touch screen is as responsive as a controller yet.

The major brands: Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Kid Icarus, Donkey Kong require speed and precision beyond that of the touchscreen. Let alone the issue of blocking the screen as you play the game.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _A bolder move than the Wii U would have been to completely flip the tables and infiltrate the cellphone gaming market._

So, mindlessly following the fad du jour is what passes for bold nowadays? Bullshit. Let's think it through. Imagine we suddenly decided to give up control over Nintendo's whole product. Instead, we put our ass on a plate for Apple and Samsung, primadonnas _par excellance_. All that for the privilege of becoming suppliers for a market of undiscriminating, volatile buyers, very reticent to part ways with their money. Of course, we would give Apple & Samsung at the very least a 15% cut, and completely alienate a devote user base that has very deep pockets. Not to mention our first-rate talent [1], who would either be pissed off and go to Sony/Microsoft, or just be easily acquired by any other insipid mobile development gaming startup with deep pockets. Add to that your product being trivial to copy, now.

Sounds familiar? This is just the Wii, recasting Apple/Samsung in the role of Nintendo, and Nintendo in the role of those shitty third-party developers no- one gives a fuck for today, desperately begging for a Rovio-style massive luck out. Congratulations, we just made millions for our competitors, while simultaneously blowing the fucking Mariana's Trench on our feet. Even Emperor Hiro Hito would think it too much kamikaze.

[1] This would be the finisher. Like Sony shitting over Square-Enix. Lose Miyamoto, Kondo, Aonuma... and you're done.

</comment><comment><USER8> I don't see how any of that calls into question whether or not the Wii was successful (as a product, it succeeded by every measure). The Wii U failing on it's own merit certainly opens up Nintendo to criticism about the choices they made, but calling the Wii a failure by way of pointing fingers at it's ancestors doesn't seem to fit for me.

</comment><comment><USER6> This article is stupid in stupid ways. Nintendo has the largest share of the portable handheld market with its handhelds, and is also the only profitable arm of the company right now.

Partnering with Samsung / Apple would be resigning their position, and then forcing their games to be sold at the $5 / game level to compete in Samsung / Apple's marketplace.

Nintendo continues to make a profit selling $40 games on their handheld system. Why should they give up the revenue advantage on their custom platform?

<comment><USER9> Depends how you define the portable handheld market. If you mean to say that they are beating Sony, then yes, if you add tablets and phones to the mix, then no, not at all. There is reason for them to worry, even if 3DS will have games that mobile devices won't. Here at the office, most of coworkers' kids are perfectly fine with playing on the iPad, while the DS sits in the corner, that's not good. And tablets don't need to take the entire portable gaming market, they just need to take a chunk to really hurt Nintendo.

<comment><USER6> Same way as every game console: PCs and Macs have always been excluded from "game console" markets, despite the fact that multi-million dollar games are PC-exclusive (ie: SimCity, Starcraft).

I can't even think of a single multi-million dollar title for handhelds, outside of Bejeweled (which existed long before the smartphone era). Tablets / Phones need games on them for sure, and the market is there... but I'm not really seeing anyone get to the revenue levels of Nintendo games.

<comment><USER9> That was the traditional way of looking at the mobile gaming market. You miss the elephant in the room if you _just_ consider 'consoles'. Reality is that iPads and iPhones already took a chunk of what was traditionally a Nintendo market segment. This is a trend that will probably continue (tablets and smart-phones will be more pervasive). There will be people (I know some already) who would ordinarily have bought a Nintendo gaming system but won't because the tablet is good enough.

<comment><USER6> Then they aren't gamers.

Gamers require precision in their controls first of all, and they also require that their fingers don't cover half the screen while playing. There are no good fighting games on tablets / smartphones. There are no platformers. The FPS experience absolutely blows in comparison to anything else.

No one buys a Smartphone / Tablet to game. No one goes out and seeks the iPad for the perfect "Angry Birds" experience. No one picks the Galaxy Note 2 to get a leg up in "Draw Something".

As I stated before, yes, Tablets / Smartphones eat a bit into the Nintendo handheld market. But so did dumb Cell phones in the past with Bejeweled. Indeed: Bejeweled was a paid app with 75 million purchases and 150+ million downloads... its success far exceeds even Angry Birds of today.

But go back to the early 2000s, and lets see you argue that the cell phones should be included in the market share of "handheld consoles". They are a different market. People don't buy Tablets or Smartphones to "game". Tablets and Smartphones are useful devices yes, but they satisfy a different market.

No gamer worth his salt will be satisfied with poor touchscreen controls with an internal compass and accelerometer. The fact that the Wii / DS managed to get a few dozen million "temporary fans" who were wow'd by that sort of thing is interesting... but that is not the market that will support the gaming industry in the long term.

<comment><USER9> >No gamer worth his salt will be satisfied with poor touchscreen controls with an internal compass and accelerometer.

I am making a distinction between mobile consoles (e.g. PSP, DS, Gameboy) and home consoles like the Xbox, PS3 and Wii. I think the latter group is safe, for now. There are very good reasons to have home consoles, in addition to tablets and smartphones. It's the former that's under threat. Anecdotally, I've seen what friends' and coworkers' kids (ages: 5-14) get excited about. We've talked about how they seem to be content with the current game library on the app stores and don't really care about mobile consoles. Furthermore, I've seen more kids playing on a smart phone, or a tablet, next to their moms out in public, than I've seen them play on a DS or equivalent. This is bad news for Nintendo. Again, it isn't necessary for mobile devices to take the entire market, if they take a chunk, it hurts Nintendo incredibly. The hardcore mobile console gamer market, isn't nearly as big as you think it is. Certainly not big enough to sustain the entire industry. Finally, smartphones and tablets are only going to get more ubiquitous and they are going to get even better, making it that much harder to justify spending extra money on a mobile console and that much harder to justify lugging yet another devices around (in addition to your smartphone and tablet).

>No one buys a Smartphone / Tablet to game. No one goes out and seeks the iPad for the perfect "Angry Birds" experience.

No they don't. They pick-up smartphones and tablets for multitude of other reasons and get a gaming platform for free. This has the effect of expanding the gaming market by turning people who would never have purchased a mobile consoles into mobile gamers (e.g. me), but more importantly I believe it also cannibalizes existing market in that there is a segment of population that would ordinarily buy a mobile console, now will not as they are content with the game selection on their tablet/smart phone.

>But go back to the early 2000s, and lets see you argue that the cell phones should be included in the market share of "handheld consoles".

I wouldn't do that because realistically they didn't impact sales of mobile consoles, unlike modern smartphones and tablets. They were also under-powered, clumsy devices with a tiny low resolution screen and no easy way of loading any programs onto them, again, completely unlike modern smartphones and tablets.

<comment><USER6> I have a different amount of anecdotal evidence however, where the majority of my friends have gone out and bought a new 3DS (including multiple co-workers, my sister, her husband, myself, several little cousins of mine...). We all have smartphones: some of us have top-end ones. Some of us have tablets as well. But none of us like the gaming experience of it, and have gone out to get a 3DS... and some have even gotten a PS Vita.

So our personal experiences differ. What else can we go on? If we look at historical sales... then the 3DS is selling exceptionally well right now. And Pokemon White 2 / Black 2 have a combined sales of 7.5 million: consistent with previous "partial remake titles" like Pokemon Yellow, Crystal, or Emerald. (remake titles always have fewer sales... but White2 / Black2 came out in 2012, and are thus a better test of the market today)

It took 5 years for the Gameboy Advance to reach 30 million sales. It only took 2 years for the 3DS to reach 30 million. The handheld gaming market has not shrunk. If anything, the 3DS is doing better today than its Gameboy predecessors.

If the iPhone / Android effected handheld sales... you'd think it have done it by now. Or at very least, you'd expect it to negatively effect the 3DS's sales. Why then is the 3DS selling better today than its previous incarnations?

As an FWI, the 3DS was launched in 2011, well after the iPhone and around the same time as the 2nd generation iPad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've lost count of the number of opinion pieces I've read about Nintendo's impending demise or how Nintendo blew their chance etc. etc. I'm talking since the original PS came on the scene. For a company that's been an independent, profitable business for over a century, bloggers, armchair economists and Silicon Valley types don't seem to give them much credit when analyzing their business decisions.

