The secret negotiations behind the Hong Kong handover - <AUTHOR> http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/18/asia/hong-kong-handover-china-uk-thatcher/index.html <comment><USER3> One thing to keep in mind is that in 1997, HK's GDP was about one sixth of China's (even though China has 200x the people), and it was a very important conduit between China and the world: In the early 2000s, HK's port had about as much volume as Shanghai and Shenzhen together.

Today, HK's GDP is barely 3% of China's, and the ports of Shanghai and Shenzhen together have 3x the throughput of HK. (Just have a look at these pictures: [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478975/Shanghai- por...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478975/Shanghai-port-worlds- busiest-handles-736m-tonnes-year.html) )

In other words, HK used to be hugely important for China. Now, it isn't, and with rising Chinese nationalism, HK is being seen more and more like an unruly and spoiled child.

The grievances of HK's population are real: a political and business establishment dominated by property tycoons (and increasingly mainland Chinese political factions) keen on maintaining their privileged position; huge economic inequality; a slow erosion of political liberties ("salami tactic").

That all, of course, gave rise to the Umbrella Movement in 2014.

However, given that the Chinese Communist Party is not inclined to weaken its grip on power, and extremely protective of the (perceived) territorial integrity of China, I don't really see how this will end well. :-/ Here's hoping.

Sources for statistics:

[http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/09/hon...](http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/09/hong- kongs-share-of-chinese-gdp.html)

[https://www.vox.com/2014/9/28/6857567/hong-kong-used-to- be-1...](https://www.vox.com/2014/9/28/6857567/hong-kong-used-to- be-18-percent-of-chinas-gdp-now-its-3-percent)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world%27s_busiest_cont...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world%27s_busiest_container_ports)

<comment> tuna-piano At the same time as China has been increasing it's grip on Hong Kong, it has also been liberalizing China (especially economic rights).

What are the chances that in 30 years (2047, the 50 year mark), China will have significant civil liberties and democracy? I have no idea, but I'd like to think it's at least kind of likely.

<comment><USER4> That's what people said 30 years ago when Deng Xiaoping was driving reforms. The thought was that China's steady economic liberalization would inevitably lead to political liberalization. That had been the typical trend in other countries, but the Chinese Communist Party has proven to be surprisingly skilled at managing dissent and maintaining power.

It could still happen, but predicting the future in politics is hard.

<comment><USER5> > but the Chinese Communist Party has proven to be surprisingly skilled at > managing dissent and maintaining power.

It's entirely a wrong idea to think political system should evolve this quick.

China's political system inherits form 2k+ years of feudalism tradition. The system is largely static, with unsubstantial decorative changes here and there. And eventually it collapsed in the face of Western invasion. This humiliation period spans almost last a century, and is defined as the "Century of humiliation" [1].

The unique timing, and combination of various rather lucky events gave birth to the CCP.

CCP took an approach that is seemingly unconventional, while fundamentally is just another round of emperor-style dynasty evolution. Mao was effectively an emperor, who by chance or intentionally managed not to have his own heir. He also did exactly what has been done before in the history, where new emperor killed almost all of the people who helped him ascend the throne, because these powerful people would become a threat to his heir (be it his own blood line or someone else).

Nonetheless, in less than a few decades, China went through feudalism to communism. This level of change is unprecedented and would likely be impossible in the future.

After culture revolution and the open border policy, China's political landscape also changed a lot. Not in the same scale of the CCP and PRC's establishment, but still quite spectacular compared to any other countries in the world.

1\. China's economic growth allows more free expression of opinions through various of channels. In a nutshell, any democracy is a compromise between rational economy groups with matching political power. China's economic growth allows many individual to gain the power necessary to influence the political system. Is this system better or worse than western democratic system? Hard to say, but it's different.

2\. Chinese people learnt to respect the bottom line of the CCP, but find constructive ways to express their dissent over government or political polices. People can easily overthrown low-&middle-ranked government officials by showing hard evidence of corruptness over various non-official channels. Such channels, like Weibo, Wechat groups, are regulated, but is not shutdown. The rate is maintained in a way that CCP's bottom line is always maintained, and without touch that, things can be liberal.

3\. Chinese people have learnt the truth of propaganda both internally and internationally. I would rate Chinese people the most independent-minded group of citizens in the world. Chinese people are incredible at recognizing propaganda and superficial arguments that bear limited practicality.

CCP also was changed substantially. It now has over 80MM members, and vast majority of them are from all sorts of social background that has nothing to do with elite or any form of privileged groups. However, the bad thing is that CCP now becomes a bed for marrying the powerful and the rich. The rich ones join the rank of power list of CCP.

The whole thing is moving towards the direction as most Western countries, i.e., the political system becoming a tool for the rich and powerful to maintain their status.

In conclusion: > The thought was that China's steady economic liberalization would inevitably lead to political liberalization

China's political system has changed drastically over the same period, much more than any other country in the world.

In the foreseeable future, China will not move in the direction desired by the western countries. Thousands of years of political wisdom have taught Chinese people to balance between different ideologies and maintain the peaceful life of themselves. The only possibility of such change is that a foreign power invaded China and forced her reform in a fashion that is different than what Chinese people collectively desire.

Extreme conditions will not be tolerated, and irresponsible social revolution will not be welcome. Chinese people will be following their own wisdom in finding the true liberation of the nation, most likely through the continuous economic growth.

That's like the relationship between typical Chinese parents and their offsprings. Are the parents abusive compared to western counterparts? Yes. Does the offsprings get what they need to grow and become independent? Yes. Then why destroy such relationship? The answer, of course, is not to do such a thing.

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

<comment><USER6> >In the foreseeable future, China will not move in the >direction desired by the western countries. Thousands of >years of political wisdom have taught Chinese people to >balance between different ideologies and maintain the >peaceful life of themselves. The only possibility of such >change is that a foreign power invaded China and forced her >reform in a fashion that is different than what Chinese >people collectively desire.

Sorry, this is nonsense. The peacefull years of the empires gonge before, where everything but peacefull- and held several fierce civil wars, which usually endeded when one party captured chinas rice-lands and starved the other party to death (Centralisation by Geography). China is basically where the English Society was pre Democracy. A class of nobleman (party-members) is partially subverted by rich citizens.

<comment> dis-sys Rice-lands are traditionally in the Wu language region, also known as Jiangnan. That is why the Grand Canal was built - move rice to the north. Traditionally, gaining control of the country is all about capturing the Central Plain known as Zhongyuan, sadly it has no overlap with your beloved rice land.

<comment><USER6> Except that it provides access from every corner too...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is very different from what I was told by certain exasperated civil servants at the time in Honkers which was that initially China didn't really want change at all as they thought any more of this democracy and capitalism poison (not to mention triad crime) needed to be contained and certainly not brought into China proper and that they would have gladly ignored the expiration of the lease but for the idiocy of the Brits insisting on some sort of replacement framework. They'd have gladly just carried on taking the money pretending it didn't exist. Deng had to come up with a fudge - one country, two systems and Macao followed suit thereafter. But it was a long time ago and that may have just been Lily Wong.

edit: for example the chinese did nothing to stem the tide of people to-ing and fro-ing when HK was still a colony, I recall some squaddies complaining bitterly about having to shoot at them up the hillside whilst People's Army looked on bemused.

<comment><USER8> I wonder if this is a fault with Western negotiators. Many of the Eastern countries will tolerate a lot as long as it is not publicized and explicit. But, if you try to get them to publicly agree to something where they may lose face, then they will adopt a hard line.

I wonder what issues, Western countries are blundering into currently in that regard.

<comment><USER9> That's an interesting point.

To follow-up on it a bit, whenever Western countries are put into a situation like that, they're effectively forced to do exactly what happened here. After all, whether or not something becomes public or not is completely outside of both parties' control. The minute some newspaper-person looked up the terms on the treaty and published it, there would have been an immediate international confrontation. So Britain was forced to come up with some kind of framework whether they wanted to or not -- simply to prevent random crises in the future.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> tuna-piano Interesting.

For those who don't follow this, in many ways this experiment has, in my view, shown signs of failure.

China also almost surely has arrested/kidnapped Hong Kong citizens (authors) in Hong Kong who push for democracy.

Beijing is seen to have an increasing amount of political influence on Hong Kong. Hong Kong does not have the independence to create a democratic system.

Hong Kong people don't feel like they can control much... so most just go about their day to day lives. They don't like Beijing's power, but what can they do? This is not the way the British agreement was set out ("One country two systems"). Unfortunate, but probably predictable.

