Why is light so fast? - <AUTHOR> http://aeon.co/magazine/science/the-universal-constants-that-drive-physicists-mad/ <comment><USER2> Reading these articles about light and quantum theory is always a frustrating experience for me. They are all invariably hand-wavy and never seem to explain things from first-principles. Does anyone have a good reference for a book that does justice to the subject?

On a related note, Simon Singh's book on the Big Bang Theory ([http://www.amazon.com/Big-Bang-Universe-Simon- Singh/dp/00071...](http://www.amazon.com/Big-Bang-Universe-Simon- Singh/dp/0007162219)) was the first book I read that explored the Big Bang in great detail without being hand wavy. I wish he'd write a book dealing with quantum theory!

<comment><USER3> >They are all invariably hand-wavy and never seem to explain things from first-principles.

For first principles, you'll need to talk to the designer - scientists only have runtime profilers and guesswork. Even the guesswork isn't complete - there's no unified theory ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything)) so it is kind of weird to ask everything to trickle down from first principles, IMO.

<comment><USER4> It's not weird; it's more that it depends on the answers to unanswered questions that have been perplexing many people for a long time.

Maybe "premature" is a better description?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm not a physicist, but from my understanding, light doesn't move at any speed from its own point of view. Its actually instant. From creation to absorption (or dissolution?), there's no delay from its point of view. Fast or slow has no meaning for light. We view things as having speed because mass slows things down from being instant. Am I correct?

<comment><USER6> (Disclaimer: I am a physicist, but this is not my area of expertise _at all_. Happy to be corrected here).

Relativity is, like quantum mechanics, a fairly simple concept with incredibly complex implications and edge cases.

The easiest intuitive explanation of relative time I have found is the following:

\- Assume our space time/universe is a 4D vector space. Three spatial dimensions, one time.

\- Everything has a 4D vector which describes movement through this 4D space- time {x, y, z, t}

\- The length/magnitude of this vector is fixed at the speed of light, c

\- Normalize the dimensions of our 4D space as following: if we are not moving at all (x = y = z = 0) the vector points entirely in time our vector is {0, 0, 0, c} and, in our frame of reference, time moves as normal - "one second per second".

\- Now, as we go faster and faster this vector no longer points purely in time. In the extreme case where the vector sum of the x, y, z (3D spatial component) is c, the time component t will be zero. This is why our photon does not experience time passing - it moves through space at c, so cannot move through time at all.

For the 3D velocities we normally experience we do not move in space fast enough to affect motion through time appreciably. Even the GPS corrections for relativity mostly arise due to Earth's gravity well distorting local space- time geometry, although their high velocity does contribute.

Objects with mass cannot be accelerated to c under our current understanding of relativity because kinetic energy diverges (approximately 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)) - reaching speed of light would require infinite energy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> > "Observations of astronomical bodies under gravity do not show this > decrease, and so far there is no sign that G varies in space"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but observations _do_ show there's a significant problem with the equations, which led to the invention of "dark matter" and "dark energy".

Aside from that, is there any connection between the universal constants of physics and mathematical constants? It would be nice to be able to say, "The Universe is the way it is because circles."

<comment><USER8> Dark matter and energy are there to solve an issue with the cosmological constant which is a "value" that was introduced by Einstein to make his general theory of relativity work with the back was accepted as a static universe, basically it's the energy density of the vacuum in space. This constant was then "abandoned" after Hubble discovered that the universe is expanding, it was still there but it's value was (assumed to be) zero.

When the scientific consensus reached a point where it was agreed on that the universe is accelerating the cosmological constant came back into play because with it you can explain the accelerated expansion, the problem is that we can't account for the additional energy needed to account for the acceleration so dark energy was introduced as a concept.

Dark Matter was introduced to solve another issue, one that can be seen on much smaller (or own galaxy) scales, basically if we look at the motion of stars and the rotation of galaxies we seem to be lacking mass, and quite a bit of it (although not nearly as much as dark energy) so again a place holder device was introduced in the form of dark matter

Now normally you would say well when you need to introduce additional doodads to account for something in your theory not in 1 instance but in 2 and maybe in many others your theory sucks. The problem is that we've sorta proven that gravity works for the most part as we think it does, and if we go into weird stuff like localized gravitational constants well they don't account for the observations that required dark matter or energy, oh and they kinda break the universe.

The force of gravity and hence the gravitational constant has been proven to be "correct" in from the smallest (even atom level) observations and calculations to the macro and universal scales, and while it's true that we might be wrong, if we are we are wrong by not a mile but probably several parsecs this means that relativity and other current accepted gravitational theories are more wrong than the "Ether Theory".

<comment><USER9> > more wrong than the "Ether Theory".

They are locally correct, just like Newton's theories were correct up until we observed Mercury.

That being said I'm 99% in agreement with mainstream science: Einstein's work just makes too much sense to be wholly incorrect. Where I'm in strong disagreement with mainstream science is outright hacks where they turn dark matter/energy into real things (e.g. WIMPs). Non-constant G is a more worthwhile avenue than that IMO.

<comment><USER10> The curious thing is the trouble spots have been mapped. There are filaments and voids where the gravitational effects of unseen matter/stuff are plainly observable: something is there pulling on stuff. MOND is not enough to answer that.

<comment><USER9> Possibly I didn't make my arguments correctly.

> MOND

I'm not saying that MOND is correct at all, I'm saying that we believed that classical Newtonian dynamics was seen as correct at one point - just like SR is seen as correct now. My opinion is that it's highly unlikely that SR is incorrect (or partially incorrect), however, I do see it as a remote possibility.

> There are filaments and voids where the gravitational effects of unseen > matter/stuff are plainly observable

Another way of looking at it is a map of the sum of things that we don't know. Again, using Mercury as an example, we were able to calculate the [sum of] force the was "wrong." The dark matter map is incredibly cool because it's the same thing done on a unbelievably massive scale. There were certainly people who believed that this unaccounted-for force on Mercury was a single force with a trivial explanation. We now know that this was not the case.

That is, in my opinion, the same mistake we are now making - simply because we can _calculate_ a map of the effect does not mean that it's actually a map of real stuff.

Although I'm in disagreement with MOND I do think it does something right: the μ function. "This is something that we don't know." In the same way it is in my opinion that dark matter and dark energy are merely unknown functions and not "real matter" and "real energy." I certainly think that Turner and Zwicky had the same thought pattern when they coined the terms.

<comment><USER8> MOND is quite interesting indeed (been to a couple of Mordechai lectures about this subject), the only problem is that it can't be used to construct a functional universe under TeVeS stable stars couldn't form.

Sadly Jacob Bekenstein died just a month ago and I'm not sure how much work will be done on MOND now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> In the time it takes for light from this (your) screen to reach your eyes, this (your) CPU just carried out a dozen instructions.

Why is light so slow?

<comment><USER12> Sure, but from the frame of reference of the light it takes no time at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> > Are some [constants] more fundamental than others? [...] one useful choice > has been just three: h, c and G, collectively representing relativity and > quantum theory. In 1899, Max Planck, who founded quantum physics, examined > the relations among h, c and G and the three basic aspects or dimensions of > physical reality: space, time, and mass.

I thought there were 5 "Planck units" (h, c, G, the electron charge, and Boltzmann's constant) matching 5 dimensions of physical reality (space, time, mass, also charge and temperature). But I don't understand two things:

* Why is Boltzmann's constant there, temperature being a statistical property more akin to the fine structure constant than the other 4 Planck units?

* Why do physicists nowadays prefer to use the electron charge instead of Coulomb's constant as Planck did? Coulomb's constant and the gravitational constant G slot into similar looking formulas for electromagnetism and gravity respectively, and pairing them seems more "fundamental" than using the electron charge.

<comment><USER14> > [...] matching 5 dimensions of physical reality (space, time, mass, also > charge and temperature).

I'm not quite sure I understand that, but I'll try to answer your questions anyway:

Yes, Boltzmann's constant is more or less just a conversion factor between temperature and energy. If we measured temperature in joules, we wouldn't need Boltzmann's constant. But then the same is true for c; we could measure time in meters or distance in seconds.

If you have defined the basic units of mechanics (time, distance, and mass), the value of G is fixed. But not the value (and even the dimension!) of Coulomb's constant and of electric charges. You can use a system of units where Coulomb's constant is 1 and electric charge then has dimension mass^(1/2) _length^(3 /2)_time^(-1), while in SI units it has dimension current*time. Basically, you can make Coulomb's constant have any value and any dimension you want. Using just Coulomb's constant or just an electric charge in such a formula wouldn't make much sense. On the other hand, something like the fine structure constant (which is practically the square of the elementary charge measured in natural units) is a quantity that makes sense inpendently of your system of units.

I guess the reason for that is that mass has meaning outside of gravity (in Newton's second law), but electric charge is confined to electromagnetism. There's also the thing with electric charge being quantized to integer multiples of the elementary charge e (apart from quarks for which it is an integer multiple of e/3, but they usually don't appear isolated), but mass not being quantized.

I think the similarities between electromagnetism and gravity are at least partly superficial. Coulomb's law looks a lot like Newton's law, but that's because both the electrostatic and the classical gravitational potential obey a poisson equation (in the statical limit and to the lowest order). And that's about the simplest equation such a potential can obey. I don't think there's much more to it than that (perhaps apart from both being long-ranged because their symmetries are not broken).

