Campaign contributions and voting positions - <AUTHOR> http://ismycongressmanbought.com/index.php <comment><USER2> There is also a logical fallacy that campaign contributions necessarily influence congress(wo)men. Contributions are given to people that others support. Just because someone voted for industry X and was given contribution money by industry X does not imply being 'bought.'

That said and taken into consideration, people that are outliers (like this guy: [http://ismycongressmanbought.com/my_cong.php?con=Sodrel,%20M...](http://ismycongressmanbought.com/my_cong.php?con=Sodrel,%20Michael) and this guy: [http://ismycongressmanbought.com/my_cong.php?con=Chocola,%20...](http://ismycongressmanbought.com/my_cong.php?con=Chocola,%20Chris\)\[1\]) should be viewed with a suspicious eye.

[1] Both happen to be Republicans. I was just viewing my home state (Indiana) where most politicians are Republicans. I am by no means trying to imply one party is better than the other. I am also a Republican.

<comment><USER3> Agreed, contributing to someone's campaign doesn't mean I'm trying to buy them.

More likely is that the candidate already supports a cause I care about, and I'm contributing to their campaign so they can get elected and continue supporting my cause.

If you want to see who's bought then look for people who voted one way on an issue and then switched their vote after getting contributions from the affected industry.

<comment><USER4> _If you want to see who's bought then look for people who voted one way on an issue and then switched their vote after getting contributions from the affected industry._

Which is unlikely to happen all that often. If I've got deep pockets and want to influence politics I'll focus on helping folks who already agree with me to get elected rather than trying to bribe those who don't. It's just a better bang for your buck.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Quite interesting, but I'd love to see a key to the colors used.

</comment><comment><USER6> FYI:

[http://ismycongressmanbought.com/my_cong.php?con=%3Cblink%3E...](http://ismycongressmanbought.com/my_cong.php?con=%3Cblink%3EHello%20HN)</comment>


Ambulances Were Called to Amazon Warehouses 600 Times in Three Years - <AUTHOR> https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/7xm4dy/ambulances-were-called-to-amazon-warehouses-600-times-in-three-years <comment><USER2> Towards the end of the article, Amazon says: "Amazon has 43 percent fewer injuries on average than other companies conducting transportation and warehousing activities in the UK". The authors of the article don't seem to dispute this claim, so it seems its more that transportation/warehousing work is somewhat dangerous, not that Amazon is particularly bad.

</comment><comment><USER3> I worked at Amazon in Distribution operations management in the very early days(1997-2001).

Culture in the distribution centers(now called fulfillment centres) was definitely one of no excuses performance.

I take responsibility for my role in how the culture evolved.

In the early days, we were hiring like crazy, trying to "average up" with every single early hire, while trying to keep the customer happy with orders backing up with exponential growth.

We worked nutty hours, often packing a bag to stay overnight or for a few days.

Hourly associates and temps were often compelled to work 50+ hours per week.

Terminations were very quick and cold as we didn't feel we had the time to do it properly with customers orders clogging up.

Something had to give. So we were all pretty ruthless. Perform or leave.

I'm proud of what we achieved, but it came at a significant personal cost to many people.

I burned out after 3+ years.

I believe it's a fair bit better now, but still a challenging environment that requires good performance or risk of termination.

It's not a place to "coast" or "Be a grey man/woman".

20 years ago we had scanners than could measure productivity.

Nowadays, everything is measured.

You can't hide from your productivity data.

<comment><USER4> It seems like Amazon warehouse worker are slaves to robots. Robots have no compassion and show no pity. It would be terrible to be a slave to a robot.

The real problem is that the variation of human performance is so large. Variation of performance between individuals can be addressed by firing the weak. But an individual's performance from day-to-day and over the long term also varies greatly.

The incentives to raise performance standards to unsustainable levels is enormous. How could Amazon's robots (and managers) resist the temptation?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> [edit: 200 vists stat is for UK only. Ignore everything I said here. ]

For scale, Amazon had 566,000 employees at the end of 2017. With 200 trips per year, that's about one trip per 2,800 employees.

For comparison, US ambulances made about 16.2 million trips in 2003 on a population of 290 million, or one trip per 17.9 people.

If we assume that employees spend 1/4 of their week at work, then while working at Amazon you are 39.5 times less likely to need an ambulance than an average American.

;)

<comment><USER6> You didn't actually read the article: "ambulances have been called to Amazon's UK warehouses at least 600 times in the last three years"

There are way less warehouse workers in Amazon UK so your calculations are off.

<comment><USER7> There may be health & safety regs in the UK that require ambulances to be called in situations where they might not be called in the US. (Just speculating, I don't know.)

<comment><USER3> That number seems unusually high.

Having worked in all the very early US distribution centers(pre automation and now called fulfillment centers) and privy to early UK, German, French, and Japanese distribution operations ambulance calls were less than common, but more than rare.

That was before Amazon hit a headcount of 16k(when I left).

I recall several ambulance calls.

Mostly legit, things like heat/humidity, ankles, pre-existing issues such as obesity/poor fitness, and the rare workers comp lotto attempt.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Who knew holding in your pee was so dangerous?

<comment><USER3> Amazon's first warehouses in Seattle were tiny(maxing at 60k sq ft as I recall), then 200k in Delaware, then 600k+ in the next few in Nevada, Georgia, Kansas, and Kentucky with the first generation of partial automation(tilt tray sortation systems).

It was easy to sneak off to the bathroom in the smaller facilities.

The bigger facilities had dispersed bathrooms, but depending on the specific job role/location it could be quite a long walk back/forth to use it.

Most of a break period could be spent traveling to/from a break area.

I'm just guessing, but I suspect facility design for the many more recent fulfillment centers(100+ since the early ones) take into account employee traffic/movement/efficiency based on data from existing centers.

A few of my former peers and direct reports are now in quite senior roles in operations for the company.

They are genuinely good people, good managers, and good leaders.</comment></comment>


United States loses AAA credit rating from S&P  - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/06/usa-downgrade-sp-idUSN1E7741TJ20110806 <comment><USER4> (Reference: <http://www.federalbudget.com/>)

Steps to recovery:

1) End all offensive military actions overseas. Finish winding down Iraq and abandon Afghanistan wholesale. These actions have cost several trillion dollars over the last 10 years. We can't get that money back, but we can stop spending more.

2) Defense spending is in the top 3 highest budget expenditures. Cut it by 1 third across the board. Maintain important overseas installations such as Japan and Taiwan. Given China's rise, its wise long-term to keep a presence in the region. Scale back deployments in Europe unless Russia still is still a threat to western Europe.

3) The most amount of money the U.S. spends is Health and Human Services. The U.S. health system is a fucking mess. Somehow we spend the most on healthcare and get some of the worst societal benefits out of any industrialized country. I don't have an answer here, but it likely involves completely tearing down the existing system to its nuts and bolts and building it back up. I'd love to hear ideas on this point from others that know more about it.

4) Social Security is the other one. My mom relies on it, so does a lot of my family. We're from meager backgrounds and traditionally have come from poorer parts of the nation. That being said, cut it.

When I look at my paycheck and see that upwards of 40% of my income is being sucked out by the government and used more for things I oppose than things I support (e.g. war spending versus scientific investment) it pisses me right off.

Yes, I have heard the naive argument "But taxes are there to run the things you use like roads and government services that you use every day". This is true only in part. Yup, we need an army. Yup, we need local police. Yup, we need roads. Yup, we need a justice system. But it doesn't take trillions of dollars a year to run those things.

The government shouldn't interfere with business like propping up failing business models. It should work to make sure that business plays fair, i.e. anti-monopoly or collusion, etc.

I'm more liberal than conservative, and definitely not one of these people that wants business to have free-reign over everything. But there are bottom lines that we have crossed and need to back off.