Further reading:

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

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/27/new-arrests- in...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/27/new-arrests-in-hong-kong- as-police-charge-nine-democracy-activists)

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/26/hong-kong- choo...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/26/hong-kong-chooses-new- leader-amid-accusations-of-china-meddling)

[https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from- chaos/2017/03/29/a...](https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from- chaos/2017/03/29/another-hong-kong-election-another-pro-beijing-leader-why-it- matters/)

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/a-selection-not-an- elec...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/a-selection-not-an-election-pro- beijing-committee-picks-loyalist-to-lead-hong- kong/2017/03/26/93c5292a-1055-11e7-b2bb-417e331877d9_story.html)

<comment><USER10> I'm not seeing any experiment. China was to take HK regardless and do as it pleased. The Falklands option was no option. A Tibet-style occupation would have been disastrous. Its orderly handover was in everyone's best interests if only for a time. I think its unlikely HK will ever be fully integrated into China's provincial system. I believe there would be strong opposition by other provinces, and fear in the central party about long-term HK influence on communist party policy.

<comment><USER11> >> China was to take HK regardless and do as it pleased.

No. The HK handover was part of a treaty, the Sino–British Joint Declaration, in which the Chinese government agreed to let HK remain mostly autonomous for 50 years after the retrocession.

The current status of HK is the result of, and guaranted by, a treaty between two sovereign nations. China is not meant to do 'as it pleased' here.

<comment><USER12> > The current status of HK is the result of, and guaranteed by, a treaty > between two sovereign nations.

One of which is in no position to exercise its guarantee.

<comment><USER11> You are correct, and the current (mostly non-)responses from the British government are embarrassing.

However this remains a public treaty, and if China does not respect it, it will erode their standing on other matters (e.g. why would Malaysia/Vietnam/Philippines sign any treaty regarding the China sea dispute, if Beijing ignored the one on HK?). So yes, HK is in a bad situation, but not all is lost yet.

<comment><USER12> Your reply ignores the realities of power in the South China Sea, just as it ignores the realities of power in Hong Kong (what sort of response would you like to see from the British government?)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I thought the most interesting point was that already in 1960 China threatened to invade if the UK attempted to introduce greater democracy to the colony. This article from 2014 describes it in slightly more detail. [https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs- still...](https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-stillborn- democracy/)

</comment><comment><USER14> > _The people of Hong Kong were not party to the discussions, nor were they > consulted about the final decision, which had a profound effect on their > futures and freedoms._

For me it is another moral failure of the British.

<comment><USER15> Yes, it was. A failure under extremely complex and constrained circumstances, but still a failure.

Question for you: how do you rate that moral failure vs. the moral value of China's political system?

In other words, do you see non-democratic systems as moral failures? I don't have any specific point or advocacy to make here. Just wondering what your broader perspective is given exactly what you said.

<comment><USER14> Yes, it was also a moral failure of the Chinese political system, but I assumed that they were morally bankrupt anyway (perhaps a good illustration can be found by reading between the lines of Liu Cixin first book).

I believe that they saw it as a huge win for themselves, what makes it even less appealing.

I do not think that a non-democratic system is automatically a moral failure, but it becomes one if they try to enforce it on others.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The end of what autonomy HK currently enjoyes expires in 2047. Will be interesting to see what happens then. China has always been very long-term thinking oriented, much different than our western system(s) of government, that it has an expiry I think says a lot about China's long-term view.

<comment><USER17> I'll take politicians who know they're up for periodic reelection over what they have in China any time.

<comment><USER18> The problem is that the lobbyists and civil servants do not have any re- election or term limits.

So you have replaceable pols who are a facade to the real influence being brokered by chiefs of staff, head lobbyists - and the distinction between the lobbyists and civil staff is blurred at best.

<comment><USER19> _Bernard: The Department of Employment lobbies for the TUC, whereas the Department of Industry lobbies for the employers. It 's rather a nice balance. Energy lobbies for the oil companies, Defence lobbies for the armed forces, the Home Office lobbies for the police and so on._

 _Hacker: So the whole system is designed to stop the Cabinet from carrying out its policies?_

 _Bernard: Well, somebody 's got to._

\-- Yes, Minister

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Very informative article, in particular I wasn't aware of the fact that Hong Kong was compounded of differents parts and that the larger one was the one problematic as being leased to China and set to expire in 1997. I don't really see how the outcome could have been different, by this simple fact China had the upper hand on any deal.

<comment><USER21> Thatcher was too soft. The UK gave up HK for nothing. They could have milked china for billions by making the terms a sale rather than just returning the land to them. The UK had to give up the new territories in 97 but could have kept kowloon and hong kong island which would have forced china to setup border checks/customs in the middle of the city which would have been impossible without tearing down hundreds of buildings. Without borders goods would have freely flooded through kowloon into the mainland and vastly disrupted the economy just look at the fact that today thousands of tons of goods are hand carried across the HK border to avoid paying tariffs.

Thatcher showed her hand early and made it clear she carried more about stable trade for the UK in HK. Once she let the chinese know that is what she wanted they knew they could ask for anything because if the deal failed the economy in HK would collapse.

<comment><USER22> "The UK gave up HK for nothing." Really? The British colonial occupation did not benefit from more than a century of British rule in the region? How about: Thatcher got off easy without a demand for reparations.

Or if we are to play realpolitik without a notion of human decency: by Thatcher's time the Chinese had every local military advantage. The Brits were forced to concede a losing position and should count themselves lucky that the negotiations resolved peacefully.

The hubris of the Western colonial view never ceases to amaze.

<comment><USER23> Would you rather have lived in HK or China post-WWII?

<comment><USER24> This question would depend on if he was British or Chinese.

If he was British, then obviously HK.

But if he was Chinese, it would depend on his beliefs and abilities.

In post-WWII Hong Kong, he would be a second class citizen in his own homeland. Barred from the highest levels because he wasn't British and have to live through "Jim Crow"-like social rules.

In post-WWII China, he would be living in third world conditions and having to navigate the Cultural Revolution.

So the question is what his beliefs are and how much ability he has. In China, he could at least raise up the ranks and won't be discriminated against because of his skin color. In Hong Kong, he wouldn't starve, but he and his descendants will suffer through colonial mentality.

Personally, if I was Chinese, I would take my chances in China.

<comment><USER25> Many people were faced with this choice.

By an incredible margin--10 to 1? 100 to 1?--Chinese people chose to migrate to Hong Kong from China, not to China from Hong Kong.

You'd have to figure out some way to normalize by population, but even then, the point stands.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> dis-sys typical biased article from CNN.

when talking about the handover, the article claims that

"The people of Hong Kong were not party to the discussions, nor were they consulted about the final decision, which had a profound effect on their futures and freedoms."

Did the people of Hong Kong party to the "discussions" when UK took Hong Kong after the Opium War? Were they consulted about the final decision, which had a profound effect on their futures and freedoms?

It also need to be highlighted the term Opium War - British fought a war with China so they could sell opium to a nation, they got HK as a bonus for such Opium business. Next time when you see thugs in your local undesirable neighbourhood dealing drugs, think about the British government because they were the same - I mean actually worse, when was the last time you saw drug dealing thugs directly took people's land/homes after selling them drugs?

Before anyone jumping up and down arguing that it was more free under UK - <USER2> polygamy legal in Hong Kong until 1971? Maybe you want to discuss with women in Hong Kong and lecture them why there were more free under British Hong Kong.

<comment><USER26> Comey recently said that NY times articles on Trump were fake news. Most of the top American media are news pimps, sold out to one party or the other, inciting people for their own cause with little concern for Truth.

<comment><USER27> > Comey recently said that NY times articles on Trump were fake news.

That's misrepresenting what he said. He said _some_ NYT articles he had read were completely wrong. Which is not the same thing as fake news. I now have a better understanding of why the Republican senator asked that question though: to encourage the wholesale dismissal of all critical stories as "fake news" by people like you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> >The people of Hong Kong were not party to the discussions, nor were they consulted about the final decision, which had a profound effect on their futures and freedoms.

I just cannot find a better example of double thinking than this. So UK grabbed a piece of land from China, and now they discuss the return of this piece of land. Suddenly UK created this moral failure on China to involve this piece of land into the discussion. Let's stop creating new countries and races in this hypocrisy of democratic regional self-determinism narrative with mindless and idiotic public voting. No land is only the land of its residents, but by the people of that country.

<comment><USER29> It is colonialism just the same to forcefully impose one's rule on a another nation using history books, as it is with guns.

<comment><USER28> How convenient it is for you to equate history books with guns. Let me hit you with a gun instead of a history book.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Rule #1: Don't let the people vote, otherwise they might vote the wrong way.

