Ask HN: How can software engineers solve the problem of Income Inequality? - <AUTHOR> Imagine Case 1: Software engineers develop a system which happens to be a AI graph network...the network has 7 billion nodes representing people's bank account ...the network "knows" who is running short of money or who has excess money to loan.The network helps them get connected and transact further.. <comment><USER2> How does that solve income inequality? Why is it a problem and why should it be solved?

Maybe it is because I am not a native english speaker, but I wouldn't want to live in an economic regime where everyone was paid the same regardless of what effort they put into their work.

<comment><USER3> _I wouldn 't want to live in an economic regime where everyone was paid the same regardless of what effort they put into their work._

Income inequality is the problem that people who put the same effort in don't get the same pay. It's widely believed that women are paid approximately 10% less for doing _exactly_ the same work as a man. There are plenty of caveats and arguments around the issue, but that's it in a nutshell. The real issue centres around salary negotiation. Women seem to negotiate less than men. They often take the first offer given, which pushes women's average wage down. It might be tempting to say it's their fault if they don't negotiate, but that would ignore the fact that someone who is paid less than their peers will leave their earlier, or quit the industry they work in entirely, which leads to a reduction in productivity across society and then _everyone_ loses. Fixing the income inequality problem (whether it's real or perceived) would benefit all of us.

No one is suggesting that people shouldn't be rewarded more if they work harder than their peers. They absolutely should, but that reward should _only_ be based on work done.

How we get to that point though is a really hard problem to solve. I suspect the way to do it is through a combination of blind interviews (company doesn't see the personal details of the person during hiring) and teaching everyone to negotiate their salary better. I don't think it's an engineering problem beyond the fact we can build the tools necessary to do stuff.

EDIT: You're entirely right that the suggestion in the Ask HN post has nothing to do with income inequality.

<comment><USER4> _Income inequality is the problem that people who put the same effort in don 't get the same pay._

That's one aspect of inequality. There's also "absolute income inequality" or what might be better termed "wealth inequality" or something. TBH, I assumed that was more what the OP had in mind.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> _Opportunity inequality happens when people cannot have access to the same level of education that rich people have. Poor people don 't get the same high level counselling that rich people have._

I think this is so true. It's not necessarily that everybody needs to go to Princeton or whatever though... I think a lot of poor people get essentially _no_ education on finance, entrepreneurship, etc. _at all_. Certainly when I graduated from high-school, I'd had effectively no education on any of these topics.

If we did nothing more than find a way to give everybody a certain baseline of knowledge about how finance works, financial markets, the basics of entrepreneurship, etc., I think that would go a LONG way towards helping this problem.

It doesn't have to be all high-tech stuff either, in terms of entrepreneurship. My best friend was a truck driver until an injury forced him to give up that line of work. In response, he opened his own landscaping service. His first year, he only made $30,000, but he was just telling me that he's already almost hit that for this year. Assuming nothing crazy happens, it looks like going the entrepreneurial route is going to work out really well for him.

But he was lucky enough to have a fairly intuitive understanding of what it takes to run a business like that. I think that for a lot of people, a little education on things like "how to form an LLC", "basic business taxes", "basic employment law", etc. would do a ton to enable them, and give them the confidence, to take a leap like that.

So to answer the OP's question: I think software developers can help income inequality by:

1\. Developing educational / information sites/apps that share quality information on the subject matter mentioned above.

2\. Create better / less expensive / easier to use tools for small business owners / entrepreneurs, to plan/manage/run various kinds of businesses.

3\. Create tools to leverage "open data", machine learning, predictive analytics, etc., and make that stuff easy enough to use so that "Joe's Screen Doors and Small Engine Repair" can benefit from those things.

Also, to loop back to tech a little bit... I don't think all the solutions need to involve pushing people into "doing technology" but that said, technology _does_ open up lots of opportunities to create value. Just imagine all the things you can do/create using Arduino, Raspberry Pi, the ton of open source software that's out there, open data, etc. So with that in mind, another thing that we could do might just be offering to do some teaching/tutoring around the things we are knowledgeable about, and help expand the areas where people use these things to create value.

Take the example of my friend the landscaper - I haven't even given it any thought yet, but I can't help but think that if he learned to use microcontrollers, some basic electronics, and a little software, that he could do some really cool stuff for his customers. Maybe automating turning certain yard lights on and off depending on ambient light, maybe automating a legacy sprinkler system in a better way, etc.

<comment><USER5> OP has asked whether his/her idea ie--@@Software engineers develop a system which happens to be a AI graph network...the network has 7 billion nodes representing people's bank account ...the network "knows" who is running short of money or who has excess money to loan.The network helps them get connected and transact further..@@ will work towards solving the problem

<comment><USER4> The broad question was "How can software engineers solve the problem of Income Inequality?" and that's what I was addressing in my post above. I have no thoughts to offer on the OP's specific idea. _shrug_

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> More than half of the problem of income inequality is opportunity inequality. A rich person's assets are not only what he has, but what he knows and who he knows.

Opportunity inequality happens when people cannot have access to the same level of education that rich people have. Poor people don't get the same high level counselling that rich people have. I have been personally misled about what subject combinations to study (education in some countries work like that, there must be subject combinations at secondary school level to get access to higher education ) along with my friends by an educator who discriminated against me because of my African origin.

More than money, people need information repositories on how to acquire knowledge, create products, marketing strategies, how to protect Intellectual Property, business and entrepreneurship networks, even life hacks and DIY hydroponics, aquaculture and permaculture stuff.

Right now, good information is either too far apart or kept obscure by those who control it. People need simple explanations, complete information and easy to understand and modify examples to make the most of shared knowledge. Also, computer science papers need to be published with syntax-sugar-free code or relevant pseudocode, not obscure mathematical formulae that do nothing to inform people.

As for what can be done, platforms like So.cl or the more helpful parts of reddit are a start, as is Khan academy but knowledge sharing has to be free of obstacles like user registration if it's not absolutely necessary. Websites have to be optimized for low-bandwidth too, 4K, 60 FPS video is not absolutely necessary for people to be informed properly. Cut down on the megabytes of javascript that are transferred with every web page.

<In software engineering >

The computer programmers and "engineers/architecture astronauts" of today must remember that computers are supposed to simplify things for people. No more layers of abstractions piled on top of each other. No more half-baked tools. Documentation must be accessible at the pres of a button. Programming languages must be readable enough so that the person reading it can understand scoping at a glance and not have to hunt for closing curly brackets to understand how a program works.

Some may think that it's too hard to write closing statements like endif or endwhile but those can be written automatically at the press of a button in a good IDE. Again, programming languages must be readable enough so that the person reading it can understand scoping at a glance and not have to hunt for closing curly brackets to understand how a program works.

Semicolons and curly braces must be abandoned. Computer programming should be made more accessible, powerful and ubiquitous. Electronic devices should ship with programming languages again.

Not everything should be done in the browser or in Javascript or a derivative of C.

Computer programming must be made simple and powerful so that more people are empowered.

<end of software engineering section>

Knowledge is power and with great power comes great responsibility. The people with knowledge and power have a responsibility to make knowledge easily accessible and actionable for others who are less fortunate.</comment>


Volkswagen's U.S. diesel emissions settlement to cost $15B - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-volkswagen-emissions-settlement-idUSKCN0ZD2S5 <comment><USER3> In the United States, the VW defeat mechanism abates 275,000 tonne/yr CO2 at the cost of 8,200 tonne/yr NOx.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

[1] NY Times: How Volkswagen Got Away With Diesel Deception [http://nyti.ms/1ZjAV1w](http://nyti.ms/1ZjAV1w)

[2] Vox: VW's appalling clean diesel scandal, explained [http://bit.ly/1MhJVuA](http://bit.ly/1MhJVuA)

[3] FHWA: Annual Vehicle Distance Traveled and Related Data [http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2013/vm...](http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2013/vm1.cfm)

[4] EIA: How much CO2 is produced by burning gasoline? [http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=307&t=11](http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=307&t=11)

[5] EPA: Does the fuel used in fuel economy testing contain ethanol? [http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/about/faq.htm#ethanol](http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/about/faq.htm#ethanol)

[6] DOE: Fuel Economy of 2015 Volkswagen Jetta [http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2015_Volkswagen_Jetta...](http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2015_Volkswagen_Jetta.shtml)

<comment><USER4> Interesting. Would you mind elaborating? What are the relative environmental costs of these pollutants? How did you arrive at the abatement figure? (I skimmed your links but it didn't leap out at me.)

<comment><USER3> See below for the calculation. The relative environmental costs are debatable but NOx being 34 times worse is a stretch. Protectionism may be a factor -- domestic automakers have little incentive to push back on NOx.

The response is punitive because VW acted deliberately but otherwise far out of proportion to the harm. The article mentions that buybacks cannot be resold unless EPA approves a fix. I hope they do, because their embodied energy will dwarf by a significant margin everything else being considered here and scrapping them would be a disaster.

Fortunately internal combustion engines are nearly obsolete for light automobiles and this will all be moot in a decade.

      VW light vehicle sales: 50M worldwide since 2009 [1]
      Affected cars: 500,000 US, 11M worldwide [2]
      VLKAY price: 70% pre-scandal level [1]

      For the United States...

      Annual average miles traveled per car: 11,000 [3]
      NOx emissions allowed: 0.06 g/mi [1]
      Actual TDI emissions: 1.6 g/mi [1]

      11,000 mi * 500,000 * 1.5g/mi = 8,200 tonne NOx per year

      CO2 from gasoline combustion: 8.9 kg/gal [4][5]
      CO2 from diesel combustion: 10.2 kg/gal [4]
      Jetta fuel efficiency: 27 mpg [6]
      Jetta TDI fuel efficiency: 36 mpg [6]
      Jetta carbon efficiency: 330 g/mi
      Jetta TDI carbon efficiency: 280 g/mi

      11,000 mi * 500,000 * -50 g/mi = -275,000 tonne CO2 per year

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It seems odd to me that most of the financial windfall here goes to Volkswagen owners. (2/3 anyway). Wasn't the "damage" done almost exclusively environmental, which affects everyone?

