Hubble Finds 10 Times More Galaxies Than Thought - <AUTHOR> http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/hubble-reveals-observable-universe-contains-10-times-more-galaxies-than-previously-thought/ <comment><USER2> Does this have any implications for the amount of dark matter or do estimates of the energy content of the universe not rely on the number of observed galaxies? If the number of observed galaxies does not matter, how do we account for this factor of ten? Galaxies are probably not ten times lighter - ignoring dark matter - than previously believed. Are those missing galaxies just very light? Is the universe heavier than previously assumed? How does that change the expansions of the universe? Does there have to be even more dark energy to compensate for this additional baryonic matter to match observed expansion rates?

<comment><USER3> I don't think our evidence for dark matter comes from interactions between galaxies but within a galaxy - the interaction of matter within the galaxy and the amount of lensing observed because of the amount of observed matter in a galaxy - in other words I dont _think_ that this will do much to the dark matter calculations - but I am not certain and hope someone knowledgeable will come along and set us straight.

<comment><USER4> One line of dark matter evidence is galactic clusters, though I'm not sure what the distribution of these "new" galaxies is and whether it would affect this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So, instead of 200 billion galaxies, the number would be closer to 2 trillion galaxies. I thought the first number seemed like a lot, wow. I wonder how many stars there are if that is the case. At 100 billion stars per galaxy, the number would be 2×10²³ stars. I believe that's 2000 billion trillion.

<comment><USER6> Multiply that with about 5-10 for planets. Mindboggling.

<comment><USER7> Then figure in the dwarf planets, asteroids, and comets, and we'll start to get to some big numbers.

<comment><USER8> And don't forget about invisible «almost stars», Jupiter like systems, which outnumbers visible stars (IMHO), with their own planets (satelites?) and asteroids.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Hubble has been so incredibly productive, if I had mega-billions I'd fund the construction and launch of several more of them.

<comment><USER10> Only two years until James Webb telescope launches. Should keep us entertained for while.

<comment><USER7> I like this size comparison:

[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/JWST- HST...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/JWST-HST-primary- mirrors.svg)

<comment><USER11> Note that Webb is an IR telescope, which is longer wavelength, so the resolution actually is comparable to Hubble.

<comment><USER12> Does it offer any advantages to Hubble?

<comment><USER11> It's highly complementary. IR astronomy is essentially a different field.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> There are also galaxies that are 99.9% dark matter apparently [1]. I don't think they are counted in this survey.

[1]: [http://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/news/galaxy- found-9999-dar...](http://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/news/galaxy- found-9999-dark-matter)

</comment><comment><USER14> Regarding Olbers' paradox, the explanation that the article gives contradicts what I heard elsewhere...

I heard that the nighttime sky is dark simply because the universe is to young for the whole thing to get filled with light, though that will happen eventually.

Crap, I can't remember where I read that. Somewhere linked off of HN. Nautil.us?

<comment><USER2> This will not happen, the accelerating expansion of the universe will make more and more galaxies end up behind the horizon of our observable universe even though the horizon itself keeps expanding.

<comment><USER7> It would happen if there's a big crunch.

Also, a lot of astronomy goes on the assumption that the laws of physics are the same far away as they are near by, and that they don't change over time. It's possible that if either of these two assumptions are incorrect that anything goes.

I'm also reminded of Arthur C. Clarke's famous dictum that, _" when a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."_

<comment><USER2> But the expansion of the universe is accelerating which tells us we are not in a big crunch scenario. And we have probed the laws of physics over very long distances and far into the past by looking at very distant objects and have to date not found any strong evidence for varying laws of physics over space or time. There are for example some claims of variations in the fine structure constant but as far as I can tell those claimed variations may still be explained by experimental errors and are therefore not widely accepted.

<comment><USER15> If space is curved rather than flat we could still have a big crunch on the far side.

<comment><USER16> I think consensus is that it is flat and we keep finding more and more evidence suggesting so.

<comment><USER14> I heard that "if you go straight long enough, you end up where you were", as analogous to walking on the surface of a globe. Are you saying that evidence against that has surfaced?

<comment><USER17> The current assumption of the cosmological standard model is spatial flatness, which is compatible with the observations. In principle, space could still curve back on itself on a large enough scale, but assuming there's no big crunch coming, you'd have to go straight for a longer-than-infinite duration to come back to the place you started from.

<comment><USER14> Longer than infinite?

What does a big crunch have to do with it? Maybe I don't know what a big crunch is... I currently think the big crunch is the idea that gravity will eventually coalesce all matter into a single point.

<comment><USER17> _Longer than infinite?_

In an expanding universe, objects can be separated by a cosmic horizon. Nevertheless, from the comoving perspective, they may very well still move towards each other - but without ever meeting up. However, if you extended conformal time beyond infinity, they would. That's of course not physically possible, so that particular comment was tongue in cheek.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Nitpick: It is more "Hubble data postulates existence of 10 x technically observable galaxies based upon their massive distance and hence age, and the rate at which galaxies eat each other over time."

</comment><comment><USER19> If the universe is infinite, then aren't there infinite galaxies within it?

<comment><USER2> The number of galaxies is always for the observable universe - about 92 billion light years in diameter if I remember correctly - not the entire universe. From the observed flatness of the observable universe we know that the entire universe is at least about 100 times larger in volume assuming it is isotropic.

<comment><USER14> What defines the horizon?

Is the horizon spherical?

<comment><USER20> > What defines the horizon?

The speed of light. Things beyond the horizon are things where the light hasn't had time to reach us yet.

> Is the horizon spherical?

Given that the speed of light is isotropic, yes.

<comment><USER21> >> What defines the horizon?

> The speed of light. Things beyond the horizon are things where the light > hasn't had time to reach us yet.

No. Things _within_ the horizon are things where the light hasn't had time to reach us yet.

Things _beyond_ the horizon are things where no amount of time will ever enable the light to reach us. That's what makes it "unobservable".

<comment><USER2> That seems wrong to me but maybe I am just misunderstanding you. The light from the particle horizon is by definition the light arriving here now. Whether light emitted on either side of the particle horizon will reach us depends on whether the emission happens within the cosmological event horizon which only coincide with the particle horizon in a non-accelerating universe and changes over time in an [de]accelerating universe.

If we move away from an observer in our accelerating universe we first pass objects that can still emit light that can reach the observer, then we pass the cosmological event horizon and enter a region where objects were once able to emit light reaching the observer but which are now moving away to fast for they light emitted now to ever reach the observer and finally we pass the particle horizon and enter the unobservable universe where objects were never able to emit light able to reach us.

This may sound contradictory but one mus keep in mind that objects between the cosmological event horizon and the particle horizon emitted light in the past that is still on its way to us so that we can still observe those objects for some time but they can just no longer emit light that will reach us.

Also note that I avoided talking about the inside and outside of horizons because I am not sure what side is usually called the inside respectively the outside. From the point of view of an observer he is inside the horizon, on the other hand in analogy with a black hole where the horizon prevents light reaching an observer outside the horizon we would have to call the observer outside of the horizon. I think the former point of view is the common one but I am absolutely not sure about that.

EDIT: Replaced Hubble horizon with cosmological event horizon as pointed out by cygx.

<comment><USER17> Physically, the Hubble 'horizon' is mostly meaningless. What you have in mind is the cosmological event horizon.

Both can be defined in terms of certain velocities reaching c: The hubble sphere is located where the change in proper distance at constant cosmological time reaches the speed of light (aka recession velocities), the cosmological event horizon is located where relative velocities as evaluated by parallel transport along the light path does so.

<comment><USER2> Thanks, updated my comment accordingly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I have wondered for a while how we can be certain that looking so deeply into the distant (meaning past) universe gives an accurate picture. Wouldn't there be many compounding effects, such as gravitational lensing combined with expansion, that could be showing us a very different picture than the true structure of the universe?

</comment><comment><USER23> Elon Musk is right, we do live inside a computer simulation. After spending a considerable amount of time analyzing the galaxies images used on this NASA article I'm comfortable to assure you, those galaxies are a computer's desktop wallpaper.

<comment><USER24> This reminds me of the first time I seen Saturn through a powerful telescope. It looks cartoon-ish, or like a painting, even when you're not viewing it through some kind of media. It felt oddly synthetic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Would that information extend our current estimation of heat death of the universe?

</comment><comment><USER26> does this also affect the friedman equation?

</comment><comment><USER27> QA finds 10 times more bugs than thought.

</comment><comment><USER28> Can it be that in 10 years, everybody will believe that we live in simulated reality, and these galaxies are created on demand when we stare into particular region of space? Elon Musk says he thinks so: [http://motherboard.vice.com/read/elon-musk-simulated- univers...](http://motherboard.vice.com/read/elon-musk-simulated-universe- hypothesis)

<comment><USER29> What's the point about asking untestable questions? You might as well become a theoretical physicist or a priest.

<comment><USER30> Because they are interesting and fun to think about?

Because they may create new ideas which impact models, frameworks, directions, and analogies of thought in experimental and theoretical disciplines of the same or differing subjects?

Because not everything is testable, or even when it is the number of variables simply makes controlling the experiment for accurate causal derivations difficult to impossible? (increasingly true as science progresses, often leading to false levels of confidence).

Hmm......

<comment><USER29> > Because they may create new ideas which impact models, frameworks, > directions, and analogies of thought in experimental and theoretical > disciplines of the same or differing subjects?

