Musk to review all of Tesla's expenses in new cost cutting plan - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-cost-cuts/musk-to-review-all-of-teslas-expenses-in-new-cost-cutting-plan-idUSKCN1SM2SS <comment><USER2> I worked for a company that had a similar take on spending. The company was extremely profitable and brought in greater than 1 billion dollar in revenue. Yet any PO that was greater than $100 needed approval by the CEO. Not only that, the PO had to be typed on a manual typewriter (this is 2007) using carbon paper, and hand-delivered to a number of people to start moving up the chain. The process intentionally took MONTHS for the approval to go through.

This resulted in engineers that would purchase their own equipment and bringing it to work to use because they couldn't wait a month for a $200 piece of equipment. It was common to have lab benches full of used equipment from ebay that engineers purchased to get their jobs done. This created an interested dynamic in the lab when it came to sharing equipment (most of it was not shared). Also, scary to know that since a lot of used equipment was being relied on, a large portion was not calibrated and could be outside spec.

There is a lot of value in creating a thrifty company culture, but sometimes it goes too far and hinders the ability for engineers to do their job. In the end, everyone is responsible for ensuring the purchase they make are wise and necessary for the success of the company.

<comment><USER3> > _This resulted in engineers that would purchase their own equipment and > bringing it to work to use because they couldn 't wait a month for a $200 > piece of equipment._

That's a mistake. You should never pay other people's costs. If the company wants to put itself in a position where work is delayed by a month for the sake of $200 then that is the company's cost to pay.

<comment><USER4> It's a mistake if the company is healthy. But if individual workers are in a position to get a performance bonus or impress their boss, it may be worth it for them to spend some money to ensure that would happen. It would also be a bad work environment.

<comment><USER3> It won't impress anyone. All it will do is incentivize them to see what else they can get out of you for free. They won't respect you if you don't respect yourself.

<comment><USER5> And yet if you don't get the job done due to slow company approval process you get the blame for it, and possibly at the cost of your Job. It is rather unfortunate that this isn't a minority but _many_ of today's company, from SME to Fortune 500 operate in a similar fashion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> [https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/bq50s8/elons_a...](https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/bq50s8/elons_actual_cost_cutting_letter_for_tesla/)

<comment><USER7> Your link is to what is represented as the authentic text of the memo. If genuine, to me, this seem like the most important bit:

"It is important to bear in mind that we lost $700 million in the first quarter this year, which is over $200 million per month. Investors nonetheless were supportive of our efforts and agreed to give us $2.4 billion (our net proceeds) to show that we can be financially sustainable.

That is a lot of money, but actually only gives us approximately ten months at the first-quarter burn rate to achieve breakeven. It's vital that we respect the faith investors have shown in Tesla, but it will require great effort to do so."

With relatively low gas prices at the moment, decreasing federal subsidies for electric cars, and more players entering the market, it seems like Tesla is in a pretty tough spot.

<comment><USER8> > With relatively low gas prices at the moment, decreasing federal subsidies > for electric cars, and more players entering the market, it seems like Tesla > is in a pretty tough spot.

Nothing you couldn't see coming 5 years ago, however.

<comment><USER9> To be fair, the current competition is largely a reaction to Tesla's accomplishments.

<comment><USER10> I question that CW. If that were true, the competitors would be making sporty sedans like Tesla. But almost none are. The competitors—the Bolt, Kona, etc., are all totally different form factors.

The alternative, potentially better, theory is that everyone is reacting to the same incentives and market structures. Governments are pushing electric vehicles through subsidies and mandates. Meanwhile, exploding use of portable electronics has led to massive improvements lithium ion battery technology. Tesla has targeted a flashy niche market, expensive sports sedans, but has largely avoided trying to compete in the markets where the sales really are: crossovers and SUVs. (Every year, Toyota sells as many RAV4s as all the vehicles Tesla has ever sold.)

<comment><USER11> > Governments are pushing electric vehicles through subsidies and mandates

Specifically, isn't this because of CAFE[1]? Gas mileage compliance is calculated per manufacturer. So BMW can keep selling 17mpg M3s as long as they're selling enough of those i3s[2]

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

[2] - Which sell for $50K but are like $15K used!

<comment><USER12> You can find an i3 for $15K used? Where? Carfax has like $24K at minimum for a 2017.

Edit: NM, had to widen my search params. I dunno if I'd want to trust a 2015 electric car, though. ;)

<comment><USER11> FWIW there were at least 2 <$20K at my local dealer when I checked it out in the winter or fall. Maybe people have caught onto the cheap i3 thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> In the letter, Elon stated they have burned through over $200m/month this year _after_ the cost reductions from last year and January and again in March. (That's net $200m _lost_ each month, not $200m _spent_ each month.)

They raised $2.4 billion a few weeks ago, about half of which must go toward servicing existing debt, and had about $900m in the bank before the offering, leaving them about $2.1billion in cash.

Or in other words, 10 months of cash based on the trend established by the first 3 months of the year if they do not either cut losses, dramatically increase sales, or both.

<comment><USER14> Based on the burn rate as of 2018Q2 (~$720 million per quarter), they should already be bankrupt.

[https://ir.tesla.com/static- files/7235e525-db16-470c-8dce-9e...](https://ir.tesla.com/static- files/7235e525-db16-470c-8dce-9ecac0ad7712)

They aren't because things change and the burn rate for 2018Q2 didn't represent 2018Q3/Q4.

<comment><USER13> Context matters, as does reading comprehension. $200m/month = $600m/quarter...after 3 rounds of expense cutting.

That's $200m/month in net losses during a purely operational stage. It doesn't even include the costs of a planned Model Y launch or self-driving network.

<comment><USER14> Speaking of reading comprehension, of the $600 million/quarter you're referencing, nearly $200 million was from non-recurring items.

>In Q1, we experienced non-recurring items that negatively impacted our net loss by $188 million.

[https://ir.tesla.com/static- files/b2218d34-fbee-4f1f-ac95-05...](https://ir.tesla.com/static- files/b2218d34-fbee-4f1f-ac95-050eb29dd42f)

The drop in S/X deliveries from the updates to their production lines, discontinuation of the 75kWh pack, and the pull-forward from Q4 of last year due to the reduction in the US tax credit also reduced profits by ~$300-400 million.

Like I said, a single data point doesn't make a trend.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> A friend who worked on the charging system for the Model S reported that a few weeks before the vehicle shipped they were way behind schedule for building vehicles and falling further behind as the release date approached.

One Sunday morning the entire engineering team was on the manufacturing floor helping the struggling manufacturing team build vehicles and Elon appeared trailing a gaggle of execs. They started poking about and work started to grind to a halt. The engineering lead went over and asked what was up. Elon said that they were wanting to see first hand what was holding up production.

The engineering lead loudly told Elon to get the fuck off the manufacturing floor if he wanted any vehicles finished that day, that the engineering team didn't come in on a Sunday to dick about with execs and they would walk out if the execs didn't leave. If they wanted to talk they could schedule a meeting for Monday morning. Elon shut up and left and the team went back to building vehicles.

The engineering lead left the company several months after the Model S shipped as did most of the powertrain group. Tesla continues to burn through engineering talent, but like Apple, has a still continuous stream of bright eyed naive true believers willing to sign up.

<comment><USER16> I believe the last paragraph. The original powertrain in the Model S was an epic failure.

By comparison, Elon claims the drivetrain in the Model 3 is the same unit that they are putting in the Semi, and that they test it to 1 million miles.

<comment><AUTHOR> The Semi is their truck, isn't it? Why would someone put a small sedan drivetrain into a towing truck?

<comment><USER16> It's simple, scalable, powerful, and modular. They put four of them in the Semi.

Connects with 4 bolts and 3 wires. Drops out for easy service, it's an extremely impressive piece of tech;

[https://youtu.be/m4eQ7nN_Lwo](https://youtu.be/m4eQ7nN_Lwo)

[https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-model-3-drivetrain-design- el...](https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-model-3-drivetrain-design-elon-musk- master-plan/)

<comment><AUTHOR> In that case it makes absolutely sense!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> sounds like a misleading headline

The original letter says the 2.4 billion raised a few weeks ago, would be used up in 10 months at current burn rate.

It's for the money recently raised, not the entire company's bank account. Headline is misleading

<comment><USER13> No, the headline is accurate.

Of the $2.4 billion raised, about half must go toward servicing existing debt, and with the money they already had in the bank (about $900m), they have about $2.1b liquid cash to see them through the next 10 months, assuming the same burn rate (losing $200m/month).

<comment><USER18> Isn't that double counting the debt service payments?

<comment><USER19> No, they have two large balloon payments due in 2019 from prior debt.

<comment><USER17> I thought they had 2B in the bank before the raise.

Granted, I am sure Elon exaggerates numbers, but shouldn't that be factored in?

<comment><USER20> Tesla had ~$2.5B in the bank before the capital raise, and are going to be receiving a multi-hundred million to $1B payment from Fiat Chrysler ([https://www.ft.com/content/7a3c8d9a-57bb-11e9-a3db-1fe89bedc...](https://www.ft.com/content/7a3c8d9a-57bb-11e9-a3db-1fe89bedc16e)) to offset their emissions. They have plenty of money in the bank for the foreseeable future, but they won't if they don't cut their expenses or increase sales. To me, this just looks like a company exiting startup wild- west spending and maturing into a full-fledged company with hard-set processes for company expenses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> > _On Jan. 30, Musk told investors he thought Tesla would continue making > money after finally turning its first back-to-back profits during the third > and fourth quarters of last year, fulfilling his previous forecast that > Tesla would become "sustainably profitable" from the third quarter of 2018 > onward._

Followed by a massive quarterly loss of $700MM and the pronouncement that the company has less than 10 months of cash after raising money (which we were also told would never be needed again). Can someone explain how that happens?

