The Mind of an Octopus - <AUTHOR> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-mind-of-an-octopus/?WT.mc_id=SA_TW_MB_NEWS <comment><USER2> > They are probably the closest we will come to meeting an intelligent alien.

I've often thought that while we say we would want peaceful relationships with any aliens we might find, our history of interactions with "alien" life forms on Earth paints a different picture. I'm pretty sure if we meet alien life and it's not stronger than us, somebody's going to try to eat it.

<comment><USER3> True, at first. But then things may change.

On the other hand, they might want to eat us too, so be careful.

<comment><USER4> If I were some kind of intergalactic alien consultant, I'd definitely advise the aliens to eat us or at least bomb us from orbit.

<comment><USER5> It's just a shame all the probes we've sent extrasolar have been roughly in the ecliptic. Otherwise we might've seen some sign of the warning beacons that girdle the system, advising travelers to stay well clear of the inner planets and on no account approach the third, lest its natives attempt to eat and/or copulate with all aboard, and possibly also steal your FTL drive. As the universe has learned from the experience of one itinerant journalist in particular, of all the places in any galaxy where you might find yourself marooned, among the very last you'd choose is the kind of planet where the locals named it "dirt".

<comment><USER6> > where the locals named it "dirt"

Well, I mean. It _IS_ mostly dirt. At least the parts where humans lived the most when it was being named. It also had a god or demigod status for many early cultures (and some current ones, I'm sure). It's not like we never realised the importance of dirt.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> You know, the Hawaiian creation myth posits that the universe is destroyed and recreated many times over. The octopus is the sole survivor of the previous, alien universe.

<comment><USER8> Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> But humans are said to have a second brain that controls their gut. See e.g. [1]. Excerpt:

> The enteric nervous system has been described as a "second brain" for > several reasons. The enteric nervous system can operate autonomously. It > normally communicates with the central nervous system (CNS) through the > parasympathetic (e.g., via the vagus nerve) and sympathetic (e.g., via the > prevertebral ganglia) nervous systems. However, vertebrate studies show that > when the vagus nerve is severed, the enteric nervous system continues to > function.

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

</comment><comment><USER10> There was some great discussion last week on cephalopods on this HN thread:

Just how smart is an octopus? (washingtonpost.com) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13354852](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13354852)

If you'll forgive me copy and pasting from my comment there:

I love how completely alien they are compared to us. The sort of decentralized nature of their nervous system compared to our path of evolution. (I'm no marine/evolutionary biologist so I'm probably butchering the terminology...)

I loved reading the two pieces Sy Montgomery wrote that are in Orion Magazine.

[https://orionmagazine.org/article/deep- intellect/](https://orionmagazine.org/article/deep-intellect/)

And the follow-up:

[https://orionmagazine.org/2011/11/interviews-with-an- octopus...](https://orionmagazine.org/2011/11/interviews-with-an-octopus/)

</comment><comment><USER11> I like how Octopuses are essentially a distributed system with most of the processing power in the arms. I wonder if anyone has attempted to model an octopus "brain"?

<comment><USER12> The work of the late Dr. Otto Octavius may prove an interesting study for you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Our 'mind' is distributed across our organs too :) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enteric_nervous_system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enteric_nervous_system)

</comment><comment><USER14> Octopii offer a tantalizing glimpse into how similar, and how different, aliens might be.

e.g. seems likely they'll have camera eyes.

<comment><USER15> > _e.g. seems likely they 'll have camera eyes._

Why is that likely? Mantis shrimp, for example, have compound eyes and one of the most sophisticated visual systems found in nature:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantis_shrimp#Eyes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantis_shrimp#Eyes)

<comment><USER14> Eyes have evolved on Earth about 20 different times. But octopii have large brains and camera eyes (and aren't mammals). It's only one extra data point, but it is a data point.

<comment><USER16> If anyone else is surprised by that claim, turns out it's not quite true (in a blurry way):

 _[The variety between eye types] has led to the dogma that eyes have evolved in all animal phyla 40 to 60 times independently (Salvini-Plawen and Mayr 1961). However, recent genetic experiments cast serious doubts on this notion and argue strongly in favor of a monophyletic origin of the various eye types followed by divergent, parallel, and convergent evolution._

[https://academic.oup.com/jhered/article/96/3/171/2187545/New...](https://academic.oup.com/jhered/article/96/3/171/2187545/New- Perspectives-on-Eye-Development-and-the)

Even at a wider structural level, there is enough common ancestry to put a serious damper on the idea that it evolved independently 20 times. It's more like a single origin for major photosensitive proteins, and one origin per major eye type.

That's not to say it never happens, notably, there's a behavioral trait in ants (seed dispersal) that appears to have evolved independently at least 100 times. Sometimes everything is set up to favor convergent evolution with dozens or more independent occurrences, but that probably wasn't the case with the eye.

<comment><USER14> Fascinating article! though much terminology. I think the gist is:

> the mouse Pax6 gene ... is capable of inducing ... eyes in Drosophila. > [Pax6] can initiate eye development both in insects and mammals.

> transcription factors can control ... any target gene ..., [therefore] there > are no functional constraints linking Pax6 to eye development. ... > Therefore, the link between Pax6 and so to eye development must simply be a > consequence of a common evolutionary history.

i.e. not parallel evolution of Pax6

> _It 's more like a single origin for major photosensitive proteins, and one > origin per major eye type._

Since our latest common ancestor with octopii lacks camera eyes, doesn't this indicate more than one origin for this major eye type?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I find it fascinating that we have very little idea how any other animal experiences the world - it's not something we can even imagine - and that seems especially true for these creatures with more of a "distributed" nervous system.

Also makes me wonder if I should avoid eating calamari...

<comment><USER18> eating is one thing, but eating them alive is something else altogether. In korea its a thing apparently. I dont really like the idea.

<comment> david-given I was once invited out by business partners to a meal in Soeul where the highlight was an octopus, cooked alive at the table. They had to put a lid on the pan to stop it escaping. It was delicious, but I had to tell myself that it had been debeaked and was dying anyway and then stare fixedly at the wall until they told me that it had stopped moving and had been chopped up; luckily, they found this funny rather than insulting.

 _shrug_ Weirdly, I've found myself getting _more_ squeamish as I get older, rather than less...

<comment><USER19> That's seriously messed up, but entirely believable. A number of years ago, a Korean restaurant in LA was busted for boiling cats alive (it may have been "BYOC"). I asked a Korean co-worker about it, and he said that while it was going out of style, there is a traditional belief that an animal's suffering is beneficial to the person eating it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Just finished the book this past weekend, highly recommend. The science is great but the philosophy behind it all was what was really interesting to me.

</comment><comment><USER21> > Further, in an octopus, it is not clear where the brain itself begins and > ends.

This to me is the central fallacy of the embodied versus central cognition argument. Why is there a need to define such a separation? Just view the neural network in its entirety and the "problem" is solved.

</comment><comment> nommm-nommm There was an octopus, Inky, who escaped from an aquarium by jumping out of his tank and sliding down a small diameter drainpipe to the sea at night.

I always wondered if he knew (or at least had an idea) where the drainpipe went and if he did how.

</comment><comment><USER22> Fascinating read</comment>


What I've learned about SEO (2018) - <AUTHOR> https://salon.thefamily.co/the-google-seo-bible-everything-a-startup-needs-to-know-a60dbac2d060 <comment><USER2> The real SEO is getting backlinks. They dominate every other aspect. Getting a high rank through "natural" SEO is really hard.

I know someone who makes $12MM/year from high-ranking websites in extremely competitive keywords... and it's all about peddling links, really. The first page of results rarely has any correlation with quality (of information/product) and more than likely the correlation is actually negative. You will find content written by non-experts who mostly just summarize Wikipedia articles, but littered with unimportant info to hit keywords. Searching for a product? First page will be dominated by whoever has more $$.

I grew up with Google and it really feels like it was a different time back then. I Googled "how to make a website" as a teenager, found out about PHP and started studying PHP documentation. From there I expanded into other languages and eventually built a career. Today you Google "how to make a website" and you will be guided through a WordPress installation on a hosting website with a $5 monthly subscription. That's literally a website by the guy I mentioned making $12MM/year - he takes a cut from each referral.