How do you figure? Whether we are in a simulation is a) unknowable by definition, or it's not a very good simulation, and b) doesn't change anything about how our universe works from our perspective. Why would speculation about "why" impact anything about the decisions we make?

<comment><USER7> If someone thought they were in a simulation, they might try to find a way out of it, or might start not taking life seriously.

If, as most people, you think that one's beliefs shape one's actions, then it should be pretty clear that a belief that we live in a simulation could lead to some people acting differently based on that belief.

Only if one did not have free will or if one's beliefs did not shape one's actions would such a belief have no potential impact.

<comment><USER29> > If someone thought they were in a simulation, they might try to find a way > out of it

This is completely nonsensical.

> or might start not taking life seriously.

People already do this just fine.

> Only if one did not have free will or if one's beliefs did not shape one's > actions would such a belief have no potential impact.

Free will is a pretty thought, not anything to do with a simulation theory. Why does it matter whether you are forced to bow down to physical laws vs simulated physical laws? You can tell yourself whatever you want, but you gotta bow.

<comment><USER7> > > If someone thought they were in a simulation, they might try to find a way > out of it

> This is completely nonsensical.

It really depends on the nature of the simulation. For example, if the simulation was something like what was depicted in _The Matrix_ , where one's experience or senses were being simulated while one's real body was outside the simulation, then it could be possible to find a way out.

Of course, if your entire existence was simulated and you had no existence outside the simulation, then it would be more difficult, but perhaps even then not impossible, depending on whether you believed that a copy of yourself was still you. For instance, one could conceivably "upload" a copy of one's mind/brain in to a robot that was external to the simulation and that robot could then potentially have access to sensations/experience outside the simulation. Of course, then it could be argued whether that's another simulation.

But the potential for whatever is "outside" the simulation being just another simulation (ala _Inception_ ) is always there. And I'm not sure how one could ever be certain one was ever really "outside" and not just in another simulation -- though it might be possible that one really is "outside" without being certain of it. Or one could be certain and mistaken, or certain and correct. But then one could always be mistaken.

> > or might start not taking life seriously.

> People already do this just fine.

I meant people who took their life seriously because they thought it was "real" and then finding out that they and everyone/everything around them was simulated might decide, as a result of this realization, to no longer take life seriously. For example, they could have valued human life before, but when realizing that the beings they thought were alive before actually weren't, then they could start not valuing them anymore.

Of course, some people don't value their own lives or those of others regardless, and don't take their life seriously anyway.. but I'm not talking about them.

> Free will is a pretty thought, not anything to do with a simulation theory.

The point of bringing up free will was to show under what circumstances one's beliefs would not have any impact on one's actions. Those circumstances are ones in which one does not have free will.

If one does have free will, and one's actions really are shaped by one's beliefs, then the belief that one is in a simulation could have an effect on what one does.

If one does not have free will, or one's actions are not shaped by one's beliefs, then the same belief would not have any effect one what one does. One would do what one was determined to do regardless.

<comment><USER31> >the potential for whatever is "outside" the simulation being just another simulation (ala Inception) is always there

Original scenario of The Matrix had it until some businessman decided to turn it into another happy-end hollywood crap, afaik.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How should I best invest £5000? - <AUTHOR>

What should I do with £5000 so that 1-3 years from now, I'll have more than £5000? Theoretically, my life will not be affected if I lose it all so I can afford to be risky but I'm leaning towards not being very risky (maybe you can convince me otherwise?). Thanks <comment><USER2> Asking this question on this website, you are probably male, under 30 and working with technology. The largest amount of capital you have is probably yourself.

You should increase the returns you make on this capital. Buy some books, take some courses, invest in your health, hire someone to design your portfolio. If you get a job with 10% more payment, you effectively doubled your investment after one year, tripled id after two and so on.

Its lame, I know. Alternatively start and finish a side-project and invest the money in PPC ads.

</comment><comment><USER3> I am assuming you want to invest with minimal additional effort. E.g. more like buying shares than flying over to the states to enrol in YC.

In that case you could pick up some books on investing in shares. This has good liquidity and although risky it is unlikely you will lose 100%. If you have a portfolio of shares in different sectors, you should be at low risk of losing lots.

If you fancy learning but still a passive investment, then maybe stamps, antiques, collectibles. You will get additional enjoyment out of it in the meantime.

Some parts of the UK I imagine you could use 5k for a house down-payment and rent it out. I have been expat for 4 years so I have no idea.

If you want to be more involved you could start some kind of business, using 50-100 pounds and your own effort to get it going, then 'invest' more money once you have a proven method. For example once you can spend 100 on advertising to make 200 gross profit, then you can scale that up using the 5000, then keep reinvesting to grow it. Easier said than done!

Or you could renovate something. Lots of people have broken things they would give away or sell cheaply - you repair and sell on for a profit. But you will need some capital and that is how you can invest your 5000.

<comment><USER4> > Some parts of the UK I imagine you could use 5k for a house down-payment and > rent it out. I have been expat for 4 years so I have no idea.

Maybe in Merthyr, but even 4 years ago you'd have been lucky to find a house under £100K without anything unrentably wrong with it.

<comment><USER5> Plenty of houses for less than £100k outside of the South East.

I can get a 2 bedroom apartment in the city centre in Liverpool for <£100k and it would rent out for £600/month easily.

<comment><USER4> Sorry, you are right, I do have a bit of a South East bias.

However, Looking on Rightmove, I see no houses in L1 for that price, but I do concede that there are plenty near the L1 edges of L3, L7 and L8.

<comment><USER5> Houses are rare in L1. Try L9, L6, L7, L4 very commutable to the city centre.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> You should probably figure out what your risk tolerance is. The more you stand to lose, the more you could win. What are you going to use this money for in 1-3 years? The traditional advice is either bonds or stocks, likely with some amount of diversification. Bonds are safer than stocks, but might not return as much. See this site [1] with a quick overview of some investment options of varying degrees of risk.

For what it's worth, it's probably not a bad idea to put it in the S&P 500[2]. In the long run, it's probably going to outperform most other investment strategies, although if the US economy tanks in the next few years you could lose a good bit of what you put in there.

I also think that allendoerfer's advice about investing in yourself can be very good, depending on your situation

[1][http://personalfinance.duke.edu/prepare-your- future/savings-...](http://personalfinance.duke.edu/prepare-your- future/savings-and-investments/what-are-my-investment-options)

[2][https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=0040&...](https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=0040&FundIntExt=INT)

</comment><comment><USER7> Investing in an index fund (US or otherwise) is going to be your best medium risk investment (with middling to good return). There is more QE on the horizon for the euro, though the dollar is strengthening. Minimal fees, relatively minor risk (If you lose half your investment you'll have bigger things to worry about than 2.5k quid), and pretty okay returns. Plus you'll learn a bit about the market so that you can become a better investor in the future.

</comment><comment><USER8> There is no such thing as a risk-free investment.

This comment should not be construed as a replacement for professional financial investment advice.

<comment><USER9> There might be. One financial sage gave the following example: buy nickles. Currently, the value of the material is ~30%(?) higher than the nominal value of the coin. Therefore at some point in future the government will have to switch to a different material. At that point you'll be able to sell at 30% gain. If this for some reason is not possible then you'll still have whatever you started with. This way you are sure not to lose any money (except due to inflation) and possibly make 30% profit. You have to consider the likelihoods of both outcomes, etc. Anyway, he bought nickels worth of a couple of million dollars.

<comment><USER10> This seems like a bad idea. Firstly, the melt value of a nickel is less than $0.05 [1]. Maybe he was confused by the fact that it costs more than $0.05 to mint each coin; that's because there are costs other than the materials. That also means it'd be cheaper to just buy the metals that are in the nickels than to buy the nickels if you wanted to bet on their price. If the government switches to a different composition, there will be _less_ demand for nickel and copper, which doesn't bode well for the melt value _increasing_ significantly beyond $0.05 because of a switch.

Secondly, just holding the nickels doesn't mean you're sure to not lose any money. As you said, simply stuffing cash (or nickels) under your mattress means you're losing some every day to inflation. You're also losing all the potential gains of the other things you could be doing with that money other than piling up nickels. At the very least, you take no risk of losing the principal by sticking it in a savings account (~1% APY) or buying a 1-5 year CD (2-3%).

Then again, I don't have a couple million dollars to blow on stockpiling nickels. The sage investor must know something I don't.

1: [http://www.coinflation.com/coins/1946-2007-Jefferson- Nickel-...](http://www.coinflation.com/coins/1946-2007-Jefferson-Nickel- Value.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The easiest form of investment to get started with are investment funds (aka mutual funds in the US). They are a form of collective investment (i.e. you invest along with other people in a basket of goods, rather than a single share). The advantage of this is lower cost (buying and selling shares has a cost, with a fund there are economies of scale so it's usually cheaper to invest via a fund than directly in a similar basket of shares), and generally lower risk (if a company that the fund invested in goes bust, you usually lose less money than if you invest in the company directly, because the fund invests in many different companies whereas you'd usually invest in a smaller number of stocks).

ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds) and Investment Trusts are similar to investment funds in that they are also collectives, relatively low cost. The current fashion in investing is to buy 'passive', 'tracker' or 'index' funds (or ETFs), which all follow an index such as the FTSE or S&P. These tend to be lower cost than 'actively managed' funds (where the fund manager tries to beat the index). Vanguard is a popular 'passive' fund manager.

