Why New York Real Estate Is the New Swiss Bank Account - <AUTHOR> http://nymag.com/news/features/foreigners-hiding-money-new-york-real-estate-2014-6/ <comment><USER2> About five years ago I saw a chalkboard outside a trendy SoHo NYC apartment. For sale: 2 million euros.

The same story is playing out in London as well, with the consequence that many central flats lay empty most of the time, owned by foreigners who would rather lose out on some rental income than risk the hoi polloi damaging their artwork.

By the way, in NYC it is usually not as hard to find the true, human owner(s) of apartments purchased by "corporations" as the article implies. It takes more than a quick Google search, but the information is usually around if someone wants to know about a particular unit.

<comment><USER3> On similar lines, I was in Hong Kong a few months ago and saw quite a few adverts for investing in London property. Global markets really do exist for top tier property.

It's really quite depressing being in the top few % income wise but not having a hope in hell of competing with the global market and the people taking on reckless levels of debt. Our housing markets are broken on so many levels.

<comment><USER4> For me, it was even more surprising when I was driving out of Algarve recently (South of Portugal) and saw a billboard about buying and selling Hotels. Not villas, full blown Hotels like it was freaking Monopoly.

<comment><USER5> It is - with the difference that playing Monopoly doesn't disturb the life of non-players.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Interest rates are too low, the stock market is overvalued, and the financial system is untrustworthy. There's nowhere to put money and get a decent return on it with _no_ prospect of completely getting wiped out other than real estate.

Also, if you can buy in or near a "fortress" area like Manhattan or San Francisco, and you'll never need the cash, you can just wait for the next bubble if prices/rents collapse.

edit: reading more of this, I'd say the dumb money is going towards extravagant luxury, though. Those $30M apartments could fall to $3M and never rise again. I'm talking more single-family housing, and those buyers have actually slowed down considerably lately because prices have gotten too high.

edit2: I've been drawn in - this is a very good article. The tl;dr is that world scum is using NYC luxury real estate to launder money and avoid taxes. What I thought was "dumb money" is dictators, oligarchs, etc., who aren't looking for profit, just trying to get their ill-gotten gains out of their home countries.

</comment><comment><USER7> _" The latest [Knight Frank report] produces the curiously precise estimate that there are 167,669 individuals in the world who are "ultrahigh net worth," with assets exceeding $30 million."_

I'm amazed at how few people sit in that strata - $30 million gets you into the Top 0.0024% of the world's population. While it's twice my (inflation- adjusted) financial goal, I still would have thought a larger number of people would be there.

Perhaps this fails to account for assets spread across a number of corporate entities?

<comment><USER8> You identified what I call an interesting "mid-band" of wealth, so I'd like to swizzle the numbers a bit more for perspective:

$30 Million is certainly "fuck you" money. Assuming anyone with that amount has 30-60 more years to live (e.g. is 40-70 years old), that means they could spend at least $500,000 per year, or $1,369 PER DAY for the rest of their life.

That is more than my monthly rent. They can spend that per day. And, AND they don't have to work all day. They could volunteer, run propaganda campaigns, get high, research stocks, play guitar, learn Swift, paint, ANYTHING.

Well, except buy a new car every day. If you want a Lamborghini, at ~$120k, you'll still have to "save up" for 85 days! So it's not the absolutely, mind- bogglingly, helicopter-dogfight rich. And you certainly couldn't go nuts with art:

You couldn't even buy the cheapest painting on Wikipedia's "most expensive paintings" list. [0].

[0] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_painting...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_paintings)

Anyway, I'm glad there are less than 170,000 people who don't have to do anything at all to live.

<comment><USER6> >Anyway, I'm glad there are less than 170,000 people who don't have to do anything at all to live.

Don't have to do anything at all to live better than everyone else in the world, that is. There are a lot more who are dependent on various safety nets. We're cutting food stamps, because we think they shouldn't eat as much.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> In India, we witness both new as well old/real Swiss Bank being used to stash illegal money. Given land/capita availability, real estate is skyrocketing in most parts. A descent independent house in tier-2 cities in India is costlier than what one would pay in NYC (I don't mean Manhattan). Middle class, say a school teacher, just can't afford a house in most of cities while rich are investing in lands, houses and other forms of real-estate.

</comment><comment><USER10> As an NYS (but not NYC resident), I find the following quote the most offensive part of the entire article:

>In New York, by contrast, buyers of new construction often qualify for a tax abatement. At One57, currently the city's most expensive new address, the tax break amounts to around 94 percent. A Times analysis estimated that its priciest penthouse, which is reportedly in contract for more than $90 million, would initially be billed less than $1,500 a month.

So basically, the foreign absentee buyers of these luxury buildings are able to avoid paying property taxes on most of the assessed value, forcing the "regular" residents or landlords to pay more than they would otherwise have to if these apartments were taxed at the same rate.

<comment><USER11> I agree it is a problem, but the foreign buyers did fund the construction of "affordable housing".

I think the policy of granting tax abatements for developing affordable housing is nuts, but some of that $90 million was used to help the working class.

<comment><USER12> I agree. This is no different than state governments granting companies generous tax relief for the "creation of jobs," which more times than not are a few hundreds of minimum wage jobs. Doing the math, it does not make sense, but I guess the rationale is that you get $1500 or zero. I am not really sure at what cost though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Single Page: [http://nymag.com/news/features/foreigners-hiding-money- new-y...](http://nymag.com/news/features/foreigners-hiding-money-new-york- real-estate-2014-6/#print)

</comment><comment><USER13> It's not just New York. In Boston lots of foreign investors, mostly Chinese. They are coming in over asking prices, with cash. Basically impossible to compete with.

Redfin recently released a housing report[0] that acknowledged the recent "recovery" as fueled by investors, regular home buyers are still on the sidelines. This is clear to me via anecdote, I've heard from friends and online forums from people in the JP area where multi-families are being bought in droves by corporate landlords. It seems to me that the historical pattern of real estate transactions being between generations and socio-economic classes will be no more. If the corporate landlords want to sell, they'll be selling their portfolios to other investor types. I wonder if in another 20 years we will have an exodus to the 'burbs similar to the 50's and 60's.

[0] [http://www.redfin.com/research/reports/real-time-price- track...](http://www.redfin.com/research/reports/real-time-price- tracker#.U7F6hUBDuA-)

</comment><comment><USER14> I think this is the beginning of the end for New York and other cities where this is happening.

Why is New York real estate valuable in the first place? Because a lot of people want to live there.

Why do they want to live there? Because there's a lot of other people there, and those people can afford them various opportunities in their chosen field.

