Pinay traumatized by horror trip to US - <AUTHOR> http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/global-filipino/10/07/13/pinay-traumalized-horror-trip-us <comment><USER3> Stories like this seem to get worse as the years go by post 9/11.

If I could give one piece of advice to foreigners for the next 20 or 30 years as it relates to America: stay out, we are not free here, the walls - <USER2> digital and physical - are going up to control us. The police state is becoming more aggressive, violent, and omnipresent. Save yourselves, pursue freedom and happiness, you won't find such here any longer. There are better countries for that future.

I think this should be etched into the Statue of Liberty as a warning. Since it doesn't represent a beacon of liberty any longer, it might as well serve a purpose.

<comment><USER4> What I remember from my visit to NYC in 2008 is that all tourist attractions had one police check point (metallic / bomb detectors) and the statue of liberty had it two times.

I found it quite ironic.

Edit: Another funny experience was me being stopped by security guards when I tried to take a picture of the Federal Reserve building when standing in front of it, only to be handed a brochure with on the cover a picture of pretty much the same angle.

<comment><USER5> I remember walking past the US Embassy in Geneva, there is one location, clearly marked in front of the building from where you are allowed to take a picture. I didn't bother...

<comment><USER6> The US Embassy in Ottawa, Canada, looks like a fortress downtown. Adjacent to the building, one lane of a busy street has been closed by concrete barriers for years.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embassy_of_the_United_States,_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embassy_of_the_United_States,_Ottawa)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Outrageous. Really, it is - as an American, I'm ashamed to read stuff like this.

However: does it really belong on HN? It's not germane to the stated topics of the site. And it is not "gratifying one's intellectual curiosity" \- quite the opposite, it's a story that makes you mad without really telling you anything you didn't know already.

<comment><USER8> Well, it's an extreme form of what many of us go through on a regular basis when trying to travel to the US, hence I'd say it's relevant. By allowing these people to reign freely, the US is sabotaging itself in the long run, but in the short run it's just incredibly annoying, threatening, and expensive.

I'm also in favor of keeping these stories coming, this should not ever be seen as normal or inevitable.

<comment><USER7> > I'm also in favor of keeping these stories coming, this should not ever be > seen as normal or inevitable.

Perhaps people could post them _elsewhere_. This site does not need to be the be-all and end-all of one's online news consumption, you know?

<comment><USER9> I don't think the site should be flooded with these types of stories but there are also few places on the web to get intelligent conversation on such topics.

<comment><USER7> Do you think that the discussion for this article is interesting and intelligent?

<comment><USER10> The top voted comment at the moment ends with "Fuck the Police", so it's about at the hn par for this topic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The article reports, "It was her 13th time to visit the US in a span of more than two and a half decades."

All that is reported here sounds like an aberration, an officer who mistook the situation and abused his authority. For context, the United States continues to be second only to France as a destination for international tourist visits,

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

and just last week my wife and I enjoyed a meet-up in another part of the United States with several of her high school classmates from back when she lived in Taiwan, who arrived from Taiwan, Malaysia, and China, all without incident. When peaceful, hassle-free visits number in the millions per year, a few visits that are abuses of the process will certainly make news, but they don't appear to discourage tourism to the United States over the long haul.

<comment><USER12> > For context, the United States continues to be second only to France as a > destination for international tourist visits

France is also a way smaller country than the US. If these numbers are correct and you bundled together the whole Schengen area instead (as it has a common border), it would massively dwarf the US.

<comment><USER13> Making comparisons like that is largely useless though because there's a thousand other adjustments you could make; visitor vs depth of history, visitors vs density, etc.

<comment><USER14> I don't think it is useless. It is pretty common to use relative rather than absolute numbers: population density rather than population, GDP per capita rather than just GDP... When it comes to GDP, GDP per capita says more about how affluent a country is compared to other countries than just the GDP. And in the same way that a larger contry tends to have a larger economy, a country that is larger in size and in population is more likely to have more visitors than the same country with less size and less population.

Besides: things like history is likely to be what is often used to _explain_ the large amounts of tourists that coutnries like France gets, in the first place, while the population variable is left hidden.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Ho hum. Just another day in the War on Dignity.

This sort of thing is the inevitable result of giving people responsibility without accountability.

</comment><comment><USER16> Things like this really scary me, as a simple startup guy who wants to visit SV some day. I'm reading stories like this more often unfortunately and I'm starting to think if I really want to go to US. Getting a visa in Poland is also not very comfortable process since you've to give all information about your life to US authorities and still I've no guarantee that I'll be able to enter US.

<comment><USER17> Just be careful about drawing too broad a conclusion from stories like this. They're certainly bad events and the effort should be to make sure they never happen. But they are the only stories about entering the US that get reported on because they're news...and the uneventful instances are not. This is particularly true if you get your news from an aggregation site like HN where there is a certain level of interest in these stories and so they're even more likely to be reported on here.

Millions of people travel to and within the US every year without incident, what gets reported is the admittedly terrible sounding times when that's not the case. Chances are very good that you'd have no problems.

<comment><USER18> The problem is that these are low probability high impact situation, you want 0 occurrences.

I mean wen we get to the US, we have our flight ticket info sent prior, we have to add more data because it's the US, the ESTA, last time I got harassed in Paris by the American Airline because I _need_ to know the address I'm going to (I told her to check my file, I don't remember it), how long I knew my girlfriend and stuff, the NSA knows everything about me (I'm not an US citizen), the TSA checked me, the border police checked me out of the country. When I arrive in front of the CBP agent, my privacy had already been thoroughly shredded in the name of security, and my personal data including credit card is gone in the wild without any recourse or oversight, there is absolutely no need to physically harass people at the border.

<comment><USER19> totally agree here. avoiding these pointless high-impact incidents is paramount to PR for the US as a travel destination.

it is a win for both the US and travelers when this process goes smoothly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This happens all the time, and it's a disgrace. It's also the reason why I haven't visited the US for more than a decade. The last time I went through this was before 9/11 and I can only assume it has gotten even worse since then.

<comment><USER21> Meh. I visit America relatively frequently and I can't remember the last time I spent longer than 60 seconds at the US Border Control (excluding the queue which can be a bit long sometimes). And you know, the border control officers were always very polite and professional with me. This is a silly reason to not visit America.

<comment><USER22> Me too. Never had an unfriendly one yet.

<comment><USER23> Maybe you are just white enough.

<comment><USER22> I am a British honky, that is true. But I also don't give them any attitude.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Well. I actually do like America, I mean, which programmer would not? But during my various stays there, people have been murdered in front of my house, naked people have been thrown out of cars onto the pavement in front of me, bank roberies happened right across the street of me.

The US is the most barbaric and uncivilised of the western countries. That might come as a surprise to some.

<comment><USER25> Okay. I am born and raised in the US and have lived here all my life. Not only have I never seen anything you described, I can't really think of a time I've even witnessed anything particularly bad happen or even had "bad things" happen to me. Not a car broken into, not a home, not luggage, no murders, not even a scream! And I'm dark and look Middle Eastern but have never faced racism (grew up in the whitest parts of the south/southwest) or even a police officer who was anything but polite. For a few months, I lived in one of the adored "utopian paradises" frequently praised on the internet, and was "randomly selected" for a bag search every single time I flew domestically.

Yes, I guess I'm fortunate, and I'm sorry bad things happened to you, and there are plenty of problems here, but, there are 330 million people in this country, most were either born abroad or their parents or grandparents were, and we all get along pretty fucking well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> They do this to me regularly, and I'm a US-born US citizen. My median time for being arrested and held with no food or water or use of a communications device is around six hours.

...all because I politely exercise my fifth amendment rights.

This happens about 50% of the time I enter the country. I live abroad so I enter the US about a half-dozen times per year. I think my file is big enough now that they know not to ask me anything.

[http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/customerservice/pledge_tra...](http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/customerservice/pledge_travel.xml)

> CBP's Pledge to Travelers

> We pledge to cordially greet and welcome you to the United States.

> We pledge to treat you with courtesy, dignity, and respect.

> We pledge to explain the CBP process to you.

> We pledge to have a supervisor listen to your comments.

> We pledge to accept and respond to your comments in written, verbal, or > electronic form.

> We pledge to provide reasonable assistance due to delay or disability.

I often wonder which of these "threatening me with prosecution for interfering with a border control point", "lying to me by saying I'm legally required to answer their questions", "refusing to tell me the name of the city I'm standing in" and "throwing me out of the border control point (into the USA) on the highway in Vermont in February in a snowstorm" fall under.

(It's the only time I've ever had to hitchhike in my life, as it'd been hours since they'd sent the Montreal-Boston bus on without me.)

The one border cop in Detroit told me, after coming through the tunnel from Windsor, that "[she's] just doing her job, making sure the country is safe, and that [she's] there to _prove [I 'm] innocent_ and get [me] on my way quickly." I waited until I was given the all clear to leave the building before mentioning to her that "We're Americans, and this is America. I am innocent until I am proven guilty, and those representing our country would do best to remember that."

Despite my opinions about the lot of them, I am calm, polite, professional, and courteous in my interactions with them. They respond in the most unprofessional manner possible, short of physically assaulting me. They've cost me thousands of dollars and caused me to miss important business meetings. (Before you say it: it's not my fault for exercising my basic rights or not "just answering the simple questions" that I missed my meetings. I'd have left except for the fact that men with guns on their belt arrested me after I'd already given them my passport and they'd searched my possessions.)

Fuck the police.

