LINQ is better than foreach - <AUTHOR> http://www.kodefuguru.com/post/2010/05/04/LINQ-is-Better-Than-ForEach.aspx

<comment><USER2> I use LINQ as much as possible in my code. Any time I do any type of looping construct I re-evaluate whether I should be writing it using LINQ.

Most C# developers think LINQ is some fancy new concept but in reality they are just an implementation of Haskell list comprehensions ported to C# by Erik Meijer. I love watching the the imperative and functional languages converge like this.

<comment><USER3> You (and the writer of the article), of course, mean Linq to Objects. Linq providers are free to compile Linq structures to whatever they want to, in the case of objects that means compiling to list comprehensions, but for example in the case of Linq to SQL it all compiles down to SQL queries.

(Sorry for nipticking, the reason I'm pointing this out because people get confused about the unfortunate Linq terminology all the time).

<comment><AUTHOR> IQueryable's get converted to expression trees which then get converted to sql. It's more of a "translated" to sql rather than a "compiled" to sql. The power of IQueryable is that the expression trees can be converted to so many different kinds of expressions, and you can write your own.

IEnumerable's extensions are mostly iterators over sequences.

<comment><USER4> _IQueryable's get converted to expression trees which then get converted to sql. It's more of a "translated" to sql rather than a "compiled" to sql._

You've just described how compilers work, minus optional attempts at optimization and optional excess passes. Most of which take place either after the expression tree has been generated, or somewhere during the conversion process. Therefore I'd call what you've described "compilation".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The Linq version is clearly superior to the imperative version, but I find the following even easier to understand:

      (into [] (map full-name
                    (sort-by :last-name (filter #(= (:role %) 'developer) employees))))

It's good to see mainstream languages adding declarative constructs though.

<comment><USER6> I personally like in simple scenarios using List<T>.ConvertAll:

        var foo = new List<int>{ 1, 2, 3};
        var bar = foo.ConvertAll(x => x * 2);

over the the Linq equivalent:

        var foo = new List<int>{ 1, 2, 3};
        var bar = from x in foo select x * 2

<comment><USER7> that's the same as

var foo= new List<int> {1, 2, 3};

var bar = foo.Select(x => x*2);

<comment><USER8> Yep, one thing to realize is that LINQ does not simply refer to the query syntax - it refers to a set of technologies, including expression trees and the ability to compile them to alternate languages like TSQL, the query syntax, and the extension methods like Select.

One small difference with your example though is that Select requires "using System.Linq", and ConvertAll is defined on List<T>.

<comment><USER9> And of course, the LINQ version returns an IEnumerable<TResult>, while the List version return List<TResult>. You could chain a .ToList() there to make them equivalent (if needed).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> One small caution when using LINQ, especially in performance critical areas (XNA for instance): .Count and .Count() are dramatically difference in performance, when simply looking for the size of an array or list, be sure to use the .Count property as it is orders of magnitude faster. If you are using LINQ else where, .Count() will achieve the same behavior but will be much slower, so it can be a tough optimization to track down.

<comment><USER11> The .Count() method in LINQ to objects checks to see if the IEnumerable implements ICollection, and if so then just calls the .Count property.

Of course, calling the .Count property yourself is more efficient, but not by orders of magnitude.

<comment><USER10> Thank you for this, this was apparently fixed in .NET 4.0 which I was unaware of.

I think there is still some validity in my post in confusing whether you are using native accessing or routing through an additional tool/library, but the fix definitely elimates the performance hit I was discussing, so much of my post was in error.

edit: Also 3.5 it seems, I need to be more up-to-date with my concerns.

<comment><AUTHOR> Everyone get's that wrong, including Microsoft's documentation ;). It's a good optimization though, in spite of the LSP violation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The number of objects is far too small to provide a very meaningful result.

<comment><AUTHOR> I changed it to run with one million names and ran with the optimized foreach. I only did one pass.

foreach 00:00:01.7348710 linq 00:00:01.8607973

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> FWIW I find the LINQ far harder to read.

      var developerNames = employees.AsParallel().AsOrdered()
                                  .Where(e => e.Role == Role.Developer)
                                  .OrderBy(e => e.LastName)
                                  .Select(e => e.FullName)
                                  .ToArray();

That's just gross IMHO. AsParallel() yuck. AsOrdered() eugh why are these functions being used to set parameters.

<comment><USER14> I think it only looks gross because they're methods on an object, and you're used to that meaning "imperative mutable thing." Compare this:

        employees.AsParallel().AsOrdered()

to the more-traditional-C-style

        MaintainOrder(Parallelize(employees))

or the admittedly more attractive

        (maintain-order (parallelize employees))

and suddenly it seems perfectly sensible. I thought it was ugly first, too, but now I'm used to it.

<comment><USER15> How is

        (maintain-order (parallelize employees))

vs

        MaintainOrder(Parallelize(employees))

"admittedly more attractive"? I enjoy functional constructs, but now you're just talking syntax right?

<comment><USER16> I agree, this is a strange claim. On the other hand (as long as we are with Clojure), something like

      (->> employees parallelize maintain-order)

might be said to be more attractive because it looks more linear. The sequential order of application is thus maintained, and the parentheses which are perceived as additional levels of hierarchy are removed.

Of course, the dot-dot-dot style in Java/C#/etc is doing the same:

      employees.Parallelize().MaintainOrder()

is also linear, the parentheses are only used to specify parameters.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I really like the LINQ extension methods and the functionality they provide, but I don't really like the query syntax. Method calls and lambdas seem so expressive and concise to me that I don't know why I'd start pretending like I was using TSQL to do operations on enumerables. I can definitely see its draw for some people though.

