Official Google Research Blog: Machine Learning with Quantum Algorithms - <AUTHOR> http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2009/12/machine-learning-with-quantum.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FgJZg+%28Official+Google+Research+Blog%29 <comment><USER2> The more interesting part of the story is that they're collaborating with D-Wave to try and get these algorithms running on their hardware. Should be interesting to see what comes out of this, considering the amount of skepticism that has been surrounding D-Wave.

<comment><USER3> When I was working at Google in 2007, D-Wave's CEO came by and gave a talk about their chips. It was interesting and he was immediately interested in getting Google on board with access to resources that most of the world doesn't have.

I remember at the time holding one of the first quantum processors in the world and thinking how this is going to change history. Even though at the time it only did a single simple task, it was clear that big things were coming. One thing he mentioned, and I forget the specifics so I can't really elaborate, but the chips are designed to be crippled in a certain way that doesn't allow them to implement Shor's algorithm. Apparently this was at the request of the NSA. I've no idea if that is still the case, but worth keeping in mind.

<comment><USER4> I had to look it up so hopefully this is helpful to someone else: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > So on average it will take you 500,000 peeks to find the ball. Now a quantum > computer can perform such a search looking only into 1000 drawers. This mind > boggling feat is known as Grover's algorithm.

This is a very clear explanation of the benefits of quantum computers. But I don't grasp how this would work yet.

I read the Wikipedia page, and maybe I just have to struggle more with it, but it would be great if there was a simpler explanation.

<comment><USER6> As Wikipedia says, in a quantum computer, you have a quantum register (a bunch of entangled qubits) that holds the result of your computation. The contents of this register can be visualized as a high-dimensional vector of length 1 -- think of this as a line with one endpoint at the origin and the other restricted to the radius-1 hypersphere around the origin. Each axis of the space that this sphere lives in corresponds to one classical value of the register -- in an 8-qubit register, one axis corresponds to 00000000, another corresponds to 00000001, etc.

The real problem you solve with Grover's algorithm is this: you have a black box (usually called an "Oracle operator", but I think the term "Oracle" in this case is misleading) that negates the value of your register along exactly one axis (i.e., if the coordinate on the 00010111 axis is .2 - .1i, it becomes -.2+.1i). You want to figure out which of the 2^n axes in the n-qubit register your black box negates.

Unfortunately, you don't have the luxury of picking the vector that has a coordinate of 1/sqrt(2^n) in each direction, and observing what the black box does to that after a single application, since when you observe your quantum register you always observe a classical state. In contrast, one solution that would work would be to solve the problem the classical-computing way: march through each of the 2^n axes until you find the one you're looking for.

Grover's algorithm gives you a better way. What Grover's algorithm does is repeatedly apply an operation that nudges your register towards the desired state -- basically applying a small rotation. After some number of iterations, the vector representing your register should be pointing in almost the same direction as the vector representing the state you're searching for. Then you can measure the contents of the register and, with high probability, get the answer you were searching for. It turns out you only need O(sqrt(2^n)) queries (rotations), so it's a substantial improvement over the classical case.

I've probably oversimplified a few things, but hopefully this makes things clearer than they were before.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This must be how old mainframe programmers felt reading articles about PCs in the early 70s.

<comment><USER8> Machine learning with quantum computers is so much more than that: quantum computation is provably more efficient at solving a large class of problems than classical computation.

<comment><USER9> Unfortunately, there are also large classes of interesting problems which are intractable even with quantum computation.

<comment><USER10> That's a good thing, it means I'll still have a job 10 years from now!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm betting that someone will prove a TANSTAAFL theorem for Quantum computing. In other words, you might be able to factor in polynomial steps, but each step will take time proportional to the size of your Hilbert space.

<comment><USER12> I'm betting that the Copenhagen interpretation of the Quantum mechanics formalism is false. There is no empirical basis for it, and it is a fundamentally pessimistic view of physics (that we don't know certain things because we simply can't know them.) I don't think the superpositions in the quantum mechanical formalism reflect any objective reality, their just a standard statistical reflection of our ignorance of the system's total state. But the notion of quantum computation crucially depends on these superpositions. To me the vast efficiency gains claimed for quantum computation are actually a _reductio ad adsurdum_ for the Copenhagen interpretation accordiing objective reality to these superpositions.

That people are apparently attempting serious implementations of quantum computation is very exciting to me, because it means these ideas are going to be severely tested soon.

<comment><USER13> Bell's theorem demands that you give up locality or realism. Either is fine; historically speaking it's just been easier to give up realism. Of course physicists found a way to keep both (by splitting the _observer_ up), & MWI's increasing popularity reflects this. In my view it's useless to argue about interpretations. Last I checked they had the same predictions.

<comment><USER12>
      In my view it's useless to argue about interpretations. Last I checked they had the same predictions.

Not true at all. If the superposition in the QM formalism merely represents our ignorance about the system's state, rather than an objective reality, then QC loses the massive parallelism which is supposed to make it so much more efficient than classical computation.

<comment><USER13> Well nobody argues the wave function represents our ignorance about the system's state. It's certainly not in the Copenhagen interpretation anyway. The wave function sacrifices realism.

<comment><USER12> In the Copenhagen interpretation, the wave function represents our ignorance of what the system's state will _become_ when _observed_ , but it's taken as an accurate description of the system's _actual state_ prior to observation. That is the point of the "Schroedinger's cat" paradox: that under the Copenhagen interpretation, the cat actually is in a superposition of alive and dead states, until someone looks in the box. Quantum computation crucially depends on the objective reality of this superposition. It seems likely to me that the superposition in the formalism actually just represents our ignorance of the system's state, not the state itself.

<comment><USER13> _> It seems likely to me that the superposition in the formalism actually just represents our ignorance of the system's state, not the state itself._

Again, nobody argues that. It's possible to experimentally distinguish between the two situations (Bell's theorem). This is a bit of a strawman.

