Oil Needs to Fall Below $20 to Compete With Green Alternatives - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-05/oil-needs-to-fall-below-20-to-compete-in-green-transport-future <comment><USER2> The worry is that oil companies are making investments now for 10, 20 or 30 years into the future and not taking into account the realities of making a return. There are all sorts of long term capital costs for setting up oil fields, refineries, pipelines and so on, and then marginal costs for each barrel thereafter. Under a scenario of total road transport electrification, demand would be drastically reduced, meaning the capital costs would have to be substantially written off. Investors would lose their shirts, which would cause a lot of financial problems, not least that pension funds still seem to be thinking these are safe stocks, that the oil industry is in the same position as it was 50 years ago. It would also be catastrophic for the environment, because you'd have a glut of supply which producers would then be trying to sell below the actual cost of production, but anywhere above the marginal cost. It's vital these investments are properly priced, and that any investor who can't take the hit doesn't get involved.

<comment><USER3> > Under a scenario of total road transport electrification [...]

I think 30-year oil investments are relatively safe if this is their threat. I can't see this happening in less than 30 years.

<comment><USER2> I'd say personally total electrification won't happen for a long time, if ever, but there will be major markets, notably China and the EU, which are substantially electrified over a 30 year timescale.

You also have to bear in mind that electrification is most attractive for vehicles which travel the most distance, and consume the most fuel. Even 20% electrification of the fleet will have a massively outsized impact on oil consumption if it represents all taxis, buses, long distance commuters, road freight, etc. See Bloomberg's previous research about displacement of fuel from buses:

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-19/forget- te...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-19/forget-tesla-it-s- china-s-e-buses-that-are-denting-oil-demand)

<comment><USER4> Taxis and buses will be electrified quickly because it makes a lot of sense

As long as OTR trucking's primary regulatory irritants are weight and working hours it will resist electrification (unless electric somehow magically becomes so dirt cheap to run that it makes up for the limitations).

<comment><USER5> > irritants are weight and working hours

Working hours could actually be beneficial in Europe. Drivers require regular breaks over here. If batteries and chargers can sync with the required break cycle, then there's no reason not to go electric.

However, I do think that charging infrastructure will be the main issue, seeing as often tens of trucks will be at the same stop, they'll need a lot of power to get all of them charged within their breaks. Because existing rest stops don't seem located near power lines, that might be a challenge.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > new wind and solar energy projects combined with battery-powered electric > vehicles

Less than 0.3% of electricity in the US is generated by oil (in 2018). The proper comparison for wind/solar for grid energy would be against natural gas/nuclear/hydropower.

<comment><USER2> The report is comparing petrol/diesel against solar/wind plus batteries specifically in the context of road transport.

<comment><USER6> See my reply to gnode. But clearly solar/wind should not have been mentioned at all. They are talking about competing with grid electricity in that case, and making a very unlikely argument.

<comment><USER2> Your argument is about today, but the analysis is about 25 years time, i.e. the scale of long term oil investments.

<comment><USER6> My argument was about electric cars displacing gas. I'm curious why you think I'm talking about today, when they are 2% of the current market.

As far as the long-term prospect goes, it's very hard to say yet whether electric cars will replace enough of the gas infrastructure to drive down total oil demand.

On balance, I think not. If users were especially price conscious about their fuel usage, high-efficiency vehicles would be a bigger share of the market. They aren't. And beyond fuel efficiency, electric vehicles offer consumers very little that gas vehicles do not, and have very serious drawbacks that are unlikely to go away.

Given the current state of electric vehicle performance, vanishing tax incentives, and incomplete infrastructure. I think that the American consumer is going to pull back from this 2% dalliance with electric vehicles with its hands badly burned. It might be another generation before they make another attempt at a comeback.

<comment><USER2> > But gas vehicles remain very competitive against electric vehicles on total > cost of ownership, even with oil prices far higher than $20/barrel.

This is mostly true but irrelevant, because as I say the linked analysis is about 25 years.

> If electric vehicles do fully displace gas vehicles, the article is still > wrong, because oil will not be competitive with grid energy even at > $20/barrel.

That is close to analysis they have done, if anticipated cost reductions for EVs continue over that 25 year period, oil will have to be priced at $9 a barrel to undercut it for that market segment.

> Given the current state of electric vehicle performance, vanishing tax > incentives, and incomplete infrastructure. I think that the American > consumer is going to pull back from this 2% dalliance with electric vehicles > with its hands badly burned.

Sounds like motivated reasoning, to be honest. People will almost certainly drive what is cheaper, all the more so in America where consumption is high. The mechanisms driving reductions in cost are assisted but not driven by the US market, the transition is happening in the EU and in China, which gives scale, which reduces cost. As that happens, whole classes of vehicles will fall below the equivalent gasoline TCO.

<comment><USER6> > People will almost certainly drive what is cheaper, all the more so in > America where consumption is high.

Which is why hybrids and small cars dominate the American market? Fuel consciousness is only one thing driving purchasing decisions, and not the most important.

Americans could well decide to continue buying cars that can go on long journeys, don't have costly battery replacement issues, and don't take an hour to refuel at a special station.

<comment><USER2> They will go for the cheaper option all else being the same.

Battery replacement actually isn't an issue for EVs with good thermal management. There's already plenty of data out there for Teslas which indicate very few battery problems, no more than the kind of occasional drivetrain failures you get with internal combustion cars. The idea that owners will have to replace batteries as a matter or course was valid for some early and basic cars, but is clearly not an issue any more for most vehicles, and no vehicle at the premium end.

Short range and charging is an issue depending on what segment of the market you're talking about. The current state of the art, which will likely be normal in 5-10 years, is 6 hours of driving for 35 minutes of charging. And, of course, the car starts the day full. That will be a restriction for a part of the market, but you're claiming 2% is an overextension, which seems manifestly unlikely to me.

EV's have other benefits as well, not least the immediate torque and acceleration, which has previously been a differentiator.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> In the UK we have large taxes on oil as fuel (57.95 p duty + ~ 20p VAT on a litre), large subsidies for renewables, oil prices up to $80/barrel and still most people drive petrol or diesel vehicles.

<comment><USER8> Sure, and whilst this is _slowly_ changing, a large part is the high up-front cost.

A Kia e-Niro is £32,995 (including the recently cut Government subsidy) whilst a similar size+spec petrol car (The Kia Rio 3) is £17,285.

The Nissan Leaf is from £27,995 whilst the larger Qashqai is from £19,995.

I know that the up-front cost issue is similar in many countries, but that's where Government subsidies usually kick in. America has the $7,500 federal tax credit on EVs (to a point), plus state subsidies sometimes top it up to $10k. This compares to the UK which has recently cut the £4,500 subsidy down to £3,500 for EVs.

<comment><USER9> I don't care about the cost of the vehicle, I care about not having a place where I can load it. Parking is next to the road, and no electrical outlets exist there. Parking at the job is a new parking garage - again without electrical outlets.

An electric car would be useful to me for about 400 km before it runs dry - that's about four days of driving for me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Oil will be priced according to supply and demand. There may still be use cases which require oil. And however cheap the competition can produce oil it will be priced. This is non-news.

<comment><USER8> OPEC are much less powerful than the decades of past - thankfully - but it'll be a while before oil will be _truly_ priced by supply and demand and nothing else.

<comment><USER11> Their back was broken when they tried to kill shale oil in 2016 and failed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Which green alternatives gives us:

A multitude of materials (ex plastic in multiple shapes forms and solidness & nylon), energy (not just electricity), pesticides (no matter what you think of them they still make sure we are fed) lubricants.

I could go on. When we extract oil we don't just extract gasoline for our cars and houses we use it for so many things that simply doesn't have any alternatives.

</comment><comment><USER13> Does this take the higher cost of EVs into account?

<comment><USER2> It's looking at the cost of EVs over a 25 year time period, so I presume for a new vehicle which is bought in 2045. EVs are expensive now because of battery costs, but battery costs have consistently fallen by 20-30% over the last ten years, and the trend is expected to continue.

<comment><USER14> It would be nice to see the long term expected prices of EV's vs gasoline powered vehicles. Currently you can buy a cheap gasoline vehicle and years of gas for the cost of an equvilent EV.

Also i read all this gloom and doom about lithum reserves and how long they will last and how sustainable it is to the point i dont know what to believe. So are the batteries going to get more expensive as countries with lithium reserves realize what they have and start charging more?

I wish i could afford an EV or a hybrid, but they are out of my price range.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Oil primary use is as motor fuel for cars, trucks, planes and ships, and it's also used a a feedstock for the chemical industry. Renewables haven't been successful in either yet. This article assumes that electric cars are going to take off and replace internal combustion engines, which may not happen after all.

<comment><USER2> The report is assuming that road transport will go to whichever technology is cheaper, and that current learning rates for batteries and wind/solar will continue for the next 25 years.

<comment><USER15> Yeah, it's kind of like assuming that all religions will die in 25 years, because everyone will be 'rational'.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It does not matter, per billion invested in fossils you produce millions of kwh during decades.

Per billion invested in Renovables you can produce at most 10% of the kwh and for just a few years even months, till it's necessary costly maintenance

</comment><comment><USER17> What people need to have in mind is that oil, when compared with solar/wind power, acts both as a storage for energy(battery) and also the power/energy itself.

