PG&E turning off power to protect against fire has created a new disaster - <AUTHOR> https://slate.com/business/2019/10/california-power-outage-pge-fires-new-kind-of-disaster.html <comment><USER4> It's absolutely crazy reading about these events happening in a first world country in the richest state in that country. Something has gone seriously wrong when we're seeing near-daily stories about power outages in the tech capital of the world. Combined with all the other issues plaguing CA right now, I can't see why companies still base themselves there. Eventually the "all the tech people are there" argument won't be strong enough and competing markets like NYC, Seattle, and Austin will win out.

<comment><USER5> In many parts of the world, power is unreliable due to a lack of resources -- fuel, capital, labour, distribution, maintenance. Power cuts occur, either scheduled or unscheduled, due to an inability to meet demand.

The case in California is different. The fundamental resources are present: there is fuel (or, in many cases, hydroelectric, geothermal, nuclear, wind, or solar power) for generation. Distribution systems exist. There is no shortage of local labour. Systems aren't going offline due to direct failures of maintenance.

Rather: the outages are prompted by a consequence risk. Given the extreme fire danger throughout the state, the least source of ignition creates a fire hazard, and electrical transmission and distribution equipment is a high risk for such ignition.

Previous _major_ wildfires have been sparked by: mower blades, rims of flat tires sparking on pavement, catalytic converters parked over dry grass, sparks from a hammer. And electrical equipment.

There's a case to be made that PG&E have neglected maintenance activies _not_ related directly to continued operation of their plant, but to risk mitigation, and I'm not going to argue one way or the other.

But the fundamental problem California's electric utilities face is _not_ that of most of the world, where _means_ are insufficient, but that _consequence_ is too great to ignore. I'm coming to see this generally as a late-stage dynamic in many technological areas, one in which the unintended consequences (sometimes unanticipated, often not) simply rise to a level of major significance. You might think of these generally as hygiene factors (the phrase I've been using).

Past examples would include:

\- Basic personal and public hygiene factors for maintaining public health in cities.

\- Pollution control laws affecting solid, liquid, and gas emissions of activities and plants.

\- Environmental contamination as with lead, asbestos, pesticides, tobacco, sulfur dioxide ("acid rain"), and CO2.

\- Individual psychological and widespread sociological negative impacts of information overload, media saturation and manipulation, and computer systems overexposure.

\- Running extensive high-capacity electrical distribution systems through increasingly fire-prone landscapes.

Or put another way: this is increasingly our future.

<comment><USER6> "Previous major wildfires have been sparked by: mower blades, rims of flat tires sparking on pavement, catalytic converters parked over dry grass, sparks from a hammer. And electrical equipment."

Honestly, at that point, you have a fire, it's just not burning yet. The idea that we can prevent fires from happening by preventing _all sources of ignition_ in hundreds and hundreds of square miles is completely absurd. Even though Man is responsible for a lot of ignition, he's not responsible for all of them. Even if you completely removed civilization, it's still going to be a fire.

I don't have a solution, or any good news here. Best thing I can think of at this point is spending a shit ton of money and creating some _very large_ fire breaks around cities and then burning on purpose, but California probably can't do that either. By the time the eminent domain lawsuits and counterlawsuits happened, the environmental review happens ("we plan on killing lots of things, and then we're going to set the rest of the stuff we didn't kill on fire" isn't exactly going to sail through the review process), and everyone gets their beaks wetted, it'll just end up being a giant waste of money that gets ended with the fires occur anyhow. And the fire breaks would have to be _huge_ ; we're probably measuring the necessary widths with miles fairly reasonably. (Possibly <1 mile, but certainly multiple tenths of a mile.) And the _liability_. Nobody sane would take that job.

<comment><USER7> "Even though Man is responsible for a lot of ignition, he's not responsible for all of them. Even if you completely removed civilization, it's still going to be a fire."

Actually, other than a one-in-a-billion naturally occurring compost pile that, by chance, falls into place and reaches burning temperature, internally, the only natural source of wildland fire ignition is lightning.

Which is interesting because in many parts of coastal Marin/Sonoma/Mendocino/Napa counties, there is, essentially, no lightning. I have lived in Marin for ten years and have seen lightning exactly one time - and that was during the rainy season when ignition would have very low consequence.

Wildland fires in the north bay / Sac Delta / Wine Country are ignited by people ...

<comment><USER6> My core point is that if your "fire prevention" plan is to drive the number of ignition points to zero, you don't have a fire prevention plan, because even the impossible isn't going to be enough. It's not a sensible answer, and it's not really sensible to blame the fires on the individual ignition events.

Or, to put it another way, when we set off an explosive, the explosion isn't really "caused" by the electrical spark; the unusual thing that happened that primarily caused the detonation is the _collection of a lot of explosives in one place_. Explosives experts are careful around _any_ concentration of explosives, because that's the _real_ cause. By contrast you can play with the electrical detonation system in isolation all day long and at most you'll shock yourself a bit, and that only with extreme carelessness. The _primary_ cause of these fires is the accumulation of huge amounts of easily-burnable material, not which of the thousands+ of ignition events was the unlucky one to set it off.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> PG&E is being turned into a witch to hang on the stake. But people are seriously completely missing the real problem. California is a gigantic tinderbox of mismanaged forests, tons of dead and dry material laying around and with climate change, shit is even drier. California is going to catch fire whether the power is on or not. A fucking car trailer started one of the major fires last year. There's at least a decade of completely piss poor forest management responsible without controlled burns and fire breaks to plan for the _naturally destined to occur forest fires_.

<comment><USER9> > PG&E is being turned into a witch to hang on the stake.

Are you saying that they didn't neglect preventive maintenance while returning billions to shareholders in dividends?

> California is going to catch fire whether the power is on or not.

That California is going to—as it always has—havr fires, including major ones, with or without utility mismanagement is not the issue in dispute. PG&E isn't being blamed for that.

PG&E is being blamed for the degree to which it's failure to maintain it's infrastructure while returning profits to it's investors has contributed to the amount of fire damage. And, yes, climate and other factors which increase overall for risk are a multiplier on that, but if the hadn't been deferrring maintenance for years, that would be a multiplier on zero.

> There's at least a decade of completely piss poor forest management > responsible

That's hardly the reason for the fires that aren't forest fires.

<comment><USER10> > Are you saying that they didn't neglect preventive maintenance while > returning billions to shareholders in dividends?

While that's literally true, it falsely implies that the former is related to the latter.

See: [https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUC_Public_Website/Co...](https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUC_Public_Website/Content/About_Us/Organization/Divisions/Policy_and_Planning/PPD_Work/PPD_Work_Products_\(2014_forward\)/PPD%20General%20Rate%20Case%20Manual.pdf) (page 18)

"The CPUC sets rates according to the following formula:

Revenue Requirements = O&M + Taxes + Depreciation + Rate Base * r - <USER2>

Where: O&M = normal business expenses for running a utility company,

Taxes = Federal, state and local taxes,

Depreciation = accumulated depreciation of plants used to produce and deliver the utility's product,

Rate Base = net value of plant in service plus working capital, r = rate of return on invested capital, and

OR = other operating revenue."

When you pay $100 on your electric bill, part of that goes to operations and maintenance. If PG&E cuts that line item, it's profits don't go up. It's profits are a separate line item calculated as a percentage of its invested capital. That's where the dividends come from. Indeed, if PG&E can enhance fire safety through capital investments, such as by replacing worn out equipment, and the CPUC lets them make those investments, then PG&E's profit would go up.

PG&E can't pay out more in dividends by shortchanging operations and maintenance.

<comment><USER11> _PG &E can't pay out more in dividends by shortchanging operations and maintenance._

Not legally. But they have been charged with illegally doing this. The _judge_ at their bankruptcy hearing _described_ them as doing exactly that. Does PG&E have to take your wallet at gunpoint before the idea they're thieves makes sense?

I mean, PG&E was aware of necessary expenditures, suppressed knowledge of those needed expenditures and instead continued to pay standard dividends[1]. Saying this isn't taking money from mainteninance and giving it to shareholder is the worst kind of newspeak.

And sure, PG&E get the profits the PUC thinks they should get for whatever needed expenditures they might make. BUT this has two wrinkles. A) It's hard to argue you deserve a lot of money for doing what you should have done earlier. B) This is just ordinary profits, a percentage of the expenditures you make but just taking money that's lying around and giving it to share holders is much more profitable, you don't need any more "upfront" here - there's long terms consequences but in today's environment, management seldom faces these consequences, just all the entities a given company deals with. Of course, any company that says capital investment be damned, I'm giving the whole flow to the stockholder will look more profitable tomorrow and even the possibility of good future investment doesn't look as good as this tomorrow. Unfortunately, we are now living in the "next week" of such decisions.

[1] Non-paywalled version of WSJ article: [https://www.marketscreener.com/PG- E-CORPORATION-13946/news/P...](https://www.marketscreener.com/PG-E- CORPORATION-13946/news/PG-E-Knew-for-Years-Its-Lines-Could-Spark-Wildfires- And-Didn-t-Fix-Them-28878640/)

<comment><USER12> > The judge at their bankruptcy hearing described them as doing exactly that.

I went looking for a source here. You're right; Judge Alsup, overseeing the bankruptcy hearings, had some pretty damning words for PG&E: [https://www.kqed.org/news/11737336/judge-pge-paid-out- stock-...](https://www.kqed.org/news/11737336/judge-pge-paid-out-stock- dividends-instead-of-trimming-trees)

The arguments upthread pointing the finger at CPUC were somewhat persuasive to me before seeing this, but after reading these words from Alsup—a reasonable judge from what I've seen of him—what the California politicians are saying make a lot more sense to me. Sounds like PG&E does need to shoulder a good deal of the blame here.

