2014 Gates Annual Letter: Myths that block progress for the poor - <AUTHOR> http://annualletter.gatesfoundation.org/?cid=bg_fb_po0_012103/#section=home <comment><USER2> This is a fascinating letter that helps combat some of the "doom and gloom" that's so prevalent in... well, everything.

I kept coming back to one thought while reading this: _why_ are people so mistaken about Africa in particular? The article covers misconceptions all over the place, but it keeps coming back to Africa, and it seems that the disparity between what people think and what's actually the case is far larger there than anywhere else.

It would be easy to blame this on casual racism and move on. And I'm sure that's a factor. But there must be more.

I wonder if there might just be a cliff effect in people's perceptions. The perception of China, for example, changed rapidly from "shithole" to "where all our stuff is made". India quickly switched from "shithole" to "where our IT gets outsourced". (And reminder, I'm talking about _perceptions_ here, specifically in the US, or possibly the western world as a whole.) I wasn't around for it, but I have the impression that more or less the same thing happened for e.g. Taiwan and Japan.

If that's the case, then Africa is still in the "shithole" perception category simply because we don't see much of them. Not much of our stuff comes with a "Made in Kenya" label on it, and our experience with IT-related outsourcing to Africa is mostly limited to Nigerian scammers. Once that changes, the perception will rapidly go from "those guys have no food" to "those guys are taking all of our jobs".

A counterpoint would be South America, which is not overall perceived as "shithole" but nor is it a place we interact with a whole lot.

Perhaps it's just mental inertia. The places that are changing most rapidly will be the most incorrectly perceived.

<comment><USER3> Two points:

I still perceive India as a "shithole". Whereas China's elite has used its newfound wealth to finance widespread infrastructure and especially sanitation projects, India's has not, not on a mass countrywide scale. Fallen prey to coordination problems is the best gloss you can put on it but I still find it scandalous.

Second, South America's recent progress has mostly been under governments of the left, using more or less coercive statist means that neither the Gates Foundation nor the average HNer would endorse. But maybe it's worth considering.

<comment><USER4> Right. And of course you have countries like Chile, which has the highest GDP per capita of any south american country and probably the most stable economy, all after adopting free market principals from Friedman. And some of these countries have grown, but to what extent? Where would Brazil be if it dropped it's insanely regulated state and bloated beauracracy and freed up its people? These countries are all still held back by their overbearing governments.

<comment><USER5> Chile is a terrible example of this; it has one of the higher levels of income inequality on that side of the continent and privatized education and health care. Private education in Chile is appalling; wealthy Chileans send their kids to study to the US or EU and the middle class that can't afford education sends them to Argentina or Brazil. Capital is concentrated on a few hands with a strong dependency on basic commodities exports with low added value. It's better than many places, but the GDP figures don't reflect the realities of a substantial amount of its population.

<comment><USER6> This "inequality" stuff is really getting annoying. The poor in Chile are far better off than other countries in the region, but because the rich are also richer somehow inequality is all that matters to some.

In fact, the wikipedia article "Poverty in South America" doesn't even mention Chile [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_South_America](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_South_America)

<comment><USER5> If the poor can't afford basic health care then there is something really wrong with an economy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's an excellent piece. I'll admit to being a bit confused by the assertion, however:

> _" letting children die now so they don't starve later—doesn't actually > work, thank goodness. It may be counterintuitive, but the countries with the > most deaths have among the fastest-growing populations in the world. This is > because the women in these countries tend to have the most births, too."_

I spent five months in Kenya, and a couple weeks with the Samburu tribe during a drought. All their animals were dead, piled up, because there were no more leaves to eat. We were driving a caravan of food to distribute in the region, since otherwise the people would have been next. And the dilemma was explained to me clearly: we can't just let people die. But it means we have to send food aid all the time now, unlike decades ago, because the population is simply larger than the land can support, except in its best years, and it makes the people essentially permanently dependent on outside aid.

So I'll admit to being stumped by what Melinda Gates means when she says that overpopulation isn't the result of aid. Simply asserting that "countries with the most deaths have among the fastest-growing populations in the world" doesn't explain anything -- it's just a correlation, and might very well be due to the fact that such countries _already_ receive the most food aid, for example.

I'm certainly not arguing that I am against, or that anyone should be against, food aid. But I am utterly unconvinced by Melissa Gates saying that "saving lives leads to overpopulation" is a myth -- she doesn't substantiate it, and it seems like the weakest part of the whole post. It all depends on how you define overpopulation, but I just don't see it yet. Of course, rising income and education lowers birth rates in the future, but that doesn't change the simple fact that, at low levels of income and education, more food aid directly results in more people, which is often more than traditional local practices and agriculture can reliably and sustainably support.

<comment><USER8> Overpopulation can also result from simple trade. NYC and generally the entire US eastern seaboard are overpopulated by your definition.

<comment><USER9> Or virtually all of the Persian Gulf. Some of the fastest-growing populations, in what's empty desert without even sufficient water for cities let alone agriculture.

The economist's answer is that these regions have economic outputs (financial wizardry, advanced manufacturing, tourism, oil) which the rest of the world wants, and the rest of the world (which in the case of the Atlantic seaboard is largely the US's own inland agricultural regions -- breadbasket to the world) is willing to exchange its agricultural produce for those goods.

There's a difference between _economic_ self-sufficiency and _ecological_ self-sufficiency. Arguments can be made over which is preferable. Comparative advantage means that the economic argument leads to greater overall population and productivity, sustainability means the ecological argument leads to greater sustainability.

There's also that little matter that agriculture has largely transformed into a factory system for converting petrochemical energy to food energy via modest sunlight inputs.

<comment><USER10> Worrying about ecological self-sufficiency and sustainability at a smaller than planetwide scale is essentially throwing away the entire advantage of how much our massive global logistics network has shrunk the world in recent decades.

<comment><USER9> Relying on the massive global logistics network to support massively nonequilibrium populations in highly infertile land is counting on a patently unsustainable level of resource use to create a massive risk.

It's one thing to have local shortfalls of food or water of a few percent which can be satisfied with largely local imports of a few hundred kilometers (say, Germany, which is roughly 90% self-sufficient for food production). It's quite another to require massive imports of food and fresh water.

Economic efficiency is directly opposed to sustainability and risk.

<comment><USER11> > [...] is counting on a patently unsustainable level of resource use to > create a massive risk.

Can you please elaborate? We sit on a giant ball of matter, and there's enough energy coming in from the sun (or via nuclear power) to last us a few billion years.

<comment><USER9> You could start here:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/wiki/index#wiki_that_.22...](http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/wiki/index#wiki_that_.22general_interest.22_list_you_gave_was_kind_of_vague.2C_can_you_be_more_specific.3F)

The reading list starts here, it's a brief introduction to a _very_ broad topic:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/wiki/index#wiki_so_..._a...](http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/wiki/index#wiki_so_..._all_this_deep_stuff.2C_you_got_any_references.3F)

(And for anyone stumbling on this comment in the future -- I'm planning on substantially reorganizing that Wiki page though it should link to the appropriate sections).

The major issue with tapping solar power for high-grade electrical energy is whether or not it's possible to do so in a manner that sustains the ability to create that solar energy infrastructure _and_ support technological life. EROEI, capital and maintenance requirements, and other resource limits all come into play.

The last time humans had a sustainable-energy based economy was 1700. The state of technology was markedly lower. If we return to that energy state, we should continue to have the benefit of scientific understanding gained since then (engineering, germ theory, metalurgy, sanitation, evolution, steam power, thermodynamics, electricity, chemistry, relativity, quantum mechanics, atomic physics, astronomy, electronics, pharmacology, aviation, rocketry), though how much of it we'll have the techological stack to support is another question.

Joseph Tainter, Charles Hall, Robert Ayres, Donna & Dennis Meadows, and William Stanley Jevons would make for some interesting reading.

Oh, and you've only got 800 million - 1 billion years: solar flux and/or C4 synthesis will mean the end of life as we know it. Life on Earth is past middle age. Even allowing for the lignin revolution and decomposer lag, that's barely sufficient time to replenish fossil fuel stocks for a do-over should humans fail.

<comment><USER12> Will we still be human at that point?

<comment><USER9> Were we ever?

The timescale of human evolution to date is on the order of 2 million years or so since we branched from our common ancestor with chimpanzees.

Somewhere around 80,000 years ago (plus or minus) we seem to have reached modern levels of cognitive ability, specifically, the capacity to keep 7 +/\- 2 things in mind at the same time, as evidenced by the anthropological record -- stone artifacts and such.

Written history and most civilization spans roughly 6,000 years.

So, if you're looking at what "sustainable" might mean, I'd argue for somewhere within that timeframe. A minimum of 6,000 years, a reasonable upper bound of about 2 million.

A few folks have played with this:

[http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-next-ten- bil...](http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-next-ten-billion- years.html)

[http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-next- ten-...](http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-next-ten-billion- years.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The Gates are quite correct that we shouldn't ordinarily worry too much if some of the aid is siphoned off into government corruption. But while if 2% of the money goes into the creation of some official's new manor that isn't too bad, there are much worse things that money can go to.

In the Great Lakes Crisis[1] the perpetrators of the genocide in Rwanda were charging aid organizations for access to the the refugees they controlled. They were using the money to try to buy enough weapons to re-conquer Rwanda and finish what they had started. Most private aid organizations wisely decided they weren't willing to pay the genocidaires off, but the UN was willing to and the army of the new Rwandan government ended up invading to stop them, touching off the Congolese civil war.