</comment><comment><USER11> I have also wondered this a lot, but a big thing that's ignored is that a lot of these console/portable games don't translate that well to a touch device. For example, there is a reason why there aren't a lot of great racing games on iOS, and in my opinion it's because tilting the device left and right to steer just isn't as good of a mechanic as a d-pad. I am convinced that a game like MarioKart just would not be as fun without the physical buttons. The same applies to a lot of the classic side scrollers like Mario: without buttons they get a little frustrating. So far the best solution I've seen for porting is to put up virtual buttons, which in my opinion don't work well at all. You need to be looking at the action, not concerned with where your fingers are.

This, along with the focus on casual play, is part of the reason why you have a different class of games succeeding on iOS, such as endless runners. Since the controls are harder to get right on a touch device, we see simpler controls succeeding (such as helicopter style "just touch or don't touch" in Jetpack Joyride or simple swipe/tilt in Temple Run).

Now, that's not to say that:

1\. Nintendo couldn't write all new games using their IP/brands/characters custom tailored for iOS/Android/touch. In fact, this would probably be the best approach.

2\. Nintendo couldn't think up a way to fix this for existing games.

However, my only point is that the idea that Nintendo could just dump their entire libraries into iOS and resell every game they've ever made is a bit naive. But who knows, maybe they would suck but everyone would buy them anyways because they're "Nintendo". I don't think that's Nintendo's style though. I think Nintendo more so than Apple believes in the idea that if you care about software then you'll make your own hardware, or at least, if you care about software you will tailor the software to the device it is running on.

<comment><USER12> Having played Mario Kart on both Wii (with the steering wheel attachment on the controller) and GameCube, I have to agree about the driving games.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think Nintendo's failure is way more complex than this article makes it appear. It has nothing to do with hardware, but a lack of compelling reasons to buy into the hardware.

If you think way back to the GameCube, they were king of the hill, so to speak. They had the best hardware for gaming and even the most innovative at the time. No one else had wireless controllers for example.

The reason they lost was because they didn't take the threat of the PS2 and Xbox seriously. They ran a decade long empire in console gaming and were caught off guard.

Sony and Microsoft both knew they needed exclusive content and bought all the 3rd party gaming companies that were building AAA games for Nintendo at the time. With no AAA titles from 3rd parties Nintendo had to double-down and create their own. Zelda and Mario can only go so far.

<comment><USER6> What? Before the Wii... Nintendo hasn't "dominated" any market since 1995 or earlier.

The PS1 had 100+ million worldwide sales compared to the N64 ~30 million. The PS2 also soundly beat the Gamecube in worldwide sales, and the XBox established itself as a market leader.

The last time Nintendo had dominance in the console wars was the SNES. In fact... one can argue that the 1995 to 2005 decade was Nintendo's worst performance in the console market.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> So far, the Wii U has been a $350 New Super Mario Bros. U box. It also gave me a way to play my Wii games without hearing the disc sounding like a jet engine (due to something wrong in my original unit's drive).

Where are the games for everyone else? I don't want to kill zombies or take hill #423, and I don't need any more versions of Angry Birds.

<comment><USER15> Hang on, let me put my Miyamoto fanboy hat on...there.

A lot of people (including me) are waiting for Pikmin 3 before buying a Wii U. I think that game will open the floodgates.

<comment><USER6> I'm waiting for Pikmin 3 as well before I even consider getting a WiiU. I might wait a bit longer as well, for the next Super Smash Bros and the next installment of Pokemon Stadium (yeah... I know...)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> >> A bolder move than the Wii U would have been to completely flip the tables and infiltrate the cellphone gaming market.

It would have been a bold move, but it may have been disastrous. Right now, the mobile market is owned by Apple, Samsung and Google. They may partner with Nintendo, but on their terms, and always in control of their respective platforms. Furthermore, they don't actually need Nintendo, which means there is only so much concessions Nintendo could gain. So no, there is no guarantee that this strategy will do anything for Nintendo.

I do think however that Nintendo should have some sort of an app presence on mobile devices. Not necessarily putting marquee titles on the respective app stores (although, why not get some exposure and test the waters), but maybe experimenting with second-screen options for the 3DS or Wii U. For example, there is no reason why an iPad or an iPhone cannot play the role of the Wii U GamePad, or why you couldn't play (stream) your NES/SNES games from the Wii store to your android device. There's potential there, but I think Nintendo is too stupid, short-sighted and stubborn to see it.

</comment><comment><USER16> I remember Sony trying to pull off Playstation Certified phones but it didn't catch on. They released this services called the PS Mobile and they half assed it and treated it like an extension of the PSN store. Basically, the PS Mobile is a mediocre app store with water downed games.

Nobody besides Microsoft, is going to make a high end mobile device, that updates every year with high end games. Nintendo and Sony are not going to take the risk of going against Apple, Samsung, HTC, and Motorolla. They're losing some money now in order to not lose more money in the llong run. They're investing time to professionally tackling these established mobile companies.

Think about it: if Nintendo doesn't even release a dumb downed version of Pokemon games, Donkey, Kirby, Mario, etc. on "certified" mid-end Android devices that's because they don't want to take a 30% cut on their sales.

The larger demographic is not noticing but we're at that point where it's about online services in a Steam vs. PSN vs. Xbox LIVE world. Until the larger demographic notices this they will squeeze all life from consoles until people move to mobile devices with PC specs capable of running decent games.

You're discrediting the company who took design ideas from flip phones and created the GameBoy Advanced SP. They're obviously waiting for Linux to evolve and for Samsung to get their act together on providing enough high-end chips so their timing is not off. Again, all while losing money but they're not RIM, they've AT LEAST acknowledged making pokemon games in 3D with Pokemon X/Y, they'll make the money back in software.

</comment><comment><USER17> > A bolder move than the Wii U would have been to completely flip the tables > and infiltrate the cellphone gaming market.

Don't judge Nintendo by the Wii and its descendants--consoles are increasingly irrelevant, and "casual game" consoles doubly so. Multiplayer = internet play, these days. Nintendo knows that: the Wii U is a definite niche product, aimed straight at those rare instances when you actually have lots of people in a living room who want to sit around a TV and play the same video game at the same time. Playing games with your kids, or at a party; not fragging d00dz on a leaderboard. It's why the Wii line's online story is so bad: the whole console is aimed at the multiplayer you do _offline_.

So, as I said, don't judge Nintendo by the Wii. It's not their main business any more. Instead, judge Nintendo by the _DS_ , and _its_ descendants. It's increasingly where all of Nintendo's actual "game" games have gone. And its online story is becoming better and better with each generation--it might actually become a phone one of these days, who knows. (I could see Nintendo buying a Japanese phone company, firing all their industrial+UI designers and putting the DS people in charge, and then building a "Nintendo DS" that happened to _internally_ be an Android phone.)

<comment><USER18> The problem is that we have to value Nintendo as a business and the Wii is costing them money. I'm replying from my phone at the moment but Nintendo is losing money. Hopefully someone else can paste sources. With the wii u performance, the DS family is also at risk.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Why don't they just put a cell radio in the DS? Then parents can call their kids home right in the middle of their video game.

I think the idea of "mobile phones" as a thing is going to pass. They're all just computers that happen to be able to make calls. Put cell radios in laptops and portable gaming systems and no one needs to choose between bringing their phone or their DS, or their phone or their tablet. Almost every computing device should also be a phone, in my opinion.

<comment><USER6> Why? Because its not successful. See Neo Geo and Sony Xperia Play.

Every few years, someone tries this exact idea and fails. Plus, I don't want someone interrupting me when I'm in the middle of a Megaman boss. Thats just stupid.

<comment><USER20> The Xperia play probably failed due to relatively weak games available compared to a 3DS. So you have a phone pretending to be a games console, you might do better by adding phone functionality to an already strong gaming system.

<comment><USER21> Now I'm seeing the potential for the successor to the 3DS to be the (I assume) first 3D videophone device.

I think this is unlikely, but I'm charmed by the idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I think I more or less agree with the article. The Microsoft bit (that they are new at manufacturing) is a tad off as the author focuses on Surface even though they've been making peripherals since the 80s and Consoles for over a decade now.

I think another component is that the Wii was a bit cheaper at its launch and its closest competition (price wise) was the aging PS2 and the XBox 360 Core model at $299. The Core model lacked wireless controllers and initially lacked HD capability and I seem to be unable to remember any of my high school friends buying one (though I'm sure they sold well enough on their own), instead opting for the more expensive model.

Today the $299 WiiU has to compete with the still excellent $199 XBox 360 and $270-$350 PS3 Bundle Packs (Console + Games + extra Controller + additional Content). This is a lot harder sell especially since a lot of the multi platform titles are going to look just as good, if not better, on the 360 and PS3.

