We Need Clean-Energy Innovation, and Lots of It - <AUTHOR> http://www.gatesnotes.com/Energy/Energy-Innovation <comment><USER2> > But when it comes to preventing the worst effects of climate change, the > investments I make will matter much less than the choices that governments > make.

How can he stay out of politics, in that case?

The Republican Party aggressively opposes any climate change policy, from research to reduction to mitigation. They aggressively support the fossil fuel industry. The Koch brothers, whose combined wealth is on Gates' scale, spend billions to advocate similar positions. The Fox media network, from Fox News to the Wall Street Journal, push propaganda supporting these positions. (These statements are not partisan simply because one party looks bad. Much of it is factual -- clearly that's the GOP's position -- and if you accept the science of climate change, I think their claims clearly fall within the realm of propaganda.)

There is no media outlet that pushes back or calls any of the above on their propaganda, except those too small to matter, and the Democrats are passive.

The best investments Gates could make for climate change might be a political organization and/or a media network. I can guess why he doesn't, but I'd be interested to know. I wonder if he hoped, like many geeks, that he could avoid it and just do good things.

<comment><USER3> Surprised that you are getting down-voted for saying the right thing. As I am not American, I never took any interest in American politics. So I was never aware of the right wing propaganda machine - till I subscribed to Wall Street Journal. I was shocked that it's considered to be a "good" newspaper by some - of course, I have cancelled my subscription now - it was the single most important event in my life as it made me extremely liberal and progressive (as a reaction to the pure nonsense produced by the journal).

<comment><USER2> > I was never aware of the right wing propaganda machine - till I subscribed > to Wall Street Journal. I was shocked that it's considered to be a "good" > newspaper by some

This puzzles me too, to a degree. Most educated people can recognize the propaganda on their editorial page, and most know, based on Fox News Channel, that the owners have very low journalistic standards and are willing to publish deceit. WSJ reporters even appear as Fox correspondents now (at least, when I watched briefly a few months ago). Why would smart people still trust the WSJ?

To address one counter-argument, the NY Times is not the same; it's editorial page has much higher standards. I don't agree with everything, but rarely to I read blatent lies and propaganda.

I suspect it's simple branding. The "Wall Street Journal" brand carries integrity, and people don't think skeptically about it.

<comment><USER4> Saying it's branding is a little disingenuous. I like to joke that NYC is just a brand describing a truly shitty city, but that's not really the case. What I've noticed about the WSJ is that a lot of the commentary is primarily business focused. There is very little mainstream media that focuses on business with the quality of the WSJ. It's also sort of like the National Enquirer of the business world; so highly niche entertainment as well.

There are some realities of actually owning/running a business that are hard to understand if you have not done it before. Realities like how cumbersome and obnoxious most government attempts at regulation are, including and especially taxation. I have yet to meet a person, including prominent SV billionaires, who wouldn't give 100% of their money to the gov't if they thought it was spent well and transparently. The reality is that it is not, and these people feel rightly that they are better allocators of capital than the government, and so oppose taxation. In the Hard Thing About Hard things, Horowitz writes that most management books are written by people who have never even managed a hot dog stand. I think that a publication that is so overwhelming supported and favored by business owners even despite it's obnoxiousness at times must have some underlying value. It's probably best not to dismiss it as 'simple branding' just because you can't wrap your head around that position.

<comment><USER2> > There are some realities of actually owning/running a business that are hard > to understand if you have not done it before. ...

Having done it I don't agree. It's a widely used cover story, 'you can't understand X because you haven't done it', a way to avoid accountability or having to make a reasoned argument. We all have directly experienced only a tiny fraction of the world, yet we use our cognitive abilities to understand much more.

I also disagree with your view on taxes and regulation. Our taxes should be higher, certainly more fair (the wealthy sacrifice much less than poorer Americans), and some industries need much stronger regulation, including Wall Street and the medical industries. Finally, government, being a human institution, is flawed; but I have yet to see a business (over a certain size) that doesn't waste money, experience corruption and incompetence, etc. It's a weak argument to simply dismiss serious issues with the unsupported meme that government is somehow relatively incompetent.

Of course many agree with you. Some have good arguments, some are merely self- interested (who wants to pay more or have to follow rules?), many merely parrot what the read in the WSJ. You can identify the latter by the consistent use of the same talking points.

Finally, the condescension is unnecessary. If you have a good argument, people will be pursuaded. The condescension brands everything else you say as part of the same rant, not to be taken seriously.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Didn't Google drop RE<C because they realized current technologies weren't enough?

[http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/google- engineers...](http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/google-engineers- explain-why-they-stopped-rd-in-renewable-energy)

"Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today's renewable energy technologies simply won't work; we need a fundamentally different approach," wrote Google's Ross Koningstein and David Fork in a piece published yesterday in IEEE's Spectrum"

<comment><USER6> You cannot combat climate change by producing electricity cheaper than coal. If that was the case, the market would find a way not to replace coal, but to consume the extra on top of coal.

<comment><USER7> > If that was the case, the market would find a way not to replace coal, but > to consume the extra on top of coal.

That's not how PPAs and generation works. Nuclear power is already barely viable in the Illinois market (dominated by Exelon) because wind sells its power so much cheaper.

There's a new generation facility coming online near Vegas that's going to be selling solar at around 4 cents/kwh, the lowest price in the nation.

Cheap renewables don't get consumed above existing fossil generation; cheap renewables push out existing fossil fuel generation. For an example, see Germany and how their utilities can barely keep some generation running because they don't get enough revenue with solar dominating during daylight hours.

Solution: Continue to heavily subsidize solar, wind, utility-scale battery storage. Continue to shut down coal plants. Purchase peaking combined cycle natural gas generators, put them into non-profits (because they won't be profitable) to meet the generation gap until enough utility-scale battery storage can allow renewables to be firmly dispatchable resources (they can be relied on to provide power at a constant rate, vs intermittent resources). Profit (or rather, help stop climate change).

<comment><USER8> > coming online near Vegas that's going to be selling solar at around 4 > cents/kwh

The big problem there is that they'll sell you that energy when they have it, not when you need it. Production is really becoming cheap with renewables; storage is the real problem (and a very big one).

<comment><USER7> Correct. I mention utility-scale battery storage for that very reason. Until you have utility-scale battery storage, you burn natural gas to make up the difference. Faster response time than coal or nuclear, less carbon output than coal, easier to move across the country, no radioactive waste to store onsite "temporarily" for decades.

Hydro could help, but in places with almost no water (California/Nevada), it can't be relied on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I agree with much of what Gates writes, but at least in Europe this is more or less common sense. Although there is a lot of inertia, and there could be much more government-funded research, we are slowly getting there - not by presidential decrees, but through a slow process of expert groups, democratic decisions, and small innovations. But it all is offset by the fact that as these 450 million people are trying to reduce their - arguably high - footprint, at the same time 2-3 billion people are in the process of getting access to the same energy resources that we are trying to get away from. And half of the world's biggest polluter's population is voting for a party that is so far off common sense that their horrible example could continue for decades.

All this makes me pessimistic that mankind can fix the problem in my lifetime, and I will have to tell my daughter: i'm deeply sorry. We screwed up.

A breakthrough in innovation seems to be our only chance.

</comment><comment><USER10> About 10 years ago a new company appeared, with great promise for a clean- energy future. With the awkward name XsunX, their goal was to produce what they called "power glass" ... a type of glass that contained barely-visible solar cells and wiring. Tie it appropriately into a building's electrical system, and viola! a window becomes a power generation source.

The notion was that since the modern aesthetic is glass skin for large buildings, then why not let that new skyscraper in London, NYC, Houston, etc generate some of its own power from the acres (yes, acres) of glass covering its exterior?

The solar cells would be less efficient for a variety of reasons, and most windows wouldn't face direct sunlight all day, but these inefficiencies would be countered by volume: the entire building would be covered in solar cells.

Fantastic idea! And ... it fizzled. The XsunX website still exists, but you have to find really old press-release PDFs buried within to find any mention of Power Glass.

Use the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, though, and you'll see their website years ago focused almost entirely on Power Glass and its promise.

I really wish this idea could take off ...

</comment><comment><USER11> I'm really impressed not only at Gates' actions post-Microsoft, but that he makes the effort to explain them in such an accessible and public way. I think that's a really positive step and others in a similar position could learn from him.

<comment><USER12> Yeah, I hate Windows and IE as much as the next techie, but Bill Gates is a great man -- period. I'm a fan. In his early days, he was just thinking business is just a game, so he was kind of ruthless in his business practices. But now that he has already made it, it's great to see his true colors and how deeply benevolent he is. I'm going to start following his blog posts on renewable energy.

<comment><USER13> Very cool comment :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> No, we don't need clean energy innovation. And that's a problem.

Right now, there's an oil glut and a natural gas glut. The US may be self- sufficient in energy in about four years without even trying. The fear that fossil fuels will run out in the near term is gone. This has taken the pressure off the need for alternative energy.

<comment><USER15> There is still the need to do something about the GHG's we are dumping into the atmosphere. This large uncontrolled geoengineering experiment may not go so well given the current usage of fossil fuels.