<comment><USER9> > You're right; Judge Alsup, overseeing the bankruptcy hearings,

As described in the article you cite, Alsup is overseeing their criminal probation resulting from their multiple felony convictions for the San Bruno gas explosion in 2010, not the bankruptcy case.

Dennis Montali is the judge in the bankruptcy case, see, e.g., [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/business/energy- environme...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/business/energy- environment/pge-bankruptcy.html)

<comment><USER12> You're right. Thanks for the correction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I happen to be vacationing in Northern CA this week. We drove up the coast on Hwy 1 then 101 from Oakland to Crescent City. After we left Oakland, we saw no public power for 250 miles. Just a handful of places were open with generators.

There was 1 open gas station for all of Hwy 1. We waited in line an hour.

The economic impact of this event is mind boggling.

<comment><USER14> They should hold PG&E liable for that! </s>

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm not from the USA, is my understanding of this correct?

The power utility is liable for fires caused if a branch blows into its power lines during high winds. So the power utility has chosen to turn off the power in high winds?

<comment><USER16> The intended consequence would have been for the company to cut vegetation around its lines so this can't happen, but apparently turning off power is more profitable.

<comment><USER17> they only have nearly twenty thousand miles of high tension power lines to look out after, how hard can that be /s?

then throw in a hundred thousand miles of everything else.

problems look simple until scale is understood. the real truth here is PG&E is effectively a state run corporation, they are so heavily regulated and managed by the state that the only "corporate" part of them is the investors who buy into these state regulated utilities in hopes of safe returns.

so in effect, the real guilty party here is the state government but the illusion must be kept in place that they are instead the fixers.

<comment><USER18> I feel like this might, in part, also be caused by the hate for taxes in the US. The goal seems to be lowering taxes as much as possible until only the bare minimum is left. Proactively maintaining public land is not something people deem important (until it's too late) so that's an easy thing to skip. 'Adopt a highway' is a perfect example of something that, in my opinion, should be taken care of through taxes, but is now the responsibility of good Samaritans.

Now this is what it looks like from far away in Europe and I might be completely wrong.

<comment><USER19> Saying that California is a low tax state is completely wrong. The state is known for high taxes even when compared to other liberal states in the US.

<comment><USER20> This is misleading due to how states structure their tax code. California has a high top marginal rate, but its progressive taxation system leads to many of the middle class and under paying lower taxes than in other states. I live in Iowa, for example, and the top marginal tax rate is 8.9% for all income earned over $72k. The top marginal rate in California is 13.3%, but only applies to income over $1MM. A couple making $80k in California will pay about $2k (effective 2.52%) in income taxes, while the same couple in Iowa will pay $3,976 (effective 4.97%). You can't just compare tax rates by comparing the top marginal rate. You've got to look at how they actually impact people.

<comment><USER21> As if that's not complicated enough, throw in the 10% CA sales tax versus 7% in Iowa. And property tax. Prop 13, Prop 8(?), et. al., can make a considerable difference, as I understand it. Props or not, the total is likely to be higher just because housing is much more expensive in CA. 20% of 200,000 is a lot less than 10% of 1MM.

But in the end, as a WA resident who has given serious consideration to moving to CA and has done this math a few different ways, my gut has a hard time believing Iowa's overall tax burden is comparable to California's. Regardless, maybe it's true or maybe it's not, but is an extra $10,000 in taxes what's _really_ keeping you from picking up and moving? I posit that for most on HN, no, it's a lot of other factors like housing and traffic.

But to the topic at hand, others have pointed out that PG&E is financed by rate payers, not taxes. And CA has some pretty high electric rates. So why are the forests catching on fire?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> During the first wave of outages for winds up North, PG&E shut off Moraga's power. We had very little winds aloft, but a few hours into the outage, some idiot started a fire with a vape (that's the story) which caused a mini evacuation from our neighborhood at 3AM....IN THE DARK.

Today, while Orinda and Lafayette had no power, we did. Extremely windy today!

The reason our outages are backwards appears to be due to the fact we're a tiny branch off a main line that runs well North of here. They can't turn us down unless they turn all those people down as well.

By my guess our chances of fire are pretty were pretty much a guarantee from this whole thing.

Thanks PG&E.

<comment><USER23> Right, but it'd be a fire that PG&E aren't responsible for starting. This is the outcome of threatening to enforce responsibility on PG&E for fires caused by their lines.

Not to say this is the way it _had_ to go, the alternative I see a lot of people proposing is that some level of additional investment in lines maintenance/clearing would have allowed PG&E to safely continue supplying power through the dry season. What I don't see there though is any consideration as to whether that made financial sense for the company.

Given that anything other than a naive view of the world tells us that a private corporation's focus will be it's liabilities and bottom line, it's hard to see (admittedly from the huge distance at which I stand) what other way this could have gone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> A major part of the issue here is that although PQ&E is a private company, they're heavily regulated by the state. Price controls plus a political mandate to invest in green industry has left it with few resources for maintaining existing infrastructure.

<comment><USER9> > Price controls plus a political mandate to invest in green industry has left > it with few resources for maintaining existing infrastructure.

But, until their long failure to invest in required maintenance started manifesting in massive liabilities for fires in 2017, plenty of money to return $billions to shareholders in dividends; clearly, in your understanding, those funds weren't a fungible resource that could have instead been invested in maintenance.

(An understanding not shared by the federal judge overseeing their criminal probation for their felony conviction in the 2010 San Bruno gas explosion, who—in finding their actions leading to the 2017 and 2018 fires to be a violation of that probation—placed the blame for the fires squarely on PG&E's decision to, for years, prioritize dividends over required maintenance.)

<comment><USER25> Those dividends are necessary to raise the private capital necessary to run PG&E. It's not a charity, and it's certainly not a "market." It's a state- sponsored monopoly. The only other ways to fund it are increased energy prices or tax dollars.

<comment><USER9> > Those dividends are necessary to raise the private capital necessary to run > PG&E.

 _Private_ capital is only required to have someone to return dividends to.

> It's not a charity

Yes, exactly, because it's a for profit institution, it is structurally incentivized to return profits to investors.

> It's a state-sponsored monopoly.

Which makes it being a private, profit-making enterprise nonsensical, exactly.

<comment><USER26> You mention profit a lot, but do you know how a utility earns money? Rate payer might be the obvious answer, but there is another.

Capital projects, investments into itself that make the company tick. New plants, improve infrastructure (down to the application server). See: [https://blog.aee.net/how-do-electric-utilities-make- money](https://blog.aee.net/how-do-electric-utilities-make-money)

Now, that doesn't excuse them because its entirely possible they did not invest wisely. But simply blaming "profit" is hand wavy anti-corporate speak, which doesn't necessarily explain what is happening.

<comment><USER9> > You mention profit a lot, but do you know how a utility earns money? Rate > payer might be the obvious answer, but there is another.

No, there isn't.

> Capital projects, investments into itself that make the company tick.

That doesn't make money, it reduces operating expenses and increases operating margins at the same rates. The money still comes from ratepayers. And public entities reduce operating expenses the same way, the benefits (after paying for any debt financing) just go to taxpayers, rather than private investors.

<comment><USER26> I said earn money. But I phrased it poorly, so i'll explain further with what I know. I also assume we're still talking about regulated utilities.

Capital project costs (along with other fixed costs) generally get passed through to rate payers + an approved ROR by the public utility board. Operating expenses cut into this. Capital project costs do not necessarily reduce operation expenses directly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> cali has added 10 million people since 1990 but 30% of PG&E's infrastructure is over a century old.

also in the 1990s, deregulation allowed the valuable parts of various electricity companies to be sold off in a classic private equity vulture move, leaving the utilities basically holding the bag on largely crufty shells. the governor said it all:

> Wilson admitted publicly that defects in the deregulation system would need > fixing by "the next governor".

it's hard to imagine this ending well. i would advocate for regulatory enforcement via state attorney general election as the most direct /potential/ route for changing things. obviously jailing executives would be more effective, but despite way more deaths than boeing, that seems unlikely.

<comment><USER28> > the governor said it all:

> Wilson admitted publicly that defects in the deregulation...

For anyone who may be less familiar with 90s CA politics, this refers to then governor Pete Wilson (R) who was responsible for the utility deregulation which then became an albatross around his successors' necks.

<comment><USER29> Lots of states have deregulated. but other states have not had the experience of California.

What makes California different that deregulation failed so badly?

<comment><USER30> "Deregulation" is a term that doesn't convey much information. In Australia we 'deregulated' the power industry. That means that we swapped shareholders in for government collecting the profit and removed some of the regulations.

The problem is that the remaining regulations created a hugely complicated market and _still_ involved a lot of price controls for arbitrary things. Eg, "network charges component of retail electricity prices is set ... by the Australian Energy Regulator ... based on ...operational and maintenance expenditure" [0]. So we have an unregulated market where the cost of electricity goes crazy because wholesalers overspend on grid maintenance and get no-risk profit.

I don't know how California tried to do it, but in Australia deregulation didn't mean 'try and set prices using a market'. That was too hard and they didn't manage to set up a system that worked. It meant 'try and redirect profit from government to private enterprise'. Not surprisingly, the whole system is a disaster and worse than if they hadn't ever tried. I still think an actual free-market system would have worked but the design might be too delicate to run the political gauntlet and get legislated.

[0] [https://www.rba.gov.au/information/foi/disclosure- log/pdf/10...](https://www.rba.gov.au/information/foi/disclosure- log/pdf/101115.pdf) \- I think I'm characterising the situation fairly but rely heavily on general knowledge.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Here is an example: [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-california- wildfire/as-wi...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-wildfire/as- wildfire-rages-in-los-angeles-city-tells-wealthy-to-warn-staff-of-dangers- idUSKBN1X813H)

A branch broke and landed on a power line, sparking a fire.