Other types of investments include property (you generally need quite a lot of capital), and more risky types of investment such as forex trading, spread betting, etc. Even experienced investors tend to consider these risky.

Investments have done reasonably well over the past year in some areas (some UK income funds are up 8% in the past 12 months), not so well in others (a FTSE All Share tracker is only up 0.6% over the year). Investing is not risk- free, and generally speaking there is no guarantee to make a profit. You could also consider saving in cash, but with interest rates as they are now, you'd probably be worse off in real terms by the end of the year than you were at the beginning (because interest rates are generally lower than inflation)

Some investment brokers in the UK include: rplan (disclosure: I work for rplan), Hargreaves Lansdown (the largest), Fidelity, Nutmeg (another startup).

As others have mentioned, it's definitely worth doing a bit of research to find out more about how things work. If you don't mind the shameless plug, we have a 'guide to investing' available on our site which we think is quite a good overview of what's available (it's fairly UK-specific though): [https://www.rplan.co.uk/investment-guide](https://www.rplan.co.uk/investment- guide) (note: registration required, let me know if you'd rather not register and I can send you a copy).

</comment><comment><USER12> Found a company, follow your passion!</comment>


Ask HN: Why can't Apple and Google prevent drivers using phones? - <AUTHOR> Is this an impossible problem?<p>Surely it's something worth solving because people are being killed and injured daily because there's no way for s phone to prevent itself being used by a driver. <comment><USER2> So, cars are reasonably successful at a feature like this, most cars' infotainment systems disable a lot of functionality when the vehicle is in motion, and it highlights the same problems phones will have.

For one, as a passenger I am sometimes trying to help my grandma set her clock in her car after a time change. But I have to wait until the car is stopped, because it doesn't allow it, even though I am not driving. Similarly, I'm annoyed that in my own car, I can't look at contacts beyond the favorites list, or dial a phone number from the touchscreen on my car unless the vehicle is stopped. Even a passenger can't use those features while the car is moving.

I found out that it's a simple hack to override this "feature". For cars like mine that don't have GPS navigation, you can easily just remove the connection between the car's speedometer and the infotainment system. For those that do, there's often aftermarket kits to install a switch so you can turn that connection on and off, as you still need it for navigation console use.

So the issue with phones is that it's likely whatever you come up with will annoy passengers excessively, in addition to drivers. And that in a lot of cases, it will lead people to hack/root their phones to remove the functionality. (While people are somewhat resistant to hacking their cars, hacking their phones is vastly more likely.) Furthermore, while Apple or Google could implement this sort of functionality, no other OEM can. Because if your Samsung started doing this, a lot of people would switch to LG instead. The company that does this first will hurt themselves, since consumers will consider alternatives. (Which likely means this would only be built if the government mandated the feature by law.)

</comment><comment><USER3> I think a main problem is that not everybody moving at some velocity >v is driving a vehicle.

You won't want to disable the phones of passengers as collateral damage.

Another, likely smaller, problem is that drivers may use their phone for routing, gps recording, playing music, etc.</comment>


That Old-Time Hucksterism: The Oddest Doohickeys of Industrial-Age Entrepreneurs - <AUTHOR> http://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/the-oddest-doohickeys-of-industrial-age-entrepreneurs/ <comment><USER2> Doorstop alarms were not odd. They are still available. From General Electric, at WalMart, no less.[1]

[1] [https://www.walmart.com/ip/GE-Door-Stop- Alarm/10258356](https://www.walmart.com/ip/GE-Door-Stop-Alarm/10258356)

</comment><comment><USER3> Where can I get one of those mustache protectors?

\--EDIT-- [https://www.amazon.com/MoGuard-The-MoGuard-Mustache- Guard/dp...](https://www.amazon.com/MoGuard-The-MoGuard-Mustache- Guard/dp/B00WANGNWO) ...Everything is plastic these days. The silvery one looked much nicer.

<comment><USER4> Looks like there's also a metal one with a sweet carrying case (still not slivery though) --[http://a.co/6yuAmGR](http://a.co/6yuAmGR)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> My favourite ones from my own family history were the plugs to put into wall sockets to stop the electricity leaking out.

</comment><comment><USER6> "Laying Down Glasses", heck, I could use a set of those. There might be the revival of a product idea here...

<comment><USER7> They still sell them: [https://amazon.com/Prism-Glasses-Eye-Bed- Spectacles/dp/B000R...](https://amazon.com/Prism-Glasses-Eye-Bed- Spectacles/dp/B000RZNBF4/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Little guns are still a thing. They go boom, just like their bigger counterparts.</comment>


Apollo 16 site snapped from orbit - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/07/14/apollo-16-site-snapped-from-orbit/ <comment><USER2> There! That should silence people who still think that the moon landing was a US fabrication, done in a studio. You'd be amazed at the number of such people; ask during lunch, chances are one of your colleagues will be one of them. Of course, if your mind is that warped, you can argue that these photos are also manufactured by _them_ (the government, CIA, NSA, a conglomerate of rich companies out to dominate the world, etc. take your pick).

<comment><USER3> Unfortunately the type of people willing to believe the whole thing was done in a studio will immediately think this whole picture was done in photoshop. I don't think any amount of evidence will convince the true conspiratory believer.

<comment><USER4> I would guess that the vast majority of those who believe that the moon landings never happened aren't quite that crazy. They just didn't think it through. Sure, there will always be people (also the most vocal ones) who will be convinced by no amount of evidence. For everyone else this is a small but powerful piece of evidence. Better as laser reflector data or long explanations as to why the shadows on the photos from the moon look like they look.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> When I see these things from our reach into space I get goose bumps. This stuff is just so cool and I find it amazing that we did this with the technology available in the 60's.

<comment><USER6> Yes. But the resources invested were enormous. Would it be cheaper today?</comment></comment>


Palm loses their lead webOS designer to the Google Android team - <AUTHOR> http://www.mobilecrunch.com/2010/05/27/palm-loses-their-lead-webos-designer-to-the-google-android-team-others-may-follow/

<comment><USER2> I have to admit I'm suddenly just a bit worried about the future of WebOS. Not for HP/Palm's loss of one (or possibly more) smart UI designer, but for who or what will replace him.

If Duarte's shoes end up filled by some HP design committee and not a strong UX leader who can earn the respect of his teams, there's trouble brewing. WebOS is far too immature right now to be left to grow in that kind of bureaucratic environment.

I really hope they treat this search with the gravity it deserves instead of just dumping a suit in the seat.

<comment><USER3> Too bad Aza Raskin's already got a gig.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A win for Google, and a loss for HP. These types of thing tend to lead to cherry picking. Google will end up with many of the people Matias Duarte considers to be winners, while leaving HP with a higher % of dead weight

</comment><comment><USER5> Absolutely right move Google. User interface has been one of the weakest part of Android. Looking forward to see totally revamped UI in 2.3!

<comment><USER6> Can you give concrete examples of things that needs to be totally revamped, or are you just parroting the Apple fanboism here?

<comment><USER5> Yes currently I have iPhone but I don't like the fact that I will have to pay Apple $100 per year to run my own apps on my phone. I am a Java Developer and I love the fact that I can write Android apps in Java.

For that reason I always wanted to move to Android. I went to stores every time new Android device launched but I am not satisfied with the User Interface and touch screen sensitivity. Android UI is not quite up to the level where iPhone UI is or for that matter Palm WebOS UI.

<comment><USER7> You really haven't answered the question - what UI things need to be changed? I have very little exposure to Android, so I'm just asking out of curiosity rather than defensiveness.

<comment><USER8> There are lots of things that could be improved. Here's my pet peeve:

Android regularly checks the Android Market for updates available for your apps. It doesn't just check for updates to apps you currently have installed, but for any app you ever installed, including ones you later removed. I guess the logic is that if you uninstalled an app because of a bug, you will want to know when it is updated so that you can try it again. If Android finds any updates, it posts a little "market" icon in the notification bar. If you select the notification, it takes you to a screen showing your downloads, which lists every app you have ever installed. From that screen you can update installed apps (one-at-a-time only), and you can reinstall uninstalled apps.

The problem is that the download screen only tells you an app is updated _if it is currently installed_. There is no way to tell which uninstalled apps have been updated. So if you have tried out a large number of apps, you can easily be in a situation where the notification icon tells you several apps have updated, but when you go to the download page, all your apps appear up- to-date. This greatly reduces the value of update notifications.

<comment><USER9> This is the drive me crazy though i havent experienced it since moving to a 2.x device. Applications no longer appear in downloads view once you uninstall them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> What a coup for Android. (Assuming the reporter knows what he's talking about, which I can't vouch for.)

<comment><USER11> Engadget confirmed it here: [http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/27/palms-matias- duarte-has-j...](http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/27/palms-matias-duarte-has- joined-google-as-user-experience-direct/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Gruber, "If true, Google may be serious about taking the ugly stick out of the Android development process. This is a seriously big hire." <http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/05/27/paczkowski>

<comment><USER13> Google needs guidance like this all around. (To be fair, recent trajectory is already good.)

<comment><USER14> One just has to wonder will the new hire bow to A/B testing for 40 shades of green Android logo should be colored…

<comment><USER15> You'd have to think there would be a lot more freedom on something relatively new and moving as fast as android. It may not always be that way though.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: I built an open source Android app for radioreddit.com - <AUTHOR> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.mandaria.radioredditfree

<comment><AUTHOR> Source code: <http://code.google.com/p/radioreddit-android/>

<http://www.radioreddit.com> is a website where independent musicians upload their own music to the service. The songs are then played on one of the live radio streams and voted on by users (using <http://reddit.com> to handle voting). The more upvotes a song gets, the more likely it is to be heard on one of the live streams.

