My Startup School Europe talk: The Technology - <AUTHOR> http://paulbuchheit.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-technology.html <comment><USER2> What a great article! Lots to think about here.

I'll highlight one point that I think is really important: Kill all daemon processes. Psychotherapy is a process that is designed to help quiet these menacing internal voices (harmful parent voices, self-doubt etc.). There are different therapy orientations: cognitive-behavioral therapy, interpersonal therapy, psychodynamic therapy, etc. They approach these outdated programs in different ways. CBT tries to kill them by applying logic (e.g., My startup is going to fail! [what rational evidence do you have for that belief?]) Relational approaches try to better understand the threatening feeling or impulse that triggers the harmful programs. It focuses on the defense used to keep the threatening feeling in check and anxiety at bay (e.g., I'm really afraid of failing [emotion = fear of failing], so I become a driven workaholic to try to avoid this outcome and feel less anxiety [defense]). A relatively recent innovation in the therapy space is Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. The key insight is that often the attempt to control, diminish, or avoid pain is what keeps you entangled in the pain. Simply making space for the pain, sinking into it, observing it, and feeling it, is what allows it to become disentangled. This, however, is very hard to do, b/c the natural impulse is to avoid pain and the issues that cause pain.

Here is a helpful short video that metaphorically captures the ACT disentanglement process (Demons on a Boat): [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-wyaP6xXwE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-wyaP6xXwE).

Okay, one last point, I'm game for doing my small part to help reach the impossible goal. This is going to be a collaborative project right? : )

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks Glen! 7cups is definitely among the startups that are helping to get us there. I believe that most conflict is ultimately rooted in internal conflict -- happy, healthy people don't go out and pick fights.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I really enjoyed this - really energizing and inspiring. It's always great to get that jolt once in a while.

>> "We now, for the first time ever, have the technology and resources necessary to make the world a great place for everyone. We can provide adequate food, housing, education, and healthcare for everyone, using only a fraction of our labor and resources. This means that we can put an end to wage-slavery. I don't have to work. I choose to work. And I believe that everyone deserves the same freedom I have. If done right, it's also economically superior, meaning that we will all have more wealth."

This is some deep stuff. This would really change everything, and mark a major turning point in human history I think. And the statement that providing these things to everyone would only require a fraction of our resources I think is actually true. The capitalist in me feels that this could never happen, but the pragmatist in me feels there's nothing better we could do to dramatically improve the lives of just about everyone on the planet.

There are so many questions though... forms of collectivism have been tried and have failed many times. Are things different now?

<comment><AUTHOR> All society is some form of collectivism :)

As is often the case with disruptive innovation, I think the solution is something non-obvious and non-coercive, more bottom-up than top-down.

<comment><USER4> I think VR could be one of these bottom-up forces of transformation. There is no fundamental limit on virtual lands and goods. In VR, every person could have his/her own virtual palace without imposing burdens on other humans (except for maybe on the sysadmins running the VR servers). Even if your physical surroundings are modest, your virtual surroundings could be breathtaking.

With more of our lives occurring in the inexpensive digital world, perhaps we'll be less concerned with the expensive physical one and thus less concerned with working for money.

<comment><USER5> Still gotta stay alive in your base reality. Most of the world's problems aren't going to be solved by the tech sector - the tech sector depends on a stable and reasonably managed, non-corrupt government.

The exact thing missing in pretty much all the worst parts of the world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > Before I finish, I want to mention my impossible goal.

> We now, for the first time ever, have the technology and resources necessary > to make the world a great place for everyone. We can provide adequate food, > housing, education, and healthcare for everyone, using only a fraction of > our labor and resources. This means that we can put an end to wage-slavery. > I don't have to work. I choose to work. And I believe that everyone deserves > the same freedom I have. If done right, it's also economically superior, > meaning that we will all have more wealth.

Even though I found the whole talk very thoughtful and inspiring, this was the part that resonated with me the most.

> I'm looking for full-stack hackers. People who understand that technology is > more than just patterns in silicon. The same patterns and systems of > patterns exist everywhere. Capitalism is a technology. Like the internal > combustion engine, it's tremendously valuable and transformative, but it's > not beyond improvement. The same goes for government, religion, and > everything else. We have an incredible future ahead of us, but we won't get > there by clinging to obsolete patterns.

I guess I'm a full-stack hacker; I learn incredibly fast and can understand very complex systems. I still have to learn, though, to apply this beyond the world of computers, in ways that leverage technology and have a global impact.

</comment><comment><USER7> It was a nice talk, except for this:

 _If you think Instagram is just a collection of photo filters, you 're missing the big picture. Maybe photo sharing won't lead directly to world peace, but helping people to see the world through the eyes of others looks like a step in the right direction to me. And they grew to over 200 million users in less than four years._

The whole talk was "building the impossible", and I think that's what Silicon Valley used to be about -- about going from 0 to 1 (in Peter Thiel's term) and letting the world go from 1 to n. That's impossible and that's what the valley did for decades.

But now the measurement is, "How many users to do you have today?" It's superficial and meaningless. Instagram is a great success for its investors (and I have nothing against that) but it won't be around in ten years, and more importantly, nothing it brought forth will be around either. Instead of 0 to 1, it's more like 1000 to 1001.

I have no problem with people making money, but you make what you measure, you make what you fund. And we're getting what we make: Flappy Birds and fucking Instagram.

<comment><USER8> "How many users to do you have today?" is not meaningless. Each user is a person, give or take a few bots, sharing their way of life and witnessing others'. Without editorialization or censorship.

The product may or may not be around in 10 years, but I bet someone somewhere is learning about what it's like on the opposite side of whatever ideological divide by watching instagram pictures. The consequences of that will last way beyond Instagram the product. There's meaning there that goes beyond advertisement dollars.

<comment><USER7> The same can be true for drinking a Coca-Cola. I was talking about Silicon Valley, not Atlanta.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Paul seems to have failed somewhat in his objective to find deep, if narrow, appeal with this talk. People I talked to were unanimous that it was the highlight of the day, and I agree.

In fact, if YC is taking feedback on these events, I'd suggest having more talks like this, and less of founders chronologically going through their story. That type of talk is also very interesting, but can get a bit repetitive, especially for people who have seen videos of previous startup school talks.

</comment><comment><USER10> We need a mechanism that allows people to go from wage-slavery to creating massive value in the world. YC is one method but it turns down 97% of founders, which by Silicon Valley standards is considered inclusive.

Imagine a YC where the money and decisions came from a crowd of thousands. If "Show HN" had a "Fund" button. The potential for 100x more Googles is there.

<comment><USER11> Saw these guys in London recently - they're exactly that. Equity based crowdfunding with voting rights powered with bitcoin

[http://swarmcorp.com/](http://swarmcorp.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Paul's talks have been my favorite, pretty much every time he's spoken at Startup School. I've seen a couple of them in person a few years back, and one (maybe more?) on YouTube. He's among the brightest, humblest, folks I've met who've done really awesome things. The humility can actually be a little deceptive...when I first met him, I thought, " _This_ is the guy that created GMail?" Most of us (myself included), could probably learn something from _that_.

Interestingly, I think that indicates that paul is more of a Woz than a Jobs. I think it's interesting that he chose to use Jobs as an example of someone we need more of (I'm not really in agreement...had he said the world needs more of Woz or Larry or even Elon Musk, I wouldn't have argued).

<comment><USER13> My bias also leads me to credit Woz more than Jobs, but I admit that I do not know enough about either to have much confidence in that opinion. One thing is clear though. Many very smart people who know far more than I do about Woz, Jobs, and Silicon Valley give the highest praise to Jobs.

What is so interesting to me is that Paul said something I'd always thought, but hadn't expressed nor heard before. Imagine how many Steve Jobs are out there who aren't able to thrive like they could have if they were born into a different situation. That doesn't devalue the brilliance of Jobs. It simply demonstrates optimism in a civilization with fewer unnecessary limitations.

The entire talk was great. Thank you for sharing it.

<comment><USER12> _" Many very smart people who know far more than I do about Woz, Jobs, and Silicon Valley give the highest praise to Jobs."_

I believe they do so because they're praising the wrong thing. Making money for investors is not all that good of an end in and of itself.

Clearly, this is subjective. But, I don't consider Jobs to have been particularly good for the world, despite his many obvious talents at directing the making and marketing of popular products. I have a quite strong anti-Apple bias, based on my belief that Apple has dragged the tech industry backward rather than forward in terms of providing more access to technology education and more access to the technology economy to more people, particularly the poorest people. Just when Open Source was pushing the world toward freely available source code for everything (and succeeding), Apple's App Store was slicing up the pie, with proprietary software effectively being required to participate (locking out all but the relatively wealthy from participating), and serving the biggest piece of that pie to themselves.

But, that's just my opinion. Many people think Jobs was great, and that Apple is good rather than a negative force.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Was there to watch, had a chat with you afterwards and can't wait to read it again!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This was easily my favourite talk. Really inspired me to double down on my efforts with my own idea.

I'd previously been under-emphasising the AI aspects of what I was attempting, in the worry that people would think an AI-based startup was too difficult or crazy to go for. Now I've just spent the last week rewriting copy and redoing my pitch to _deliberately_ emphasise it. And I feel a whole lot better about it too!