<comment><USER16> I'm fairly well convinced that farming is a much more significant geoengineering experiment, but not a peep out of the CO2 folks about that. Are you sure that one or the other will definitely have good or bad effects? Can you explain the logic if so?

<comment><USER15> Farming is a massive geonegineering experiment, but it was one that was run many thousands of years ago. It has changed the entire planet, but the difference with our more recent GHG experiment is one of scale. We massively underestimate the effect that all these GHG will have. On top of this we are only about 10% of the way into the GHG experiment - the world will not be a pretty place once we get to 1200 ppm CO2.

<comment><USER16> > Farming is a massive geonegineering experiment, but it was one that was run > many thousands of years ago.

Industrial farming at scale is much newer than that. This is like claiming that GHG is from "many thousands of years ago" because people made wood fires back then.

> It has changed the entire planet, but the difference with our more recent > GHG experiment is one of scale.

Yes, and if you asked me for a guess I'd say the scale of the farming "experiment" is much greater. I'm interested to hear _reasons_ you believe the opposite is true, not just an assertion.

> We massively underestimate the effect that all these GHG will have.

We do? Are you saying that you understand the true future effect of one change to a very complex non-linear system?

> On top of this we are only about 10% of the way into the GHG experiment

Similar to the last point, but this should be followed by "according to [Researchers'] model" and not left as a plain assertion.

> the world will not be a pretty place once we get to 1200 ppm CO2.

Please name the model or whatever logical progression you are using to arrive at this idea, too.

<comment><USER15> _Industrial farming at scale is much newer than that. This is like claiming that GHG is from "many thousands of years ago" because people made wood fires back then._

Actually most agricultural land clearing did happen many hundred to thousands of years ago. People have proposed that all the carbon released by this activity did have an impact on the planet and this prevented us from re- entering another ice age. I am not too sure how much evidence supports this hypothesis as the amount of carbon released was relatively low until we started burning fossil fuels in the last century.

 _Yes, and if you asked me for a guess I 'd say the scale of the farming "experiment" is much greater. I'm interested to hear reasons you believe the opposite is true, not just an assertion._

The effect of farming has probably had more impact to date on the planet, but it is not as large as what the GHG experiment will have on the planet if we do nothing.

 _We do? Are you saying that you understand the true future effect of one change to a very complex non-linear system?_

Actually the effect of adding GHG is very easy to predict - it increases the amount of energy trapped in a concentration dependent effect. What is hard to model is what the precise effect will be and when it will happen. A nice analogy to use is what will happen if you drive your car at 100 mph into a brick wall without wearing a seat belt or having an airbag. You can't predict in advance what will happen to you, but none of the likely outcomes will be good.

 _Similar to the last point, but this should be followed by "according to [Researchers'] model" and not left as a plain assertion._

Under the "do-nothing" model (effectively our current model) we just keep burning all the fossil fuels until they are all gone. We do have a pretty good idea of how much fossil fuels we can extract and so it is easy to calculate how much CO2 will be released if we burn them all. Unfortunately all the changes to the model over the last few years is much of the fossil fuels we thought were uneconomic to extract (and so were not counted as being releasable) have proven extractable (i.e. fracking and shale oil).

 _Please name the model or whatever logical progression you are using to arrive at this idea, too_

My model is our current "do-nothing" model where all the fossil fuels that can be burnt will be burnt. The end outcome of this is a CO2 concentration north of 1200ppm. While we can't predict exactly what will happen if we reach this level we do have a pretty good idea from the past that it won't be nice.

<comment><USER16> All the captive carbon will go straight into the atmosphere and stay there? No nonlinear effects are possible that would make that happen differently?

<comment><USER15> No. Currently about 50% of the carbon ends up in sinks like oceans and some forests. Unfortunately, these sinks look to be getting full, but even if they are able to absorb 50% of the emissions we are still going to go over 1200ppm if we burn all the fossil fuels.

Actually one of the big worries is that some of the large carbon sinks like the arctic tundra will start warming up enough to result in a non-linear runaway release of GHG. We don't know if this will happen, but I am none to keen to find out.

<comment><USER16> I'm using "nonlinear" in a very different sense, but thanks for the answer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> TWR is NOT clean energy.

[http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/09/22/twr-vs- ifr/](http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/09/22/twr-vs-ifr/)

<comment><USER17> Great to see someone else linking to bravenewclimate.com - this is a sorely under-read and under-linked resource.

Also, I used to live in Adelaide where Barry Brook held the Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change. He then moved to Tasmania about a year after I did, thereby fixing our electricity related emissions because Tasmania's electricity is almost entirely hydroelectric.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm sure I read last week that Gates had invested 200 million in a software company to more efficiently extract oil and gas, which seems to contradict his stance here.

Can't find the article now, was titled something like "Silicon Valley taking on the Fossil Fuel Industry".

<comment><USER17> Regardless of whether we burn oil and gas for energy we will still need them for other purposes like lubricants and feedstock for chemical processes, so it doesn't necessarily contradict.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> One avenue to explore would be genetically engineering strains of corn, rice, and wheat that have nitrogen-fixing bacteria. This would have the impact of reducing the vast quantities of fossil fuel we spend on the Haber-Bosch process and also free poor farmers from having to spend money on artificial fertilizer.

I am however utterly ignorant of the difficulty of doing this. I doubt this research would be funded by Monsanto or other companies which sell artificial fertilizer.

<comment><USER15> >I am however utterly ignorant of the difficulty of doing this.

It is very difficult since the symbiotic relationship needed is difficult to recreate - it is not just a matter of introducing a few new genes.

Even doing this would not avoid the need for the Haber-Bosch process. The symbiotic bacteria just can't produce the amount of organic nitrogen that we need to get into modern crops to have them produce at the level we need to feed everyone. Even crops like legumes which have the symbiotic bacteria are supplied with artificial nitrogen when grown under modern agricultural conditions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I am glad to see Gates throwing his money and influence in a progressive direction.

> we need to be able to power all sectors of the economy with sources that do > not emit any carbon dioxide.

Yes. That said, I think a lot of the optimistic future trajectories for world climate models rely on the assumption of CCS technology permitting negative net carbon emissions later in the century. On the positive side: hypothetically if the technology were to exist we could get away with some emissions; negative side: this technology doesn't actually exist.

> But when it comes to preventing the worst effects of climate change, the > investments I make will matter much less than the choices that governments > make.

I completely agree. A global price on carbon would help here. It's going to be difficult for clean-energy alternatives to compete with existing energy sources such as coal, that (i) are priced in a way that ignores the negative externalities of greenhouse gas emissions, and (ii) are heavily subsidised. The global economy needs to be appropriately regulated in order to coerce it into doing more useful activities.

> Scientists generally agree that preventing the worst effects of climate > change requires limiting the temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius, and > that doing so requires the biggest emitters to cut emissions 80 percent by > 2050 and all countries to essentially eliminate them by the end of the > century.

Indeed!

> These are solvable problems.

Here I disagree. We are not going to limit temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius. We missed that window by a few decades.

It would still be a VERY good idea to limit temperature rise to +3 degrees Celsius, or something, instead of ending up with a world where it is +4 degrees C and still rising.

I recently finished reading the book "Windfall: The Booming Business of Global Warming" by McKenzie Funk. I am actually more optimistic about the future now: we still have geoengineering options available, such as pumping sulphur into the atmosphere to reduce the amount of sunlight heating the world by a fraction of a percent.

It's worth pointing out, however, that:

* geoengineering gives us a means to partially/completely address one of the _symptoms_ (temperature rise) of the problem, and continue to avoid addressing the causes. other symptoms: nitrogen cycle disruption, species mass extinction, extinction of non-renewable resources, extinction of _renewable_ resources (global fish stocks), ...

* geoengineering options will also cause some climate change, and these changes will not be uniformly or fairly distributed over the world. All things being equal, powerful countries will run geoengineering projects, and as far as it can be predicted and controlled, the climate will be adjusted to preferentially favour the countries running these projects.

* the long-term, large-scale secondary consequences of things we do that seem like a good idea are not always anticipated!

* geoengineering options are akin to patching a highly complex system by adding _more complexity_ to patch a symptom. this requires upkeep and potentially makes the entire thing more fragile.

<comment><USER21> Geoengineering might make the entire system more complex, but it sure beats the alternative. None of the more viable options that have been proposed have potential side effects worse than what we'll expect if we do nothing. And while it might just be treating the symptoms, it also gives us the time necessary for technological innovations to change the causes of those same symptoms. Electric cars, improved and more efficient power systems (fourth gen reactors, improved renewables, and better battery tech for starters), cleaner production systems, even the eventual benefits of building orbital manufacturing infrastructure will all combine to solve many of the root causes we're struggling with.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> What we need is to buy up all the FF energy companies and have them not dig/pump/burn the carbon they control. While the FF industry is large, it is not that large and it would be totally possible to just buy it all up and shut it down.

This approach would have the nice side-effect of removing the economic motivation for climate changing denial and all the anti-science propaganda that results.