<comment><USER22> It's because I didn't buy a Model 3, as I wasn't offered a $35k version along with the $7500 federal rebate as I was planning on. Suspect a few tens of thousands of others made the same decision. Congress needs to pass the $7000 electric car tax credit or Tesla has a long bumpy road ahead.

<comment><USER23> You just have to call in to get the 35k version

<comment><USER22> Sure... I was planning on buying the $27,500 (after rebate) version. As the rebates have expired, that theoretically priced Model 3 no longer exists. At $27,500 it was an amazing deal - better than an Accord or Camry.

<comment><USER16> A Tesla Model 3 at $27,500 would have been such an absurdly sweet deal the demand would be ludicrous.

If they could have snapped their fingers and manufactured as many as they needed, I would guess based on passenger vehicle sales numbers, they could have sold 300,000 in a single quarter at that price. They barely build that many in a year.

I'm sorry, you were never going to see a Model 3 for $27,500. With the way the credit phases out, they could never have built up the capacity to fulfill $35k orders under the full credit, just to have the price then spike as the credit phased out and be left with huge excess capacity as it came back to full price.

<comment><USER22> I was certainly in the top few people placing my reservation. High enough that if they were delivered in order of reservation, I'd have my $27,500 Model 3. They opted to maximize their revenue by delivering the expensive versions first. A Tesla won't be my next purchase.

<comment><USER16> Elon was pretty clear that they weren't going to fulfill in order or reservation or provide the $35k configuration at the beginning.

You may have missed out on the deal of the century. Sorry to hear you are missing out on the car of the century because of it!

Mind me asking what EV you would get in its place?

<comment><USER22> A 2012-2014 Toyota RAV4EV. They have a range of around 100 miles, get me in the HOV lane for the commute, and are a Tesla under the covers.

<comment><USER23> I need to check that out. Had no idea the RAV4EV had autopilot. I love Toyota.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Suppose you buy a Tesla and in 10 months they fold.

Who then maintains the proprietary software that keeps the vehicle running?

<comment><USER25> Are there historical examples of this happening in other companies? It's scary to think the answer to ops question is not immediately obvious.

<comment><USER26> This sort of happened to Saab, but since they were basically badge-engineered GM cars at that time it is still easy to get parts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> We have conflicting information, One is that Tesla only has $900M Net Cash before the $2.4B raised, and how it needs to use half the $2.4 to service debt that they previously hold, and assuming the recent burn rate of ~$200M per month they will only have 10 months left.

Another is Tesla had ~$2B Cash before the raised, ~$2B Receivables, and newly $2.4B Cash raised. Not sure on Net total, and he $200M / month burn rate is only last quarter figurer and not a representative trend.

I don't know which one is right or which one is wrong, I don't have time to dig out figures either. But this proves even basic numbers that are wrong ( Assuming one of them are ) could easily be spread out.

</comment><comment><USER27> Am I right to assume that if Tesla files for bankruptcy protection, all car deposits basically vanish? I assume there's miles of higher priority creditors lined up than consumers who paid a deposit. Do we have any sense of how many outstanding deposits there are still?

<comment><USER28> No. Bankruptcy isn't debt forgiveness. Buyers and the lawyers representing the class action suit would have a seat at the hearing and would be able to get in line for whatever is left.

That said: come on, people, Tesla isn't filing for bankruptcy. There are hundreds to thousands of perfectly normal financing options available to run a company with revenues like this that will stretch a cash shortfall into a decades-long decline. And that's assuming that their revenue won't continue to grow.

This is a story you cite if you want to "prove" that Tesla won't take over the world or is eventually going to be passed by Toyota or whoever. Large corporations just don't die like this.

I still don't understand the community of people who... really, desperately want Tesla to fail. Is this a politics thing about EVs? A reverse cult of personality around Musk? Hipster group think? It's really unsightly.

<comment><USER29> I think it's more that I think there's something fundamentally wrong about a company existing for 7+ years, spending billions and having yet to turn a profit.

It doesn't really matter whether it is Tesla or Uber.

<comment><USER30> Tesla is 12 years old and has turned quarterly profits.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> At this point the Tesla brand is so valuable that the company is unlikely to die. A more likely outcome is that Tesla will be partially or fully acquired by another company.

The Ford-Mazda partnership that ended around 2015 is one possible model.

<comment><USER31> A bankruptcy rarely means a company actually "dies"...but it would be quite the wake-up call for SV.

<comment><USER32> It'd be a wake-up call for the "technology alone, no policy needed" strain green optimism.

I'm more and more convinced that we need strong, supportive policy to transition to a carbonfree future in time to avoid the worst effects of climate change, and that the current political situation looks incredibly grim from that perspective. It's pretty common for states nowadays to pass punitive taxes on EVs as "compensation" for lost gas taxes, universally over-estimating the number of miles an EV driver typically does in a year: [https://www2.greencarreports.com/news/1123069_1000-illinois-...](https://www2.greencarreports.com/news/1123069_1000-illinois- fee-state-fees-credits-can-make-or-break-ev-sales) [https://cleantechnica.com/2019/05/17/whos-behind-the-war- on-...](https://cleantechnica.com/2019/05/17/whos-behind-the-war-on-electric- cars/)

China has incredibly supportive policy for EVs right now. From a purely industrial policy standpoint, we're close to strangling our own nascent EV industry with the sunsetting of the EV tax credit and all these new punitive state-level EV taxes. (Few Bolts are made, the Volt was recently canceled, and Tesla is struggling after having to deal with roughly a $3750 impact on their car price, soon to be increased to $5625 and then $7500... many of the rest are compliance cars or are available only in extremely limited quantities.)

If things don't change soon on the political front, it could be really bad. For the US and the world.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> If he's really serious about making a dent in expenses, he should definitely consider hiring outside of Fremont, CA. There's much more cost effective labor outside the bay area, up to 1/3 cheaper in the rest of the US and even cheaper outside the US. I understand, factory jobs can't be outsourced since people have to use the factory in Fremont, but software engineers, web designers should be remotable.

</comment><comment><USER34> I love how straight and to the point Reuters reporting is.

<comment><USER35> Agreed. I primarily use Reuters and Bloomberg as my news sources and this is core to why I chose those.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> The headline is misleading. Elon was just stating that the cash burn rate of the first quarter would eat up the newly invested capital in 10 months. He did nowhere say, that he expects the cash burn rate to stay constant, even without the savings he plans to implement. Q1 was a quarter with low deliveries - while more M3 were made than in Q4, less of them reached their buyers before the quarter end and thus a lot of them couldn't be accounted as a sale yet. All indications are, that in Q2 the total amount of delivered/sold cars will be quite a bit higher than in Q1, which also would improve the finances accordingly. Probably not enough to break even, hence the saving money initiative.

</comment><comment><USER37> What happens to Tesla cars on the road if Tesla the company is gone? Who do the cars phone home to? Who can perform maintenance and repairs?

Edit: Why did people downvote this question lol

<comment><USER38> What happens to online-connected video games when the servers go down?

<comment><USER39> Except the game has a single player mode that always works and will never be taken offline. You just lose access to new maps and updates.

Seriously though the car will still be a car even in 100 years. It will drive.

<comment><USER40> A car isn't a video game where the worst thing that a bug does is ctd. Sometimes cars are recalled years later because they burst into flames due to a poorly designed component. Who handles teslas recalls after tesla? And who repairs your tesla when the only people approved to repair teslas is tesla? Who keeps making oem parts? This is a lot more complex than call of duty 4 losing dedicated servers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Seems reasonable, until reviewing every single expense starts slowing down the procurement process and results in inevitable delays and charges.

<comment><USER21> > _Seems reasonable_

You think it's reasonable that the CEO of 3? 4? Multi-billion dollar companies is personally signing off on company expenses? It's unfathomable to me.

<comment><USER42> Some expenses. Seems like it's a special one-time push. And Elon specializes in doing the unfathomable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Why is everyone so worried about a Tesla not surviving? Their stock price (although a little down), is still way above it's initial IPO price.

<comment><USER40> Because they are on track to run out of money in 10 months.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> This is not true. What he says in the memo is "it would take us 10 months to burn through the $2.3 billion we just raised at our Q1 burn rate"

They've guided for a "significantly smaller" loss in Q2, and positive cash flow in Q3 and Q4.

With $2.4 billion raised, $2.2 billion in the bank, and $2 billion worth of payments coming from Fiat Chrysler cash is not as much of a concern as the headline would suggest.

<comment><USER44> The headline used to be "Tesla Has 10 Months of Cash to Burn Before Dying Out" before we changed it. That's because the article was originally a different one—see [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19950431](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19950431).

<comment><USER43> good work stopping misinformation

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Url changed from [https://carbuzz.com/news/tesla-has-10-months-of-cash-to- burn...](https://carbuzz.com/news/tesla-has-10-months-of-cash-to-burn-before- dying-out), which points to this.