Besides the wave function is a complex vector. It can't represent ignorance. You have to take |ψ|2 to get a real value.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Nice to see that experience with LISP is a desired qualification for the job as Experimental Physicist at DWave.

</comment><comment><USER15> Interesting, I did not realize that usable quantum chips now exist.

</comment><comment><USER10> I have a question about D-Wave. I've been trying to follow their progress in building multi-qubit adiabatic quantum computers for years now, and I see Google is working with them now too. But this blog entry states that it's hard to work out if D-Wave's hardware is really a quantum computer. Why is it so hard? I mean after all these years they still can't tell if it's actually working?

<comment><USER11> To some extent, everything is a quantum computer; the problem is entering in the program and how accurately you can read out the answer. If I understand correctly, the scientific advance reported is just doing the first part.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> talk about premature optmimization...</comment>


Google has reportedly launched a new AI-focused venture capital program - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/26/google-has-reportedly-launched-a-new-ai-focused-venture-capital-program/ <comment><USER2> Does anyone have a list of VCs that are specializing in investing into AI startups?</comment>


A $900B Oil Treasure Lies Beneath West Texas Desert - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-15/permian-s-wolfcamp-holds-20-billion-barrels-of-oil-u-s-says <comment><USER3> I live in this neck of the woods, Midland is 30 minutes away and I often am in town to work or play. On the one hand, I'm kinda glad that the oil is there, those are big numbers especially considering that the price per barrel is half of what is was two years ago. It will definitely boost the local economy. On the other, we are just now starting to see the area begin to settle down from the influx of workers who came to the area for jobs. When oil is booming crime goes up, housing costs go up, and traffic gets dangerous. Not to mention all the water that gets wasted from fracking. Water restrictions were just lifted but the area cannot support more people for long. Groundwater is being contaminated and soon what little above ground water sources we have will run dry if the area continues to see growth, add to this the fact that the shale formations will need to be broken up (by fracking) to access the crude and it looks like even more water will be used, as well as increase the possibilities of sinkholes and seismic activity throughout the entire basin. This is not going to be enjoyable for the locals.

<comment><USER4> Open a small business installing water filtration systems on homes. It will be a growth market for the next 50 years in many parts of the USA.

<comment><USER5> Do you have more info about that?

<comment><USER6> You want him to handhold you and tell you exactly how to make a quick dollar? Ha.

<comment><USER5> Nope. Interested in what water filtration systems people are installing. Im looking to install one as well.

<comment><USER7> It depends on the quality of the water. Where I live there's too much chlorine in it (nothing harmful but I brew beer so I need good water) and a 30$ brita filter seals the deal. In places with really shitty water distillation is a good place to start.

<comment><USER5> What are you using to measure the water quality?

<comment><USER8> You can get a water test kit from Home Depot for $10

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Keep in mind that this is oil which needs to be horizontally drilled for, meaning fracking. Fracking has destroyed water tables because of the chemicals used and been linked to earthquakes in Canada. Not to mention that it is very intensive in terms of water use.

But of course, while the oil is running there are lots of jobs created, at least until OPEC decides they've had enough and drives the price of oil back down.

Since this is Texas, I'm pretty sure the local community won't worry about this stuff much (I grew up in Texas and have relatives who live just north of this field's extent). Hopefully the benefits will outweigh the costs for them -- it's not clear that this has been the case for North Dakota.

<comment><USER10> Given the water situation in most of Texas, I find it unbelievable that anyone is still pushing oil, especially shale oil, as an energy option anywhere in Texas. And, yet, all those old oil barons are still pushing that agenda, and still controlling the narrative at every level of government.

That same desert could house miles of solar panels and miles of wind farms. But, very few people are pushing _that_ solution to the energy problem, even though it is now price-competitive with fossil fuels to do so in places like Texas, where both wind and sun are plentiful almost year round.

<comment><USER11> Oil doesn't have the same use cases as electricity. Until we have electric planes, ships, heavy trucks, farm equipment and freight trains, there is still a big place for oil in transportation.

Also, until we get some good energy storage solutions, we are just going to run into the same problems of too much electricity during the middle of the day and not enough in the evening.

<comment><USER12> Wind is generally stronger at night. The issue with wind is intermittency.

<comment><USER13> Likewise solar. Solar contains a predictable component with a stochastic component (clouds) overlaid.

<comment><USER14> Solar thermal can mostly solve the problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The value of 900B is wrong, apparently. Value of oil in the ground != value of oil in a barrel.

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/11/18/the- midla...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/11/18/the-midland- basin-wolfcamp-shale-is-not-worth-900-billion-thats-not-how-resource- economics-works/#42ec45442197)

Plus, we're at a stage where we really need to leave a lot of oil in the ground:

[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/07/much- wor...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/07/much-worlds- fossil-fuel-reserve-must-stay-buried-prevent-climate-change-study-says)

<comment><USER16> Also it provides security if we burn up everyone else's oil but keep large reserves for ourselves.

<comment><USER17> This was official US policy for much of the post-war era and a large part of the reason the US encouraged the development of oil fields in the Gulf.

In WWII the Allies deeply learned the benefits of having vast, safe oil resources in lands untouchable by the enemy. US policy after the war called for encouraging foreign development, especially by the US majors, in order to keep our reserves in tact for the next war.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> In a theoretical world, finding potential resources is always good. You have the option to extract from it, or ban extraction from it -- which is no worse than not finding it in the first place.

Put another way, shouldn't news of any new option be good?

It's interesting then that there's such negativity, or at least ambiguity, in this thread. Is it because we've grown more pessimistic at the irresponsibility of society?