If New York becomes a wasteland of empty apartments held by overseas billionaires, none of the people that make New York a desirable place to live (and thus, a valuable apartment to own) are going to be there making it desirable (and thus, making the apartments valuable).

Everyone I know who's living in New York can't wait to leave. It's a miserable place to be unless you're a billionaire. These people are destroying the value of their own investments just by making the investment in the first place.

<comment><USER15> "A miserable place to be unless you're a billionaire." This is such a vast exaggeration, it's difficult to take your comment seriously. Is New York expensive? Yes. Is it impossible to live here, and have an enjoyable experience on $60,000/yr (even less with some sacrifices)? Not in the slightest.

<comment><USER14> "not impossible" isn't nearly the same thing as "desirable" or "worthwhile". If the strongest endorsement you can make is that it's possible to live there, that really isn't much of a recommendation.

<comment><USER15> I'm not trying to make a pro/con debate; I'm only pointing out that there are 8 million people living here, the vast majority of which are assuredly not billionaires. The original comment really provides no value by stating "I know some people in New York and they want to leave because they can't enjoy it without being billionaires."

<comment><USER14> That was really a throwaway line tacked onto the end. You could try reading the rest of the comment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Shouldn't a huge cash transaction trigger suspicion from IRS/whatever agency interested in knowing the whereabouts of the money? E.g. in Malaysia, the reason why people buy cars (let alone properties) in installments (even they can afford cash) is to avoid tax dept come knocking their door.

<comment><USER6> "It's a sophisticated, well-oiled system that rarely requires crude subterfuge. Though U.S. authorities track all transfers over $10,000, a wire into a real-estate lawyer's escrow account should look perfectly routine. 'A lot of times, I don't even know where my clients are from,' says the lawyer Bruce Cohen. 'But I know that certain countries are very careful about the money that leaves their country.'

"There is nothing illegal—at least from the destination nation's perspective—about sending money from an anonymous offshore bank account to purchase property in America. On the contrary, it's an everyday occurrence. That is precisely why experts say that property investment is a favored route for money laundering, a crime that depends on the outward appearance of legitimacy. The laundering process typically happens in stages: Illegal cash enters the world financial system somewhere and is funneled into a maze of accounts and shell companies, a process called 'layering.' Finally, at the other end, funds are integrated into a seemingly respectable investment—like a luxury condo."

(TFA)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> This will burst as it is based simply and obviously on the greater fool theory and is devoid of any fundamental cash flow generation (i.e. rents).

<comment><USER18> _This will burst as it is based simply and obviously on the greater fool theory and is devoid of any fundamental cash flow generation (i.e. rents)._

The 2014-era housing bubble is driven not by runaway money-printing as in 2008, but by foreign corruption. Silicon Valley is expensive because every thieving Chinese official has a house out there in case things go seriously wrong (corruption is a death-penalty offense in China). As it turns out, rich people will pay a nearly-infinite amount of money to not die.

We're not talking about tulip bulbs. We're talking about _personal safety_ for some seriously bad people who are at risk of being killed by their own people (who they've been robbing for decades) and who, quite frankly, deserve to die.

<comment><USER19> Interesting theory, but why buy the house in SV rather than more affordable L.A.?

<comment><USER18> Because when shit goes bad, it gets hard to move money. Your liquid assets are frozen. You have to change countries, move your family, change names, in order to avoid reprisal and extradition. Your contacts, excluding a few equally scummy people you trust (because they're as deep in the dirt as you are) are all gone. Your new name means nothing. You won't totally start over (you have a few scumbag contacts who can get your kids into top MBA schools, and you'll be able to buy a resume in time) but it will be a while before you can work again.

You'll need to buy a resume and references, for your new identity, in order to get an upper-middle-class management job, but that is much harder than it might seem when you're on the run from the law and possibly being hunted internationally (by vigilante bounty hunters if not governments). The buying- a-resume takes 3 years and in the mean time, you'll have living expenses. How do you get money to cover those? Your old-country money _est perdu_. Rental income from a couple buildings you "just happened to have" might float you, but for short-term needs you'll want to borrow against your house. One house (two would draw attention). Best if that house is "worth" $1.5 million. You can borrow a lot more against that than against a $400k L.A. bungalow.

Owning $1.5-10 million of real estate doesn't stick out as much in an area that is already horribly expensive.

<comment><USER20> _Best if that house is "worth" $1.5 million. You can borrow a lot more against that than against a $400k L.A. bungalow._

Your understanding of LA-area real-estate -- and its appeal to Chinese buyers -- appears to be...incomplete:

"Wealthy Chinese home buyers boost suburban L.A. housing markets" [1]

"Housing crisis hasn't touched San Marino" [2]

In San Marino -- a former WASP bastion, now about 50% Chinese -- $2 - $10 million homes are readily found [3]. (And there are other, cheaper cities with large Chinese populations close by, so one can pick one's price-point).

In the city itself, in or near West LA for example, the market has been hot for a while -- it's not hard to find areas with median house prices over $1 million (e.g. [4]) -- a $1.5 million house would not be hard to find.

Or, for (much) more expensive places, one could go to Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Rolling Hills, Malibu, etc. [5].

So, your putative fugitive would have little problem finding an expensive house -- for most of values of "expensive" \-- in the greater LA area, either in a Chinese enclave or, if they needed to stay away from people who might recognize them, etc., in other nice areas.

[1] [http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-chinese- homebuyers-201...](http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-chinese- homebuyers-20140324-story.html#page=1)

[2] [http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/31/business/la-fi- san-m...](http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/31/business/la-fi-san-marino- housing-20110131)

[3] [http://www.zillow.com/san-marino-ca/expensive- homes/](http://www.zillow.com/san-marino-ca/expensive-homes/)

[4] [http://www.zillow.com/mid-city-west-los-angeles-ca/home- valu...](http://www.zillow.com/mid-city-west-los-angeles-ca/home-values/)

[5] [http://la.curbed.com/archives/2012/10/10_pricey_houses_in_so...](http://la.curbed.com/archives/2012/10/10_pricey_houses_in_socals_10_most_expensive_zip_codes.php)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Do these purchases affect the NY real estate market as a whole (other than say, skewing statistics)?

For lower end housing stock, homeowners usually "jump" up to more expensive properties as they become more financially stable or as they need the room. This market seems entirely disconnected from that, but I'm not sure.

<comment><USER18> Price inelasticity is worth noting. A small amount of supply destruction will make prices spike significantly. That's why NYC's legacy rent control system is such an issue. It only affects about 1-2% of apartments, but that probably pushes rents up 50% or more.