<comment><USER5> You're more liberal than conservative. I'm more conservative than liberal. Bless your heart, I agree with all of your points. At the end of the Cold War, other conservatives were making the same noises that you're making now. For their pains, their careers were destroyed by the people who run the current mainstream conservative movement. Let's take a look at those points of yours.

Points 1 & 2\. Cut defense spending and all of the cool people will call you an isolationist. Sure, argue rationally all you want; the name will stick. Also, remember that the United States is bound by treaty to defend more than two dozen nations. That includes keeping bases in some of those nations. Those treaties will have to be renegotiated. Those nations will have to increase their own defense spending. Many of those nations have budget problems of their own. Have fun.

Point 3. Touch social spending and the cool people will call you a heartless bastard who cackles at the sight of starving widows in between gulps of baby orphan blood. Sure, argue rationally all you want; the charge will stick. Of course, this doesn't solve the money problem. Iceberg? What iceberg?

Point 4. Social Security is the third rail of American politics: If you touch it, you will die. Sure, argue rationally all you want. It will help as much as it ever has.

Long story short, the bureaucracy rules us. The administration of administrators who administer the other administers who supervise the people in charge of those who actually get real work done cannot make any concessions to reality. It would be like Gorbachev loosening the grip of Communism; one exit through the Iron Curtain and it's all over.

The Cool People will double down. They will continue to double down until it is physically impossible for them to continue doing so.

<comment><USER4> Thanks. I have no refutations to any of your comments. I know exactly what you mean.

One interesting thing about your first statement, "At the end of the Cold War, other conservatives were making the same noises that you're making now". A few years ago I had the opportunity to hear Francis Fukuyama speak. He was the author of The End of History and a later follow up book. I never knew it before then, but he was one of the founding members of the Neo-conservative movement. It was originally started by him and a group of like-minded sorts around a cafeteria table in some ivy-league college (Princeton maybe?). He went on to talk about how the ideals of what they founded were adopted and warped beyond recognition by the Evangelical Christian community in the U.S. and by other conservatives. What was remarkable about the talk was that at the end, he essentially repudiated everything he had originally written in The End of History.

I remember stories my grandparents told of growing up during the Great Depression. I also remember stories from my mom's family of 7 kids growing up poor in Rochester, NY in the post-war era. Perhaps I've inherited an attitude of bite-down and deal with reality from their history.

<comment><USER6> > I also remember stories from my mom's family of 7 kids growing up poor in > Rochester, NY in the post-war era. Perhaps I've inherited an attitude of > bite-down and deal with reality from their history.

I have not much to add to your excellent comments, I just wanted to give you a heads-up. I grew up in a former Eastern-European country, and my childhood and teenage years were very much marked by the economic collapse of the post- communist years.

First, regarding the reducing of military spending by the US, I can still remember reading a very beautiful Soviet propaganda magazine in 1989 (with colored pictures and all) about how happy everyone was that the Soviet Army was getting out of Afghanistan and how about everyone will be happy. Then 1991 happened to them and the Soviets disintegrated under their own weight, in many cases leaving military units stranded in foreign territory because the money had just run out. I don't know what the moral of this story should be, maybe that it is never too early to cut military spending. You (the Americans) should do it now.

Second, I have nothing intelligent to say about your health-care system, but regarding Social Security I hope that you, the American people, will find a bunch of decent politicians willing to sacrifice their political careers over this. The reason being that when the money will run out (and at this rate it will definitely run out) no amount of blaming the other party or of accusing the Chinese or the Martians or whatever will make up for the fact that Government-run agencies will have no money to actual do their jobs (and no, inflation, i.e. indefinite printing of money will not help solve this, it will only make it worst). Again, I saw this happening in my country, ~20 years ago, social services going the way of the shitter and basically the entire Government-run infrastructure crumbling on its own weight. It wasn't funny at all.

<comment><USER7> vi opyatj vse pereputalji, moj daragoy paganel.

<comment><USER8> "Again you are mistaken, my dear Paganel."

Care to elaborate? (Preferably in English.)

<comment><USER9> Reference to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Search_of_the_Castaways>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> For those who aren't sure why this matters there are two things to note.

First, interest will go up. US Bonds are now considered riskier than they were before. This means investors in US Bonds will expect to collect more interest due to the greater risk they are taking. Instead of paying China and Japan 3% (for example) on $1 trilion (each), the US will now have to pay 3.5% (and climbing). Of course, the higher the interest rate, the harder it is to pay back (the quicker a new ceiling is reached), the likelier this happens again.

There could be some pretty massive dumping of US bonds. A number of foreign investors can only carry AAA risk. (It's kinda unclear where they'll run to though, since I _think_ all the other AAA countries combined don't issue as much debt as the US). So, the economy might take a pretty big hit by losing all those investors.

Now, generally you need 2 of the big 3 rating agencies to trigger any of this. So it remains to be seen whether Moody or Fitch will follow. I think they both will.

Also worth mentioning is that Canada recently came back from a downgrade (by S&P) mostly by tightening their spending belt. Took 10 years (1992-2002). Australia did it too, though it took 7 years longer.

<comment><USER11> Again this is based on the same logic that people will treat the U.S. Government the same way they'd treat any other person and that's just not going to happen.

If the U.S. falls back into recession we'll take everyone with us. Other countries know this. Banks know this. Institutional Investors know this.

Increase the interest rate on the U.S. and you'll trigger an increase on the U.S. consumer while exacerbating the U.S. debt crisis (which is the whole reason for the downgrade). That would guarantee a recession and would bring every investment down.

Finally everyone knows what S&P is up to. You said it yourself. They aren't happy with U.S. policy and they've been able to bully other governments into austerity in the past. So they think they can do it here. But S&P's opinion of U.S. policy isn't going to be enough to convince investors to willingly create another recession

(Please note I'm in favor of austerity and think we're already headed into a recession I'm just realistic about S&P's limited power)

<comment><USER12> Some institutions are obligated (by charter or contract) to only buy AAA rated bonds. That's why it's a big deal... Now that being said, I have no idea how this would work in practice.

<comment><USER11> I'm sorry but that's bull. Anything can be changed. Contracts can be revised and even charters can be updated by a Board of Directors. If you hold a significant amount of U.S. Bonds you aren't going to ditch them on S&P's say so. You're going to call a meeting of the Board of Directors or Trustees or whoever and decide based on your own judgement.

The whole point of a rating agency is to provide you with research that you couldn't get based on your available resources. But every economist in the world is a resource on the U.S. Government's viability. You can turn on CNBC and get 24 hour coverage of it.

So the U.S. is a special case and the ratings agencies don't mean all that much in regards to it.

<comment><USER13> There is a lot of hope in your post. Investors will just move money to another country and there are enough who have much better grow rates. (China / India). Or entities who will bet on the downfall of the U.S and there will be countries who have a high interest in this.

On Monday you can short every major company the downfall will be significant. This will be very interesting to watch the next world recession is on our doorsteps.

Money does not care who you are or what you do.

<comment><USER14> Well, you might be surprised. Japan's market rallied 3% the day after their downgrade.

<comment><USER12> That's probably because the market thought they hit rock bottom. Markets like uncertainty less than bad news, so they are much happier knowing about the downgrade.

<comment><USER15> p.s. To your earlier point, the '40 ACT details investment requirements for Money Market Funds [can't think of them now, but you are right, there are numerous statutory requirements related to the grade of security certain bodies may invest in]:

<http://taft.law.uc.edu/CCL/InvCoRls/rule2a-7.html>

<comment><USER14> Those don't come into play because Moody's and Fitch maintained their AAA ratings for US treasuries.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This illustrates one of the risks of hostage-taking and the mistaken assumption of Republican leadership that the "hostage" (their words, not mine) wouldn't be harmed

see quote from Senate minority leader below

From [http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-debt-deal-the- triu...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-debt-deal-the-triumph-of- the-old-washington/2011/08/02/gIQARSFfqI_story_1.html)

 _But at the Capitol, behind the four doors and the three receptionists and the police guard, McConnell said he could imagine doing this again. "I think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you might take a chance at shooting," he said. "Most of us didn't think that. What we did learn is this - it's a hostage that's worth ransoming. And it focuses the Congress on something that must be done."_

 _[edit]: Interesting to see all the downvotes, but my comment had a direct quote from the GOP senate leader. Can anyone explain why they downvoted it.