</comment><comment><USER22> Wake me up when we start building fast breeder reactors that recycle nuclear waste [1], and start building large scale thermal depolymerization plants to turn our trash into oil. [2] I also want to know how he think we should address this mini-ace age that it appears I'll be spending half my life in.[3]

1\. [http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/186023-russia-bets-its- en...](http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/186023-russia-bets-its-energy- future-on-waste-free-fast-breeder-nuclear-reactors)

2\. [http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/anything- oil](http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/anything-oil)

3\. [http://www.livescience.com/51597-maunder-minimum-mini-ice- ag...](http://www.livescience.com/51597-maunder-minimum-mini-ice-age.html)

<comment><USER23> Wind is cheaper than safe nuclear power, so spending a lot on R&D for a more expensive version of Nuclear seems pointless. Nuclear can work well for huge boats and subs, but on land it's extremely expencive and only gained traction through huge subsides.

<comment><USER24> Wind has low power density, so it requires much more space. This probably is not a problem for US, but a serious problem for other countries.

<comment><USER18> That space can be used for other things too though such as grazing livestock.

Relatedly, Elon Musk claims that if you cover the area used up by a Nuclear plant with solar panels than you can get equal power production. The actual reactor is small, but the security etc. means that there's a large boundary zone. Plus of course no-one wants to live near one.

<comment><USER25> On sunny days, or on average?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Government Is Not Us - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqoBZLSm1WA

<comment><AUTHOR> From Anatomy of the State - What the State Is Not

[http://mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp](http://mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp)

</comment><comment><USER2> Stopped watching when he started complaining about taxes while showing pictures of executions.</comment>


Peter Thiel's CS183: Class 13 Notes – You Are Not A Lottery Ticket (2012) - <AUTHOR> http://blakemasters.com/post/23435743973/peter-thiels-cs183-startup-class-13-notes-essay <comment><USER2> The key missing piece to Thiel's analysis of the design vs. statistics dichotomy is the fact that it's best to have both: a strong vision combined with a lot of low-risk experiments to shape your understanding of the best path to achieving that vision.

From what I understand, Apple does exactly this: they do _a lot_ of prototyping before settling on a product design, even though the broad strokes of what they're trying to build are clear from the get-go. I expect the future of product development to keep moving in this direction as prototyping becomes progressively less expensive.

Speculating on history a bit: the transition from determinate to indeterminate beliefs happened because people figured out that a lot of strong proclamations about the future turned out to be very wrong. So the pendulum swung the other way for a while, and now we're finally starting to settle on an equilibrium between the two.

<comment><AUTHOR> Apple is an organization, whereas beliefs can only be held by individuals.

(NB: Procedural vs. substantive thinking draws heavily from the theory of law.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The analogy I like best is "Work to increase your surface area for luck." When dissolving a substance, if you pulverize it, you increase the surface area, which allows for greater interaction with the surrounding water molecules, and thus enables a faster dissolving rate.

In the same way, the more interactions one has, the more opportunities for fortune to strike. The result may look like "luck" from the outside, but in reality it was a confluence of both stochastic elements and fortuitous prior decision making.

<comment><USER4> Isn't that an example of a "diversification" strategy, similar to the "join many clubs/activities in high school" approach? The fact that it's a strategy (and therefore involves prior decision making - specifically the decision to follow the strategy) doesn't make it a "determinate" strategy.

I believe the lecturer (Thiel) is advocating for determinate strategies - which, practically speaking, reduce the surface area for luck since time is a finite resource. My interpretation is that he is advocating for "moon shot" approaches (examples given: Tesla, Space-X, AirBNB) where the plan/vision is laid out from the beginning.

This contrasts with the iterative "lean startup" approach whereby an initial product is launched followed by an iterative customer feedback loop. The evokes raises an interesting question: is the "lean startup" methodology an artifact of "Indeterminate Optimism"?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> There is an intimate link between determinism/indeterminism, optimism/pessimism and local/global maxima, ectropy/entropy.

Optimism is fundamentally a belief that we are not currently at a local/global maxima. Determinism is a belief that the path to local/global maxima is knowable through human intelligence.

This is why A/B testing, as pointed out in the article, is fundamentally incapable of leading to anything other than a local maxima. It is optimistic, but without determinism, it will never sacrifice traversal through local minima to achieve a greater maxima.

This is personally why I have such a reaction of disgust to "ideas are worthless" and "nobody knows anything until you build it," because I am adamantly optimistic deterministic at heart and do believe in design, increasing ectropy, and vision. A side effect of this is that in our pessimistic indeterminate societal POV you are characterized with delusions of grandeur until you prove out your vision. Even then though, you may be discounted as lucky.

</comment><comment><USER6> I think this idea that the US has moved to the optimistic indeterminacy quadrant coincides nicely with the rise of the internet and cable news where there is a huge bias towards focusing on perceived bad news, no matter how important any of it actually is. There isn't money to be made in NOT scaring people, so CNN/Fox News/MSNBC/Huffington Post/Politicians/Pretty much anybody trying to make a name for themselves sell fear and fear sells well.

Twenty years ago most things that dominate the 24-hour news channels wouldn't be conversation worthy but now people are addicted to bad news and have come to believe at any given time that things are worse than they've ever been.

</comment><comment><USER7> An awesomely thought-provoking essay indeed.

"I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it."

I just wanted to point out for those who were as inspired by this "Thomas Jefferson" quote as I was, that it was not actually TJ who said this, but a man named Coleman Cox [1].

[1] [http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/07/21/luck-hard- work/](http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/07/21/luck-hard-work/)

</comment><comment><USER8> This is a fantastic series - Class #4 "Last Mover Advantage" and a couple of the others are just great stand alone, but they are all good.

Here is the index: [http://blakemasters.com/peter-thiels- cs183-startup](http://blakemasters.com/peter-thiels-cs183-startup)

</comment><comment><USER9> The ultimate source of luck as a factor seems to me to be your origin:

\- Were you randomly selected by the genetic lottery to be smart, attractive, healthy, etc.? Other traits might also matter, such as charisma and alpha personality characteristics. I've often noted that individuals with a slightly manic personality are actually very well adapted for high-speed industries. I've experimented with using things like modafinil to push myself a little further into this state with extremely positive results on my career. (My natural state is more "beta" and contemplative than "alpha" and high- energy/assertive.)

\- Were you born into high or low socioeconomic status?

\- Were you born in a rich and relatively free country or a poor or corrupt/despotic one?

\- _When_ were you born? Not only does this matter on huge scales (e.g. it's better to be born today than in 1500), but it also matters in a cyclic sense. Do your life span periods of highest work productivity overlap with an economic high note or with a recession?

Finally there is the obvious factor of accidents. If I get hit by a car and get brain damage, obviously I'm less likely to be successful.

These lead to a few questions for me:

(1) To what extent is it statistically in the best interest of most people then to support some form of social safety net?

(2) Is it in _my_ statistical best interest to support some level of social safety net given that by doing so I might gain additional value due to higher rates of cooperation? (Assuming that I am in the top, say, 25% of the ability curve and might not need a safety net as much as many.) A safety net can also be viewed as insurance. What if I am injured, get cerebral meningitis and get brain damage, etc.?

(3) To what extent can these be hacked? Look at my first point about genetic luck of the draw, and how I've managed to kind of hack this a bit with chemistry and make myself more of an alpha personality when it's advantageous to be one.

Personally I think that (1) and (2) are nonzero, which is why I do support some level of social safety net as opposed to naked capitalism. I also think that (3) is a definite 'yes' based on personal experience. Makes me wonder what would happen if you gave the poor nootropics. (Before the PC police whack me for that last comment, consider that I don't just mean IQ. I also mean assertiveness, energy level, ability to focus, and so forth.)

At the end of the day I disagree with Peter Thiel. You _are_ a lottery ticket. You are just a sentient, intelligent lottery ticket. You get to choose when you are played, as well as use whatever hacks you can get your hands on to change the numbers beneath the scratch pads. You also belong to a community of other lotto tickets and together are capable of conspiring against the rules of the game.

</comment><comment><USER10> Boy, this is what Thiel teaches in his classes? The only useful, actionable insight was in the last paragraph and then it ended. Lots of abstract, thoughtful stuff, but nothing that could make me more successful.

</comment><comment><USER11> Luck is code for "variables I don't see." The problem with defining a luck/skill separation is that it's subjective which of those factors should be a person's responsibility, and which are impossible to anticipate. So we'll never resolve that one. It's a fairly subjective call. They're two sides of the same coin. It's a "skill" variable if managing that feature is part of the job, and "luck" if not so (perhaps that feature is unmanageable.)

I take a different and much more negative approach. Once a company or ecosystem (such as VC-funded technology, increasingly shifted toward marketing-driven light tech) ceases to add value, it reaches a state in which neither luck _nor_ skill is the main variable, but pre-existing social class and status. Indeed, one might argue that the appearance that it's _either_ luck or skill is an intentional deception.