</comment><comment><USER16> That was the best talk of the day - but it felt more like an article being read than a talk. Still, I enjoyed it! Glad it's posted.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I had just finished writing it and didn't have time to rehearse, so it was basically an article being read :)

<comment><USER6> I haven't read the article, as I was there on the day, but I sincerely hope you included the "slides blunder" in the transcript - it was really funny and perfectly timed.

<comment><AUTHOR> That was a genuine mistake. It's funny how many people thought I did that on purpose :)

You'll have to watch the video to get that part though...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Can't seem to find the videos of the Startup School Europe talks. Will they be put on youtube?

<comment><AUTHOR> I believe the videos will be available in the next day or so.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The video of the talk [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5w-0H-hq6E&list=PLQ- uHSnFig5...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5w-0H-hq6E&list=PLQ- uHSnFig5P7scrcPr3VPHrG1OylKhpt&index=9)

</comment><comment><USER5> I thought a comment about Gmail didn't really make much sense. I don't know who was opposing Gmail in Google, but it was hardly an orthodoxy. It was essentially obvious from the get-go that Gmail would be _huge_.

</comment><comment><USER19> There are echoes of some zen/meditation ideas in here. I'm just starting to get into that kind of stuff. Curious to hear if Paul meditates, and what resources he (and other HNers) recommend for getting into it.

<comment><USER20> Some context in this Wired article on Wisdom 2.0 conference, [http://www.wired.com/2013/06/meditation-mindfulness- silicon-...](http://www.wired.com/2013/06/meditation-mindfulness-silicon- valley/2/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Personally, I appreciate the fact that it was read rather than recited. This made it easier to interpret the message as I understood it. Theatrical motivational speeches have the opposite effect on me. So it was perfect.

<comment><USER22> I agree -- artificially injecting enthusiasm into a speech draws more attention on the speaker and turns it into some sort of performance, and can detract from the message.

Another person there commented to me afterwards, "yeah that was a great speech, but I just wish it had more energy, if it did it could have gone viral!" But this person was from California... I think different regions are calibrated to different communication styles, and to someone calibrated to a reserved European temperament (wherein "enthusiasm" often is auto-encoded as "insincere" or "silly") the delivery was perfect :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> While I was listening to that particular part I had a very distinct feeling that he was reffering to what could be called "nation-hacking". While it's certainly not the only way to change the world, changing laws drastically it's still the most efficient way. And there is really not enough experimenting getting done in this area.

On a related note, I feel that some of the things that might be interesting to study/experiment with might be at the intersection between these three items: anthropology, information technology and law.

</comment><comment><USER24> Love what you do - That's refreshing and maybe a bit subversive. (Of course it's been said before in many ways, but rarely now and rarely in this sphere.)

</comment><comment><USER25> Awesome talk, Paul! Super inspiring!

> I would sometimes force myself to run a few miles because it's supposed to > be healthy, but I never liked it. Then I read a book that said we are born > to run, and that it can be fun

Quick question - can you refer the book you are talking about above? I too have a distaste for running but the sheer accessibility for fitness (compared to going to gym) makes me want to develop a liking for it.

Thanks!

<comment><AUTHOR> [http://www.amazon.com/Born-Run-Hidden-Superathletes- Greatest...](http://www.amazon.com/Born-Run-Hidden-Superathletes- Greatest/dp/0307279189)

It's a fun story too. I don't know if we're actually born to run or not, but it's inspiring either way.

<comment><USER26> You might like this story from This American Life. I was listening while driving, was totally mesmerized, and ended up in Wisconsin.

[http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/episode/80/tr...](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/episode/80/transcript)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> It was a really good talk. I thought that I wasn't going to like it to start with but there were some really good concepts and ideas and by the end it was one of my favourites. Possibly the only talk not featuring sharing mattresses in a two room apartment or something similar.

Choose the interesting path resonated as a useful criteria for making some major decisions.

</comment><comment><USER28> This was so so good; highlight of my day and one of my favourite talks of all time, instantly. Thanks again!

</comment><comment><USER29> This powerful message will be responsible for some new startup successes, and a lot of sweat and tears from startup failures.

</comment><comment><USER11> Was there, my favourite talk. Thanks for making the trip down Paul

<comment><USER30> I was there and also enjoyed Paul's talk. I thought Alfred Lin made some really thoughtful comments too. From both talks, for me it was clear that one really has to push boundaries and do stuff other people don't think is possible in order to have an impact.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> That was an incredible talk, Paul, many thanks!</comment>


China is catching up to the USA, while Japan is being left behind - <AUTHOR> https://lemire.me/blog/2017/11/12/china-is-catching-to-the-usa-while-japan-is-being-left-behind/ <comment><USER4> The conclusion is actually quite contrary to the title, and far more interesting: the author uses that example to debunk the idea that more research leads to more innovation and more prosperity.

I have been tinkering around the same idea for a while, thinking that the state of a country's democracy matters way more than its research output.

I'll quote this article in the future!

In his own words: "Does any of it matter? Many people believe, or assume, that great output in terms of research articles should cause economic prosperity and innovation. I have post entitled Does academic research cause economic growth? that makes the contrary point. That is, though China is catching up in terms of scientific output, this may be a consequence of their prosperity: they can now afford to have their very best minds work on producing research articles. It is much easier for rich countries to fund people so that they can publish in Nature. So being rich will allow you to catch up. But Japan shows that you can be a very rich country and choose not to produce many great research articles. In the least, this establishes that you do not need to produce many great research articles to be prosperous."

<comment><USER5> If that's the argument it's fallacious. China and USA is not an apples to apples comparison. China would need the kind of explosive growth we have seen just to get everyone a refrigerator, while the USA is struggling with the "what now?" question of advanced nations. All the easy stuff is behind us and there is nobody for us to just copy.

<comment><USER6> > China would need the kind of explosive growth we have seen just to get > everyone a refrigerator

Not sure if you meant that literally but I've been to some pretty poor places in China and they do have refrigerators...

<comment><USER7> Yeah, but they're new, and there's still a culture of food preservation that we lost here at some point.

US fish buying: Buy a pleasant-looking filet off a bed of ice, get it into refrigeration asap

China fish buying: Bring a plastic bag, put live fish in bag of water, transfer to a short-term tank at home. It's actually superior, you can't get any fresher than "I killed this fish 5 seconds ago".

And then there's all the salted food around spring festival. Plain cabbage has never been so appealing.

<comment><USER8> A fresh fish killed and put on ice is a lot fresher tasting than a half-dead fish limp but alive in a home fish tank.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This post goes over science and research, which to me is a consequence to other, "big picture", areas of the Chinese growth. Areas such as economy, geopolitcs and finances. China is no longer a contender - It's the true looming power of the East. And depending on how internal politics play out, it will be interesting to see where exactly China stands in as little as 10-20 years in the future.

One thing that strikes me about China is their attitude towards foreign politics - They still want the world to consider them as a "developing country". Sure, it's a gigantic country, both in land and population - <USER2> are still many challenges to overcome, but this is now a country with enormous cash reserves, who own a significant lump of US debt, and making truly gigantic strides on all levels of society.

<comment><USER10> I have lived in Shenzhen for many years, traveled to tons of cities in China, and recently am back to silicon valley. From what I can tell on the ground, China is going to be in decline for the next 10-20 years. (I have a good hunch most people that comment favorabily on China here, have never been)

\- Myth: China is developed. Truth: Start in Shanghai Huangpu (very rich neighborhood, in a very rich city). Take a subway a few stops in any direction. When you come out, you are surrounded by dilapidated communist blocks and electric bikees. Take another ride a few more stops, you are surrounded in villages that are right out of middle ages (shoddy huts with shared toilets). This is the same for any of the rich city in China. 90% of people in China live in middle ages. 9.99999% of people live in 1950s. 0.00001% of people live very richly.

\- Myth: Chinese citizens saves and are rich. Truth: most rich people have left China already. The remaining middle class ($1000/month, many of my Chinese friends) are able to buy into the massive inflated housing with savings from parents. The savings, borrowed money from relatives, credit card debts are now stuck in real estate. My friends all have (fake) gucci, LV, brand name products. They take out loans to afford conspicuous lifestyle. These things are all for show. Some of them are paying all of their salaries into the mortgage payment every month!

\- Myth: Chinese economy is doing fine. Truth: Many of my banker friends (expats and locals) know that it's all propped up by debts that will collapse any day now. There's a massive inflation happening everywhere, from food to housing to foreign products. It's harder to harder to get money out of China (I'm helping some with bitcoins). Most of them aren't optimistic.

\- Myth: China is leading in green-tech, research, innovation, etc. Truth: tons of copy, chabuduo (good enough), cheating in classes and in business, pollution in Shanghai and Shenzhen is still cancer causing, most smart people want to go abroad.

<comment><USER11> I've also traveled to tons of cities in China and what I found is that many expats and local Chinese that hang around the expat bubble have a similar "doom and gloom" viewpoint.

Whereas when I started to hang around local, blue collar Chinese workers (who don't speak English or hang around expats at all), their outlooks were extremely optimistic about China's future.