<comment><USER19> It's interesting, but it's not surprising. There's a hive-mind on HN when it comes to anything associated with oil. The most ludicrous, unscientific, repeatedly debunked theories about environmental damage from fracking are uncritically believed, conspiracy theories about "oil barons" and Mideast wars are the order of the day, and of course you can't go five minutes without someone happily reminding us all that soon God, er, global warming will punish us sinners.

<comment><USER20> The world is on the verge of disastrous climate change. This fact is well established. Why exactly are we supposed to rejoice at the news of more fossil fuel reserves?

<comment><USER21> We've been on the verge of something since the beginning of time. In the meantime society has to function and society runs on oil.

<comment><USER22> We have viable alternatives to running on oil and there are people actively pushing to switch the society to other energy sources. It can be done, it _has to be_ done if we want our grandchildren to have a livable conditions on this planet.

The thing we need is for people to stop countering the change out of their short-term interest in lining their own pockets.

<comment><USER23> There are no viable alternatives to oil apart from coal and nuclear, sorry

Not until we have an order-of-magnitude breakthrough in battery tech or some new form of storage

Germany raised it's electricity price almost 3 times since it started it's riddiculous renewable energy bs and they still are only ~25% renewables (And they offshored their heavy, energy intensive industry that just packed up and moved to China, to happily pollute even more than before)

<comment><USER22> > _nuclear_

There you have it. This is a _viable alternative_ that's safe, and green.

Germany did exactly the wrong thing IMO. They should've expanded their nuclear capacity instead of shutting off perfectly good plans and starting to pollute the world (proxying through China, as you say).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Texas drilling and fracking regulations are on the chopping block. Soon we'll have little to no leverage to limit drilling or demand environmental studies to be done, so get ready for even more indigenous lands to get violated, even more earthquakes caused from wastewater injection, and even more greenhouse gasses released into our atmosphere exacerbating the already terrifying effects of climate change. No matter how good the profit in the near future might be, we're jeopardizing our ability to live on this planet by allowing this to happen.

<comment><USER25> All headed by 70 year old rich men and politicians who won't be around to suffer the long-term environmental consequences. And look at the age demographics where most of their votes come from.

Yet everyone acts like it's a monstrous proposition when I state that voting power should be weighted based on age rather than location like it is today. Not that it matters, it's never going to change.

<comment><USER26> You mean, like less you know, less real life experience you have - more voting weight you get? Brilliant idea, that's what is missing in our politics - <USER2> immaturity, childishness and inexperience!

<comment><USER25> I said it wouldn't be a popular sentiment. But as they say, democracy is two wolves and one sheep deciding on what to have for dinner.

Some rise above it, but human nature is inherently selfish. These 70 year olds have grandchildren too, and they're smart enough to play the politics game so I am sure they understand the overwhelming science on this issue, yet they clearly just don't care. And this election makes clear that we can't rely on the voting base to be well informed.

It's a valid concern that one voter only has to worry about their decisions for the next five years, but the rest have to for the next sixty years. Yet we have no problem with prioritizing based on life expectancy when it comes to organ donor recipients, charging more for life insurance based on age, etc.

Further, voting is already inherently unfair and weighted based on where you live thanks to the electoral college and every state getting two EC votes automatically. Some states result in voters having four times the voting power of people in other states. That and all the people living in guaranteed blue (California) or red (Texas) states effectively have no vote in practice. The same is even more true of senate representation, with two senators for every state, regardless of population.

You look at something like marriage equality, and per Pew research, 71% of millenials approve yet only 38% of the silent generation do. Yet the issue has a serious chance of being reversed due to Trump's inevitable Supreme Court picks. And our generation will be stuck with the fallout of that (and every other social issue that's bound to come up in the future) for likely 40+ years.

Look, I'm aging too. I'll be old soon. What I'm saying will already affect me as well. But this is just a matter of basic fairness.

This administration is going to push us well over the edge on carbon emissions. Our grandchildren and beyond will pay dearly for the harm that's going to be done. Those responsible will be long gone by then. That is not fair.

<comment><USER26> > But as they say, democracy is two wolves and one sheep deciding on what to > have for dinner.

That's why USA is not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic.

> but the rest have to for the next sixty years.

If you delude yourself with the idea you know what's going to happen in the next 60 years, you overestimate your abilities in such a way it's not even funny.

> You look at something like marriage equality, and per Pew research, 71% of > millenials approve yet only 38% of the silent generation do.

So?

> Yet the issue has a serious chance of being reversed due to Trump's > inevitable Supreme Court picks.

Based on what? Trump's position is that the issue is settled.

> And our generation will be stuck with the fallout of that (and every other > social issue that's bound to come up in the future) for likely 40+ years.

There are a lot of SC decisions that the right didn't like. There are a lot of SC decisions that the left didn't like. Some of them change, some of them don't. I don't see how anything here is new or has anything to do with anything - there always will be some decisions somebody won't like. Trump pick would make SC as balanced as it has ever been - 4 lefty judges, 4 righty judges, one swing vote (Kennedy). Simplifying, of course, but that's what it is.

Moreover, SC running ahead of public consensus is not usually a good idea. The continued abortion struggle is a proof - there obviously wasn't/isn't public consensus, and the issue is still a hot topic.

With gay marriage though, the issue is much closer to public consensus and I predict it will vanish from public discussion (except of course panic propaganda on par with "Republicans are going to recreate slavery!") very soon.

> Look, I'm aging too. I'll be old soon. What I'm saying will already affect > me as well. But this is just a matter of basic fairness.

No it's not. Nothing you said has anything to do with "basic fairness".

> This administration is going to push us well over the edge on carbon > emissions.

I have no idea what that sentence means. I suspect neither do you.

> Our grandchildren and beyond will pay dearly for the harm that's going to be > done.