<comment><USER3> Any thoughts on [https://millionshort.com](https://millionshort.com) ? I've seen it mentioned here. I've thought about using it for stuff, but most of my searches are programming queries which google is actually really good at. It's noticeably better than DDG for programming because it usually infers correctly which language I'm talking about. But as you said, perhaps not so good for PHP? Also I use an ad blocker, so perhaps I'm not seeing what you're seeing.

<comment><USER2> It doesn't help much. Most notably, it even removes credible sites like Wikipedia.

Programming queries are a completely different thing. I'm talking about queries like "plumber in X", "build website", "which laptop to use" etc - queries where there's a very direct path from search to money being spent. Those queries are completely littered, you can just skip 10 pages and maybe you will find some actual professionals or enthusiasts with actual information.

<comment><USER4> >Those queries are completely littered, you can just skip 10 pages and maybe you will find some actual professionals or enthusiasts with actual information.

Isn't the whole point of the linked website to do this?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Use keyword search tool to find searches that have no high quality results. Then write a blog post for that topic and post the link casually on Reddit comments, twitter, etc. then wait a few weeks and it will be the #1 result. I have used this strategy for several years, it basically comes down to writing quality content on topics that don't have any content.

<comment><USER6> Searches/topics that don't have any content , usually have very low traffic.

So what's the point ?

<comment><USER7> That would be true if the number of topics in the world were constant, but new topics materialize all the time, and the popularity varies on old topics. Articles get old/outdated and are fertile ground for new articles with updated information, etc.

<comment><USER6> That might be true to rapidly changing fields.

But most businesses work in slowly changing fields.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm actually surprised that this article made the homepage and has received the upvotes it has on this (typically SEO sceptical) HN forum.

Probably less than 30% of the article would be considered "effective" (e.g. the advice is specific to, and likely to materially increase SEO performance) and the rest is either unsubstantiated (semantic tags and image compression leading to SEO ranking improvements) or unrelated to actual SEO (404 pages and other "engagement" advice).

There are much better articles that break down the basics, ignore the "SEO" parroting and that are substantiated by real data (based on test and trial).

<comment><USER9> Could you link to one? Would love some high quality writing on the topic.

<comment><USER4> I doubt he will link anything that works. It's because of how advertising works. It's usually a zero-sum game in PPC so tips/tricks usually only work when majority of people do not know of them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > I must warn you: blog topics will seem really boring. That's normal. You're > writing for Google, not really to bring lots of value to users. (But don't > worry, they only look at the pictures )

It always makes me sad that the sad state of the web is imposed by an artificial decision.

Good article, very different from past years where repeating a keyword was useful.

<comment><USER11> I was confused by that part and by rule 7.

"Rule #7: There is no secret. Craft amazingly good content."

So... Craft amazingly good content by hiring a freelancer on fiverr to write boring top ten blog posts that aren't intended to be read by anybody but Google?

On the one hand, I appreciate the author sharing strategies and ideas. On the other hand, this feels a lot like polluting cyberspace. By ranking your blogspam to drive sales on your dropshipping platform, or whatever, you're pushing actual good content off the first page of search results and into ignominy. It helps explain a general feeling I've had lately about the web getting worse and more generic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> > Connect your website to all the services that Google offers: Google > Analytics, Google Search Console, Google My Business, YouTube… Google [...] > created them to collect and analyze as much information about you as > possible.

Or rather, as much information about the users as possible. Add Google Fonts to the mix, also the hosted JS frameworks. Anything hosted by Google that is requested via your web site _is_ information about the visitor for Google. This is evil in its purest form, but if you are to play the game then play it in full.

</comment><comment><USER13> > Connect your website to all the services that Google offers: Google > Analytics, Google Search Console, Google My Business, YouTube… Google did > not create them to please you. It created them to collect and analyze as > much information about you as possible.

:(

</comment><comment><USER14> SEO is a tool. The myth is it's free. That's not so. It takes time. It's certain possible it's a tool that's not for you. That you get better marketing ROI elsewhere.

SEO is a good thing. But it's not always the best investment.

</comment><comment><USER15> Nice content marketing piece and guide for an SEO beginner but I stopped reading here:

> all with a 95% SEO acquisition strategy

That's so wrong. Free organic traffic is great. But if you rely fully on organic traffic, it rather shows that your LTV is not bigger than your CAC and if Google or competition kills your search traffic, your business is done and/or you can't scale when your mighty SEO doesn't work anymore.

<comment><USER16> How does organic traffic show your LTV !> acquisition cost?

<comment> chao- I feel like there are a few unstated assumptions in whsheet's post. Even with those, of course, no advice is universal or without exception. They do make a good point, though.

My version of the thought process is that, all else equal, SEO has three key disadvantages:

1\. Attribution is often harder than some other channels, and your experimental design has to account for that.

2\. There is a less direct, unitary through-line from dollars invested to dollars earned. Say you spend X dollars on various SEO improvements this month, and you get Y units of growth (conversions, revenue, etc.) that you can attribute to that SEO work. It is less reliable to assume (relative to other channels) that spending 10X on SEO improvements next month will reward you with 10Y units of growth.

3\. If SEO is your dominant channel at 95%, and you ever hit the maturity in the channel, the effect of the above is can be fatal to a growth-oriented startup. However you measure your SEO-based CAC, it is _probably_ going to be lower than the CAC of whatever your backup/next channel ends up being, and lower by a large amount. If you have to add in a lot of SEM with your SEO, CAC goes way up, and if your LTV was too precariously close to your CAC already, you are very likely to go negative on your unit economics.

#2 and #3 are what I assumed whsheet was intending as I read their post.

<comment><USER16> Thanks for taking the time to write that out. It makes more sense now!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I would add: only use SEO for actual, useful services, content or products.

Don't trash the already bad SERPs with more junk (eg regurgitated articles written for £3, surrounded by ads and popups). That's just being a c__t

</comment><comment><USER18> This is a better SEO guide for beginners [https://medium.com/startup- grind/seo-is-not-hard-a-step-by-s...](https://medium.com/startup-grind/seo-is- not-hard-a-step-by-step-seo-tutorial-for-beginners-that-will-get-you-ranked- every-single-1b903b3ab6bb)

</comment><comment><USER19> For whatever it's worth, Rand Fishkin seems unimpressed with this post:

[https://twitter.com/randfish/status/1180938925805846529](https://twitter.com/randfish/status/1180938925805846529)

</comment><comment><USER20> > Medium blog posts are poorly referenced by Google.

I've never heard this before and in fact have only heard the opposite.

</comment><comment><USER21> Hey @romain_g, huge thanks for sharing my blogpost!

</comment><comment><USER22> i have done seo since 2004 and now i'm leaving it behind for good. (reason: new google search console, amp, featured snippets and google ads the first 4 results anyway ... google lost its way a long time ago, they are internet cancer by now)

as i am leaving SEO for good, im selling my SEO book for 1€/$ (Kindle Version, i can't set it to 0)

[https://www.fullstackoptimization.com/b/understanding- seo](https://www.fullstackoptimization.com/b/understanding-seo)

<comment><USER23> Just a notice: I am currently seeing it on Amazon for higher than $1

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Just run instagram story ads

ZERO of those users will ever care or even notice your URL. Dont waste time on that

ZERO of those users will ever type in a search string on Google to find you

MANY of those users can order from you with their phone's native payment system, or will pull out their credit card and type it in using the crude mobile interface.

It also works really well.

Really should consider ditching a lot of last decade's logic. And by last decade I mean that the 2020s is starting in 3 months. What even are your goals? Identifying that there are SEO optimizations doesnt mean they arent irrelevant optimizations to earning revenue. Are we still trying to drive traffic to ad supported food blogs so that 0.2% of "people" accidentally click them? Come on. You want recurring revenue from your SaaS service or reselling crap from Alibaba to hipsters at a 1,000% mark up.

<comment><USER4> Hey. Thanks for this comment, it really feels like a breath of fresh air. Do you have more to say on this topic?

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I love the web and making no-BS web things so much that I'm _really_ glad I'm not a Startup and need to know none of these things.

</comment><comment><USER26> Basics</comment>


FINANCE PROFESSOR: Bitcoin Will Crash To $10 By Mid-2014 - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/williams-bitcoin-meltdown-10-2013-12

<comment><USER2> Many people people said this before, but as time passed it turns out to go the other way.

