Buyer sued for posting factual negative review on eBay - <AUTHOR> http://www.popehat.com/2013/04/15/the-popehat-signal-stand-against-rank-thuggery-in-ohio

<comment><USER3> The case is clearly without merit. They almost certainly sued her hoping that she doesn't have the resources to respond to it, which would result in a default judgment against her. If she is able to get an attorney, she will wind up being awarded her legal expenses and potentially other damages since the case was pretty clearly filed in bad faith.

The choice to include eBay as a defendant in the suit, however, is clearly not well thought out. Med Express has filed a precedent-setting, must-win case against a company that effectively has unlimited resources. eBay will eviscerate this company in court and almost certainly ensure that they never do business through the site again. Since no attorney in their right mind would have advised such a move, this sounds like a misguided individual that managed to borrow enough money for the filing fee rather than a serious attempt at litigation.

<comment><USER4> You are confused. Most likely, EBay will just file a motion to get themselves dismissed from the lawsuit.

<comment><USER3> I am not sure how would interpret my comment as being rooted in confusion. If the claims were legitimate, eBay would be an appropriate defendant since they are publishing the defamatory content. Moreover, if they somehow lost such a case, it would open the floodgates for anyone that has ever received negative feedback to sue them. Thus, eBay will likely try to make this publicly painful for this plaintiff to serve as a warning to others that would pursue such ridiculous cases.

<comment><USER4> Yes, they are an appropriate defendant, i think you are confused as to whether they want to stay in this. They have a very clear safe harbor here, and they've never cared about their sellers anyway. They'll likely either try to get dismissed as a defendant (on some jurisdictional issue, which they'd likely lose), or, at worst, get it dismissed on the pleadings or on summary judgement. They aren't going to drag it out and make it painful "as a warning to others", because it doesn't matter to them. They'll get sued even if they did.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think this is a problem with eBay. For some reason, sellers desperately need and want your good feedback, and a single bad feedback, even for something as tiny as a $1.44 postage stamp, seems to have a very bad impact on the seller. In real life, one bad review about something like this on someone with a good track record doesn't hurt the slightest bit. Why does it hurt so much in the eBay review system, and can't they improve that? (So that I don't have to feel guilty when not saying "super awesome 5 stars" to a seller who was just "good").

<comment><USER6> I've just started using ebay. I look at the feedback because I realise (from years of reading Amazon reviews) that people sometimes give bad feedback for something outside the seller's control, even if the seller tried to correct the error.

So this bad feedback wouldn't have bothered me.

But I guess some / many people don't check the details. When you have two sellers listing the same item with similar 'buy it now' prices and packaging I guess feedback is the only other metric someone can check.

Since ebay sellers cut costs and profits as far as possible having similar prices is pretty common.

<comment><USER7> > something outside the seller's control

It depends. For me, the seller is fully responsible for shipping, and any added postage, while well outside the seller's control, is attributed to the seller. I also do not want the seller to correct an error, I want the seller _not_ _to_ _make_ an error.

If you fail at that, I will leave bad feedback, and if it causes you to go out of business, I couldn't care less. Do your job better next time.

<comment><USER8> > If you fail at that, I will leave bad feedback, and if it causes you to go > out of business, I couldn't care less. Do your job better next time.

Wow. One small mistake and they should go out of business. Are you treated that way in your job?

<comment><USER9> You seem to be unacquainted with the realities of capitalism.

In a retail business, your customers want to be served by you and are willing to pay for that privilege. They don't particularly care what it takes for you to provide them with the service, or what the consequences to you are if they express displeasure over the value not received for the money spent. You are not a charity that deserves to exist on principle. They have no commitment to you. In a real sense they fire you every time they choose to go to your competitor (be that Walmart, Amazon, or wherever) and feel absolutely no remorse over it.

People move from a contracting relationship to being employed explicitly because they want more security. That's the deal. Firing employees is asymmetric because every time you do it, all of your other employees get concerned that the same may happen to them. Also an employee represents a fairly large sunk cost to you in your search to find one, and training - reasonable employers don't throw that away lightly.

These are at opposite ends of a spectrum. Generally the closer and more complex the relationship between two commercial entities, the more important maintaining that relationship becomes, and the more that you care about maintaining the business relationship. Someone who bought something from you once on eBay doesn't have a relationship to care about, and really doesn't care. An employer/employee relationship is very close and complex, so you care a lot. Any kind of frequent commercial relationship (be it going to a restaurant you go to regularly, dealings with a supplier, etc) will likely be somewhere between those extremes.

<comment><USER8> There is a great gap between saying "I will not shop with you" and "I wish nobody ever shops with you". I wasn't bothered by GP's desire for accurate feedback, or for consequences for mistakes; I was appalled by their callous attitude.

<comment><USER9> The attitude was not "I wish nobody ever shops with you", it was, "I don't care if nobody ever shops with you".

This seems quite reasonable. If you're trying to run a store, the details of what is required matter to you, not your customers. If the consequence of negative feedback is that you're replaced by a more competent store, most customers are quite happy with that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> In the last twelve months, Med_Express_Sales has received two pieces of negative feedback. The negative feedback in question read:

"Order arrived with postage due with no communication from seller beforehand."

To which Med_Express replied:

"Sorry- no idea there was postage due. This has happened alot from USPS lately."

In August 2012, another user posted the following negative review:

"Items were listed as new and they were used, they worked good but used"

In this case, Med_Express replied:

"They were new, but you can return them. We'll even pay return shipping!"

Looking at this wholly from a customer service perspective, I think that the two replies are dramatically different. In the first case, their reply passed responsibility over to USPS and made no mention of any compensation. In the second case, the reply specifically disputed the buyer's allegation, but also promised to make things right.

I think that most buyers are sophisticated enough to weigh the negative feedback with the seller's response. And, in this case, I think that Med_Express_Sales damaged their own brand with a less than satisfactory response.

</comment><comment><USER11> A guy sold me an HP calculator, advertised as "in perfect condition" while in fact keys on it were broken, it was badly warped, and cigarette ashes were falling out of it.

I gave him negative feedback and he went ballistic, saying "You should have sent me a message privately, rather than give me bad feedback! I've been on eBay for ten years with no bad feedback. I would have made it up to you."

I explained that his kind of behavior was exactly what bad feedback was for.

eBay feedback is badly broken if people aren't supposed to actually use it.

</comment><comment><USER12> I stopped using eBay when they canceled my auction because I had included a link to the PDF manual (on the manufacturer's site) of the phone I was selling. This was around 2006 and I assumed their idiotic policies would quickly see them replaced by a better platform, but for some reason this has never happened.

<comment><USER13> The power of ebay resides in being able to find any product that comes to mind on auction at virtually any given time. Therefore, no one I know bothers to check the competition (if it even exists) before they bid. The same known problem occurs with Facebook regarding friends. I don't see any solution, this ease of use is more important to most customers than ToS.

<comment><USER14> this is called <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly> and is well studied

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I work for a popular brand selling accessories on eBay and Amazon. One of my duties is replying to customer care inquiries. We are a small start-up, our team is small, therefore happens quite often to spend hours every day replying to customers having a number of problems (postage problem, usage problem, etc..).

I do totally understand the seller, they have done everything they could to make the buyer happy. The buyer, instead of giving a chance to the seller to make things right just left a bad feedback. I guess anybody can see how unfair this is.

Feedbacks and reviews are supposed to give a hint to potential buyers about the service or product they will get. The truth is that more than often they are a "weapon" for frustrated buyers to revenge and damange the seller, without being anyhow responsible for it. This is unfortunate becouse bad reviews and bad feedbacks damage sellers not only with their reputation but also kill sales. Having a bad review on Amazon means to simply not sell that very particular product, doesn't really matter if the bad experience was due to inexpertise of the buyer or from a delivery problem (all things that are completely out of the sellers control).

When you are a young company, it's hyper-frustrating to be damaged and see your sales killed or importantly reduced by a customer that was unhappy because of something you couldn't control in any possible way. While in such a situation the company must anyway step-up and take action to mitigate the problem (and they did as they offered a refund) the buyer must be responsible for actually damaging their business. It requires experience to understand that sometimes customers are just trolls spoilt by life and to just let it go. If you have a great company providing excellent products and services you'll make it up with future orders :)

<comment><USER16> I think you are projecting your extensive experience with the review system onto the everyday buyer.

eBay asked the shopper to review her transaction: overall her experience was negative (not enough postage) so she gave a negative review.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Both parties don't come off well here - the buyer could have given the seller the benefit of the doubt before posting a negative feedback over a trivial amount and the seller managed to turn an unjustified, in my opinion, negative feedback into a terrible publicity for itself.

<comment><USER18> I think there is more context to the situation than what is discussed in the original post. Is the company generally an honest entity who always put their customers in front of everything and this was a one-time mistake? Or do they routinely "forget" to pay for postage and hope no one noties. etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Personally, I think lawyers should be dis-barred for bring a frivolous claim to court solely on the hopes of winning because the defended cannot afford to defend themselves. It is an abuse of the power they have been given with their right to practice law.