That's always true - whatever we do, our grandchildren and beyond will have to deal with it. That's kind of by definition.

> Those responsible will be long gone by then. That is not fair.

I agree. I'd like to stick around for the next 1000 or so years, just to see what happens. Unfortunately, so far nobody found a way how. Very unfair!

<comment><USER25> > So?

So maybe people that will be dead in five years shouldn't be deciding social issues for the next sixty.

The silent generation had their lifetime "where men were MEN, women stayed in the kitchen, and gays didn't exist!"

Now it's our turn to have a diverse society where people can be whoever they want to be.

> Based on what? Trump's position is that the issue is settled.

Is Trump going to nominate himself for the Supreme Court, then? It's not up to Trump how his nominations will rule on the issue. But based on endless cases as evidence (5-4 party line splits), a conservative court _will_ reverse Obergefell v Hodges the second it gets the chance.

It's not 100% certain, but the odds are very good if any of Ginsberg, Breyer, or Kennedy are replaced. The odds go up _dramatically_ for two, and I would bet my life savings on it happening within 5-10 years if all three were replaced by Trump's administration.

> There are a lot of SC decisions that the right didn't like.

Correct, because Kennedy was less socially conservative, we managed 5-4 in Obergefell. But on fiscal issues, Citizens united was 5-4, Hobby Lobby was 5-4, gutting the voting rights act was 5-4, etc.

You're deluding yourself if you think the USSC in its current state is anything but _extremely_ hyper-partisan. And yes, that applies to both sides.

> Trump pick would make SC as balanced as it has ever been - 4 lefty judges, 4 > righty judges, one swing vote (Kennedy)

Replacing Scalia won't change the dynamic in any way, that is correct. Clinton making that pick could have pushed it to the left, but I'm betting they would've magically confirmed Merrick Garland within the week had the democrats won the white house and senate.

> Moreover, SC running ahead of public consensus is not usually a good idea. > The continued abortion struggle is a proof - there obviously wasn't/isn't > public consensus, and the issue is still a hot topic.

Yeah, those darn activist judges in Loving v Virginia and Brown v Board of Education. We should always wait for popular opinion to catch up on what's right. /s

> With gay marriage though, the issue is much closer to public consensus and I > predict it will vanish from public discussion

I sure hope you're right. But Trump voters made the gamble with _my_ marriage, not theirs.

> No it's not. Nothing you said has anything to do with "basic fairness".

I'll respond with an equally compelling counter to your argument here -- "yeah huh, it does so!"

Anyway, like I said, my opinion means nothing here. There's a snowball's chance in hell of us moving from proportional voting power based on physical location to proportional voting power based on age. Consider it my opinion, and we'll agree to disagree.

> I have no idea what that sentence means. I suspect neither do you.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_point_(climatology)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_point_\(climatology\))

(And no, I'm not a climate scientist. But I trust them a lot more than I trust oil and gas companies trying to protect their profits. See: tobacco companies in the '60s.)

<comment><USER26> > So maybe people that will be dead in five years shouldn't be deciding social > issues for the next sixty.

You say it as if you know for sure you won't be dead in five years. It's nice to be a prophet.

> The silent generation had their lifetime "where men were MEN, women stayed > in the kitchen, and gays didn't exist!"

Sorry, it's a load of hateful baloney. That generation fought for real civil rights. This generation fights for right not to be served sushi because it's cultural appropriation, not to be subjected to a words of a slightly controversial speaker, because it's "unsafe", and needs coloring books and play-dough to cope with losing an election. That's the generation that seriously claims they feel physically unsafe when somebody challanges their beliefs to the point of being unable to function and needing to be sequestered in a specially designated space, or they will break down completely. Not that's not I am saying about them, that's what they say about themselves. And that's the people claiming to have superior role? Puh-lease. You wanted play- dough, you get play-dough.

> It's not 100% certain, but the odds are very good if any of Ginsberg, > Breyer, or Kennedy are replaced.

Keep talking about disenfranchising your opponents, and 4 years of Trump become 8, and you get it for sure.

> Is Trump going to nominate himself for the Supreme Court, then?

Nope, but it is reasonable to think the will nominate somebody who thinks like him. Otherwise all talk about who he's going to nominate is pointless.

> You're deluding yourself if you think the USSC in its current state is > anything but extremely hyper-partisan.

And by "extremely hyper-partisan" you mean "not always deciding how I like it."

> But Trump voters made the gamble with my marriage, not theirs.

Votes for Trump had literally nothing to do with gay marriage question. It wasn't an issue in the campaign, and Trump himself is on record saying it's settled. That's what his voters voted for. So really there's no gamble, there's no there there. It's done, it's ok to move on. Using this question in order to criticize Trump could lead to only one outcome - when someone other than Trump arises who thinks it's not settled, he'd look like someone discussing legitimate current issue of the day, not something that was decided and agreed on years ago. Do you really want to fight for that?

> I'll respond with an equally compelling counter to your argument here -- > "yeah huh, it does so!"

Except you started with such argument. If you claim you proved Fermat theorem, it's on you to provide the proof. If you claim equal vote is unfair, it's on you to prove so. So far your proof was mostly whining about how old folks ruined everything. That's not a proof, it's just bellyaching.

> > [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_point_(climatology)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_point_\(climatology\))

Nice story. Except nobody knows where it is, what it means and how it works. It's basically a fairy tale. Nobody ever demonstrated any scientific proof of existence of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I know those people would be glad for the money, but damnit it was 80 Fahrenheit on Friday and it's nearly Thanksgiving. Whatever's going on with the weather, humanity doesn't need to be making it any worse.