Gud luk Proffessy

</comment><comment><USER3> OMG</comment>


Tesla's batteries aim to rework the math for electric cars and the grid - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-tesla-batteries-exclusive/exclusive-teslas-secret-batteries-aim-to-rework-the-math-for-electric-cars-and-the-grid-idUSKBN22Q1WC <comment><USER2> I would like to see the ability to use a Tesla as a Powerwall. A backup battery for the house of the grid goes down, and a way to smooth demand so I draw more on the grid when the price is low and less when the price is high. That of course would depend on your electric company, if they charge consumers variable rates.

It would reduce the life of the batteries, but it would also save needing a Powerwall or a generator. It might complement rooftop solar well.

It would be less useful if you use the vehicle to commute and it's parked at work all day.

My parents live in a remote area and suffer frequent power outages. They'd love something like that.

<comment><USER3> You can buy a 1000W inverter for < $100 and use that with a normal car. [1] A true sine wave inverter is more than double that.

Presumably this is very inefficient, but a lot of power needs can be satisfied by running it for shorter periods of time to run compressors on refrigerators and charge batteries. I would imagine this should work very efficiently for a Tesla as long as the computer doesn't stop you.

In either case though you want to have a full tank/battery. If your Tesla is low it won't help much, so although it would work really well most of the time it would be difficult to rely on it. In a remote area it is usually relatively safe and relatively cheap to store some gallons of extra gas.

Perhaps what they are hinting at here about having cheaper recycled batteries (not in cars) will make more sense for these kinds of applications: cheaper powerwalls. But I agree it would be nice to be able to put power back into a power wall from a Tesla. Particularly given that the default setting will assume a temporary outage and start charging the Tesla from the powerwall.

[1] [https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/02/can-a-pint- sized...](https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/02/can-a-pint-sized-power- inverter-replace-a-generator/index.htm)

<comment><USER4> The problem is your alternator is going to be pissed off if it's running at idle speeds all day, and still trying to keep the battery charged while you're pulling an 80 amp load on it. Most alternators are designed to operate above idle speeds. Sure they can work at idle, and it might get you by in a short emergency... but it's probably not a great idea.

<comment> kube-system Wonder if it would work a lot better on a hybrid with a big beefy motor- generator instead of an alternator.

<comment><USER5> It does.

[http://priups.com/others/index.html](http://priups.com/others/index.html)

[https://forum.solar-electric.com/discussion/11546/using-a- pr...](https://forum.solar-electric.com/discussion/11546/using-a-prius-as-a- generator/p1)

[https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2008/12/22/daily2...](https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2008/12/22/daily20.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > With a global fleet of more than 1 million electric vehicles that are > capable of connecting to and sharing power with the grid, Tesla's goal is to > achieve the status of a power company, competing with such traditional > energy providers as Pacific Gas & Electric and Tokyo Electric Power.

Is this an apples to apples comparison? Power generation, distribution, and storage are quite different aspects. And then there's also the fact that Tesla would manufacture the batteries but not own them.

The battery is analogous to a fuel tank. When not used to power the car both can be used as an energy buffer as any car could be used as a source of electricity. This doesn't make any of the major car manufacturers "power companies". Is the statement coming from Musk/Tesla or is it Reuters' interpretation?

<comment><USER7> >And then there's also the fact that Tesla would manufacture the batteries but not own them.

This can be changed easily. Most Zoe owners lease their batteries from Renault and it might possible to set up a deal to share the revenues generated from the batteries.

>This doesn't make any of the major car manufacturers "power companies". Is the statement coming from Musk/Tesla or is it Reuters' interpretation?

Tesla has been working on that for years: [https://gulfnews.com/business/energy/tesla-executive- hints-v...](https://gulfnews.com/business/energy/tesla-executive-hints- vehicles-will-soon-drive-the-grid-1.1899411)

More details in this well-researched video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPIpOB9dya8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPIpOB9dya8) (this channel is excellent BTW)

<comment><USER6> > This can be changed easily

Would this change the fact that they just manufacture the "vessel" not the contents, or distribute the contents from the source? I see this more as "democratizing power", giving people more flexibility, and indeed maybe even changing the way we use the grid. But it certainly wouldn't put Tesla in the same segment as companies like PG&E or TEPCO.

Hard drive manufacturers are never considered "content companies" regardless of how they sell or lease the drives, and what content they store. And Toyota or VW are not considered oil companies even if their cars probably move more gas than many small ones.

<comment><USER8> Tesla is aiming to becoming an energy provider, not just seller of batteries. [https://evannex.com/blogs/news/tesla-bids-to-become-a- giant-...](https://evannex.com/blogs/news/tesla-bids-to-become-a-giant- virtual-utility) is a decent intro.

They would not be competing with PG&E (which has monopoly on power grid) but with companies that generate energy to PG&E e.g. the companies that burn coal or run gas peakers.

Currently Tesla mostly sells batteries to such companies and they in turn make money selling energy to PG&E (for example PG&E instead of buying energy from a company using gas peakers to generate it, they would buy it from company that "cached" energy in a battery and is selling it to PG&E during peaks).

It's a natural progression for Tesla to become such company themselves as they make the most costly part of running such business (i.e. battery).

It'll take several years (there's regulation around this stuff and Tesla needs to learn the new business) but that's where they are heading.

<comment><USER6> I understand, they would be in the energy storage and reselling market, rather than generation or distribution.

<comment><USER7> Tesla was installing 1,000 solar roof per week in the US, just before COVID19. They plan to ramp that quickly and roll this out globally. If they're able to deploy solar roofs in volume for both residential and commercial building, you can expect them to slowly become one of the biggest generator of renewable energy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Knowing the pace that Musk dictates I would love to know what else Tesla is working on or what the pipeline is. Perhaps 2-3 years ago legacy car companies could have caught up if they focused their efforts, but I think Tesla is so far ahead now they will be impossible to catch.

The biggest risk is running into cashflow issues but I believe at the last report they had about 2 years worth of capital expenses in the bank, so this is also unlikely to be an issue.

<comment><USER10> > but I think Tesla is so far ahead now they will be impossible to catch

Are they really though ? You don't see Tesla being much more efficient than any other EVs so far ?

<comment><USER11> Actually yes, they are noticeably more efficient than other electric vehicles in their class (similar weight and range). One example shows Tesla as 20% more efficient:

Chevy Bolt: [https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/42191.shtml](https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/42191.shtml)

Tesla Model 3 Standard Range+: [https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/42278.shtml](https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/42278.shtml)

Here's a complete list: [https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byfuel/EV2020.shtml](https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byfuel/EV2020.shtml)

<comment> semi-extrinsic Comparing Model 3 vs Bolt on efficiency is just aerodynamics. A lower, longer car is of course more efficient than a taller, shorter one.

The Hyundai Ioniq is a similarly shaped EV as the Model 3, and it gets very similar numbers - 133 MPGe (Ioniq) versus 141 MPGe for the best version of the Model 3 Standard Range, a difference that's smaller than going from 18 to 20 inch rims on the Model 3 Long Range Performance.

It is essentially useless to compare cars that are within 10 MPGe of each other at 130+ MPGe. If your tires are slightly off optimal pressure, or you've left something heavy in the trunk, or you've chosen different rims than standard, you've lost more than this. God forbid if you've put on a roof rack, probably drops you 30 MPGe down to 100-ish.

This discussion also underpins why MPG is a poor unit to measure efficiency with. The inverse measures used in Europe like L/100km or kWh/km are much easier to compare, as differences can be compared directly between a low and a high efficiency car

<comment> kube-system I don't think many people realize that MPG is not a linear measure of fuel/energy consumption.

[https://nudges.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/mpg- graph.jpg](https://nudges.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/mpg-graph.jpg)

If an average driver (12,000mi/yr) switches from a 12 mpg car to a 15 mpg car, they save 200 gallons of gas per yr.

If someone who drives the same distance switches from a 60 mpg car to a 63 mpg car, they save 10 gallons of gas per yr.

If someone who drives the same distance switches from a 133 mpg car to a 141 mpg car, they save 5 gallons of gas per yr.

<comment><USER12> I agree that subtraction is not especially helpful when comparing two cars fuel efficiency using MPG. A simple way to frame it is that doubling MPG halves your fuel needs for the same distance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> With gas prices what they are and likely to be there for the next few years, now is a great time for Tesla to hit purchase price cost-parity with ICE vehicles. Hopefully this new battery can deliver on that promise. In theory, we could look at total cost of ownership and say that a Tesla is a good buy, but unless the sticker price looks good there are plenty that will keep buying sub-$2 gas guzzlers.