As for temphn's point below. Has any Nobel laureate defended the "hostage taking" ?

Congress already controls both spending and taxation. So they can start fixing the deficit problem by cutting down on pork, cutting tax loopholes etc. Threatening to force a default is not the answer._

<comment><USER17> The question is whether you believe the issue would have become an issue even if the Republicans hadn't raised it now. Many people look at this as an intervention; if the US is addicted to oil, we are even more addicted to borrowing. I suppose it really comes down to whether you find multiplier/countercyclical spending arguments persuasive or not; Nobel Laureates come down on both sides.

<comment><USER18> The Republicans raising the issue was good and healthy for us. The clusterfuck that emerged in the months afterwards because of them refusing to pass any bill that didn't fall neatly into their little new imaginary rules was the problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Didn't S&P maintain that Lehman Brothers had a favorable rating up until they collapsed? And in the subsequent congressional hearings the rating agencies simply responded that the rating is their opinion. Why do people put so much faith in these ratings when they have proven to be not very useful in evaluating the risk associated with investing in an institution?

<comment><USER20> People put faith in them because not everyone can hire an army of experts to evaluate all possible investments. S&P supplies their ratings to life insurance companies, pensions funds and even municipal governments. These entities don't have the resources to employ that expertise in-house, so they rely on companies like S&P and Moody's to give them guidance.

<comment><USER21> thematt says

"so they rely on companies like S&P and Moody's to give them guidance."

And those companies fabricate data and sell it to them.

Perhaps not everyone should invest in areas where they have no possibility of understanding the risks.

<comment><USER22> "Perhaps not everyone should invest in areas where they have no possibility of understanding the risks."

You just managed to sum up the vast majority of economics problems. Humans are dumb though. Not much you can do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> One thing to keep in mind is that many institutional investors, including those in Europe, are required to invest _exclusively_ into triple-A instruments. This downgrade means a major sell-off of US bonds and whatnots currently held by such investors, and that could have an interesting avalanche effect.

<comment><USER24> What about China bailing. How bad does it need to get before they decide to pull out?

<comment><USER20> They would do that without hesitation. The problem (at the moment) is they have nowhere else to put that much money.

<comment><USER11> Its really not. If what you say was true they wouldn't still be actively buying U.S. Debt.

Their hesitation is they wouldn't get all their money back. If China pulled even 25% of its investments out of the U.S. the dollar would free fall. They wouldn't be able to cash out before most of the dollars value was inflated away.

China continues to buy our debt because they don't want the value of their current investment to collapse

<comment><USER25> that's not the only reason, they also need to keep buying it for as long as we're a sizable portion of their export market. We still are, for now..

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> ... and now all the random crap financial code out there that simply hard- codes "AAA" as the US credit rating will have problems. I bet a lot of people will be bug testing this change over the weekend.

EDIT: This seems to sum it up: [http://lostechies.com/johnpetersen/2011/07/16/the-impact- of-...](http://lostechies.com/johnpetersen/2011/07/16/the-impact-of-united- states-debt-crisis-on-technology/)

<comment><USER5> "Sorry, boss. Our positions are busted because we hard-coded AAA as the T-bill credit rating. Look on the bright side, everyone's got bigger things to worry about."

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> These are the same guys who rated subprime mortgage backed bonds AAA. How the rating agencies still have _any_ credibility is completely incomprehensible to me. I hope someone in the press has the wherewithal to make this point.

<comment><USER28> So are you saying that the US shouldn't have been AAA? Or that S&P should be regulated so that its hands are tied behind its back?

While the {S&P, Moodys, Fitch} sub-prime department obviously got completely ahead of itself modelling-wise, the corporate and sovereign departments have a lot of credibility : partly because they haven't been trying to assign values to 'a whole new way of doing things (this time it's different, etc)'.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> from the press release:

"The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. "

<comment><USER30> This really should be a call for both parties to start working together but it will most likely turbo charge the blame game.

<comment><USER31> Correct, and it's already begun:

[http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/gop-tries-to- shif...](http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/gop-tries-to-shift-blame- for-sp-downgrade-of-us-creditworthiness.php)

<comment><USER32> My favourite thing about that link is how it functions both ways. It _describes_ an example of Republicans trying to shift blame onto Democrats, and it _is_ an example of Democrats trying to shift blame onto Republicans.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> The real story is that S&P thinks downgrading the US debt will provide political cover against investigations into their role in the mortgage securities debacle by the SEC and Justice. They were determined to downgrade no matter what. Their original justification is the US didn't make their $4 trillion cut target. When Treasury showed them a $2 trillion dollar error in their arithmetic, they changed the justification to political gridlock. Time for a perp walk.

</comment><comment><USER34> Wanted to check out Krugman's take on this:

<http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/05/sp-and-the-usa/>

TLDR:

1) The 'madness of the right' holding the debt-ceiling hostage cost us the confidence of investors (and S&P).

2) The ratings agencies have shown they aren't qualified to rate anything, much less sovereign debt.

3) S&P miscalculated the downgrade by $2T before going ahead with it anyway.

4) S&P's magic number for averting a downgrade was $4T deficit reduction over the next decade. The Congressional deal failed to reach that, but according to Krugman that number is barely relevant to the US debt costs and should not effect the credit rating. The real downgrade risk is with long-term unfunded healthcare liabilities, which S&P seems to have ignored here.

</comment><comment><USER5> So it begins.

A quote: "The outlook on the new U.S. credit rating is negative, S&P said in a statement, a sign that another downgrade is possible in the next 12 to 18 months."

I.e., things are going to get a lot worse before they get worse.

Time to bring this back to a hacker's perspective. Is there any way to "hack" the system so as to get government finances to within commuting distance of sanity? Or have recent events already answered that question?

<comment><USER35> Letting the Bush tax cuts expire next year, and winding down operations in Iraq and Afghanistan would go a _long_ way to balancing the Federal budget.

As far as reducing the deficit goes, I have less insight into this. Except that making the Federal government's budget revenue-neutral is a critical first step.

<comment><USER36> > would go a long way to balancing the Federal budget

> as reducing the deficit goes, I have less insight into this

Balancing the budget is exactly reducing the deficit. It's the debt I suspect you have less insight into.

Frankly it's an embarrassment that they could only agree lower the deficit by less than 10%. They are a long way from addressing the debt.

<comment><USER35> Yes, you are correct. Long day and I'm confusing terms :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I am totally flabbergasted that media and governments would give one-shits- worth of consideration to what the credit ratings agencies have to say. The same agencies that gave high ratings to the sour derivatives market which eventually collapsed our economy. The ratings agencies are Wall Street shills. Lowering US Debt ratings will result in the US having to pay higher interest rates, which go into the pockets of the major financial firms. Government et al playing right into the hands of the banks.

</comment><comment><USER38> I am not American, and here's what I don't get: America can borrow money right now at 1.5% for five years. Why is there such a clamour to stop? I would hope that the government would be able to get better than 1.5% return with the money - if the CEO of any company chose not to take on debt at this rate they'd get fired. It seems like all of the media coverage is glossing over this.

<comment><USER39> The real problem is that the republicans are zealots of the church of voodoo economics.

The reality is that demand-side economics has stronger and more intelligent underpinnings (give money to individuals --> they spend --> increase demand --> hiring). Giving more cash to companies doesn't induce hiring; demand for products induces hiring.