Wouldn't it make more sense to use these large amounts of money to combat the actual damage that was done? (e.g. environmental cleanup initiatives?)

<comment><USER6> Because the VW owners were the ones who paid their own money for a product that was falsely advertised.

Its not like these cars caused direct damage to the environment that can be cleaned up, they're still relatively low in emissions compared to a lot of other cars on the road.

<comment><USER7> Well the VW drivers got to drive a car, so they did get some benefit out of owning it even if it wasn't exactly as advertised. Meanwhile the rest of us got to breathe their pollution and die sooner. It's not "they're lower emissions than other vehicles", it's that they aren't as low emissions as they said they were. If people were in the market for a LEV and they bought a VW over a car that _actually_ produced the emissions that the VW claimed to, that's an insane amount more pollution than the alternative car.

It's not just VW owners who were lied to. It's everyone who had to breathe the air around them.

<comment><USER8> > Meanwhile the rest of us got to breathe their pollution and die sooner.

The people who own the cars breathed in the pollution too. Almost certainly more than people who did not own one.

<comment><USER7> I'm not sure about that. Pollution comes out of the back of the car, and the drivers sit well in front of the tail pipe. As long as they're not standing behind their running car for long periods of time, the person inhaling most of the exhaust will be the car behind them in traffic or more likely, the pedestrian standing beside them on the sidewalk at a red light.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm a "proud" owner of a 2014 Passat TDI (purchased May 2014). Here's the math breakdown for me personally:

\- $26,000 for the car, before TTL \- First year, the car will depreciate 20%, so its September 2015 value would be $20,800. \- VW will give me $5,100 (maybe more) plus that Sept 2015 value = $25,900 \- I don't have to make a decision until December 2018

Result: I get a car for 4.5 years for which I've paid $100

* Simplified math, doesn't factor time-value or the 0.9% interest rate.

<comment><USER10> Would you buy another VW, Audi or Porsche?

<comment><USER11> Why not?

Bear in mind, the vehicles VW sold were _superior_ from the point of view of the customer & driver.

Unless of course the whole affair dented your faith in them responding properly to safety issues or the like.

<comment><USER12> Modern VW might be nice from the perspective of a driver but they are a royal pain in the ass to service... Designed as throw away appliances almost.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> "Owners will have two years to decide whether to sell back vehicles..."

So the rumor is I can drive my affected Golf TDI for ~2 more years, and then get compensated @9/2015 value plus up to $5k on top of that? Honestly, that's a terrible deal for VW.

Edit: thinking more, maybe this is better for VW than an alternative where they have to make good right away. They don't have to scramble to get 500k cars repaired or off the road as quickly, and they can spread whatever makes up the rest of their hit over a longer period as well.

To me, this does signal that we're a lot more upset about the dishonesty than we are about the emissions themselves.

<comment><USER14> It's punitive, it's supposed to be terrible.

<comment><USER15> Yeah, but I'd prefer the penalties did something useful, and weren't just a cash transfer to people who got lucky and bought cars from an unethical manufacturer.

<comment><USER16> > just a cash transfer to people who got lucky and bought cars from an > unethical manufacturer.

They didn't "get lucky". They were lied to by the company and sold a car under false pretenses.

Edit: I had the fuel economy bit wrong, my mistake. I've removed that portion. Thanks @mikestew, @gnoway, and @GavinMcG for the correction.

<comment><USER13> This wasn't exactly a fuel economy issue, it was more of an emissions cheat. I get great economy out of my Golf - higher than advertised. I agree that if they'd done the right thing w/ emissions that economy might have been worse and the car not as attractive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Where's the jailtime?

As an individual, you make one wrong statement to the FBI, and you are hauled off to jail. The company lied over 500,000 times to the government, and gets off by paying a paltry fine. No wonder companies continue to do this: there is no consequence to the employees who do this shit.

<comment><USER18> You may wish to search for "Dieselgate" on the web, to better familiarize yourself with this case.

The German government is actually investigating the ex-VW Germany CEO, although I don't know if that means potential jail time.

Further, there have been serious consequences at VW. Top management has effectively changed in both Germany and the US. The future product roadmap has changed radically in both the US and Europe. Also, this direct monetary outlay is not exactly a slap on the wrist, even for one of the world's largest automakers.

<comment><USER19> Losing your job << going to jail for your actions. From the Wikipedia article: "... estimated that approximately 59 premature deaths will be caused by the excess pollution produced between 2008 and 2015 by vehicles equipped with the defeat device in the U.S." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal#D...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal#Deaths)

Installing the defeat devices in hundreds of thousands of vehicles was not an accident that happened one day. It was a calculated corporate decision involving many people, over a long period of time. The result, according to many sources, was dozens to hundreds of deaths in the United States, Europe and elsewhere.

<comment><USER20> How are deaths related tk falsified fuel emissions calculated?

Edit: a word

<comment><USER21> There's no way they can reliably calculate that. Any increase in deaths could just as easily be attributed to the increase in popularity of country music and therefore diesel truck sales. All we can reliably say is that the environment is worse off.

Also, 59 seems like a statistically insignificant number when compared to the overall population. Or maybe I'm interpreting it incorrectly?

<comment><USER22> I sit in stunned amazement at the foaming-at-the-mouth outrage being expressed on this thread.

There is no way you can pin the death of anybody on VW diesel emissions. It's a statistics game that that's it. You might as well blame Tesla for the extra deaths caused by the increase coal plant emissions created by owners charging their cars. Or make up any other example of any activity that increases some polutant. The _only_ difference is that VW violated an arbitrary number in a government regulation.

There are millions of vehicles on the road today with worse emissions than the violating VW diesels. They are all killing people (statistically) and the government and therefore you and I are complicit in this murder by allowing it to continue. I am sure everone on this thread will endorse punitive tax increases to punish us all for our negligence, and to buy out the owners of these polluting cars so that they can all buy clean-and-green new ones (conveniently ignoring the rather massive environmental impact and attendant premature deaths caused by junking and replacing perfectly serviceable vehicles).

<comment><USER21> Exactly. It's understandable to be angry about this, but I think many people overestimate the magnitude of the issue here (or perhaps have misplaced their anger).

Consider the fact that in some states, heavy duty diesel trucks (8,500 lbs or more) and trucks older than 1997 are completely exempt from all emissions testing.

I bet a single one of those trucks produces more emissions than the "actual vs claimed" emissions delta of dozens of VWs combined.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Compare with [http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/29/vw-excess-emissions-linked- to...](http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/29/vw-excess-emissions-linked-to-60-us- deaths-study.html).

VWs actions left around 60 estimated dead. Around 120,000 days of people not being able to function normally. At a direct cost to the economy of around $450 million. And a cost to our quality of life that most would consider even higher.

All of which is bad. But no matter how you do the math, most of this fine is punitive dissuasion for others who might be tempted to also cheat.

(Note that most of the fine moves money from the left hand to the right without destroying it, so we are theoretically collectively left better off as a result. Plus we prevent about as much more damage as we had already.)

<comment><USER24> I think you're right. Fines have to be higher than the direct cost to society and they have to be higher by the chance they're caught.

In this case, it was very hard to detect, it was fully intentional on the part of the company, and they fought for years to keep it hidden.

This sort of deception is maybe 1 in 20 or 1 in 50 to be caught? So it isn't like a parking ticket - it's hard to catch and was hard to prove.

Furthermore, this is a "deal with the mess you made" solution - or a "natural consequences" consequence if you are a parent. There are certainly much more efficient ways of spending the money to improve public health, but those are abstract, hard to explain to the public, and hard to explain to the car owners. So they are less efficient from the government, public and company's perspective. Make America hyper-rational and the owners would continue driving these cars and we'd spend the money on truck emissions or something.

<comment><USER25> > In this case, it was very hard to detect

Was it? The researches who detected it didn't seem like they were doing anything that special. My impression is that nobody had bothered to check before.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> On September 22, 2015, VW stock had the trading highest volume / price decline. The stock closed $106 per share that day.

There is a trading strategy that assumes markets over estimate liability of lawsuits. While I am probably cherry picking data, it is notable that the stock closed at exactly $106 per share today. So much for that trading strategy in this case. The market pretty much nailed it.

<comment><USER27> In my opinion it is going to grow from now on, until it gets back to normal. A large part of the world is driving cars made by VW Group. Too big to fail.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Economic war: US vs. Germany. Nothing else.

Nature would benefit if gasoline prices were 10 US per liter and people would stop to drive around senselessly. (I know the geographic circumstances make this impossible, but nevertheless...).

<comment><USER29> How is defrauding consumers a "US vs Germany issue" and nothing else?

Also VW got off with a slap on the wrist here.

The US did nothing wrong here. People don't drive around needlessly, they drive because they live in places that often have no viable alternative. Why on earth should they be punished?

Your comments are bizarre and naive. Is you point just anti-Americanism?

<comment><USER30> 1- GM, Ford, Chrysler lobby congress to enact the strictest NOX limits in the world. While at the same time having lenient limits on other exhaust fumes killing thousands of people every year, so that we can continue our gas guzzling SUV and Pickup truck craze.

2- VW faced wtih dilemma. Stop selling diesels altogether, or go rogue and yolo your way through emission tests.

3- Get caught and fined.

