Governments deterring businessmen and tourists with cumbersome visa requirements - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/news/business/21684791-governments-are-deterring-business-travellers-and-tourists-cumbersome-visa-requirements <comment><USER2> It is such a shame, really. I live in the UK and my wife is Armenian. There have been many times where we would have liked to go to France, or Holland, or Germany, for a long weekend. Likely spending hundreds of pounds as tourists. Yet the absurd process and cost for her is just not worth it, so we don't go, and the tourism economy suffers. I will never understand how the visa nonsense got so out of control, and continues to do so. Truly one of the more illogical rules in existence.

\--EDIT-- I will add that it wouldn't be so bad if we could go through the process once every couple years or so and get a multiple entry Shengen visa - but that would make too much sense and be too easy, so you need to provide the paperwork, pay the fee, and wait 2 to 4 weeks, every time for a single entry. Crazy bullshit.

<comment><USER3> Can't she become a british citizen? Will that not simplify things?

<comment><USER2> You say that like we can just roll up to the immigration store and get a passport any time we like.

6 years minimum for her to get citizenship. It's been 3.5

<comment><USER4> The US is actually worse. I've been here 8 years and I'm not even a little bit closer than I was 8 years ago, to permanent residence let alone citizenship.

I have a six figure salary. I should probably just get married.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'd add that airport security and passport controls are also deterring me from travelling. I have very little appetite for standing for 45min+ in a queue and when you travel international now, you do many of those (security, passports out, passports in and all again on the way back). I don't know if many are like me but I am limiting my travelling to the strict minimum because of that.

<comment><USER6> I don't know. When the flight is 12 hours, 45 minutes on either side isn't such a big deal. I did get stuck in a 4 hour immigration line at Heathrow once...I'll just avoid the UK from now on.

<comment><USER5> I guess we all have different levels of tolerance to queueing. Mine is pretty low, I would never go to a restaurant where I have to queue, even only for 15min. In airports, these queues are the result of pointless checks (I am not aware that in the history of aviation a single terrorist has been caught at an airport security check) and bad management (long queues at passport checks are often associated with lots of empty desks).

<comment><USER7> The fact that terrorists/weapons/explosives are rarely caught in security checks isn't really a compelling argument to remove security checks.

If you reverse the argument and say they exist mainly to discourage people from trying, you could argue that they are nearly 100% successful.

In my experience security is pretty snappy compared to e.g US immigration. I look European and find it tedious and annoying, I can only imagine what it's like if you have a middle eastern type name or look.

<comment><USER8> At the same time, these security checks do create places where 200+ people gather close together in an area where it is totally reasonable for someone to be wheeling around a 35-lbs un-checked bag.

<comment><USER9> So? There's no shortage of places where hundreds of people gather, where it wouldn't be out of place to have a large package or bag. Adding a few more at airports really isn't a big deal.

Not that I agree with all the "security", but that argument against it isn't very convincing.

<comment><USER10> That means terrorists killing everyone on a plane (the same as everyone in the security queue) is an acceptable risk, as long as they don't crash the plane into even more people like at 9/11\. So maybe we don't need airport security at all. Just have the air force ready to shoot down rogue commercial planes before they reach densely populated areas.

It happened in China. Muslim terrorists attacked hundreds of people waiting in a ticket hall. No need to go through security.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> A related article in the 'leaders' section of the print edition: [http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21684782-they-have- the...](http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21684782-they-have-their-uses- burden-visas-impose-travellers-and-recipient-countries-too)

"Britain ... requires visa applicants to fill in a ten-page form, provide a list of every foreign trip over the past decade and declare that they have never incited terrorism to boot. This is absurd. ... America's visa-waiver programme allows citizens of 28 countries to visit by filling out a simple online form with basic personal information."

28 countries are in the US's VWP. 56 countries (plus all EU countries) are in the UK's visa-free entry list. So, the article is not comparing like with like.

<comment><USER12> Don't you think that listing every and each trip you've done abroad for the past 10 years is bit excessive and tormenting?

<comment><USER13> I wouldn't even be able to list every trip I've done abroad for the past 10 years. I'd probably forget to mention half of them, which no doubt would trigger a whole pile of nasty sanctions for lying on an application. In some places that might even be reason to detain you.

<comment><USER14> Google Location History to the rescue. That is about the only thing that could help me with filling such a form, and I don't even travel much. The requirement is ridiculous in modern times.

<comment><USER13> Google does not have my location history and I very much plan to keep it that way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Some of the intellectual energy that fueled the momentum of globalization has abated. Of course, the corporations are still 100% in favor of free movement of goods and capital (and certain people, including business executives and poor peasants who will work on farms in the wealthy nations). The corporations still provide much of the energy for maintaining relatively free movement of goods, capital and some people.

But consider the intellectual energy that drove the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951 or the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, or the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1994. At that time, Western elites seemed unified in their belief that open borders would benefit everyone.

Since that time, a host of concerns has arisen. Some are security related. Others are about the uneven effects of attempts at monetary union (broadly speaking, this includes not just Europe, but also nations like Argentina that attempted to peg their currency to another currency (such as the USA dollar)). Some are about currency manipulation (first Japan, then Taiwan, and then, much more sensationally, China). And the rise of wealth inequality in all the developed nations.

It's possible that globalization could be restructured in a way that brings benefits to everyone. But first there would have to be a long conversation about all the ways it is now failing.

</comment><comment><USER16> I worked in a job where i was in charge of getting Visas for some of our employees (most of them U.S. citizens) for various countries all over the world. I had never done that previously but i quickly became an expert.

Let me tell you, the countries that have the most fucked up economies are the ones with the craziest Visa procedures. One would think that they are happy that Tourists and Businesses are coming to spend $$$ in their country. Crazy long forms, crazy document requirements, stupid turnaround times and zero support - there is nerver a number or a email if you have any questions regarding a form or edge case. It really is a pain and beyond crazy.

<comment><USER17> Yes, there are two things going on there... firstly, their economies are fucked up _because_ they have inefficient and ineffective bureaucracies. Secondly, visa requirements between countries are typically more or less reciprocal, so because developed countries impose a heavy burden on travellers from those countries, they return the favor. In many cases, they'll have visa- free or less hassle for citizens of neighboring fucked up countries.