<comment><USER14> It's also lethally good for consolidating their lead in tech and manufacturing cost. Fossil car manufacturers have been given the apparent gift of lower gas prices, but this is really a curse in disguise.

While fossil-fueled cars may now be a good cost proposition for a few years more, this means that there will be even _less_ incentive for the established manufacturers to develop their EV programs. Meanwhile, Tesla keeps charging ahead, investing billions per year and iterating with feedback from three generations of vehicles in the field. Battery prices were dropping 14% per year even _before_ Tesla's insane R&D programs. It won't stop.

Assuming Tesla can stay somewhat profitable and don't hit any liquidity- induced catastrophes on the way, the established manufacturers will be in big trouble when the other shoe drops along with a possible oil price comeback in a few years. This has been two decades in the making, but everyone will still act surprised when EVs are suddenly the obviously best option.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> It's rather disappointing that Tesla is still completely focused on the niche luxury market, though. The entire lineup of new models (Y, Roadster, Cybertruck) are still just expensive toys for the upper class. They could build a stripped down "Model 2" with a 60kWh pack right now for $25k MSRP and totally change the car buying equation for most new buyers in the US.

<comment><USER16> They are delivering as much value as fast as possible given X metrics.

The cheapest Model 3 price is within the ASP of the average US car, and it is good value.

As soon as they can do cheaper, they will.

<comment><USER15> >The cheapest Model 3 price is within the ASP of the average US car, and it is good value.

The average, sure. But nowhere near the median. Average prices in the US are heavily weighted by pickups and luxury sales. The median for new buyers is somewhere around $25k [0]. The cheapest Model 3 you can actually buy is still ~$40k without incentives. That's an $800 car payment - firmly in luxury territory. It won't be until the average joe can buy a 60kWh electric car for a $200 payment with a couple thousand down that EVs will go mainstream. At $80/kWh there's no reason Tesla couldn't do this right now.

[0] [https://www.concannonbc.com/how-much-does-a-typical- american...](https://www.concannonbc.com/how-much-does-a-typical-american- actually-pay-for-a-car/)

<comment><USER17> What would be the incentive for this? There is still a heavy demand for cars 30k+, why would they stop doing that for a cheaper car when they are selling every car they are producing at a higher profit? This is currently an issue of manufacturing capacity, accompanied by a demand curve the 3 set in place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Brought to you by the people who promised 1 million robotaxis for this year.

They just need to raise capital again. I wish for once they were just honest - need more cash because of the virus. Instead they are going to promise batteries that break the laws of physics.

<comment><USER19> Honesty would cash their house of cards, can't have that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Musk successfully achieved his three quarter of a bilion paycheck by keeping Tesla's stock price up during the biggest global depression in a hundred years. This is the sign of an insider financial genius. [https://www.bloombergquint.com/technology/tesla-s-musk- clear...](https://www.bloombergquint.com/technology/tesla-s-musk-clears-last- hurdle-to-collect-706-million-award)

<comment><USER7> Did he? He recently said the stock was too damn high, but I guess some investors only followed what Jeff Dahn has been working for the past few years (cf. what Reuters is just revealing but you can learn about his results elsewhere too). They expect Tesla's financials to keep improving thanks to price reduction and performance improvements, while competitors realize they haven't even started to dip their toes in EV technology.

It might be too late for the rest of the industry, but this has nothing to do with the recent stock price (this is about battery technology and production ramp, something that very few journalists/analysts have covered correctly while Tesla kept increasing its lead).

<comment><USER20> I'd counter argue the reason Tesla stock remains so high is due to brilliant PR about 'aims' rather than actual performance. The carrot is always dangling for investors. It's genius that Tesla retains such a high stock price in the face of global realities, not least of which is the current US China trade war headwinds.

<comment><USER16> Hence the factory in China... which is fully owned by Tesla.

<comment><USER20> Exactly. That's where the battery raw materials are too.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Alternate to Google Apps Mail service for personal email - <AUTHOR>

It is 2014 and I am still using the free version of Google's apps for my email (my domain). Although, I have started to move away from Google (been using DDG for a year instead of Google search), but the email service is still with Google apps.
What is the consensus of everyone here about a personal email service? What is everyone using for their own domain?
Some features that I desire are -
* Reliable
* Economical (or great bang for the buck)
* IMAP support
* Fast Web access
* Secure (not asking for NSA-proof :-))
Please feel free to add or suggest anything. <comment><USER2> cozycloud, you can just install it on a raspberry pi if i'm not mistaking.

Edit: I was mistaking, it has a lot but no email :(

</comment><comment><USER3> i use Fastmail it's really powerful and great webmail with mobile support.

<comment><AUTHOR> From what I have read by searching on HN, I believe Fastmail is really popular.</comment></comment>


One year of tracking mouse movement and clicks - <AUTHOR> http://iamjonay.com/2012-oneyear/

<comment><USER2> Too bad the mouse was recorded when not moving, worse still it left big black circles where useful data might be. Bad decision since you get nothing from the circle, apart from "user is not using the computer" which is useless.

Other data looks pretty random apart from the main blob which is positioned slightly off the center to the left and up.

Cool idea bad execution.

</comment><comment><USER3> Am I the only one interpreting this as more of an art piece than, I dunno, something that should be put in D3 with a shiny explorer interface so you can find out how many times they drew a smiley face at 3AM? Sheesh.

Neat imagery, and it makes me wonder what mine would look like :) I suspect you could make out where my IDE/browser tabs usually reside.

</comment><comment><USER4> I have been doing something somehow similar for the past ~6 months by tracking (per minute) the number of keystrokes, distance travelled by my mouse cursor, number of clicks, active app, active wifi network and free disk space. I can't wait to start visualizing these over time.

<comment><USER5> Can you share the scripts/tools which you are using?

<comment><USER4> I might open source the app in the future.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It is interesting, although I am unsure of the value of this information.

Something I have started to do is to look at the finger prints on people's touch devices. My wife's has an interesting pattern and it reflects her obsession with Candy Crush.

</comment><comment><USER7> Looks very cool but it's hard to give any meaning to the data

</comment><comment><USER8> Different colour for different apps would have been neat.

</comment><comment><USER9> The video would probably be nicer to watch if each frame used a sliding window into the data; that way the animation could be quite smooth instead.</comment>


Building a language server for Muon - <AUTHOR> https://nickmqb.github.io/2019/11/24/building-a-language-server-for-muon.html <comment><USER2> An interesting article.

I was minded to write an Ask HN related to this. Why do so many new languages launch without what I'd consider to be essential functionality for any language; autocomplete, good IDE integration, intellisense, auto refactoring and navigation support?

I get that all languages are just text at the end of the day but are people really holding the whole API surface and type arguments of standard libraries and 3rd party libraries in their head? Do they remember variable names across files and directories. I feel like my memory must be absolutely terrible because there's no way I could work in a language without decent autocomplete.

<comment><USER3> Many projects are open-source, developed by the community. It comes with several caveats:

1) many open-source developers use vim/emacs, maybe something like Sublime Text and don't have experience with IDE offerings for languages like Java/C#. As such, they don't really require much more than syntax highlighting and basic autocompletion.

2) many of the new languages boast powerful metaprogramming capabilities. Metaprogramming makes it very hard to implement working refactoring, because the IDE cannot reason about the code as well as in more 'static' languages like Java.

3) most new languages coming out are closer to the functional paradigm rather than OOP. I think OOP lends itself much more for refactoring features and things like autocomplete.

<comment><USER2> I think part of my question was related to your part 1. Are people genuinely remembering the entire API surface of their application, their language's standard library and all 3rd party dependencies for their code when using a text-mode editor like Vim?

The only way I could possibly work like that is if my program wasn't bigger than a couple of files not exceeding 50 lines or if I spent all day in the API docs.

It has me worried I've just got incredibly early onset memory loss I guess.

<comment><USER4> I'm one of those vim users - I never use autocomplete, autorefactor or a debugger for that matter. Occasionally I have them available in something like RStudio but I don't feel like I gain much from it.

I find myself constantly jumping through the code (with / for find) and I have 3 or 4 terminals open on the same display (to see how things are defined in various files) with stackoverflow a key binding away. I definitely don't remember how exactly I named my variables but I find that at the same time knowing just the variable name is not enough, I also want to see where and how it's defined. I use "grep -R" a lot for that as well.