<comment><USER13> > both being long-ranged because their symmetries are not broken

I guess this is the property of both that appears similar, and it just seems more than coincidental that two of the four (or five) fundamental constants of nature describe these at least partly similar interactions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > _But some constants involve no dimensions at all. These are so-called > dimensionless constants – pure numbers, such as the ratio of the proton mass > to the electron mass. That is simply the number 1836.2 (which is thought to > be a little peculiar because we do not know why it is so large). According > to the physicist Michael Duff of Imperial College London, only the > dimensionless constants are really 'fundamental', because they are > independent of any system of measurement. Dimensional constants, on the > other hand, 'are merely human constructs whose number and values differ from > one choice of units to the next'._

Say what?

Unitless constants are exactly the same stuff as dimensional constructs; it's just that the units canceled out. You measure a proton's mass in some arbitrary units, the electron in the same units and when you divide the two, the units go away. This does not create a philosophically distinct category of constant.

<comment><USER16> I think it does. Whatever our choice of units (provided you use the same choice of units in all calculations), the ratio of mass of the proton to the electron will be the same. This is what makes the constant fundamental: it is independent of any way we choose to measure it, so should be the same to anybody and everybody. If we were to meet an alien civilization and study their physics, as long as we know their number system, we would immediately recognize the number 1836.2.

<comment><USER15> > _If we were to meet an alien civilization and study their physics, as long > as we know their number system, we would immediately recognize the number > 1836.2_

Only if that number really is a constant, so that it matches in their pocket of the universe. For sure-fire mutual recognition of numbers, I would stick with something mathematically defined, like some large-ish prime numbers, pi, e, and so forth.

> _the ratio of mass of the proton to the electron will be the same._

In effect, the electron's mass is then the unit of measure. A proton's mass is 1836.2 electrons, and so many kilograms, do many ounces, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> What is contained in a cubic meter of the vacuum of space?

<comment><USER18> Everything going through it plus some noise.

<comment><USER17> Do things 'go through' the vacuum of space or is it like newton's cradle where the fundamental building blocks just bump shoulders yet do not move?

So for example when light travels from a million light years away, is it one fundamental particle traveling through space. Or are there trillions of interactions passing energy along?

<comment><USER19> > _Do things 'go through' the vacuum of space or is it like newton's cradle > where the fundamental building blocks just bump shoulders yet do not move?_

You mean, is motion an illusion, much like a glider in Game of Life seeming to move?

<comment><USER17> Yea, are we just living in an enormous three dimensional grid or are there true vacuums in space?

<comment><USER18> One thing to consider, is that given rate of change approaches zero as velocity approaches c, what does motion mean when there is no time for it to happen in, either as things moving or bumping?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Because it's really light? (sorry).

Seriously, though, what does it mean to ask "Why is light so fast?" \- are you looking for some purpose in light traveling fast? You won't find one. It just DOES.

In fact, given that the much simpler alternative to there being a speed limit, c, on the universe would be that there is NO speed limit, then the question really becomes, why is light so SLOW?

<comment><USER16> The article does ask this:

"Why not faster? Why not slower?"

Certainly a lot of physicists are content with leaving it at "because it is." They're not searching for purpose, they're searching for explanation. The article doesn't just ask the question either, it explores a possible avenue for seeking the answer.

Experiments over the past few years seem to indicate that the speed of light can be derived by measuring electric and magnetic properties of the vacuum. This leads to the question: is it possible that the speed of light is the value it is because the vacuum restricts it to this value? This would mean the speed of light is not a fundamental constant, but an observable parameter of the vacuum.

The article is light on links, but here is a paper that I think the article was referring to, by Marcel Urban and colleagues at the University of Paris- Sud:

[http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.6165](http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.6165)

From the paper:

"When a real photon propagates in vacuum, it interacts with and is temporarily captured by an ephemeral pair. As soon as the pair disappears, it releases the photon to its initial energy and momentum state. The photon continues to propagate with an infinite bare velocity. Then the photon interacts again with another ephemeral pair and so on. The delay on the photon propagation produced by these successive interactions implies a renormalisation of this bare velocity to a finite value.

This "leapfrog" propagation of photons, with instantaneous leaps between pairs, seems natural since the only length and time scales in vacuum come from fermion pair lifetimes and Compton lengths."

The paper claims that the speed of light might fluctuate as a consequence, and proposes possible experiments to test this.

"The propagation of a photon being a statistical process, we predict fluctuations of its time of flight of the order of 0.05fs/√m. This could be within the grasp of modern experimental techniques and we plan to assemble such an experiment."

This could answer the question, why is light so slow?

<comment><USER13> This explanation still leaves open the question "why is gravity no faster than light?"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Relative to matter? Photons are massless, so light doesn't get slowed down by interacting with remote particles as it travels.

Relative to humans? Humans are made of matter, and in addition to that, they are immensely complex bio-chemical mechanisms and depend a lot on slow stochastic processes such as diffusion, so a lot of other processes will appear fast to them.

<comment><USER22> From reading the article (and not enjoying it very much - see msravi's comment about its handwavyness), the question it's failing to answer isn't "why is light faster than X" but rather "why is the speed of light as it is".

<comment><USER23> In a lot of ways, _that_ question is just about as meaningful as "why are there electrons?" Looked at from the right angle, you can say that there is only one speed at which _everything always_ moves through space-time; the only difference, really, among speeds is how much of that speed extends timewards from the moving thing's perspective. (What space-time itself gets up to, and what it _is_ apart from something we experience, is a different set of questions altogether.) The idea that we ought to be able to understand everything in principle is a horse long out of the barn.

<comment><USER24> Its definitely an interesting question. Something that limits all, moves uniformly no matter the point of view, doesn't interact with itself but does with everything else - its a singular feature of physics.

If I understand you right, one can wonder things like, maybe 'light' is really 'time' in some sense, not moving uniformly but instead the actual clock that drives the universe. Stuff like that is, at the least, interesting fodder for bull sessions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> So if the vacuum contains quantum fluctuations in which particles are being produced, I wonder what the mathematics looks like. How is the creation of a singular point-like element (or a pair of them) modeled mathematically? Roughly sketched of course :)

<comment><USER26> It's not really particles. [http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and- posts/particle-phy...](http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and- posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/)

<comment><USER27> But it is. I can have devices that use single electrons. I can measure shot noise. Theories in terms of particles work. Turns out that theories in terms of off-mass-shell particles describing higher and higher terms of perturbation theory work well too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I like to think of light as a something we made up in our minds.

A light bulb that is illuminating a wall is actually more like the light bulb touching the wall, rater than it sending out light that is hitting the wall.</comment>


Ask HN: Any advice on standing desk use? - <AUTHOR> I'd like to use my standing desk daily and for a long stretch of time. My tendency is still to use my fancy standing desk as a sitting desk! I don't think that I'm alone in that regard.<p>Do you have any tips or habits to suggest? <comment><USER2> I got a height-adjustable self-righting mushroom stool that can quickly height adjust. I found that finding the right height setting is a good intermediate between standing and sitting. Almost standing but definitely leaning. I can stay in this position all day but it's not particularly comfortable as either sitting or standing. I sometimes lower the mushroom stool but it's least comfortable for sitting, too much concentrated weight pressure. I thought I could use a huge yoga ball but glad I didn't that wouldn't have worked as well.

I keep a small wooden chair around for if I'm really too tired to balance. But it's not comfortable either so I don't use it unless I really need to. Wearing slippers seems to be enough, but maybe I'm not noticing/attributing any back pains to it.

</comment><comment><USER3> I used one when in the office. Listen to your body and stand when you feel you need to stand. If that is never then maybe just stand for the first 10 minutes each day and build up from there.

</comment><comment><USER4> Alternate sitting and standing. The key is to move and not stick to one posture. I keep a bottle of water handy. If you drink water regularly it forces you to take bathroom breaks, forcing you to move.

Try to distribute your weight evenly to both legs. Don't lean on one leg too much. Try to engage core muscles.

Stand on a mat that has some cushioning.

This is subjective. Eye direction looking straight matches top of the monitor.

Elbow at right angle to keyboard mouse

</comment><comment><USER5> Wear comfortable shoes such as crocs when using your standing desk; uncomfortable shoes make for tired feet and your standing desk a sitting-down desk.

<comment><USER6> You can also use an anti-fatigue mat.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> You can set a reminder on your computer or phone to stand for 5 or 10 minutes per hour. I think fit bits a d smartwatches can do this based on activity level.

You could also use an activity to indicate when to stand. For me, I would stand for any online meeting (if back-to-back then I alternate).

</comment><comment><USER7> Does someone of you use a "walking" treadmill for under the desk? I'd be highly interested and think about buying one.

<comment><USER8> I use one, and HIGHLY recommend it over just standing still.

My theory is that standing still and sitting still are opposite sides of the same problem. (not enough movement)

They just affect different parts of the body.

Moving > standing still.

it took me a solid month to get used to walking and typing… the key is start with _SLOW_ movement

Here's a picture of my setup: [https://photos.app.goo.gl/9sDPaEBD9nmApv4T9](https://photos.app.goo.gl/9sDPaEBD9nmApv4T9)

<comment><USER7> Some small questions: 1\. Those pads for your wrists / hands: did you always use them or explicitly for stand/walk usage? If yes: What are those and would you recommend them? 2\. What is the sound/volume of your threadmill? 3\. I live in Europe and the threadmill you have is mighty expensive. Would you recommend it and what is the advantage over a cheaper alternative (like the xiamoi walkingpad)?