You mentioned that this is for U.S. citizens, so you're more or less just dealing with a reflection of the U.S. visa burden imposed on those same countries :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> This looks like an excellent place to whine about having to cancel a holiday to Tehran because it would mean losing my visa-free travel to 'merica. Hold exclusively a British passport.

<comment><USER19> As someone who's never had visa free travel to the US in the first place, this is some good Schadenfreude.

Frankly I think you should still visit Iran and just get a US tourist visa like the rest of the us. US tourist visas are good for multiple entries and only expire after 10 years, so it's not as bad as most European countries.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> The actual success story, USA included South Korea in visa waiver program: [https://vwp.ustravel.org/sites/default/files/South%20Korea_0...](https://vwp.ustravel.org/sites/default/files/South%20Korea_0.pdf)

I think all parties would benefit if USA would add a few more countries to Visa Waiver Program like Poland, Bulgaria, Rumania and Croatia.

<comment><USER6> The USA now has 10 year tourist visas for people from China, so I don't see it as much of a problem (most passports have 10 year validity).

<comment><USER21> I had an unlimited-validity-multiple-reentry visa for the US in an old passport. When the passport expired, the page containing the visa was left alone, everything else was mutilated and the whole mess returned to me. I never tested it, but the visa supposedly remained valid.

EDIT: Writing "visa" as if it was a singular noun really feels strange, even if everybody does it. You know, the pages in your passport are labeled "visa" because they can contain many of them...

<comment><USER22> The visa is valid. If travelling to the US keep both, the valid passport and the valid visa. Whatever you do do not cut out the visa and try and glue it into the new passport.

/fromexperience

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Does nobody read the article before it get's published? For me a whole paragraph (beginning with "The most sensible response") is twice in the article.

I can see what the article states happening. When I was in Sweden as an exchange student all the Chinese exchange students were travelling around Europe. But not to the UK, because of the additional visa requirement.

<comment><USER24> It's not just you, I also saw that paragraph repeated.

<comment><USER25> LOL, I thought for a brief moment that my brain must be replicating things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> rm_-rf_slash I didn't get much of a sense that anybody was being deterred by visa requirements. Pissed off, maybe, but let's say you're a business with a potentially lucrative and growing market in a foreign country? Are you going to suspend plans or operations because it's annoying and expensive to get a visa? Like hell. Same goes for tourists. If you have your heart set on seeing the Pyramids but get frustrated at the Egyptian visa process, are you really willing to settle for, say, Lebanon?

<comment><USER26> > If you have your heart set on seeing the Pyramids but get frustrated at the > Egyptian visa process, are you really willing to settle for, say, Lebanon?

No, but I'm probably willing to settle for Germany or France. It's pretty rare for me to have my heart set on somewhere. There are many things I want to see, and if one country feels like being a pain in the neck, I'll just go see something else, or go somewhere to do something else.

I'm not sure whether most tourists are more like me or more like the heart set on kind of folks. But, even assuming that they're of the heart set on kind, once you've seen the pyramids it's less likely to drag you back through the bothersome process again. One would imagine a bothersome process somewhat decreases your opportunity for repeat business.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> What reasons are there for complicated visa processes? Tracking entry/exit to/from the country can be done in a significantly more efficient way, and there's no economic upside to adding expenses to business trips or tourism.

</comment><comment><USER28> This is one of many reasons that Nations as a concept are rapidly becoming obsolete and will eventually be forgotten once there isn't enough profit in them.

<comment><USER29> There is ample "profit" to be made in each individual state, so I don't see that happening anytime soon. If you solve the "problems" of protectionism and globalization, then you might just get to a point where the concept of "multiple nation states" could become obsolete.

<comment><USER28> We're already solving the problems of globalization, and even if we weren't governments are getting more and more de-fanged to resist the corporations. People by and large don't care about the environment, most say they do but if we told them we could save a big portion of it by eliminating Amazon Prime, most people would opt to keep the quick shipping I think.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Agree with the article 100% but... Politics.</comment>


Evolving Swift on Apple Platforms After ABI Stability - <AUTHOR> https://swift.org/blog/abi-stability-and-apple/ <comment><USER2> How does this impact Linux as a target platform for Swift?</comment>


Student Loans a Lot Like the Subprime Mortgage Debacle, Watchdog Says - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/2019/12/09/785527874/student-loans-a-lot-like-the-subprime-mortgage-debacle-watchdog-says <comment><USER3> We need to get rid of student loans. The problem is that Universities don't ever need to worry about a student defaulting and can keep increasing the prices of tuition with impunity. If they default, they don't care, because the money is already in the bank.

If universities had to worry about students defaulting, they would get rid of bullshit degrees that don't result in an actual job and the prices would come done due to free market forces.

<comment> mAEStro-paNDa It's insane to me how quick some folks are to dismiss what they deem "bullshit degrees".

It's our culture that has turned education into some kind of "investment" in future job prospects. To put it simply, education was never intended to be that way, nor should it. It's as if studying the arts is some kind of luxury for those who are already financially well-off.

Education is _supposed_ to be about learning just for the sake of learning, which benefits all of us. If there is not a place for people from certain fields of study, that's a failure of our economy and priorities. Yet it seems that too many have just accepted the current reality as "just the way things are".

<comment><USER4> It's meaningless to talk about what education was "intended" to be, because it varies from society to society, and changes over time. In general, _we_ as a society decide what it is intended to be about.

But if you are going to look at history, then why not go all the way to the root of the modern Western academia - where the word itself originates?

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

On one hand, it was indeed about learning just for the sake of learning. But on the other hand, it also didn't have degrees, positions, tenure, or any other attributes of a formal hierarchy.

And note that it was something that people did _aside_ from gainful employment (or other source of income). Which means that it was closed to most, not even because they weren't welcome there, but because they didn't have the free time to devote to learning for the sake of learning.

Could we revive the Academy today, free for everybody? Sure, but I don't think this would solve any of the problems with "bullshit degrees".