</comment><comment><USER20> This is the sort of frivolous lawsuit that makes a complete mockery of legitimate torts. There needs to be some way to make courts award damages to the defendant in ridiculous cases without making it difficult for small parties to sue large ones over legitimate grievances.

<comment><USER21> Frivolous like posting a 1 star rating because the seller required you to pay $1.44 in shipping to complete the transaction? I'm not sure it's the lawsuit that's frivolous.

<comment><USER20> I'm fairly certain yours is not an objective opinion.

<comment><USER21> I think they will probably go down in court. Having done Amazon business in the past, and knowing what bad mojo it is to try to change the terms adding extra charges after the deal is signed, personally I would have just eaten the $1.44 fee.

Then again, I never made a dime at Amazon, only just lost money and collected positive ratings...

EDIT: I am being downvoted up the thread for taking a position that is not popular. I agree with Med Express that Ebay is culpable for this, as much as this must put me in the wrong legally. Where are the metamoderators?

A 1-star review is the lowest rating that you can give. The seller took the item to the post office and mailed it, postage paid. For some reason it arrived with postage due. Now Med Express will probably be required to keep a reserve on their Ebay account for the next 6 months.

Maybe it gained weight in the mail?

Maybe buyers should post reviews that are fair and balanced. Was the item as described? Received on time? Damaged in transit? Did you communicate your issues to the seller, did they make an attempt to remunerate your concerns?

If the pope hat article is remotely accurate, I would not have given this company a 1-star review. They did everything they could.

<comment><USER7> There is only negative - neutral - positive on eBay (in the overall rating, not the specific shipping/as advertised etc. categories).

So it now comes down to expectations and how to match expectations to + 0 and -. I for one absolutely expect items to be as advertises and delivered within the timespan indicated. For that, sellers get a 0. If they deliver faster and/or a better item, they might get a +. If they fail to meet my basic expectations, they get a -. Hence, by these standards, the - was perfectly justified.

<comment><USER21> I did not know this is how the e-bay rating system works!

For some reason given this information, I changed my mind. When the buyer had 5 stars to choose from (in my mind, and I thought they granted only 1) it seemed abominable to leave the bad rating, given facts. Seemed to me like their customer service was worthy of at least 3 stars.

Now knowing that the scale is only three wide, it seems like a reasonable thing to do, leaving a rating of "minus".

That's funny.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Boy, if Ebay's policies are such that someone has incentive to sue someone else just for one negative feedback... I'm glad I don't use Ebay.

</comment><comment><USER23> This seems like a very unfair situation for the company.

Think about what would happen if this were the other way around. For example, buyer returns an article, sends it through the post, and for some reason it ends up at Med Express door with postage due. They leave a negative feedback on eBay about the user.

The Internet would then also be up in arms about the company, 'abusing' its position to harm an underdog user.

<comment><USER24> The notion that negative feedback ought somehow only be posted in event of egregious misdescription is a bizarre, Ebay-centric one.

It was a bad customer experience - of course her response is negative!

eBay have designed it this way, but many users probably aren't aware of the consequences of leaving feedback.

You'd write a complaint card in a hotel with nary a second thought and no ill consequences. To be sued for what appears to be the same thing online is at best a gross overreaction.

<comment><USER25> >The notion that negative feedback ought somehow only be posted in event of egregious misdescription is a bizarre, Ebay-centric one.

When you keep in mind the effect bad feedback has on a seller, you really should stay your hand unless you feel they were really out to screw you (or you're just plain vindictive).

It's a buck in shipping. I'd pay it, blast them an email asking WTF, _maybe_ leave a neutral at worst. Bad feedback is reserved for fraud, IMHO.

Then again, the seller in this case appears to be a litigious asshat, so fire away.

<comment><USER26> > Bad feedback is reserved for fraud, IMHO.

As someone who has never used ebay, this way of thinking sounds ridiculous. I can't imagine that this is what the average persons thinks negative feedback means (it means "my experience was less than satisfactory" pretty much everywhere else) and this sounds like an enormous problem with ebay.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Negging someone on eBay for a buck in shipping is a pretty crappy thing to do, but then taking the other guy to court over the feedback is even worse.

There are no winners in this situation.

<comment><USER27> The seller made sure that there would be no winners in this situation when they sent the item with insufficient postage. If that doesn't happen, the rest of this likely does not happen.

"Negging someone on eBay for a buck in shipping is a pretty crappy thing to do"

That's just not true - that may be your opinion but that's the opinion of a very small number of people. The majority - an overwhelming majority - <USER2> that it one valuable part of such community feedback systems to provide a way for buyers to notify other perspective buyers of potential problems.

<comment><USER25> >That's just not true

Yes it is. I can forgive someone for being ignorant of the way the eBay feedback system works, but when you push that button, you are not just "notifying other perspective buyers of potential problems". It hasn't been that way for years. Not since eBay removed the ability to leave negative feedback for buyers, anyways.

If I were the seller in this case, rather than going to court, and negative feedback was still around, I'd have left them the same with something like "PITA buyer, - feedback for being off $1 in shipping. AVOID."

What you are actually doing when negging a seller is deciding "This seller made me so mad that I am going to cost them large amounts of reputation, raise their fees, restrict their ability to list, and possibly help drive them out of business". This is not an idle threat. Feedback is calculated over a 12 moth period, meaning if you only sell a couple things a year and get a single neg, you'll trip over _all_ of the eBay restrictions and fee increases.

Now let's get some perspective here. The seller delivered the item, as described. There are no complaints about the item itself, so we can assume the buyer is happy with it.

Buyer's willing to mark the whole transaction as terrible over _a freaking dollar?_

There are some levels of shenanigans to which this is an appropriate response. $1 is not.

The more I think about it, the more I think there may be some merit to this case. If the seller offered to make the problem right and the buyer hit them anyways, given the effect that hit will have, is it possible they have a case?

<comment><USER28> If instead of showing up at my door I got a note that said you need to come down to the post office during business hours and pick up your package and bring an extra $1.44, I'd actually be kinda put out.

This was a mistake by the shipper for mis-weighing the package (as they note in the feedback "This has happened alot from USPS lately." - maybe they need to get themselves a new scale) it should get negative feedback, and if this is the tactic they take to get rid of that negative feedback, then that seller shouldn't be selling.

<comment><USER29> Right. This was an intentional attempt to cheat the system that the seller fails at, repeatedly. They attempted to screw the USPS and the customer got the bad end of their incompetence.

<comment><USER25> >This was an intentional attempt to cheat the system

You don't know that. Say the seller has a faulty scale and does large numbers of transactions at once. 100 packages go out, and 100 postage due complaints come in.

Oops. Clearly the seller is a scumbag. </s>

<comment><USER29> A non-scumbag would resolve the issue for the customers and fix the systemic issue. That this continues to be a problem is a sign of a bad seller. The first time this happens, you need to re-calibrate your scale.

In their defense, at least they offered to refund the extra shipping cost, but relying on not being caught to save a small amount of money is not worth it in the long run.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> To be fair the buyer sounded like a big douche. Med Express immediately offered to reimburse the buyer for the $1.44 postage fee they were charged, it's a minor mistake that the buyer overreacted about. I find it kind of silly Med Express thinks they have a case here though, they probably have more money and will end up settling because the buyer won't be able to afford to fight.

<comment><USER31> Trouble is - you have to stand up to the bullies - even for those with whom you are less than sympathetic. Bullies must be stopped as if they succeed it will be you who they will come after next.

<comment><USER32> When is the last time a bully offered to buy you lunch because he accidentally took yours by accident?

<comment><USER33> And after you blog about your negative experience of having lunch taken away by accident, the bully sues you for slander.

In my book everybody acted within acceptable reason until they sued him for leaving a true review on ebay.

<comment><USER32> Let's put things in perspective. The post was short under 2 bucks and the seller was more than happy to cover it. So at what point does one think to themselves, hey let's go ahead and leave a negative feedback because there was a kink with the transaction? Hell, if every transaction had to work without a hitch, the majority of us wouldn't even be able to ship a product not to mention release an MVP...

<comment><USER31> You have probably focused on the true problem. It looks like any negative element to the rather simplistic feedback model represents an issue for the seller. Why is that? - an issue ultimately fixed should be viewed as neutral - unless it is repeated too often.

<comment><USER33> And how often can the mistake be repeated before I can blog about it without being sued? Two times? Three times?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> The feedback in question [1] appears to be a one star rating on a $175.00 item where $1.44 postage was required. I would guess that the seller's complaint is on the one star rating, not the message content (and on this I tend to agree with them -- the buyer is being a huge ass). That said, the one star is clearly an opinion, and thus not subject to slander laws.

1: [http://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewFeedback2&...](http://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewFeedback2&userid=med_express_sales&iid=-1&de=off&items=25&which=negative&interval=180&_trkparms=negative_180)

Edit: I would also note that while generally I think popehat does good work, the part around "Mr. Amodio responded with an open, contemptuous, and contemptible threat to abuse the legal system" is...not so good; the following quote does not come from Mr. Amodio and does not contain anything obvious that would indicate either an open or contemptuous threat to abuse the legal system.