It makes me wonder if this is more of a class issue. The poorer, blue collar workers will start to prosper more, but the upper-middle class will start to face difficulties.

I would also add that all my Chinese friends that stayed in China are wealthier than those that left. And of those that left, many are returning to China. But again, these are all people that are outside the expat bubble so perhaps their viewpoints would be different.

<comment><USER12> Almost any foreigner who lives in china for more than a few years develops a healthy amount of cynicism to keep going (those that don't inevitably leave). It has nothing to do with an expat bubble (most of us work jobs around mostly Chinese, and spent way more time in zhongguancun than sanlitun).

A lot of my Chinese coworkers left for the states while I was there. Something about "pollution and young kids" was their reason, not to make more money. You can make a lot of money in china, as long as you don't mind knocking a few years off your lifespan (and just forget about it if you have kids, unless you can afford the private schools with full bubbles around them, and even then....).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> For most of the 20th century the UK did disproportionately well in the metrics of scientific research - Nobel prizes, key articles.. The UK has not had the kind of outstanding economic success that should have accrued to it if these things matter economically. Especially once north sea oil is removed from the calculation.

<comment><USER14> Maybe it has to do with deindustrialization. ICI in its days was a scientific and economic force. Nowadays no one does chemistry any longer, especially not in Britain. The only thing that is produced in Britain nowadays is financial malfeasance.

<comment><USER13> errm - well I think that the folks at AstraZeneca and GSK may not think so...

<comment><USER14> The way research is done at companies like these has really changed - <USER3> it's all mergers & acquisitions, look in Wikipedia at just how many companies AZ has acquired since the merger, it wasn't like that before the 1990s. These companies are knowledge brokers and what research is done is outsourced to contract research organizations.

Back then, everything was done in-house. The Frythe employed people like Joseph Chatt and James Black. You don't have central research like that any longer, except at Facebook/Amazon/Google/Microsoft, and that's a problem. They can sell us ads but will not come up with the next antibiotic when the present ones have become useless.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> With all this talk of publication output, I'd like to see some examples of good research coming out of mainland Chinese universities.

In my field (programming languages), I can name one total paper that I liked that came from a mainland Chinese university. It stood out for that reason. A friend in another field (CS theory) complained similarly: massive amounts of shoddy work comes out of China, but nothing worth reading.

Meanwhile, China now has a spam journal called "Nature and Science," so you can tell your friends "I have 5 papers in Nature and Science."

<comment><USER12> Ah, can I ask what paper it is? I'm in PL, and unless it's coming out of MSR China, I haven't seen PL papers that are interesting. China isn't into PL, though, and it gets better in systems (big data, cloud, whatever is hot these days), there are some good labs with good output (Andy Yao's algo lab at qinghua). Many of the researchers are foreigners however (just like in the USA).

I'm curious about the quality of published work coming out of china in ML. Has anyone who does ML research read recently a paper that came out of china that had something really useful to them in it? I think those are fairly good measures of output (a contribution found useful).

<comment><USER15> Hi Sean! We met a few weeks ago at OOPSLA.

The paper I have in mind is Zhai et al's "Automatic Model Generation from Documentation for Java API Functions" presented at ICSE last year, from Nanjing University. It is arguably more of an SE paper though, and a lot of the authors are at US/Canadian universities; for all I know, she did most of the work in the US.

Still, the number of good faculty who come from China is growing; it's only a matter of time before some of them choose to start research groups back home.

<comment><USER12> Mei Hong's group among others do well enough at PKU in SE. Never saw anything out of NJU, interesting.

China's normal research faculty system is really messed up, more so than the American system. Special labs like Andy Yao's are actually funded well (so no need to body shop your grad students to make ends meet), but seem to be the exception. Let's see what happens.

<comment><USER15> Body shop? Explain. How exactly is the system messed up.

<comment><USER12> It's like you as a professor have grad students in your lab, not just a few like a western professor, but maybe 10 or even 20. A company needs some work done, you need the money, your grad students need to graduate, so...they use the lab to do the work for the company, professor gets paid (important since their normal salary is 10k RMB/month or less), grad students get to graduate, company gets cheap labor....

It was really annoying to us because the professors would always keep their best students (especially undergrads, the good ones were better than grad students as they would go abroad and not become grad students in china) not allowing them to work for us as interns unless we had really tight guanxi with them. America is still 10 times better than china in this regards. Unless they root out the corruption, they are never going to advance beyond paper farms no matter how much money they throw at it.

<comment><USER15> Interesting. So, I understand that the grad students are not interested in the research. Are they writing papers on these "projects?" What good is a Chinese Ph. D. then?

Some European (Belgian?) students told me that, in their country, it was common to have an "industry-funded" Ph. D. (hence all the people I've met doing DSLs for insurance companies). I wonder to what extent their system is similar.

<comment><USER12> Think of it like a very focused internship. You still get something out of it (you did the work after all!), but it's not like you got to explore your own thing and there was a lot more grunt work involved; since the professor had 20 student you also got a lot of experience in managing other students (senior PhDs will direct junior PhDs and master students, who will direct undergrads if any, you might rarely see the professor unless you are at the top of the lab). In that sense, many employers might find a chinese grad degree more preferable to a western one. On the other hand, research breakthroughs are much less likely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Does it seem like "productivity" shouldn't be measured in number of papers? Isn't that how we got ourselves into the reproducibility mess?

<comment><USER17> Agreed. These couple of sentences deflate the click-baity title a bit:

"The report echoes my earlier observations: lots of new countries are become scientific powers in terms of publication output, with China leading the charge. The major claim made by the report is that developed countries continue to dominate in terms of highly cited publications."

The trend the article is talking about is China is catching up in terms of publication output. I've heard elsewhere that in Chinese universities things like tenure, promotions etc. are heavily weighted by publication output - perhaps without much respect for the research quality. I could see some fields/journals becoming echo chambers where researchers spam publications without actually making meaningful technical accomplishments. That's probably what we're seeing.

<comment><USER18> Professors in China get cash bonuses for publications in major western journals. The average payment for a Science or Nature paper is $44k and the average university professor makes $8k per year. See [1] for details and other journal payout rates. Imagine if US professors got half a million dollars for publishing in Nature or Science. The gaming going on to get published would be even crazier than it already is.

[1] [https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608266/the-truth-about- ch...](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608266/the-truth-about-chinas-cash- for-publication-policy/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is an enormous exercise in trying to prove that, despite reality, China doesn't matter in research and related areas. It is futile. The results of scientific production are a lagging indicator, and China nowadays produces almost as much research as the US. China is a growing society, with growing life standards, while the US life standards are stagnating. I was once a China doubter, these days are over however. While the US is constantly worried about supporting its oligarchy, China is using all its resources to invest in a better society. While this battle is not completely lost to the US, it seems more and more like the situation that lead the UK to its downfall.

<comment><USER20> I don't think quantity of research is an important thing to measure

<comment><USER19> The rise of a generation that believes that scientific output is not important, even in a technical field like ours, is an indicator that makes me bearish on the future of the American society.

<comment><USER21> I think you're misinterpreting his comment. I'm fairly sure he's raising issue with "quantity" of research as a useful metric for scientific strength. China _produces_ massive amounts of research, but is positively inundated with fraud, to a much higher degree than the West, and makes the West's publish or perish mindset look positively relaxed.

<comment><USER19> I know there is fraud going on, but I see it as a (unintended) consequence of the general increase in production. I also know the scientific literature and there is a huge production of real papers from Chinese authors, so yes, this is just another way to badmouth the changes that are happening in China.

<comment><USER22> You're doing major mental gymnastics to perceive it as "just another way to badmouth" China. People made descriptive comments about absolute quantity of publishing and some observations about how well that correlates with national success. Neither the article nor the commenters here have denied that quality and impactful research is also coming out of China.

<comment><USER23> I would even go as far to say that quantity in and of itself is negative. If you only get more quantity and no more quality, then you have more noise. More papers to wade through to get something useful. Meaning that the quality papers presented by the well-meaning Chinese researchers will more or less likely not even get read, because they're buried under a pile of horseshit.

This is why I would never hire Indian software engineers. There are a few good ones, like in every country, but they're hard to find among a sea of terrible software engineers that went into software engineering, because everyone does, and that went to a school only teaching with rote memorization.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Seems obvious to me that it's because of language. China cares more about rankings so they'll force people to push in english journals (to their own detriment) where they get cited. Most of the world doesn't speak Japanese so japanese papers don't get cited.

<comment><USER25> The problrm is that Japanese journals are less competitive. So, second-rate researchers can continue to publish in these and "work" (i.e., look productive).

The biggest problem with Japanese universities is not funding (there is to much), but the old chaff with tenure.

Unfortunately old second-rate researchers has a lot of institutional power (and funding).

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Research is an input into productivity, but you need the application of research to actually turn it into productivity.

This is a little self congratulatory in HN, but entrepreneurship is the application of research. So you need that to "activate" research.

China is catching up not (just) because of research but also because they're applying it.

<comment><USER27> >entrepreneurship is the application of research

Engineering is applied research, entrepreneurship is one method of funding engineering.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> The premise of this headline is that the USA is indisputably in the lead and that the winner is whoever catches up the USA. After spending years in Asia, my impression is that there is another game being played entirely, and the USA is merely a player whose ability to interfere in the outcome is being carefully managed. (And the same is true about Russia, incidentally.) I won't be at all surprised if Asia rules the world by the time I'm an old man.

