Germany lays out a path to quit coal by 2038 - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/26/world/europe/germany-quit-coal-2038.html <comment><USER2> I am german myself and I am frustrated about this countries hate for nuclear power. In the wake of Fukushima, they shut down 12 perfectly modern nuclear power plants to rely on coal until green power can take over. We are quite behind on that too. 2038 to end coal also seems to be a quite conservative goal, but until now the government was great at missing even the most conservative goals on basically anything.

<comment><USER3> Quote from "The myth of the dark side of Germany's Energiewende" [1] :

The narrative of Germany's dirty Energiewende rests on the idea that renewables could not live up to their promise to fill the gap of retiring nuclear reactors. Consequently, that gap needed to be closed by power generation from coal.

But if we look at the figures we get quite a different picture. The yellow line in Figure 2 above depicts how the amount of electricity from nuclear declined from 2000 to 2014. Due to the decommissioning of old plants, nuclear power had been declining steadily. When the German government decided on the phase-out, in 2011, some nuclear power stations were shut down immediately and the output went down more quickly. Afterwards, the steady decline continued once more.

The green line shows the steady rise of renewable energy in the same period. In 2011, more electric energy was provided from renewable sources than from all nuclear facilities. In 2014, renewables achieved a share of approximately 29% in total electricity generation. So renewables have substituted the falling nuclear production in terms of total annual power generation and are very likely to continue doing so until 2022 when the last nuclear plant will be shut down.

[1] [https://reneweconomy.com.au/the-myth-of-the-dark-side-of- ger...](https://reneweconomy.com.au/the-myth-of-the-dark-side-of-germanys- energiewende-94542/)

(I would encourage you to read the whole thing).

<comment><USER4> This is highly misleading information from the usual suspects. The _total output_ in kWh of heavily subsidized solar/wind energy is not the issue.

The problem of the "Energiewende" is that the highly volatile wind/solar output can not supply the base load without massive buffer storage. The technology for that storage does not exist. Only nuclear, coal or the more expensive natural gas can supply the base load.

What actually makes the whole charade work is that Germany dumps surplus electricity (at a loss) during peak times and then imports what's missing during down times from other countries (for example the highly nuclearized France). If all the neighboring countries did what Germany does, it couldn't work.

<comment><USER5> Solar is not very volatile, it's basically a cos^2 around mid-day + local cloud cover changes. The biggest issue is actually a bad forecast for the peak output (essentially the "mist" forecast), as the differences spread over the whole day.

<comment><USER4> > Solar is not very volatile

Only if you disregard the fact that that _the sun doesn 't shine at night_.

<comment><USER5> Volatility in the energy sector means how "forecastable" the source is. Solar at night is perfectly forecastable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Not long ago there was an interesting article on research that showed that if we simply replaced fossil fuel infrastructure with clean alternatives as the former reaches end of life, that would be enough to hold warming to under 1.5 C.

No need to force early retirement of fossil fuel infrastructure. If you've already got a coal plant, a gasoline car, etc., it's OK to keep using it, as long as we can commit to your and everyone else's future plants, future cars, etc., being clean.

That's assuming we start this immediately. If we don't get this going until 2030 the "replace at end of life" approach, applied everywhere, should keep us to 2 C warming.

Here's the article, which includes a link to the research paper which is open access [1].

[1] [https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/01/how-much-will- curren...](https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/01/how-much-will-current- fossil-fuel-tech-emit-before-retirement/)

<comment><USER7> Does that included replacing all end of life vehicles with electrical alternatives? If that's the case, this seems difficult to achieve without a war-time-like mobilization to build electric vehicles and charging infrastructure (which actually sounds like a pretty good plan, though politically tough)

<comment><USER8> The war on pollution.... good idea.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This isn't very ambitious. Ontario, which was pretty dependent on coal, managed to end it in less than a decade.

[https://www.ontario.ca/page/end-coal](https://www.ontario.ca/page/end-coal)

<comment><USER10> At a pretty ridiculous cost all things considered.

<comment><USER9> Every year you wait, the more expensive it becomes to do stuff like this. Solving hard problems is usually unpopular.

<comment><USER11> > _Every year you wait, the more expensive it becomes to do stuff like this._

It seems like the opposite is true: Every year you wait, the upfront and recurring costs drop.

Unless you have a serious near-term problem arising from the status quo (e.g. stagnant air filled with coal exhaust), and that problem can be solved altogether at a tolerable cost, there is no advantage to moving first or early.

<comment><USER12> Not necessarily, if during the time you wait the energy companies build more coal power stations. Which they planned to do, despite it being obvious how bad at an idea that was.