So, yes, the fact that global-elite billionaire scumbags use our real estate to launder their drug/blood money is a huge issue.

 _For lower end housing stock, homeowners usually "jump" up to more expensive properties as they become more financially stable or as they need the room._

That seems to be a Boomer thing. They bought the 3000 SF houses that are impossible to maintain unless you hire maids (which Americans don't like to do, even though at $20/h they're still cheaper than doing your own cleaning). I think the young generation values freedom and experiences (e.g. travel) more than stuff and space. Frankly, I find McMansions depressing.

Unfortunately, in many cities it's impossible to get a 1000 SF place at an appropriate price. You end up buying or renting 2000+ because that's all there is, unless you're talking about seriously defective housing (e.g. no laundry in the building, no dishwasher.)

<comment><USER22> Isn't the phenomenon you describe extreme price elasticity rather than inelasticity?

Also, any source for your assertion about the effect of rent control on rents in NYC? I'm very interested in this if you have it.

<comment><USER23> The term "inelasticity" describes consumer demand, rather than the price. As a good becomes increasingly scarce, the price will rise. But when demand is highly "elastic," the price rise will be mitigated by consumers changing their behavior or seeking a substitute good (in this scenario, by relocating their residence away from NYC). In other words, demand elasticity means that consumers can decide not to pay the higher price because they have alternative options.

In the case of NYC housing, the demand is inelastic, meaning that the price increases stick because enough people do not have any acceptable alternative to paying it (likely because employment in their chosen profession requires being physically located in or near Manhattan).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> People are investing money in housing for the same reason they invest in gold: they aren't making more of it.

There is a simple solution to this. NY could allow as much new housing to be built as the market would bear. They could allow existing stock to be properly utilized, rather than giving long term tenants quasi-property rights (which also hinders new construction of anything other than luxury condos).

The more money those evil foreign devils pour into the market, the more money local construction workers will happily take from them.

<comment><USER25> Which unused corner of Manhattan do you propose building on?

<comment><USER24> Whichever corner contains buildings owned by people willing to sell to developers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> _" And so New Yorkers with garden-variety affluence—the kind of buyers who require mortgages—are facing disheartening price wars..."

"Competition will continue to drive the wealthy—foreign and domestic—to Brooklyn and middle-class buyers to despair."_

Add to that the fact that a young middle-class lads and gals start out having already an high debt from the acquired education...

</comment><comment><USER27> LOL, the feds browbeat the Swiss into coughing up account information but then allow blatant tax evasion on a grander scale inside American borders. Might makes right, I guess.

<comment><USER28> Didn't you know? Paying taxes is for Americans.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> They should buy SF real estate and further skew things here...

<comment><USER30> Most likely, they are already here buying up property.</comment></comment>


Uber car attacked by Paris cab drivers on strike - <AUTHOR> http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2014/01/13/uber-car-attacked-by-paris-cab-drivers.html <comment><USER3> I was in an Uber this morning headed to Charles de Gaulle airport and got to see this all first hand. Hundreds of taxi drivers stopping traffic and flipping off the police while stalling traffic for a bunch of unlucky motorists.

My driver pulled the car over as we approached the airport. He asked me get into the front seat, and then told me we had to act like friends if we were forced to stop and end up getting harrassed. He then went to the trunk and pulled out a pair of his normal clothes and changed right there on the side of the road (Uber drivers are easily recognizable thanks to their fancy attire). Upon settling back into the driver seat, with a big smile and a thick French accent, he said, "I am Batman."

I rated the trip 5 stars.

<comment><USER4> [http://www.rudebaguette.com/2014/01/13/taxi-protest-paris- tu...](http://www.rudebaguette.com/2014/01/13/taxi-protest-paris-turns- guerrilla-warfare-uber-car-attacked-freeway/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> How meaninglessly proletarian and small minded. Like the smashing of weaving machines during the industrial revolution. The impossible fight against change and the inexorable march of technology. Also shame on France for imposing a minimum 15 minute delay for picking up a customer. France, where free market competition is second to politics and special interests. Look at the anti Amazon legislation.

<comment><USER6> > Like the smashing of weaving machines during the industrial revolution

I know, the buggy-whip manufacturers are doomed to be replaced by the... slightly-more-sophisticated app-supported buggy-whip-manufacturers.

Seriously, Uber's success doesn't come from spectacular disruptive technology, they succeed by circumventing the absurd regulatory capture that exists in the taxi market in some cities.

<comment><USER7> Regulatory capture which exists because, before it existed, taxi drivers used to riot and attack each other.

With potential supply consisting of "everyone with a car", either prices would be driven down to bankruptcy, or with prices fixed by law, demand would be smeared too thin, or (as actually happened) means of limiting the supply would be created (violence and mob links outside the law, or regulation inside it).

<comment><USER8> The problem is that with the medallion system, you're turning the ability to drive a cab into property. As such, it becomes a /lot/ harder to reasonably control supply, because adding medallions will garner protests from the existing holders, regardless of the needs of the city. Additionally, with the costs of these medallions, it becomes a lot harder for a middle class person to get started in the taxi business; you have to join one of the cartels and curry favor with them in order to have a chance to drive and get decent dispatches.

I'd argue that the best way to handle the taxi drivers of all sorts is to move to a licensing system. Give priority to existing drivers, but at the same time, allow flexibility in setting the supply to give the little guy a chance to compete. Taxi systems in most city are corrupt from top to bottom, and these actions in France just show how the drivers are willing to go along with the broken system at hand.

<comment><USER9> I came to realize a system like medallions were needed when seeing taxis clog traffic after venues with well paying customers were over. Supply is far more than demand in these cases, and even apps with scheduling won't keep the streets from being clogged beyond reason.

Humans are a funny bunch who overall suck are cooperation, specially when trying the role of a worker ant.

<comment><USER10> That sounds like a traffic control problem, a public transportation problem, and an event planning problem related to specific events rather than a need for medallions.

Once the people are already there, they need to get home somehow -- what do you expect? How do fewer taxis help the problem?

<comment><USER9> "That sounds like a traffic control problem, a public transportation problem.."

All those things come into play when regulating how many registered taxis are allowed on the street. Or the decision to regulate at all. Also its one of the sticking points for locales as to why they want to regulate operators like Uber as local planners need to be aware of them and their numbers.

"..and an event planning problem related to specific events"

The venues don't really have a say in who parks out in public streets, they can raise complaints if it becomes a problem though and often try to cash in by hiring services themselves. The more monied customers will most likely not ride the meat bus over to a public transit hub though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> So I understand that on of the main points of contention is that the paris cab drivers face steep regulation in the form of requiring an expensive license, while the Uber drivers require no such license, and that to counter this lack of regulation they require the Uber drivers to wait 15minutes before picking up their customer.