<comment><USER8> 1\. I do a lot of shopping on Amazon. Look for "Grifiti" brand. 8" pad for use with the mouse, 17" pad for use with the keyboard. I use them all the time, even before I got the treadmill. Don't skimp on what you need to maintain good posture and ergonomics!

2\. This one is hard to quantify. Senses (like hearing) are so subjective. There's definitely a sound to it, but it's not obnoxious. When I am on phone calls, the other folks can hear it, but they say it sounds like the sound of a washing machine in the distance. [https://www.dropbox.com/s/diutjkdudu5edq1/treadmill_sound.m4...](https://www.dropbox.com/s/diutjkdudu5edq1/treadmill_sound.m4a) I recorded about 25 seconds of my walking. When I play it back, I can barely hear it in the recording… so I'm not sure how useful that'll be. Note the position of my mic on the left side of my desk, relative to where the treadmill is positioned.

3\. Yes. LifeSpan Fitness stuff is certainly not the cheapest. I wanted to go for durability, and I was willing to pay the price for it. I have had this treadmill for 4 years and use it 5 days a week, minimum. I keep the belt lubricated. I would do some research on brands/models that are in your budget, and focus on the durability factor. The brand doesn't matter. You just want to keep moving and have a treadmill that will last you a long time.

I have an email in my profile. If you have any more questions, don't hesitate to reach out to me! I'm also happy to hop on a video call with you, if you want to listen for yourself.

<comment><USER7> Thank you very much, the picture and especially the sound file helps a lot in terms of coming to a decision. I will try to reach more people who are using a walking desk - but especially our longterm-ish experience helps a lot.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Starter VPS: New Affordable Variants - <AUTHOR> https://blog.scaleway.com/2016/04/05/vc1-new-affordable-variants/ <comment><USER2> Bare Metal has lots of practical applications: Docker, CI, Databases...

However, I have no idea how Scaleaway is getting away with selling a Bare Metal server with 6 cores, 8GB memory, and 200GB of SSD disk for 10 euros a month. That's just doesn't make any financial sense.

If you're looking for a solid and reputable Bare Metal provider that allows you provision on demand all with a great control panel and API check out [https://packet.net](https://packet.net).

<comment><USER3> Took a look at their pricing page. That trend of showing per-hour fraction-of- dollar pricing is really disturbing. Who rents a host for an hour? (Well, I can surely imagine use cases, like spawning a beefy host for a day while getting abnormally high traffic, but I seriously doubt it's common.)

Type 0: $0.05/hour ≈ $36.50/mo; Type 1: $0.40/hour ≈ $292/mo; Type 2: $1.00/hour ≈ $730/mo; Type 3: $1.70/hour ≈ $1277.5/mo

<comment><USER4> On Amazon AWS you can fire up an expensive server for half an hour or even ten minutes, to do some calculations that would otherwise take days. You can even fire up 100 of those servers for 1/100th of the time if you can do that calculation in parallel.

This all can be scripted, and that makes it very powerful.

Another use case is Streisand, the VPN service that you can install on your laptop. You need an AWS account, keys etc, and then you can start up one small server as vpn for one or two hours, or for twenty minutes, each time with a different IP, from data centers all over the world. Need a server in Asia? In the EU or the US? It can set this up within the minute, if you have it configured properly.

So there are use cases for these services with price per minute. The problem with Scaleway is that they don't have the really expensive servers, and they don't have the scripting if I'm correct. I do have a server running there, cheap and not in the US, and it does its job properly.

<comment><USER5> I'm not sure the above commenter is unaware of cloud services priced by the hour. The question is more about bare metal hosts being priced in this way, which is somewhat unusual.

For what you're discussing, then a VPS/shared/dedicated VM host is more than appropriate. But generally, when companies are going bare metal, they are not doing so for hours at a time.

So the question still remains, what is the use case for an hourly billed bare metal server?

<comment><USER6> Howdy - Zac here from Packet.

The clients of ours that leverage the by-the-hour model generally use the same devops tools (Terraform, Docker Machine, Ansible, etc) against our API to provision and orchestrate bare metal that they would against AWS or DO to do the same with VM's.

The use case drivers for those who choose bare metal often seem to be price/performance ratios, network, bring your own hypervisor or not use one, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> So this is a company selling VPS hosting - not sure why it's newsworthy. Their ARM servers were innovative, this not so much so.

</comment><comment><USER8> Just realize these are basically:

[https://www.online.net/en/dedicated-server/dedibox- xc](https://www.online.net/en/dedicated-server/dedibox-xc)

1x Intel® C2750 (Avoton) with 8 cores.

Avoton cores are very weak compared to other cloud providers.

<comment><USER9> Except these are ARM cores not Intel: [https://www.scaleway.com/faq/server/](https://www.scaleway.com/faq/server/)

<comment><USER10> These are virtual x86_64 servers, their non virtual ARM ones seem to be the C1x and C2x.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> How is this comparable to Digital Ocean?

Their prices are about 1/5th. So it almost feels like a nobrainer to migrate to DO or am I missing something here?

<comment><USER8> DO is slightly more reliable and uses substantially more powerful processors so on a low contention host, you can get better performance.

The catch with these are shared Avoton CPUs. So their "large" 9.99 plan is likely 4 VPS on a single 8 core Avoton would be my guess.

<comment><USER12> Not so sure ... There is a BIG gap and strategy difference between \- thousands of VM on 8 or 16 Xeon cores \- Scaleway technology with only few VM per node (2 to 6) with dedicated Avoton cores and dedicated memory (no oversubscribing)

Most of clients reports huge performances differences, and it's very easy to measure the difference. That's why VC1x VPS are so so good, constant performances, and for this price, it's really awesome

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Wish more guys would take cryptocurrency.

<comment><USER14> I agree, especially for small amounts like 3 Euros per month.

</comment></comment><comment> ju-st Lesson learned: Cheap prices imply low quality.

</comment><comment><USER15> Sounds like the traditional overselling to me. Not sure why this is HN frontpage? No different than 99% of hosting providers.</comment>


Ben Smith on the rise of Substack and independent journalists [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xgLOHW42Nw#t=12 <comment><USER2> Previous thinking (based on experience) was that people paid for access to a news platform rather than to individual name-brand writers. This was apparently why earlier efforts at micro-payments for articles failed and/or subscriptions failed.

Ben Smith seems to think something has changed in the market such that people are now willing to make small payments to individual writers. However Smith does not say what has changed.

I'd be curious to know what's different this time and welcome any insight from the board.

<comment><USER3> My take is that previous attempts were "how can we get news readers to pay", and current attempts are "what news do people who pay for news want".

And in general, if you pay for news, you want opinionated voices you can deeply trust, and whose bias you're familiar with. That's not possible on an aggregated news platform, since that by its nature will try to be all things to a fairly large group of people - you need a mass audience to pay for all the writers. Individual writers can afford a smaller audience. (Which also means they can avoid giving away much content to regularly draw an audience)

What that means for large-scale/expensive reporting is an interesting question, because the independent model doesn't work for that almost by definition.

<comment><USER4> I think this is right.

> whose bias your are familiar with I This is fair, but there is a positive > version which is "whose worldview you understand, and find > interesting/valuable"

Every person and organization comes with some kind of bias - even if part of that bias is "try to be clear eyed and tell the truth".

The advantage of subscribing directly to writers is that you get to choose explicitly who you want to trust, and having done so the writers' incentive is to keep that trust.

As a writer, you get to make your own bet about what work is important, you get paid in proportion to the value you create, and only your readers can fire you.

<comment><USER5> while your description of the phenomenon may be somewhat accurate for some subset of news consumers, the implication that this is a reasonable position is disturbing.

truth and trust do intertwine deeply in the subconscious, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't use our conscious brains to disentangle them when it leads us astray.

we should seek a variety of reasonable perspectives, especially including differing ones to our own. trust the reasonable, even if disagreeable. that's what get us to truth, not a flight to homogeneity.

and that's the lament here--it's getting harder and harder to find reasonable perspectives because every media outlet, even the venerates like nytimes, are leaning hard into partisanship and tribalism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The problem with "independent journalism" is the loss of a shared coherent narrative about the world. There's just no shared context. Many don't even watch/read the news anymore. Earlier this year I introduced my grandma to YouTube, but I was surprised how fast she got hooked and stopped watching conventional news altogether, so much so that she hadn't even _heard_ of the George Floyd protests. Whereas previously I used to talk with my grandma about stuff on the news, that stopped after she started watching YouTube, because her channel subscriptions do not intersect with mine, so we have nothing in common to talk about.

It's a sort of regression to pre-modern tribalism where only "local" events matter to you -- except "local" means whatever independent content creators you are subscribed to, and their respective tribes. While this was always the case for much of the developing and pre-modern world, this is a new state of affairs for the West. The educated Western public is now regressing to a state of ignorance about global affairs to the extent that they have no idea what "global affairs" even means, all the while believing that they have a "better" worldview due to their "woke" independent analysis. The real problem is the loss of a shared context and common knowledge with which to engage in conversation with people around you.

<comment><USER5> why conceive of it as a problem? heterogeneity of thought and view lends more engaging and interesting conversations, new learnings and perspectives, and a more resilient and innovative society to boot, even if it's more of a challenge. it's surely better that you have to work at a conversation than have some bland homogeneity of thought for faux-comfort bubbles.

comfort is entirely orthogonal to journalism anyway. it's purpose is to (mis-)inform, not to entertain and provide bonding fodder. you have plenty of other, better (media) avenues for that (movies, tv, etc).