Paying for access to refugees can also turn refugees into a de-facto lootable resource that can help sustain conflicts the same way that diamonds can.

Corruption in stable states isn't a huge problem for aid (development is another story), but it's interactions with aid are much worse in unstable areas.

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

</comment><comment><USER14> The United States' news coverage concerning Africa perpetuates these myths.

It seems as if 95% of news stories focus on poverty, war and chaos in the continent. They rarely go so far as to differentiate among countries.

In fact, many African nations are great centers for innovation. Kenya and Nigeria spring to mind for higher education and mobile computing.

As a way of confronting condescending stereotypes, I have often fantasized about organizing a group of Nigerian school children to "help build a school somewhere in America" — a twist on the cliche trip that many U.S. students take to Africa — because education in some Nigerian cities is far superior to most U.S. high schools.

<comment><USER15> > because education in some Nigerian cities is far superior to most U.S. high > schools.

Do you know that for sure though? Isn't it possible that you are drawing a conclusion on a far away place based on some events/cultural ideas that are provocative enough to make it to your screen as a topic of interest?

Isn't that the same thing you are complaining about, just in reverse?

<comment><USER14> I base that conclusion on a comparison of students' performance on various aptitude tests, the likelihood that they will go to college and the percentage of those who find jobs related to their fields of study.

<comment><USER15> So then show us so we can take your conclusions seriously.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I've been to Mexico City fairly recently, and I guarantee that in the right places -- possibly the same place the 1986 picture was taken -- you could take something very much like that 1986 picture today (which is perhaps even more tragic today, since its not just after the major earthquake). And I've seen Mexico City pictures just like that 2011 one, barring changes in fashion, from the 1980s. And even the 1960s.

On a bigger problem with Myth 1, not only are the pictures distortion, so is the main set of economic claims supporting the myth thesis they are meant to illustrate. Gates makes claims about "per person income", but the statistic he uses and treats as if it meant that is actually GDP per capita. Because much of the value of goods produced in developing countries is captured by foreign capital holders owning the firms doing the production, and because all that value extracted from the country's economy still shows up as part of the GDP of the country it is extracted from, GDP per capita, particularly in the developed world, is often very different than income per person.

<comment><USER17> I've lived in Mexico City a couple years and visited regularly since 1997.

Things have changed drastically in the last seventeen years. Statistics show that they changed even faster between 1985 and 1997, but I didn't see that.

The middle class has been growing at an astonishing pace. Vast swathes of Azcapotzalco, Xochimilco, and even Iztapalapa that were poor and backwards are now prosperous, clean, and exciting. The fashionable neighborhoods in Coyoacán, Polanco, and the Roma have become outright opulent. The Historic Center is neat, safe, popular, and crowded at all hours with local and international botiques and restaurants.

You can clearly see the mountains Chiquihuite from downtown and El Águila from Coyoacán nearly every day now. In 1997, the mountains around the city were more like rumors behind the pollution. Last month, I actually saw Iztaccihuatl and Popocatépetl from the center of the valley. Out by the canals of Cuemanco, local wildlife biologists tell me that the water is cleaner, the population of birds is increasing again, and recovery programs for the aquatic axolotl are working.

High school graduation and college completion rates have been skyrocketing. New universities are spreading and growing across the valley. Education is especially important because Mexico City college graduates live nearly as well as American college graduates. The income gap is in the working classes without credentials.

GDP per capita is misleading, so let's consider personal income. Housing and transportation and meals cost about a quarter as much as in the USA for the middle class. That's about 80% of a typical budget. Cops and public administrators with good educations are now making US$10k to start and programmers and engineers around US$20k. The median household income in Benito Juarez county, with about 600k people and no fashionable rich areas, is approaching US$30k. The neighboring parts of Coyoacán, Miguel Hidalgo, Álvaro Obregón, and Cuauhtémoc counties are richer.

So I really endorse the Gates's impression of development success in Mexico City.

<comment><USER18> > GDP per capita is misleading

that's why is better to use Purchasing Power Parity indexes, for example Mexico is 14th in Nominal GDP with 1,183B USD, but in PPP terms it is the 11th with 1,758B USD. The country as a whole has a GDP per capita PPP of 15K USD, but Mexico City has a GDP per capita PPP of 44K USD. It's a very big country with a lot of inequality between urban and rural population.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This should be titled "Strawmen that block progress for the poor". Few serious thinkers actually believe any of those supposed myths.

Not one word about the exploitation of labor and natural resources in "poor nations" by rich nations (&corporations). Not one word about economic sanctions imposed on several poor nations by the US and its allies.

Gates sounds like the optimist against a world of cynics, but he ignores major reasons why these nations are poor in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER20> In regards to "people believe the world is getting worse", is mostly Americans and the US media. I believe things are getting worse, or at least harder for the majority of Americans; not the rest of the world.

Unemployment, large disparity in wealth, massive problems with debt (student debt), and highly dysfunctional political system. Americans see things as getting worse, here at home. We don't really focus on the rest of the world.

</comment><comment><USER21> "Creating societies where people enjoy basic health, relative prosperity, fundamental equality, and access to contraceptives is the only way to secure a sustainable world."

I suppose I'm one of the 0% (rounded) who disagree with putting contraception in this list. When this gets thrown around, it makes me feel like an outsider in a programming community where I otherwise agree with probably everything else.

<comment><USER22> Access to contraceptives allows people who do not intend to have children, but engage in sex, to remain childless.

No access to contraceptives means that people who do not intend to have children, but engage in sex, will have children. These children will be unintended or unwanted and may not be cared for either through disinterest or lack of ability to provide for them.

A child who grows up in that sort of circumstance is not kept safe, may succumb to disease, may spread disease, will not be educated, and will have difficulty providing for themselves.

A common rebuttal is that people should just not engage in sex if they are not intending to have children. This is maybe ideal in some moral frameworks, but whether it's ideal or not, it's not the reality. The reality is that some people will engage in sex anyways, and some people will be forced to engage in sex against their will. While it might be a goal to prevent these things from occurring, the reality is that they occur, and methods to mitigate the negative impacts of their occurrences are better than just finger-wagging.

That said, if your argument is more along the lines of "The Pope says that it is wrong, and the Pope espouses God's will." then I can't really refute it. I can just disagree.

In any case, if people can choose whether they want to have a child or not, then contraception just helps them make that choice. If they shouldn't engage in sex for non-childbearing reasons, then they can struggle with that decision as well. However, when succumbing to that results in an unwanted childbirth, it does more than just punish the parent, it now involves the child and the whole community.

<comment><USER21> My line of reasoning behind my position is complex and can't be simplified into a bite-sized form that can be defended in a HN thread. Especially considering my original point: I'm one of the 0%; there's no chance for a fair debate.

<comment><USER23> I think it's fair to expect at least an attempt, given that you felt strongly enough to post your first comment. Without context, it boils down to "I have an opinion." Not surprising people would ask you to expand on that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> > There are still slums and pockets of poverty, but by and large when I visit > there now I think, "Wow, most people who live here are middle-class. What a > miracle."

Overall I enjoyed his letter, but I find this quote a bit deceptive. A recent photo ([http://i.imgur.com/atxDiw6.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/atxDiw6.jpg)) of the poverty line in Mexico City paints a very different picture than Gates' conclusion that most people there are "middle-class." Another source ([http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/30/us-mexico- poverty-...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/30/us-mexico-poverty- idUSBRE96T01F20130730)) claims that Mexico's poverty line is nearly 50%, far different than "pockets of poverty."

<comment><USER25> I'm surprised he chose Mexico as an example as well, but because of the issues it has with corruption, emigration, and violence. Even a middle-class country with those problems seems like a bad example of progress.

<comment><USER26> Does Mexico still have an emmigration problem? I know that for the last few years, the USA has had net-negative immigration from Mexico, as people are moving back.

<comment><USER25> I'm not an expert, but I understand that was more a function of the economic downturn than anything.

Relevant: [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/24/us/immigrant-population- sh...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/24/us/immigrant-population-shows-signs- of-growth-estimates-show.html?_r=0)

That article reports that immigration from Mexico may be on the rise again. It also cites that half of the undocumented immigrants in the U.S. (about 6 million people) were born in Mexico.

I guess my point is that Mexico has significant issues to deal with and therefore it may not be a good anecdote and instead be a better candidate for the special-considerations bucket.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Is it just me, or is there some bias in the before & after photos?

Mexico city "before" is just one dwelling versus a full street in the "after".

Nairobi "before" is taken when most of the city was dark due to clouds, whereas the "after" is a bright, sunny day.

Similarly, Shanghai "before" looks like it was taken with an unfavourable filter on a hazy day.

I'm not doubting that the world is improving, especially in those places. I just find it unusual that they used such obviously biased photos.

<comment><USER28> Yes, that also put me off somewhat. There's an air of dishonesty about it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> "How Occupy Wall Street Won In One Chart"

\--> "income inequality has been the #1 global risk."

[http://www.businessinsider.com/how-occupy-wall-street-won- in...](http://www.businessinsider.com/how-occupy-wall-street-won-in-one- chart-2014-1)

</comment><comment><USER30> Fascinating. This addresses one of my key concerns, that aid often is a bag of cash to high officials, who then go buy 6-10 Lamborghinis and a new apartment rather than actually helping people out.

