Is Nuclear Power Globally Scalable? (2011) - <AUTHOR> https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6021978 <comment><USER2> Anti-nuclear FUD. I wonder who's paying for this stuff.

 _> Currently, the total global power consumption by mankind is about 15 terawatts (TW) —so the question we address is: Can nuclear power feasibly supply at least 15 TW?_

This is a downright _idiotic_ question. Humans use and will continue to use a variety of different energy sources. Which sources specifically depends on economic viability that differs based on the location, availability of raw materials, current energy prices and government incentives.

If you're really serious about preventing drastic climate change due to C02 emissions, you should consider scaling up _all_ energy sources that don't produce CO2.

Recommended viewing: [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKH_iLhhkTyt8Dk4dmeCQ9w/pla...](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKH_iLhhkTyt8Dk4dmeCQ9w/playlists)

<comment><USER3> I don't think that shallow dismissals and conspiracy theories add much to the discussion.

<comment><USER4> Oil companies fund anti-nuclear groups. This is not a conspiracy theory, it's a fact.

By the way, your comment is nothing but a shallow dismissal of his comment...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> You have to question the assumptions if the basic math at the beginning doesn't even seem right. They claim 440 reactors today need to scale to 15,000. That is a 34x increase.

Yet, [https://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-1/glbnrg.html](https://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-1/glbnrg.html) says that 18% of worldwide generation is already nuclear. So, to get to 100% that would be ~5x, not 34x.

So, just that one change pretty much blows most of their argument away, particularly if you assume that simply replacing many of the existing reactors would give a capacity increase due to turbine/heat efficiency improvements now done at modern plants.

So the scare mongering about having to build/replacing a reactor each day sounds like utter bollocks.

<comment><USER6> This is probably a confusing on your part between energy consumption and electricity consumption. For a fossil free future we also have to replace fossil fuels used for heating and transportation. It's likely that we won't need a 1:1 replacement (by far) because heating and transportation can be done much more efficiently with electricity (thanks to heat pumps and the efficiency of electric motors).

<comment><USER7> Funny thing about heat pumps.

Right now they primarily use refrigerants that have ~2000 times more GWP than CO2. They need to be refilled every 5-10 years.

My brother had one installed recently. They leaked the entire contents twice due to over tightened connectors. A back of the envelope calculation indicates that his heat pump will emit more GWP gas than if he has just burned natural gas by a wide margin.

Recently I recall reading an analysis that half of the heating since the 70s is attributable from refrigerants.

So while heat pumps are more efficient from am energy standpoint, with current refrigerants they are not helpful for climate change.

<comment><USER8> I think it may have to do with where you live.

I've been in the same house in south-central USA for 15 years now. It has a heat pump, first I've owned. It provides reliable, inexpensive service. I have only good things to say about the heat pump.

I hope the additional emissions (if that's factual) are offset by the many years of reduced electricity usage (which I am certain is factual.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This needs a 2011, neglects discussion of implications of construction of first long time nuclear waste storage facility in Finland couple of years ago (i.e. is that scaleable or even repeatable given politics now that we have an example) [https://psmag.com/ideas/the-hiding-place-inside-the- worlds-f...](https://psmag.com/ideas/the-hiding-place-inside-the-worlds-first- long-term-storage-facility-for-highly-radioactive-nuclear-waste)

</comment><comment><USER10> Sure, if you restrict yourself to 1950s technology, Nuclear is pretty handicapped.

It's just crazy to me that these articles presume some sort of revolution in solar technology scalability but forbid nuclear power from using any better design than the first one we invented.

<comment><USER11> Given the scale of the fossil fuels industry, I wonder how much money they spend yearly on demonizing nuclear.

<comment><USER12> I'm convinced that the reason so many oil and gas companies are on board with scaling up intermittent renewables is because it secures demand for natural gas for future.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Re: nuclear waste

Deep core drilling seems to solve all the problems. Burying waste 3 km deep under 2 km of dirt makes it immune to even geological timescale movements. It also solves the problem of security; it's hard to see how a bad actor could drill a 2 km deep hole without being noticed.

<comment><USER14> Aren't there experimental reactors that can "burn"/use the waste of traditional reactors?

<comment><USER15> A fast reactor can burn the waste of thermal (traditional) reactor.

One design is the TWR

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

<comment><USER16> Still needs long term disposal in the end.

<comment><USER17> It's better than pumping your waste into the atmosphere for everyone to breathe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> All of this is interesting, but for instance it states that nuclear plants occupy large amount of land (20.5km2 on average) and needs lots of resources. However without a comparison to alternative technology, this is a moot point.

Having a quick look at requirements for solar plants, it's easy to check that typical ones occupy about 14km2 per GW of power. So solar requires several orders of magnitude more land than nuclear (taking into account actual power production: 80% yield for nuclear, 15% at most for solar).

Furthermore, it's also easy to check that contrary to nuclear plants where land grab is largely a safety zone, a solar plant actually covers land with hardware, most of it requiring much more rare earths and exotic materials than nuclear power plants (where 95% of stuff in weight is concrete and steel).

The actual take for me is the following: in the coming years, we'll go through a huge reduction in energy availability, because fossil fuels are at least 80% of world energy consumption and they'll run out at some point anyway; which implies a huge reduction in economic activity. This is absolutely unavoidable in the next few decades unless some actual miracle such as cheap and easy cold fusion happens _real soon now_ .

<comment><USER19> _a solar plant actually covers land with hardware, most of it requiring much more rare earths and exotic materials_

The most exotic material in crystalline solar panels is silver or perhaps tin. No rare earths whatsoever.

<comment><USER18> To be a somewhat believable alternative to nuclear, you'll also need tons of batteries. Many, many tons of them, full of lithium and cobalt and other things. Because a solar plant produces power along a very steep bell curve centered around noon, while a nuclear plant produces linearly exactly the amount you're asking for 80 to 95% of the time.