I'm curious what PG&E could do different, it sounds like the tree wasn't even very close to the power line, but wind pushed it.

Turning off power like this during wind-storms might be the permanent new normal.

<comment><USER31> Underground the power distribution like in France.

It's expensive but probably less costly in the long run.

<comment><USER29> Wouldn't that cost something like $1 trillion to do for the entire state?

Math: 155147 miles * $750/foot

And an article [https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/environment/2019/10/11/...](https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/environment/2019/10/11/cost- to-bury-california-fire-prone-power-lines-why-not/3937653002/) confirming it's pretty much out of reach. $15,000 per household estimate (and 1,000 years!!).

<comment><USER32> You wouldn't necessarily have to do the entire state but rather start doing this in high-risk places first.

<comment><USER33> Good point. Is it also true that high risk places (forest/rural) are probably cheaper and easier to install underground than low risk places (urban)?

<comment><USER5> A lot of long-distance, high-voltage transmission crosses what's effectively wilderness. You've got issues of unstable slopes, earthquake faults, flooding, and ground-current losses (a big problem with undergrounded power).

And that's before you look at getting crews in place.

Then there's the question of monitoring, servicing, and repair after undergrounding.

It's definitely an option. But not a cheap or universally applicable one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Given that we lost cell coverage as well as power. Really regretting the Tesla after 3 days without power.

<comment><USER35> I think this point needs to be highlighted here:

No power = no cell coverage

Landlines are a thing of the past and for the most part that means that people lack the ability to call for help beyond your basic 911 service.

So we've effectively tied two pieces of critical infrastructure together and made one dependent upon the other.

That needs to be addressed and resolved.

<comment><USER36> It is pretty common for cell towers to have backup power. Not all of them do, but many.

<comment><USER21> I'm assuming backup power is a diesel generator, though, right? My experience with long-term WA outages is that the diesel runs out in a few days, and no one comes to refill it.

Amateur radio license: if my wife can pass the test, anyone on HN ought to be able to.

<comment><USER5> You'll want to have a refueling SLA on that generator.

The risk profile as of a month or so ago now includes short-notice extended multiple-day intentional power-outs from the utility service itself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Could this disaster be turned into an opportunity? Could it spur decentralized approached to energy creation, such as solar with a power wall?

California has so many inventive people and access to capital. Maybe this could be the impetus that would let them and us kick the hydrocarbon habit.

<comment><USER38> This was my thought as well. Nothing like a crisis to spur invention. I did the math on a power wall. It's too expensive to be feasible. Two units with installation cost $20K. That doesn't include the solar panels required to keep it charged. You can get a gas generator with similar capacity for $5K. Not to mention gas is typically readily available.

<comment><USER25> Exactly right. I got a Harbor Freight generator, installed a natural gas carburetor and plumbed in a quick release valve on our outside natural gas line. It will run the whole house, including the gas furnace and water heater. I love the idea of battery backup for our solar panels, but it's super expensive, and the payoff is so distant the NPV approaches zero.

<comment><USER39> Wonderful. What would energy usage and air pollution look like if everyone did this? Decentralized energy production = horribly inefficient.

<comment><USER25> Totally agreed. This is for emergency use. I suppose sitting in the dark is better for the planet, but I would really rather my freezer not spoil.

<comment><USER39> Indeed. I hope the climate activists are taking this opportunity to learn about human behaviour once a situation is deemed an emergency - everyone will do whatever it takes, whether it's run a cheap (and, I assume, highly polluting) ICE generator, or burn wood in an open fire, to keep their house warm and food on the table.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> > It also includes families and individuals who live paycheck to paycheck and > can barely afford the groceries currently in their fridge, which will likely > spoil.

In addition to the financial burden for these families, there's also the potential health impacts of eating spoiled food. Personally, I was hesitant to waste food that my wife had just purchased a few days prior. My stomach disagreed with that decision, and I spent most of my Sunday sitting in the bathroom with no power or cell service.

We're now dealing with the question of WHEN to replenish our food. I've also considered purchasing a generator for just powering the fridge. But, this is all new and any advice would be greatly appreciated.

<comment><USER41> > _But, this is all new and any advice would be greatly appreciated._

This video shows the three main ways to legally / safely connect a generator:

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKwBBesUKA8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKwBBesUKA8)

Method 1 is the simplest and involves running an extension cord to the appliance(s) you want powered; or a power bar if you want multiple.

Method 3 is the most expensive, and it involves buying a very big generator to power the whole house, making sure there is a mechanism that prevents power back-feeding into the grid.

Method 2 is probably what you may want to look into. You purchase a small/medium generator as well as an electrical sub-panel. You then re-wire any appliances to the sub-panel. When the power goes out, you change the sub- panel's incoming feed from the main panel to the generator, which will then power your pre-selected appliances.

A potato-quality video illustrating Method 2:

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkbBt8hv8mQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkbBt8hv8mQ)

<comment><USER21> _Method 1 is the simplest and involves running an extension cord to the appliance(s) you want powered; or a power bar if you want multiple._

Should one take this route, and you want to run some high-wattage stuff like a refrigerator, microwave, or space heater, remember to use the thickest cord you can find if it runs any length. Harbor Freight will sell you 50' of 12 gauge extension cord for cheap. Use that thin little thing you use to plug the shop light into, and it'll get warm fast.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> > every mile of power line that's been shut off needs to be inspected > visually, by foot or vehicle or air. [...] The work can't be done in the > dark.

Can a sense current be run through the idle lines, to detect ground faults before going back to full power?

<comment><USER43> My understanding is that these detection signals can cause fires themselves, as they need to be high enough voltage to traverse the entire length of the line—and as such can spark off said faults and cause fires...

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> I'm not sure what you expected, holding a company liable. Expect it to reduce its own liability.

<comment><USER45> The should also be liable for failure to deliver power. In the UK this triggers substantial compensation.

<comment><USER46> Then expect rates to go up 15% in risky areas. You can't have the current rates, 99.99% reliable power, and fire prevention in the near term.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> The 'new kind of disaster' is just what you would expect from no electricity - dialysis, medicine in general, poor people having their remaining food spoil, etc. Saved you a click.

<comment><USER48> Another issue I saw on the news was that firefighters couldn't fight a fire because the water pressure was too low. Turns out the water utility lost power and didn't have any backup power. They couldn't pump water from the wells.

<comment><USER5> Most regions have some sort of above-grade water tanks. Not the water towers you'll find in the plains states, but tanks built upslope of served areas. Though these are filled by powered pumps, they'll supply enormous amounts of water even after power is cut.

In San Francisco there are numerous reservoirs, virtually all decked over. Four of the highest are located near Twin Peaks, the highest point in the city:

[https://www.google.com/maps/place/Sutro+Reservoir,+San+Franc...](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Sutro+Reservoir,+San+Francisco,+email@example.com,-122.455615,15z/data=!4m5!1m2!2m1!1sreservoir!3m1!1s0x808f7dfb3135dc73:0x24f109be56aaf920)

<comment><USER49> I guess the problem is for places that don't have that.

<comment><USER5> You'd be hard-pressed to find such in California, is my general point. I'd be interested in specific citations of exceptions to the rule.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Time to start burying the powerlines fellow Californians.

<comment><USER51> Do you have any idea how expensive that is?

<comment><USER52> Probably a lot less expensive than multiple major fires per year + rolling multi-day blackouts for millions of households.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> What if the reason PG&E is turning off the power is not because they are concerned about their lines starting fires, but that they are being scapegoated by the state of California for damage resulting from poor public policy relating to fire dangers?

The predictions of a future with large amounts of fires go back quite a ways, and there is some evidence to suggest that native Indians took measures to limit the spread of wildfires. Even if it is assumed that PG&E equipment starts a fire, the exceptional damage caused by the fire is the result of the poor management policies.

I've drifted around on my opinions on this whole matter, but currently I find that PG&E is working to steer clear of lawsuits, nothing else.

</comment><comment><USER54> Building powerlines that can cause fires if something this easy can cause it shouldn't be legal. Would you be ok with having your electronic devices set on fire because you dropped it or something easy?

</comment><comment><USER55> [https://www.wsj.com/articles/revolutionary- california-115723...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/revolutionary- california-11572389585) Revolutionary California Wall Street Journal ^ | October 29, 2019 | Holman W. Jenkins

...

The wildfire crisis is ultimately the product of a state politics controlled by interest groups whose agenda has drifted out of any cognizable relationship with the daily well-being of the state's average citizen.

Because California accounts for less than 1% of global emissions, nothing it does will make a difference to climate, but its ratepayers shell out billions for wind and solar that might be better spent on fireproofing. A generation of ill-judged environmental activism has all but ended forest management in favor of letting dead trees and underbrush build up because it's more "natural." At the same time, residents resist any natural or planned fires that would consume this tinder before it gives rise to conflagrations like those now menacing Los Angeles and San Francisco.

An activist state Supreme Court imposed on utilities responsibility for any wildfires started by their equipment regardless of negligence. At the same time, state policy obliges them to extend their networks to support housing developments in areas the state designates as "very high fire risk."

California's activist one-party government, with its penchant for pretending to be a national government in relation to the hot-button issues of the left, is where all these roads end. Elites subsidize electric cars for themselves while promoting zoning that forces lower-income workers to commute three hours to a job or live in their cars. PG&E can't keep trees off its power lines but can supply exact numbers for how many LGBTQ workers it employs.

</comment><comment><USER38> How does routing work in these power lines? Is it similar to a network where you can route around problematic hubs? So if there is a line going through 4 miles of trees, you can just turn that part off... not the whole county?