</comment><comment><USER23> Just so its clear, the Wii was a resounding success. Nearly 100 million sold vs 75 mil each for the ps3 and xbox 360 No one could have predicted this level of success, in fact many were complaining that the Wii had low graphics capabilities and thiz would signify its doom

Yet it was succesful since it launched early, was cheaper (and profitable from day one) and had something innovative(wii remote) And they tried to use that same formula this time with the wii u(the new thing is te tablet like controllers) and their sales have been abysmal, but I wouldnt count them oit just yet, i wouldnt be suprised they go into a heavy marketing campaign when the launch of the ps4 is nearer

<comment><USER24> Nintendo is like Apple and Pixar, their track record is so phenomenal that they get held to a ridiculous standard.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Couldn't agree with you more. Was saying this in a similar way bit ago here <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2901756>. IN that thread I was thinking they should buy WebOS and create their own i type device, but that was sometime ago and they invested a ton in the Wii U.

Overall the market has moved to mobile they unfortunately didn't it.

Guess they still could embrace it by making apps for Android and iDevices, ones that turn those devices into Wii U tablets and Wii remotes. Ha ha though your kid using your iPhone as a Wii remote, better have a durable case!</comment>


Great Machine: We bring creativity to AI. - <AUTHOR> http://greatmachine.com <comment><AUTHOR> We bring creativity to AI to solve brand problems that traditional marketing can't.</comment>


Seeing Things? Hearing Things? Many of Us Do - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/opinion/sunday/seeing-things-hearing-things-many-of-us-do.html

<comment><USER2> This is pretty great! I had no idea so many people "suffered" from things like this.</comment>


Ask HN: What are some of the best startup landing pages? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> [https://fibery.io/anxiety](https://fibery.io/anxiety)</comment>


Ask YC:  What happened to WattVision (YC S08)? - <AUTHOR>

I was pretty excited to hear about this company during their demo day.  I signed up for their e-mail newsletter but haven't heard a peep.  Anyone have any news? <comment><USER2> Hey friends of wattvision! Yes, it's been a while -- we've been working hard on the hardware. Send an email with a digital photo of your meter to firstname.lastname@example.com, and we can put you in the queue to get hooked up. Expect something soon and thanks for the support!!!

<comment><USER3> maybe you should update your blog every now and then ?

By the way, you are no doubt aware of this, but just in case you are not, there are now also meters that indicate consumption using a blinking LED.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Total radio silence since June 10th, see <http://twitter.com/wattvision>

</comment><comment><USER4> WattVision sounds like it would be useful as a backend for one part of my YC W10 proposal. I hope to get the opportunity to work with them in the future.

</comment><comment><USER5> Last I heard about two weeks ago, they were still plugging away. I'd expect something soon.

</comment><comment><USER6> YC W09..</comment>


The Robot Revolution: Your Job May Be Next - <AUTHOR> http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/07/12/The-Robot-Revolution-Your-Job-May-Be-Next.aspx

<comment><USER2> Incidentally, you can read the intro to Martin Ford's book here:

<http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com/excerpt.htm>

I think the writing could be a little better, but the underlying ideas are thought provoking.</comment>


Go Daddy Posts Biggest Sales Day in History After Super Bowl Ads Run - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2013/02/05/go-daddy-biggest-sales-day-super-bowl/

<comment><USER2> Wow, people are gullible idiots, aren't they?

Go Daddy is the last company on Earth I would register a domain with, or order ANY services at all.

And we should all remember their position on SOPA. But even before then, they were a crappy company, with lousy service and lousy security, and actively fighting against our digital freedoms.

<comment><USER3> When the previous CEO murdered the elephant on video, that's when I moved all my domains. That was more than enough to make me never want to do business with them for the rest of eternity.

Which reminds me, Mashable published some lameass excuse from the CEO when it kicked up a big stink. Mashable must be getting kickback from Go Daddy.

Then again, would anyone consider Mashable as journalism? It's more like a glorified online shopping catalogue.</comment></comment>


Rails 3.0 Beta Release - <AUTHOR> http://weblog.rubyonrails.org/2010/2/5/rails-3-0-beta-release

<comment><USER2> I think I like the Unobtrusive JavaScript helpers the most out of the new features. This will really help cleanup our pages and make it easy to switch libraries. Also everything has just generally been fixed/rewritten, kind of like Snow Leopard. Another exciting addition is arel, because out of anything in Rails, I think the associations needed the most work.

<comment><USER3> IMHO, ActiveRecord sucked the most ... form validations coupled to models, no lazy queries ... and after working with Django's models and Perl's DBIx::Class it was my biggest pain when trying Rails.

Anyway, great job ... Rails 3 seems awesome :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> There's so much goodness in this release it's hard to digest in one setting. They've fixed just about everything I've found frustrating, added some really brilliant new work and elegantly set the framework up for expansion.

A long list of just some of the new goodness is listed here:

<http://guides.rails.info/3_0_release_notes.html>

</comment><comment><USER5> Does anyone know what exactly is meant by the claim that the new Active Record is, "built on top of relational algebra", particularly in light of the fact that not even RDBMS are strictly relational algebra?

<comment><USER6> See <http://github.com/rails/arel> for examples of it.

<comment><USER5> Interesting, thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The improved email and routing are huge! Not to mention bundler for gems, I can't help but be a bit excited :-)

</comment><comment><USER3> Question ... is there documentation / tutorials written for Rails 3?

<comment><USER8> These guides are being updated for Rails 3:

<http://guides.rails.info/getting_started.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Anyone tried it out? How's the memory usage compare to older releases?

<comment><USER10> I tried it out, but it doesn't seem to be working with Mongrel/thin yet (the most popular web application servers) so I haven't been able to get a good picture yet.

<comment><USER11> Really? The beta is supposed to be super Rack compatible, so that's surprising... maybe you should file a bug.

<comment><USER10> Yeah. They don't even start with rails 3 installed with an error of missing required files. I even tried reinstalling mongrel/thin. No luck. Why was that original post voted down?

<comment><USER11> Odd. I have no idea why anything in this thread was vote down.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Very well done. Rails has just leaped forward ahaed of all the web frameworks out there.

<comment><USER13> Once all the back-slapping and hyperbole has died down, I'd be interested to see a comparison

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> What can Django take from this as inspiration?

<comment><USER15> At the very least the unobtrusive javascript helpers. It's easy to imagine that all web frameworks will come to a kind of protocol modeled on the efforts of the rails core team here. This will mean that you can use any JS framework ( Prototype, jQuery, Moo, Google Closure, Ext ) and simply add a few lines of shim code that correctly reworks the tags to their AJAX equivalents when it encounters the correct data- tags. It's a brilliant abstraction.

<comment><USER16> Django will get JavaScript "helpers" over my dead body.

<comment><USER11> Why the hate? Honest question, as I know next to nothing about Django.

<comment><USER16> I've been arguing about this for years; my view is that people should actually learn and write JavaScript rather than demand the framework write it for them automatically. Refusing to learn a key technology of the web platform isn't an attitude I'd like to encourage.

Some samples of my reasoning and the times I've argued it with people:

<http://www.b-list.org/weblog/2006/jul/02/django-and-ajax/>

[http://www.b-list.org/weblog/2006/jul/04/javascript-orm- and-...](http://www.b-list.org/weblog/2006/jul/04/javascript-orm-and-hding- sql/)

[http://www.b-list.org/weblog/2006/jul/17/helpers- scaffolding...](http://www.b-list.org/weblog/2006/jul/17/helpers-scaffolding- tradeoffs-and-other-stuff/)

<comment><USER17> Yes you have a point. But otoh, the history of software has been one of more and more abstraction and code generation. This argument can be made (not saying you are making it) to say something like "People should actually learn and use Assembler than demand that their C compiler do it for them. Refusing to learn a key technology of Computing is not something that I'd like to encourage".

Many languages generate C code. Should everyone learn C because it is a foundational language? (and it _is_ a foundational language). Do you insist all Django users learn C? Why not?

It is ok to have a _choice_ of learning Javascript or not. Just like people have the choice to learn Assembler or have it generated for them. To learn C or have it generated for them.

And framework devs have the freedom to choose whether their framework supports javascript code generation or not. There aren't really any good or evil choices. Rails is cool. Django is, too (I prefer Django fwiw).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Great news ! My thanks go out to all the people who contributed to this release.

</comment><comment><USER19> Big thanks Rail3 team. This is a truly worthy next iteration. Can't wait to tinker with it this weekend.