This is only alluded to in the article, but intermittency is a major nuisance and hinders significantly actual utility of renewable power, because we need a base level of production they're totally incapable to provide unless backed with literal mountains of storage (storage technology at scale we don't know how to build or manage today).

<comment><USER19> _while a nuclear plant produces linearly exactly the amount you 're asking for 80 to 95% of the time._

Only if it serves as baseload. In other cases you have to throttle it, which quickly makes the whole business much more expensive per kWh.

And this is the reason nuclear will never be _the_ solution. Overprovisioned renewables combined with gas peaker plants are simply way cheaper and much faster to deploy.

Also batteries needen't be li-ion. Here's an example of a company that is currently in the process of scaling up their battery product:

[https://eosenergystorage.com/](https://eosenergystorage.com/)

<comment><USER20> >Only if it serves as baseload.

...which is the whole point of nuclear. It's constant power.

The means to manufacture, service and maintain battery capacity sufficient to meet our civilization's energy needs from renewables simply does not exist in any technology, period.

<comment><USER19> But demand is not constant. You either have unmatched supply/demand or expensive power.

For this reason nuclear is already losing on the economical front.

As for the batteries: citation needed.

<comment><USER18> Renewables are extremely cheap only because they produce power when it isn't needed and therefore is literally _worth nothing_.

As for batteries, the biggest batteries in service now are 150MWh. If we want to power the world with renewable, we'll need TWh of batteries. We just don't know how to build something like that. We haven't got the technology (lithium isn't an option at these scales).

Renewables have an effect only as long as you have a steerable baseload of coal, gas or nuclear to actually feed the demand. They have a positive effect only as long as you haven't phased out all of your coal. As long as there is no coal burner left, they'll set a high limit on emissions. Unless, of course, we build as many nuclear plants as possible in the meanwhile instead of masses of gas firing plants (400g/CO2/KWh).

We could build batteries and much more solar and wind power plant instead, but even if we suppose a non-existent cheap battery technology, providing large scale power this way would be tremendously expensive (5 to 30 times more expensive than nuclear, depending upon the hypotheses).

Solar has an actual output of 15% its theoretical power. Wind is about 30% (onshore) to 40% (offshore). So to produce x GW of power, first you'll need x * 3 to x * 6 GW of installed capacity; second you'll need additional capacity and batteries to offset times of no wind or no sun. Figuring the price of several hundred GWh of battery storage is left as an exercise to the reader, but it can't be cheap. Plus the grid enhancements needed to transport the additional peak capacity from power plants to batteries, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> From the Conclusion at the end of the paper addressing all types of nuclear technologies, fast breed reactors, Generation IV reactors and "fusion or fission, uranium or thorium":

"Even a lesser goal of several terawatts of nuclear power would run into many of the outlined limitations. Therefore, the notion of a nuclear utopia is a false one. But there are two types of nuclear advocates: the nuclear utopian and the nuclear realist. A nuclear realist would only suggest that we need about 1 TW of nuclear power as part of our world energy mix. However, one only has to divide the results, in this paper, by 15 to see that 1 TW still stretches resources and risks considerably.

One then has to count the cost, consider the safety, the complexity, and the issues surrounding governance of nuclear power. Also if the technology cannot be fundamentally scaled further than 1 TW, one has to ask if the same investment would have been better spent on a truly scalable technology.

It has been suggested that for the same investment, solar thermal farms (with storage) would exceed the power output of nuclear stations and eliminate many of the problems [5]. Solar thermal is also scalable as it has the capacity to deliver hundreds of terawatts should mankind require it in the future.

The weakness of a scalable renewable solution, however, is intermittency. In the short term, this problem can be addressed via dual use of solar thermal with natural gas. Then, the natural gas can be phased out, as storage and grid balancing techniques come online to solve the intermittency problem."

<comment><USER16> That's a big gamble. We know fracked natural gas emits vastly too many CO2 molecules per kWh generated for decarbonization, and it also leaks methane through the pipelines.

Nuclear has been a boogeyman to fossil fuels for a long time. Intermittent renewables with storage are awesome, but when backed by gas they're antiproductive to decarbonizing.

France deeply decarbonized their entire grid with nuclear in 15 years by standardizing plants and building in serial. This is a good success story.

Building gas now and hoping it goes away in 50 years is a terrible solution.

<comment><USER22> In France this 'success story' led to a state law (2015-992, from 2015, the "loi relative à la transition énergétique pour la croissance verte") states that the part of nuke-produced electricity must fall to less than 50% in 2025, from 72% then, and that renewables must replace it.

In France nuke-power is backed by gas (which produced 10,3% of gridpower in 2017).

The sole reactor currently planned (Flamanville-3) is a complete disaster, more than 10 years behind schedule and 4x overbudget.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Unit_3)

<comment><USER23> Which is probably a mistake. We need every tool in the toolbox and nuclear is one of the best we have. It's also worth noting that France has been producing much cleaner and cheaper energy than Germany, which eschewed nuclear.

And that Flamanville is behind schedule and over budget is not a problem specific to nuclear. The same thing happens with building bridges or any big construction project, in many countries. That's a different systemic issue that needs to be resolved.

<comment><USER22> Mistake or not, the net fact remains: as experts and themselves users of nuke power the French are winding it down. We (I'm French) recently closed a plant (Fessenheim).

Many big construction projects are indeed over budget and behind schedule, however I'm not sure that 4x budget and 3x time (at least, because it is not yet completed) for a project which design is only a minor enhancement of an ubiquitous design is the norm in France.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This article is really poor. I don't even disagree with the point they make since I don't think nuclear is scalable at all, but this article has mistakes or bad reasonning like in every paragraph!

I'm on my phone so I won't list them all, but come on!