<comment><USER5> I enjoy learning about new things and I also work full-time, so a system that could accommodate that style of learning would be my choice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It seems like the majority of the commenters here are missing the point. The increasing rate of student loan default is not a result of kids who go to a four year college, graduate with an unmarketable degree in philosophy, fall on hard times and then can't pay their bills. It's kids who go to barber or cosmetology school, take on $30k of debt, then realize they don't make enough money cutting hair to support themselves, much less pay back a loan. There's a huge population of people like that. Source: [https://www.ed.gov/news/press- releases/us-department-educati...](https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us- department-education-releases-national-student-loan-fy-2014-cohort-default- rate)

<comment><USER7> Sure, the most relatable problem is that a lot of college grads have debts they can't pay off.

That's not really the focus of the article though, which is an introduction to a potentially calamitous systemic problem.

The 2008 crash happened because there were about $1.7T of mortgage-backed securities (MBS) floating around in the financial system. These were essentially sliced up pieces of numerous mortgages that had been made to credit-unworthy home buyers. When these buyers started defaulting due to a weak economy, the MBS became worthless and financial institutions started going belly up.

So with that said, here are a few facts:

\- There's about $1.6T of outstanding student loan debt today, and it's growing.

\- Many of the borrowers who took out these loans are demonstrably credit- unworthy, as the .gov link demonstrates, they are already defaulting in growing numbers.

\- Sure enough there's a thing called SLABS out on the market (Student Loan Asset Backed Securities). Very similar to a MBS but the collateral is student loans.

I don't know how widely SLABS are spread throughout the financial system at this point.

There are also differences vs 2008, biggest one is that most of the student loan debt is government guaranteed.

That last point gets used to promote SLABS but it seems to me that it just makes their value leveraged to political winds. Here is an example scenario: economy softens, leading many holders of student loan debt to vote for Bernie Sanders because he promises to forgive their debt. He gets elected and follows through on his promise. SLABS all over the system become worthless, banks end up much poorer than they thought they were, and the death spiral begins again.

I don't know what will happen, you can't simplify the workings of the economy into tweets and soundbites. But there is certainly cause for attention and concern.

Further reading:

[https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/081815/stude...](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/081815/student- loan-assetbacked-securities-safe-or-subprime.asp)

[https://www.natlawreview.com/article/rmbs-to-slabs- history-r...](https://www.natlawreview.com/article/rmbs-to-slabs-history- repeating-itself)

<comment><USER8> Right, so the difference here is that you can be foreclosed on, and the bank takes your house. You can even go bankrupt when you lose your house.

But you can't get out of student loan debt via bankruptcy, nor lose the education. I figure the banks figure they're going to be fine, because rather than the SLABS market collapsing, it'll just suffer a correction: the enforced debt peonage of making payments all one's life will ensure those "securities" represent (forcibly and fraudulently extracted) income streams.

<comment><USER7> Except that all of those angry debtors can vote, and elect representatives who change the applicable laws. So one way things are different this time around is that government action could precipitate events in unpredictable ways.

Remember Bernie is talking about straight up forgiveness: the debt just disappears. He probably won't be the next President but student loan reform (including existing loans) is a hot topic for many candidates.

<comment><USER9> Any forgiveness is likely to be executed by the forgiving entity _paying off_ the loans.

The federal government is not going to use a pen to steal trillions of dollars from lenders holding contracts for repayment. That's a banana republic action.

<comment><USER10> The federal government _is_ the one holding all that debt, so that is exactly what is going to happen.

<comment><USER9> There is a high 8/low 9 digit inventory of private student loans, not held federally.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> All this talk about student loan forgiveness is an unnecessary solution to a problem that's not really that bad: [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/02/upshot/an- international-f...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/02/upshot/an- international-final-four-which-country-handles-student-debt-best.html)

Average BA holders in the US graduate with $28,000 in debt, versus $21,000 in Sweden. The Swedish system is basically like our income-based-repayment, which we have had since the 1980s. Except, as you'd expect with Sweden, there is less paperwork and fewer gotchas. Simply tweaking the PAY-E system Obama created, to add automatic enrollment and automatic annual income verification based on tax returns, would get us a system that has proven workable in Europe. All without trillion dollar loan forgiveness or radical changes. (And with, in my opinion, a fairer system of redistribution, where those who needed loans and got high paying jobs subsidizing those who needed loans but didn't get high paying jobs.)

(And simply tweaking ACA would get us pretty close to the Dutch model of health insurance. But that doesn't get headlines.)

<comment><USER12> Why was it necessary to change student loans to being non-dischargeable in bankruptcy? That is a recent change and it shifts the burden from banks having to evaluate the loans they are making which would likely mean fewer loans and thus less money earned from interest. It seems like student loans should be treated like any other unsecured loan. And really student loans shouldn't even be necessary for public universities but that's another point.

<comment><USER13> Because it is an unsecured loan. It would be too easy for a newly minted graduate to declare bankruptcy, discharge the loan, and move on with their life. The only entity stupid enough to loan money to students in that world would be the government.

<comment> swagasaurus-rex The missing wisdom here is that maybe the government should take on a high- risk, societally high-reward investment like education.

<comment><USER13> That sounds nice but it requires there to be a definition of "societally high- reward education". That is difficult. Even if you find some methodology to identify the quality programs that have an appropriate "societal reward" you have to deal with the problem that the costs for those programs will inevitably rise in lock step to the amount of tax dollars used to subsidize them. (See [https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff...](https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr733.pdf))

I would suggest the federal government get out of educational loans entirely. Let the private loan market evaluate and take the risks, probably with an income based repayment contract that favored degrees/programs that are likely to lead to reasonable incomes.

<comment><USER14> Steve Jobs had an English degree. Would most STEM obsessed industrialised file that under 'favoured'?

<comment><USER13> Who knows? Like I said that is a difficult decision and I'd rather those decisions be made by individuals. They can decide if taking out a loan to get an English degree is worthwhile. And if they can't find someone to loan them the money, they may have find a different approach.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Except in the subprime debacle, millions of people could declare bankruptcy and walk away. With student loans. The debtors are simply screwed with no recourse. That's a big difference.