PS: Their invasive searches of my belongings were clearly punitive, too. I never travel with contraband but had I been doing so, they would not have found any of it. They were clearly just fucking with someone who had the nerve to tell them that his travel plans inside and outside of the US were and are "none of their business".

<comment><USER27> What fifth amendment rights? Was someone asking you to testify against yourself at trial?

And CBP does have the right to ask who you are and where you're going when you cross the border. It is their business, and has been since the 18th century.

EDIT: I should clarify because I'm being somewhat glib. First, 4th amendment does not apply to routine border searches, and it was the First Congress, containing many of the framers, that instituted routine border searches: [http://blog.cybersecuritylaw.us/2013/09/23/david-house- dhs-a...](http://blog.cybersecuritylaw.us/2013/09/23/david-house-dhs-and-the- fourth-amendment-border-search-exception).

Second, while the Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue, the various circuits have held that 5th amendment does apply, but Miranda warnings are not required: [http://fourthamendment.com/blog/index.php?blog=1&title=e_d_n...](http://fourthamendment.com/blog/index.php?blog=1&title=e_d_n_y_miranda_warnings_not_required_fo&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1).

These are both rooted in the long-standing right of sovereign entities to defend their borders.

Third, I'm not aware of any Supreme Court case that says you can't be compelled to answer questions at the border. Currently, there is simply no law compelling you to answer questions, but it's not clear such a law would be unconstitutional if it existed. So there is nothing wrong with CBP asking, and nothing wrong with you refusing to answer, and nothing wrong with CBP giving you extra scrutiny, within the limits of the 4th amendment, for refusing to answer the questions.

Fourth, I'm in the camp that thinks Miranda shouldn't even apply to questioning at the border. See: [http://www.volokh.com/2013/06/17/do-you-have- a-right-to-rema...](http://www.volokh.com/2013/06/17/do-you-have-a-right-to- remain-silent-thoughts-on-the-sleeper-criminal-procedure-case-of-the-term- salinas-v-texas). The 5th amendment's text is simple: "No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." The historical practice and plain meaning of this text was, before the 1960's, that you couldn't force a defendant to testify against himself in a criminal proceeding. This was a specific response to the practice of the Star Chamber in England. It's a pretty big stretch to say that this should limit the police's ability to ask you questions, especially at the border where the state's interest in security is relatively stronger.

<comment><USER26> Fifth amendment rights extend beyond the courtroom. I am not legally obligated to make any statements to law enforcement about my own activities. Indeed, border control points are simply yet another instance in which you should "never talk to the police."

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc)

You're being recorded, both audio and video, from the moment you enter the building. Making a false statement, even accidentally, is a serious crime. They, of course, are allowed to lie as much as they wish with no repercussions. Ask any lawyer: making any voluntary statements to the police is a bad idea under any circumstances.

Furthermore, my travel within or without the United States is no business of the government's, as evidenced by the fact that there's no law requiring me to provide it to them. Every time this has happened, I have been allowed in to the US. Every time.

The troubling part is that this is really just a demonstration of what the police would do if Terry v. Ohio or the 5th Amendment weren't in place.

They see absolutely no irony in harassing an American, on American soil, under the banner of "protecting America".

Being late, I can cope with. The fact that large federal law enforcement organizations like CBP fundamentally don't get why we have basic rights is the truly scary part.

<comment><USER28> The 5th Amendment covers the right to not have to self-incriminate in the courtroom or anywhere. If you plead the 5th during a border search, however, it essentially means that you are likely to commit criminal activity but don't have to admit to it.

You are probably thinking more of the fourth amendment, which supposedly protects against unlawful search and seizure - including information about your whereabouts, etc.

Also, I probably wouldn't use a YouTube lawyer as my sole reference for doing that sort of thing, just FYI.

<comment><USER29> Unfortunately internet lawyers are about all we have left. Graduating lawyers are unemployed in record numbers, because folks now normally get all their legal advice online, for better or for worse.

<comment><USER30> AFAIK, graduate lawyers don't have jobs because there's more supply (more students), not less demand.

<comment><USER31> The legal industry changed after 2008, at least for larger firms. They started needing to compete on price for one thing, whereas they could largely charge what they liked before. Clients became very selective of what they chose to litigate very quickly, presumably based on cost/benefit analyses they had taken for granted in the past. That doesn't sound like a shift on the supply side to me.

Also, a substantial amount of legal employment used to be in doing things like document review that can now be handled by software. This could be seen to be augmenting the supply factor, since it automates what lawyers used to do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Being a white male I've passed fairly fast through US borders when I visit. But people who've travelled on business with me who are non-whites have been severely delayed and eventually meet up at the hotel hours later with harrowing stories. From my samples I'd say that the border agents routinely racially profile.

</comment><comment><USER33> I think it's unfortunate that there are false positives. On the other hand, we are free to complain about our government, and that is fortunate.

But to those of you complaining, are you sure this isn't just another anecdote that supports your stereotypes? Or is our anti-authoritarian fetish getting in the way of the data (or lack there of) again?

Have any of us worked with a effective and practical system that never has false positives? Are you unhappy with the _rate_ of false positives? Do you even know what that rate is? Are you saying you would you rather have more false negatives and fewer false positives? Surely anecdotal evidence is biased towards nasty false positives: we don't read about stories when someone triggers suspicion and is reasonably investigate before being released, but are you sure it never happens?

I'm not saying that I think it's acceptable to be wrong sometimes, or to treat people this way. But I'm also not convinced by anyone who doesn't have answers to the above questions.

<comment><USER34> I think that you are completely missing the point. The problem is not about false positives, the problem is about the abusive behaviour to false positives. I can totally understand that there are false positives but racial slurs, threats, shouting, refusal to provide water etc. are never ever justified.

Abusive behaviour of this kind might be just a personal failure of some employee... in that case they need to be fired and severely punished. If those things happen on multiple occasions and nothing happens, nobody is fired/punished, nobody apologises... than you have a reason to believe that it is a systematic failure to uphold to certain standards commonly associated with states that are not police states. That seems to be the case in the US.

<comment><USER33> That's fair. I tried to include this perspective as well. Personally I want to agree that this behavior is never ever justified, but do you know that being respectful has no impact on the number of actual violators that are caught? Instead, I expect there is a trade off, and I would sacrifice respect for increased efficacy, to an extent. Furthermore, the resources required to remove agents that misbehave compete with the resources to find violators. Ultimately, I think it's hard to tell from here if we're sacrificing too much respect given the results.

I'd rather not have to become an expert in border control; I pay taxes so that someone else can do that. I can see, however, that many people find it hard to trust that someone else might know more than them. I think it's a shame that there is not enough transparency; is assuming the worst and crying foul without proper data really the best we can do?

<comment><USER35> This just happened to my Aussie friend, although not to such a degrading degree. I don't think either event qualifies as a false positive.

In either case, there was no evidence at all of an overstay. That's like a spam filter looking at your inbox and arbitrarily picking one email and putting it in your spam folder; would you call that a false positive? To have a false positive, there must be some sort of algorithm/procedure/heuristic, i.e. some sort of non-random selection mechanism. Otherwise, you don't have a spam filter, you have spam roulette. And that's how it is at the border with these immigration officers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> > "While doing this, another officer passed and shouted 'Who is she, a TNT?'" > she said.

What is a 'TNT'?

<comment><USER37> According to the Racist Slur Database [http://www.rsdb.org/race/filipinos](http://www.rsdb.org/race/filipinos)

> "Tago Nang Tago" It's a filipino thats an illegal alien. Translates to > "hides and hides" (from the I.N.S.)

<comment><USER29> You know, the name of that database labels everything in it in a very negative way. I'd say the database itself is a slur. It contains a lot of stuff; its not all racist. Some of it is self-identification; some is slang.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> " _The immigration officer then returned to the room and accused Grande of being a liar. He claimed that he talked to her aunt, who allegedly told him that Grande will take care of her as a caregiver._ "

I've seen the same up close. Seems it's a standard tactic: when someone is suspected of immigration transgression, lie about the suspect's prior statements to others; reason is to throw the person off-guard, increasing the chance they'll say something actionable. This is very effective, and _VERY_ disturbing to the suspect. The guards are under no obligation to tell the truth, and use lying as a standard tactic...but anything YOU say can and will be used against you, with lying to a federal official being one of the worst things you can do.

</comment><comment><USER39> More and more people are reluctant to go to the US for this. People who undergo such treatment should be compensated. This would be the fair price for security and maybe would focus the security effort on real threats.

</comment><comment><USER19> overall, i am reminded of how sad i am to be a US citizen when i hear these stories. i have been harrassed by security personnel on a few occasions but have managed to avoid being stuck in the "private screening" room. the irony of having someone who is of puertorican decent and does not speak english as their first language giving me shit when coming into the US from the caribbean is not lost on me.

unfortunately, the characterization of people in the US being (1) ignorant, (2) rude and (3) obnoxious is rather accurate. the USG should make an effort to have competent people manning the border since it makes the US look _awful_ when stuff like this happens. obama, or whoever is president, should make this shit a priority since we look like a bunch of fucking jerks when it comes to CBP/ICE.

</comment><comment><USER40> Am I the only one who would like to hear the other side of the story? We're only hearing her side.

Stories like this are beyond useless because they don't present all the facts. It's a sensationalist one-sided narrative of what happened. Without the other side's version of events, we cannot look at the story critically and evaluate the merits of both sides.