So that means, you need a battery. The price of the battery, its decay and so on, has to be taken into account in that price. Does that aforementioned price for the barrel of oil includes that? I think not.

If everybody would go electric Today, the price of a battery would go to infinity, as there is not enough supply for that demand. If the changes happens too fast, the price for the battery and it's longtime cost would be higher than oil, even with oil at $100. Which for me makes all this argumentation that oil will die useless and pointless.

And to those prophets of "Oil will disappear": Oil will still exist, but won't have a monopoly in cars, some machinery etc anymore. I believe consumers will still buy cars powered by oil as long as it is worth it.

It's an industry that generates a lot of jobs, has a huge effect on GDP and I'm very sure countries will change very gradually to electric vehicles.

<comment><USER2> > So that means, you need a battery. The price of the battery, its decay and > so on, has to be taken into account

That is the analysis they have done.

> If everybody would go electric Today, the price of a battery would go to > infinity, as there is not enough supply for that demand.

I don't understand why this is relevant, they are talking about a comparison for projected costs in 25 years, there's plenty of time for battery production to increase, it would be 15% a year over that timeframe even for a total transition, and the industry is currently sustaining 75% a year growth.

25 years seems like a long time, but it's a relevant timescale for oil investments made today and in the next years.

<comment><USER17> Maybe there isn't even enough lithium to power cars for the next 25 years. They either flop the market completely with new technology, or this will fail badly.

It is possible to create electric cars nowadays, but as we live in a capitalistic society we forget easily that we don't have unlimited resources on this planet. Lithium is still more rare than oil. I don't see how this is sustainable at all.</comment></comment></comment>


Money can buy happiness - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/05/daily-chart-0?fb_ref=activity <comment><USER3> The income scale is logarithmic, so the apparently linear lines that you see are actually curved. The returns in happiness per $ earned fall off significantly towards the top of the scale (which incidentally is capped at a fairly low $128,000). I don't really see how this new data contradicts the generally accepted view (mentioned in the article) that money increases happiness up to a point.

<comment><USER4> >I don't really see how this new data contradicts the generally accepted view (mentioned in the article) that money increases happiness up to a point.

The article shows a logarithmic trend (i.e. doubling your income increases your happiness by a fixed amount), which is a straight line on the log plot. This insinuates ( _if_ the trend continues, which is assumed from the results) that there is no point at which increased income won't make someone happier.

The traditionally-held view is that there is an income (I've heard something like 70k in the USA) where the plot should become a horizontal line, i.e. increasing your income increases your happiness by zero.

These are very different conclusions. The plot isn't really falling "significantly towards the top of the scale". Log is the correct way of looking at income, because people consider changes to their income proportionately to their current income (for example, a 5% raise to someone making 1M dollars a year is about as significant to his life as a 5% raise for someone making 100k, even though the actual additive amounts are very different).

<comment><USER5> _a 5% raise to someone making 1M dollars a year is about as significant to his life as a 5% raise for someone making 100k_

Are you asserting that as fact? Where I live, someone making 100K is just getting by and not saving very much, even with the 5% raise (he certainly couldn't buy a house), whereas for someone making 1M, the extra $50K is "free" money.

<comment><USER6> WHERE you live, or HOW you live?

I've seen many people complain about not making enough to live where they live, when I clearly see lifestyle changes that would fix the income problem, and I see people living alongside the first who make less and save more.

I don't know you. Or your life circumstances. It might not be true for you. But "$100k/year isn't enough to survive" is the kind of claim that I've learned to be automatically suspicious of.

<comment><USER7> I could see a family (of even 3) struggling to live a middle class lifestyle on 100K a year in the more expensive cities in America.

There's a huge difference between 100K in Tennessee vs 100k in NYC or SF.

<comment><USER6> This depends on your expectations about what a "middle class lifestyle" includes.

Let's take NYC. The fact is that in New York City, the median household income is about $50k/year. (Last year it was $50,895.) So if we define a "middle class lifestyle" as that which those in the middle can afford, well, by definition you're going to get by very well following that lifestyle while making $100k/year! Even if your household has 3 people in it.

But if you define "middle class lifestyle" according to the way you think that you peer group is living, well, I've known people making $200k+ who experience "trouble getting by".

Now I can understand making more, choosing to live better, and running into financial trouble because of it. But if you do that and blame anyone but yourself, well, I've got nothing in the way of sympathy for you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This poll is bullshit.

They are asking people to imagine what their life would be if they have more money. Of _course_ they say they would be satisfied (up to a point).

However, what people say they want are not necessarily what they need or feel. Contentedness doesn't come from having everything you need, it's a feeling that can be generated from within and rested upon, _whatever_ the situation you are in.

What generates a lot of confusion and suffering comes from the difference between the _imagined_ happiness ("If only ...") and the ability to be content in the present moment. (And sure! "Present moment" can be anything from sitting quietly outside and listening to skydiving). As long as you have an _imagined_ happiness, that "if only X, Y, and Z happens", then you will _never_ be satisfied.

It's totally crazy. People can just be happy right now, and go on with their lives, instead of twisting themselves up inside.

<comment><USER9> You have misunderstood. They ask people to report their actual income and their actual life satisfaction.

<comment><USER8> Fair enough, however, when I reread the post it says:

"They use a trove of data generated by Gallup, a polling firm, from its World Poll. Gallup asked respondents around the world to imagine a "satisfaction ladder" in which the top step represents a respondent's best possible life. Those being polled are then asked where on the ladder they stand (from zero to a maximum of 10), and how much they earn."

Not quite the same thing I said, but it still introduces a bias. The people are asked to first imagine what a "10" \-- that is, their ideal, imagined happiness -- before rating their happiness. It is essentially still the same mechanic, imagining a happiness before putting your "actual" happiness against that scale.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> People become acclimatised to 'new wealth'. One thing I learned from life experience, and then actually understood after studying Buddhist philosophy, is that it's very easy to enter a repetitive cycle of desire, some achievement, then more desire ... one yearns to make more money, makes it (via payrise or other successful project), gets used to having that money, wants more, makes more, and so on. The trick is to be satisfied / happy with what you have; it's not practical or very likely that your income will keep increasing 'forever'.

I can honestly state that I'm happier now making less money, not owning a house, nor having many of the trappings of 'success' that I had 10 years ago. I admit, however, some ill-placed desire to see if I might be happier now 'making money' than I was in the past; my healthier (IMO) life outlook might be simply as a result of more wisdom rather than less money.

<comment><USER11> Great point. The perspective you have for life, its what matters the most.. to do this research well they should detect different "life philosophies" or paradigms.. like "materialist type", "spiritual type", "dionisiac type", "apolinian type".. etc.. and also measure them in diferent points in life..

for instance, when younger is cool to be dionisiac.. you will be happy than.. but as you grow up.. different things matter most.. and or you will shift paradigms or you will get more unhapier with time. As a example of why do periodic research based in paradigms is important..

I think this is a complex matter to be viewed so trivially.. i dont think it proves much anything of value, in the way this research was conducted.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The Economist article actually conflates two happiness metrics, happiness as measured by emotional well-being and happiness as measured by life evaluation. Money buys happiness as measured by emotional well-being up to a point (that point being $75K for US residents), but higher income continues to increase life evaluation.

More details can be found in Daniel Kahneman's 2010 study, "High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well- being"([http://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489.full](http://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489.full)), where he uses the results of 450,000 Gallup poll responses to analyze the effects of income on both happiness metrics.

Kahneman defines emotional well-being as "the emotional quality of an individual's everyday experience—the frequency and intensity of experiences of joy, stress, sadness, anger, and affection that make one's life pleasant or unpleasant." Life evaluation, on the other hand, refers to the thoughts that people have about their life when they think about it."

In the study, emotional well-being is captured via series of yes/no questions of the form "Did you experience a lot of stress yesterday?" or "Did you smile or laugh a lot yesterday?" The goal is to assess their emotional well-being on the previous day. Life evaluation is measured by asking respondents to rate their lives on a ladder scale from 0-10, where 0 is "the worst possible life for you" and 10 is "the best possible life for you."

The data showed that for individuals earning below $75K, logarithmic increases in income (i.e. doubling one's income) positively correlate with scores for happiness, enjoyment, and smiling and negatively correlate with scores for sadness, worry, and stress. At $75K, you have enough to pay life's bills and still have discretionary money to go out and spend time with friends. The effects of income on emotional measures saturate at $75K because money no longer becomes the limiting resource for achieving more happiness, even though life satisfaction continues to rise when plotted against log income. "We conclude that high income buys life satisfaction but not happiness, and that low income is associated both with low life evaluation and low emotional well- being," Kahneman writes.

</comment><comment><USER13> The participants were _not_ asked how happy they were, they were asked where they stood on a 'satisfaction ladder' with the best life they could imagine at the top. Many people may be perfectly happy, but they know their position on the wealth scale and _imagine_ that they would feel more satisfied at the top of that scale.

<comment><USER14> people are actually pretty bad at defining where they are on the wealth scale. For example, loads of very rich Americans seem to think they're middle class (the WSJ once portrayed a middle-class family as earning $100000 a year, which actually places them in the top quintile).