</comment><comment><USER4> Any time you see toy benchmarks, ask yourself what was left out. The potential performance issue with LINQ comes when you are accessing database data over a connection with non-trivial latency. Then it is easy to wind up accidentally issuing large numbers of queries, with a lot of round trips, that winds up being slow and unnecessarily hard on the database.

LINQ is hardly unusual in having this risk. It is an easy mistake to make in many environments with many toolsets, and it is not particularly hard to avoid it with LINQ. But the toy benchmark doesn't address it. And the article makes fun of a software architect who has likely had bad experiences with developers messing up on this.

<comment><USER7> _accessing database data over a connection with non-trivial latency. ... But the toy benchmark doesn't address it_

I disagree entirely. I know when I'm using LINQ to SQL, and when I'm using LINQ to objects. My experience is that LINQ to objects is more common and very useful. He's using larger data volumes than I generally am, so there's absolutely nothing "toy" about it.

<comment><USER4> Toy benchmarks frequently use large data volumes. That is easy to do. What is harder to do in a benchmark is providing realistically complex logic to go with those volumes. Many systems work well on the simple cases, but have bad edge cases that can get tickled by a more complex problem.

<comment><USER7> But the logic that I have successfully used LINQ on:

\- operates on lists of objects, not database queries.

\- operates on small quantities of data. It doesn't matter if there are only five items in a list. If you have to filter them, you have to filter them

\- is not _that_ complex.

We use foreaches as well, or a combination. LINQ is great for automating simple things, e.g. turn a loop to find an item into a .FirstOrDefault(x => x.SomeCondition). It would be interesting to see if, as our grasp of LINQ improves, we run into any of these supposed corner cases. But it hasn't happened yet.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Shelling Out: The Origins of Money (2002) - <AUTHOR> http://szabo.best.vwh.net/shell.html

<comment><USER2> The article talks a lot about one origin story of money, namely the one revolving around barter: roughly speaking, when there are N types of goods, you don't want to keep track of an NxN matrix of relative values of those goods; instead, you want to select a very small number of goods with properties that make them useful to act as a common denomination.

There's obvious truth to that origin story, but it is also seriously lacking and arguably leads to a lot of misconceptions about our modern _credit-based_ monetary systems.

Consider, for example, that societies in the timeframes the article talks at length about (basically, before agriculture) were tiny and most likely rather "communist" in their internal organization. All that stuff about barter is only relevant for the interactions between different tribes.

So what happened when humans settled down and developed agriculture? That's where the second origin story of money comes from.

For the first time, people had to keep track of who owned what, and who owed what, _internally in a large group_ (cf. Dunbar's number). And they did that by _inventing writing, number systems, and contracts_. A lot of the features of modern societies co-developed (rather slowly by modern standards) in those early agrarian cultures, including systems of taxation and credit, and including our modern forms of money.

The story then basically goes like this: When you as the king raise an army, you have to compensate your soldiers somehow. Initially, this certainly happens by letting them plunder and keep the spoils of war. But with a standing army - which you need as the society develops - that is no longer an option. So you mint coins which you hand out to your soldiers, at the same time telling your subjects that they have to sell their goods for those coins.[0] As compensation, taxes can be paid using those coins, thus creating the modern cycle of: state creates money to pay employees, employees buy goods from producers using money, producers return the money to the state.

Note that you don't have to use coins - using shiny metal things is largely a psychological trick. In England, wooden sticks (tally sticks) were used for the same purpose for a long time.

[0] Most likely, people were familiar with shiny coin-like objects as art and jewelry, and certainly those objects were valuable. Paying soldiers with coins is a neat psychological hack to piggyback on the pre-existing meme of "this type of thing is valuable". (Note that throughout a lot of history, coins were worth significantly more than their metal content!)

<comment><USER3> Excellent reply -- a small but important (and elegant, I think) proviso is that in the king-minting-coins scenario, it's not actually necessary to require that citizens exchange goods for the coins; requiring them to pay taxes in the coins accomplishes that on its own, if the only initial source of coins is from the soldiers. Their utility in paying taxes (which, because everyone has to pay taxes, extends to general utility as a medium of exchange) explains the difference in value between the coin itself and the metal content. (I recall a lot of interesting anthropological research on this in David Graeber's book, Debt: the First 5000 Years.)

There are some surprisingly direct debt->currency relationships that persist today; for example, the Bank of England, iirc, retains the ability to print money because it loaned £2 million in silver to the crown in 1697 or something like that (no guarantees on sums and dates) -- in other words, British currency is literally commodified debt owed by the crown (which is presumably the most trustworthy party in terms of ability to pay) to the Bank of England, which the bank has the power to distribute.

<comment><USER4> > Excellent reply -- a small but important (and elegant, I think) proviso is > that in the king-minting-coins scenario, it's not actually necessary to > require that citizens exchange goods for the coins; requiring them to pay > taxes in the coins accomplishes that on its own, if the only initial source > of coins is from the soldiers.

Historically, another piece of legislation usually followed governments trying to force their money into circulation: the concept of "legal tender". A currency having "legal tender" status means that all debts are payable in this currency, even those incurred in a different currency/money (eg. gold).

For example, in the US in 1862, government-issued currency was given legal tender status, to finance the Civil War. This act forced gold creditors (people who were owed gold) to accept payment in this government-issued currency: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Tender_Cases#Legal_Tende...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Tender_Cases#Legal_Tender_Act_of_1862_and_ensuing_litigation)

This essentially destroys the credit market for competing currencies. All debts can be paid in government-issued currency, and few creditors wished to lend out gold, only to be paid back in paper notes, albeit government-issued.