Happened over the last years often in cooperation with cities, which now have the problem of being stuck with polluting coal power stations that are not even profitable anymore. Contracts are often laid out in a manner that the cities have to shoulder the load. My sympathy is limited, they could have listened to the advocates of green energy who predicted that.

Anyway, deconstructing those new coal power stations and trying to help the affected cities and regions would raise the price of moving to green energy later. I'm not sure that would be completely offset by the lower prices and technological improvements one can expect to see each year.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> For those who are looking for a reason to care, this stuff does matter. For example, the reason it's unsafe to have sushi twice a week is from mercury, which comes from coal-burning.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_in_fish#Origins_of_mer...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_in_fish#Origins_of_mercury_pollution)

<comment><USER14> This is something I wasn't aware of. I would question whether this in and of itself would change any bodies mind, considering all the other well publicised reasons to care.

<comment><USER15> Coal is a relative small contaminant. Check the documentary Salmon Confidencial and you'll find that farmed Salmon is contaminated by the food provided: contamined eels from the Baltic Sea. Even the cod has started to suffer genetic mutations. The Baltic borders 4 countries, the water takes 30 year to fully renew and it was contaminated by Chernobyl disaster. Not to mention the amount of antibiotic that can produce new resistance bacteria's that might kill you. We're reaching the point where aquaculture will the safe method to consume fish.

<comment><USER16> The Baltic sea is polluted due to factories on the coasts. Well-known fact.

<comment><USER17> And chemical weapons dumps after WWII

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It's absurd that such an economic powerhouse still relies on coal so much. If Germany, with all its wealth, is still dragging coal power out to 2038, how are we supposed to expect timely movement from poorer countries?

<comment><USER19> What I find even more absurd is the United States, despite producing a huge amount of natural gas, consumes more coal per-capita than Germany.

[https://www.statista.com/statistics/604946/per-capita- coal-c...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/604946/per-capita-coal- consumption-in-selected-countries/)

Edit: sorry that link got pay walled. Try this one.

[https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coal-consumption-per- capi...](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coal-consumption-per-capita)

This is 2015 data - and the US has narrowed the gap since.

<comment><USER20> Coal [electricity] in the US is down to 60% of what it was ten years ago. Since the second half of 2015, the US has been generating more electricity with natural gas than with coal. The current difference between them is larger than the entirety of US solar production.

[https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...](https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_1_01)

<comment><USER19> Coal isn't just used for electricity generation.

If you look at the 2017 BP energy report numbers the US is still about 20% above Germany in coal consumption per capita. (Not sure when 2018 numbers come out.)

I'm glad to see the US is reducing emissions. However ideally it wouldn't be due to swapping one fossil fuel for another. Makes you wonder what will happen if the prices of coal/gas flip again.

<comment><USER20> The US is adding a lot of solar generation - in just the last two years our solar electricity generation increased by more than the total solar output of Germany.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The specific end date isn't really a meaningful measure, except for symbolic purposes. It's area-under-curve that matters, or, inversely, how much is being left in the ground.

<comment><USER19> Getting the big power plant and mine operators to agree to a 2038 deadline is meaningful. They were involved in the process for coming up with the phase-out path.

I can't imagine Peabody or Koch signing off on a 2038 deadline in the US.

<comment><USER22> They don't need to sign off on a deadline in the US, it has been and will go away regardless. That's obviously due to the US having enormous reserves of cheap natural gas. You effectively have one big energy segment happy to squeeze another to death. Coal use will get more and more expensive in the US as its decline reaches a cost inflection point in the near future, if we're not already there now. Every aspect of coal electricity generation gets more expensive as it loses economies of scale. By 2038 natural gas + wind + solar will push coal to well below 10% in the US, without any additional government intervention. If the Feds apply pressure, it'll go that much faster / lower.

<comment><USER23> Doesn't burning natural gas produce just as much CO2 as coal?

<comment><USER24> No. It can be about half as much CO2 for the same power output due to natural gas plants also being more efficient.

...this is somewhat counter-acted by accidental leakage of methane (itself a potent greenhouse gas), but not entirely.

<comment><USER23> Oh, that's good to know, thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> >It would come at a heavy price to taxpayers, who would provide the 40 billion euros earmarked for investment in regions hardest hit by job losses over the next two decades, along with other costs that include compensation in amounts yet to be determined for power companies taking coal plants offline early.

2 billion a year seems extremely cheap for a measure of these proportions, especially since part of that money goes into creating new jobs in the affected regions.

<comment><USER21> The number is really what this costs politically, I. e. to buy acceptance from the relevant regions with large lignite industries. In economic terms, it's extremely hard to come up with any number, or even to agree on what should be included in the calculation.

Since wind power will be playing a large part in the transition, and that's investment that mostly stays in the country, one could reasonably say the whole project is net positive anyway. It obviously is if you factor in climate change and particle emissions, because otherwise it wouldn't be done.