This article describes how it is a relatively universal factor though (everyone thinks they're kinda in the middle)([http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/everyone-is- mid...](http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/everyone-is-middle-class- right/?_r=0))

<comment><USER15> You seem to under the misapprehension that middle-class refers to a median income grouping when that's not actually the case:

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

<comment><USER16> What you call a misapprehension I would instead call "identifying a delusion." The faux-classlessness of American society is one of the weirder and to my mind deleterious aspects of the American character, in part because I think it feeds into Steinbeck's temporarily-embarrassed-millionaires phenomenon (the rush of _actual_ middle-class people to defend the people who will profit from their defense).

And I don't think it holds true, anyway. I don't have the same problems as someone making $25,000 a year (approximately the 48th percentile as per Wikipedia), though they are recognizable to me in the abstract. I also don't have the same problems as someone making $200K a year and they are _utterly foreign_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This appears on HN coincidentally after the discussion on rating differences between cultures[1], so that different countries may have different views about what a scale of 1-10 means.

A 7 in Brazil might not be a 7 in India, for example.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7044833](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7044833)

<comment><USER18> The graph in the linked article uses separate lines for each country. The position of each line is different but the slope is surprisingly similar.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Money can buy security and that security increases your happiness. Not having money can make you unhappy. Sustainable happiness is recognizing what is truly valuable in life and appreciating it.

For me this is:

1) No debt

2) Full stomach/quenched thirst

3) A warm place to sleep

3) Meaningful intimate loving relationships

4) A sense that I am valuable (adding value to the world or some subset)

5) Freedom to indulge my curiosities through exploration/experimentation/participation.

6) And in its most abstract definition, freedom to experience a spiritual life.

<comment><USER20> 1\. No debt is fairly expensive in this world. Either you need a nontrivial income or a fairly high threshold for ascetic living.

2\. Full stomach/quenched thirst is trivial if you don't mind tap water and simple starches, but once you add (depending on your taste) a complement of steak, quinoa, fresh fruits, beer and/or wine - then you run into a little money.

3\. Warm place to sleep - anywhere near work? public transport? "good" schools (however you define that)? Gets expensive quick.

3bis. Meaningful intimate loving relationships are easier to maintain if you have at least one weekend day off (i.e. don't have to work 2 or more jobs) and have at least a little cash to go out on the town at least once in a while.

4\. Sense that I am valuable - to me, this has always been difficult without a modestly good set of clothes, shoes and a haircut. Others don't feel that way (but less than you'd think). But maintaining a personal sense of one's value is at least somewhat correlated with others' sense of ones' value. And others' sense of one's value is never completely monetarily free.

5-6. Freedom to indulge curiosities and spiritual life - on a low income, you'd better be single and childless. And even then, it's a challenge.

I very much doubt the average person could fulfill those goals to any degree of satisfaction on less than 50k as a single person in a major metro area, not a ton less in the boondocks, and not much less than double that with a partner or spouse.

<comment><USER21> I have no debt and significant savings/investments but that is because I don't own a house. We have this social expectation in the USA that one must be a homeowner or they are nobody or haven't made it. Even those who can't afford a house have one. I also paid only 12,000 for my small car that is extra fuel efficient instead of buying an expensive car or SUV even though I could afford one.

<comment><USER20> Good move. IMHO homeownership is inadvisable where it can be avoided.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The richest in India are less happy than Brazil's poorest.

But leave it to the economist to find that money makes you happy while ignoring that some countries seem much happier.

If you were to pick a country where you could randomly end up anywhere on the income scale, which would you pick? Of the countries listed, I'd pick the United States, followed by Brazil, Britain and Mexico.

<comment><USER5> US? Mexico?! Ignoring the graph, you want to end up in a company with strong social services and wealth redistribution - Norway or somewhere similar. The US is not the best place to be poor.

It also depends who "you" are. Are you black? A woman? Gay? Other countries may have a relative advantage over the US.

<comment><USER23> The US is still upwardly mobile. If you have any ambition at all, it's possible to rise. It's not _easy_ , but it's far from impossible.

[http://www.nationalreview.com/article/367903/white-ghetto- ke...](http://www.nationalreview.com/article/367903/white-ghetto-kevin-d- williamson)

This article on the poorest county in the US is very interesting, while they're very poor, it's not like anyone's starving, the food stamp program seems to support them well enough.

<comment><USER24> Stats actually seem to show that mobility is lower in the US than in the nordic countries:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility#Country_compari...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility#Country_comparison)

Of course the US is a very different place, too.

<comment><USER25> Not just lower than the nordic countries but a lot of other countries: "There is more intergenerational mobility in Australia, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, Spain, France, and Canada than in the U.S. In fact, of affluent countries studied, only Britain and Italy have lower intergenerational mobility than the United States does."

And also: "In spite of this low mobility Americans have had the highest belief in meritocracy among middle- and high-income countries."

TL;DR: Tell the same lie enough times and people will start believing it.

<comment><USER26> And when enough people believe it, it stops being a lie.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Abstract of the cited article ([http://www.nber.org/papers/w18992?utm_campaign=ntw&utm_mediu...](http://www.nber.org/papers/w18992?utm_campaign=ntw&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ntw)):

Many scholars have argued that once "basic needs" have been met, higher income is no longer associated with higher in subjective well-being. We assess the validity of this claim in comparisons of both rich and poor countries, and also of rich and poor people within a country. Analyzing multiple datasets, multiple definitions of "basic needs" and multiple questions about well-being, we find no support for this claim. The relationship between well-being and income is roughly linear-log and does not diminish as incomes rise. If there is a satiation point, we are yet to reach it.

<comment><USER28> Full Paper: [http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2013/...](http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2013/04/subjective%20well%20being%20income/subjective%20well%20being%20income.pdf)

<comment><USER29> thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> This seems obvious. Having no money is very stressful. Stress not only makes you generally very unhappy - it actually damages your brain ([http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15511597](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15511597)). Stress is an unhealthy thing to experience, especially when it is constant and your mind and body do not have time to recover. In small doses, a little stress keeps you moving, but its benefits drop off pretty quickly the more stress you experience. Thus it stands to reason that if a major source of stress is removed (a lack of financial stability) that your overall happiness level goes up.

<comment><USER11> There are communities that doesnt even have a economy based on money, and are pretty happy.. there are indigenous people in reserves here and brazil and also some remote parts of africa that i know of.. (i imagine theres even more samples)

If you start to look to them, they have a pretty smart way to achieve happyness without money.. they are very collective types in nature.. and not individualistic as we do.. the nature gives them everything they might need.. they dont have the same views on posession as we do.. like indians in brazil sleep in big open houses(ocas) with a little community in each one.. they even have rituals to exchange sexual partners (they do not possess each other like we do with engagements or marriage)..

So their reality are pretty different from our own.. and the white man doom their type of civilization, with the concept of money, properties, and greed basically..

So the lack of money is only stressful for people who need to care about money..

<comment><USER31> yeah, the noble savages are very serene....until you notice the infectious disease and children and mothers constantly dying in childbirth.

<comment><USER11> just to make it clear: im not saying they live the perfect life.. but both types of civilizations have things to teach one another.. we have things to teach, but we also have things to learn.. things that we lost in the way..

What we constantly see, is the "white man" notion of superiority, and therefore that he has nothing to learn, from "primitives"..

But the irony is that they have a lot to teach us..

Our societies are very complex, and one of the reasons for that is the infinite chain of the desire and need.. need this, need that.. never satisfied, never happy..

Being poor its not the problem, the problem its us.. the way we think and reproduce our lives and destiny.. looking at them can teach us a lot about ourselves and where we are doing wrong

<comment><USER31> I agree, work/life balance has gone to shit since the agricultural revolution.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I may sound like a conspiracy theorist but oh well:

The cynic in me says such graphs are (figuratively) propaganda by the 1% (of 1% in wealth, not income), in that now we can define what the masses are "ok" with while we, the 1% of the 1%, can accelerate our gains further. Let the rest of them have crumbs and be content.

<comment><USER33> The cynic in me is actually thinking it's interesting that the Scandanavian countries are left off the charts. They are usually touted as being amongst the happiest countries in the world, despite rather aggressive tax regimes to pay for it. Perhaps there is some cherry picking going on here? Either as propaganda to show that the US is the happiest, or to show that money equals happiness - which might not be true in the more socialist, high tax/lower net income Scandinavian countries.

I'm probably being too cynical though. It's just surprising given the reputation of countries like Denmark and Norway for being happy, that any study could possibly leave them out.

<comment><USER14> The paper is linked, available here ([http://www.nber.org/papers/w18992.pdf?new_window=1](http://www.nber.org/papers/w18992.pdf?new_window=1))

The graph they have included the 25 most populous countries, and is already a mess (lots of overlapping things). The Scandanavian countries didn't even make the cut on that one, the Economist probably took the ones that were the furthest apart. Maybe if all the Scandinavian countries fused together they could have made it?

<comment><USER33> Yeah, it'd be interesting if there was a study on population size vs. happiness. I imagine there would be an inverse correlation (smaller population, more happy). But whether you could isolate the cause would be a different matter.

For example: is Norway happy because they have a small population with massive, well-managed oil reserves to pay for their social services? Or are they happy because with a smaller population it's easier to gain a consensus vote for alternative ways of life (eg. social democracy)? Whereas say, the USA might always be stuck with a capitalist democracy because the large population is too big to influence easily.