</comment><comment><USER35> eBay has one of the tightest set of rules of any marketplace sit on what constitutes something that they will remove. The guidelines pretty much state that legal action is your only option.

Someone can for example leave a feedback stating 'item fake, seller a fraud' without the slightest piece of evidence (item may simply be from a different batch the customer is used to or defective) and there is nothing you can do, no process.

Also when you want things from eBay such as a higher selling limit they raise individual negative feedbacks in an accusing way despite them being 0.1% or less of total feedback.

I don't think this seller would have been effected by the feedback but I can certainly understand their frustration. The negative press from the case will do far worse for the seller. What buyer will feel safe buying from them?

</comment><comment><USER32> People need to look up from their computers / phones once in awhile and tone down the passive aggressive nature that pseudo anonymity has instilled in the lot of us. How hard is it to work things out without escalation?

<comment><USER36> Agreed this is becoming a huge problem in today's society. People interact with one another in a completely different manner than they do in the offline world. It is like when you remove the human interaction, the humanness of the other party is somehow diminished and that is a scary reality. Because when we as humans loose our association of another person being human, the worst of our nature rears it's ugly head.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I've never understood why it's so easy to sue people or companies in the US. What are the positive aspects? For me as an outsider it only seems to create fear and ridiculous warning labels.

<comment><USER38> IDEALLY it's so that "the little man" has some course of action against negligent entities.

<comment><USER39> And ideally, too, "the little man" should also have a gun, for a course of action against aggressive entities.

I'm an European, I guess we just don't get it (the US legal system or the gun laws).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Streisand effect incoming.

Clearly the only answer is to engage in business with this entity for lowest value items available and then post negative reviews of their legal behavior.

</comment><comment><USER41> I'm surprised eBay's term of service don't have something that would prevent suing over feedback.

<comment><USER42> A ToS can never prevent you from being sued. At best they can help you get the case thrown out.

<comment><USER43> Well, if the seller relies exclusively on eBay for sales(as appears to be the case here) then the threat of having their account terminated over ToS violation would be a huge deterrent against doing so. It still won't prevent you from being sued but it would definitely reduce the chances of it happening to near zero.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> "Med Express immediately offered to reimburse Nicholls for the postage due amount. Despite this offer, and before giving Med Express a chance to reimburse her, Nicholls on February 26, 2013..."

It looks like Med Express didn't have the opportunity to fix their mistake before Nicholls started posting negative reviews. I don't understand why everyone is hating on Med Express. Imagine a similar hypothetical: If I made a mistake and offered immediately to correct it but instead was blasted via social media before I had the chance to correct things how would I feel? I'd be pretty upset.

This is what the system is for, actors that are personally unknown to each other, not a part of the same small scale geographic community, seeking a resolution to a perceived wrong.

Who on HN thinks Med Express should have been compassionate and understanding of Nicholls response without regard for the fact that repuation is critical to the survial of Med Express on eBay?

<comment><USER45> > Who on HN thinks Med Express should have been compassionate and > understanding of Nicholls response without regard for the fact that > repuation is critical to the survial of Med Express on eBay?

The feedback only commented that they had to pay shipping costs and that it wasn't mentioned by the seller up front. What is the problem with truthful statements using a system designed to give feedback?

> If I made a mistake and offered immediately to correct it but instead was > blasted via social media before I had the chance to correct things how would > I feel? I'd be pretty upset.

And that would give you the right to use any means to get back at the person? This wasn't social media. This was a forum designed for feedback.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> So if the buyer just left a bad rating, but no words, could she still be sued? One one hand voting seems like an extension of free speech, but on the other it feels that online voting shouldn't be counted as slander / libel.

<comment><USER47> They would win but after going to court and spending money. The main problem is that anyone can file almost any type of lawsuit

<comment><USER48> And (in most jurisdictions) the tort of barratry[1] is no longer recognized.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry_(common_law)>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> for $5 you can leave your own opinionated first amendment protected review: [http://www.ebay.com/sch/med_express_sales/m.html?_ipg&_f...](http://www.ebay.com/sch/med_express_sales/m.html?_ipg&_from&_nkw&_armrs=1&_sop=15)

</comment><comment><USER50> I'm okay with this.

</comment><comment><USER51> I'm guessing his comment is a bit more like "THESE GUYS SUCK!!!!1111111" than "I had to pay $1.44 more for postage". IMO that is fair enough, he is in the wrong. OTOH I'm sure eBay have a process in place for this - I think suing him is a bit much.

They could also just leave him negative feedback...

<comment><USER52> > I'm guessing his comment is a bit more like

I cannot fathom why people prefer _guessing_ things that are publicly available and only takes a few seconds to check.</comment></comment>


Dropbox is cash-flow positive - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/emilychangtv/status/742778452755906560 <comment><USER2> They started to push more for bussiness plan. Good thing for them that storage space is not fully commoditialized now</comment>


Avalanche diagrams showing the effectiveness of various hashing functions - <AUTHOR> http://sites.google.com/site/murmurhash/avalanche

<comment><USER2> Another fun graphical way to see the effectiveness of a hash function is to:

1) Run a known dictionary against the hash function with a specified number of buckets.

2) Calculate how much of an error there was versus the theoretical optimum (even distribution of the inputs across all buckets).

3) Graph that (each bucket becomes a pixel in a rectangle) and use color to convey the relative magnitude of the error.

If you do this, you get to use some very powerful software backing your eyes as anomaly detectors. Low intensity noise is a good result. Anything which your brain can sort out is a bad result.

They're perfectly good enough to identify most bad hash functions. (Try this with an English dictionary and Java string hashing. You will, ahem, not have difficulty finding the problem.)

[Edit to add: I might just be getting old, but I'm _positive_ a professor and I broke the Java hash function wide open in college using this method, yet my 15 minute attempt to replicate this result gives me an image which looks like a good hash function would result in: white noise.]

<comment><USER3> > I might just be getting old, but I'm positive a professor and I broke the > Java hash function wide open in college using this method, yet my 15 minute > attempt to replicate this result gives me an image which looks like a good > hash function would result in: white noise.

Is it possible Java has updated the string hashing function since you've done this?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> MurmurHash [1] (which is by the same other as TFA) is one of my favorite ever finds. I use it in conjunction with Google Sparse/Dense Hash Maps [2] (another great find, which is Google's very nicely-designed implementation of C++0x compatible hash table STL structure with great performance and memory usage) in almost all my projects these days.

1: <http://sites.google.com/site/murmurhash/> 2: <http://code.google.com/p/google-sparsehash/>

</comment><comment><USER5> I've been doing some experiments with bloom filters recently, thanks for the link. I enjoy these kind of topics related to information complexity and cryptography (it's my pet hobby).

</comment><comment><USER6> This (and speed) is why Cassandra uses murmur for its bloom filters: [http://spyced.blogspot.com/2009/01/all-you-ever-wanted-to- kn...](http://spyced.blogspot.com/2009/01/all-you-ever-wanted-to-know- about.html)</comment>


SpaceX files FCC application for 7518 more satellites - <AUTHOR> http://spacenews.com/fcc-gets-five-new-applications-for-non-geostationary-satellite-constellations/ <comment><USER2> Naive/curious question: Who - if anyone - coordinates all the satellites that are in orbit to make sure they don't collide?

<comment><USER3> Check out Space-Track

[https://www.space-track.org/auth/login](https://www.space- track.org/auth/login)

[https://twitter.com/SpaceTrackOrg](https://twitter.com/SpaceTrackOrg)

And the following video was created, ostensibly, with Space-Track data

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg_umNct7WY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg_umNct7WY)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Space</comment>


Sending images through HTML5 websockets in real time - <AUTHOR> http://nodehackchat.herokuapp.com

<comment><USER2> "Authorize NodeHackChat to use your account?"

No. I don't give authorisation to apps that are ambiguous in intent and purpose. Maybe a little warning instead of straight-up asking for details would be nice.

<comment><AUTHOR> sorry, it's to prevent spamming but you can just do [http://www.hacking.technology/?username=test](http://www.hacking.technology/?username=test)

<comment><USER2> Oh, that's fine and understandable. You should just give people a little warning as I didn't even know what I was clicking on when viewed the site and it popped up immediately asking for my details is all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Maybe give us some basic context before requesting access to my online identity.

<comment><AUTHOR> sorry, I made a workaround for you guys that don't want to, just do [http://www.hacking.technology/?username=test](http://www.hacking.technology/?username=test)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> What is this crap? I'm not giving Twitter authorisation for a random app I don't even know about.

<comment><AUTHOR> do [http://www.hacking.technology/?username=test](http://www.hacking.technology/?username=test)</comment></comment>


Britain funds research into drones that decide who they kill, says report - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/10/autonomous-drones-that-decide-who-they-kill-britain-funds-research <comment><USER2> It would be imprudent not to develop this. If your adversary deploys this technology they would have a dramatic advantage against you. Like nukes its technology that should not be used, but you also don't want to be the one without it.