As far as I can see, free currency competition requires both:

1) The ability to choose the numeraire (eg. Japanese Yen, Euros, Dollars, gold, silver) yourself when reporting your taxes, and paying taxes _in_ the chosen numeraire.

For example, say I hold an amount of US Dollars, and my chosen numeraire is gold, then if the gold price (XAUUSD=X) falls, and I buy gold using these dollars, I need to pay taxes on a capital gain, as the gold price of these dollars has gone up since I purchased them ("gold price of dollars" is the inverse of the "dollar price of gold" (the latter being XAUUSD=X)).

2) The abolition of legal tender law. Legal tender law interferes with the credit markets of competing currencies, by declaring that debts incurred in any currency/money, can be extinguished using government-issued legal tender currency.

So, in short, requiring capital gain taxes to be paid using government- approved currency as the numeraire disincentivizes people from _hoarding_ competing currency, while legal tender law disincentivizes people from _lending out_ competing currency. Both these activities are needed for any type of money to function as money.

<comment><USER2> You provide some interesting thoughts.

As for 1: This is not practically possible, and/or forces the government to artificially fix exchange rates between currencies, which would defeat the whole point.

Why? Because huge parts of the law deals with absolute monetary terms. Gasoline taxes, for example, are typically a fixed amount per litre. Tax exemptions are usually of the form "no tax below $X amount of $currency". Going beyond tax law, you have the same issue with fines. Reasonable people can prefer this kind of absolute amounts in certain areas of the law, but this forces the government to either "pick a winner" (i.e. settle on one currency it uses in its legal texts) or to artificially fix exchange rates (by giving the amounts in all existing currencies).

This pretty much means that currency competition cannot exist.

The much more important point is this though: Currency competition does not serve a useful purpose. It only adds friction to the everyday economy. (Removing this kind of friction is a big reason why the Euro is still pretty popular with many people despite the macroeconomic mess it has lead to.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> On this subject, I strongly recommend watching an illustrated documentary called "Money As Debt":

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqvKjsIxT_8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqvKjsIxT_8)

<comment><USER6> The tone/editing takes away from this video's credibility, but if you look past that and watch with healthy skepticism (for lack of a better word), there is a lot to be learned.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years)</comment>


Elon Musk's companies are fueled by government subsidies - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html <comment><USER2> I don't disagree with the main point, that the three companies has benefited from subsidies. But it's framed as if this is unique, where in reality you'll find subsidies in these (and many other) industries.

# Cars

GM, Chrysler etc. bailed out for $85B. Sector subsidized in other ways too.

# Space

Most of the space industry is paid for by various governments (some satellites are the only exception). NASA is about half of SpaceX revenue, certainly a large chunk.

# Energy

IMF recently released a report[1], where fossil fuel subsidies are estimated at $1.9 trillion. Other types of energy are subsidized too, solar in China, nuclear in France, etc.

[1] [http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15105.pdf](http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15105.pdf)

<comment><USER3> Regarding your comment on energy - I hadn't thought about that but the worst of the fossil fuel subsidies has to be turning large portions of the corn crop into ethanol then ruining the performance (and sometimes internal parts) of our internal combustion engines. It's truly the worst of both worlds!

<comment><USER4> In my opinion, the worst by far is the implicit subsidy where fossil fuel users are allowed to pollute without paying for the damage caused by that pollution. If you accounted for that fully, renewables would be cheaper today. Coal pollution alone causes something like one million deaths _per year_. It's like a big war that never stops. That's not even counting the potential deaths and disruption from climate change.

Fossil fuel users poison our land, air, and water without consequence and without paying for the damage, but somehow it's the guy making solar panels and electric cars that everybody complains about.

<comment><USER3> Until the late '60s or early '70s, no one worried about the pollution so long as the economic engine was running strong. There were clear days that you couldn't see half a mile in Pittsburgh PA [1], and entire rivers of volatile chemicals catching fire [2]. We've done a lot to curb those excesses but I agree with your primary sentiment. Why pollute at all if we can avoid it?

Interestingly, China's current economic growth is also fueled without consideration of the environment. You can still travel on coal-fired steam locomotives ... and they're not historic excursions but rather new technology.

We also have to look at renewable combustibles as some people will claim they're not dependent on fossil fuels but they're still contributing to carbon release when burning wood (or wood pellets) as fuel.

[1] [https://www.google.com/search?q=pittsburgh+steel+mill+smog&b...](https://www.google.com/search?q=pittsburgh+steel+mill+smog&biw=1238&bih=897&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=BTdqVdyXB4uqgwSF- YDICQ&ved=0CCoQ7Ak)

[2] [https://www.google.com/search?q=cleveland+river+fire&sa=X&bi...](https://www.google.com/search?q=cleveland+river+fire&sa=X&biw=1238&bih=897&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ei=UDdqVce6OMWrNsfzgKAJ&ved=0CB4QsAQ)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> IIRC,

\- Tesla re-paid a 495 million government loan 10 years early.[0]

\- Musk personally invested $100 Million in SpaceX

\- Musk personally invested $275 Million in Tesla[1]

[0][http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/22/autos/tesla-loan- repayment/](http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/22/autos/tesla-loan-repayment/)

[1][http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk- borrows-150-million...](http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk- borrows-150-million-to-buy-tesla-2013-5)

I don't consider Musk to be mooching off of the government. He's put everything on the line.

<comment><USER6> The entreprenurial government takes risks, and once in a while succeeds so wildly that the company can pay off the loans quickly.

