Show HN: JavaScript-free personal bio hosting - <AUTHOR> https://plumebio.com <comment><USER2> I really hate the statement "built-in privacy: this site does not use any javascript", because privacy is not specifically violated by JS, and you can track (or 3rd-party track) without JS just fine. Their site clearly does not need JS, but this misinforms their audience about privacy and safe browsing.

Also, according to their Privacy Policy, they collect your IP (for Geolocation) and browser type... two pieces of data that are, in a great percentage of cases, enough to identify someone.

<comment><USER3> I really hate the people talk about 'collecting' IP addresses or getting their "IP address exposed". There is no risk in anyone knowing this, not to privacy, not to security. This is how the internet is meant to work. A bunch of equal nodes.

Just because mega-corps and wireless telcos have gimped the wildly popular mobile computers and taken away their ability to interact (no ipv4, no ports, not much beyond web) doesn't mean interacting directly is bad or unsafe or giving away some 'secret' information.

No, we need more people directly interacting with other people via the internet protocol. We desparately need widespread ipv6 adoption so that everyone can have their own IPs and expose them all to each other in the emergent network we call the 'net.

This 'IP as privacy risk' is scaremongering and very unhealthy.

<comment><USER4> Absolutely not. You are entirely wrong on this one to a level of causing dangers to others. An IP address, to a court, to officers, is you. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Proven by the countless number of times people have doxxed YouTubers by simply calling in fake terrorist threats to their police. ISP's know where that IP is routed to, and they will cooperate with authorities. Police can track even cellphones in real-time 10 years back.

Plenty of civil cases use just IP's to prove copyright infringement. That's how BitTorrent cases catch infringers, regardless of who actually did it.

Watch Leonard french on YouTube, copyright attorney, it doesn't matter to judges in Pennsylvania wether an IP is a person or not. They say it is, and thats good enough.

That's why discord was created. So everything is proxied and safe for streamers and anyone online. Maybe you don't involve yourself so you don't know any better, but I've seen it happen, personally, friends get stalkers from the online world simply because the game they played was P2P, or the server admin for vent/teamspeak was a total creep with their friends.

It's not how it should be, but that's how it is.

<comment><USER5> Discord itself has a fairly concerning policy with regards to cooperating with law enforcement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I like the idea but I don't see how being Javascript free is a good value proposition here. If I'm looking to hire or find additional information on a person, the way the page is implemented won't be important to me (especially if Im outside of the tech industry).

<comment><USER7> Personally, I think no JavaScript means no third party tracking. Also requiring a .edu email is a good start.

<comment><USER8> > Also requiring a .edu email is a good start.

Not really, unless the intent is to discriminate against immigrants to the US / people outside the US / people who went straight into a career from high school.

<comment><USER9> It looks like the service is targeted at students (US based) and academic researchers. If this is the case, the the email filter makes sense... especially for a launch. It's not perfect, but a good start.

Why assume nefarious motivations?

<comment><USER10> Not necessarily nefarious, just myopic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Nice! I'm creating something similar[0] in Clojure, as my first attempt at a Clojure project. It's still super early stage, but the author of plumebio is free to run it and get inspiration from the generated CV html/css page.

If I have more time, what I'd strife for with this project is to become a competitor of LinkedIn (e.g.), but with only private profiles. Companies are then charged when they query for people with skills/certificates that they are interested in. Or they'll pay a subscription for unlimited querying. Users know they are not tracked by the platform itself, and companies that query users agree to a (TBD) license that limits their usage for HR goals.

It'll provide public statistics on what companies query for, so if users with Java experience see that Kotlin is queried more than Java, they'll have an indication of what skill to invest their time in. (Just an example.)

[0] [https://github.com/harryvederci/resumator](https://github.com/harryvederci/resumator) (Any Clojurians that find this subject interesting, feel free to contribute.)

<comment><USER12> Interesting idea for a business model. How would you get users on board though?

<comment><USER11> For now I'm creating it as a tool that I'll use to generate my own CV + website, so even without the whole "compete with the likes of LinkedIn" idea, I'll get value out of the time I invested in it.

The next phase will be to share it with colleagues and friends, to get some early feedback going. Then I'll expand it from a self-hosted website (/ tool to generate your CV from your local machine) to a hosted platform where people can sign up.

Then I'll probably first market it to a business sector (/ Reddit groups e.g.) with a higher-than-usual amount of privacy-concerned people. Then branch out if it's successful.

Note that I'm just brainstorming here, it's not like I've done something like this before myself.

What I'd like even more than trying to turn this into a profit-oriented company is to do something more philosophical/political. Hear me out:

1\. Create the Resumator tool, and turn it into a platform, as described above.

2\. Create a charity organisation that owns the platform, uses the generated income to maintain it, and invests into other like-minded charity organisations.

3\. Get governments to support the platform + foundation. They could even self-host Resumator themselves, and make it mandatory for recruitment to be done through the platform. Right now, if a Dutch organisation needs a Java developer, they can create an "easy apply" LinkedIn vacancy. A (probably also Dutch) Java developer now has to spend spare time (or even time in which they are supposed to be working for their current employer) searching LinkedIn for that vacancy. If they click it, the organisation that posted the vacancy pays Microsoft (/LinkedIn) money. So a Dutch employee was less productive because they had to search for a new job instead of just getting an offer, a Dutch company had to pay money to hire that employee, and now the previous employer will pay LinkedIn (/competitors) money. When will the government realise that this money that is going to $usa_based_company can go to its own tax paying citizens?

0\. And at the very least, create an API standard for CVs. It's strange to me that it's 2020 and we still have to share PDFs to get a job, where each CV has a different layout, and the person reading it has to look for the relevant section again and again. And often after that, we still have to create a Workday/whatever account and put in the same information again.

Edit: Oh and no more of this "talking to independent recruiters" nonsense. Companies can query for profiles themselves, no need to add more middle-men in between that add no value whatsoever.

<comment><USER12> Seems like a solid plan. Good luck, I'd love for this to take off.

Edit: Bah, brainfart. Do you have a repo where I can follow this?

<comment><USER11> Thanks! This is the repo: [https://github.com/harryvederci/resumator](https://github.com/harryvederci/resumator)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Congratulations on the launch!

I would like to inform anyone working on such bio website that there is a need gap for a universal employee verification system which works to independently verify employee experience even if the former company has shut its shop[1]. LinkedIn could have addressed that problem, but it chose to become another cat videos platform(I personally have nothing against cats).

[1][https://needgap.com/problems/54-better-employee- verification...](https://needgap.com/problems/54-better-employee-verification- system-verification-employment) (Disclaimer: My problem validation platform)

<comment><USER14> I clicked on your link and read the problem. It's the problem of asserting authenticity of a claim all over again, and doing it in way that can be trusted by both parties.

An applicant makes a claim about a former position, but there's no way of verifying the veracity of that claim. There's no notarized and properly archived record which allows verification of the authenticity claim.

So, any 3rd party service that claims to be able to verify authenticity invariably acts as a neutral, impartial, trusted authority. In essence, this what a notary or notary public does in the analogue world.

If such a service would be a private business, it's impartiality can and will automatically be contested - as per your example in the link. You could look towards the public administration and set up a publicly governed system (e.g. tied to public pension rights) which registers employment. But such a system would also come with a few fundamental questions regarding trust and privacy. And finally, you could look into a distributed network of actors verifying each other through block chain technology, but that still doesn't solve the problem of governing those actors and how they behave.

In my corner of the world, employers are legally obliged to hand out a signed form to leaving employees that confirms their erstwhile employment. It's entirely up to employees to produce those copies when asked to verify the claims they make on their resume, and employers are free to take this into account as a formal condition to consider an applicant. It's also up to applicants to seek and reach out to their previous employers and secure a document if they didn't receive one, even when those have dissolved. This system puts the responsibility entirely with the employee, which may, arguably, be the best of all the bad options out there.

<comment><USER13> Good points, I agree with all of them. A private organisation which hosts a universal employee verification system requires utmost trust and accountability. Making organisations accept its authority on it as a private organisation would itself be a huge problem to solve.

>In my corner of the world, employers are legally obliged to hand out a signed form to leaving employees that confirms their erstwhile employment.

It is common in my region as well. But the issue as the person who posted the problem says, is the 3rd party independent verification companies which verify past experience of a candidate on behalf the future company; they have no idea about how a email system works and require email from a company which has long gone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> How does "built-in privacy" hold up when the bios are basically public?

It looks like the generated links are just based on the person's name as well, so it would be pretty easy to find a lot of people fast. Letting the user generate UUID (or something) based URLs that are valid for a limited time only should be standard.

</comment><comment><USER16> I am suspicious at the lack of a "pricing" tab. It's free of ads, they won't sell my data, they're "here to help me" \- so who's paying to maintain this? Should I use this if I don't know it will still be around in 3 months?

</comment><comment><USER17> This webapp seems extremely trivial, unless there is some long term play to take on the likes of LinkedIn?

<comment><USER18> You need js to copy everyone's clipboard ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I think this is a neat project - congratulations on getting it out there.

I would _love_ for the page to have more polish - maybe you could do it all using CSS and not JS :) about.me does a good job of this. I say this as a grudging backend developer: the "designy-ness" really does work to help any page seem more credible.

Curious: is it your intention to make money with this project? On the one hand, awesome that you're doing this for free and presumably trying to get users. On the other, I myself would worry that the service "might go away one day", and although charging doesn't prevent that, it may be useful to find some way to better communicate the trustworthiness of your application not just in terms of privacy, but longevity too.