<comment><USER28> The effects we're feeling in the South US are mostly from the La Nina[1], but there is actually something interesting happening with the Arctic ice this winter. It's still below zero up there, but we might end up with a northern channel in about 4 years if it stays this warm. It isn't just about the ice that has formed, but the speed that it's forming. It's significantly slower than recent years[2]. This was caused in part from storms[3], so now the rapidly warming temperatures can cascade in the next years with darker water and thinner ice. Also, the methane crater explosions in Sibera can't be helping...[4]

[1][http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/us/la-nina- arrives/](http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/us/la-nina-arrives/)

[2][http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2016/11/Figure2a.png](http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2016/11/Figure2a.png)

[3][https://robertscribbler.com/2016/11/18/arctic-storms- sparked...](https://robertscribbler.com/2016/11/18/arctic-storms-sparked- severe-polar-warming-sea-ice-melt-for-november-2016/)

[4][http://www.businessinsider.com/russian-exploding- permafrost-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/russian-exploding-permafrost- methane-craters-global-warming-2016-6)

<comment><USER4> deepitee1 says:

"we might end up with a northern channel in about 4 years if it stays this warm."

A "northern channel"? Do you mean a wider "Northwest Passage" from the Atlantic to the Pacific oceans?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I like that it's called the "Permian Basin". We're literally digging up the sequestered carbon from hundreds of millions of years ago and putting it back up into the atmosphere to rapidly recreate the climate of that period.

<comment><USER30> Your comment is catchy, but not very accurate.

That period lasted millions of years. All the CO2 we are blasting into the atmosphere will be absorbed by the oceans in thousands (or at most ten thousands) of years.

(It's taking a while, because the surface layers of the oceans can only absorb so much, and mixing into the deeper layers takes time.)

<comment><USER31> As the oceans absorb CO2, the acidity increases. Not so great for our preferred fish species.

<comment><USER32> Probably true, but the fact that we eat all those fish is a far bigger short term problem.

I heard somewhere (rumor alert) that jellyfish and other species we don't like to eat are taking over much of the oceans, since we ate most of the fish.

<comment><USER4> Open a small business harvesting jellyfish. It is already a growth market in Asia and will be a growth market for the next 50 years in many parts of the USA:

"Southern Fishermen Cash In On Asia's Taste For Jellyfish":

[http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/01/28/267836803/sou...](http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/01/28/267836803/southern- fishermen-cash-in-on-asias-taste-for-jellyfish)

"Jelly Balls Harvested by Boone Seafood Darien Georgia":

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laArO6Yk-W0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laArO6Yk-W0)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> 20 billion barrels of oil sounds a lot until you realize that the world consumes around 35 billion barrels per year. All this fracking comes at a huge environmental cost and all this to keep hanging on to our fossil addiction for a few more quarters.

</comment><comment><USER34> These things always amaze me, $900B which, if they extracted it all at once would deflate the price of oil to less than $10 a barrel and make everyone go broke.

For reference the US consumed 7 billion barrels in 2015[1] so this represents basically nearly 3 years of consumption by the US with no imports at all. And world consumption has been nearly flat for a while.

[1] [https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=33&t=6](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=33&t=6)

<comment><USER35> That statement is false. It entirely depends on how fast you sell it. If you dump it all on the market at once, it can go way way below $10. Or you can take it slow and not affect the price much at all.

<comment><USER34> Technically the statement is accurate, but I understood that you disagreed with the hypothetical.

That said, there is a lot of evidence and history that supports the notion that OPEC only managed to keep oil prices high by threatening member states with retaliation if they under cut the "standard" price. And at the same time, people who were in a position to undercut that price (Venezuela, Russia, Brazil) did so in order to get more foreign currency faster.

It is always a balance of incentives. The market clearly will buy oil at lower prices if given the opportunity.

So one could imagine an act of economic warfare where the oil and gas reserves were developed as quickly as possible and shipped to Europe at a steep discount to cut into the revenues Russia makes selling oil and gas. Thus putting a huge crimp in their economy which makes their military spending cut into their social programs more deeply causing internal unrest and dissatisfaction.

That certainly would not be in the best interests of the companies pulling the oil out of the ground, but it could be in the best interests of the US policy makers.

My original point was that the $900B number was specious, you cannot take the 'estimate of reserves in barrels' x 'the spot price of oil' and call it the 'value'. The quantity is _material_ to the commodity price on the market and so moving it through the market will change the net value.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Remember all the threads recently about fake news?

"The Midland Basin Wolfcamp Shale Is Not Worth $900 Billion - That's Not How Resource Economics Works"

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/11/18/the- midla...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/11/18/the-midland- basin-wolfcamp-shale-is-not-worth-900-billion-thats-not-how-resource- economics-works/#7dd018a72197)

<comment><USER26> Frankly, I resent the trend to call anything one disagrees with or find some problem with "fake news". Fake news is specific phenomenon and this has nothing to do with it.

True that the 900B estimate is nothing to do with actual monetary value of the deposit - it's just a size estimate expressed in terms most understandable by common person. Maybe it is misleading - though quantifying "a real lot of oil" to make it comprehensible is not an easy task, and writing "well, there's lots of oil but we have no idea if we can get to it and how much would that cost" is a bad headline. But the correction that 900B figure is just a sort of "car analogy" to estimate the size and not the actual worth is true. It does not mean original article is "fake news" \- it's true news, just using one somewhat misleading illustration.

<comment><USER37> I didn't find the headline misleading. It's no different than when people say there's $10 trillion in platinum out in some asteroid. People understand there are extraction costs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> To put this in perspective, let's assume that there are indeed 75x10^9 barrels of oil. Fracking typically can only extract around 10% of the oil-in-place (the rest is too expensive to recover once the reservoir pressure drops, even at $100/barrel)[1].

The US consumes 19 million barrels a day [2], so (75000 barrels*0.1)/(19bpd)/(365 dpy) = 1 year. All that oil would be burnt in a single year if it was the only source!