</comment><comment><USER3> A spokesman for the MoD said: "There is no intent within the MOD to develop weapon systems that operate entirely without human input. Our weapons will always be under human control as an absolute guarantee of oversight, authority and accountability."

<comment><USER4> Until a war happens and people are less civil</comment></comment>


The Crazy History of Nominating Conventions - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/04/conventions-primaries-and-the-presidency <comment><USER2> Dang, at first I thought it said The Crazy History of Naming Conventions. Somebody should write that article...</comment>


NwAvGuy: The Audio Genius Who Vanished - <AUTHOR> http://spectrum.ieee.org/geek-life/profiles/nwavguy-the-audio-genius-who-vanished <comment><USER2> I followed this guy for a long time until it was obvious that he quit and did not mean to return.

The design of that amp was frustrating. The power, the input and the output are all on the front of the amp. I always wondered why nobody cleaned that up and put power and input at the back. I also wished it used DC rather than 12 VAC.

Now I know, it was the no-derivative license.

When I was young I would mess around with audio circuits, trying different opamps, seeing if they changed the sound. These days I am far more concerned about connectivity.

His Objective DAC is more interesting in my opinion. If I ever need a 24bit USB DAC, I will get one. Considering I think 256 bit MP3s sound just fine, and FLAC far to much effort, I probably will never need one.

[http://www.jdslabs.com/products/48/o2-odac- combo/](http://www.jdslabs.com/products/48/o2-odac-combo/)

NwAvGuy proved what he wanted to do, that simple circuits are good enough and doing things like hand matching resistors with very expensive equipment is not required for a clean reproduction of audio. I still wonder if he really cared, or if he was a troll (he spend a good amount of time getting himself banned on forums).

<comment><USER3> > His Objective DAC is more interesting in my opinion. If I ever need a 24bit > USB DAC, I will get one.

FWIW I purchased his Objective DAC (from this site: [http://www.headnhifi.com/odac-rca](http://www.headnhifi.com/odac-rca)) and I don't hear less noise from this than my internal sound card (Terratec Aureon 7.1-Space).

So I was a bit disappointed. But perhaps my internal sound card was just that good, although I think the noise level is greater than is reported online. Audible noise at normal listening levels.

<comment><USER4> I have an ODAC and I can't detect any noise unless I max-out the volume knob with my ER-6is. Not that it matters, since playing anything at that volume with those headphones would be deafening and painful. I definitely hear more noise with my FiiO E7, and my laptop's headphone-out is even worse.

In the hope that I have some idea of what I'm talking about, I've listed some possible reasons why you may be hearing noise and how to fix them.

1\. Using analog inputs (RCA or line in) instead of USB. This will just amplify the noise from your input source. Analog inputs are enabled even if you're playing sound through USB, so be sure to disconnect any secondary source from your amp.

2\. Nearby EMI. I found I could hear a high-pitched whining if I put my amplifier near the lower-right of my monitor. Repositioning your amplifier and/or headphone cable may fix the problem.

3\. Grounding issue (unlikely). Try unplugging the amp's adapter and using the DAC-line output[1]. If there's no noise, the problem must be in amplification. That means either a defective amplifier circuit or a grounding/EMI issue.

4\. Bad software (very unlikely). I once had a copy of VLC that output low- level noise when paused. This was when x86-64 was new. There were plenty of other problems with VLC on 64-bit at the time, since it used ints and longs as bitfields. You'd have this problem with all soundcards, not just the ODAC.

It might also be useful to describe your set-up in more detail, including what headphones you've tried your amp with.

Edit: Another thing you'll want to do to improve audio output: Make sure your OS is sending 24-bit audio to the ODAC. On OS X, open up Audio Midi Setup, then select the ODAC output and switch it to 24 bit. The default is 16-bit, which reduces dynamic range if you don't have the software volume at 100%.

1\. It's the right-most output on mine: [http://abughrai.be/pics/IMG_0594.JPG](http://abughrai.be/pics/IMG_0594.JPG). I'm not sure where the DAC-out is on other versions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Beware of Newsweek if this story becomes too popular they'll start a thorough and extensive work of research and finally claim _NwAvGuy_ is no other than Dorian S. Nakamoto.

<comment><USER6> "I'm no longer involved with DOCs, I've handed it over. Now where's my free lunch?"

<comment><USER7> > where's my free lunch?

Noise-shaped dithering.

(seriously the closest thing to free lunch I've seen in information/signal theory. or computer science. I think it's pretty magical)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This actually reminds me of ripster55[0], who is (in my mind) the leading expert of mechanical keyboards online, and is banned from many of the popular mechanical keyboard forums.

[0] [http://www.reddit.com/user/ripster55](http://www.reddit.com/user/ripster55)

<comment><USER9> It's seemingly not an uncommon pattern in electronics related hobbies, you'll have a few main forums with their own orthodoxy, and a banned former member who disagrees, and clearly has at least a good idea what they're talking about.

For instance, rc multirotors has "timecop", who was banned from rcgroups. He designed a flight controller which is popular and well thought of. AIUI, he also did the hardware design for what are probably the most recommended enthusiast motor controllers today.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Wouldn't an easy way to find this guy be to publish an altered version of his designs and see if you get a CnD letter?

<comment><USER11> There are already companies out there producing modified versions of his designs which technically break the license. See the version from Head n Hifi [http://www.headnhifi.com/O2-ODAC-fully- modded](http://www.headnhifi.com/O2-ODAC-fully-modded)

I think if we were going to see him surface again he already would have.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Always wondered about audiophiles. Seems like a simple truism: The best quality reproduction of a recording will come from whatever the final mix engineer was using. If he was using a 400 dollar pair of Sennheisers and similar equipment, I'm not sure how you could possibly do better. _Maybe_ you could do better if you had the masters and could remix it with more expensive crap, but that's unrealistic. And if the engineer really screwed up, no pricey amp is going to fix it.

<comment><USER13> Not exactly. Sound production and sound reproduction are separate pursuits.

Sound reproduction should ideally be input transformed with transducers to a listening environment. In the absence of perfect transducers there's a lot of play area for enthusiasts to modify the transformation stage to interplay with what is by far the weakest part of the chain, the transducers. Massy complex mechanical circuits with all the imperfections that entails. Despite this, it's very possible to improve the state of the art.

Sound production on the other hand is whatever the producer wants it to be. And the best transducers are often purposefully avoided for monitoring, because it won't necessarily sound too good on the radio when driving to work, or an MP3 through Dr Beats on a noisy tube or metro.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'd love to see a blind test of Pono. The kick starter campaign is totally driven by celebrity testimonials. Hard to reall tell if it's better.

<comment><USER15> including RHCP members where Californication is famous for being terribly mastered. Such a disgusting snakeoil campaign...

<comment><USER16> I think we agree on the 24/192 thing being foolish, but the one significantly positive aspect of Pono is that it would allow access to remastered recordings without the loudness-wars style compression (Californication being a great example). My hope is that it will be a market that you can safely sell high- dynamic-range audio to because presumably they value that over preceived volume.

<comment><USER17> Eh, I'm not holding my breath on that (though of course I hope I'm wrong). In all the Pono marketing material I've read I've seen almost no reference to (re)mastering; it's all been about chasing the hi-res dragon. Meh.

<comment><USER16> You know, you're right - I'm extrapolating too much from the "released in whatever format the masters are in" claim.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> If he's gone, the solution sounds like to ignore his license.

</comment><comment><USER19> I was speaking to him within a day of when he was last heard from. I got the feeling he was getting sick of the 'fame', I know he was getting a lot of flack from products he measured / reviewed from creators of high-priced, low quality manufacturers.

</comment><comment><USER20> I'm not sure this is really that remarkable, he just had a personality and got some attention.

There have been high-quality amplifiers around for a long time now and Class T ([http://www.google.com/patents/US5777512](http://www.google.com/patents/US5777512)) amplifiers at that pricepoint are over a decade old. They're very popular with DIY audio guys. I've had my Trends TA-10 close to 10 years old now.

He did something cool, but I don't see it as all that remarkable.

<comment><USER21> I'm a pretty intensive electronics enthusiast. I checked out his site, and skimmed some of the materials.

My impression is that he deliberately designed a fairly mundane circuit using commonplace parts, to show that an esoteric design is unnecessary. So it's a "political" design, if you will.

The impressive thing is that his documentation of design decisions and techniques is pretty exhaustive. I've definitely bookmarked it for a closer read.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> For me NwAvGuy is most famous for his Headphone & Amp Impedance article where he coined the 1/8th rule so many audiophiles refer to all the time.

[http://nwavguy.blogspot.se/2011/02/headphone-amp- impedance.h...](http://nwavguy.blogspot.se/2011/02/headphone-amp- impedance.html)

</comment><comment><USER23> He's the satoshi of the audio world

</comment><comment><USER24> Off topic, but I found this layout painful to use, with something like 60% of the window devoted to links for other articles and the actual content squeezed into a column on the left. Why would anyone intentionally make things so hard to read?!