</comment><comment><USER20> HTML5 doctype—nice :)

<comment><USER11> Not just that, all helpers now spit out html5, and things like unobtrusive javascript use some of html5's more interesting features.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Great job, guys :)

</comment><comment><USER22> For real this time.

</comment><comment><USER23> Python or Ruby.. that is the question.</comment>


Show HN: MIDI CITY 2000 - Art experiment where MIDI songs become cities - <AUTHOR> http://midicity-2000.glitch.me/ <comment><AUTHOR> Note: I'm not the maker, but it's really cool so I submitted on behalf of Monica Dinculescu (@notwaldorf).

Here's the tweet where she launched this: [https://mobile.twitter.com/notwaldorf/status/109502408059449...](https://mobile.twitter.com/notwaldorf/status/1095024080594493440)</comment>


Perl 5 development resumes, version 5.12 released - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/04/perl-5-development-resumes-version-512-released.ars?comments=1#comments-bar

<comment><USER2> It's worth reading the comment thread, but to summarize: Perl 5 development never stopped, and it certainly wasn't "resumed" because Perl 6 isn't done yet.</comment>


Cut global emissions by 7.6% per year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target - <AUTHOR> https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/press-release/cut-global-emissions-76-percent-every-year-next-decade-meet-15degc <comment><USER3> I think it should be somewhat obvious that it will be impossible for us to avoid the absolute worst of global warming. Humans simply don't have the capability to act in the coordinated, political way that is necessary. Somehow holding out hope that we'll all come to our senses and things will change is like holding out hope that we'll never have any wars again. It is just not compatible with human nature.

I'd love it if I were wrong, or if someone can change my mind, but in a world where we have never had as much access to information, large swaths of the population don't even believe global warming is _real_, let alone something we should do something about.

We should just start planning for the worst case scenarios, because they are going to happen regardless.

<comment><USER4> I'm not sure how many people are skeptical about the global warming itself, but there are definitely good reasons for skepticism about the proposed political solutions. I have yet to see a quantifiable and accountable proposal in a format "let's allocate $X billion, implement measures A, B and C, so with the probability of Y%, the point where Earth becomes uninhabitable due to global warming will shift by N years into the future". Instead far too many people who haven't tried running even a lemonade stand, are talking about raising billions by taxing things most of us enjoy with a very hazy perspective of having some great outcome way past their own political lifespan. Given that everyone else manages to cooperate in a completely unprecedented way.

To give an example, I personally hate commuting and believe that spending hours sitting in traffic every day is a major waste of time. However, if a politician came by and promised to raise gasoline prices by 50% in order to invest $X billion into WeWork so that they could solve the commute problem once and for all, I would never have voted for them. Not because I love commuting, but because I don't believe this will solve the problem at all, given the track record of WeWork. Of course, people with a financial interest in WeWork would gladly label me a commutist and would try to make sure my arguments are not heard.

There are plenty of ways to reduce the emissions that are much easier to quantify and implement: making nuclear power safer, improving biodiesel, even a national standard for replaceable EV batteries so you could switch one out not much slower than filling in a gas tank. But instead we keep hearing the original sin [0] rhetoric on how we should eat less, not buy a big house and give up on having kids.

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

<comment><USER5> > However, if a politician came by and promised to raise gasoline prices by > 50% in order to invest $X billion into WeWork so that they could solve the > commute problem once and for all,

Than you should like carbon fee and dividend scheme[1]. Tax emissions, divide equally between all citizens. The end result is unchanged populations spending power, but redistributed towards less carbon-intensive products.

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

<comment><USER4> That would mean taxing most productive or enjoyable activity (raising kids, going to business trips, fine dining) and rewarding depressive low-carbon- footprint sitting in front of the TV and waiting for death. I would rather spend that money subsidizing greener alternatives to common CO2 sources (e.g. EV subsidies), but that's already being done.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I searched for 'nuclear' on that page, and found no mention of the word at all. Whatever you might think of nuclear energy, I don't think such a drastic energy cut is even possible to implement without it. (After all, I see little point in cutting CO2 emissions in the US if people in other countries emit an amount equivalent to whatever gets cut here.)

<comment><USER7> The time for nuclear has passed (at least fission. Fusion may still be a good future energy source).

I say this because the cost of building a new nuclear plant is more expensive than wind and solar.

Nuclear might still be a good solution for northern and southern habitats. But, at this point, where most pollution is produced, solar and wind are viable.

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

With all that said, the real viability of renewables is partially going to be determined by storage costs. Nuclear doesn't really solve the storage problem though (it is a base load only power source). Eventually in order to hit a 7.6% reduction goal we'll have to phase out natural gas peaker plants. To do that, we need storage.

We certainly shouldn't be decommissioning nuclear plants in favor of renewables. I just don't think the time to build new nuclear is here. The cheaper and faster solution is new renewables.

<comment><USER8> The cheapest option is probably to build nuclear to the level that meets minimum demand at night, and solar for everything on top of that, with just enough storage to even out the remaining discrepancies.

Storage is quite a bit more expensive than nuclear, and while the cost is dropping it has a long way to go. At the same time, new nuclear technologies like molten salt reactors could well drop the price of nuclear. For that to be a factor, we'd likely have to get more aggressive with licensing new nuclear technologies; i.e. we'd have to treat climate change with the urgency it deserves.

Here's a Lazard report on levelized cost of storage: [https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2019](https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2019)

<comment><USER9> This is a great point - solar/wind and nuclear are, as the grid currently works, not drop-in replacements to each other, but complements. Nuclear provides base load (because it's difficult and slow to ramp a nuclear plant up or down), Wind/solar provides as much daytime load as practical, and meeting any remaining demand (especially peak evening demand) will require a peaking source that can dynamically be ramped up or down to meet demand.

The optimist in me believes that we'll eventually get good enough at solving the unit commitment problem in the energy grid that we'll reduce the need for carbon-intensive peaking sources and eventually even eliminate nuclear power. But we're not there today.

<comment> 08-15 Nuclear ramps just fine. French nuclear plants reportedly ramp routinely between about 50-100% capacity, so this isn't just theoretical. Going from full power to less than about 40% tends to run you into a Xenon pit, which causes a two day shutdown, but fortunately nighttime load is roughly half of daytime load, so this point is moot.

<comment><USER8> Here's a source to back up that claim: [https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featureload- following-c...](https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featureload-following- capabilities-of-npps/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I don't understand why globalism rarely, if ever, factors into the debate. It boggles my mind that if I walk down to the drug store to buy a toothbrush that toothbrush was likely made in a Chinese factory, shipped across the Pacific ocean in a diesel-spewing container ship, and then driven a good thousand miles in an 18-wheeler. It seems like a _tremendous_ waste of energy for something that could be made locally for cheap.

<comment><USER11> Here you seem to be blaming globalism for failing to account for the true price of a product. The product should be cheaper if made locally because transport costs are reduced. At the moment transport is extremely cheap because there is no significant cost to producing emissions. If appropriate carbon taxes were added you would see such products being made more locally.

<comment><USER10> > Here you seem to be blaming globalism for failing to account for the true > price of a product.

Fair, but in my mind this is why globalism is a thing -- because it doesn't account for the exploitation of human labor and lack of regulation. If it did, there would be no reason to ship a few dollars of plastic from China to the USA.

<comment><USER12> I think you're right. Our current form of global trade can only exist by exploiting a kind of lawlessness that comes from being able to distribute owns company beneficially across uncoordinated governmental regions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I don't think I've ever seen this here :

[https://theshiftproject.org/en/home/](https://theshiftproject.org/en/home/)

It's a think tank working on handling the climate crisis with excellent, pragmatic, efficiency-focused studies, without ideologies or dogma. They have recently been known to put some numbers on the CO2 emissions caused by the digital industry, that is less visible but very real (4 percent of total emissions, 4x more than air travel!)

They have Jean-Marc Jancovici in the management, who also founded Carbone 4 - a consulting firm working on enabling companies to make their transition to a carbon-neutral world. He's an original figure among ecologists in France because he pleads in favor of nuclear energy in France, to avoid emitting CO2 (it's mainly thanks to nuclear energy that France emits 7 times less CO2 for the same amount of electricity produced compared to the OECD). I highly recommend his conferences.

</comment><comment><USER14> According to EIA global emissions are growing and predicted to grow through 2035. In 2035 global emissions are 40% higher than today.

When the developed world can gradually reduce CO2 emissions, China, India and the rest of the developing world will continue to increase emissions.