<comment><USER31> It is still that, perhaps not in such a distilled fashion, but corruption is rampant throughout the world. Those in power in the "third world" are as susceptible, if not more so, to greed as those here in the "first world." Aid does work to an extent simply because not all of humanity is evil, there are some in positions of power who actually do wish to do good. His report just appears too idyllic and utopian compared to reality.

<comment><USER2> Are you seriously saying that one of the most significant philanthropists alive today, who has given tens of billions of dollars of his own personal money in aid, who has a large role in overseeing the aid organization he built, and who has seen the results of corruption as applied to that aid, is "too idyllic and utopian compared to reality"?

If Gates says that X is true when it comes to aid, and you say that X is not true, what reason could I possibly have to believe you over him?

<comment><USER31> I don't give a shit if you believe me or not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I think myth number 3, that saving children's lives leads to overpopulation, misses the central concern. People are concerned about world resource depletion, not overpopulation. And while it is 100% true that bringing countries out of poverty reduces population growth, it does not reduce consumption. In fact, it does the opposite.

<comment><USER33> Lifestyle accounts for resource depletion far more than raw population numbers. A mall addicted American SUV driver who flies twice a year is far worse for the planet than than a village woman in Mozambique with 6 children.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> > _Four of the past seven governors of Illinois have gone to prison for > corruption, and to my knowledge no one has demanded that Illinois schools be > shut down or its highways closed._

Brilliant.

<comment><USER35> yes, but we have demanded that the funds no longer be transferred through those governors.

<comment><USER34> It will just be transferred through the next governor... who, based on history, has a pretty good chance of being corrupt too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I would be interested to hear how HN readers approach charity. I personally am constantly struggling with questions like: once my basic needs are met, how can I possibly justify _not_ giving the rest of my income to life-saving causes?

My working theory is a combination of (a) my basic needs are actually quite high when you consider the many potential rainy days for which I must save, (b) I don't know enough to donate with confidence that my money is doing more good than harm (this Gates letter addresses some of my concerns here), and (c) I must simply come to terms with being selfish to the point where I would rather spend money on a candy bar than a life-saving vaccination for someone else.

<comment><USER37> Personally I don't believe that you need to save the world. Just making a contribution now and then and being aware of the issues and speaking / voting with empathy for the poor is enough.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> This is a great and wise overview of some of the most important aspects of the state and trajectory of humanity today. I wish there were more widespread exposure to analysis like this.

</comment><comment><USER39> I view this as a political sensitization, and I think it's greater than trying to talk numbers and topics about charities and myths.

I think this foundation is showing that you can be optimistic and right at the same time for many things about charities, but it's not the organization and the means and the money sent that will effectively change things.

I don't know how this foundation works at the political level, and what are the political issues, but I hope it will make people really reflect their view on the world. You don't often have billionaires initiating a communication campaign and articles about charities, and attracting that much attention.

I don't think Bill Gates would really like to answer the question "when did you encounter politics in that work, and what was good and what was not ?", because I don't think that he's a very political guy, but at least he has enormous talent for everything else.

I honestly thinks that diplomacy and politics can immensely help charities. I wish this foundation is not just doing this mission without minding the geopolitics, and has at least a few political partners and advisors. I wonder if they tried to do some lobbying, if just think there is a lot of potential if you try to approach foreign aid with a moderate amount of politics.

</comment><comment><USER35> #2 is really tortured. first he makes the argument that foreign aid works, then narrows it down to "development aid" and then when it comes time to presenting evidence he really pares it down to "health aid".

And addressing the second part of myth #2(aid breeds dependence), is it not possible that the countries that escaped aid are getting better in spite of foreign aid, and not because of it? There are a lot of other things that have happened to those countries in the era in which foreign aid was given, like political shifts, introduction of technology, improvement of trade relations with neighboring countries, no longer being at war with other countries, etc, etc, etc. Seems like a standard correlation/causation fallacy.

</comment><comment><USER25> > It is ironic that the foundation has a reputation for a hard-nosed focus on > results, and yet many people are cynical about the government aid programs > we partner with. The foundation does a lot to help these programs be more > efficient and measure their progress.

It's not ironic. Some people value government charity spending less than they value private nonprofit spending. Gates implicitly acknowledges that government aid has weak points (poor focus on outcomes, inefficiency, and lack of good measurement). Aside from that, there are also principled concerns about using tax dollars for aid projects.

<comment><USER40> > there are also principled concerns about using tax dollars for aid projects

Are you using the typical "let the church handle it logic" not specifically religious entities, but that if the government didn't waste money on aid then people would make up the difference?

Because if that is what you are saying it is based on the flawed logic that aid is a zero sum thing. It is certainly not at this point.

I can guarantee that the US stopping foreign aid would reduce available foreign aid by nearly the entire amount it currently spends, given that the total budget is around 0.1% and no one would notice an increase of 0.1% of their income.

This is not to say that the US should increase their aid, just saying that some level of aid makes sense since it has a significant impact for a nearly negligible cost on the total scale.

<comment><USER25> I didn't say those things. I was saying that it's not ironic and pushing back against a particular straw man in the letter.

1\. Government aid has its problems.

The fact that the Gates Foundation helps government programs implies that private organizations execute better, at least in some aspects. Gates later admits that government aid has its problems, so it's odd that he dismisses objections in this way.

2\. Philosophical objections should be acknowledged and addressed.

At another point in the letter, Gates hypothetically asked, "Imagine that the income tax form asked, 'Can we use $30 of the taxes you're already paying to protect 120 children from measles?' Would you check yes or no?"

Many people would have no problem with that arrangement but do have a problem with not-optional line items in the federal budget. The point is that right now donations are enforced by the IRS, which is an odd form of charity, and I think it's reasonable (and certainly not ironic) to have philosophical problems with that and to prefer more democratic forms of aid.

Perhaps the benefits are worth overruling the drawbacks (point 1) and philosophical objections (point 2), but calling reservations about government aid ironic is either sloppy or disingenuous.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Yesterday I read the Oxfam report that 85 people own half of the world's wealth. [http://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressrelease/2014-01-20/ri...](http://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressrelease/2014-01-20/rigged- rules-mean-economic-growth-increasingly-winner-takes-all-for-rich-elites)

Now this is amazing and simple fact. This shows we have completely failed at distribution of wealth. If we could fix this many many problem will vanish. Now instead of what Gates has written this extreme inequality is blocking the progress of poor.

<comment><USER42> You misquote the OXFAM claim. They actually say:

The bottom half of the world's population owns the same as the richest 85 people in the world.[1](p2 bottom)

See the difference? The richest 85 people have about $1.7 trillion in wealth[2]. To put that in perspective the world stock market capitalization is $63 trillion[3], world bond market capitalization is around $100 trillion[4], world investment grade real estate $26 trillion[5]. That already $189 trillion of world wealth and ignores most real estate, commodities, durables, government owned assets, etc. So the richest 85 people actually own much less than 1% of the world's wealth. The problem is that the bottom 50% also own much less than 1% of the world's wealth.

You will have a very hard time solving the world's problems if you can't even get basic facts straight. Gates, the world's second richest man, could give his entire fortune away to the bottom 50% and they would only get $19.00 each (=$67B/3.5B). Of course he would then have to shut down the Gates Foundation.

[1] [http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/bp-working- fo...](http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/bp-working-for-few- political-capture-economic-inequality-200114-en.pdf)

[2] [http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/](http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/)

[3] [http://www.businessinsider.com/wfe-world-stock-market- capita...](http://www.businessinsider.com/wfe-world-stock-market- capitalization-2013-12)

[4] [http://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1212h.pdf](http://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1212h.pdf)

[5] [http://www.investmentmanagement.prudential.com/documents/pim...](http://www.investmentmanagement.prudential.com/documents/pimusa/Birds_Eye_View_2012_PRU.pdf)

<comment><USER41> Agreed, I made a mistake. But I appreciate that you agree that we have failed miserable at distribution of wealth and I quote you "The problem is that the bottom 50% also own much less than 1% of the world's wealth."

<comment><USER42> The distribution of wealth is a symptom of a problem not the problem itself. We haven't failed at distributing wealth: poor people are not poor because somebody didn't distribute wealth to them.

Most poor people are poor because they don't have paying work (i.e. a job or business). In the poorest countries unemployment rates are always very high (50%+) and even if rich countries the poorest are usually unemployed. Without any income basic survival is difficult and it is almost impossible to save and accumulate wealth.

As I pointed out above you could take all of Bill Gates wealth away and only have $19 for each of the 3.5 billion in the bottom 50%. While this might help some in the short run because Bill Gates would have to stop his aid activities many would be worse off in the long run. But more importantly it does not solve the problem.

The only solution is to get the unemployed into paying jobs or businesses. Even the lowest paying jobs on earth, such as Bangladesh garment jobs, pay twice what redistributing Bill Gates fortune would - not just once but EVERY MONTH. Unfortunately making this possible is a lot more complex than writing a check but it certainly helps to better understand what needs to change.

<comment><USER41> 1\. I never said we should redistribute the wealth. I believe that will only create more problems.

2\. I never suggested Bill Gates should give away his wealth.

3\. All I am saying is whatever caused this (85 richest human have wealth equal to 3,500,000,000 poorest humans) extreme inequality is blocking the progress of poor. For example - In India corruption in government is making problem of inequality worst. If you spend sometime trying to understand the corruption problem of India you will be surprised to see it's extend and scale. Therefore if we agree that we have a problem we may find the cause and finally remedies.

<comment><USER42> I apologize if I misunderstood you - so much simplistic inequality talk lately.