</comment><comment><USER25> Archived copy, which works with JS disabled:

[https://archive.is/REV0t](https://archive.is/REV0t)</comment>


Everyone complaining about Microsoft buying GitHub has to offer better solution - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/06/everyone-complaining-about-microsoft-buying-github-needs-to-offer-a-better-solution/ <comment><USER2> Microsoft could instead donate the money to github...</comment>


Ask Advice: Contractor or Disposable cofounder? - <AUTHOR>

We've all seen these gigs:
"need help with development of web application"
and the more you look into it, it looks like somebody has some cash to spend and a vague idea of a site they'd like to implement.  What they don't realize, but what is common knowledge here at HN, its that their ideas are cheap, implementation is what counts, and it looks like the details of the successful implementation will be partially or fully on your shoulders.  The more you put into it, the more they get out of it, but you'll still be payed the same, and quite possibly, at the end, if they achieve any success, they will think it was all their doing.
What do HN contractors think of such a situation, and are their any guidelines or best practices to follow?
I'll throw some things out there, but not endorsing anything:
.5. Avoid, like the plague, any "I have an idea for a web app" jobs.
1.  Insisting that any "big ideas" come from the client, and the contractor just keeps his nose to the grindstone, and keeps quit on bigger issues (user experience, existing competition, "feature or startup?", virility, scalability, etc).
2.  Equity.  But I don't think you can just answer a job ad on craigslist and say I work for 30 bucks an hour and a piece of the action, or can you?
3.  Giving your absolute all, knowing that any success will result in more work from this particular client, as well as any referrals.
4. Telling the client what they need is more of a "consultant" than contractor, which you can be, to guide them to the most successful completion possible, but it will cost them more.
5a. Accept work from clients that are in over their heads, will probably get nowhere, but will pay you, build them a quality web app that nobody will ever use, but don't keep yourself up nights working about things like fantastic user experience, twitter integration, etc.
5b.  Work for those idiots who say they want a "facebook clone" and use facebook as the final spec, don't innovate, and make sure you get payed.
6. Work for a little while, wait until the client realizes he's way over his head without you, and then make a sweeter deal.
I hope I'm not looking greedy, that's not my intention or how I feel about it, I'm perfectly willing to be the best contractor possible at competitive price, and wish my clients the best success they can have, I'm more interested in not being taken advantage of.
Web app contracting is so wide open.  You can be hired to add a comment section, or you can end up making success or failure decisions.
Contrast it with other job descriptions.  Somebody might own a muffin shop, and they put an ad in the paper for somebody to help bake the muffins.  Because most everybody in society has an understanding in muffin baking and an expectation of whats involved, that job ad description is clear.  Contrast that with another ad like "need somebody to help me bake muffins, we need to figure out the best recipe, develop a unique and memorable brand, and create a marketing plan, and hopefully later expand to other locations."  In the world of muffins, that last ad description is arguably for a cofounder, but "need help with the development of a web application" could describe anything from CRUD to CTO.
Whoops sorry this was so long, I didn't realize until I submitted, since I was typing into that little box :) <comment><USER2> #1: " _.5. Avoid, like the plague, any "I have an idea for a web app" jobs._ "

You won't get any respect, although if this is the best you can do for now, make damned sure you get immediate remuneration. Anyone offering the "I have a great idea but no money" proposition almost certainly isn't bringing anything to the table. If they've successfully executed in times past they ought to be bringing some money to the table, ought to have a least one techie they can lean on, even if informally/part time, etc.; you'll recognize such people as exceptions.

Option #1 just sounds impractical and is likely to be bad for you (e.g. your professionalism, future job prospects (not something you'll like to put on your resume), etc.).

As for option: " _2\. Equity. But I don't think you can just answer a job ad on craigslist and say I work for 30 bucks an hour and a piece of the action, or can you?_ "

I don't know how many of these exist, but the odds you'll realize anything serious from equity compensation in a company like this are nowadays _very_ small. Even if the business guys have the bet of intentions and are honorable, big exits just aren't in the card for all but the most exceptional companies.

The rest of the options should be judged on a case by case basis, but you'll be better off if you can find more realistic people to work with.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm not quite sure where you are going with this but your argument started out seriously flawed. Successful implementation is not at all on the shoulders of contract developers. As a contract developer, you are not the key to making the application successful. Good implementation is much more than an idea and a developer to build out that idea.

<comment><AUTHOR>
      Good implementation is much more than an idea and a developer to build out that idea.

That is my point, what if you get in this situation and it looks like you are hired as a "contractor" but the client is only bringing the idea to the table and the rest is up to you?

<comment><USER3> That would be quite ballsy on the part of the client. There's too many variables that aren't mentioned in your hypothetical situation to make a case. If a client came out with an idea and proposed hiring me for it and seemed too clueless to give me much else for input then I would probably decline the project. I just wouldn't trust this person to not flake out on me at some point and cause a bunch of headaches for me. I'm busy enough as a contractor that I wouldn't need to take on something like this and an important part of contract development is knowing when to say no.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you had to quantify, what would be the fair division between the idea guy, the money guy, and the implementor?</comment>


Cool Facebook Covers for Lady Gaga Fans - <AUTHOR> http://webaroundme.blogspot.com/2012/08/cool-facebook-covers-lady-gaga.html

<comment><USER2> What the hell? Why did you post this on HN?</comment>


Felicia Day: Mogul In The Making - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.forbes.com/davidewalt/2011/08/03/felicia-day-dragon-age-redemption/

<comment><USER2> So, an article about how Felicia Day is well positioned as a figure in online entertainment, and they don't even _mention_ Dr. Horrible?

My understanding is that Whedon embarked upon that after seeing the success of The Guild, and talking to Day about online distribution. (Obviously the writer's strike had a lot to do with it too...)

<comment><USER3> I was surprised myself.

Also, the article makes it out like she gave up on television and to some degree acting, but she's in a guest arc on Eureka _right now._

Otherwise, the article IS pretty interesting.