<comment><USER41> Yeah, well, if the CBP opened a dialogue about their side of the story I'm sure we would listen to them. A big part of the problem is that the authorities do _not_ talk honestly about their view of the proceedings. The TSA at least makes gestures in that direction, but CBP not so much.

(An _honest_ view from their side would talk about subjects like "What percentile of our employees are competent to do their jobs? How much would it cost to improve this?")

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Don't know what to say. This is just beyond infuriating:

 _The immigration officer then returned to the room and accused Grande of being a liar. He claimed that he talked to her aunt, who allegedly told him that Grande will take care of her as a caregiver._

 _She said the immigration officer 's allegations are not true because her aunt didn't even know she was arriving in the US._

 _" While Officer Mam kept on repeating his questions about why I was in the US, a fellow officer by the name of Chang, joined and shouted, calling me a liar. He even searched my purse where I had wedding cards (with money) for my daughter and future son-in-law, and a birthday card for Joshua (also with money) and other stuff. He scattered all the items in my purse on the table, asking why they should believe me, when my aunt, according to him, seems to be the honest one," Grande said._

</comment><comment><USER43> On the other hand you might have this

[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk- eborders-s...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-eborders- scheme-catalogue-of-chaos-as-649000-border-alerts-about-possible-drug-and- tobacco-smuggling-deleted-8867427.html)

<comment><USER44> To be honest, if the choice is between that and TSA, I'll take that every day. So they smuggle drugs and tobacco: big deal! With better policies, those activities wouldn't even exist anyway. Real policing is done with long-running investigations and intelligence on organised crime, not with coppers doing data-entry from passports.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> As far as I can tell, the only source for this story is an unverified email sent by Carina Yonzon Grande to local (Phillippine) news outlets. While can't believe someone would make the story up from whole cloth, I suspect there are important details which may have been altered or omitted.

I think it would be prudent to reserve judgement until more information is available.

</comment><comment><USER46> so where are the other sources confirming this? right now there is a single source of info, which is the woman in question. stories like this are very emotional and very often not exactly following the truth. HN gobbles them up, especially those readers who rarely travel themselves.

i am deeply skeptical about this account. this year alone i have entered the US about 10 times, coming from European and Asian destinations. not a US citizen. I have never witnessed _any_ impolite behavior by CBP personnel towards passengers - and I was standing in the blue line for hours with them.

using the very specific term TNT is very strange for non-filipino officers.

if you worked in retail this reminds me of certain customers from hell that complained to your manager and told a story that was outrageously one sided. all the while having been openly abusive to you.

</comment><comment><USER47> This story interests me because I'm a Filipino

<comment><USER48> But why is it on Hacker News? And why did the submitter use the term Pinay? People barely know how to spell Filipino, so I don't expect them to know Pinay either.

"Filipino visitor something something..."

<comment><USER49> > And why did the submitter use the term Pinay? People barely know how to > spell Filipino, so I don't expect them to know Pinay either.

The title comes from the submitted article. The article comes from ABC-CBN, a Philippine news source.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABS- CBN_News_and_Current_Affai...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABS- CBN_News_and_Current_Affairs)

> ABS-CBN News and Current Affairs (formerly ABS-CBN News and Public Affairs) > is the news division of Philippine media conglomerate ABS-CBN Corporation. > The organization is responsible for the daily news and information gathering > of its news programs. Its current slogan is Panig sa Katotohanan, Panig sa > Pagbangon ng Bayan (Tagalog for Sides for the Truth, Sides for the Rise of > the Nation). According to the SWS media trust survey, ABS-CBN News & Current > Affairs topped the list among Philippines news and broadcast organizations, > garnering 68% of the public trust.

> But why is it on Hacker News?

What stories should be on HN, and why do you think this doesn't fit?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Is this a reliable news source? I've never heard of the site before. The URL looks like a play on abc and cbs news.

I don't think it seems that far fetched, but it does come across as being a fake story. It sadly doesn't surprise me that something like this could happen, I just question the site this is hosted on.

<comment><USER51> Major Philippines news org.

<comment><USER50> That's good to know; thanks for clarifying.</comment></comment></comment>


Tesla Fairy Tale Is About to Become a Horror Story - <AUTHOR> https://seekingalpha.com/article/4069671-tesla-fairy-tale-become-horror-story <comment><USER2> I've been reading every article that comes up in the news from a wide variety of sources on Tesla for 6+ years daily, and Seeking Alpha is one of the most consistently biased. They're as reliable as the tides in terms of which side of the story they want to tell.

</comment><comment><USER3> Just FYI, Seeking Alpha is a forum for many investors with short positions on Tesla. They have been predicting Tesla's demise for a decade.

<comment><USER4> Tesla ain't going nowhere. A lot of people are missing the point as to why the stock is so high.

It's so high because it's the future, not because of current sales. If it's the future then the argument needs to be a little different if your hoping to convince people to dump it.

<comment><USER5> It's clearly high because of what people _believe_ about the future.

What remains to be seen is whether those beliefs are correct. It's not unheard of for stocks to.fly high because of what people believe the future will bring, and then to come down when that prediction turns out to be false.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This seems a little premature as the model 3 is not in production yet.

The article claims that the model 3 sales projections are optimistic, I disagree. The model 3 is a fully electric car for $ 35 000, my brother just bought a Camry recently for more than that.

An electric car with tesla quality at that price range is a game changer than can transition the average middle class American to electric. In fact, in my mind, the model 3 seems like the make or break model for tesla.

In my mind a lot of these doom and gloom articles about tesla started when goldman sachs and consumer reports downgraded Tesla stock. But the only reason for the downgrade was continued (and admittedly long) delays for the model 3. And while the delays have been long, when you're on the bleeding edge of tech doing something new, delays are a part of the process.

<comment><USER7> Delays don't seem to be part of the process at Slack, Google, or any of your top tier software companies.

Tesla? Delay after delay. Want to cite auto industry, I can point more successful examples.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This makes some good points.

\- Tesla is still losing money. Basic reality check: that can't go on indefinitely.

\- Tesla is no longer production-limited. Tesla's can no longer sell as many cars as they can make.

\- Solar City installations are down, way down.[1] More systems are being sold rather than leased, which is good for revenue.

\- Tesla's selling, general and administrative expenses are very high for an auto company.

\- Even with optimistic sales and profit margin assumptions for the Model 3, profitability doesn't look good.

These are real problems.

[1] [http://investorplace.com/2017/05/tesla-solarcity- tsla/](http://investorplace.com/2017/05/tesla-solarcity-tsla/)

<comment><USER9> Tesla is not production limited, that's why it's planning to create 4 more Gigafactories this year, right?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I sometimes wonder if Tesla should be getting into autonomous nav with some of the evident problems they have with high school geometry and recharge planning. That said, the author of the article used SG&A expenses as a club to smack them with, without bothering to examine the reeds that make up the club. Tesla has more in common with Amazon than GM for a business model, they've got a voracious R&D appetite, and so on. They may well fail, but this article doesn't even seem to have a grasp on what they are, hence the measurements are all of time in furlongs per fortnight :-)

</comment><comment><USER11> Methinks someone wants Tesla stock cheaper. Absolutely no mention of the considerable IP capital Tesla is building, or what that might be worth to a company with smart car ambitions and 250B in the bank.

</comment><comment><USER12> Can't even read the story on mobile. Good job, seeking alpha. And no, I don't want your app.

</comment><comment><USER13> The stock still defies gravity to all time high. Not sure whether it's irrational exuberance or investors truly see something in Tesla.

Edit: Got scared and got out at ~280. It was a good run but time to move on.

<comment><USER14> One factor: At least a couple of major investment banks, along with many other commentators, see Musk's apparently good relationship with President Trump as a reason to invest in Tesla. Of course, nobody can say how much it affects their market capitalization, but just the banks saying it will be self- fulfilling to an (unknown) extent.

Musk wouldn't be the first to use lobbying to help his business, and so far (a small sample) Trump has used his power much more than past presidents to help and punish businesses he favors/disfavors (e.g., threatening businesses that want to relocate factories, threatening airplane manufacturers, tweeting favorable and unfavorable things about businesses, etc.). Trump has a reputation for corruption, that's factual; that doesn't tell us how true it is or how it applies in this kind of situation or in this particular case. What I'm trying to say is, let's be careful with the facts.

If you search for 'musk trump', you can find plenty of discussion of it. Here's one article from a good source:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/business/elon-musk- donald...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/business/elon-musk-donald-trump- wall-street.html)

<comment><USER13> Unless the government buys from Tesla, Trump's help won't matter much to investors. In the case of a bailout, investor equity is the first thing destroyed. Trump would certainly help Tesla to survive in such an event, but for investors, its' better to buy after that than before.

<comment><USER14> Good points; I wonder what the investment banks saw. Certainly Tesla depends on government laws, regulations and policy, especially as a new entrant seeking widespread changes in several regulated industries. For example, they want electric charging stations spread nationwide, they'd probably like fossil fuels to become more expensive or at least become less subsidized, subsidies for electric cars, regulators to not delay or limit Tesla innovations, etc. etc.