I completely agree that government corruption (and simple incompetence) are a big part of the reason the poor are poor and many of the super rich are super rich (e.g. Carlos Slim and Latin American telephone monopolies). However these are two separate thing. If having a few super rich was the price of elevating tens of millions of people out of extreme poverty, I would be very happy. This is what has happened in China. If we could encourage this in Congo, it would be a big win.

Other than what is already being done by people like Gates the only idea I like is having government focus on things it can do well and avoid doing harm. But I think everyone knows this already and it must be almost impossible to do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> The myth in this article is that a per capita average of income tells you anything about the condition of the poor. Many countries can raise that number significantly by simply asking Mr. Gates to visit for a day.

<comment><USER44> GDP is a reasonably good measure of a nation's economic activity and per Capita GDP is a reasonably good measure of overall well being under all but the most extreme circumstances. Using purchasing power adjusted GDP is a bit better. IMO, using median income is even better. But GDP figures tend to be more accurate and less subject to bias and thus more commonly used.

To address your snide side comment... Gates visiting would not change the per Capita GDP. GDP and per capita GDP is not calculated that way.

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)

and

Per Capita GDP = GDP / Population

Visiting rich foreigners, or even rich expats who just reside somewhere but have no business activity do not change GDP except through their local spending (private consumption).

Read [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDP](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDP) for more info.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> There are multiple problems with Gates's predition, but two of the biggest are these: 1\. Growth in real economic wealth is very strongly tied to growth in real resource consumption. The master resource is energy, but numerous other resources are in tight supply, with a critical set being "bauxite whose production peaked in 1943), copper (1998), iron ore (1951), magnesium (1966), phosphate rock (1980), potash (1967), rare earth metals (1984), tin (1945), titanium (1964), and zinc (1969)" (from Richard Heinberg's The End of Growth[1])

I've explored the concept of decoupling in greater length using Wolfram+Alpha data to show the relationship between energy use and GDP for the G8 nations plus China, India, and Brazil, as well as global growth, in the periods of 2000 - 2010, 1990 - 2012, and 1980-2012 (not all data available for all periods, though the 2000 - 2010 data are complete for all nations analyzed). While there's some sign of very weak decoupling of energy and GDP growth, principally in Japan and the USA, for global GDP growth, there's a very strong relationship between GDP and energy usage, and both have been increasing. With limited exceptions, global per capita energy use has also been increasing.

[http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/1vlksg/economic...](http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/1vlksg/economic_decoupling_the_recent_relationship/)

As I write this, I'm listening to a news story that the IEA has announced that US oil consumption, flat for years, is up 2%

[http://www.marketplace.org/topics/world/rising-demand-oil- gr...](http://www.marketplace.org/topics/world/rising-demand-oil-growth-easy- when-youve-been-pits)

2\. The second major problem is that the so-called Demographic Transition which Gates and Hans Rosling like to trumpet is little more than a largely unexplained phenomenon observed in some but not all data series. Tom "Do the Math" Murphy, UCSD physics professor, has specifically looked at this with regards to oil states, and makes the observation that "surplus energy makes babies"[2]. This is significant for two reasons: it means that the demographic transition isn't being observed in all countries, and it means that population growth, and hence domestic energy consumption growth, is highest in the major oil exporting nations. Growing domestic consumption means reduced availability of energy for export markets -- a phenomenon known as the "export lands model". Other research suggests that the causality link between development rates and birth rates is less clear than popularly portrayed[3].

I could bore (or terrify) you with numerous other challenges: flat or falling agricultural productivity, EROEI deficiencies in virtually every non-fossil energy alternative, pandemics risks. There's a reason I don't get invited to parties much .... But I think these two will do. While I have respect for some of Bill Gates's work (and I'm by no means an uncritical fan of his), his optimism here seems misplaced and founded on a very incomplete portrayal of the situation.

____________________________

Notes:

1\. Sources: [http://minerals.usgs.gov/ds/2005/140/](http://minerals.usgs.gov/ds/2005/140/) and [http://www.culturechange.org/cms/content/view/597/2/](http://www.culturechange.org/cms/content/view/597/2/)

2\. "The Real Population Problem" [http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the- math/2013/09/the-real-populat...](http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the- math/2013/09/the-real-population-problem/)

3\. "Revisiting demographic transition: correlation and causation in the rate of development and fertility decline." [http://www.iussp.org/sites/default/files/event_call_for_pape...](http://www.iussp.org/sites/default/files/event_call_for_papers/OSullivan_IUSSP27_DemographicTransition_FullPaper.pdf)

<comment><USER10> There's two big missing facts that I've never noticed Murphy in particular acknowledge: the 1980s peak in global births -- population growth is now driven entirely by decreasing mortality -- and the late 20th century decoupling of energy consumption from economic growth.

Both point to an obvious counter-theory: That industrialization was a centuries-long process, involving exploding populations and energy consumption, that in much of the world _has come to an end_. The nice little exponential lines are overfit to a particular span of human history and stopped being predictive somewhere in the 20th century.

Also, most of those peaked resources are not even vaguely scarce. I'm not even sure what it would mean to run out of iron ore or bauxite -- a large fraction of the Earth's crust is iron- and aluminum-bearing rock, and the definition of "ore" is "the particular chunks of rock and dirt that are economically viable to extract metal from". Production peaked because of limited demand and lowered shipping costs that made foreign supplies cheaper.

<comment><USER9> _the late 20th century decoupling of energy consumption from economic growth._

If you bothered reading my post and links, I've gone into extensive length on how economic decoupling _hasn 't_ happened and that the observed increase in efficiency is fully consistent with complex systems / dissipative systems theory.

The problem with technical capital is that it depreciates rapidly. While some Roman infrastructure remains standing to this day, odds are that most of today's electronics won't be functioning in 20 years, let alone 2000.

On peak minerals: Leibig's Law of the Minimum states that it's the least abundant resource that constrains your growth. Pointing out that there's plenty of X when Y is a limiting factor doesn't buy you much. I'd look very closely at ag productivity.

Heinberg and others go into the issues of working from low-yield ores. Most significantly, energy requirements scale inversely with or yield, and the critical problem would be a technological collapse which would lapse beyond the stage of a feasible reboot. While you _can_ extract minerals from dirt or seawater, the energy and capital requirements are immense. Citations on your claims of foreign supplies would be appreciated.

<comment><USER45> I appreciate the dialog you're already having, but I thought you might like to know that some of the statements you're making are causing my skepticism of the whole argument to increase, not decrease. I'm not knowledgeable enough to weigh in, but it might be useful for you to know what arguments work well and which don't.

Here's what I noticed in your reply that I found myself questioning your authenticity:

1\. Your first sentence is long and diminutive to the reader. I don't know who the other person is, but maybe they did read your post and links? I'm not sure. I also am highly skeptical of anyone that refers to their extensive anything on anything. It really highly signals "quack" to me. Again, I'm not trying to suggest you are.

2\. Your first sentence includes a number of terms that demand unpacking. This is really strongly related to the first point, because I feel like as a reader I'm being talked down to and then hit with some deep jargon that I don't understand. Perhaps I'm just out of my league on this conversation, though.

3\. Your argument on peak minerals doesn't seem to make sense to me. It's one of those things where, I read it and it feels very strongly like when I read a staunch libertarian/Austrian economic argument between friends on Facebook and see someone cite a universal law of microeconomics and then they use it to justify something much larger or more complex. Looking up Leibig's law didn't help me here. I'm just left a little more bewildered and even if I read and interpreted Leibig's law as being one hundred percent correct in its original formulation, there's a gap in my intuition between that and your use here, as near as I can tell.

<comment><USER9> _Your first sentence is long and diminutive to the reader._

He specifically reiterated without support an assertion of a fact I'd addressed specifically, at length, and with considerable real world data. A finer point: I wasn't dismissing him specifically, but _his actions_. I'm not here to make friends or even particularly to persuade, but to expand my own understanding of a subject I find of absolutely crucial importance. Occasionally I find merits to discussing matters with those holding opposing viewpoints.

Some guy came up with this concept called "Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement". You should check it out:

[http://blog.garrytan.com/grahams-hierarchy-of- disagreement-h...](http://blog.garrytan.com/grahams-hierarchy-of-disagreement- how-to-writ)

As to decoupling: I'm not aware of anyone who's specifically looked at GDP/quad data, but I had, using public data (the blog post consists of a set of graphs with links to the original from Wolfram+Alpha), and a bit of commentary. You're welcome to agree or disagree with specifics, though an ad hominem without any other basis for disagreement doesn't do you much credit. You're at levels 2 & 3 of the hierarchy. bcoates managed to attain level 3.

Though as a DDG fan I've got a newfound softness for quacks.

 _Your first sentence includes a number of terms that demand unpacking._

Which? "Economic decoupling" or "capital depreciation"?

First: yes, this is a complex area, it's got a bit of its own language. That's typical of any advanced field. That said it's not overly complex, though you've got to be willing to take and bin a fair amount of conventional wisdom.