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> They're not really independent as long as they're stuck on Substack's domain. You can export your list and maybe get some % to move to another newsletter host, but any links to past newsletters will forever be on their domain.

Substack keeps saying "eventually" on using your own, but with no clear timeline or real justification for not launching with it. Same reason I won't touch Hey.

<comment><USER4> Substack founder here. You might be surprised at the relative importance of the mailing list. You also have your own Stripe account on Substack.

That said, it's a fair point, and I understand wanting to wait until we support it.

<comment> edouard-harris Interesting. My own speculation had been that giving Substack creators their own domains wouldn't necessarily be in the creators' interest as a group, because of things like e.g. Apple's policy with respect to blocking third- party cookies. Keeping everything on substack.com means there's less friction when a user signs up for their second (or N + 1th) newsletter, which surely implies more revenue for creators in the aggregate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I would argue that independent journalists are not journalists. Journalism requires being held to a body of professional standards upheld by a common organization of other trained journalists. A lot of the problem with our current media landscape is that someone's speculative opinion piece on JoeBlowKnows.com is held in the same esteem as a fact checked, multiple source article from the New York Times. Ethical independent 'journalists' can surely exist, but lets call them what they are: bloggers.

<comment><USER9> I respectfully disagree completely. I'm an attorney, and my profession is completely beholden to this kind of credentialism, where you can't possibly do the work if you aren't a member of the club.

I happen to believe that the work is the work, and it's done well or poorly regardless of your membership in an organization or an association. And at least for attorneys, most of the work isn't nearly as difficult as we like to pretend. It's just more lucrative for the profession to be scandalized at the idea that people who aren't trained professionals could do many of the things we do.

Journalism does require standards, but I'd say as long as the standards are adhered to, journalism is happening.

<comment><USER10> I respectfully disagree with your disagreement. The point isn't that journalists need a more rigorous passage into a professional association or credentialling. Its more that journalism is a team effort, where writers, line editors, fact checkers, designers, data folks and others work together to produce an accurate and complete work.

You wouldn't take on a big case of national impact entirely solo and expect, and journalists can't produce a trustworthy product in isolation, not in the long run at least.

<comment><USER11> > Its more that journalism is a team effort, where writers, line editors, fact > checkers, designers, data folks and others work together to produce an > accurate and complete work.

And yet it produces so unbelievably large and frequent issues with the accuracy and completeness that this either does not help, is not the goal, or journalists not working for large publishers must get this wrong all the time, all over the place. I don't think that's the case, and I do think that the belief that it somehow helps is specifically why there are so many giant issues with the current media products.

<comment><USER12> Or possibly standards in journalism have fallen and this is the next step.

<comment><USER13> I would say most of what passes for journalism, is no longer journalism.

Journalism is about passing on the who-what-when-where-why. Factual information to the public. You see very little of that these days. Too many opinion in basic article.

<comment><USER9> People are always mentioning Gell-Mann amnesia as well. I think this is one area that independent writers, especially ones who have a lot of experience in a particular industry, can add a lot. They can write about events, technology, and scholarship, from the perspective of an expert. They _can_ be better at passing on the who-what-when-where-why because they know enough to not just have to take anyone's word for it, and if they're good, they're confident enough in their position that they don't have to signal any sort of ideological credentials to have their facts accepted, so they don't signal. Obviously this is an ideal, but I think it's a very plausible one.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How to use game theory to buy a car - <AUTHOR> http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2009/09/how-to-use-game-theory-to-buy-a-car.html

<comment><USER2> This is practically verbatim copied from "The Millionaire Next Door". Additionally it really has nothing to do with Game Theory, just common sense negotiating. And you can improve on their play by A LOT.

What power does the salesman have? None. He has cars, he wants to sell them. You have the money. You have the power.

He postures that he has the power but really, you can walk out at any time. There are other dealers, there are other kinds of cars, there are other sales guys at that dealer, and you can come back another day. Used cars maybe you don't see great deals all that much but on a new car, there will always be another car.

As a buyer, I want the seller to know two things to make a deal.

1) I'm serious about buying, and have the money/financing to buy TODAY. I can make a deal if he makes a deal. I don't HAVE to buy today, but I CAN. That makes a big difference. No one wants to quote a price that they can never match again, often times there are specific reasons why they can get a price at that moment but can't in general.

2) I'm not interested in the fine particulars. I want the best price. I will look at his lot and his competitors lot, and buy the car that is closest to what I want FOR THE BEST PRICE. Often they have inventory they are desperate to get rid of and will do it with 0 margin or at a loss just to get rid of the car.

An example, my last car was supposed to be $328 a month, but I paid $208 because I got the car in a dark gunmetal gray instead of the black I wanted, even though all the other features were the same no one wanted that color. I eventually grew to like it. I bounced between 3 dealers and they knew I had the cash, they knew I had the credit, and they knew I was flexible. Their initial offer was $250, I squeezed them down from there. If I had just faxed them like this article says I would have gotten nothing because it says I want black, and they didn't have the car in black. If you say you want the car in any color they aren't going to give you a good price because you sound flimsy.

Also as a note, never show one dealer another dealers quote. Tell him the number but NEVER show him the quote. You can cause serious problems for the original dealer and lose your deal. Often times you get these deals with things like the dealer getting a manufacturer rebate that you don't really qualify for but they can fudge some how. You play nice with the dealer, they will play nice for you.

<comment><USER3> It's interesting that you mentioned your prices in monthly payments, rather than the pre-financed total. What precisely were you negotiating?

This article has a fascinating discussion of the "4 square sheet" that dealers use to fudge negotiations. Two of the squares are price and financing (included in your monthly amount), and the others are trade in and warranty. People generally get a better deal if they're negotiating solely on price:

[http://www.edmunds.com/advice/buying/articles/42962/article....](http://www.edmunds.com/advice/buying/articles/42962/article.html)

<comment><USER2> I was negotiating the total price of the car. I guess the missing bit of information is the term (both prices were the same) and the amount down (both were $0). That wouldn't always be the case if the dealer is trying to pull a fast one on you by giving you a lower monthly payment but a higher total payment. I made sure to match apples to apples. I assume most people reading this website would realize the possible bait and switch.

On the 4 variables. I can see their point but I never get into that stuff.

My experience has been that you can usually sell the car yourself for more than trade in value, and these days with craigslist and ebay its not very difficult. I've sold 2 cars this year and you know bad the economy is.

I also don't really finance. I guess I will have to in the future but so far I've been able to buy all my cars cash. I buy most coming off a lease 2-3 years old.

And I definitely never buy an extended warranty or dealer warranty. The dealer I bought that car from is gone now and its only 4 years later, the manufacturer's standard warranty is all that matters.

<comment><USER4> _I was negotiating the total price of the car. I guess the missing bit of information is the term (both prices were the same) and the amount down (both were $0)....I also don't really finance._

Huh? If you don't finance and both of the cars were the same price, how does the difference in term mean anything?

<comment><USER2> Sorry, what I meant to say was that the term was constant across both, and the monthly payment varied. So you can compare the monthly payments as a proportional representation of the total price. Where as the other commenter implied I got hoodwinked when the dealer lowered my monthly payment by lengthening the term.

<comment><USER3> Oh, I wasn't trying to imply that. I was just curious how you'd negotiated. People often "lose" when they're negotiating a monthly price versus walking into a dealership having already shopped for financing, and then negotiating a cash purchase price.

That said, if you pay cash for cars, I really don't understand the monthly prices in all of your posts. It just adds confusion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A nice theory, but has it been tested? It assumes rational behavior on the part of the salesperson, not to mention assumes that the writer understands the motivations of the salesperson.

I once found a car salesman who was asking way too much for a used car on his lot. He refused to budge on price. I couldn't believe both that it was priced so high above market rates or that he wouldn't come down on the price at all. I kept asking, don't you need to go talk to your manager?

I decided that eventually he would come around and called him every day for two weeks with a low ball offer. Eventually the car sold to someone else for $100 above my offer. If rational behavior is to maximize the sale price, then this was not rational behavior. A simple counter offer would have closed the deal with me and netted an additional $500 for the dealer.

After that experience I've often wondered if there are other incentives for car salespeople beyond money. Maybe there's an opportunity cost of selling to a good negotiator when a bad (i.e. normal) negotiator might walk into the dealership. Maybe car salespeople just don't like being on the wrong side of a deal. Maybe they get harassed by coworkers when they strike a bad deal.

If the method works, I'd still be suspicious of the reasons. Maybe calling for 20 prices is a good idea just because one of them, independent of the others, really wants to get rid of the car.

<comment><USER6> _A nice theory, but has it been tested?_

Yes, for 30 years. It's simple supply and demand.

I doubt if this would work well for a 2010 Camaro, but there are probably lots of models it work work well for.

<comment><USER5> No, the article claims that this is some special game theory and that there are only 21 actors (you and the twenty salespeople). Modeling this in terms of S&D would take into account all potential purchasers.

My point, though, was that the article has presented a hypothesis without any data to back it up. In a way, it's worse than an anecdote, because I'm not sure even the author has tried this method.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I always find these things funny, because there is a belief that all dealerships are the same (that is, the variable is simply the price of the car.) It turns out that dealership location is a HUGE variable driving both pricing and decision to buy. Some people need a car sooner than others; the dealership with inventory is more attractive. The one close to your house or work allows you to get service and still get driven to your destination; buying from a dealership 100 miles away, even with the best price, may not help if you need service that only the dealer can provide (either free or something a local shop can't do).