<comment><USER56> You can turn off a line if you have capacity elsewhere. The problem is that as the current increases in a line the temperature of the line increases. This causes thermal expansion and if not well managed, a line can sag too low and have to be turned off. This was one of the causes of the 2003 northeast blackout.

The other option is to have local generation that can supply local load but that is still quite hard to do with renewables.

<comment><USER38> That makes sense. This is a century old problem. Are there no viable technical solutions?

<comment><USER57> You could add more generators over an area to make grid more self sustaining but many people don't want power plants in their backyard and it is costly as you are paying for generating capacity that you don't use(often)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Climate change is worsening the droughts that cause fires as well as the winds that spread them. Turning off the electricity is one of the only ways until are the transmission lines are buried. But it might be safe to say every residence and apartment building etc should have a battery back up anyway and renewable energy installed. If this were so grid electricity would be a moot point and technically we would not be dependent on grid electricity.

<comment><USER59> Why would they install a battery backup, when a gasoline/diesel generator is cheaper?

I see grid reliability as the cornerstone of fighting climate change. Who in their right mind would replace their furnace with a heat pump, or buy an electric vehicle, when doing so will likely leave them cold and immobile multiple times per year?

We need a grid with _more_ capacity and _better_ reliability, if decarbonization is ever going to work.

<comment><USER58> Battery backup with solar generator would more than be enough for most homes and residences in California.

<comment><USER59> I don't think rooftop solar can supply enough energy to heat a home and charge a car (things that currently require fossil fuels.) We're talking tens of kilowatts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> Surely at this point the state has emergency powers to nationalise PG&E and seize control altogether. Why hasn't that happened yet?

<comment><USER61> ....and do what? Pay the bills for all the damage and keep starting new fires? No easy answer, taxes will have to be raised by a lot

<comment><USER62> > No easy answer, taxes will have to be raised by a lot

The alternative to raising taxes is to cut bullshit government spending and tax breaks for mega corporations, or enforcing taxes against the rich.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> Yeah, it's really going to suck as we come to the collective realization that the impact modern life has on the environment is going to encroach on - <USER3> life. PG&E's actions are the leading edge of what will be a growing trend of inconveniences. Demonizing them is living in denial. We are all culpable.

</comment><comment><USER64> Don't see many people talking about the additional environmental impact this is causing from people running generators nonstop.

PG&E should be buying everyone in their area solar panels and battery backups. That'd help alleviate a lot of the problems - and probably be cheaper in the long run.

<comment><USER5> Most grid-tied home solar installations _cannot function without the grid_. Depending on manufacturer and/or utility, you may simply not have the option to install free-standing solar capacity.

That means generators are the only sustaining power option.

For those medically-dependent on electricity, this has been a massive factor, with deaths reported as a consequence. Economic hardship and other impacts are also very real.

Given the balance between this and the risk of tens of thousands made homeless through repeats of events such as last year's Camp Fire in Paradise, preemptive power cuts still seem defensible. But impacts really _must_ be addressed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> Pre-emptive blackouts have now cost me over $1k.

</comment><comment><USER66> Archived copy without GDPR nag screen:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20191009215000/https://slate.com...](https://web.archive.org/web/20191009215000/https://slate.com/business/2019/10/california- power-outage-pge-fires-new-kind-of-disaster.html)

</comment><comment><USER10> The level of political demagoguery surrounding this is really shocking. Gavin Newsom is blaming "dog eat dog capitalism" and "corporate greed" for the wildfires: [https://www.sfchronicle.com/california- wildfires/article/New...](https://www.sfchronicle.com/california- wildfires/article/Newsom-PG-E-SoCal-utilities-undermined-14560015.php)

Of course, PG&E is the kind of regulated entity people like Newsom wish all corporations were. Private investors put up the capital to build and maintain the electric grid. The government, through the California Public Utility Commission, tells them what to spend it on: [https://www.pge.com/en_US/about- pge/company-information/regu...](https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/company- information/regulation/general-rate-case/grc.page). The CPUC reviews PG&E's proposed expenditures and approves the resulting electric rates. The CPUC then allows PG&E to set rates high enough to recover a 10% profit on that expenditure.[1]

Under that regime, PG&E's incentive is to spend _more money_ gold plating the electric grid. The more it spends, the more profit it makes. The reason PG&E didn't spend more money on wild fire safety is because the CPUC is run by political appointees and they have strong incentives to keep electric rates low in the short term. (This is a common problem with rate regulated utilities. They underinvest in infrastructure because voters demand low rates for electric, water, etc.)

Now of course, California doesn't have the money to build its own electric grid. So Newsom is calling on Buffett to bail out PG&E. I.e. let different private investors take in the risk and expense of the CPUC's years of short sighted behavior.

And, of course, this is the kind of thing that only happens in America, and maybe some third world countries. Not because Europe doesn't have investor owned utilities. They are common. Some of the largest grid operators in Germany are private companies. Rather, it seems to be the result of the unique political dysfunction in the US. American politicians and their voters live in a fantasy land where they can literally say the grass is blue and the sky is green because that fits into their narratives about the world.

[1] That's about what it works out to. It's a more complicated rate return calculation: [https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUCWebsite/Content/Ab...](https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUCWebsite/Content/About_Us/Organization/Divisions/Office_of_Governmental_Affairs/Legislation/2018/California%20Electric%20And%20Gas%20Utility%20Cost%20Report.pdf).

<comment><USER67> All this to say, it's the governments fault for allowing PG&E to have the incentives it does. And I'd agree with you to an extent, but the solution being privatizing it and deregulating the power system is... maybe not the best. Corporations almost always have the same incentive structure as what you're saying the CPUC has, short term profits over long term. The only difference is that rates would be higher along with PG&Es profits, since nobody would go in and build a second power grid and they'd have a de facto monopoly.

<comment><USER10> I'm not suggesting we deregulate the transmission grid. My point is that PG&E _is_ heavily regulated, and the government should take responsibility for the consequences of its regulatory choices. For decades, PG&E submitted detailed rate cases to the CPUC saying; "here is what we plan to invest in, here is how much it will cost, and here is what rates will have to be to pay for it." Given that PG&E would make _more money_ by investing in safety upgrades, the only reason they wouldn't have done it is because the CPUC pressured them to forgo such investments to keep rates low. (That's a common concern for rate regulated monopolies: they have an incentive to "gold plate" the network because they make more money the more they spend.)

The PG&E model works well in the rest of the world. It's how the electric grid works in the UK, and most of Germany. In France and Spain the electric grid is operated by a for profit corporation, albeit one where the government is a shareholder (majority stake in France, minority stake in Spain). Indeed, many people espouse using the same model for broadband in the US.

That proven model is not working in California because the politics is completely dysfunctional. There is zero accountability.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Direct link to article:

[https://slate.com/business/2019/10/california-power- outage-p...](https://slate.com/business/2019/10/california-power-outage-pge- fires-new-kind-of-disaster.html)

<comment><USER68> Ok, we've changed to that from [https://twitter.com/aprilaser/status/1188870991390232582](https://twitter.com/aprilaser/status/1188870991390232582). Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> The question is : How many fires are there in CA yearly? It's like 2000 to 4000 different fires that start at different places in the same season.

And how many of those were started because of PG&E? 2? 3?

But PG&E has to pay for every fire they cause, because they can. And now they don't want to.

The consequence.

<comment><USER70> I don't really understand this. You are making claims about causes and effects without having (ever?) read about california fires and why they are started?

Isn't that the bare minimum expected to even have an opinion, let alone engage in a discussion about it?

<comment><USER71> Not anymore, unfortunately.</comment></comment></comment>


Become a pro web developer in 9 weeks - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2012/12/13/dev-bootcamp/

<comment><USER2> Wow, that's fascinating. I occasionally tell some of my friends that it wouldn't hurt to pick up programming, but I never expect anyone to actually go do it. I like the idea of this school. They can learn a very marketable skill in a short (and intense) period of time and repent for their sins of majoring in something like comparative literature. (I'm just kidding, I love literature and I'm greatful there are people who understand it more than I do)</comment>


Chatbot conversation ends in argument [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14843549

<comment><USER2> This is excellent.. 65 million Cleverbot conversations boil down to "I am not a robot. I am a unicorn."

<comment><USER3> Or more precisely, a lie. Rewatching it, the number of lies is impressive for such a short exchange. I wonder how much of it is "willful" lying vs an error on the part of the bot.

<comment><USER4> Neither; you're giving it too much credit in either case. It's just looking up strings which have been used before in past conversations in response to similar prompts.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Split screens for web browser? - <AUTHOR> I use splits often in Emacs, and I am wondering whether there are browsers that can split within the browser. That would be much more effective! <comment><USER2> Juste use a tilling window manager split the screen the way you wany and open 2 windows of your favorite web brower

</comment><comment><USER3> Have a personal project to do just this (windows). When you have a huge monitor having multiple browser windows open is the way to travel.

Main reason for the project is because I want some automated page processing.

Be interested in hearing about any projects as well.</comment>


Welcome to the Streaming Wars - <AUTHOR> https://slate.com/technology/2020/02/netflix-hulu-disney-hbo-peacock-streaming-wars.html <comment><USER2> It is buried deep within the article, but this fragmentation of streaming services because every content provider wants in on the streaming action is simply going to revive piracy for the masses:

> Now, instead of paying one cable bill for all the channels, the ones we want > and those we don't, we're paying for countless individual services just for > the one or two programs or movies we want to watch on each of them. And that > will bring back piracy, which is bouncing back after having been on the > decline for years.

And, interestingly, the article does mention the only real way for the paid services to /compete/ with the piracy channels:

> ... studies have shown over and over again that the best way to defeat > piracy is with cheap, easy, and legal alternatives.

Customers do not want fifty different streaming services, each with a different UI for access, and the need to effectively also again buy "TV Guide" [1] in order to get a map of which program is available on which of the fifty services this week in order to find the item they are looking for.