But there are still a few things I don't understand: Why do the Paris cab drivers require such regulations? How come the Uber drivers aren't required to have such a license? And maybe I don't completely understand the advantages of Uber (because I've never used a cab before), but at first glance, it seems the main reason uber is succeeding so well, is that there is an app to quickly summon a driver. So why doesn't such an app exist to call these licensed drivers who are so angry?

<comment><USER12> I cant speak directly for Paris, but in my home town, one reason we limit the number of taxi cabs is because we've decided (as a society regulating itself) that too many cabs is a social problem. It may sound funny, but imagine a case where there is a lineup of 200 cabs clogging the airport to get that one lucrative fare. Alternatively, outside of a office building to aim for CEOs. They take up a common good that is free (space and to some extent air quality) and therefore are a tragedy of the commons case.

<comment><USER13> Have you experienced "too many cabs"? How do you know the "social problems" aren't just imagined? How do you know they cannot be controlled in other ways?

You imagine "200 cabs clogging the airport" \-- have you seen how cabs work in places where they are plentiful? There's no point in having 200 at an airport at once. They don't take passengers at random, they line up and wait their turn.

If there are a lot of cabs at an airport, the drivers will be better off going into the city and finding a fare there than waiting in a line of 200 cabs.

If there is actually such demand that 200 would "clog" the airport at once, they're obviously solving a problem that isn't being solved by alternative means, such as cheaper and more efficient busses and trains.

Why would drivers aim for CEOs? Cab fares are regulated, so that just leaves tips (something not even customary in many places). They'll get more in a couple hours driving around than waiting for the lottery in the form of an abnormally generous CEO.

<comment><USER14> This is a good point. In most cities, cabs do not go to the airport unless they have to.

It just isn't a good use of their time - if you drive all the way out there with an empty cab, you've just sunk a whole lot of gas and time on a deadhead when you could have spent the same on picking up several fares downtown. And even when you have someone who wants a ride out to the airport, it's not necessarily something you want to do because then for a return fare you've got to go to the cab stand and take whoever you get wherever they want to go - which could be somewhere way out in the weeds so you still end up stuck with a dead head. That's the reason why in most cities there are actual laws on the books saying cab drivers aren't allowed to refuse to take you to the airport - without those laws, many of them would.

<comment><USER12> Maybe the specifics of my town are different, it costs ~$60 to go from my house to the airport, thats really good money for 40 minutes / 25kms. Maybe 60 minutes of spent time? (20 minutes to get to me + 40 minutes to get to airport). Expenses on a car are < 50c a km. So $12.50 in auto expenses + $47.50 for 1 hr work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > France has already instituted a rule that requires a minimum 15-minute wait > before a service like Uber can actually pick up a customer.

Holy crap. And I thought the "Lang Law" was bad: [http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/10/the-anti-amazon-law-is- abou...](http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/10/the-anti-amazon-law-is-about-to- become-a-reality-in-france-but-its-not-a-bad-thing/)

Apparently, France also fixes the price of all books to keep it 'fair' for small bookstores.

<comment><USER16> Is this circumventable by shipping form another EU country? Amazon UK ships for free to most of Europe and is AFAIK not bound by these laws, so this is a really strange situation.

<comment><USER17> Amazon.co.uk seems to charge >5 GBP for shipments to the rest of Europe: [http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=11072981)

<comment><USER18> But [http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/](http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/) (acquired by Amazon in 2011) offer free shipping worldwide

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Saw the tweets this morning, a bit terrifying. Humanity always somehow surprises me in its capacity for meaningless violence.

<comment><USER20> Sadly, they probably see the uber drivers as scabs. Even though that's like if the Police went on strike, and started beating up employed security guards...

<comment><USER21> In this case, they ARE scabs.

<comment><USER20> How so? Are they Taxi drivers? Are Taxi drivers in Paris in a _Industrial_ Union or a Craft Union?

Do you feel like their violence against other citizens are justified?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Protests and aggression are close friends in France.

For example, kidnapping the boss to prevent layoffs (or at least get better severances) is something that happens regularly.

<comment><USER23> Except it's not really kidnapping, it's more like theater... A real kidnapping (physically restraining anyone) would be handled by the RAID or GIGN.

Don't get me wrong, French unions are mostly wrong on about everything, but violence against individuals is still a big no-no. Thankfully.

<comment><USER24> How is it a no-no if the linked article provides a prime example of violence by taxi union members?

<comment><USER23> vandalism != violence against an individual

AFAIK, no one was hurt. And the union status of the taxi drivers involved got little to do with the case, pretty sure all taxi drivers, unionized or not, feel the same about people that chose to do the same work as they do, without respecting the same rules as they are.

<comment><USER24> Learn your definitions, will you?

Violence is "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, _psychological harm_ , maldevelopment, or deprivation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7049545](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7049545)

</comment><comment><USER26> If they are on strike the Uber driver is a scab. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo70qkxzelA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo70qkxzelA)

<comment><USER27> One presumes that the Uber driver isn't part of their union.

Yes, he's in the same business, but radio cabs are a competing arm compared to licensed taxis.

<comment><USER21> Not being a member of the union and working during a strike is the definition of scabbing.

<comment><USER27> Ah, ok. What about if someone's in a business providing substitute goods or services?

e.g. cafeteria workers are on strike, so the org orders pizza instead - <USER2> the pizza makers and delivery people scabs? Or is that just a work-around?

<comment><USER26> Yes, they are scabs and should decline to make and deliver pizzas.

<comment><USER27> What are the "rules" about this? I often see people arguing against scab labor with real fervor, but how is this defined? And who decides where to draw the line?

e.g. continuing with the cafeteria example, if people decide to go off campus and purchase food at a different establishment, are those food workers then considered scabs? Or is it only scab labor if it's hired as a temp replacement by the company against whom the workers are on strike.

And back to the original example, what happens a person needs to get to the airport, or to work? The challenge with substitute goods and services (e.g. Uber or gypsy cabs or other app-based car services, in place of licensed cabs) is that a monopoly gets marginalized and a strike is less effective. But what's a person supposed to do who needs to be transported from A to B? Not call Uber?

<comment><USER26> It is a simple definition, a scab is a person who accepts work that undermines the union. This can be refusing to join the union, accepting less pay or crossing the picket line and working.

So a restaurant worker not refusing to feed a student off campus would not undermine the shutdown of the on campus cafeteria. But any attempt to recreate the cafeteria by the school, on or off campus, would.