<comment><USER15> Basically, the western world went through their development cycle (aka the industrial revolution) and now the rest of the world wants to catch up. Of course, when we say they shouldn't because of climate change, they say "You had your chance to pollute and develop, now we get to do the same thing." Frankly, I find it difficult to argue with them. The only sensible thing to do is for the Western world to reverse back to where we were prior to the industrial revolution and ask the developing nations to do the same - <USER2> technology above a horse drawn plown and horse drawn wagons, everyone reverts to being in the agriculture business or supporting the agriculture business, no cars, no planes, only wind powered sailing ships, no rockets, no computers, etc.

Since that won't happen - we are royally screwed.

<comment><USER16> I feel like I just don't understand the claim that the developing world should be allowed to have higher emissions.

If we could go back in time and the US had the option at the time of using today's technology, and they chose not to, we would condemn them.

<comment><USER17> > I feel like I just don't understand the claim that the developing world > should be allowed to have higher emissions

Pick some maximum acceptable total level of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Fair would be for each country to be allowed to emit greenhouse gases up to the point that their share of the total in the atmosphere is equal to that total acceptable level divided by the country's population.

Even if you decide to pick a pretty high acceptable total, you'll find that the US is already way over its share, and the developing world countries are all way under their shares. The US has emitted about 8 times as much total as India, for example, and about 4 times as much total as China.

Fair, then, is either for (1) the US to not only cut emissions to zero, but to also implement massive carbon capture to get its cumulative emissions back down to its fair share, so that developing countries can use their fair shares for development, or for (2) the US and other developed countries to kick in to pay for the developing countries to build green infrastructure so that they can develop without making use of cheap non-green energy.

The Paris Agreement includes provisions along the lines of #2.

<comment><USER16> The per-capita argument only makes sense if one expects the carbon footprint of the citizenry to be relatively equal. What this creates, instead, is that in really large countries the allocation will be taken by the people living really energy-intensive lives while letting the bulk of the population live poorly.

The other problem is that this incentivizes population increases since energy is the limiting factor for a developed nation's GDP and they can effectively raise their limit by having more children. That's not a good thing either and goes directly against the fertility declines that are about the only good news we have.

Per capita is one way to slice it, but it's not the definition of "fair."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> To stay under the 2°C limit, we need to cut emissions by 4% per year. It happened exactly twice in the past century: at the worse of the great depression in 1932, and after the annihilation of Germany and Japan in 1945.

</comment><comment><USER19> We're close to the tipping point for geoengineering.

Elites don't want to stop global warming, they've spent billions of dollars trying to stop a response to global warming.

Ordinary people say they want to do something about global warming but if it inconveniences them such as an increase in gas taxes, they will riot in the streets. (See the Yellow Shirts in France.)

The conspicuous inability of governments to make elites feel a little pain (Macron and the wealth tax) means that governments have no legitimacy with which to demand sacrifices from anybody else. Thus you see "last straw" rebellions just about anywhere when there is an unpopular change, say a 4% increase in subway fares.

With geoengineering you only need to scrape together a few billion a year which could be done by a small group of elites or governments (if Bloomberg didn't waste his time and money and reputation running for pres he could do it...)

The best part of it is that a credible threat to Geoengineer might solve the collective action problem for other interventions:

[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0102-0](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0102-0)

As for all the reasons why geoengineering is seen as a "cop-out" note that if it's really an extinction worth rebelling about, then we have to use "all means necessary" and that includes solar radiation management.

</comment><comment><USER20> To all, because governments have mostly failed us on quick action I created a climate pledge. It is open to feedback but I think starting with individual commitments and sustainable lifestyles will help us move society forward as a whole.

Governments are not moving quickly enough on climate change with small incremental changes over time. However, people and organizations who champion these efforts can pressure governments to drive faster change.

Climate Pledge

To protect humanity now and for the future of our posterity I am committing to the following.

\- I pledge to limit eating red meat. I will restrict intake of cows and lambs etc.

\- If I choose to have children, I will have 2 or less.

\- I will try to use cycling or mass transit options whenever possible and to participate in efforts to expand transit.

\- I will restrict flying to only when necessary and try to limit flying to only when no other choice is available. If I do fly I will try to offset all emissions.

\- I will try my utmost to conserve energy and minimize use of heating and cooling appliances.

\- I will try my best to limit energy use to renewable sources when I have the choice. When I cannot choose I will fight for the ability to have this choice.

\- I will try to help those close to me understand these choices and the need for those able, to also join the pledge.

\- I will only consume what I need. I will not perpetuate extravagance and will only support companies who champion sustainable efforts.

\- I will do my best to strive for and support sustainable and minimalist technology.

\- I will stay involved in the public discourse on environmental issues and stay engaged on efforts to mitigate climate change.

<comment><USER21> I don't want to discourage you, because everything counts, but I think the real problem with climate change isn't in the West, it's in the rest of the world. The West had the luxury of using cheap carbon in the early 20th century to industrialize and build out infrastructure. India and countries in Africa haven't had that luxury, therefore they are going to use as much carbon as is necessary to industrialize. It would be hypocritical for Westerners to criticize them for it. The only way to change that is if Western countries governments actively exported low-carbon tech to help them leap-frog a centralized power distribution network and go straight to in-situ decentralized power generation without it affecting their rising quality of life. This is a societal, market economics and technological problem. Cutting out meat won't help nearly as much as developing lab grown meat will. Rather than attempt to change individual behaviors, we should strive to make low carbon technologies that align with existing behaviors.

<comment><USER22> "It would be hypocritical for Westerners to criticize them for it."

I'm not fully convinced. When you know better, you do better. And we now know better.

"A did a stupid thing to achieve X result, therefore B must be allowed to do the same stupid thing" is not a great argument.

There's more than one way to create economic value.

<comment><USER21> In countries like the DRC or Nigeria, with large oil and natural gas reserves, who are we to tell them that they can no longer exploit those reserves for their benefit? If we don't want oil and gas to be extracted for wealth, then we need to force market dynamics in such a way as to make the exploitation of oil and gas unprofitable worldwide. We have zero moral authority on dictating what these countries can and cannot do with their own resources

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Over the last 40M years, when CO2 was at current levels (400ppm), sea level was +9 to +31 meters higher. We need to reduce to 280ppm to start rebuilding ice.

[https://www.pnas.org/content/110/4/1209](https://www.pnas.org/content/110/4/1209)

Coastal cities are going to move.

<comment><USER24> This is not representative by current trends nor simulations (which themselves have huge error bars)

<comment><USER23> Do you have a citation for current simulations?

The +9m to +31m isn't from simulations. It's from ice core sample and sediment analysis.

<comment><USER24> [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12808-z](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12808-z)

"Most estimates of global mean sea-level rise this century fall below 2 m."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Is there a chart that shows the progress each nation is making year over year to cut emissions?

<comment><USER26> The problem with country by country analysis is that people turn it into an excuse not to do anything. "Why should the US/EU do anything if China is just going to keep polluting." Countries should be focusing on what they can do themselves, as well as globally, and be leaders, not laggards.

<comment><USER27> Yeah, but I have the sneaking suspicion that the countries which have "committed" to meeting these goals, may not actually in fact be cutting their emissions any better than the rest. Seeing some country vs. country data on that, would help.

Also, looking at which countries _are_ having the most success (if any), would help to show which strategies work better than others (e.g. the nuclear debate).

<comment><USER26> Very good point, transparency can be beneficial. Countries and their politicians are constantly making promises and commitments which they fail to live up to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Isn't this ultimately going to end up being a rationing issue? OK, rationing it's a forbidden word today but maybe we could have carbon credits divided by person and they are free to use them however they want. Even trade them to others. I know this is _super_ simplified but perhaps we need to start thinking in those terms sooner or later?

<comment><USER29> Who is "we?" Almost every human alive will not willingly accept a quality of life reduction on the scale most people here seem to assume can just... happen. The only way it happens is via brutal dictatorship.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> In terms of emissions we are tracking right along RCP 8.5, the worst case emissions scenario: [https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-the-high-emissions- rcp...](https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-the-high-emissions- rcp8-5-global-warming-scenario)

</comment><comment><USER31> Unfortunately, it feels like too many people in power would rather go down with the ship than change their ways. Since that would threaten their current privileges.

</comment><comment><USER32> Good thing China has increased co2 emissions from coal equivalent to the current co2 output of all of Europe.

The US can do better, but China and much of the developing world isn't exactly helping.

</comment><comment><USER12> I know change is slow but I can't help but feeling this goal is unattainable. In my own very environmentally concious state two versions of a carbon tax failed (one libertarianish leaning the other more green new deal like). France utterly rejected a climate focused gas tax. With fairly liberal populaces rejecting the economic commitment to addressing climate change It's become very hard to imagine how we'll ever get sufficient numbers of international polities with more conservative leaning voters to ever agree to do something.