<comment><USER29> The same thing was said about Japan.

<comment><USER30> Indeed. I'm old enough to remember the panicky statements by US politicians about how the Japanese were going to destroy our auto industry, dominate the next generation of computers, buy up all our real estate, etc. It never happened, and then the Japanese wrecked their own economy.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Decade_(Japan)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Decade_\(Japan\))

<comment><USER31> I think such prophecies are greatly exaggerated, since it's rare that a developed country "gets taken over" by another country. The only cases that come to mind would Germany and Japan after WW2 and even these bounced back and took back control. And that was after WW2, so after huge disruptions.

But, getting back on track, things are different. China is 10x the size of Japan. If China's GDP per capita gets at least close to that of Japan's, they will both double the world's economy and also become 50% of it, like the US was a few decades ago. They will dwarf everyone, including the US. So there will definitely be a huge Chinese influence, world wide.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> it's not a race guys

<comment><USER33> Yes, it is, in an economy where exports are a huge part of the economy. Fall behind and you're competing with Bangadesh for the T-shirt business.

<comment><USER34> Thats not how any of it works. If china came out with a 1 dollar iphone X2, both americans and chinese would be much richer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35>
      "catching up" and "falling behind"

Within the context of this article, the thing gained or lost is capacity for _Scientific Research_ , and the article suggests renaming an NSF report.

It is _not_ a statement about " _things in general_ " around the world.

</comment><comment><USER36> IMHO, I think it is a good thing as now it implies a knowledge-race (akin to the arms-race). Whatever happens, eventually all humanity benefits from the development.

</comment><comment><USER37> Thing i love about japan is they think very out of the box compared to others. i don't how their society gets it but it's kind of amazing.

</comment><comment><USER38> I found that so many people are stupy which cannot think about a question with a bit of intelligence. One of the evilest thing is the argument of orient-west politics. Let's despise them. Most people is just small potato, politics is really matter no you. Just push forward to the future of human being!

</comment><comment><USER39> I am not impressed. China has been sending students abroad for years, and that was a significant shortcut to the state of the art.</comment>


Ask HN: Is Open ACH a legitimate alternative to Balanced Payments? - <AUTHOR>

They're essentially offering a free open source  platform to accept web-based ACH payments with their own secure gateway.  I think you will need to obtain your own ACH processing service through a bank, but even with that, it seems a lot more attractive than Balanced's ACH debit option (1% + $0.30 per transaction).  The problem is I don't see anything online that's written about it and their website looks a little amateur. http://openach.com/ <comment><USER2> (I work for Balanced)

Hi Saitoyeung,

Balanced caps its transaction fee at $20.00 - Is that an issue for you? Email me - email@example.com

Also, this is a direct quote from OpenACH:

> To get started with OpenACH, U.S. Bank customers can simply request the > bank's ACH Direct Transmission service, along with an optional SinglePoint > account management portal. Once your account is ready for testing, use the > U.S. Bank plugin within OpenACH to transfer your files and handle > returns/changes.</comment>


The first and final chapters of Orson Welles' complicated career - <AUTHOR> http://www.bookforum.com/inprint/022_03/14944 <comment><USER2> > his first and only masterpiece, Citizen Kane

Only masterpiece? What about The Magnificent Ambersons? Touch of Evil? Chimes at Midnight? Calling his first film his only masterpiece gives the article a better story arc, but it's not true.</comment>


Why Grenfell Tower Burned: Regulators Put Cost Before Safety - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/24/world/europe/grenfell-tower-london-fire.html <comment><USER2> It's quite obviously a result of the asinine narrative of how "regulations are strangling businesses"–see quote below.

There's nothing wrong with naming specific regulatory requirements that you believe are onerous. But repeating the generic attack on any and all regulations is just a populistic attempt to hollow out the power of government, and leads to such disasters, and many smaller injuries to people, property, or the environment that don't get this sort of publicity.

        A 2005 law known as the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety)
        Order ended a requirement for government inspectors to
        certify that buildings had met fire codes, and shifted
        instead to a system of self-policing. Governments adopted
        slogans calling for the elimination of at least one
        regulation for each new one that was imposed, and the
        authorities in charge of fire safety took this to heart.

<comment><USER3> > to hollow out the power of government,

It's important to remember that in many matters, the government _are_ the people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wait, regulators are at fault?

No. Whosoever built the firetrap and chose this cladding is primarily at fault.

The regulators are _secondarily_ at fault, for allowing it.

Arconic is also secondarily at fault, for selling a cladding material that they are required in several nations to warn against using on tall buildings, but did not warn against in the UK.

Leading with "it's all the fault of those laws that allowed us to do it" is asinine.

<comment><USER5> It is your comment that is asinine.

 _" Mr. Adam had seen posters hung by the management company telling tenants to shut their doors and stay inside in the event of a fire. But Mr. Adam, his wife, his daughter and his pregnant sister ignored the instructions and ran. "Anyone who listened to the fire brigade and stayed where they are, they lost their lives."_

If you're consistent, I expect you think the fire brigade is only _secondarily_ at fault for the crap instructions? It was the people's fault for following the crap instructions?

Regulations are a device for division of labor and education. They exist partly to tell us what to do so we don't have to understand everything from first principles.

<comment><USER6> The fire brigade or other public safety people give out instructions like this because they are looking at preserving life in the aggregate. Panic striken families clogging the single stairway makes it more difficult for first responders to respond.

I've been involved in a few minor disasters in 15-25 story high rises. One was a roof fire, another was a kitchen fire halfway up, another was a catastrophic leak of water and glycol from the heating system, and the last was a thick cloud of smoke from a nearby oil-fired power plant that suddenly shutdown during the blackout in 2003. Guess what? There were catastrophic fuckups in every event (fire alarm failure, water pressure failure, firefighters sent to the wrong place, etc). But the SOP was always the same regardless of the situation -- stay in place.

At the risk of admitting to being a selfish asshole, I'll come out and say -- fuck that. I will be bugging out, and I'll tell anyone I know to do the same. I'd rather die trying to get out than getting trapped like the poor souls in this building or WTC.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The tragedy exposes some interesting data:

Fire deaths per thousand are lower in the UK compared to the US due to fire regulation --which are a result of lessons learned from The Great Fire, on the other hand the materials they used on that building (as well as some other UK blds) are banned in most advanced economies. Additionally, the manufacturer states the cladding should not be used on anything higher than a ladder engine can reach. So while the material is a poor choice in any regard, the builder was egregious in utilizing it on a structure where ladder engines could not reach the highest floors.

</comment><comment><USER8> I wonder where the boiling point lies--where the lower class, without opportunity and safety decides to overthrow the current political systems. It happens over the course of history, and many societies are slowly inching toward political revolution

<comment><USER9> I suspect we may be close to it.

There is a palpable anger, all throughout the UK right now, directed against the ruling class. We've all known instinctively that the ruling class don't care about us, but now it's real and painfully visible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This reminds me of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire[1], where owners also put profits before safety.

 _" The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in New York City on March 25, 1911 was the deadliest industrial disaster in the history of the city, and one of the deadliest in US history. The fire caused the deaths of 146 garment workers -- 123 women and 23 men -- who died from the fire, smoke inhalation, or falling or jumping to their deaths ..._

 _" Because the owners had locked the doors to the stairwells and exits -- a then-common practice to prevent workers from taking unauthorized breaks and to reduce theft -- many of the workers who could not escape from the burning building simply jumped from the high windows. The fire led to legislation requiring improved factory safety standards and helped spur the growth of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union (ILGWU), which fought for better working conditions for sweatshop workers."_

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

<comment><USER11> The tragic thing is that the wet-pipe fire sprinkler has existed for around 140 years -- this is 1880s-vintage technology! The fundamental design is very simple -- a network of pipes, pressurised with water (from a tank or the municipal water supply and individual and replaceable sprinkler heads, each with its own heat-activated valve (initially with a melting fusible link, in 1922, the glass-bulb sprinkler was released) and deflector. The alarm valve, which activates a bell once water is flowing inside the system came later, in the 1890s.

 _Nothing_ else can get extinguishing agent onto fire faster than a sprinkler system. A room can flash over in a little over two minutes, and not even the best fire brigade can get there _that_ fast. A hundred litres of water per minute _per tripped sprinkler head_ (and sprinklers will have activated well before the room they're in flashes over) puts an end to most fires with extreme prejudice. If the fire hasn't gone out by the time the fire brigade pulls up, the firefighters can hook up their pumps to external connections to the sprinkler network, which will increase the water pressure/flow inside the sprinkler pipes to get more water onto the offending blaze.

This is not newfangled experimental nonsense, this is boring, well- established, and reliable technology. Sprinklers control fires so well, even in unsafe buildings, to the point that some designers neglect _passive_ fire protection -- it's a bad idea to to depend on a single mechanism for critical applications like fire safety since there's always the possibility of the fire sprinkler system being manually turned off or otherwise malfunctioning. Fire deaths in buildings with operating fire sprinkler systems are rare ([http://www.nfpa.org/~/media/files/news-and-research/fire- sta...](http://www.nfpa.org/~/media/files/news-and-research/fire- statistics/fire-protection-systems/ossprinklers.pdf?la=en)), there's about 80% less fatalities and almost all fatalities in sprinklered buildings are of victims who were present at the location the fire started -- sprinklers can't undo the damage from the event that started the fire.