Also, government does R&D on battery tech, I'm pretty sure. Does anyone know how much Tesla directly or indirectly benefits? Finally, they may want to sell to government; fleets of large organizations often are good customers for alternative fuels, because (AFAIK) they can provide and support their own infrastructure. But that is speculative (as is investing!).</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Switching Tracks? - <AUTHOR>

Hi, fellow hacker newsians -
I've been doing Java and Javascript development for about seven years now, and I feel like my learning curve is starting to flatten out. I have a bachelor's and master's degree in computer science, but life and a couple of other circumstances tied me to an enterprise job that has started to tail off in terms of technical challenges. When I've submitted my resume, it seems to be seized upon either by people who want a J2EE programmer (my Java experience) or a web developer (my Javascript and AJAX work) and frankly, there isn't much that interests me in either of those fields beyond a paycheck. When I was in grad school, I did a hell of a lot of coding in C++ on interesting problems (e.g. genetic algorithms, a database driver) just for my own sake, and I've even done some minor contract work that allowed me to use Python, but that gets pushed aside as "irrelevant" when I try to highlight it in an interview or cover letter.
What I'd like to do is to get a job doing something that's technically challenging. As I see it, that challenge could either come from new tools (e.g. a new language) or a new task. However, the problem is that as I've accumulated experience, people increasingly see me as a specialist in the Java code I've been writing, and my extracurricular and general qualifications seem to be discarded.
I'm curious how people have handled these sorts of switches before. Anyone have any stories or advice? <comment><USER2> Even though you've got Java and web development experience, nobody's saying that you have to list them on your resume. These skills are in demand, so of course employers are going to focus on those sections of your resume instead of the fun parts.

Are you able to perform well on an interview where you'll get tested on C++ and nothing else? If so, list your C++ experience prominently on your resume, demote Java and web development to tiny bullet points, and start applying to jobs.

If you don't think you could do yourself justice in a technical interview, get involved in spare time projects and publicise your work on the web. The good employers will value your involvement in the development community as much as they do actual paid work. (This is how I was able to get a functional programming job: I carried on writing C# at work while teaching myself F# at weekends. I got to know my fellow F# developers through the web, and I'm now working with them.)</comment>


Linear Programming: How Does It Work? - <AUTHOR> http://jadagul.tumblr.com/post/145201618713/linear-programming-how-does-it-work <comment><USER3> Here is a brief summary that gives some context both for the article, and for the discussion here.

In linear programming the solution space is a convex[0] polytope[1] - <USER2> optimum is always at a vertex.[2]

The Simplex Method proceeds by:

* Finding a vertex

* While there exists a neighbour who is better, move to it.

Done.

The usual implementation doesn't even bother trying to find the best neighbour, just anyone will do. The math tells us that you never get into a dead end. In other words, if you are not at the optimum, at least one of your neighbours is guaranteed to be better, and the pivot step of the Simplex Method will find one.

You can refine the technique slightly by checking several neighbours and choosing the one that gives the greatest improvement, but in practice it doesn't save a lot of work. There is no search, no back-tracking, and no queue of points to consider. It's not Dijkstra's algorithm in disguise - it's not any kind of search.

In pathological cases it can take exponential time, but there are two ways to avoid that. One is to add a little noise, the other is to choose, from among those neighbours that are better, one at random. Other comments in this discussion give some references that go into the detail of ellipsoidal and interior point methods.

Simplex method for the win - it's simple to implement, robust, efficient in practice, and applicable to a wide range of problems.

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

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

[2] This depends crucially on the fact that this is "linear" programming. As you sweep a hyper-plane across a polytope, the last point of contact will contain at least one vertex.

[3] If you've read this far and found it useful, but want more, contact me, because I've been thinking of writing this up properly for some time.

<comment><USER4> > It's not Dijkstra's algorithm in disguise - it's not any kind of search.

It's a kind of superficial statement to make: "this is not that". Obviously these things are different on the surface, but probing a bit deeper can sometimes bring similarities out. This is more interesting to me, although perhaps I am just getting old and too many neurons are interconnected and this is what makes me seek the similarities between things, instead of just saying "this is not that".

As has been noted by arghbleargh [0], the simplex method can be used to implement Dijkstra. How sure are you that the converse is not also true? Will you at least admit this is an interesting question? Or even the question of how to ask this question in such a way that it is provable/disprovable. I think this is worthwile.

Continuing to probe: Dijkstra (and dynamic programming, etc.) hinges crucially on the idea of a semiring, or generalized distributivity [1], [2]. In the case of a minimum weight path this boils down to noticing that a+max(b, c) = max(a+b, a+c). The plus distributes over the max (think of the usual distributivity: a _(b+c)=a_ b+a*c).

Convexity also has a kind of distributivity, which can be most easily seen by taking averages: a+(b+c)/2 = (a+b)/2 + (a+c)/2\. So addition distributes additively over "averages". And this formula extends to arbitrary convex combinations. My spider sense is telling me that something interesting is going on here, and there may be some more ways to link linear programming up with dynamic programming.

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11845375](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11845375)

[1] Aji, Srinivas M., and Robert J. McEliece. "The generalized distributive law." Information Theory, IEEE Transactions on 46, no. 2 (2000): 325-343.

[2] Gondran, Michel, and Michel Minoux. Graphs, dioids and semirings: new models and algorithms. Vol. 41. Springer Science & Business Media, 2008.

<comment><USER5> "How sure are you that the converse is not also true? Will you at least admit this is an interesting question? Or even the question of how to ask this question in such a way that it is provable/disprovable. I think this is worthwile."

It's an interesting question, but one which has a sad answer: integer linear programming (and other restricted forms, such as 0-1 programming) are NP-Hard.

If you could use dijkstra's algorithm to solve them, in less than exponential time, you will have proved P=NP.

So i would go with "pretty sure".

(now, could you do it in exponential number of dijkstra invocations? Maybe? But that is, to me, not an interesting question :P Same with could you expand the linear programming problem into an exponential size graph that was then solvable by dijkstra's algorithm - we already know that expspace is a superset of p, etc)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is a really cool technique to have in your toolbelt. When you are able to model a problem in this way, you can get something that also seems magical. I've found these kind of constraint solvers to be a nice middle ground between naive algorithms and full blown machine learning.

A couple examples:

* Building a scheduling system for work-shifts -- add constraints for number of hours per week, double shifts, minimum roles (manager/supervision) then use wages as the cost function to minimize

* Exercise recommendations -- add constraints for calories burned, time, etc and then minimize a heuristic for "difficulty"

* Fantasy sports optimizer -- this is very niche but something I built that optimizes a fantasy team projected points based on position limits and player cost (for FanDuel)

The trouble I had was that almost all of the material and tools are very academic focused. It was difficult for me to grok and the libraries were not well documented.

The best I have found is Google's or-tools. The documentation is still lacking, but I was able to understand the basics from their examples. The best part is that there are bindings for a handful of languages so you aren't necessarily forced to also learn some thing like R or C++ to work with it.

Start here: [https://developers.google.com/optimization/lp/glop#output](https://developers.google.com/optimization/lp/glop#output)

and be sure to read through the Stigler Diet example to get a taste for how to transform real-world problems into solvable linear systems.

</comment><comment><USER4> Wait, so this is straight up gradient ascent on the vertices of the feasable set? I always thought the simplex method was more complicated than that. I guess you do need to maintain some kind of queue of current-best vertices.

If we squint a bit do we get Dijkstra's algorithm?

<comment><USER7> > Wait, so this is straight up gradient ascent on the vertices of the feasable > set?

The simplex method literally crawls the edges of the feasible region, which is always a convex polytope. Sadly, the simplex method runs in exponential time in the number of variables. A more efficient alternative for large LP problems is interior point methods: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interior_point_method](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interior_point_method) . As the name suggests, interior point methods traverse the interior of the feasible region.

To see why interior point methods are more efficient, suppose your feasible region is a convex n-gon in XY plane, for some very large n. Your initial point is the lowest vertex (least Y coordinate), and the objective function to maximize is Y, so you want to reach the highest vertex. The simplex method will literally crawl the vertices one by one until you reach the top. Interior point methods will take a more straightforward path through the interior of the polygon.

> If we squint a bit do we get Dijkstra's algorithm?

No. Dijkstra's algorithm operates on fundamentally discrete structures (finite graphs), whereas the simplex method solves linear programming problems with continuous variables (conceptually ranging over the reals, although of course on a computer one uses floating-points or some other approximate representation).

Integer linear programming, where all or some of the variables range over the integers, is also possible, but it requires extending some base LP-solving algorithm with a means to "discretize" the feasible region, such as branch and bound methods: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_and_bound](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_and_bound) .

<comment><USER8> >> If we squint a bit do we get Dijkstra's algorithm?

> No. Dijkstra's algorithm operates on fundamentally discrete structures > (finite graphs), whereas the simplex method solves linear programming > problems with continuous variables (conceptually ranging over the reals, > although of course on a computer one uses floating-points or some other > approximate representation).

I think you've misunderestood the grandparent. Try to think of the vertices of the simplex as vertices in a graph, and edges on the simplex as edges on the graph. The (primal) simplex method chooses an entering variable by saying, "which edge from this vertex improves the objective most quickly?"

The reason the graph search doesn't turn into Dijkstra's algorithm is that we would never have any reason to backtrack. The next basis is always at least as good as the last, so we don't "get stuck" and we don't ask whether we would rather have gone another way earlier on.

EDIT:

> To see why interior point methods are more efficient...

I know they exist, but I've never seen a problem for which interior point methods are actually faster in practice. My experience isn't too deep with very large LPs, mind -- mine tend to have tens or hundreds of thousands of variables, not millions.

<comment><USER4> > The reason the graph search doesn't turn into Dijkstra's algorithm is that > we would never have any reason to backtrack. The next basis is always at > least as good as the last, so we don't "get stuck" and we don't ask whether > we would rather have gone another way earlier on.

I wonder if there is a sharper way of putting this.