<comment><USER4> Except it specifically said this had replaced acting as primary income, not replaced it entirely. It probably didn't do enough to highlight the fact she still does some gigs, though. Nor the fact most of the tv work she DOES do seems to be driven by people who like her work on the Guild and so they reach out to her, instead of the usual going out for a casting call, which should have fit the narrative of the ways it has further empowered her to move forward.

<comment><USER5> _most of the tv work she DOES do seems to be driven by people who like her work on the Guild and so they reach out to her_

Or else they know she has a huge online following, and throwing her into a few episodes will give 'em an extra half a million viewers from the "lonely geek" demographic?

<comment><USER4> To be fair that's still liking her work, just her work of luring in those extra half million viewers as hardcore fans.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What's interesting to me about stories like this is that with content creators can deliver their art/entertainment without the middlemen and actually make good money doing it to the point that they don't need traditional broadcast formats. It's the democratization of media that is a cliche but sometimes actually true.

This is starting to happen in the podcasting world as well. Comic Jimmy Pardo charges $20/season for his "Never Not Funny" audio podcast in lieu of advertising. While I don't believe he's divulged his numbers, I'm pretty sure it's in the tens of thousands, which is a good hunk of change considering his costs to produce the show.

<comment><USER7> I do hope this kind of thing doesn't become the new standard. Episodes of "The Guild" and most other online series clock in at 10 minutes and under. At that length, it seems (from present examples) like the stories pretty much have to be fluff.

<comment><USER8> i'd point out that he mentions two examples, the average the guild episode clocking in at 10 minutes, the average never not funny episode clocking in at 1h 30m.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I feel the word "Mogul" is misleading.

Not to take anything away from Felicia, her success is inspiring, but the message seems to be about how content creators on the Internet can produce great content with only a fanbase of a couple tens of thousands of people and still succeed financially.

It goes directly against the TV idea where shows have to go head to head and spend millions of dollars to amass at least a few million viewers and only a few can succeed.

</comment><comment><USER10> I was never really familiar with who Felicia Day was until I saw her on Kevin Pollak's Chat Show (link: <http://www.kevinpollakschatshow.com/archive/?cat=197>)

After that 2 hour interview, I realized she was an extremely smart, forward thinking woman who is going to do amazing things. And clearly, she is.

</comment><comment><USER11> just had to stop and say that forbes.com's layout is hilariously awful. the content starts after 500px.

<comment><USER5> Only 500px?

My 13-inch MacBook (1280*800) doesn't even show the bottommost pixels of the headline.</comment></comment>


Miss a Payment? Good Luck Moving That Car - <AUTHOR> http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/09/24/miss-a-payment-good-luck-moving-that-car <comment><USER2> If we skip the moral indignation and look at the situation plainly, this sort of technology enables a whole subset of people to actually own cars that were considered too risky before. That's a good thing. Given the choice between no car and a car that won't start if I don't pay, I'll go with a gimped car.

<comment><USER3> There are upsides, but it sounds like we need some good old-fashioned consumer protection legislation to protect consumers here.

Mandate no location tracking or car shutoff for owners who aren't 30 days past due.

Mandate that there be a 24/7 line for emergency car re-activation that is clearly posted in the car.

Mandate the provision for 1 non-emergency temporary reactivation to avoid stranding people.

The three of those seem like they would go a long way to to assuage people's concerns.

EDIT: changed 'two' to 'three' since I apparently can't count...

<comment><USER4> The crux of your argument is that "consumers often have no choice but to take whatever deal" and that lack of choice makes this issue important enough for the government to step in. Is that right?

I strongly disagree, because there are options to: * Own a less expensive car * Take transit * Ride a bike * Find a closer job * Find a closer house * Ride share

Now, you can probably craft a specific story where none of those are an option. Let's say a single mother living in section-8 housing with limited job prospects who is already driving a really old car and who found one job 20 miles away in an area with no transit. That's pretty bad, and it represents failures of our system at multiple levels. First I would propose spending government time to address those core issues before burning time on this symptom. Second, all these rules will make the car more expensive; it's a slight tax on the responsible paid by those who might miss payments. Third, this case is rare and it's unclear its worth the cost and unexpected consequence of regulation.

<comment><USER3> > The crux of your argument is that "consumers often have no choice but to > take whatever deal" and that lack of choice makes this issue important > enough for the government to step in. Is that right?

No, that's completely wrong. "Lack of choice" is not the only or main argument for consumer protection. We don't regulate the arsenic content of toys because parents have no choice but to buy commercially made toys.

The argument is "consumers are being treated by some bad actors in a manner by that interferes with their safety, privacy and dignity". The solution is to look at what the good actors are doing, and mandate that behavior to protect consumers.

> First I would propose spending government time to address those core issues > before burning time on this symptom.

Why? Those core issues are incredibly controversial. We shouldn't avoid regulating a new means of loan efforcement because we can't solve fundamental social issues.

> Second, all these rules will make the car more expensive; it's a slight tax > on the responsible paid by those who might miss payments.

What are you talking about? This technology (as discussed in the article) only applies to people who's are being offered subprime car loans and are a high risk on not paying. Additionaly, the technology in question should REDUCE the loan costs of subprime auto loans.

> Third, this case is rare and it's unclear its worth the cost and unexpected > consequence of regulation.

What are you talking about? The article doesn't give clear numbers for the US market for this technology, but it doesn't seem to be particularly small. "Corinne Kirkendall, vice president for compliance and public relations for PassTime, which has sold 1.5 million devices worldwide," "Roughly 25 percent of all new auto loans made last year were subprime, and the volume of subprime auto loans reached more than $145 billion in the first three months of this year."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Ok, ignoring the moral repugnancy of the whole thing for a moment.

> T. Candice Smith, who testified before the Nevada Legislature that her car, > which had a starter interrupt device installed, was shut down while she was > driving on a Las Vegas freeway, nearly causing her to crash

> Others said their cars were shut down while idling at stoplights.