My application allows you to listen to these different live streams. Let me know if you have any questions or comments!

</comment><comment><USER2> I really like it!

Ditch the reddit branding and come up with a different product name and logo.</comment>


Vibrator Maker to Pay Millions Over Claims It Secretly Tracked Use - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/14/520123490/vibrator-maker-to-pay-millions-over-claims-it-secretly-tracked-use <comment><USER2> I think this is a great example to the tech world of what people actually care about.

Your average American didn't understand or get worked up over Snowden and the prospect of a surveillance state; not for long anyway. We don't have much of a national conversation about it anymore, Obama isn't remembered for his actions around the NSA, bulk collection, etc.

Most people also don't seem to care too much about Facebook, Google, etc. collecting their browsing data and selling it to advertisers.

People very much care about the privacy of their sex life.

Did this company violate their own privacy policy?

It looks like the company settled rather than drag things out through court, but didn't actually do anything beyond collect standard usage data.

The company didn't even give it to third parties. So it isn't that they did something worse than NSA Facebook, but that people are more sensitive to the privacy of their sex lives than other things.

We wonder why Snapchat first rose to popularity for sexting while most people couldn't care less about GPGing their emails or using Signal day-to-day.

Either most people don't care about privacy or we, the tech community, do a poor job of connecting things like encryption to what people do genuinely care about.

<comment><USER3> > Your average American didn't understand

These five words are, as far as I can tell, the poison in the pudding of American politics today.

1) There is no "average" American. Everyone is close to a median in some metrics, and everyone is at out-lier in others.

2) The fact that huge outcry over the NSA is not visible might just mean we're looking in the wrong places. I've traveled across the country by land twice in two years, stopping at hundreds of rural campfires and urban watering holes. My experience is that people are very upset with the state and want their rights back. And that, one way or another, they'll get 'em.

<comment><USER4> > My experience is that people are very upset with the state and want their > rights back.

It's easy to _say_ you're upset about something. It's another thing to take action or even vote (with the ballot, your feet or your wallet). How many people out there who will say they are vaguely "concerned" about Company Xyz's service actually have an account at Company Xyz and use that service?!

<comment><USER5> How is one to vote when neither major party candidate was pro-privacy?

There are a number of pro-privacy representatives, and one or two senators, so it is not like people aren't votinig at all, but if you don't get a choice then you cannot be blamed for failing to make the choice.

<comment><USER6> > How is one to vote when neither major party candidate was pro-privacy?

That's the heart of the matter. The major parties have a virtual monopoly; we're as trapped as voters as consumers are in a market monopoly.

I think the way we fix this is weaken the monopoly of the major parties, possibly with things like ranked voting: [http://www.fairvote.org/](http://www.fairvote.org/)

Which Maine is trying to institute: [https://ballotpedia.org/Maine_Ranked_Choice_Voting_Initiativ...](https://ballotpedia.org/Maine_Ranked_Choice_Voting_Initiative,_Question_5_\(2016\))

Perhaps we should try to institute laws that break up parties if they get too big the same way we can break up corporations that are too big? Monopolies being bad an all.

<comment><USER7> Beware of blaming the system when the more likely problem is that enough people don't care about the issue.

<comment><USER6> There's definitely something to what you say. At the same time, it's a multi- faceted problem and the two party monopoly is one of them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If anyone is interested in accessing the WeVibe or other toys (Kiiroo, Lovense, etc) directly via bluetooth, versus going through their apps, I run a website for documenting and reverse engineering this stuff, at [http://metafetish.com](http://metafetish.com). All of our docs and code are on github at

[http://github.com/metafetish](http://github.com/metafetish)

<comment><USER9> May one be theoretically be able to send patterns to all devices simultaneously?

<comment><USER8> This is exactly what my new project is about! :D

[http://buttplug.io](http://buttplug.io)

Working on building a system to create a generic signal set that can be translated to any toy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Looks like my s/o and I could be making a claim as part of the settlement class. Didn't get much use out of the app, the bluetooth connection was super unreliable.

That said, I take it as a given that any app I install on my phone is probably tracking my usage of their app. Dropping in Mixpanel or Heap or some other analytics lib that tracks feature usage seems like such a standard part of developing a mobile app, I'd be surprised if a developer _didn 't_ do it.

<comment><USER11> Some might say, Dan Grossman, that discretion is the better part of valour when disclosing your vibrator purchases on the internet.

I actually don't care, I just found it funny that you're posting under your real name without shame. It's refreshing, but I think it's also one of the ways techies are significantly different than the rest of the population.

<comment><USER12> I have no personal knowledge of Dan Grossman, but in my experience, techie guys might over report indications of sexual activity and prowess on the internet ;-)

<comment><USER13> Techies are data driven folks. You're thinking of the REST of humanity.

<comment><USER14> Yeah because being the SOAP of humanity is so last year.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The We Vibe was the topic of a Defcon 24 talk, Breaking the Internet of Vibrating Things[1]. Was an excellent talk, but I felt it needed more jokes woven in.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1d0Xa2njVg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1d0Xa2njVg)

EDIT: grammar fail

<comment><USER16> > Was an excellent talk

Thanks. :)

> but I felt it needed more jokes woven in.

Oh, believe me, we had no shortage of jokes we _could 've_ included but because we wanted the topic & issues we raised to be taken seriously we erred on the side of leaving out jokes. (We were also really pushed for time having only 20 minutes--we later gave another presentation on the topic to a local security group and talked for over an hour.)

<comment><USER15> I understand completely! I appreciate the effort that you and goldfisk put into it. Hope to see more Defcon talks from you guys :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The Internet of Dongs project, at [http://internetofdon.gs](http://internetofdon.gs) (on twitter at [http://twitter.com/internetofdongs](http://twitter.com/internetofdongs)) exists to combat issues with security and user privacy in sex toys, They're working with multiple toy producers to create systems to report bugs and increase security.

</comment><comment><USER16> [From an earlier submission: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13862694](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13862694)]

Related DEF CON 24 presentation: "Breaking the Internet of Vibrating Things": [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1d0Xa2njVg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1d0Xa2njVg) (Includes more technical details)

Related TEDx presentation: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxRSjC1rPmA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxRSjC1rPmA) (Aims to raise awareness of related IoT privacy issues for a non-technical audience via the concept of a personal "Device Intimacy Spectrum".)

Disclosure: I'm one of the presenters/security researchers referenced in the article.

</comment><comment><USER17> I suppose it's to be expected, but the naïveté of thinking that an IoT sex toy _wasn 't_ phoning home still surprises me.

Not to excuse it, because spying on your users — particularly in an identifiable way, and doubly so given the sensitivity of this specific case — is a shitty thing to do, but it's not like this is unprecedented.

<comment><USER18> Then again, considering the number of retailers that categorize sex toys under sexual health and wellness, health being the keyword, is it possible that HIPAA could be relevant? And if not, should it?

<comment><USER19> > Then again, considering the number of retailers that categorize sex toys > under sexual health and wellness, health being the keyword, is it possible > that HIPAA could be relevant?

No, because HIPAA covered entities and the information held by them to which the Privacy and Security rules applies are very explicitly defined, and how retailers categorize products is not a factor.

> And if not, should it?

Probably not, though you could probably make a good case that a more general privacy law not focussed on relations between healthcare providers, payers, and patients should exist and apply.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Over the longer term, privacy is dead. Sensors are proliferating at a rate web servers were 20 years ago and a state of continual recorded surveillance is where we are headed over the next 20 years.

The main question is, how equitable will that surveillance be? Governments and powerful multinationals _will_ have access to the personal information of ordinary people. Will the converse also be true?

As unpleasant as the prospect of sub mosquito-sized recording devices everywhere is, it matters greatly whether if law enforcement, moguls and politicians are subject to the same scrutiny as those without power.

<comment> k-mcgrady >> Over the longer term, privacy is dead.

Privacy will die if we let it die. It's not an inevitability. We have the power to prevent it (through law imo, not tech). As for it being equitable I don't see how that could ever happen. Having access to everyone's private information would be of zero use to me but would be very useful for governments and companies.

<comment><USER20> > _" It's not an inevitability"_

It's ironic you use this word given that Kevin Kelly's new bestseller which focuses on this and two other trends is called, _The Inevitable_.

[https://www.amazon.com/Inevitable-Understanding- Technologica...](https://www.amazon.com/Inevitable-Understanding- Technological-Forces-Future/dp/0525428089)

<comment><USER21> One man's book does not decide the future.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I have a really hard time imagining people using this.

Maybe it's just my prudishness but how the hell is fighting with bluetooth pairing in any way foreplay?

On the information video there is a graphic showing it can be used by separated couples. One person is in Europe, one the US. Just don't give up your phone at the border.

And don't lose your phone either. You may just wind up losing your partner also when they see how much more adept someone else is at working the controls.

Guess there are some things I'll just never understand.

<comment><USER23> We heard good reviews. Wanted to give it a shot because it said it sync'd to music. For people who also dance, this seemed kinda exciting.

The app was so bad though and that was the huge selling point of it and why I paid what was essentially a $150+ premium over another product. Disconnecting bluetooth constantly and the app would crash when we played a song. The idea of using it remotely was also exciting and having a partner control another's pleasure but, ultimately, it didn't work.