Dijkstra's algorithm doesn't backtrack either, it is always merely propagating a "wave-front" of current best vertices (and perhaps how we got there). And the simplex method will also do this when presented with a connected component of vertices all of which have the same objective value.

I feel there are some deeper connections to "dynamic programming", of which Dijkstra's algorithm is a good example. Having trouble putting my finger on it.

One obvious difference is that the Simplex method doesn't know the target vertex, whereas we do know this in Dijkstra. So perhaps the (possibly non- existent) analogy I am searching for links vertices of the Simplex method with _paths_ in Dijkstra.

<comment><USER9> There is a linear programming formulation of the shortest path problem: see [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortest_path_problem#Linear...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortest_path_problem#Linear_programming_formulation). Indeed the vertices of the simplex method would correspond to paths, but I think running the simplex method on the dual formulation is more akin to Dijkstra's algorithm. Actually, I think the simplex method on the dual and Dijkstra's are equivalent, although I did not work through the details carefully.

<comment><USER4> Aha, yes, this is what I was looking for. Thankyou!

Reminds me also of using linear programming to do belief propagation and decode sparse codes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Fun fact: recent notable rocket landings seem to use convex optimization to solve the soft landing problem, AFAICT.

See here for more info: [http://web.mit.edu/larsb/www/iee_tcst13.pdf](http://web.mit.edu/larsb/www/iee_tcst13.pdf)

> This convexification enables the planetary soft landing problem to be solved > optimally by using convex optimization, and is hence amenable to onboard > implementation with a priori bounds on the computational complexity and > realtime execution time.

</comment><comment><USER11> For further reading there is an excellent resource here [http://web.mit.edu/15.053/www/](http://web.mit.edu/15.053/www/) with a leitmotive example and both theoretical and practical approches. It also explains in detail the theory behind the real world implementation of simplex method (aka revised simplex) with inversed matrix factorization methods, etc. This is a quite old book but as far as I know even modern linear solvers use those techniques (at least open-source ones for sure).

This is a very specific and little subset of convex optimization and yet very powerful (and exciting).

Convex optimization methods can also be used in many non-convex situations, for example when you have quasi-convex or log-convex functions as objective or constraints. I recommend Boyd's excellent course [https://lagunita.stanford.edu/courses/Engineering/CVX101/Win...](https://lagunita.stanford.edu/courses/Engineering/CVX101/Winter2014/about) and the online free book [https://web.stanford.edu/~boyd/cvxbook/bv_cvxbook.pdf](https://web.stanford.edu/~boyd/cvxbook/bv_cvxbook.pdf) (warning : very addictive)

</comment><comment><USER12> When I hear linear programming I always remember this method [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsoid_method](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsoid_method). It is nice example of algorithm which is not useful for programming only for mathematicians (I believe it was used as proof that linear programming is in P). I think that most of the programmers will have really hard time to implement it and also it is on average slower than simplex method despite a fact that simplex is not in P and this algorithm is.

<comment><USER13> It's been a while since I studied mathematics (and I wrote my thesis in optimization), but at the time it was not clear if simplex is in P or not. I think no one has found a selection function for variables that is always polynomial.

<comment><USER12> See this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplex_algorithm#Efficiency](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplex_algorithm#Efficiency). But simplex is still widely used because real problems are usually solved in polynomial time. You have to design your problem to not finish in polynomial time.

But I am not a matematician this opinion it just how I understand it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Anyone knows of a good introduction to karmarkar's algorithm ? Which finds optimal solutions waay faster than simplex...

<comment><USER15> This is supposed to be true only for very large linear programs. The simplex method is the fastest thing in town for most LPs. Even though it's exponential time where Karmarkar's algorithm is polynomial.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> The OP and the discussion is sround technical implementation, but I am interesred in the analysis part of LP.

I wanted to use LP to optimize a budget but my senior coleague said that LP is just too damn hard in the real world. Is this true? Is there a textbook that goes over practical applications of LP?

<comment><USER3> I am surprised that your senior colleague says it's "too damn hard." Are they referring to the conversion of your data into the right format, or are they referring to getting an implementation running? The latter is fairly straight- forward, the former depends on how clean and convertible your existing data are.

If your data are currently messy, you need to clean it up anyway. There will be political issues with doing work your senior colleague says is not possible, but if you can solve - or avoid - the political problems, learning how to do this, and then doing it, will be good for your personal development.

Warning: I suspect the political problems will actually be the most difficult part.

<comment><USER16> The data is squeaky clean, accounting-like data. Getting it to right format is a few lines of R. What he says is too difficult is putting in place all the right constraints. He says that it is very easy to miss a necessary constraint and this will obviously blow up your solution. How can I examine the solution to make sure it would be valid? The data consists of tens/hundreds of thousands of line items which compete for the same budget and need to meet some (fairly simple) metrics. Line items have a hidden dependency between them, so presumably the solver can scrap some items which will in turn make others (possibly the ones with the best metrics) tank too.

<comment><USER17> The concern about missing necessary constraints seems reasonable, but then how does the current budgeting process avoid the same concern? Perhaps it does so by changing in small steps, so that each period's budget is similar enough to the previous period's budget (which was known to have worked reasonably well) that the differences can be analyzed and the consequences understood.

So something you might try, is to locate the current budget in your linear system and then find a nearby point that improves the objective function. It should then be simple to explain the proposed improvement ("move $A from B to C and $D from E to F and the objective function goes up by $G") and not too complex to examine it for missing constraints ("hang on, you can't reduce B by $A because the supplier has a minimum order").

The idea is that instead of using linear optimization to replace the current budgeting process (which is risky), to use it to generate proposals for submission to the current budgeting process, and to capture the constraints that are revealed when proposals are rejected.

(But note also that it's quite likely that a real objective function will be nonlinear due to economies of scale, in which case linear optimization methods won't suffice.)

<comment><USER16> Things like minimum orders are obvious enough that I will manage to figure them out.

My colleague's concern (and I see his point) is about what happens when the solver says "stop selling coffee machines", but when we stop, consumables drop off a cliff and consumables is where we make the profit.

<comment><USER3> So there's a missing constraint that M >= S/1000 or similar, where M=machines and S=supplies. And yes, that is an issue that needs to be considered. Over 10s or 100s of thousands of items that becomes difficult, but it's still the case that the system you describe now is not really under control.

But perhaps your senior colleague is right, and that's just the way it has to be. However, one person's time spent investigating this properly might be money well spent.

<comment><USER16> Yeah, but that's the problem. There is no way to know all the relationships. This was an obvious one, there are a lot more subtle ones. In any case, the comments have been very helpful. A gradual implementation is the only sane way to go. Politics are not too big of an issue, if I can make a concise case and what's a better way to do it than a small project.

<comment><USER3> Documenting these relationships would potentially be a really, _really_ valuable thing to do "going forward". It helps to make explicit things that are currently implicit, and possibly unknown. It then opens up the possibilities of making optimisations like using Linear Programming, but at the very least it reduces risk and helps to share knowledge.

Good luck!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> How does it work?

For the set of real numbers R and some positive integer n, the problem starts with a set F that is the intersection of finitely many closed half spaces in R^n. Each such half space is from a _constraint_ that is a linear inequality with relation either >= or <=.

Then the set F is a closed, convex subset of R^n. Set F is called the _feasible region_.

In addition, are given a linear function z: R^n --> R, the _objective_ function. Then the problem is to find a point x in F that makes z(x) as large as possible. Such point x in R^n is said to be _optimal_. Even if optimal point x exists, it may not be unique. Indeed, if there is more than one optimal solution, then there are infinitely many, and the set of all optimal solutions forms a closed, convex subset of feasible region F.

If set F is empty, then the problem is _infeasible_ and there is no optimal solution. Else set F is non-empty and the problem is _feasible_. Any point in set F is said to be a _feasible_ point.

If the problem is feasible, then it may be that function z is unbounded above on F. Then the problem is _unbounded_ and there is no optimal solution. If the problem is feasible and not unbounded, then it is feasible and _bounded_.

It is a theorem, not trivial to prove, that if the problem feasible and bounded, then it has an optimal solution.

Given points x, y in R^n and real number t in the interval [0,1], the point

w = tx + (1-t)y

is a _convex combination_ of the points x and y. Easily the set of all convex combinations of points x and y is closed and convex.

Suppose C is a convex subset of R^n, x is in C, and x is not a convex combination of two other points in C. Then point x is an _extreme_ point of convex set C.

It is a theorem that if the linear program has an optimal solution, then it has at least one optimal solution that is an extreme point of the feasible region F. So, in looking for optimal solutions, it is sufficient to look only at extreme points of the feasible region F.

It is a theorem that the feasible region F has only finitely many extreme points.

The classic algorithm for finding optimal solutions is the Dantzig _simplex_ algorithm.

Intuitively and geometrically the algorithm starts at an extreme point of the feasible region and moves, one _iteration_ at a time, to _adjacent_ extreme points (and adjusts what it regards as the _basic_ variables) until it satisfies a sufficient condition for optimality. With appropriate refinement of the simplex algorithm, it is always able to achieve this sufficient condition.

Algebraically, the simplex algorithm is a small but clever modification of Gauss elimination for solution of systems of linear equations. Each iteration of the algorithm corresponds to some elementary row operations on the system of linear equations.

There are more technical details, but the above is a good outline and overview of the core math.

Some of the consequences of the linear programming and some of the properties of the simplex algorithm yield a nice collection of inequalities, theorems of the alternative, the saddle point theorem and optimal strategies of two person game theory, etc. E.g., in the game paper, scissors, and rock, play each of the tree moves with probability 1/3rd and independent of all the past. Then in the long run will break even.