How the hell is that legal?! Surely you should only be able to disable a car when the engine is not running just on safety principles.

<comment><USER6> Of course it's not legal. However, the article also quotes the "other side" claiming that it's impossible for the device to do that, and the manufacturer claiming that the device has is not designed to do that, and that they have no record of it doing such a thing. And on their website they say the device "can never shut down a running vehicle."

So...presumably either Smith is mistaken and/or lying, or the device is defective. It's possible that her car broke down on the freeway, and she assumed it was the starter interrupt when in fact it was not. But it's exceedingly unlikely that the device did so while operating according to design.

(Or Passtime is about to get one _humongous_ fine and/or judgement...)

<comment><USER7> _So...presumably either Smith is mistaken and /or lying, or the device is defective._

But the manufacturer, of course, could neither be lying nor could have produced a device that didn't perfectly represent this notional design.

This entire thread is full of people who have no idea how the device actually works or what actually happened jumping to the conclusion that the female poor person is lying or doesn't understand what happened with her own car that she was driving at the time. It is, of course, possible. But it's also classic Hacker News.

<comment><USER8> The company can not lie in this case because it would be trivial to expose the lie by studying any device in the field. I think its more reasonable that she is blaming the device because she was in a scary situation and the device is the best cause given her information. I think it's safer to assume no one has hidden motives here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> On a technical note, a "starter interrupt" could not reasonably affect a running vehicle (the starter motor only runs when turning over a stopped engine). However, if these devices actually operate inline with the ignition system--delivering or interrupting spark to the fuel-air mixture during operation--that's an entirely different matter and cause for safety concerns.

</comment><comment><USER10> It shines light on a troubling broader issue: As information and communication technologies (in which many of us are involved) spread, they put power in the hands of those who control them, from Google to Verizon to your electric company (via your smart meter) to car loan agencies. It gives them power over other people, including whether they can drive their own car.

Not everyone wants to give others this power, but do we and will we have a choice? Perhaps legislators will pass laws protecting the interests of people like those reading HN, or vendors will appease us because of our economic and political power.

It is the poor, powerless, and disenfranchised who will be abused, with little recourse (other than not owning a car, a phone, etc.). If something like what the article described happened to HN readers, there would be an uproar. But these things will and probably already do happen off our radar to marginalized groups.

Perhaps that's why the Internet protocols put control in the hands of the end users.

</comment><comment><USER11> It's hard to break this down because there are so many different problems going on here, but let's pretend for a minute that the moral issues related to privacy and dignity are irrelevant, and that the arbitrary credit score threshold of 640 that necessitates this system is reasonable and determined by transparent and fair processes (it's not, but stay with me).

Does this _actually_ solve a problem? Are cars that difficult to repossess? Is it possible this is a marketing gimmick and the securities backed by it are sold to investors who just really like the idea of being able to f*ck over a poor person the second he or she misses a payment? Is this really an economic innovation that lets riskier borrowers have cars, or is it a sales tactic appealing to veiled social darwinist sympathies?

</comment><comment><USER12> The woman who needed a pickup to deliver pizza is symptomatic of a different problem too. In many places it would always be the responsibility of the pizza joint to provide the vehicle because typical consumer auto insurance expressly forbids commercial use. The pizza chains not only pay minimum wage, they also expect their employees to provide the business equipment...

<comment><USER13> The thing many people aren't getting is that this type of thing isn't limited to one instance and isn't just that business owners are greedy.

Its because the entire economy is being squeezed, turning a profit is extremely difficult, and there are many unemployed people who have to put up with those types of situations because they need money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Does anyone know how widespread and available the ability is to disable vehicles via OnStar? I heard today that a woman in Missouri had her 2005 Dodge disabled (by a lending institution) for allegedly being 1 day overdue on a car payment. Like, does it go on in all parts of north America, and would it be available for just charter banks, or any joe schmoe money lender? Would anyone also know if there are systems other than OnStar, that will allow tracking/disabling of a given vehicle?

</comment><comment><USER15> This is very shortsighted. Most people in the US use their car to get to work. Lenders have a vested interest in their borrower's current and future ability to earn money.

<comment><USER16> The car dealers that regularly repossess customer vehicles print money. I've seen data come across were the dealer's cost of a vehicle was -2,000 because it had been sold and came back a few times.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> For those more familiar with cars, a question: when the article mentions disabling the ignition, does that mean that only the starter is disabled, or that the actual spark plugs / fuel delivery are disabled (and there is some check for whether the engine is running)? The former sounds reasonable, but the latter sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

<comment><USER18> I doubt the article is being precise, first, and might use one for the other. That said: ignition means the electrical system that fires the spark plugs. Starter is the motor that starts the mechanical bits moving, so the ignition can do its job and keep the mechanical bits moving. Any car with the traditional keyed start even shows these circuits as separate positions on the cylinder. Most motorcycles have separate controls for those two circuits: a toggle switch for ignition, and a momentary switch for starter--you must set ignition to "on" before the starter will do any good.

Disable the ignition system, and nothing's going anywhere. Disable the starter motor, and it's just not going to start--unless you push it down a hill or, say, short the relay with a screwdriver (as mentioned in the article).

While technically you could put a remote controlled relay anywhere (the dome light won't light up if you're late on payments--take that!) it sounds from the description of the device ("starter interrupt") and other clues that it's the starter system that's being killed. And that makes a lot of sense: that way if the device fails it at least won't bother you while you're in motion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I wish it wouldn't sound out of touch and pretentious to suggest bicycle use as a form of resistance, I really do.

</comment><comment><USER20> A rough idea of a possibility in the future, the car owner can scan a QR code in the car, confirms the transaction, which is recorded on a blockchain, monitored by a smart contract, which activates the car's engine.