Well played, GM, Ford, and Chrysler. GM, Ford, and Chrysler were behind in Diesel tech, so this as a great defensive move to thwart Japanase and European automotive competition.

Moral of the story is: You need good lobbyists if you wanna be successful here.

<comment><USER30> In the meantime, some smart scientist notice that the exhaust from fracking is pretty poisonous and sometimes even radioactive... (lots of fracking wells release more radioactivity than highly regulated nuclear power plants).

Thank god the big oil lobby massages congress to enact legislation that naturally bound pollution released through fracking/digging/drilling does not count.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> If you discount all the hypothetical environmental costs that at best guess are just that, guesses. And, if you were to consider this penalty in a somewhat satirical manner, it would have been cheaper for VW if they would have been killing the consumers of their cars.

I understand the punitive nature of the penalty and its amount, but the amount seems somewhat egregious given the fact that all VW did was violate regulations of a government body. Uber is constantly praised for skirting or directly violating state or local government laws and regulations, yet is seen in an overall positive light for the supposed benefit they are providing society. This is the government's heavy hand making an example of VW and it's violation of regulation.

<comment><USER32> _> If you discount all the hypothetical environmental costs that at best guess are just that, guesses_

That VW's behavior caused some environmental impact is not a guess. The guess is only to the extent of the damage.

 _> it would have been cheaper for VW if they would have been killing the consumers of their cars._

That is ridiculous. The death toll would be many times 9/11.

USG would've seized by force every asset inside its borders and a lot (or all) outside of its borders. Not only of VW but of any contractor that might've may had something to do with it. For starters.

 _> Uber is constantly praised for skirting or directly violating state or local government laws_

And also constantly criticized, and sometimes shut down.

But more to the point, violating different government regulations (by extension, different laws) has different outcomes. Why is that surprising/concerning, again? Federal environmental regulations _SHOULD_ be treated more seriously than local taxi rules.

 _> This is the government's heavy hand making an example of VW and it's violation of regulation._

On only his can we agree. The message is clear: fines for willfully ignoring environmental regulation are _not_ a cost of business.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I'm not following this closely, but I understand most at least 4 other auto manufacturers were doing essentially the same thing: [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/09/mercedes...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/09/mercedes- honda-mazda-mitsubishi-diesel-emissions-row)

Why the focus on VW, then, rather on the auto industry?

<comment><USER34> VW did something in the US that's explicitly illegal under US federal law (employ a "defeat device" to disable emissions equipment outside of testing). For the most part the other auto manufacturers seem to be tuning/optimizing their emissions equipment specifically to pass the test cycles but are not going so far as to outright disable it outside of them like VW did.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I'm of the opinion that there should be a corporate death penalty (though I oppose the death penalty in criminal cases). There's some situations that are so ethically indefensible, wherein a corporation can cause incredible harm over a long period of time, that the only just outcome is for the company to be destroyed. The people responsible are shielded from any real consequence (how many people at VW knew about this, and how many are going to jail over it?). This is not a minor squabble over regulations; this is a conscious decision, involving many executives within the company, to willfully cause environmental destruction that directly costs human lives and health.

This is one of those cases where the corporate death penalty is the only just outcome I can think of.

$15 billion looks like a large sum; and maybe it's even enough to deter car companies from doing something similar in the future. Maybe. VW is worth $73 billion, and they generated a lot of money on the strength of their diesel campaigns. Amortized over the many years that they were shipping out these cars, it begins to look like a cost of doing business, rather than a massively punitive expense.

<comment><USER36> Such a "Coorporate death penalty" is likely counterproductive in several ways. On one hand you could just open a new company under a similar name and continue buisiness as usual, on the the other hand, what happens to the workers employed by VW? It would kill entire cities in many places of the world. For example, Wolfsburg, the VW headquarter city has a population of ~100 000, the factory alone employs 57,000 people, ignoring administration and managment for VW in Wolfsburg. The shareholders would still be richer and don't have to fear punishment, the managers are still well networked enough to quickly get a new job at Siemens or wherever and the only people suffering at the end are the guys putting the seats into the chassis who had nothing to do with the whole situation.

Also, what you are ignoring is that the US can't just come along and close a transnational or foreign company. Also, what about subsidaries? Does condé nast get closed if reddit violates the law? Does GM get closed if Opel cheats?

<comment><USER7> All of those things have direct comparisons to the individual death penalty or other pre-existing laws.

A human could be put to death even if they have a family to support, so the workers argument is settled. The only issue is the matter of scale, but the death penalty is pretty rare to begin with, and I would expect a corporate death penalty have even stricter requirements.

They don't have to close a transnational, they can just force them to stop doing business in the country. They can close their US operations and ban their imports. We already have import bans on companies, countries, and products.

For subsidiaries, it would depends on how far up the chain the crime went. If Opel committed the crime but GM didn't know, Opel dies. If GM knew, GM dies. You could likely even spin off the "innocent" subsidiaries. If a husband commits a crime and the wife was not involved, the wife doesn't go to jail. If they both did it but their children were not involved, the children don't go to jail, they go to live with another set of parents.

<comment><USER37> I feel it's a bit strange to argue for corporate death penalty by comparing it to individual death penalty, given how controversial the individual death penalty is.

<comment><USER7> It should be, they both should be very controversial. But it easier to argue for a corporate death penalty than it is for a corporate "life in prison" because both of those things look exactly the same.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Does anybody remember when Volkswagen blamed the scandal on "the engineer culture" or something like that? like those engineers at Volkswagen called the shot and not the management ... ridiculous , like these engineers weren't asked to cheat ... I can't wait for the criminal investigation.

<comment><USER39> I feel like you might have to wait. A long time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> For context:

 _GM to Pay Record $35 Million Fine Over Ignition Switch Recalls_ (May 2014)

[http://time.com/102906/gm-fine-ignition-recalls/](http://time.com/102906/gm- fine-ignition-recalls/)

"The federal government struck a $35 million settlement with General Motors after the company failed to act for 10 years on an ignition switch defect that led to the death of at least 13 people and recall of approximately 2.6 million vehicles"

<comment><USER41> If you want to provide context, try picking an article from after GM admitted to hiding the extent of the problem:

 _GM will pay $900 million over ignition switch scandal_ (September 2015)

[http://bigstory.ap.org/article/e1207eccc10c4f2a8ef550da95e12...](http://bigstory.ap.org/article/e1207eccc10c4f2a8ef550da95e121c0/gm- said-settle-criminal-case-over-ignition-switches)

"General Motors agreed to pay $900 million to fend off criminal prosecution over the deadly ignition-switch scandal, striking a deal that brought criticism down on the Justice Department for not bringing charges against individual employees."

"Also Thursday, GM announced it will spend $575 million to settle the majority of the civil lawsuits filed over the scandal."

"The twin agreements bring to more than $5.3 billion the amount GM has spent on a problem authorities say could have been handled for less than a dollar per car."

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Does anyone know what the total paid by BP was for Deepwater Horizon? I can't seem to find a total anywhere here:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_litigation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_litigation) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon#Aftermath](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon#Aftermath)

</comment><comment><USER43> So because they marketed it as "Clean diesel" in the US their 2009 2.0 tdi owners get $5-10k plus an estimated value of the car as of 2015. Meanwhile in Europe we get a "fix" that reduces engine power and/or increases fuel consumption, and while the car has depreciated in value we get no other compensation, and seem to have no way of winning a class action against VW (Of course, if we did, we'd could kill VW instantly which I assume is not what any of the EU member countries want). I'd be perfectly happy with a much smaller sum or even a rebate on a new car. But no. Nothing.

The low emission 2.0 TDI models (Such as Audi's TDIe) _were_ very much marketed as very eco friendly, and it meant a lot of corporate buyers with CO2 caps bought it in stiff competition with other cars. If the engines had met the NOx emissions, the consumption (and thus CO2) would have been higher, and the cars couldn't have been boughy, or wouldn't have been bought because of being less attractive with lower power or higher consumption. If this isn't marketing it as "clean diesel" I don't know what is.

</comment><comment><USER44> I am surprised that no one mentioned the other fraudulent actor in this whole mess: the CARB, California's Air Resources Board.

They are the ones who lied about their diesel engine standards for air quality. Under the guise of making tough standards they basically outlawed diesels in California.

Since CA is such a big car market this prevented most manufacturers from selling any diesel cars anywhere in the USA.

</comment><comment><USER45> VW deserves this. Hopefully this penalty will discourage other automakers from cheating in this way. It would also be nice if Mr. Winterkorn and the executives who were complicit in this were prosecuted. I wonder how well they have covered their tracks.

I am glad to see there will be some money going to the owners of the affected diesels. A lot of these people bought the cars because they were marketed as more environmentally friendly. Then, they were left with an embarrassing car with near-zero resale value once the revelations came out.

I feel like the US has a bizarrely inconsistent attitude towards air pollution. The standards for NOx emissions for diesel construction equipment and ships are almost non-existent. If VW's actions are reprehensible, surely the lawmakers who created such a bizarrely fragmented regulatory regime are also to blame. [http://www.greenhoustontx.gov/reports/closingdieseldivide.pd...](http://www.greenhoustontx.gov/reports/closingdieseldivide.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER46> Now's better than ever to buy a new Volkswagen. Because of the scandal, I've found crazy deals (~30-40% off MSRP) for new VWs.

<comment><USER47> Where

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> I am really amazed by the comments I read so I am voluntarily going to "defend" VW while I would not in other circumstances. To make sure this is understood: yes VW is guilty, it has violated customers' trust, they are a shame for the entire car industry and should receive strong punishment for that.

Yet, how can everybody forget about all other car manufacturers - <USER2> US? They pretty much all lie about their gas emissions as proven by different experts and agencies [1] [2] [3].