</comment><comment><USER45> The batteries were not faulty that is just how they react to stress, and the older they get the more susceptible they become, 20 years from now i would bet they become the most common cause of house fire while being charged.

</comment><comment><USER46> Sell to Panasonic?

</comment><comment><USER47> If you own tesla stock: SELL, Sell, Sell today!

</comment><comment><USER48> As far as I know Tesla is still stuck in the rut of trying to over-automate their production while spending more money for worse outcomes than just hiring human assemblers.

<comment><USER49> If they weren't already spread thin this would be a good investment, as they are learning and pushing the envelope. That's a valuable asset and could make a huge difference in long term.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Traditional car companies must be damn scared to have to publish this FUD.

Tesla cannot be possibly dying out. Don't you see Tesla cars everywhere in the US? yes they are spending money, buying things to grow as they are so incredibly successful they cannot satisfy demand. Dying out? you make me laugh.

If you spend 10M dollars buying equipment that in a year is worth 100M dollars, you are not dying out.

<comment><USER51> > Don't you see Tesla cars everywhere in the US?

No I don't, might see one once a week or month. They're common in Silicon Valley but that's a small fraction of the US.

edit: Tesla has sold something like 300k cars in the US which comes out to under 0.15% of all cars in the US. So basically, negligible. And a third to a half of that seems to have been in California. So in most of the US you'd need to look at on average 2000 cars before you see a Tesla.

<comment><USER52> I live near Kansas City, and see probably a dozen a day. They seem to be very popular, but there is a good charging infrastructure in this area. I'm cheap though, and bought a used Leaf.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Please Elon focus on SpaceX and Boring Company. Tesla has already succeeded. You've made gasoline cars uncool and all the major car companies are coming out with electric models. Tesla is just a giant drain in your time now.

<comment><USER54> Eh, I still think a v8 with a flowmaster is pretty cool.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Seems like what Tesla should do is convert two of the four model 3 lines to the model Y. They are very similar cars, so it should help their time to market. If the model 3 gets a bit rarer (and the average selling price raises) all the better.

</comment><comment><USER56> I don't get whats so special about Tesla anymore. Eg. you can get cars like this from mainstream car producers [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aP7of0p-GGU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aP7of0p-GGU)

And on the lower end a friend has a Renault Zoe. An excellent car on all accounts. I saw a base level black model 3 the other day parked and I tought what a cheap looking car, it was truly underwhelming (where I live there aren't many Teslas). Then I saw that it was a Tesla which costs about 50000$ here...

I don't care about model S ludicrous mode acceleration, nobody actually needs that kind of acceleration from traffic lights. Well maybe if you have low self esteem and try to compensate for something?

</comment><comment><USER57> 1\. I don't know if that math is entirely solid. They got 2.4 billion and in the past quarter ran though 200 a month, thus 10 months before they're empty. But that's not exactly how it works, for all I or anyone knows the last quarter was very tooling heavy and they chose to pay costs all upfront instead of amortize costs. IDK.

2\. I work in automotive. I was a the room with 3 VPs from a BIG 3. They weren't threatened by Tesla (right or wrong), they merely agreed that some day soon Tesla was going to learn _" how hard it is to build a real car"_. Knowing the backend, and understanding the difference between acceptable failure rates on say a McLaren 570 vs a Toyota Corolla. What they meant was it's one thing to ship a few cars, it's another to get where Tesla seems they need to be to get profitable. Just an anecdote.

<comment><USER13> _for all I or anyone knows the last quarter was very tooling heavy and they chose to pay costs all upfront instead of amortize costs. IDK._

Many people do know...Depreciation is subject to specific tax and accounting rules. While for tax purposes some (but not all) of Tesla's spending is immediately depreciable, for accounting purposes, none of it is, so their tooling costs must be depreciated over the useful life of the equipment. Depreciation also isn't relevant to a discussion of _cash flow_ , as depreciation is merely an abstract number representing estimated wear and tear.

<comment><USER57> I said amortization and tooling. Not depreciation.

And the point is, it's foolish to assume that what happened last quarter is what will happen this quarter. If you don't think so, please show me the billions you've made in the stock market.

<comment><USER13> Amortization is simply depreciation of intangible assets...

And with Tesla and Elon Musk especially, it's extremely foolish to assume that Tesla will meet any of the benchmarks that Elon has ever set...since they never have.

Right now, Elon is saying they have 10 months until cash runs out. And knowing Elon, that's almost certainly an overly optimistic prediction since it doesn't take into account the _increased burn rates_ necessary to launch the Model Y or the self-driving taxi fleet, so less than 10 months. If Tesla doesn't raise additional capital by the end of 2019, they won't see the end of 2020 as a going concern.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> "when you are weak, the enemy should think you are strong, when you are strong the enemy should think you are weak" -The Art of War

<comment><USER59> Who is the enemy in this situation? I don't see how this applies to publicly traded companies.

<comment><USER60> So much this... There are texts written with military contexts in mind from which you can extrapolate non militaristic lessons (The Book of Five Rings, for instance). The Art of War is not one of them. It's not surprising to see it quoted a lot though. I'll leave with a quote from Naggum; whether one thinks it's fair to Gates matters less in this context than if there's agreement that the outlined problem exists:

"the problem I see is not that Bill Gates has shaped the world of useless trinkets in software, but has also managed to spread his competitiveness and his personal fear of losing to imaginary competitors to businesses and homes everywhere, so now everybody is _afraid_ of losing some battle which isn't happening, instead of getting about their own lives."

[https://www.xach.com/naggum/articles/3141310154691952@naggum...](https://firstname.lastname@example.com)

<comment><USER58> Sure, it isn't exactly the same situation as a war, where one country is fighting his neighbor country to the death. But to say that the art of war has no lessons to teach those of us who are not literally in a war is ignorant.

<comment><USER60> Perhaps I am ignorant. I've only gone through one translation of The Art of War, perhaps others are better, but for all such texts there are always motivated translators purposefully not capturing what was originally written in order to make it seem more broadly applicable.

This discussion has reminded me that your oft-quoted "quote" doesn't seem to originate from any actual translation, but is a rephrasing of a bit of chapter 1, where it says "Therefore, when able, seem to be unable;" followed by a lot of other things. It's also worth pointing out what immediately precedes the 'therefore', which is: "Warfare is the art of deceit."

That simple line left out of the version you quoted is crucial. Context matters, and applies for quotes even when the original is in English (see the full context of Knuth's premature optimization quote for instance). The context here is about deception in war. At best you could extrapolate it to situations where deception against your foes is needed in general, but even that is stretching things, and certainly doesn't apply all that much to publicly traded companies like Tesla. The closest analog for them is guarding trade secrets. Besides, deception is usually frowned upon outside of armed conflict, and if a public company deceives the wrong people about the wrong things, and gets called on it, then the company and its higher ups aren't going to have a good time. For example, cooking the books to 'appear strong' would be a rather egregious deception.

Some forms of deception can have a more legitimate purpose in certain business dealings, it's true, as I'm now reminded of Gates' love of poker and some of his great bluffs in MS's early days. Though the consequences of failure wouldn't have been beheading. I'll quote the rest of the paragraph from my translation though and let you decide if Sun Tzu has anything to say about this narrow form at the poker table or when trying to arrange multi-party business dealings promising future deliveries:

"when nearby, seem far away; and when far away, seem near. If the enemy seeks some advantage, entice him with it. If he is in disorder, attack him and take him. If he is formidable, prepare against him. If he is strong, evade him. If he is incensed, provoke him. If he is humble, encourage his arrogance. If he is rested, wear him down. If he is internally harmonious, sow divisiveness in his ranks. Attack where he is not prepared; go by way of places where it would never occur to him you would go. These are the military strategist's calculations for victory--they cannot be settled in advance."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> Definitely less than 10 months.

Demand is dropping off as (a) serious competitors come onto the market e.g. Mercedes EQC, (b) the time between a model refresh increases e.g. S and X models and (c) the concerns over customer service increase.

And I still believe that the Model 3 was a mistake to release at this time. It is cannibalising their higher priced models and squeezing the company's overall gross margins at at time when they need money.

<comment><USER62> I think Porsche Taycan is a bigger threat as it will target Tesla's high profit margin cars. I would assume people who spend 80-120k for cars would prefer Porsche dealerships and service, while Tesla sales and service centers are inundated with $40k buyers issues.

I checked EQC, it still felt like a compliance/test vehicle compared to Taycan, which Porsche has been testing in several continents under extreme weather conditions for over a year now.

<comment><USER52> A 4 door Porsche is an abomination, along with that stupid SUV.

<comment><USER63> That stupid SUV is what keeps Porsche alive.

Personally I view any Porsche bigger than a Cayman as an abomination, but that doesn't fit with the demand for the company to constantly grow.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> Few thoughts

1\. Is anyone still buying car? May be it's a huge necessessity in US but most of the cities are fairly packed and have good public transport and _improving_

2\. Idea of self driving car will indeed be a big selling point. Still people will pool those and cost of transport in general will come down because of Uber's fleet. Self ownership will still not go up significantly unless idea is to buy for long distance travel (not city travel)

3\. The rumors this could be beginning of Tesla being taken private by EM has merits, considering his recent spat with SEC

<comment><USER65> >>1\. Is anyone still buying car? May be it's a huge necessessity in US but most of the cities are fairly packed and have good public transport and improving

Is this like....a joke? I mean I get it - I used to live in a big city where owning a car just seemed stupid and wasteful. But once you live outside of the metropolis, where yes, there is public transport(in a form of a bus or two going every two hours), and you have kids and things to do, then yes, cars are still a necessity.