Is the simplex algorithm a _polynomial_ algorithm? Apparently not: There is a classic example problem of Klee and Minty that shows that at least one version of the algorithm is exponential. In practice, however, the simplex algorithm runs in time linear in the number of half spaces. There are more details in some now classic work of K. Borgward.

Is there a polynomial algorithm for linear programming? Yes.

In practice, the simplex algorithm has many refinements and extensions.

If we ask that the components of an optimal solution x be integers, then the problem is _integer linear programming_ and is in NP-complete. One solution approach is via branch and bound where we solve an ordinary linear program at each node of a large tree. But that approach is not a bad as it might sound since usually one more solution is just a little work from what was left over from the last solution -- the simplex algorithm has lots of such modifications.

Another problem is least cost flows on a directed graph (network) with on each arc a maximum flow and a cost per unit of flow. There the simplex algorithm takes on a special form that commonly permits astoundingly fast solutions of astoundingly large problems. Moreover, if the arc capacities are all integers, then, starting with an integer feasible solution, the simplex algorithm maintains integer solutions and will find an optimal integer solution -- we get integer programming for no extra effort.

We can also use linear programming as a tool in solving convex problems, nonlinear problems, make use of Lagrange multipliers, achieve the Kuhn-Tucker necessary conditions, etc.

Some of the promise of linear programming is from how common are linear expressions, especially in business, accounting, budgeting, business planning, etc.

Dantzig worked out his simplex algorithm in the late 1940s at Rand Corporation working on the logistic problem of the USAF of how best to deploy a military force rapidly to a distant location.

An early commercial success was feed mixing for livestock: Given a list of feeds and the nutritional content and prices of each and given what total nutritional content want for the livestock, find how much of each feed to buy to feed the livestock at least cost. There are rumors that Ralston Purina runs linear programs daily when mixing feeds.

Another problem of early high interest was how to ship from some factories to some warehouses to get each warehouse what they needed, take from each factory only what they had, and minimize total shipping cost. Well, now we know that this is a special case of the least cost flow problem that we can do so well solving. An early statement of this problem, the _transhipment_ problem, resulted in a Nobel prize in economics.

Another early success was operating an oil refinery: So, given crude oil supplies, which differ in chemistry and price, and refinery products, which differ in price, find what crude oil supplies to use and what products to make to maximize profit. Apparently eventually this problem was refined to make use of nonlinear programming, e.g., by C. Floudas.

One use of linear programming is for scheduling. E.g., consider the original FedEx: Given 90 US cities with loads to be picked up and loads in Memphis to be delivered. Given 33 airplanes, say, all Dassault DA-20 Fanjet Falcons. Now, way which airplanes go to which cities in what order to move all the loads, obey all safety and engineering constraints, arrive within specified time windows at each of the airports, and minimize direct operating costs.

So, it looks like a huge, non-linear, integer problem. But, can attack the problem in two steps where the first is just some enumeration likely doable with some nonlinear arithmetic and the second is just some 0-1 integer linear programming which likely has an okay chance of good results.

So, the first step is just to get a list of what a single airplane might do, that is, what cities it might visit and in what order. So, just write the code: Try all the reasonable sets of cities in reasonable order (e.g., don't waste time on evaluating absurd cases like having one plane serve NYC, Seattle, Miami, Chicago, and LA, in that order). Then for each reasonable candidate for what one plane might do, do the nonlinear arithmetic to find the costs. For a given set of cities served, keep only the one order of the cities that minimizes the costs. The result will be a list of some 100,000 or so cases for what one plane might do, the cost of the case, and the cities served (right, cheat a little -- argue that if an plane stops at a city, then it delivers everything the city gets and picks up everything the city has to ship, etc.). So, with 90 cities and 100,000 cases set up a linear program with 100,000 variables and 90 constraints. That is, for each of the 90 cities, want some one of the 100,000 cases to serve that city. So, each of the 100,000 columns has just 0s and 1s, a 0 if that case does not serve that city and a 1 if it does.

This is an old approach and is called 0-1 integer linear programming set covering. Yes, likely it is in NP-complete. But there is a also a good chance that save 5, 10, maybe 15% of direct operating costs over other approaches.

Can do a lot of scheduling problems with such approaches.

For linear programming software, can consider, say, R. Bixby and his work Gurobi.

At times I have had good success with the old IBM Optimization Subroutine Library (OSL). E.g., once with some _Lagrangian relaxation_ , I got a feasible solution within 0.025% of optimality to a 0-1 integer linear programming problem with 40,000 constraints and 600,000 variables in 905 seconds on a 90 MHz PC!</comment>


Ask HN: Review Tout - templates, scheduling and analytics for your emails - <AUTHOR>

My weekend project is growing up to be a real product. I'd love some feedback...Can you please check it out?
I originally blogged about it here: http://bit.ly/i84mIk
The URL for my product: http://toutapp.com <comment><AUTHOR> <http://toutapp.com></comment>


Lawmakers Introduce Bill to Ban Federal Use of Facial Recognition Tech - <AUTHOR> https://www.nextgov.com/emerging-tech/2020/06/lawmakers-introduce-bill-ban-federal-use-facial-recognition-tech/166489/ <comment><USER2> This would be a good step and slowly gets back to sensible policy. Vendors of face-rec are trying to sell snake oil to a problem that awaits definition in my opinion.</comment>


Nixty launches today - <AUTHOR> http://www.nixty.com/ <comment><USER2> I'm curious about what HN participants think of how Nixty's business model compares with that of other companies providing comparable services.

<comment><AUTHOR> What companies are offering comparable services?</comment></comment>


If You Lose Your iPhone, You Can't Pay Your Apple Card Bill on the Web - <AUTHOR> https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/nicolenguyen/apple-card-with-lost-misplaced-or-stolen-iphone <comment><USER2> Sure, but can't you just call and pay over the phone like with any other credit card?

<comment><USER3> Sure, just pick up the phone you just lost and dial the number on the card with no number on it.

<comment><USER4> You can't borrow a friend's phone? Or buy a cheap burner at Wal-Mart and pop your SIM card in?

And you can't at least call the general support number(s) Apple surely posts online?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I ran into something similar trying to get apple support for my MBP. My computer was bricked and I switched from an iPhone to Android years ago. I went to log in to the web portal to request service for my MBP and it sent a 2 factor code to "my iPhone" so I was entirely locked out.

<comment><USER6> Now you can get it to send the code to your phone number, no matter what. Thankfully. Saves me when I lost all my equipment due to a sailing accident.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This would be fixed in few releases, such a non-story.

<comment><USER8> It will be a non-story then but not now. What if someone loses their phone before Apple "fixes" this?

<comment><USER9> > What if someone loses their phone before Apple "fixes" this?

As the article notes, they'll have the option to call in and pay over the phone like many other banks allow. It's not ideal, but it's not the end of the world.

<comment><USER10> And how do you call using a phone you don't have

<comment><USER11> Is this serious? I honestly can't tell. Borrow a phone if you have to. There are more phones on this planet than people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Last week we had this exact issue.

We added an iPad and tried to purchase something, but the only card on file was long since expired and thrown away.

But in order to verify the account we had to enter the card's digits, which we did not have, and we couldn't add a new card because we hadn't verified the old one.

In other words we were stuck. Had to contact Apple support. Took several days to resolve.

<comment><USER13> Same here. Apple's process for dealing with lost or stolen cards is just insanely stupid. Why in the world do I need to 'validate' the existing card, which I no longer have, in order to add a new one?

What possible security or business justification could exist for that? What does it even mean to 'validate' a card you've been billing successfully for years?

(Spoiler: in case this happens to anyone else, the secret turns out to be disabling family sharing on the account. It will then let you remove the old card and add a new one, after which you can re-enable family sharing.)

<comment><USER14> At some point someone needed to add a layer of security and like so often picked something that they assumed someone would know.

I don't have a magic solution but all this using random factoids about us as identity verification seems to be a big hassle.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Could you go into an Apple store to pay it? I imagine they could at least lend you a phone, but I think you can pay most store and bank issues cards at retail locations.

</comment><comment><USER16> While I understand the point of the article, "no insecure web portal" is not, I think, as big a detriment as the author suggests. (The author doesn't say the 'insecure' part, but we're talking about banks' web pages, so I think practical experience allows us to fill it in.)

</comment><comment><USER17> I think I'm going to wait for version 1.4 on Apple Card, so to speak.

</comment><comment><USER18> Agile at its finest!</comment>


Never use the word "User" in your code - <AUTHOR> https://codewithoutrules.com/2018/09/21/users-considered-harmful/ <comment><USER2> I had a boss who said "drug dealers have users, but we don't..."

Then you often wind up with a set of "personas" that are set from the top down and that are inconsistent and have the kind of mismatch with reality that never seem to bother neurotypicals but they sure make it hard to implement things on a computer!

<comment><USER3> FWIW, "user" predates actual electronic computers.

For example, the article "Punch Cards for a Chemical Bibliography" from 1945, [http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/cen-v023n018.p1623](http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/cen-v023n018.p1623) describes a "simple punch card system of indexing and sorting of scientific bibliography". The authors write:

> The manner in which the meanings are given to the holes is dictated by the > need and the ingenuity of the user and by the classes into which he wishes > to sort the cards.

My working hypothesis is that the term "user" in software came from earlier use in library system and earlier information management systems like punched cards. (I haven't done any sort of extensive analysis to see if my thought it true, just that I came across 'user' in several papers from the 1940s.)