They want one service/UI where they can simply search, one time, for "program/movie/show X", have it appear, and start watching.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_Guide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_Guide)</comment>


Setting Up A Chromebook Development Laptop - <AUTHOR> http://blog.zfeldman.com/2013-10-05-setting-up-a-chromebook-development-laptop/ <comment><USER2> As much as I like the idea of 200$ dev machines for students if they already have working laptops by far the easiest and uniform solution would be to distribute virtual box images, have students install virtual box and develop inside that, even that cheap Acer would be enough to run a ruby dev virtual box.

You can even install all ruby gems, packages and w/e you need for the class before you distribute it for convenience.

<comment><USER3> Virtualization is a bit of a flawed solution - I have had issues trying to virtualize Ubuntu on my Windows 8 desktop (my gaming machine) that would drive me nuts, and would be far worse for students just entering web development.

It is still too fragile IMO.

<comment><USER4> Hmm, fragile in what way? For me, VMware Player has had only a couple minor hiccups in several years, and even VirtualBox has been (buggier but) very usable. (My machines are non-gaming.)

<comment><USER3> I had breaking issues like Unity crashing on a fresh VM install of Ubuntu.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I used a Chromebook running Fedora 17 (dual boot on a separate SD card, not chrooted) for 2 weeks and wrote about it[1]. In summary, not too bad.

Even better: recently someone worked out how to fully root it so you can enable hardware virtualization and sign your own kernels[2].

[1] [http://rwmj.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/some-thoughts- after-2-5...](http://rwmj.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/some-thoughts- after-2-5-weeks-with-the-samsung-chromebook/#content)

[2] [http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/568943/fd91a17213c1e788/](http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/568943/fd91a17213c1e788/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Also, yes, I can echo the trackpad not working so well and suspend kind of failing to do it's job - only seems to work after opening and closing the laptop several times.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Does anybody have a way to do Android development on a ARM Chromebooks? The Android SDK is not available on ARM (probably will never be).

I have used AIDE ([https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.aide.ui&hl...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.aide.ui&hl=en)) to with Github and Dropbox with some success, but I feel it could be a lot more polished - but it works as far as I can tell.

A Chromebook + modern Android smartphone/tablet is powerful enough to provide a very good development environment (no need to emulate a device). It's held back by Eclipse being slow and bloated and Android SDK being unavailable.

Is there any hope for me other than getting a more powerful laptop? I feel like I people around the world should be able to write great Android software with a Chromebook + android device, but they currently can't

<comment><USER7> Yeah, with 64-bit ARM chips and 4GB+ RAM devices coming out soon, it's time for Google to prepare an ARMv8-based SDK at least. They wouldn't need to support earlier hardware, since they're not that powerful anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I recently posted on G+ that if the hardware were more open, the Pixel would be the flagship Linux developer machine.

The problem is that I don't want to get a laptop and spend countless hours getting it to "just work"

<comment><USER9> I saw someone post that apparently, the display resolution is too high which creates scaling problems with most DEs.

I don't really understand the gimped ChromeOS approach, they should just give it a real terminal, and a Debian based 'app-store'.

<comment><USER10> This! If only Google would give us a real terminal and Debian (or other) app store (a real app store with Eclipse, Thunderbird, etc, please) in Chromebooks, I would buy one in a jiffy!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think it's better to learn violin on a Stradivarius. (Start out using Linux.)

And 4 hours battery life? Not really enough IMO, especially for a slow Celeron :-/

<comment><AUTHOR> Haha I like the analogy!

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I love developing on a Chromebook but I use ChromeOS because I prefer it... am old laptop to use as a server and Secure Shell app is all I need.

<comment><AUTHOR> True that, I could totally get by on just vim but I'm sure my beginner students would be a little intimidated! ChromeOS is pretty amazing, I love the simplicity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I have the same setup on mine. Aside for a weird trackpad grounding issue that sometimes messes up the screen after extended two finger scrolling while on battery power, it is really nice. I just have to touch the VGA port every few minutes. I am planning on expanding the RAM to somewhere between the 2GB it came with and the 16GB it supports. I might also put in a laptop hard drive.

<comment><USER14> How is the trackpad if you keep it stock?

<comment><AUTHOR> It's really not amazing. Considering buying a mini-mouse for this guy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I have used crouton to install Debian with xfce on my Samsung Chromebook. It's a bit on the slow side compared to my Macbook Pro running Ubuntu but the lack of a fan makes it an awesome little machine. I just wish that there was a version of the Pixel with an arm processor inside.

<comment><USER16> Crouton is a good thing then? I know a friend of mine said it works well, and you effectively get a full DE running alongside ChromeOS on (effectively) another virtual desktop.

I've been dual-booting my ARM chromebook with Chrubuntu on an SD card, though debian is my preferred distro. I find that 90% of the time ChromeOS (with 'Developer Mode' shell unlocked) is good enough for what I use a computer for. The other 10%, well rebooting is pretty quick.

<comment><USER15> I haven't tried dual booting but the nice thing about having debian in a chroot is that I can easily switch back and forward between ChromeOS and XFCE. Plus I'm guaranteed that all the hardware is fully supported. When I have encountered an issue with crouton, it's a sufficiently small project that you can hack up the scripts to work around stuff. David Schneider, who maintains the crouton project is also very responsive to any issues that are reported.

<comment><AUTHOR> He really is! He got back to my GitHub issue in a manner of hours. That guy rocks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> 9Gigs of disk space...

<comment><AUTHOR> It doesn't seem like much, but this is why we have GitHub and the cloud!

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I still remember the $4899 price tag on IBM T-series. Everything today compare to that period is a bargain. Xeon and Ecc is what developer should use for stability(VMs) and decent speed.

$200 coding machine is not a bad idea, but I just cannot figure out where to use it.

<comment><USER19> The idea that you need a Xeon for VM "stability" and "decent speed" is one of the more asinine things I've ever heard. There's no real advantage to a Xeon over an i5 for 99% of developer workload.

<comment><USER18> It is not Xeon but the surrounding hardware.

A Bit error in calculation may cause problem in CAD/CAM, Finance or Virtual Machines. Intel does not allow ECC memory with i5 or i7; It is the idea for environments where cannot tolerate bit errors. You will see some odd errors in your VMs after running(rendering) heavily for as little as few hours.

Other examples is model rendering. Intel only allowed 32G memory for i5/i7 CPUs and you need to leave certain free memory while doing that. It end up you can only use 2-3 core instead 12 core which makes your process slower.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Does crouton have issues with hibernation on lid close? I've been using ChrUbuntu, and it is great, but it often fails to wake up after a lid close.

<comment><AUTHOR> It actually does, which is kind of sad...I sometimes have to close and open 2 or 3 times before it wakes up. It's weird though because you can still vaguely see the screen image as if it's just a problem with the backlight.

<comment><USER21> Try ssh'ing into it and see if you can get a shell. `xbacklight -get` shows the current backlight setting. Also, when resuming I often get this in /var/log/syslog: "ACPI: No _BQC method, cannot determine initial brightness".

<comment><AUTHOR> Hmm, I guess I could SSH into it but it seems a bit more trouble then it's worth! I don't mind opening the lid 2 or 3 times...although I wish they'd fix the kernel on that one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> In terms of operating system support, ARM is really a deal breaker.

<comment><USER23> The Acer runs an Intel chip, as do all other Chromebooks/boxes except for the base model Samsung Chromebook.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> > go into read article about chromebook development

> signup for nitrous.io

<comment><AUTHOR> Haha so tru

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> If only could be used for android development...

<comment><USER23> It can.

I have the Android SDK on my Samsung series 5..

There's only a single Chromebook that runs on an ARM chip. I have no idea why everybody thinks all these devices are ARM based.

<comment><USER26> It can, but it would suck. You need a bigger monitor than a chromebook has for android development. You definitely need at the very least, 2 monitors.

Also, the CPU would be so slow on that thing that eclipse would run like molasses. IntelliJ _might_ be faster but I kind of doubt that too. Of course, you don't _need_ an IDE, but lets face it: most people developing for android are going to use an IDE. Not the sdk tools + vim or emacs. Those really aren't sufficient because you need a visual tool to develop the UI. Yeah, I code it in XML, but you need a preview before pushing to the device because building and deploying an android app can take almost a minute sometimes. Not fast enough to change one XML attribute and test....

<comment><USER23> This really depends on the app.

If you're doing 3D game development, you're never going to touch the Android native UI stuff.

And the difference between vim and Eclipse is a huge gap. Lots of people are right in the middle and use things like Geany or Sublime Text 2.

Not saying it's optimal either, I'm just saying I've written quite a bit of code on a Chromebook and it isn't unbearable. The only people I would advise it for though is webdevs, as they avoid the sluggish compile times.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you discover apps? - <AUTHOR>

For web, mobile and desktop platforms, what is your go to source for finding the apps you use everyday? Do you rely on the native app stores, Google, independent app marketplaces, recommendations from friends?
I'm currently working on a solution to improve app discovery for users and user acquisition for app creators. I've asked this question dozens of times but would like to see what the response is on a larger scale. Hopefully this will be useful for anyone marketing their own apps as well.
Thanks. <comment><AUTHOR> I'll start.

Currently my strategy for discovering apps depends mostly on how much research I've done on the space. For apps I know by name (Facebook, Amazon Kindle) I have no use for anything outside the native app stores (This accounts for probably 50% of the apps I download). Other times I have a problem that I'm sure someone has created a software based solution for but don't know which is best and will use a combination of app store keyword searches, Google and asking friends (Mostly utilities. 25%). There is also a third case of "apps I didn't know I wanted" that are almost exclusively discovered through word of mouth (Mostly games. 25%).</comment>


The Myers diff algorithm that is used in Git (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://blog.jcoglan.com/2017/02/12/the-myers-diff-algorithm-part-1/ <comment><USER2> By the way, git also comes with other diff algorithms which may give cleaner diffs than the default one

[https://gist.github.com/roryokane/6f9061d3a60c1ba41237](https://gist.github.com/roryokane/6f9061d3a60c1ba41237)

Those alternative algorithms can be requested with command line flags like "git diff --histogram" or "git diff --patience". The default algorithm can also be changed via the git config file.