Nice work!

<comment><USER12> I actually really like this look, see [https://git.sr.ht](https://git.sr.ht) or [https://100r.co/site/home.html](https://100r.co/site/home.html) for similar aesthetics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> > Academic email (.edu), to verify your affiliation.

Uh, why? And since it's just a free text field, what makes it better than me just hosting something on my own?

</comment><comment><USER21> There appears to be some issues with scrubbing input data (or escaping it when output): [https://imgur.com/a/IUBHLsa](https://imgur.com/a/IUBHLsa)

</comment><comment><USER22> Can you support ".ac.ccTLD" as well? Many countries [1] use that for educational institutes.

        [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.ac_(second-level_domain)

<comment><USER23> If OP really only wants to allow academic email addresses, they could use the domains from JetBrains' swot repository: [https://github.com/JetBrains/swot/tree/master/lib/domains](https://github.com/JetBrains/swot/tree/master/lib/domains)

<comment><USER24> This likely uses swot as the data source, but offers an API as well: [https://github.com/Hipo/university-domains- list](https://github.com/Hipo/university-domains-list)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I would be surprised if a page like that needed JS at all

<comment><USER26> No ordinary pages _need_ JS.

Sadly the majority of newer ones never seems to have got that memo.

<comment><USER25> So true, that could be a simple static html page.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I'd love to see something like this replace LinkedIn. But I guess it needs a few more features before that happens.

<comment><USER28> Microsoft owns LinkedIn and GitHub. GitHub has "profile readmes" now. I expect us to (unfortunately) trend this direction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Most people would just use their github profile and readme. It tells a better story.

</comment><comment><USER30> It would be nice if there was something like this that worked with PGP identities. The public version could just be indexed off the fingerprint. The private version would have to involve signing something, probably just the fingerprint.

<comment><USER31> Keybase doesn't do this explicitly, but would be in a good position to do so. It's all about identities, including PGP keys. The profile page currently only shows your identities elsewhere, but they do have a "public folder" which could host a bio. They would need to do something similiar to Github profile readmes so that a specific folder or files show up on your profile. They might even have that as a feature and I'm just not aware of it.

\- profile page: [https://keybase.io/ytjohn/](https://keybase.io/ytjohn/)

\- public folder: [https://keybase.pub/ytjohn/](https://keybase.pub/ytjohn/)

\- github profile readme: [https://www.aboutmonica.com/blog/how-to-create-a- github-prof...](https://www.aboutmonica.com/blog/how-to-create-a-github- profile-readme)

UPDATE: They do let you create a homepage with an index.md or index.html. ([https://ytjohn.keybase.pub/](https://ytjohn.keybase.pub/)). However, you would be on your own getting the information from your profile page onto your public webpage. You would just be hosting a static page and not benefiting from the verified identity portion on the profile page.

<comment><USER32> After zoom acquisition, I ditched keybase and I think a lot of keybase users feel the same way. [0]The original blog post didn't inspire much confidence in the future.

0] [https://keybase.io/blog/keybase-joins- zoomffering/](https://keybase.io/blog/keybase-joins-zoomffering/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> how to find new people . Even after creating new account it is not showing any people or explore page

It is remaining as the same but with log out button that's it nothing is coming up

</comment><comment><USER34> Put your name on the website and tell the user who you are. The privacy pitch is silly if the user is to share his data with faceless nameless entities.

</comment><comment><USER35> The "Mark" example links to papers where Mark isn't an author.

<comment><USER36> Fake it 'til you make it! I imagine they don't actually have a published author on the site yet?

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I know this is pretty harsh, but seeing justified margins immediately makes me hit the back button.

<comment><USER38> Do you mean container margins? The text is left justified and I don't see any difference between that site and HN.

<comment><USER39> The text is treated with `text-align: justify`, which can look pretty rough in small screen sizes where you have fewer words per line. In my opinion, it both looks bad and hurts readability.</comment></comment></comment>


California has about one year of water left - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-famiglietti-drought-california-20150313-story.html <comment><USER2> 80 percent of the developed water supply in California is used by agriculture. About 6 percent is industrial and commercial. That leaves 7 percent residential landscaping, and 7 percent residential non-landscaping (showers, washing machines, etc.). Source: [http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_focus/commentary/where- we-...](http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_focus/commentary/where-we-are/in-a- season-of-drought-where-does-the-water-go.html)

Even if residential landscaping or non-landscaping water usage dropped by a quarter immediately, which seems rather unlikely, that's close to a rounding error compared to the amount of water to turn our near-desert into an agricultural breadbasket. Put another way, more water is used for almond farming alone in California than all residential landscaping or residential non-landscaping: [http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/0...](http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/05/_10_percent_of_california_s_water_goes_to_almond_farming.html)

The drought is real, but I would take op-eds like these more seriously if they acknowledged the above figures. And the fact that some cities like Sacramento still don't have everyone on metered water -- flat rate! -- and meters won't be fully installed until after 2025. Source: [http://portal.cityofsacramento.org/%20Utilities/Conservation...](http://portal.cityofsacramento.org/%20Utilities/Conservation/Water- Meters)

<comment><USER3> It looks like it won't help much, but landscaping should stop. Double stop. Triple stop.

No need to waste water in there, and comply with neighbor whatever regulations.

<comment><USER4> I agree with OP. Solve the big problems first. If at some point landscaping ranks as a top consumer of water, then solve it. Attention and effort is a resource -- spend it where it has the most impact. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Disclaimer: I have no clue if what I'm proposing is realistic or not, but:

Perhaps the federal government should step in and gradually step down the level of subsidies given to farmers in California and gradually increase subsidies given to NEW farmers in other, more water rich parts of the country. This would have the effect of moving farms to more sustainable locations in the country. Sure, the types of crops produced would change and consumer demands would have to shift with that, but that isn't the worst thing in the world.

Another solution is to allow utilities to drastically increase water prices for communities that import most of their water anyways.

All in all, both solutions are geared towards population displacement in unsustainable locations. Just as New Orleans is probably destined for another Katrina, SoCal is probably destined to be a desert despite the demands we've put on the land in the last century.

<comment><USER6> What would happen if the gov't did nothing?

1\. Water would become more scarce in California. Not everyone would get what they need.

2\. Price of produce would go up, since there is a smaller supply.

3\. We'd start to import more produce (either from outside the country or other states) because the price is the same or lower than the new, higher CA price.

4\. Other farmers, who don't grow what CA grows, would start to because it's more profitable as prices rise.

The gov't doesn't really have to do anything. That's the beauty of the free market.

<comment><USER7> I'm puzzled at the down votes you're receiving. I think you have a valid point and I generally have a similar perspective, but, in this case, it overlooks a significant externality: the destruction of the environment as rivers are pumped dry and (albeit, artificial) reservoirs run dry. Further, your solution could make the additional extraction of water quite profitable, which would further the destruction.

The straightforward solution is to internalize the externality via a progressive tax on water usage. Then, as you said, the free market can regulate itself.

Note: I'm not a fan of taxation, but it can be a good solution to managing externalities.

<comment><USER6> _it overlooks a significant externality: the destruction of the environment as rivers are pumped dry and (albeit, artificial) reservoirs run dry_

Not sure I understand. The rivers would run dry because of no rain, not because we're taking water from them. Remember all this water we're using for irrigation was just ending up in the ocean anyways.

<comment><USER8> Is the California produce you buy bone-dry? Probably not. It's full of that precious water. A lot may wind up in the ocean as runoff, but a lot gets exported from CA too. It eventually winds up back in the ecosystem, but the point is that it will take eons to get back into the acquifers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I just moved to Austin, TX 1.5 years ago. We've got our own severe drought here, and I wonder what's going to happen in the long term. Was it a mistake to move here?

At least in TX, there are a couple of ways in which it's clear we're doing it to ourselves.

First, we can't keep the reservoirs full because a significant amount of water flow is earmarked for rice farmers down at the mouth of the river. That's right: rice farmers. It's clearly not a good idea to be supporting a water- intensive crop in this geography.

Second, Texas has a "right of capture" in its laws. That basically means that whatever water you can capture, you can have. There's a controversy near my town where a private company wants to drill well into the deep aquifer to pump and sell huge amounts of water, such that local homeowners are afraid their less-deep wells will run dry. And there's little one can do to insulate oneself: there's no way to stake claim to the part of the aquifer under your house, other than to be the first person to pump it all out.

I wonder how much of this stupidity is also driving CA's problems.

<comment><USER10> Not related to water per se, but I've lived in Austin for over 6 years now, and can confidently say it was a mistake to move here for me.

Where do you go when you want to get out of town? Big Bend? New Orleans? Sure, 8 hours later... And beyond that, what? So much cultural desolation, for hundreds of miles. May as well be in a moon colony.

Texas, where dreams go to die.

Of course, these are my personal feelings, so downvote away. If you moved here because it's cheap, like most people do, like I did from the Bay area, you'll find a cheap existence, as in, you get what you pay for.

<comment><USER11> Dallas and Houston are a bit of a hike (4 and 3 hours, respectively), but San Antonio is only an hour away. I find that there's plenty of stuff to do in Austin itself anyway. (Heck, SXSW is going on _right now_.)

I have a theory that a lot of people move to Austin expecting it to be somehow hermetically sealed away from Texas; if you don't like Texas, you will eventually not like Austin. What do you like about the Bay area that you miss in Austin?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> What has happened before will happen again. California had similar issues with mild winters and the reduced water associated with them back in the 1930s. [1][2] The difference now of course is that there are a great many more people there and a great many more farms.