The 2 billion / year perfectly align with existing efforts to reduce regional inequality, considering we're mostly talking about rural areas in the east here. To the degree that they reduce other federal transfer programs, such as unemployment benefits or health care, the net difference is liable to be smaller anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Some personal notes: I am working right next to the ministry of economics in Berlin and watched the different protesters that held their rallies yesterday.

First between around 8 and 10 am maybe 100 mostly men between 30 and 60 years with labeling from the union of mining, chemistry and energy industries protested for a sensible transition that helps the affected regions and especially people living their. They seemed to be good and hard working men that have to care for their families and all, all freezing in the cold (and coming into our hospital building to warm up). Note that this is a very important issue from a political view as well since this year there are regional elections in Brandenburg and Saxony and right wing (pro coal) forces are set to get more than 30% of votes, even more with a hardly acceptable plan for these regions.

Than around 11 the situation changed when the school students appeared (picture 2 in the article). It was absolutely fascinating as I would guess around 2 to 3k children between 12 and 18 came (sure they hadn't to go/weren't to school but again it was cold and these kids held out for 4 hours+ in freezing temperatures) with barely any adults, chanting here and there but mostly just holding up their, in a way very obviously self-made, signs and waiting (they later marched to the chancellors palace, though). Not one of these rallies were various known parties hold up their sign to somehow also promote their agenda, just kids fighting for a better planet/future. It somehow was very impressive.

</comment><comment><USER26> Does that mean goods produced by coal on the other side of the border are still okay to be imported? (pointing finger at Poland, or even China)

<comment><USER25> From my point of view, this is only about the general electricity generation. I mean, a lot of people are still using lignite to warm their house in the winter and knowing the lifetime of personal homes in Europe, we cannot really expect that to end in the next 50 years (though not for newly build ones though).

<comment><USER27> Less than 1% of German homes are using coal for heating.

[https://www.deutsche-handwerks-zeitung.de/so-heizt- deutschla...](https://www.deutsche-handwerks-zeitung.de/so-heizt- deutschland/150/3095/260499)

<comment><USER25> For the primary source of general heating yes. As a secondary to heat the living room oven, I highly doubt that, too many relatives that I just bought lignite with last autumn. Could be more prominent in eastern Germany though.

<comment><USER27> There isn't much coal used - you will have a hard time finding a coal supply in many cities. Some regions in eastern Germany and in the Rhine/Ruhr region...

Since coal mines are being closed, the miners will not get any more coal (as part of their salary) and thus they are looking for alternatives:

[https://www.gelsenwasser.de/unternehmen/presse/pressearchiv/...](https://www.gelsenwasser.de/unternehmen/presse/pressearchiv/archiv- einzelansicht/news/letzte-schicht-fuer-die- kohleheizung/?tx_news_pi1%5Bcontroller%5D=News&tx_news_pi1%5Baction%5D=detail&tx_news_pi1%5Bday%5D=10&tx_news_pi1%5Bmonth%5D=9&tx_news_pi1%5Byear%5D=2018&cHash=35670b8c3622f7b58eb7bcb1bf900aea)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> What will they do with Bagger 288?

<comment><USER18> Yes! It's powered by pure hatred, what will they do with their surplus pure hatred?

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> So coal will outlast nuclear by ~15 years...

<comment><USER25> So? Neither the US, nor China have plans of ending any of them.

<comment><USER22> The US, unlike Germany and China (which is still aggressively expanding its coal use), hasn't needed such a plan to end coal.

With existing environmental restrictions and costs on coal, we've already seen a massive reduction in coal use in the US over the last ~11 years. That persistent decline continues under a supposedly coal-friendly administration. What does it mean? Nobody can stop what's happening as things are now (it would take a law requiring coal to be a minimum share of the generation base). The natural gas industry is thrilled to kill off coal and take their business. The natural gas business is far stronger than coal is now and that imbalance will get a lot worse over the next decade (especially as it's a rider on the shale oil boom).

<comment><USER29> Yeah I don't fully buy that either. The US move to natural gas is mostly due to luck in the discovery of cheap gas. The negative externalities on coal are still not nearly being taxed hard enough. I just find it absurd that Germany outlawed its primary source of carbon-neutral electricity quickly but is dawdling on coal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> We needed to quit coal in 2008... not 2038.. we're doomed.

Time to start buying up as much water as possible.

Bet on human stupidity.. you'll never go broke!

</comment><comment><USER31> Too little, too late, sadly.

</comment><comment><USER32> > ...compensation in amounts yet to be determined for power companies taking > coal plants offline early.

This line struck me.. Germany have been build coal plants in the past decade as they were phasing out nuclear. And now they are planning to take them offline by 2038.