Why? Because we have improved our gas emission limits to a level that most car manufacturers couldn't reach over the short run. Take the example of European car makers. The European Commission started to really regulate car emissions in 2010. At that time, car makers were faced with dropping sales (double crisis 2008 and 2010), stable/slightly increasing costs (wage inflation and poor labour market flexibility - German is an exception in Europe) and stable/slightly decreasing prices (due to competition and few new vehicles). In this context, how can you expect car makers to invest in "traditional cars" to reduce gas emissions and in electric and autonomous vehicles to fight against the competition of tech car companies like Tesla or Google. That is just not possible.

So who is responsible? Of course VW and other car makers are all responsible for that mess and the disastrous consequences on environment. But WE are also responsible: we want safer, cleaner, cheaper and stronger vehicles from traditional car makers but but you can't have everything all at once. Tesla can do it because that they start from a "blank page", with no turnaround costs. For VW, GM, Toyota, that's another story. Maybe we should just keep that in mind before charged them with a "corporate death penalty"...

[1][http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/volkswagen-w...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/volkswagen- wasnt-the-only-company-rigging-emission-levels-says-expert-a6668611.html) [2][https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/21/all-top- sel...](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/21/all-top-selling-cars- break-emissions-limits-in-real-world-tests) [3][http://www.cbsnews.com/news/do-all-automakers-cheat-on- their...](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/do-all-automakers-cheat-on-their-mpg- tests/)

<comment><USER49> Tesla can't do it. Electric vehicles have a lot of _hidden pollution_ like a meat steak or a bottle of milk.

Tesla just makes cars that can't apply to gas emissions regulations, they are far from cleaner.

<comment><USER50> Surely those toxins are much more containable than gas released into the air? A mobile phone is also horribly toxic, but I am not going to go onto the top of a skyscraper and blend it into tiny particles for the people below to breathe.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> The report this morning said the government gets $5b for environmental clean up and customers get $10b in fixes or buy backs.

We'll see.

There was a GM settlement like this (the pickup gas tank problem) and customers with existing pickups got a coupon good for $1000 off the price of a new pickup. So GM gets to sell you a new pickup and probably keeps any rebates or low financing.

Also the recent Ticket Master settlement for $420M. There's a daily allotment of coupons worth $5 off the ticket price on select concerts (read: not the popular ones) that are buried in a series of hard to follow links. They still have the same service charges like before, they're just more transparent about it.

</comment><comment><USER52> Not sure why the government attorneys should get paid anything here. Government was so much incompetent here that they failed to catch VW well in time, besides arresting few people in VW I think some people from the government side need to be fired too.

The only worry here is that attorney generals might end up with more resources to harass small people now.

</comment><comment><USER53> Could someone purchase one of these vehicles today and still be considered for the buyback program?

</comment><comment><USER54> Anyone knows if this 15B is treated as the "cost" of the business? In that way effective income tax would be lower for VW.

</comment><comment><USER55> What's sad is how the word 'emission' is always used instead of the real word: pollution.

</comment><comment><USER56> We should make a discussion about how we can prevent this kind of cases happen again.

</comment><comment><USER57> FB purchased Whatsapp for $15 billion :)

</comment><comment><USER58> Das Payout

</comment><comment><USER59> What about my lungs?

<comment><USER60> What about them?

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> Only $15B?

<comment><USER62> "Only" $15B for this part, but they still face Clean Air Act penalties and another 80,000 vehicles with larger engines that aren't a part of this deal.

<comment><USER63> In the U.S. alone. And I think they only set aside $18B for the entire scandal.

<comment><USER62> Their biggest problem is by far the US because the emissions standards are much higher in the US. But yes, they are going to need more cash.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> I lament the days where HN was a place for intelligent discussion. Today the top post to submissions like this is an idiotic populist gut feeling, complete with dubious metaphors, calls for violence, a complete lack of any understanding of why things are the way the are and how we got there, as well as a blissful ignorance of proposed and/or tried solutions to age-old problems.

There must be something in the water these days that spurs these insults on sane discourse, I have a vague feeling of recognition when going over current events in politics across the world the last few weeks...

<comment><USER65> GP was on HN _long_ before you were. If you disagree with him, tell him why.

<comment><USER64> His account is much older than mine, yes. I've been reading for about as long as his account. No sure what the relevance of that is.

Anyway, I'm just using your comment to respond to several others at once that all make roughly the same point. It's rather meta to the OP though, so maybe it would better be detached from here (seeing that my response now seems to be the top voted reply out of many, which is rather ironic in the light of the following).

But on to my point: not all points or opinions should be 'reasoned' with, or deserve an intellectually honest debate, or even a reply. To paraphrase the old quip, 'don't wrestle a pig in the mud. You'll get dirty and the pig likes it'. Many other commenters try to engage the GP in a fact-based 'debate', but that is impossible with sophistic extremists who use terminology like 'corporate death penalty'. It's meant to incite an emotional reaction only. There is no point in refuting Stormfront posters either, or Truthers, or pick the fringe of any group that you ideologically disagree with.

Now I know that the general rule for posting here is 'don't post negative things' and 'stick to substance and not the person' etc.; and my off handed reply is essentially contrary to all those things; and I fully realize that with this reply I'm polluting even more. My point is: there seems to be some sort of naive believe that 'all opinions are equally valid', 'all viewpoints deserve equal consideration' and 'the only way to respond to fringe/populist rhetoric is with meticulous fact-based refutation'. That's simply not true. Call me a 'reactionist' or a 'fascist censor' \- but I liked the days when 'letters to the editor' from lunatics were thrown in the bin and only those with substance and without inciting language were published (I mean that metaphorically, I was born in 1979, I'm from a generation where 'letters to the editor' were already an anachronism). I'm not talking about shunning content because of its content; but rather shunning content that employs mala fides sophisms like purposefully using incendiary phrasing.

So in summary: no I won't be seduced into a useless 'debate'. And on top of that, I would much prefer much more heavy-handed moderation where many more posts were simply and summarily deleted (and yes that includes some of my own, that were written too hastily) in order to increase the intellectual content per 1000 words in the comments; failing that, we (as in, all posters) need to ignore and/or shun extremism instead of giving it a podium by replying with well-intentioned fact-based answers and thus attracting even more attention to it.

<comment><USER65> > But on to my point: not all points or opinions should be 'reasoned' with, or > deserve an intellectually honest debate, or even a reply.

> So in summary: no I won't be seduced into a useless 'debate'.

Then downvote or flag and move on. Your comment is as much a part of the problem as the original was. If you make a comment make it a substantial one.

<comment><USER64> I'm not sure if you're meta-trolling me by doing the exact thing I'm agitating against (i.e., dishonest selective quoting, flippant dismissiveness, dialectical rigidity), but I'll take the most generous interpretation and just assume you're short on time and haven't fully internalized the point.

We're beyond the point of 'just' downvoting and 'moving on'. Sometimes some needs to take a stand against moronification. I'm not volunteering to be that person and maybe my original reply wasn't even in that category, but not speaking up (and let's face it, downvoting doesn't count) lets this sort of thing fester on. At the risk of beaten an old cliche'd horse - "first they came for xyz [...] and then there was nobody to speak up left" etc. etc. I don't mind the occasional post calling out utter rhetorical garbage; if only to affirm that there are people left who don't mind debate as long as it's done in honesty and in an informed way, rather than 'I have a [deity- given|natural] right to shout whatever springs into my head at everybody else'. If someone were to gauge opinion from online discourse, they'd have no alternative but to conclude that there is nobody left who can hold an opinion that is more complicated than 'THIS ME LIKE' or 'THIS ME HATE, MUST SMASH'.

"If you make a comment make it a substantial one."

That's rather ironic coming from someone who with two dismissive one-sentence posts ignores a whole complex point being made - a point that, while it may not be 'novel', is certainly contrary to the majority's concept of 'democracy' and 'fairness'.

<comment><USER65> There is a time and a place to make that 'complex point' and I highly doubt that hijacking a thread with wall-of-text posts like these will make that point effectively.

As for your entry paragraph: such veiled accusations are also not worthy of HN.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> Lysenkoism

<comment><USER67> What does Russian anti-evolution ideology have to do with this settlement?

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> Thank you, Volkswagen!</comment>


Advanced Distributed Systems - <AUTHOR> https://courses.engr.illinois.edu/cs525/sp2018/index.html <comment><USER2> How do I know this is a Real Academic Site™ and not a trap set up by Russian hackers?

      <meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 6.0">

Ok, checks out.

</comment><comment><USER3> Was fortunate enough to take Dr. Gupta's undergraduate-level version of this class over a decade ago. To this day I still remember how enjoyable and simple he was able to make this material, despite it being actually somewhat tricky. Definitely one of the best CS lecturers UIUC had to offer at the time.

<comment><USER4> Jealous of such an experience. In my undergrad experience in the early 2000s, when things such as distributed computing came up in the higher level classes, it came with no context. The professor basically handed out, "Time, Clocks, and the Ordering of Events in a Distributed System", had us read it, and went straight in to minutiae. It wasn't until years later when it came full circle and I understood better how those things applied to computing problems I'd actually face.

Kids have it so much better now with the amount of open courseware/material out there so they can learn from the best, and most passionate teachers, and not just have someone jam through powerpoint so they can get back to their research.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I have taken the Cloud computing specialization in Coursera which was taught by Dr. Gupta. One of the best courses I have taken. Excited for this one. They should offer an Online masters for this, just like the data science one on Coursera

<comment><USER6> So this course is only to be taken by students of university ? Theres no web version ?