The Bureau of Reclamation is pretty much at fault for the lack of water available for human consumption because of mismanagement and prices below the cost which encouraged over development of farming.

The current drought can likely be traced to changes in the Pacific Ocean dating to 1976 [3]. As in, we have more than time enough to see something was changing.

What can be done? Rationing won't solve it all. The states need to have more control over the water that the Bureau of Reclamation currently controls. They are in a far better position to understand their needs and cooperate amongst each other instead of using the weight of Washington politics to force a way.

First and foremost priorities have to be set and reasonable prices for the cost of water need to be assigned. Yes this will likely mean a reduction in farming but it is artificially propped up now by unrealistically low water prices. People also need to understand conservation and large lawns should either be restricted or the water use for such maintenance needs to be surcharged.

The key is better use of resources and not redirecting the problem which is more mismanagement than natural causes.

note, I haven't read much on site #2, but they consolidated nicely some NOAA charts which make it easier to view.

[1] [http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/061/mwr-061-09-0251.pdf](http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/061/mwr-061-09-0251.pdf) [2] [http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2015/01/california- dro...](http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2015/01/california-drought- update-not-even-close-to-worst-drought- ever.html?doing_wp_cron=1426269408.9994280338287353515625) [3] [http://icecap.us/images/uploads/More_on_The_Great_Pacific_Cl...](http://icecap.us/images/uploads/More_on_The_Great_Pacific_Climate_Shift_and_the_Relationship_of_Oceans_on_Global_Temperatures.pdf)

<comment><USER13> The way I see it water consumption for household and business uses that are not farms should be on a per person basis, going up exponentially at each strata of consumption.

This would not be unlike how the desirable island of Fernando de Naronha controls limits tourism, while still keeping it accessible. IIRC, every day you are on the island you pay a fee, but each day you stay the fee increases until it gets so expensive that even the rich feel it. The island is limited to 420 tourists at a time.

[http://www.ilhadenoronha.com.br/ailha/taxadepreservacao_em_n...](http://www.ilhadenoronha.com.br/ailha/taxadepreservacao_em_noronha.php)

Likewise, for water a person might pay a nominal rate per gallon for the first 40 gallons in a day, then the price doubles for the next 40, then doubles for the next 40, etc, etc. until it's literally unaffordable by even the rich.

This would also have the nice side effect of limiting yard size, which would curb urban sprawl.

</comment></comment><comment> Flip-per Warning: strong language and opinion

I'm glad each time climate change consequences hit the US instead of other countries that contributed way less, like Tuvalu.

You consider this rude? Fair enough, I consider it rude to destroy the planet we are living on, at least in a way that makes it habitable for humans. Of course other countries are not innocent either, but the (institutions of the) US stand out in many ways.

We need as much pressure as possible for the three big climate-relevant conferences in 2015 (Paris et cetera), this will be the best chance we get for the next couple of years. If drinking water or water to grow plants runs out maybe some people start to care finally. We all can be fucking glad if any of the upcoming changes turns out to be reversible. I'm afraid that few will be (keyword tipping points).

<comment><USER14> The sad truth is that the net outcome of this drought will probably hurt those in less developed countries more than Americans.

Californians will not go thirsty or not be able to take showers; there's enough water for municipal supplies.

Agriculture will, however, take a hit. While the valley produces a huge amount of produce, it is still a small part of the overall California economy.

Prices will go up for vegetables which will need to be produced elsewhere. Americans won't really notice. SV will keep on humming. But in other places the prices for food will go up.

Remember the 2007-8 food price crisis? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%9308_world_food_pric...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%9308_world_food_price_crisis)

Most Americans don't.

<comment><USER15> That is not a very satisfying answer for people hoping for America's demise.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> So what happens when they run out of water? Are there water sources that are just undrinkable that can be cleaned up; similar to fracking now being cheap enough to compete with OPEC is there no water or just no drinkable water? Can they just "ship" or "pipe" the water in from neighboring states or are they too on the edge of a draught. Is this country-wide, just Western states, or just California and can other states give up water without risking throwing them into a draught?

I know that's a bunch of questions but this article seems to raise more questions than it answers, at least for me.

<comment><USER17> My understanding is that under most scenarios water for humans is fine, but agriculture will be totally dead in California.

<comment><USER16> Ahh, ok they hinted at that in the article but for some reason it didn't click in my head. I wonder if the farmers will just move to neighboring states (not that it's easy to pick up and move a farm....) losing farms in California would be a huge loss:

> California produces a sizable majority of many American fruits, vegetables, > and nuts: 99 percent of artichokes, 99 percent of walnuts, 97 percent of > kiwis, 97 percent of plums, 95 percent of celery, 95 percent of garlic, 89 > percent of cauliflower, 71 percent of spinach, and 69 percent of carrots > (and the list [1] goes on and on). [0]

[0] [http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2...](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2013/07/california_grows_all_of_our_fruits_and_vegetables_what_would_we_eat_without.html)

[1] [http://www.motherjones.com/files/2agovstat10_web-1.pdf](http://www.motherjones.com/files/2agovstat10_web-1.pdf)

<comment><USER18> It's not as though the drought just stops at the border of California, so that probably won't be practical.

<comment><USER14> But the agriculturally impacted area is, essentially, the central valley, which is entirely in California.

There are areas of Oregon and Arizona impacted by the same general drought, but they are a drop in the bucket (pun partially intended).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Just to add my 2 cents.

I'm based in Saudi Arabia, and considering the deserted climate and environment, there are literally no persistent water sources (aside from a few select wells that are over-exploited by bottled water manufacturers).

Desalination is currently (as of 2015) being used to supply 50% of Saudi Arabia's water needs. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_Saudi_Arabia)

So yes, it's feasible, and just FYI, it is provided free of cost.

<comment><USER20> Great point.

When people talk about California's water problems they make it sound as if there isn't an easy solution, but there is. The real core of this entire issue is not the methods but more the cost, it is ultimately a conversation about saving money NOT about some finite limitation on water in real terms.

California could solve this issue with a pen stroke, it just might hurt their farmers, which is really what all the concern is about. If water doubled or more in price (which is realistic), that is expensive for farmers who need a ton of the stuff for their crops. So will supermarkets pay 30% more or will they look abroad?

I actually think even with a higher water bill, it will still be cheaper for US retailers to buy US produce. Shipping that stuff by ocean isn't exactly cheap with the price of oil. I think where it would hurt US farms is their exports to Europe in particular, Europe is in a geographical position to buy from either the east or west, both by ocean. So if US/California crops go up in cost they might just buy them from someone else.

But let us not pretend that either shipping water in from other states OR just distilling water isn't an option for California, because it is. It just might hurt farmers and make them less internationally competitive.

<comment><USER21> This is part of what is needed. Water rights in California are as old as the state and extremely convoluted. Those with the older water rights have a practically guaranteed supply and generally irrigate in remarkably wasteful ways. Breaking the old water rights and increasing the price of water would push farmers to move to Israeli style computer controlled drip irrigation rather than current methods of just spraying tons of water over the field. Gov Brown was talking about bring that technology over and pushing it hard into farming...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> So it looks like there is suddenly water everywhere in the solar system...except for California.

<comment><USER23> In the absence of fresh water, it becomes a matter of the energy required to clean / desalinate / or distill contaminated water.

Abundant clean renewable energy would solve "rare" water issues.

<comment><USER24> So would magic.

We need to rid ourselves of the mythical notion of "abundant", meaning arbitrarily cheap, energy. There are only a few more doublings of global energy usage left before we heat the atmosphere significantly, not due to greenhouse gases, but by raising the equilibrium temperature of Earth as a radiating blackbody in space.

TANSTAAFL. Every resource is ultimately finite. Let's live within our limits rather than justifying our actions with unrealistic fantasizing about future technology.

<comment><USER23> "Solar energy will be cheaper than fossil fuels by 2016", Dutche Bank [1]

Recently Germany had reached a day with %50 of electricity produced by Solar. [2]

[1] [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-10-29/while- you-...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-10-29/while-you-were- getting-worked-up-over-oil-prices-this-just-happened-to-solar)

[2] [http://theweek.com/speedreads/451299/germany- gets-50-percent...](http://theweek.com/speedreads/451299/germany- gets-50-percent-electricity-from-solar-first-time)

<comment><USER24> This has nothing to do with us having the ability to produce "arbitrarily cheap energy". Did you even read my comment?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This thread is long so this comment will likely fall pretty quickly, but this page is pretty telling in terms of usage by sector: [http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=1108](http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=1108)

1\. Environmental 50% 2\. Ag 40% 3\. Urban 10%

(btw, this is particularly topical when my landlord just informed us he'd be swapping our shower heads for lower-flow ones due to increased costs in Southern Cal (bringing a toothpick to a gun fight?))

The thought process for how to decrease use, though, would be: 1\. Can we tap into environmental use and, if so, how much, or is that verboten? 2\. If no, which ag can we forgo with the least human/economic impact? 3\. If no easy answer looking at both human and economic impact of ag, which ag can we forgo with the least human impact (e.g., if none of us had an almond ever again, would the world be worse off for it? That makes killing almonds purely economic) 4\. If there's not enough from 1-3, then we've probably gotten to a life-threatening lack of water and so we get rid of crops that have the least "nutritional" value (i.e., crops that are best at sustaining life are the ones we keep) 5\. If we still can't support life, looks like it's time to desalinate, create a pipeline from east or move

Of course, even though it's a drop in the bucket, we should just immediately save the 5% that's used for urban and residential landscaping (see article; ~50% of urban use is landscaping) because there's nothing "essential" about that even though there would be an economic impact (and a whole lotta angry golfers).