</comment><comment><USER21> I do believe they signed a contract before getting the lend saying: "It's OK to block my car if I miss a payment by X days."

Why should they complain? If you don't agree with the terms, don't sign.

<comment><USER22> It would be interesting to see what would you do if your child need immediate medical attention and your car won't start because, apparently, "you signed". ;)

Legal != Ethical

<comment><USER21> I would call a cab. It's what people who don't own cars do every day. Ethics has no meaning in this context.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Meta: Why is this not on the front page? It has 53 points and was submitted 4 hours ago (and is a technology story to boot). The #5 link on the FP is a story with 26 points and submitted 5 hours ago.

</comment><comment><USER24> Maybe people should buy cheaper cars if they can't get a reasonable loan? I guess it wasn't clear from the article if these were loans for new or used cars, though.

<comment><USER25> Yeah, you shouldn't need a loan for a decent used one.

<comment><USER13> A "decent" used car will cost several thousand dollars. The number of people who can easily part with $5,000 is much smaller than you think it is.

<comment><USER26> "Decent" depends entirely on the SES of the speaker.

Click and Clack have said for 20 years that if you just need to get from point A to point B you can do that with a $500 car, and once a year or so you will need to get a new-to-you $500 car. With inflation that might be $1000 these days.

<comment><USER27> That car will be one that could break down at any moment. Most people in the income bracket where this might be an attractive option are unfortunately also working for employers who won't graciously accept "my car broke down" as a reason for showing up late to work.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


U.S. job openings post biggest drop in more than four years - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-jobs/u-s-job-openings-post-biggest-drop-in-more-than-four-years-idUSKBN1ZG1V0 <comment><USER2> Unemployment drops during an expansion, then rises heading into a recession. It turns out you can quantify this relationship as a recession predictor:

> According to LaVorgna, since 1948, the economy has always entered or been in > a recession when the unemployment rate increases 50 basis points (or 0.50 > percentage point) from its trailing cyclical low.

[https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/20/a-recession-indicator- with-a...](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/20/a-recession-indicator-with-a- perfect-track-record-over-70-years-is-close-to-being-triggered.html)

Taken with the yield curve inversion in 2019, and other leading indicators, it appears the US economy is headed for the first recession in over 10 years. If previous trends hold, it's within 12-18 months away.

Oddly enough, the stock market typically rallies from the yield curve inversion right into the next recession. So there's money to be made, but it's kind of like trying to gather nickels on the tracks as the locomotive barreling down on you blows its whistle.

However, policymakers will continue to tout the relatively low unemployment rate and booming stock market right into the recession (which can only be declared months after its start).

<comment><USER3> Add in the bad monetary policy that has Fortune 500 companies borrowing money at 0% to buyback stocks. Then the Democrats are going to want to rollback the Trump tax cuts and that will be the beginning. However, I think we need a bad recession or pop to bring things back to normal instead of just easing the pressure slightly. Otherwise the real crash will be even bigger.

<comment><USER4> I hope it's a pop and soon or the eventual fall will be closer to a depression in the old school sense.

<comment><USER5> Why? That seems like it would cause a lot of very oor people to suffer even more.

<comment><USER6> Better a recession now than a depression later.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> On its own, this probably doesn't mean anything. But it's important for us to pay attention. Technologists live in a world of negative unemployment, so it's easy to forget that everyone else is subject to macroeconomic cycles.

Even if you were laid off after the Dot-Com Crash or the Great Recession, you didn't have it anywhere near as bad as someone outside this industry.

<comment><USER8> > Technologists live in a world of negative unemployment

Just wait until you turn 50...

<comment><USER9> Do you have any recommendations for someone earlier in their career (<50 yo) to avoid or minimize ageism? Go into management? Be prepared to pick a new career?

<comment><USER10> Yea going into management is the best bet. Its a "controversial" topic on HN because large swathes of ppl here here believe #IC4Lyfe is a good career move. Its not.

<comment><USER11> I agree that IC for life is not a good career move, but it's not the wanna-be IC's fault.

It's the industry.

I work with this guy, he's about 60. I think he has a degree in Physics from Oxford, but he has a Texas accent. He's kind of a nomad type of guy, bounces from job to job. Got hired into the AWS "Cloud Team" shop on a project I work on. Doesn't have any AWS certifications. As far as I know, barely touched AWS and never touched Python, CloudFormation, or Jenkins before this job (but he knows just about every *ix flavor there is). Basically a lifelong Linux Sysadmin. I have no idea how he got the job.

Within a month he was writing his own CloudFormation, Lambdas, and Jenkinsfiles. He almost immediately intuited the whole "Zip up the Python and all its dependencies, throw on S3, use CFT to deploy the Lambda using that Zip file" method of deploying lambdas. Note this is with multiple accounts so you need to get the whole IAM delegation between accounts stuff. He's a natural.

I'm in awe of this guy.

I truly believe that HN is full of people than can be like this. The problem is that most hiring managers do not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This happened yesterday:

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-16/u-s-to- ch...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-16/u-s-to-change- procedures-for-release-of-major-economic-data)

I can't help but see a relationship here between bad economic news and attempts to curb the release of such.

<comment><USER13> That works other way too. The Media baron running for President influencing the framing of standard bureaucratic changes.

We only see, what we want to see!

<comment><AUTHOR> The AP has more context about this: [https://apnews.com/cde6768a1c300c7d167f19f676d0d515](https://apnews.com/cde6768a1c300c7d167f19f676d0d515)

The FT also gives useful analysis: [https://www.ft.com/content/e3ec2f00-3886-11ea-a6d3-9a26f8c3c...](https://www.ft.com/content/e3ec2f00-3886-11ea-a6d3-9a26f8c3cba4)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This doesn't indicate if is good or bad. You need to know employment rate as well, all the job could be getting filled faster than they are opened.