I'd gladly get some money back for this device knowing they also were collecting data on what we were doing.

<comment><USER24> > _why I paid what was essentially a $150+ premium over another product_

Well you just won $10,000! ;-))

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'm of two minds about the funny comments this article is getting. On the one hand, some are indeed funny and often really clever use of the English language. On the other hand, I think about hours and hours I'd spend reading really clever comments on Reddit and then in the end realizing that I didn't learn anything, nor did it change my mind or influence my opinion about anything. I'm glad that HN exists as an alternative.

<comment><USER17> I'm sure this article is gathering reddit-caliber comments in at least twelve different subs _right now_. If you want that, it's there to be found.

That's very specifically not what HN wants to be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Perhaps this will make it clearer that controlling things from your phone currently involves somebody in the middle, monitoring what you're doing. If we had better phone-to-phone data connections, this wouldn't be necessary. This is a phone pairing application between phones that could be brought near each other for pairing.

<comment><USER27> True, but to fix that, you have to fix everyone being behind a NAT instead of having IPv6 addresses.

<comment><USER28> Not really. We need a way to create ad-hoc phone-to-phone physical networks, not virtual ones that still go through the Internet. Though even just going through LAN would be an improvement. Bluetooth could technically do this, but as it is, it seems to suck.

<comment><USER27> I'm pretty sure most smart vibrators _do_ use Bluetooth for the last mile. The "smart" part comes from integration with IRC bots or live streaming sites so that others can control the device from across the ocean (across the Internet).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> * > An estimated 300,000 people bought Bluetooth-enabled WeVibes, according to court documents, and about 100,000 of them used the app.*

I know its not the primary issue, but its a very interesting part of the story to me and raises a lot of questions. Only 1/3 of people who purchased the device used the connected app. This sounds a lot like my Annova sous-vide: it has an app but I never use it (a dial and button are fine by me). I wonder if this 1/3 number is the normal rate among "smart devices". Do 2/3 of people not use it because its of no real value–or because the setup/ux sucks? Do companies make smart devices because "everyone else is doing it" or is there another reason (charge more & better margins)? Finally, will we start to see a decline in smart/connected devices if adoption stays low (in favor of products that simply innovate in other ways)?

<comment><USER30> Going from my own Anova experience - the people who use the app are probably power users who want the full feature set, as opposed to those (like you) whose use cases are served perfectly well by the clean minimalist UI exposed on the physical device.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Is this one of the devices on CIA hacked systems list?

<comment><USER32> Who knows, but intelligence agencies could benefit from hacking it. Of course the dildo itself is worthless to pwn, but apparently many of the owners are connecting it to a mobile app, and dollars to doughnuts, the maker has not hardened the app against malicious inputs from the dildo and so it can probably be exploited, and from there, you might have lots of useful permissions (depending on how lazy the maker is) or at least a springboard to attack the rest of the iOS/Android OS. Plus, if anyone suspected they were being hacked from their dildo - would they ever admit it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> _> The We-Vibe product line includes a number of Bluetooth-enabled vibrators that, when linked to the "We-Connect" app, can be controlled from a smartphone. It allows a user to... give a partner, in the room or anywhere in the world, control of the device._

Wow. I'm just kind of incredulous that this was never hacked. The lawsuit is about the company's own data-collection practices, but just imagine the freakout if one fine day Vladimir Putin took control of all these devices at once.

Has anyone done a security review of the device and the associated app? If ever a service called for a thorough penetration test... (Bah-dum-bum! Thank you, I'll be here all week, tip your wait staff.)

I'm wondering if the lack of hacks came from actual good engineering on the company's part -- hope springs eternal! -- or if the device was just too niche to catch the interest of the black hats?

<comment><USER16> > Has anyone done a security review of the device and the associated app?

Partially, yes, here's our DEF CON 24 presentation about it: "Breaking the Internet of Vibrating Things": [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1d0Xa2njVg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1d0Xa2njVg)

We started out wanting to learn how the device worked, wondering how secure it was and then discovered that what the manufacturer was doing was of more immediate concern. (FWIW the original suit was filed about a month after our DEF CON talk.)

> I'm wondering if the lack of hacks came from actual good engineering on the > company's part

As you'll see in the talk, they appeared to have done some things right (e.g. secure network connections) but there are a _lot_ of moving parts (device hardware, firmware, app, backend servers, chat, audio, video, control) and we barely scratched the surface.

> if the device was just too niche to catch the interest of the black hats?

It caught our attention but our hats were black with sparkly skulls on them. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I picture it being hooked to a GPS:

three inches east three inches west three inches east FIVE inches west…

And then they sell the data to Facebook, who can market it to more effectively target men who move like that.

…which steps over the line from snark into relevant observations on abuse of privacy and who benefits, given deep enough data :)

</comment><comment><USER35> Gentle warning if you're at work: the article has a large picture of the product at the top.

</comment><comment><USER36> But they did it to help people!

This is how they use the data:

Red lights flashing...

Tactical Officer: \- Action Stations - User 5563 is close but needs additional stimulation.

Captain: Engineering can you give us additional 10%?

Engineering: We will need to adjust Warp Field but it should work for about 5 seconds.

Captain: That should be enough. Do it!

Engineering: Ready

Captain: Engage!

</comment><comment><USER37> So is the moral of the story for a developer to make sure you have an updated privacy policy? If they would have updated the privacy policy on their product would they have been legally protected?

<comment><USER16> > So is the moral of the story for a developer to make sure you have an > updated privacy policy?

Given that the original suit included claims that "Defendant never informed Plaintiff that it would monitor, collect, and transmit her Usage Information" that seems to be one potential moral.

> If they would have updated the privacy policy on their product would they > have been legally protected?

Presumably only a case being decided at trial could determine that. But it's worth looking at the proposed settlement documents that outline the non- financial changes they agreed to in order to settle the case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Haha, I own one of these and the thought has struck me multiple times that Lelo are probably collecting data on usage and also that there must be security holes to their backend so you could in principle take control over thousands of vibrators. Never worried too much about it, and not at this point either. But it's obviously not a good thing.

</comment><comment><USER39> You should assume any (phone or windows store or mac store) app you install can and likely will be uploading all personal data that it can to their "mothership" in the name of wishing to keep track of Usage and "improve" future products. There are no laws preventing the selling of information to marketing agencies.

</comment><comment><USER40> I'm trying to imagine what you would actually do with this kind of data.

<comment><USER41> Sell it to a dating/hookup service to improve recommendations for sexual compatibility criteria.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Seems like publicity stunt only works when you don't have to payout millions to people affected by it negatively.

They got the publicity but at a price that is too high.

</comment><comment><USER43> isn't it amazing how every piece of equipment is turned into a tracking device? Always reminds me of Stanislav Lem's 'The Washing Machine Tragedy' [http://nemaloknig.info/read-192176/?page=10](http://nemaloknig.info/read-192176/?page=10) where this appliance turned smarter and smarter until it took over...

</comment><comment><USER44> This could bring new meaning to the concept of the "man in the middle attack"

</comment><comment><USER45> Besides the privacy concerns being raised here, connected sex toys themselves fascinate me. Like a lot of IoT markets, it intuitively feels as if adding connectivity and intelligence to the products will benefit them in some way. And yet, also like a lot of IoT markets, this doesn't seem to be panning out.

The toys themselves are too primitive to be useful in general. They're too sluggish in their responses, and not sensitive enough. There's also little to no feedback on the control side.

The data collection side of things (privacy issues aside) is also not useful. Does the frequency with which you use a vibrator really going to inform your life? Sleep patterns, diet, exercise, etc. Those are all useful metrics. Certainly the amount you have sex is also a useful metric. But to be useful, you need to actually know how much you have sex, and need to have the ability to analyze that data alongside everything else. A tracked vibrator does not accomplish that, and there's no central app for analyzing all this data together (that I know of). A smart watch, on the other hand, _could_ track sexual activity, and already has the facilities for analyzing that data along with the other important metrics.

But there's still a market here, I feel, for when the right combination of technology shows up. About a year or two ago Internet controlled vibrators showed up on cam sites like Chaturbate. It started off as a novelty on a few cam shows, but today almost every show has them. It consists of a vibrator, either worn externally or internally, that vibrates with variable intensity based on tips given my customers of the show. So, you tip, it vibes. It's a means for customers to have more direct involvement in the show. It's an easy sell to tell someone "You know that hot girl? You can pay to give her pleasure." That's the sort of "right combination of technology" I'm talking about.

The next big innovation, I think, will come from an Internet connected, articulated Fleshlight-like product for men. Ya know, a Fleshlight that jacks you off. There's one product out there, but like most of these failed attempts, it sucks. It has the right "idea", but failed execution. It connects to your computer and you can then direct its movement either with a synced video or remote control by a cam show performer. That's a great idea! But the articulation needs to be better, with several nodes with at least two degrees of freedom (up-down, contract/relax). If you can make the device actually useful, it won't be hard to extract a hefty price on the device, and a hefty price on videos and camshows. And, of course, this is a far more useful device for long distance relationships. Not to belittle the needs of the woman, but I don't believe a remote controlled vibrator is in the same class of remote- intimacy as a remote controlled masturbator. The equivalent would be more like a remote controlled tongue or "fucking machine". But good executions of both are further away, I believe.

And yes, I _have_ thought "too much" about this stuff, even to the extent of sketching out a potential way to build the masturbator using electro magnetic actuators arranged in a ring to provide silent operation.