For more on decoupling, associated with resources in general, see:

[http://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-technology/true- raw...](http://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-technology/true-raw-material- footprint-nations)

[http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/08/28/1220362110](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/08/28/1220362110)

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

Briefly on peak minerals:

⚫ Exhaustion of any extractive resource follows a curve similar to that M. King Hubbert demostrated for oil in the 1940s and 1950s, accurately predicting US peak production in 1970, and a global peak between 2000 and 2010[1]. Data are a little hazy on global production yet, but it's clearly been flat despite massive increases in market prices and capital expenditures by oil companies. See Shell Oil's profit warning issued just this week. You're welcome to read my take at [http://reddit.com/r/dredmorbius](http://reddit.com/r/dredmorbius) or The New York Times, whichever you find less quackish: [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/18/business/energy- environmen...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/18/business/energy- environment/shell-issues-profit-warning.html?_r=0)

⚫ Mining costs increase with falling ore grades. Heinberg cites this OilDrum piece: [http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/6974](http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/6974) "As a rule of thumb, when the quality of the ore drops, the amount of energy required to extract the resource rises". The rationale: lower grade means more overburden and tailings to remove -- you've got to mine deeper, or excavate a large area, or filter more seawater, or go through whatever it is that's your source for the mineral.

I'm aware of a few specific lower bounds on ore concentrations. Estimates are that uranium ores must be at least 200ppm for net positive production. See: [http://www.stormsmith.nl/i05.html](http://www.stormsmith.nl/i05.html) and generally: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium)

Leibig's Law is a separate observation to the issue of peak minerals -- it's not describing how or when minerals peak, but what the effect of their peaking is on the remainder of the system. For a critical mineral (say, phosphorus) to peak would have dramatic effects throughout the system. Having enough cobalt or gallium for iPhones won't do much if you can't grow food to feed the iPhone user.

________________________________

Notes:

1\. Generally, Wikipedia, "Peak Minerals" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_minerals#Peak_minerals_an...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_minerals#Peak_minerals_and_peak_oil)

<comment><USER10> Thanks for explaining more. I didn't respond because I realized that we didn't agree on terms, and dictionary arguments are boring. I was using "decoupling" in the sense of "what happens to an overfit model after it stops working", and hadn't really noticed that your reddit post was also using the term to argue against something I don't claim (or particularly care about), "reduction in power accompanied by increases in GDP".

I'll admit that my post was more a general reaction to Prof. Murphy's chronic abuse of statistical modelling, visible in the post you linked to "The Real Population Problem" where he applies a rather incoherent statistical model ("Population growth is exponential, but the exponential rate keeps changing", which is another way of saying "Population growth is not exponential"), while ignoring the real story on population, flat or slightly declining total births per year.... and his even more baffling and famous post, [http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist- meets-...](http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets- physicist/) where he plops down a tight exponential fit that clearly applies to the 'Industrial Manufacturing' era and visibly and extremely fails to model after that (it's a log plot, that post-1970-ish curve indicates a massive, model-falsifying difference between model and observation).

Economic modelling is hard enough for the world we live in, a world where we're mining 0.02% Uranium from the ground instead of 10+% is so unlike anything we know that making predictions about it is hubris.

I generally don't find peakery interesting because I don't accept the fundamental premise (that you can model future resource availability _at all_ using historical consumption volumes), so I'm not even at the point where more production (=consumption) data, however well sourced, is compelling.

<comment><USER9> _we didn 't agree on terms, and dictionary arguments are boring_

If someone can come up with a dictionary definition that defends their use, I'll accept that there are multiple common uses of a term. Sometimes utterly contradictory ("inflammable", "citation", "oversight", etc.) It's when I find people dismissing common terms or arguing _against_ the dictionary that I rapidly lose interest. What's the context/field for your use of decoupling?

 _" Population growth is exponential, but the exponential rate keeps changing"_

Mapping different fits to different portions of a curve is neither unknown nor invalid. A mathematical model simply describes the behavior of data. The underlying mechanism isn't itself described by the model (which itself is something of an orrery). Instead, as Murphy notes, population was responding to markedly different circumstances at different points along the line. You've neatly skipped over his explicit recognition of this: "What accounts for the discontinuity in slope?", and:

 _Plotting global population in the last thousand years (below), we see a few breaks in the slope. For most of this period, we saw a modest 0.12% growth rate, amounting to a 600 year doubling time. Around 1700, the rate stepped up to 0.41%, doubling every 170 years. The next break happens around 1870, jumping to 0.82% and 85 years to double. Then around 1950, we see another factor-of-two rate jump to 1.7%_

What happened at those dates? 1700 marks the nascent beginning of the Industrial Revolution (Newcoman's steam engine pumps in coal mines) and more abundant coal. 1870 marks (roughly) electricity and modern sewerage, sanitation, antisceptics, and anesthesia. 1950 marks the beginnings of the Green Revolution as well as the great advance of manufacturing and post-war renaissance around the globe. The earlier 0.03% growth to ~6000BC marks the period prior to advanced agriculture and urbanization. Noting where your tidy mathematical model breaks is just as important as seeing where it fits.

In the "Economist" dialog, you're failing to recognize the point that it's the _economist_ who's positing eternal growth:

Physicist: "So what's a typical rate of annual energy growth over the last few centuries?"

Economist: "I would guess a few percent. Less than 5%, but at least 2%, I should think."

The remainder of Murphy's analysis is to demonstrate the patent absurdity of this.

I've observed that this leads to a number of fairly typical responses from Murphy's critics:

⚫ He's extending a growth trend which has broken down in recent years (your objection). The point is that the energy growth he demonstrates is tightly coupled (correlated) with economic growth. And if you want the latter, you're going to need the former.

⚫ Economic growth has been decoupled from energy growth. The graphical evidence I've shown suggests otherwise.

⚫ Technology will fix everything. "Growth doesn't depend on increasing material consumption at all". /u/geezerman at reddit and Tim Worstall at _The Telegraph_ essentially make this argument.

⚫ "There is no energy/resource shortage". Humans will find and tap endless sources of new energy and raw material ... somehow.

 _I don 't accept the fundamental premise_

So: what would be a valid basis for a model of future resource availability? How do you address Hubbert peaking and depletion curves and the accuracy with which they've predicted known peaks in local, national (US and elsewhere), and by appearances, global oil production, as well as other resource peaks?

Rubbishing models without presenting a more accurate one yourself (or pointing at one) isn't science, it's denial.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Never mind the fact that the divide between the rich and the poor is growing, and only

growing.

</comment><comment><USER47> Some major ground has been covered in the article, and sparked a few more pointers. I come from a country receiving substantial aid, and yet I see that a lot of new initiatives could be kickstarted by the wealthy citizens themselves. Covering the reasons why the middle-class and the rich hesitate to lean in philanthropy would also instigate more people to contribute.

</comment><comment><USER48> I appreciated the fractal poetry in including the story of Sadi Seyni's village well (an example of the need for spreading accurate information to our fellow villagers), which is itself wrapped in a letter which calls on the reader to spread accurate information on the myths being presented.

</comment><comment><USER49> Too bad Gates doesn't think the Internet helps progress in countries, because technology and the Internet are huge factors in the progress and conditions of living in a country.

<comment><USER50> What good is technology if you are sick or hungry? If you have no electricity? It would be the first thing sold.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> His third point, "Saving lives leads to overpopulation," is a weird straw man. I've never heard of anyone ever suggesting letting suffering children die as some way to keep the population low. He brings up Malthus as another straw man.

I'm not sure the point he's trying to make. To stop people from stopping people from saving people's lives? I _think_ he's trying to suggest that the planet has too many people on it but that shouldn't stop us from saving people's lives. I know a lot of people who consider the planet overpopulated and I've never heard of anyone suggesting letting babies die would help, let alone consider it remotely human.

He seems to conclude educating women and making birth control available helps most. Why not just make that point? I feel like he's trying to imply those who disagree with him or agree with Malthus are tantamount to baby-killers.

On another (lighter) note, since dromedaries are camels too, calling the "camel world" a "bactrian world" would be more clear. The fun mnemonic for camel names is that the Dromedary has one hump and the Bactrian has two, like the first letters of their names, 'D' and 'B', turned sideways.

EDIT: Moreover, these statements are at odds, or at least need more explanation to connect them.

"It may be counterintuitive, but the countries with the most deaths have among the fastest-growing populations in the world. This is because the women in these countries tend to have the most births, too."

and

"Human beings are not machines. We don't reproduce mindlessly. We make decisions based on the circumstances we face."

The first point suggests people have extra babies in anticipation of some of them dying before adulthood. The second implies they would target a certain number to reach adulthood, which would not itself lead to overpopulation. What would lead to overpopulation on a broad scale would be individuals benefiting from more children than the planet would, which is more like a tragedy of the commons.

If people decide based on circumstances, then they wouldn't have too many children for whatever their values decide, independent of child mortality. They'd have the right number. If they are having the right number for themselves, then food and medicine wouldn't affect their target number of children.

Bringing up food and medicine is a red herring. There may be a myth (which they don't establish), but it's irrelevant to the point made in that section: increase education and birth control. It confuses unrelated issues and paints people concerned with population as ignorant and cruel.

It's not clear to me where their logic suggests I should contribute resources. Should I favor food causes over education causes, the other way around, a mix, or neither?

<comment><USER52> I'll bite. I believed it. Not only did I believe it until I read this letter, I thought Gates Foundation was doing an unintentional long-term disservice to the world by saving so many lives that overpopulation in the remote parts of the world will lead to more suffering due to starvation/hunger, poverty, and depression.

If X% of children in villages in Ghana are currently starving, how will raising that to 2X% starving-but-inoculated children help the world? I was never able to get that question answered sufficiently well. My background is in Econ and Comp Sci so I have a pretty good understanding of the impact of foreign aid. For the past decade, I've preferred the aid to be technological and infrastructural in nature instead of medical because I presumed that addressing the health needs of the existing population was merely plugging a hole on a broken dyke.