<comment><USER66> Even without kids, lots of hobbies require going to far away places with equipment. Lots of those places may not have Uber.

Kids today just aren't imaginative anymore.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask YC: What are some good Geek Magazines? - <AUTHOR>

What are some good Geek Magazines? <comment><USER2> Harper's.

The modern magazine is a wild mixture of topical essays, edgy literature, and book reviews. You really never know what you're going to get, but you can count on it being inflammatory.

As an added bonus, the (very inexpensive) subscription comes with archives access - everything back to the 19th century beginning.

</comment><comment><USER3> Seed (<http://seedmagazine.com/>). Tagline is "Science is Culture." It's very young; it just kind of came out of nowhere a year or two ago and started doing really, really good work. It's really content-dense, unlike Wired is now, and aimed at a more technical crowd.

</comment><comment><USER4> Circuit Cellar Ink, Electronic Musician, Design News, Machine Design, EDN, Electronic Design, Embedded Systems Design, R&D Magazine, EE Times. (Many of these are trade rags, free to people 'in the biz'.)

</comment><comment><USER5> dr. dobbs about 15 years ago...

Really, I think that the 'geek' stuff is now either online or dying out rapidly, as someone else here remarked yesterday the print industry is dying. I know it isn't quite there yet but I expect daily news, weeklies a and monthly periodicals to succumb in that order, not sure about real books though, they may hang around for a lot longer.

The more timely the delivery of your content the bigger the threat from the online media is. Sure there are plenty of magazines left, but it remains to be seen how much longer they will last. It would be an interesting poll to see how many of the people frequenting HN still get their media fix in paper format.

I've cancelled my last subscription to any 'geek' magazine other than Scientific American years ago. And even that is available online now...

</comment><comment><USER6> Games and Cook's Illustrated are both recommended, for those for whom geek doesn't automatically mean "computers".

</comment><comment><USER7> The Economist.

</comment><comment><USER8> Scientific American Mind. The Economist (Not geek per se, but I challenge you to find a better analysis of the world). The Edge (edge.org)

</comment><comment><USER9> make. wired. scientific american. popular science. popular mechanics. national geographic. smithsonian. 2600.</comment>


I'm bullish on hedge funds - <AUTHOR> http://krzana.com/blog/im-bullish-on-hedge-funds <comment><USER2> My understanding of a hedge fund is simply an organization that is given the freedom to make any type of investment using any type of strategy they want[0]. They raise millions, and for a set period of time the people who gave them the millions cannot pull it out, allowing them to execute strategies that may not make any money for several years, which is different from a traditional investment organization.

So all the author is saying is that giving a "black box" a lot of money, and letting it opaquely invest however it wants, will be a winning investment strategy in the future, even though right now it isn't working out so well.

[0] Of course they have documents that explain the strategy, agree to certain things, etc. I'm simplifying it a bit.

<comment><USER3> > So all the author is saying is that giving a "black box" a lot of money, and > letting it opaquely invest however it wants, will be a winning investment > strategy in the future, even though right now it isn't working out so well.

That's the best description of a hedge fund that I've heard. Likewise, I don't see how that will ever be a winning investment strategy. You'd be better off with just an index ETF.

<comment><USER4> "Winning" is the wrong mode of thought. It's risk/reward. Index funds are low risk low reward, by design. Hedge funds are high risk high reward.

Put another way, Startups are just narrowly defined hedge funds. You can be adverse in investing in a risky startup and still be bullish about startups in general.

<comment><USER5> Except that the "high reward" part has been missing in the past several years. Hedge funds have been mostly under-performing (compared to the overall market).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm bullish on any investor who:

* stays away from the pressure to be "with it" every quarter

* stays away from stuff that everyone is talking about

* stays away from short term thinking (like real time datasets)

* stays away from statistical artefacts and spurious relations (aka "huge amounts of data")

* stays away from stuff where they don't understand the basic business models

* stays away from stuff that is built on promises

* stays away from mostly all hedging, other than paying the proverbial 50c for a dollar

* stays away from diversification "just because" (looks at each individual investment on its own merits)

* stays away from arbitrary limitations on asset types or sectors

* stays away from short selling (or situations where you can loose more than what you put in)

* stays away from giving or taking tips on individual investments

* even stays away from feeling they have to kick ass every quarter (if you just can't find anything good... do nothing)

* instead just focuses on not loosing big quantities of his/her own money

* tries to keep costs down (less data, less trading, no hedging, low fees, less dealing with currency exchange)

* doesn't worry about volatility or even enjoys it

* has a few large winners and then some smaller potential winners

That may exclude most if not all funds, hedged or otherwise.

Also: in my experience every 19 year old and his dog now tend to consider themselves "macro traders". It's an indication of how extremely financialized the entire world has become since the 80s. That in itself bodes ill for the 2 and 20 crowd.

<comment><USER7> So you're bearish on _any_ investor.

<comment><USER8> I suspect those filters produce the same quality as grabbing names from a hat, since they are a list of popular but vague aphorisms. Judging each and every investment on its own merits is the only way to succeed.

<comment><USER6> > Judging each and every investment on its own merits is the only way to > succeed.

True. And yet the world of investing (I'm not talking about market makers etc) is filled with funds whose composition is determined by everything except simply buying predictable cash flows for cheap, wherever you can find them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Sadly, most of the history of hedge funds it would seem relates to winning in 'zero sum games'.

i.e. a waste of human potential.

Obviously there are side benefits: market liquidity, rational pricing, 'market making' for specific activities, the ability to allocate resources in more exotic ways etc. but by enlarge it doesn't look good.

It'd be nice to see more opportunity in growing the pie rather than fighting for the same pieces.

<comment><AUTHOR> We talk about it a lot in the office and I definitely agree with you. Perhaps I'm naive, but I don't think it needs to be the case though. I sort of touched on it at the end of this [1] but it's something I want to dig deeper into.

We really feel there's a lot of power to use the profit making incentive that drives these firms to generate real-world value, and that the main driver of that has to be tying trading decisions more closely to true human value by giving the industry better real-world information (and potentially sensible regulation).

Hopefully, we can help in some small way, but I think we still need to do a lot of work to understand the incentive mechanisms of the industry better.

If you want to subscribe I'll leave a note and let you know particularly when something on that topic comes up.

[1] [http://www.krzana.com/blog/the-future-of-financial- analysis](http://www.krzana.com/blog/the-future-of-financial-analysis)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This guy sells products to hedge funds.

<comment><USER11> +1. Colloquially know as, "talking his own book."

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Sounds mostly like gibberish to me, sorry to say it.

> By the 90s, hedge funds were back, this time capitalising on advances in > sheer computing power that permitted real-time pricing of instruments in > volumes never previously possible. By introducing more and more complex > derivatives and so increasing the difficulty of pricing the market, hedge > funds managed to maintain this source of alpha almost until 2000.

There are very few funds who make a living pricing complex derivatives. I used to work in a couple of funds that traded derivatives, and quite often we had to explain to people what volatility trading was. Generally, the more complex it is, the more the market maker will charge you in spread for trading it.

It's also not computing power that allows you to make money trading them. A few numerical PDE solvers do not take a huge amount of computing power (or indeed data) to calculate. The people who make money off it are the ones who manage to sell a product to a client at a price the client doesn't understand. I wouldn't use "complex derivatives" as speculation vehicles ("I'm bullish/bearish -> trade") in themselves.

> Even as the market caught up and the potential for alpha withered for hedge > funds in the early 2000s, these newly-technically-savvy funds shifted their > focus to speed; driving in the era of the hyper-successful HFT firm that > drew massive, riskless profits from the sheer speed at which they could > capitalise on arbitrage opportunities.

HFT firms are not hedge funds. I'm sitting in the offices of one right this minute, writing code for a strategy. It's not something outside people can invest in. I wouldn't say the profits are riskless either, they're just not traditional risks that you list in a finance course.

> The winners in this market will require many of the skills that have been > required before - deep market understanding, strong technical competence and > grounded, balanced leadership - but they will also require a new skill; the > ability to acquire, make sense of and apply these new data sets.

Gibberish. You need to know what you needed to know, but also to be open to new situations?

There's no discussion here of how various styles generate their alpha. What do macro guys do? Surely not complex derivatives and HFT? What about special situations? And activists?

</comment><comment><USER13> I don't know why anyone is bullish on hedge funds just based on their numbers. Bottomline, there will always be successful hedge funds, but your chance of identifying the winners before hand is challenging to say the least. Add their costs and "heads I win, tails you lose" fee structure and I'm really not interested.

</comment><comment><USER14> The point of hedge funds is that the US government will allow very rich people to pay super high fees on poorly regulated investments.

</comment><comment><USER15> hedge funds with less limiting investment "thesis" tend to massively outperform bear markets. long s&p500 index funds (all the rage) has been a great strategy since the last real market downturn (7 years), it won't look so ironclad ingenius when stocks take their inevitable 2 year 30-50% dip.

<comment><USER9> 'outperforms' ... over which time period?

Because over any time period, some strategies are winners, some are losers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> What hedge funds are really good at is creating a tax strategy for the rich. Let's say you have a business and you want to pay less tax. You talk to a hedge fund.