</comment><comment><USER33> So we're all in trouble, I guess.

</comment><comment><USER34> Or create sequestration systems so the net is that? Or would the numbers change?

<comment><USER35> Trees. You're talking about trees.

<comment><USER26> Trees seem to be the solution of the day but, cynically, it seems to be a smokescreen in that some people are promoting this as the solution to climate change. No amount of tree planting is going to solve long term climate change, so it should be seen as one action amongst many. The focus on tree planting shifts the focus away from the action needed to reduce carbon emissions. It's a bit like building an extension to your house whilst the house is on fire. It'll catch up eventually.

<comment><USER27> "No amount of tree planting..." is a strong statement. Not "we won't do enough", but "No amount..." will work? I find that hard to imagine. Is there a reason you say this?

<comment><USER26> Two reasons: trees are part of a carbon cycle, most of the carbon returns to the atmosphere eventually, and we don't have an infinite sized planet to keep planting forests at the same rate which we're producing CO2.

New growth forests are good at capturing carbon short term, but established forests aren't as good as the rate of growth is slower and there is more tree decay & decomposition of organic matter releasing C=2. In some places, and more common due to climate change, a forest fire will sweep through a forest and undo all that carbon capture.

If we use trees for fuel it is closing most of the cycle for that carbon, less ancillary fuel use for harvesting, producton & transport, but that doesn't solve the production from other sources. If we use wood for building & materials then the carbon capture is longer, but that's a small fraction of the CO2 capture needed.

<comment><USER35> Natural forest fires have a fairly minimal impact on old-growth forests and in some cases are even necessary for them to function properly (e.g. some pinecones will only open when burned). The underbrush and younger trees burn off, the older trees are largely unaffected.

What most people don't realize is the trees that exist today are all "new", as in are less than a few hundred years old. The trees that were cut down in the 18th and 19th century are unlike anything you'd see today. Far, far bigger and longer lived, on time-scales that we're really not used to dealing with.

These capture carbon and store it for hundreds of years. When they die they will decay and be recycled back into the forest floor and soil, not necessarily burned off and released as CO2.

Sure, a half-hearted tree-planting effort is not going to solve the problem, but a more ambitious reforestation plan with an emphasis on carbon- sequestering trees instead of those trees intended to be harvested every 20-40 years could make a huge difference.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> If only some authoritarian would rid us of these meddling emissions!

</comment><comment><USER37> What are the error bars on those numbers?</comment>


Ask HN: Can I still use ES5. in 2019 - <AUTHOR> i prefer es5 and understand it inside out. while i get es6, i don't like that the meaning of "this" has changed within => functions.  i understand how to scope and am comfortable using var instead of let and const.  if i'm the sole or lead dev on a project, would it be irresponsible to my clients to continue to code in es5? <comment><USER2> I personally think it's irresponsible. It's essentially the software engineering equivalent of a surgeon not using a new/better surgery technique because it's different and not what they're familiar with.

Sure, it's not life or death but your clients are definitely worse off than if you'd just taken the time to learn ES6.

Not knowing ES6 also just makes your life harder if you adopt other new JS advancements. For instance, it's harder to look at the docs and examples for React and it's related libraries. It's harder for you to adopt Flow or TS.

Lastly, it should be especially easy for you to pick up ES6 if you know ES5 inside out.

</comment><comment><USER3> Using ES5 is not irresponsible, but your justification comes across as petty. If you had claimed your workflows and toolchains all rely on ES5, and you don't/can't invest in changing now, I would understand.

Syntax? Get over it! Languages evolve. Syntax evolves. Refusing to update with the times ultimately hurts you more than your clients, as it dulls your skill set.

</comment><comment><USER4> Whilst you may not yet be as comfortable with ES6 as you are with ES5, the changes shouldn't be too hard to grasp.

As a developer it's important to stay up-to-date. Sometimes this isn't possible due to slow to update libs or technical restrictions, but to solely write ES5 due to preference is avoiding a small amount of learning for convenience.

</comment><comment><USER5> There are many constructs in ES6+ that make codebases more manageable. I make heavy use of destructuring, async/await, and template literals amongst many other features.

So, I would lean in the direction of it being irresponsible due to code being less easy to grok and harder to bring new people into the codebase.

</comment><comment><USER6> You should prefix your post title with "Ask HN: ". This way we would know that a question is being asked and it will get the attention of those who want to answer.</comment>


Ask HN: Are you scared of Cancer? - <AUTHOR> For many types of cancers the causes remain unknown. Doesn't that scare you? I can't help but think about it whoever I am making a meal. <comment><USER2> Are you a cannibal? Or did you mean whenever? In the event you are a cannibal I have bad news about red meat.</comment>


How to remove a Digital Tattoo - <AUTHOR> http://blog.itlater.com/digital-tattoo/

<comment><USER2> It isn't us older professional folk who really have to worry. It is the 13-15 year old crowd. If you thought what you said at 18 was embarrassing, try the things you said at 13.

These kids will be seeking jobs some day, and guess what will come back?

My wife taught middle/high school, and we always wanted the kids to remember one thing. "If you post it online, it is public. Forever."

Even if not technically accurate, it is a safe mantra to follow.

<comment><USER3> You must remember that the people doing the hiring will not be the same in 10 years, either. Admittedly, the transition period to an "internet- understanding" management-age workforce is probably still 15-20 years off.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> More and more people will have this problem in the future, which also means more and more people will probably be more understanding of it. I think that our culture's attitude will shift to be more tolerant of permanent, public statements from one's youth.

<comment><USER5> I think a better and more pro-active approach is to completely own one's past. My blog goes all the way back to shitty poetry I wrote and delusional statements of grandeur I made when I was 15. As far as I'm concerned, all they indicate is that I've come a long since way since then.

<comment><USER4> That's not easy to do in retrospect - both because the technology may not have existed to do so (automated blogs), or the content may be scattered in many places (message boards, listservs, etc.).

Also, you may control the source, but not its dissemination. Once your stuff makes its way onto archive.org, removing it from your won blog won't make a difference.

<comment><USER6> I think he means 'own' in the sense that he openly acknowledges his past and isn't ashamed of it, not that he has control over the information itself.

<comment><USER4> Ah, you are right. I guess I didn't see that because I don't see that is in opposition to what I said.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There should be a startup to provide anonymity through clutter. By creating fake identities with your name, you could make Google search less effective. This will neutralize most of the results, as the searcher will no longer know which of these sites is really yours.

<comment><USER8> There are a few. Here's a popular one:

<http://www.reputationdefender.com/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> If you won't forgive me for saying dumb shit years ago, I'm not so sure I want to be your friend anyhow.

Generally, I think making sure that there are good things associated with your name helps to drown out the bad things.

<comment><USER10> > If you won't forgive me for saying dumb shit years ago, I'm not so sure I > want to be your friend anyhow.

The problem is that if you decide go into public service and run for office, your opponents won't forgive you. They'll be more than happy to dig up that one tiny moment when you were off guard ten years ago, take it out of context, and hold it up as an example of how you must really feel about the topic du jour.

<comment><USER11> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpBzQI_7ez8>

"Obama: You know, when I was a kid... I inhaled frequently. That was the point."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This seems like more of a problem when you have a more obscure name. I think Google is becoming less and less effective as more and more people use the internet and you get name collisions. It becomes harder to tell if the person whose name you googled is the actual person being referenced or not. At one point I knew all the links on the first page of Google were me - now it's about half. The less you use your real name the more that helps as well as the other people who share your name float to the top.

</comment><comment><USER13> I regularly say stupid things online. _shrug_ Most of those I might have offended forgave me long ago (and eventually the current ones will).

My hit/miss ratio has improved so it's less of a problem now.

I guess the only concern is if you hit the media spotlight for any reason someone is sure to dig up something disingenuous.

(Im lucky; someone a little more high profile shares my name and hogs google for me :D)

</comment><comment><USER14> Also known as "be careful what you post when your name is Boris Dinkevich".

</comment><comment><USER15> For all of you saying "well, other people will also have done the same thing, so it won't matter" or "if you don't understand and forgive me for stupid stuff I did when I was 12, then you're not worth having as a boss", etc.

This is rationalizing. The problem is that people are only too willing to NOT forgive you for stupid stuff they did themselves, only didn't get caught at it. So yes, perhaps there will be lots of "cool" places where everybody has a colorful public past, but you can better damn be certain that there will be lots of places where people didn't leave their dirty laundry around on the internet.