</comment><comment><USER26> Israel has built its first four desalination plants in the last 10 years. They now provide 40% of the country's potable water. The newest plant (Sorek) is the world's largest, producing over half a million cubic meters a day at a cost of $0.68 per cubic meter.

Edits:

I'm unable to find data on Israel's net import of calories. I suspect it's substantial, but 85% of their agricultural water supply is treated urban wastewater.

I'm part of a family of four living near Berkeley, CA. We'd need 50" of rain a year to be self-sufficient on our 4000 ft^2 property, which is about twice what we get. I have no problem commandeering runoff from some place in the Sierras. But it'll have to be 8,000 ft^2, because what hits this lot (and every other lot in the neighborhood) goes straight into the bay.

</comment><comment><USER27> In the Bay Area, things don't seem that bad. However, I drove from LA to SF and holy wow. Everything along I5 is just a dustbowl. Farms are empty with big signs saying that there are no jobs because there is no water.

However, its hard not to blame the farmers themselves. We consistently hear that it takes a gallon of water for a single Almond, yet here we are and farmers aren't looking for new crops that use less water, it's simply "give us more water" as if this is realistic...

</comment><comment><USER28> Maybe stop growing rice in a desert? Let _gasp_ other parts of the country or _double gasp_ world sell food to Americans?

</comment><comment><USER29> A historical view: [http://www.city-journal.org/2015/25_1_california- drought.htm...](http://www.city-journal.org/2015/25_1_california-drought.html)

<comment><USER30> The definitive history of water development in California is this book: [http://www.amazon.com/Cadillac-Desert-American- Disappearing-...](http://www.amazon.com/Cadillac-Desert-American-Disappearing- Revised/dp/0140178244)

It's almost thirty years old now, but the history is just as relevant, and the warnings issued similarly prescient.

<comment><USER31> That's also available as a video documentary. Stunning history, the looming drought was inevitable.

TL;DR/DW - the only reason CA has a vibrant agricultural component is because enormous amounts of water are being taken from other states and used very inefficiently. There's a hard limit on what can be redirected, and increasing demand around those sources to keep what's being taken.

Sometimes a supply-and-demand curve has a brick wall: when demand outstrips supply, cost goes from dirt-cheap to incredibly expensive fast. This is often derided as "price gouging", but is a natural consequence of basic needs being supplied cheaply vs insufficiently. CA artificially increasing its water supply faces exactly that: natural growth of demand will slam into lack of sufficient supply, and those with the funds to purchase from the supply at near-any price will suddenly destroy the market for those enjoying necessities at barely-affordable prices.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> We have oil pipelines stretching thousands of miles... why don't we create a water pipeline, sending fresh water to the southwest? I've never really understood why this wasn't an obvious thing started 80+ years ago. We created roadways, and a fairly complex electricity grid... water transfer has been a critical thing forever, and something we haven't really addressed on a national level.

Not only that, but hydrogen as fuel stores would be a very realistic scenario if water wasn't so scarce in locations where solar/wind is so ideal.

<comment><USER33> They're called aqueducts, and California has quite a few, typically sending water from northern california/the Sierras to Los Angeles.

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

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

<comment><USER32> I'm talking about actual pipelines from the midwest/southeast to the southwest U.S. ... much larger scale projects... I know we transport water across states, but I'm talking across the country.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Water use in California is mostly agriculture. Almond, rice, and hay production in California is going to stop. Rice and hay can come from elsewhere. Almonds are almost entirely from California, and they come from trees, so no place else can pick up the demand quickly.

</comment><comment><USER35> How feasible is desalination? If they can make that work on a large scale, then there's quite literally an ocean of water available to California.

<comment><USER36> Desalination is expensive and not great for the environment, but its starting to happen.

[http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/533446/desalin...](http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/533446/desalination- out-of-desperation/)

<comment><USER37> Don't forget solar desal. For example, [http://waterfx.co](http://waterfx.co). That would eliminate any pollution.

<comment><USER38> It probably wouldn't. Desalinization leaves a lot of salty brine to be disposed of.

<comment><USER6> Put it back in the ocean? That's where it was before anyways. It's not like that would have any impact on the salt concentration of the ocean.

<comment><USER38> > It's not like that would have any impact on the salt concentration of the > ocean.

Ocean-wide, no. Where it's dumped, definitely.

<comment><USER6> My understanding is that desalination doesn't give you crystalline salt, but rather more salty sea water back. Of course you'd have to be careful where you dumped it as a small bay doesn't mix that well. I don't see why you couldn't pipe it out 1-2 miles from the coast. It should mix quite well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> It's fascinating to see the many reservoirs we were supposed to have built by now. The engineers of the 1950s and 1960s had a lot of big plans that were all supposed to be in place decades ago (look at the gray squares on the map):

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

A lot of people will say "the environmentalists" stopped them, but really it was that lawmakers gave environmental concerns only one effective tool -- enforcing standards via litigation.

The task of resolving environmental concerns was pushed out of the political and economic arena into an adversarial process that takes a huge amount of paperwork, lawyer time and calendar time to resolve.

Exactly like the Republicans with Proposition 13 (a California initiative which required supermajority voter approval for taxes), once you take fundamental powers away from the legislative and executive branches, you really limit the potential effectiveness of the government. And now California's infrastructure is a mess.

<comment><USER40> " you really limit the potential effectiveness of the government. And now California's infrastructure is a mess." Following that same point, you also limit the potential ineffectiveness of the government and apparently that is what the people wanted. Your argument also assumes there is not such thing as too much power in the hands of "the legislative and executive".

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> California agricultural statistics: [http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/](http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/)

California's top-ten valued commodities for 2013 are:

Milk — $7.6 billion

Almonds — $5.8 billion

Grapes — $5.6 billion

Cattle, Calves — $3.05 billion

Strawberries — $2.2 billion

Walnuts — $1.8 billion

Lettuce — $1.7 billion

Hay — $1.6 billion

Tomatoes — $1.2 billion

Nursery plants— $1.2 billion

<comment><USER42> Almonds use 10% of the water[1], and we're risking a empty aquifers for them when they're 0.3% of state GDP?

[1] My only source on this: [https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=whyenot](https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=whyenot)

[2] 2013 GDP: ~$2 trillion [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California)

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Most of the water is used by agriculture. You can take all the 2 minute showers you want, changing how the megafarms use all that water would have the most impact.

Of course, there's this idea that the farms are the historical yeoman-type, so it's rare to see solutions involving agriculture dicussed.

[http://californiawaterblog.com/2011/05/05/water%E2%80%94who-...](http://californiawaterblog.com/2011/05/05/water%E2%80%94who- uses-how-much/)

> When you examine water use within the interconnected network of California > that feeds farms and cities, use is roughly 52 percent agricultural, 14 > percent urban and 33 percent environmental.

</comment><comment><USER44> " A recent Field Poll showed that 94% of Californians surveyed believe that the drought is serious, and that one-third support mandatory rationing."

There is a major problem, and damn if I'm going to make any personal sacrifice to help solve it.

<comment><USER45> Rationing for people does nothing since its only 10%. Rationing for ag kills farms and ag products which you then have to get from somewhere else. Unless you are a big farmer there is nothing you can do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> I must be cursed.

I spend my time between San Francisco and Sao Paulo(Brazil). Although Brazil has natural resources, Sao Paulo has been experiencing a severe drought for several months. Many residents only have water between 7am-1pm and it doesn't seem to get any better. Actually, regulators have been trying to come up with water rationing and limit its usage to two days a week.

I hope CA doesn't have to go through the same thing.

[http://www.citylab.com/weather/2015/02/no-one-is-quite- sure-...](http://www.citylab.com/weather/2015/02/no-one-is-quite-sure-how-sao- paulo-will-survive-its-drought/385211/)

</comment><comment><USER47> Honestly we should probably start building desalination facilities statewide so that we can begin to supplant the natural supply. The one being built in San Diego is a few months away from coming online and it will be providing 33% of the city's water supply iirc.

I know people have talked about it in the past, but usually the response is "but they are an eye sore if I go to the beach." Well, what would you rather do? die of starvation and dehydration or have a desalination plant near your beach?

<comment><USER48> The waste brine water is pretty toxic to the environment. Nobody believes that this will cause people to die of dehydration. Worst case scenario, if you look beyond the severe inconvenience factor of having to regulate when you can water your lawn, or if you can fill your pool, lots of farmers would lose their jobs. Almonds and rice won't be able to continue under these conditions. Beyond that, there is plenty of water to go around to keep people hydrated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Maybe I skimmed the article a bit fast, but I saw no mention of desalination plants, which are the obvious solution (though expensive and as far as I'm aware not implemented yet).

<comment><USER50> It's not going to be easy to build few of them in less than a year.

<comment><USER16> It's amazing what you can do when you've run out of water... But you are right, it would/will be a massive undertaking. I wonder if desalination will become water's "fracking", something we only turn to due to high price of what we used before or unavailability of what we used before.

<comment><USER51> I don't think the price will be near what would be needed to make desalination profitable without subsidies, though. The state _could_ choose to maintain current usage and pay whatever it takes to maintain it, but it'd be at a huge loss. The main user of California water is agriculture, and desalinating water just to use it to grow rice is a good way to burn money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> All water subsidies should be terminated and the cost of food should reflect the amount of water used to grow the food.