Take college admissions. There's some merit (it's non-trivial to crack 1500+/1600 and get good grades in high school) in the equation, but there's a huge extracurricular component ( _cough_ racism, classism _cough_ ) that is impossible (for a middle-class parent or high school student) to predict or navigate. It looks "random" to those people. That's how it's supposed to look. Some cluelessly conclude, "It wasn't in the cards." Others, equally cluelessly (and more pathetically) conclude, "I guess Johnny isn't cut out to be a leader" (like anyone can fucking tell at 17). It's not luck or skill at all. It's deeply classist which extracurriculars are valued and which are not, and it's made to look random to one set of people, and skill-driven to another, because the reality is socially unacceptable.

The same applies to Silicon Valley. It has ceased generating real value. It's a Disneyfied farce of entrepreneurship designed to make rich twerps like Evan Spiegel and Lucas Duplan appear to have earned it. Some people believe that this is based on superior skill. Others are misled into believing it's luck. It's just random "serendipity" that some people get and some people don't. Not so. It's _corruption_. It looks like something else, because that's the ruse. The luck/serendipity aspect is put there to muddy the water so people can't see what is really going on.

<comment><USER2> Possible alternative explanations to what you're suggesting:

1\. Growing up in a higher socioeconomic status environment does genuinely prepare you better for academic and career success, so the correlation in university admissions is rational given that universities can only change a person to a limited degree.

2\. 90% of everything is crap, and startups are no exception. But that doesn't mean they all are.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Ghostly – iPhone app for Ghost blogs - <AUTHOR> http://ghostlyapp.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi there, Ghostly developer here. The app is built specifically for the Ghost blogging platform and works with Disqus comments. Any feedback would be appreciated.</comment>


Bloodsucking worms from pythons are killing native Florida snakes, study says - <AUTHOR> https://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/local/environment/2019/04/11/pythons-spread-parasite-florida-native-snakes/3435198002/ <comment><USER2> At first I thought the invasive pythons were being killed off by the parasite, which was great news, but the parasite is instead killing _native_ Florida snakes, according to the article (edit: thanks DoreenMichele).

The Burmese pythons are the only predators that can kill Florida alligators. It's thought that owners of pet pythons released their snakes into the everglades when they didn't want them anymore through the 80s/90s, and the population became a problem starting in the 2000s:

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

What also might have contributed to the boom was Hurrican Andrew in 1992, when exotic wildlife sanctuaries and zoos in Dade County got destroyed and animals escaped:

[https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs- xpm-1992-09-20-19922640...](https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs- xpm-1992-09-20-1992264001-story.html) (1992 article)

<comment><USER3> I love how one of the proposed solutions to the problem is "introducing jaguars".

While I understand how that makes some sense, it is hilariously similar to the Simpsons' episode where flying lizard erase pigeons and are eliminated by introducing snakes which are eliminated by introducing snake-eating gorillas..

<comment><USER4> The Florida panther has had big problems not getting driven to endangerment. I can't imagine jaguars fairing much better

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The Economist recently did a piece on the efforts to contain the python. Seems like a losing battle:

[https://www.1843magazine.com/features/the-men-fighting- flori...](https://www.1843magazine.com/features/the-men-fighting-floridas- python-epidemic)

HN discussion:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19178296](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19178296)

Recently caught 17 foot python with 73 (!) eggs:

[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us- canada-47851248](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47851248)

<comment><USER6> > "But laying their hands on fast-moving, highly dangerous, camouflaged > reptiles in a swamp that extends for thousands of square miles is about as > easy as it sounds."

Yeah, this doesn't sound super promising unless they find a very scalable solution :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Somewhat off-topic but I was just reading about Tegus running rampant in Florida. It must be tough running the various municipalities down there considering there are so many species who could flourish there. You always hear about the Pythons but there are quite a few species who thrive.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/05/science/a-lizard- interlop...](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/05/science/a-lizard-interloper- presents-challenge-in-florida.html)

[https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/local-news/florida- declar...](https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/local-news/florida-declares- open-season-on-tegu-lizards)

</comment><comment><USER8> "There are relatives of this parasite that people have gotten by eating raw snakes"

Anyone have more info on people who eat raw snake in the US?

<comment><USER9> Google "florida man".

<comment><USER8> Oh, I noticed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Unpopular opinion incoming. But why should one snakes survival be more important than another?

<comment><USER11> When one of those snakes is notorious for eating humans it's reasonable to deprioritize their survival.

<comment><USER4> [https://www.livescience.com/44033-florida-pythons-rarely- att...](https://www.livescience.com/44033-florida-pythons-rarely-attack- people.html)

> The authors of the study[0] said they could only find one report of a free- > ranging Burmese python fatality: the death of an infant in Hong Kong about a > century ago.

[0]: [https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/wsb...](https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/wsb.413)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I thought it was about a computer worm written in python.

</comment><comment><USER13> This isn't so bad if it kills off water moccasins which will definitely kill you if they bite you. They like to hide in bushes or under trash cans and can easily lash out at you or a child if you get too close. A python is much easier to avoid, and generally restricts itself to the Everglades.

<comment><USER14> Water moccasins are cool snakes and it would be sad if they disappear.

<comment><USER13> Not when they bite your toddler and it dies damn near instantly.

<comment><USER15> They apparently kill less than a person per year, so that's unlikely to happen luckily.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


White Privilege, Quantified - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/02/white-privilege-quantified/386102/?single_page=true

<comment><USER2> 1,500 is a pretty small test group when you're dividing in to ethnicities which are subdivided between "East Asian" and "South Asian"</comment>


Why did you choose OCaml? - <AUTHOR> http://www.reddit.com/r/ocaml/comments/23qjle/why_did_you_choose_ocaml/

<comment><USER2> Reddit is a shit hole of fucktard , an awful place full of awful rules and awful people and censorship and manipulation of topics and comments.</comment>


Ask HN: Who else is on a Keto Diet and what's it's impact on your job? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I'm a tech manager. Been on keto for over a year. It has improved my weight (lost 50 lbs) and my overall health, but other than that it has had little or no impact on my job.

</comment><comment><USER3> Why would it impact your job?</comment>


The Credits Page of the Adobe Reader XI - <AUTHOR> http://pastebin.com/4a5FvMQS

<comment><AUTHOR> It's interesting to see how many people are involved in one famous product, their names and how they are structured. We are used to look at the credits of the movies, much less at the credits of the software products.</comment>


How Hacker News Posts Behave - <AUTHOR> http://dadaviz.com/i/657?imm_mid=0c13c2&cmp=em-strata-na-na-newsltr_20140813_elist_test_format

<comment><USER2> the visualization is nice but the website gave me a headache. I keep my browser relatively small so when I pressed play the visualization wasn't fully in the window, so I scrolled down to centre it but the website decided I wanted to see the next visualization and moved me there. Scrolling up again took me to the previous one but unloaded again. This happened 3 times before I understood that the only way I was going to see the data was by enlarging the browser.

<comment><USER3> I would like to second this frustration. The scrolling mechanic is very unintuitive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Here's a direct link to the source: [https://modeanalytics.com/benn/reports/029573ea73c3](https://modeanalytics.com/benn/reports/029573ea73c3)

It doesn't have the annoying scroll behavior of the dadaviz website, so you can actually see the visualization. Perhaps the mods should change the submission link to this.

</comment><comment><USER5> This website has horrible usability. Visualizations look amazing, but too bad I wont be able to see them due to the un-usability of the site.

</comment><comment><USER6> An interesting display of how wobbling down the scroll wheel of a mouse loads another partially loaded image of varying format on varying background colour schemes.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm not usually the guy commenting on HN posts complaining about usability, but man, that pissed me off.

First, I'm on mobile (iPhone 5).

I clicked the link knowing nothing except the headline, which sounded like the title of the blogpost. So I got to the site and just saw what looked like the title of another blog post. I was confused, thinking I must be looking at the author's blog archives. So I scrolled down looking for the post.

At least, I thought I scrolled down. A more accurate term might be that I violently dragged the screen down. I kept scrolling, looking for the post. Well, it's not there. Okay, I must be looking at something else. I can't tell what it is, and I'm on mobile, so whatever. I'll just to back to HN.

Oops! Can't go back to HN. Turns out every time I scrolled I went forward a page. I had to press the back button six times to return to HN.

Awful.

</comment><comment><USER8> It's not often things declared 'unusable' are actually 'unusable', but ye gods. What on earth? Why would you map scroll behaviour to /that/?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Pretty cool. The site's been described as the Youtube for Data Viz. Kind of hyperbole, but I personally like the idea.

</comment><comment><USER9> Any actual insights as to the best time to post? LOL</comment>


House OKs Bill Allowing 'Mentally Incapacitated' Veterans to Buy Guns - happy-go-lucky http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/17/520510426/house-oks-bill-allowing-mentally-incapacitated-veterans-to-buy-guns <comment><USER2> Not sure if I'm reading this right, but it appears that the legislation adds a requirement that veterans deemed unfit require a court hearing before being blocked access to a firearm. If so, this seems like due process.