<comment><USER15> Good? Bad? Market economies do not operate based on these notions. This certainly indicates a slowing in demand for labor. Employment rate is not the full picture either -- wages being stagnant would support the low demand for labor hypothesis even if employment was high.

<comment><USER16> Hit this link and use the Wage Level filter. The poor are seeing faster wage growth than any other income quintile. The richest wage earners are seeing the slowest growth - income equality must be dropping quickly, even if wealth inequality might not be do to stock ownership.

[https://www.frbatlanta.org/chcs/wage-growth- tracker.aspx](https://www.frbatlanta.org/chcs/wage-growth-tracker.aspx)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I actually kinda want the stock market to crash although all of my money is in it. At least we'd all stop worrying about when it's gonna crash once it has and move on with our lives :)

<comment><USER18> A coworker told me he thinks as long as people think it might crash it won't crash.

<comment><USER19> That makes no sense.

<comment><USER20> The thinking behind "as long as people think it will crash, it won't crash" is as follows...

1) most people thinking that a crash is near means that they view the stock market to be overpriced.

2) this means they won't buy as much and inflate prices even further. in fact, many may start to sell.

3) this will tend to limit price increases and may even depress the markets a bit

4) Thus, while there may be a decline if economic conditions turn sour, there's a lower likelihood of a "crash" (large drop from current prices).

<comment><USER21> Or alternatively:

3) this will cause prices to start dropping, which increases uncertainty, and causes additional sells.

4) thus we enter a loop where uncertainty increases, which causes more selling, which causes price decreases, and the market crashes.

Market prices are largely a function of market confidence. If confidence erodes, so does the market. It's how bubbles burst.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> If interested, this is the economic news release: [https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm](https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm)

</comment><comment><USER22> BLS reports will typically get revised but this could be an indicator for full employment. Yes, the stock market is at all time highs - this is a common occurrence if you take a look at historical charts. However, the stock market != economy.

</comment><comment><USER23> Does the US government provide metrics on job openings by wages or some measurement of monthly or annual earnings?

My portfolio has been doing fantastic, but I have to stop and wonder how the average person who doesn't have assets is doing.

<comment><USER24> Given wages not increasing with COL in cities and availability of credit (student loans, rising rents, credit cards, low interest rates) I'd assume poorly

<comment><USER25> Numbers prove your assumptions wrong. Take a look over at the bureau of labor reports, Q4 2019 is out

<comment><USER26> Except he's right. Wages have increased with respect to CPI, but not to COL. The housing market has consistently and significantly outpaced salaries.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I have a feeling we're entering a job bubble, and possibly a recession... if it hits by November, I'm betting there will be another blue wave. Actually, that might happen regardless, but the blame will likely fall on the President, it usually does. Digital Ocean just announced layoffs, so it's possible a lot more might follow. I think a lot of VC bets like magic leap, and WeWork and Uber might go sour and hurt investments going into the 2020's.

<comment><USER28> I think extrapolating the entire tech or startup economy off an extremely small company in a commodity area of computing is not a good decision.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> We'd really need to see more historical data and also how that correlates with employment levels. It could mean nothing, it could even be a positive indicator but they didn't provide enough information to make those interpretations so the null hypothesis is that this is bad.

</comment><comment><USER30> Here is another look at the jobs though...paints a different picture

[https://economicgraph.linkedin.com/resources/linkedin- workfo...](https://economicgraph.linkedin.com/resources/linkedin-workforce- report-january-2020)

</comment><comment><USER31> I base my recession predictor on BS detection. The dot-com bubble and mortgage crisis were driven by lies, this time is no different with buybacks. You cannot outrun truth forever.

</comment><comment><USER32> What a bs title, U.S. job opening post second biggest drop in more than five years, doesnt sound as scary I guess

<comment><USER33> Why stop at five years? How does this compare to job openings in 1776?

More seriously, bounds have to be set on a comparison like this for it to have relevance.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_market_cycles#Short_te...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_market_cycles#Short_term_and_longer_term_cycles) suggests that "Cyclical cycles generally last 4 years, with bull and bear market phases lasting 1–3 years, while Secular cycles last about 30 years with bull and bear market phases lasting 10–20 years."

Assuming this is true or widely accepted by economists, four years seems like an appropriate length of time for a comparison such as this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> lets parse this out:

"U.S. job openings post biggest drop in more than four years"

becomes

<economic statistic that is rarely cited and no one has cared about before> post biggest drop in more than <arbitrary time frame>"

becomes

<economic statistic taht is rarely cited and no one has cared about before> post <scary descriptor> in more than <arbitrary time frame>"

becomes

"<holy shit live in fear the sky is falling and you should panic>"

<comment><USER35> > <economic statistic that is rarely cited and no one has cared about before> > post biggest drop in more than <arbitrary time frame>"

I recall seeing job opening changes regularly cited in the news for pretty much as long as I've been an adult (around 40 years)...it was probably cited before that too but I didn't pay much attention to the news when I was a kid.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> All 3 stock indexes record high opening. Consumer confidence 20 year high. Enormous USMCA trade deal finally passed by US Congress after the House sat on it for a year.

Reuters just salivating over finding something they can spin as negative about the current economy.

<comment><USER37> Except, of course, as people are finally starting to notice and point out, high stocks only benefit the top 10% of society, and are a useless indicator for the vast majority, who have little to no holdings.

<comment><USER38> > high stocks only benefit the top 10% of society, and are a useless indicator > for the vast majority, who have little to no holdings.

This is absolutely not true. Most pension plans are at least partially invested in stocks.

<comment><USER39> And what percentage of the poorest 50% of Americans have even $5,000 in any kind of retirement savings?