No question, there is much one can do to shift the power. But there is a reason why no one has yet gotten the car purchase process totally online: the dealers do indeed have some power. They control the distribution of the car to you, and they have location-based impact that, for some people, is important. At the end of the day, you are buying from one of the dealers, and if they are all above your price but you want the car, well, you either pay more than you think you should, or change your car choice.

If you don't care about the "free oil change" services or other post-sales issues involving the dealer, and have the time to deal with multiple dealers and a potentially extended process... then go for it. If you are in an area with few dealers for the car you want, however, you may find the negotiation requires a different approach than merely a PDG assuming multiple equal competitors.

<comment><USER8> I bought my car from a local dealer for a price that allowed them some profit not because I care deeply about "free oil changes", etc., but because I care about them staying in business.

If my local dealership goes out of business, the next closest one is approximately 50 miles away. That'd be so incredibly inconvenient that I'd almost assuredly end up selling the car and buying a different marque that was locally serviceable.

Auto dealerships add value for me, and as such I will pay a small premium over the marginal cost to help make sure they're incentivized to still be there in 5 or 10 years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Regarding the advice on buying a car, it seems like a condensed version from the Motley Fool's Guide to buying a car, in the section titled "The Art of the Deal":

<http://www.fool.com/car/car12.htm>

</comment><comment><USER10> One of the things I remember from taking game theory at college was that getting a good deal on a used car is near impossible.

The seller has perfect information (knows all the flaws) and the buyer has imperfect information (only knows what information can be gathered from a test drive and superficial inspection).

<comment><USER11> _getting a good deal on a used car is near impossible_

Theoretically, and as predicted by a classic paper by Economics Nobel-winner George Akerlof, yes.

But practically, no. For various reasons the used-car market does not behave like the theory of asymmetric information predicts. Carried to its logical conclusion, the theory suggests the market won't exist at all -- and yet clearly it does! See the Wikipedia article for some discussion:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons>

From personal experience: I've bought a couple used cars -- and always gotten great value. My sister and other members of my family have had success as well.

And plenty of personal-finance gurus will tell you that you should never buy a _new_ car -- the premium over a reliable used-car is rarely justifiable, except on emotional/fashionable grounds.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I was buing computer a few years ago (was a student then, so money/time coefficient was a lot bigger :)) , and tried to make it likewise - I've choosed components and went to trip over all computer shops near my flat.

But every single shop I've been didn't have a few components that I've choosen, so I couldn't simplify decision to only one variable.

I've even thought that they may do it so I can't compare prices.

</comment><comment><USER13> The author mentions South Korea and its foreign policy several times. I would prefer to know more about (and attempt to predict) the foreign policy of North Korea over South, because of its closed-off nature.

Did anyone else think that the author _meant_ North Korea?

<comment><USER14> Well - south korea does make and export an awful lot of cars.

"The South Korean automobile industry is today the fifth largest in the world in terms of production volume and the sixth largest in terms of export volume."

But the author may well have meant North.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Is anyone else unable to go to this page in Chrome because it issues a bunch of Adobe errors? I'm using the latest dev build.

<comment><USER16> I went in Chrome no problem. (Version 220.127.116.11)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> consumerreports.org

</comment><comment><USER6> An oldie but goodie.

Corollary #1: Do the same thing, but everything in writing.

Corollary #2: Set up a leasing company and put Corollary #1 on your letterhead.

</comment><comment><USER18> I think game theory is about coming from a disadvantage (the dealer knows everything about cars and getting the maximum from you) and getting a fair deal in the end, or having the advantage and getting the maximum possible. But the shown solution here, just changes the situation about information and leverage. Yes, everytime you have a disadvantage and put energy in changing to an advantageous situation, then you are in a better situation and get more out of a deal... No, I am not worried about learning nothing out of this post. I am worried about the author. He just so much does not get the point. When I use mathematics to deal with the car dealer, my intention is NOT to get the information, NOT to gain leverage through dealing skills. I want to use my logical knowledge and skills to change the game from "best dealer wins" to "most logical wins". It is really good to learn something about leverage. That is very nessesary for everybodies life, especially for us geeks, who are not naturally gifted in this area. But mathematics, too, is a strong tool, with different rules and different advantages. Please look deeper in this matter, too. There could be a real advantage for you over car dealers, who have mostly no scientific background.

</comment><comment><USER19> I will not read this - but here is what I do:

Figure out the lowest price they can sell at, add $100 to that, walk out if they say no.

If you really want the car, add another $100. Still no, stand up and walk out. Really, you can live without the SUV.

Tell them you will discuss financing LATER. You have the total amount in cash [right?] so you can decide whether the financing deal they offer is better than a CD or T-bills.

If you don't have cash [stupid] get financing BEFORE you negotiate - talk to your credit union or LOCAL bank first.

How many times does this simple info have to be shared?

Oh, new Internet twist: do it all online.

Do not buy the floor mats and rustproofing.

<comment><USER20> Always buy rustproofing, if you bought a car crappy enough that the paint job doesn't include anti-rust elements, especially if you live in a location with lots of water-based weather or near the coast.

Why are you adding money to the lowest price they can sell at? That is your target price -- the lowest price they can sell will always be the lowest price _that includes a profit_ (or the smallest loss, for brands like Chevy). Besides, most of the profit comes from the optional packages, which are marked up 200-500%.

<comment><USER21> ah, but never buy rustproofing (or optional alarm, tint, etc.) from the dealer! those are the optional extras that are marked up 200-500%. there are specialty shops that will do the same exact thing for much cheaper.

also, every modern car sold today has anti-corrosion measures, as well as corrosion warranties, so i don't see why you would pay extra for rustproofing. this might've been a good idea 20 years ago, but i don't think it's necessary today.

<comment><USER22> There was for a time a program on UK TV (BBC) called something like "Don't get done, get Dom!". They'd use an earpiece to send people in to buy cars, he'd be listening via hidden mic and would tell them what to say / do. He was awesome.

He'd get the "best price" and then tell the buyer to say, "that includes the mats and metallic paint, yes" (or similar). Basically the guy thinks he's secured it, you hit him for that last bit.

He did a general buying show too.

Re the article - not all dealers are equal: You come back at 4pm, the cheapest dealer has had the alloys switched off or put on cheaper tyres (that's £50 at least). You've no time to go back to the others. You buy? If you don't do you think the other dealers will play your game the next day or just see you as a time-waster?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Mockingjays in the workplace - <AUTHOR> http://www.slideshare.net/provogolf/mockingjays-in-the-workplace

<comment><USER2> I seriously think the author needs to revisit the series, because Katniss was not overly concerned for the welfare of others, nor did heap praise on other people. She was a survivor, willing to do whatever it took to stay alive. It was only near the end of the series did she begin to develop empathy and emotions, but she is not the kind of person you'd want working for you.</comment>


Lebbeus Woods: Architect Who Dared to Ask 'What If?' (2013) - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2013/02/lebbeus-woods-conceptual-architect/ <comment><USER2> Ad-walled - not gonna read.

<comment><USER3> That blocked me also, but I have to recommend that people investigate the works of Lebbeus Woods as he was extremely creative and really pushed the boundaries in imagining new ways of conceiving of buildings. His blog is still up at [https://lebbeuswoods.wordpress.com/](https://lebbeuswoods.wordpress.com/) and any Internet search for his name will turn up dozens of interesting articles worth reading.</comment></comment>


AWS CloudTrail - Capture AWS API Activity - <AUTHOR> http://aws.typepad.com/aws/2013/11/aws-cloudtrail-capture-aws-api-activity.html

<comment><USER2> This has gotten the least attention of the announcements today, but it is by far the most important for our organization.

Right now we have a tool that polls the aws APIs and tracks changes. Mostly we care about vcp firewall, security group and IAM policy changes. It will alert for changes to any critical system. While it gets the job done, it can't track who made the changes.

CloudTrail solves this problem in a much nicer way.

Thanks for getting this out to your customers!</comment>


Web truths: CSS is not real programming - <AUTHOR> https://christianheilmann.com/2017/09/19/web-truths-css-is-not-real-programming/ <comment><AUTHOR> Considering modern CSS has been abstracted away by libraries and frameworks, I've noticed a trend among startups, smaller businesses, and companies short on time that they so often default to Bootstrap. Developers who don't work on front-end, the execs I've been under in several jobs previous, all want Bootstrap for these reasons.

It makes me sad that my job as a front-end developer working with HTML and CSS has become scaffolding a framework instead of creating unique and non- Bootstrap designs.

</comment><comment><USER2> As mainly an app developer I've chose to use Bootstrap out of convenience but I agree with technojunkie, it's a cookie cutter approach that limits design.

Personally, I am constantly impressed and humbled with what I see being done with CSS. It is programming, no doubt about that, but the end result is often more. It's often "Art" and when it is I cannot help but admire it.</comment>


Project Sunroof - <AUTHOR> https://www.google.com/get/sunroof# <comment><USER2> I live in San Francisco and just had a solar system installed last week, so I have a few comments about this.

1) It vastly overestimated how big a solar system that could fit on my roof (by about 5x). It didn't care about chimneys or skylights (which are easily visible through Google maps), nor SF fire code which states that you need a 3-foot empty pathway on both sides of the crest of your roof [1]. So for almost every roof with a single ridge, this will cut out a large percentage of the best solar real estate.