<comment><USER16> Silly question: is there any legal way to default on a student loan? Can that be exploited? En mass? Perhaps?

<comment><USER17> Here's the thing... when you do it en mass, it doesn't matter if it's illegal because nobody can do anything to stop you. It's called a strike.

Apparently the people that started [http://rollingjubilee.org/](http://rollingjubilee.org/) were originally working on a student debt strike project. Not sure exactly why they switched to a medical debt project, but it's certainly a worthy one.

<comment><USER18> >Not sure exactly why they switched to a medical debt project

My assumption is that the government and lenders of government guaranteed loans aren't selling the delinquent accounts for pennies on the dollar.

<comment><USER10> There are no "lenders of government guaranteed loans" anymore, and there haven't been for at least nine years. Either the government _is_ the lender, or it is a completely private (and dischargeable) loan.

<comment><USER18> Thank you for the correction/clarification.

However I still have a government guaranteed loan that was issued by a bank. If I default on it that bank isn't selling my account. They'll garnish my wages. Also I never plan on paying off my loan early! It's only 2.25% apr! I got lucky. Rates were really really low when I graduated and consolidated my loans.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> My wife and I lived a very simple lifestyle for years (7ish) after college so we could pay off student loan debt. Awesome Ford Tempo car, local honeymoon, Studio apt for first 5 years, limited eating out. She has a masters (more loans), and is a teacher. So that made it even tighter.

Is there any data on if folks with student loans are living above their means? I.e new TV's, new car lease, vacations, ordering out.

I am serious when I ask, as I read a ton, and can't get to the root. I hear many different anecdotes. This is a serious problem, and I am truly out of sync on the main causes of payback ailment.

<comment><USER20> > Is there any data on if folks with student loans are living above their > means?

Literally every single friend of mine bought a new car when they graduated from college and got a job. Anecdotal, but I suspect it is more common than people realize.

It doesn't mean they were living above their means, but I think buying a new car at the start might be a financial misstep.

<comment><USER21> I think it depends on the car and the job.

I graduated in 2003 and had to buy a car. I was driving an 88 Chevy Blazer that was starting to hit around $750 per month in maintenance. Final straw was when a cylinder was losing compression. This was already on an SUV that had its engine rebuilt and had more than 165K miles on it. It had a Kelly Blue Book value of about $100.

So, couple months out of college, I bought a modest Chevy Cavalier. Monthly payments were 1/3 of what I was paying in repairs, around $240/month. I could afford the car payments, I couldnt afford the monthly repairs.

I didn't buy my first fun car for about another 4 years. By then, had a well paying job, only debt was what lingered on the previous car loan. At the time, didnt have a great salary, probably around $100k, but I was getting generous bonuses. Every bonus I had went to paying off atudent loans before I did anything more than a couple hundred splurge. I think that I had my student loans paid off in the first 3 years at my first salaried, full time job.

I think the key, for me, is that when my income tripled from when I was an intern, I didn't change my lifestyle. I lived the same, with a slightly more expensive so I could be closer to work & public trans. Everything went to paying down debt.

I think this is the misstep for younger people that suddenly come into earning a lot more money: more money in, increase the life style and spend the increase in income. It's an easy trap to make. And no, I'm not ragging on Millenials. Its a problem that has happened to previous generations in the same situation. I think it might be a lack of personal financial maturity (you know, out on your own, gobsmacked with more money youve ever seen in your life), not a generational thing.

Edit: clarification about exspense on the old vehicle

<comment><USER22> "didn't have a great salary, probably around $100K"

I think you're incredibly disconnected from what most people are making four years after graduating.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Time to eliminate government funded student loans. Most of the kids going to college now shouldn't even be there in the first place.

I was doing volunteer work a few years back, speaking to some kids from the local community. One said he was going to a 4 year college, probably paid for by the government given the circumstances. Said he wanted to study "coaching". And our tax dollars are paying for this...

<comment><USER24> This is the reactionary right-wing Twitter take, but for every coach, there's computer science, engineering & biology students suffering under massive, unforgivable debt.

Yes, student loans need to go, but not so that people don't go to college. That should be free for undergraduates in today's economy, where you need high level ed. for what used to be done by people who barely finished high-school 30 years back.

<comment><USER25> I think university education also makes more intelligent, socially and self aware members of society. Even if it doesn't directly lead to a career in a chosen field, it produces better people who hopefully make better employees.

<comment><USER26> This is definitely not the case in 2019. Almost everyone has a degree and a lot of people demonstrate almost no ability to think for themselves.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Let's say that one thinks eventually a large percentage of for profit private colleges will have to close their doors. (think small ones that no one has ever heard of, not your Ivy's) What's the analog to The Big Short here?

<comment><USER28> There are asset-backed securities called SLABS (student loan ABS) that I guess you could make some kind of credit swap out of if that's what you're into. Probably super expensive to construct such an instrument since it like isn't a super liquid market.

<comment><USER29> That is one route, or I think the better route may be cds on revenue bonds for public or private schools. Should be cheaper cds, but just as damaged as the crisis rolls through

<comment><USER28> Mind explaining this strategy a little bit more? I'm not really up to speed on any other fixed-income instruments outside mortgages.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> The value of secondary education has been diluted by the massive pool of "paper" floating around. There is quite the oversupply of "educated" (papered) individuals. The value of a secondary education has been diminished because of this oversupply. We've seen it in the tech scene: A good bit of companies equally value experience vs education (and some value experience more!) - <USER2> why not, the goal is to leverage labor for profit - in the case of tech; to create more utility.

Unfortunately, we've done a disservice to ourselves: Instead of teaching others how to think, we've taught them what to think. Most graduates coming out of the ivory tower of education lack the ability to bootstrap their own intellectual development. Historically, universities served a purpose: the higher-level of information and application could only be consumed through them (gatekeepers). We are in a new era of information. Information is abundant. We'd be better off as a society if we focused on the "how to think" than the "what to think".

</comment><comment><USER31> The problem is compounded by the fact that students do not get to choose who their loan servicer is and thus a few servicers like Navient have a government approved monopoly on that business. Can look up many reports on their incompetence and misleading information that funnels students into repayment plans that maximize their own revenue.