Most fire deaths _are_ avoidable with century-old technology. It's tragic and depressing to see the never-ending trickle of fire fatalities (punctured by ghastly mass casualty incidents like the Grenfell fire) knowing that around 80% of them would have made it out alive had they been in a building with a functioning sprinkler system. This _should be a well-solved problem_ , for fuck's sake, there's no technical reason why most occupied buildings connected to a municipal water system can't have some bloody sprinklers. Grenfell tower should have had sprinklers, the Triangle Shirtwaist building should have had sprinklers, and it's a failure of society that every building built less than a century ago and connected to municipal water supply doesn't have sprinklers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Maybe someone in the UK can answer this, but how on earth are fire sprinklers not required?

<comment><USER13> The tower block wasn't originally built with the cladding that burnt.

The idea was that the tower is almost all concrete, a fire on any one floor shouldn't spread as there is little to burn. The problem is that later modifications to the heating system and the addition of the cladding have changed the design a lot.

<comment><USER14> Fwiw regulations actually have been getting more conservative on this. There was more confidence in the 1970s (when this tower was built) that modern concrete construction didn't require sprinklers. With the core construction material itself not flammable, and serving as fireproof separation between units, fires were supposed to be contained by design, with spread unit-to-unit throughout the building (especially so rapidly that it'd happen before fire services could arrive) not being possible due to passive suppression, and therefore not in need of active suppression. Which as you say may even have been true with the original design prior to interior ducting and exterior cladding changes.

In any case, in the past 10 years the consensus has been changing towards it being prudent to just always require sprinklers in high-rise towers. Scotland began requiring them in 2005, and England in 2007, but neither law is retroactive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Parapet walls are a feature of London that I point out to tourists, explaining the context of 1666:

[https://www.locallocalhistory.co.uk/schools/preperation/fire...](https://www.locallocalhistory.co.uk/schools/preperation/fire- regs.htm)

350 years later we find that the lessons learned by our ancestors have been forgotten.

There is also the matter of the fridge/freezer, the alleged culprit. I am fairly sure that the fire brigade have got that right, you can trace a fire back to the start, much to the frustration of any arsonist! I am glad it was a fridge and not someone smoking or sitting around with candles. However, I am shocked at people's attitude towards leaving the house with appliances on. Washing machines are known to catch fire, as are tumble driers, but people don't care.

I did check the fridge freezer in question to see if it was one of the really stupidly designed ones that have all the gubbins at the bottom rather than the back. Sounds like it was a 'normal' design rather than one of the ones 'specifically designed to catch fire'.

The 'easy burn' fridge/freezer variants don't have the cooling metalwork at the back but at the bottom, with a fan to bring air in through a 4" or so high gap at the bottom of the fridge/freezer. What happens with this design is that the dirt and dust that collects on the floor in the kitchen gets sucked in, for the fans to get completely blocked with debris. If you pull off the plastic and get that dirt out it is like emptying the bag from a vacumn cleaner that nobody has emptied in months/years. Nobody thinks to clean out the bottom of these things so after a few years the whole thing gets replaced - warranty expired, too expensive to 'get the man out' to fix it.

Only if you are handy with a screwdriver and skint would you deduce and fix the problem yourself. By then the fuse has gone from the motor trying too hard to work so it is easy for the 'technically minded' to replace the fuse and be pleased that their ice cream isn't going to melt. To go to the next step and fix the problem that caused the fuseboard to trip (i.e. dust build up) doesn't happen, instead flipping the fuseboard on becomes just a routine thing you do.

I appreciate the action taken in light of Grenfell with Camden council evacuating the towers with the wrong cladding but I think more needs to be done on the fridge/freezer problem, particularly with flawed designs that really are 'built in obsolescence' due to the simple dust build up problem that people just do not know about.

<comment><USER16> > There is also the matter of the fridge/freezer, the alleged culprit.

Not alleged: It's known that this is how the fire started.

The fire was called in by the resident of the flat when their fridge caught fire. The fire service came, put the fire _out_ in the flat and exited the building. Only at that point did they discover that the fire had spread to the outer skin of the building & they had a major incident on their hands.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Could removing something that endangers your life, from the building you life in- be seen as a pre-selfdefense measure?

</comment><comment><USER18> I don't like to get political on HN, so if this appear so, I apologise.

The problem, I think, is that people don't want to pay, but people want to spend. We want low taxes but high quality public services. We want low taxes but we want high quality social housing.

While the books of a country must be immensely complex, it can be distilled to a very simple money in, money out equation, and when a country is running at a higher money out than money in, you're getting into debt. Cutting this means cutting state funded things, from services to buildings, etc.

It's not right to use dangerous materials, but if we have less money to spend, or if we prioritise things wrongly, things like this will happen.

<comment><USER19> Countries can run deficits. Countries can inflate away their debts. Countries can stimulate the economy to make it grow quickly enough to outpace the growth of debt.

I'd love someone who _really believes_ in the theories behind austerity politics to explain to me how the postwar boom ever happened -- not just in the USA, but all across the Western world and the Asian Tigers.

<comment><USER20> You can but you there are limits, if your debt is large enough then you can't outgrow it. Just printing money has it's problems, in this case inflation would make safe building materials more expensive to import.

I know people like to bang on about running the economy being different from running your household finances but that only goes so far. The UK is already spending 8% of tax revenue just on servicing debt.

<comment><USER21> The UK could run a larger deficit. The source / sums are done here: [http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbli...](http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2017/06/a-case- against-austerity.html)

<comment><USER20> Why would we, growth has been ticking along nicely for a developed country (apart from a blip in 2008/9 when the financial crisis hit). Also unemployment has been remarkably low over the last couple of years.

The trouble is eventualy that debt needs to be paid off, either through raising taxes or monetisation. Monetisation is bad as it increases inflation. Increasing taxes lowers spending causing smaller economic activity. All we have done is passed a burden off to the next generation.

<comment><USER21> Interest rates are _negative_ in real terms - read the article I linked to. This means we could have free (in a very literal sense) infrastructure -- new railways, broadband, houses, etc.

The second point is that infrastructure supports growth (if done right, there are of course many ways to do it wrong), so just because headline GDP was so- so over the last decade doesn't mean it couldn't be better. Compared to the US, UK growth was rather poor and recovery from the crash has taken forever.

<comment><USER20> I did read the article. There is no free, that debt needs to be paid back at some point, passing that burden on to our children is irresponsible.

It's rather silly to compare the US to the UK, financial services makes up a larger part of the UK economy than it does in the US so of course we had a greater impact from the financial crisis.

<comment><USER21> Debt at a negative real interest rate is literally free money. Investors are judging it's better to get a guarantee of slightly less value (slightly more nominal money), than invest it in riskier investments where they might lose a lot more. Furthermore investment in the right things (which I admitted above can be hard) should promote growth, thus growing away the debt even more as a % of GDP. This is all pretty basic economics.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask YC: Setting up a new Linux laptop - <AUTHOR>

My new Thinkpad came in this morning, and I'm in the process of installing Ubuntu on it right now.
What applications should I install that will make life easier, coming from OS X and XP?
--Edit-- I'm a developer, so there are things that I know I will put on it:
Vim & Emacs
Apache
MySQL & PostgresQL
All the various languages I either work in or am messing with. <comment><USER2> I'd install the Opera browser. Firefox didn't quite work correctly when accessing my Linksys router (I blame my router and not FF, of course).

It wouldn't hurt to install PHP either; a worthy Apache companion.

Be sure to run this: sudo apt-get install build-essential

When attempting to install some modules, you'll get a "C compiler cannot create executables" message and build-essential fixes this.

I don't know why build-essential wasn't included on a base install.

<comment><AUTHOR>
        sudo apt-get install build-essential

This is exactly what I was looking for; there is no way I would have figured that out easily on my own.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> From /etc/apt/sources.list:

        # Video stuff
        deb http://packages.medibuntu.org/ gutsy free non-free

That has some helpful 'non-free' stuff.

<comment><AUTHOR> Awesome, thank you

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I had no luck with Totem, so I installed VLC Player for video and DVDs. Not sure if it is the best alternative, but it works fine.

</comment><comment><USER5> from my install script..

compizconfig-settings-manager, emerald (& get some themes)

nautilus-open-terminal

netbeans, python, rails

google desktop (tracker sux balls)

dvd playback (google it, i forget how)

</comment><comment><USER6> I would suggest Vim, Emacs, Apache, MySQL, and PostgresQL. Plus all the various languages you either work in or are messing with ;-)

</comment><comment><USER7> Well... What do you plan to do on it?

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah, you make an excellent point. I should edit the question.</comment></comment>


Eating Right Can Save the World - <AUTHOR> http://www.outsideonline.com/2046606/eating-right-can-save-world <comment><USER2> "Organic farming, Nichols tells me, is really about the health of the soil and the ecosystems producing our food. Nichols wants to show me the difference between soil from conventional agriculture, which uses chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and soil from what Rodale calls regenerative organic agriculture, which uses natural pest management, extensive cover crops, and natural fertilizer like manure."