"Tesla's management knew that if they couldn't get the government's money at 3 or 4 percent interest, their next cheapest source of capital would cost 10 times more, a whopping 30 to 40 percent annually. [...] And if the government had wanted to bargain like a real venture capitalist, Tesla's desperate need for cash gave the feds the power to demand options on half the company's stock, or more." ([http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/05/tesl...](http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/05/tesla_is_worse_than_solyndra_how_the_u_s_government_bungled_its_investment.html))

Important to deflate startup myths: corporate moochers love how government welfare "socializes the risks and privatizes the rewards." ([http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/government- inves...](http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/government-investment- innovation-by-mariana-mazzucato-2015-04))

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Any mixed economy is riddled with subsidies. Together with taxation, it skews incentives from whatever they were without, and redistributes resources in a way the market would not. (Whether you think that's a good thing is political.)

\- How many people would be getting degrees without government grants of some sort?

\- Tax relief on debt is huge for corporations.

\- Tax relief on mortgages is huge for individuals in many countries.

\- Government itself has to spend money in one place and not another.

Of course there is the question of whether he gets more benefit that your average Joe from the largesse of the government. To that I'd say he does, but the benefits to everyone else of what he's up to are wide ranging but thinly spread.

</comment><comment><USER8> TL;DR: "Subsidies are handed out in all kinds of industries, with U.S. corporations collecting tens of billions of dollars each year [...] and the incentives for solar panels and electric cars are available to all companies that sell them.

[...]

But public subsidies for Musk's companies stand out both for the amount, relative to the size of the companies, and for their dependence on them."

</comment><comment><USER9> And? So is gasoline and petroleum products. And so is corn products through ethanol, which is legally mandated to be in fuel at 10% for no good reason.

<comment><USER10> Not a great comparison.

The US doles out $15 to $20 billion annually toward subsidies for fossil fuels. $4 to $5 billion goes to the oil industry.

Exxon and Chevron paid _$120 billion_ in income taxes in just the last three years. US oil majors pay among the highest corporate tax rates on earth. Exxon and Chevron are getting about $1.3 billion in tax breaks per year combined.

<comment><USER11> Exxon and Chevron paid those taxes on actual earnings. As soon as Tesla starts profiting, then they will owe taxes as well.

<comment><USER10> Of course, and the point is that the fossil fuel industry in the US more than pays its own way.

Should the US Govt. stop subsidizing fossil fuels? I think so. However, many of the subsidies that companies like Exxon or Chevron claim, are general industrial / manufacturing tax breaks, that are available to any industrial firms. Those two are doing $600 billion in sales, and claiming $1.3 billion in tax breaks, it's an almost comically small number compared to the taxes they pay and the scale of their businesses. I don't think there's any legitimate gripe to be had with the weight the US oil industry is carrying in terms of paying a fair sum in taxes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is just daft.

Supermarkets are fueled by 'government subsidies'; the poor get welfare and go off and spend there.

Freight companies are fueled by 'government subsidies'; the roads are hardly paid for by them solo. Oh, and the supermarkers they are delivering to are fueled by 'government subsidies'.

My grandfather was a truck driver. He was fueled by...

And so on. The government is supposed to support Good Things (or at least get out of the way of them). The way that the media seem to be obsessing over spending recently is really rather silly.

<comment><USER13> It turns out that when the government draws a bunch of taxes and then spends it, markets get distorted. Then the government takes credit for anything good that the markets do with the money, and opportunity cost is ignored because it's incalculable.

<comment><USER14> One man's market distortion is another man's pricing in of manifest but indirect costs.

To take an obvious case, it might be very cheap for my neighbour to heat his house with coal. Then one day laws are introduced which say he has to abide by emissions standards, and in order to do that, buy an expensive clean-burning stove, and expensive specially refined low-sulphur coal. If that ends up making it cheaper to use natural gas instead, no doubt the coal company (and the neighbour) will say the rules represent an artificial distortion of the market. But I would say the rules are there prevent him transferring the true costs of burning cheap coal onto my family (and the other families nearby) and their health.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This thread's lack of comments by libertarians is striking. It gives the impression that some of them (I don't know who) are not opposed to government taxes and spending in principle, as they often claim, but to government taxes and spending on things they don't like -- which isn't a principle or argument, it's just a self-centered complaint.

It reminds me of people who talk about freedom as a principle, but what they mean is freedom for themselves.

<comment><USER16> Because it's a pointless argument. The government is so involved in the economy that marking the point of entry for subsidies is arbitrary and losing game for libertarians, because a progovernment argument can get as no true Scotsman on any libertarian position

<comment><USER16> For example take this jerk Bolden who turned the nasa-spacex relationship into a measuring contest

[http://gizmodo.com/nasa-says-nobodys-getting-to-mars- without...](http://gizmodo.com/nasa-says-nobodys-getting-to-mars-without-its- help-1698709523)

Now we know what he means, that he thinks there's no way that musk will sink the acrued capital of spacex and go to mars.

But even if he's wrong and elon does just that he's already won the argument because spacex is a government contractor and there has been government help nevermind that spaceX has saved NASA so much money

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The entrepreneur who most closely resembles a Rand hero couldn't have done it without government loans and subsidies. That should tell you something.

Markets do some things very well. Hard core innovation isn't among those things. If anything, really deep and difficult innovation requires shelter from market forces, since market forces always pull toward short term thinking and delivering what people already want. There is never a market for something genuinely new-- such markets must be bootstrapped.

</comment><comment><USER3> I hear a lot of sour grapes in this article ... the only part worth discussing is whether SolarCity and Tesla Motors can reach self-sufficiency before the funding is removed.

Governments provide these sort of grants specifically to encourage certain behaviors. I don't think Musk is the only one pursuing these credits, etc., but perhaps he's better at it than most? His only real advantage is that he doesn't have the baggage (bureaucracy, history, etc) of the entrenched players ... they could, in theory, partake of the same government largess.