<comment><USER10> As far as I know Navient _is_ the servicer for Federal loans. Who else is there since the change to DOE-only government loans?

<comment><USER32> Mine ended up getting shuffled around until it became Mohela. Once there it's stayed there.

Wikipedia: "The Higher Education Loan Authority of the State of Missouri, aka the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority or MOHELA, is one of the largest holders and servicers of student loans nationwide."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> so in other words, when the government steps in and interferes with the loan market it just balloons costs and lacks the oversight it should have; because it was a quasi government agency which caused a big portion of the mess in the mortgage industry one with many connections to members of Congress

<comment><USER34> I cannot gather whether you are pro or contra regulation from this comment since regulation is stepping in and interfering...

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I won't lie, I have six figure student loan debt. It was all my own stupid making but what I think it's worrying is how fast people are willing to defend the loan system as is for education as employers continue to inflate requirements and certification processes when often such work can be learned on the job (programming IMO should be a trade school equivalent job and not something you go to university for unless it's for something related to pure science or an engineering discipline). So I expect the whole loan crisis to come to a head come the next recession. For me, I'm not so sure I'll be able to climb out of the hole I made for myself but I just wish politicians at minimum would prevent others from digging their own for the future.

<comment><USER36> > (programming IMO should be a trade school equivalent job and not something > you go to university for unless it's for something related to pure science > or an engineering discipline).

I learned way more in my degree about software principles and about theory than I could in years on the job. Computer Science degrees may not prepare people directly for software development in the workplace, but they do lead you to a greater understanding of what's around and underneath you that you're just not going to get commercially coding.

I'm not saying everyone _has_ to do it, but I am going to say it helped me tremendously to be a better creator of software.

(--edit-- I'm also going to say that I was part of the last year of students that didn't have to pay for their degree's at all in England, I appreciate the value proposition is different when you have to take on debt to do the course.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> People have been talking about this for at least a decade & I wonder when the shoe will actually drop.

<comment><USER38> I forgot who said it but "bubbles grow far bigger than is rationally thought possible, and fall far faster than anyone expects".

These bubble can go on for decades but once it bursts, the bottom of the bucket drops out and all the water goes with it.

<comment><USER39> Probably should be that the pop fast, not fall fast. In real life bubbles fall quite slowly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Lifetimes of debt service is a lenders dream

</comment><comment><USER41> As a non-american, what makes me curious is why do black students borrow twice as much money as other groups. Do they choose more expensive degrees?

<comment><USER42> Black Americans are poorer than most other groups, and I suspect that they're less likely to get parental support paying for college.

<comment><USER43> Let's be very clear: Black Americans are poorer _because_ of racist policies that kept them out of the huge post-WWII governmental benefit programs. Things like the GI bill and veteran home loans, and homeownership in general were white-only for many years, allowing that group to build generational wealth that continues to this day.

<comment><USER44> Source: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Biggest problem it's almost impossible to discharge student loans in bankruptcy.

<comment><USER46> If you could discharge student loans via bankruptcy nobody would get a loan. No financial institution is going to hand out 5 figure loans to a teenager with no credit history, no job, and no marketable skills.

<comment><USER47> And college might start costing something reasonable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Yet is not like. When you default your mortgage, bank can get you rid of property. However what you have learned, you still have it in your head (at least in some way).

</comment><comment><USER49> $1,654,255,000,000 USD and counting ($38k/student) [0]

There are US citizens with over a million dollars in debt. [1]

This is crazy. Other countries invest in people, sometimes including non- citizens.

0\. [https://usdebtclock.org](https://usdebtclock.org)

1\. [https://www.marketwatch.com/story/he-ran-up-a-million- dollar...](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/he-ran-up-a-million-dollars-in- student-loan-debt-en-route-to-becoming-an-orthodontist-2018-05-25)

</comment><comment><USER50> glad I realized that I needed to refinance my variable interest rate loans into a single fixed loan at ~2% APR after graduating.

I think I would have been screwed in this current climate.

IIRC, I received those loans at an advertised "teaser" rate of 1-2% APR, but since they were variable the percentage tended to increase over the years - 5-6% APR before refinancing.

</comment><comment><USER51> I've seen people saying this for years - hopefully it's not the first time that NPR reports on this?

</comment><comment><USER52> Student loans program should continue for highly sought out program like medical, dentistry, computer science and others. But there are degree like physics, history and general education that doesn't have great employability. The university here will take all the money they can because at the end of the day this is just business for them. Students sometimes will take the easiest course because they can

</comment><comment><USER53> What would happen if we forced universities cosign the loans that their students take on?

</comment><comment><USER54> > _Student Loans a Lot_

Well, bad for student. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

I keep being baffled by continued use of the newspaper title style on the English-language web—but at least it's a steady source of entertainment.

<comment><USER55> Well, for one, it's a news organization so newspaper style is somewhat acceptable for them, and second, as for your particular example, while it does read a bit like a garden path sentence, it's a completely valid compound noun.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> In the US, school is free from Kindergarten to grade 12. Why isn't college free?

<comment><USER57> Because the US is a for-profit society, not one focused on improving the lives of citizens. Companies are making billions on health insurance, education, etc.

It won't change because they want to hold onto their profits.

<comment><USER56> In that case why is school free?

<comment><USER57> Elementary and secondary are free to keep people going to work (i.e. it's child minding), and to keep children out of the workforce.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I think the student lending fiasco will be far worse than the sub-prime lending crisis. Although the amount of liquid assets and equity in the sub- prime lending debacle was an order of magnitude larger than the student loan crisis, the outcome for the student loan crisis isn't quite so clear yet. Allow me to paint a scenario...