Okay, if we are going to cut out most of our animal consumption, there goes most of our manure, no?

And if we stick to natural fertilizer, that cuts our potential crop yields by a huge amount. We just don't have a natural means to get enough nitrogen into the soil without the Haber-Bosch process.

Combine those two items alone and I guess we will lose at least 2/3 of our fertilizer supply.

So the first step needs to be, if I'm reading right - get rid of a few billion people?

<comment><USER3> Cows are intrinsically linked with organic farming in most of the world. They give fertilizer, power and milk. It is now skewed because of oil. If oil is expensive, they are the key to sustainable and prosperous agriculture.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm a "mostly vegan" individual and beyond the smug attitude that plagues that choice, I have to say that this lifestyle seems to be good for one's health as well. It is less fun, sure, let's be honest, but the benefits somehow outweigh what you lose by giving up meat and processed foods.

</comment><comment><USER3> "Whatever my own practice may be, I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other when they came in contact with the more civilized."

> Henry David Thoreau

</comment><comment><USER5> Saying "Paleo is Stupid" will definitely get more people to read your article. Which is apparently about educating people about saving the planet through food choices. So, educate people, don't insult them.

<comment><USER6> Could be that the author is going for the mainstream, or the largest audience. Personally, I know few people doing a paleo diet, and none strike me as the types to give two turds about their diet's environmental impact. The rest of the folks I know do, indeed, think that paleo's stupid. So you validate a the opinions of a large number of people to rope them in, and they read the rest of the article.

Not that I know the mind of the author, but in summary they insult people that wouldn't ever even click the link, while cozying up to those that do.

<comment><USER7> There are many different "Paleolithic" viewpoints. Some are low carb, others are higher in carbs. Some are high in protein and some promote moderate levels of protein. Typically though, a Paleo diet is higher in fat and the consumption of processed foods is not suggested. It's all about consuming things that are minimally processed, low sugar, whole foods. Your actively level and genes have a lot to do with what is best for you in terms of your diet.

Many people assume that a Paleo diet primarily consists of meat, but that is not necessarily true. Many Paleo followers promote the consumption of things like yams, sweet potatoes, and some fruits like berries. However, if you listen to someone like Rob Wolff, he regularly promotes the massive consumption of vegetables, roots, and tubers. He even promotes sustainability, supports local farmers, and talks about animal welfare. Even though he recommends not consuming gluten, he doesn't suggest you replace it with gluten free stuff. He goes one step further and suggests completely eliminating grains (e.g., wheat, rice, oats), which are a staple in vegetarian and vegan dies.

A lot of people fail to realize or accept that many Paleo followers were once vegetarians and even vegans. But eventually, usually after many years, they realized that it wasn't working for them and had to try something different like Paleo.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Talking about food is akin to talking about religion. Everyone will have a different opinion on what is right, wrong, best, and worse by their background.

<comment><USER9> Unlike religion, there are actual verifiable facts to consider. Calling food choice a religion sounds like an excuse to not consider ones choices critically.

<comment><USER8> To be clear, I'm talking about how people talk about how they choose their food.

There's plenty of verifiable facts to consider, but those that trumpet those facts and make wide suggestions ignore the local circumstances. Someone with a $20 weekly grocery bucket isn't going to spend twice as much on organic vegetables regardless of if its better for the planet or even for themselves. Everyone has to eat, and everyone has to balance how much time, effort, and energy they spend on gathering, cooking, making food, and also balance that against everything else they are attempting to do.</comment></comment></comment>


Amazon Is Testing Its Own Delivery Service to Rival FedEx and UPS - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-05/amazon-is-said-to-test-own-delivery-service-to-rival-fedex-ups <comment><USER4> Amazon now has 43% of all ecommerce sales... Shipped: 30% UPS, 30% FedEx, and 40% USPS.

This article says Amazon accounts for $1B of UPS 60B revenue -- only 1.67%[0]. And Amazon cut out almost all of the profits from those deliveries, with discounts over 70%... so Amazon contributed little to their income.

Wasn't able to find numbers for Fedex.. but they say no single customer accounts for more than 3 percent of revenue[1]. And it would be safe to assume that they negotiated just as hard with Fedex as UPS.

USPS might actually be subsidizing Amazon's packages because of how their costs are calculated[2].

So not so bad for the other carriers.. and unless Amazon opens it up to other companies to use, they aren't going to rival UPS or even FedEx in revenue.

0\. [https://www.thestreet.com/story/13433347/2/59-billion- reason...](https://www.thestreet.com/story/13433347/2/59-billion-reasons- amazon-is-not-a-threat-to-ups.html)

1\. [https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/05/amazons-new-delivery- program...](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/05/amazons-new-delivery-program-may- not-hurt-ups-and-fedex-experts.html)

2\. [http://fortune.com/2017/07/16/amazon-postal-service- subsidy/](http://fortune.com/2017/07/16/amazon-postal-service-subsidy/)

Edit: since the first link was written... Amazon has doubled their shipping expenses to $16B (of course, some of that cost is setting up their own shipping service): [https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1018724/000101872417...](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1018724/000101872417000011/amzn-20161231x10k.htm) If they can get that entirely under their service, that'll be significant.. but for comparison, Fedex has $50B/yr revenue.

<comment><USER5> "So not so bad for either company.. and unless Amazon opens it up to other companies to use, they aren't going to rival UPS or even FedEx in revenue."

Seems they will at some point in the future. They already allow any packages to be delivered to their lockers [0]. So it's not too far-fetched they'll soon allow any shipper to use their "delivery" service.

0\. [https://thehub.amazon.com/](https://thehub.amazon.com/)

<comment><USER6> In my anecdotal evidence, the lockers and storefront are a tire fire. Been to my local store five times and every time there's one guy working with ten people yelling at him like he's the devil himself and most of the terminals not working, heaps of returns just sitting on the counter and floor out of reach of the lone floor employee

<comment><USER7> In NYC the lockers in central locations are always full.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Amazon delivery has been bringing packages to us for nearly a year now. A few things I have noticed:

1) They can never find our house. Now, We do live in a newer neighborhood (3 yrs old) but USPS, UPS, and FedEx don't have a problem. AMZL US will often miss deliveries because they can't find our house. Usually this just sets the delivery back a day, sometimes 2 or 3. The worst case was 3 weeks.

2) They deliver late. Not really a con; just a fact. if AMZL US is delivering the package it won't get to us before 5.

3) Their drivers are not professionals. I get the feeling anyone can deliver for them. I swear half of the people I see are Uber drivers who don't have a route ATM.

4) Just yesterday AMZL US brought me a package. They guy who brought it didn't know how to scan the package to mark it as delivered. He actually had us do it for him. They have a long way to go before if they want to take this seriously

<comment><USER9> >Their drivers are not professionals. I get the feeling anyone can deliver for them. I swear half of the people I see are Uber drivers who don't have a route ATM.

That's exactly what they are. See more here: [https://logistics.amazon.com/](https://logistics.amazon.com/)

<comment><USER10> [http://logistics.amazon.com](http://logistics.amazon.com) is for small companies to work as contractors for AMZL. AMZL doesn't actually employ any drivers- they hire lots and lots of small companies that work on contracts paid on a per-route basis (1 route is a days work for one driver, generally). Those small companies can find people anywhere they like, so long as they can do the job.

[https://flex.amazon.com/](https://flex.amazon.com/) on the other hand takes it even further: literally everyone is an uber-style single-person contractor doing n-hour contracts with AMZL or Prime Now to delivery packages. No middle- man contracting company.

<comment><USER9> Thanks. Good info. I assumed the logistics site was for 'independent contractors'

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The crazy thing is Amazon keeps entering these hyper-competetive, low margin industries. It's pretty tough to cry foul that they are acting like a trust when they constantly position themselves as the third or fourth player breaking up an oligopoly.

<comment><USER12> Or, if you're cynical, you can say they are playing the long game. Once amazon controls the full vertical for everything, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone else to do business with. Then, they can turn up the money faucet.

<comment><USER13> Books is a good indicator. We have about 100k+ listings at any given point. We have seen at least 50% of our competitors go out of business since the last rate hike (mid summer).

...you are now paying about $3 more per book and the majority of that now goes to Amazon. Not the third party seller. They raised % taken and also began taking a percentage of shipping fee which is why you see a bunch of third party sellers listing free shipping. Basically they caught up to Ebay in that regard.

"Used" books are not really profitable to sell on Amazon anymore. If you want better prices go to Abebooks.com. Same sellers and generally $2-3 cheaper now.

<comment><USER14> Though note that Amazon owns Abebooks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I have a < 50% delivery rate to my apartment when Amazon delivers it and the past two deliveries to work were "delivery attempted" even though they never tried to deliver it into the office.

<comment><USER16> Whenever an Amazon contracted courier tries to deliver a package, they call my cellphone because they can't get into the apartment's lobby.

It's so frustrating, and a ridiculous step backward - UPS, USPS, and FedEx are all completely fine. But if Amazon's Algorithm decides to send it via an Amazon contracted courier instead, I'd better be home and near my phone, or no delivery for me!