Too bad our special interest controlled government prevents this.

</comment><comment><USER53> Just ban almonds. Problem solved.

<comment><USER54> Maybe you were being tongue in cheek, but I kind of like this solution. Why don't we just find some non-essential crops and ban them. I am sure it will suck for that farmer, but we're not really in a position to be accommodating to every industry at this point.

<comment><USER55> Almonds get something of a bad rap because they are moderately water-intensive (1 gallon per almond) but they are also highly profitable. So it makes sense to grow them. Rice is frequently grown using the water that is released for wildlife, so it is also reasonable to keep growing. The real problem is the forage crops (alfalfa hay) that are water-intensive and cheap. Price water competitively and your problem will be solved overnight. Naturally, the farmers using the water can't allow this to happen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> This could be a boon for middle eastern water companies (Israel has some geniuses in this space) for selling into California.

There are a few tactics for tackling this problem (disclaimer: I didn't read the article) \- Reduction of waste (leaks, more efficient plumbing, rationing) \- Desalination (only useful along the coast) \- Deep wells \- water extraction from the air \- water recycling \- what else?

<comment><USER18> I think in the long-term California needs to consider desalinization but that hardly seems like something that could happen in the next year.

<comment><USER57> If there was the political will to do so, it could come close. The actual construction is a small part of the process, compared to securing permits and such.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Seems a good time to post this: [http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world...](http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change?language=en)

It a TED talk about reversing desertification with farming practices. Not applicable to every crop, but here you go.

</comment><comment><USER59> There are things that could be done both for residential use and commercial use that could reduce how much water is needed without causing a catastrophe.

Many years ago, as a kid, I read an article about experiments in the Middle East to create a small basin for individual plants (like trees) that would be the right size for holding rainwater and keeping it hydrated without risking root-rot.

Think about how a shower is slightly slanted such that all the water goes to a drain in the corner. Instead of a drain in the corner, you have a plant in that corner. The basin is just a depression in the soil, with mounded up slow walls made from soil.

In the residential sector, you can google "earth ships" for ideas about things currently available that would put less stress on California's water supplies.

</comment><comment><USER60> This is definitely concerning. I used to wash my car and truck about every week or two when they were new. Today, I haven't washed them in over two years. During the last "big" storm in the bay area, I was hoping to go outside and wash my truck during the rain. I was down with the flu and couldn't do it, but didn't miss much. I don't think I could've washed the truck, unlike many years ago when I actually washed my car during a rainstorm. The other day, I rinsed off some bird crap from the side of my truck, it was a huge mess but I used the leftovers from a plastic bottled water. Just trying to conserve water. I feel sorry for Uber/Lyft drivers who have to keep their cars clean.

</comment><comment><USER61> If we ever manage to actually run out of fresh water or power on a planet that has an incoming 89 peta-watts and is mostly ocean, then if there is a galactic civilisation, we will enjoy brief celebrity as the latest species to win whatever passes for a Darwin Award.

</comment><comment><USER62> Regarding California agriculture, and specifically growing the produce and vegetable crops that California supplies the rest of the country. An excellent model for urban agriculture, Growing Power of Milwaukee and Chicago, provides such vegetables grown in city greenhouses (lettuce, tomatoes, greens, etc.). They do it year-round in Chicago. Some of the heat comes from compost, worm bins, fish tanks. There are several offshoot businesses (e.g. Eco City Farm here in DC) replicating their model. Growing Power offers training several times a year. So hopefully other places - urban brownfields - will take up some of the agriculture production from California in view of the water problem.

</comment><comment><USER63> Well, [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/13/science/space/suddenly- it-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/13/science/space/suddenly-it-seems- water-is-everywhere-in-solar-system.html)

</comment><comment><USER64> How this gets dealt with will be very telling for the larger environmental disaster the world is facing due to prices not reflecting their true costs.

</comment><comment><USER65> This is an opinion article, but the situation is without a doubt fact. However, next year I feel the only impact on me will be produce cost. Everything in this article tells me this is mostly an agricultural issue. What is rationing going to do when farms are pumping 2/3 of our ground water? It just buys more time for the inevitable unless someone finds a solution.

</comment><comment><USER66> Does anyone have any good intel on nuclear powered desalination plants. I know desalinated water is about the most expensive around but for keeping the population with enough drinking and washing water.

The agricultural impact is huge and requires more water than the people do. But, I wonder if desalination would help supply water to the populous.

</comment><comment><USER67> My back-of-the-napkin calculation tells me that watering an acre of alfalfa uses the same amount of water as having a nine-month shower with an inefficient flow.

If a Pigovean tax of 1c/gallon was applied to California, an 8-minute shower would cost about 20-40c more while an acre of alfalfa would cost an extra $20,0000.

</comment><comment><USER68> If water were priced correctly, this would not be a problem. Charge what it is worth and people will conserver.

</comment><comment><USER69> > the technology and expertise exist to handle this harrowing future. It will > require major changes in policy and infrastructure that could take decades > to identify and act upon. Today, not tomorrow, is the time to begin.

Someone should, I don't know, start a startup or something.

</comment><comment><USER70> Why don't we run a water pipeline down from Oregon? In Portland they have so much water that their drinking fountains literally do not have an off switch. We run pipelines for oil all over the country, would it be that hard to run one for water?

<comment><USER71> The pipeline is expensive, and can move only so much volume per second.

You'd need basically and artificial river. Then, there's landscape constrains. And Oregonians will veto any decision about their water siphoned to California anyways.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> Not that anyone cares about follow up to obvious click-bait, but the LAT issued an apology admitting the headline was misleading.

www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-0320-drought- explainer-20150320-story.html

</comment><comment><USER73> So maybe crops have to change. Surely the epicenter of science and engineering can figure out a responsible way to harness solar desalinization. A bond could be offered with a nominal return to investors.

</comment><comment><USER74> Burning gasoline produces water (yes, it does).

Not suitable for drinking but maybe it could be reclaimed to water crops.

Alternately it would be nice if there was a leap in desalination technology where it would take a tenth of the power.

</comment><comment><USER75> I blame golf.

Really. I learned to play on an OIL course. They mixed oil and sand to create a fairway and we carried around a piece of astroturf to place under the ball (see [http://www.panoramio.com/photo/22230833](http://www.panoramio.com/photo/22230833)). A grass course in a desert (ie most every course in california) is a totally unnecessary waste of water.

When they stop spending water on golf, THEN we can talk about rationing water for household use.

(Fyi, the airbase that picture was THE airbase for the first gulf war. The f117s would land there at night. Seeing a black triangle open white landing gear on approach was like something out of the x-files.)

<comment><USER76> Golf courses account for probably not more than 0.5% of all human water usage in California annually.

Human water usage in CA is about 80% agricultural, 20% "urban". "Urban" covers all residential, (non-agricultural) commericial, landscaping, etc. Of the "Urban" usage, about 60% is residential, with indoor usage as the majority. Residential landscaping (lawns, pools, etc) uses at least 3 times as much as all commercial landscaping (golf courses, parks, etc).

<comment><USER71> > Golf courses account for probably not more than 0.5% of all human water > usage in California annually.

Great! That's half percent point gain of a life-constraining resource at the cost of a little non-essential entertainment for a small minority of people.

It's the same when you are trying to make a tight budget. First you cut off all the stupid impulse purchases. Then you figure out how much of each useful expense you are able to sacrifice. And only _then_ you decide if you can or cannot afford one single hedonic purchase per month to keep up the morale.

<comment><USER77> Eh, I cut out Spotify (what, $9.99/month) and saved some $120/year. Woopty do. I cut out Starbucks ($2/day since I get regular coffee) and make coffee at home I save at least twice that. I cut out fast food lunches ($6/meal) and bring cheap cold cut sandwiches (no more than $2/meal with some veggies as a side) and I save close to $1k/year.

It's like profiling code. Sure there are some easy cheap gains, but when you find that 80% of your time is spent on task X you may want to focus your performance profiling on that section.

EDIT: I'd like to add, that in other parts of the country (I saw this in OK and GA, at least) golf is reasonably popular even amongst the lower middle class. I don't know how it is in CA (or what percentage of courses are accessible to that economic group), but it may not be just the rich elite that would lose out if you eliminated golf courses from the state.

<comment><USER71> The point remains. Water consumption will be cut down either voluntarily or by lack of availability. You cannot chose not to cut down your consumption, but you can choose what type of consumption to cut first.

Drink 10% less water and you will give yourself, in a couple of years, kidney failure. Skip shower each other day and you will give yourself a rancid bodily odor. Stop playing golf and you will give yourself... a bunch of free time to use however you like???

Why is it so hard to understand that?

<comment><USER77> Not much. My point wasn't that it oughtn't be considered, but that it's insignificant in the overall scheme due to how little water (as a percentage) it uses.

What part about profiling this like code or a budget is so difficult? If you have one area that's costing 80% of your resources, then reducing usage there by even 1% is more effective than a 100% cut to something that only uses 0.5% of your total resources.

<comment><USER71> I never said that by only cutting frivolous usage, the problem would be solved. If 80% is agricultural usage, then agricultural cannot be not part of the solution as well. But if people keep coming up with clever arguments for not cutting their favorite usage themselves and argue that others are at fault, nobody will do anything.

You are looking at the problem from the perspective of which cuts will bring the usage down faster. I am looking from the perspective of which cuts will produce less cost to society. Each point of view lets you highlight some aspect of the issue, and obscures many others by necessity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> What is preventing is from building canals from the Northeast to California? They are having devastating snowstorm s and we having draught. It make sense.