[1] Consequently, the recovery factors for shale oil are typically lower than they are for shale gas, ranging from 3 percent to 7 percent of the oil in- place with exceptional cases being as high as 10% or as low as 1 percent. [http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/pdf/overvi...](http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/pdf/overview.pdf)

[2] [https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=33&t=6](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=33&t=6)

</comment><comment><USER39> Good for them. Leave it there

</comment><comment><USER20> You mean a $900 billion CO2 nightmare?

<comment><USER40> Consider that to get that 900 billion worth of oil we'd probably have spend 400 billion in extraction costs. Over all likely better to spend that on renewables instead.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> And it should remain in the ground. All of it.

</comment><comment><USER42> whatever the value, I hope it stays buried.

</comment><comment><USER43> Considering long-term energy trends, I think we will have here is a major case of stranded assets.

</comment><comment><USER44> if they keep it up then it will be beach front property before long...

</comment><comment><USER45> Fuck this fucking oil shit. Fuck it

</comment><comment><USER41> How does a comment like this get downvoted on HN? Is everyone here an oil industry shill?

<comment><USER32> Some people honestly have different opinions and world views than you, without being corrupt, stupid or evil.

<comment><USER31> Yes, but on some issues, otherwise smart people hold amazingly ignorant opinions. I'm sure you can find examples no matter which side of the issue you're on.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Too bad we have to burn all that carbon first and we can't just pump it right into the atmosphere. At least we get to inject toxic wastewater into the ground and cause some earthquakes in the process.

</comment><comment><USER47> So this means middle East will get some relief from wars?

<comment><USER17> Or their internal divisions spiral out of control as Gulf petrostates receive the double-punch of declining oil revenues and weakening security alliances, causing them lose the ability to buy off their own citizens while at the same time, foreign powers lose their need for the current regimes.</comment></comment>


Memo to CEOs & Founders: Stop Being Such Cheap Bastards - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/25/memo-to-ceos-founders-stop-being-such-cheap-bastards/ <comment><USER2> The situations he describes are _entirely typical_ , and he's right to call the founder-takes-all scenario the elephant in the room. Early employees often work incredibly hard and receive a payout that is _a thousand times smaller_ than the founder's. I know because I've been one of those employees.

After being on the wrong end of that deal once, I've decided to never make that mistake again. I'd rather work at a larger company (where I enjoy normal hours, lots of benefits, and 3-4x more $$ of stock _every year_ than I got in 4 years from a startup) or be one of the founders actually winning in the startup game. Right now I'm actually doing both. ;-)

<comment><USER3> From my own experience this is _exactly_ what happens. Only they intelligently manipulated my shareholder agreement in a way that I had to actually buy the options, no paper transfer, I needed cold, hard cash. Having very little money at the time (being between jobs) I was unable to do so, which meant that I forfeited my options. Probably for the best anyway, because buying them didn't guarantee a buyout, only the _option_ of one. I would have been out $5000, just waiting for the day to be bought out, which would probably never come.

Lesson learned: read things very carefully, confusing language is intended to be confusing. I basically gave away two years of my career to kool-aid equity. Just be really careful, and if you don't fully understand something ask someone who does understand. If you can't get a direct answer, leave. Don't waist your time; you're being gamed.

<comment><USER4> Wait.. in the most typical case you are granted the option, not an option on a option. Thus if you actually exercise the option your not receiving the option of cashing out, your receiving very real shares in the company.

Was that not the case in your situation? I've seen some incredibly poor option deals (NQO options that exercised to non-registered shares spring to mind), but never the scenario you described.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is a big part of the reason I'm doing a startup. I worked for a company pre-IPO (back on the good 'ol days) and saw very little actual cash.

I'm paying for the sins of others now: I have heard nothing but snickers or outright laughter when I offer equity.

Net-net: single founder, no chance of getting any real talent on board (I'm way past the college buddy thing), all taxes and fees, like incorporation, due up front, my wife is about to divorce me because of the stress.

But, I would still rather do the startup than anything else. At least I have a _chance_ to make some big money, whereas that chance is near zero at a job.

<comment><USER6> Equity is a weird thing. From the eyes of a businessperson trying to attract a developer, equity is very valuable. You don't want to give too much away and you want to vest it properly.

From the eyes of a developer, equity is not very valuable. Equity is a chance at money in the future, not money today. Vested equity then feels more like a chance at a chance of earning money in the future. And most startups don't ever make money. If you're a developer worth his/her salt, you can make really good cash _right now_ at a typical job or working as a consultant.

One thing I've learned is that I'd rather be a developer than a businessperson. I realize that I have the opportunity to run a single founder, bootstrapped startup if I wanted. If I were a businessperson, I wouldn't have this option. If I had a product idea I would have to attract a developer and/or investment money first. As a developer, if I have a product idea I can just launch it and see what the market does and worry about investment, attracting another partner, etc. later.

<comment><USER7> Business people are also too often convinced of the genius of their own ideas, when in reality ideas are practically worthless.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Anyone ever read what Calacanis says about his employees? He demands way beyond what even most startups require, yet you can tell in clear text that there's not going to be any payout to his people, I'd love to see his term sheet. Nothing against him, I really enjoy his writing. But working at mahala hmmm n0t.

<comment><USER9> actually, i don't have to demand much of my team--they demand it of themselves.

I just pick the most driven people and fire the ones who are clock punchers.

<comment><USER10> Isn't "you will be fired unless [x]" equivalent to demanding x?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Far too many employees at early stage startups have completely unreasonable expectations for how much their options are worth. So even though they're getting shafted, there's a sizable chunk of the population willing to work for scraps on someone else's dream.

I don't quite understand it, but I'm not exactly worried the startup employee pool will shrink anytime soon. But they won't be getting me and a sizable pool of the top talent.