> Since the app was released in 2014, some observers have raised concerns that > Internet-connected sex toys could be vulnerable to hacking.

Oddly enough, that might be some people's fetish.

<comment><USER46> I do agree the data is probably quite useless, although it could give an indication of frequency.

A more extreme scenario: it could allow for public shaming when it's used in public; for instance by setting it to a painful and/or audible setting (although I doubt any remote vibrator can vibrate that strong), and by focusing attention on that via other means ("what's that buzz?").

(I don't understand why parent was flagged so I vouched.)

</comment></comment><comment> k-mcgrady Linking the data with email addresses was stupid and unnecessary. Regardless of whether it's right or wrong (if this wasn't 'embarrassing' data I don't think anyone would care) linking data to emails was just a totally stupid decision.

</comment><comment><USER47> How is what they did different than what facebook does?

</comment><comment><USER48> How do I claim the lawsuit amount?

</comment><comment><USER49> Puts a new spin on the phrase "give me a buzz", doesn't it?

</comment><comment><USER50> Vibrator maker creates Clit Bit.

</comment><comment><USER51> The perils of teledildonics.

</comment><comment><USER52> How stupid can a company be?

<comment><USER53> I have to ask how stupid consumers can be. If someone is building a mobile app, custom devices, and connecting them with a web service, you're pretty much guaranteed that the data flowing through their systems is accessible by some people if not stored.

From the sounds of this article, the data collection was relatively innocuous, and probably just the default that a typical developer is going to build into the system. Could they have provided the same service with zero storage and very decoupled from the email address. Sure, but I'd only expect that from a company who pushed privacy and security above all else - and even then I wouldn't trust it unless they published details of how everything is P2P and secure. Sounds to me like they will lose functionality (or at least like have very poor customer support) without the email addresses. If you're not willing to risk this rather obvious exposure, why not buy a normal vibrator? This is only marginally more sane of a lawsuit than the one against Red Bull because it does not, in fact, give you wings.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> A sex toy being hacked by some hacker could make for an interesting porn plot..

<comment><USER55> Please no, they already made Swordfish, we don't need another attempt.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> This article really sent shivers through me.

</comment><comment><USER57> No man this must be marketing :) :)

</comment><comment><USER58> Yesterday it was farts and today it's IoT enabled vibrators.. Has Howard Stern taken over HN?

<comment><USER59> It's technology news. Technology is everywhere, you know.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> Just waiting for some scumbag to repost as fake news... "Vault 7 leaks find NSA spying on vibrator use!"</comment>


GameStop opening Deus Ex boxes, removing free OnLive game code - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/08/report-gamestop-opening-deus-ex-copies-removing-free-game-code.ars

<comment><USER2> Digital distribution is coming, whether GameStop like it or not. Removing the free codes for OnLive is not going to stem the tide.

For proprietary media like Playstation, XBox, etc they're going to be disintermediated whether they like it or not. They still can win in the PC arena.

So rather than acquiring strategically pointless startups like casual gaming site Kongregate, they'd be wise to ramp up their efforts to compete with Steam or even acquire whole digital distribution + consumption stacks like OnLive itself.

Competing with Steam is more a relationship challenge than a technical one, and of all companies GameStop is well placed with those existing relationships.

The downfall of Blockbuster should have proved that they need to change a long time ago.

<comment><USER3> _So rather than acquiring strategically pointless startups like casual gaming site Kongregate, they'd be wise to ramp up their efforts to compete with Steam or even acquire whole digital distribution + consumption stacks like OnLive itself._

They've already acquired companies to directly compete with both OnLive and Steam: [http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/01/gamestop-details-plans- fo...](http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/01/gamestop-details-plans-for-impulse- and-spawn-labs-says-its-be/)

<comment><USER4> Yes. This seems more like an anti-competitive move to protect their own move into digital distribution.

<comment><USER5> .. and seems completely unnecessary. In some ways Impulse is better than Steam, and I really hope they try to continue to improve the service.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I spent several years of my life at GameStop, and I miss it.

I was hired long before the EB/GameStop merger and watched as the company adopted EB's culture. GameStop was a bottom-up company, and EB was a top-down company. Much more authoritarian in its management, and saw the customer more like a piece of meat.

In the years just after the merger, I watched morale fall as the "scratch protection" plans became a priority, trade prices plummeted, and we stopped stocking PC games in several stores. They replaced GameStop's functional, DOS- based POS and adopted EB's slow, windows version. The transition was terrible, and the company seemed deaf to the complaints that holiday lines were getting longer and longer as they added features to an already slow and bloated system.

I quit and returned to school a couple years after the merger, it was the right decision, of course.

I loved my time at GameStop. I built a community around the store I managed and did everything I could to do right by the customer. I knew several managers (on both sides) who were as dedicated as I was to this goal. The culture at corporate was focused on marketing and was in no way supportive of this goal, and I'm saddened to see what they've become. But it was probably inevitable.

The comments here are pretty disdainful, and I definitely understand why. But there are a lot of good people working in the trenches that deserve thanks for what they've done for their customers.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'd like to say that I'm amazed that GameStop would steal from their customers, but they haven't been the bastions of honesty that I'd like to think they were.

So no, I'm not amazed.

If they were honest, they'd either send the boxes back to the manufacturer and ask for ones that didn't have the codes, or leave them intact. Stealing something out of the box, then wrapping it up like it's new and selling it... That's just dishonest.

<comment><USER8> Or if they were honest, they could at least get a statement from Square Enix accepting blame for mis-packaging.

<comment><USER9> That would not be honest at all. Putting in a redeemable game voucher for On- Live was not "accidentally packed" into each game. Square-Enix came to an agreement with On-Live to include On-Live digital copies.

I'm amazed at how Gamestop doesn't even try to lie or spin their way out. They state, "Square Enix packed a competitor's coupon within the PC version of Deus Ex: Human Revolution without our prior knowledge and we did pull these coupons."

<comment><USER7> No, initially they would not comment on it, despite the fact that people knew it was going on. It wasn't until they realized the internet had ahold of it like a rabid dog that they decided to talk. At that point, they had no choice but to tell the truth.

Don't give them points for following the only course they had open to them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Is this even their prerogative? Presumably, Square Enix would have partnered directly with OnLive and made some contractual arrangement to include the promotion in their product packaging. I'm certainly not a lawyer, but I can't imagine this being within GameStop's rights.

<comment><USER11> Eidos could quite possibly have a case for tortious interference; consumers could for deceptive trade practices:

<http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2011/08/gamestop-onlive/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'll use this story next time I explain net neutrality to anyone. "Think what GameStop is doing is bad? Imagine your ISP engaging in similar practices."

</comment><comment><USER13> Gamestop may have Streisand effected themselves. I hadn't heard of OnLive before today but will probably try it out tonight.

<comment><USER14> Indeed, if you haven't tried it yet then you absolutely should. I highly recommend Just Cause 2, it's a huge game and it plays perfectly. You can play any game for 30 minutes without spending a penny.

Disclaimer: I wish I was an investor.

<comment><USER15> YES. I'm actually really sad that I'm unable to invest money in the huge expansion that's happening in the software industry right now. Due to Sarbanes-Oxley, this entire industrial development is completely off-limits to regular Joe investors. It sucks to be aware of this and not be able to do anything about it.

There are many reasons why this is bad, first and foremost that this is where a lot of the action is right now and those of us with less than 10 million available to invest are stuck investing in only the rest of the economy. Which, from what I gather from the news, is pretty mismanaged in the US.

After trying out OnLive for 5 minutes even without playing, it is obvious that this is the future for most gamers.

<comment><USER16> Thirded. If I could put money in any company today, it'd be OnLive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> GameStop's lack of scruples: not surprising. GameStop fears OnLive as a substantial threat: a little surprising. Internet speeds for the majority of Americans are just way too slow for OnLive to be viable.

<comment><USER18> But unless we have some bizarre infrastructure regression, it only becomes more viable in time.

It (or something like it) is the future, there's no doubt about that.

<comment><USER19> Requirements will also increase, though, and the biggest problem with OnLive can only be fixed by raising the speed of light.

<comment><USER20> Requirements increasing will only mean they have to upgrade their computers in a data center somewhere, not that the ping between the server and you needs to get faster. The delay is noticeable, but games requiring more processing power will have no effect on the time it takes OnLive to send you data.

<comment><USER19> Of course, but even that's a nontrivial task. OnLive's game machines target somewhere around "low-middle"; the quality isn't even console-level. They buy machines that are close to the first to be obsoleted by the upgrade march, so there'll always be the "damn, that plays like ass on OnLive" problem for new releases.

When you couple pretty poor quality with persistent, noticeable latency, you do not have a recipe for success.

<comment><USER21> It'll only take one AAA publisher with a deep marketing budget to sink a couple of million into dedicated OnLive servers for a new title for that problem to go away. Maybe that's what they're banking on.

<comment><USER17> I'm not so sure. To make an impact it would have to be a very popular IP designed with OnLive's stack in mind coupled with platform exclusivity (at least at launch). The problem I see for OnLive is that their target demographic (gamers who purchase AAA titles) are the consumers who are most critical of performance issues. If OnLive were serving up content to casual gamers, the service's shortcomings would be less of an obstacle, but I just don't see how they're going to get tech-aware consumers to jump on board.