<comment><USER34> > For example: is Norway happy because they have a small population with > massive, well-managed oil reserves to pay for their social services?

The oil reserves don't pay for the social services. Some of the reserves are spent in the budget, but that is mostly skimming off the "interests", and there are restrictions put in place on how much you can use (maybe you already knew this; your wording was a bit ambiguous).

<comment><USER33> Yeah I did, I was just trying to point out a potential difference between being a rich country and happy vs. a small, politically engaged country and happy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> The study uses an odd and rather dubious measure of "happiness":

 _Gallup asked respondents [...] to imagine a "satisfaction ladder" in which the top step represents a respondent's best possible life. Those being polled are then asked where on the ladder they stand_

What the results may show is that fantasies about happiness, such as "if only I had more money", lose power as one gets more money. If you run out of fantasies about how you might be happier, it does not follow that you are happy. It could be the opposite! Perhaps the article should be titled, "Money weakens the imagination".

In any case, studies that define "happiness" very differently should not be described as "casting doubt" on one another.

Edit: looking at the paper itself, the "imaginary ladder" was one of two questions asked; the other was (paraphrased) "how satisfied are you on a scale of 1 to 10?" I don't know how the data differs between those two questions.

</comment><comment><USER36> There appears to be a single main diagonal that includes China, Russia, Italy, France, and Germany.

Above that diagonal are countries where it takes less money to achieve that same satisfaction as those on the main diagonal. Apparently, Brazil, Mexico, India, and Nigeria get more satisfaction for the same level of income. That leaves Japan and Iran as the outliers where you get far less satisfaction for a given income level.

The slope of the lines is also interesting. Nigeria and Brazil stand-out as two places where income matters less it does others. The US and UK are also flatter (less income elastic) than the main diagonal.

</comment><comment><USER37> Money is like engine oil. An engine without enough runs poorly, but it doesn't take all that much to get it to run smoothly. More than that doesn't help or hurt, it just sits in a reservoir somewhere. You can get a bigger engine that uses more oil, but beyond some point it just doesn't matter much.

</comment><comment><USER38> _" Even more striking, the relationship between income and happiness hardly changes as incomes rise. Moving from rich to richer seems to raise happiness just as much as moving from poor to less poor."_

That's misleading (to be charitable...). _Doubling your income_ seems to raise happiness as much, whether you're moving form poor to less poor or rich to more rich, within the ranges looked at. Adding $5000 means a _lot_ more happiness for the poor than the wealthy.

</comment><comment><USER39> This is one of the big controversies in happiness economics.

I wonder if this effect (which directly contradicts Easterlin's findings that money has _no_ effect on happiness past a certain point; here, they contend that there is no saturation point and that happiness evolves with the logarithm of income) could be somewhat due to the way they framed the question: "assume you are on a ladder of happiness with 10 steps, which one would you say you are on; then tell us how much you earn". It is widely known in behavioral economics that framing effects can have a huge effect on the way people respond ([1] [2], and so on), so I wouldn't be surprised than the way you ask people to evaluate their own happiness could explain at least part of the difference.

One of the conclusions of the Easterlin Paradox is that people care more about how much they earn compared to their neighbors than the actual amount. I feel like asking the question this way (imagining their happiness as a ladder with 10 steps, then thinking about their income) would directly lead to people implicitly internalizing this comparison in some kind of mental model where higher wealth = more happiness because they're trying to imagine what the best life possible could be: "ah I'm pretty happy right now, but if I had a twice as much money I think I would be happier though, so surely I can't be at the last step at the ladder. Actually, people who have twice as much than that should be even happier, so I'll add some steps on top and say I'm a 6 right now".

This sounds plausible to me because while the authors conclude there is no saturation point where income doesn't bring more happiness, this is a scale from 1 to 10 so surely some people must rate themselves a 10. What would those who earn twice as much as them think then? This solution could be that "being on top of the ladder" in people's mind is somehow conflated with "being on top of the income distribution", with all the other levels being computed relatively to that. In other terms, this framing may incite people to evaluate their happiness on a cross-sectional level, with Easterlin's Paradox being precisely that the income-happiness relationship exists only at the cross- sectional level but not at the longitudinal level.

The debate between the two models (Easterlin vs. Stevenson and Wolfers) has been a longstanding debate in happiness economics, with both sides having confirmed their findings with multiple data sets [3]. Maybe they're both right in a sense and the answer just depends on which definition of happiness you're asking people to evaluate themselves with (relative vs. on an absolute level)?

[1] [http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/08/the...](http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/08/the_framing_eff.html)

[2] [http://www.adsavvy.org/the-power-of-framing-effects-and- othe...](http://www.adsavvy.org/the-power-of-framing-effects-and-other- cognitive-biases/)

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

<comment><USER40> > people care more about how much they earn compared to their neighbors

Evolution should select for this "comparative success" behavior, possibly even if its _only_ advantage is as a signal for mating.

<comment><USER41> Regardless of any competitive or status-based desires, income relative to your neighbours (everyone in your city) is a big part of actual purchasing power.

In most cities, housing prices are based on land value, not construction costs. And land value is entirely based on demand: what your neighbours are willing to pay for the same lot.

And most services are priced based on the salaries of your neighbours - <USER2> more you earn relative to them, the more of their time you can afford.

<comment><USER42> This does not necessarily conflict with the diminishing returns theory. If you are 4x as rich as your neighbours, you will probably want to move to a more affluent area. At which point you will have richer neighbours (i.e. stronger competition.) There's a good chance you will again be dissatisfied with your relative wealth and be motivated to increase it further.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I think it's less that "money buys happiness" as it is that "poverty causes unhappiness".

</comment><comment><USER44> In regards to subjective happiness and income, I like to pose the question:

Would you rather earn $80,000 and live in a neighbourhood of those earning $100,000, or would you rather earn $100,000 and live in a neighbourhood of those earning $80,000. Money and happiness is entirely subjective according to your environment.

<comment><USER45> I guess you mean: "Would you rather earn $800,000 and live in a neighbourhood of those earning $1,000,000, or would you rather earn $100,000 and live in a neighbourhood of those earning $80,000."

<comment><USER46> Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see either this or the original even remotely as a difficult question.

Making 80% of the median income is completely within normal ranges; it seems to me it would be barely noticeable in both cases. On the other hand, the difference between US$100,000 and US$800,000 is gigantic, it's a complete change in lifestyle and security.

Seriously, does anyone here actually find either question to pose a true dilemma?

<comment><USER44> Take a village. Everyone earns $100,000 except you. You earn $80,000. How do you feel?

Now reverse it. You earn $100,000. Everyone else earns $80,000. How do you feel?

Those base feelings explains consumerism and envy.

<comment><USER46> I'd rather make $100K than $80K. Period. At those ratios, my neighbors just don't enter into the equation.

Now, I might be uncomfortable making $100K when my neighbors made $400K. That's an identifiable difference, and it would really mark me as the poor person in the neighborhood. But a 20% difference from the mean? I wouldn't even notice it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> It's really impossible to rate your life numerically in relation to a "best possible life", so in order to give some kind of answer to this vague question, respondents fall back on some quantifiable measure like money.

A separate issue is that the question "How satisfied are you WITH your life?" is not the same as "How satisfied are you IN your life?". It's possible to have high moment-to-moment happiness, but have a negative view of one's life; or vice versa. Daniel Kahnemann explains this in this TED talk (13:30):

[http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_kahneman_the_riddle_of_exper...](http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_kahneman_the_riddle_of_experience_vs_memory.html)

He even mentions the Gallup World Poll.

</comment><comment><USER48> I think the evidence they show is actually very compelling. Even though there are clearly country fixed effects, the graph shows that both within and across countries.

Of course what self reported happiness really measures is another matter...

</comment><comment><USER49> The distinction between INCOME and WEALTH here is important, a distinction which the title/thesis of this article ignores.

The title implies that simply POSSESSING money (wealth) is positively related to happiness, whereas the survey could only support the claim that EARNING money (income) is positively related to happiness.

I would argue that income is a much better proxy for the value a person creates in the world than is wealth (though both are deeply, deeply imperfect). I would much more readily believe a survey which implies 'people who believe they create more value in the world are more likely to be happy'.

</comment><comment><USER50> Maybe it can't buy happiness, but it can definitely rent it.

</comment><comment><USER51> Only as means to provide _changes_ in people's lives, not necessarily only your own. It has nothing to do with possessions or consumption, and especially this exhibitionistic, public consumption which is pushed by the media.

Giving a new pair of boots or a new jacket to some poor school children in Nepal or India will definitely buy some happiness. New iPad for oneself, of course, won't. A long journey to different lands as a CBT for an addict will buy some happiness, while visiting the most distant and expensive to reach island in Pacific won't. Traveling remote Indian/Nepali/Tibetan villages will buy some happiness, while stupid yoga course won't.

I'm mountaineering guide and ex-addict, that's why I know.

</comment><comment><USER52> I'm curious what the result show if you did not have to work for your money? While money does not make you happier when you work for it I wonder what portion of that is due to the additional stress, long hours, and responsibility that comes with high income jobs.

</comment><comment><USER53> Another peculiar interpretation of the same data: People segregate strongly by income, and you're happier if your neighbors are wealthy rather than poor. Not just crime but schools and parks and services.