I really don't think she was calling me a baby-killer but rather questioning my faulty assumptions. I had made the same mistake that many others make when looking beyond their own monkey circles - that even people with little education make rational decisions about their lives, they're not mindless machines pushing out kids because that's what tradition or society demands. I never considered that the mothers in Ghana would have fewer children if earlier ones survived.

I assumed that because they are poor, did not have access to birth control, and were trying to maximize their long-term happiness, they would have as many kids as possible to maximize the chances of at least a few of them becoming successful. If you have two kids, both might be unemployed. If you have 12, maybe two of them will get good jobs and take care of you in the future. While this is great for the mother if two kids are successful, the other ten will end up repeating what she did and the cycle will continue ten-fold. I honestly believed that malaria was nature's way of minimizing long-term suffering.

There were too many faults in my assumption and I believed each of the myths up to a certain extent. My beliefs were not necessarily baseless, they were just completely out of date. I have a very hard time believing UN reports because of politics, corruption, and self-preservation interests of bureaucracy. However, I see no reason to assume Gates Foundation having any malevolence, especially since they're literally giving away their own money to improve the world long-term. So when they said my assumptions are in fact myths, I allowed them the chance to change my mind and by the end of the letter, I was cursing at myself for being so thick and wrong.

In addition to EFF, Wikipedia Foundation, and other tech causes, my future donations will also go to health/medical causes thanks to this single letter.

EDIT: If you want to know what REALLY blew me away, it was the single comparison shot of Mexico City 1986 vs 2011. My cousins in Mumbai grew up in the slums and now they post photos of their new [car|clothes|apartments] on Facebook. They were the kids bathing on the street and they weren't alone. Almost all of their friends are now working for multinationals in Delhi or Mumbai and most of them are doing better than their parents. An entire generation of slum-dwelling children have their own bathrooms, kitchens, and access to unlimited knowledge, technology, and medicine. I assumed that more people meant more slums. I did not realize that it could be fewer slums and more apartments.

<comment><USER53> Out of curiosity, which was the specific argument which changed your mind?

<comment><USER52> I just added the "EDIT" section before I saw your question. That was what made me start questioning my beliefs. Here's a few things the letter said that eroded away the assumptions I had built regarding:

POVERTY:

> There are still slums and pockets of poverty, but by and large when I visit > there now I think, "Wow, most people who live here are middle-class. What a > miracle."

> There is a class of nations in the middle that barely existed 50 years ago, > and it includes more than half of the world's population.

AFRICA:

> "Sure, the Asian tigers are doing fine, but life in Africa never gets > better, and it never will."... Seven of the 10 fastest-growing economies of > the past half-decade are in Africa.

> The percentage of children in school has gone from the low 40s to over 75 > percent since 1970.

AID:

> Also remember that healthy children do more than merely survive. They go to > school and eventually work, and over time they make their countries more > self-sufficient. This is why I say aid is such a bargain.

> Here is a quick list of former major recipients that have grown so much that > they receive hardly any aid today: Botswana, Morocco, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, > Costa Rica, Peru, Thailand, Mauritius, Botswana, Morocco, Singapore, and > Malaysia

The above one made me realize I can think of foreign aid like student loans. I needed the financial aid to afford college education. My loans are now paid off and I am significantly better off thanks to them.

CORRUPTION:

> Suppose small-scale corruption amounts to a 2 percent tax on the cost of > saving a life. We should try to reduce that. But if we can't, should we stop > trying to save lives?

> On the other hand, four of the past seven governors of Illinois have gone to > prison for corruption, and to my knowledge no one has demanded that Illinois > schools be shut down or its highways closed.

Basically, don't throw the baby away with the bathwater.

> The horror stories you hear about—where aid just helps a dictator build a > new palace—mostly come from a time when a lot of aid was designed to win > allies for the Cold War rather than to improve people's lives. Since that > time, all of the actors have gotten much better at measurement. Particularly > in health and agriculture, we can validate the outcomes and know the value > we're getting per dollar spent.

This was another big seller for me. Gates is brilliant and everyone who has ever worked with him ends up calling him the smartest guy they know. It was naive of me to think that he didn't have measures in place to measure the impact of his investments and make sure waste was minimized.

And then pretty much everything in Myth #3. I was a fool.

<comment><USER54> As a firm believer that overpopulation won't be solved by throwing money at it, and that the people who are having children are the ones who shouldn't, I see most of this as irrelevant. Of course money solves poverty in the short term, no one should be surprised by that. But notice how he keeps comparing one generation with only the previous, and never making long-term assertions.

Besides, I doubt Gates can go from the CEO of Bad Guys Corp. (among the companies with the most evil business practices in history, up there with Nestle) to Superman just because he has always been a modern Robin Hood, establishing an OS monopoly to give our money to the poorest. I'd expect some public guilt or something. I'll keep taking whatever his foul mouth says with an enormous grain of salt until he explains his post-MS enlightenment and endorses Linux.

<comment><USER10> Oh come on. Microsoft's "evil" amounted to giving the competition a few kicks in the ribs while they were down. It was nasty and unsporting but let's keep things in perspective.

The comparison with Nestle would only be reasonable if a Windows 95 BSOD killed one of your children.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> best line in the letter: "As public knowledge goes up, corruption goes down, and more money goes where it's supposed to."

This means you NSA and US black budget. Computers and robots have no need for money. Our black budget goes to paying PEOPLE off and keeping secrets.

</comment><comment><USER56> Breaks back button...

</comment><comment><USER57> ignore... testing saved articles.

</comment><comment><USER58> Darn, I was hoping that he was talking about the domestic poor.</comment>


Cloud Party - Free Virtual World in your Browser - <AUTHOR> http://www.cloudparty.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Looks a bit like Second Life, but is usable in the browser. Tested it in Google Chrome. I guess it uses WebGL for the graphics, so current IE is out of the question.

The build tools are very simple. But haven't tried anything complex.

It is a bit empty and I don't know if a lot of people share the enthusiasm of some hardcore "3D chat" fans. These 3D worlds are alway different from what you read in Science Fiction novels and imagine in your head. For one: there are so many different systems and technologies instead of one unifying user interface to just one "matrix".

Cloud Party could have success. At least they are starting with some PR right now. That's how I found out about it.</comment>


The Hotel Room Hacker - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/2017/08/the-hotel-hacker/ <comment><USER2> Amazing that Onity just didn't care despite being alerted to it being a problem multiple times.</comment>


Employer rejects guy because he switched majors back in college - <AUTHOR> http://www.jaymartinez.com/2009/02/you-should-never-switch-mmmkay

<comment><USER2> There are other employers out there.

I switched from physics to C.S. in my last semester (I don't recommend this... ;-)) and it's never been an issue. Most prospective employers don't even know; my resume lists "B.A. in CS" because that's my degree, and if they care about the history, they can ask me in the interview.

</comment><comment><USER3> Who cares. Start your own company.</comment>


Soon cops will search your phone just like your car - <AUTHOR> https://www.engadget.com/2016/12/23/soon-cops-will-search-your-phone-just-like-your-car/ <comment><USER2> I feel like the title is a little overblown. The case and potential ruling would be more like "Police can search your phone like they can search your home", i.e. they need a warrant.

It feels like the current situation where cops cannot conduct a search is a historical anomaly that is not going to last. There are already laws on the books in a lot of countries which force you to give up passwords.</comment>


Capitalism: Endgame - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/dialogue-and-discourse/capitalism-endgame-ab51907c46ba <comment><USER2> We must move past Capitalism into a more equitable and fair system.</comment>


Coda 2.5 and the Mac App Store - <AUTHOR> http://www.panic.com/blog/coda-2-5-and-the-mac-app-store/ <comment><USER3> It strike me as a bit punitive that only Mac App Store applications are permitted to access iCloud and is probably a barrier to further adoption of iCloud by developers; particularly in light of the fact that there are certain legitimate classes of app for which the sandboxing restrictions have egregious impacts on a user's workflow.

Consequently developers are forced to implement their own sync solutions (e.g. Panic Sync, and Omigroup's OmniSync) - which can be a hard component to get right and increases the overall attack surface of the application + its server-side sync solution. Or rely on Dropbox, etc which I'm sure Panic had good reasons to avoid (most likely 3rd-party vendor lock-in).

Hopefully the WWDC will show Apple being more accommodating on this front, but I won't hold my breath.

<comment><USER4> Apple's refusal to even consider making their cloud services cross-platform is already a very serious limiting factor in their adoption. Requiring these extremely restrictive sandboxing controls might very well turn out to be the final nail in iCloud's coffin.

<comment><USER5> Which cloud services?

[http://support.apple.com/kb/dl1455](http://support.apple.com/kb/dl1455)

iTunes is another large cloud service which is cross-platform.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Had similar experience with a project that I was responsible to release a couple of months ago. We already had an app available on Mac App Store. We then spent about 2 months adding new features and fixing bugs. Turned out, because of stupid sandboxing, we could no longer add any new features. Only bug fixes were accepted. Release got stalled for about 2 weeks trying to find a workaround. It was really depressing 2 weeks. Eventually we decided to release on our own. We notified our existing customers and gave heavy discounts for those who wanted to get the new version. Received few angry emails from our existing customers but most of them understood our problems. Other than that, it's been going smooth. We are happy we did it. We don't have to pay 30% to Apple (there is a little cost associated with licensing but it is just like 3% of the total cost). We now can release bug fixes as soon as we want. In fact, the first bug fix we did was within an hour! I'd recommend everyone to skip MAS if possible.