Respect!

<comment><USER19> "Germany have been build coal plants in the past decade as they were phasing out nuclear."

Note that no coal plants have started construction since the events at Fukushima. (But perhaps you're referring to the original phase-out agreement from 2000.)

> After 2011, when Germany decided once and for all to phase out nuclear > power, a total of 6.7 GW came into service while coal plants with a capacity > of some 3.8 GW were retired. Since planning and construction of a coal-fired > power station takes at least three years, capacity added after 2011 had been > planned before the accident in Fukushima, Japan – the event that led to > Germany's final nuclear phase-out policy.

> As of 2017, no new lignite-powered stations are planned, according to the > Federal Network Agency (Bundesnetzagentur). The possibly last new hard coal > unit ever built in Germany is envisaged to come online in 2018: Uniper's > Datteln 4, with a capacity of 1,055 MW, after years of legal struggle with > local environmental organisations.

[https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/coal- germany](https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/coal-germany)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I thought we only had 12 years

</comment><comment><USER34> 2038? Does this have to do with Epoch time ending somehow?

<comment><USER35> Yeah, coal-powered computers can only handle 32-bit integers ;)

<comment><USER36> In 2038, the coal company clocks roll back to 1901, when all was good in the world for them.

<comment><USER37> ...to 1970...

<comment><USER38> No, it rolls over to 1901. time_t is a signed value, and 2038 is when it rolls over from 2³¹ - 1 to -2³¹. That would be 2 billion seconds before 1970, or 1901.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I wonder if Germany will have any industry left in 50 years.

The German Green Party (projected to get 20% in the next election) leader recently told in an interview that excessive electric energy can be stored in the networks[1].

[1] [https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/kandidatin-fuer-den- parteivor...](https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/kandidatin-fuer-den- parteivorsitz-der-gruenen-ich-bin.868.de.html?dram:article_id=408793)

Edit: Concerning the interpretation of storing in the network as averaging over a huge area. I read this as: in case of need we can import nuclear power from France or coal generated electricity from Poland. On a local level the Green Party is a big player in avoiding the necessary building of network capacity.

Edit 2: Concerning de-industrialization. Do my downvoters really think that energy heavy industries can be run on wind and solar with current technologies?

<comment><USER21> You're obviously trolling, but to explain it to those possibly baffled by your professed ignorance: a large grid is indeed a commonly-accepted mechanism to store local maxima of wind or solar production. As you connect more regions, father apart, simple statistics lead to averaging out of individual spikes.

<comment><USER40> On this same topic, of course the big issue with wind and solar is that they don't generate if it is not sunny or windy. This means we still need base power generation with fossil fuels or fission. However, wind is stochastic enough that on a large grid, around 1/6 of its maximum capacity can be counted as base power.

<comment><USER41> Nope, you need peaking not base load power.

Base load refers to lowest cost per kWh sources that fail to meet the demand curve. That actually describes wind and solar very well.

PS: Wind + coal don't work well together. You end up turning off the coal plant fairly frequently which is bad for the systems and eases cost per kWh.

<comment><USER19> Hard coal plants do a lot of load following in Germany, especially when it's windy.

For example the black in these charts is hard coal and the green is wind.

[https://www.energy-charts.de/power_de.htm?source=all- sources...](https://www.energy-charts.de/power_de.htm?source=all- sources&year=2019&week=3)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Apple closes the revenue, income gap with Microsoft to just $1 billion - <AUTHOR> http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/article/Apple-closes-the-revenue-income-gap-with-Microsoft-to-just-1-billion/1272053555

<comment><USER2> What no one seems to talk about is how many billion dollar companies tie into the microsoft stack, I can't think of any on the apple side of things.

</comment><comment><USER3> I just had a realization. Apple's _actually_ becoming the next Microsoft.

And they're beginning to act the part.

<comment><USER4> Apple wants to control _their_ platform. Microsoft wanted to control _all_ platforms. There is a difference.

Or to put it another way, when I _have_ to buy an iPhone to collaborate with people around me who have iPhones, then you'll have an argument to make.

<comment><USER5> Apple also wants to control other platforms. And they are doing a good job of it, as well. Pushing H.264, their involvement with HTML5 with WebKit. Apple wants to control all aspects, and if they could, they'd control the web experience as well. This isn't to suggest that other companies aren't jockeying for position as well. I just don't think Apple is merely looking at their platform. They see anything that runs on Apple as their platform.

And yes, again, I'm focusing on Apple here, but they aren't the only one playing the game. =)

<comment><USER4> I don't follow, Apple doesn't control H.264, HTML5 or even WebKit.

Or do you mean, pushing those items over adopting Flash? Even so, that's not Apple controlling the web platform, that's just Apple making sure Adobe doesn't control it.