People who don't like guns want to prevent people from owning them. Those people usually go for the low hanging fruit that appeals to most people like preventing the mentally ill to buy firearms. However it is important to note some unpleasant facts like the fact that 11% of Americans are on some antidepressant and probably many more were on some anti depression medication in the past [0]. Preventing access to those seemed mentally unfit (by some standards) would prevent a significant portion of the us population from owning a firearm. Whether that's right or wrong, I can't say.

[http://www.medicaldaily.com/antidepressants-arent-taken- depr...](http://www.medicaldaily.com/antidepressants-arent-taken-depressed- majority-users-have-no-disorder-327940)

<comment><USER3> This process has been abused by anti-gun localities to strip people of their gun collections for the most MINOR of prescription drug use.

[http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/11/take-xanax-lose-your- guns](http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/11/take-xanax-lose-your-guns)

<comment><USER4> Also, mentally incapacitated people (including drug users) are a vulnerable population - they are easy prey to criminals, so it would be unfair to deprive them of their means of self-defense. /s

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "In any case arising out of the administration by the Secretary of laws and benefits under this title, a person who is mentally incapacitated, deemed mentally incompetent, or experiencing an extended loss of consciousness shall not be considered adjudicated as a mental defective under subsection (d)(4) or (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18 without the order or finding of a judge, magistrate, or other judicial authority of competent jurisdiction that such person is a danger to himself or herself or others.".

So now a magistrate must make determination of "mental defective[ness] from the facts at hand before records can be updated to say the person is not competent enough to safely own a firearm. Objectively this sounds like adding due process where there was none before.

That's a little different from the headline of the article which suggests that mentally unstable veterans previously unable to buy guns can now nip on down to the nearest firearms dealer and buy their weapon of choice.

The headline also suggests (to me) a context of "now they can go shoot everyone up!" But the actual concern is around suicide.

The article does cover this (sort-of objectively [1]), but I'm surprised and offput by such clickbait headlines from NPR.

[1] In that sort-of objective way that doesn't involve directly criticizing, yet still comes across as subtly opinionated based on the ordering of content and quotes.

<comment><USER6> > I'm surprised and offput by such clickbait headlines from NPR.

Seems to be their MO of late.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The headline misrepresents the issue.

The US Constitution explicitly recognizes the right of individuals to possess weapons for self-defense. Yes, there is a proper process of disarming the "mentally incapacitated" which terminates that right thru adjudication.

The problem with the headline is the wanton failure to note that designating many veterans (and others) as "mentally incapacitated" is usually done as a bureaucratic step, checking off the appropriate box on a form - <AUTHOR> absolutely no requirement to justify the designation, much less prove it to a judge for that particular individual affected. Many are simply marked as "mentally incapacitated", and thus deprived of their right & tools for self- defense, simply because of age, vague circumstance, irrelevant history, or other weak reasons (if any reason at all).

The bill restores the standard of having to actually demonstrate, in court, that _this_ person, for _these_ reasons, really does pose a threat to self or others if continuing to exercise his own right to own tools for self-defense.

TL;DR - the term "mentally incapacitated" in the headline is in scare-quotes for a reason: a great many so designated aren't; it should take more than a box on a form checked by a random bureaucrat to end one's enumerated right to self-defense.

<comment><USER8> Incorrect. The personal right to bear arms was rooted in the need for domestic state security. There is no mention of personal defense. A quick Wikipedia search also indicates that the exact text of this amendment is not exactly the same between all original copies of the Constitution. Sort of an interesting read [0]. The version authenticated by Thomas Jefferson has the exact quote of:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

People keep forgetting the well regulated militia part of the amendment, and what that phrase ought permit the state for the maintenance of state security.

Admittedly, the US Supreme Court has interpreted the amendment as rooted in English Law's self-defense right. But the amendment itself makes no mention of it, rather leading the personal right with the state need for security. This ties into the other state needs (national defense, anti-insurrection, self- defense, etc.) at the time of drafting.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> > _A guardian makes legal decisions for them, and their names go on an FBI > list so they can 't purchase guns._

That about sums it up in my view. Gun ownership is a serious responsibility and if the mental health challenges of an individual prevent them from being able to make their own legal decisions, it seems reasonable to limit their access to deadly weapons.

<comment><USER10> Given how powerful the US military is, doesn't it mean that only a coup by the army could overthrow the government? And if that happens, well, they already have all the weapons they need, don't they? If the army remains loyal to the government I can't see how a bunch of civilians could overthrow anything, no matter how many guns they own.

That being said I've never been to the USA in my life so I won't pretend I understand the culture over there.

<comment><USER7> American deer hunters alone constitute the largest military on Earth (save perhaps just behind China). That's 18 million well-equipped snipers (never mind the other 50M armed citizens). ...and a very large fraction of the military would likely be on the side of the deer hunters (complex cultural explanation omitted), so the assumption of the army remaining loyal to the government under such circumstances is in grave doubt.

BUT...

The issue at hand isn't overthrowing the government, it's denying the weak their tools for defending themselves from violent assault. We have due process for doing so; the bill being disparaged in the lead article ensures doing so is in fact via due process, and not simply a faceless bureaucrat checking off a box on a form for some trivial reason (which _is_ a serious problem).

<comment><USER11> Chain of command and training and logistics are at least as important to a military as rifles.

US hunters constitute a population armed with rifles, not a military.

<comment><USER7> Go look up the Swiss aphorism "shoot twice and go home".

<comment><USER11> Those words were uttered at a time when the Swiss militia had been called up and organized.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> For what it's worth, I'm a veteran that spends some time at the VA, and I have lots of friends that spend time at the VA, and I want you to know that the VA applies this label very liberally and sometimes without justification. I think crazy people should not have access to firearms, but I also want you to understand very carefully that the VA is not very accurate as an organization. There are no second opinions in the VA's decision-making process, the decision can be made by any "clinician" (including PAs), and once the label is applied -- regardless of the accuracy of the label -- it can literally take years to appeal this decision. I am currently waiting for an appeal for an unrelated, relatively minor condition, and I've now been waiting three years for a decision on my appeal, and this isn't an unusual amount of time to wait. There's a running joke that the VA's got a saying about veterans: "Delay and deny until they die". I think the VA should not be making the decision, and that the "mentally incapacitated" label should be applied only by _doctors_ external to the organization (or at the very least a _doctor_ ), and there should be more than one doctor that participates in the decision. At the end of the day, regardless of what non-Americans think of our Constitution, we're talking about taking someone's fundamental rights away, and that should be an _extremely_ careful and efficient and accurate decision-making process (with a timely appeal system!).

</comment><comment><USER13> For... various interpretations of mentally incapacitated. Like not running your own finances?

<comment><USER14> Are guns that essential to everyday life in the US that you have to carefully consider exactly how incapacitated someone is? I would think that even the slightest hint of incapacitation should be enough for someone to be denied a gun.

<comment><USER15> We take our rights seriously.

A car is much more dangerous than a gun and I doubt you'd suggest that the "slightest hint of incapacitation" should be enough for someone to be denied a driver's license.

<comment><USER16> Isn't the whole point of a gun to kill people though, unlike a car?

<comment><USER7> If someone is trying to rob/assault/rape/kill you, when you otherwise are unable to defend yourself against a superior-strength assailant, you may find a gun much more useful than a car. Hard to drive when you've been beaten to death.

<comment><USER16> Are you indicating everyone should be able to own a weapon then? Despite being incapacitated in some way, which may lead to injury of themself or others.

<comment><USER7> Interesting tell for cognitive dissonance there.

The baseline is that, as the Constitution enumerates, armament of self for defense of self, family, and state is a natural right. The well-established & well-understood caveat is that any right may be curtailed for a _particular_ individual _IF_ adjudicated, _in court_ , for good and established _specific_ cause.

The problem being addressed by the law in question is that veterans are being denied that right by faceless bureaucrats routinely checking "mentally incapacitated" checkbox for decades-old never-recurring cases of mild depression or other irrelevant trivialities. If you're going to deny someone the right of self-defense, at least do it in court with articulable & relevant cause.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I feel like the gun debate has been so muddied here in the United States. The Constitution allows us to have guns so we can overthrow a tyrannical government. Evidence from other countries shows us that if we decreased the amount of guns, we would probably expect less violence/murder. So then the question is, how much violence do we put up with in society so that we can preserve our ability to make a meaningful stand against the government?

If we can settle that we can have a better guide when trying to draw these lines in the sand.

<comment><USER7> Faulty premise. The most violent areas in the USA have practically banned guns outright; areas which have liberalized gun possession by the law-abiding have seen violence plummet.

I know this sounds silly at first, but it's not if _you_ are the one involved: the right to be armed allows you to protect 1/300,000,000th of the USA - _you_. That's pretty serious if you're being attacked and in fear of your life.

About 15 years ago, the US government started showing signs of wanting to ratchet up violent assault against dissidents of a certain stripe, executing SWAT/commando-type raids against citizens for paperwork violations (failure to document & pay a $200 tax). In two high-profile instances of such raids, the citizens fought back; many died, but the government agents suffered such losses that in the decades since, such "Gestapo tactics" have _not_ been used. As such, armed citizens took a meaningful stand against the government, teaching it to use its police powers tactfully & sparingly,

What you, and many like you, fail to discern is the difference between armed _law-abiding_ citizens vs armed _criminals_. The former aren't a problem, proven by the fact they have >200,000,000 firearms + trillions of bullets yet aren't a problem above statistical noise. The latter ARE a well-documented problem, and are by-definition quick to violate ANY law to obtain & retain the ability to kill as they see fit. The "line in the sand" is between those two groups; disarming the former only enables the latter by presenting no resistance.