Also often I end up editing files over ssh somewhere so then an IDE also wouldn't be available, and vim always is.

I've never tried tools for refactoring. But as mentioned elsewhere that probably wouldn't work well for functional and/or niche languages.

I generally feel pretty productive, if I had felt that there is a reward to learning these IDEs I wouldn't have hesitated to do so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Lisp had this kind of interactive programming support for a long time using SLIME and Emacs. Why isn't this a more common feature in the more recent languages?

<comment><USER6> There are two aspects here: Interactive Development is incredible difficult. There is a talk of Anders Heijlsberg about that compiler building is no longer the same than 10 years ago. When you code, you need sub-100-ms reactions, the parser needs to be happy parsing incomplete, typically errorous code and then you need a code analysis engine dealing with that half-baked AST. Also traditional compilers are a strict pipeline and not a loop etc. Microsoft had to rewrite the C# compiler for that. The PHP LSP had to create an own parser engine because no suitable was available. It is essentially a lecture for future language creator: If you write a compiler, do not only built it for binary emitting but also for editors and analyzers.

And yes, the smart-asses of the 70/80s (aka LISP and Smalltalk) thought about that long time before anyone else. But hey, today's landscape is a bit more complex (think about CSS styles in a HTML embedded in a TypeScript enriched JavaScript JSX file).

The second aspect: LSP is great because it was a cross-vendor, cross-language initiative which had in its first year already two dozen languages on board in addition to half a dozen editors (VS Code, Emacs, Atom, VIM, ...). Emacs plugins could never deliver that because they were bound to Emacs.

<comment><USER7> RE the second aspect: that's why I'm a fan of LSP and the related debugging server protocol. There's no way Emacs can have native IDE-like support for all the languages out there, and the small developer base makes it hard to compete with IDEs for popular languages, that have commercial interests backing them. LSP promises to level the playing field - it only takes one good language server to make IDE features suddenly available not just for IDEs, but also Emacs and Vim and others.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I thought this article was about "building a language server" like the title says, but this is really just a grammar set for an existing language server.. unless I'm missing something? I realize that this is being picky about wording, but it's a little misleading.

<comment><AUTHOR> Author here. I wrote both the language server and Muon compiler [1] from scratch. The language server reuses the compiler code, for parsing and type checking. I'm not sure which grammar you're referring to? The VS Code extension [2] does contain a grammar, but it's only used for syntax highlighting.

[1] [https://github.com/nickmqb/muon/tree/master/compiler](https://github.com/nickmqb/muon/tree/master/compiler) [2] [https://github.com/nickmqb/vscode- muon](https://github.com/nickmqb/vscode-muon)

<comment><USER9> The properties of the language listed on the websites are compelling, but I wonder what are you using the language for except the compiler?

<comment><AUTHOR> My main focus has been on the compiler and language server so far. Next up is a tool for generating foreign function definitions. This tool will make it easier to work with 3rd party libraries. Once ready, I'm planning on writing some examples, such as perhaps a small OpenGL program to demonstrate this functionality. Hopefully that will encourage users to give Muon a try for their own projects!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Good article. In fact the muon is very doc. Still, one of the curse when coping segment of python code is to handle those tab and white space. The muon help to have a feature (first line say tab or space). Sigh muon opt for that turn me off.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree that Muon's current handling of whitespace is not ideal. I have plans to allow users to customize it. For now, you can use the //tab_size=N directive as documented here: [https://github.com/nickmqb/muon/blob/master/docs/muon_by_exa...](https://github.com/nickmqb/muon/blob/master/docs/muon_by_example.md#significant- whitespace)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Moun's for loops make me angry.

<comment><USER12> Can you expand on this?

<comment><USER13> From "Muon by example" [0], the for loops look pretty natural/intuitive subjectively.

      for i := 1; i < n {
        temp := a
        a += b
        b = temp
      }

> `for` works mostly like in other imperative languages. For convenience, the > 3rd term can be omitted; in that case, the index variable is incremented by > 1 at the end of each iteration of the loop. The index variable is scoped to > the loop body. The variable can be omitted if you want to use an existing > index variable, e.g.: for ; i < n; i += 1 { ... }

With arrays:

      for x in arr {
        sum += x
      }

      for x, i in arr {
        sum += x
      }

      for arr {
        sum += it
      }

> A secondary loop variable may be specified which holds the index of the > current element. If no loop variable is specified, the name `it` is used.

[0] [https://github.com/nickmqb/muon/blob/master/docs/muon_by_exa...](https://github.com/nickmqb/muon/blob/master/docs/muon_by_example.md)</comment></comment></comment>


Fridge Condenser Fans – Old and New [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CO5UjO0ZmUQ <comment><USER4> Yes but refrigerators back then were around $2-3000 in modern currency (for a no frills ice box). You can get a cheap fridge now for like $90 (mini fridge). Much of our modern lifestyle was created by accessibility of home appliances like washing machines, refrigerators, and air conditioners, and that accessibility was driven by companies making things cheaper (but easier to break).

You're free to buy appliances like the stuff that used to exist. They are found in the commercial realm, and you'll still be spending about $3000 for a no-frills entry level fridge.

<comment><USER5> The other interesting question to consider is: how long do consumers want to run the same fridge? How likely is the fridge to be damaged in some other way that causes the extra life of the 50-year fan to be wasted away in a refuse dump or recycling center? There's a balancing act to do, between too short a lifetime, wherein the customer is not ready to replace the fridge yet when it dies, and too long a lifetime, where resources are spent to make something last a long time, and it gets thrown away anyways. The original video didn't estimate a lifetime for that motor, but I would expect about 15 years is a standard lifetime for that motor, and that about fits with people wanting to replace their fridge at about every 15 years. Sure, some will go to 20 years, and others will fail at 10, but putting a 50 year motor in a fridge is a form of waste. (There's also the angle of increasing efficiency, that also pushes towards a more frequent replacement cycle than 50+ years)

<comment><USER6> Considering that fridges today have built-in 24" touchscreen displays running Android and cavity cameras so you can see inside your fridge when you're at the supermarket - the useful life of a fridge is probably on the order of 1-2 years before Google obsoletes the firmware and Samsung shuts-down the video feed relay service.

<comment><USER7> I've messed with these in stores and just been blown away at what a useless feature this is. Ah, yes, an appliance running Android Cupcake what a fabulous idea.

It's clear that some items have hit peak functionality and manufacturers are just bolting on nonsense to keep up the facade of "luxury."

But I'm sorry, running Spotify on my fridge is hokey, gauche and entirely unnecessary.

<comment><USER8> I wanted to buy a new microwave oven recently. Every single model I could find committed at least two of the following crimes:

\- Loud, ear piercing beeps on every opportunity. Why would anyone need to hear a beep every time they press a button? Imagine if an iPad did that.

\- Speaking of buttons: over-complicated controls, for something that should be two dials and one button

\- Ugly, spaceship like industrial design that has no place in a home

\- Inner surfaces with holes and protrusions that would be difficult to clean

\- Bright glowing green or blue LEDs that are always on, contributing to indoors light pollution

There were a few expensive models that were less terrible (red lights, softer beeps (still beeps, mind you!), OK controls) but they were all too big to fit in my kitchen.

My conclusion is that these manufacturers have no clue and no culture to figure out what a "luxury" product would look like today. They still think people find LED screens, chromed plastic and digital buttons impressive.

<comment><USER9> Regarding the piercing beeps - I popped open the case on mine and put a piece of tape over the piezo buzzer speaker, which brought the volume down to just the right level.

<comment><USER8> I've had the same thought, but dismantling a microwave radiation emitter doesn't seem like a bright idea unless you know what you're doing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The noise that my brand spanking new high efficiency Samsung fridge makes is completely unbearable. It's not the fan, but the compressor itself. I've tried coating the entire compressor compartment with dense material, like you would find in a nice car audio installation, to no avail. The fridge is in an alcove on top of a dense rubber mat, designed to absorb sound. There are foam acoustic pads on the wall behind the fridge. Doesn't matter what I do, the damn thing is obnoxious.

Worst part is... it's well within "spec". I had lots of ear problems as a kid culminating w/ surgery and ironically my hearing is hyper sensitive, as opposed to being worse off. My wife thinks I'm nuts to be so annoyed by the sound (she hears it, though) and technicians who come out say the same.