<comment><USER7> It seems the course primarily consists of reading/presenting/debating papers. Here's the epic reading list: [https://courses.engr.illinois.edu/cs525/sp2018/sched.htm](https://courses.engr.illinois.edu/cs525/sp2018/sched.htm)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Parts I and II of this EdX course by Seif Haridi are great: [https://www.edx.org/course/reliable-distributed- algorithms-p...](https://www.edx.org/course/reliable-distributed-algorithms- part-2-kthx-id2203-2x)

</comment><comment><USER9> Are they offering video recordings of this course? Dr. Gupta's earlier cloud computing course videos were just brilliant. I still listen to them regularly.

<comment><USER10> Would you mind posting a link to these earlier videos that you are referring to?

<comment><USER9> I can't find the link anymore on illinois.edu. But I was fortunate to download them. The videos are on Coursera with some minor changes. [https://www.coursera.org/specializations/cloud- computing](https://www.coursera.org/specializations/cloud-computing)</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What age do you expect to be able to retire? - <AUTHOR> If you are a software developer or if you work in a software related company, what's the age by you expect to be financially independent such that you no longer need to work solely for the money?<p>What are some common mistakes software engineers make that prevent them from getting their sooner? <comment><USER3> Funny to read that a lot of young people expect to retire at 40.

A friend of mine did it, at 30. It sounded like a good plan. Living in a developing country with a small capital. Ten years later, he's broke, isolated, unable to travel or to access good medical care or even to provide good education to his daughter. At 40, after 10 years of doing nothing in a poor country, he has very limited options to make money.

Another thing to keep in mind is that retiring implies a change in lifestyle. Once you get used to a lifestyle, it's difficult to go back.

To answer the question, I think I'll retire the day where I'm unable to work. Hopefully not before my 60s.

<comment><USER4> > Ten years later, he's broke

Sounds like bad planning (or a lot of bad luck).

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Not too far off it myself, but I save 75%+ of my post-tax income. Note that I do not deprive myself of luxuries, I am merely skilled at delayed gratification and grew up very financially unstable. I have a lovely 2017 car with < 1600 miles on it (purchased brand new), but I take the bus to work, for example. I do keep my finances very close to my chest for fear of judgement from others - I did not reveal the $ amount to my fiance-to-be until we had been dating for 4 years.

My timeline is 5-10 years to be safe (age ~40). However, I get satisfaction out of creating and delivering software, beyond collecting a paycheck and don't have any intention to stop working - just not as a wage slave once I've reached my number.

I am hard-pressed to think of mistakes that software engineers would make that people in other professions don't make - there are the usual things like buying too much house, too much car or letting someone else spend your money. Perhaps the only unique-ish mistake would be to assume the large salaries will last forever and not save for contingencies. My impression of people in finance is that they know they're worked like dogs, so they are trying to get out as soon as possible. Tech is so cushy that people can get lulled into forgetting that there's more to life than foosball and free lunch.

<comment><USER6> When I lived in Budapest, I was able to save ~50% of my invome. When I lived in London, I was able to save 60-70% of my income. Here in Dubai I can save 70-80%.

Reason: (i) no kids (ii) I don't need anything other than phones and Macbooks and some shoes (iii) no expensive cars/houses to maintain (iv) high income (but not out of the ordinary for Eng).

More generally: earn money in high pay cities and live frugally (London, Dubai), spend money in low cost cities (Budapest). Works like a charm.

<comment><USER7> I'm surprised that you were able to save more money in London than Budapest.

Rents in London are prohibitively expensive. Did you share a place?

In Toronto my min-expenses swallow 50% of my salary.

<comment><USER6> I had significantly higher income in London, at Facebook. I saved about 50% of my base salary, but I got lots of bonus/stock money on top of that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm currently 35, I will be able to retire at 38. Married, one kid, one on the way.

* Don't rent in a high cost of living location; purchase in such a location only under the assumption that your property might lose value

* Don't waste money on depreciating assets (never buy a new car, no iPhone upgrade cycle)

* Do live below your means, keep your expenses in check, credit card debt must be avoided like the plague; no cable TV, cheap phone service, no Starbucks

* Do save at least 15-20% of your pretax income in retirement accounts, the more the better (contribute enough to your 401k to get company match, then max IRA, then contribute again to 401k up to annual limit, then taxable accounts, generally); I suggest a low expense ratio target date fund for retirement accounts, with anything above %0.20 being exorbitant

* Don't value your ISOs at anything above $0; cash is king

* Don't get attached to your job; you are a mercenary, attempting to extract as many dollars per hour as you can (either FTE or freelance); friendly coworkers and beer in the office fridge doesn't cover retirement expenses

* Do be interviewing and job seeking passively to stay practiced and ready

* Do fund ways to invest in productive, income generating assets (rental properties are my thing, YMMV)

Good luck!

<comment><USER9> That's a great achievement! What career did you pursue? Do you have any other advice for people in their '20s? I hope I'm not being too forward. I'm 2Xyo and, long story short, I didn't accomplish much in the past 5 years. Hopefully I can turn the tide for the best.

Edit: Thank you! I really appreciated your detailed reply.

<comment><USER8> high school dropout->Junior sysadmin->senior sysadmin->managed hosting division manager after acquisition->it manager->infrastructure engineer->it manager->vp infrastructure->infrastructure engineer->cloud security architect

I didn't start saving heavily until my late 20s, so I hustled hard to save faster (day gig, consulting as much as possible for 3 years) while supporting my disabled mother. The best piece of advice I can give is save early and save more. The longer you put off saving, the harder it is to catch up.

I succeeded from nothing except innate curiosity, grit, and a huge helping of luck. You can too.

Edit: You're welcome! I wish you much success.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I want to reach that milestone by 35 ideally.

I expect to get lucky somewhere along the way. My basic plan is to work hard and work with people who are the best in the industry whether at a startup or at a top large company. If I do that for 15-20 years, I don't see why I don't have a high chance of being rewarded in the technology industry (again, assuming a bit of luck along in the journey). My personal "number" is at least $2.5m in assets with at least half of it in fairly liquid financial vehicles. I think I can reasonably achieve that with my strategy. A number closer to $3.5-5m would make me super, super proud if I could ever achieve that kind of success.

I try to work out everyday to stay healthy and fit. I try not to make dumb purchases or spend too extravagantly - but that doesn't mean I don't spend big every now and then. I try to pace myself in my work (no working on weekends, for example). I try to recognize burnout early and take steps to prevent it. I try to learn as much about finance and investing as possible. I try to make the more risky but smart bets over more conservative options when possible. I try to take pride in my work and not get cynical (not easy). These are some of the things that help me take a long term view of my career and keep my relatively aggressive goal in sight.

But even with all that being said, life is short so I know that the goal isn't an end in and of itself. Who knows what'll happen along the way - I could get hit by a train tomorrow. That's why I still try to appreciate each day for what it is.

Notice I used "try" a lot. I don't always succeed, but I'm always trying :)

<comment><USER11> You want to hit your number by age 35 but you still need to work for 15-20 years? Does not compute?

<comment><USER10> Just used an arbitrary range to convey "a significant amount of time". Didn't want to give away my age on here, heh. I've got a few years in the industry under my belt, but by no means nearing retirement anytime soon.

Also to be clear, I probably wouldn't stop working if I hit my number - <USER2> would probably just work on different things or have a more flexible on/off work schedule.

Also remember, luck is an important piece of it, so if you've got some to spare, I'd be happy to take it off your hands.

<comment><USER11> I think I've officially used all mine up, but it's out there!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Already there since this year @ 35, with kids. Previously retired at 23, with lower expectations. Don't consider myself a teacher - that was mostly luck.

However, common mistakes: Not demanding equity, not understanding equity and options, living in overpriced cities, thinking the latest technology is somehow more important than the one that stood the test of time.

I can't recommend the annual _Venture Deals_ course from Techstars enough to really grok equity deals, as these are _really_ where the money comes from, whether you are founding or an employee. In the US anyway, tax is an aberration.

</comment><comment><USER13> I don't see retirement as anything worth to chase. My basic believe is that you should be able to enjoy your work, learn something new and do all possible to balance your work and life style. If you work only for the money than you should stop and try to do something else, even if it would cut your income. It's no shame to have regular income and many times you will have more free time and less stress than people who always work for big buck of money.

</comment><comment><USER14> In theory, if I wished, I could retire right now. My wife is Russian, houses are very cheap in her area and I've managed to save a good portion of my bay area income over the past few years.

Realistically though, more like 40 (another 17 years). I generally save about half my income, which over the next 17 years should build to >$1M, which is enough to buy a house outright in a nice area with a few hundred thousand left over to spend on living expenses.

> What are some common mistakes software engineers make that prevent them from > getting their sooner?

Living and working in the bay area, spending their money. If you work at MicroGoogleBookZon, you can usually transfer to a region with a lower cost of living without much of a salary hit and save that money. Even if you stay in the bay area, you can drastically reduce the cost of living by increasing your commute or living with others. It's less pleasant but you don't have to do it as long.

Also, you don't have to retire to the same place you save your money in. You can work and save in Seattle, then retire to say rural Minnesota. If you're happy with that, you can retire much earlier.

<comment><USER15> You're only 23 and you want to retire?

<comment><USER14> As soon as I can! I think it's insane that I'm spending my most able-bodied years sitting behind a desk writing code all day instead of with my wife or (not yet conceived) children.

<comment><USER16> Maybe in a hundred years it will be insane, once society catches up with technological progress.

For now, what's insane is thinking that society can survive with people not working in their able-bodied years.

<comment><USER14> If I were working in a field that required an able body I might agree with you but I'm not performing manual labour, society would get just as much value from me overall if I had my retirement now and spent my 40s and 50s writing code instead.

It's already silly that I'm spending my 20s and 30s writing code.