<comment><USER79> The Mississippi River system and the Rocky Mountains?

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> Acre-feet? Can someone translate this into furlong-leagues? Or preferably, y'know, an SI fluid measure like litres?

</comment><comment><USER81> Instead of an oil pipline, why not a water pipeline?

<comment><USER82> We use FAR more water than oil. A pipe large enough for oil would not even come close for water.

<comment><USER81> more than 1 pipe?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> Hydroponics?

</comment><comment><USER84> I wish there was some way to change prices to alter demand. Maybe a "task force of thought leaders" can crack open an Econ 101 textbook and look at the supply and demand curve on the first page.

Sorry for the sarcasm, I'm just disappointed in the "reach for regulation first" approach to dealing with shortages.

<comment><USER85> You're right, if people can't afford water to drink, they're clearly not valuable enough to live. If a farm can't afford water for crops, the crops weren't profitable enough to grow anyway. And if the rest of the nation can't afford food since some foods will be scarce without California farms, they should just be more productive. No need for regulation!

<comment><USER86> It makes more sense to farm in places that have reliable sources of water. I don't see why we need to subsidize California's crops, especially when we have so much great soil wasted on corn. Farming, in general, in the US is fairly messed up. Perhaps this crisis will lead to a fix. Maintaining the status quo and pretending everything is okay via regulation and political corruption is what got us here. Lets not continue that.

<comment><USER18> Even if we just grant that agriculture should be moved away from CA, no one wants to just see it stop immediately for the same reason that the government didn't demolish all buildings that were made with asbestos when they determined that it was harmful to human health.

<comment><USER87> I would rather see agriculture move immediately than water to literally run out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER88> Agriculture uses the vast majority of water but most farmers pay very little, sometimes nothing, and sometimes they 'own' water rights which can be very valuable and often worth more than any of the land they farm upon.

Farmers have been overdrawing from rivers and groundwater for decades and the US government has been very slow to respond. Promises of 'smart meters' or 'water markets' are often delayed with time tables being pushed further and further back. Meanwhile the government also hands out large subsidies to grow a wide variety of crops, most recently the federal government has encouraged corn for biofuel, more corn is being grown for biofuel than is being used for livestock (and effects of carbon usage for biofuel is likely 0 or even negative once you take in effect it's entire life cycle). Typically ever pound of beef takes 7 pounds of corn, pork is 5 to 1, poultry is around 3 to 1. Again, we grow more corn for biofuel than we do for livestock because of government subsidies.

If anyone spends anytime at all on this issue they quickly learn that farmers are a powerful lobby, that the agricultural bill is essentially a large handout to a small, tiny, group of people. One reason this occurs is because every state gets two senators, and many middle states are essentially empty but for farmers and their communities.

Government has been mismanaging water usage for decades in the US and yet the first thing people suggest is for the government to come in and fix the problems they created, the amount of cognitive dissonance this takes is staggering.

<comment><USER88> I also want to add one more thing, 'farmers' as a category is not your salt of the earth, homespun family anymore. Most crops being grown are actually produced by large multinational conglomerates, the fact that people picture the downtrodden poor of the dust bowl whenever someone uses the word farmer is a triumph of marketing.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why is creating a custom Firefox search engine so difficult? - <AUTHOR> This simple issue has been bothering me for a couple of years now and I've never been able to find anything resembling a solution - I like having control of the search engine options in my browser and want to add custom searches. Chrome maintains the tradition of allowing a URL string with some predefined parameters. Firefox, on the other hand, requires some sort of custom XML mess with no clear and simple way to create a custom search engine from scratch. I see some minimal benefits, such as the ability to pair an icon with a search engine and the ability to use short names, but I just want to type a search into the search bar and have it send me to a custom search of my choice.
Is this shift to OpenSearch format mostly to prevent people from doing away with Mozilla's referral codes in the search strings? I just can't see any good reason this must be so complicated with so little customizability.
To be completely clear, I want to add the equivalent of "https://<customsearchengine>.com/q={searchparam}" to replace any/all of the built-in search options and am not currently looking for other solutions, such as websites with lists of predefined search engine queries. I also don't want to be dependent on finding some online service to do this for me. Any suggestions or feedback on why this process has become so complicated? <comment><USER2> Not the same UX but the same functionality is provided by smart keywords [1].

[1] [https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-search-from- address...](https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-search-from-address-bar)

In our company we use it conveniently to quickly access intranet services like jira.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the response, but I don't think this is the same functionality. Keywords are really useful for services that get searched sparingly. I shouldn't need to use a keyword for my default search.

What I'm looking to do is just be able to type text into the address/search bar and have it show up on a search engine with my custom parameters. I know I can add a keyword, but that's an extra prefix I need to type every time to work around something that shouldn't be an issue in the first place.</comment></comment>


Chinese Attack on USIS Exploiting SAP Vulnerability - <AUTHOR> http://security.cioreview.com/whitepaper/chinese-attack-on-usis-exploiting-sap-vulnerability-wid-152.html?utm_campaign=aa11 <comment><AUTHOR> Anyone finds it helpful?

<comment><USER2> Hacker News generally prefers direct links to sources over sites that simply link to original sources.

Good luck.</comment></comment>


Paranoia will destroy us: Why Huawei and other Chinese tech is not spying - <AUTHOR> https://www.zdnet.com/article/paranoia-will-destroy-you-why-chinese-tech-isnt-spying-on-us/ <comment><USER2> I view this kind of caution against foreign powers (corporations are not separate from their governments in time of war) in the same way that the 2nd amendment protects us against tyranny.

And seatbelts from flying through wind shields.

You don't need it until you need it, and if you don't have it, it's too late.

National infrastructure that needs to work in a time of war must be nationally controlled by all nations.

"Spying" is a straw man argument, it's not about spying.

<comment><USER3> I think the UK appears to have taken the pragmatic descision since Thatcher, that in anything serious these days it is either overrun or obliterated, so might as well buy the cheap stuff from our strategic rivals that will break down in an apocalypse and we can make some quick cash in the mean time selling off all the national technical base.

edit - Has been going on since long before Thatcher, to be fair. There's an old documentary about this subject by Spike Milligan, called 'The Bed Sitting Room' \- [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de0w8tU0j1U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de0w8tU0j1U)

<comment><USER4> Not sure what sense to make of this:

that in anything serious these days (World War III?) it is either overrun or obliterated ( _would be_ either overrun or obliterated?)

I tried clicking on your link to help me understand but it's to an hour-and-a- half long film (and not, I think, a documentary...)

<comment><USER3> >that in anything serious these days (World War III?) it is either overrun or obliterated (would be either overrun or obliterated?)

yes

>I tried clicking on your link to help me understand but it's to an hour-and- a-half long film (and not, I think, a documentary...)

Prophetic satire then. Watch it anyway, you owe it to Spike Milligan.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Maybe not yet, but it surely gives them the capability to spy later on.

My country, Vietnam, also banned Huawei equipment[1], and I don't believe it's pure paranoia. China has been taking every chances to spy on us, from illegally buy houses near Da Nang airport[2] (nearest airbase to Paracels) to 'tourists' walking near the Ministry of Defence to Advanced Persistent Threat targeting petroleum or maritime corporation (forgot the link right now).

We just don't trust China, and there're numerous reasons for that. This may sound racist but the stereotype of Chinese in Vietnam is extremely cunning, for better or worse, they will do everything to get to their goals as long as they don't get found out. China has 5000 years of history, they always play the long game.

Some quotations from "The Art of War" 2500 years ago:

"Be subtle! be subtle! and use your spies for every kind of business"

" The enemy's spies who have come to spy on us must be sought out, tempted with bribes, led away and comfortably housed. Thus they will become converted spies and available for our service. "

[1] [https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/05/09/vietnam-doesnt-trust- hu...](https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/05/09/vietnam-doesnt-trust-huawei-an- inch/)

[2] [https://tuoitrenews.vn/society/32340/da-nang-suspects- more-l...](https://tuoitrenews.vn/society/32340/da-nang-suspects-more-land- illegally-bought-by-chinese)

<comment><USER6> The alternative is relying on US tech. While I get the point that Huawei _could_ be spying on us later on, the US is the one nation we _know_ is spying on us.

All tech we use these days can be used for spying. The whole Huawei craze is just the U.S. realizing that they are no longer the only power to fear.

<comment><USER7> The US spying is subject to a strained but ultimately effective legal and constitutional system. There is no comparison between the US government's transgressions, and the Chinese government's complete unrestricted impunity to spy and infiltrate.

<comment><USER6> The spying is done by intelligence services. Services that have huge reputational problems, largely because they have nothing to fear and all the power. Whatever is going on inside those organizations is completely hidden from the government itself. What Snowden made available has shocked everyone, including those who should oversee the intelligence services.

<comment><USER7> It is still subject to legal constraints, and when exposed there is at least the possibility of consequences and changes. In China it is entirely legal, tolerated, and expected. In China the intrusions can entirely unsubtle and deep, whereas in the US there is at least some balance with legal restraints. These are very different situations. Neither of them are ideal, however equating them is really not accurate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> One point that I'm missing, is that the government of China can legally force any of their companies to start spying. And there would be no way that we would know.

Then often the argument becomes: But the US are already spying on us, so it's not too bad. Which is fair, but in the US, there are checks and balances and freedoms so that somebody has recourse. All these things are absent in China.

So the question is one of trust. Who do you trust more when they are spying on you: The US or China? For me as a European, this is definitely the former.