For some reason, Britain forgot about that rule and let the people vote on Brexit. You can be sure they won't make that mistake again.

EDIT: I'm obviously being sarcastic here.

</comment><comment><USER31> The photo of Deng Xiaoping and Thatcher is pretty funny given the subtext of almost starting WW3. Good article, for context I recommend reading about the early history of Hong Kong related to the Sassoon family, HSBC, and the Opium wars.

</comment><comment><USER32> Okay. There are already lots of discussions on politics, so I will contribute something different.

I have spent considerable amount of time in China and Singapore (former British colony). I've also travelled to HK. When I read this kind of articles, I can see how people make decisions that they think are perfectly fine only to find out later that someone else thinks drastically different.

Why do the Chinese leaders and UK leaders think so differently? Why do Chinese leaders prioritize sovereignty over prosperity? Is it because of politics? I think not. It's more to do with culture and history.

China has had a long history of being caught in endless cycles of being divided and united. So much that it became the opening sentence of popular novel "Three Kingdoms" long before optimum war.

If there's one thing that Chinese people really hate, is to see their homeland being taken away and families separated. I don't think cultures where people did not have this kind of experience can have this feeling.

Contrary to popular belief, Chinese (Han) people are never interested in conquering foreign lands. They just want to take back what used to belong.

<comment><USER33> _Why do Chinese leaders prioritize sovereignty over prosperity? Is it because of politics? I think not. It 's more to do with culture and history. China has had a long history of being caught in endless cycles of being divided and united. So much that it became the opening sentence of popular novel "Three Kingdoms" long before optimum war. If there's one thing that Chinese people really hate, is to see their homeland being taken away and families separated. I don't think cultures where people did not have this kind of experience can have this feeling._

This is propagandistic pablum. The actual reason is that Hong Kong was a locus of independent political power and the structure of the CCP means any independent centers of power are existential threats to its own power. Therefore all centers of power that are not wholly subordinate to the CCP must be destroyed.

 _Contrary to popular belief, Chinese (Han) people are never interested in conquering foreign lands. They just want to take back what used to belong._

Try telling this to the Uighur, the Tibetans, the Vietnamese, the Mongols, the native Taiwanese...the Chinese have been just as aggressive and nakedly imperialistic as any other major world power.

<comment><USER5> > This is propagandistic pablum.

It's one person's propaganda but another's national pride. If you cannot recognize that and frame your argument accordingly, then you are bound to ask for unnecessary arguments.

Is such belief from propaganda? Yes. Does it bear cultral root? Yes.

<comment><USER12> National pride is best served by facts, and in this case, there are plenty of facts to choose from.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


We May Not Have Enough Minerals to Even Meet Electric Car Demand - <AUTHOR> https://jalopnik.com/we-may-not-have-enough-minerals-to-even-meet-electric-c-1820008337 <comment><USER2> Every article I see on modern transport problems reminds me that I can't understand why we don't have more public infrastructure invested for cyclists?

It really seems like the lowest hanging fruit, but there is not enough profit- motive or politcal incentive to really push it forward?

I would love to bike to work and take a shower on arrival--daily exercise that I need anyways, avoids stress & danger of driving, feels great to do. It's also a lot better for the environment than electric cars, and saves me a lot of time.

It could help with congestion, pollution, obesity, healthcare costs, and possibly improve social morale.

I really think it is an issue where no business or politician has enough incentive/ability to capture profit, so it doesn't ever get much traction, but the public benefit is quite large.

From what I understand Holland's bike infrastructure is seen as a gold- standard among transportation economists on how to reduce congestion and pollution--no?

<comment><USER3> For many Americans, myself included, cycling is only something we can do every so often.

I lived without a car for years, and I cycled 15 miles a day for commuting/chores. I developed pretty painful patellar tendonitis, and I went to physical therapy, which helped significantly (but didn't cure the issue).

I'm lucky if I can commute 3 days a week on my bike. I love it so much, I even do it when I'm in pain. But it's not possible to do it every day for me, without serious pain.

However, I'm currently converting my bike into an e-bike :) That will make it significantly easier on my poor old man joints.

<comment><USER2> I think you are right, and I'm sorry you encountered this injury, but I would hate to see this thinking become an impediment to progress for cyclists. 15 miles at 10mph is just 1.5 hours of pretty leisurely exercise. 20mph is reasonable for a fit rider on a dedicated path with just an inexpensive steel- frame road bike.

About your pattellar tendonitis: I developed that when I was trying for an ambitious marathon goal. It took 1.5 years to go away -- in my experience nothing helped except the time. You might want to try getting off the bike for several months and picking up something else, like swimming.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > while demand for nickel keeps increasing, half the world's nickel supply is > too low in quality to use for car batteries.

Well that article sure disproved its own thesis quickly. If we can't even be bothered to purify cheap nickel, then we are _definitely_ not facing a shortage.

<comment><USER5> Yeah I didn't really get it. It sounds like there's a lot of nickel, just not ... as much cheap nickel as we'd like? Or maybe as much as some people who own certain nickel mines would like? I'm not sure.

It's like any other nonrenewable resource; there's going to be an extraction cost that increases over time as the easily recovered deposits are used up.

But unlike oil, which can only be used once and is then gone forever, nickel and other metals get brought out of the earth and into circulation, and can then be used over and over. So the price of both recycled and virgin nickel will increase until demand is met.

I'm curious when it starts to become advantageous to mine old landfills for all the stuff we used to throw away and not recycle...

<comment><USER6> I am curious of that too; however, given that it does not happen yet (or, at least, so I think), I am brought to believe that it is not that easy, or at least not easier than mining ores (which still requires some degree of purification). That probably also applies to using the cheap nickel mentioned by the grandfather comment: it is not necessarily easy to purify it.

<comment><USER4> It might cost mere pennies, but mining happens to be cheaper. It's hard to imagine it being prohibitively costly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Cobalt is probably not a problem. See the annual USGS report for cobalt.[1] The main problem with cobalt mining is that it's usually obtained as a by- product of nickel. So nickel demand drives cobalt supply. Direct mining for cobalt is possible but not done much yet. Right now, there's a mild cobalt oversupply, because nickel refining produces more cobalt than is really needed. This is expected to change soon.

Potential supplies in the US, Canada, and Australia are substantial. Not a fundamental problem for the next century. Also, much cobalt is already recycled.

[1] [https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/cobalt/mcs...](https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/cobalt/mcs-2017-cobal.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER8> The current demand for high quality nickel used in batteries is very small in comparison to overall world nickel production. This will continue for the foreseeable future.

Nickel is trading at very low prices historically and most producers are losing money at current prices.

This would imply that the current supply of nickel is more than sufficient for the worlds needs and that some producers need to shut down. (Why they don't is fascinating on its own)

Most of the worlds nickel production is low quality ferro nickel used in the production of stainless steel.

Despite this we are not seeing larger premiums for high quality nickel products which would indicate that there is more demand for high quality nickel.

High quality/ high cost nickel producers know that their only chance to survive the over supply of cheap nickel in the world is if we see the same over exuberance as which we have seen with cobalt trading in recent months.

The only problem is that nickel is a much larger market than cobalt and as such is not as susceptible to small market changes, and as the article points out nickel does not face the same geopolitical supply risk as cobalt does in the Congo.

We are unlikely to see a shortage of Nickel.

</comment><comment><USER9> This reminds me of the helium shortage and the long-predicted oil crisis.

<comment><USER10> The oil crisis was real though. If it wasn't for the growth in supply from unconventional oil in the past 10 years, today's oil price would be over $150/barrel.

<comment><USER11> Don't bother, these are the same people who see (or don't see) herculean feats made to thwart things like Y2K, oil shortages, or the forestalling of climate change and say to themselves, "Aha, I was right - there was no catastrophe at all. Those fools, scurrying around spending tons of effort and money!"

<comment><USER12> Also acid rains and air pollution in general.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Why isn't a electric road or a overhead third rail a viable alternative to batteries? Batteries - become depleted, are expensive, heavy. With a grid - unlimited range, that can be supplemented by smaller batteries. Are there technical limitations more than cost.

<comment><USER14> There is no technical reason why it can't be done[1], it isn't without its challenges though; How would you deal with the fact that roads are used by vehicles with wildly different heights? What about underpasses, is there enough space to fit the overhead wires? You would also need to make sure that vehicles in one place can connect to the grid on other places. It seems like overhead wires will probably be the best solution, but will only be implemented on highways for use on freight vehicles, not on cities or for personal vehicles.