Plus the code I write doesn't do anything for society's survival. We could just about switch the entire tech industry to maintenance mode, cut jobs by 90% and society would get along just fine, as long as we figure out a way to distribute necessities like food and housing without money.

The same can be said about an enormous chunk of the workforce. We're forced to work for survival but the jobs we perform aren't truly necessary, they're ultimately derived from an illogical and unsustainable obsession with growth.

Most of society doesn't _need_ to be working at all and society would get along just fine if it wanted. It just doesn't want to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I retired a few years ago, shortly after I turned forty. I worked in Silicon Valley for a long time and saved almost all of my take-home income, which is what allowed me to amass a large sum.

When I was living in Silicon Valley, I couldn't wrap my head around how much pointless consumption my colleagues engaged in. Couldn't they see that they could escape this stupid rat race and leave if they just saved their money? I guess the liked the rat race more than I did. I hated the rat race and don't regret leaving. I should have retired sooner.

<comment><USER18> Isn't 40-45 extremely old for SF? Most FANG-engineers can probably retire by their late 20s in my experience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> 50 but it doubtful at the savings rate I am going at. Not retire retire, but no longer have to worry about being stuck in a crummy job and take breaks or move companies as I see fit.

</comment><comment><USER20> I don't think I'll reach financial security in my lifetime.

Political issues have caused me to wander around the world looking for a country willing to simply give me a visa. I'm now 28, and finally got 3 years of work experience in Taiwan, which will be enough to start applying for a Skilled Migrant Category (NZ) or Express Entry (Canada) visa.

I have no debt. No car. No house. My salary here is low, but my living costs are also low. Flights are expensive though, so I have to spend 3 months savings to visit relatives once a year.

I have a maximum wage, because my work visa doesn't allow me to have a second source of income.

If I am lucky to get a visa to a Western country, then I might earn more. Then I can spend it on the extortionate rents, saving for getting married, and when that's paid off, a good education for future kids.

I'm not sure if I'll ever be able to afford to have kids at all, and if I do, I'm pretty sure I won't be able to retire. I'm certain that I'll never be rich enough to buy a house. Maybe I'll get a driving license after I need to drive kids around; until then I'll keep riding a bike. AI will learn to drive before I do.

<comment><USER14> I recognized this story from the "made in the USA" thread ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15794202](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15794202)) and thought your story a little curious so thought I'd look into it a little more (i.e. Google your name).

Assuming this is you: [https://peterburk.github.io/](https://peterburk.github.io/)

"Political issues have caused me to wander around the world looking for a country willing to simply give me a visa."

What are these nebulous "political issues"? Why do you think wandering around the world is likely to result in a visa?

You say in your bio: "Where am I from? To the English, England. To the Swiss, Switzerland. To the French, France." You also claim to have lived in France most of your life, which would entitle you to French citizenship should you wish it.

You should be able to live and work in the UK, Switzerland or pretty much anywhere in the EU. What exactly is preventing you from doing so?

> If I am lucky to get a visa to a Western country, then I might earn more.

Again, do you not have English, Swiss or French citizenship? Can't you work in most of Europe?

It sounds like you should be work in most western countries and derive a western income without any problems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Hopefully at the retirement age of the country I'll reside in. Taking into account how pension system works, demography of the countries over here, and how painful is it to have benefits transferred between EU countries, even this will be not easy.

</comment><comment><USER22> Well if bitcoin hits 1M like Mcafee says, 2020....

</comment><comment><USER6> 36, at current pace could retire at 38-40.

Probably won't happen, because I will eventually do a startup and burn some of the money, plus hopefully I'll have kids soon and everything will go out the window ;)

</comment><comment><USER23> Now, at 40, but I still wanna work as it's hella fun,

Same mistakes as anyone, namely not saving enough and being too emotional about financial decisions.

</comment><comment><USER24> I love working. I hope I create software to some degree as long as my brain works. I am below 30 and already reduced my work time to 'work when I want to' plus a few extra emails so retirement is by far not my main target right now. I basically am able to enjoy life right now to the fullest.

</comment><comment><USER25> late 20s. Probably could retire right now; planning on retiring by 32-35.

I save between 95-98% of my income. Max out all tax-advantaged accounts (401k, Roth IRA if income is low enough). No children.

Easiest mechanism, by far, is to reduce spending. After rent + eating out + drugs, I average between 100-200 a month in spending.

I think, if you're able to reduce spending heavily, you should aim for the highest possible salary you can get, regardless of cost of living (well, no company in the world could afford to pay me to move to SFBA, but that's more for personal reasons).

Value all options at zero -- all my compensation has always been in cash.

Invest money. I prefer putting 110% into S&P 500 indices (low effort; typically 30-60minutes/year of work). Some people prefer rental properties. Do whatever is most diversified if your goal is retirement.

</comment><comment><USER26> 2053, 36years from now. :-(

</comment><comment><USER11> Currently 31, will likely have the option around 40 (or early 40s) at current pace. Don't think I actually would that early though.

</comment><comment><USER27> I can retire already (pretty much at around 40, but I do really love my job, so every year I am postponing for 1 more year :-)

</comment><comment><USER28> All these numbers here... Realistically I can expect to be able to retire at 67!

</comment><comment><USER29> I live in Russia, and I doubt that I'll ever be financially independent.

</comment><comment><USER30> i save 80% of my salary but still don't feel like much. living in a low cost country, i think i would be able to retire comfortably in 10 years (~40 years old).

</comment><comment><USER31> I plan on working till the end

</comment><comment><USER32> 34 now.

Will retire by age 40.

Save money, buy duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes.

Already making 1k/month profit and living for free with roof over my head.

</comment><comment><USER15> Depends on what year I die.</comment>


German exclaves in Belgium separated by a bicycle path from the rest of Germany - <AUTHOR> https://fascinatingmaps.com/strange-german-exclaves-in-belgium-vennbahn/ <comment><USER3> Odd borders are funny. Here's two other examples: The utter chaos in Baarle. They even have nested enclaves. So area of Netherlands surrounded by Belgium surrounded by Netherlands.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baarle- Nassau](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baarle-Nassau)

[https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/51.4402/4.9316](https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/51.4402/4.9316)

Between Germany and Switzerland, there's the German exclave Büsingen am Hochrhein. They have odd tax rules as Swiss VAT is applied.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%BCsingen_am_Hochrhein](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%BCsingen_am_Hochrhein)

[https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/47.6941/8.6910](https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/47.6941/8.6910)

<comment><USER4> The german entry for Büsingen is MUCH more detailed

[https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Büsingen_am_Hochrhein](https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Büsingen_am_Hochrhein)

This really frustrates me about Wikipedia because its like a totally parallel site and experience thats just right there and can even have conflicting information. Not helping the world as much as we think, but its so close to being able to.

<comment><USER5> Can't we just all agree to speak English? No, I don't think that would be a good idea. Perhaps they could write a (albeit imperfect) tool to alert readers when another language has a much larger or more comprehensive article. I'm sure the Wikipedians have considered the fact that some information is better presented in a particular language. For example, an article about Shakespeare will be more precise in English than Chinese. However, I think it would be another kind of loss if the Shakespeare article was just in English and we forced people to use automated translators. Some might argue that this applies to all scholarship, not just Wikipedia.

<comment><USER6> As far as I remember (I can't check now) articles in foreign Wikipedias that have a "silver" or "gold" status are shown with a star in the list.

It might not be obvious to English speaking visitors as I suppose they don't pay much attention to the list, but visitors who speak multiple languages often switch between them to get the most information.

<comment><USER7> > As far as I remember (I can't check now) articles in foreign Wikipedias that > have a "silver" or "gold" status are shown with a star in the list.

That's the case, at least when not on the mobile site; apparently the mobile site instead show the "best" version at the top of the list of versions, but I don't know how it is determined.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> My favorite is Lake Constance. Switzerland and Austria disagree on where exactly the borders are, but both think Germany holds a part of it. Germany has no stated position on the subject. It has to be the world's most relaxed border dispute.

<comment><USER9> [https://www.businessinsider.com/canada-and-denmark- whiskey-w...](https://www.businessinsider.com/canada-and-denmark-whiskey-war- over-hans-island-2016-1) is another relaxed one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> > There is no border control due to the Schengen Agreement, therefore daily > life is not really impacted.

That's the most interesting part to me. I cross the border every day to go to work. Yet, when a friend came to visit us and we we to the city, he couldn't believe that we were crossing a border that easily (France-Switzerland). It was literally an open fence with a sign welcoming you.

It's really awesome when you think about it

<comment><USER11> This is what I was expecting when I drove between Switzerland-Italy in 2016. Except I was stopped, told to park, had my passport examined with with a loupe, and then was sent on my way. Are the borders back to normal now?

<comment><USER12> A few countries have started to introduce this recently due to paranoia around Syrian refugees. It's extremely controversial, as it basically nullifies Schengen, but countries are apparently allowed by the agreement to put these spot checks in place (provided some political procedures) up to 20 out of every 60 days.

<comment><USER13> Is it paranoia, or just a sensible way for states to implement some semblance of control over their own border when a EU wide strategy seems out of reach?

<comment><USER14> It is no more "sensible" for a state to be exercising control of its border than it is for a town to be exercising control over its border. We're all free people in the world, and we should be able to move around it freely. There should be no borders at all.

<comment><USER15> Are you not then essentially arguing that states have no sovereignty? If so, how far do you take it - do individuals? Can any migrant - legal or not - <USER2> up to your house and start camping on your lawn?

<comment><USER14> In my world there would be no such thing as an "illegal" migrant.

And, the distinction would be between public places and private places. Anybody is free to exist in any public place with no permission required (just like you are already allowed to do once you're in the country).

It would all be exactly the same as it is now, except there are no checks at the border, and no visa requirements.