</comment><comment><USER54> People should know that Rotschild owns part of the magazine The Economist. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist)

</comment><comment><USER55> The slope of the lines indicates how big an impact different incomes have. Contrast India and Nigeria, for example. A Nigerian needs a lot more to have the same incremental in increase in satisfaction as an Indian. Interestingly, Germany, Russia and India seem to be about parallel, even though the income ranges are different. Is that just coincidence? Or is there an underlying cause? Also, how well does the question itself translate among different languages and societies? Can the same concept be put across effectively?

</comment><comment><USER56> Maybe it can't buy happiness but it can definitely buy off unhappiness, some of it anyhow (adapted from a line in "Psycho").

</comment><comment><USER57> Some alternative titles: "People with a bitter taste for life are not making money" or "People who make a lot of money tend to be pretty pleased with themselves" or probably most accurately "People with a lot of money are pleased because it turns out our economic structure favours their particular skills or interests"

</comment><comment><USER58> Correlation ≠ causation.

If you live in a society where the propaganda tells you that wealth = success & value & esteem, then of course there's some connection. Maybe if we really lived in a culture where hoarding wealth was considered shameful, it would make people less happy to do so.

<comment><USER59> I always wonder how easily scientists (and journalists) fall for the correlation vs. causality trap. It looks like that scientific community lost the critical thinking. I always think the other way around when I read a "scientific" study and ask (in this case): "Do people with higher life satisfaction earn more money?" (=the cause of the better earnings is the satisfaction, not the other way around). Without reading the study it's impossible to tell that the researchers ruled this out, but it is imaginable that this is the case, too.

And it could be that there is a factor that is invisible to the study (maybe... IQ, height of the person, shoe size, ...?) that influences BOTH.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> Bypass paywall (maybe the paywall only starts after 1 day?):

[http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.economist.com/blogs/g...](http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/05/daily- chart-0)

</comment><comment><USER61> I find the conclusion that there is no cap where more money won't buy you more happiness a bit funny, when there's an explicitly defined cap in the question itself. No amount of money will make you any happier when you've already reached level 10.

</comment><comment><USER62> Money can buy the appearance of happiness, but happiness comes from inside, not from outside. It's a skill one can develop.

Recommended reading: Matthieu Ricard's book "Happiness: A Guide to Developing Life's Most Important Skill"

</comment><comment><USER63> Obligatory: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S63kIH96Bi0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S63kIH96Bi0)

 _" They say money can't buy happiness? Look at the fucking smile on my face"_.

</comment><comment><USER64> Am I wrong to dismiss just about anything that depends on _asking_ people? I don't have good ideas on how to measure happiness, but even the worst of them seems better than asking and leaving it at that.

</comment><comment><USER65> The survey measures people's _self-perceived_ satisfaction. I have no difficulty believing that richer people think they're happier, but the survey tells little about whether they actually are.

</comment><comment><USER66> One could maintain the manipulative fiction that money is unrelated to happiness above some nominal level (around $75,000) as a pretext to keep wages low for only so long.

</comment><comment><USER67> Whenever I see rich people, they don't see to smile a lot.

<comment><USER68> Smiling may be an indicator of other things besides happiness. It's been proposed (see e.g. [http://www.epjournal.net/wp- content/uploads/EP10371397.pdf](http://www.epjournal.net/wp- content/uploads/EP10371397.pdf) though I make no claim that that particular article proves it) that one function of smiling is an acknowledgement of _lower social status_ than the person one's smiling at. If something like this is right, then rich people might smile less at any given level of happiness.

(Or: they may smile less _in public_ , which will have a large influence on your perception of rich people's smiling if you don't happen to spend a lot of time in personal interactions with rich people. Or: they may in fact be less happy and therefore smile less -- though the evidence seems to be against this.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> The Economist needs to understand the difference experiencing happiness and remembering happiness. Behavioral economists have done years of research differentiating the two. It makes no sense to talk about happiness otherwise.

The incomes in the range of 60k - 70k (in US) beyond which happiness plateaus out is valid in the context of experiencing happiness. Its fair to say that middle income people would be unhappy when they think about the fact that they are not millionaires/billionaires, but they are not thinking about that most of the time, and during that time, they are just as happy as millionaires/billionaires.

</comment><comment><USER70> I know that if I had just £1,000 that I'd be a lot happier. I'd be able to focus on recovery rather than all the nonsense that I worry on at the moment.

</comment><comment><USER71> What is happiness? It's pretty subjective, therefore the title isn't even proper, since it assumes a generalization.

</comment><comment><USER72> Notice Japan - they work too damn much to be satisfied with their lives.

</comment><comment><USER73> Now chart the medication of psychotropic drugs in those countries.

</comment><comment><USER74> satisfaction != happiness

<comment><USER75> Satisfaction is an element of happiness. I can't imagine someone being super happy if they are fundamentally dissatisfied with their life.

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> ...It buys a WaveRunner

</comment><comment><USER77> I hope so.

</comment><comment><USER78> This is actually true at some point but there are really genuine happiness that money can't buy like love, friendship, loyalty and trust.</comment>


Patch to disable busmastering on PCI bridges before ExitBootServices() is called - <AUTHOR> https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/12/2/691 <comment><AUTHOR> Twitter thread: [https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/1201668829308284930](https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/1201668829308284930)</comment>


Facebook is slowly eating the rest of the Internet - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/04/11/how-facebook-is-slowly-eating-the-rest-of-the-internet/ <comment><USER2> I'm really ashamed to admit it, but I am addicted to Facebook. As much as I despise the lack of depth in the average content, I feel confident that Facebook has stumbled on something in our animal behavior that draws us closer to it.

I've always explained the phenomenon of gossip rags as a surrogate for our innate need to be social. Rather than engaging in actual social scenarios (which can carry social risks), many people have fulfilled our social needs with television shows and gossip rags. Celebrities have become a surrogate community members for many people, and I suspect Facebook ups that by one by creating a platform where you can interact with friends, celebrities and strangers in an environment that mitigates most (not all) risks.

I wish I had a clever idea for a solution to this because I really think the world deserves an open social platform that not only engages people socially, but provides the social lubricant to enable people to form online/offline clubs and interact with each other in a high-bandwidth so we can use the internet to teach each other and create fun things with each other.

Maybe it's only a matter of bandwidth, transistors and time.

<comment><USER3> Facebook is the social equivalent of fast food. They've tuned the menu to make it addictive.

> I wish I had a clever idea for a solution to this because I really think the > world deserves an open social platform that not only engages people > socially, but provides the social lubricant to enable people to form > online/offline clubs and interact with each other in a high-bandwidth so we > can use the internet to teach each other and create fun things with each > other.

It's called a coffee shop.

We need to get off the curated online experiences and back to interacting with people physically. It's vital. A therapist friend of mine says that most of the clients he sees that are teens or in their 20s have poor interaction skills in person and social phobia. Those lead to incredible rejection anxiety. I know from my own experience that some of the best conversations I've had with strangers have been people in their 50s and above who know how to engage in casual conversation and find joy in it rather than angst.

Go to a coffee shop and talk to a stranger. We should all do more of that. It's healthy.

<comment><USER4> It's not just you or your therapist friend. According to a study[1]: Empathy Dropped 40% in College Students between 2000 to 2010.

And now everything is much more addictive, and mobile wasn't even that common in 2010. And now we have virtual reality, which when you read the research some scary side effects surface - stuff like "derealization" \- basically having a consistent feeling that real life isn't real. Or stuff about ads having deep brainwashing like power.

And almost nobody is working to solve those issues.

[1][https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/born- love/201005/shocke...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/born- love/201005/shocker-empathy-dropped-40-in-college-students-2000)

<comment><USER5> Wow. I've been suspecting this more and more, but whenever I bring it up or similar, it ends with an asinine amount of resistance and I'm regarded as an SJW, worse, and even unempathetic. Hell, when I bring up some of the civics work I do, people get _angry_ that I'm trying to help others. Parpaphrased statements like, "Why are you trying to help dumb people?" are unbearably common and sad.

Thanks for the article. It gives me a lot to think about (after fact checking, of course).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I wonder if and at what point competition authorities will start requiring Facebook to make these options available with accounts on other social networks. Otherwise, we end up in the same place as Internet Explorer killing Netscape on Windows - a company releasing technically inferior products that squash competition by using their strengths in other irrelevant areas.

I can use Whatsapp and Instagram without a Facebook account, and there's no reason I couldn't use this new video streaming thing in the same way.

<comment><USER7> I guess in theory they should already be required by the telecommunications act of 1996 [1]

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> As much as I dislike facebook, I've moved around a lot throughout my life, as have a lot of my friends, both from high school and university. So realistically, I just don't see any realistic alternative single platform which allows me to keep in touch with all these people.

If such a platform did exist, and I knew about it, I would switch immediately. Their entire business model revolves around getting users addicted, and their history of abusing user's data means I will never be able to even trust the platform.

That being said, I limit my facebook usage to messanger and wishing people happy birthday, so I guess it could be worse.

<comment><USER9> >If such a platform did exist, and I knew about it, I would switch immediately.

>That being said, I limit my facebook usage to messanger and wishing people happy birthday, so I guess it could be worse.

You don't need a platform, you need a messaging tool and, if you don't mind the lack of encryption, you could just use email.