<comment><USER5> "Apple doesn't control H.264, HTML5 or even WebKit."

I didn't say they did. I didn't even imply they did. That's not even close to what I said.

They do, however, want to control those technologies, and they want as much control as they can get.

As for Flash, I don't see why this even came into it. I didn't mention it, or even consider it. However, Flash is one more example of Flash in control, and only strengthens my point.

Basically, Apple isn't supporting H.264, HTML5, or WebKit to benefit the open nature of the web. They are supporting it because it gives them more control over their platform.

Finally, as far as WebKit goes, they do control their version of it. They also control how they implement HTML5 on their platform. You can suggest they aren't doing this, but all their actions demonstrate the desire to do just this.

Anyways, next time, focus on what I said. Not what you think I said.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> ...and Apple closed the income gap with Exxon Mobil to ~ $3 billion.

Not that these comparisons are of any value.

</comment><comment><USER7> And if revenues were the most important number, that would matter somewhat.

To this day I still don't understand why it seems profit is about the last thing people look at. Maybe that explains a lot actually.

<comment><USER8> In the context of this article Income == Profit. The gap there is "narrowed" to $1B. Still a very large number no matter how you slice it.

<comment><USER9> yes, but there is a derivative to think about here. How long before that gap is $1B with Apple on the other side. That is the real news here: the delta not the so much the position.

<comment><USER5> I don't know. Microsoft had larger growth rates than Apple.

[http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2010/04/microsoft_windows_p...](http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2010/04/microsoft_windows_pcs_outpace_macs_in_consumer_market.html)

"Microsoft said worldwide Windows consumer licenses grew by more than 35 percent in the recent quarter. By comparison, Apple this week reported an increase of 33 percent in Mac sales over roughly the same time period. That was impressive, too, of course, but Microsoft is growing from a significantly larger base of sales to begin with, making its higher growth rate considerably harder to achieve."

Which is actually interesting, when you consider when Apple succeeded. It was during a time between XP and Windows 7. Vista got thrashed in the press and between friends (and I like Vista), so you didn't have the upgrade their. So, basically Apple was competing against XP.

Of course, this is a simplification of everything, but with Windows 7 doing so well, I think you have a lot of people fine with finally upgrading off their rather old XP machines. Combine that with the economic turn-around, and the fact that people are still money-aware, the lower cost of the upgrade to a Windows 7 machine is very attractive.

With what MS has in store with Live Wave 4, I think we can see them finally bringing things together. Couple that with Windows Phone, and Office 2010, there are a lot of interesting things with MS at the moment.

<comment><USER10> I am not quite sure why everyone is reporting this number as if it were some miraculous revival of MS. Windows 7 doesn't suck. Lots of people have been waiting, and waiting, and waaaaaaaaaaaiting to upgrade from XP. A lot of them gave up hope and moved to Macs; those users aren't going to be coming back. What MS might have done is stop the bleeding in the desktop OS market. It will take a couple more quarters to see if this is the case. I recently ordered 25 upgrades for sales and marketing people in my company and this sort of SMB activity may also make up a large portion of this growth in "consumer" licenses (Vista sucked so bad we were willing to maintain an EOL version of Windows and even "upgrade" boxes to XP that were shipped to us with Vista.)

In terms of how this fits into the general economic picture, I am waiting to see evidence of this activity as being an upgrade _to_ a Windows 7 machine vs upgrades of existing computers to a new rev of Windows. If non-Apple PC sales show a similar increase then this claim may be valid, but if Apple growth continues to outpace other hardware vendors you will be seeing evidence that this is more of an upgrade in place than any real growth of the Windows ecosystem.

["Interesting" may be one word to describe Windows Phone (or whatever they are calling it this month) but most reviews and reports do not seem share your belief that it is in any way indicative of MS finally "bringing things together"...]

<comment><USER5> "["Interesting" may be one word to describe Windows Phone (or whatever they are calling it this month) but most reviews and reports do not seem share your belief that it is in any way indicative of MS finally "bringing things together"...]"

2010 + Wave 4 + Windows Phone + Office 2010 + XBox Live + Zune HD

Yes, they are bringing things together. Is everything complete? No. But you can finally see where they want to go, where everything falls into place, and where they want to go. That's really more what I was meant to say by "bringing things together," the start of the "bringing together", not the end. =)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Peanuts</comment>


Dividing 1 by 998,001 - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/mathladyhazel/status/1298453291349823489 <comment><USER2> A years old post with interesting comments on how it works: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3514721](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3514721)</comment>


Show HN: AllBall – NBA app that combines Reddit, YouTube & NBA game updates - <AUTHOR> http://www.allballapp.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> App Store link: [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/allball/id1168249259?mt=8](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/allball/id1168249259?mt=8)