2) It didn't include local SF providers in the marketplace which are generally higher rated than national providers and can offer additional SF incentives and cost-savings.

So while the estimation of sunlight potential is really cool, the 3d modeling aspect and size of the marketplace leave a little bit to be desired. This site would probably be good at quickly seeing if your roof has any solar potential at all, but if it does, I'd recommend checking Yelp and having a highly-rated solar company come give you a detailed estimate (which would be free).

1: [http://www.sf-fire.org/index.aspx?page=1232](http://www.sf- fire.org/index.aspx?page=1232)

<comment><USER3> I always find it a bit dishonest sounding when these things are referred to as producing a "savings". Solar on a residential rooftop is not financially sustainable when you consider the cost of capital and require a market ROI. So I assume that lessors in this case are receiving a non-trivial government subsidy. Which means, in the end, that whatever the lessee is "saving" and then some is being paid in additional taxes that wouldn't be there if there were no subsidy. All of which is fine for those that want to pay more for energy that is cleaner. But people should not be given the impression that they're paying less. If they really were we'd all have solar rooftops over night.

<comment><USER4> This was true several years ago, but the cost of solar has come down _substantially_ even without considering tax subsidies, and is continuing to decrease at a healthy rate.

For example, Sunroof estimates that a 5.75kWh system would cost $21,500 before subsidies (about $15k after, but we're ignoring that), and that it will save you (gross) $60,000 over 20 years in utility bill costs. You can either:

a) Invest that capital. At a stable 7%, after 20 years, your balance would be about $86.8k.

b) Purchase a solar system for that $21.5k, and invest the difference on your power bill each month. Assuming a base power bill of $200, and the 2.2% annual rate increase that Sunroof uses, you would invest $2400 the first year, $2452.80 the second year, etc. At the same 7% return, then in 20 years your investment balance would be $122.8k, and your power bills would continue to be $0. Remember, these numbers assume an unsubsidized system.

The gain comes from the fact that after the break-even point (at year 12), you are continuing to invest your power bill equivalent, rather than paying it to the power company, whereas in the non-solar case, the increased power bill will never earn you a return.

The downside is that it (with those numbers) takes 12 years for you to come out ahead, and solar tech is moving so fast that the opportunity cost of committing capital to solar _today_ rather than investing it and then liquidating that investment _tomorrow_ to pay for a cheaper and more efficient system may be substantial, but is arguably specifically unknowable. If you don't offset your full cost, the numbers change a bit, as well (but you can certainly compute what happens at a 50% offset for a smaller upfront capital investment easily enough, as well). There are certainly scenarios in which solar is viable unsubsidized today, though.

Feel free to check my math and assumptions: [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JoJxX5t7VmRhV1LDI1UF...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JoJxX5t7VmRhV1LDI1UFZ1-f_5yrX62ypS9Bi6AwfBs/edit?usp=sharing)

<comment><USER5> I wish "who pays for the system" and "where the system is installed" are decoupled, via a market that lets investors finance the system and the installation and own the resulting energy, and house owners or other sites that merely provide a place to install the panels in return for $x worth of free energy every month. If you're a house owner, you'll bid on the X, or different energy companies could make you offers, and you'd pick one that you like. If you're an investor, you'd presumably choose the site that gives you the greatest ROI — the most sunlight, the highest grid prices, and the least rent to be paid to the house owner (x above).

This addresses your point about upgrading. You can install the newer system on another roof, without incurring cost of removing the older system, and generate power (and therefore income) from both panels at once. As long as the older system is generating more power than its annual maintenance cost, it doesn't make economic sense to dismantle it.

Decoupling also means that if you decide to invest in solar energy, you can have it installed in whichever part of the world (or at least your country) gives the greatest ROI: the most sunlight, and the highest electricity tariffs. Maybe you live in a rented house or an apartment where you can't install solar panels. Giving a higher return will encourage more people to invest in solar.

Other advantages of decoupling will be the ability to invest the amount you want, whether $1000 or $100K, rather than the price of one solar system, the ability to make additional investments if you have more money later on, and the ability to liquidate an investment any time you need the money, or in a financial emergency. People will also be able to dip their toes into this market with a small investment, and see how it performs, before making a larger investment.

<comment><USER6> What you're describing is what every solar company does right now. SolarCity doesn't sell you panels, they sell you 2 products. The first is electricity from panels they own on your roof. The other is a lease of panels they own on your roof that you get electricity from.

In essence SolarCity and everyone else bids for your roof and business through their pricing. (which currently undercuts utilities).

And SolarCity in return is creating solar bond products essentially, where the market can invest their capital in these roofs that SC is producing energy on, with the monthly bills as interest.

But it doesn't solve the issue the person you replied to highlighted, which is that it may or may not be financially advisable to 'hold out', and buy solar when the price has come down. After all, even if you don't buy and own the panels, the lease is still a 20 year contract. And there's no way SolarCity or any company would reduce those to short-term contracts because there are fixed costs that can't be recuperated in the short-term, meaning you need long-term contracts to get an ROI. (sending technicians to replace installations every few years wouldn't make financial sense).

So the end result right now is that yes, you could in a way (by investing in solar companies or their financial products) invest in other people's roofs, despite not dismantling panels on your roof, in say 5 years from now when new installations are financially better performing than your roof panels. But it doesn't magically make your investment in your own roof (or anyone's roof, 5 years ago, for that matter) disappear. The money is still locked up in that roof (whether you paid for it, or locked up money by signing a 20 year contract), and so merely decoupling everything doesn't solve that issue, and in many ways we're already decoupling to a large extent with the securitisation of roof installations.

<comment><USER5> I see. Thanks for educating me on how SolarCity, and solar companies in general, work. Your post makes a lost of sense, and it seems that we agree on many things.

As for money locked up in solar panels, that's no different from traditional investments. If a factory is built, a better factory may be built a few years down the line, rendering the first one an inefficient use of capital. That's an unsolvable problem (unless you have a crystal ball), and it doesn't deter people from making investments. What makes solar different?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> [http://www.zonatlas.nl](http://www.zonatlas.nl)

granted it is in dutch and made by a completely boring governmental institution. OTH it's made with openstreetmap.

<comment><USER8> It's not a governmental institution but an NGO which unites many local governments and other participants.

      http://www.zonatlas.nl/home/over-de-zonatlas/

They use high resolution 3d surface information (elevation data) and weather reports to assess the efficiency of solar panels. The map for my house accurately shows how much efficiency can be expected on each part of the house. This takes into account neighboring buildings and trees. The site also calculates a number of scenarios and allows you to easily request offers and show how long it takes to earn back your investment. They cleverly compare this to interest rate. E.g. on my house, investing in solar now would yield 4.5% interest over 20 years (given certain assumptions).

It is a very impressive site.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Want to see what it does, try City Hall:

[https://www.google.com/get/sunroof#a=2600%20Fresno%20St%2C%2...](https://www.google.com/get/sunroof#a=2600%20Fresno%20St%2C%20Fresno%2C%20CA&b=125&f=lease&np=18&p=1)

<comment><USER10> So City Hall would actually save less money (12k vs 13k/14k) than the two regular homes I tried in San Francisco. If the numbers are correct, we're looking at $650-700 a year in savings. Not bad, but not that great either, especially considering heating alone in both buildings I looked at ran $150-300 / month (including summer which is hardly warmer at night in SF). Can solar panels be installed at such a price on a regular home? I doubt there's any incentive for City Hall here.

EDIT: I also doubt the calculations are correct considering that city hall's roof is many times larger than the two homes I looked at, yet saves less money.

<comment><USER11> I'm guessing you left the average monthly electric bill slider at the $125/month position. You'd have to adjust the to what it actually is for City Hall, which I'd think is a lot more than $125/month.

<comment><USER10> There's no such slider on my page, only a text box. Tried disabling privacy plugins, but they're not the culprit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Entered my info. Got a call within five minutes and was then asked the exact same info. Company said I don't use enough electricity to make it worth it. Wonder how much they had to pay Google for that lead

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Introduction Video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BXf_h8tEes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BXf_h8tEes)

<comment><USER13> A better link, although I find it interesting that this is primarily an advertising play. Take information they have (Google maps) and turn it into a "qualified lead" system for Solar installers. Has to pay pretty decently on a conversion.

That said, it would be _super_ helpful if they marked addresses as "already have solar" so I would stop getting robo-calls from solar companies trying to sell me solar panels.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Can anyone with more knowledge of solar technology speak to this?

I know nothing about solar technology developments. I am interested in adding solar to my house some day, but concerned about spending a lot of money today for solar panels that will either (a) be much cheaper in 5-10 years, or (b) be replaced by much more effective panels in 5-10 years.

Assuming that the economics of it are the only motivation for going solar, and that with current technology and pricing the panels pay for themselves only after ~10 years, am I better off waiting a few years to get more efficient/cheaper panels, or is it unlikely we'll make significant advancements in these areas, and/or do current government incentives (which may be ephemeral) make up for the advantages of future tech?

<comment><USER15> If you do go for solar just make sure you install it before December 31, 2016 as that's when the 30% Federal tax credit expires (note: this is if you buy, not lease the panels. Leasing does not earn you the 30% credit).

<comment><USER16> The 30% federal tax credit does apply to leased systems. It's just that the leasing company gets the credit "on your behalf" (also known as keeping it for themselves) but includes it in the calculation of how much to charge you as the lease payment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Off topic but the Google Sunroof logo is very similar to MyHealth program logo in my province ([https://myhealth.alberta.ca/](https://myhealth.alberta.ca/)).