The hedge fund says, let's convert all your earnings that should be taxed at the short term gains rate and convert them to long-term capital gains!

The hedge fund takes two well-correlated stocks, let's say Coke and Pepsi. They make a hedge going long Coke and short Pepsi. The hedge doesn't make or lose money, but you engineer the hedge so that you hold your long Coke shares 366 days (long-term). You sell your Pepsi shares after 364 days (short-term).

You haven't made any money, but you've engineered short-term capital losses and long-term capital gains. Of course you've created your hedge such that your short-term losses offset your business' short-term gains. Now your profits are in the long-term Coke stock, and rather than paying a 50% marginal tax rate, you pay 20%.

Yay hedge funds!

<comment><USER17> This doesn't actually happen. Tax avoidance is all about related party transactions these days, and there are more efficient ways to convert ST cap gains into LT cap gains.

<comment><USER18> as someone fascinated by this but outside of that world, can you elaborate?</comment></comment></comment>


After 3161 days I decided to purchase WinRAR - <AUTHOR> http://www.reddit.com/r/geek/comments/fb2lp/after_3161_days_i_decided_to_purchase_winrar/ <comment><USER2> I suppose you've never used 7zip ...</comment>


Turn your Tesla into a CIA-like counter-surveillance tool with this hack - <AUTHOR> https://electrek.co/2019/08/14/tesla-cia-counter-surveillance-tool-hack/ <comment><USER2> I highly doubt anyone who was worried about being followed enough to use such a thing would be 1.) driving themselves and b.) riding/driving in a Tesla.

<comment><USER3> I get what your saying but if your adversary is not the government its a pretty neat solution.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Realize if you are on my private property filming, I can detain your equipment until I am satisfied it is deleted. That would mean your whole car, not just your dash cam in this case. Seems a bad idea.</comment>


An update on GNU performance - <AUTHOR> https://community.arm.com/tools/b/blog/posts/update-on-gnu-performance <comment><USER2> The original title, "An update on GNU performance" is missing some context that's mostly implicit from the source. It would be great if it said either "An update on GNU toolchain performance on ARM" or "An update on GCC performance on ARM".

<comment><USER3> Sigh, still hoping for the day it means Hurd with GNU toolchain...

<comment><USER4> If you don't mind me asking why Hurd? Is it because it's a microkernel? or is there other things I'm missing?

<comment><USER5> Having had to work on a locked down linux (stupid corporate rules) system for the last couple of months the dedication to user freedom sounds enticing: [https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/community/weblogs/ArneBab/...](https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/community/weblogs/ArneBab/technical- advantages-of-the-hurd.html) . As a user being able to install packages without root and start my own services and mount network drives without root would make my life a lot easier.

<comment><USER6> > As a user being able to install packages without root and start my own > services and mount network drives without root would make my life a lot > easier.

... but that's not a problem of linux, that's a problem of your company rules. They would put similar rules whatever the OS.

<comment><USER5> Locked down was probably not the right word, I'm just a normal user with no root access. It is a linux problem because the admins are trying to do something pretty sensible, not let a single user screw up the machine for everyone and restricting users is how linux achieves this, HURD took a different approach.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Does anyone know why "char" is unsigned on ARM/gcc?

To me it seems like a weird design choice that only complicates porting software from x86.

<comment><USER8> Performance. Historically, ARM didn't have a _"load byte and sign extend"_ instruction ([http://www.drdobbs.com/architecture-and- design/portability-t...](http://www.drdobbs.com/architecture-and- design/portability-the-arm-processor/184405435)), making loading a _signed char_ and promoting it to an _int_ slower than loading an _unsigned char_ and promoting it to an _int_.

In C, a function argument or return value of type _char_ gets promoted to _int_. So, code that uses _char_ a lot does a lot of such promotions.

<comment><USER9> > In C, a function argument or return value of type char gets promoted to int. > So, code that uses char a lot does a lot of such promotions.

I think you're confusing standard C and machine/implementation-specific behavior. (If not for yourself, for people who read your comment.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I thought that media codecs were handled outside of general purpose code. Like maybe a special chip or on a graphics processor.

<comment><USER11> Nope. They could be GPGPU accelerated, but if you aren't rendering to screen then it's not typically graphics processor territory.

Plus modern codecs are quite linearly data dependent which is a bad for for a GPU.

<comment><USER10> But aren't movies rendered to the screen?

My understanding is most smartphones at least have hardware decoding for H264.

<comment> semi-extrinsic Exactly, a GPU needs to have specific hardware (a dedicated ASIC) for H264 acceleration. It's not accelerated by the usual GPU hardware, which is sufficiently general-purpose that an accelerator running there would not be codec specific.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This article includes a misleading graph. The "performance improvement" bar graph has bars that extend down into performance degradation, making the improvement look bigger than it really is. If you're going to label the bars as "improvement" then the y-axis should start at 1.

<comment><USER2> No, it's just normalized data. See the legend: "Throughput/latency improvement over glibc 2.27".

Rather than show the new metric and the baseline, they showed all metrics as a function of the baseline. All of them are an improvement.

This is a common idiom for compiler benchmarks -- IMO it's not misleading at all.

> making the improvement look bigger than it really is.

They even highlight the 1.0 line. IMO it would be confusing for them to start the y-axis at 1.0.

<comment><USER12> I don't recall seeing normalized data like this on a bar chart before. It's standard for line charts where the x-axis is sampled from continuous data, not bar charts. The 1.0 value is effectively the zero point, so bars should extend up and down from 1.0 (in this case only up because no performance got worse).

<comment><USER13> This kind of normalized bar graph is the most common way things like SPEC results are reported, although I think that showing one category of bars that's fixed to 1.0 to label what it's being normalized against is more common. (Annoyingly, throughput and latency are both shoved in the same graph, which gives the misleading impression that you're comparing one against the other).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Nice job! Would expect more implementation details from the article though. "Pattern-matching capabilities" is not very descriptive.</comment>


Ask HN: Automated Money Transfer, how? - <AUTHOR>

Hey, guys sorry for my dumb question, but I never heard about a method to transfer funds from one account to another using programming.
I mean, I want to automated all parts of my web site, and there is a part where I have to transfer funds to some accounts(persons) is there a way to do that? Like mail the person with something to print or online transfer or things like that?
If there is more than one can you tell me? Thanks <comment><USER2> Are you seeing so much cash-flow that you need to automate it?

Last time I wrote a script that managed a finite resource for me, it made 200 phone calls in 5 minutes on my dime!

If you can't write a web utility to do that, you probably are not ready to move money around via a script yet, if ever.</comment>


When Agile Fails - <AUTHOR> http://founderdating.com/when-agile-fails/ Agile doesn't work in every scenario <comment><USER2> Are these really agile-specific problems? These feel like problems almost any approach can have</comment>


SF residents get a shock: Someone bought their street - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Rich-SF-residents-get-a-shock-Someone-bought-11738236.php <comment><USER2> This is incredible because this is exactly the same pattern of private- infrastructure rent-seeking whose costs are normally borne principally by the working poor: A highway becomes privatized and now you have to spend more money commuting to your minimum-wage job. Your city's parking meters become privatized and now you net less from your gig-economy housekeeping work.

Only this time, it's a middle-class couple doing the same to one-percenters in one of the most elite neighborhoods in the country. Clearly, their predatory scheme must be stopped!

<comment><USER3> > Only this time, it's a middle-class couple doing the same to one-percenters > in one of the most elite neighborhoods in the country. Clearly, their > predatory scheme must be stopped!

Well, it should, right? If you don't support the practice when it targets the poor, presumably you shouldn't with the rich either. I too find the irony entertaining, but that doesn't mean I'm not hoping for a sane outcome. I would also like to see the Cheng's make some money, since they did put work into this project, just not an extraordinary amount that gouges the homeowners.

Given SF property prices and that it was bought at an auction, selling for $300k-$400k would net them a nice profit, and is _well_ within the means of 35 wealthy residents pooling their means.

<comment><USER4> It's predatory when the state seizes property using eminent domain and then gives a sweetheart deal to a private company to run the tolls on the road they build there.

It's not predatory when private property gets seized to pay for thirty years of back taxes and then sold to the highest.

These are two quite different practices.

<comment><USER3> > It's not predatory when private property gets seized to pay for thirty years > of back taxes and then sold to the highest.

As I said in a different reply, I think it's highly dependent on situation, and facts that may not have been presented. Was the money for the taxes paid in good faith by the residents but not delivered to the city for some reason? Was fraud involved based on some management company? Was the city informed by the accountancy at some point that they were no longer a valid recipient of tax requests and did not follow up (and is it required to act in good faith in situations like that)? Given the low cost of the taxes and the relative wealth of the residents, it's not impossible that they paid a large lump sum to some management company to just deal with it for the next 50 or 100 years and something went wrong.

Details like those are what would swing my opinion in this case. The residents seem wealthy enough that there's little reason for them to let it slide this long, but if they had reason to believe it was being taken care of and that there tax responsibilities were paid, I think that puts the situation in a different light. We just don't have that information, one way or the other.

<comment><USER4> I don't know that those details really change the specific question of property ownership here. I would think that if it was the fault of a management company, then the management company would be on the hook to make things right, for example by paying to buy back the street. But I don't see how a management company screwing things up makes a real estate purchase by a third party predatory.

<comment><USER3> I'm not specifically talking about whether it's predatory or not, but whether the correct procedures were followed and if they weren't, whether that would have allowed the residents a chance to rectify the situation if alerted.