<comment><USER18> Well the question is, can Tesla survive to make the affordable EV they promise? Do they even have the cash to build out the factory to support that car in any volume? Can they find new tax credits to shore up the bottom line; its been suspected the battery swap station was only for a specific tax credit and there still is only one station and its operational status is questionable.

Love Space X, think Solar City is a great idea, but not keen on Tesla simply because they seem hell bent on having EVs that are not affordable and each improvement seems aimed at speed performance numbers instead of distance. I was really hoping the D was going to be for increased range but instead it was 0-60 first and AWD second.

edit: after reading up on the home battery offerings they really aren't that impressive... I need to dig up the articles that revealed all of its short comings

<comment><USER19> Tesla needs to raise money to make the affordable EV in high volume. Many of the companies we discuss here are in the same situation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Subsidies are sometimes the only way that amazing things like this can happen. Extremely rare opportunities are often expensive to take advantage of. Without spreading the cost the way a nation-state can, there might not be enough people willing to support efforts to, say, get GPS satellites into space and enable entirely new industries and technologies.

Sure, it might not be with the explicit support of every taxpayer who contributed, but that will happen in every government just as it will happen in a family trying to decide where to vacation.

I, for one, hope that subsidies continue to go to those who can take us new places. As long as it's not purely because it's some congressman's nephew's new company.

<comment><USER21> Then shouldn't the company be public and beholden to us?

<comment><USER22> It is beholden to "us" as much as the us gov't is beholden to us. That is, somewhat loosely in some situations the counterparty can extract some sort of its will on the enterprise.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I don't think it's a surprise that Tesla would not exist without government subsidies (I say this as someone who thinks the Model S is an excellent car). From a piece in today's WSJ:

[http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-savior-elon- musk-1432938547](http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-savior-elon-musk-1432938547)

 _...Tesla likely might not even exist without a former State Department official whom Mr. Musk hired to explore "what types of tax credits and rebates Tesla might be able to drum up around its electric vehicles," which eventually would include a $465 million government-backed loan...

In 2017, he plans to introduce his Model 3, a $35,000 car for the middle class. He expects to sell hundreds of thousands a year. Somehow we doubt he intends to make it easy for politicians to whip away the $7,500 tax credit just when somebody besides the rich can benefit from it—in which case the annual gift from taxpayers will quickly mount to several billion dollars each year..._

<comment><USER4> That part about the $7,500 tax credit is rather ignorant. As currently structured, it's limited in the number of times it can be applied to vehicles from any given manufacturer. After 200,000 vehicles sold, the credit drops off rapidly and then disappears altogether. If Tesla succeeds in their goal of selling hundreds of thousands of Model 3s per year then the credits will quickly expire for them and the ongoing cost to taxpayers will be zero.

The law could conceivably be changed, but the odds of that seem remote.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> It looks like the government is getting value for money then, compared to where it usually parks its cash. Thumbs up, good job, carry on.

</comment><comment><USER25> In regards to SpaceX that is simply a mischaracterization, they do not receive subsidies they have contracts with the government. SpaceX received money from NASA to help develop its Falcon 9 rocket, but this is little different than other procurement programs, and was just a component of a large ISS cargo delivery contract, the bulk of which is a straightforward deliver cargo get paid / don't deliver cargo don't get paid system.

<comment><USER26> And SpaceX has been profitable for the last 6 years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Good. I hope he gets as much help as possible.

<comment><USER21> Then shouldn't his companies become public where we get the profits instead of him?

<comment><USER27> In an ideal world, there wouldn't be companies, we would all work together. We don't, and our society is instead organized along capitalist premises. As such, the government support parts of the market that we feel need encouragement, and ostensibly stays out of the way otherwise.

You can agree or disagree with the premise, but that's how we do things. There are many, many vastly more egregious cases of privatizing gains and socializing losses than electric cars and reinventions of the energy network.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Yep, thank god the government (state and federal) are actually investing in something positive. I am glad there are subsidies for clean energy (production and consumption) and the development of cost effective space transportation.

When one looks at the Gov't balance sheet, the opportunity cost of these investments is amazing. The outflow is such a drop in the bucket vs. the potential (and current) value that is is a fucking no-brainer.

</comment><comment><USER28> A lot of the time "subsidies" aren't actually money or help given to companies but rather what they have decided to not tax.

That's basically saying we could charge you infinity, but since we didnt, you have infinity subsidy.

Edit: To the downvoters: this is what "incentives" are when considered in tax terms.

<comment><USER29> I think a tax advantage can be considered a subsidy only when others are actually taxed more due to not receiving it. Nobody is taxed at infinity, so nobody who isn't charged infinity has received infinity subsidy. On the other hand, it might make sense to consider things like the mortgage tax deduction as a subsidy for home ownership, because people without mortgages really are charged more. All of this is arguable of course, but I think it's in line with the _spirit_ of the word "subsidy" to think of it this way.

<comment><USER28> > I think a tax advantage can be considered a subsidy only when others are > actually taxed more due to not receiving it.

Wouldn't that be everyone? Unless you mean they increase the tax rate for the others while reducing yours... but net comes out the same.

My point is that there usually isn't a standard to these, the government can claim all kinds of subsidies because it's saying that's the amount they aren't charging (even if that amount was never to be charged to begin with).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Shocking, government uses tax payer money to invest wisely in the future.

<comment><USER31> "The payoff for the public would come in the form of major pollution reductions, but only if solar panels and electric cars break through as viable mass-market products. For now, both remain niche products for mostly well- heeled customers."

I don't know. It seems that Tesla is missing an opportunity for building an empire like Ford did.