Ground level power supply systems also exist[2], but would require you to tear up the entire road network in order to implement them, are expensive, and apparently prone to water clogging (which could perhaps be mitigated) without mentioning the fact that they would probably require either an autonomous or guided vehicle in order to reliably maintain contact with the rail.

So, not really, the limitations are mostly about cost and political capital.

[1][https://www.siemens.com/global/en/home/products/mobility/roa...](https://www.siemens.com/global/en/home/products/mobility/road- solutions/electromobility/ehighway.html)

[2][http://www.alstom.com/products-services/product- catalogue/ra...](http://www.alstom.com/products-services/product- catalogue/rail-systems/Infrastructures/products/aps-ground-level-power- supply/)

<comment><USER15> Your first point is already dealt with by electric railroads that run different height trains -- the wires are set at a level that the tallest train can fit under, and shorter trains have a higher pantograph to reach the wires. And since the pantograph is flexible, it can deal with varying wire heights.

Gaps in the wire for intersections and underpasses could be handled by having small battery packs in the cars. This also helps with the last-mile -- only large arterial roads need to be electrified and cars could drive the short distance on city streets on battery power.

One solution for in-road charging would be wireless inductive chargers like:

[https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/qualcomms-inductive- charg...](https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/qualcomms-inductive-charging- road-could-change-the-way-we-build-evs/)

Though as you say, the real problems are price and politics. In the SF Bay Area, Caltrain has taken decades to get funding for electrification and has faced a lot of resistance from some communities for the construction and visual blight of overhead electrification. And that's just for one set of tracks, electrifying all of the freeways would be much worse.

<comment><USER14> Well, that was not really my point about height, I was just drawing attention at how ridiculous it would be to see, for example, a sedan (about 1.4 meters tall) connected to an overhead wire that is any where from 2.5 to 3 meters (about the height you would need to be able to pass a swap body) in the air.

Like I said, it is technologically possible, but for most intents and purposes seems like a wonky solution, at least for personal vehicles, mass transportation and freight are completely different scenarios.

As for the other points, you are right, there are fairly straight forward solutions.

Inductive charging is definitely a good option, which has already been explored by transport companies[1]. It again seems to be that politics and money are the main barrier for implementation.

[1][http://primove.bombardier.com/products/charging.html](http://primove.bombardier.com/products/charging.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Difficult to believe. Cars are being churned day and night for decades, all of them use a lot of minerals. At least (in my understanding) the rare minerals that go into electric cars and their batteries are recyclable. Once the fleet is built, just recycle.

Of course, I'd prefer a future with electric trams in every street and fewer cars, all electric, all small and light to save in materials and energy.

<comment><USER17> In addition the "rare" materials are low in usage compared to carbon and other components for batteries. If I were to guess copper is probably of the largest concern.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Cobalt and nickel are not the only materials that can fulfill the functions they cover. There are a couple of things worth noting here:

1\. "Lithium Ion" describes a family of batteries, with varying chemical compositions. As an example, the battery in the Nissan Leaf uses no cobalt in its cathode:

[https://qnovo.com/inside-the-battery-of-a-nissan- leaf/](https://qnovo.com/inside-the-battery-of-a-nissan-leaf/)

"It uses a different material for the cathode called lithium-manganese-oxide with nickel oxide (LiMn2O4 with LiNiO2) that is inherently safer than the lithium-cobalt-oxide cathode material"

2\. There are other battery chemistries outside of the Lithium Ion family, in varying states of maturity, that could (in time) become competitive with Lithium Ion in the electric car market. To give one example:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium%E2%80%93air_battery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium%E2%80%93air_battery)

</comment><comment><USER15> Sounds kind of like how we're running out of oil -- we're definitely using up the easy to find deposits, but as oil prices rise, the less easily available oil becomes marketable, so the oil keeps coming.

Eventually we'll run out, but making it harder to find just makes it more expensive. (well, that and the political problems caused by wealthy middle eastern nations running out of their liquid gold)

</comment><comment><USER19> I dont understand this phrase. It's completely incorrect usage. If demand can't be met, then the price will raise naturally until demand _is_ met. I can guarentee that for a raw material, this is bound to happen.

I suppose they could fix it just by saying "at the current price" at the end.

<comment><USER20> Err, I imagine what they mean is "to replace the conventional cars that people rely on".

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> This brings to mind two horrifying futures, thankfully neither of which will ever happen:

1) we use those big lines full of electricity hanging adjacent to the road to power vehicles,

2) we stop using cars

</comment><comment><USER22> What about asteroid / other planets mining?

<comment><USER23> What about the philosopher's stone? Surely with enough research in alchemy and Elon Musk's support, we could tweak it so that we can conjure all metals from thin air.

Dude.

<comment><USER22> I guess some don't mind imagining such thing: [http://deepspaceindustries.com](http://deepspaceindustries.com)

<comment> crush-n-spread It's too expensive to mine minerals and send them back to Earth. Until we are launching hundreds of rockets a day, we can forget about this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Finally, a reason to go into space!

</comment><comment><USER25> Time to invest in Nickel ETFs.

</comment><comment><USER26> Remember Peak Oil? Good times.</comment>


How to get your app noticed (on Google Play) – Part II - <AUTHOR> http://blog.onyxbits.de/how-to-get-your-app-noticed-part-ii-360/ <comment><USER2> Does anyone have some experience with paid app installs? Do you get actual users there or just bots/people who install and de-install right away?</comment>


My client was a bully and I fired him - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@littlesparkvt/my-client-was-a-bully-and-i-fired-him-ed3863e501b1

<comment><USER2> I can't tell what purpose your article serves. You are a contractor, you work your own hours, and if you don't like work with someone then you don't have to. I don't think there are any new information that is contained within your article that people don't already know.

I guess it could have gone differently, and you may not have had to "fire" your client if you had confronted him the first time he was out of line, instead of assuming that he was having a bad day. You waited and your irritation and anger grew inside until it boiled over and you snapped.

You could have told him right from the get-go that nature of a contractor's schedule is that there are no set hours. You have a timeframe of delivery you agreed upon (probably listed in the contract), and that's the deadline you'll honor. Also, that if he's having a bad day due to something else, the relationship between the two of you needs to stay professional. He may not have been aware that his behavior was out of line, and when you mention that to him at the first occurrence he'll know that you've noticed his behavior. When you waited so long, and then just went off at him over the phone, he probably thought you were the nutcase and continued the same behavior with others. You could have made him aware, professionally, and made a difference. You chose to be just as unprofessional as he was, and neither of you made money.

Biggest lesson in your article was that nothing changed, both of you have a story, you are still bothered about this years later, and you both wasted each others time.

<comment><AUTHOR> I have talked with so many developers that have had very similar clients and they let them run all over them, even after they explained the terms of the contract.

He and I both went over the contract together, we both knew the details. He treated me like garbage and bullied me until I couldn't stand it any more.

I didn't let the bully win and he didn't get the satisfaction of bullying me any more. Not a bad deal, if you ask me.

<comment><USER2> With that experience under your belt, if the same thing happened again, would you do the same thing? Wait 'til you couldn't stand it anymore and then go off? You aren't the first and you won't be the last person that gets hired and the client tries to get more work out of you. There are lots of other developers that would try to get more money out of the clients too. Its not one sided. Most people don't stick exactly to the contract. Developers try to get more money for performing less work, and clients try to get more work for less money from the developers. Are either of them "bullies"? Nope, they just protecting their interests. Everyone tries to get a better deal, there's nothing wrong with that.

BTW, nothing you wrote in your article seemed like he was "treating you like garbage". He was aggressive, and perhaps thats the way he works. He won't change until he gets push back. Terminating the contract was not push back, that was just quitting. He hired someone else, and lost nothing and learned nothing. He probably has a story about a Developer he hired to do work and after a couple days the developer blew up at him and quit.

In either case, you posted this online to share with others. Are you just sharing a story that happened to you? or are you trying to teach them something? Whats your goal? The way you wrote the story, it seems like it happened several years ago. Why are you still thinking about it? He was a jerk, you quit. So what?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Good Job; what a horrible client.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks :) He even had that tough guy voice. HEY YO! Cringe when I even think of it.