I wasn't really taking the predatory part of the original statement all that seriously so wasn't addressing it specifically, and wasn't paying close enough attention to your initial reply to note that you were specifically addressing that aspect, so that's my mistake.

<comment><USER4> It sounds like the city and the buyers followed the correct procedures. The failure was with the HOA or with whatever entity the HOA delegated this responsibility to.

If a management company screwed up, the HOA may be able to get compensation from them. If it was the HOA itself then the residents probably have little recourse, since ultimately they _are_ the HOA.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Buried lede: All those very valuable privately-owned parking spaces weren't even being _assessed_ for anything close to their fair share of property tax.

If you owned just _one parking space_ on this street, how much do you think you could rent it out for on Craigslist?

This land has 120 parking spaces. And it was being assessed at $14 a year in property tax -- not just the parking spaces, but _all_ of the common property.

<comment><USER6> Likely due to state law, ie Prop 13

<comment><USER7> Good podcast about Prop 13 from Malcolm Gladwell:

[http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/11-a-good-walk- spoile...](http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/11-a-good-walk-spoiled)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Unsurprisingly neither side in this story seems deserving of much sympathy. Old-money NIMBYs vs. new-money opportunists. "I just love SF so I wanted to buy a part of it." The potential extortion of wealthy homeowners via legal technicality just happened to be a bonus of this great piece of real estate!

<comment><USER4> You see extortion, I see charging a fair market rent for use of their land.

Note that the new owners are not threatening to cut off access to the houses. I'm pretty sure that would be illegal. They are merely threatening to _charge for parking_. Parking space is valuable and something people _should_ pay for.

Edit: I also want to say that having your property auctioned off after you fail to pay property taxes for _thirty years_ is hardly a "technicality."

<comment><USER8> Whether it's technically legal or not is immaterial, it's still unsavory opportunism in my book. They have added no value, they're not looking to add value.

<comment><USER9> > They have added no value, they're not looking to add value.

Which is basically property ownership/landlordship in a nutshell. Not that I'm disagreeing with you, just pointing out it's something we accept all the time already.

<comment><USER8> Yes but not all landlords are the same. Some put time and effort into maintaining the property and making improvements. I would consider that adding value.

Like everything else, there's a spectrum, and I find the couple described in the article to be on the extreme "slumlord" end, except even more obnoxious because they are masquerading as nice gentle good samaritans.

<comment><USER10> Why do you assume they won't be putting time and effort into maintaining the property and making improvements?

In fact, they already did, by paying the debts of the property.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Oh man, every part of this story is great. The Asian couple buying a street that was only salable to whites for most of SF's history, the fact that the fancy gated community didn't pay $900 in taxes, and the $90k price.

I read that Feinstein owned a home there. They should set up a website taking donations: every dollar donated would increase Feinstein's annual parking costs by a dollar.

In case people don't know who Feinstein is: she co-sponsored PIPA, is a continuing supporter of the PATRIOT Act and SOPA, FISA, warrantless searches, and sponsored a bill that would have criminalized all forms of strong encryption.

[edit] I have a lot of friends with strong political views, from hardcore Hillary supporters to Communist/Socialists to the far right, and literally all of them strongly dislike Feinstein for various reasons. Meanwhile, she keeps getting elected easily and set a record for the largest amount of votes for a Senator. In the last election, she ran against a woman who doesn't even have a Wikipedia page, who got 37% of the vote.

<comment><USER12> > I read that Feinstein owned a home there. They should set up a website > taking donations: every dollar donated would increase Feinstein's annual > parking costs by a dollar.

I'd donate to that, as long as the money went to the ACLU and/or the EFF. She's also a notorious gun-grabber despite having been one of the few people in the city of San Francisco to have a concealed carry permit (I don't remember if she still has it or not)

<comment><USER13> "I don't remember if she still has it or not"

I wouldn't be surprised if she still does. I also wouldn't be surprised if she still employs armed bodyguards.

<comment><USER14> She does, but most those homes are empty 80% of the time. They have security guards that go around to the homes just to look for people who break into those homes to squat, which is an actual problem. I knew a guy living in one of the homes on that block for free just so that somebody would be around.

<comment><USER12> You're thinking of security guards, not bodyguards. yellowapple was pointing out that she has armed bodyguards near her when she's out and about, yet she advocates for disarming the regular folk like us--"one law for me, another for thee"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is hilarious but there's no way in hell they'll be able to extract rent. They'll get their 90K back and a note from the mayor or something and the Presidio Hieghts owners will have to pay up in donations to Ed Lees campaign or the local district supervisor.

<comment><USER16> ... this is very basic and fundamental property law. They now own title to the common areas. No mayor is going to be able to overturn property laws which have developed over hundreds / thousands of years.

<comment><USER17> Rich and powerful people have a way...

There'll be an apology for "accidentally" doing the paperwork wrong, which a judge will say nullifies the sale.

Alternatively, the couple will just be sued for lots of random things, and will run out of cash defending themselves, forcing them to declare bankruptcy and sell the property.

<comment><USER18> A handful of "rich and powerful" people lost out here. Orders of magnitude greater numbers of "rich and powerful" people rely upon unassailable precedents of property law to "take advantage" of less sophisticated people every day. Nobody is going to risk overturning or weakening those precedents so that the first handful can save a couple million dollars. Just like most ballot initiatives in California, these battles are rarely "rich versus poor" but rather "rich versus rich".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This street is immediately to the west, as you come out of the Presidio (Masonic Gate). It looks exactly like an ordinary public street - there's no gate or anything (although there is a sign posted). I once tried to walk in there, to gawk at the houses. Right at the entrance, where the private street meets the public street, I was stopped by a guard who told me this was a private street, and I wasn't permitted to enter.

So I kind of hope the new street owners let people go for a walk in there...

<comment><USER20> Maybe allow tour buses for a fee.. :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> This sounds familiar. In the UK we have a feudal ownership system for some flats/houses called 'leasehold', where someone other than the owner of the flat owns the ground.

I once owned a flat where the leasehold was sold off (without my knowledge) for just £500. Unfortunately the new owner of the ground started charging me for ridiculous fees, each one hundreds of pounds for nonsense things. (This is entirely legal). I was _very_ lucky that in the crazy go-go London housing bubble of the 2000s I was able to sell the flat to a less discerning buyer (or someone prepared to ignore his solicitor). But not owning the land under or around your home can be terrible.

<comment><USER22> > In the UK we have a feudal ownership system for some flats/houses called > 'leasehold', where someone other than the owner of the flat owns the ground.

What makes such a system "feudal"? It sounds like the normal organization of a condo building, for instance.

<comment><USER23> A condominium is completely different from a leasehold. Perhaps most importantly, a leasehold is for a fixed term of years. That means that whoever improved the property understood that the resale value on their improvements would be less; increasingly so as the end of the lease approached. It's basically not much different than any other kind of lease, such as a lease of an apartment. In both cases there are rules that control, for example, how a landlord must compensate you for improvements to the property (i.e. building a house on the land, or modernizing the wiring of an old apartment) that he would benefit from after the termination of the lease.

Residential leaseholds are less common in the United States than in Common Wealth countries because of the different political, legal, and housing development histories. But they certainly exist in the U.S.

By contrast, each condominium in a building is usually held in fee simple-- perpetual, absolute ownership--except that there are always a common set easements and servitudes related to the obvious fact that each condominium is intrinsically and substantially reliant on the other condominiums--access to supporting structures, plumbing and electrical risers, etc. Shared spaces are held in common by all the condominiums, and title in those shared spaces can't (for obvious reasons) be severed from the title in your condominium. In other words, you can't sell your condominium but keep your title to the swimming pool, even though both titles are fundamentally distinct. Furthermore, on top of all of this are contracts that mediate how the interdependent obligations are to be carried out. Basically, a condominium is a pre-packaged set of titles and contracts that both legislation and courts recognize as a holistic, interdependent set of property rights when mediating disputes. Leaseholds, by contrast, are far simpler.

Sometimes you can have a situation where a condominium is constructed on leased land. There's a huge residential condominium in San Francisco's Chinatown like this. These condominiums sell for substantially less than market prices because, once the lease is up, there's no telling how much the land rent will increase or if there might be a forced sale of the condominium to the land owner. I imagine there are lots of condominiums like this across the country. It seems like a good way for a developer to continue to extract rent while maximizing an upfront return on investment.

OTOH, buyers are especially wary of purchasing homes utilizing unfamiliar legal instruments; cities are likewise wary of permitting such developments; and banks often won't finance the purchase of such units. So these kinds of properties sell at more of a discount than you would theoretically expect, especially in the United States.

There's another kind of shared ownership of residential buildings called tenancy in common (TIC). Usually you only see this happen when a deceased landlord's estate is passed to multiple heirs. Because San Francisco restricts the number of condominium conversions that can occur each year while simultaneously restricting new developments, developers began doing TIC conversions as an end-run around city planners. As these became more common and more marketable, some local banks began to finance the purchase of these units. AFAIK, San Francisco is the only housing market in the country where you can get a mortgage from a bank to purchase a TIC unit without any other form of security. They're a good option for home ownership in the city. There's some additional legal risk, but my guess is that compared to the typical hassles you see with small condominiums, worth it given the discount.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> So a bunch of really wealthy people are grinding because someone might charge them for something they add for free for years ?