I'm not saying I like it. I'm saying that expecting other people to cut you some slack because basically, well, we're all screwed up at one time or another -- that's whacked. People have known that we're all screwed up for centuries. Hasn't changed the nature of mankind at all. I seriously doubt the internet is going to change that.</comment>


Twenty-first century Victorians - <AUTHOR> https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/10/victorian-values-fitness-organic-wealth-parenthood <comment><USER2> This seems pretty evident in the UK where we have these attitudes proudly parading themselves around, particularly in the guise of a particular Jacob Rees-Mogg.

I think the article would be more interesting if they dove more into the history of this idea - for instance I've always been under the impression that the UK and USA suffer from this particular ailment because of the 'protestant work ethic', otherwise called 'calvinism' handed down by many generations of wealthy property owners and aristocrats attempting to motivate their workforce. While at one point those land owners would simply have cited the fact that their ancestors fought for the property that they owned, or that they had it through divine intervention at some point that got questioned.

In the secular age, the assumption that the rich worked for the property that they own is pre-supposed (and hence own it morally, and claim the rights to that moral superiority) even if it's not true - and certainly isn't true when you consider the effort that they expend vs. the efforts of others and their relative outcomes. This is then reinforced through, primarily, economic power - the ability to advertise their status, the fact that your boss will tell you about how they've been creating jobs, etc. reinforces this narrative. By this point, whether they worked for it or not is irrelevant, because their perceived ownership of the moral high-ground is so deeply ingrained until something actually goes wrong.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm conflicted about this article. On one hand, its central premise, that people who are successful (in societal terms) tend to ascribe that success to an inherent moral superiority, is obviously true.

On the other hand, there's nothing particularly Victorian about this attitude; people have been doing this ever since society has existed and will be doing it long after we're all dead.

On yet another hand (I have three), who is the target audience for this article? Seems like this is something that anyone who would be interested in or capable of understanding this article would already know.

<comment><USER4> Did aristocrats in the middle ages ascribe their position in society to their individual actions or to their being born into aristocracy?

<comment><USER3> My understanding is that European royalty generally thought of their positions as being granted by divine providence. I guess it's slightly different because they didn't attain their position (they were born into it) but I think there's little question they generally considered themselves inherently morally superior to the poor.

Really, it seems like the mechanism may have changed; "I am successful because God has chosen me in my inherent superiority to be successful" vs "I am successful because of the inherent superiority of the moral code I follow", but they're really just different applications of the just-world fallacy. Which, in turn, is a natural product of the way our brains are wired.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> While the central observation of the article is vaguely interesting, what is more interesting perhaps is the slow and gradual pivots from Victorian moral signaling to modern moral signaling, and whether modern moral signaling is more or less adaptive towards actually making one's life better than Victorian moral signaling was.

For example, life satisfaction is strongly correlated with exercise. This was true even before the general population used exercise to signal virtue. (See the Harvard longitudinal study as an example of this.)

Additionally, the modern practice of allowing (some) women to have highly successful careers seems to lead to better outcomes than the Victorian practice of locking women out of everything except teaching and nursing, and encouraging them to get out of those as soon as they could lock down a man.

Perhaps virtue signaling slowly converges on actual virtue? (This isn't to imply that all modern virtue signaling practices are virtuous. For example, I'd argue that modern virtue signaling around sleep, or lack thereof, and work, namely filling one's life entirely full of it with no breaks, at least in the USA, are terrible for health and life satisfaction.)

Edit: added clarification that modern values around female careers are better than Victorian ones, but are not yet a fully solved problem.

</comment><comment><USER6> Feels like a lot of projection. At some point in there lives people realize that there are "groups" who seem similar. Often by dress, and attitude. Not all of these groups are conscious of the conformity.

Once you can see a group the question will come up "Am I part of that group?" Or "Do I want to be?" And sometimes the group will reject your attempts to join. How you deal with those situations seems to have an outsized effect on your life.

The author clearly sees the groups and recognizes that they have existed for a long time, and then attacks them for their shallowness. Why? For lulz? Because they want to belong but can't? They seem to reject the idea that groups serve a purpose other than snobbery. At the end of the article I was left with a sense the author was offended but not entirely sure what they were offended by.

<comment><USER7> The underlying point is that these professional-class distinctions are cast in moralistic tones and serve as an ideological justification for denigrating and ignoring the material needs of the bourgeois's class enemies. This is most clearly seen in the case of college admissions.

Of course, most bourgeois aggressively refuse to accept the idea that there is anything political about their consumption choices at all, or that they even have 'class enemies', because they refuse to acknowledge that they occupy and actively maintain a privileged position in a fundamentally unjust and exploitative system.

<comment><USER8> College admissions is overwhelmingly biased towards the "class enemies" you're describing. The problem is there are not enough underrepresented minorities who are qualified for universities in proportion to their presence in the general population. Consequently, Asian and Jewish students are discriminated against in college admissions, partly because their cultures buy into the upper class ideals that are denigrated in this article.

<comment><USER7> This post is a perfect example of this mechanism in action. It takes as a given that the criteria for university acceptance are fair, objective, attainable - 'meritocratic'. The only explanation for underrepresentation is that the under-represented are simply inferior.

Note especially the conflation of 'minorities' with 'poor people'; this lets those members of the bourgeois who miss out on their exact institution of choice (and might have to attend UC Santa Cruz instead of Stanford, the horror) reconcile their own sense of self-worth with the class myth that failure to get admission to college denotes inferiority: they _did_ meet all the fair, objective, meritocratic criteria, but the university gave their rightful slot to an undeserving black / hispanic person instead.

<comment><USER6> For the college question I think the bill and Melinda gates scholars (gmsp.org) is pretty compelling. They funded African American students who are now going into colleges. When you compare their scores / qualifications with their unfounded peers it suggests that kids who "know" they are going to college do better, and are more qualified for college than kids who did not think they would go. This appears to be true regardless of race or social class.

<comment><USER7> Yes, I take that as strong evidence in favor of demanding that society make higher education free and available for anyone who wants it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> From the closing paragraph: _We should care about health, food, and education. But instead of seeing them as ways to prop up class dominance, we should improve them for everyone._

Sure, that's agreeable enough. But I can't tell for sure if the author understands the difference between 1) upper middle class parents having resources to confer material advantages to their own families and 2) faddish tribal markers that confer no material advantage. The two are mixed indiscriminately throughout the article. There's no benefit to enabling the lower 4 income quintiles to participate in the same fads embraced by the top quintile.

Being an overweight smoker really _is_ bad for your health. It's not just an arbitrary tribal marker.

Breast-feeding infants _is_ good for them.

Limiting screen time _is_ good for young children.

Exclusively eating organic-certified food, or gluten-free food (without a supporting diagnostic test), is just a tribal marker.

Wearing exercise outfits to the grocery store is just a marker. Actually exercising isn't.

One upper-middle-class fad that is actually _worse_ for children, omitted from the article: refusing to vaccinate.

</comment><comment><USER10> While the central point about using things inherent to your structural position in life as a personal morality skewer is spot on, I find some of the buttressing arguments annoying.

For example, the gluten-free shaming. While yes, not everyone is celiac, I am confused by people are insistent that some kind of gluten allergy is impossible. If you are that kind of person, I have some hsCRP results that maybe you could explain?

<comment><USER11> In my opinion, the author dies try to indicate that they are meaning people who avoid gluten yet do not suffer from celiac disease.

"Consider the gluten-free movement — those who choose to eliminate gluten from their diet, not those who have celiac disease and must eschew wheat entirely."

I do agree that a non-celiac person who chooses to avoid gluten simply to avoid gluten, without any other health concerns, is bizarre. And it's certainly on the rise: where I live restaurants actually alter behavior based on whether or not you suffer from celiac disease or simply "prefer no gluten". My partner has celiac disease and when they ask if something contains gluten (or requests a gluten-free menu, some places offer this) the server always asks: "Do you have an allergy?"

While my partner always replies "yes", this indicates to me that some people are saying "no". In those cases, apparently, the restaurant is doing something differently.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> As the article states, East Grand Rapids is the worst.

</comment><comment><USER13> From the title I expected a piece about censoriousness. How did England go from the libertine Regency period to the social-policing Victorians? Is there a similar dynamic today, of course around different norms? That's something I've been wondering but haven't got to read about so far.

</comment><comment><USER14> The author of this article should read 'Vanity Fair' by Thackeray. It crystallizes the argument they're trying to make.

</comment><comment><USER15> If everyone could hit nails that accurately we wouldn't have nail guns.