There is a significant difference between the two lending fiascos, but mostly in how the fallout will look. Both the mortgage crisis and the student loan crisis started out as government programs meant to incentivize borrowing. They succeeded, mortgage debt rose 12%/yr in the years leading to the crisis, student loan deb at 11%/yr. Student loan debt now outpaces credit card and auto debt, and is 2nd only to mortgage debt. An increase in easy borrowing lead to higher prices in both cases, in the 10 years leading up to the housing recession, home prices went up 80%. In the last 10 years tuition prices have risen by also 80%. Not a problem if the value of the home or degree continues to rise, but labor income for college grads hasn't grown in 60 years. At all. In fact, if you adjust for inflation there has even been a slight decrease since 1960. Currently 30% of student lending ends up in default, but this number is also growing quickly and projections show this number at 40% by 2025. Sub-prime defaults were around 11% at its peak, so the rates of default for student lending are WAY worse than those of sub-prime mortgage lending, even though the total debt is significantly less. The big problem w/ sub-prime lending was the inability to pay them back (obviously), and same is happening with student loans - due to a lack of underwriting. You can't exactly repossess a degree, and even if you could the value on the 2nd hand market would be null. Filing bankruptcy would make mortgage lending debts go away, but that isn't the case with student loans, which will remain in perpetuity. True, overall mortgage debt was about 10x what student loan debt is at its peak, but there haven't been large derivatives markets set up to eat it like what happened with the mortgage collapse. Since the student lending default overage is going to be WAY more than what the US Government will be able to recoup from Social Security checks or income tax refunds, the person who will ultimately foot the bill for this lending crisis will not be insured banks; it will be you, the taxpayer, and ultimate the economy writ-large. Unless payroll wages somehow magically jump high enough to cover the stagnation we've experienced since the 1960's - unlikely without intervention.

It won't be easy for our economy to recover from this downturn either because the issues will be cultural and systemic. The course-corrective measures would be lenders locking out lower-income families from colleges, which prevents economic mobility and leads to a faster collapse of our middle class. Colleges will maybe drop tuition rates slightly but tuition is largely sticky, unlike housing prices. This may even lead to some colleges going out of business. Loans will likely start to be under-written appropriately, but this means degrees will be prioritized based on earnings potential, which means only a narrow field of study (medical, lawyers, tech, etc) will be eligible for lending. Schools may even price degrees differently, meaning schools will likely trend towards degree programs with the largest earnings potential, to the detriment of many other crucial fields of study. Ultimately college will become an institution to perpetuate a narrow focus of study, and only to those already in positions of wealth - which will further hasten the collapse of our middle class.

The student lending crisis is already having far-reaching economic slowdown implications, from decreased home ownership, higher rental rates, to lower purchasing of goods/services overall; with no clear indication of how to easily course-correct. Not to mention a worsening of cultural and systemic issues already in place. We may not be smart enough to even realize what hit us until it does.

<comment><USER58> Sounds like real estate investment in high density and highly educated cities would be optimal here given your assessment. Any other opportunities you can see? Personally I think this may increase class mobility. A lot of middle class ____ Studies majors will be shifted down and creating opportunities/openings for those who didn't go to college and instead have trade skills and work experience

<comment><USER44> > Sounds like real estate investment in high density and highly educated > cities would be optimal here given your assessment

There are stock market ETFs which do precisely this.</comment></comment></comment>


Patent US6007232 – Calculating the average of two integer numbers - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/patents/US6007232?dq=6007232

<comment><USER2> > The present invention relates to calculating the average of two integer > numbers, and more particularly to single instruction cycle calculation of > the average of two signed or unsigned integer numbers with a correctly > rounded result and without errors due to overflowing of intermediate > results.

From what I see this is proper patent. There is disclosure, the claim is specific and seems that there is inventive step. Am I missing anything?

<comment><USER3> Because it is patenting math. Which is a law of nature, which gets discovered. And the patent statute says that laws of nature (such as E=MC^2) can't be patented.

<comment><USER2> He is patenting logical gate scheme that can produce average of two int in a single instruction. You can average two ints any way you want and not owe royalties ...</comment></comment></comment>


Tattoo Electronics  - <AUTHOR> http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2011/08/tattoo-electronics-huang.html <comment><USER2> If you're like me an interested in RFID but wouldnt quite be willing to implant a chip under your skin, this might be a nice alternative assuming it has RFID tech too. I'd love to have this tattoo and hack my front door to open via an RFID.

<comment><USER3> It's probably technically feasible to use this ink as an antenna for an implanted RFID chip, they're not much larger than a grain of sand after all, but do you REALLY want to do that?

Once you have your key of identification implanted you just created a seriously disturbing incentive for someone (without a reader to clone your RFID) to do you grievous harm when they simply want to steal your stuff.

It probably won't happen to you or many other people but it's enough of a concern that I'll put up with the occasional misplaced key instead.

tl;dr I'd love to hack your tattoo and get in your front door.</comment></comment>


A podcast player that doesn't feel like a hacked music player - <AUTHOR> http://mortenjust.com/2020/05/20/another-way-to-listen/ <comment><USER2> This is nice. Lots of wacky but good ideas. It's made the front page of Podnews today. [https://podnews.net/update/rethinking-the-podcast- app](https://podnews.net/update/rethinking-the-podcast-app)</comment>


Are You a Hacker? - <AUTHOR> http://www.textfiles.com/hacking/ruhacker.txt

<comment><USER2> I have a problem with this: I'm extremely curious and I wind up going down long paths to find the ultimate solution to problems, when I could have just asked someone about it. I do it because I learn + remember better, and because the "How" is important to me. My problem is that wanting to know the "How" is often at odds with getting stuff done very quickly, and that being someone who gets stuff done quickly often becomes your personal brand - something that you are known for. So tradeoffs between the two aren't encouraged in the workplace- it's often one or another.

Thoughts?

<comment><USER3> _Sometimes_ it's worth asking because researching it yourself brings little value compared to a honest exchange with a knowledgeable person. This exchange is a two-way process and a worthwhile path to travel along in itself, to which asking is only the entry point. Core to the hacker ethos and at the heart of the Internet, Unix, open-source and free software is that exchanging ideas increments both persons knowledge. The key lies in the way and the intent with which you ask: don't ask to receive, but ask to build yourself.

(I can't seem to write something about the workplace without getting personal and it wouldn't be wise currently)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Are you asking because you are looking for answers? Either way, yes.