<comment><USER40> You are absolutely correct here. When people have more money they tend to spend more and sales at corporations increase and thus the invest and hire more employees to meet the increased demand. How do we get more money in hand? Full payroll tax holiday + New deal 2.0.

<comment><USER41> We couldn't even pass New Deal 0.3b today, man. Can dream, though...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The SEC should criminally prosecute S&P, Fitch and Moody's for their corrupt participation in the financial meltdown. It should have been done sooner (the case was already made). To do so now would look like vengeance. But if vengeance is required then vengeance should be served.

Put their controlling officers in jail and shut down the companies forever.

[http://www.housingwire.com/2011/04/14/credit-ratings- agencie...](http://www.housingwire.com/2011/04/14/credit-ratings-agencies-a- key-cause-of-the-financial-crisis-senate-report)

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/13/credit-rating- agenc...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/13/credit-rating-agencies- triggered-crisis-report_n_848944.html)

</comment><comment><USER42> Yeah, the US deserves a downgrade. What pisses me off is that my wife and I have savings, live within our means, and if you believe Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff (which I do), there is going to be 5% to 10% yearly inflation for a good while that takes money from savers and basically gives it to debtors.

I am actually sympathetic to some debt forgiveness - it is not the people in need that I am pissed off at. Anyway, it is a mess, and everyone who is worth less than many millions of dollars is going to feel some pain.

I expected this economic collapse to happen after the 2030s - suddenly, after a few years of W. Bush's presidency I realized that the grand plan was to cause the collapse to happen much sooner.

<comment><USER43> So buy Canadian Bonds or Chilean Bonds or Gold or Silver or Apple stock.

<comment><USER44> You can't just quit the game.

You bought gold, which conserves your wealth ... and the government takes 15% to 50% of your "profit" (depending on your circumstances). Debasing by the fed together with the tax systems guarantees there's nothing you can do against it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Perfect. Obama and Boehner are doing an excellent job of what they are paid to do: transferring the wealth of the USA to Wall Street plutocrats. They've given the sleazeball so-called "rating" agencies the cover they need to demand higher interest rates.

No new taxes. No new jobs. I can't believe that folks who are in their 20s and 30s aren't throwing rocks at people my age (late 50s) for our generational greediness.

By the way, I had a six figure federal tax bill one year, when my cofounders and I sold a startup. Maybe I'm an aberration, but I was proud to be able to chip in that much to the government that paid for ARPA back in the day.

</comment><comment><USER46> I find that this graph summarizes my thoughts on the US debt in relation to the world economy: [http://www.china-mike.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/04/china-w...](http://www.china-mike.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/04/china-world-gdp_growth-chart-forutne-2011.jpg)

The United States produces _so much more_ in terms of GDP than the next largest nations that it's a stretch to compare them. I think the fact that we produce more than 2X what the next largest single nation produces means that debt may function differently for us. The global economy is complex enough that relative position can mean more than short term profit and loss.

Debt is a bad thing. But the debt ceiling we just fought over extending represents 1 year of USD GDP. In everyday terms, someone expected to make $100k per year being $100k in debt. To me that sounds more like a student loan than a national crisis.

Should we make changes, cut spending and increase revenue? Sure. But we should also keep the bigger picture in mind, and look at our debt as it fits into the context of a global economy.

<comment><USER47> Debt does function differently for the US; the US up till very recently were paying less interest than Germany, even though all economical indicators say Germany is doing better than the US.

I do not think that is directly because of GDP, though. It is because of the size of the US bond market. If you want to buy or sell US bonds, you can easier find a seller or buyer, the larger the market.

That is why people think Euro bonds (bonds issued by the EU, not by individual EU nations) would benefit even the financially stronger nations. They would create a huge market, and gain interest benefits from it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Please note that there are two other credit rating agencies, Moody's and Fitch, and both of them have stated that they have no current plans to downgrade US debt from AAA, although one of them did place a negative outlook on the US. So, generally as long as one of the three agencies has a AAA rating the debt is usually fine for most investment / trust purposes.

<comment><USER28> But now S&P has provided the others 'cover' for downgrading.

Since part of the reasoning of S&P was that US politicians were willing to play chicken with events of default, I don't see that this is an easy hole for the US to dig out of. The fact that politicians in the US were openly discussing 'how bad would a default really be' sums up why the AAA rating was no longer deserved.

IMHO, 80% likely that the other agencies will follow within a couple of weeks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> I just got a NYTimes news alert that S&P is in fact holding off on downgrading the US based on the math error that was discovered.

Did anyone else see that come through? Is NYT just behind a little?

<comment><USER50> If so it might be an interesting political tactic on S&P's part. Issue a downgrade to show you're serious, but include a 'math error' that justifies an almost-immediate retraction.

If a ratings agency feels that it's necessary to use scare tactics, that's scary enough in itself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> If the government that produces the reserve currency can't hold up a AAA rating, what can? The idea that anything else should have a AAA rating if the US gov't doesn't seems a little ridiculous to me on face value.

<comment><USER28> The implication is really the other way around. The USD was the reserve currency in part because of the credibility of the US government's financials (and also because of amount of trade, etc). But obviously, the US has taken a huge beating credibility-wise recently.

After all, Sterling used to be the world's reserve currency : things change.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> I wonder what would have happened if S&P dropped the rating during the trading day, and not after the markets closed. We probably would have seen another -500 point drop on the DJI.

<comment><USER29> They wait until late friday to make big changes to give the officaldom/industry a weekend to scramble/grab parachutes. They actually didnt release today until after the SPY stopped trading.

<comment><USER52> I wonder if they, the parachutes, will be golden this time around.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> End of the day, these are the same jokers who were rating junk assets as AAA and completely missed every problem in this financial crisis.

And the fact that moody's still maintains Aaa means that there's a nonzero chance it will have no effect. I hope.

</comment><comment><USER40> This is a non-issue and further proof of the incompetency and worthlessness of Wall Street. The ratings agencies are out of macro-economic paradigm. The US federal government can meet any and all financial USD obligations because it is an issuer of currency as opposed to a user of currency such as Euro-zone states or US states. Of coarse it is possible that politicians refuse to pass the necessary legislation to meet these obligations ( not raising or eliminating the debut ceiling). Read more at www.moslereconomics.com

</comment><comment><USER53> Mindboggling. Does the S&P understand that the U.S. debt is all denominated in a currency that the U.S. government can print at will? If the U.S. government doesn't have an AAA rating, what does an AAA rating even mean?

At the moment, the national "debt" is over $10 trillion dollars, while the total supply of currency is about $2 trillion, and total government profits are about negative $1.5 trillion. If we assume that the government will not use it's powers as fiat-currency-creator to back the national debt, than the proper credit rating of the U.S. is F. There is no way it could possibly pay back the debt. The debt is five times greater than the total supply of dollars. It's debt to profits ratio is way worse than many bankrupt companies. On the other hand, if we assume that the government will continue to use its power of fiat to back the debt, then the rating is AAA. It's safer in nominal terms than any other sort of debt. It is the baseline, the reference point. No other dollar-denominated debt can possibly be safer.

So you have two possibilities for the U.S. "debt" - AAA or F. Rating it anything else just demonstrates extraordinary ignorance.

<comment> T-hawk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking>

Fractional-reserve banking might be a good topic to review. It is entirely possible for more debt than currency to exist. Suppose you deposit $100 at a bank, which lends $80 of it to Alice. She deposits her $80 in another bank which lends $60 to Bob. So that's a perfectly legit scenario where more debt ($140) exists than currency ($100). And it doesn't mean that the debt can never be paid back.

> So you have two possibilities for the U.S. "debt" - AAA or F. Rating it > anything else just demonstrates extraordinary ignorance.