<comment><USER17> Contact amazon and tell them to mark your account to not use them. I had to because for some reason the drivers couldn't figure out the entrance to my apartment was around the corner and an unmarked emergency exit wasn't the entrance. Would get called early in the morning demanding me to go meet them on the street.

The Amazon rep I talked to was able to make sure all my packages came from the "old" services and haven't had a problem since. Guess this is what happens when you hire people that have no experience with delivery goods and are not paid what real delivery people are.

<comment><USER18> I like to call it the "self service" economy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Product design, logistics, warehousing, delivery, IT infrastructure, physical stores, ecommerce.

Plenty of companies have this kind of vertical integration too (e.g Apple) but none that I'm aware of do this across such a large range of products - nor do they then offer these as services to third parties (e.g. IT infrastructure, ecommerce).

What else will Amazon decide to bring in-house? Manufacturing? Energy production? Consumer finance?

EDIT: As an aside, I find it ironic that Amazon started out selling books. I know plenty of people (myself included) that have daydreamed about owning a little bookstore as a way of escaping the rat race. Success for most would look more like Bernard Black Than Jeff Bezos.

<comment><USER20> They do have their "AmazonBasics" program [1] where they're selling their own "store brand" of things. I guess that's probably not their own manufacturing (they're likely just buying in bulk and branding it) but it might be.

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/AmazonBasics/pages/2528919011](https://www.amazon.com/AmazonBasics/pages/2528919011)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I hope Amazon do something great here. Delivery firms are all awful. They only have one job, get the package to me. So why are you delivering it at 11am when you know I'm at work? And then again tomorrow, and again, and then leave it at your depot where the onus is on me to collect it.

Why not deliver it at 7pm when I'm home from work? If supermarkets can manage it (and delivery is their secondary business) - I'm sure a _delivery_ company should be able to pull this kind of service out the bag.

For once I'm rooting for team Amazon.

<comment><USER22> Amazon Logistics has been running for quite a while in Germany, and for me it's looks like it's a disaster. Every order is like a lottery. If your package gets assigned to DHL, you're almost guaranteed to get it on time. If you get Amazon Logistics, you should be happy if it shows up at all.

<comment><USER23> See for me it's the other way around. With DHL who knows when it'll arrive or if the driver will even attempt to deliver your item. (Currently, I have the problem of DHL claims something was delivered yet the front office says it wasn't.) DHL massively overwork their drivers, which results in them having far too many packages to deliver, therefore just end up dropping them off at a local post office for pick up.

Amazon Logistics, it arrives constantly. Also in the UK Amazon Logistics even deliver prime items on a Sunday - also in the UK they send a lot of items with a few amazingly crap delivery service so when you get Amazon Logistics, DPD, or Royal Mail, it's happy days.

<comment><USER24> For valuable items I would gladly pay extra for DPD delivery!

 __Note to amazon employees who may be watching - not really!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Amazon delivers like 25% of the stuff we order directly in Venice.

They get the address wrong far more often then USPS, UPS and FedEx, in our experience.

A neighbor 5 houses down has the same street number, technically on a different street, but it faces the same way as ours so if you just eyeball it without verifying on the map it's easy to mess up. I'm sure they will improve but it's obvious having a consistent driver for an area is important, especially if addresses are weird.

Also they have to scan the package and my front door is basically a cellular dead zone, it costs them a lot of time trying to find the sweet spot to scan on their mobile device before taking off to the next stop.

<comment><USER26> Wow, didn't know they were big outside the US?

<comment><USER27> I'm pretty sure the _United States_ Postal Service doesn't deliver to Venice, Italy. He's probably referring to Venice, California; a suburb of LA.

<comment><USER25> Yep, sorry for the confusion!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> We have the receiving end of this for quite some time in Berlin.

This is a huge pain compared to DHL and not working at all for me (Prime customer since beginning).

Missed delivery dates.

Didn't find the address several times, no one else had that problem.

Software not working or drivers who had no clue about the software.

Delivery to business address up until 9pm (!)

Lost deliveries.

Had many calls with Amazon customer support, they can't blacklist me for Amazon Logistics and they can't help in any way. Customer support told me on several occasions they know, they get this often but can't help.

Weird thing: I saw several people who rented e.g. Enterprise vans for delivery, how is that paying?

<comment><USER29> I've had all those issues in Munich too. And I've managed to have amazon blacklist them for my account.

One support rep told me that they have that option if you have more than 3 deliveries that they messed up.

I've filed a complaint after every time they didn't deliver the package properly (as in, not delivered at all, even though it was possible), and then I sent an email with 5 or so order numbers, descriptions of what was wrong, and asked them to blacklist amazon logistics.

Here's the quote from an email:

>Since you mentioned that this is not the first time this has happened, please reply to my email, giving us 3 order numbers which you feel were improperly delivered by Amazon Logistics, together with the issues for each.

>As soon as we receive them, we will file an official complaint against this carrier, trying to exclude them from future deliveries of your orders.

Note: Some support reps insisted that it's not possible to blacklist a single delivery company.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> In the UK, some Amazon deliveries were sent via 'Amazon Logistics', which was usually someone in a little car full of packages. I think it's been going on for at least the last 3 or 4 years?

<comment><USER31> They've had the same in the US for a while as well. What makes this different is that they are handling both sides of the delivery, whereas before they were delivering from their own warehouse.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> In Santa Clara, CA, Amazon logistics has been good for me. The drivers will consistently call me on my cellphone if they can't find my (weirdly placed) apartment which is more than I can say for UPS.

<comment><USER33> I apologize if this is a silly question but is "Amazon Logistics" just the umbrella term for whatever local courier service they contract with?

<comment><USER34> I believe so.

In some parts of the UK this goes all the way down to individual contractors, of the man-with-a-van type.

As you can imagine this leads to a mixed exxperience because they are all self employed.

Interestingly, about 18 months ago they appeared to change tactics and begin contracting mostly foreign drivers. Ive theorised this was a cost thing; delivery experience went through the floor, I think they are paid a pittance per parcel and so deliveries to my house, which can be hard to locate and therefore takes time, winds them up.

Ive had drivers full on scream in my face over how long it has taken to find me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Today Amazon delivered a package to me at work.

They ignored the "deliveries in rear" sign which directs them to the shipping dock. Went to front desk instead.

They parked across a handicapped space in front. Not "in" the space, but askew so that it also blocked the handicap loading area between the two handicapped spaces.

I like UPS. They're professionals.

<comment><USER36> Isn't it funny that we consider the "last mile" or even last few feet the difficult part of deliveries, something that can't possibly be automated, but there are countless cases of presumably capable humans failing at basic but organic tasks like reading a sign or opening a gate.

<comment><USER37> I suspect this (and a lot of the issues often associated with deliveries) are because drivers are pressured into making as many deliveries as possible, so saving 30 seconds per delivery really adds up over a day.

<comment><USER38> Yeah, it's this. all the Amazon logistics guys drive around like lunatics in my area and my company's daily DPD collection driver says they are penalized for bringing a package back so they absolutely have to find somewhere to leave it.

Whats annoying is all of the big UK delivery companies offer a live tracking feature now and a one-hour delivery window with interactive SMS systems to manage delaying delivery etc. Amazon offers nothing, it's like going back 10 years as the parcel will arrive sometime between 8am and 8pm

<comment><USER39> > my company's daily DPD collection driver says they are penalized for > bringing a package back so they absolutely have to find somewhere to leave > it.

Much better than the situation with UPS/USPS which don't even bother to ring the doorbell.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Amazon Logistics have lost my packages several times. I had to call them every time they use their own delivery service. I told them to use Google Maps, but was told they don't have a smartphone. Luckily their customer service rep was great, and either refunded or shipped replacements.

<comment><USER17> > but was told they don't have a smartphone

Every time they've delivered to me they've had their phone out with the Amazon app with directions and a button to mark delivered so someone was lying to you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> This has to be a nightmare scenario for FedEx and UPS. From my understanding, a decent number of their flights are pretty much paid for on Amazon deliveries alone: The scale that Amazon ships at makes it feasible to quickly deliver many other packages economically. If Amazon chooses to cut FedEx and UPS out of the deal (even partially), how much will that impact those companies' ability to operate two-day shipping affordably?

<comment><USER42> no kidding. about four UPS flights land in my city's airport everyday, which happens to be one of the distribution centers / warehouse locations for Amazon for norther CA.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Just attempting to do this will give them a hand in negotiating with FedEx and UPS.

</comment><comment><USER44> They are already using their own service here in Germany.

I guess in practice it's a subcontractor anyway but they only drive for Amazon (branded cars) and are not associated with any of the big delivery companies.

</comment><comment><USER45> I'll echo many of the problems listed in this discussion with the Amazon Logistics service.

Here in DFW, there's 5 main delivery vehicles for Amazon packages: USPS, UPS, Fedex, AMZL US, and LSO (Lonestar Overnight, for some overnight/same day delivery).

USPS is...USPS. Never really had a great interaction with them. Our local substation is godawful. Never attempts to deliver large packages (currently in an apartment with parcel lockers). I've found them holding onto boxes of mail with no real warning.