I'm sure the majority of them earned their money by giving away free stuff too. Yeah, right...

<comment><USER25> I think the issue is that someone can by the street you live on with no notice from the government

<comment><USER26> They didn't pay property taxes for 30 years.

People have had land sold out from under them with much less notice. In Colorado, there is a recent get-rich-quick scheme of buying deeds to trailers when the owners fail to pay their taxes. The tax bill is often less than $1000, accrued over 5 years or so. The trailers' owners have the same excuses: they didn't get the tax bill. Many people come out to defend this system because "the law is the law."

Before we spend too much energy being outraged about this street serving the upper crust, I think we should fix this problem for people at the margins of society.

<comment><USER25> Why not fix this issue for everyone? And stop being over-the-moon because this happened to rich people?

If your taxes are not being paid correctly, you should be notified. Your home street shouldn't just be put up for sale and sold to the highest bidder without your knowledge.

<comment><USER26> I agree. Lets fix it for everybody. I wish more people with your point of view would comment when it happens to marginalized people, though.

<comment><USER25> I don't see anyone commenting in zealous joy when it happens to poor people. So at least there's that.

Either its okay for everyone, or okay for no one. It's hypocritical otherwise, and gives us little moral footing to stand on.

Sure, maybe its true rich people usually do this to poor people. But it's _different_ rich people. Being happy because some rich people are getting screwed over because _other_ rich people are assholes is _incredibly_ stupid.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I wonder if any of the people objecting to the sale or the possibility of paying the new owners for parking spaces describe themselves as "libertarians."

<comment> rm_-rf_ huh? I would not imagine any libertarians would want to overturn the sale as it would completely defy the idea of property rights.

It seems like the residents of this neighborhood are old money NIMBYs and either [ex-]Democrat politicians or donate quite a bit to Democratic politicians.

<comment><USER22> > I would not imagine any libertarians would want to overturn the sale as it > would completely defy the idea of property rights.

There are certainly libertarian arguments to be made for honoring the sale.

But I think it's going a little far to claim that overturning a process in which the government assesses a tax on the ownership of your property, doesn't inform you that you owe it, and later sells that property on your behalf without notifying you, "would completely defy the idea of property rights". You're talking about a contract transferring ownership of property, to which the owner of the property is not a party.

You could make a much stronger libertarian argument that the existence of a property tax in the first place "completely defies the idea of property rights".

<comment><USER28> I do think most libertarians would agree that the city agents, who have sold the street's rights to someone else due to an arbitrary breech of contract, have acted completely in bad faith and have thus nullified their contract with the new buyer

What the city should have done is physically approached the landowners and done a large public outreach to raise the very small public tax due... before seizing it and selling it to anyone. And now the person who has purchased it wants to seek rent, as if their action is somehow beneficial to anyone but themselves. And the city's argument is that arbitrarily selling community property despite poor serving of papers is how business should continue? Yikes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> They could allow the homeless trailers to park on the street. That way the homeowners could understand the true impact of the high cost of bay area living.

</comment><comment><USER29> Here's the auction record (it lists the parcel number and other information)

[https://secure.bid4assets.com/mvc/auction/647729](https://secure.bid4assets.com/mvc/auction/647729)

It'd be interesting to see if there are any restrictions or covenants attached to the deed.

</comment><comment><USER30> If London and Amsterdam can have houseboats, surely San Francisco can have tiny houses on trailers listed on AirBnB.

<comment><USER31> Actually this is a pipe dream of mine - is to buy a barge and built a tiny house with years and garden on it. Allow for other barges to link up like a tiled map with standard interconnects.

Leverage solar and teals pattents... I want to take a single tesla drive motor, attach a propeller to it and have a tesla battery pack as the primary source of power for the residence.

<comment><USER32> My god man.... you want to create The Raft from Snowcrash?

<comment><USER30> no no. I'm down for driving a zode through it hunting pirates, though!

Patri Friedman is the guy who wants to make the Raft.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I recall seeing such a street right in the heart of SF (I don't think it was that exact street, though) on Zillow when I was scoping out the feasibility of actually living in the Bay Area. No building rights (because it's a street), yet it was somehow for sale independent of the other properties on that street.

I chuckled at the thought of buying that street and charging for access rights (maybe even setting up a little guard shack and a gate), but then moved on to more productive ventures. Fun to know that I wasn't the only one thinking along those lines.

<comment><USER33> Heh, saw this too, my whole office got a kick out of it:

[https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2094740884_zpid/?fullpage...](https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2094740884_zpid/?fullpage=true)

<comment><USER13> Haha, yep, that's the one.

I love the suggestion of ripping out the concrete and selling bits of it as souvenirs to fund the pouring of fresh concrete. I'd personally extend it into a monthly farming operation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> > "Ninety-nine percent of property owners in San Francisco know what they need > to do, and they pay their taxes on time — and they keep their mailing > address up to date," said spokeswoman Amanda Fried.

See there is the problem ... we are talking about the other 1%

</comment><comment><USER25> The amount of glee in this comment thread because this is happening to rich people is interesting. I had no idea there was so much classism on hacker news

Sure, maybe its true its usually rich people that do this to poor people. But it's _different_ rich people. Being happy because some random rich people are getting screwed over because other rich people are assholes is incredibly stupid.

</comment><comment><USER34> 120 parking spaces, rent for each at $100/month (which is still too cheap for the space they cover), sounds like a good deal.

<comment><USER35> Donald Shoup would be proud. Free parking is generally a menace to cities.

<comment><USER36> I'm not sure that holds true for all streets, especially a private street in a residential area. Suppose there were no problems with parking before - what do you get by introducing a charge suddenly?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Maybe they should put housing on it. Keep the streets as they are (free for residents) but sell the air rights to a developer.

That should make the other residents happy.

But maybe that would take a zoning change.

<comment><USER38> Housing is very unlikely to fly, the adjacent property owners almost certainly have access rights through the common areas, and the shape of the common areas isn't likely to accommodate any new residential structures with proper setbacks and what not. Zoning changes to allow for new structures would be adversarial to say the least.

<comment><USER39> > Keep the streets as they are (free for residents) but sell the air rights to > a developer.

I think OP is basically suggesting turning the street into a tunnel by building units _above_ the street.

<comment><USER37> Exactly.

Although I think this is useful form of property, I also think there needs to be a way to value, recognize or sell the view or open space that people think they are getting when they buy a property. A beautiful view is worth something and somebody shouldn't be able to take it away arbitrarily. But you should also be able to sell your right to it so someone can build. And the same should apply to the expectation that a 100 story building will not be constructed next to your one story house.

It's inevitable that a city will get denser as time goes on. If I had to choose between developers convincing city officials to let them build or their having to buy the rights to do so from property owners, I'd go with the latter.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/realestate/the-great- race-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/realestate/the-great-race-for- manhattan-air-rights.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> > Until a 1948 U.S. Supreme Court ruling banning the enforcement of racial > covenants, homes in Presidio Terrace could be purchased only by whites.

Wow.

</comment><comment><USER41> It's a private street that's blocked by a security guard, right? Sell tours.

</comment><comment><USER19> Another buried lead: >> It's something that the owners of all 181 private streets in San Francisco are obliged to do. >>

181?

</comment><comment><USER42> I love how most comments here are debating the merits of public vs. private parking. Only in California. In other parts of the world, people with $35M mansion park in their _fucking garages_!

<comment><USER43> They have garages, for sure. The street parking are extra spaces. Still they can be rented out to non-residents.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Google Street View: [https://firstname.lastname@example.com,-122.4607777,3a,75y,...](https://email@example.com,-122.4607777,3a,75y,106.62h,86.25t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sMLoMuNRqIX7-GMjlzrzpng!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DMLoMuNRqIX7-GMjlzrzpng%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D108.895676%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i3328!8i1664)

Note: it seems just Street View displays just a section of the street.

</comment><comment><USER45> News from the United States lead to immediate head-shaking === Probability 30%

</comment><comment><USER46> Residents' reaction as eye-rolling as it is predictable.

</comment><comment><USER47> I have such a schadenfreude grin right now! If the gate is on their property, charge rent for that at least! Or by the car passing through it.

<comment><USER25> I really don't understand this sentiment.

Sure, maybe its true rich people usually do this to poor people. But it's _different_ rich people. We know nothing about the people that live on this street. Being happy because some random rich people are getting screwed over because other rich people are assholes is incredibly stupid.

<comment><USER47> > incredibly stupid

I am sick and tired of those in power wanting "fairness" that always balances in their favor.

They will in slightly inconvenienced at most. They will be pissed because they are getting screwed in way that reminds them of being on the receiving end of power. I can guarantee you that everyone of those rich people have disproportionally screwed someone. Directly or indirectly. If they want their street back, buy it back! Their power comes from their money, wield it.</comment></comment></comment>


New Chrome Hides 'Restore Closed Tab' Feature - <AUTHOR> https://support.google.com/chrome/thread/17928891?hl=en <comment><AUTHOR> I should note that the feature still exists though is more hidden than before. Previously right-clicking all along the top bar would show this option. Now there are two other ways to restore:

1\. Mac: Cmd + Shift + T | Windows: Ctrl + Shift + T

2\. Right click a blank spot to the right of the last tab, menu item 'Restore Closed Tab' will appear.</comment>


PodTech Sells For Less Than $500k - interesting FriendFeed discussion - <AUTHOR> http://friendfeed.com/e/a93cccce-3e9c-e544-a0a8-f45303d7cbd7/PodTech-Sells-For-Less-Than-500k/ <comment><USER2> Robert Scoble's "Lessons Learnt" from the feed:

1\. Have a story.