<comment><USER3> Patience in this example looks a lot better for what I consider a good diff to do a code review with. Is there any settings you could toggle in GitHub Enterprise you could enable this diffing in the UI?

<comment><USER4> Note that the same user also has a gist showing a case where myers gives a better result: [https://gist.github.com/roryokane/79b8ebcb3813ebd934c4](https://gist.github.com/roryokane/79b8ebcb3813ebd934c4)

<comment><USER5> Feels like there ought to be a cute scoring algorithm to determine which to use. It is a pretty important UX to get right IMO.

I reckon it'd be nice to include which to use in the commit too.

<comment><USER6> It'd be even nicer if git could figure it out.

From those two examples only, looks like fewer hunks are better, but so are smaller hunks, at least when the number of hunks are equal.

<comment><USER3> I hazard a guess that there doesn't exist a simple heuristic (such as "number of chunks") that always does the right thing. I think that to achieve better diffs, the diff tool should have some understanding over the structural properties of the language – but that would, of course, mean that the diff tool should be different for each language. (Or more like, there should be a parsing frontend that parses a "labeled tree" structure, and then a generic diffing algorithm over those kinds of trees.)

<comment><USER7> git's diff already has language-specific configurability, for example xfuncname sets a "function declaration" or similar header (e.g. markdown heading, org-mode section) that is shown in a diff.

Similarly, one could imagine a language-specific regexp that gives "anchor points" such as declaration start, where one would prefer that a single diff hunk doesn't mutate things across that anchor, if it doesn't have to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The one thing I really miss from perforce/source depot was seeing the original code block when performing a merge. Its so much more difficult to merge just seeing both new sections.

<comment><USER9> For diffs that include the common ancestor, add this to .gitconfig:

      [merge]
      conflictStyle = diff3

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm currently going through his book, Building Git, and doing it with Rust. It's a lot of effort but it's very good.

</comment><comment><USER11> for diff algorithims in Rust, see [https://nest.pijul.com/pijul_org/pijul:master/6afda19ba69307...](https://nest.pijul.com/pijul_org/pijul:master/6afda19ba693071c0f)

for a Rust diff library crates, see [https://github.com/changeutils](https://github.com/changeutils)

</comment><comment><USER12> hey I got this 'edit distance' question in my FB phone screen last month

[https://leetcode.com/problems/edit- distance/](https://leetcode.com/problems/edit-distance/)

graph search + dynamic programming to pass the phone screen.

Ofcourse the consideration here just the smallest number of edits.

</comment><comment><USER13> I always wonder how it was done.</comment>


Beware the Friendly, Popular Types - <AUTHOR> http://www.ianwelsh.net/beware-the-friendly-popular-types/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IanWelsh+%28Ian+Welsh%29 <comment><USER2> Started off interesting, then ventured off into conspiracy theory territory.</comment>


If it ain't broke: You share your oldest working gadgets - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52965974 <comment><USER2> Love the Binatone console and the difference between the "brands hatch" racing illustration and the actual graphics shown on the main box!</comment>


The Last Programming Language - <AUTHOR> http://www.cleancoders.com/codecast/theLastProgrammingLanguage/show

<comment><USER2> If this is anything like the other video I 'purchased' from that site, you probably won't be able to download it - you'll have to watch it through a Flash player directly on the site. If downloading or not using Flash is important to you, you might want to ask first.</comment>


Good engineering managers aren't just hard to find – they don't exist - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2014/02/13/good-engineering-managers-arent-just-hard-to-find-they-dont-exit/

<comment><USER2> All I can say is that I have numerous counterexamples of awesome engineering managers. These are people who understand software and hardware, understand how to solve problems, and understand the motivations, desires, needs, and lifestyles of the people on their team.

Not sure how to reconcile with the article, except to say "my experience differs drastically".

</comment><comment><USER3> I do not agree.

Coercive and "Pace-Setting" styles of leadership are not sustainable. They are tools to be used in specific situations but as a way of life contribute to a work environment with much less effective outcomes and high turnover. (reference: [http://hbr.org/2000/03/leadership-that-gets- results/ar/1](http://hbr.org/2000/03/leadership-that-gets-results/ar/1))

I can't help but wonder if this type of attitude is what leads to cultures that are hostile to women and people of color.

</comment><comment><USER4> > Unlike virtually every other function in a software company, engineers — > particularly the good ones — don't want to move up. This means that the > people who want the engineering manager role are unlikely to be very good at > it; and those who could be good at it don't want anything to do with it at > all.

This is an awesome article and resonates with me.

<comment><USER5> The trouble is that even if great engineer moves up, his work will require zero engineering work. Few years later he is just another formerly great engineer out of touch with superficial ideas about current practices.

I have seen that happen with programmers that moved to pure architect positions or to pure management. Just a few year later (2-3) and they start to have naive and idealized idea about programming and development process.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> At IMVU, we matrix "technical leadership" separate from "coaching and HR" separate from "product definition and projects." It lets different people focus on what they're best at.</comment>


Stop the NSA "Fake Fix" Bill - <AUTHOR> https://action.eff.org/o/9042/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=9437 <comment><USER2> As a Californian I am never not ashamed to have Senator Feinstein representing me. Is there a "tech lobby"? If there is, why is its number one priority not fielding a decent primary challenger to oust this authoritarian disgrace to our state?

<comment><USER3> She has seniority in the Senate and it's a "devil you know" situation. Mostly we don't want to Tea Party ourselves by trying to purify our ranks.

<comment><USER4> That is the kind of cowardice that gets you people like Feinstein. Grow a pair and stop voting for her until she gets her act together.

<comment><USER5> Perhaps, but Tea Partying one's primaries gets you people like Akin.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Feinstein.

How is she still in office? She's the spitting image of Dolores Umbridge; an authoritarian freak who has nothing better to do than make the lives of honest individuals completely arduous.

<comment><USER4> People vote for the lesser of two evils. At some point people stopped understanding that "the lesser of two evils" is still _evil_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Crap. Senator Feinstein is my senator. I'm pretty sure sending her a letter isn't going to help.

<comment><USER8> Do it anyway. Each person who raises their voice may be a little mouse, but a million mice working together can topple anything.

<comment><USER9> Sending Feinstein a bunch of _letters_ is going to help reign in NSA power? Good luck with that.

She's a big part of _why_ the NSA is as powerful as it is, because people like her are given total power to watch over the watchers (the secret panels of judges) who watch over the watchers, etc. Each level seems as apathetic to reigning in the NSA's power than the next (including the president).

This is a big systemic issue, the political response both by the public and politicians has been embarrassingly impotent, considering the scale of the mass surveillance.

Forgive my apathy, but this isn't like SOPA where internet campaigns are going to fix things. The power is already deeply rooted in place and the players involved are not giving it back easily.

If you're going to try to counter it via politics, why waste your time sending letters to politicians who are totally complicit in the problem?

<comment><USER10> > She's a big part of why the NSA is as powerful as it is,

At this point, isn't it unsafe to write letters to such people?

You may end up on one of the "lists".

<comment><USER11> I welcome being put on a list, if it happens. I want to be part of this conflict. Something is happening now, and we need to keep pushing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> _Senator Feinstein is touting this proposal as a way to address the problems with uncontrolled NSA spying, but don't be fooled: it's a fake fix._

Urgh. Person with something to lose, protecting her power and influence?

</comment><comment><USER13> Searching for the legislation?

[https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s1631](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s1631)

</comment><comment><USER14> I don't doubt the EFF, but I am automatically skeptical of anyone who tries to get me to take action without bothering to post the bill or even relevant excerpts.

</comment><comment><USER15> After reading the amendment, my take on it is that the EFF article is stating that the whole program needs to be scrapped and criticizing Feinstein for not doing so. Feinstein is apparently of the opinion that the program could be useful and her tactic is instead to put additional oversight in place. Here is what this bill _does_ specify:

\- Codifies that no message content may be collected under this authority

\- Specifies that any queries against this data must have documentation showing "reasonable articulable suspicion that the selector is associated with international terrorism or activities in preparation thereof" (note that military/political/counter-espionage/etc. is not listed)

\- A person meeting the above criteria who travels into the US may continue to be targeted for up to 72 hours. The Attorney General may grant an extension as an "emergency authorization".

\- A record is to be made for each search against the database of the phone number searched for, the person who searched for it, date and time it occurred and documentation as to why the search was performed.

\- The documentation for each search must be given to the FISC. The FISC is explicitly granted the ability to terminate any collection if it finds that the search was unlawful.

\- Directs the FISC to appoint additional personnel with access to classified information and expertise in "privacy and civil liberties, intelligence collection, telecommunications, or any other area that may lend legal or technical expertise to the court." An annual report must be submitted to Congress on the number of personnel appointed.

\- Any individual who circumvents access to the phone records database will be fined or imprisoned for up to 10 years.

\- A semiannual report needs to be made to the House and Senate Intelligence Subcommittees with information on all electronic surveillance, physical searches and use of pen registers/trap and trace devices conducted under this act. The report needs to include the total number of requests made to the court, how many were approved/denied/modified, the names of any targets within the United States, compliance incidents, any emergency authorizations, etc. That information, along with any of the documentation mentioned above must be made available on request to the NSA Inspector General, the Intelligence Community Inspector General, DoJ and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board

\- An unclassified summary of all of the above information needs to be made available to each member of Congress.