You should do the best you can to do nothing that could undermine the strike. A key is who do you complain about and complain to. If public transit workers are on strike, which makes your commute worse, do you blame the workers or complain to the management.

<comment><USER27> _If public transit workers are on strike, which makes your commute worse, do you blame the workers or complain to the management._

In that case, I'd probably just call Uber. Or a cab. ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Oh, they finally realized there are better alternatives for people and got angry...

</comment><comment><USER29> Yes, I heard that the same thing happened to a driver from "Chauffeur Privé" at the Orly airport. Wind mirror broken, nothing serious, but it's crazy how the taxi drivers do not care about the situation and want to keep their monopoly. The French company "Taxis G7" is a powerful lobby and they still decide everything for every taxi driver in France. Instead of changing, ugprading, offering new (and better !) service to their passengers, they try to scare the new comers. And seriously, it would not be difficult to improve the service in French cabs : remove the bad smell, remove the racist jokes, shutdown the loud radio talking about the latest soccer game which not everyone listens to, learn to say hello/thank you/goodbye, etc.

<comment><USER30> accept credit card payments..

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I can't imagine the situation when driver-less cars will hit on the roads .

</comment><comment><USER32> Try to read the first paragraph in this article[1] to understand better how technology improvements were handled in the past in France:

[1][http://www.economist.com/node/21524883](http://www.economist.com/node/21524883)

<comment><USER27> _It demanded that for each new computer, Le Monde should pay for one print worker to type on the keyboard and another simultaneously to watch the screen. It got its way._

This sounds like a joke made up by a Tea Partier about how unions cut efficiency. I can hardly believe it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Luddites.

</comment><comment><USER34> Socialism at it's best.

<comment><USER35> its* best. If you're gonna fight the stupidities of socialism, please represent well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> While i condemn the violence, i have hard time justifying uber as a new revolution or advancement of technology.

Medallion owners pay close to 1.0 M $ to get the Taxi license from the city (NY) and they are not doing that for charity. If a new middlemen like Uber try to take the market without paying single dime it is bound to cause issues who have played by rules and invested significant money to acquire the license.

Uber simply tries to aggregate the demand side and demand concessions from the supply side to get the leads. Portraying Uber as egalitarian is wrong in so many levels.

<comment><USER37> It's sad how often "Regulation and taxes are for other people" gets relabeled as "Disruption". See: Uber, AirBnB

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is one of the reasons that people don't cross picket lines.

Good people won't cross them out of principle. The unprincipled among us may encounter other obstacles. It is very likely this driver got his just deserts.

<comment><USER38> > Good people won't cross them out of principle.

Can you explain why? I fully respect workers' right to unionize and strike, but there's no reason _I_ should be bound by _their_ strike.

<comment><USER26> Do you understand how strikes work? It is _gasp_ a form of DISRUPTION. Solidarity with the strikes by not crossing the line improves their chances of success.

<comment><USER38> Why should I care about improving their chances of success?

<comment><USER26> If you are a worker you should because improvements eventually expand to non- striking workers in the same field and other fields and because they would do the same for you if you needed support.

If you are a capitalist, you wouldn't.

<comment><USER38> It's a big assumption that improvements eventually expand to others. Yes, _some_ have in the past, but that doesn't mean they all do, or all will.

There's also a massive unstated assumption that there is an improvement at all.

Surely if I happen to disagree with one or both of these assumptions, I can cross a picket line without being a "bad person"?

<comment><USER21> If you cross a picket line, you have publicly cast your lot with a particular class. Whether you are a bad person is in the eye of the beholder.

<comment><USER38> You previously said that good people would avoid crossing a picket line out of principle. Now you seem to be saying that the reason to avoid crossing a picket line is because stupid people with a mob mentality might get the wrong message.

<comment><USER21> I, personally, would consider you a bad person for crossing a picket line. You, or some other person, might feel differently. Whether you accept my assumptions, or the picketers' assumptions, doesn't determine how you will be judged by others.

<comment><USER38> Why would you consider me to be a bad person for crossing a picket line in general?

<comment><USER26> In general you are siding with capital. Assuming it isn't a police strike.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why Finland leads the world in flexible work - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190807-why-finland-leads-the-world-in-flexible-work <comment><USER2> I can highly recommend the world to adopt like in the Nordics at least 4-5 weeks of yearly vacation. Staff are more rested with more vacation so they are more productive plus you get a different perspective having time off. Also companies should allow remote work and flexible hours. Further due to increased automation we could actually work less hours keeping the same output. If we automate more work we could allow us selves more free time, still enjoying the same output.

I think tech companies will lead the way because of the competitive nature hunting for talent. Hopefully other industries will follow. Maybe California as state will lead the way in the US?

Annual leave by country. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_annual_leave_b...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_annual_leave_by_country)

<comment><USER3> One effect of this in the Nordic culture is that often a lot of these holidays are taken at the same time. People take 3 or 4 weeks off at once between the end of June and early August, especially in Norway. Productivity for the company effectively hits zero for 6 weeks whilst the Norwegians have their holiday, then the Swedish and Danish have their turn.

Although the few people that do work get a lot done due to having no meetings or interruptions. There were days in the summer where there were 3 of us in the office, out of 200 in the department. Bliss!

<comment><USER4> I worked in Finland in 2001-2002 in what we would call now startup and even lead managers or scientists in company were not in the office in July-August. They simply worked more during winter and spent as much of Finnish summer outside as possible. But as article mentions, it was usual to take long vacations even in government jobs - if you needed visa for your relative, you'd better have it before June, or you would get it in September, since clerks were out of office :).

<comment><USER3> I worked for a year in an incubator in Oslo, full of start ups that talked about "work hard, play hard" & having to put in extra effort. The building was practically empty by 6pm.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > Since then, discussions about the benefits of flexible working have > intensified around the world, with a boom in large global companies > embracing the concept...

I sure hope companies operating in U.S. adopt this behavior more and more. It always seems like in the U.S. we work harder and not necessarily smarter; certainly not healthier. I'm envious of the health-related foundations that other countries at least try to establish for their citizens. I'm tired of chasing the dollar, and wish to only pursue happiness. </sigh>

<comment><USER6> On the other hand, exactly because of the high work ethic USA excels in many regards that these "well-being nations" do not. But you're right, it doesn't necessarily lead to a better health to work harder, however, often it does lead to better business results.

<comment><USER7> I dispute the "better business results" claim, I don't think that's factually true. But let's assume it is, why then is wealth so much more concentrated[0] in the US?

Let's assume that the US did have "better business results" and let's also assume that that is the result of worse working conditions. Why then are the workers, working in worse conditions, not benefiting from it directly?