<comment><USER3> Yeah I've started to listen to my Spidey sense on people's tones of voices. It's helped me avoid a few bad clients</comment></comment></comment>


Dutch architect unveils 3D printer to make 'endless' house - <AUTHOR> http://phys.org/news/2016-06-dutch-architect-unveils-3d-printer.html <comment><USER2> Euphemistically called a house; except without foundation, electricity, plumbing or any infrastructure whatsoever?</comment>


The Economics of Media Bias - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12510893&fsrc=rss The actual paper cited is available at http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/matthew.gentzkow/biasmeas081507.pdf <comment><AUTHOR> The mentioned paper is available at [http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/matthew.gentzkow/biasmeas08150...](http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/matthew.gentzkow/biasmeas081507.pdf)</comment>


Genetics Basics for Programmers - <AUTHOR> http://www.hxa.name/articles/content/genetics-basics_hxa7241_2003.html

<comment><USER2> Gorgeous. I've been trying to work through a 600 page textbook on this for a few months (intended for a biology major). It's nice to see someone just come out and say how genetics _works_!</comment>


Einstein's Love Equation, or don't try to be cute, just buy a Hallmark card - <AUTHOR> http://abstrusegoose.com/242

<comment><AUTHOR> Reminds me of the equally poorly considered geek pickup line: "Hey baby, can I measure your space-time curvature?".</comment>


Three Russian Doctors Treating Coronavirus Have Fallen Out Of Windows in a Week - <AUTHOR> https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/christopherm51/russia-doctors-coronavirus <comment><USER2> in Russia speaking freely is a deadly disease. by the way, between north korea, china, russia, iran, turkey, saudi arabia are some of the most appreciated countries by some leader of a free country

<comment><USER3> Russia is waaay freer than every other country in your list.

<comment><AUTHOR> Being the least bad of the bad guys doesn't make you a good guy.

<comment><USER4> I don't think any country could be considered "good". They are all "evil" to varying degrees.

<comment><USER5> What about my government? Nationalism teaches us that only every other government is wrong. We conflate love for our land and its people with the state and the exploiters who guide it. This is always convenient for both of the latter entities.

If this political and economic system is a "necessary evil", we must ask ourselves: Who is benefitting from the evil and who is directing it?

To convince ourselves that we are joined with an oppressor by social divisions is a timeless manipulation. Yet every economic crisis presents the opportunity for liberation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> In western states such doctors get censored and threatened with being fired, in Russia they still fall out of windows. An old Russian custom. Thought those times were over.

<comment><USER7> > In western states such doctors get censored and threatened with being fired, > in Russia they still fall out of windows. An old Russian custom. Thought > those times were over.

Nope. Just recently they started censoring doctors on social media.

<comment><USER6> Agreed. I blame the European Union on this. They started this massive anti fakenews campaign against Facebook, and now even Twitter and Google tries to please them. This is an extremely dangerous situation. Esp. since the mainstream media is doing the massive fakenews campaigns.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> They must've died of COVID-19</comment>


HIV Mutates to Death With New Drug - <AUTHOR> http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/02/09/hiv-mutation.html

<comment><USER2> So a bunch of test subjects right now have heavily mutated HIV of a strain that apparently did not get affected by this drug, and could possibly be spreading it. The approach is wrong - if half the clinical patients show no difference, but they now have a randomized sequence of deadly DNA, then this is not a cure, it's a new disease.

<comment><USER3> I recall hearing in a documentary that only the un-mutated form of HIV is any good at slipping though the gap in human defenses it uses. So as a consequence, once it gets to mutating, those changed viruses only work inside the current victim. Sorry my memory is not more precise.

Consider, it _already_ mutates a lot, and hasn't turned itself into something more deadly.

<comment><USER4> Yet...

I'm probably overly paranoid and certainly under-educated (possibly even to the point of the level of believing in "magic"), but accelerating the mutation rate of something like this just scares me. As I said though, that's an emotionally based feeling and not logical. I'd be VERY happy to have someone scientifically show me I'm full of #$!#.

<comment><USER5> I can't tell if Hollywood is just freaking us out as a culture or if this is another KILLER BEES scare... I Am Legend vs. Y2K fear.

<comment><USER6> I would get ready for anything. Reality surpases fiction :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Actually according to the article they HOPE that it will mutate to death...

<comment><USER8> Yea, I am normally extremely pro science, but this just seems like a REALLY bad idea. Setting aside the idea that it would become more deadly, IMO the odds of destroying enough HIV DNA to make a difference without altering human cells seems unlikely.

PS: There are 10's of million's of people with HIV, so randomly mutating trillions strands of viral HIV inside people as they are reproducing and not creating a worse strain seems unlikely.

<comment><USER9> In genetics, introducing random changes is one of the worst ways to find useful results. Admittedly, across such a large population, the virus might get worse, but if by worse you mean more deadly, then like ebola, it will restrict its growth by not transferring to as many people. If by worse you mean find another receptor that is hard to attack, then I'm not really sure what to do...</comment></comment></comment>


Report on the Government Shutdown if It Were Happening in Another Country - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2013/09/30/potential_government_shutdown_how_would_the_u_s_media_report_on_it_if_it.html

<comment><USER2> All the coverage of the government shutdown issue seems to ignore the fact that the ease of obstructionism in the US system was by design. There are valid arguments about the wisdom of that design, as well as that design's utility in the modern world, but it's sad that most of the coverage I have seen doesn't even address this.

This article, in particular, doesn't address the point of view that actively limiting the government might be a net positive (although his cabbie might bring it up if the answer to his question about lawmakers knowing what they are doing is "No.)

<comment><USER3> > that design's utility in the modern world

Is it the modern world?

I'd think it's more a function of an uncompromising and highly state-hostile political philosophy which could and has arisen at other times.

I guess there's an argument that technology allows a magnifying effect for extreme voices that might otherwise be marginal.

<comment><USER2> I don't know if you are responding to the point you reference. I was simply pointing out that obstructionism is easy in the US by design. You can disagree with the designers, or disagree that the design still works today. But you can't disagree that the design exists.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> That was certainly a thought-provoking parody. More accurately, it should probably be described as "if it were happening in a _Third World_ country". I doubt that if the US media were reporting on some government issues in the UK or Germany, they'd use language like "sleepy capital city", etc., just as a UK paper wouldn't use that kind of language when talking about the US.

For example, here's an article on the US government shutdown as _actually_ reported from another country (the UK):

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/30/senate- defeats-...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/30/senate-defeats- spending-bill-obamacare)

And The Guardian even provides a helpful list of which government services would be affected:

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/29/us- government-s...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/29/us-government- shutdown-services-affected)

</comment><comment><USER5> Does the shutdown mean the government won't be able to print money and give it to banks?

Does it mean US troops will be withdrawn from foreign lands?

Will flights grind to a halt as no one can pass through TSA?

Will America be surveillance free as the NSA shuts down?

Or is the extent of the shutdown that tours of the whitehouse won't be given?

<comment><USER6> All essential government operations (military, intelligence, security) will continue. Non-essential employees (passport processing leaps to mind) will be furloughed.

<comment><USER7> Scary examples: The apparatuses of a police state stay, the ability to leave the country goes away...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Apparently people voicing their concerns through representatives is an act of rebellion. The media sure can't get enough of this story. With inflated language, talking about collapse, teetering on the edge, rebellion, etc. This _is_ government in action. They don't always agree and that's called democracy. I don't get all doomsday-prune-canner just because non-essential workers are gonna stay home for a few days.

<comment><USER6> It sounds like you missed the tongue-in-cheek tone of the article. It's quite interesting to me to see how the media would report on these events if they were happening in another country.

<comment><USER2> I agree that it was an interesting thought experiment, and definitely will make me think twice about drawing conclusions about the internal political issues of another country from an article in The Economist. But the article explicitly called Senator Cruz's filibuster a rebellion, which is simply untrue.

<comment><USER6> ...which makes you wonder, when the media calls something a "rebellion" in another country, what is it really?

<comment><USER2> An interesting question, and one I'll keep in mind when reading about other countries from now on. Coup d'taut's by military organizations can probably safely be called rebellions, but purely political disagreements I will be much more wary about drawing conclusions.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


DeluxePaint/DPaint original Amiga source code (1986) - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/DutchmanDavid/DeluxePaint <comment><USER2> Doesn't seem to want to build against NDK 3.9 with gcc 4.7, but it was fun to try.

<comment><USER3> If you want to try (and I would recommend trying, since even this early version of the program is an amazing design, with much to learn from), please be aware of the following:

1) The source code is incomplete; you will need the original EA IFF 1986 (March) files to fill in the gaps. You will also need to find a replacement for the LFMULT() function.

2) The paths to the header files will need editing.

3) The original program was built using the Lattice 'C' compiler, and it uses a couple of library functions which are specific to that compiler, such as stscmp(), stcu_d(), setmem() and movmem() for which you will need to provide replacements.

4) You may want to replace the BootIT() function with a stub, which originally seems to have been part of the disk copy protection scheme.