Fuck I hate this fridge.

<comment><USER11> Is it possible to even find out the rated noise level before purchase? I feel like every 'fridge and air conditioner should print this up front with the capacity and voltage. Noise level is the main thing I look for in an appliance with a compressor.

<comment><USER10> The noise level is less of a concern for me (the volume at least) it's more about the frequency or sound itself. You ever hear those sounds that just bother your ear, and they sometimes are hard to locate? It's like they become omnidirectional. Maybe this is at the edge of the human ear's spectrum or something... kinda how a UV light bothers your eyes and can be disorienting at times.

For instance I have a Dell 2U server in my home office. It's pretty quiet all things considered, but I wanted to lower the fan speeds manually (possible with ipmi tool) to make it quieter at the expense of maybe a warmer system. You'd think the lowest possible RPM would be best... but actually increasing it slightly from the baseline was the most _pleasing_ sound, despite it being a tiny bit louder volume wise than the lowest RPM setting. At the absolute lowest speed the fans created this cacophony as they went in and out of sync, making a vibration sound. A little bit higher, that individual sound dissipated and I was left with soft white noise that was more enjoyable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I have a totally unsubstantiated theory that a big chunk of the stress of modern life comes from this sort of thing.

People own more appliances and gadgets than ever, but for each one you're expected to worry about planned obsolescence, often high maintenance, and treat them as fragile. A world where everything is always threatening to fall apart around us. Compare with life 100 years ago. It wasn't like this.

The maintenance instructions alone are often ridiculous - you'd probably be spending 100% of your free time on maintenance alone if you followed what every manual actually recommends for everything in your home. And it's impossible to know what's actually important and what's just covering their ass legally. Like, my garage door manual says to wipe it down every two weeks - what? No-one's doing that. But the idea that you should be doing all this stuff still contributes to stress, even if you try to ignore and it just get on with life until your stuff finally breaks or explodes.

Or things require more work due to fragility, like non-stick pans you can't scrub clean. Or things are just cheaper or fashionable but they don't work as well, like touch buttons instead of knobs on cooktops. Or things just get broken because they're made of cheap plastic.

Warranties are a joke. Two years on a fridge? It should be 15. 10 years on aluminum window frames for your house? It should be 50. And the waste from all these obsoleted appliances is ridiculous on its own. There is a case for not overengineering things that users will want to throw away and replace anyway, but larger appliances rarely advance so far that you can't at least sell your old working one to someone (the most recent _true_ obsolescence I can think of is CRT TVs).

I'd vote for a law that says all major appliances must have a 10+ year warranty, with minimal maintenance performed. And maintenance recommendations should be displayed alongside the product.

<comment><USER13> The latest trend I've observed is straight up not honoring the warranty.

In the span of 2 years, I had a $300 fitbit, a $700 acer monitor, and a $300 TCL TV fail, all within their warranty period. All three companies flaked, all with a dubious excuse, correctly gambling that I wouldn't care enough to take matters to small claims.

<comment><USER14> I've run into this too. Earlier this summer I dropped $500 on a new LG air conditioner on Amazon. Out of the box it was covered in a layer of oil, probably from the compressor. Needless to say, it didn't work. Despite that, Amazon refused to accept it as a return and LG is yet to agree to refund me the purchase price. Amazing how little these companies are willing to stand behind their own products.

<comment><USER15> On what grounds did Amazon refuse the return? I've returned many things to them, within the 30 day window and never had a problem.

<comment><USER13> Amazon is usually pretty good, but I did run into an exception recently. I bought some "green paint stripper" that didn't work at all and the return was denied because hazmat. It wasn't shipped hazmat in the first place but try arguing that to the machine :) I bet there are other exceptions like it. Maybe there are size restrictions or heavy equipment restrictions?

The "green paint stripper" is a fun tangent in and of itself. Based on the texture (textured cream), coloration (granite), scent (lavender), lack of solvent smells, lack of flammability, and neutral pH, I suspect it was actually some kind of cosmetic that failed skin compatibility tests, or something, and an enterprising fraudster figured out they could get away with selling it as "green paint stripper." No need to ship it hazmat, because it isn't, but it's plausible to tell Amazon it's hazmat, so no returns. Clever.

Now my paint-stripping policy is that if I can't find a MSDS listing dichloromethane, dimethylcarbonate, or acetone, I don't bother.

<comment><USER14> "Hazmat" was the same excuse they gave me. Ridiculous considering that they shipped it to me in a normal UPS box and never warned me during checkout that it was un-returnable.

<comment><USER16> Something you can try (ymmv, no guarantees):

Do you have a Kohl's retail outlet near you? From what my wife tells me, they do returns for Amazon purchases now. Just take it down to them and go to customer service and drop it off.

Again, I don't know what they do at that point - they might scan it, claim hazmat and refuse to take it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> A few years ago my children's hamster escaped. We couldn't find him for days. I figured he had made it outside somehow cause we didn't see him or hear him or see any droppings.

After about 4 days though, there was an off smell in the kitchen. We tore everything apart, emptied every cabinet, pulled the stove out from the wall, moved the refrigerator, etc. and still could not find him (or any evidence of him.) We scrub everything and out it all back.

But the next day, smell is still there. Then it occurs to me that the refrigerator back panel has holes to vent the fan. I shine a flashlight and see some fur. Bingo.

I take the back off the fridge, but I still can't reach him. At this point its not clear to me what's killed him. I get some tongs to grab him but I see he's stuck. I wiggle his body free and pull him out, and immediately the fan starts arts spinning full speed and I nearly retch.

The point of the story is 1) R.I.P. Jordan the hamster, and 2) The condenser fan was basically held in place for 4 days without burning out - <USER2> impressive as far as I'm concerned. (This was a very old refrigerator BTW)

<comment><AUTHOR> _The condenser fan was basically held in place for 4 days without burning out_

As the video mentions, this is a deliberate design decision for safety and robustness --- the motor is designed to survive being stalled indefinitely without damage. It's known as "impedance protected", because the impedance of the winding is such that it will never draw enough power to burn itself out. The downside is low starting torque, which is why they're only used for things like fans.

(I was referring to the older shaded-pole motor; the newer one might blow the fuse instead, which is still OK from the safety standpoint but definitely not robustness.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I have a whirlpool top loader laundry machine, just under 20yrs old, couple of months ago it failed, and the part is a plastic sacrificial part and it's obviously designed so it'd sacrifice itself to save the more expensive motor. I loved it, $5 part later (or $75 in New Zealand because New Zealand) it is back up and running again. I loved all the old American white-ware, they were built with respect to consumer nowadays not so much.

<comment><USER19> Twenty years ago I was entering 5th grade (damn, time flies). In my mind manufacturing quality hasn't changed significantly since then. Has it? I though that's when the offshoring of all manufacturing was already in full swing?

<comment><USER18> I suspect being in New Zealand, this was older stock... I'll try and find manufacturing dates but I vividly remember at the time we had 2 choices, a more sensible sized one by Whirlpool that was already made in Korea, or the bigger one but still made in USA; needless to say we opted for the USA model. We actually had whirlpool fridge and washing machine in the late 70s and early 80s and was really impressed with them, hence why when we migrated to NZ we still seek out this brand. I still have a double door whirlpool fridge that's made in USA, just over 15yrs now too; though I can see it's going to leak some refrigerant soon with a copper rust spot on the line to an Embraco motor... _sigh_

<comment><USER20> FYI - our dishwasher died and we called a local appliance repairman, unaffiliated with any manufacturer. He told us it couldn't be fixed and suggested we buy a Whirlpool to replace it. So that particular brand seems to command at least some respect.

<comment><USER21> Brand new Samsung dishwashers have a water quality sensor that gets blocked up and kills the dishwasher. If you figure it out, it's just a $50 part and not hard to replace.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I was recently in the market for a new refrigerator to replace a newish Samsung fridge where ice built up around the condenser fan, eventually causing it to freeze still, and spoiling all my food every ~3mos (Avoid Samsung appliances if you value your sanity) — It came with the house so no real cost on my part aside from the annoyance.

Now I have a perfectly adequate Whirlpool fridge, but the condenser fan is obnoxiously loud. It seems to have one setting, off and turbo. I've resorted to taping acoustic pads to the back of the fridge — and no joke, some hardcover books backed up against the back of the freezer (They aren't noticeable and don't take up a significant amount of space). This helps a lot, but the thing is still louder than I'd like.