<comment><AUTHOR> No, that's not my question. It's only the title of this text. ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> cool story, bro</comment>


Don't Worry – It Can't Happen (1940) - <AUTHOR> https://www.dropbox.com/s/hzhilstmj94jvlx/1940-sciam-harrington-nuclearweapons-dontworryitcanthappen.pdf <comment><USER2> Of course it can't happen. As the Germans discussed at Farm Hall, you'd need giant factories, maybe the biggest buildings in the world, more than a mile long. They'd need giant power plants, like big hydroelectric dams, to power them. You'd need entire cities of scientists just to work out the theory. Other new cities for the plants. It would take hundreds or thousands of test explosions to get the chemical explosive components right. You'd need some way to watch an explosion as it happened, maybe even with an X-ray machine. The project would cost billions of dollars and take years. Even then, you might only make a few bombs.

<comment><USER3> Just one of those facilities, the Clinton Engineer Works, employed nearly a hundred thousand people. The vast majority of those did not realize what they were a part of. For example, this quote underneath one of the article photos:

"Gladys Owens, the woman seated in the foreground, did not know what she had been involved with until seeing this photo in a public tour of the facility fifty years later."

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is not as silly an article as it may appear to be in hindsight. When it appeared (in May 1940: [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dont-worry- it-can...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dont-worry-it-cant- happen/)), most scientific authorities, including such non-idiots as Niels Bohr, believed that, while an atomic chain reaction was theoretically possible, the only way an it could be achieved was by bringing together a quantity of nuclear fuel so large as to make the effort impractical.

The first proof that this was not in fact the case came in the Frisch-Peierls memorandum ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisch%E2%80%93Peierls_memoran...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisch%E2%80%93Peierls_memorandum)), which had been written two months before Harrington's article appeared, but which was highly classified and thus out of reach of pop-science journalists. Frisch and Peierls' figures indicated that a critical mass could be achieved with just one kilogram of uranium-235; this turned out to be an underestimate, but not so much as to invalidate their fundamental point, which was that criticality could be achieved with a mass of fuel small enough to be delivered by a 1940s-era airplane.

This came as news to the brightest lights in the world of physics, up to and including Albert Einstein, so it's probably unfair to expect a contemporary writer for _Scientific American_ to be further ahead in the science than they were.

</comment><comment><USER5> We talked a bit about the state of physics in 1940 in my 'Modern Physics' (aka Physics 401 aka nuclear/quantum). Looking backwards through time its easy to imagine they were planting disinformation or trying to throw off people from the potential there, but that view is mostly bolstered by knowing what is possible now. Had it come out in 1942 after 'pile 1' was demonstrating fission then yes, it would be subterfuge.

But perhaps most amazing are these results from physics experiments in 1940 and then the changes in the world by 1945. Such profound changes are also likely when someone figures out how to tap the energy from fusion as well.

<comment><USER6> There was some experimental evidence (and open publication) by 1939, to boot. The threat outlined by the Einstein-Szilard letter is that the Germans must be aware of the idea and might be developing a weapon so planting disinformation was probably not high on anyone's list of priorities.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Clark's First Law:

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

</comment><comment><USER8> I wonder whether the author was naive or intended to misdirect. The french experiment he cited answered the question "With the samples as is could it explode?" and the answer was "It can't happen.".

The relevant question however was "Can the setup be engineered that it could be made to happen" and the answer to that with all that was known and elaborated in the article was: "Maybe if a larger percentage could be made slower or absorbed by other means".

Answering the wrong question is a common way to misdirect.

</comment><comment><USER9> OP claims that the same other wrote a "worry about it" piece a year before.

[https://mobile.twitter.com/wellerstein/status/84169090329099...](https://mobile.twitter.com/wellerstein/status/841690903290998787)

So basically, clickbait through the ages.

<comment><USER9> Too late to edit, but s/same other/same author/

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Note that the Einstein letter which kicked off the Manhattan Project wasn't sent until August 1940[1].

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Szil%C3%A1rd_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Szil%C3%A1rd_letter)

<comment><USER11> The letter is dated August 2nd, 1939.

<comment><USER10> Apologies, you are entirely correct.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12>
      Thus the reaction poohs out as the temperature rises.

'poohs out' ? I've looked up the definition of 'pooh', and there's nothing to indicate what this means in this context, can someone elaborate?

<comment><USER13> It's slang, meaning to lose momentum and stop. Saying "died out" or "fizzled out" is more common these days (eg: A spark jumped from the fire but quickly fizzled out on the snowy ground).

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Of course this assumed you didn't enrich the uranium.

<comment><USER15> So what's the equivalent of enriched uranium for AI? Some form of recurrent neural net?

And what's critical mass? Some form of feedback system (a 'strange loop')?

<comment><USER16> All analogies are leaky, and I think this one is particularly misguided. Why would you want to draw parallels between uranium and AI? You can go a long way speculating about...

What's the equivalent of enriched uranium for healthcare? What's the equivalent of enriched uranium for calculus? What's the equivalent of enriched uranium for sweatshirts?

<comment><USER15> It's actually a much better analogy than you think. Machine learning (which is at least a significant part of AI) requires a certain 'critical mass' of computing power and learning data before it becomes powerful. We had neuron models in the 90s that were roughly equivalent to what we have today and they were deemed largely useless, just like the uranium in the article. All that changed was the data and compute power available.

As for 'critical mass', a defining characteristic of consciousness is that it's self-referential, so that seems like a fair guess.

<comment><USER17> but growth of AI usefulness hasn't been faster than Moore's Law, has it? so it doesn't seem to have a feedback loop

<comment><USER18> Well yeah, the feedback loop is assumed to happen once the AI system becomes powerful enough to understand and optimize its own operation better than humans can. Basically the premise is that AI development speed is bounded by the capability of the mind working on the AI, so max(human, AI). AI intelligence grows faster than human intelligence (which has reached the limits of easy improvements and is thus arguably capped by population size, which has _also_ stagnated), so the inflection point is assumed to happen once the second term outstrips the first.

<comment><USER19> It can replace all those pythons, javas with super efficient platform tailor- optimised machine code, gaining remarkable computational benefits. I mean programmers will also loose jobs one day, AI will replace them too only couple of years later than taxi drivers. But actually I'm looking forward to it, as programmers are extremely cocky these days.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Funny how they said: "With typical French - and scientific - caution ..."