Video Demo: [https://youtu.be/hu3HuWF3QFA](https://youtu.be/hu3HuWF3QFA)

More updates coming! Any suggestions or feedback on the app is appreciated.</comment>


Startup Visa in Estonia - <AUTHOR> http://startupestonia.ee/visa <comment><AUTHOR> I'm a big fan of Estonia. They are an API driven country, they have an amazing program called E-Residency and now they open their physical doors too!</comment>


Here's a C# and HTML5 powered remote desktop and monitor suite. Fully open source - <AUTHOR> https://ulterius.xyz/?q=23 <comment><USER2> Glad you like it! I'm the frontend developer for Ulterius and it's nice to see people spreading the word. Will gladly answer questions as well.

One thing though. If you could, please use the domain ulterius.io for links in the future. That's our official site now because search engines and Facebook hate .xyz domains because most of them belong to Chinese spammers since they're so cheap.

</comment><comment><USER3> Hi, I helped bring this project to life (I wrote the server portion) if anyone has any questions about how certain stuff works I'll be more than happy to answer your questions.

<comment><USER4> How do you capture screen? is the protocol for screen sharing based on a video stream protocol like h264?

<comment><USER3> It uses pixel difference encoding down to alpha channels so that it can send you the bare minimum amount of data you need to keep a constant, non glitched image. This means 60fps using just under 1.5mbps</comment></comment></comment>


WeWork Is Going After Kindergartners Now - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-06/wework-hits-education-with-an-entrepreneurial-school-for-kids <comment><USER3> I got excited by the headline thinking that they want to normalize co-locating daycares / kindergarten to ease the burdens that working parents have with drop-off/pickup, etc. But it turns out they actually want to innovate on the education itself. That is far less exciting to me.

<comment><USER4> In fact I think a lot of this stuff is more frightening or ominous than "exciting."

<comment><USER5> Seriously, stay away from my kids' school...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Kindergarten in NYC is approaching ivy-league college tuition prices with not much improvement in service or quality, and could use some serious competition.

The WeWork model applied to Kindergarten would actually be interesting. A drop-in kindergarten, while you work nearby. Unfortunately this doesn't seem to be it.

</comment><comment><USER7> ""In my book, there's no reason why children in elementary schools can't be launching their own businesses," Rebekah Neumann said in an interview. She thinks kids should develop their passions and act on them early, instead of waiting to grow up to be "disruptive," as the entrepreneurial set puts it."

Jesus dude, let kids be kids for a bit.

<comment><USER8> Gotta indoctrinate them early to the capitalist way.

And the justification is such a load of crap: kids, and adults for that matter, are perfectly capable of "developing their passions" without wrapping it in the cloak of _business_.

The idolization of business culture has gotten completely out of hand.

<comment><USER9> > The idolization of business culture has gotten completely out of hand.

I'm concerned that when these children grow up they won't have the coping mechanisms to deal with the fact that very few of them will get to be the CEO.

That and the general cultural impact of bolstering STEM careers at the expense of skilled, manual labor careers, which can pay the same or more - <USER2> when partnered with a strong entrepreneurial mindset.

This stuff feels like a new outlet for overbearing stage/sport parenting types.

<comment><USER10> Don't worry. By the time they grow up, we will have renamed the position of "Intern" into "Participation CEO".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> When stable companies experiment with new things, I'm all for it. But when a rapidly growing pre-IPO company does, I get concerned they've lost focus.

<comment><USER4> I don't really care that much if WeWork goes under; I _do_ care if a bunch of kids get a sub-par "experimental" education that hurts them for life.

<comment><USER12> Too late, we already do that at a national level now. Bill Gates did say "whoops" the other day, though.

<comment><USER4> Well, no sense throwing good money after bad, so to speak. We don't have to keep moving further in that direction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > "In my book, there's no reason why children in elementary schools can't be > launching their own businesses," Rebekah Neumann said in an interview.

That's really one of the saddest things I've read from the tech community in a long while. Truly beyond parody. The reason is that they're fucking children and part of being a kid is being sheltered from some of the realities of the world. Training kids to focus on business from an early age which, since there are limited hours in the day, must come at the expense of something else is just sad. Let them develop in peace at least a little bit before being ravaged by capitalism.

<comment> aaron-lebo It's well-dressed, well-spoken, well-connected cultishness. They're Branch Davidians. If you've gotten that far into a belief system, you'll do anything to promulgate it, even at the expense of children.

<comment><USER13> > In her own family, she said, "there are no lines" between work and life or > home and office.

This line also stuck out. Seems horribly dystopian to me and yet is presented without comment. Sad that these people are considered "thought leaders" and that viewpoint is presented with anything but scorn.