<comment><USER2> Back when I worked in the library world, we always used the word "patron".

<comment><USER3> Styles and practices change.

I did a Google Scholar search for "library user" pre-1950.

Here's a link to the 1937 book "Prolegomena to Library Classification" by Ranganathan, the famed librarian who, among other things, developed faceted classification. [https://dspace.gipe.ac.in/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10973/19232...](https://dspace.gipe.ac.in/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10973/19232/GIPE-011296.pdf?sequence=3)

On page 121 he quotes Bliss's "Organization of knowledge in libararies" (1934):

> Bliss comments on the value of mnemonics as follows: "Notation, as a kind of > symbolic language, depends extensively on memory of meanings. In learning to > read and write a new language we gradually learn the words and their > meanings and remember more and more of them. In like manner librarians and > the users of libraries gradually learn the order of the classes and remember > the class-marks, tho they continue to make use of the catalogs, shelf-lists > and index to schedules. ...

On page 156, Ranganathan writes:

> The advantage of having to go to such lengths to individualise classes of > great intension is, however, great from the point of view of the users of > the library.

There are other uses of the word 'user' in the book. Most are variants of 'users of classification scheme'.

The word "patron" is used once, in "patron saint".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Hmmm, code without rules eh?</comment>


Apple commits to be 100% carbon neutral for supply chain and products by 2030 - <AUTHOR> https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/07/apple-commits-to-be-100-percent-carbon-neutral-for-its-supply-chain-and-products-by-2030/ <comment><USER2> The battery in my 2014 MacBook Pro is going bad for the second time. Replacing the battery last time was expensive and a major ordeal. It's more difficult than replacing the battery in my car.

Replacing the battery in my 2006 MacBook Pro took all of 15 seconds.

If the lifetime of a battery powered device is expected to be much longer than the lifetime of the battery, then the battery needs to be easily user replaceable. Otherwise, the manufacturer has zero credibility on the environment.

Don't even get me started on vendor OS lockdown and its effect on the environment. They're intentionally making devices disposable.

<comment><USER3> It's not an easy task to make an extremely efficient and sleek design, and still make it easy to disassemble/reassemble/upgrade/etc.

The strides Apple has made to make devices smaller, more efficient, and more powerful are incredible. Though they come with obvious downsides. Cramming all that tech into a small space means you don't have an easy "click to remove" battery cell any longer - or hard drive, or memory sticks, or floppy drive bay... ;)

Not to negate your point - battery lifetimes are quite poor compared to the lifetimes of all other electronics in a computer and making them easily replaceable would be ideal.

Do we want smaller, faster, more efficient computers, or do we want easily modable computers?

Obviously both would be ideal, just not sure if that's really feasible with the way the technology is progressing.

<comment><USER4> I upgraded the RAM, did two hard drive swaps, and replaced the battery in my 2009 MBP. That laptop case also had less flex to it than the 2018 MBP I'm using today. I would much rather have a thicker but upgradeable/maintainable/solid laptop than the current models.

Thermal management on the 2018 models is also not great. Ambient temps on my house didn't really impact the 2009 model, but they definitely do for the 2018 version. I think most of this comes from processor improvements over those nine years, so there's a tradeoff, but don't know for sure. Only ARM will tell.

Totally agree that the efficiency and power management on the iPhone line is amazing. They've done a lot of work there. So far, the batteries in my iPhones have lasted about as long as the rest of the device, typically four years.

The possibility of a convergent device, like an iPhone I could use with an external display and keyboard (see [https://youtu.be/yBeza4UNOm8](https://youtu.be/yBeza4UNOm8)), is intriguing. I would like that. And I would be more likely to accept the compromises for that form factor, because I can get down to one computing device.

But just having a sleeker design is not enough for the tradeoffs I see with the vintage vs. modern MBP line.

<comment><USER5> Everyone says this because they never have to put their money where there mouth is and daily drive a behemoth like the old MBPs. My mom uses my 2010 MBP. The thing is enormous, ridiculously heavy. Huge, hard to fit in a backpack. Battery life is mediocre. It gets pretty hot too despite its size.

I would never go back to then, nor would most consumers. I want my laptop to last a long time and be portable. People moan about upgrades but I doubt that is even half a percent of Apple's consumer base now.

<comment><USER2> I would go back to my 2006 17-inch MacBook Pro form factor in a second. Best laptop I've ever owned. Well designed.

There used to be a distinction between Pro and non-Pro. If you valued light and small over power, then you'd buy the non-Pro Mac. But Apple won't let us make the tradeoff anymore. Do Pro users even want the Touch Bar? Mostly not.

<comment><USER5> Sure you would, that's what everyone says who doesn't have to do it or can't.

<comment><USER2> I still have the machine. The only reason I had to stop using it is that it can't run anything later than Lion.

<comment><USER5> This is my point. It's easy to say you'd do something you'd never be forced into doing. It's just rose-colored glasses "back in my day...blah blah blah"

<comment><USER2> > This is my point.

You have no point. My point is that I can literally put my 2014 and 2006 MacBook Pros next to each other and compare them, in the present, right in front of my eyes, not wearing any glasses, much less "rose-colored".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Maybe I'll take Apple's environmental efforts seriously when they stop waging war against independent repair and stop blocking their suppliers from selling replacement parts.

How can you claim to be environmental lt conscious when a huge part of your business is built on suckering customers into buying new, replacement devices when all they want is a repair or replacement for a relatively cheap component?

<comment><USER7> This is the 15th time this has been talked about, but the reason they starve independent repair is because they can only guarantee a quality repair and/or replace a bad repair when they perform it (or when someone that has gone through their training and certifications has done it). If a customer goes to a repair shop that uses off-brand parts and is sloppy with their repair to the point that the issue re-surfaces in a few months, the customer is likely to blame Apple again instead of whoever did the repair.

<comment><USER6> > the customer is likely to blame Apple again instead of whoever did the > repair.

Says who?

Bad repair shops are a problem, but Apple is exacerbating that problem and they know it. They _want_ people to go the Apple store where their "geniuses" can tell them they have to spend thousands of dollars to replace a main board when the actual problem is a bent pin or an unplugged battery. They want independent repair to have a bad name so they can keep getting away with that nonsense.

How are independent repair shops supposed to use _on-brand_ parts when Apple wont even sell them at a reasonable price without some ridiculous contract?

Apple's independent repair program is complete BS. Expensive parts, a lackluster part selection, and frivolous certifications are one thing, but that's not enough for Apple. Their independent repair program essentially prevents shops from doing anything more than simple screen and battery replacements. If they offer services beyond that, Apple revokes the shop's "privilege" to purchase overpriced OEM components.

They _say_ they want to prevent customers from being scammed by bad repair shops, but Apple's scam is just as bad. They want you to buy new devices, regardless of whether you want them, and they will trick you into buying them if they think they can get away with it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Good on Apple! All companies should strive for some levels of sustainability. Upfront it might cost them but it will save them money down the road.

<comment><USER9> Wouldn't be awesome if large corporations competed to reach the carbon neutral mark with the same enthusiasm they had for the trillion dollar mark? :)

Every company should add a page with a live chart showing how well they are doing right now and how far away they are to be carbon neutral.

<comment><USER10> Google reached carbon neutrality in 2008 I believe. What did it get out of that? How does that motivate the others?

<comment><USER9> Well, they got my business, but only because I was specifically looking for "green" cloud computing providers (I had no idea they were carbon neutral before doing my research).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This lay the ground work where Apple will not include a Charger and EarPod in the next iPhone.

They will probably tout it from an Environmental perspective along with the rumour of a braided USB -Lightning Cable. Apple could tout its packaging is 50% reduction in weight, and 30% reduction in total size in shipping. And less Carbon footprint in Shipping. Which will also saves them some money.

From an environmental prospective, Apple is now so far ahead of everyone else in the industry that no company is matching them in theses checkboxes. So far ahead that it would be easier to get ARM to co-Design a competitive SoC against Apple's Ax Series than to catch up these environment issues. From Design, and Sourcing Renewables materials to providing or funding development of renewable energy, to shipping and recycling products.

While I have criticise Apple for many of its design flaws. ( MacBook 2019 Magic Keyboard is still awful, Battery Replacement is still expensive, TouchBar, oversized Trackpad... etc ) Their supply chain operation is second to none and truly a marvel to behold.

</comment><comment><USER12> If they're serious about reducing their pollution, they'll give more consideration to the end of the product life cycle.

<comment><USER13> On the other hand, if the device has no footprint then it doesn't matter as much. If Apple wants sustainability without compromising form/function this is a great way to do it.

One can always do more - that's an easy and always applying criticism. Let's applaud when people do something good.

<comment><USER14> > On the other hand, if the device has no footprint then it doesn't matter as > much.

Agreed. The problem is, I'm sure "carbon neutral" means they're using carbon offsets to a significant degree. Offsets are _good_ , and I certainly wouldn't want to discourage any company from using them. But, they're also not a panacea—certainly not to the point where there's zero harm in buying a new phone versus fixing an existing one.

<comment><USER15> >The problem is, I'm sure "carbon neutral" means they're using carbon offsets to a significant degree.

They aren't. See page 18.

[https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental_Pr...](https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental_Progress_Report_2020.pdf)

<comment><USER16> That page only accounts for electricity used at Apple-owned facilities. There's a lot more to the carbon footprint than that.

<comment><USER15> Keep reading from page 18. The good news is that they're using the same strategy for all their suppliers, which is putting renewable energy onto the grid.