I'll probably leave this fridge with the house as well.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's the evaporator fan, and not all fridges have one. The condenser gets hot, not cold, and is outside the fridge. It almost always has a fan. The evaporator is inside, and the part that gets cold.

Ice buildup may indicate a humidity problem.

<comment><USER23> I'm not a fridge tech, but I have a Samsung in my garage after it constantly gave us this problem. I just removed the cover to the evaporator and let it ice up, and don't keep much in it. A second thermostat shows that the interior is still maintaining a safe temperature, with few things inside and a non- functioning fan.

The (suspected) problem is that the defroster heater is too far from the circulation fan, and the ice starts where the copper pipe is from the top, where there is no heater coil. The ice eventually grows to the fan, and seizes up the fan.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The engineers who design fridges aren't evil. They do things for a reason. So, we're left with questions.

Questions:

1) what is the cost difference between the two fans?

2) what is the average first-owner lifespan of a fridge?

3) how long will the fan outlive the fridge in the first-owners house?

4) how big a supply is there of the new fan? Is it in use on more appliances?

5) does a 60% reduction in power draw result in a fan with a longer lifespan?

6) is resale something people care about, or are appliances fashion?

<comment><USER21> How much does the fan cost to buy second hand or from the manufacturer to replace? It looks like it's a few screws and a single plug and you can have your fridge run for another 5-10 years

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I think there are a few problems here:

1\. Durability is hidden, cost and features are apparent. I can see on the box what features the OEM claims. I can see on the box what it costs. I cannot see the common failure modes on the box.

2\. People want appliances that are durable and repairable, but often end up replacing them before end of life of the product, or destroy them some other way (cell phones).

3\. Survive the warranty. Unless there is a resale market for the product, the only durability requirement is to survive the warranty.

4\. Efficiency (on some metric). The linked video discounts the increased efficiency of the newer fixture, but that's not how product engineering works. If the product has a goal to be more efficient or lighter, then everyone has that goal. Lighter may mean less durable or less effective overall, but more portable or useful.

<comment><USER26> Re 2. and 3., resale market is enabled by durability. If a product still has plenty of life in front of it but I want to get rid of it anyway (e.g. to buy a newer one), there's a good chance someone will be willing to buy it off me, whether to use it or to strip it for parts. Manufacturers don't make money off secondary sales of used products anyway, so the pressure to make products barely survive the warranty is always there.

<comment><USER27> The question revolves around how do we ensure that companies that optimize to maximize long term customer value do not get undercut and out-competed by companies that optimize to maximize short term customer value.

And it's a very challenging thing to do, since most human's natural instincts are to apply hyperbolic discounting models, while companies have to operating on... non-hyperbolic discounting.

<comment><USER28> Create incentives for (or simply mandate) longer warranty terms.

In Germany, anything you buy has a 2-year seller's warranty, plus a presumption that any issues occurring within the first 6 months are a manufacturing defect unless the seller proves otherwise.

Turning that into a 5-year warranty on large appliances would be relatively trivial and immediately provide an incentive to make long-lived products.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I thoroughly enjoyed that. We all have anecdata that "things aren't made the way they used to be" but it's rare to see something explained the way this was.

A product of our race to the bottom.

<comment><USER27> I think the video makes a clear argument to the increase of number of severity of failure modes in the more modern part, I don't feel that it does a great job at a lot of things.

So both designs likely have a life limiting factor of oil. It's clear that the older design will have a longer life before running into oil related issues. However, he still needs to modify (punching a hole in the housing) the motor to oil the unit. He makes no affordances to the modern unit for doing so. While it might be a pain to have to re-oil more frequently, it's still likely to be an action that occurs on a multi-year basis. At that point, the difference between re-oiling every other year, and every 10 years feels pretty academic.

He discounts the ~6W of energy savings. It's true its not a lot - <USER3> if you take the perspective of - 'let's try to save 6W of power from a 1970's fridge'. However, modern units consume the order of 200W, so an increase of 6W is a 3% increase in energy consumption. Maybe you can justify that for a single component, but how would you justify that across the board?

Do wish they used better caps though.

<comment><USER30> The energy argument is valid, but I think the trade off is a result of poorly thought out regulation.

For a water heater, there is an energy guide as well as a durability guide. The good/better/best ratings help the consumer make an appropriate decision.

Energy star should be similar. I'm not interested in saving $4/yr in electricity if that means buying a new appliance in 4 years, but I have no way to evaluate the quality of the device.

<comment><USER27> That's a reasonable wish. I imagine the usual thought is that warranty periods should provide a reasonable proxy for durability information, but I also understand that it's a pretty imperfect proxy.

<comment><USER30> I'd argue that OEM extended service plans are the real proxy, at least for a service call.

Look at Apple as an example, two years is the max service plan for an iOS device. That's the lifetime of a battery. For Dell/HP laptops, they will have 3 year warranties with up to 5 years of extended, but usually exclude the battery and often exclude the screen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> About 10 years ago my parents gave us a Sears horizontal freezer they'd had in their garage, and had no further use for. It's now around 55 years old and still running with all the original parts. I don't know what the thing would cost in current dollars if built today to the same standards. I don't even know if you could build it today to those standards, or that it would make sense for anyone to pay for a freezer that will last a half-century. But I would like to think so.

<comment><USER32> Have you compared its power efficiency with equivalent recent hardware? Watts turn into dollars quickly—even as little as 1 W more all the time is 8.76 kW over the course of a year, which, picking an arbitrary electricity price of 20¢/kW, is $1.75 a year.

<comment><USER33> What is the cost of decommissioning soon-to-die hardware like this? Right now companies arent required cradle to grave handling, so quick disposal is prioritized.

There is no such thing as away, so watch what we put there.

<comment><USER34> That's a really good point. Companies being required to buy back their products when they die should align the incentives to solve the problem, which is essentially one of unhandled economic externalities.

Has anything changed in Europe since these kinds of laws have been put in place?

In Canada, we have a fixed environmental disposal fee slapped on certain classes of electronic products. I wonder if that fee actually makes the problem _worse_ because it makes high-durability manufacturers subsidize their planned-obsolescence competition!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I purchased a commercial freezer for our home basement. We feed our dog raw and a shelf fully loaded with frozen cubes of meat can weigh a considerable amount.

I was skeptical that a consumer grade plastic freezer could hold the weight so I picked up a Williams A400 Commercial Freezer: [https://www.williams- refrigeration.co.uk/products/cabinets/a...](https://www.williams- refrigeration.co.uk/products/cabinets/amber/A400)

About £1800 retail, fortunately I found one on eBay for considerably less.

Firstly the thing weighs a tonne, it's noisy, and it also requires a large ventilated space all around otherwise its efficiency drops through the floor.

We ended up having to point a pedestal fan at the rear of the unit to keep the compressor and radiator cool.

Service costs were high at £90 just to have someone look at it and replacement parts a minimum of £120. So whilst it can be serviced it isn't cheap.

It also ate 4-5x as much electricity as a consumer freezer of similar size.

What you get when buying a commercial freezer or appliance is a device that can take a beating and can be serviced. They cost nearly an order of magnitude more over the course of their lifetime vs their domestic counterparts. So yeah they're well made but at a very high price.

<comment><USER36> I wouldn't consider a freezer that consumes several times the energy to be well-made.

<comment><USER37> Different design goals.

A commercial freezer is designed to be able to freeze a larger volume / weight of goods more rapidly, with the doors being opened more frequently.

So they'll necessarily have a larger cooling capacity, which means a higher capacity compressor, fan, and heat exchanger.

I think the parent commenter would have been better off with a regular chest freezer of an appropriate size.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> We need to do something about this. If I buy a washing machine, I have NO idea how much cost cutting has gotten into it - in fact, companies spend way too much money in marketing, shiny stickers, features and IoT bullshit than things like oil bushings that this video is talking about.

We need a review website that hires these experts that take things apart, and expose the shitty practices and cost cutting that has taken place so that the consumers are more informed. Kind of like a more formal version of AvE (Youtube fame). And that kind of review methodology needs to get so popular that no manufacturer can escape it. What's capitalism when every one is cheating, lying and depending on the ROI of their marketing budget? Competition disappears, innovation stops and shiny things propel.