<comment><USER8> True, but I also need people I want to talk to to be on the messaging tool, which is the real issue here.

As for email, to me it just doesn't serve the same purpose that IM does. It's analogous to sending letters back and forth as opposed to having a face-to- face conversation -- the increased time lag between replies encouraged by the medium has a huge influence on the nature of conversations that occur through it.

I still use email, for example when I want to send something more in-depth to someone and I don't expect a quick reply. But it's not the right tool if I want a real-time, informal conversation with someone, which is most of my conversations.

<comment><USER10> I use Google Messenger. Everyone has a cell phone number. No need to enroll. I can share pictures, audio, text, video. Text messaging is the only thing you need.

I have a group chat with 2/3 other friends I've know for 20+ years. Then I usually text others individually.

Facebook is an awful medium to conduct intimate conversations over. After two failed attempts to ditch it in the past, I've been off Facebook for a year. I can attest that you won't miss it. Just use SMS.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Until you talk to a teenager. "Facebook is for old people..."

<comment><USER12> And then the teenager grows up and becomes an "old person", at which point we'll see them on Facebook.

<comment><USER13> At the moment, the frequency of social app turnover is much higher than the rate at which people become old, even for definitions of "old" as low as "30". Facebook is bucking the trend, but it's still not possible to know whether that's a "permanent" situation or just a trend-bucker. There's no guarantee they'll "end up" on Facebook.

<comment><USER14> if all the webs content ends up migrated into facebook, they wont have a ton of choice.

imagine all of yelp and craigslist locked, oh and every small business web page, requiring an account to view. stuff kids might not be interested in, but adults probably are.

<comment><USER15> I very much doubt craigslist users desire to have their craigslist activity tied to their real life identity...

<comment><USER14> what was on craigslist, is now quite often taking place in facebook groups

have you ever looked up groups for your local neighborhood: garage sales and all kinds of random things i previously would have seen on craigslist

<comment><USER15> I haven't had facebook since 2009, so no.

But I doubt you're going to see facebook: casual encounters anytime soon

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I have friends and family scattered all over the place. They're all on Facebook. That makes it really easy to connect with them, which reinforces the loop.

I use Facebook Messenger more often than texts now.

But perhaps more interestingly, I'm neither addicted to Facebook nor worried about this trend. It just fades into the background for me. The real value is the communication I have with other people. And as for the ads... I rarely notice them anymore.

<comment><USER17> I think it would be more accurate to say people are _in_ Facebook instead of _on_ Facebook.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Not sure if it's an Israeli thing, but Facebook groups are probably the biggest value I get out of Facebook (excluding messanger/whatsapp).

We have very active programming groups (Israeli IOS/Android devs, Javascript Israel), neighborhood and city groups (Secret Tel Aviv), social groups (Burning man Israel) and even a large discussion group about politics and economics.

<comment><USER19> This. I spent 95% of my time on Facebook in groups. Its definitely not a Israeli thing. In Nepal too, we have groups of programming language, groups about all sort of stuffs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I deleted my Facebook sometime ago when I noticed an acute "icky" feeling every time I used it. Whether it was the posts complaining about whatever the latest outrage was (Supreme Court legalizing same sex marriage, etc) or the barrage of games, or whatever else, the signal to noise ratio was awful.

That was about a year ago. I don't miss it, and I don't feel that I'm missing anything. I think there are plenty of niche, high value aggregators of content, and ways to "connect" that are more useful to me. Such as where I am posting now. And I don't have to feel bad about myself when I use them.

<comment><USER21> where are said aggregators of content?

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I've never used Facebook or LinkedIn and I'm someone who doesn't feel the urge to sign up. Should I be concerned?

<comment><USER23> I am "on Facebook", but it's for four specific reasons:

1) So I don't get questions about why I'm not on Facebook.

2) To let friends tag me in pictures (and see what pictures are being posted of me).

3) To let friends invite me to parties through Facebook.

4) See pictures of friends' babies.

I think it's good to have a Facebook account. It lets people push stuff to you, and more often I'm seeing invitations coming exclusively through FB. But I personally don't think you're missing anything by not actively using it.

Likewise, LinkedIn can be nice to keep tabs on past colleagues, not those you were close to obviously, but those on your periphery. You don't need to participate in the community to get the biggest benefit, IMO.

<comment><USER24> I'm on it, but still get asked all the time why I'm not on it. It seems like if you're not posting and commenting all the time people forget you exist.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> # Hostfile

      127.0.0.1 localhost facebook.com www.facebook.com

Best decision ever.

<comment><USER26>
        # if you're bothering with a hostfile block, you probably want these
        fbcdn.com www.fbcdn.com fbcdn.net www.fbcdn.net
        www.static.ak.fbcdn.net static.ak.fbcdn.net
        facebook.com www.facebook.com connect.facebook.com
        login.facebook.com www.login.facebook.com
        www.static.ak.connect.facebook.com static.ak.connect.facebook.com
        www.static.ak.facebook.com static.ak.facebook.com

        # might want to add these as well
        google-analytics.com www.google-analytics.com ssl.google-analytics.com

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Archive copy, for those like me who are crap at getting around paywalls:

[http://archive.is/MP459](http://archive.is/MP459)

</comment><comment><USER28> I find it really weird that when I click on a browser link from the facebook site to an external site, it ends up going back to opening facebook in firefox which asks me to login from the browser so I can see this external website.

It's like it wants me to view the internet from facebook wtf

<comment><USER29> That's actually doing you a service - Facebook maintain a database of malware sites, and they run the link through it to make you aren't going to be exposed.

Of course, they don't really do this for your benefit, as it also enables them to track metrics on which links get clicked.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I think on FB, celebs can follow normal people without them appearing as their followers (can anyone confirm this??) This means that power moves up the chain, but not necessarily down it (you lose the bragging rights.) What sort of company culture would do that?

</comment><comment><USER31> The only reason why I have not been using Facebook is their android app on 4.4.3 burns through my battery.

I still have their messenger app which I use every now and then to keep in touch with friends overseas. I might return to using the regular it in the future.

</comment><comment><USER32> Facebook is slowly eating the rest of the Internet... of course that depends on your use of the internet.

I have a profile but it's been closed for years.

For me the internet are forums that provide some technical insight that helps me fix a problem, open source software and a way to buy something without getting out of my chair.

On the plus side, facebook took away from email a lot of non requested emails and that made more straightforward the service, another plus is that suddenly I can get telephone numbers for most stores in case I need to do a call (sometimes small business doesn't have a webpage)

<comment><USER33> Some of the reasons Facebook took away from email are UI/UX-based: 1) have you ever wanted to send just a message without a subject line (email forces you to stop and think for 2 seconds, which is not good), 2) you have to remember the person's email address or how it starts (emails are still not great at just entering the person's name), 3) if the person changes email address you have to know the new one or your mail goes undelivered.

FB gave these folks email without all the above extra and folders, tags, and all that other non sense.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> facebook - microsoft for the next 50 years.

</comment><comment><USER35> I am not on facebook, and yet i don't see the internet being "eaten" around me. Maybe it's a good thing to have a wall behind which all the trivialities occur. If something great happens, it will jump out of there. Facebook is apparently "eating" the social networking world. To me, that's good, i would like to see companies innovating in other, more exciting areas.

</comment><comment><USER36> From the article: "Facebook does come out with great, original ideas. It reinvented the iconic 'like' button and created Facebook reactions."

I know they had to tread carefully on a heavily-used feature of the app. And it's a welcome update for sure. Still, let's not oversell it, either. They added a few more icons. I hope that's not the leading example of a great, original idea.

</comment><comment><USER37> While I agree with the premise, considering the source is a Bezos owned paper it's a little funny. That's amazon's modus operandi.

</comment><comment><USER38> ever since i enabled 2 factor i'm too lazy to log in so that did the trick. When I do log in once in a while, it just looks like a tumblr feed of people posting funny videos with occasional personal photo, I can get that on reddit already. so i'm just keeping my account alive in case i have anything to announce in the future..

<comment><USER39> You can control what you see from individual people and what things they share. It's very granular and it works well. You can also follow really interesting people, pages and groups. It's all about using the tool properly.

<comment><USER38> I find following interesting people on twitter to be a better signal to noise ratio. That way I get exactly what they put out and nothing more, instead of some complicated algorithm designed to keep me "engaged".

<comment><USER40> I agree, i do like Twitter just a slight tad more...but I wonder: if a person is following someone on Twitter, do they see _all of the actual output_ from that person? Or does Twitter do something similar to Facebook, and limit things a bit? If not now, then I wonder if it will happen eventually (Twitter's gotta monetize somehow, someday)? I should have began my comment with the disclaimer that I am becoming more and more of a curmudgeon of being a user on someone else's platform. Doubtful I'll get to RMS levels, but def. I'm a curmudgeon. ;-)

<comment><USER38> frankly I wish twitter would do this for direct replies to other tweets (maybe just show the first reply, and to see the rest you should click on that thread)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I'm on Facebook for one reason --- GoFundMe insisted I needed a Facebook account to "validate" my campaign.

I have never logged in to Facebook since. They send me email about 3x day about everything I'm "missing" LOL.

<comment><USER42> Sort of similar: I've only kept my Facebook account because I need it for work. I log in to Facebook (Business) and check that our product feed is behaving, and log out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Facebook is the most powerful attempt to construct a true modern walled garden. Bots and VR could be really useful in this attempt. Please, do not let this happen.