<comment><USER14> _> This line also stuck out. Seems horribly dystopian to me and yet is presented without comment._

The _comment_ is her next sentence:

 _> "My kids are in the office. I'm doing what I _love_, he's doing what he _loves_, they are observing that, and they are doing what they _love_."_

The author is talking about the passion for a _life hobby_ being one and the same as work. Instead of being dystopian, it's actually the utopia many people are striving for.

She's not talking about having a terrible job where you peel potatos and then go home and peel more potatos to bring back to work the next day.

She's also not talking about working 100 hours a week and having no life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Alright, that's it - I'm now forcing my children to skip college to be electricians or plumbers or something.

If every kid is expected to be in tech/business, there's going to be a massive shortage of skilled labor, and those people are going to make a buttload of money in the near future.

</comment><comment><USER16> "She thinks kids should develop their passions and act on them early, instead of waiting to grow up to be "disruptive," as the entrepreneurial set puts it."

Just wow! How about let them be kids before they grow-up. At this age their passion is transformers, paw patrol, my little pony and playing at the park. They do not need to be disruptive or being pushed entrepreneurial crud this young. That is just plain dangerous.

This would be a better fit for middle school aged kids.

Don't get me wrong. I think the education system is broken but I don't think these "entrepreneurial billionaires" have the right solutions. They are so out of touch.

Keep your hands off my kids.

</comment><comment><USER17> Silicon Valley is getting out of hand. This is straight up indoctrination.

</comment><comment><USER18> The details of the school seem amorphous / nebulous right now.

Some Excerpts:

> "In my book, there's no reason why children in elementary schools can't be > launching their own businesses..."

> "...we noticed she has a strong aptitude and passion for design," Neumann > said. She is securing an apprenticeship with fashion designers who rent > space from WeWork.

> But WeWork's "very instrumental approach" to learning, "essentially > encouraging kids to monetize their ideas, at that age, is damaging," Abrams > said. "You're sucking the joy out of education at a time when kids should > just be thinking about things like how plants grow and why there are so many > species."

> Neumann argues it's conventional education that is "squashing out the > entrepreneurial spirit and creativity that's intrinsic to all young > children." Then, after college, she said, "somehow we're asking them to be > disruptive and recover that spirit."

Could gettings kids into entrepreneurial thinking very early on backlash and make them less interested in entrepreneurship? I think the idea of identifying interests and finding out how to foster and to develop those is great (e.g. the child with design aptitude and the apprenticeship program mentioned). Entrepreneurship seems to be a proxy for finding something you are interested in and creating a way to financially support that interest - perhaps that is the theme to strive for (queue Alan Watts: [https://genius.com/Alan-watts- what-if-money-was-no-object-an...](https://genius.com/Alan-watts-what-if- money-was-no-object-annotated)).

This seems like a way to make a human a "WeWorker" for life - you start in school and then you graduate to using their services. I would not be surprised to see discounts for graduates. Also, they are throwing cash at celebrity- level architect(s) - this is catering to the elite and I question when it can trickle down.

On a related noted: how are Thiel Fellowships panning out? (Connecting Theme = Entrepreneurship at Younger Ages)

<comment><USER19> So an N = 1 anecdote, but as a kid, in elementary school (albeit not kindergarten) I was interested in starting my own business. There was a bank in the area run specifically for young people (the Young Americans Bank in Denver, CO - it's amazing) that essentially had a club for that.

Most of it was kids selling handcrafts and things, but as I recall, there was one girl who had a custom map/layout design company and some others.

I think it was immensely valuable in teaching me how a business worked by thinking about applying it to the things I wanted to do, but it also had an ample helping of understanding the downsides, and at this point in my life, whenever there's a push to increase entrepreneurship in my field, my first reaction is "Uggh..."

<comment><USER20> I agree that clubs are a great solution for this kind of thing. I'd encourage kids to explore whatever interests them (business, dinosaurs, Model UN) as early as they're interested. But canonizing 'business' as a core educational pillar feels deeply misguided.

<comment><USER19> Indeed, for most kids, if we were making something a core educational pillar it should be financial literacy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I don't understand why tech people have this disposition that entrepreneurship > everything else. That may have worked for some, but people find fulfillment in their lives in so many other ways. Arts, love, other careers, etc... I'd say the vast majority of people don't want to be entrepreneurs and well, also don't the skill/personality set. I'd guess that most Kindergartners won't benefit much from "entrepreneur school", since most won't (and don't want to) become entrepreneurs anyways.

<comment><USER22> This reminds me of Macron's ridiculous statement that "the youth wants to be entrepreneurs, not state workers". Lolz

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Entrepreneurship for kindergarteners"? How can you even parody this stuff when the genuine article is so ridiculous?