</comment><comment> loup-vaillant No derivative works… Hmm…

Couldn't we just "reverse engineer" the thing, and rebuild a design "from scratch"? I mean, his work should allow us to go back to first principles, from which we can rebuild a new design.

<comment><USER25> That's always a possibility, but I think most people who build his designs don't know how they work. High-quality audio reproduction isn't mysterious, but it's not trivial either. One must have a good sense of how and why amplifiers distort signals. That limits the possible candidates for a new design and assures that many will simply build a proven design they don't understand.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Well his internet domain was renewed so he ain't dead, just afk still.

<comment><USER27> Could be that his provider auto renewed and his card happened to still work. But more likely he's alive :)</comment></comment>


The fallacy in the Netflix algorithm - <AUTHOR> http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2009/08/netflix.php

<comment><USER2> He's not correct about the Netflix Prize algorithms. The leading ones all assume time-effects so that your rating on one day is not the same as on another day.

For the explanation of the winning team's view on time-effects as of 2008, see here: <http://research.att.com/~volinsky/netflix/Bellkor2008.pdf>

For a simpler example of a time-based global effect, (see User x Time Effect, for example): [http://algorithmsanalyzed.blogspot.com/2008/05/bellkor- algor...](http://algorithmsanalyzed.blogspot.com/2008/05/bellkor-algorithm- global-effects.html)

<comment><USER3> I would also recommend Yehuda Koren's (Bellkor leader, if I recall correctly) KDD 09 excellent paper, "Collaborative Filtering with Temporal Dynamics" <http://research.yahoo.com/pub/2824> which speaks exclusively of how to handle temporal dynamics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Let me get this right. Dude doesn't bother to rate movies, and then complains that an algorithm based on movie ratings fails to read his mind?

If you keep putting on Criterion discs on your queue and then fail to watch them or rate them, what would you like the poor software to do exactly?

Netflix has an _excellent_ method for dealing with the highbrow/lowbrow problem - it is called multiple profiles. If you want some brainless mind candy for Friday night with your mates, make a mindcandy profile on your account. Make a Criterion queue for your cinephile Sunday group. You will find the software does an excellent job of providing you with ratings tuned to your preferences.

<comment><USER5> You are way off here.

The article was not a customer support complaint about his personal account. Sure he could've written this article a helluva lot better, but his point is 100% valid which you implicitly agree with by recommending he open multiple profiles.

Remember that this guy is a writer not an engineer. His solution is likely bad! So throw out the idea of basing ratings on times of day or mood, etc. The problem statement is still there and valid:

My preferences change over time. How can a good recommendation algorithm account for that?

Brainstorm away...

<comment><USER6> I don't think the gp is far off. The author of the article clearly says that he places movies in his queue which he does not watch. If he provided truthful responses to Netflix (not interested, not-enough-stars-to-order-again) regarding these then the algorithm could be given a chance.

But he doesn't use the algorithm, and instead chooses movies the he won't watch. And then complains that Netflix will not populate his recommendations with more movies he doesn't want to watch.

Non-linear functions (such as mood over time) and non-static behavior (attitude adjustment to one title due to exposure to another) can be accounted for in the Netflix recommendation algorithm.

<comment><USER5> Ok, the author is a bit of a moron. He said stupid things and detracted from what I am guessing his point is. He also didn't read about the Netflix algorithms and how they actually work (all around terrible job of reporting indeed.)

However, to circle back, what I think is his point is interesting: how do you model "mood over time" and "non-static behavior".

You say they "can be accounted for" and don't talk about how. In the winner's documentation they say they treated "user preference" variation over time the same as chunked up "user bias" over time (they define these terms in the paper.) While that obviously performed well numerically, isn't it believable that this is not an ideal solution, but one done under severe time constraints?

The problem is by no means solved...that's all I'm saying.

<comment><USER7> If we just take his examples though, then the problem is on its way to being solved. So he puts movies on his queue that he doesn't watch? Great, he should give them low rankings. If the algorithm is good, that problem is solved.

He likes some movies at night, some on the weekends and some with his wife? Well, okay, rate the movies how you thought they were when you saw them. The algorithm will recommend some movies for each situation.

Your preferences change over time? Thats a bit harder, but was also out of the scope of the challenge. They were given static data. If you want to account for changes over time, then give the ratings some weighting that decreases over time or only use the last x months of data.

But, like you said, he probably doesn't know much about the algorithm.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Thoughtful article, but is "the software tries to predict how I'll feel about movies based on my past ratings" this strictly true? Might it not be a broader predictor of what you might like in a changing landscape?

And most seriously, it is not about _you_ , it is really about _netflix_. That is to say, it may not totally please your every whim, but if it improves netflix predictions over all of its users, it is a big win for them.

</comment><comment><USER9> I disagree with the article. If his point has merit it might be that the data for the Netflix algorithm is the wrong or, more probably, incomplete. That doesn't invalidate it, rather it means the factors are more complex.

Netflix can't know that he leaves Chaplain DVDs on his player unwatched for a week, but it does know that he returns low-brow stuff faster. That faster turn-around probably indicates a behavior. If that data wasn't exposed in the prize, then maybe Netflix will look at exposing it for the next prize, or adding it themselves.

</comment><comment><USER10> As Netflix streams more movies, it might give them the ability to better predict when you might like to watch certain types of movies.

</comment><comment><USER11> im glad i saw this. the linked paper [ [http://www.csbmb.princeton.edu/ncc/PDFs/Neural%20Economics/M...](http://www.csbmb.princeton.edu/ncc/PDFs/Neural%20Economics/McClure%20et%20al%20\(Science%2004\).pdf) ] is quite intriguing and seems relevant to a lot more than netflix</comment>


There's only one business worth starting - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/hi-my-name-is-jon/theres-only-one-business-worth-starting-845b8985838a#.cnu8f65az <comment><USER2> I wholeheartedly agree and plan to do something of the sort myself. Don't need anything grand like a huge business, just a small one that I'd, like you said, want to wake up and still want to do in five years.</comment>


Google+ Hangout scheduling just got simple - <AUTHOR> http://www.schedulehangout.com?hn

<comment><USER2> I play in _cough_ Dungeons & Dragons _cough_ games in Hangouts and this looks tremendously useful.

The participants are usually spread out across the world... the option to view Hangout times in in terms of local time would be _excellent_.

Secondarily, the ability for the organizer to review the attendees' local times for each proposed timeslot would be great too. It'd be nice to know that your timeslot wouldn't be 3am for half the attendees.

<comment><AUTHOR> Great idea. Added to whiteboard. It's been a Looong time since I played D&D - great memories. reply

<comment><USER2> Cheers!

(I only got back into it recently after a long break since I was 14 or so. I'm not keen on the new products but the 80s era stuff is retro-excellent.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> Another good feature would be to make the event open so people could enter their details to register. At the moment, the organiser still has to use another channel to ask "who's in?" and collect e-mail addresses.

</comment><comment><USER3> Slick! How about a "quick create" option, like in Google Calendar? That's how I create all my Calendar entries, though your average user is probably more adept at mousing than free text entry :P

</comment><comment><USER4> Great idea, do you already have ical integration? Public hangout category, language or location search (or combination)?

<comment><AUTHOR> ical on the whiteboard. Will add others suggestions.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Feedback would be great.

<comment><USER5> This looks pretty slick! Just one thing that bit me: You have the dates and times (and the cutoff date and time) already filled out with defaults, but I can't just accept them. If if try, it says they are invalid, so I have to go back and select the exact same dates and times from the menu. I think it would be better if you left them blank, or pre-populate with text that can't be confused for a valid entry. e.g. "choose a date" instead of "Friday, December 2, 2011"

edit: hm, it actually says "Friday, _November 11_ , 2011" but apparently I didn't read past the word "Friday". Still kind of confusing :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point. We caught that UI issue, but somehow that crept back in.</comment></comment></comment>


Scaling Ruby on Rails to 1 Billion Page Views a Month   - <AUTHOR> http://devcentral.f5.com/weblogs/joe/

<comment><USER2> "So, as the Twitter's out there continue to have availability issues and the debate continues as to the scalability of Ruby on Rails, BIG-IP helps show that with a good design and infrastructure planning, big things are possible."

Uh... the bumper sticker app is simply an app that creates static images and then uses static asset servers to serve them up. Twitter aggregates data each time it displays a page. If you think that sticking your f5 BIG-IP product in- front-of twitter is going to make a lick of difference, you are beyond wrong.