Seems like, if that were true, the US is working average workers harder so that the ultra-wealthy can get even wealthier. Does that benefit society at large?

PS - I'd like to link this, called "The Nordic Model"[1] discusses a lot of good (and bad) about that part of the world.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality#OECD_countries)

[1] [https://economics.mit.edu/files/5726](https://economics.mit.edu/files/5726)

<comment><USER6> In contrast, if USA is not performing better then why are most of the digital innovations of US origin? Why do like half of the world's tech billionaires live in Silicon Valley? While Finland has maybe 1?

The Scandinavian countries focus on leveling the playing field for everyone. It allows the less privileged to build a good life, but it also hinders the most ambitious ones. Whereas USA is happy to focus on the extremes, allowing places like Silicon Valley to flourish.

We can argue endlessly whichever is better for the society, but professionals often choose the place to live based on what is best for them, not what political model some place runs on.

<comment><USER7> > Why do like half of the world's tech billionaires live in Silicon Valley?

Because wealth is concentrated at the top... That's the whole problem. Society gets poorer while the ultra-wealthy continue to accumulate wealth.

> It allows the less privileged to build a good life, but it also hinders the > most ambitious ones.

Good..? So your complaint is that Nordic countries try to make give everyone a good standard of living rather than creating poverty so a few more millionaires can become billionaires? That argument doesn't make any sense to me. I don't even see where you're coming from.

> We can argue endlessly whichever is better for the society, but > professionals often choose the place to live based on what is best for them, > not what political model some place runs on.

A lot of professionals aren't ultra-wealthy though. They're the ones working longer hours in the US for similar pay relative to most of Europe. They're being exploited harder and seeing nothing as a result except their proportionate spending power diminish further as their healthcare costs continue to outpace their wages.

<comment><USER8> You are in no way answering to the question: why in Silicon Valley and not in Finland or other countries?

<comment><USER9> Because the military-industrial complex of the world's largest super power invested in the basic research and infrastructure to create this context. It's the same reason the Soviet's excelled in technological pursuits relative to many small European countries and why Russia still has an outsized place in IT.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Its interesting how there are 3 top rated articles today on working hours / patterns.

</comment><comment><USER8> It is fairly easy to pick up a success, make a story around it and generalize. But in the same time Finland is at the top of European countries on the depression. Is there any relation between flexible work and depression? No idea, just throwing random "leads the world" facts.

<comment><USER6> I really doubt it's that. Probably more to do with how little sunshine there is over the winter (which is long and cold).

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Everyday I love this country a little more...

<comment><AUTHOR> Nordic countries are so advanced in so many things... Look at Swede, with its 6 hours/day of work.

<comment><USER12> What? Sweden works 40 hours per week.

<comment><AUTHOR> They were transitioning to a six-hours workday, as far as I know.

\- [https://www.sciencealert.com/sweden-is-shifting- to-a-6-hour-...](https://www.sciencealert.com/sweden-is-shifting-to-a-6-hour- workday) \- [https://www.thelocal.se/20140408/swedish-workers-to-test- six...](https://www.thelocal.se/20140408/swedish-workers-to-test-six-hour- work-days)

Experiments shown an increment in productivity and happiness.

<comment><USER13> Well I work and live in Sweden (notice I put work first?) and it's far from 6hrs/day for most industries. Actually now that I think about it I don't know a single person who only works 6 hours per day. The idea is great though, wish it were true :/

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh, what a shame, I though it was real :-(

<comment><USER14> It's never as real or good as you think. France's famous 35 hour workweek only really applies to people who clock in hourly wages. Even there, it's merely the number where overtime kicks in.

If you're a professional/salaried you work as much as the job requires, just like the US.

<comment><USER15> Plus it is super difficult to get said professional/salaried job because they are so afraid of hiring folks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> God that kind of articles are awful. Don't tell me an effing child fable, just lay the facts.

</comment><comment><USER17> im pretty sure scandanavia leads the world in quality of life

<comment><USER18> Finland isn't Scandanavia.

<comment><USER19> In common English usage it often is:

>In English usage, Scandinavia also sometimes refers to the Scandinavian Peninsula, or to the broader region including Finland and Iceland, which is always known locally as the Nordic countries.

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I can't fathom what life is like in such a small country.

If 1 major company goes out of business, does it cause chaos?

High unemployment and lower tax revenue sounds like any moment the country could find itself in an economic depression.

In my local area this almost happened.

<comment><USER21> I'm from New Zealand. What's our major companies? None of them employ more than 20,000 employees globally. Sure that's a lot of people to lose a job, but the big companies are building, groceries, airlines, and telecommunications. If the companies go under, the demand for the products doesn't disappear.

As for unemployment rate, 3.9%. Pretty close to the UK, USA, China.

As for tax, on $100K USD, you'd be taxed 28.3% on your income, and 15% on your consumption via GST.

<comment><USER6> Interesting, since New Zealand is in many ways comparable with Finland.

In Finland the tax rate for $100K USD would be 41.3% on average. The common consumption tax is 24% (VAT). On top of that, certain goods like alcohol, gas, cars, could have additional goods specific tax that could be well over 100%.

Unemployment stands at I think 6.6%.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Why $culturally_homogeneous_and_highly_educated_country leads the world in $social_wellness

<comment><USER23> Let's look at a simple fact: Finland as a Parliament of 200 seat for a population of roughly 5.5 million. France as a Parliament of 577 seat for a population of roughly 67 million.

Thats around 3 times more representative per citizen.

It's more like more democracy = more social wellness.

EDIT: To have the same amount of representative in France, we would need ~1900 députés, which mean 19 députés per département, and ~6 députés per arondissement.

<comment><USER24> Finland has 4-5000 trees per person. Clearly it's the abundance of trees that creates the social wellness.

<comment><USER23> Well ofc the reality is more complex than that and my example is an oversimplification. But the point still stand. The more a country is democratic, the more benefit will be distributed to the global population instead of a small portion of it.

<comment><USER24> I don't think many would agree that a larger parliament would make something "more democratic". It must matter infinitely less than e.g. a media climate, level of corruption, regulation of political donations, etc. etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Nokia is a good example of why this doesn't work.

As soon as there was a talented company that wanted to work hard for the market (Apple), Nokia was toast.

<comment><USER25> Surely Apple is an example of working smarter rather than harder?

<comment><USER6> it's of both. Nokia was heavily constrained by the Finnish labor laws and working culture.