2\. Have everyone on board with that story.

3\. If anyone goes off of that story, make sure they get on board immediately or fire them.

4\. Make sure people are judged by the revenues they bring in. Those that bring in revenues should get to run the place. People who don't bring in revenues should get fewer and fewer responsibilities, not more and more.

5\. Work ONLY for a leader who will make the tough decisions (see above).

6\. Build a place where excellence is expected, allowed, and is enabled.

7\. Fire idiots quickly (didn't happen at PodTech -- even if you count me as one of the idiots).

8\. if your engineering team can't give a media team good measurements, the entire company is in trouble. Only things that are measured ever get improved.

9\. When your stars aren't listened to the company is in trouble.

10\. When your stars start leaving (Gillmor and Owyang left before I did) the company is in trouble.

11\. Getting rid of the CEO, even if it's all his fault, won't help unless you replace him/her with someone who is visionary and who can fix #8,9,10</comment>


Urbanization of Dubai - <AUTHOR> http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/dubai.php

<comment><USER2> I'd love to see pictures like that for the whole of Dubai. These only show about maybe 1/3 of the actual city. But still impressive. I went there a few months ago and the only thing I can describe it with is "Playing Sim City with money cheat".

</comment><comment><USER3> Hmm, that's not urbanization that's construction. A large number of these buildings are empty, and too expensive for immigrants to rent (let alone buy).

Also, building glass boxes in the scorching desert heat does not make good environmental sense. They should be building more of this: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE-wHF5zf0k>

</comment><comment><USER4> Its impressive what you can build with a huge amount of slaves.

<comment><USER5> Sent from your iPhone

<comment><USER6> Not crafted by guest workers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> You have to give credit to Sheik Mohammed for what he has accomplished. Dubai is not like other arab countries which get money from petrol. It built itself into a city which everyone in the world knows, that too in a very short span of time.

<comment><USER8> I would have praised him if he have made universities that are on par with Stanford, MIT (which would have cost 1/10th of cost of current development). They have seen shinny Vagus but failed to see why they shine.

<comment><USER9> Regrettably, there's more to great universities than throwing money at it. It's important to remember that the country has no educational history. 50 years ago the few inhabitants there were barely literate, and few of those who could read had ever read anything but the Quran.

That said, Abu Dhabi is actually trying to do just that. They're buying off entire departments of western universities, offering generous research grants if the department is relocated to Abu Dhabi. The idea is to bootstrap a tradition of higher education.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Didn't someone say we should build a city in the desert before we build one on mars?

I think we can check it off the list..

<comment> simba-hiiipower speaking of the desert, anyone know how dubai has managed water access through all this growth?

i know many countries in the region (namely kuwait and saudi) utilize desalinization on a large scale, though i've heard it's only economically viable where oil is extremely cheap and abundant, which (as far as i know) is not the case in dubai..

seems like the environment would lend itself well to nuclear (a lot of barren, uninhabited, seemingly geologically stable, space), which i'd imagine could fuel desalinization plants just fine.

<comment><USER9> They desalinate like there's no tomorrow. Like so many other things there, it's insanely expensive, but they do it anyway.

UAE is also enroute to building its first nuclear power plant, but it's not what's powering desalination at this point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> And they still have no sewage system...

<comment><USER12> I don't think this is true anymore. According to this article, Dubai now has a sewage system covering the entire city: [http://p4papyrus.blogspot.ca/2011/02/sewage-system-now- cover...](http://p4papyrus.blogspot.ca/2011/02/sewage-system-now-covers- entire-dubai.html)

<comment><USER13> As a former resident and that I still go through quite often, some limited high-end parts of the city have central sewage but the broad majority of sewage is still trucked from individual buildings to the treatment plants.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> does it make sense to develop an entire new city on shoreline when we face rises in sea-levels?

<comment><USER15> I don't know about you, but I want to live on the water now, while I am still alive. I am not worried about who lives in the house that is flooded in 100 years.

<comment><USER14> yes. people like me worry about people like you.

<comment><USER16> Unless the city is being built on already flood-prone marshland (which is a dumb idea even right now), the timeline for it becoming inundated is on the order of 200-300+ years.

The historical lifetime of residential buildings rarely exceeds even 100 years - with notable exceptions only.

How far ahead do you think we should be considering when building? 100 years? 300? 500? 1000? The Earth is not static, and practically all land that we stand on today will become dramatically different at some (probably distant) point in the future.

Cities rise and fall faster than the climate changes around them - even when accounting for man-made climate change. Cities are also organic, continually redeveloping - with portions of it becoming disused and broken, while previously disused parts become revitalized.

Considering the timescales we're looking at, the _natural lifespan_ of most coastal buildings would be considerably less than the encroaching waters, and _more_ than enough time for cities to organically grow away from them.

So wtvanhest's position seems sensible. There is really no reason to not live on the coastline today.

<comment><USER17> I would think twice before buying coastline property in Dubai. Large parts of Dubai's beaches are man-made and may last a lot shorter than that 100 years you consider safe ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_(archipelago)#Project...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_\(archipelago\)#Project_difficulties))

Also, a house that is known to last only 100 years will be harder to sell in 50 years time, so forget about the pension investment benefit of buying such a house (yes, that should affect current house prices, but I think humans in general do not understand long time horizons that well)

Back to the subject proper: Dubai is gambling that they can become a Vegas and keep making money that way. That bet may pay out, but it is not a bet I would make. Problem is that there is no middle way here. Sure, if their income will be half what they expect it to be, they can kick foreigners out to keep the $/capita at decent levels, but what would they do with all those houses than? Demolish? Huge loss of money. Keep around? Even larger loss because of maintenance costs. Turn into a ghost town? That might become a tourist attraction.

Also, Vegas has survived so long by consuming the water from the Colorado river, but that is not sustainable. I expect huge problems in Vegas within 20 years. Dubai starts in the 'no water' position. But hey, I am not an economist, so don't take my word for it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> When the oil runs out (or alternatives become cheaper), this will be a ghost town. Heck, the whole country will collapse. No more oil, no more slave workers.

Can't wait.

<comment><USER19> Really? Of all the gulf nations, the UAE seems tome to be the most prepared to survive after oil, specifically because of Dubai.

Now, it's not my favourite city, but I don't understand all the hate towards it. They've got a lot of oil money that's not going to last and they need to pivot to something else. Dubai is their attempt.

<comment><USER18> Dubai is not self sustaining, it needs a lot of money to run. It's a bunch of half-empty skyscrapers in the desert. They need to be air conditioned, water needs to be delivered and/or desalinated, sewage needs to be taken for processing by trucks.

I would understand if they built something useful, something high-tech, like a CPU factory or some biotech stem cell research city. Instead they went for a caricature of Las Vegas, but with all kinds of laws against what normally is considered fun.

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/04/dubai-kissing- coupl...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/04/dubai-kissing-couple- jail_n_524736.html)

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-512815/Briton- jailed...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-512815/Briton-jailed-years- Dubai-customs-cannabis-weighing-grain-sugar-shoe.html)

[http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-12-06/news/35654144_1_d...](http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-12-06/news/35654144_1_dubai- police-iranian-men-three-men)

[http://www.nairaland.com/175589/russian-woman-arrested- dubai...](http://www.nairaland.com/175589/russian-woman-arrested-dubai- drinking)

<comment><USER9> Best prepared to survive != currently self sustaining.

Of all the ME petrostates, UAE is by a long shot and then some the most liberal and has the most diversified economy. It's also moving the fastest towards becoming more liberal and getting a more diversified economy.

The kicker here, of course, is the meaning of being the most liberal "of all the ME petrostates" - the bar is not very high. That said, if you're married, western, well-paid, can keep your hands off your partner in public, don't routinely get obscenely drunk and don't do drugs (many, many people fall into this bucket without giving up any quality of life), you could find much worse places to live.

<comment><USER16> > _"can keep your hands off your partner in public, don't routinely get > obscenely drunk and don't do drugs (many, many people fall into this bucket > without giving up any quality of life)"_

In my experience, the number of people who _actually_ live this lifestyle without giving up any quality of life is a far, far, far smaller number than the number of people who _apparently_ live this lifestyle without giving up any quality of life.

The greatest myth of modern Western society is that freaks are actually uncommon.

<comment><USER9> I didn't say that you can't be a freak. The list I made is actually quite exhaustive (OK, add "don't criticize the royal family and/or islam" and "don't proselyte").

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I can't look at Dubai the same since playing Spec Ops: The Line.</comment>


Ask HN: `Bind` to widget vs. `action:sender ` architecture – Tk vs. Cocoa - <AUTHOR> Hi all! I'm using Tk for the first time and am comparing it with my experience using Apple's Cocoa.
Though I love how fast Tk is to get up and running—I'm sort of missing the flexibility provided by `sender:action`—not to mention that it brings up a lot of questions regarding app architecture.
Can you help clear out what the common nomenclature is between these 2 different architectures? What kind of problems should I expect as I develop between the 2? <comment><AUTHOR> You can actually use the sender architecture in TCL!

It's a bit hidden—but you can call %W and get a reference to the TK Widget and therefore any stored property that might be on there. Rad.</comment>