<comment><USER9> "there are checks and balances and freedoms"

you are so full of child like innocence, I envy you

<comment><USER10> There is no need to be so condescending.

<comment><USER11> That was the kindest way of saying it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It surprise me that people take those allegations seriously. I mean, some spying is to be expected but not to justify the banning of all the company.

I thought it was obvious that this have nothing to do with spying. Some elements in the USA government and legislative have decided that China could be a threat to American only superpower status.

By the way, what happened with the Bloomberg allegations? (1)

(1) - [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the- big-h...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how- china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies)

<comment><USER13> I'm not sure how 5G infrastructure or smartphones threaten the status of a superpower in any sense. Also, at this point Bloomberg is already an outlet that can't be trusted as they haven't provided any follow-up to the Super Micro story.

<comment><USER14> Smartphones are universal data collection devices, each of which is capable of gathering audio-, video-, RF-, location-, motion- and activity-based intelligence. Some add various other capabilities like air pressure, temperature and humidity to the list. Controlling this massive data source is massively valuable. Since each device contains a fairly powerful radio transmitter they can also be used as jammers by those who control the (closed, proprietary) RF firmware. All these devices are battery-powered so they can not just be disabled by pulling the plug (or the battery in 'modern' devices).

5G infrastructure adds another layer to the intelligence gathering infrastructure as well as an even more powerful jamming capability. Cell towers are equipped with battery backup as well so they can not easily be disabled by cutting the power to the tower.

Any party in control of these assets has strategic and tactical advantages over their adversary: strategic in that this allows for intelligence gathering, tactical in that this allows for precise targeting, jamming, denial of service, control of connected infrastructure for whatever purpose and more [1].

[1] Controlling mobile infrastructure over a wide area adds the prospect of using it to defy 'stealth' (low radar cross-section) by capturing off-axis reflections, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I hope Huawei make a fully open source and hack-able mobile phone. I think that would sell like crazy on the western market where everyone hates Google, and ride the news wave and turn it around into their favor.

<comment><USER13> People don't hate Google as much as you want to believe, people love Google Search/Maps/Gmail and everyone who wanted "a fully open source phone" could install MicroG for a long time already.

<comment><USER11> Google is very different in the age of "gmail ain't done 'til firefox won't run"...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It's fairly well known in the telecom and internet infrastructure field that Huawei stole Nortel's entire DWDM and optical transport product line and duplicated it. The ex Nortel HQ office building in the Ottawa area was found to be riddled with high tech bugs.

</comment><comment><USER17> Just a reminder that Nortel, an ex-Canadian giant was "spied to death" by Huawei back in early 2000s. The stolen tech is the foundation of Huawei.

</comment><comment><USER18> This is a superb summary and a great call to action to get together and examine in depth the out of band data leaks and data management.

</comment><comment><USER19> I know with some certainty that US based companies provide source for communications software to US three letter agencies. I think it's strange to expect that a Chinese company would refuse to render the same services to analogous agencies in China.

Whether US companies would willingly insert changes at the behest of those agencies I do not know.

</comment><comment> rbrtdrmpc- Huawei was under the radar of national security agencies (look at the S, not just the US) for years

</comment><comment><USER20> Huawei won't be spying but will also limit US spying. so it is a no go.

Currently there are 5 coountries USA, Russia, Israel and China playing the digital intelligence game with enough talent and companies.

On your mobile phone only those countries have a window for spying.

<comment><USER21> I don't think Russia is capable of spying on mobile phones. And have doubts about Israel too. How would they even get there?

<comment><USER20> Endless apps and vulnerabilities.

<comment><USER21> But then you have to install a Russian app. And WebView component is autoupdated in recent Androids.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I know people who work for Huawei in Iran. They are spying.

</comment><comment><USER23> First of all: This is not about "banning" Huawei in USA. Huawei is not in the US. It is about preventing the rest of the world in using Huawei.

The Trump administration has spent the last year or so trying to convince allies not to use Huawei and apparently has failed to do so. So now it does this.

Trump seems to think he can win an election on China; this may be the case. However doing so will probably hurt the longterm interest of the US.

Forcing millions of European Huawei users away from Google services is neither in the business interest of Google nor does it benefit the intelligence gathering capabilities of the US.

<comment><USER24> I don't think the President realizes just how much this will harm the USA in the long run.

He is basically telling the rest of the world to think long and hard before using any American tech in their products. Also his allies are increasingly less and less inclined to listen to him. The French have openly said they will continue to use Huawei. The Brits are going to use them anyway, the just didn't want the USA to know.

Edit: sorry. toned down the language.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Huawei passed Apple in 2018 and Q12019. It threatens Samsung to become Number 1 soon. Oppo, Xiaomi and other Chinese smartphone manufacturers are also rising.

Old Nokia, HTC, Erickson, Sony, ( US allies like Europe, Taiwan, Japan ) are losing .

Only South Korea held on but is the next one to get pushed into insignificance.

Trump uses non free market tools to stop this growth.

[https://www.counterpointresearch.com/huaweis-global- smartpho...](https://www.counterpointresearch.com/huaweis-global-smartphone- market-share-reaches-highest-ever-level-q1-2019/)</comment>


Stephen Colbert urged to cancel speech for RSA - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/10/stephen-colbert-nsa-linked-privacy-firm-rsa <comment><USER2> It would be completely out of character for him to pull out of the speech - far better for him to go along and mock them. I for one would love to see that.

<comment><USER3> Yes I agree let him speak there.

It's like the reverse incidents where students at some universities demand controversial speakers not be allowed to speak at their university as if censoring a speech is a victory.

Let people speak and if what they say is wrong then debate it to show what's wrong don't hide it or hide from it.

<comment><USER4> Not providing a platform for someone else's speech is not the same as censoring someone else's speech. All the more so if one's tuition is partially paying for that speech and there are many other roughly equivalently effective venues for the speaker.

I wish to give a talk about how space aliens built the Brooklyn Bridge using telekinetic herring, and give the talk in your kitchen. If you neither grant permission nor tell me where you live then obviously you have something to hide and wish to censure my speech.

<comment><USER5> I would love to hear it.

<comment><USER4> If you don't give me the $2,000 in travel fees to reach you then you are suppressing the free speech rights of both me and my herring.

<comment><USER5> You need to wait a bit, just bought a honey bee. Will sell honey and raking in the millions. This is my eco-friendly MVP. If that does not work we pivot with your herring. And make fish. While listening to your free speech and all.

I think herring is a fish.

<comment><USER4> Yes, herring is the honey bee of the seas. That's why they are so useful when building a bridge.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> My take: I'd kind of like for him to give that speech. Keeping in mind his performance at the White House Correspondent's Dinner:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7FTF4Oz4dI](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7FTF4Oz4dI)

<comment><USER6> Agreed. I feel people often forget that Stephen Colbert is a character, not the actual person.

<comment><USER7> How does that factor in here?

I would say the comic showed up in Washington, not the character.

(I would also say that the character is slowing vanishing, because it doesn't work as well when everybody is in on it. A lot of times it holds back his interviews, playing the idiot foil limits the questions he can ask.)

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not a habitual watcher of his show but it seems to me like he's pretty good about knowing when to turn it off, or just turn it down a bit. One interview on his show where I remember him being very close to completely straight was with an astronaut who had walked on the moon, which I feel indicates that his priorities are about right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Have you seen the speech he gave Bush? Right in front of Bush?

I most certainly want him to speak to RSA.

<comment><USER9> Question is: why would he be speaking at RSA conference.

Imagine him speaking at PyCon closing. Why would he go there? It just makes the conference more like high school / college graduation where you invite someone interesting/outstanding to talk about what it means to be successful person. Do we need someone else to tell us how terrible X is doing? What public policy is bad? How to become a successful person in the industry? I mean come on... I reserve my conservatism here. If someone else needs to mock RSA / Python / Ruby whatnot, let someone else in the tech community do it?

<comment><USER10> "why would he be speaking at RSA conference."

Well, let's say you've got an extra 10 million dollars laying around after selling out your customers, you gotta use it on _something_...

<comment><USER11> It's that $10 million that makes me skeptical that he'll be speaking truthiness to power at this event. The WHCA was one thing but i suspect he's raking it on the private lecture circuit like everyone else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Shh.. If we don't publicize this too much he might actually get to make his speech. But I think after this publicity RSA will probably figure out who Colbert _actually_ is and what he stands for and cancel it.

</comment><comment><USER13> I don't like the idea of boycotting a speaking gig. If you don't agree with what RSA is doing, isn't it best to keep a dialog going?

If we only allow those who agree with us to speak to the choir, they'll be a series of different choirs never speaking to each other.

<comment><USER14> > isn't it best to keep a dialog going

Don't be silly, RSA is not interested in honest dialog. Have you seen the press release? It's nice to be for virtue but play pretend virtue is not virtue.

<comment><USER13> > RSA is not interested in honest dialog

I'm sure some of their 1300+ employees are interested in honest dialog.

In any case, what's your suggestion for improving the situation?

<comment><USER15> Personally, I think capitalism is a pretty good solution to that one. Boycott them, put them out of business, let them serve as a warning to the next bunch of people who consider screwing over the customers under the counter.

<comment><USER16> Sorry, meant to hit the up arrow, but hit down by mistake. Why can't votes be changed? :/

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I hope he goes. I might be wide of the mark, but my guess would be that RSA have probably bit themselves by booking Colbert at this point in time.

</comment><comment><USER18> I pray to god if he gives the speech, it is filmed and made public.