This should get you started. Once you get the program running, watch out how you use it:

As was common in these days, string buffers are rather short (e.g. 20 characters for a file or drawer name, 30 characters for font names) and the code is oblivious to this limitation, easily leading to buffer overflows and crashes.

Also, the hardware acceleration which Deluxe Paint uses is not properly secured by calling OwnBlit()/WaitBlit()/DisownBlit() in the proper sequence at all times (some are correct, some are not, and the code shows that the developers struggled with mitigating the ugly side-effects of not getting it right). This will cause the image processing functions to glitch and corrupt memory. Apparently, this happened only rarely in 1986 because the Amiga system was "slow enough" so that writing to the Blitter registers while it was still running didn't always lead to things going awry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> gone?

<comment><USER4> as per [https://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/electronic-arts- deluxe...](https://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/electronic-arts-deluxepaint- early-source-code/)

> and does not give you the right to license it to third parties by posting > copies elsewhere on the web.</comment></comment>


Slack phoning home - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/ValbonneConsult/status/774304980287324160 <comment><AUTHOR> I realize this is common practice in walled gardens and just to get a link preview. However the amount of data gathered about me as (through slack) authenticated user (with a paid subscription) is staggering. I think in case of Slack (compared to facebook and linkedin) it's specially intrusive because people get asked to join slack to collaborate in organisational settings. They don't have much of a choice unless they subscribe to the privacy policy of the tools their employers chose. In this setting you won't register as an anon pseudonyme but your real name. When I sent a link in a private direct message on slack that has never been sent out to the internet 3 mins later I got a slackbot visiting. My conclusion is: The data they create has massive value and must be part of the reason why they're swimming in VC money. As a user this is disappointing because I'm the product (even I'm paying). SaaS and Cloud businesses are becoming a pest to society IMO.

</comment><comment><USER2> It does that to show a preview of the content of the URL next to the link in chat, right?

</comment><comment><USER3> How did you think they display those inline previews?

</comment><comment><USER4> It's no different to a random crawler. What's the actual problem? Is it configured with your internet banking credentials?

</comment><comment><USER5> Nothing to see here.</comment>


A Moment of Clarity in the Pursuit of Happiness - <AUTHOR> http://jtaby.com/2012/02/02/a-moment-of-clarity.html <comment><USER2> This is something I tried very hard to teach my kids, basically that everyone gets to choose how they are going to feel about something, and understanding what set of conditions lead up to the choice you made can help you understand yourself and the world around you.

The typical kid complaint is that someone 'makes fun' of something that they are passionate about and that makes them feel 'bad' (ashamed, angry, annoyed, Etc.) The weird thing is that if you look deeply at the feeling of feeling bad, its feeling bad that you feel good about something that someone else things you should feel bad about. How twisted is that? If you can change 'feeling bad' to feeling empathy for the person who doesn't understand how cool this thing is that you enjoy so much, you both don't lose your happiness, and you have a way to contextualize the other persons opinions that don't put your happiness at risk.

That being said, its never easy. Emotions never are. But I read a great article in Reader's Digest about a guy who was being rushed to the emergency room for a gunshot wound to his shoulder. Along the way a nurse was taking a medical history and she asked 'Allergies?'. His response was "Lead apparently, I got some in my shoulder and it hurts like hell!" Here is a guy going into emergency surgery cracking jokes, he has chosen not to be negative or angry, he has chosen to be happy. That really struck me, I don't think I could be so charitable after being shot.

<comment><USER3> No. Bad things are bad, and no one should train themselves to pretend they are not bad.

When your friend not only cannot appreciate your hobby but derides it and doesn't attempt to make up for that, your friend is not a very good person or friend. You may be able to train them into being a slightly better person or friend, but more likely you need better friends.

We should not expect people who have been shot to make jokes or to be happy. We should expect them to save their energy for recovering from their wounds.

Our natural emotional reactions to our circumstances are there to provide a corrective feedback system.

The fact that this type of perspective is still so popular just means that civilization has a long way to go towards making daily life more tolerable for average people.

<comment><USER4> > We should not expect people who have been shot to make jokes or to be happy. > We should expect them to save their energy for recovering from their wounds.

The trick is that there are times when getting shot at is the norm, not the exception, so "healing wounds" or however you might want to call it is not the best decision to take (not even from an utilitarian point of view).

Ok, so now that I know that I suck at metaphors and to put it more directly, all I want to say it's that maybe the last 50-80 years of relative prosperity that the West has experienced were an exception, not the norm, the same as Pax Augusta around the times of the early Roman Empire and Seneca was also an exception of sorts. So, as a guy who grew up in a post-Communist European country in the '90s, with inflation averaging 100% each year for over a decade, and who has seen his parents go from respectable middle class to subsistence agriculture in the same timeframe (and my story is not at all singular in that part of Europe), you cannot just magically hope that things will get better. In most of the cases they go from bad to worse, and in that case you really have to adapt to the new conditions (like making jokes when being shot at), because it doesn't get any better than that.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for that perspective. You're probably right, this relative prosperity is more of an exception.

I guess I would like to believe that things can improve significantly so as to make that type of pragmatic attitude adjustment towards misery less important.

<comment><USER5> > I guess I would like to believe that things can improve significantly so as > to make that type of pragmatic attitude adjustment towards misery less > important.

Something is always going to go relatively wrong, so being able to deal with it seems like a good idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Both the Jobs quote and the Csikszentmihalyi quote are stimulating and useful perspectives on the same general topic, but Taby seems to be thinking rather fuzzily by relating the quotes and ideas so closely.

Csikszentmihalyi is saying that happiness is an inner, private cultivation that is not dependent on outside events.

However, Steve Jobs, one of the richest and most powerful men on the planet (while he was alive), says he has been having his own way every day for 30 years. Jobs literally had the means to do just what he wanted to do each day for many years.

The first idea is about being happy regardless of your circumstances. The second idea is about being happy because you figured out how to get what you want out of other people and insisted on it.

And actually I don't see the other quote as being nearly as closely related as he thinks either. That one sounded like dying people were just admitting that they were depressed and wished they had tried harder to make more friends in their senior years.

What I've heard is that genetic bio- and neuro- chemistry play a significant role in happiness, so you have to realistically incorporate that. However, obviously the core conception of the self's orientation towards the world must be partially learned and so training can affect contentment also.

Studies have also shown that the higher one is on the social ladder, the less stress one experiences. So climbing the social ladder will lead to less stress and therefore greater happiness. And most people would agree that having friends is key to happiness also.

<comment><AUTHOR> Csikszentmihalyi is saying that Happiness is a self-made choice. The quote from the dying people supported and added context to the same idea.

The Steve Jobs quote is probably the most unrelated, you're right. I included it because I felt that it gave a good practical example of what it means to introspect, judge, and measure your own fulfillment. The overarching idea I'm trying to get across is to drop the social pressure to "keep your head down, don't make a lot of noise, and you'll get your paycheck every two weeks".

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I want to share something that really impacted me in a big way, related to this notions being discussed here.

It was something I saw in a museum in New York state, about 1 hour north of New York City - I cant remember the name of the museum or the artist or the piece.

It was, literally, a matrix, where every point was a day in your life.

The shocking thing about it was that you could see it in its entirety pretty well. To my surprise, it was not a HUGE matrix, but rather a pretty small one - that you could see quite clearly both holistically, and every individual cell.

I tried to reproduce it in this excel spreadsheet. It is very shocking to see your life in such a way. It is scary. There are not that many cells!

<http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22472889/yourlife.xlsx>

<comment><USER7> That sounds similar to this Abstruse Goose cartoon:

<http://abstrusegoose.com/51>

<comment><USER8> After I saw that comic I made: <http://936months.appspot.com>

Really is amazing to see your life in dots.

<comment><USER9> After I saw the comic and your site above, I made this: <http://936months.staticloud.com/>

A months seems like a perfect unit of time to plan your life in.

<comment><USER8> Very cool! The drop down for year/month is way better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Many years ago someone gave me a _self help_ tape..yeah a cassette ;). The only thing I recall is the speaker telling a story about him being woken up early in the morning by his father to go work on the family farm. As a boy, he would sometimes wake up groggy and grumpy, unhappy about milking the cows pre- dawn. His father would say to him "Do you want to have a good day, or a bad day?"

Now, I'm a father. My son has an easy life. No real responsibilities. But he has his moments of wanting to express his profound unhappiness with what the day holds for him. So I ask him "Do you want to have a good day, or a bad day?" He tells me he wants to have a good day. I tell him that we have things to do and it may not be what he thinks he wants, but he can choose if he wants to be happy. This works surprising well on a four year old. He is almost seven now and I rarely have to remind him of this choice anymore.