<comment><USER26> Listening to people who worked at Nokia before shut down there was a lot of wasted time and effort on products that lead nowhere. They missed the boat with the smart phones. It took too long for Nokia to come out with a smart phone line and it was plagued with hardware design flaws. Then they gambled on the OS and rest is history.

Had Nokia jumped on board of the smart phone grace right off the bat and supported Google instead of Microsoft the scene might be way different.

<comment><USER27> It's hard to predict an alternate future, but by the time the adopted Windows they were already in a bad position.

To put it simply, they missed the transition to smartphones, just like Blackberry. They were in control of their OS, it makes sense they didn't want to give it away before it became clear that they couldn't do it.

They had Symbian, which was old and crappy, and Maemo then Meego which apparently, they didn't push enough. The real winning move would have been to bet everything on Meego, bring in the partners they have with Symbian before Android took the market. They didn't do it because they were clinging to the dying Symbian.

Honestly, if they had adopted Android right away I'm not sure they would have been able to compete against HTC/LG/Samsung and other Asian companies.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


British teenager bikes on top of water for charity, won't say how - <AUTHOR> http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/post/British-teenager-bikes-on-top-of-water-for-chari?urn=top-wp203

<comment><USER2> It's a fake. He was balanced on top of a wooden pole.</comment>


Y2K 2.0: Banking software is not ready to handle Zimbabwe's inflation. - <AUTHOR> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/24/zimbabwes-money-worth-mor_n_114838.html

<comment><USER2> I wonder if a lot of relational database schemata intended to store monetary amounts can't handle amounts in the quadrillions.

PostgreSQL can only go up to 92233720368547758.07 ([http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/datatype- money.htm...](http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/datatype-money.html)) -- 17 digits. Zimbabwe is pushing its limits.

SQL Server 2000's money datatype limit is a few orders of magnitude smaller (<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa933242>(SQL.80).aspx), and so a 15 digit number can't be stored in it AFAIK.

<comment><USER3> The "money" type in Postgres is deprecated (e.g. see the locale-dependent restore issues that doc link mentions). "numeric" is an arbitrary precision data type that is probably a better choice for representing currency.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> On the bright side...

Brazil also suffered from hyperinflation during the late 80s and early 90s, requiring programmers to deal with the craziest policies you (or the IMF) can imagine -- From nationwide account freezes to exchanging entire currencies overnight. As a result, today Brazil has one of the most advanced banking systems in the world, even compared to systems in the US and Europe, and extremely competent senior programmers and innovators in the industry.

<comment><USER5> Maybe we'll see some good mathematicians from Zimbabwe soon. You know, guys that grew up counting in quintillions and using scientific notation every day. They should have quite a knack for big numbers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> <sarcasm> Hello, my name is Robert Mugabe. I am the Leader of Zimbabwe. My treasury has excess funds that we cannot currently use in Zimbabwe due to political circumstances. I would like to see this money put to good use and you seem like a good person. If you send me $50,000 in good faith, I will mail you 100 billion dollars within a month. </sarcasm>

Hey, it's a scam that's honest! Maybe ;-)

</comment><comment><USER7> My first thought reading this, of course, was "they should have written the ATM controllers in Lisp".

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> They just dropped 10 zeros to fix the bug: <http://redwoodage.com/content/view/143539/49>

</comment><comment><USER8> Wow, call me crazy, but I'm buying one of those on eBay immediately.

</comment><comment><USER9> "Inflation" isn't zimbabwe's problem. Zimbabwe's problem is political tyranny. It's a nation hell bent on self genocide.

We need to stop worrying about inflation there and "just let it go". Build a fence around the whole country and don't let anyone in or out until nothing moves inside but the wild animals.

<comment><USER10> The people of Zimbabwe are not a buffer zone.</comment></comment>


Proof of ((p ∨ q) → r) ↔ (p → r) ∧ (q → r) with Lean - <AUTHOR> https://youtu.be/p4IrbnPomXg <comment><USER2> It looks like the "youtu.be" domain is banned on HN (probably because lots of spam uses it), and posts with that domain end up "[dead]". I "vouched" your post, so it's live now. To avoid problems in the future, please use the regular "youtube.com" domain when posting content from YouTube - that seems to work OK on HN.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you greenyoda!</comment></comment>


Why You Should Care About Trump's War on Whistleblowers (10 min) [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvDDiKsChsM <comment><USER2> I thought Trump supported Wikileaks in the pre election, it was Obama that refused to pardon Snowden before leaving office.</comment>


The Last Article That Needs to be Written About Sexism in IT by a Male - <AUTHOR> http://leftnode.com/entry/the-last-article-that-needs-to-be-written-about-sexism-in-it-by-a-male.html

<comment><USER2> To be consistent with your opinion; women should write no articles or have an opinion on the challenges men face.

War for instance. No females should be in command positions or authority over the armed forces because they don't know what its like to bleed on a battlefield.

Workplace fatalities are also a predominately male. So OSHA should be run only by males.

</comment><comment><USER3> Why can't the "privileged classes" discuss these issues and have open discourse with women? As long as both parties have open minds, it seems like a far better way to walk in someone else's shoes.

I'm gay and think that it's hard for many straight people to understand some of the setbacks I've encountered - but I would MUCH rather talk about it to achieve better understanding than letting people assume that I'm seething and angry all the time.

</comment><comment><USER4> I disagree. It is true that a male is hardly qualified to talk about how a female perceives things. But sexism in IT is an issue that concerns females AND males. A male should be allowed to say that, as a male, he thinks that he is annoyed by any kind of positive discrimination in the work place.

In the same vein, a white person is allowed to have an opinion on positive discrimination, an heterosexual is allowed to have an opinion on gay marriage, and someone who doesn't carry a gun is allowed to have an opinion on gun regulations.

Oh, and to defuse any bashing: I'm black, I have no opinion on gay marriage, or on sexism in IT (not working there).

<comment><USER5> You're not exactly qualified to guess how people perceive things, but can you not relate their words second hand?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't really get this attitude. So it's okay for me to write a school essay about the women's suffrage movement? Okay. It's cool for me to write about the civil rights movement? Okay.

Why are things going on today special? Do you think that because I'm white and in a suburban basement without any real property to my name I can't talk about the Chinese housing bubble?

I'm sorry, but if you want to claim that an article is poorly written or uses incorrect sources, say so. If your opinion would change simply based on the pseudonym that something is published under, you do not have an opinion tied to reality.

</comment><comment><USER7> So are only mentally ill people qualified to write articles about mental illness? Are only cancer patients qualified to write articles about cancer treatment? Are only fat people qualified to write about the difficulty of weight loss?

The author is implicitly assuming that sexism is not capable of being studied in a scientific fashion, and so all we can do is have people write up their personal anecdotes.