Did you just call the entirety of Standard & Poor's, a leading financial firm for over 150 years, extraordinarily ignorant? What basis can you demonstrate that you understand the world and national economies and credit markets better than a few thousand really smart economists? There certainly does exist a spectrum between being the safest investment in the world and currently actually in default (which is what an F actually means.)

That said, it's true that S&P changing their rating doesn't have much concrete meaning. S&P didn't actually make the government any weaker than yesterday. Nobody knows what's going to happen next. S&P is guessing like the rest of us, although the guess is built on the strength of some very sophisticated financial models and analytical tools.

<comment><USER53> History shows that fractional reserve banking is incredibly unstable with that degree of leverage. As soon as there is the slightest hint of fear of bankruptcy, everyone hoards cash, no one can repay loans, and thousands of banks go bankrupt. See for reference every single recession and depression before the creation of the FDIC.

The only reason fractional reserve works now is because there is an FDIC and Federal Reserve who will create new money any time there is excessive demand for people to convert deposits into cash. Fractional reserve only works because of the fiat powers of the government. So my point stands - if you assume the U.S. is using its fiat powers, then the debt is AAA. If you assume the U.S. is not using its fiat powers, then the U.S. should have the debt rating of an over-leveraged, 1929 private bank - ie, extremely low.

 _Did you just call the entirety of Standard & Poor's, a leading financial firm for over 150 years, extraordinarily ignorant?_

Yes I did. And why shouldn't I? Maybe the S&P was glorious a hundred years ago. But the last few years their track record has been dismal. See for reference the entire subprime fiasco.

 _What basis can you demonstrate that you understand the world and national economies and credit markets better than a few thousand really smart economists?_

All I have his my own brain, and my use of reason, logic and evidence. You either buy my arguments or you don't. If you're not willing to use your own reason, and base your views entirely on appeals to authority, then there really is not any point in further discussion.

If you wish to see my arguments laid out in further detail, I do have a blog. Here are some general thoughts on the economy: [http://intellectual- detox.com/assorted-thoughts-on-the-econo...](http://intellectual- detox.com/assorted-thoughts-on-the-economy/) It's only been nine months since I posted that article, but so far my predictions have been spot on.

Here is a post I wrote about the national debt: [http://intellectual- detox.com/why-the-national-debt-is-non-p...](http://intellectual- detox.com/why-the-national-debt-is-non-problem/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> S&P is the same agency that rated AAA mortgage backed securities. not exactly a brain trust over there. my guess is they took this route for publicity.

again the same group that rated a bunch of debt AAA when it was junk. what is their motivation?

<comment><USER55> So they rated junk as AAA. Do you imply US bonds are junk because they have been rated until now AAA by the agency?

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> "It doesn't make sense. In Omaha, the U.S. is still Triple-A rated and if there were a Quadruple-A I'd give the U.S. that." -Warren Buffett

</comment><comment><USER57> "Treasury officials noticed a $2 trillion error in S&P's math that delayed an announcement for several hours." - [http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405311190336650...](http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903366504576490841235575386.html?mod=WSJPRO_hpp_LEFTTopStories).

Says it all.

</comment><comment><USER58> From Khan Academy last week:

Government's Financial Condition <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOiw5aBrm4Y>

(Khan was a Hedge fund analyst)

</comment><comment><USER59> Some great non-hair-on-fire conversation here. Whenever I read and note that most folks are not that far apart on things, I keep wondering why the system is so broken. Here's the systemic problem, which has nothing to do with Treasury Bills, tax structures, or political parties.

Phases of political maturity:

1) Apathy. Political parties are like football teams. You pick one and they're your guys. You root for them no matter what. If anything, there might be something wrong about folks who take these things too seriously.

2) Emotion. The other political party is the devil. They are out to destroy America.

3) Enlightenment. The other party is just full of people like me. There are some smart folks, but the problem is that they have all the wrong incentives and conclusions.

4) Understanding. Gee, there are those same bad conclusions and wrong incentives in my favorite party too. Ergo, parties don't matter. There are smart people everywhere. When the system fails, it's a problem of the system, not of the people or parties.

The problem in the U.S. is that the majority of folks are in stage 1 or 2 when we need them to be in 4. So when deep structural conversations come along, they're still either rooting for their team or blaming the other guys, when they should be talking about principles that need to be changed for the entire system to work better, no matter what the actual goals of any party.

There is another problem that helps create deadlock -- an understanding of where the money comes from. I think many folks view the economy as something the government grows so that it can harvest money in the form of taxes. (This is not a Keynesian discussion, simply a discussion about taxes in general.) Other folks view the government as something the economy grows in order to keep it functioning. These are two deeply conflicting world-views. I'm not sure you'll ever reconcile them. Some put trading first and sharing second. Many put sharing first and trading second. These two camps have come to demonize the others, sadly. (Which takes us back to the observation above)

For this problem to be solved, we need to give up on arguing specific issues or philosophical positions and instead talk about fixing structures so that the budget stays balanced long-term no matter who is in power or what their priorities are. This is a meta conversation, the kind the framers had. I am very doubtful there is anyone around today in power that can handle it. Not a happy outlook. All of the people in political power got that way by playing ideological and rhetorical games and by being fiercely loyal to their party. It's the exact opposite qualifications for folks that would have a chance at actually solving anything.

I think we could talk forever and reach general agreement informally on all number of things, but if the system remains broken, it's all going to be for nothing, sadly. Without an honest look at meta systemic issues, a free-for-all discussion around U.S. policy is all so much activity without results.

<comment><USER60> Actually, I think there's a stage before all this:

0) Withdrawal. No political party represents me, and the ones in existence represent other groups. There's nothing I can do to change the system, and it's not even worthwhile voting. I'm going to watch Jersey Shore.

In most Western countries, there's a lot of people in stage 0. It's a problem for any putative democracy.

<comment><USER61> Actually, withdraw may be the last stage (or at least the most logical one). Public choice theory looks at this in depth. Essentially, if your vote doesn't really matter (and statistically it almost never does), then understanding may be too much work with too little payoff. I would say that is why the founders thought limited government was best (although that seems to no longer actually be the case)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Has the US ever not had a AAA credit rating from S&P (until now)?

<comment><USER29> Has always had AAA rating since the start of sovereign ratings. Look out below.

<comment><USER63> .. and that was in 1918. So basically this is the first time in almost 100 years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> It's not just US the whole world economy system is screwed. Look what happens in Europe.

People should really make some radical improvements to the way economy and finance system work. The main things: it should be simplified and transparent.

If only a few experts understand what happens how could the system be reliable and secure? Everyone also knows that the more complicated is the system the higher is the failure rate.

<comment><USER65> > If only a few experts understand what happens how could the system be > reliable and secure?

Would you rather fly in a 747, or something from 100 years ago? The latter is far, far simpler and easily understood by non-experts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> The ensuing blame game and rage depresses me:

[http://youropenbook.org/?q=AAA+obama&gender=any](http://youropenbook.org/?q=AAA+obama&gender=any)

[http://youropenbook.org/?q=aaa+republicans&gender=any](http://youropenbook.org/?q=aaa+republicans&gender=any)

[http://youropenbook.org/?q=aaa+democrats&gender=any](http://youropenbook.org/?q=aaa+democrats&gender=any)

[http://youropenbook.org/?q=AAA+tea+party&gender=any](http://youropenbook.org/?q=AAA+tea+party&gender=any)

[http://youropenbook.org/?q=aaa+congress&gender=any](http://youropenbook.org/?q=aaa+congress&gender=any)

[http://youropenbook.org/?q=aaa+politicians&gender=any](http://youropenbook.org/?q=aaa+politicians&gender=any)

I have my own opinions as to who's responsible and what amger is well placed, but I think one can draw their own conclusions.