If you go and buy an dishwasher from Miele, you bet your bottom dollar they are not gonna cut corners like this - because industrial grade equipment needs to last and live up to the daily abuse or its credibility is lost. In consumer market, there is way too much marketing noise than objectivity.

Watching this video makes me livid and angry.

<comment><USER39> That website already exists:

[https://www.consumerreports.org/](https://www.consumerreports.org/) [https://www.choice.com.au/](https://www.choice.com.au/)

There might be another organization / name for your country, but this is not a new idea.

It seems that only a tiny minority of consumers value this, and the designs you see from mass-market manufactures reflect what consumers actually want when making their purchasing decisions.

<comment><USER40> > _the designs you see from mass-market manufactures reflect what consumers > actually want when making their purchasing decisions_

Well, no.

The actual problem is consumers come from a high-trust society, but producers do not. When producers ALSO came from a high-trust society, consumers were right to not worry about what "hidden cuts" were being made in the name of almighty profit, because it simply wasn't done, and in fact, _couldn 't_ be done because there were too many honest people involved that a bad apple here or there couldn't get any traction.

That's no longer the case, but culture changes slowly, and in this case, it's a change for the worst: not being able to trust your fellow man.

<comment><USER41> That's an interesting way of looking at it, but I see it more like air travel. Consumers say they want a better product, but when they actually see the cost, they pick basic economy. And no one who's flown before in the US is trusting that the airline will give them good service or legroom; the only trust is that the airline will get them to their destination alive sorta but not really on-time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> There would definitely be a market for 'open source appliances' I believe. Appliances built to last, based on modular design, and with full documentation available along with plenty of hooks included to permit third party creation of modifications and enhancements. Basically, applications as a sort of durable platform. Want to be able to connect your oven via wifi and see an image of what's cooking or get a food of its current temperature? That sort of thing could be added a little addon card or module, etc. Of course, most businesspeople would look at that and say 'sure, even if you come to dominate the market, what THEN?' and not like the lack of a built-in way to force people to buy new product. But eventually you would expect there to be one person who would be satisfied with making a few hundred million dollars over a decade even if that shrinks later on.

</comment><comment><USER43> another interesting thing I found recently is that lot of water dispensers don't dispense chilled water, just room temperature water. They don't mention that.

</comment><comment><USER44> It's weird that repairability (either right to repair, or simply technical feasibility) has been a huge topic for at least 10 years in cars, mobile phones, home appliances, etc. And yet i haven't seen any end-user product really advertising it.

Worse, the trend seems to be even more toward cheap black boxes that you'll change entirely whenever they break.

As another example of things going the wrong direction: a few months ago i saw a video about a Tesla test, and the car's engine refused to start. The owner had to turn it off and on again so that they could start the engine and begin the test. As a software engineer, that made me feel so bad...

Is there any solution toward better quality products, aka : having the benefits of cheap electronics and advanced functionalities, but with the longevity and ability to repare and customize of the old mechanical technology ? Is it a business model problem ? a technical one ? a supply chain / pricing one ? marketing ?

I keep wondering.

<comment> kube-system > It's weird that repairability (either right to repair, or simply technical > feasibility) has been a huge topic for at least 10 years in cars, mobile > phones, home appliances, etc. And yet i haven't seen any end-user product > really advertising it.

99% of people don't want to repair their appliances. They either "don't want it to break", or want it to be repaired by someone else.

A product labeled "commercial grade! 10 year warranty!" will always massively outsell a product labeled "user serviceable! Schematics included!"

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> I would love to see how the fan in a Miele or similar brand compared.

<comment><USER46> Based on my recent experience of removing the beater bar on my Miele vacuum, I'd bet that Miele is not substantially better. I had pretty good feelings about my German engineered, $600 vacuum until I saw the insides. Lots of cheap plastic waiting to break, and it was much less serviceable than I expected. My dad used to work for a janitorial supplies distributor and I occasionally got my hands on commercial vacs. Those were generally built like tanks. Don't get me wrong, I like other features of my vac, like the HEPA bags with the flap that closes when they're removed, but I don't think of Miele in the same way now.

<comment><USER47> Small differences can make a huge difference. Like a bit of plastik that's 1mm thicker in important spots. Or picking electrolytic capacitors with extended lifetime.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> We're in the uncanny valley of manufacturing now. In not too many years you'll be able to download a schematic of that old motor, and have one made for you on your desktop.

<comment><USER41> For anything more than a solid plastic or metal part, I doubt it. There's too many materials, the precision needed is too great, and mass production almost has to be cheaper.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> I hate planned obsolescence. Period.</comment>


How much has the shutdown cost? There's an app for that. - <AUTHOR> http://shutdown.outline.com

<comment><USER2> " _That estimate, from economic consulting firm IHS Global Insight, covers just the cost in work and services the government is unable to perform as it furloughs 800,000 federal workers. According to IHS, pay for federal employees is considered part of the Gross Domestic Product, which is the total value of all goods and services produced in the nation each year._ "

ADD:

1\. Lost business from unavailable infrastructure, e.g. BEA numbers being unavailable.

2\. Long-run increased cost of doing business from the political volatility this sets a precedent for. This also includes any risk-premium that may be built into future Treasury prices (unlikely to be anything but zero, barring a default).

SUBTRACT:

1\. Recoverable damage, e.g. if you can't get a passport this week for a vacation in a month you can get it in 2 weeks without compromising any plans.

2\. Saved government spending. This reduces the deficit. This reduces expected future (a) inflation, (b) taxation, or (c) default risk.

<comment><USER3> So IHS is just counting the money saved by not paying non-essential employees as a "cost"? That's pretty bogus.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The source seems to refer to a reduction in gov payrolls/spending as a reduction in GDP as a cost. That seems like a stretch.

The only costs I would consider are costs directly related to having folks stay home and lost revenue related to closures.

</comment><comment><USER5> If you click through to the eventual source, the _cost_ is the predicted amount that will not be added to GDP. I am not sure that really qualifies at a cost.

<comment><USER6> Something that you would otherwise get that you don't get because of a particular action is a cost of that action. I don't think that's particularly controversial view.

<comment><USER4> But is a reduction in GDP really a "cost"? To who?

<comment><USER6> > But is a reduction in GDP really a "cost"?

Yes.

> To who?

It's creation of value that would otherwise happen that is not happening; its a net cost to the nation as a whole. Which particular firms and individuals are paying it is, perhaps, harder to determine.

<comment><USER4> But the money will get spent eventually. And didn't it reside in consumer hands before it became tax coffers?

I still have a tough time with reduced government spending being considered a cost.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's ironic the shutdown is because of there being no money to spend and the shutdown is costing money which makes sense. But according to this calculator which references an NBC Business News link as costing $12.5 million per hour the current cost is approaching 600 million, crazy.

<comment><USER6> > It's ironic the shutdown is because of there being no money to spend

The shutdown is not because there is no money to spend. The shutdown is because there is no authority to continue to spend money. The two are not the same thing.

<comment><USER4> Can you explain how they are different as it relates to get OP calling it ironic?

<comment><USER6> It might be ironic either way (irony is inherently subjective), but as irony is based on contrast between reality and expectations and expectations of the results of an "action taken because I don't have any money" and those of an "action taken because, independent of how much money I have, I am legally prohibited to spend it except for certain narrowly-prescribed purposes, none of which is 'efficiency'" are different in ways which, at least arguably, are relevant to whether or not "this action results, in net, in greater costs for less benefits" conflicts with them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> $3473.80/sec, if that means anything... :D

</comment><comment><USER9> The shutdown has saved us billions and continues to bear fruit.

<comment><USER10> The shutdown temporarily costs money since the leeches working for the government which itself produces NOTHING aren't leeching at the moment. Money isn't getting printed or borrowed to artificially boost the economy and the current house of cards set up by all the huge debt accumululation.

Theoretically they should get real jobs in the private sector producing real wealth. Unfortunately there needs to be some serious economic correction to get rid of all the crap currently in the system before things would start to really improve. But cutting the government down to size is absolutely essential for this to even begin to happen.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Trump ReTweets Made by You - <AUTHOR> https://TrumpTweets.io <comment><USER2> I'm getting SSL errors. And the retweet button on the examples isn't working for me. I'm using safari on my iPhone.

<comment><AUTHOR> try ios chrome.</comment></comment>