</comment><comment><USER12> How does it make sense that the investors get their money back AND get a % of the remaining money equal to their equity?

They own half the company, shouldn't they simply get half of the total proceeds of the acquisition?

<comment><USER13> Welcome to the world of preferred shares vs common shares and "liquidation preferences"...

<comment><USER12> Is that how pretty much all investment deals are done? or are some done ... rationally?

<comment><USER14> That depends on your definition of 'rationally'.

Sometimes preferred will be fully-participating preferred, and the investors will get their money back and then take a share of what's left equal to their ownership. Sometimes preferred will be non-participating preferred, and the investors can choose between getting their money back _or_ converting their preferred to common and getting a share equal to their ownership. Never ever will a VC do a deal where they don't get at least 100% of their money back before common stock holders (aka you) see a dime.

Complicating this is that 'getting their money back' is actually just a 1x liquidation preference - and while 1x is common (the VCs get 1x their money back before you get anything), it's possible for this preference to be higher. If there's a 2x liquidation preference, the VCs get 2x their money back before the common gets anything. If there's a 2x liquidation preference and the stock is fully-participating preferred, the VC gets 2x their money back and then a share of whatever's left equal to their ownership.

Early-stage rounds are often relatively simple and more 'rational' - it's multiple rounds with many different investors that make things interesting.

Brad Feld's 'Term Sheet Series' is the best resource I know of for basic definitions of all this stuff: <http://www.feld.com/blog/archives/term_sheet/>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I think part of the reason founders try to keep as much stock as possible is to retain control for as long as they can through each investment round.

If you can demonstrate two cap sheets with the typical scenario and the feel- good scenario and it can be shown that founders loose control at about the same stage, this would probably be more digestable.

<comment><USER16> > If you can demonstrate two cap sheets with the typical scenario and the > feel-good scenario and it can be shown that founders loose control at about > the same stage, this would probably be more digestable.

You're assuming that employees are willing to take less money to help the founders retain control. Maybe, but I doubt it.

If control is worth so much, perhaps founders should be willing to pay for it. One way to do so is to give liquidation preferences to employees.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> i'm waiting to see his cap table. my guys get paid market rate, i'm paying myself less than a teacher; the least i've ever made in the last decade. i also work about 20-30 hours more than my team.

<comment><USER18> and you will reap the benefits.

But the majority of startups expect "start up hours", from their employees, yet there is no stability, no glory (nobody knows your products), and what's the best scenario? The founders get rich, while the employees get one or two 100k after at least 4 years of work, which will probably never make up for the lost years/health and salary.

Next startup is something I am either founding, or I have double digit equity in it. Never ever going to settle for 0.1% standard series b equity, or the measly 0.5% series A.

Fuck that.

<comment><USER17> There is a fine line and it comes down to the situation at hand; ultimately I don't disagree with you, I've extended my early guys 4% each on top of their salary.

The thing is, not everyone is founder-material either. Prior to hiring our first two employees, I chased this deal over 9 months... most people would not forfeit a salary and other opportunities for that long. It was a rather painful sacrifice that's also taxed my relationship and quality of life.

I'm cautious of people who parade around "entitlements" because the idea can become political/toxic and disrupt a team -- you gotta earn those stripes. I hope you are considering starting your own company, things are a lot different when you're the one responsible for everyone's paycheck and returning money to investors.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> What I will give my employees when I get to that point is this: job stability, a job guarantee of a certain fixed period, and set them up as they leave to start their own business.

I learnt that from my parents. If someone is leaving your company to start a business, loan them the money they need to startup.

</comment><comment><USER20> Is there any evidence of that programmers avoid working at startups?

Is there any evidence that disproportionate returns (as opposed to risk avoidance) is the major reason?

I'm not saying increased compensation wouldn't increase interest (that applies to any job). But, there is nothing in this article to suggest that startups are hurting to recruit and that this is due to compensation rather than life/work balance and job stability.

<comment><USER21> I would never work at a startup without 1 or more of the following:

1.) Same pay as big-corp + much more interesting problem domain.

2.) More pay than big-corp scaled by the extra hours (not a 1:1 scaling)

3.) Large amount of equity. Enough that if the founders become tens of millionaires, I become a millionaire.

<comment><USER4> The issue being actually accomplishing #3. As a founder I can't afford to give you a huge chunk of the company (lets say 10% all by yourself). So I give you and the other 4 employees each 5%. That is going to be diluted down to god knows how little by series C. Probably something in the range of 0.5%-1% in a lot of cases. Now your screwed either way.

The simple fact is, when investors are involved there is NEVER enough equity to go around.

<comment><USER22> " _In the general case, if n is the fraction of the company you're giving up, the deal is a good one if it makes the company worth more than 1/(1 - n)._ " <http://www.paulgraham.com/equity.html>

you took money because it made your smaller % worth more. so why are we even talking about %s?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> "But if you give an extra $10 million to the folks who fought shoulder to shoulder with you, everyone will feel better about what you accomplished together."

Sorry, I'm not in this to make everyone 'feel better'. And let's say I was, why would I keep anything for myself? Wouldn't giving 100% away give me maximum feel goodness?

<comment><USER24> "Feel better" translates to "hire on at all". I don't know how many times I've heard the empty promise of "nothing now, but a share in the company later!" meaning give up a steady paycheck for 2 years to get Surprise! less than 1 years paycheck payoff.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Net message (of this and other posts on the startup experience) seems to be that it can be great to be a founder, but startups suck as employers. If you aren't the company-founding type, you're far better off working for an established company.

</comment><comment><USER14> If employees don't like what they're being offered, they should vote with their feet.

<comment><USER26> They do, by never talking to startups. Startups suffer without every knowing any better.

<comment><USER14> Maybe some do, but option grants, like salaries, are subject to supply and demand. The prevailing amounts are what they are _because_ startups can successfully acquire talent at them.