<comment><USER17> I know I've done well when I've got both sides mad at me. Here is where I see the similarity between you and those guys on the other side who are also arguing with me: you want a perfect solution. My initial comment poses gun rights as a tradeoff between violence and the limitations on governmental power. This makes your side start commenting about how guns are a perfect solution, they'll lower violence. And it causes the gun-controllers to start talking about how gun control is a perfect solution because it will lower violence and it's pointless to try to overthrow the government.

Now it's hard to have a fact-based debate about guns considering the polarized discourse. I ask three things.

1) Consider that just maybe, access to a device which allows you to kill quickly, cleanly and with lessened emotional involvement (versus say a knife) leads to more people murdering.

2) Consider that people are not cleanly seperated into law-abiders and criminals, people move back and forth all the time and there are various degrees of law-breaking and criminality. When you turn people who commit gun crimes into an other, it's a lot easier to seperate yourself from their actions. I would also say that saying that criminals are all these extreme monsters who will violate ANY law to be able to kill however they want is just a complete mischaracterization.

3) Consider that I support the bill this thread is about and reread my initial comment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> All the bill does is require due process for labelling someone "mentally incapacitated".

It does _not_ , regardless of headline phrasing & implication, deliberately allow crazy people to get guns.

</comment><comment><USER18> On another point, I've never understood the fascination with the ease of being able to own guns in the US.

</comment><comment><USER19> Politician A: "Let a couple of nutjobs buy guns and we will use their killing sprees to ban guns"

Politician B: "You're a genius!"

<comment><USER20> Except we've had multiple nutjobs go on massive killing sprees in schools, movie theaters, and every open space you can think of, yet so far we have failed to get anything banned.

<comment><USER7> Interestingly, practically all of those "open spaces" were clearly marked "gun-free zone". Some such nutjobs have been clearly documented as choosing those areas over "more desirable" targets precisely because of the signage. Of the few cases not so designated, many have been stopped by other armed citizens before the intended massive killing spree proceeded past the first couple shots.

ETA: Yesterday, [http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/16/europe/france-high-school- shoo...](http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/16/europe/france-high-school-shooting- grasse)</comment></comment></comment>


How much effort to put on a RFQ? - <AUTHOR> When receiving RFPs from large companies, how much effort do you put in answering the sometimes endless questions?<p>Is it okay to leave questions empty? There is I guess an optimal score in terms of effort put into the document/chance of winning... <comment><USER2> The conventional thinking on this is, if it's an unsolicited RFP (eg, one you didn't help write) then your odds of winning the deal are nearly 0, so don't invest much effort in it at all. The "Column A" vendor almost certainly has already engaged with the company, written the RFP to make their solution the only possible winner, and then put the RFP process in motion just to "check the box" on the requirement that multiple vendor bids be solicited.

Of course there will be exceptions, but the problem is knowing which ones are the exceptions and which ones aren't...

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, helps a lot. It is an unsolicited, however we pass all requirements.

Is it generally okay asking the company if there is any vendor behind the RFQ (will they really reveal this?)

<comment><USER2> You can try, but you might not get an honest answer. Depends on who you talk to. Depending on how much time you have available, I'd suggest reading through _CustomerCentric Selling_ [1] by Michael Bosworth. It goes really deep into handling this kind of situation.

[1]: [https://www.amazon.com/CustomerCentric-Selling-Second- Michae...](https://www.amazon.com/CustomerCentric-Selling-Second-Michael- Bosworth/dp/0071637087)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I would suggest talking to them about it rather than just filling the boxes and sending it back. This way, their expectations and your delivery will be aligned.

</comment><comment><USER4> Toss it in the circular file. The consulting firm who wrote the RFP/RFQ are the ones who will end up winning it !</comment>


By Your Fingertips [about burnout in law firms] - <AUTHOR> http://thepeoplestherapist.com/2016/01/27/by-your-fingertips/ <comment><USER2> the peoples the rapist . com? How unfortunate. :|</comment>


A tale of 10,000,000 books - <AUTHOR> http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/tale-of-10000000-books.html <comment><USER2> I think the Google Book initiative is great. I'm no conspiracy theorist but It seems the biggest problem with this type of service is verifiability. If Google has digitally transcribed some very rare work that is later destroyed it will be hard to trust Google's digital copy of the work for real accuracy when we have no other copy to compare against. Someone could create a mirror but that does no good if the mirror is created after the digital copy has been tampered with. I think Google needs to work on adding something to increase the trustworthiness of the works they store. Maybe it is a publicly released checksum of the works that is created when they are scanned and stored by a separate entity or maybe there is some other very clever method. I just know that I would be hesitant to take a single corporate entities word on the veracity of their copy of a public document.

</comment><comment><USER3> Also see: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=870663>

(That is the same piece, but from the NYT Op-Ed page. The Google Blog is probably better from the perspective of having a permanent, non-paywalled link, which in itself is an interesting commentary on new/old media...)

</comment><comment><USER4> Ok, I get it: Google is digitizing a lot of books.

<comment><USER5> Books you say?</comment></comment>


Not quite a car, not quite a motorcycle: a vehicle built for one - <AUTHOR> https://thesunbest.com/not-quite-a-car-not-quite-a-motorcycle-a-vehicle-built-for-one/ <comment><USER2> I'd rather have a motorcycle. Motorcycles are faster, cheaper, can carry about the same amount of cargo, and 100 miles on a charge is enough to give me range anxiety.

I'd rather have a car. I often need to carry passengers, carry large or heavy things, and a new economy car is in the same ballpark price.

Who is this really for? I don't see many people buying this as their only personal transportation if it only travels 100 miles on a charge and can't take a passenger. It's price too high and isn't fun enough to be considered a recreational purchase.

<comment><USER3> I'd rather not have a motorcycle. I'd rather not have to suit up in special clothing to try and reduce the chances of injury from accidents which, from talking to motorcycle riding friends, seem to be strangely more common than accidents in cars.

I'd rather not have a car for my daily commute. Driving my large family vehicle for my job is wasteful and inefficient. I almost never need to carry anything large or heavy on my daily commute. I work less than 20 miles from home. I don't need a daily commuter vehicle with more than 2.5x this range.

I would love to buy a small electric vehicle, but the cost is prohibitive. A small vehicle, safer than a motorcycle and more idiot proof, would be perfect to augment my existing transportation options.

<comment> globular-toast > I'd rather not have a motorcycle. I'd rather not have to suit up in special > clothing to try and reduce the chances of injury from accidents which, from > talking to motorcycle riding friends, seem to be strangely more common than > accidents in cars.

It shouldn't be a mystery why motorcycle accidents are more common. A superbike like a Yamaha R1 is capable of 0-100mph in less than 6 seconds, all in first gear. Ownership of an R1 is within the reach of many under 25s and most enthusiastic under 30s. Contrast that with a supercar which, for most people, will be out of reach until much later in life, if ever, and even then is such a big investment that most just sit around in air-conditioned garages rather than hitting the B-roads of England every Sunday morning.

None of that means that commuting on a more sensible motorcycle is particularly dangerous in the grand scheme of things.

<comment> m-ee I ride, and know a lot of people who do, and the amount of injuries from road debris or cars turning left without looking dwarf the crashes from just going too fast. This might be regional though, most places don't have Bay Area traffic.

<comment> http-teapot That's how I got my first and last accident. Double parked car made a U-turn in a commercial street without signaling. My front tire got caught under his car, bringing me to a complete stop and flipping me over. I was only doing 15mph.

That ended it for me, bike was totaled, wife decided I stopped and I had no intention in getting involved in a more serious accident. I miss riding, I miss the sensation of freedom.

<comment> globular-toast > wife decided I stopped

> I miss the sensation of freedom

I'm not surprised.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> There's also the Renault Twizy that is readily available and significantly cheaper (starting at 7000 Euro). Actually even the regular electric car by Seat (Mii) is much cheaper than the Electrameccanica.

<comment><USER5> I wonder why no one mentioned the Smart. Here in Europe they're quite popular in dense cities. One advantage is they can be parked sideways on most streets, which not only helps with finding a spot but is also easier.

According to Wikipedia[0], a Smart is actually shorter and it can also be electric.

This actually has quite a few shortcomings compared to a Smart:

* Cannot carry a passenger

* Requires a motorcycle license, which many people might not have

* Technically a motorcycle, so safety standards may not be up to par

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_Fortwo#Third_generation_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_Fortwo#Third_generation_\(Build_series_C453,_A453,_2014%E2%80%93present\)_\(2014-2019:_North_America\))

<comment><USER6> > One advantage is they can be parked sideways on most streets

They advertised this but in reality it's rarely possible. They are 2.5m long and most cars in Europe are <2m wide.