</comment><comment><USER8> A good post. An added complication is that it can be tempting to (some, not all) math or engineering focused people to look at problems through a sort of "universal" math or engineering focused lens. Yet fields like theology, social affairs, law, economics, gender issues, or politics have their own (and multiple) philosophies and systems of logic and shoehorning any sort of universal, math or engineering-oriented system of logic onto them is likely to bring discord.

In my (limited) experience, religious engineers/mathematicians often seem to be aware of this concept and can balance scientific philosophies with those of theology and faith while recognizing the distinction between them.

In the same way that there are devoutly religious people who twist every matter in life into a religious matter, I wonder if there are "devoutly technical" people who twist everything into calculations and analysis.

<comment><USER5> And... the devoutly technical want to convert all of humanity to their side, wherein not viewing things through the same lens is seen as a sign of mental shortcoming.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Privileged sounds right. What makes him think that he gets to decide.

</comment><comment><USER10> Yes. This. Very much so.</comment>


Why expat Americans are giving up their passports - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/35383435 <comment><USER2> _She is in the process of relinquishing her American nationality_ Is citizenship and nationality the same thing in USA? Because it isn't in Europe. You can't rewrite where you are from... I would open an account in a bank that has no US presence. Would that solve Jane's problem?</comment>


The NSA's next move: silencing university professors? - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/10/nsa-matthew-green-takedown-blog-post-johns-hopkins

<comment><USER2> We are in very bad place when people and organizations start self censoring their content just to be sure.

<comment><AUTHOR> agreed</comment></comment>


Why Tesla cars have AC Induction motors instead of DC - <AUTHOR> https://www.tesla.com/blog/induction-versus-dc-brushless-motors
The above link was found in the original discussion board, which is here: https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/ac-induction-motor-why
Some key observations:
Batteries can't store AC electricity. One requires power electronics circuitry to convert DC to AC which might involve a trade off. Yet why go for AC motors?
Below are the arguments
- DC motors require rare earth magnets which can add to the weight of the motor which can be expensive & can't be mass produced. They can only be extracted. AC motors require the induction coil which can be easily manufactured. There can be numerous counter arguments to it, but when measured, advantages of AC motors manufacturing will always weigh more than DC.
- AC generators have 3% more efficiency than DC (as mentioned in one comment) during re-generative braking
- High Traction: Max torque at 0 rpm - this is something that only electric vehicles with high traction electric motors can claim. 3 phase AC induction motors have been known to give 100% of their torque as soon as you start them. <comment><USER2> An actual DC motor uses a commutator and brushes, which is a serious maintenance and safety issue. The motors can have permanent magnets or field windings. A common old school speed control for electric golf carts was to control the current in the field windings via a variable or tapped resistor

Thing with multiphase AC motors is there are a number of ways to skin the cat. They each have slight advantages and disadvantages. I think an AC induction motor is generally efficient over a wide range and has a higher output per pound then a permanent magnet brushless DC motor.

Far as I know there isn't much difference in power inverter. Note high voltage power inverters are hella efficient because your losses are due to a fixed voltage drop through the power transistors X current. For a high voltage inverter the current is low, voltage high[1]. Means the percent loss is low[2].

[1] Opposite is low voltage switching power supplies where the output voltage is low and currents are high. You see people use active diodes to avoid voltage drops despite the expense. Even then 90-95% efficiency is common.

[2] Imagine a 75kw inverter running at 300VDC. 75kw/300 = 250 amps. If the voltage drop in the power transistors is 6 volts then the power loss is, 6V X 250A = 1500W. 1.5kw/75kw = 0.02. So the inverter is 98% efficient.

<comment><AUTHOR> > [1] Opposite is low voltage switching power supplies where the output > voltage is low and currents are high. You see people use active diodes to > avoid voltage drops despite the expense. Even then 90-95% efficiency is > common.

Thanks, I din't know about this one at all. I should have paid more attention during the lectures, missed this part totally.</comment></comment>


My life as a child chef - <AUTHOR> https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/11/25/my-life-as-a-child-chef <comment><USER2> Even if you don't care about cooking, this article hits two themes that repeatedly pop up on HN:

1\. how people first acquire and cultivate skills, and the less-clear-than- you-might-think role of "seriousness" in doing so, and

2\. the stories of people who enjoy a confluence of interest, skill, resources, and what looks like a fair amount of luck, and (spoiler alert) still don't achieve neat narrative-friendly success. I'm thinking of those comments that go "yeah, but we don't get to see all the stories of people who did thing x and _failed_ " (though in the end this story is less about failure and more about eventually deciding other things were more interesting).

<comment><USER3> A lot of the narrative structure reminded me of child musician almost- prodigies. People who are feted, but sigh, and in the mid & late teens, move on to other things.

The obsessiveness of the skill acquisition makes me link late childhood with hyper-ability to acquire skills.

Anyway, just musings. Be interesting to see a development psychologist weigh in here on the variety of normal childhood progressions.</comment></comment>


F.B.I. Seeks Wider Wiretap Law for Web - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/technology/17wiretap.html

<comment><USER2> Is this really what "the people" need in a recession? When will it be evident that it doesn't matter who is in charge, the government is always intent on encroaching our privacy? Remember that the "patriot act" was written well before 9/11, sitting, just waiting for the right _opportunity_.

<comment><USER3> Why should it matter what the people want or need? There is power to be had and campaign-contributions to be made.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is most disconcerting. Here's a bit of background:

The original NYTimes Charlie Savage article from September breaking the news the that "crypto wars" may be heating up again:

<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/us/27wiretap.html>

Blog pointing out that current law specifically allows for encryption, and that what the Feds are after could be a significant change:

[http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2010/09/calea-and- encryption.htm...](http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2010/09/calea-and- encryption.html)

Two good articles from networkworld:

[http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2010/100610antonopoul...](http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2010/100610antonopoulos.html?fsrc=netflash- rss)

[http://www.networkworld.com/newsletters/sec/2010/101810sec1....](http://www.networkworld.com/newsletters/sec/2010/101810sec1.html)

The EFF's position:

<https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/government-seeks>

</comment><comment><USER5> this link requires login

<comment><USER6> Must be an A/B based login. Didn't require login for me.

<comment><USER5> perhaps you are right since when I get to it from google it is just fine

[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=http:/...](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/technology/17wiretap.html&btnG=Search)

<comment><USER7> When google is the referrer, they never require login, but on many occasions, I'm able to successfully follow HN links to NYTimes articles and not end up with a 'login required.' I'm not sure why.</comment></comment></comment></comment>