</comment><comment><USER18> For those who got 404 from their IPs: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BXf_h8tEes](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BXf_h8tEes)

</comment><comment><USER19> Are firefighters any less likely to enter a house fire where the roof is covered in heavy solar panels? I've heard stories, but never dug into whether it was anti-solar FUD.

<comment><USER20> It smells of the anti-hybrid astroturfing from a decade or so ago where numerous Ford and GM employees would be glad to tell you on social media that if you get into a car accident in a hybrid, emergency services will leave you to bleed out and die because its a hybrid so you should have bought a SUV or truck like a RealAmerican(tm).

My father in law did the volunteer fire dept thing in his rural area and its very depressing how quickly a typical house becomes unsaveable in a fire. So it is true that most houses with solar panels, in a fire, will end up a total loss, but that's true of most houses ... period, nothing to do with solar panels.

My advice from the frozen north is solar panels are extremely light weight compared to slush/snow covered shingle roofs, which don't seem to slow down firemen very much. The total mass of a couple inches of rain soaked slush snow is unbelievable, many thousands of distributed pounds on a typical roof.

<comment><USER21> Everything above is correct. (I'm a volunteer firefighter.) Firefighters nowadays are trained to deal with the high-voltage DC that's present in hybrid and electric cars. It may take a little longer to extricate a victim, but it won't stop us. As for houses, we won't bother entering a burning residence _at all_ unless we're likely to find a person still alive, or the nature of the fire is such that the danger to us -- with our PPE and training -- is minimal.

<comment><USER22> I assume part of the training is how to locate the right stuff to cut to shut off the high-voltage connection? Have you ever had to do that in practice, and if so how hard is it on a car that's been mangled?

<comment><USER21> The car manufacturers use bright colors (typically fluorescent orange) on cables that carry high voltage. We don't cut them! Too dangerous. Instead we avoid them, and assume that the car is energized.

[http://www.nfpa.org/~/media/files/research/research%20founda...](http://www.nfpa.org/~/media/files/research/research%20foundation/research%20foundation%20reports/for%20emergency%20responders/fftacticselecveh.pdf)

<comment><USER22> I know you wouldn't cut high-voltage wiring, but I know at least on a Tesla there's a low-voltage loop exposed for firefighters to cut, which then isolates the high-voltage system as well as disabling the air bags and such. That's shown on page 10-13 here:

[http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/downloads/en_...](http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/downloads/en_EU/model_s_2014_emergency_response_guide.pdf?1505)

I have no idea if this is a common thing or not. Anyway, thanks for the PDF, very interesting stuff. Assuming the car is energized seems sensible. Even with a loop like Tesla has, I imagine you can't count on that having the intended effect after the car has crashed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Forgive my ignorance, what does one do during non-insolated hours? Do solar cells typically come with battery packs or does one just pull from the grid?

If the latter then the cost savings are a bit less impressive than stated.

Also can you put power back into the grid in San Francisco? Is that benefit included in the cost savings estimate?

<comment><USER24> Solar power systems don't necessarily come with batteries but a decent installation company should be able to propose and implement an integrated system. The Tesla battery pack is an example of some recent innovation in that area.

You can sell power into the grid but PG&E only has to pay you wholesale rates, 3-4 cents per kwh, not what they are charging you to take the same amount of energy out, which is 34 cents per kwh at the top tier. It's basically a scam. You don't want to overbuild on the assumption that selling the surplus would be profitable.

<comment><USER25> Is there no real solar power market then? If your local utility is a monopoly then you basically have to accept whatever the utility wants to pay you (even far below 'market' rate). You have no power to negotiate, only capitulate or try to get the local regulator to enforce fair trade.

<comment><USER26> I suspect you'd fare pretty badly in a market, even if a better one existed. In Texas's deregulated electric marketplace, the market price for large-scale solar installations selling into the grid has fallen to around $0.05/kWh. Power from a single small-scale residential installation with less reliable delivery is probably worth less than that.

<comment><USER27> Depends on how much "better" the market is e.g. if it priced in the greenhouse gas externalities, the avoidance of transmission losses and grid upgrades etc then solar may be worth triple the residential rate. I believe a couple of states have calculated "value of solar" to use as part of their grid regulation, though specific factors like mix of gas and coal production and projected grid expansion factor into this.

<comment><USER25> Any reasonable grid would also be wired such that the power you generate will first go to your neighbors, if they need it, instead of 'round-tripping' to the utility and back. So, the utility is taking a huge cut even though it isn't really a factor in the transaction.

There are of course large-scale infrastructure costs (you get to fail-over to nuclear/coal/gas/wind/other), but it seems like all of those things should be accounted separately instead of all being lumped into two line items on a monthly bill from your local monopoly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> 404 when accessed with Indian IP

<comment><USER29> Same even with a Canadian IP.

<comment><USER30> Also Mexico

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> For those with 404 errors, it works if you add "?hl=en" at the end of the URL. [https://www.google.com/get/sunroof?hl=en](https://www.google.com/get/sunroof?hl=en)

</comment><comment><USER32> Another take on this sort of thing: [http://app.dumpark.com/sunlight/](http://app.dumpark.com/sunlight/)

The guys behind this apparently wanted to know the best place to go for a beer at any time of the day. They use the zenith of the sun, the surrounding landscape and the surrounding buildings and have it modeled throughout the year. I think they then realised there may be more useful ways to use this data.

</comment><comment><USER33> Weird, it says it covers Boston but when I put my Boston address (single family in the city of Boston itself) it says they haven't reached the address yet.

<comment><USER34> I live just outside Boston and it worked for me (although it did consider my deck as part of my roof, which grossly inflated the estimate). Technically, they say "greater Boston area", so perhaps they don't actually include Boston itself.

</comment></comment><comment> aps-sids It's a 404.

<comment><USER35> [https://www.google.com/get/sunroof/about/](https://www.google.com/get/sunroof/about/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Not available in Canada it seems

<comment><AUTHOR> Not even available in most of the US.

It's a "start"

<comment><USER37> No, like, in Canada and Europe the site just returns 404.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> They use 20 years and in the past I have heard that the average time for home ownership is typically 7 years. I don't know the true figure today (wasn't able to find it when I just searched) but for most people a 20 year payback is way to long and I would imagine this certainly contributed to lack of adoption of solar in addition to other factors obviously.

Edit: Note this: [https://www.google.com/get/sunroof/faq/#financial- considerat...](https://www.google.com/get/sunroof/faq/#financial- considerations)

<comment><USER39> It will raise your property value though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Risks to getting solar power (according to Project Sunroof) are something to consider.

> As with any investment, there are some risks, though a well-installed system > will make most risks extremely rare. Risks include PV systems catching fire, > installations leading to roof leaks, theft, obsolescence, and hail damage > and/or wind damage to the solar system itself.

> Fast-growing trees can shade solar installations, reducing production over > time. Utilities can change how much they charge their customers for > electricity, changing the savings from solar.

</comment><comment><USER41> Here is a link that doesn't 404 :

[https://www.google.com/get/sunroof/about/](https://www.google.com/get/sunroof/about/)

<comment><USER42> Holy shit, Google is actually that idiotic/incompetent. 404s depending on its interpretation of my IP "location". From US (well, US IP that Google believes is in Hungary, because Google sucks as localization) it works, from other countries it doesn't.

Amazing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> So Google isn't trying to replicate Solar City, this is just an analysis tool if your home would be viable for solar panels. Almost like a middle-man for solar panel providers?

<comment><USER9> They are simply trying to reduce the resistance to solar energy adoption. If people can perform discovery and analysis in a fraction of the time, those who will benefit will more likely do it. Take a 10 hour process and reduce it to 30 minutes, for example. Same idea as a one-click checkout.

<comment><USER44> They're also trying to make money. Warm, qualified solar leads are worth hundreds or more.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> A similar site with more geographical coverage, but less computer vision.

[http://www.canisolar.com/](http://www.canisolar.com/)

</comment><comment><USER46> I was recently thinking about a project to show how easy it would be to power the entire US on solar panels. It actually wouldn't require much land, in fact if you put panels on every building top and parking lot you'd be almost there. What I was imagining was something that'd show you "ideal" spots for solar farms. Ideal meaning proximity to population centers, orientation of land, environmental impact, etc.

<comment><USER24> If you just paved over Edwards AFB with PV panels you'd have 50% of US electric energy demand, and that's assuming a relatively modest 6kWh per day per square meter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> would be amazing to see sunroof and tesla power wall combine efforts on this...

</comment><comment><USER48> How do they make these maps? Do they have satellite images of different points of (sunny) days and run the analysis that way?

<comment><USER49> Extrapolation. Use the time on the satellite photo to get the time reference, and thus where the sun is and how much sunlight going at a direction. Use the location and direction of the house get a sense of the facing of the roof. Use color level of the bright and shade sides to estimate the roof pitch incline. Given the roof's area, direction, and pitch, it's not hard to estimate the sun light received.

<comment><USER50> Far easier, they have 3D models of all the buildings already, as well as weather info. They just need to determine what is roof, and calculate the exposure.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Other than the "buy now" aspect, this doesn't seem any better for calculating solar savings than [http://pvwatts.nrel.gov/](http://pvwatts.nrel.gov/) I used PVwatts when sizing my home system in Denver and thought it did a great job.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's "easier." I just logged into PvWatts, knowing practically nothing about solar, and I'm confused at Step 2. There's a billion variables that it wants me to fill out instead of trying to calculate them for me for optimal results.