</comment><comment><USER7> Frankly the only Mac App store apps that I have bought are Apple branded apps, and that's because that is the only place to get them. When I look for a new app, the Mac App store is the absolute last place I look. The iOS mentality of apps simply does jive with how I use a computer, a tablet maybe, but not a desktop/laptop.

<comment><USER8> I love the Mac App Store. No worrying about licenses, zip files, DMGs, or updates. The Featured tab always highlights some cool app I wasn't aware of. Aside from these kinds of developer headaches, I think it's a huge win for the platform.

<comment><USER9> It isn't healthy to have one organisation become the gate keeper for all the 3rd party software.

<comment><USER10> It is pretty healthy for the gatekeeper though and I think that is the problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> On one hand, developer tools really are a worst case situation for sandboxing, as they are the most closely tied to a rich Unix heritage that happens to have been designed with security only to protect users from each other, not from their own compromised applications. (I suspect it would work much better if Unix were designed with capabilities in mind from the beginning, though I'm not sure exactly how such a system would work.) Plus, sending people compromised source code to build isn't exactly a common attack vector - although to be fair, if you think about how often people download random source tarballs and run the shell scripts inside, and the known existence of "watering hole" attacks targeting developers, someone somewhere has probably tried it. And of course, Apple does not require itself to implement sandboxing in Xcode.

On the other hand, sandboxing in general is definitely a good thing - <USER2> can't constantly bring up the security threat posed by the NSA et al. and then complain about the most effective type of anti-exploitation measure we know of today. Apple's sandbox implementation on OS X is reasonably flexible, and the post itself seems to concede that given more time, Panic could have come up with a reasonable experience that runs under it, perhaps with some features more awkward than without but essentially intact. So is it really that evil?

</comment><comment><USER12> It's a shame that this stuff happens really; I think it relegates the Mac App Store to a certain niche more than anything else.

I was surprised at the limited selection I found in the store. Having just got a new Mac, I went searching for the usual suspects - no VMware or Parallels? I understand why as these apps can't be sandboxed. Hardly any commercial 3D authoring tools? Where's Illustrator and their ilk (not the Lite versions, the actual full versions). I was really surprised at the lack of big creative and high-end apps on the store - at least in the sense the big apps that the Mac is known for. It seems to be a bit of a wasteland in that regard. I'm sure there are many gems in the store from smaller developers, but I found the app discovery experience roughly on par with that of the iOS app store, which isn't a compliment :)

The convenience factor is wonderful though - it's been a few years since my last Mac and apps I purchased were right there waiting. Setting up the new machine was bliss. Hopefully many of these issues can be worked out as the store evolves.

Slightly off-topic; where do I go to find the gems on the store? What are the good review sites (something like what TouchArcade is for iOS games)? Any with a focus on creative apps?

<comment><USER13> Pixelmator, Sketch, Omnigraffle, Logic, FCP, Motion, are pretty solid creative tools.

<comment> hippee-lee And Blender too.

<comment><USER14> Blender is GPL and sadly Apple's T&C forbid publication of Free Software in the App Store.

<comment><USER13> No. People who choose GPL choose not to publish their software in the App Store.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15>
      In short, we'll trade you iCloud for something great.

Love this subtle dig at iCloud.

<comment><USER16> I don't get it. iCloud has its faults but I rather like it a lot.

What's better about Panic Sync? To me it seems it's actually much worse than the simple to use (and never having to think about it) iCloud sync. Its also free and isn't tied to Panic. Panic sync on the other hand is is tied to Panic app so you will likely have to make a new account so it actually adds more hassle to the end user with no real extra features. Something great indeed!

<comment><USER17> You make it sound like it was a choice they made.

<comment><USER16> Well, they sort of did.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I certainly hope their new syncing is better than their Transmit Dropbox implementation. I had to stop using sync it was so bad.

I prefer MAS apps because of how easy it is to purchase, install and update. I'm particularly annoyed when an app is available in the App Store and is then pulled out later. By then, I've already purchased and have to transition, awkwardly, to a non App Store version.

This isn't the first developer tool that's done this for me.

</comment><comment><USER19> I remember Tim Cook saying that hybrid tablets devices were doomed to fail because they tried to do two things and failed at both. That the desktop and mobile experience were separate experiences and should be treated as such. Yet it seems like this is the exact mistake they're making trying to make the Mac App Store into aa iOS App Store - Mac Edition.

</comment><comment><USER20> Coda is a great editor and although I didn't really use it for what it was designed for, I really liked it.

</comment><comment><USER21> So it seems that syncing was the feature or a primary feature that presented sandboxing problems? Are there any other features that are problematic?

<comment><USER11> No, sandboxing doesn't pose a problem to syncing, and it's not difficult to use iCloud to sync between multiple applications. Rather, since only Mac App Store apps can use iCloud, syncing was a problem after abandoning sandboxing.

<comment><USER21> So does anyone know what features were a challenge because of sandboxing?

<comment><USER22> Not a OS X developer but I will have a go at answering.

To open a file that isn't in the application's private space the user must select it through the default OS X file picker dialogue (the app then gets permanent access to the file). This will work well for apps working on single user selected files but doesn't work well when major parts of an app are file navigation, management and generation(which is typically the case for an IDE).

I'm not sure whether full access can be granted to whole directories or what the rules on running/debugging generated binaries are.

Sand boxing is a good thing that combined with the Apple review process means little utilities from providers you have never heard of trustable as local apps that aren't going to read your contacts and documents without your permission but it does make life hard for an IDE. It sounds like Coda haven't given up on supporting the sandbox yet but they did not want to delay product release for it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Wait... WTH is Panic Sync?

<comment><USER24> "What about iCloud Sync of my sites?

iCloud requires the App Store, so that's out. But we have great news. We never want to short-change our paying customers, so we've spent many months working on Panic Sync, our own super-easy, super-secure syncing solution that gives you power over your data. And Panic Sync will work between Panic apps—Coda and Diet Coda to start. And Panic Sync is free. In short, we'll trade you iCloud for something great."</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How would you define a "dream job"? - <AUTHOR> Riffing on the recent post about game development, I wondered how the HN community would define a "dream job." What are the characteristics? How would such a job work? <comment><USER2> A job that I enjoy, where I am challenged in a creative and constructive way (fighting management and bad culture is not constructive, but improving my programming skills and solving new problems is).

A job where I feel like I have a good impact on the world, my works somehow brings happiness to people, maybe it's a charity, maybe it's just entertainment but still, something that gives good emotions to people.

A job that is well paid and possibly, remote. Or at least with enough flexibility that I don't feel a slave of the office.

I know that can be a lot, but I believe all those things would actually contribute to making me even more productive.

</comment><comment><USER3> \- no open space,

\- no domestic country manager,

\- no BS meetings,

\- no BS about overtimes,

\- contract + good pay,

\- home-office,</comment>


Ask HN: Are there firms that provide Infrastructure Capital in lieu of equity? - <AUTHOR>

Are there any web hosting firms out there that provide infrastructure to early stage companies for free in exchange for equity? <comment><USER2> Why do this? Generally money is more efficient than barter.</comment>


Changes everything you know about email - <AUTHOR> https://pushbox365.com/blog/2019/02/12/this-changes-everything-you-know-about-email/ <comment><AUTHOR> How do we get points?</comment>


FarmShare: Blockchain CommunitySupported Agriculture [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://consensys.net/static/Farm.pdf <comment><USER2> Url changed from [https://medium.com/@ConsenSys/farmshare-at-callicoon-ny- art-...](https://medium.com/@ConsenSys/farmshare-at-callicoon-ny-art-walk- this-saturday-12-8pm-3904b426d420), which points to this, which is more informative.</comment>


Nuclear power plants are coming to the battlefield - <AUTHOR> https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2020/03/12/nuclear-power-plants-are-coming-to-the-battlefield <comment><USER2> The key point in here is that fully half of the fatalities on the battlefield are attacks on oil convoys supplying troops. If you can have a nuclear power source you don't need to truck oil around and your exposure goes way down. Good old mass-to-energy conversions being 2,000,000x more energetic per reaction than combustion.

The army developed lots of small reactors for similar reasons back in the late 1950s/early 1960s but they just were too expensive. 10x too expensive even in wartime, according to some 1960s congressional testimony I was reading the other day.

Here's the army's old ML-1 reactor (nitrogen cooled, truck mounted): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ML-1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ML-1)

I think this time they want to try to get costs down more.

</comment><comment><USER3> Reason why something is needed : "In 2016 a report by the Defence Science Board, a committee of experts, concluded that demand would surge as new power- hungry weapons, like lasers and rail-guns, come to maturity. Vehicles are also moving away from fossil fuels: America expects to have all-electric brigades within the decade"

According to article we would be talking about maybe 40 ton few megawat units, which could be transported with truck and placed to remote military bases.

</comment><comment><USER4> This will be a wonderful source of pre-processed nuclear material. No way any of that would ever go missing in the field. Or get hit with a shell and spread all over.

<comment><USER5> > This will be a wonderful source of pre-processed nuclear material. No way > any of that would ever go missing in the field. Or get hit with a shell and > spread all over.

FYI depleted uranium projectiles are already used in the "field". The problem is that nobody talks about them and the effect on the environment.