</comment><comment><USER44> Eventually Facebook will become evil, and eventually probably after that the Govt will have to regulate it or break it up.</comment>


New IBM Patent Allows Licensees to Incentivize Good Eating Habits - <AUTHOR> http://www.foodandtechconnect.com/site/2012/01/23/new-ibm-patent-allows-licensees-to-incentivize-good-eating-habits/ <comment><USER2> I'm worried about this patent, though I'm still a little confused by it. I recently thought about how I could set up some simple rules for my diet - 1) always eat breakfast, 2) go to the gym 4 days a week, 3) make my lunch 4 days a week (rather than buying it), 4) no beer weekday evenings, 5) no eating after 9pm.

If I set up an online system to allow a group people to create a set of their own conditions and get feedback on their promise, does this mean I have to pay IBM for using their idea - er - patented process?

They said (in the article) "IBM does not plan to sell this as a product – we are not making gadgets. This patent and others like it are created for groups to license from us. We did the heavy lifting in making it and whomever licenses it will get a working system out of it."

What was their "heavy lifting". I'm not sure what it was from the article. Did they create software that we can hook into? Or did they just patent the idea?

Maybe someone can help clarify this for me. I'm really hoping I have this wrong.

It's still a little confusing to me. And, I'll admit, a little worrisome as far as patents go.</comment>


Google Maps Major Update - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/maps/about/explore/

<comment><USER2> It certainly seems a little bit faster. Still a bit laggy when you double click to zoom in though (Chrome).

The previous version was dire, though I might be prepared to give this new-new version a chance.</comment>


Boys not better than girls at maths, study finds - <AUTHOR> http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2283083,00.html

<comment><USER2> The problem here is mean vs variance. The biggest performers in math and science are going to be at least a few standard deviations away from the mean.

Identical mean and slightly higher variance in men would significantly contribute to the ratios we see today.

Either way, the goal shouldn't be to make everyone feel good about innate abilities. The goal should be to find the reason why one person is innately better than someone else in a particular skill. Step 1: understanding. Step 2: enhancement. Step 3: repeat.

Similar to the recent JL post: forget the gap, focus on the product. It matters most.

<comment><USER3> Sure, variance is another question (and one not addressed either way by linked article), but there were some folks in the other thread arguing that maybe men are evolutionarily predisposed to be better at math than women. If that were true, you would expect to see differences in the mean and not just the variance.

<comment><USER2> The conversation is usually about the higher end. Higher variance would also lead to a greater number of math underachievers. I'm pretty sure the numbers play this out, but I think lower bounds on achievement tend to be heavily skewed by 'nurture'. Also, this assumes a symmetric curve. This highlights the gross over simplifications even a more advanced model suffers from. We're modeling brains here, after all, with one or two numbers.

But you are technically incorrect. You can see more of a certain group in the high end if there is higher variance with equal mean.

<comment><USER3> Everything you said here is true but I'm not sure what it has to do with what I said.

You are focusing on the highest end of the curve, presumably because that's where things like advancements in math (and the status it brings) lie.

I'm saying that even if you leave aside the entire discussion about a possible gender gap at the ends of the spectrum, there were other people who were suggesting that the gender gap in mathematical ability might be just like the gender gap in physical strength. This study seems to indicate that this isn't the case, therefore it's a valuable part of the discussion.

<comment><USER2> If you want ammunition against those claims, you should go back to math, not these studies: all claims show the gap to be small and the mean to be very close.

Most importantly he variance between groups is smaller than between individuals. This means that you have no way of knowing when you meet someone whether they are good at math because of their sex. That's the most important lesson for most people: don't be biased, because you're probably wrong.

The same argument applies to the race/IQ discussion. Variance between groups is smaller than between individuals.

So even if the claims of innate superiority are correct, you should treat individuals with respect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The Economist is the one that originally published the research, 2 months ago. Here's their take, with graphs & numbers:

[http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1...](http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11449804)

</comment><comment><USER5> good. Now they can start studying some computer science. Being in a class with 95% guys, is depressing. Some more balanced demographic, makes it more fun.

But I wonder if they even want to......

</comment><comment><USER6> Why is it even worth discussing? Or even worth discovering? Why do we always break ourselves down (by age, gender, education, whatever) into groups and bump them into each other?

<comment><USER7> _Why do we always break ourselves down_

Identity politics. Follow the money. If you can get a person in authority to declare, "We are all equal, given 'fair' conditions," then you have an opportunity to make the following argument:

      1. Men and women are equal, when society treats women fairly.
      2. Men and women make different incomes.
      3. Therefore, society is not treating women fairly.
      4. Corrective action is needed.

This is a standard move in identity politics, and you will see it whenever two groups are different. Different people = different outcomes. But the vast bulk of people, including scientists, have been trained from birth to say, "All men [sic] are created equal".

Once you decide that society isn't treating a group fairly, it is time to correct that. How? Affirmative action, set-asides, diversity training, repairations, etc.

What's in store:

[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODU5OTVjNjhhOTY4ZDk2MWY...](http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODU5OTVjNjhhOTY4ZDk2MWYyM2I0NTRjZWY3NDA2Njk)

<comment><USER6> _Then you have an opportunity to make the following argument: 1\. Men and women are equal, when society treats women fairly. 2\. Men and women make different incomes. 3\. Therefore, society is not treating women fairly._

But the thing is - you can't. Our approach to statistical drug studies is more careful and mathematically sound than studies about our own identities.

There isn't enough evidence in #1 and #2 to jump to #3, and normally outside of sensitive politics absurd like that simply goes ignored, kinda like child speak.

Lemme offer you similarly absurd statement:

Men and women are equal, yet men don't live as long as women do. Therefore, men's quality of life is lower and they are discriminated against.

<comment><USER7> Err, the logic is sound

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens>

That's not the point. In politics, if you can trick people into believe rubbish X causes trash Y which leads to bullshit Z and make money off it, then that's what you do. Generally, it's best to have a semi-reasonable argument. In the case above, the flaw is in the statement "Men and women are equal", which is obviously not the case. (Nothing is equal to anything, except in pure mathematics.)

Really, saying "men and women are equal" is a moral statement, with built-in failure, like the commands in the sermon on the mount. This leads to built-in transgression. Which leads to guilt. Which leads to submission. And so on.

<comment><USER8> There is a moral statement to be made about sexual equality, but it is not the same statement that is made about income or intelligence. Various political groups find it useful to conflate the following types of equality:

1\. Equality under the law/Equal rights as humans -- the law should treat men and women equally. "It is wrong to punish men more severely for crimes than women."

2\. "Societal" equality -- the attitudes and viewpoints of mainstream society should consider men and women to be equal. "It is wrong to believe that women should have children."

3\. Statistical equality -- men and women must be statistically identical for a politically useful class of statistics (e.g., intelligence). "Anyone who speculates that women are not as smart as/have different variance/etc is a sexist."

4\. Equality of outcome -- men and women should achieve the same outcomes, for a politically useful class of endeavors. "Professors in every field should be 50% male, 50% female."

#1 and #2 are moral questions, #3 is a scientific one. #4 is a consequence of #1,#2 and #3. The moral statements are hardly rubbish, they are perfectly legitimate moral claims (I even agree with #1). The bullshit is trying to claim that 1 == 2 == 3 == 4.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Such articles are always misleading.

      There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. - Mark Twain

If you are interested in such questions just read the original research: PISA 2003 <http://is.gd/Si0>

Full report in English: <http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/1/60/34002216.pdf>

</comment><comment><USER10> My only real problem with this is that I do not really care about what is achieved in children's mathematics classes. Surely, the better test of true ability in this field would be to look at researchers and research accomplishments.

<comment><USER11> Valuing research mathematics over everyday math is arbitrary and subjective.

<comment><USER10> Of course it is subjective, it is is me that does not care about children's mathematics. I make no claim for the wider world. That's why I said "My only problem" and not "the problem".

Its not entirely arbitrary though. I care about research mathematics as to do well at it(or to do it at all) requires very strong mathematical abilities. To do well in classroom mathematics is as much, and probably more, to do with being a good student.

So it seems to me that by looking at children's mathematics rather than research mathematics your results are going to be confounded by the issue that your measuring mathematics ability via a proxy(schoolroom mathematics) rather than the real thing(research mathematics). Your results might still be correct, but I find it hard to know if that is the case.

I suppose, if your just interested in day to day average numeracy skills then looking at children is fine, except even then I would prefer the study was performed on adults rather than regularly drilled students. That way you will find out who is more capable of retaining numeracy skills and who has the higher natural levels of numeracy, rather than just finding out which students revise the hardest and listen to the teacher most attentively.

<comment><AUTHOR> It'd be interesting to see how these disparities change (or not) with age and through into university study. I've always heard that girls mature faster, which may mean that differences in ability by sex that appear in childhood are different in adulthood.

Completely aside from that, it does show how broad societal trends can affect maths learning for females.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Seattle police will not enforce against public marijuana use, only warn verbally - <AUTHOR> http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2012/12/05/officers-shall-not-take-any-enforcement-action-other-than-to-issue-a-verbal-warning-for-a-violation-of-i-502/

<comment><USER2> The problem with this is that a lot of people think that the battle is now over, that "it's legal".