Yes I know these are a limited sample set of people who have set their profiles to public. But still...

</comment><comment><USER67> The true shame is not loosing some arbitrary rating from some arbitrary organization, but that this action still matters even after said organization was shown, conclusively, to behave in a completely arbitrary and ultimately self-serving way.

</comment><comment><USER68> S&P's report is here: [http://www.standardandpoors.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobheade...](http://www.standardandpoors.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobheadername3=MDT- Type&blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobheadervalue2=inline%3B+filename%3DUS_Downgraded_AA%2B.pdf&blobheadername2=Content- Disposition&blobheadervalue1=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobheadername1=content- type&blobwhere=1243942957443&blobheadervalue3=UTF-8)

<comment><USER69> I love to hear them tell it like it is, all matter-of-fact like that. S&P ought to run as a 3rd-party presidential candidate in 2012.

It's about time somebody brought down the cluebat.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> I wonder if the downgrade is because the US might be unwilling to pay its debts or because they feel the people may be unwilling to bailout the banks again?

<comment><USER71> The downgrade is because the US Gov is spending far more than it's taking in. In other words, it's for the same reason that every other person / business / government gets downgraded. It's important to realize that there's no magic here.

<comment><USER72> You cannot compare 'person' and 'business' with government. The government has the ability to print money, whereas the other two do not. The only reason they don't print money to pay off all their debts is because it will result in massive inflation.

The reason the European debt crises is so serious is because the adoption of the euro means that no individual contry can print their own money to avoid default.

<comment><USER73> Inflating your way out of debt is as bad to debt holders as a (partial) default.

<comment><USER72> I agree that is bad for debt holders, but from a political stand point, it is easier to gradually print money to devalue your debt than it is to default.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> This is the beginning of the end of the dollar as the worlds reserve currency, its bad for the rest of the world and only good for the US, its imbalanced.

I am not so sure most Americans are ready for what the world will be like when it happens, because unless the need for a regular deficit is reduced and reliance for imported oil curbed, it will be very painful indeed.

</comment><comment><USER75> This downgrade may just be the first sign of real problems to come. For detailed coverage of the coming US financial storm see the documentary I.O.U.S.A. from former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker (I've seen it on Netflix streaming).

<http://www.iousathemovie.com>

</comment><comment><USER76> It seems that for the last 40 years we've been in one huge bubble - <USER2> 'American bubble.' Overconfidence in the continual growth, recovery and viability of US economics is finally coming to an end, and most of the globe is exposed.

</comment><comment><USER77> So keep an eye on treasury bonds on monday morning. Rate goes up, people still believe the US is safe, regardless of S&P. Rate goes down, market sentiment mirrors S&P's rating, and that's very very bad.

</comment><comment><USER58> (via angriers@reddit)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_credit_rat...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_credit_rating)

</comment><comment><USER78> from the S&P rationale section of their press release:

"Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act."

</comment><comment><USER79> S&P source:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2853064>

</comment><comment><USER80> WOW....talk about CAJONES! I must tip my hat to S&P. This one...just WOW.

I mean, I am not a conspiracy theorist by any stretch of the imagination, but I just never imagined that they would be able to pull the trigger.

All it takes is some 'investigation' by the US Treasury into S&P and that's it....game over. Not that I think the US Treasury will retaliate....but WOW. I never thought they would take this step.

Good for them.

Double-dip recession, here we come.

<comment><USER81> It's Cojones. Cajones means drawers.

<comment><USER80> Sorry....my bad.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> THere is a simple solution to the Social Security "crisis". Right now only income up to 100,000 is subject to social security taxes. Anything over 100,000 is not taxed for social security. If we raised taxable income to 150,000 or 200,000 even we'd have plenty of money.

<comment><USER82> I'd love if some of the downvoters could explain 1) why I'm wrong or 2) what an alternative would look like?

</comment></comment><comment><USER83> I don't care about karma burn; F&$# those damn ignorant republicans

</comment><comment><USER84> So, anyone know what happened to whoever bet 1bil that we'd lose AAA?

</comment><comment><USER85> Regardless how you take this news, S&P just bought themselves a whole bunch of free advertising.

I don't think that was their primary goal but their name is now going to be mentioned on every newscast and in every paper everywhere for weeks.

</comment><comment><USER86> Raise the taxes on the rich! Jesus Christ!

</comment><comment><USER86> All the seemingly smart guys here, producing stupid arguments. Stop thinking how to cut children's lunch and start thinking how to get a 2nd job!

</comment><comment><USER87> The debt is not the problem.

</comment><comment><USER88> The chickens will come home to roost. It's just as simple as that.

</comment><comment><USER89> That's a good news and a wake up call.

</comment><comment><USER82> THer

</comment><comment><USER90> An answer to the question we're all wondering- "What happens now" answered well in a planet money from a couple of weeks ago: [http://www.npr.org/2011/07/18/138164761/what-happens-if- u-s-...](http://www.npr.org/2011/07/18/138164761/what-happens-if-u-s-bond- ratings-are-downgraded)

TL;DR - "I'm not sure it will have any impact. When you look at the bond market — 10-year U.S. Treasuries, for example — where is it today? In the light of all this hype about debt ceilings and possible defaults, it's at 2.93 today, so this is an extremely low interest rate in both nominal and real terms. It means that everyone in the world is willing to hold these bonds and is not the least bit worried about the possibility of a default. So, investors haven't changed their view of the creditworthiness of the United States at all, and I don't think they're likely to in the foreseeable future." -Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research

<comment><USER80> The reason yields have been so low is because a) there is no other 'safe haven' for investors to flock to, and b) the markets generally didn't anticipate a downgrade.

A downgrade, even if the markets don't raise Yields, can be catastrophic because many financial institutions (mutual funds, insurance companies, unit trusts, etc.) can only hold AAA rated securities in their portfolios - <USER3> some central banks can only hold AAA rated securities as collateral in some situations.

So, legally, they will not be able to hold on to American gov't debt, even if they wanted to. The mere fact that a ton of people will be flooding the market with debt, will push up yields and that will lead to other catastrophic consequences.

I expect that the Fed will buy a ton of bonds to push down yields and keep the Treasuries Interest costs low - but they will have to print a ton of money to do that....which will lead to inflation, which leads to higher yields which leads to higher interest costs, and creates a crazy cycle.

You get the idea.

However, that's just theory - in a perfectly balanced global economy that's not fragile. In this global economy, I suspect that there might be a concerted effort to loosen standards to prevent a mass exodus out of US Treasuries, but at least this sends a strong signal that the ratings agencies are serious.

<comment><USER91> How does this play out with the multiple ratings firms though?

<comment><USER80> Good question...I think the actual legal rules are probably something like you have to maintain AAA from 2 out of the 3 rating agencies or something of that nature.

They do account for multiple ratings agencies having different opinions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER92> Took those lazy rating agencies a while.

\- 1.6 Trillion budget deficit

\- 14 Trillion national debt

\- 55 Trillion US total debt

\- 115 Trillion Unfunded liabilities

\- 17% U6 unemployment

\- 45.8 Million Americans on Food Stamps

\- 52 Million Americans without health insurance

\- 1/2 of mortgages are underwater

\- 63% labor participation rate, lowest since early 80s

\- -5% in Real medium household income in the last 10 years

\- 25% of US households have zero or negative net worth

\- 1 out of every 45 households was hit with foreclosure

\- average length of unemployment is now 40 weeks

<comment><USER93> The S&P rating is only an assessment of risk in the US Treasury bonds, not a general rating of entire US economy.

<comment><USER94> That's wrong, the GDP and expected GDP is a big part of the rating-- known as the "capacity to repay".

<comment><USER93> Doesn't the phrase "capacity to repay" make it clear that GDP matters only to the extent that it is a risk factor?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER95> One minor elephant in the room that only a few seem to be mentioning is the 500+ point selloff on Thursday.