<comment><USER52> Agreed PVWatts is more accurate, and it's what a solar installer is actually likely to use when doing a roof assessment. But to use PVWatts you need to input things like the tilt and orientation of your roof, the size of the system you want to build, the cost of power from your provider, inverter efficiency, etc. This asks for your address and your monthly electricity bill to give you a rough estimate, both of which homeowners are much more likely to know.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> They really need to get Florida mapped. Florida is a great candidate for solar power, but the state government is pretty clearly in the power utility's pocket and they work to make it very difficult for solar providers out here.

</comment><comment><USER54> Wow. I can't believe how expensive solar panels are. This really is a great tool to give you an idea how much solar panels would cost. What about wind... does anyone know of any affordable residential wind turbine solutions?

<comment><USER55> Residential wind has some issues:

1) Performance - best performance is when the wind blows in a straight line, houses and other features will deflect it making it turbulent.

2) Noise - turbines are noisy, you're not likely to have neighbors appreciate it.

3) Mounting - Mounting one requires either a pole, or it can be mounted to the roof. However, roof mountings tend to cause issues (read damage) due to vibrations transferred through the mounting.

Not good for a residential neighborhood, but perhaps if you've got several acres of clear land?

<comment><USER56> Aren't there turbines with a vertical shaft, which don't need a large tower? I saw one a few months ago, built especially for city rooftops where you don't have that much space and generally need something not that expensive. You'd still have the problem of turbulences though (i.e. non-optimal performance generation)

<comment><USER24> Yes but vertical axis windmills take more ground space and make even more noise than their horizontal-axis counterparts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> This seems pretty cool, so any downsides I'm not seeing?

<comment><USER58> Agreed, this made my day. IMO only downside is that we don't have more of this sort of innovation happening at a smaller scale (akin to PG's recent tweet about the maturity of self driving cars relative to early versions of Google.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> This could be the source of an interesting direct marking mail campaign by an enterprising solar installer. In the mailer you can list actual numbers.

</comment><comment><USER60> Why are so many people in the USA live in individual houses rather than condominiums (apartments)? The latter is just so much more economical.

<comment><USER61> Because zoning codes mandate it: see _The Rent is Too Damn High_ ([http://www.amazon.com/Rent-Too-Damn-High-Matters- ebook/dp/B0...](http://www.amazon.com/Rent-Too-Damn-High-Matters- ebook/dp/B0078XGJXO)) and _The Triumph of the City_ ([http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention- Health...](http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention- Healthier/dp/0143120549)) for more.

The short version is this: Property owners now have shocking amounts of control over what their neighbors do with property. Owners, especially of single-family houses, elect officials who restrict development through zoning and similar means. Height limits and parking requirements effectively mandate single, detached housing in most of the U.S.

This only really got started in the 70s (see [http://jakeseliger.com/2013/07/03/jane-jacobs-is- everywhere-...](http://jakeseliger.com/2013/07/03/jane-jacobs-is-everywhere- even-when-you-dont-see-her/)), and it didn't get really bad until the 2000s, when the shift back to cities ran into insane urban zoning rules to produce huge affordability crises. By now, most developers who dare to build condos or apartments have to build luxury apartments: [http://www.wsj.com/articles/rents-rise-faster-for-midtier- ap...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/rents-rise-faster-for-midtier-apartments- than-luxury-ones-1439769468) because that's the only way to make the economics work.

In the meantime, much of the population growth has shifted to Sun Belt cities in Texas, Arizona, Georgia, and Florida where development is easier and/or simply sprawls more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> Seems also very similar to [http://www.mapdwell.com/en](http://www.mapdwell.com/en)

</comment><comment><USER63> I live in Fresno, AKA, the surface of the sun. It says my yearly savings on a leased system is $2300! Wow. I may be installing solar soon!

<comment><USER64> What's the difference for you , between leasing and buying ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> I've seen a similar project where it lets you navigate to an address in google maps, shows the satellite image, then lets you draw an outline of your roof. (I can't remember if you had to estimate the roof angle or not.)

I wonder if this is this "not available" in many areas because Google is using machine vision to automatically compute roof metrics, or if it's because they don't have rebate & utility info for many markets.

</comment><comment><USER15> Remember the 30% federal tax credit expires at the end of 2016. Only valid if you buy not lease your panels.

</comment><comment><USER66> It seems to think my apartment building is a parking lot - there's no heat- map.

</comment><comment><USER67> Link dead. . Google error. .

<comment><USER68> I'm also getting an error. Strange to see a google page down...

<comment><USER67> See justplay's answer.

[https://www.google.com/get/sunroof/about/](https://www.google.com/get/sunroof/about/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> Anyone have any ideas on the computer vision techniques used here?

</comment><comment><USER64> So how big of a business this could be for Google ?

<comment><USER70> Solar lead gen (and this is a very fancy form of lead gen) is a reasonable size business within greater lead gen industry, but I doubt this will be noted for the revenue potential in any of Alphabet earnings calls.

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> Dear Google, you make me feel really uncomfortable when you share a video with the world wherein you describe a project which you will make for "the country".

<comment><USER72> Where does it say "the country" ?

<comment><USER71> Look for the youtube video. They say it at the end.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> My pg&e bills have never surpassed $50/month, so project sunroof convinced me that solar is not a good investment!

</comment><comment><USER74> Fusion of maps, 3d modeling, electricity & lease rates, solar intensity, installers. Easy to use. This feels like something new and powerful.

For society: I wonder if it is safe for so much power to be concentrated in one organization.

As a technical accomplishment: I'm impressed.

<comment><USER75> But Google doesn't have power over electricity and lease rates or lists of installers -- they're just using publicly available data.

There are other sources for maps data, and many people have 3d modeling software.

So I'm not sure how this is "so much power" concentrated in one organization.

<comment><USER74> To me, what makes it powerful is the ubiquity - the 'full take' ness of it all. Sure the app is solar-related data, just for a few regions. But could include whatever data Google chooses, expanded to the whole world, for whatever audience Google chooses.

I've worked with aerial surveillance systems, the types used on police choppers. Put the crosshairs of the flir camera on a house and it will tell you all kinds of stuff: age/race of occupants, arrest records, warrants, tax status, etc. Amazing for LE, but a bit big-brotherly for my taste.

In the wrong hands, in the wrong circumstances, data fusion has incredible potential for abuse. IMHO. :-)

<comment><USER76> But if the data is already public, surely making it more widely available devalues it as a means of control or coercion?

You can blackmail me if you know something no one else does. You can't if you know something everyone else does.

Services like this fix asymmetric access to information. They're not revealing anything new.

<comment><USER74> Normal citizens do not have the ability to perform data-fusion like Google or a Government Agency. Services like Sunroof give just a tiny window into what they know about you. Hardly anything could be more asymmetric.

I believe the potential for abuse exists. Everything is fine now (here in California). But when the next crisis comes, data-fusion can be a powerful tool for authoritarians to control their opponents and suppress dissent.

<comment><USER77> > Normal citizens do not have the ability to perform data-fusion like Google > or a Government Agency. Services like Sunroof give just a tiny window into > what they know about you. Hardly anything could be more asymmetric.

If you're a normal citizen _who has technical skills_ , yes, you can do exactly the same data extrapolation with publicly available datasources.

<comment><USER74> Well then - prove me wrong. Build a service like Sunroof, or like the surveillance app I described earlier in this thread.

<comment><USER77> Me noting that it can be done doesn't mean I'm going to waste my time building a similar app out while Google's service is still available.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> Shouldn't this be the "S" or "P" in Alphabet? Why is this a Google project?

<comment><USER13> Because its "Google Maps advertising", the project is to help Google Maps make a bit more money by selling solar installs via their tool. The "G" company is all about the advertising :-)</comment></comment>


Myspace in major crunch: will layoff up to 50% of 1,100 workforce - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20026886-93.html

<comment><USER2> myspace has 1 100 employees ? What the hell are they all doing ... ?

<comment><AUTHOR> Some are in offices outside USA but still, you have a point, that's a whole bunch of people.

So Newscorp is Murdoch right? Fox, etc. ? Ah okay Wikipedia says yes.

He bought it for $580 million in 2005. I wonder if he'll get half that...

(and even more interesting, Myspace is HQ'ed in 90210-land Beverly Hills ?)</comment></comment>


Newly discovered vessels beneath skull could link brain and immune system - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/05/newly-discovered-vessels-beneath-skull-could-link-brain-and-immune-system <comment><USER2> It's too bad this article didn't get more discussion. The circumvention of the blood brain barrier is a _big deal_. I wish someone more knowledgable than me had a go at explaining the implications.

</comment><comment><USER2> FYI here's the paper: [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/natu...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14432.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> It's nothing short of astonishing (and, quite frankly, embarrassing) that a macroscopic structure has eluded doctors for the past couple centuries. One can wonder how many other macroscopic structures exist inside every human being.</comment>


Is Linkedin down? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> No - BT has some major issues.

[http://downdetector.co.uk/problems/bt-british- telecom/map/](http://downdetector.co.uk/problems/bt-british-telecom/map/)

</comment><comment><USER3> I have the same problem here in Oxford. Twitter is down locally as well. Most websites except for google.com, youtube.com, facebook.com are down.

Maybe submarine cable is broken or something wrong with the servers.

</comment><comment><USER4> no</comment>