<comment><USER24> Notice how the price of a Tesla car roughly halves at each major iteration? Now project the line out into the mass-market price range.

<comment><USER31> Tesla cars are still comparing to BMW serie 3 and AUDI serie 4, but those are cheaper and easier to refuel.

And an affordable car like the Ford Model-T in today's world market would be like a Dacia Logan at just over 31k LEI ([http://www.dacia.ro/](http://www.dacia.ro/)) or a FIAT Palio at just over 27k BRL ([http://www.fiat.com.br/carros.html](http://www.fiat.com.br/carros.html)).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> _The figure compiled by The Times comprises a variety of government incentives, including grants, tax breaks, factory construction, discounted loans and environmental credits that Tesla can sell. It also includes tax credits and rebates to buyers of solar panels and electric cars._

Right. Along this kind of thinking, we can also add the Iraq war and the unmentioned trillions in subsidies that accrue when you would actually charge a market price for environmental damage and add all that to Shells liabilities.

</comment><comment><USER33> "He definitely goes where there is government money," said Dan Dolev, an analyst at Jefferies Equity Research. "That's a great strategy, but the government will cut you off one day."

As opposed to military spending, where persistent hundreds of billions are spent without anyone giving a damn.

</comment><comment><USER34> I don't see any reason to get offended by the accusation, regardless of whether you agree or disagree.

Could anyone make more effective use of tax dollars than Elon Musk? If anything, allocate more public funds to him.

</comment><comment><USER35> What? Central planners cause unintended consequences with their meddling?

<comment><USER36> What's unintentional here? This looks like exactly what we want to achieve.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> see this post. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9622250](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9622250)

</comment><comment><USER38> News flash: Policies meant to encourage growth in high-tech clean energy are encouraging growth in high-tech clean energy!

This isn't the first time this has been trotted out as an indictment of Musk, and it certainly won't be the last, but it's _really goddamned stupid._

<comment><USER39> If they actually properly price the negative externality into objects like gasoline, there wouldn't be needs for government subsidies of clean energy.

<comment><USER40> That solution is more elegant, but it requires more political finesse. Measuring the external costs raises many difficult questions. What to do with that money raises many more (hopefully not as difficult) questions. It is also a more general solution, which naturally threats more interests. All this makes it take longer to implement and makes a lot more people interested in prolonging it even further. Which raises costs and drives the best talent away, and makes it more likely the project gets killed. Throwing some pocket change to a few talented individuals and hope for the best is nasty hack, but sadly we lack skilled and properly motivated politicians to do much better.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Don't forget the prison labor too.

[http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/04/not-content-with- enormou...](http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/04/not-content-with-enormous- taxpayer-subsidies-elon-musk-turned-to-prison-labor-for-cost-savings/)

</comment><comment><USER42> This is a very poor interpretation of what actually happens. Elon explained it better himself in an interview. The gov isn't exactly signing a blank check for them, instead it's subsidising by allowing tax credit on land, assets and revenue.

First and foremost, do you really think the American tax payer is doing a greater favour to Elon than Elon is doing to the entire world by moving the whole lot of purely eletrical power?

This reporter is an absolute imbecile to use such titles, market pleasing as they are. If Elon wanted to get rich he would buy an island and sunbathe for the next 40 years. He's already rich.

With respect to the amount of good done, I urge this reporter in particular to join TMZ and keep up with the Kardashians.

<comment><USER43> It's fascinating because literally every single thing you have said is a lie.

Tesla is not profitable and is massively subsidized by its competitors and the taxpayers. They make a product that causes massive devastation to the environment through toxic lithium mining, and which is astonishingly expensive and can only be afforded by the ultra rich, and then only with subsidies paid for by the poor and middle class. Furthermore, these so-called cars have off the shelf Panasonic batteries that only last a few years before they have to be replaced at extravagent cost.

You call the reporter of the truth an "absolute imbecile" because using ad hominem arguments is the last refuge of a brain dead moron with no facts.

<comment><USER4> Wow, I really hope this is satire. I don't want to live in a world where somebody can write that last paragraph seriously.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> He's providing such extremely high value and he could make it without them. If anything he's redeeming government expenditures that generally have low returns into something that actually does something amazing.</comment>


Ask HN: What is one question you want answered before you die? - <AUTHOR> Science has brought about many new realities to us in the last 150 years. If you could have the answer to one question (scientific or not) what would that question be and why? <comment><USER2>
      What's Outside the Simulation? [1]

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIVf3P3zq7g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIVf3P3zq7g)

<comment><USER3> It's simulations all the way down. What's at the very bottom? An entity hopelessly trying to escape the death of its own Universe. In fact, all of existence will end in .0000001 seconds but for us that's 100 billion years. But it will end (sorry superior God-like entity).

<comment><USER4> Is there a "very bottom"? I expect not. (But, I don't know.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Will it blend?

</comment><comment><USER6> Where does consciousness originate

<comment><USER7> Obviously it's an evolutionary trait for us to propogate ourselves more effectively. Now the question is, why do living beings want to propogate themselves whereas inanimate objects don't?

<comment><USER6> > Obviously it's an evolutionary trait for us to propogate ourselves more > effectively.

That doesn't answer the question of where it originates though.

<comment><USER7> Originates from order. Once the disorder after the big bang slowed down, planets formed and then order started to form. At some point, the beings created from increasing order started to have conscious.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Who brought me here?! And why :)

</comment><comment><USER9> Why is JavaScript so popular?

</comment><comment><USER10> what should I have done to extend my (healthy) lifespan for a decade or more.

</comment><comment><USER11> Roswell. Just admit it.