On Thursday evening, the economist talking-heads expressed some confusion about what was driving that sell-off on that particular day. There was vague talk of problems in Europe, although there has been worse news out of the Eurozone for months without that kind of drop.

On Friday, we get the S & P announcement of a decision that may impact markets. One can only imagine when this particular decision was actually made.

What drove the sell-off on Thursday?

<comment><USER96> Someone in S&P leaked the downgrade ahead of time?

<comment><USER97> Unlikely, there's a reasonable chance you could face jail time if you were caught doing such a thing and probably wouldn't be able to work in the financial industry ever again.

So your upside would essentially have to be a huge amount of money, but of course you're much more likely to get caught if you're moving around such a large sum.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How big effort do you think building a top quality OS would be? - <AUTHOR> Starting completely from scratch with the latest theories and long term planning of what an OS actually should do.
End result should be a forward looking Windows or MacOS or Linux equivalent.
I want to know your estimates of 1. Costs 2. People needed 3. If you think there will ever be another major OS gaining popularity. <comment><USER2> You won't be able to succeed, regardless of cost or people.

The reason are a few words in your problem statement: "top quality" and "Windows or MacOS or Linux" equivalent. Successful products don't get built this way, where you shoot from the beginning to build something excellent and basically copy what counts as "excellent" in the market right now. The problem is that you're chasing after the current state of the art, but in the time it takes you to catch up to it, the state of the art will have moved forwards. And so on, in a Zeno's paradox situation. Eventually all your engineers will get disheartened and leave, and you write off the project as a failure.

"Nobody should start to undertake a large project. You start with a small trivial project, and you should never expect it to get large. If you do, you'll just overdesign and generally think it is more important than it likely is at that stage. Or worse, you might be scared away by the sheer size of the work you envision. So start small, and think about the details. Don't think about some big picture and fancy design. If it doesn't solve some fairly immediate need, it's almost certainly over-designed. And don't expect people to jump in and help you. That's not how these things work. You need to get something half-way useful first, and then others will say "hey, that almost works for me", and they'll get involved in the project." \-- Linus Torvalds

If you want to write a new OS that has a chance of market success, you should pick _one_ dimension that current OSes do a shitty job at. Security might be a good choice, or making it work on whatever embedded processors are in vogue with hardware startups now, or maybe give it 10x better performance when running Node.js application servers. And then let yourself suck in _every other dimension_. If you're building a secure OS, make sure that everything from the drivers to filesystem (if it even has one) to applications are ironclad, but let the UI suck or even omit one. If you're targeting hardware startups, make sure it works for their needs, but forget about UI, or networking other than Bluetooth, or running on x86 hardware. If you're making the fastest Node.js server around, optimize for performance, make sure it can run stock apps, but maybe the _only_ thing it'd run on is AWS and it won't have a GUI or OS scheduler.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is a brilliant answer, thank you. Lot's of solid advice about projects in general in there as well.

I guess I find it a bit disheartening there are no game changer desktop OSes having had even moderate success for the past few years. I like variety.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> [https://github.com/mntmn/interim](https://github.com/mntmn/interim) has 3 contributors and has commits going back longer than Jul 24th.

Seriously though, this might answer one of your questions [https://www.reddit.com/r/compsci/comments/qfsob/rob_pike_on_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/compsci/comments/qfsob/rob_pike_on_why_systems_software_research_is/)</comment>


BKED, the DOS text editor that rendered text the hard way - <AUTHOR> http://www.tnhh.net/posts/bked-gui-as-tui.html <comment><USER2> Very impressive use of modest resources to great effect. From the article:

"BKED (pronounced buh-ked, e as in kept) was the de-facto text editor in Vietnam in the 80s-90s. ... BKED runs on MS-DOS and looks just like Microsft Editor aka edit.com, except for it displays and allows the user to input text in Vietnamese. ... it is a full-blown GUI that runs in Hercules/CGA/EGA/VGA graphics .... It draws every single pixel in its GUI with no acceleration ... It had to do it very quickly and economically – computers in Vietnam at the time were all old secondhand ones imported from the US recycling centers and such. ... it could also do quite sophisticated mathematical formulas and chart drawing. ... the editor was used to typeset the whole suite of national textbooks on every subject in the 90s." Several screenshots in the article demonstrate the features.</comment>


Ask HN: How hard should engineers work? - <AUTHOR>

I'm in a small startup and do pretty much every but code. The devs on our team work around 30 hours a week it seems (time spent actually coding).  Does this seem reasonable?  It seems like on one hand overworking devs isn't good but at the same time are we being hampered by not pushing hard on the dev front? <comment><USER2> Most difficult problems I've tackled, the most complex algorithms, the most elegant code, took less than 30 minutes to type. They took several weeks of working on other things, of pondering the ways to approach it, several false starts and then a spark of genius. Honestly, you can't measure development time in hours spent typing, or even hours in the office. Measure by output.

</comment><comment><USER3> Don't micromanage the developers. Work with them to set goals, get explanation when goals aren't met, and celebrate when they are.

In my experience, developers actually work way more than the 30-40 hours a week they're "in the office" - they are thinking about the problems they're trying to solve when they're at home or when they're laying in bed, etc. You can't think of it as a clocking in / clocking out type of job.

</comment><comment><USER4> If the devs aren't hitting their targets, that's a problem. If they are hitting their targets, but you think they are capable of more then make the schedule more aggressive.

However, I should point out that thinking for a living is a little different than many other modes of employment - just because they aren't typing doesn't mean they aren't working.

<comment><USER5> "just because they aren't typing doesn't mean they aren't working"

The harder the problem, the less time you spend at the keyboard relative to the total project time.</comment></comment>


JQuery's best friends - <AUTHOR> http://jquerysbestfriends.com/

<comment><USER2> Maybe it's because I've been up for awhile, but I couldn't make the slideshow move to the next slide with my mouse.

It turns out you need to use your arrow keys.

A suggestion: detect the right and left edges of the browser window, and capture click events to move the slide next/prev.

</comment><comment><USER3> Holy flicker. I went to scroll down and OMG FLASH FLASH FLASH. Tab closed. Ouch!</comment>


The History of Git - <AUTHOR> https://www.welcometothejungle.com/en/articles/btc-history-git <comment><USER2> Google seems like a poor example for a company using git. Yes many of their open source projects are under git, but the huge monorepo that holds all the proprietary code works with Piper [0]

[0] [https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2016/7/204032-why-google- stor...](https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2016/7/204032-why-google-stores- billions-of-lines-of-code-in-a-single-repository/fulltext)

<comment><USER3> It should be noted for those who have not worked at google (since piper is proprietary) that it works quite similarly to perforce.

<comment><USER4> (Early in my gamedev career, I've started with CVS/VSS quickly to switch to p4, then went for 2 years to google using CiTC+g4, then back to gamedev with p4).

Even the tool is called "g4" from "p4", has similar style of commands. The best part is that I can work from any directory ("client" p4 terms - [https://www.perforce.com/manuals/v17.1/cmdref/Content/CmdRef...](https://www.perforce.com/manuals/v17.1/cmdref/Content/CmdRef/p4_client.html)) and in "g4" they all have virtual (unrealized) view + merges from my changes. What's even more appealing, is that I can do that from home, from a browser - no VPN, just UbiKey + [https://cloud.google.com/beyondcorp/](https://cloud.google.com/beyondcorp/) \- then I can even start a build (not on my laptop, it's just a dumb terminal at this point). I can later even (try) to debug with interface like [https://source.chromium.org/](https://source.chromium.org/) but my jobs on borg - not real debug, but I can add print statements, and it'll sync with the CL (changelist number) of my pushed binary.

So - this is all cool. But then I never really knew how many people, and how man-hours were behind this coolness..