<comment><USER2> Unirradiated and irradiated uranium are many orders of magnitude different in their radioactive dose rates.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Unmentioned in TFA: what's to become of the spent fuel. Maybe since we're fighting in someone else's home, we can just leave it there...

<comment><USER7> Keep in mind that depleted uranium has been used for ammunition (arguably resulting in war crimes against the civilian population in Iraq).

I think it's safe to say that the armies of the world has not learned much from wwi: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_Rouge](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_Rouge)

<comment><USER8> Spent fuel is a hell of a lot more dangerous than depleted uranium, though. DU is less radioactive than the unprocessed kind that comes out of the ground. Spent fuel, on the other hand, is extremely radioactive - enough that just spreading it with a regular bomb would be really bad.

<comment><USER9> When either is atomized enough for people being able to breath it, the end results is something you likely don't want to see. Nor does it matter if it was DU or spent fuel; at that point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> What could possibly go wrong?

</comment><comment><USER11> This is the last thing humankind needs: nuclear powered battlefields.

</comment><comment><USER12> It's curious how the US military can commission projects that would be difficult to get off the ground if the justification was ethical.

</comment><comment><USER7> I've not read tfa (because of the pay wall) - but don't we have third or fourth generation micro reactors already in submarines, ice breakers and hangar ships? Obviously there's going to be a lot of water available for those... But is much research really needed to repurpose one as a generator?

<comment><USER13> From the article:

The idea of small reactors is as old as nuclear power itself. In July 1951, five months before a reactor in Idaho became the first in the world to produce usable electricity through fission, America began building USS Nautilus, a nuclear-powered submarine. In the 1960s and 1970s small reactors powered bases in Alaska and Greenland, a radar facility in Wyoming, a research station in Antarctica and—from a cargo ship—the Panama Canal Zone. America still uses nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft-carriers. _But land-based mini- reactors proved unreliable and expensive and have fallen out of favour._

I was thinking the same thing you suggested, that maybe the basically unlimited supply of water for cooling made the ocean-going reactors feasible. Other than that, I'd think a mostly stationary reactor would be simpler to deal with than a ship-based one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> While Russia is putting dangerous fastbreeders on the North Pole using ancient icebreakers; the USA is already developing fusion reactors for use at navy carriers.

We all know what it looks like when a fastbreeder goes boom. But can anyone here tell us what will happen when experimental fusion reactors get blown to pieces ?

<comment><USER14> That's an ignorant comment.

Russia's using the the same kind of reactors (pressurized water reactors) as American supercarriers.

<comment><USER9> Thank you for correcting me! Can you also answer my other question? What should I imagine in case a experimental fusion reactor gets blown up ?

<comment><USER14> I don't know, but I've always assumed that nothing too bad, like radioactive contamination, would happen.

<comment><USER9> Assumptions are perhaps even more dangerous than the topic at hand.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is the military industrial complex reaching new levels of insanity.

We restrict Iranian students from studying at our universities, but will start littering the battlefield with nuclear appliances. This seems a proliferation accident waiting to happen...

<comment><USER9> You just explained the Atlantic hatred for Iran. In case of rational adversaries, the "littering" would convert presence into "MAD" endgame. That's a swift resolution of conflict! Unlike adversaries in the past such as for example the Soviet Union, Iran is not a rational actor thus the MAD scenario will not lead to resolution/stalemate but to obliteration. Never the less, it is a humane solution at other theaters of war.

<comment><USER16> America killed one of their national heroes. This put them in the position if retaliating and risking a war or appearing weak and open to another incursion.

They proceeded with a symbolic attack that left no one dead and declared that thats the end of that as long as the US does not escalate.

Sounds pretty damn rational to me...

<comment><USER17> The were shooting to kill but missed, and then accidentally shot down a 3rd party's airliner killing 176 people, including 82 of their own citizens. In my opinion, that tragedy was what was responsible for the de-escalation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It's unfortunate that it's easier to deploy the latest nuclear technologies on battlefield than in civilian use. Maybe this will change once they are (literally) battle-tested.

</comment><comment><USER19> Anyone thinking, even briefly, about potential spin-off designed from these small reactors will likely be unable to sleep due to nightmares of a few backpack nukes hidden in the NYC subway system.

<comment><USER2> What? Small nuclear explosives like the Davy Crockett shoulder-launched bomb have been around forever. Those are pretty unrelated to microreactors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I am not sure how to read it. So because those are not explicitly weapons, their proliferation is perfectly ok? How big a blast would a mini reactor produce if it was mishandled?

<comment><USER21> None. But if it is blown up by say, artillery or a truck load of semtex, the fine vapor of radioactive dust sprayed all over the place will make a decent chunk of land pretty dangerous to hang out on.

<comment><USER22> To be fair any bigger conflict than a guerilla proxy war will do that too, whether it be from salting the fields, WWI mustard gas, unexploded ordance and/or mines, agent orange, or fallout from an actual nuclear bombardment. The scars of war persist for quite a while.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Has the US gone nuts? I know this might not go well in some circles, but is there another way to put it?

</comment><comment><USER24> Will they withstand sabotage and nuclear bombs, such as normal nuclear plants are?

<comment><USER25> No nuclear power plant can survive being hit by a nuclear weapon.

<comment><USER24> Citation?</comment></comment></comment>


Info pirates seek an alternative Internet  - <AUTHOR> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19816-info-pirates-seek-an-alternative-internet.html

<comment><USER2> DNS is not "the internet".

If an ICANN-free system was setup, the "internet" still continues to operate exactly as expected, but the way of resolving addresses has changed.

This is one of the few articles where "internet" vs "DNS" actually does make a difference, but they got it wrong.

It matters here: > If it works, a sort of "shadow internet" could form, one in which legal action against counterfeiters and copyright scofflaws would be nearly impossible.

Nope. You can still take action against IP addresses that don't have any DNS at all. What matters is who their provider is, not what domain name they use.

<comment><USER3> You know there's a wikileaks mirror here, right? <http://6qackjstecukcesy.onion/>

<comment><USER4> How could he forget that one, it just rolls off the tongue.

<comment><USER3> :) Point is that it's on an internet overlay that's not _exactly_ just right on the internet with an IP address that takes you to a server that The Man can easily just shut down.

<comment><USER5> Who wants to take a guess as to how many TOR servers are actually run by the DHS?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Haha, isn't it "corporates and governments want a modified internet"?

</comment><comment><USER7> Nothing would be stopping ISPs from adding one or more non-ICANN DNS servers in their resolution chain. In fact, independent ISPs may do just that if they're not explicitly banned and there are a set of standards standards in place.

DNS is one of the easiest thing to do infrastructure-wise on the inter- networks.</comment>


Tell HN: Big Google Update (maybe going after content farms) - <AUTHOR>

It's still early but it looks like there's a big update happening to Google results. First signs of it were early this morning and it's now rolling out to the various servers around afternoon evening East Coast time. Right now it looks like it's localized to google.com so it remains to be seen what the long term effect of these changes are going to be when things settle out and if the changes will roll out to the international servers as well.<p>In terms of profile, it looks like "big" sites with many pages that get long tail search traffic are seeing a drop in SERPs/traffic. No clear profile is coming up on what they're being replaced with. <comment><USER2> > No clear profile is coming up on what they're being replaced with.

Do they necessarily have to be _replaced_ with something?

What I mean is, could it not be that these 'big' site are give - say a 300+ penalty and that's just about it.

</comment><comment><USER3> Care to give any examples?

<comment><AUTHOR> It's difficult to give specific query/site examples because people aren't forthcoming with them. However, it's not going to be long before you start hearing about it in a broader sense (my guess is tomorrow, weekend at the latest). Due to the nature of the way it's rolling out (google.com only, starting about midday) people probably haven't noticed it yet. They'll notice it tonight, or tomorrow when they check today's logs. And then you'll start hearing a lot of chatter Saturday when people feel the brunt of the first full day of this thing.

From initial assessments this looks to be a bigger change than pretty much everything I've seen in the past few years. Including MayDay, Caffiene, Florida, etc.</comment></comment>


Utrecht restores historic canal made into motorway in 1970s - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/14/utrecht-restores-historic-canal-made-into-motorway-in-1970s <comment><USER2> The swimming club that I'm a member of organized a tour last Sunday in which they swam around the Singel (which is Dutch for a round canal encircling a city).

With 5.8km it was quite a swim for the attendants.

EDIT: Translated Wikipedia page of 'Singel': [https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=auto&tl=en&u=h...](https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fnl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSingel_\(gracht\))</comment>


Who wants to be a cognitive neuroscientist millonaire? - <AUTHOR> http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/11/who_wants_to_be_a_cognitive_ne.php

<comment><USER2> I'm not sure he had to be a cognitive neuroscientist to employ these methods. But he did well.

Another trick, which you could use if for some reason you don't know the answer to one of the early, supposedly easy, questions: Guess an answer, but give it with full confidence. If you're wrong the shocked reaction of the presenter will tell you before the answer is final, and only in this case you will need a lifeline.</comment>


NASA has trialled an engine that would take us to Mars in 10 weeks - <AUTHOR> http://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-has-trialled-an-engine-that-would-take-us-to-Mars-in-10-weeks <comment><USER2> Please add a (2015) to the title.

This drive has been talked about ad nauseum and the conclusion is that while there _might_ be something interesting going on, and the results _may_ have been potentially replicated, there's a lot of work that has to go into this before we should even consider that something aside from calculation error is happening.

And saying that NASA is trialing this is not correct. They gave a scientist some money and some space to play around with an idea. They do that from time to time.</comment>