<comment><USER40> With platforms like robinhood, and the trend toward lowering the bar to investment, even people like me ( <3% of income is "disposable" (which in and of itself probably isnt true as I have student debt)) can start doing SOME investment. Ive been poor my whole life, and have made a point since my teens to keep savings. Only recently did I begin investing however. This is a result of benig surrounded by people who don't make enough money to buy the things they do. Everyone has a choice of how to spend there money. To pretend the 12 bucks you spent on PBR and cigs is a better way to spend the money than to put it towards savings is the crux of the problem according to my personal experience.

<comment><USER41> > To pretend the 12 bucks you spent on PBR and cigs is a better way to spend > the money than to put it towards savings is the crux of the problem > according to my personal experience.

Expensive habits are terrible for your personal finances. I like to look at habits like that in a weekly, monthly, and yearly cost. Seeing that a $40/week habit is $2,080/year really helps me put my spending choices in perspective.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Rust Analyzer: Next few years - m-sopanen https://rust-analyzer.github.io/blog/2020/05/18/next-few-years.html <comment><AUTHOR> If you haven't yet used rust-analyzer, immediately go and try it out. The developer experience is much better than RLS, particularly for larger projects.

One question I've had for some time: what exactly is the relationship between Ferrous Systems and the Rust core team? The most important part of this article - the call for sponsors - calls out the former, but I would think Mozilla would also be greatly motivated to sponsor this work. (If they haven't already?)

<comment><USER2> Ferrous Systems is a private consulting company that specialises on Rust and sponsors some community projects such as Rust-Analyzer. I don't think the company has any "official" relationship with Rust governance. However, Florian Gilcher and Aleksey Kladov who both work at Ferrous Systems are active community members and also members in some Rust teams.

It's generally thought in the Rust community that the community benefits from diversifying the pool of stakeholders and also commercial players. Rust doesn't want to identify too hard as "Mozilla's language".

Edit: Forgot to mention: There isn't currently any legal body such as "Rust foundation" so it's hard for the Rust project itself financially sponsor this kind of project. It's mostly either Mozilla or then some "third party" player.

<comment><USER3> On the topic of a "Rust Foundation", there a semi-recent blog post from one of the rust core members on this:

[http://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2020/01/09/towa...](http://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2020/01/09/towards- a-rust-foundation/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Using a Prolog implementation behind Rust Analyzer is very interesting, here is the post announcing it: [http://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2017/01/26/lowe...](http://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2017/01/26/lowering- rust-traits-to-logic/) and more info here: [https://github.com/rust- lang/chalk](https://github.com/rust-lang/chalk)

<comment><USER5> My reading of the linked references indicate that the system is _not_ using Prolog or even Horn clauses. They are using a logic inference engine, but it isn't a Prolog system.

<comment><USER4> is a Prolog derivative with FOHH clauses, first post says it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is the future of all systems/OS programming in my opinion.

My other goals for 2030:

\- RISC-V ubiquity

\- RedoxOS on all major archs

\- Linux kernel maintenance shifting to at least 25% Rust code

Rust Analyzer is one of the biggest pieces that I think will get us there as far as compile times and beating out C++ ubiquity that is already in this space.

</comment><comment><USER7> "A quick one-to-two-year hack" ... that is an impressive attitude. Respect.

</comment><comment><USER8> Is there a standard for "IDE backends", and can I plug one into my favorite editor, Vim?

<comment><USER9> Yes, it uses the language server protocol: [https://microsoft.github.io/language-server- protocol/](https://microsoft.github.io/language-server-protocol/)

The rust-analyzer docs show how to wire it up to VIM a few different ways: [https://rust-analyzer.github.io/manual.html#installation](https://rust- analyzer.github.io/manual.html#installation)

<comment><USER10> It's important to point out that rust-analyzer uses some bleeding edge features of the protocol, so sometimes certain things won't work as well in editors other than vscode. That being said, I believe the rust-analyzer author has indicated that he would fix that up to use more standard features if rust- analyzer becomes the officially recommended IDE backend.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> If you're on vscode it is probably not the moment to switch to rust analyzer. It doesn't work that well compared to rls. It gets tripped up easily and stops working if your code has bugs. It also doesn't format on save.

<comment><USER12> Anecdotally/to add a counterpoint, my experience using RA over the last few weeks has been very very positive.

<comment><USER13> Mine as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> Avi-D-coder Why is GAT struck out?

<comment><USER14> I read it as a joke; chalk is necessary but not sufficient for the language to gain GATs.

<comment> Avi-D-coder What other major things are needed?

<comment><USER14> In my understanding, Chalk's immediate goal is to be able to reproduce the existing trait system. Achieving that goal does not mean that GATs just automatically happen; they'll need to be implemented in Chalk, and then all the other polish work that happens with new major features needs to happen. There's a ton of work other than "chalk exists."

<comment> Avi-D-coder I believe GATs are at least somewhat supported in chalk [https://github.com/rust-lang/chalk/issues/116](https://github.com/rust- lang/chalk/issues/116)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> If anyone uses this and can be bothered to explain what would be the insentive to move from using cargo on the command line and sublime text to this?

<comment><USER16> You can use rust-analyzer from within Sublime Text: [https://rust- analyzer.github.io/manual.html#sublime-text-3](https://rust- analyzer.github.io/manual.html#sublime-text-3)

If you're using Sublime Text 3, it's essentially an alternative to RustEnhanced[0].

[0] [https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-enhanced](https://github.com/rust- lang/rust-enhanced)

<comment><USER17> It's absolutely not an alternative to RustEnhanced. Sublime-LSP + Rust- Analyzer complement RustEnhanced, adding Language Server functionality. They don't conflict in any way.

Source: me, a contributor to both RustEnhanced and Sublime-LSP

<comment><USER16> You're right, I was mistaken (and too late to edit my comment).

Out of interest, is there a page anywhere explaining the difference between RustEnhanced and Sublime-LSP + Rust Analyzer? I've got both installed, but when I enable Sublime-LSP + RustAnalyzer the experience and functionality is different enough that I assumed it was overriding RustEnhanced.</comment></comment></comment></comment>