<comment><USER24> Have you tried lately? You can get any number of chumps willing to gamble. How about the really good ones?

<comment><USER27> To me that just means that there's a market rate for equity grants for chumps and a different (higher) market rate for "the really good ones".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Or give early employees decent option grants.

<comment><USER29> I don't understand the 'or'. Isn't that what the article is suggesting?

<comment><USER28> Well no, the article is suggesting not exiting early, since and early exit means only the founders get any real money (hence my suggestion to instead give early employees lots of stock so they don't get screwed.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I think there are 2 kinds of engineers out there. Those who simply like solving technical problems and innovating to earn a living, and those who themselves are entrepreneurs deep down to some degree.

Group 1: The first group is not the target of this discussion, because they're more interested in being employed and having a steady income -- they'll work for you if you have an interesting problem to solve and you pay them market rate for their skills. And companies should value their risk aversion, because it's good to balance insane entrepreneurs with realistic detail-conscious normal people.

Group 2: I've been in the second group, and now am in a founder's position bootstrapping a company with my own piggy bank. I have no problem with the way things are. I've worked not only for low pay to do something that was interesting, but also for free to learn the ropes or have a chance at gaining experience at something new. There are very few opportunities to do that in the big corporate world -- especially to have a chance, based much more uniquely on who you are and what you want, to do something very different from your career past or something for which you have little experience. This is especially true if you don't have a stellar academic history, which most of us know means nothing but which the corporate and academic world value so much it prevents group 2 engineers from getting into a lot of doors. And there are other benefits. New ideas come along the way when you're concentrating in the fast-paced smalltech world, along with new friends and knowledge that come in handy regardless if you decide to ever found or be an early executive team member of a company. It's not just about the net monetary gain between today and exit.

As an engineer with an entrepreneurial core, I definitely don't despise those who happen to have greater persuasive skills and use those skills to build a productive workforce that's less expensive and adds more value than the next guy. Isn't that one of the reasons they're successful? And isn't it one of the reasons an investor is more likely to give that entrepreneur capital to grow a business? If that guy can convince me to work for his company for less overall monetary gain between now and when I leave his company than if I had gone for some other option (in a wildly imaginative world where engineers have lots of options every time they look for work), then who am I to be upset later over what's in the bank? If he was a better salesman than the next guy (or an i-bank, or Google, or your dad's friend's tire company who needs a web dev), I'm happy to be aboard as the collateral benefits will be great. In addition, if I'm worth something more than the next guy, being a group 2 entrepreneur- engineer, I take it as a test of my own maturity in the entrepreneurial world to bargain for and be able to convince others of what I'm actually worth to them.

QUESTION: What about profit sharing instead of equity? I've always wondered if this an option explored by any software startups.

</comment><comment><USER31> If your goal in a startup is to become rich, become a founder.

<comment><USER32> Well, if everybody who wants to get rich becomes a founder, there will be no employees or at least there will be no highly-motivated employees.

It takes more than the founders to build a successful company.

<comment><USER33> "It takes more than the founders to build a successful company."

Not if you are looking for a 50 million payout. Which, the article seems to imply, is the average buyout amount these days. I believe pg and co managed to make around that much a decade ago. By the time you hire employees you'd better be shooting for a lot more and have some convincing reasons/data why you have a shot at succeeding if you want to get talented people to join you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> This is depressing.</comment>


Quantifying happiness in my relationship - <AUTHOR> https://www.trackinghappiness.com/happy-in-love-happiness-through-love-part-1/ <comment><USER2> A while back I built a little webapp that helps you track things like this if anyone is interested: [https://simple- decisions.herokuapp.com/](https://simple-decisions.herokuapp.com/)

<comment><USER3> Just tried it. Seems simple and functional. Did it go anywhere?

<comment><USER2> a couple dozen people use it regularly. nothing exceptional. i find it really helpful tho!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> cool analysis. curious about how many "negative influence" days are projected in the future after girlfriend sees her personal life widely disseminated...

<comment><AUTHOR> She is luckily okay with it, and supports me :) our relationship is currently better than ever!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The numbers are clear and secondary data confirms: You need to move to Austria or Italy.

Vienna is repeatedly selected as best city to live in. [https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and- advice/vienna-...](https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and- advice/vienna-best-place-live-quality-life-mercer-survey- sarajevo-a8262976.html)

</comment><comment><USER6> This is awesome! I haven't read your post fully yet so forgive me if you cover this, but have you heard of those studies that say that the optimal ratio for good things to bad things in a relationship is 5:1? Sounds like you and your GF are in an ideal situation :)

<comment><AUTHOR> I have read some of those, yes! My mind was blown when I read those since they matched my current situation at the time to the decimal. If you have any more links for me, I'd love to read more!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think your data would be much different if you were married haha.

Cool project otherwise.

<comment><AUTHOR> This analysis was done when my girlfriend and I weren't yet living together. We currently are renting an apartment together, and this analysis would look entirely different lol. I will eventually try to update this article with my latest data :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is interesting, but I thought the title was "Quantifying happiness in my (relationship with data)", not "Quantifying (happiness in my relationship) with data". As in, "how much value do I get out of tracking my life's data?", which is a question I'm afraid to learn the answer to myself.

<comment><AUTHOR> Haha I didn't think of that. That might be another cool analysis, though I can't think of a proper method to go with</comment></comment>


AOL Tightens CrunchBase's Licensing to Block Competitors - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/12/crunchase-alters-licensing/

<comment><USER2> What a pathetic load of shit. Shades of CDDB[1] back in the day...

"Let's just crowdsource the collection of a huge and valuable database, and then - after the community has gifted us the database - turn around and screw the community."

Great job, AOL. Fuck you.

[1]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDDB](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDDB)</comment>