One of the things I miss about Google, is exactly that dedication to the engineer and make their work not impeded.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm sorry, I'm getting way too bored in the meeting I'm in atm, but I believe this is false:

> With distributed VCS, a copy of the most current version of the code resides > on each developer's device

There is nothing that can guarantee the copy you have is the latest. Can be very far back, can be forward, can be diverged to hell.

<comment><USER6> In fact that description is even more wrong since every RCS has a copy of the checked out tree -- that's the whole point of an RCS!

With git (why does that article insist on spelling it "Git"?) you have a copy of the whole tree, so every clone can also be a an upstream tree for somebody else if desired.

<comment><USER7> AFAICT, Git documentation capitalizes the first letter:

> The advantages of Git compared to other source control systems. [0]

> You can learn more about individual Git commands with "git help command". > [1]

[0] [https://git-scm.com](https://git-scm.com) [1] [http://man7.org/linux/man- pages/man1/git.1.html](http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man1/git.1.html)

<comment><USER6> Interesting, old programs like 'rm' only use lower case but new programs like bash and git (or should I say "Bash" and "Git") capitalize the program name sometimes.

Given that Unix (not "unix") inherited case sensitivity from Multics I would expect more consistency in the spelling.

(Clearly I'm focusing on the most important topics in computing!)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This article is great for attributing Git's success to not only Linus Torvald's core creation but also subsequent contributions from Hamano, King, Schindelin, Pearce, and many others [1] in the community. Git's core architecture was critical but would not have succeeded without the ecosystem that grew around it.

[1]: [https://github.com/git/git/graphs/contributors](https://github.com/git/git/graphs/contributors)

One technical error in the article was understating the distributed nature of Git:

> With distributed VCS, a copy of the _most current version_ of the code > resides on each developer's device, making it easier for developers to work > independently on changes to the code.

Replacing s/ _most current version_ / _all versions_ / gives us the technically correct statement:

> With distributed VCS, a copy of _all versions_ of the code resides on each > developer's device, making it easier for developers to work independently on > changes to the code.

Having _all versions_ of code is what allows local branch, rebase, merge, and conflict resolution before pushing those changes to the shared repo.

</comment><comment><USER9> This reminds be of a talk I watched by Richard Hipp, "Git: Just Say No" [0] where he discusses a "top 10 git enhancements" list, as of the time (4 years ago.) It's a good talk, and caused me to discover Fossil SCM. Sadly I've yet to try/use Fossil, and my teams still use git.

      [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghtpJnrdgbo

<comment><USER10> I'm not convinced by Hipp's claim that storing a repo in a single file (SQLite database) is somehow superior to storing a repo in a filesystem directory than contains many files. What am I missing?

<comment><USER11> I don't actually remember making that argument. But I will try to reconstruct my thinking...

(1) Keeping an entire repo in a single file is a better abstraction. There is just one file to move around or rename. There is a single icon on your desktop to drag around or double-click on. There is a single file to attach to an email. There is a single file to measure the size of when judging the size of a repository. And so forth.

Lots of programs bundle multiple entities into a single file for convenience like this. For example, a DOCX file is really a ZIP archive containing lots of individual pieces. Would you rather your document be a single DOCX file, or a directory full of the individual pieces. Which would be more convenient to use, do you suppose? How is a VCS repository different from a DOCX file in this respect?

Another way to look at this: Breaking up a repository into a directory full of separate files exposes internal implementation details to the user.

(2) Perhaps I was making the argument that a relational database is better than a key/value database for holding a repository. (A directory full of files is just a kind of key/value database after all.) There are countless reasons why relational databases work better than key/value databases. One example: With Git, given an individual check-in, it is difficult to discover the descendants of that check-in. It is so difficult, in fact, that none of the common Git tools provide that capability, and Git workflows are engineered (perhaps subconsciously) to avoid the need to ever figure out what comes after a specific check-in. But if Git used a relational database to store content, finding the descendants of a check-in would be a fast and simple query.

(3) I/O to a single relational database is faster than I/O to individual files on disk. See [https://www.sqlite.org/fasterthanfs.html](https://www.sqlite.org/fasterthanfs.html) for details.

<comment><USER10> Regarding (1), I just ran across an old blog post by Scott Chacon about using git bundles.

[http://scottchacon.com/2010/03/10/bundles.html](http://scottchacon.com/2010/03/10/bundles.html)

git-bundle documentation: [https://git-scm.com/docs/git-bundle](https://git- scm.com/docs/git-bundle)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> So can anyone explain no one considered that you might want to ultimately use a different hashing algorithm than sha1?

All hashing algorithms have a shelf life before it becomes feasible to compromise them such that you need to migrate to something more secure.

Yet the Git format seems but built for this are all. No hash versioning, no allowance for multiple hashes and no way you define the hash size such that now it seems like moving on from sha1 is going to be a giant pain.

TCP/IP had this from many years earlier (a version at least). This seems like such a glaring oversight. Or am I missing something?

<comment><USER13> It could be that they knew that the hash algorithm was good for uniqueness and they were unconcerned about security. The SHA1 hash provides no security in git, only whether a file has been changed or not.

While collisions have been found in SHA1, it is still a decent hashing algorithm where collisions are extremely unlikely.

<comment><USER14> > collisions are extremely unlikely

Random collisions are quite unlikely, intentional collisions not so much.

> The SHA1 hash provides no security in git

False. OpenPGP signatures in git depend on the SHA1 hash. Same for someone doing a checkout at a specific hash because they trust it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Let's begin at the beginning, Chapter da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709.

Of course, that's tongue-in-cheek. It all began with e83c5163316f89bfbde7d9ab23ca2e25604af290.

<comment><USER16> sha1("") == da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

and 'e83c5163316f89bfbde7d9ab23ca2e25604af290' is the inital commit of git itself: [https://github.com/git/git/tree/e83c5163316f89bfbde7d9ab23ca...](https://github.com/git/git/tree/e83c5163316f89bfbde7d9ab23ca2e25604af290)

<comment><USER17> >random three-letter combination that is pronounceable, and not actually used by any common UNIX command.

>actually

Many native French speakers use 'actually' when they mean 'currently' because of the 'actuellement' false-cognate. This looks like the same mistake but neither Swedish nor Finnish have a word that looks like 'actually' when I machine-translate 'currently'.

Any ideas?

<comment><USER18> I know nothing of Finnish, but, in poking around on Google translate, I found 'nykyinen', commonly translated as 'currently', but sometimes as 'existing'. To rephrase the sentence to say "there is no existing use..." would be a little awkward in English, but would convey the same message.

I felt that in this particular sentence, neither 'actually' nor 'currently' are necessary, but to be sure I wanted to check the context, only to find that this sentence is not currently to be found in the article.

<comment><USER19> Finn here. I don't think the use of "actually" comes from any Finnish expression specifically but it might be some sort of literary habit that stems from the desire to emphasize how things turned out to be. It's somewhat common in Finnish to say how things turned out, rather than that someone (or you) made it so.

Thinking about it, I might've used the word in a similarly redundant fashion myself occasionally.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> What is that font?

<comment><USER21> I don't know but I don't like it, at least for a long form article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> The history of Git, told with a font that's only feature is making the letter G unreadable.

<comment><USER23> [https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-reader-view- clu...](https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-reader-view-clutter-free- web-pages)</comment></comment>


Secret court reveals justification for NSA's mass data collection - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57603402-38/secret-court-reveals-justification-for-nsas-mass-data-collection/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title <comment><USER2> So in their minds, 3rd degree relations are "relevant" to an investigation? This sounds like they're just trying to save their asses.

Phone metadata collection is illegal in many countries, and can be illegal in US, too. Citzens just need to want it bad enough (even though I still think this ruling of the "secret court" is BS):

[http://holt.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view...](http://holt.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1200&Itemid=18)</comment>