</comment><comment><USER19> If he cancels, I'd understand.

If he decides to do it, it will be awesome.

</comment><comment><USER20> Doesn't anyone remember the White House Correspondent Assoc. dinner where he ripped both Bush and the lily-livered press new ones? I for one can't wait to see what he says to these guys.

</comment><comment><USER21> This is like a group of Greeks trying to persuade Odysseus to boycott Troy by canceling delivery of the Trojan Horse.

<comment><USER22> This comparison is 3000 years outdated. I don't even care to try to understand it</comment></comment>


Richard P. Gabriel's Writing Writing - b-man http://www.dreamsongs.com/RPGWritingBroadside.html

<comment><AUTHOR> This is good advice. Programmers and writers need to fall in love with language, learn to think logically, and come to terms with classical rhetoric. Dick Gabriel is a master of all three. Read his essays at <http://www.dreamsongs.com>. Read his book Patterns of Software book, inspired by the work of Christopher Alexander.

</comment><comment><USER2> This is the best book for finding words I have ever used: [http://www.amazon.com/Flip-Dictionary-Barbara-Ann- Kipfer/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/Flip-Dictionary-Barbara-Ann- Kipfer/dp/1582971404)

</comment><comment><USER3> It really depends on your discipline's culture. In the humanities, good writing style is essential. In e.g. medicine with its highly standardized report/article format where articles are targeted at an international community, language rather is a commodity whose presence should go unnoticed.

</comment><comment><USER4> His _Patterns of Software_ is a wonderful book.</comment>


Ask HN: What is good language / project to teach 12-year old to code? - <AUTHOR>

Thinking HTML/javascript, text game, but am open to other suggestions.  I am quick to pick up languages (I already write a lot of different languages).  I want to make sure that I choose something interesting enough to keep his attention if he really is wanting to learn to code. <comment><USER2> With JavaScript/HTML, Scratch, or anything that requires the internet, I'm concerned about attention span. I don't want to commit some, "it was better in the old days" fallacy, my 6 and 8 years olds are using scratch, but when they're 12, my plan is to give them an offline PC and a printed copy of Learn Python the Hard Way. It's just too easy to be distracted by the internet. When they're 16 (we homeschool, so I can do this) I'm going to let them take a half a year off from other studies and work through The Elements of Computing Systems, where they will built their own VM, language and compiler in Java.

<comment><USER3> > It's just too easy to be distracted by the internet.

But OTOH a lot of documentation, help, and resources are available on the Internet. Learning to program was much more difficult in the old days when those resources weren't available.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Start with C#/VB. The drag and drop GUI creation in .NET is a powerful tool for new programmers and kids alike. I learnt that with VB5 when I was 13 and was creating simple GUI based apps within a few days. A powerful IDE is absoluately necessary when learning the first language because it allows a newbie to explore things without opening any technical documentation. You can also go the HTML/JS route, again with an IDE that allows drag and drop of components. Stay away from python and java for now.

</comment><comment><USER5> Check out the book Python for Kids: A Playful Introduction to Programming. It covers how to make a couple different 2D games.

[http://www.amazon.com/Python-Kids-Playful-Introduction- Progr...](http://www.amazon.com/Python-Kids-Playful-Introduction- Programming/dp/1593274076)

<comment><AUTHOR> Have you used this resource much? How easy do you think it would be to adapt some of the projects in this book to javascript? Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Scratch (developed by MIT) is very useful to teach kids functions/modules/loops/etc. [http://scratch.mit.edu/](http://scratch.mit.edu/)

</comment><comment><USER7> I've been doing HTML/JavaScript with my 11yr old. We're pair programming a little offline web app she can put on her iPod touch.

</comment><comment><USER8> have you already looked at [http://processing.org/](http://processing.org/) ? although i don't like java i think it's quite cool, because:

\- good documentation

\- many small examples you can start from

\- all built in (video/sound/grafik)

\- you can extend it by using java

</comment><comment><USER9> Android or iOS apps is a good idea as kids will enjoy seeing the apps they've built running on their phones.

</comment><comment><USER3> Write video games in Python / Pygame.

Sweigart is a good online resource.</comment>


How about an Emacs meetup around SF?  - <AUTHOR>

Is anyone interested for an emacs meetup during the next week? I think it would be fun meeting fellow emacs hackers and exchange .emacs and bash vi :) <comment><USER2> That would be nice. I always wanted to learn emacs!</comment>


I'd like to take a moment to speak to you about the Adobe PSD format - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/zepouet/Xee-xCode-4.5/blob/master/XeePhotoshopLoader.m#L108 <comment><USER2> A true classic.</comment>


Ask HN: What will Facebook's replacement look like? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I've been thinking about some kind of transparent DRM system for all digital assets that's organized as a mutual company.

I would start as a for profit company with a contractual agreement with users to be sold to a mutual company(where users own it) once it hits $1 billion dollar valuation. Mainly to solve the chicken and egg problem for VCs. Assuming network effects kick in at that size.

Source control, version control is open but no one person had access to all of the assets. So, similar to how controls in a company work for accounting.

Probably operate like some kind of liquid democracy where you can you can vote or assign your votes to others. Contracts between you and the mutual company would require you to actual agree to the changes, but you could always revert to the old version.

changes would be proposed. users could follow the proposals. users could fork the version and run a forked version.

It would be just code there would be use cases and test cases etc. So that users could fork at the use case level.

Your data would be open, available to groups, private and super private. super private data is only available local in un-encrypted form.

Content, services could be sponsored as well.

It wouldn't need to be block chain just multiple servers with core items replicated. the more sensitive the data the more servers to replicate it.

<comment><USER2> Voting plays some role in how people get paid but not sure how derivatives versus originals get paid. maybe some kind of survey.</comment></comment>


The secretive billionaire who built Silicon Valley - <AUTHOR> http://fortune.com/2014/07/07/arrillaga-silicon-valley/

<comment><USER2> Probably not HN's main interest, but Arrillaga is basically the main reason Stanford has sports teams (in particular, funding the football team)- he's basically funded everything they have around that, to say nothing of his other contributions to the school. And amusingly enough, If Silicon Valley has such a thing as a "power couple", Marc Andressen (the new world) and Laura Arillaga (scion of the old world, professor at the GSB) are it.

<comment><USER3> could he be the one who gave money anonymously to name Cardinal football team's Offensive coorinator's position as "Andrew Luck Director of Offense"?

<comment><USER2> I'd be surprised, only because he puts his name on everything else - why make this one anonymous? I assume that the Andrew Luck thing came from some tech donor type, but that's definitely a WAG.

<comment><USER4> He doesn't put his name on everything. Apparently he's contributed to over a hundred buildings and could have had his name on many of the if he wanted to. I heard that he didn't even want his name on the new dining hall, but someone convinced him (which may be why it's "Arillaga Family").

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> In the article Fortune refers to Hewlett & Packard as "computer whizzes". Negatory.

They were electronic (vacuum tube) whizzes who staked their entrepreneurialism to advanced instrumentation.

Then world war broke out again and government contracts were very good to them.

Later, solid-state electronics came along, and eventually computers and these were adopted early by HP simply because they were . . . well . . . electronic, and HP was a (non-consumer) electronic leader by then.

Computers were definitely not their main thing when the company was still in possession of its true greatness.

</comment><comment><USER6> Maybe he is secretive, but anybody affiliated with Stanford will instantly recognize his name.

<comment><USER7> And anyone who's passed by any of the construction sites and seen the big "Peery - Arrillaga" banners

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> So... who is Company X?

</comment><comment><USER9> "Their speculative approach was essentially unheard-of locally, but the two believed that if they built the office space, tenants would come."

That's awesome; "built it and they will come" \- an approach I have recently overcome the fear of, due to them never coming on a couple projects I learned from.

I appreciate how they disliked borrowing in the early stages, too.

<comment><USER10> "Build it and they will come" works a lot better with land, since land is pretty finite and people tend to want to do something with it. Also see the adage, "location location location".

Online mindshare, on the other hand, is basically infinite and unless there's a path to discovery, there's not really any reason for people to show up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Is there some kind of private-sector/public-sector "who built silicon valley" battle going on right now? See [1]

1\. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8001224](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8001224)

EDIT: may just be coincidence, but they're pretty close together.

<comment><USER12> I agree it's striking that these two articles came out at the same time. Two PR firms waging battle against each other in advance of some sort of political decision?

<comment><USER13> Which political decision? Coincidence seems more likely.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This really isn't newsworthy. Also, anyone even marginally working in the Real Estate industry is a scumbag.

This man added no value other than as an intermediary; he may have added value to Stanford (questionable) but he got rich off land. Nothing more.

</comment><comment><USER15> tl;dr it's Oprah.

</comment><comment><USER16> Right. Anyone who's gone to Stanford will know the name. Cool to read the backstory, though.

<comment><USER17> I assume you're assuming most people here went to Stanford. Not too surprising.

<comment><USER18> I didn't go to Stanford. What's Stanford?

<comment><USER19> It's a small junk shop run by a man and his son .. oh, you said S_T_anford.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What's the best way to talk to an expert directly for advice? - <AUTHOR> For example, if I wanted to ask questions on a certain path I'm taking to learn ML or get advice on how to approach a certain problem <comment><USER2> Reddit is great. r/MachineLearning and r/MLQuestions are decently active, as is Cross Validated, Stack Overflow's stats site.

You could also email me- email's in profile, I'm happy to chat. I currently work in ML as a consultant.</comment>