<comment><USER21> There's another angle, though: while the control round-trip might be hideous on OnLive, the inter-user round-trip is negligible; presumably everyone will be sitting on the same gigabit (or better) LAN. Games currently have to pull all sorts of tricks to make the inter-user latency appear not to be present. They've got good enough that generally you just don't notice. I think the same thing will happen here, although I admit that nobody's demonstrated that they're capable of surmounting the technical challenge, and I doubt it's as simple as tweaking #defines in the network stack.

<comment><USER19> It's a lot easier for a game to let you shoot at where your client-side prediction thinks the guy is supposed to be than to allow players to react to things that happened before their input for a given time tick was processed.

What you're saying is nontrivial and may not even be workable, because it's impossible to really separate "stupid slow player" from "player whose latency is high enough that he can't react".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> > For now, if you absolutely must buy the game from a GameStop location, > either make sure the game is sealed, or check for the coupon before leaving > the location.

I used to work at one in HS. It's really easy to reseal a package with shrink wrap.

<comment><USER23> Me too! The heat gun shrink wrap is cool stuff, but it's obviously not the factory-fresh stuff (nicely folded cellophane gift wrap) to anyone who's purchased a new game in the last few years. Plus, there's also a box seal inside the wrap anyways.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> This is the same company that will buy used games for $2 and sell them for MSRP minus $3 or so, then try to sell "scratch insurance" as an attachment.

I don't play a lot of games, but every time I do pick one up (since GameStop is virtually the only remaining B&M game store in many places), it hasn't been a consumer-friendly experience.

</comment><comment><USER25> In my area, GameStop is the only place that has a wide selection of used games on the cheap. Some times its nice to blow $100 on video games and end up with 5 titles rather 2.

I will admit I would never buy a new game from GameStop. One time when I wanted to purchase PES 2011 they tried to sell me a brand new game with the packaging teared off. This disturbed me quite a bit. When I tried to explain to the manager it was the same thing as a used game to me at that point he didn't accept my argument. I bet they do this more than it gets reported.

<comment><USER26> Amazon works pretty well for this now, and the catalog is far deeper than any Gamestop's. It's even easy to sell your own stuff there through a variety of mechanisms.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I'm not surprised that this doesn't surprise anyone. So many fall victim to unethical practices from Gamestop, the worst I think being selling used re- shrink-wrapped games as New.

In other news, digital distribution to me makes sense i.e. Steam, and full downloads direct to console HD and the like, but it just isn't a large enough market share yet IMO. These games are humongous it's kind of pain to keep running out of disk space, at least as things stand currently.

<comment><USER28> I'm a bit confused. When is hard drive space a problem? With digital distribution, you can redownload at whim, and with discs, you can reinstall at (slightly less convenient) whim.

<comment><USER9> Agreed, HD space on personal computer isn't the limiting factor.

Slow broadband speed and download caps would limit your ability to download games over and over.

<comment><USER27> I mean on a console, not a personal computer. We're talking digital distribution of software onto game consoles, with Steam and PC, it's easy. But, with say PSN and Xbox Live, I'm not alone when I say that I have trouble managing space and dealing with download times. I'd rather buy a hard copy of the game.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Amusingly enough, the new Deus Ex is a Steamworks game [<http://steampowered.com/steamworks/retailsupport.php>] and it requires Steam to be installed to play it.

Removing the OnLive coupon may hide one (small) competitor, but does nothing to stop GameStop's real competition in the PC space.

</comment><comment><USER30> Is this legal?

</comment><comment><USER31> well, that's one way to build a moat.

</comment><comment><USER32> Can Square Enix sue GameStop for trademark infringement or something? Opening trademarked boxes and removing things that the customer is presumably paying for, without notifying the customer, sounds illegal to me. If you did the same with boxes of Legos, what would the result be?

<comment><USER33> Trademark law wouldn't apply here.

<comment><USER32> Presumably "Deus Ex" is Square Enix's trademark, no? If GameStop is passing off what's left after they tamper with the box as _Deus Ex Whatever_ , wouldn't that be trademark infringement?

<comment><USER34> You are pretty much saying "Well the earth has gravity, so gravity must apply here." No, trademark has nothing to do with this.

If anything, right of first sale (remember GameStop buys games in bulk from publishers) protects them.

<comment><USER32> I didn't realize there was a "right of first sale" in trademark law (obviously I'm not a lawyer) but what Wikipedia says about it is this:

> With reference to trade in tangible merchandise, such as the retailing of > goods bearing a trademark, the "first sale" rule serves to immunize a > reseller from infringement liability. Such protection to the reseller > extends to the point where said goods have not been altered so as to be > materially different from those originating from the trademark owner.

It seems to me that removing coupons from the box is "altering goods so as to be materially different from those originating from the trademark owner".

<comment><USER35> An OnLive coupon is absoolutely nothing to do with the trademark it is a seperate item that happens to come with it. They may have broken their contract, we don't know, but this has absolutely nothing to do with trademarks.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Observer fought off legal threats from Facebook and Cambridge Analytica - <AUTHOR> http://pressgazette.co.uk/the-observer-fought-off-legal-threats-from-facebook-and-cambridge-analytica-before-publishing-data-harvesting-scoop/ <comment><AUTHOR> Zuckerberg states in his facebook post that "they learned from the Guardian" about the CA issue. It's more like "they threatened to sue"</comment>


Steam Greenlight brought classism in the indie game dev world to the surface - <AUTHOR> http://a6productions.com/how-steam-greenlight-brought-classism-in-the-game-development-world-to-the-surface/

<comment><AUTHOR> It's surprising to me how the author vehemently dismisses the idea of getting a 9-5 job to support his family and to fund his game development business. It's as if there's something inherently wrong with the idea, without trying to explain his rationale.

Maybe it's because I'm coming from the opposite side. I am employed full time in a mega corp. On the side, I work on iOS apps. Based on anecdotal reports, I think I may be making more money than the average indie developer (certainly much more than what he's shared in this blog post). However, I have no illusions about how much I need my day job to support my family and continue to pay my bills.

Until I reach a certain income threshold, I'll be keeping my dayjob and not risk my kid's next meal. I spend every free time to pursuing the iPhone app development, but the steady income does allow me some peace of mind and more time with my family. What's so bad about that?</comment>


Messer – Facebook chat from the command line - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/mjkaufer/Messer <comment><USER2> Just tried it - it's very buggy but could be promising</comment>


Ask HN: Should I build a tool that helps founders showcase their team? - <AUTHOR> No matter how we hire, candidates today research the company before talking/applying. What they find is not too helpful. Many startups have good-looking careers pages, but they don't answers questions like "what engg. problems do you solve at XYZ" [1], "What is the interview process at XYZ" [2] etc. These give a much better window into the team than opaque career pages or job descriptions.<p>(This is also why engineering blogs are a powerful hiring tool. Unfortunately, most such blogs languish or die slowly.)<p>Do you think there is value in helping startups create a better picture of themselves?<p>[1] https://www.quora.com/What-engineering-problems-and-challenges-is-Stripe-solving [2] https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-engineering-interview-process-like-at-Stripe <comment><USER2> If I were pretending to be a startup VP HR, I'd pretend to ask for data showing the value of such a service. In particular I'd need to compare how optimizing for random visitors to the careers page returns value relative to targeted recruiting.

Good luck.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point.

In (email) targeted recruiting, the recipient will check the company out first. Isn't it worthwhile to build what they would like to see?

<comment><USER2> There's a hypothesis there, and it may be a good one. My thought is that getting someone to hand over money for a tool based on the hypothesis will be easier if the hypothesis is supported by data indicating to what degree the product will affect the bottom line.

<comment><AUTHOR> Got it. Agreed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Would this tool be able to provide a better picture than what the company website and the company pages on LinkedIn and Facebook be able to provide?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, and here's why.

A team's picture gets better when it sees collective participation from a large number of people in the team. Which is why I feel this will beat company LI/FB pages, that are updated by a single person(or a select few)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> What about glassdoor reviews?

<comment><USER5> Glassdoor reviews are mostly anonymous and sometimes I have seen angry people venting out there. I feel some of the positive reviews in Glassdoor are in because someone in the company pushed people to write them.

<comment><USER6> Thats right. The Org generally gets some of its marketing team members to write reviews and get it posted on Glassdoor.</comment></comment></comment>


India is now producing the world's cheapest solar power - <AUTHOR> https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/06/india-is-now-producing-the-world-s-cheapest-solar-power/ <comment><USER3> The current largest solar park in India and possibly the world, on google maps here [https://www.google.com/maps/place/Thirumani,+Karnataka+57213...](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Thirumani,+email@example.com,77.4657737,618m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m12!1m6!3m5!1s0x3bb1112c75a4dd9b:0x5f29eec6b8f7ec6c!2sPavagada+Solar+Park!8m2!3d14.2379672!4d77.4372877!3m4!1s0x3bb1114cbc9bc231:0x1657630d81a440b8!8m2!3d14.2376735!4d77.4529868)

<comment><USER4> Wow. I kept zooming out and there was more and more. That is incredible.

Do you know how much power it produces?

<comment><USER5> Just eyeballing it there seems to be 1 square kilometer of panels total. At regular solar panel efficiency, output would be 1000-2000MW total. So the same order of magnitude as one nuclear reactor.

<comment><USER6> I think you're off by a factor of ten. Sunlight is about 1 kW/m^2, so 1 km^2 (=1e6 m^2) would only be 1000 MW at 100% efficiency, 100-200 MW at 10-20%. That said, the plant looks bigger than 1 km^2 to me.