</comment><comment><USER11> """ Spending 2 years doing something you don't enjoy is a full 3.4% of your life. What are you getting back for that investment? Money? What are you going to do with that money that will be worth the non-refundable 3.4% of your life? An extra room in your house?"""

This is beautiful. In a world where everything has to be justified by "the bottom line", it's easy to forget _why_ we're making money.

Along those lines, I also found "The Secret Fears of the Super-Rich" to be very eye-opening. ([http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/04/secret-f...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/04/secret- fears-of-the-super-rich/8419/))

<comment><USER12> I was inspired and agree with most of this article but when I got to these last few lines I thought, "Sure, I am getting money back for my investment, but that money is supporting my family - putting food on the table, gas in the car and a roof over our heads". That's not a bad investment. It's very hard to drop everything and seek what it is that makes you happy when you have a family depending on you.

<comment><USER11> Well said. That's why I emphasized remembering _why_ we're making money.

If I'm bootstrapping a company, for example, I can do it because I want to make a lot of money, or I can do it because I want to support my family. It's just a difference of emphasis really, but an important one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I like the sentiment and intention of this post, but I don't agree with it. Good for you for trying to look at the bigger patterns in your life and really be deliberate about approaching things the right way.

But I don't believe the answer is to disconnect the inner and outer world and be happy no matter what. The whole point of living is to be a part of things. The right approach is to improve or change your environment until you can live well inside it.

Since we're quoting books, I recently found a passage that says this well. From The Timeless Way of Building by Alexander:

This state cannot be reached merely by inner work.

There is a myth, sometimes widespread, that a person need do only inner work, in order to be alive like this; that a man is entirely responsible for his own problems; and that to cure himself, he need only change himself. This teaching has some value, since it is so easy for a man to imagine that his problems are caused by "others". But it is a one-sided and mistaken view which also maintains the arrogance of the belief that the individual is self-sufficient, and not dependent in any essential way on his surroundings. The fact is, a person is so far formed by his surroundings, that his state of harmony depends entirely on his harmony with his surroundings.

<comment><USER14> I think this is entirely the point: How do you improve or change your environment so that it 'fits' you?

What does fit you? I hear many people say a certain level of salary would make them happy. Or that sportscar they always dreamt of. Just 5 more years of climbing the corporate ladder and then it's all wonderful from there. However, when you talk to them 5-10 years later, when some of them achieved those goals, they still do not seem to 'fit'; they have bigger and better goals now. Once they achieve those, they will be truly happy! It's a rat race.

My opinion, and since adopting it I see it everywhere, is that the outer does not change the inner, but rather it is the inner that changes the outer. Take, for example, this part of Jobs' famous Stanford Commencement Address: "[After being fired from Apple] I really didn't know what to do for a few months. I felt that I had let the previous generation of entrepreneurs down – that I had dropped the baton as it was being passed to me. I met with David Packard and Bob Noyce and tried to apologize for screwing up so badly. I was a very public failure, and I even thought about running away from the valley. But something slowly began to dawn on me — I still loved what I did. The turn of events at Apple had not changed that one bit. I had been rejected, but I was still in love. And so I decided to start over. I didn't see it then, but it turned out that getting fired from Apple was the best thing that could have ever happened to me."

Notice what changes first; he did not start working on Pixar and NEXT from his feeling of failure nor from a need to change his environment to get his brainchild back. He changed his inner mental state first to accept reality, figure what is truly important, and follow his heart. The environment changed as a result. Once he saw the pure crushing failure of being fired from his own creation, as an positive opportunity to pursue the things he loved to do, it opened new paths unimagined by his negative self. The inner changed the outer.

Happy, for me, is a deep sense of belonging. It's about acceptance, perspective, creativity and finding interest and passion. The inside and outside will never disconnect; it's life, the one cannot exist without the other.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I've been through a process of changing my emotional reactions, and I think my experiences are interesting enough to share. Just to situate you, I'm in secondary 5 (I'm 16), and back when I was in elementary school, I was super shy (I rarely ever said a word, and I hated talking because I would always notice some imperfection in what I would say which would make me feel stupid), and I was quite empathic (if another kid would cry, so would I). Also, I'm much happier now than back in elementary school.

In grade 5, I realized that life was meaningless and I might as well stop caring and just enjoy myself. So I started a long process of emotional change. The easiest thing to get rid of was my empathy, which I got rid of in grade 6. I can still feel sad or happy for others, but it's by choice. I can easily stop myself from emulating their emotions, and in fact I don't anymore by default. Then there was the huge stress that came up whenever I had to get into a social situation. That took a much longer time to remove. For years I would tell myself "who cares what other people think of me?", and try to get myself to do something which would put me into a social situation, but it had very slow results. It wasn't until secondary 4 that I had (mostly) gotten rid of my shyness. And interestingly enough, the first thing to go was the emotion, and then the physical reaction. At some point in secondary 4, someone insulting me would not make me feel a thing, but it would make my eyes a bit waterry, and it would make me gulp.

Though I am now mostly not emotionally affected by bad situations, I have not been able to get rid of the effects of emotion that come from physical things, like pain or being tired. Being tired just zaps the joy out of me. Perhaps you can learn to withstand pain by trying to replace it by better emotions (for example, by cracking jokes), though I haven't experimented with that.

</comment><comment><USER16> I just read a chapter of a Csikszentmihalyi book for my sociology class on creativity, I am currently reading "The Happiness Hypothesis" which just referenced Csikszentmihalyi, and now I read this blog post who quotes Csikszentmihalyi.

Csikszentmihalyi must have something important to say.

<comment><USER17> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)>

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I guess this comment is going to be pretty unpopular, given the comments that most have left before it, but I find this post creepy in the extreme.

For one thing, it's naive. Any attempt to assert that "X is entirely my fault" is naive. How can you eliminate the impact of your circumstances? For instance, you're here in 2012, working in San Francisco - one of the most exciting times/places ever.

For another, it's happiness-centric, which is boring. I basically don't trust anyone who says that the point of their life is "happiness." Frankly, the idea creeps me out. Sure, happiness is nice. So are transcendance, admiration, comfort, contentment. I also like nostalgia, gloom, longing, ... Life is not some simple game where you can just declare yourself the winner.

Finally, it's positivity-centric. One of my least favorite things about the ethos of the bay area is its inability to bluntly deal with negative feelings/ideas. Everything's always supposed to be getting better all the time - feeling better, running faster, etc. It's boring and unrealistic.

I worry about what will happen to someone who has this sort of mindset when they are older - when the illusion that they are in control of their happiness begins to fade - what happens when calamity strikes.

The universe is very old and you are a tiny speck in it. Concentrating on yourself in this way is like a dog chasing its own tail.

PS - God, and it's so arrogant. I hate this type of "I've figured it out! Eureka!" post/sentiment/essay. It's like a Buddhist claiming that they've been enlightened. It just smacks of self-aggrandizement and insecurity. Blech.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks a lot for your comment, disagreement males you question your assumptions and strengthens your understanding of the issue.

Is there a body of research that supports your counter-claims? I'd love to read anything you can point me to.

<comment><USER18> WTF are you talking about? A body of research? Are you out of your mind? This response actually sounds like a form response for when anyone disagrees with you.

To answer your question by deconstructing it: which one of my claims could possibly be supported by empirical research? The fact that I like gloom, nostalgia, and complex forms of pleasure? Or perhaps the idea that it's extremely hard to disambiguate the contribution of your circumstances to your happiness from your own contribution? Or maybe my own personal observations regarding the bay area?

Seriously, what type of research are you looking for?

"Scientists find that yelsgib likes gloomy feelings."

"Sociologists determine that the bay area concentrates on positive feelings to the exclusion of negative ones."

"Cosmologists determine that we are a very small part of the universe."

Are you actually this obtuse? My good god. I seriously cannot believe your response. It seriously blows my mind. I don't even know why I'm responding. It bothers me that I'm even responding. Are you trolling me?

The first line of your response is that "disagreement males (sic) you question your assumptions and strengthens your understanding of the issue." What assumptions did I make you question? How was your understanding of "the issue" strengthened by my response? Did you say these things because you meant them? Or do you just say whatever pops into your head without regard to whether it makes sense or you actually believe it? Did you even read what I wrote?

Holy christ on a cracker.

<comment><AUTHOR> I love the internet.