<comment><USER4> "Feinstein is apparently of the opinion that the program could be useful and her tactic is instead to put additional oversight in place."

In other words, _oversight has failed, let 's use oversight to fix it_. The only real reform in that list is this:

"Any individual who circumvents access to the phone records database will be fined or imprisoned for up to 10 years"

Of course, without periodic _public_ review of the NSA, we will never know if people are being punished for that sort of thing. At this point we have _no reason whatsoever_ to trust any secret oversight or secret courts. We got into this mess because everything the NSA does is done in secret, and because the FISC operates in secret, and because when someone breaks the rules it is reported to people who are sworn to secrecy.

Of course, public review is conspicuously absent from that list. Only privileged members of Congress, long out of touch with the public, will be reviewing this -- it's business as usual.

<comment><USER15> It's worth noting that a month ago the EFF was calling for people with technical and civil liberties expertise to help provide more oversight [1].

The NSA exists solely for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence - it's a spy agency. As a result, you'll never be able to get completely transparent public review of their activities without making them effectively useless. I see a few options on the table:

A) Go with the status quo, not change anything just trust the NSA to do its business under the existing oversight.

B) Strengthen the oversight to further ensure that the NSA is only conducting the work it's authorized to do against the targets it's authorized to spy on.

C) Assert that espionage just isn't worth it and just take the tools away from the NSA.

There are plenty of things that you can do under option B to address problems. Some of them are in this bill, and some of them can be made available to the public. Members of Congress have conflicting views on how much information they've been given by the NSA [2], which to me implies that some take their positions on the intelligence committees more seriously than others. If you look at the actual video of the hearing, Congressman Mike Rogers suggests that serving on the intelligence committee is a much bigger responsibility than serving on the other committees and they can't bring their staffers to assist [3]. If Congress isn't capable of providing the oversight they tasked themselves to do with the resources they have, then they need to either gather the resources they need or appoint another group to conduct oversight in a manner that can effectively ensure to the public that the NSA is gathering valid foreign intelligence and nothing else.

[1] [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/47-prominent- technolog...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/47-prominent- technologists-nsa-review-panel-we-need-better-technical-oversight)

[2] [http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/29/us-usa-security- ns...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/29/us-usa-security-nsa- idUSBRE99S03N20131029)

[3] [http://www.c-span.org/Events/Intel-Officials-Discuss- Propose...](http://www.c-span.org/Events/Intel-Officials-Discuss-Proposed- Changes-to-NSA-Spying-Programs/10737442346-1/) (jump to about 01:34:00)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> There don't seem to be any obvious points leverage with which to apply pressure on Diane Feinstein. Her age, wealth and long term membership in Senate make her much less vulnerable to standard political tactics.

It seems that we need to manipulate the situation so that Diane Feinstein feels that is in her interests to support a more robust set of NSA reforms. I don't feel like I have a complete understand how Senator Feinstein perceives her interests.

</comment><comment><USER17> I saw a great bumper sticker today: "One nation under surveillance."

</comment><comment><USER18> It's important to realize that the EFF is not a _research_ institution--it is an _advocacy_ institution. In other words, the EFF doesn't start off with an unbiased view of an issue and then decide what is in the public interest. Instead, it takes predictable positions on a number of issues, and those positions will _never_ change no matter what the facts may turn out to be. After all, it was founded to push an agenda which was pre-defined in advance of its founding 25 years ago.

Therefore, you should never read EFF materials with blind credulity as many of the commentators on this post do. They put out propaganda like all advocacy groups do, and it's up to neutral third parties to filter it. To be fair, they're not as bad as other groups (NRA, anyone?) but if you read their output directly, it's up to _you_ to pick out the disingenuous parts, if you can find them, and/or also read opposing views to get the full view. Otherwise, it's like a jury deciding a trial in which only one side presents their case. That's a shame, because I often agree with the EFF, yet I have to do a lot of work to unbend their reality distortion field.

<comment><USER19> Specifically what do you take umbrage with in the case of this bill and the EFF's position?

I'm asking as someone who agrees with your overall point but is mystified about what made you post it here under this article specifically.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> It is plain to see that our government servants are serving interests which are against "We the People."

</comment><comment><USER21> Feinstein is a terrorist.

(Haha iOS attempts to autocorrect Feinstein to festering, perfect)

</comment><comment><USER22> My first reaction was to call up my representatives ... but I wonder if doing so would put me on some kind of 'special' list.

<comment><USER23> Don't be a coward.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Good job EFF, when the bill gets inevitably defeated, you can claim a personal victory and solicit for more donations! Put it up with all your other accomplishments on your website you invested so much time and money into achieving.

<comment><USER25> So what do you suggest the EFF do here, _not_ oppose the bill?

<comment><USER24> I suggest they actually do something other than asking the public to publish empty rhetoric via an auto-form.

At least they did that one thing a while ago and helped sue the RIAA like 10 years ago when someone already started the case. That was a real big PR win for EFF. They can use all those donations to actually fluff their couch and sip iced tea now and publish more damnations from the comfort of their non- profit internet connection.

All the EFF does is take in donations and claim any legal victory as their own, you know because they wrote a letter on their website saying how nasty the defendant is. Thanks EFF! They also help spin pro big-media legislation as victories for information freedom. While people fight against pointless strawmen DRM issues that the industry knows will ultimately fail, the real line is being fortified legally in bills like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (Pact has negative conotations) and being enforced at the network level with internet-breaking packet-inspection devices.

<comment><USER26> Are you kidding me? The EFF, along with EPIC, are the two organizations that actually help with modern 4th amendment issues. I don't know where your hate for the EFF comes from, but it's certainly not based on a reasoned analysis of their work over the last decade.

<comment><USER24> They havn't done anything in the last decade.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Electronic_Frontier...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Electronic_Frontier_Foundation_actions#2005-present)

Pick one thing in that list that is "ground breaking" where the EFF actually invested their own resources into helping accomplish. Did you even know that the President of EFF owns a record company?

<comment><USER27> Gasp, not a record company!!1!</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Twitter CEO Says 140 Characters Are Staying, Doesn't Rule Out Longer Tweets - <AUTHOR> https://www.searchenginejournal.com/twitter-140-limit/160017/ <comment><USER2> Why not charge people to have a premium account that can tweet longer stuff?</comment>


Macworld Keynote Page: Broken In Safari - <AUTHOR> http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/keynote/

<comment><AUTHOR> The "Watch The Keynote Address" button doesn't work (or even show up) in Safari, but does work in Firefox. lol</comment>


Speeding up Rails 4.2 - <AUTHOR> http://samsaffron.com/archive/2014/12/01/speeding-up-rails-4-2

<comment><USER2> This is really great – but I guess I'm a little concerned that large performance regressions aren't being caught at an earlier stage. I wonder if there's scope to automatically keep tabs on Rails Edge performance?

<comment><USER3> It would be great if there was a performance benchmark run on CI stack or something and writing output in parseable format so it could be graphed over time etc.

<comment><USER4> Sam has also blogged about this for Ruby specifically: [http://samsaffron.com/archive/2013/12/11/call-to-action- long...](http://samsaffron.com/archive/2013/12/11/call-to-action-long-running- ruby-benchmark)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is exceedingly great work. This is the stuff I love coming to HN for. I had no idea Discourse had a dual-boot mode, much less that it had become a de- facto macro benchmark for both Ruby and Rails. That is awesome.

</comment><comment><USER6> You guys might like our latest gem, it outputs ruby-prof as FlameGraphs [https://github.com/oozou/ruby-prof-flamegraph](https://github.com/oozou/ruby- prof-flamegraph)

<comment><USER3> Awesome, I love flamegraphs for finding performance bottlenecks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Sam is a smart guy and an awesome developer. He contributed tons of code for .NET community when he worked at Stack Overflow.

I have done a fair amount of performance optimization work in .NET/C#, so I was curious as to what kind of optimizations are involved in Ruby.

One of the optimization was this:

[https://github.com/SamSaffron/rails/commit/9aa2b2d7bf52c0f39...](https://github.com/SamSaffron/rails/commit/9aa2b2d7bf52c0f3974090cd033341be2edeae6d)

Three lessons:

1\. Always use profiler to identify code bottlenecks. I don't think I would have ever guessed that the string literal is costing memory allocations causing performance issues.

2\. I find it sad that this kind of optimization is required in 2015. In any statically typed language, this would be completely unnecessary.

3\. Performance optimization makes code less readable. I think it would make sense to add comment explaining why constant ID was declared.

Here's another:

[https://github.com/SamSaffron/rails/commit/a668b09ee387bf241...](https://github.com/SamSaffron/rails/commit/a668b09ee387bf241a3481a764a18a5c8a4df8cd)

Same story.

<comment><USER8> String interning has nothing to do with static typing. AFAIK Ruby supports it with symbols and Python with strings in general.

<comment><USER9> Recent rubys also supports it for frozen strings (which is the reason it's a frozen string in the commit, probably).

The reason it's not done by default is that with mutable strings it would be more complicates/would require a different string implementation, I guess.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Ruby 2.2 will add almost-automatic-freezing of string hash keys[1]. I wonder how big of an impact this will have on Rails performance.

[1] [http://www.sitepoint.com/unraveling-string-key- performance-r...](http://www.sitepoint.com/unraveling-string-key-performance- ruby-2-2/)

</comment><comment><USER11> Great write-up, and thanks Sam and Sean!

Makes me wonder how bad it would have been without Adequate Record? I would imagine it's a bit disheartening for Aaron that all his hard work making AR 2-times faster have been obliterated by other stuff! ..