</comment><comment><USER21> More readable: [https://www.dropbox.com/s/hzhilstmj94jvlx/1940-sciam- harring...](https://www.dropbox.com/s/hzhilstmj94jvlx/1940-sciam-harrington- nuclearweapons-dontworryitcanthappen.pdf)

<comment><USER22> Thank you! The Twitter version in the OP is useless on a mobile device.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Fractal Trees in Clojure - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/netb258/clj-tree <comment><USER2> Beautiful! Is there a reason you chose Clojure for this project?

<comment><AUTHOR> No reason at all.

I simply like Clojure.</comment></comment>


Amazon updates the Fire HD 10 tablet with a 1080p display and a much lower price - <AUTHOR> https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01J6RPGKG/ref=as_li_ss_tl?pf_rd_p=9fd79046-5dc2-47e1-84ba-18799b743e4e&tag=hacwalblo-20&pf_rd_r=6027MCN0HDTMZ3K6Q14F <comment><USER2> Still tied to Amazon's lesser app store which is severely lacking compared to Google Play. Yes, you can get Play Service and apps onto it, but it's annoying and unsupported, so not something you'd want to give to your parents.

</comment><comment><USER3> Alexa Hands-Free seems to be the big new feature. Even with the screen off, you can use it as an Echo device just by calling out the Alexa wake word. That might make this like a cheaper, more portable Echo Show device... and with more functionality, since it's also a tablet.

Unfortunately Alexa Hands-Free is only on the HD 10 unit for now, not the smaller tablets.

</comment><comment><USER4> Does HN allow posting referral ad links to products on Amazon like this?

</comment><comment><USER5> How do these compare performance wise to other tablets (like an ipad)? I had one of these a few generations ago, and it was painfully slow. Though I could see at $79 one of the 8" being a great price for travel or watching in bed netflix.

<comment><USER6> I noticed in the comparison table that the smaller Kindle Fires come with only 90 day warranties. Makes you wonder about the build quality. Really, Amazon?

<comment><USER7> My 3 year old has had a kindle fire 7 (standard one not the kid case version) he can use to play games and watch shows in the mornings rather than have the TV on. Bought it for £29 at Xmas and at that price didn't bother buying any protective case or screen protector. Thing is like a tank. It's been thrown, stamped on, was the primary target of projectile vomit twice, juice spilled, food rubbed into crevices. It has 1 minor scratch but other than that it's solid.

<comment><USER8> How about the charging cable? I once bought couple of cheap tablets (not Amazon) and both had the same problem: the USB charging cable breaks off (sometimes from the mother board itself, or it gets loose).

The iPad on the other hand, does not have this problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This could replace my aging iPad mini that I have double side taped to my fridge. It's perfect for setting timers and grocery lists and things.

<comment><USER10> So crude. So effective.

I've been considering low cost, easy methods to mount cheap, interconnected tablets (or even cheap touch displays hooked into an rPi) in a few different points around the house. It never occurred to me to just tape the damn thing to the fridge.

<comment><USER11> 3M command strips for picture hanging. Similar to Velcro, can be removed with no damage (as long as you're careful) Rated to 4 lbs per for the big ones.

I use them to stick my networking hardware to the wall to get it out of the way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Flagged it for being a URL with a referral built in

<comment><USER13> If you see what you think is site abuse, please contact the mods via the Contact link in the footer. They can take appropriate action, such as updating the URL, if necessary.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is really tempting. If Apple hadn't made such great strides in iOS for the iPad over the past three releases I would jump on this in a heartbeat.

But I live my life in a combination of the Apple and Google ecosystem and this supports neither.

</comment><comment><USER15> Does LineageOS run on it?

<comment><USER16> > CPU & RAM: MediaTek Quad-Core: 2 @ 1.8 GHz + 2 @ 1.4 GHz , with 2 GB of RAM

Mediatek... You shouldn't wait LineageOS for it. Neither any updates.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> These tablets, given their price point and availability, seem like fantastic platforms for hacking on. Anyone know why they haven't seen more adoption for that use case?

<comment><USER18> At least in the past, they've been stupendously locked down with bootloaders that were almost impossible to crack. There's be a version or two that was crackable, and then nearly every one purchased would be newer than that.

<comment><USER17> That's too bad. Makes sense though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I wonder what the margins are on these, or if there is any margin at all...

<comment><USER20> "[Bezos] starts in on the mantras of Amazon's e-reader and tablet business. Mantra one: premium products at non-premium prices. Mantra two: "We make money when people use our devices." \- [https://www.theverge.com/2013/9/25/4766878/jeff-bezos- interv...](https://www.theverge.com/2013/9/25/4766878/jeff-bezos-interview- amazon-kindle-hdx)

See for example Rapids ([https://rapids.amazon.com](https://rapids.amazon.com)), FreeTime Unlimited ([https://www.amazon.com/Amazon-FreeTime-Unlimited-Monthly- Sub...](https://www.amazon.com/Amazon-FreeTime-Unlimited-Monthly- Subscription/dp/B01I499BNA)), Kindle Unlimited ([https://www.amazon.com/kindle- dbs/hz/signup?_encoding=UTF8&*...](https://www.amazon.com/kindle- dbs/hz/signup?_encoding=UTF8&*entries*=0&*Version*=1))

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I had no idea they made a 10" tablet...it's on my wishlist now.</comment>


Operational Challenges with Unikernels - <AUTHOR> http://www.morethanseven.net/2015/08/21/operating-unikernel-challenges/

<comment><USER2> There's also been some discussion about this on the MirageOS mailing list [1].

There are definitely operational things to work on (e.g. more convenient deployment to AWS, amongst other things). One of the best ways to get feedback on these is from the people -- like the OP -- who try things out.

End to end toolchains make a huge difference but taking the time to come up with the _correct_ opinionated tooling is important. Being opinionated _and wrong_ could torpedo the uptake of such tech.

[1] [http://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/mirageos- devel/201...](http://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/mirageos- devel/2015-08/msg00092.html)</comment>