You might want to read-up on software architecture before you compare apples to gorillas.</comment>


Does a Zillionaire Have to Insure Their Motor Vehicle? - <AUTHOR> It's that time of the year again when the tedious process of ringing round to get the best quote for renewing my van insurance is nigh and, as ever, a random thought flits across my vacant skull:
Would a zillionaire, such as a Bill Gates or an Elon Musk be able to drive a vehicle without insuring it?
As well as getting some of our money back if our vehicle is stolen or damaged, the main reason vehicle insurance is compulsory is to guarantee that we [via our insurance company] will be able to cover the costs of any damage, injury or death we inflict on anyone else.
But what if you're a Gates, a Musk, a Zuckerberg, or suchlike? Your own personal wealth far exceeds that of any insurance company. So, if you were stopped by the police and charged with driving without insurance, would you have a valid legal defence in saying  "I don't need insurance. I can cover any liability that might arise, from out of my own pocket"?
And, if so, how far down the monetary food chain would that defence work?  I havent got my current insurance docs to hand. But, in the small print, there's usually something to the effect that you're covered for up to XXX hundred thousand £££s of 3rd party liability.  So, could a very rich person deposit XXX hundred thousand £££s in a deposit account as an 'emergency insurance liability cover fund' and then use the existence of this fund to avoid having to take out insurance via an actual insurance company?
If so, it would also have the advantage that they'd actually be earning interest on the money, so their home-rolled insurance fund would actually be increasing with each passing year. A real "no claims bonus"! <comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the informative replies. I didn't realise my 'random musing' was actually "a thing" and was so widespread.

From my point of view [based in UK] the link to the UK Government's statement on why the deposit scheme was dropped is quite interesting. Most of their objections to retaining the deposit scheme; people not renewing their deposits, people's financial circumstances changing, insufficient size of the deposit. could equally well be applied to the system of insuring through an insurance company.

The Government also quotes the possibility of claims running into "many millions". Again, I stand to be corrected but I'm pretty sure my insurance policy has a stated ceiling on 3rd party liability which is in the hundreds of thousands. I'd have thought any claim involving "many millions" would be a the result of an incident of such magnitude that it would go well beyond a standard motor insurance claim, anyway.

And, again; a billionaire or multi-millionaire could still hypothetically cover even "claims running into the millions" from their own pocket. So the UK Government reasoning still seems flawed, in those cases.

Next topic: Who should pay for the insurance when the cars are self-driving? [But I'm sure we've done that one before, a few times!]

</comment><comment><USER2> The UK used to have this. Rather than paying for car insurance, you could deposit £50,000 with an insurance company. See [https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/motor- insurance-...](https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/motor-insurance- alternatives-removal-of-deposit-and-security-options/outcome/summary-of- responses-to-the-consultation-and-the-department-for-transport-response) for details on what happened to the scheme.

<comment><USER3> Some US states also allow this, there is a list on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_insurance_in_the_Unite...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_insurance_in_the_United_States#The_compulsory_insurance_debate)

If I recall correctly many US trucking companies opt to a deposit instead of insuring their trucks. That deposit is higher than for cars.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> According to Wikipedia [1], it's allowed in some states, and the deposit amount is:

$55k: Texas

$50k: Mississippi

$40k: Arizona

$10k: Massachusetts

New Hampshire and Virginia seem to allow it without a deposit. In Virginia you have to pay $500/yr.

It's common for companies with large vehicle fleets, particularly car rental companies, to self-insure.

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_insurance_in_the_Unite...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_insurance_in_the_United_States#Requirements_by_state)

</comment><comment><USER5> The zillionaires are probably sitting in the back seat of a company car most of the time, working. If they personally own a (super)car some countries have mandatory insurance. I live in one of them so I can't really answer you question, sorry.</comment>


Bill Gates' nuclear venture plans reactor to complement solar, wind power boom - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclearpower-terrapower/bill-gates-nuclear-venture-plans-reactor-to-complement-solar-wind-power-boom-idUSKBN25N2U8 <comment><USER2> I watched the Bill Gates doc on Netflix. They actually had this ready to go in 2017. They were going to build it in China because US regulators wouldn't allow it.

But then we started a trade war with China and they nixed the contract.

They were hoping to prove it out in China and then bring it back to the US.

<comment><USER3> The technology exists for small scale nuclear power stations, like those developed in submarines. Based on old news reports it would appear the new glass cube US Embassy in London is nuclear powered and the embassy has enough spare to power surrounding buildings, the moat has more than a medieval defensive purpose.

<comment><USER4> This would be more believable if you had said that... I don't know.. the US Antarctic embassy was nuclear powered. But in a city with excellent existing energy infrastructure in a country that, rocky start notwithstanding, the US has been allied with for almost 250 years? Get outta here

<comment><USER5> Small adjustment: a bit more than 200 years. The Brits burned down Washington in 1812.

<comment><USER6> It's also fascinating what intervened:

"Less than a day after the attack began, a sudden, very heavy thunderstorm—possibly a hurricane—put out the fires. It also spun off a tornado that passed through the center of the capital, setting down on Constitution Avenue and lifting two cannons before dropping them several yards away. Following the storm, the British returned to their ships, many of which required repairs due to the storm. The occupation of Washington lasted for roughly 26 hours and the British plans are still a subject of debate."

The Washington DC area gets only a few tornadoes per century.

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

<comment><USER7> It's also not that unlikely. Similar thing happened in Poland.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> 345MW for "$1B", which is presumably the delivered cost. Add another $1B for running, insurance, and decommissioning (or show me real numbers).

Walney is a new nameplate 588MW offshore wind farm; it will average close to the same delivered energy and cost $3B.[1]

If Terrapower can actually deliver at roughly those costs, they might make a real contribution to our energy future.

[1] [https://www.bbc.com/news/uk- scotland-49125399](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-49125399)

<comment><USER9> What is 588MW a measure of? Peak output? Average?

<comment><USER10> Intermittent sources are usually quoted as peak. That is multiplied by a typical capacity factor to determine average load. For offshore wind, 60% is a reasonable number I think.

<comment><USER11> The key word is "nameplate", a colorful term implying engraving and rivets:

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

<comment><USER12> Nuclear power is usually run close to nameplate, continuously, as it this is generally more economical.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I remember Bill being involved in nuclear for a long time. Hope something of general use comes to fruition in our lifetime.

<comment><USER14> i think he missed the exponential growth in renewables. deciding to productize a new (in the market) nuclear reactor made much more sense a decade ago than it makes now.

<comment><USER15> It's obviously great that renewables are getting better and cheaper. But, what energy source will we use when the sun is not up and there's no wind?

They're not producing all of the time. Renewable power production vary greatly: it's actually problematic that they produce way too much at peak hours, while none at all on windless nights.

You need a stable base production. What better to replace coal and natural gas than nuclear?

<comment><USER16> >But, what energy source will we use when the sun is not up and there's no wind?

A combination of storage, demand shifting and gas.

In a well managed system the gas could be used spasparingl

<comment><USER15> What storage systems exist today that are capable of storing the amounts of energy we're talking about here?

<comment><USER17> First thing is generally to avoid storage (diversified electric mixed,interconnection, big demand response market, and things like solar not optimized for the maximum kwh generation but for generating kwh when needed possibly...)

Then you have thermal storage ; a big share of the electricity we use is to generate cold and heat, and there are a lot of cheap technology out there for thermal storage. It used to be at the clients place for short duration storage(typically storage eater, and now some ice aircon, but there are much more technologies and innovation, at all scales, which include seasonal storage. Most of those tech use thermal storage then to directly use the heat/cold, few use it to generate back some electricity and then could be part of the next paragraph too...

And there are many different technologies taking electricity (or heat that could had generate electricity) and giving back electricity... Pumped hydro is the biggest and oldest player here, but with some innovation coming... There are also different batteries technologies, and many other more exotic possibilities including piling up some concrete blocs...

Lasard Bank write every year a report monitoring the price of the leading technologies. Greentechmedia is a good source to learn more about the development of these technologies and of the market

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I think where small nuclear might be very good chance to compete is district heating, now normally those plant run biomass or coal. [https://world-nuclear- news.org/Articles/Project-launched-to-...](https://world-nuclear- news.org/Articles/Project-launched-to-develop-Finnish-SMR-for-distri)

<comment><USER19> Yes, a reactor designed for heating only can use tried and true LWR technology, but be much simpler and safer as it can run at roughly atmospheric pressure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Meanwhile in todays nuclear industry world:

> The Lehi City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to withdraw the city from a > multiagency nuclear power project that would provide nuclear power to cities > across Utah, citing concerns over increasing costs

[https://outline.com/kkqcRa](https://outline.com/kkqcRa)

> Exelon Generation to Retire Illinois' Byron and Dresden Nuclear Plants In > 2021 [...] Despite being among the most efficient and reliable units in the > nation's nuclear fleet, Dresden and Byron face revenue shortfalls in the > hundreds of millions of dollars because of declining energy prices and > market rules that allow fossil fuel plants to underbid clean resources in > the PJM capacity auction, even though there is broad public support for > sustaining and expanding clean energy resources to address the climate > crisis.

[https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200827005445/en/Exe...](https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200827005445/en/Exelon- Generation-Retire-Illinois%E2%80%99-Byron-Dresden-Nuclear)

> Nuclear advocates fret as first maker of small reactors encounters trouble > [...] The company expected to be the first in the United States to operate a > small nuclear reactor is facing setbacks that have caused supporters to > question whether the novel technology will ever realize its potential as a > tool to combat climate change.