It's not. Possession of marihuana is a federal crime in the US. If you are a user, you live at the mercy of the federal government not prosecuting you.

This means that, for normal plebs, it's effectively legal - but for anyone who assumes that and does something (otherwise legal) to piss off the federal government, they can lock you up at will.

That's a terrifying thought.

<comment><USER3> Anyone know how the federal government would prosecute someone for possession of less than an ounce? What statutes would be violated? Who would prosecute you? What would the sentence be?

<comment><USER4> They wouldn't. It would be a waste of their time.

What sneak is referring to are the producers, distributors, and retailers that will eventually make up this system. The federal government would have interest in those dealing with large quantities.

The problem is that everyone is freaking out before anything is put in place. If the federal government plans to do any of this, they're going to let the state know, and we'll just have to see how it plays out from there.

<comment><USER5> That's actually not what he was referring to. I'd be interested to see him post one example, though, of the federal government making any enforcement on users for any reason at any time.

You want to ignore that? And still claim it might happen?

This gets decided by the DOJ, which is controlled by President Obama, whose base is college students and...others who show a propensity toward lighting up. Cracking down on everyday pot smokers would be political suicide.

<comment><USER6> Obama has run his final campaign. Sure, he's going to worry about his legacy now, but there's no such thing as "political suicide" for him any more. Just sayin'.

<comment><USER7> There is for his party though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> So... If all they are authorized to do is issue verbal warnings, the "warnings" are essentially meaningless, aren't they? Not saying this is a bad thing, just strikes me as a bit odd - "Warning - stop smoking or I'll... Issue you another warning?"

<comment><USER9> I'm guessing the process is:

Issue warning. If person heeds warning, move on. If person ignored warning, grab them for something related, like loitering, being a public nuisance, disorderly conduct, harassment or whatever the local equivalent of not doing as you're told is.

</comment></comment><comment> shawn-butler Smoking tobacco is banned by law in most public places in Seattle including parks. Then it was decided not to be enforced. They have a history of doing this, passing laws and deciding they have no effect.

Legislative cowardice to actually make the law reflect reality, I suppose. Funny how I can't just decide to relax my vigilance with regards to paying taxes.

<comment><USER10> That's also one of the things that makes Seattle such a kickass city.

Don't "enforce the hell out of the law" like a rookie cop with a hard on. Instead, realize that one of the most important jobs of a city is to strike the right balance to make the city an awesome place to live and work.

Laws don't always have to mean heavyhanded enforcement; sometimes they just provide the authority needed to deal with a potential problem _in case it ever actually becomes a serious problem_.

(Which smoking a cigarette in an outdoor park really, really isn't. I don't care to stand right next to smokers either, but in an outdoor park you really don't have to.)

<comment> shawn-butler This is the antithesis to good law. Crafting laws to deal with potential problems to be used at discretion of police should be avoided at all costs. First, because it is unjust, and second, because it leads directly to either actual or perceptions of abuse of police power undermining faith in the system. These sorts of "nuisance" discretionary laws are often used against minority populations discriminately.

Prohibition was essentially a social/cultural movement that was very bad law making possession and distribution of alcohol illegal because it had the potential to lead to things that were already illegal (public drunkeness, etc).

These public smoking bans in theory are crafted because secondhand smoke (be it from tobacco or another source) has the potential to cause cancer in people standing nearby in a public park.

Of course, neither prohibition nor smoking bans in public parks were ever really about preventing minor incidents of public drunkeness or absurdly low risks of cancer from secondhand smoke. They were obviously about abusing the law in order to discourage behaviour (drinking, smoking) that were previously a cultural norm but for which no actual justification exists for ending.

Really bugs me, but I'm obviously biased by preferences for minimalism in regulation and law.

<comment><USER10> I totally agree with you that it is not good law.

I think it is good _policing_ , though. Seattle has a pretty great police department, especially for a city so big.

Now, the cops deciding how and what laws to enforce doesn't always work out well, but as a practical matter that is part of what police departments have to do in every city, and Seattle's police seem to do it particularly well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> From what I heard on NPR earlier today, there was a big crowd near the Space Needle that all lit up at the stroke of 12 last night.

edit: and then meanwhile, there's this: [http://www.geekwire.com/2012/diego- marijuana-bill-gates-bud-...](http://www.geekwire.com/2012/diego-marijuana- bill-gates-bud-legal-startup-premium/) — a former Microsoftie who's starting up a premium pot business. I'm not sure how he's going to make this work until late next year (since it's not legal to sell here, yet!), but more power to the guy.

<comment><USER12> Wait, in public where if they were drinking alcohol it would be illegal?

Were they over 18? Did they drive home afterwards?

Do it in your own home and I don't care. Do it in the street or drive stoned and I have a major problem with it.

<comment><USER13> In Berlin people smoke all the time in public places. In U-bahn stations, in parks, in bars etc. And I wouldn't care less. It's not harming me in any way, like it's not also harmful if they drink a bottle of beer on their way home in the subway, which is totally accepted also.

This is one of the things I didn't understand when I visited SF and NY last spring. Especially the drinking part. Parks are the best place to drink some wine or beer, if you ask me.

<comment><USER14> As a Dutchman I agree with you (and your German beers)! People relaxing and having a drink/smoke in the park? No problem. In France it's the same, but with wine.

<comment><USER13> Waiting for the summer again to be able to do that...

<comment><USER15> Summer... I think we had that one in the UK at some point

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This: "the state's working on setting up a system to license growers and sellers, but it could take up to a year)."

Excellent. Should have the criminals worried. Even in Holland we still don't have this. (Although we're allowed to have several cannabis plants for personal use).

<comment><USER16> Why is that excellent? Why can't people just grow and sell like they do any other plant?

<comment><USER17> Because capitalism & marking is _too_ good at extracting value and promoting it's product. Just look at tobacco and alcholol.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> There is one line in this article which makes it completely worth the read.

</comment><comment><USER19> I lived in Washington state at one time and I tried to return at some point. I am glad I did not. I have respiratory problems, so I don't react well to smoke generally (of any kind). My past exposure to second hand marijuana smoke suggests I am allergic to it.

Given the general rise in asthma (due largely to environmental factors), I am not happy with the idea of tolerating another kind of smoking in public. I think there is plenty of evidence that respiratory problems can be acquired. You don't have to be born with one.

(Don't get me wrong: I think you should be allowed to consume whatever you want. I just don't think you should be allowed to force me and other people to consume it second hand.)

<comment><USER20> Smoking in (and in front of) businesses and in offices is already prohibited in WA.

<comment><USER19> It is in San Diego as well. Yet it is impossible to avoid cigarette smoke in the downtown area. Fortunately, I left that area some weeks back.

I imagine legalized marijuana will eventually come to California as well. This state has had medical marijuana for years. But my hope is that it will be handled in a way that does not become an undue personal burden for me. My life is hard enough as is.

<comment><USER20> "But my hope is that it will be handled in a way that does not become an undue personal burden for me."

I just don't understand how you want it handled any differently than cigarettes, which are are already prohibited in most areas.

<comment><USER19> My hope is that it will be handled differently than how it is apparently being handled in Washington.

I am currently in an area where cigarettes are not a constant problem for me. So I don't think my hope is unreasonable.

<comment><USER20> Can you offer a more descriptive and less evasive answer? I'm not trying to be rude (and not a smoker), I'm honestly curious as to what you would do "different".

Most states have moved to blocking smoking in public areas to differing extents, the more blatant exceptions to this tend to be areas like Las Vegas where establishments pay fines for the repeat violations of their customers.

<comment><USER19> Sorry. There is no intent to be evasive.

The thing I am reacting negatively to is not the current laws concerning smoking but specifically the public announcement that they will only issues warnings. That is practically an invitation to people who want to be defiant assholes to do whatever they want.

Laws are merely one tool for trying to keep the peace. And the reality is that if you actually have to enforce the law (overly much), you have already kind of failed. I struggle with how to say this clearly, because any sweeping statement is going to be wrong and invite attack and a lot of people are very uncomfortable with how things actually work. But, basically, you announce what is illegal knowing some people will politely do as they are told and then you put in place just enough consequences to act as a deterent to folks who are less inclined to simply do as they are told. Of course, some people will break the law for various reasons. Either they didn't know or it is a poorly designed law that is nearly impossible to obey or...whatever. However if things are done right, there will only be a moderate need for active enforcement. But an announcement like this amounts to a public invitation to do as you please. Some people will do it just because of this invitation, just like some seventeen year olds with college ID's will drink because some places will take a college ID at the door. It is a loophole and some people will take childish glee in that space where it kind of is forbidden but really is not.

That is the piece I hope California handles better. I also hope that the fact that there is medical marijuana here already will help prevent the "must get drunk on my 21st birthday" style of reaction that you so often see when things finally get legalized. I believe that drugs and alcohol tend to attract people who somehow benefit physically. In California, if you really need marijuana and can prove it, it is already legal. Folks who are merely recreational users are going to be less rabid about wanting to fight for and exercise their right to toke. I think it is the people who strongly benefit (medically in some way) who are the most vehement. And those people are mostly already okay to smoke it here. So I am hoping that helps make it a non-event with people happy to keep it behind closed doors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Seems pretty reasonable...</comment>