E.g. in the UK standard parking is 2.4m wide so a smart sticks out

<comment><USER5> Can't speak for the UK, but I often see Smarts parked sideways around Paris. The car is indeed longer than the spaces are large, but a factor that helps a lot is that regular cars are rarely parked nicely inside the lines. Which means that, in practice, the sideways Smart doesn't stick out from the other cars.

<comment><USER7> I see them parked sideways in London all the time.

<comment><USER8> Same in Prague.

<comment><USER9> never seen in Italy

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> A single occupancy car will be more commercially lucrative once we have full self-driving technology. If you hail a self-driving cab for yourself, the fleet will send a single-occupancy car. If you're with a few others, it'll send a sedan. Etc...all under a tiered subscription model. Not sending a sedan every time saves on hardware, electricity, and maintenance costs. Some of the savings would in turn be passed onto the consumer. The single occupancy car will also be more safe at that point, because it'll only drive on lanes dedicated to self-driving vehicles.

<comment><USER11> we have self-driving cars already, they're called trains

<comment><USER12> Show me a train that can show up at my grandmother's door and drop her at the doctor's.

<comment><USER13> Swiss somehow manage to use trains in massive numbers even if grandmothers need car assistance occasionally. You don't need to poison the atmosphere every day with a car on your commute just because your grandmother might need a pick her up for her doctors checkup (having a medical facility come to pick someone up is not an uncommon service either).

Why do some of you think that finding a wierd edge case is enough to invalidate a whole infrastructure? This isn't derivation of a mathematical proof where counter-example invalidates the hypothesis.

<comment><USER14> >poison the atmosphere every day with a car

So you won't mind electric cars then, which fix that problem ?

<comment> globular-toast They don't fix the problem. Nowhere on earth is there a sustainable electrical grid that doesn't pollute the atmosphere, let alone one that supports electric cars for every household. Not only that but electric cars create local pollution in the form of particular matter from brakes and tyres and they are worse than internal combustion engine cars in that regard.

<comment><USER15> > and they are worse than internal combustion engine cars in that regard.

Regenerative braking means less wear on the brakes, and there's no particulate matter from the exhaust pipe. In what way are electric cars worse?

<comment> globular-toast Regenerative braking does not replace traditional brakes. In particular it is only really efficient at high speeds and doesn't do much in cities. EVs have no tailpipe emissions, but particulate emissions from the tailpipe of modern ICEs is very low anyway. But EVs do produce significantly more emissions from the tyres and brakes compared with ICE vehicles because they are heavier.

[https://www.emissionsanalytics.com/news/2020/1/28/tyres- not-...](https://www.emissionsanalytics.com/news/2020/1/28/tyres-not-tailpipe)

<comment><USER16> It doesn't have to be 100% regenerative and an electric motor in generator mode it's _very_ efficient at braking even at high speeds. One just needs to redirect the excess energy that cannot be absorbed by the battery to a controlled resistive load and trigger both mechanisms if the brake pedal is pushed more than 30% in which case you definitely need regular brakes. Trains already use these mechanisms.

The figures in the linked article are overblown: 5,8 g/km means one throws away a pair of used tires every 1000 km, which is not the case since the average tire lifecycle is 20k to 30k km.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Until a few months ago I owned a Corbin sparrow, which looks almost identical. It was great; I could park it anywhere, drive it with a regular license, and go safely on 101 in the commuter lane (the vehicle has a monocoque design -- basically you're inside a huge motorcycle helmet). It was quite convenient until I had a kid and a very large dog.

At one point I was on a board which had (including me) three separate sparrow owners!

</comment><comment><USER18> Clive Sinclair was ahead of his time then! Here is the C5: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_C5](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_C5)

Latest incarnation is at: [https://www.theengineer.co.uk/sinclair-c5-revamped- by-sir-cl...](https://www.theengineer.co.uk/sinclair-c5-revamped-by-sir- clives-nephew)

</comment><comment><USER19> Beware of the 'El Camino' trap.

I had a beautiful '72 El Camino, but it had downsides. As a good friend once said, "It's not much of a car, but it's not much of a truck, either!"

</comment><comment><USER20> These three-wheeled vehicles always make me think the same thing, "all the risk of a motorcycle, with none of the fun." They don't exactly have good cargo space, so storage isn't the focus - is the whole point space savings and fuel efficiency?

A novel idea, I guess it comes down to price in this case.

EDIT: I say "fuel efficiency" referring to the fact that there are gasoline- fueled versions of this same type of vehicle. I realize the Solo is battery powered.

<comment><USER21> If you can't lean into corners, can't split lanes, can't exceed 80mph, can't do wheelies, can't make it fall over, and can't go over the handlebars in a crash, I strongly suspect this will have better safety statistics than a motorcycle.

<comment><USER22> This is the comment of someone that knows very little about motorcycles. Half the things you mention are not negatives, but positives.

<comment><USER21> Actually I've got 8 years of riding experience.

Let's be honest, nobody _really believes_ doing wheelies, lane-splitting or being able to go at 130mph actually make us safer. That's just what we tell our moms when they're worried about us, and we know they won't be reassured by the truth - which is that we know what we're doing is dangerous but we're going to keep doing it anyway because it's fun.

<comment><USER20> There's also a huge difference between recklessly doing all of these things, and responsibly doing these things. Not necessarily 130mph wheelies, but lane- splitting is perfectly safe as well as practical, when done at a normal speed and practicing good distancing. It's far more dangerous to be sandwiched between two idiots staring at their phones in traffic.

Most if not all of the inherent danger of motorcycles is due to the existence of cars, driven by distracted people. You can mitigate just about all risk of riding a motorcycle. When I want to be an idiot on two wheels, I'll go mountain biking, or downhilling, or ride my dirt bike. On the street I keep my ass as safe as possible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Reminds me of the car that the character Peter Gregory drove in the show Silicon Valley.

[https://www.thedrive.com/a-list/3171/5-times-silicon- valley-...](https://www.thedrive.com/a-list/3171/5-times-silicon-valley- perfectly-parodied-techie-car-culture)

<comment><USER24> That's a Tango.

Apparently Sergey Brin had one.

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

<comment><USER25> > 805 hp claimed.

!

<comment><USER26> It's trivial to put a high-power electric motor into a car. It's very difficult to supply that motor with enough juice to actually sustain that kind of power output for a reasonable period of time.

For reference, 800HP is 600kW.

<comment><USER25> Not _that_ trivial. The Tesla P100D can break 600kw now, but has only been able to do it in the last month or so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Every product like this has to compete against a 5-year old Toyota Camry, Corolla, Prius, you name it. It compares poorly.

Heck, it looks like it's so expensive that it also has to compete against brand new vehicles in the "cheapest new car possible" category. Cars like the Nissan Versa eat this thing for lunch from a value standpoint. You could probably even buy a brand new Mitsubishi mid-size SUV for the price and stuff the whole family in (a bit crude compared to the competition, but it's reliable and repairable!)

> Priced at $18,500, it also costs about half as much as the current average > sales price for a new passenger vehicle ($35,667 as of March 2020).

Looking at the average new sales price is almost misleading in itself. Only a certain kind of buyer buys a new vehicle in the first place, and they're often led in that direction by financing - not purchase price.

Funny, a few years ago I bought a brand new Scion iA (a Mazda 2 rebadged as a Scion, now sold as a Toyota Yaris sedan). The sticker price was $16,499, purchased for $15,999 with dealer incentives (Scion was a no-haggle brand). It had all the features you'd want: A/C, power windows, decent infotainment system with Bluetooth and USB, four seats, four doors, 40MPG fuel economy, and on top of that it was an IIHS top safety pick at the time. It gets service at any Toyota dealership across the country.

Since it had four doors and seats I could even drive Uber/Lyft with it. Just look at how unpopular coupes are in the 2020s (The new Mustang is a crossover SUV! Smart left the United States! The Fiat 500 and New Beetle were discontinued!), people just don't sacrifice two doors to save five hundred bucks off the sticker price anymore like they did in 1995.

</comment><comment><USER28> The OEMs website has much better detail and pictures [1].

[1] [https://electrameccanica.com/](https://electrameccanica.com/)

<comment><USER29> Looks like a Corbin Sparrow

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Reminds me of the Reliant Robin episode of Top Gear. [https://youtu.be/QQh56geU0X8](https://youtu.be/QQh56geU0X8)

<comment><USER31> That's amazing - thanks for the link

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> The problem with tricycles is that they are less stable than both motorcycles and cars.

Unlike motorcycles, tricycles can't bank on turns, or are very limited in that.

<comment><USER33> The Yamaha Niken[0], which arrived last year, would disagree. [0] [https://www.yamahamotorsports.com/sport- touring/models/niken](https://www.yamahamotorsports.com/sport- touring/models/niken)

<comment><USER34> My initial reaction to seeing one of those was, "hmm, that looks freaky and weird." I also suspect that it'll be doomed to commercial failure.