[https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy/nuclear- adv...](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy/nuclear-advocates- fret-as-first-maker-of-small-reactors-encounters-trouble)

</comment><comment><USER21> FWIW, today's front page feature article in the local (Los Alamos) newspaper reports on municipal government progress on a 12 gigawatt, modular nuclear plant.

(Warning: this site, like all local newspaper sites, is utterly packed with advertising.)

[https://ladailypost.com/carbon-free-power-project- advances-t...](https://ladailypost.com/carbon-free-power-project-advances-to- next-phase/)

New Mexico derives a huge percentage of state tax revenue from natural gas from the Permian basin (southeast NM) and coal (Four Corners area, northwest NM). But there has been a huge push forward with solar and wind feeding into the grid.

Multiple projects are happening in the US, local and state governments.

Smaller nuclear power plants are coming. Part of a push away from carbon based energy.

<comment><USER22> There's a small typo in your post, it should be 12MW, not GW. A 12 GW reactor would be quite huge!

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Rickover's quote on new reactors vs existing ones is apt to every development in this field.

Sodium cooling is temperamental with the US navy abandoning it due to leak problems, and France having mixed experiences. The coolent catching fire whenever it leaks is not so fun.

Fast spectrum with metallic fuel and pyroprocessing was demonstrated in the IFR but is messier than you might naively expect, with leaks of xenon that need control. The HEU for startup is also problematic but maybe derated plutonium could be used.

<comment><USER19> > Rickover's quote on new reactors vs existing ones is apt to every > development in this field.

Indeed, it's easy to get carried away by the promises of new exiting tech on the horizon.

Then again, we're never going to innovate if we expect everything new to immediately prove superior economics.

> Sodium cooling is temperamental with the US navy abandoning it due to leak > problems, and France having mixed experiences. The coolent catching fire > whenever it leaks is not so fun.

Indeed, sodium has downsides. As well as upsides, which is why most fast reactor designs to date have used it as coolant.

> Fast spectrum with metallic fuel and pyroprocessing was demonstrated in the > IFR but is messier than you might naively expect, with leaks of xenon that > need control.

Well, isn't that true for all reprocessing? When you crush or otherwise process the spent fuel, the radioactive noble gases will escape.

> The HEU for startup is also problematic but maybe derated plutonium could be > used.

HEU for civilian applications is non-viable, I think. Modern fast reactor designs are designed to work with HALEU, before (potentially) switching to a U-Pu closed cycle. One can of course quibble where to draw the line between HEU and HALEU. The current 20% is certainly a conservative choice. But it's also a quite minor hill to die on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Why sodium in particular? I've seen in the past that molten sodium is often proposed as a storage medium, but is there something about it that makes it suited for that use?

<comment><USER25> Because it doesn't decompose into an explosive mixture of hydrogen and oxygen under extreme temperatures, among other things.

<comment><USER26> Instead it just explodes when exposed to water or air...

<comment><USER12> Just water. Under air it will quickly oxide, but not _that_ quickly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> What happen later after it has to decommission. And what if someone get to those material.

Money he had but like his other action sometimes ill conceived due to scale.

</comment><comment><USER28> He's swimming in money and connections, why don't he try to solve fusion?

Yes, we have ITER going, but it's not really built efficiently: exact same parts are manufactured on the opposite sides of the world.

<comment><USER29> Because you do not get to be a billionaire by pissing away all of your money on a fool's errand. Fusion is a black hole of broken promises that will not delivery a single watt of useful energy to consumers in your lifetime and additional funding from Gates won't change this. Fission works. Fission delivers today. Fission gets the job done. Making fission cheaper, easier to deploy, and safer will have a much bigger impact than chasing fusion dreams.

<comment><USER28> Becoming a billionaire and trying to push the envelope are different activities, although sometimes they align. And as you describe, when a guy catches some important near term thing that nobody sees - that's where he finds billions.

But the unreachable areas are sometimes not that unreachable. Look at the space industry companies. If you ignore the flagship ones that popped up in a scale of mere years then moving out in your lifetime looks like a pipe dream too.

<comment><USER30> The problem is urgency and we don't have an enough amount of uncertainty budget to chase fusion reactors. The scale of the problem is so huge that even Bill's fortune could be insufficient to make a dent to the problem in a foreseeable future. Yes, it'd be nice if Bill can make it happen but if not, he's going to regret it. I'm pretty sure that Bill already has done the math, concluded that we probably have only less than 10 years and next-gen nuclear fission reactor is the only feasible mid-term technology to fight against climate change.

<comment><USER28> The 'he did the math and then did an obviously impossible thing' is really easy to understand. Otherwise it's just a meh explanation that's based on some predictions mixed with politics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Please consider the reliability of Windows.

<comment><USER32> Windows is reliable for general public.

<comment><USER5> People don't want to hear this but Windows in 2020 is probably more reliable than desktop Linux.

Windows isn't what it used to be in 1999. And desktop Linux QA standards are nothing to write home about, unfortunately.

<comment><USER33> Hmmmm.. yes it is probably more reliable as a desktop with equivalent features. When running a simple tiled WM Linux is solid.

If you look at the wider eco system, Windows doesn't look so hot. I've just moved from a Linux based work place to a Windows based work place. The number of times the main file server has to be restarted because it's doing something weird is crazy. This never happened at my old job. The Linux servers were only turned off for hardware changes. They didn't require constant restarts. If something went wrong I was able to trace the problem down and prevent it from happening again. In windows everything is opaque. Some unexplained regedit is suggested for every problem and no one seems to know what those edits actually do.

<comment><USER5> Yeah, but you're talking about Windows server and I was talking about Windows desktop :-)

<comment><USER33> Too true. I guess I'm still going through Linux withdrawal and wanting to cheer for my lost friend.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> This is great. We could pave the world with solar panels (that need replacing every few years), mining up tons of politically sensitive rare earth elements, and covering over what remains of our ecosystem and we would be close to what we could achieve with modern, safe reactor designs and our virtually unlimited supply of thorium fuel

<comment><USER35> An entertaining fantasy but nothing more.g

<comment><USER34> Instead of downvotes, where am I wrong?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> > By 2050 "we would see hundreds of these reactors around the world, solving > multiple different energy needs," Levesque said.

We can already reach 90% renewables by 2035 without these reactors [1]. If they get built, that'd be great, but they won't be built in time to avert climate change. TerraPower has existed for 14 years and still hasn't built a reactor. For comparison, the Kamuthi solar facility in Tamil Nadu, India, has a total generation capacity of 648 MW, covers 10 sq km and took 8 months to build. This work can be parallelized; more generation capacity deployed in the same time or faster with more people. Portugal just had a historic bid close for a 700MW solar facility at 1.3 cents/kWh. Nuclear cannot compete against such economics, even when storage is factored in to enable firm dispatch of renewable energy.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23580707](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23580707)

<comment><USER37> Your article includes nuclear:

"Wind, solar, and battery storage can provide the bulk of the 90 percent clean electricity. The report finds that new fossil fuel generators are not needed. Existing gas plants, used infrequently and combined with storage, hydropower, and nuclear power, are sufficient to meet demand during periods of extraordinarily low renewable energy generation or exceptionally high electricity demand."

<comment><USER36> Existing nuclear, not new. Those facilities will eventually be decommissioned, as they're nearing end of life, but it of course makes sense to extend their operating licenses if safe to do so (to be replaced last after fossil generators).

If you break ground on a new reactor this moment, it won't generate its first kw for years. Historically, over a decade, but folks handwave that cutting regulation and red tape would speed up the process, so I say years to be generous.

<comment><USER38> If only we could replace these old, baseload reactors quicker, and cheaper, and maybe with an identical, smaller design, with better tech so one control room could monitor multiple reactors. And if refuelling could be done without turning off all power generation at a site. Maybe if we had something modular......oh, wait

<comment><USER39> Wow its so easy, can't believe all those idiots trying to build nuclear plants the past few decades have never though to simply apply "better tech". Thanks hacker news/silicon valley!

<comment><USER40> The barriers, time, and cost for nuclear seem to be primarily of political origin, not technical. It's held to an unreasonable higher standard than anything else.

<comment><USER39> So certainly all the non US/EU countries with less strict regulations should have electricity "too cheap to meter" through nuclear, right? since there's no technical challenges here apparently.

<comment><USER41> There are technical challenges, but arguably the primary challenges are a) capital costs, and b) nonproliferation treaties.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


China Gains on the U.S. In the Artificial Intelligence Arms Race - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/technology/artificial-intelligence-china-united-states.html <comment><USER3> Many of the best AI researchers are Chinese. But they almost all work for US companies. Which is why we cannot mess with immigration.

This article is written for people outside the field? Baidu is alright but a bit of a shambles. All the did was build a dense GPU rack for RNN training. Their imagenet results were from cheating. The theoretically interesting work isn't really happening there.

The Microsoft paper was funny. It was PR BS that runs 10x real time.

Speech is nice, and iflytek does fine, but speech is becoming a commodity now.

The interesting work isn't happening in either of those companies and it's not happening on those problems.