<comment><USER7> The wikipedia link shared above by aunty_helen ( [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavagada_Solar_Park](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavagada_Solar_Park) ), which matches the name in the google maps link, says 53 km^2.

It also says that it could produce 600MW by the end of January 2018, can produce 1400MW now, with 650MW more under construction. It also says 2000MW capacity being planned for by the end of 2019.

I'm not sure how much of the 53 km has active solar panels, but they'd only need 3.8% efficiency to hit 2000MW with that much area.

<comment><USER6> Thanks, I didn't see the link earlier. I'm glad to see it's the array which is bigger than estimated. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> From the graph in the article it is pretty evident that the margins are very low compared to other countries. This is a case of the government doing something that makes sense for the growth of the country rather than letting privately run companies make large profits.

<comment><USER9> We are also benefiting here in Africa. I have begun to see Indian solar panels being sold here and they tend to be the cheapest at my preferred online retailer.

<comment><USER10> Which indian company is that?

<comment><USER9> The solar panels are called Renewsys[0].

[0][https://www.sustainable.co.za/solar-power/solar- panels.html?...](https://www.sustainable.co.za/solar-power/solar- panels.html?manufacturer=1858)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> lota-putty Article says "low-priced panel imports from China". There is ~30% Govt. subsidy in costs for residential installations. Also, [https://solarrooftop.gov.in/rooftop_calculator](https://solarrooftop.gov.in/rooftop_calculator)

Does anybody here know the percentage of panels actually produced in India and major solar cell(mono/poly) manufacturing(not assembly) plants in India?

Edit: (old data) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaics_companie...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaics_companies)

</comment><comment><USER11> What's more suprising is Italy 2nd place, which is a great thing. IMHO we need to transition our energy generation even more into solar, but also changing our habits to reflect that (do laundry during the day vs the night, cool down things during the day, etc.)

<comment><USER12> Why do you do laundry at night ?

Is it like in France where you can have different prices during day and during night ? The night price being the lower ?

<comment><USER13> Largely because people are at work during the day.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > Renewable energy now generates a third of global power capacity.

I find this remarkable and uplifting, because if I ask myself whether I could live using only 1/3 of my current electricity consumption, my answer is that I would have to make sacrifices, but relatively painless ones.

And this is the baseline - renewable capacity is only going to grow.

<comment><USER15> Really? You already know you're wasting two thirds of your electricity? If I had to cut consumption by two thirds I'd be sitting in the dark a lot. Do you have an example of what you'd cut?

<comment><USER14> I would ditch the TVs, re-wear lightly soiled clothes instead of using the washing machine / tumble dryer so often, more line drying in the summer, be vigilant about switching off unused lights, unplug unused appliances overnight, cook with the electric hob and microwave less, eat more fresh and uncooked food, buy a more efficient fridge and freezer, use the computers less, get rid of the electric shower, spend more time out with others rather than indoors.

That's just in the home.

All would involve sacrifices, but doable ones without having to live in Mad Max.

<comment><USER16> Seriously, ditch the dryer. You'll be amazed at how much power you don't use. You can even line dry inside although you have to be careful of the humidity in your house. If you live in a cold climate and heat your house, then probably you'll be doing yourself a favour by drying indoors. We have a combination dryer washer (the dryer uses a heat pump), but use the dryer maybe 2-3 times a year (only during the rainy season when it rains for weeks on end).

If you want to simply save energy, avoid the car. It's really apparent if you have an electric car because you have units that you can compare with other things, but for example, we burn probably 6 kWh per day in the car and this absolutely dwarfs our daily consumption in our apartment. If it's close enough to walk, then walk it.

Just dryer and car may get you close to your goal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> At $793/KW, a 10KW system means no electric bill after 3 years. If the lifetime of the system is 20 years, that's at least 15 years of free electricity.

<comment><USER18> Only when someone else is subsiding the grid, which under net metering acts as a battery for free.

That's not sustainable, especially as the price of solar drops making it a no brainier.

The true cost of solar includes enough batteries to cut the grid connection, or buying and selling energy at market rates, which will involve generating many more kWhs than you consume.

That said, we desperately need a carbon tax which would help swing the pendulum back even without net metering.

<comment><USER19> Most full accountings of solar's value to the grid show that homeowners with solar are subsidizing the grid (not the other way round) and other customers by providing power at peak usage times and being paid at rates that are averages and therefore below peak, and not accounting for wider costs/benefits:

[https://www.utilitydive.com/news/how-two-value-of-solar- stud...](https://www.utilitydive.com/news/how-two-value-of-solar-studies-add- up-to-no-clear-value-of-solar/522892/)

<comment><USER18> Yeah, I've read a handful of studies that claim to show something like that, but every time you dig down in to the numbers there are glaring errors.

Given that the Maryland study accounts for the benefit to the local economy (??), I'm not going to bother spending an hour on that. They've left their thumb on the scale.

Typically solar does not provide much power at all during peak use, which is why the duck curve was coined.

You can clearly see that homeowners with solar aren't subsidizing the grid, because laws needed to be passed in order to force utilities to accept the power. If someone hands you free money, you don't turn it down.

Net metering was a handy subsidy to get solar started, but it's an obscene transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in the long run.

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

<comment><USER19> Many utilities are run on a cost plus basis which means they would be entirely economically rational to literally turn down free money, because it would reduce the amount of profit they could make.

Also, the duck curve doesn't show peak use. The duck curve shows the peaks that are left after solar has been subtracted.

Go find a duck curve, note that it will almost certainly be in springtime when overall demand is low. Then look up the yearly demand peak for that region. It will almost certainly be in the afternoon in the summer and will dwarf the duck curve peaks. So solar will be directly reducing the requirement to build out capacity (and further reducing utility profit potential/ saving everyone lots of money).

Worst case scenario for the duck is to throw away a bit of solar power sometimes because other parts of the system need time to ramp. People clutch their pearls at this, just like they do at negative prices, but it's just nonsense with no logical basis.

It's like complaining that buying a dozen eggs is wasteful if you only need 11. Yeah, but it's cheaper than buying 11 individual eggs so maybe just think of something to do with your "free" egg instead of complaining about a non- issue.

<comment><USER18> To the extent that solar is economically beneficial, net metering isn't necessary. Just sell it at market rates, which are astronomical on peak days. How's that for logical basis?

<comment><USER19> Yeah, sounds great to me. Add in a carbon tax, removal of fossil subsidies and allowances (to capture externalities) and a whole bunch of nonsense gets solved by the power of the market incentives.

I'm not in favour of net metering as an end in itself. As I said I think it still cheats solar providers. But it's a neat hack that quickly and easily moves us closer to the real solution than we were before, while using the existing deployed hardware (the basic idea is the existing meter runs forward and backward and you pay the net).

<comment><USER18> I'd love a carbon tax.

However, I still think you're mistaken that residential solar is in any way subsidizing the grid.

Utility scale solar is under half the price, and the gap is only going to widen as PV prices fall and the panels become a smaller part of total cost. Why would you pay a homeowner $2.5/W to install panels on their roof instead of paying $1/W to build a power plant that has the same profile?

The only benefit you get is the distribution of the power generation, but if that's the goal and we're willing to pay a lot of money to subsidize it, BEVs capable of demand dispatch powering a home or even battery to grid are a significantly better target. The new Leaf can do this, but there's limited enthusiasm as the economic benefit can't be easily captured.

We need to switch to BEVs anyway, and it's crazy not to take advantage of the dual use potential. Solar might shave a bit off the peak days - <USER2> residential or utility by the way - but BEVs would go much further, and enable much higher wind and solar mixes in the grid.

Solar is cheap enough already. Net metering did its bit as a kick starting subsidy, but for new installations today it serves only as a wealth transfer to the upper middle class, who get to break even on something uneconomic, greenwash their lives, and displace spending on utility scale solar.

Let's solve the issues of tomorrow instead of doubling down on what worked yesterday.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is great news! India is extremely energy deficient and imports a large quantity of oil. Reducing petroleum dependency can help reduce poverty in India as more production can be consumed domestically and not sent abroad.

<comment><USER21> That's one way to look at it. Unfortunately, Indian banks have been granting billions of dollars of loans to the coal sector[1] and if solar power cost drops and we can't export excess power, we're in for trouble . Talk of second order effects ..

[1] [https://mercomindia.com/public-sector-banks-loans- coal/](https://mercomindia.com/public-sector-banks-loans-coal/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Looking at all the new coal power plants being built / planned in India is really disheartening though: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_Mega_Power_Projects](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_Mega_Power_Projects)

</comment><comment><USER23> Australia has also huge potential in solar power and big problems with electricily, I wonder why they didn't invested serious money yet.

<comment><USER24> It's a growing industry though. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Australia)

As for increased investing, there's probably politics at play.

<comment><USER25> Our coal industry in Australia has the government in their pocket. Despite coal power globally in the decline, the government has agreed to open and subsidise new coal plants.

It's all socializing the costs and privitizing the profits.

<comment><USER23> Ah yeah, coal lobby.. Thanks Heaven, they aren't too strong in USA/EU.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I am East Asian in India, where are cheap solar panels being sold in India?

I tried looking for them and everyone told me you need to import Chinese panels on which government has imposed massive duty.

So which company is offering cheap panels in India?

<comment><USER26> I'm not 100% sure, but my Dad had brought a solar panel from some exhibition a couple of years ago and I believe it was from BHEL.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I'm guessing due to lower labor costs and permitting costs.</comment>