That said, these things seem brilliant the more I reason through it. I'd guess that nearly all the same sensations of riding a motorcycle are there with the Nikken... all of the things that make riding a motorcycle fun like punchy acceleration, open air, and leaning in corners. At the same time, doubling up the front end in this way has to be a huge boon to traction. I suspect the suspension travel on these things allows for more lean angle than I'd be comfortable with outside of a track.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> This is awesome. But nobody's going to buy it if they have to drive it sharing the road with hulking SUVs. It's nearly as dangerous as a motorcycle simply because it is so small and light. The only advantage is protection from the weather.

<comment><USER36> Plenty of people ride motorcycles. Protection from the weather means year round use. Throw in some specialized parking for small vehicles, and you have a winning product

<comment><USER37> From experience, the main issues, aside from weather, with using a motorcycle as your sole means of transport are:

\- You can't take an arbitrary person as passenger (they need gear and pillion experience)

\- You can't take more than a backpack's worth of cargo (slightly expandable with panniers)

This can't take a passenger at all, and looks like it has the same cargo restrictions. It looks fun but I can't see it replacing a small car which solves both of these problems, so it needs to be cheap enough to be a 'fun' second vehicle.

<comment><USER38> There is also the danger factor... you are 27 times more likely to die driving the same distance on a motorcycle as in a car. I don't think I would want to take that risk.

<comment><USER39> Part of the difference could be explainable by different demographics. Maybe motorcyclists drive more dangerously than normal even when they're in a car.

<comment><USER37> "Nobody rides a big-bore sports bike this far out into the countryside in order to do the speed limit."

Even if people drive their cars safely, the huge difference in performance means they're more likely to get in trouble on a bike.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> [http://archive.is/VtKbR](http://archive.is/VtKbR)

I got a 503 error!

</comment><comment><USER41> It looks like a more boring version of a Polaris slingshot. Which isn't bad, but it's not exactly novel either.

Nor does it exist in a legislative wasteland, like the article implies. It's considered to be a motorcycle in most US states, with all attendant licensing requirements.

</comment><comment><USER42> Wondering how the performance, fuel costs and maintenance would compare to an equivalent vehicle with a small diesel, motorcycle engine or even a modern two-stroke. My guess is that the vehicle would be much lighter and have a longer range with a petroleum based fuel.

Most of the 3 wheeled vehicles offered in the US are more performance minded.

Leno shows a Vanderhall 'Venice' [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X71spAvmw4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X71spAvmw4)

Doug DeMuro critiques a Polaris Slingshot [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf_O9mZcSs4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf_O9mZcSs4)

</comment><comment><USER43> This reminds me of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_C5](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_C5)

> The Sinclair C5 is a small one-person battery electric velomobile, > technically an "electrically assisted pedal cycle".[1] It was the > culmination of Sir Clive Sinclair's long-running interest in electric > vehicles. Although widely described as an "electric car", Sinclair > characterised it as a "vehicle, not a car".[2]

</comment><comment><USER44> My first "car" was a Piaggio Ape. In theory it was for one person. In practice you could put 2 people in the cabin and 2 more in the back unless you were going up hill.

<comment><USER9> there is also "ape calessino", yoi can carry two passengers [http://www.piaggiocommercialvehicles.com/it_IT/modelli/ape/a...](http://www.piaggiocommercialvehicles.com/it_IT/modelli/ape/ape- calessino/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Reminds me of the Arcimoto FUV except made in China instead of the USA.

[https://www.arcimoto.com/](https://www.arcimoto.com/)

</comment><comment><USER46> Estonian Nobe 100 is similar, but can carry two persons. It also has a cool retro design: [https://jalopnik.com/this-planned-electric-three-wheeler- loo...](https://jalopnik.com/this-planned-electric-three-wheeler-looks- fantastic-and-1818561069) [https://mynobe.com](https://mynobe.com)

</comment><comment><USER47> Can it whizz through traffic jams like a moped or motorcycle? The Twizzy, Smart et al have the exact same problem. I don't see any benefits of owning this versus a cheap Nissan Leaf or Renault Zoe, for example.

Also, the top speed is extremely high compared to the alleged security features. Can you survive a crash in it?

<comment><USER48> Why is #1 a problem?

<comment><USER49> Because this is why I would consider it over a car, until then I continue to ride my bike.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> > _Priced at $18,500, it also costs about half as much as the current average > sales price for a new passenger vehicle_

Well, it is significantly more limited than most new passenger vehicles, both in terms of how many people/things it can haul and its safety when sharing the road with vehicles that are on the road today.

<comment><USER28> And there's many good cars too (Corolla, Civic, etc) that you can get around the same price here in the US...

<comment><USER51> And crappy cars you can brand new for barely more than half that - looking at you Mitsubishi.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> > Having three wheels, it is not subject to the sorts of crash-testing the > National Highway Traffic Safety Administration requires for street-legal, > four-wheeled vehicles, but it does have a seatbelt and an integrated roll > bar.

If they want anybody to buy these, they better test them anyway.

</comment><comment><USER53> In India there was one built by a company Reva[0]. Looks like it was not able to gain mindshare.

[0] The founder explaining the car: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sDwGazHefM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sDwGazHefM)

</comment><comment><USER54> What the Merlin would have been, if Corbin hadn't flamed out trying to learn to scale up, and doing warranty repairs on the electrical systems for its Sparrow electric three wheeler.

Looks like he tried again about 8 years ago and then failed again :/

</comment><comment><USER55> The car reminds me a lot of the Twike 5 [0] which - besides being all electric - can be pedaled, too.

[0]: [https://twike.com/twike-5/twike-5/](https://twike.com/twike-5/twike-5/)

</comment><comment><USER56> I feel like they should be able to sell something like that for $7000-$8000 if they can get proper mass production.

I mean to me the price needs to go down by half or more from $17k or whatever. At which point I might be interested.

</comment><comment><USER57> This one looked better...

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_1-litre_car](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_1-litre_car)

</comment><comment><USER58> I live close by the first purchaser of one of these. It's a wild little car, and it looks like an absolute pleasure to drive as a personal commuting device.

</comment><comment><USER59> This reminds me of the Lit Motors c-1. At least they had a unique twist on the idea.

<comment><USER32> Though, the founder was... They wouldn't have started even if the guy got money.

</comment></comment><comment> d--b I wish you could plug several of these together to make a bigger vehicule.

</comment><comment><USER60> A Piaggio MP3 with some panels on top? Hmm.

</comment><comment><USER61> I remember that ages ago in Poland these were extremely popular, I used to see them everywhere:

[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duo_(Krankenfahrzeug)](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duo_\(Krankenfahrzeug\))

Essentially a motorcycle with a cabin built around it. And yes, technically they were meant for disabled people - but during communist times getting an actual proper car(even a Fiat 126p) was extremely difficult - this perhaps less so.

</comment><comment><USER32> 404?

</comment><comment><USER62> Reserved one :)

</comment><comment><USER63> It still takes one standard car's worth of space on the road and one standard car's worth of parking space. This is not a solution to anything.

<comment><USER64> So it's actually probably less efficient.</comment></comment>


US government's financial position hit $11.46 trillion deficit in 2009   - <AUTHOR> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Report-shows-governments-apf-1771747627.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=7&asset=&ccode=

<comment><USER3> Don't they mean debt? I thought deficit was net increase in debt per year.

<comment><USER4> You're right. Deficit is d(Debt)/dT.

<comment><USER5> It's not just debt though, it's entitlements and obligations.

<comment><USER6> National entitlements and obligations are at about 100 trillion dollars (medicare, medicaid, social security etc.). This is based on estimates made by David Walker who was the head of the GAO under Clinton.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself. " - <USER2>

</comment><comment><USER8> Now they only need a half of that half-kilometer S-type asteroid...

</comment><comment><USER9> Deficit worries are hocus pocus. America should go should in much debt as possible if there are people willing to lend it money. When it comes to payback time it can simply deflate away its currency and as a side effect get many offshored jobs back. The real problem is not deficits, but where they are spent. military and the rich.

<comment><USER5> First it's inflation not deflation.

Second, what you are suggesting is one of the worst and most immoral ideas possible. Inflation steals wealth the most from the poor and middle class. Second all government debt is inherently immoral because you are in essence taking out a loan in someone else's name.

<comment><USER10> No, inflation steals wealth from people who own dollars and dollar-denominated assets. That's mostly the risk averse rich, as well as many foreign governments who are trying to prop up the dollar.

<comment><USER11> No, dantheman has it right. Inflation hurts poorer people proportionately more. Richer people tend to have assets like property which inflate in value right along with the currency. If you inflate by 15% from one week to the next a rich person's standard of living hasn't decreased much, but a poor person's certainly has.

<comment><USER10> Inflation has two effects; across the board pay cuts and it reduces the value of dollar denominated assets. Pay cuts hit everyone with an income equally.

The poor/middle class tend to have a larger fraction of their wealth in property. The typical middle class family owns either a home or a call option/mortgage on a home which comprises the bulk of their wealth.

The rich also own property, but it's not as large a fraction of their wealth as it is for the poor. The typical rich person owns both a home and an investment portfolio, the latter of which will suffer with inflation.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>