<comment><USER15> Do you seriously think the quality of life wouldn't deteriorate rapidly if this was the case? Or is that not your concern? Or would it not effect your area, so you don't care?

I think it's utopian to believe that this would lead to anything but slums and shanty towns. People with no wealth will all flock to areas with wealth, which won't have the infrastructure to support them. They'd camp out wherever they could with whatever they could - possibly right outside your house. Probably in your back yard actually - local law enforcement would be too overwhelmed to go around persecuting squatting or trespassing.

Travel to a large city in India to see what happens when free movement is coupled with massive inequality.

<comment><USER14> It's certainly not ethically sound to lock out people from poor countries just because you don't want them to be poor nearby.

<comment><USER15> Under your model people would just end up building huge gated-communities anyway - it would all be private property, so wouldn't violate any of your laws.

People will find a way to keep people they don't want near by away from them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Which reminds me of the rather young saying: "No fences make for excellent neighbors."

As to the bike path: that photo made my legs itch. Old train tracks are an excellent resource for bike paths, at least for recreational riding. They are flat, because trains are unable to climb anything more than 2% or so. Plus no cars, perfect width, and (because they are established rather recently) often perfectly smooth pavement.

I've done a thousand km or so in both Spain, and across the alps. It's almost as breathtaking as crossing the mountain passes, if you allow me to mix the literal and figurative meaning of the word.

<comment><USER17> Can you tell us what cycle paths in Spain are on former rail trails? I live in Spain and would love to experience some of these.

<comment><USER18> [http://www.viasverdes.com/en/](http://www.viasverdes.com/en/)

[http://www.andalucia.com/rural/walking/viasverde.htm](http://www.andalucia.com/rural/walking/viasverde.htm)

I ran some of this _via verde_ a few years ago on a very hot and dusty day. I finished at old Olvera station which has a bar serving very cold beer served in a frozen glass - heaven. The white hill-town of Olvera itself is also worth a visit:

[http://www.andalucia.com/rural/walking/viasverde- olvera.htm](http://www.andalucia.com/rural/walking/viasverde-olvera.htm)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> There are some weird border situations up on US/Canada border, including:

* Library in Vermont and Quebec straddling the border: [https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-us-canada-border-r...](https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-us-canada-border-runs-through-this-tiny-library)

* Canadian train that crosses northern Maine and used to have U.S. border guards board it (can't find the resource, but I saw this on TV show some years ago)

* Thousand Islands border between Ontario and NY State, which can be easily swum in the summer and freezes over in the winter ([https://www.cbp.gov/frontline/frontline-april-thousand-islan...](https://www.cbp.gov/frontline/frontline-april-thousand-islands))

* Akwesasne Mohawk reservation further east that straddles the NY/Ontario/Quebec border but tribal members do not recognize ([https://www.npr.org/2017/10/28/560436303/at-u-s-canada-borde...](https://www.npr.org/2017/10/28/560436303/at-u-s-canada-border-reservation-mohawks-say-they-face-discrimination))

* Northwest Angle attached to Manitoba, but technically part of Minnesota: [https://www.minnpost.com/mnopedia/2014/02/story-behind-minne...](https://www.minnpost.com/mnopedia/2014/02/story-behind-minnesotas-weirdly-shaped-northern-border/)

<comment><USER20> Add Hyder, Alaska, accessible by road only from Canada. It also gets its telephone service and utilities from the Canadian side.

<comment><USER21> Most places in SE Alaska are inaccessible by road. Skagway, Haines, and Hyder are the three exceptions. The highways to these necessarily go through Canada, but I'm not sure why that would make them remarkable?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I cycled the Vennbahn cycle path this summer. Sometimes, the only way you can tell what country is on the side of the road is by the shape and colour of the postboxes.

</comment><comment><USER23> I live in Monschau and drive past these every day. Driving from Monschau to Roetgen takes you through a forest in Belgium. One crosses the border twice within a couple of kilometers. The border is, indeed, at the bicycle path.

</comment><comment><USER24> Similarly interesting and close to the path/border in the article is the history of the neutral territory called "Neutral-Moresnet" which was incorporated into Belgium in 1944: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_Moresnet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_Moresnet)

Another odd occurence I only learned about recently in the area around here are the American Military Cemeteries in Belgium and the Netherlands which are administered by the American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC). Visiting one feels like being on a patch of US soil in the middle of the Belgian countryside (signs, road-markings, the way the gardens are kept, etc), quite surreal: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri- Chapelle_American_Cemete...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri- Chapelle_American_Cemetery_and_Memorial)

</comment><comment><USER25> It's true that you can easily cross the border to Switzerland (which has mostly to do with economic reason). If you think that you can cross the border without being surveilled, then let me tell you that on many Swiss border crossings there are licence plate readers. As a foreigner, it's almost impossible to cross Switzerland without having your plates checked at least once. I had once an introduction to the possibilities of the Swiss border guards (and what they do) and I can tell you I was suprised to hear and almost couldn't believe it. There are not just standing 2'000 border guards around to say hi to you and wave you through.

</comment><comment><USER26> There is an interesting version of this with The Netherlands and Belgium The Netherlands: [https://www.google.com/maps/place/Baarle- Nassau,+Holland/@51...](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Baarle- Nassau,+email@example.com,4.8883959,13z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m13!1m7!3m6!1s0x47c609c3db87e4bb:0xb3a175ceffbd0a9f!2sHolland!3b1!8m2!3d52.132633!4d5.291266!3m4!1s0x47c6a5342570ab1d:0x808696d1e9939744!8m2!3d51.4451276!4d4.9295139) Belgium: [https://www.google.com/maps/place/Baarle- Hertog,+Belgien/@51...](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Baarle- Hertog,+firstname.lastname@example.com,4.8545492,13z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m13!1m7!3m6!1s0x47c609c3db87e4bb:0xb3a175ceffbd0a9f!2sHolland!3b1!8m2!3d52.132633!4d5.291266!3m4!1s0x47c6a54331164f29:0x40099ab2f4d4d20!8m2!3d51.4418375!4d4.9317455)

</comment><comment><USER27> Some related discussions: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17790033](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17790033) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12124210](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12124210) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9988119](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9988119)

</comment><comment><USER28> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclave_and_exclave#True_encla...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclave_and_exclave#True_enclaves)

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

</comment><comment><USER29> This also happens in the border of Germany and Switzerland. A few places are part of Germany but inside Swiss territory.

<comment><USER30> Büsingen is one. People pay with Swiss Franc, houses have two postcodes, the local soccer club plays in the Swiss league. "Vehicles with BÜS licence plates are treated as Swiss vehicles for customs purposes." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%BCsingen_am_Hochrhein#Pec...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%BCsingen_am_Hochrhein#Peculiarities_of_B%C3%BCsingen_am_Hochrhein)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Great book about these and other geographical oddities: [https://www.amazon.com/Unruly-Places-Spaces-Inscrutable- Geog...](https://www.amazon.com/Unruly-Places-Spaces-Inscrutable- Geographies/dp/054410157X?pldnSite=1)

</comment><comment><USER32> Coming soon to Netflix, from the team that brought you "The Tunnel"...."The Bike Path".

</comment><comment><USER33> more: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_enclaves_and_exclaves](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_enclaves_and_exclaves)

</comment><comment><USER34> What are the reasons such things aren't resolved?

<comment><USER35> What's there to resolve if it works perfectly fine as it is?

<comment><USER34> Don't know, simpler borders are easier to maintain?

<comment><USER36> As it happens, Belgium and the Netherlands recently changed (a small part of) the border for exactly that reason:

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/30/belgium-and- th...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/30/belgium-and-the- netherlands-exchange-land-because-it-makes-sense)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> This is a good time to consider what a ridiculous concept "borders" are, especially within the EU. What makes land and people on one side of an arbitrary line so different from land and people on the other side of it?

Borders are necessary because of power-hungry politicians: without borders, entire levels of governments would become unnecessary. This is why we hear so much about "patriotism" these days.

<comment><USER38> > What makes land and people on one side of an arbitrary line so different > from land and people on the other side of it?

Cultures? People on one both sides of the border generally have different culture and hierarchies of values. Thanks to borders, every nation gets to organize their piece of earth as they see fit (at least in democracies).

<comment><USER37> I don't think that applies anymore these days. I am from Poland and culturally I have more in common with most Germans than with many of my compatriots.

And my point is that the idea of "their piece of earth" is outdated. Apart from silliness and unnecessary politicians it leads to real problems, like countries deciding that they will burn oil and coal on "their piece of earth" and not care about climate catastrophe at all.

<comment><USER38> I am Polish too and I'd say were are on average very different from the Germans. A common, Polish-German state would be very hard to govern to due constant conflicts in values.

<comment><USER39> A lot of Germans feel the same about the Bavarian-German state.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


I thought FB Timeline wasn't enough, so I built ScrollFriends.com - <AUTHOR> http://www.ScrollFriends.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Everything 100% clientside (jQuery + JSON API's), hosted on Amazon Cloudfront, in other words pretty scalable.

Screenshots:

Newsfeed: <http://i.imgur.com/oyEdm.jpg>

My own wall: <http://i.imgur.com/iUAsq.jpg>

Photo albums: <http://i.imgur.com/iIDKa.jpg>

Search for 'Joyce': <http://i.imgur.com/6I104.jpg></comment>


Innovation by ancient farmers adds to biodiversity of the Amazon, study shows - <AUTHOR> https://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/research/title_801967_en.html <comment><USER2> Biochar is very interesting topic I got introduced to by the son of a Biodynamic farmer I worked for in Schwaebisch Gmuend, he had done his last year of undergrad studies for his Ag degree in Africa to try and utilize this method to re-rehabilitate the soil by introducing micro-organisms alongside subsistence farmers. Biodynamics, after you remove the often over-emphasized 'woo-woo' aspect (which I personally enjoy, but can be off-putting to the uninitiated) of it from Steiner, is actually just really sound Microbiology and Astronomy.