</comment><comment><USER12> How not to die.</comment>


Ask HN: Would ML algorithms be able to generate newithbetter sorting algorithms? - <AUTHOR> I am feeling curious about the impact of ML in discovering new knowledge. I know ML learns from tons of training data and then later can come up with much better solutions. Would it be possible to design ML that looks into some training data of how sorting happens and then later come up by itself with with all the sorting algorithms like Bubble Sort, Quick Sort and may be even new ones that humans have not thought of? Is anything of that sort possible? <comment><USER2> In theory, yes. Joel Spolsky has a quote from 2005 where he says "Google uses Bayesian filtering the way Microsoft uses the if statement." [1] What a lot of developers don't realize is that _this isn 't metaphorical_. The output of a classifier is a binary yes or no, based on the examples fed into it, and it's perfectly suited for use as the test in an if statement. Several of the more interesting AI results come from using machine-learning as a building block for more traditional algorithms, eg. a lot of natural language parsing is done this way.

I'd be somewhat doubtful that it could improve on the current state-of-the-art for sorting, though. There's a theoretical result that no comparison-based sort can achieve better than O(N log N) runtime, and mergesort/quicksort/heapsort are already there. You could perhaps get better real-world performance (the way TimSort can beat quicksort/mergesort on nearly-sorted data), but TimSort is already very tightly tuned, and it's likely you would improve performance on some datasets but reduce it on others.

[1] [http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2005/10/17.html](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2005/10/17.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> Only one way to find out.

Good luck.</comment>


Launching Signal 1.0 – a Tool for Founders to Find the Right Investors - <AUTHOR> http://essays.nfx.com/launching-signal-1-0-a-tool-for-founders-to-find-the-right-investors/ <comment><USER2> > give feedback

Change name.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(software)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_\(software\))

<comment><USER3> Not just that, but there is a trademark on it:

[http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4804:9ig...](http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4804:9igaph.2.4)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Signal from Open Whisper Systems already has a large user base, many of which are in the same demographic which you are targeting.

It would be to your benefit to rebrand under a different name.

</comment><comment><USER5> CAUTION: It downloads ALL your email addresses in your Gmail.

Not clear how it works immediately until after you connect your Gmail. It tires to find an email for someone in your contacts who can introduce you to an investor. meh.

<comment><USER6> Your first statement just isn't true. Your last sentence is. When you connect your Gmail to Signal, it infers who your strongest relationships are, with the idea that those are the people who'd give you the warmest intros to investors. You can ask those people to join you on Signal, and if they do, you'll see which investors you can get to (e.g. a strong intro) through them. Compare that to the LinkedIn process today ("hey I saw you're connected to X" ... "Yeahhh but I don't really know them. You wouldn't want an intro from me" ... rinse and repeat) and you start to see one of Signal's benefits.

<comment><USER7> > When you connect your Gmail to Signal, it infers who your strongest > relationships are

Guess how it does that... they say on their own page it scrapes email addresses.

<comment><USER6> Download <> analyze; ALL <> Only the recent and relevant ones

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I see from the Google Request for Permission interface that Signal wants to "View your email message metadata such as labels and headers, but not the email body".

That's way too sensitive for me to give away in exchange for uncertain benefits. I realize that I've given this information to Gmail already. But it's not hard to concoct some very _plausible_ bad scenarios of what could happen with this data if I said Yes.

</comment><comment><USER9> There is a major chicken and egg problem here.

As a post-YC company, I know a lot of investors. That means my gmail is valuable to you (since you can pull a bunch of info) but that your service is not valuable to me.

You need to better incentivize users that have the information that makes your service more valuable. Something like AngelList's ability to verify that an investor invested in a company, plus the ability for founders to anonymously leave reviews of investors that you confirm they've spoken with.

If, going into our next round, I could only access those reviews by connecting my work GMail, then I can see why it may make sense.

Right now, I don't know why I would use this and I think I'm your target market.

<comment><USER6> Good thoughts here. Worth noting that Signal doesn't really gain anything from your Gmail data other than the ability to provide you network benefits via the relationship strengths implied by that data. And you don't need to connect your Gmail to use the service. You can sign in with email/password and use all the investor finding tools, which is arguably Signal's primary benefit right now. There isn't a great tool out there to find investors (and similarly, for investors to effectively broadcast what they do and do not want to see). That part isn't chicken and egg. You can use Crunchbase, AngelList, etc., but it's a slog. Signal should keep getting better in that regard.

<comment><USER10> >Signal doesn't really gain anything from your Gmail data other than the ability to provide you network benefits via the relationship strengths implied by that data.

Instagram grew because it imported and co-opted twitters social graph. They absolutely benefit from being able to build a 10,000 foot view of the current social landscape.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > There's a long way to go, so please give feedback

Please don't ask for my Gmail account.

</comment><comment><USER12> Interesting, but can't move past the sign-in portion. I'm not giving a website the ability to see my message subjects, headers and labels. Nothing on your site landing page convinces me of the value in doing so.

<comment><USER6> Sign in with username/password, then. Signal doesn't require Gmail. You can add your Gmail later if you want to / see the benefit to you in doing so. Signal's biggest benefit to founders right now is the investor searching/finding capabilities. You don't need to be Gmail authed to get value from that. If you build, say, a target list of 50+ investors in Signal, you then might want to see your strongest intro paths to those investors. That's when you can consider the Gmail auth. Always up to you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> VC: "How did you get introduced to me?"

You: "That signal app..."

VC: "So [introducer] gave away my personal contact info to a random company?"

</comment><comment><USER13> As a co-founder of a startup with no coastal ties will this help me at all? I don't mean to be overly negative, but this is sounds like an echo chamber. It's probably great to maximize a decently connected fundraising effort. Maybe I am misunderstanding the way Signal 1.0 works.