<comment><USER23> Upvote this article highly enough, and then watch [http://n-gate.com/](http://n-gate.com/) over the weekend.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> > The fast-growing co-working company joins a growing list of billionaires > trying to reshape American education with their influence and investments.

It's no surprise that many of those same billionaires go out of their way to make sure their own children aren't exposed to any of their "reshaping of education".

</comment><comment><USER25> autoplay vid + audio

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah, sorry—it's in the following article (is there a term for this?) and didn't autoplay for me in Safari.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> can anyone smell a pivot? they raised a ton of money a year ago based on rolling out WeLive to like 30 something locations. today they only have two.

<comment><USER14> Instead of a pivot, it just looks like a side pet project for the WeWork founders. The article says they're considering making the program non-profit.

<comment><USER26> i was a little tongue in cheek, but yes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> They are not serious about this, are they?

<comment><USER28> I was reading through trying to find out whether this is a joke...

[There's a nice subreddit for things like this called r/nottheonion/]

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> _checks date_

Nope, it's not April 1st.

</comment><comment><USER30> A little OT, but here's a heads up for entrepeneuers out there: WeWork is trash.

If you're a startup, I'd just recommend that you and your cofounders get an Airbnb month-to-month. I was quoted 1500/month for their Irvine Spectrum coworking space (which is lol in itself...because it's literally in the middle of nowhere!) AND they wanted an extra 250/month per person for parking.

The real kicker is the hours the coworking space is open: 9-5. Good luck trying to grow your startup with a working day of <8 hours a day. WeWork: not even once.

Btw, does anyone know of a service that's similar to Airbnb but for office space?

<comment><USER4> Oh no, not regular hours.

<comment><USER30> A bit of context: with LA traffic 9-5 at WeWork is actually 12-3. Unless you want to leave at 5 AM in the morning and leave WeWork at 2 PM.

My point is, it's just plain inefficient. We got a beach house on Airbnb literally on the beach. I wake up to a beautiful view in the morning.

If I ever feel like I am burning out, I just walk on the beach or grab a beach chair and start hacking away :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Pretty soon they'll become bold enough to stop attempting to sugarcoat this stuff with all the "trying to help children grow" language.

"Good morning children, and welcome to GoogSchool. Please take out your Google Chromebooks, wait 2 seconds for facial verification, and click two ads to start today's lesson"</comment>


Doug Engelbart: Toward High-Performance Organizations - <AUTHOR> http://www.dougengelbart.org/pubs/augment-132811.html <comment><AUTHOR> _"Is there a set of basic capabilities whose improvement would significantly enhance both the higher-level operational A Capabilities and this self- improvement B Capability?

The answer was a clear "Yes!" A core set of knowledge-related capabilities rapidly emerged as the prime candidate."_

Within my (large Fortune 50) organization the possibility that E2.0 technology (Blogs, wikis, collaboration spaces) are this transformational set of technology, is very exciting. In one small area of a manufacturing plant, we are seeing the fruits of a wiki-based operating and troubleshooting manuals for a set of complex manfacturing machines and operations. The excitement you can observe when a shop-floor guy updates a wiki to reflect the truth that he knows about a process without having to go through some cumbersome process and approval cycle is really contagious.</comment>


Show HN: Debuild.co – Build web apps by describing what you want via GPT-3 - <AUTHOR> https://debuild.co/?hn <comment><USER2> I would love to try it out but the sign in was a turn off for me

<comment><USER3> It's a Google form (for other readers).

Seems more like a super quick and extremely minimal page to gauge interest and collect emails.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> You should have a demo on your website.</comment>


Some network structures are more defensible than others - <AUTHOR> https://hbr.org/2019/01/why-some-platforms-thrive-and-others-dont <comment><USER2> This is an excellent article. Every once a while HBR publishes really good articles.

Here is the paper the article is based on. free [https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/19-062_f4d97...](https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/19-062_f4d97285-655e-4019-a8a8-1d5adeb22f58.pdf)

<comment><USER3> Second this. Fantastic essay. A more nuanced view of network effects and complex systems can help us understand why some succeed and why others fail.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Are there factors around the barrier to entry for a network's strength? Video game console, cited in the article, are a good example -- I would think most video game enthusiasts would have no problem owning more than one console. In NYC, where there is competition for ride networks, I've seen drivers have stickers on their cars showing affiliations with Uber, Lyft, Juno, Via, etc -- they take which ever one is offering a better deal at that moment.

Compare that to say iOS vs. Android -- it feels like getting a second phone is a more difficult sell -- not only financially (especially with service) but also just having to carry it around.</comment>


How my app reached 200k downloads and got into Techstars - <AUTHOR> http://www.gethooksapp.com/blog/how_we_got_into_techstars.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Would love to answer any questions about the process...</comment>