UPS used be really good; the same driver would deliver to my apartment that also delivered/took pickups from my work 3mi away. But lately that's changed and UPS can be somewhat hit or miss, usually erring more on the side of hit. Fedex used to be really terrible but they've stepped their game up significantly and hit far more than miss.

Amazon Logistics? Hah. I'd say maybe a 30% hit rate if that. Many times packages simply go past their delivery date and I have to spend time with Amazon on the phone getting it resent with same/next day delivery with a reputable carrier. Most of the time they just drop and run, never knock on the door or anything (my wife is home much of the time and I have to tell her that something's been delivered because neither she or the dog know that there's someone at the door).

LSO is great. Never had a problem with them. They hustle their asses off and frequently deliver early and without an issue. As are a few of the other contracted couriers I've seen used.

</comment><comment><USER46> Amazon USA recently started shipping all kinds of shit to Japan (where I live). We use Amazon Japan a lot, but there are all kinds of products that aren't sold here.

The shipping is pretty reasonable; a few dollars for 6-10 day delivery. I recently bought a PS4 Pro and had it delivered 2nd day for cheaper than I could buy that same thing here, which was pretty mind-blowing.

I've now used it dozens of times. Sometimes its UPS or one of the regular delivery firms, but a few times its been some dude in a muscle shirt and no uniform who just rings the bell and says, "Hello, this is Amazon".

</comment><comment><USER47> I'm sure they know their own numbers... that said, how is it cheaper to have warehousing run by your sellers (who distributed as they may be, do not have the efficiencies/automation AMZ has) and, as it pertains couriers, I had thought the likes of them had vertically integrated into warehousing services for their customers? Or have they been outflanked by AMZ despite having decades of logistics experience for very diverse industries?

<comment><USER48> > how is it cheaper to have warehousing run by your sellers

When you think about the people selling on Amazon's platform as "partners" then your point is very valid. When you think about those other sellers as "competitors" then this strategy makes a lot more sense.

A lot of third parties have complained that they joined Amazon's platform, did well, but then had an "AmazonBasics" version of their product turn up, under- cut them, and appear at the top of rankings squeezing the original product out.

For example, search on Amazon for "Ladder Golf." Top ranked result and "Amazon Choice" is an AmazonBasics set for $26.99, added in May 2016, with only 51 reviews. The second result, by GoSports, has 748 reviews, has sold since October 2012, but for $49.99. You'll note that Amazon's product added four years after GoSport's product has a strikingly similar design.

My point is, this is what Amazon does. It waits for sellers to do well, clones their product, and then competes with them on price (which Amazon can due to its sheer scale). You could legitimately argue customers benefit from lower prices, which is undeniable, but customers also benefit from a competitive marketplace. Once Amazon has no competition they can increase prices again.

PS - I have absolutely no association with any of the products or companies listed above. I picked "Ladder Golf" as an example as a lot of people don't realise AmazonBasics has expanded well beyond electronics/cables/batteries into things like toys, household goods, garden supplies, and so on...

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Vertical integration at its finest.

I feel that this will only embolden people who claim Amazon is becoming a monopoly (even though the numbers don't support it).

</comment><comment><USER50> I really like the fact that Amazon it's expanding its horizon so fast. I am really hoping for a global shipping service in the coming years.

</comment><comment><USER51> I haven't had ups or fedex deliver an amazon package to me in about two years. But I miss it. Instead some random person pulls up in a beat up minivan and leaves a package on my steps, and now they take a picture of them the porch before leaving. It's all just too weird. I preferred getting packages from ups.

<comment><USER52> I've never had an issue with Amazon's couriers. It's not like our UPS/FedEx drivers go out of their way to differentiate themselves from the competition, and as long as my stuff gets here on time and undamaged, I don't really care about how it's getting delivered. Taking a photo of the delivery on the porch doesn't seem strange to me at all, either.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Rural high sierras town for me, an hour from Reno and Truckee. Amazon delivers just fine, FedEx too (Chewy). The bigger hiccup moving up here was for Amazon's logistics to realize my Bay Area locale wasn't suitable to my new location...things come via Reno Now. They adapted well. Chewy using FedEx has been great too.

</comment><comment><USER54> This seems like a necessary step to automating delivery (like their drone delivery program). I'm not sure anyone thought they were going to convince UPS/USPS/FedEx to start using drones or other mechanical means to deliver mail: they need their own delivery service to test from and roll out to.

</comment><comment><USER55> Now they need to get into manufacturing.

<comment><USER37> They already have you covered:

[https://qz.com/1039381/amazon-owns-a-whole-collection-of- sec...](https://qz.com/1039381/amazon-owns-a-whole-collection-of-secret- brands/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> If you're curious about where they're going, have a peek at the job listings for "last mile":

[https://www.amazon.jobs/en/search?base_query=last+mile](https://www.amazon.jobs/en/search?base_query=last+mile)

</comment><comment><USER57> No mention in this story about the Teamsters union supporting UPS drivers. These freelance, gig-economy drivers that Amazon will replace UPS with won't have a leg to stand on unless they organize just as the UPS drivers did.

<comment><USER39> FWIW FedEx also classifies their workers as contractors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> It's interesting because the biggest Amazon competitor here in The Netherlands - Coolblue - are doing exactly the same thing.

Funny thing is is that Amazon can't compete with the local incumbents here so they have a tiny market share.

<comment><USER59> i'd thought Bol would've been the biggest competitor, no?

<comment><USER58> In books easily, but CoolBlue are massive in pretty much everything else.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> This is the equivalent of Google building a cable company. It's just negotiating leverage and spare capacity for Christmas, Amazon has no intention of building this out.

<comment><USER61> Here in germany amazon delivers many of it's packages with their own service, and has for more than a year now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> Maybe UPS and FedEx should be building huge warehouses of stock next to their delivery centres and opening online stores?

</comment><comment><USER63> Is Amazon actually doing delivery with their own people, or are they just rebranding and reselling something?

<comment><USER64> Mostly reselling. Amazon Logistics is larger-scale company level delivery contracting, usually for defined service areas . Amazon Flex is the Uber for package delivery variant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> NB: INSTANTLY PLAYING LOUD VIDEO

</comment><comment><USER66> the best name for this service would be 'River'

</comment><comment><USER67> (Apologies, maybe i should have posted this as its own blog post...but meh, too late, I've posted it here...)

So...maybe it might be silly of me to ask, but why aren't FedEx and UPS attempting to encroach into (at least some of) Amazon's territory? For example, FedEx and UPS could make plays to compete with the AWS/IaaS offering. Oh, i know they would trail far behind AWS for several years - <USER2> trailing after google and microsft for that matter - but recall that amazon built their infrastructure for their benefit, and it was only later began selling it to others. I suppose even if FedEx, UPS don't become leaders in the IaaS industry, at least, if they get enough big customers, that would give them massive economies of scale that benefits their core parcel delivery business. Also, beyond simply delivery, what else can these guys do - <USER3> to fight Amazon, or build new business for themselves? Here are my admittedly outlandish steps for FedEx, UPS to compete with amazon and build new businesses...

Step 1: Change from a company that only ships packages to one that ships packages and datagrams. Basically, build up their tech infrastructure like what amazon did to eventually offer aws. This would enable them to reap plenty of cost-savings over time. Then build up enough to sell to other customers for the long-term; just like Amazon did. (Even if their platform is not as developer-friendly as AWS, they could target legacy-type enterprises.)

Step 2: Add services where regular, paper mail is received, scanned in, and delivered electronically to the recipient. Now, this may not be novel, as I know there are already services like this that exist: but this would be implemented on a massive scale...at least until most of humanity's correspondence eventually becomes all digital. I'd like to clarify that I'm of the very paranoid type of person, and would not like this service at all for privacy implications...But i have to acknowledge that there are plenty of people who have no issues with this, and/or in some cases greatly benefit from such a service - one example i can think of: military personnel receiving their regular mail via this service while they are abroad serving.

Step 3: I think UPS already does some of the following to some degree (not sure about FedEx), but add warehousing and other distributor-type support activities. Basically move up the supply chain. This positions FedEx, UPS from "just the delivery company", to a strategic partner who "gets my company's products over to my customers". This turns these guys from simply a delivery company into a "logistics, data, and delivery" partner.

Step 4: Now this one is ambitious...Add wide-scale, high-production 3-d printing of products. Now, admittedly, there are alot of constraints around this, such as but not limited to the products being printed couldn't be so complex. But if all we're talking about is something simple like hair combs, etc., then why couldn't FedEX, UPS become the producers of such products, and deliver them for me. I come up with ideas for products, submit some 3d printer design files into some sort of FedEx or UPS receiving system, and FedEx, UPS both produces them and delivers them. Some might ask, but couldn't i just purchase my own 3d printer and produce my own hair comb, etc.? Yes, but I'm talking here about massive scale of production. As a product company, if i can save tons of money by having my products produced somewhat local to me, which might avoid transit (especially trans-oceanic) costs, and then delivered by the same company, i can imagine it might save plenty of money across much of the supply (and delivery) chain. Again, it may not apply to all product categories, but i can see a future for a company to be an ad hoc manufacturing provider.

(Again, apologies for the length of my post here.)</comment>