<comment><USER16> First off, the way they're describing the suppliers sounds different, and sounds like offsets.

Secondly, electricity used in facilities is not the whole of their carbon footprint. You've got all the shipping across the supply chain for one example.

<comment><USER15> >We launched the Supplier Clean Energy Program in October 2015 to advance those goals through our manufacturing supply chain. Since then, we have made strong progress toward our initial goal of bringing online 4 gigawatts of new clean energy by 2020. Building on that momentum, we recently set a new, even more ambitious goal: to transition our entire manufacturing supply chain to 100 percent renewable electricity by 2030.

>We're proud of the progress our suppliers have made so far. As of June 2020, 71 manufacturing partners in 17 different countries have committed to 100 percent renewable energy for Apple production. And Apple itself has continued to invest directly in renewable energy projects to cover a portion of upstream emissions. The Supplier Clean Energy Program now has 7.8 gigawatts of clean energy commitments, of which 2.7 gigawatts was operational in 2019.

They're funding new renewable energy projects all over the world, including in China [1].

>Secondly, electricity used in facilities is not the whole of their carbon footprint.

It's just the vast majority of their carbon footprint.

>Since 2018, we've generated or sourced 100 percent renewable electricity for all of Apple's global facilities, driving our scope 2 emissions from electricity to zero. And we estimate that in our manufacturing supply chain, which itself makes up 75 percent of Apple's overall carbon footprint, around 70 percent of emissions come from electricity.

[1] [https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/09/apple-launched- china-...](https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/09/apple-launched-china-clean- energy-fund-invests-in-three-wind-farms/)

<comment><USER16> > They're funding new renewable energy projects all over the world, including > in China [1].

Yep, to offset their supplier's usage. That's an offset.

And you're quoting is 75% of 70%, or 52.5%. I wouldn't call that a _vast_ majority.

<comment><USER15> When people refer to "offsets" they're talking about buying renewable energy credits (RECs). Funding new renewable energy projects, and thus putting renewable energy onto the grid, is not that.

<comment><USER14> I see where you're coming from, but in my view that's still an offset.

<comment><USER17> Do you also consider Carbon sequestering an "offset"?

> Apple has protected and restored forests, wetlands, and grasslands since > 2015. Through our work with The Conservation Fund and the World Wildlife > Fund, we have protected and improved the management of over 1 million acres > of forests in China and the U.S.

> Starting in 2020, we plan to scale up our ambition to remove atmospheric CO2 > by creating a first -of -its-kind fund that will invest in the restoration > and protection of forests and natural ecosystems globally. By investing in > nature-based carbon removal projects, this fund aims to cover residual > emissions that we believe are not otherwise avoidable.

<comment><USER14> It's all great work, don't get me wrong.

My primary concern with all of these things is that they are liable to get "double counted." Apple protects a forest in State X and uses it as a license to release more carbon into the air; meanwhile, State X's governor uses the forest as an example of the state's conservation efforts, even as the carbon savings of those efforts are being zero'd out by Apple.

I don't think I'm as cynical as some other comments in this thread. I'm really glad Apple is making these efforts, and I'd like to see other companies do the same. However, I don't feel like we're anywhere near the point where I can throw away a perfectly good iPhone guilt-free.

In other words, I want to see Apple get rid of their "must shred" agreements with recyclers[1], and to support repairability efforts more broadly.

[1] [https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/yp73jw/apple-recycling- ip...](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/yp73jw/apple-recycling-iphones- macbooks)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I love the ambitious goal-setting.

One thing to notice: > they've helped us make our products more energy efficient and bring new sources of clean energy online around the world.

This is a play in the sustainable-tech market space. Inasmuch as _other companies_ care about sustainability, Apple is trying to publicly stay ahead so it can credibly claim expertise when other companies start paying attention.

</comment><comment><USER19> I hope they focus on the human well-being aspect as well in their production and supply chain. There is no reason a Chinese worker should experience worse working-conditions than a US worker

<comment><USER20> They have been generating annual, detailed reports for years on the conditions at their suppliers and their programs to remediate problems.

As far as I can tell, they are going much farther towards enforcing humane treatment than anyone else in the computer business, but I'd be curious to hear who's doing a better job.

[https://www.apple.com/supplier- responsibility/](https://www.apple.com/supplier-responsibility/)

</comment></comment><comment> enahs-sf While this is definitely a noble goal, I wonder what it would take for Apple to become carbon negative and what the timeframe for that would be?

<comment><USER21> I don't think it's possible. (Unless my understanding of the term "carbon negative" is mistaken.)

Let's suppose you could manufacture your devices with 0 carbon emissions. No solar, no wind, no gas, no nothing. Some other energy source with no carbon inputs needed. For the sticklers, let's suppose none of the human employees breath or anything during the manufacture of the products. So no carbon there either.

You still have to deliver it right?

Let's suppose you make it in Chicago, or Miami, or San Fran, wherever. How are you going to get that product to Lincoln Nebraska with no carbon emissions? How will you get it to Lyon France? Or Aguadilla PR? or Ningbo? Or Mwanza? (And in this case it would have to be more than "no" carbon emissions, it would have to be "negative" carbon emissions.)

I'm not certain any company can deliver a physical product with negative carbon emissions. It seems almost impossible without using funny math.

<comment><USER22> Microsoft will be carbon negative by 2030:

[https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2020/01/16/microsoft- will-b...](https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2020/01/16/microsoft-will-be- carbon-negative-by-2030/)

To reach that they mention actively investing and deploying carbon removal systems.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> By 2030?! Is this serious?

If you want to trade in green credentials, _do it today_. They could offset their entire operation with a few calls. They have the cash to do it. They could take more active steps in short order too. Waiting 10 years to meet the target is a poor show.

</comment><comment><USER24> It feels like it's a too far away goal and too big goal.

2030 is the new 2020 where we push away dreams for the future, forget about them, try to do them at the last moment and miss the deadline. I think it would be better to have have smaller goals with a shorter timeframe.

<comment><USER25> This is such negative comment. I don't understand why this gets traction.

I'm sure pretty smart people spent a lot of time in coming up with this goal that is ambitious and pretty noble may a I say. Probably going through months of goal planning a long vision setups.

And with low effort comment you can say, meh, I think I know better without almost any contextual information about any of this.

I don't mean to be insulting, just that I think it's a little disrespectful to peoples effort. And only negative.

Maybe you can present us a semi detailed plan of how Apple can better set their carbon emission program.

<comment><USER26> I don't think it's either negative or insulting. And it raises a good point. In 10 years' time lots of things could change that would make this "goal" irrelevant. Apple might be struggling to make ends meet 5 years down the line. I know that seems very unlikely for Apple right now, but imagine a company like Intel, add a big economic regression, trade wars with China (which for Apple is a big source of revenue) etc. But even just a few changes in the board of directors, or a change of CEO could see this target go out of the picture.

Besides, it's not a difficult target to achieve. I don't think it would cost much more than a few tens of millions of dollars to start and operate some solar and wind power stations of sufficient capacity to offset all of their consumption. It should be pocket change for Apple's budget.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> 1\. Reuse 2\. Reduce 9\. Recycle

They missed the first point

<comment><USER28> It's 1.Reduce 2.Reuse 3.Recycle

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Wow, they found a new way to keep outsource in secret

</comment><comment><USER30> Doesn't matter. You know what would be awesome? Repairable and upgradable products. Being stylish and environmentally friendly aren't competing concerns unless you make them.

<comment><USER31> >Repairable and upgradable products.

This is just an excuse to prop up a industry that ultimately doesn't need to exist.

We need better warranties and written long term support of tech products.

<comment><USER32> I wouldn't mind having an SD slot and a 3.5mm headphone jack. The impenetrable sleekness of modern phones looks great in equally impenetrable television ads, but my real world would benefit from a bit more utility. Add replaceable battery to the list too, to swap out a dead one, or install a larger one.

<comment><USER17> And I would mind having an SD slot and a 3.5mm headphone jack.

This is the beauty of the market, yes? Both of us can shop at different brands, and the products that sell more get to continue to try new and better things.

I don't ask that every company stop using 3.5mm headphone jacks. Instead, I buy Apple. Why do you ask for Apple to re-add them? Instead, just buy some other brand.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Maybe they'll also consider not using planned obsolescence and stop sourcing "blood gold"? There was a whole documentary on the latter but the former is the real big offender.

</comment><comment><USER34> We need to protest Apple to make products locally in California/Texas or in EU where sustainability can be traced [1], suppliers can be held accountable and there is no kowtow to the CCP.

Sustainability is just one of the fringe benefits - labor is getting more expensive in China and Apple has risen because of cheap labor. Apple needs to bring back manufacturing to the West. It will invigorate local supply chains from screw makers to PCB manufacturers, glass cutting, CNC, etc.

It would be a dream to buy an iPhone proudly made sustainably in US+EU.

Why are we barking at NBA and flat out ignoring Apple? Where are protests outside of Apple HQ? Where is the press on this!!!?

[1] [https://9to5mac.com/2020/03/02/apple-suppliers-implicated- in...](https://9to5mac.com/2020/03/02/apple-suppliers-implicated-in-reports- of-uyghur-forced-labor-in-china/)

<comment><USER35> Why does Tim Apple get away with being so close to Donald Duck with private meetings and such to preserve Apple's business with China? I find it curious that the media hasn't bothered to take swipes at something so obviously in conflict with Apple's stated mission and ethos.</comment></comment>