This article was written by someone who didn't know the field interviewing someone who is trying to get his budget increased via fear mongering.

<comment><USER4> Exactly. I deeply respect ng and his team, but they are more applied.

Also, hilariously, the article totally neglects that more research comes from Canada and Europe (deepmind) than the US....

<comment><USER5> You mean US companies with international offices such as Geoff Hinton at Google Toronto and DeepMind owned by Alphabet in the UK? Not to mention Facebook AI Research in Paris. Yep. Canada and Europe sure are producing strong research for the US. Thanks for the talent!

<comment><USER4> MILA, Maluuba, ElementAI are all from Canada. And when you buy foreign talent, where does the money go?

Into foreign tech economies....

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> >The new Chinese weapon typifies a strategy known as "remote warfare," said John Arquilla, a military strategist at the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey, Calif. The idea is to build large fleets of small ships that deploy missiles, to attack an enemy with larger ships, like aircraft carriers.

This reminds me of a famous story of an early AI system, which competed against humans in a table top war game focused around ship design.

>After weeks of experimentation, and some 10,000 two-to-thirty-minute battles, Eurisko came up with what would be the winning fleet. To the humans in the tournament, the program's solution to Traveller must have seemed bizarre. Most of the contestants squandered their trillion-credit budgets on fancy weaponry, designing agile fleets of about twenty lightly armored ships, each armed with one enormous gun and numerous beam weapons.

>Eurisko, however, had judged that defense was more important than offense, that many cheap, invulnerable ships would outlast fleets consisting of a few high-priced, sophisticated vessels. There were ninety-six ships in Eurisko's fleet, most of which were slow and clumsy because of their heavy armor. Rather than arming them with a few big, expensive guns, Eurisko chose to use many small weapons.

>In any single exchange of gunfire, Eurisko would lose more ships than it destroyed, but it had plenty to spare. The first battle in the tournament was typical. During four rounds of fire, the opponent sank fifty of Eurisko's ships, but it lost nineteen -all but one-of its own. With forty-six ships left over, Eurisko won.

>Even if an enemy managed to sink all Eurisko's sitting ducks, the program had a secret weapon -a tiny, unarmed extremely agile vessel that was, Lenat wrote, "literally unhittable by any reasonable enemy ship." The usefulness of such a ship was discovered during a simulated battle in which a lifeboat remained afloat round after round, even though the rest of the ships in the fleet had been destroyed. To counter opponents using the same strategy, Eurisko designed another ship equipped with sophisticated guidance computer and a giant accelerator weapon. Its only purpose was killing enemy lifeboats.

I've always wondered if a similar strategy might work in real life.

<comment><USER7> Curious that the winning strategy resulted in the maximum loss of human life.

<comment><USER6> Not necessarily. The small ships probably have much smaller crews than the large ships.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's always been an international community.

People in pretty much every country are doing some pretty amazing stuff. A lot of it you won't hear about if you limit yourself to press releases from venture capitalists.

<comment><USER9> But which country will be the first to bring Skynet online?

<comment><USER10> Czech? [http://www.moravcik.info/](http://www.moravcik.info/)

<comment><USER11> Extremely impressive website with lots of fascinating examples. I assume the website was generated by the real-human-brain algorithm with the given task of "maximum impress site visitor". This will change everything!

<comment><USER10> I ran into it on some Reddit stream and thought it was funny as he claims AGI and he is everywhere asking/pleading for buyers. In the Netherlands we had Sloot[0] who claimed a similar impossible feat in another field. Well Sloot was actually claiming something 'more impossible'; I do think strong AI will happen but we are far off while Sloot claimed something impossible (Kolmogorov complexity is a good book about that). Sloot was believed by many and invested in. Also by people who should know better.

[0] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Sloot](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Sloot)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "Many Silicon Valley firms remain hesitant to be seen as working too closely with the Pentagon out of fear of losing access to China's market." This is an interesting assertion, but I'd like to see some evidence.

<comment><USER13> Almost certainly a questionable assertion given how many of the big players (FB, goog) are already locked out!

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Byzantine hiring processes in the government itself doesn't help this problem. This isn't a politica statement, if you compare USAJobs to an average tech company you'll see an over emphasis on certifications and the like. There are reasons for it, but it doesn't help when decision makers or project managers don't know what real success looks like or how to even measure it.

<comment><USER13> I'm not sure that is a problem...historically the department of Energy (DOE) has lead Supercomputing efforts in the USA and they have focused on other domains of interest (particularly nuclear weapons research). This field is actually not unrelated, in terms of HPC capabilities, Numerical linear algebra, etc to the recent AI work. But physical simulation remains the top priority in part because AI is not seen as an energy technology.

I can state without hesitation that some of the greatest minds in Supercomputing and computational science are permanent members of the staff at these DOE research labs. These staff are selected much like the top AI researchers: academic pedigree and publications in top tier research journals.

Therefore, I think it is more a problem of application. Until government has a killer AI app, it will be hard to justify a massive investment in AI tech at scale. Contrast that with large companies who have already deployed AI tech in production...

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> An article about US AI research or supercomputers wouldn't be labelled an "arms race."

<comment><USER16> That's because it's a classic refrain that most commonly refers to international competition more often than domestic competition, due to the obvious broad implications to national security and defense. It's not in any way limited to or specific to China - and it's even occasionally used domestically in reference to tech companies battling (see: frequent arms race references in regards to Amazon vs Google vs Microsoft in cloud).

The exact same language would be used if the US were competing against Russia on this, and previously was used when the USSR was the primary political competitor of the US. It has also been used to refer to competition with Japan, now and in the past.

NYTimes, 2005, vs the Japanese (and recently ascendant China):

"A global race is under way to reach the next milestone in supercomputer performance, many times the speed of today's most powerful machines. And beyond the customary rivalry in the field between the United States and Japan, there is a new entrant -- China -- eager to showcase its arrival as an economic powerhouse."

[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/19/technology/a-new-arms- race...](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/19/technology/a-new-arms-race-to- build-the-worlds-mightiest-computer.html)

\---

"A Global Arms Race to Create a Superintelligent AI is Looming"

[https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/a-global-arms- rac...](https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/a-global-arms-race-to- create-a-superintelligent-ai-is-looming)

\---

"Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking Warn of Artificial Intelligence Arms Race"

[http://www.newsweek.com/ai-asilomar-principles-artificial- in...](http://www.newsweek.com/ai-asilomar-principles-artificial-intelligence- elon-musk-550525)

\---

"How Amazon Triggered a Robot Arms Race"

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-29/how- amazo...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-29/how-amazon- triggered-a-robot-arms-race)

\---

"Amazon and Google Continue Cloud Arms Race With New Data Centers"

[http://fortune.com/2016/09/30/amazon-google-add-data- centers...](http://fortune.com/2016/09/30/amazon-google-add-data-centers/)

\---

2009: "Smartphone vs. feature phone arms race heats up"

[http://www.zdnet.com/article/smartphone-vs-feature-phone- arm...](http://www.zdnet.com/article/smartphone-vs-feature-phone-arms-race- heats-up-which-did-you-buy/)

\---

"The Adultery Arms Race"

[https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/11/the- adu...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/11/the-adultery- arms-race/380794/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> OR are they? Its always problematic to take Chinese scientific claims at face value.

<comment><USER18> Do you have specific criticisms of the NYTimes piece? Reasons to think these particular claims are false? If you do, please do share, as it would be a substantial contribution to the conversation. Throwing aspersions or drive-by allusions of doubt is a primary reason why we're in the current situation where we can't seem to find agreement on so many things that should be facts.

<comment><USER17> In addition to being the worlds largest market for acupuncture, herbology, aphrodisiacs and a whole constellation of farce around 'chi'?

Here's some insight: [http://io9.gizmodo.com/academic-fraud-in-china-is- getting-ou...](http://io9.gizmodo.com/academic-fraud-in-china-is-getting-out- of-hand-1427658261)

[http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67...](http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(10\)60030-X/fulltext)

[http://www.scidev.net/global/networks/editorials/china- must-...](http://www.scidev.net/global/networks/editorials/china-must-address- the-roots-of-scientific-fraud.html)

<comment><USER18> Your links provide more support than you comments regarding folklore. Other cultures are no stranger to superstitions, quack remedies, and non-scientific religious practices.

China has also progressed quite handily economically and technologically, areas that don't admit to too much reliance on things that don't work. Cautious skepticism isn't the same as out-of-hand dismissal.

<comment><USER17> 'Problematic' isn't quite the same as dismissal. But I get your point. Will tone it down!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> So much for the "Federation of Planets launching race" ...

<comment><USER19> Trekkie Peace message getting down voted on HN ?

... You guys need to get out of deep nets and go back to your classics

"Without followers, evil cannot spread." - <USER2>

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> The only thing this news confirms is, there is some form of military budget committee meeting soon.

The biggest proponents of Chinese power is department of defense.

</comment><comment><USER21> Whoa I thought John Markoff retired? Is he still active? He's been one of my favorite NYT writers.</comment>