<comment><USER19> Ugh. Pleeeeeeeeease just stop for a second, get your head out of your own head, and actually think for yourself about something. The way you say 'I love the internet' is just such a smug way of brushing off real criticism. This is not an example of 'Some crazy guy on the internet yelling at me for no reason'. The commenter just really in his first claim stated some things, though perhaps a little harsh(the post really was just about happiness, so its a little strange to berate him for making a happiness-centric post when that was the point), was just there to show how his personal opinion differed from how you had(or had not...) actually thought about the quotes. However, there is no excuse for your first reply. Honestly, can you go read what you wrote and justify anything you said?

"Thanks a lot for your comment, disagreement males you question your assumptions and strengthens your understanding of the issue." - Why would you write this? What is the point of writing this statement? No really, pleeeeeeease, stop working on whatever you are doing, and for your own benefit. Put down Flow. Put down your code. Read this, and figure out really what you mean here. Why would you respond with such a condescending sentence to someone who actually read what you said and wrote very really 'personal' arguments against it?

Is there a body of research that supports your counter-claims? I'd love to read anything you can point me to - Same trick again here, go ahead and read this line again, but there is a part 2 to this task. You now need to go read the commenters post. I feel he makes it very very clear in his words and in his tone that all his objections are his just his own thoughts and opinions on the subject. To be honest, I feel like an idiot explaining this to you, but I feel I need to because if I don't you may ask me if I have any 'evidence' to back up my claims. Honestly, please go read that again and if you can justify why you said those words, please reply with them. Please.

Finally, I'm sorry to say all this, and sorry to repeat some of the commeters criticism, but I was just so irritated reading this. As naive and show offy as your blog post was, the kind of behavior shown in your response is 10000X as intolerable, and is just too common with people with that sense of false intellectualism in Silicon Valley. The arrogance and condescension and just lack of respect youve shown creates dividers in people that don't need to exist, and really just decreases everyone's happiness.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm sorry, but i find this 'solution' to happiness rather myopic. I'm not saying it can't be helpful (it probably is), but doubt it's a cure.

Now, generally speaking, for those of us that are well educated, entirely employable and rather wealthy in monetary terms and generally freedom, then achieving success seems to be up to us. I'd contend that happiness is most easily manifested in societally recognized success (thus, hard work + luck). In other words i'd contend happiness is easily derived for 'being respected'.

If not achieved through work and good fortune, i'd say happiness can still be achieved with constant vigilance against some shitty cultural norms we hold as a society. Frankly, the illusion of control is astounding in wealthy countries, and so is constant marketing, that buying shit will make you happy or attractive, or that some product will give you some idealized life that is paraded in front of you every day on television (or the internet). I'd contend that many people are affected by these fake, shitty messages.

Is it perfectly admirable to try and try and try and fail consistently throughout your life? Absolutely. Why should we look to the successful for advice on happiness? Probably the last place to look, survivorship bias will ruin any results. We can't all be popular published authors or start apple computers. I'm a Dvorak typist (*ducks), so i like to reference August Dvorak on the subject of failure. This guy dedicated his life to improving society, for both regular typists and notably, amputees, yet was stymied at every turn by something as simple as a coordination problem. I think it would be very difficult for someone with a life like his to not be entirely jaded at such unprecedented failure, even when you know what you are doing makes sense.

Can you be jaded and happy? Well, maybe, this would cause a debate on what we mean by 'happiness', which is de facto the entire argument here. I would contend that it's difficult. Would ideas like Csikszentmihalyi's help? Probably, but i'd be very skeptical to look at them as actual solutions. Sometimes people fail, and it's okay to fail if you tried your best, and i don't mean that in the 'keep failing until you (obviously eventually) succeed' way. I mean really fail. Until that is mentally acceptable, which is really freaking hard to maintain in our society, then i think some people are going to be continuously frustrated and perpetually unhappy, and i don't think 'convince yourself to be happy' is an acceptable prescription. Again, while i think it will help, it's a rough world out there, and it's hard to maintain the mental composure suggested here in the face of real tragedy.

</comment><comment><USER21> When you have a new child on the way, an extra room in the house could be a hell of a difference for more then 2 years of your life... is this advice realistic for people who need to support a family?

</comment><comment><USER22> Many are willing to suffer unhappiness so that their children might be more successful. At 31 it's something of a pattern I've begun to see in my peers.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm starting to realize that those who do what they love find more success than those who do what they "need" to do in the long term. I'm fairly sure that the children would also rather have parents who are having fun and are happy than those that are sad and bored but bring in an extra $20,000 a year.

I don't have children though, so I can't really empathize on a deep level, I'm just going by intuition.

<comment><USER23> It's a fair point, but you need to consider the fact that the extra $20,000 a year could mean the difference between a big college loan and a smaller one (or no loan at all!), and the size of your college loan, which will in time become college debt, can have a profound psychological effect on what you want to do with your life. I'm not sure I'd be confident in a start-up as opposed to a stable job if I had $20,000 more in debt looming over me.

<comment><USER22> That's one reason I'm glad I did the community college -> public university transfer route. My years in community college were about 5K each, and my public university were more like 15K.

I was able to pay it all off in about three years after getting out by just sticking with the college lifestyle while I worked.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> When you stop worrying if you are happy or not, you are probably in the zone.

</comment><comment><USER25> There is a lot of good to be said about having a strong _internal_ locus of control, yet a lot of what people were saying in this thread seems a little like self-deception: you can't always be positive about everything. You can try and be happy and you can help this by following stoic principles like negative visualisation, reducing your desires and keeping internal goals instead of externals ones.

But this doesn't seem right. Your life is a story and it will have troughs as well as peaks. It's more honest to accept this and learn to experience everything that it offers fully. If somebody you love dies you should feel sad, and maybe you'll cry. There's nothing wrong with this.

I think there is great strength in allowing yourself to be vulnerable and accepting things as they happen. Do whatever you can to make life enjoyable for yourself but you're going to have to give a little!

</comment><comment><USER26> This is one of the founding ideas behind Positive psychology.

Some good books that go into depth on this insight: Antonio Damasio's "The Feeling of What Happens, Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness", and Jonathan Haidt's "The Happiness Hypothesis". In a nutshell Damsio gives a framework for what consciousness is, and Haidt gives some insight on how to hack your consciousness to do better at life. (I'm unsure if Damasio is actually considered related to positive psychology ... but it is great background.)

Another resource is to research Viktor Frankl. His story and writings put most any common day issues into stark perspective.

</comment><comment><USER27> Left my job 6 months after coming in, because of this mindset. Couldn't imagine, spending any more time working in an environment I didn't want to be in.

</comment><comment><USER28> Great sentiments. I would question this part though: "A final thought: On average, you have 78 years total to live." That is based on questionable assumptions imho, that there are not going to be dramatic increases in life expectancy within one's lifetime.

Perhaps we should be thinking more long-term than we are... ;)

</comment><comment><USER29> "My identity and my thoughts are my own to have, control, and share. Happiness is a mindset for me to create."

This concept reminds me of Feeling Good by Burns. He said that our thoughts control our emotions, and if we control our thoughts, we control our emotions.

</comment><comment><USER30> A very positive article - but.

I know people who pursue happiness above everything else. They are in debt and in denial. Somebody will come and bail them out, hopefully. Cover your costs first. With the rest of your time, pursue happiness.

</comment><comment><USER31> What a weird coincidence. This morning I was feeling inspired and wrote a blog on the exact same topic. Would it be spammy to put a link here?

Anyway i love this kind of thinking, it really has helped my marriage a lot.

</comment><comment><USER32> I've read 'Finding Flow' By Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. Its the one book one must read to develop an attitude of not complaining about circumstances and of finding happiness no matter what.

</comment><comment><USER33> So the concept of selfless Karma has been rediscovered?

</comment><comment><USER34> This reminds me of "Think and Grow Rich" - Best book ever written. I cant even remember how many times I have read it.

If I could I would purchase a million copies and give them away for free. It's that good.

<comment><USER35> It's actually free in the itunes bookstore.

<comment><USER36> can you provide a link. I found 2 books with the same title and neither is free.

Thanks

<comment><USER35> Apparently the free one is the one for Entrepreneur/Small Biz Owner edition.

[http://itunes.apple.com/us/book/think-and-grow- rich/id412247...](http://itunes.apple.com/us/book/think-and-grow- rich/id412247490?mt=11)

Same author tho.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Know your chemical weapons - <AUTHOR> http://boingboing.net/2013/05/28/know-your-chemical-weapons.html <comment><USER2> Direct link [http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2013/05/24/chemical_wea...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2013/05/24/chemical_weapons_wwii_posters_taught_soldiers_to_identify_gasses_by_smell.html?wpisrc=obinsite)</comment>