</comment><comment><USER16> Reminds me of Neal Stephenson's _The_Diamond_Age_. Great book!

</comment><comment><USER17> Sometimes it's painful to read someone's oversimplified judgement of socitey through their rigid ideological prism(s).

To be sure, there are some interesting dynamics at play with regards to self denial, class/hierarchical dynamics, and such, but I don't believe this article has done a particularly good job of illustrating them.

Some times the world is rather more complicated than Victorian vs Socialism/Feminism/Marxism, etc.

</comment><comment><USER8> I don't like the idea that because the upper class does something we should be skeptical of it. Maybe part of the reason the upper class is the upper class is because of its commitment to good ideals: two-parent stable households, having a healthy lifestyle, preparing your kids for success.

<comment><USER7> Yes, this is exactly what the upper class wants to think about itself, and sort of the point of the article.

<comment><USER8> As far as I can tell, they're right. I don't see how adopting these habits is harmful and I can see plenty of benefits.

<comment><USER18> Is it possible that cause and effect are reversed?

<comment><USER19> so eating high-fat foods and being sedentary won't increase my cholesterol -- so long as I'm well-educated and a high-earning professional? I think there's some actual science that backs up many of the diet and exercise claims, broadly stated.

Why those adherents feel morally superior is a separate question.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I think the observations that the author makes are quite interesting, but his conclusions are quite a stretch.

Human society and natural law always reward meritocracy. I think he makes a mistake when he tries to suggest that all activities and lifestyles of any "class" of people are equally valuable.

Eating unhealthily is objectively bad. Smoking cigarettes is objectively bad. Its not a sign or "oppression" if you teach your kids not to get pregnant in high school or advise them against alcoholism and drug use...</comment>


The Chromium Embedded Framework - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.adobe.com/webplatform/2013/05/01/the-chromium-embedded-framework/ <comment><USER2> And a big pain to build... Nice project otherwise. Though, I would still recommend Qt WebKit as the easiest way to embed a web browser in an app.

<comment><AUTHOR> It would be great to hear the problems you had building it</comment></comment>


Why Maddox Is Wrong About iPhone - <AUTHOR> http://www.manu-j.com/blog/why-maddox-is-wrong-iphone/205/

<comment><USER2> I bought an E70 _because_ of Maddox's post, about 18 months ago. He was right for the time. The iPhone was a sort of cutting edge experiment lacking true practicality back then. 3G, the App Store, and some firmware updates have changed all that..

I now have an iPhone. The E70 was ultimately a pile of crap. The keyboard was great, sure, but the OS would crash routinely, the case got busted up (and I rarely go out!), the battery life crumbled to pathetic levels, and the OS was so unresponsive most of the time that it put you off actually using the more advanced features it had.

So.. Maddox was right, but the iPhone is now the deserved champion.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's interesting to look at Maddox's iPhone/Nokia E370 comparison table now that the App Store has been around for a while.</comment>


Ask HN: What communication tools work well for Startup Weekend? - <AUTHOR>

With only 54 hours to build an app that's the basis for a business, a bunch of people who haven't worked together before will be doing a lot of things at once. Communications challenges minimizing internal misunderstandings, include getting feedback from potential users, avoiding unnecessary chaos, planning for success by recording as much useful information as possible in case the business goes forward.<p>What tools (chat, wikis, discussion forums, Google Docs, LiquidPlanner, ManyMoon, Basecamp, StackExchange, etc.) -- work well in this situation? <comment><USER3> I think the key aim in such environment is to facilitate information exchange, not to structure & store the conversation as there is no time really - <USER2> makes notepad, post-its and just on-going verbal conversation ideal as everything is due to change many times during these 54 hours.

The only technical tools that can help might be google docs to polish marketing docs on sales and strategy, and dropbox/github to exchange files. Everything else is just you and them - staying focused on getting things _done_ , working together _hard_.

Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER4> I LOVE podio.com . Been through Goplan, Basecamp, Outlook, etc.

I like podio for the fact that it provides a user friendly interface and the plugin ability to easily add precisely the tools you're looking for.

I use a combination of google docs and podio. I'd brainstorm everything onto my google docs as an overview of entire project and steps, while each person on team responds to their respective tasks on podio.</comment>


Startup Quote: David Karp, Founder, Tumblr - <AUTHOR> http://startupquote.com/post/9367012985/for-every-new-feature-we-add-we-take-an-old-one

<comment><AUTHOR> For every new feature we add, we take an old one out. A lot of big sites don't do that, and it's a problem.

\- David Karp (@davidkarp)

<http://startupquote.com/post/9367012985/></comment>


Why 5 cent charges for plastic bags work - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/13/the-surprising-reason-why-those-5-cent-charges-for-plastic-bags-actually-work/

<comment><USER2> Perhaps I've grown too cynical in my old age, but I always figured this was just the grocery lobbies' doing.

We could outright ban the bags (which we have for plastic, not paper). Instead, they literally nickel and dime you every time you shop.

Sure 10 cents a bag isn't a big deal, but 3-4 across millions of customers per year, and now you're talking serious cash.

<comment><USER3> In the article, they note that a study found that the small plastic bag charges tended to strongly influence behavior without an outright ban.

Personally, I see it as a win/win. The grocery stores get more money from people obsessed with plastic bags, and the municipality reduces the number of plastic bags wasted.

<comment><USER4> It strongly affects behavior but also perception of shopping, making it even more miserable.

<comment><USER5> In your opinion. We have had a similar policy here in Australia for many years and it has had no impact to consumer confidence or shopping behaviour.

People who find the concept to be miserable should rethink their attitude.

<comment><USER6> Or perhaps they should remain free to have whatever response they have rather than the one you feel they 'should' have.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I like the plastic bag ban because cashiers and other shoppers don't look at me weird for NOT wanting a bag. Multiple times before the bag ban in my town, I would ask for no bags, because the item I bought is already tightly packaged. I would get the weirdest look from people... Maybe it was all in my head, but whatever, it works.

<comment><USER8> I get the same thing where I live. I use a plastic crate which not only means things don't fall over in the car boot, but it's also very quick to pack at the checkout.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> When the bag tax was added in DC, cashiers stopped bagging items by default. I'd bet that a $0.01 tax would work nearly as well; I don't think it's about the money.

To their credit, the city also apparently did a very good job of educating business owners and enforcing the tax. Compliance seems very high.

</comment><comment><USER10> They passed a bylaw here about ten years ago adding a 5¢ fee per bag 'for the environment' with the idea that the penance of paying for your bags was outweighed by the blessing your of donation, which was going counterbalance your minor environmental transgression and balance your eco-karma again.

I don't mind paying for bags if I know the 5¢ is actually going to make an impact on the world I live in, but I fear that over the years every bag I've ever paid for has done nothing but pad the profits of a company already dedicated to destroying the environment I live in and instead offsets the 'eco-karma' cost to me.

<comment><USER11> It's not about eco-karma or mamacorps, and it's not actually a fee/tax.

It simply prevents the fact that if you give something for free, people will waste it - it's a consumerist instinct.

I've lived through both conditions and I found horrifying how people would take large amounts of bags, at stores, and napkins, at restaurants, just because they were free. Set a minimal fee, and clients will start to take just what they need, and no more (which paradoxically, is the opposite instict - not to waste money).

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I was wondering if they can apply the same concept to recyclable materials? Charge around 50 cents for each bottle extra, but then get refunded 50 cents when you recycle the bottle so it causes the customer to recycle more and if not, someone else will pick up the bottle themselves

<comment><USER13> Most states in the USA do exactly this already.

<comment><USER14> From the sound of it, Michigan does it very well with their 10 cent deposit, and allowing most people to claim their deposit back right at the grocery store. California (with 5 cent CRV) is miserable with the places where we are supposed to claim our deposits being overrun with homeless and the places themselves not being all that great (I'm speaking from my experience in Orange County, YMMV).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> What does the headline mean? What does "work" mean? More money for the store? An increased in illness as people use dirty bags? It would have been nice to indicate what this means at the beginning of the article.

</comment><comment><USER16> Of course, all that's really happened is I've replaced the free plastic bags from the grocery store with non-free garbage bags from the same store. I still use the same amount of plastic.

<comment><USER17> Get it from amazon for 2 cents a bag and tell the bagger you'll use your own bags.

[http://www.amazon.com/T-Shirt-Carryout-Bags--Thank- Gracias/d...](http://www.amazon.com/T-Shirt-Carryout-Bags--Thank- Gracias/dp/B0025W9ALG)</comment></comment>