The surface area you create via pyrolysis in organic matter to create the bio- char for microoragnisms is actually really impressive and a low cost way to maintain soil fertility.

Graham Hancock actually made the point in his book America Before [1], that Amazonian People actually cultivated the Amazon Forest as we would with Nature Preserves in National Forests. Its a pretty interesting perspective I never considered being from the West and took the Amazon for granted, but it makes sense when your way of life relies on Natural Paganism and Biodiversity the abundance of of wild-life to help feed your People.

1: [https://www.amazon.com/America-Before-Earths-Lost- Civilizati...](https://www.amazon.com/America-Before-Earths-Lost- Civilization/dp/1250153735)

<comment><USER3> I think that biochar is interesting but make no mistake, the astronomy side is pure pseudo-science at the same level as homeopathy.

<comment><USER4> It is _not_ pseudo-science - it just hasn't been taken seriously by current _market_ leaders in the agricultural science market.

That is not the same as being a pseudo-science.

There are a lot of discoveries in agriculture that aren't taken seriously by mainstream researchers, because they work for market-dominating entities who can't profit when people start growing their own food gardens.

<comment><USER3> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodynamic_agriculture#Recepti...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodynamic_agriculture#Reception)

All research papers linked show that biodynamic agriculture is similar to alchemy.

Do you have scientific sources that show any advantages of biodynamic agriculture over regular biological agriculture?

<comment><USER4> Rigorous science requires a great deal of validation. Woo-woo 'energy fields' \- okay, sure. But I don't think enough has been done on the subject of lunar cycles and plant health, and that's one of the issues I have with lumping all "biodynamic agriculture" under the same pretext.

I can say that what I've seen with my own eyes: crops which were planted during a full moon versus crops (from the same seedlings) going in a week later, is that the moon-crops were bigger, juicier, and more resilient to problems - this over multiple years, in my own personal garden, under the watchful eye of my own gardener, whose opinion I trust inherently ..

<comment><USER5> Yes, you'll often get better results by transplanting earlier. You're missing the inverse control though.

In the absence of a specific mechanism it seems very implausible that the full moon has a measurable positive effect on the plants.

<comment><USER4> I dunno about that. Plants evolved under the influence of the moon.

<comment><USER3> Thing is that the idea has merit if it has been proven in double blind scenarios with controls.

This is not the case here.

We might not know everything about biological processes in agriculture and all the variables that come into play, however that doesn't mean that any idea that isn't part of "mainstream" agriculture has merit on its own.

<comment><USER4> Mainstream isn't always as inclusive for things as it might want to be. There could be economic reasons for suppressing the biodynamic movement.

Agricultural-science is fraught with misdeed.

<comment><USER3> We live in an age of mass production, I wonder what company would try to block farmers from producing more.

Also, no company can stop independent farmers from starting a biodynamic farm and produce more than their competitors thus being able to have even better margins.

So I think we can safely classify those kinds of worries in the "conspiracy theory" until proven otherwise.

<comment><USER4> Oh, I think you're being specious if you really have an interest in this subject but can't name a single company that would try to block farmers producing more using techniques from which the company can't derive profit... But hey, if you want to use the old 'conspiracy theory' saw to end the discussion, fine with me.

<comment><USER3> Well you're making a claim regarding biodynamic agriculture but can't back it up.

When asked for sources you answer with obscure conspiracy theories which are again, not backed up.

I'm sorry but science it built on stronger principles than this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I highly recommend the book "1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus" by Charles Mann which among others goes into this topic as well. It really changed my conceptions about ancient civilizations in the Americas.

</comment><comment><USER7> I put all the ashes from my wood stove in the winter on my vegetable garden and fruit trees. The ash is rich in calcium, potash, minerals and trace elements. I only avoid using it on the potatoes, the calcium provides a thicker skin, which I don't like.</comment>


Ask HN: Does anybody need freelance front end developer? Hire me - <AUTHOR>

Hello, I'm freelance front end developer and web designer. I'm seeking for projects since I have too much free time and I need money urgent.
See my last proejcts:
- http://vidakovic.si/databox/
- http://vidakovic.si/site/
- http://vidakovic.si/login/
- http://vidakovic.si/enyo/
- http://vidakovic.si/skillplus/
I love to work with LESS, Sublime Text and Twitter Bootstrap. My contact email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Thanks! <comment><AUTHOR> Clickables:

\- [http://vidakovic.si/databox/](http://vidakovic.si/databox/)

\- [http://vidakovic.si/site/](http://vidakovic.si/site/)

\- [http://vidakovic.si/login/](http://vidakovic.si/login/)

\- [http://vidakovic.si/enyo/](http://vidakovic.si/enyo/)

\- [http://vidakovic.si/skillplus/](http://vidakovic.si/skillplus/)</comment>


Ask HN: When would you do when a big company "breaches contract" - <AUTHOR>

Lets assume you have a royalty and IP agreement on a specific product with one of the world's two biggest companies (According to Forbes 2010).  You've been trying to come to some sort of IP buyout arrangement for 6 months.  At the eleventh hour you find out informally from a mate that they have already licensed that software without honouring the royalty.  The buyout terms you've previously said "look perfect" have a clause that renders the agreement "null and void from the outset" - you haven't signed.  You spend 7 days of dead wall correspondence trying to work out if they have done the dodgy. However, very senior management decline to confirm it. You've spent 7 days trying to find a good law firm that doesn't have a 'conflict' in representing you.
Assume:
* they played hardball in the original negotiations and took you down from a fair price of 100 * x to 50 * x and then much lower.
* they are in "Fundamental breach of Contract" and you are thinking of suing for punitive damages (assume this is possible).
What is your aim for a settlement?
1) Push for a 100 * x settlement.
2) Push for punitive damages (i.e. risk going to court) even if you don't feel you deserve the money.
3) Take them for everything.
4) Don't play hardball, they'll find a way to screw you.
5) Other.
Note: You meet with your legal representation for the first time tomorrow. Since then you've been on your own (whilst trying to find a good firm that doesn't have a conflict).
I'm interested in getting a feeling for how hard you would push.  My culture is not one that seeks too much revenge, justice is enough.  Do other cultures feel the same?
What are peoples' balance points between justice, punishment, revenge, greed and renumeration? How would you justify taking more than you actually deserve? <comment><USER2> Three quick things off the top of my head:

First and most important, you should probably take this post down right now. Whether or not you have a confidentiality agreement of any sort with this company, saying bad things about an "anonymous" major player--which could be just one of two companies--exposes you to potential liability and a headache that you do not want to deal with. I put no research into this, it's just my immediate opinion.

Second, ordinarily you cannot recover punitive damages for a breach of contract. You can recover actual damages and sometimes (rarely) attorneys' fees and costs.

Third, the size of the law firm is proportional only to the fees you will be charged--fees that you probably will not be able to recover. More important that office size and advertising budget, make sure that you get along with your lawyer, trust him or her, and be certain that the lawyer has adequate resources to handle your dispute--which sounds pretty basic. You do not need a firm capable of litigating a federal antitrust prosecution or a multi-party international-trade dispute. Focus on the lawyer, not the brand.

Good luck.

<comment><AUTHOR> The style is hypothetical.... I hope. There may be many reasons in this hypothetical case that punitive damages could be awarded - no details, sorry. The lawfirm costs in this (hypothetical) case are insignificant - think of it as your father's lawfirm.

I'm mainly interested in the "Would people push for as much as they can get, even though they know the fair price?".</comment></comment>


ThoughtSpot offering $20K referral bonus. - <AUTHOR> http://thoughtspot.com/referral

<comment><USER2> I'm confused as to why they'd add in this fine print if they really wanted fresh talent from outside their network:

This program is open only to ThoughtSpot's friends and families. For an individual to qualify as ThoughtSpot's friend/family, he/she must be connected to a ThoughtSpot employee on LinkedIn at the time of making a referral. Recruiters and ThoughtSpot employees are not eligible.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry about that. The program has now been opened to everyone. Please read the updated Rules and Guidelines section and let us know in case of any further queries. Thanks.</comment></comment>


Managing SSH configurations with Python - emre-yilmaz http://emreyilmaz.me/post/51551047673/automating-managing-ssh-configurations-with-python

<comment><AUTHOR> I get it if you're not familiar with puppet/chef/cfengine and super familiar with python, might as well - whatever works. But what is the use case of configuring ssh this way, than with chef or puppet or cfengine?

FYI my question comes from the point-of-view of someone who leans towards sysadmin work.

<comment><USER2> Chef/Puppet are typically used for managing servers. Using them to configure the SSH client configuration on your laptop is very likely overkill.

This falls more within the terrain of orchestration rather than config mgmt. You might want to rely on your munging your SSH config rather than something more elaborate like "knife ssh", fabric, mcollective, salt, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> Paramiko [1] parses SSH configs, but Emre's lib is an improvement as it also _updates_ configs.

[1] [http://www.lag.net/paramiko/docs/paramiko.SSHConfig- class.ht...](http://www.lag.net/paramiko/docs/paramiko.SSHConfig-class.html)

<comment> emre-yilmaz Additionaly, storm's parser includes a bunch of fixes for multiple hostnames, multiple localforward/remoteforward directions and comment line handling.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I caught this on GitHub a few days ago. I don't personally have a use for it, but as you noticed, there's already a reasonably popular ORM called storm, so you may want to consider a name change.

</comment><comment><USER4> Useful stuff also looks pretty neat to use.</comment>