<comment><USER12> Makes me wonder if Adequate Record has much impact at all on typical app patterns. Has AdRec been obliterated by other stuff, or is it a microbenchmark that just didn't effect the OP's app much?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Sam Saffron has great write-ups. His article on Ruby 2.1 and garbage collection fine-tuning [1] is a must-read

[1] [http://samsaffron.com/archive/2014/04/08/ruby-2-1-garbage- co...](http://samsaffron.com/archive/2014/04/08/ruby-2-1-garbage-collection- ready-for-production)

</comment><comment><USER14> Thanks, this is both enormously helpful work for those in the Rails community who depend on the new hotness, _and_ a great writeup for increasing engineering skill levels throughout the community.

</comment><comment><USER15> Amazing work! I've bookmarked this post. I think that this approach of profiling Discourse on Rails could be use for any other app/service that is to be migrated to Rails 4.2.

</comment><comment><USER16> You are the man! Thanks for the great insight on the performance.</comment>


Related subreddits based on behavior for Hacker News - <AUTHOR> https://anvaka.github.io/sayit/?query=hackernews <comment><USER2> This was posted yesterday and received lots of discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18866800](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18866800)</comment>


Build fully responsive web apps, no code required - <AUTHOR> https://factionapp.com <comment><USER2> An email signup cannot be a Show HN. Please read the rules.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hey HN, Faction is a platform that allows you to quickly build and customize web apps. You can connect to your Stripe platform and register customers. Feedback appreciated.</comment>


A cryptographic scheme that allows computation directly on the encrypted data - <AUTHOR> http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1536414.1536440&coll=GUIDE&dl=&type=series&idx=SERIES396&part=series&WantType=Proceedings&title=STOC&CFID=37558608&CFTOKEN=60907897

<comment><USER2> If this works out, this is a big breakthrough. One of the encryption schemes described in the paper also looks like it should be reasonably efficient to implement (the scheme "E_1"). That scheme doesn't give you everything you'd need for fully homomorphic encryption, but it is part of the way there.

</comment><comment><USER3> This looks very intriguing. Unfortunately, I can't find a free copy of this paper nor any articles talking about it. Can anyone else dig up either a copy or some additional information?

<comment><USER4> Even though it's on the ACM site, I downloaded the paper with no problem.</comment></comment>


Peter Thiel's Money Talks, in Contentious Ways. But What Does He Say? - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/07/technology/peter-thiel-trump-facebook.html <comment><USER2> I, for one, applaud FB's decision to keep him on the board. A lot has been said about this already, but it's true that Silicon Valley is an echo chamber that tends to push out dissenting opinions. It's valuable to have someone on the other side that can challenge your views, as painful as it might be and as much as you might disagree.

<comment><USER3> Does Silicon Valley really push out dissenting opinions? There seem to be plenty of people with very out of the mainstream and quirky opinions who have thrived in the valley for years and plenty of obnoxious people who try to emulate them by having dissenting opinions for the sake of having a dissenting opinion.

<comment><USER2> The James Damore Google manifesto and the Youtube creator demonetization censorship comes to mind right now. Granted that's only one company, Google, but I think there's a general feeling that if you're not on the left leaning political spectrum, you're going to have your opinions shuttered.

<comment><USER4> I don't think it's a direct intolerance of other opinions because they're not the same but because they're not capable of coexistent in a "we know our beliefs are right and therefore anything incompatible with our beliefs is wrong" sort of way.

Look at the comments in here on any article about something that's vaguely political or a social issue in a flyover state, rural are or "less developed" country. There's this weird implication of slight superiority.

A lot of them often read with a sort of pro colonialism white mans's burden sort of tone. It's like everyone else isn't capable of figuring out their own problems and needs the smart people to rule them. There's also a sort of Christian missionary kind of undertone where everyone who doesn't believe like we do faces eternal damnation so it's our responsibility to get them to shun their existing beliefs and convert. It's not a malevolent intolerance, it's a saving you for your own good kind of intolerance.

I can't quite put my finger on it (so I'm drawing parallels instead) but I don't like it.

<comment><USER5> _I don 't think it's a direct intolerance of other opinions because they're not the same_

Okay, so you don't have to have a bit-accurate copy.

 _but because they 're not capable of coexistent in a "we know our beliefs are right and therefore anything incompatible with our beliefs is wrong" sort of way._

The above is pretty much a definition of intolerance.

<comment><USER4> Yes, intolerance is intolerance. Being able to abstract away the intolerance and treat it as though it's just the result of being confronted by incompatible beliefs makes it easier to rationalize doing it because it makes it partly the result of other people having the "wrong" beliefs and therefore not wholly your fault.

<comment><USER5> It's funny how one's own intolerance is always "right" because the other people are always "wrong."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > "The ability to speak and not have every word you say get distorted, to have > wrong ideas and then be able to correct them — these notions were powerfully > undercut by Gawker."

That's called reporting. The chief difference between Gawker and the New York Times is that Gawker took far greater risks for its size than the Grey Lady.

Thiel isn't even particularly unique – other billionaires (e.g. Sir James Goldsmith) have tried to kneecap publications they viewed as too disrespectful.

<comment><USER7> Gawker - without permission - publicly aired a tape of an intimate moment from Hulk Hogan. That's borderline if not actually criminal in some jurisdictions. Gawker didn't just "take journalistic risks" \- they glorified the pursuit of ratings over truth and accuracy, which cuts the very heart of what's making journalism sick.

<comment><USER3> Well, Gawker is based in the United States, where there's plenty of federal case law saying it is not illegal for a public figure.

"Borderline" criminal isn't criminal and Gawker didn't operate from the United Kingdom or a jurisdiction where this isn't allowed, it operated in the United States, where the courts have been very clear on this.

<comment><USER8> It's not that simple. There's not much of a public interest angle in Hogan's sex life, so he still had a claim for invasion of privacy, same as anyone else who had non-consensual porn of them stolen and knowingly published.

Also, Gawker was actually taken down for defying the court's orders. Even if they knew they were right, that was a dumb move. You sort that out on appeal, rather than defying the courts. That is absolutely illegal, regardless of whatever defenses they might have had for invasion of privacy.

Gawker then compounded that by saying that they would have also posted stolen child pornography of anyone not under 4 in their deposition, as you can see on video here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0p4V1-va00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0p4V1-va00)

So you're not going to get much sympathy from normal people for a pedo- friendly, non-consensual porn publisher going down the toilet.

<comment><USER9> The reason Hulk Hogan didn't want the tape disseminated was because he was heard to be using racial epithets: n-gger.

<comment><USER8> I won't defend that, it was wrong. I would note that he apologized for that afterwards. Any normal person would not want non-consensual sex videos of them posted on the internet, even without that, however.

That's the thing, though, more than one person can be wrong here. He said a hurtful word in the heat of the moment which is morally wrong, but not illegal. Gawker made a deliberate decision to put themselves above the law and defy a court order. It's not a big surprise which of these would lose in a court of law.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "there were unsourced media reports that said Mr. Trump wanted to put him on the Supreme Court. But now even photo ops are rare."

This is where I stopped reading. This article is poorly disguised political hackery. It takes very little evidence to suggest the silliest notion about your political enemies these days.

<comment><USER11> What is not factual about that statement?

<comment><USER8> The better question is 'what's factual' as that's a random, unsourced rumor. Literally anyone can make those up and the vast majority are forgotten when they are eventually proven wrong. Yes, every so often one happens to be a real leak, but you're misinforming yourself if you treat them as credible in general.

When they do that, you should treat the people with the byline on the article as having said it themselves and then evaluate what evidence (if any) they can give for that and whether they have an ulterior motive (e.g. being a partisan hack).

<comment><USER12> Well said. Media which have been selling bullshit might be making some sort term profits - however are destroying their credibility and brand.

<comment><USER11> Anonymous sources have been a thing in journalism since, like, forever.

<comment><USER8> That's not actually a defense of the practice. To make it a defense, you would have to actually argue why a long history of yellow journalism means the public should believe anonymous rumors and to deal with arguments that even supposedly trustworthy papers have betrayed that trust, for example with the Jayson Blair scandal: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair)

<comment><USER11> What fraction of reporting would you say is faulty in this manner? If you think it's a large number then you do not live in a fact-based world.

<comment><USER8> Why do you believe that facts are decided on the basis of anonymous rumors, rather than actual evidence? Trying to appeal to a bandwagon fallacy is not a great way to claim the high ground of rationality.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > "It's been a crazier two years than I would have thought," Mr. Thiel said in > his new Midtown Manhattan apartment, which is so far up in the clouds that > it literally looks down on Trump Tower.

This guy lives in such privilege, I think he forgets that his actions have real life consequences. Like helping Trump into power has made life difficult for thousands of Dreamers, refugees, etc... and a ton of other obstacles I don't really have room to record here.

To him it's just a thought experiment. If it doesn't work out, he moves on, neglecting all the lives he made worse.

Highly hypocritical of him to say he "warned" against bad things when he helped create it.

Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against privileged/smart people, but this dude just has some really whack ideas on how to improve society.

<comment><USER14> The contrarian right has no answers, only cynical observations. If they were more transparent about this they would be dismissed as sadists but they keep their cards close to their chest and allow for the occasional sympathetic portrait to drip out.

What does Peter Thiel love? Want? I'll never know. He's just another rich guy jet setting between NY and LA now. My guess is he spends some time advocating for impractically expensive cross continent transit and fades into the noise of wealthy-but-not-wealthiest elite. Maybe he'll become interested in those green grids he spends so much time flying over and does something in a midsized American city - probably healthcare related given the demographics.

<comment><USER15> >He's just another rich guy jet setting between NY and LA now

That is totally unfair. He's also interested in going to New Zealand in case his choice in presidents happens to irradiate North America.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> AFAICT mostly his money says "shut up" to people with less money than him.</comment>