<comment><USER6> Tons of investors are geography-agnostic. The biggest benefit of Signal right now is simply helping you identify the right investors based on check size, industry preferences, past investments, etc. And I'm sure there are investors in your local area; you should add them to Signal (and invite them to connect if you know them). If your local investor community gets on, that'll give you an outsized benefit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I feel like this is not the problem people are having. I want to talk to Elon Musk, explain him how we can build a warp drive. If I am half as serious in this endeavor, I don't think I would have problem reaching him. If I am crackpot, he doesn't want to talk to me anyway.

Let's say I have idea for new company, next Groupon. I can reach out to local Chicago investors and they will refer me to people who would be interested.

</comment><comment><USER15> Very good idea!

I suspect you will see a lot of "privacy" concerned people jumping into thread. This is a catch-22 of sorts. If Signal picks up momentum, people will gladly give you the gmail id. Until then, they will vocally complain that gmail id and contact list is too dangerous to give away. One approach to get over this initial bump might be to get big CEOs and investors to vouch for the product.

<comment><USER16> I don't see what momentum has to do with it. LinkedIn has plenty of that and I still don't trust them with anything.

<comment><USER6> LinkedIn has 400M+ users.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Brought to you by NFX Cult

</comment><comment><USER18> Looks fantastic. I signed up and started down the workflow-- quite a project!

Looking forward to seeing how this looks in a month or two.</comment>


Renters may get access to rogue landlord database - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49062504 <comment><USER2> NYC has a few resources on checking out bad landlords:

The public advocate puts out an annual list of the 100 worst landlords:

[https://landlordwatchlist.com/](https://landlordwatchlist.com/)

There's also various sites that attempt to connect property ownership data with other city databases, such as inspection violations: [https://whoownswhat.justfix.nyc](https://whoownswhat.justfix.nyc)

<comment><USER3> That's great. The UK really needs some regulations against scammy landlords and agents.

The market is a total Wild West now. During the last 5 years, I have rented many different properties in the Oxbridge area. All brand new houses (I really was the first person living there), from well-known estate agents and with high rental prices.

In all cases except one, I have ended up really dissatisfied. Most properties never attempted to renew my contract after 6/12 months, or asked for an unreasonable rental increase in order to actually kick me out. I suspect this was done to put the property back into the market and generate more fees for the agent. Often, the property would be vacant for a month or two after I left, which makes even less sense.

Twice, my deposit has not been returned and no explanation has been provided. Naturally, I took both cases to the Ombudsman and won. But it is a huge waste of time.

Twice, I had massive floods due to piping issues but received no compensation despite their promises and legal obligation to do so.

I have rented many other properties abroad, including US & Scandinavia. And never had an issue. Here, it is crazy bad. And as a tenant you can't do much, because you need references in order to rent the next flat.

<comment><USER4> > Most properties never attempted to renew my contract

Martin & Co by any chance? They tried this, but they must have forgotten that the property was an annex next to the landlady's main house, and we spoke every day. The estate agent served me an eviction notice, so I just signed a new rolling contract with the landlady directly.

Other evidence of their genius comes from the fact I specifically told them I was wanting to rent a place for my new job in the area, and them then writing to my old employer in Manchester to confirm my future income.

<comment><USER3> No, but I have heard some bad stuff from Martin & Co at work which matches your experience.

The only decent landlord I have had was a rich guy in Cambridge who marketed his properties (he also built them) through Savills (crazy fees though) and managed them himself, without an agent.

So I agree with you. Having middle-men tends to make things even worse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> How about making it symmetrical and also give landlords access to a rogue renter database?

<comment><USER6> Leaving aside the fact that rental markets already have a highly asymmetric power dynamic, landlords in the UK already do have a de-facto mechanism for assessing tenants in the form of landlord references. They can also perform various financial checks, such as employer references, or asking for a guarantor.

On the other hand, I rent in London and do not even know the name of our landlord. He/she operates through various limited companies and an agent. I can infer it through Companies House but that option wouldn't have been available before we put down our holding deposit.

<comment><USER7> > Leaving aside the fact that rental markets already have a highly asymmetric > power dynamic, landlords in the UK already do have a de-facto mechanism for > assessing tenants in the form of landlord references. They can also perform > various financial checks, such as employer references, or asking for a > guarantor.

These are just things they ask for though - there's no special legal power they have to ask for them - you could also ask for the same things from your prospective landlord if you wanted to, and you'd have the same information.

They'd probably decline to provide them and refuse to rent to you, in the same way as you can decline to provide them and refuse to rent from them.

<comment><USER8> > They'd probably decline to provide them, in the same way as you can decline > to provide them.

The consequences of declining are very different for both parties. The landlord moves on to _literally any other prospect_ because everyone else will provide that information. The tenant can move on to only slumlords, who will not insist on a credit/criminal background/reference check. Or they can be homeless.

<comment><USER9> I think that's really more a function of what slant the market is currently in, ie, renter's or landlord's market.

If there were a glut of apartments compared to renters, the desperateness would be reversed.

<comment><USER10> What would the desperateness of the landlords look like, I wonder?

<comment><USER11> A willingness to waive references, fees, et cetera for any halfway decent looking tenant. I've benefited from that in the past.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> hopefully this trend will carry over into employment too - run a background check on a prospective employer before you decide to do business with them

<comment><USER13> There's already Glassdoor (although it has become quite spammy - like LinkedIn before Microsoft bought it).

<comment><USER14> Glassdoor, Yelp etc are all games by reputation management companies and HR departments. It's also in the best interest of Glassdoor and Yelp to allow businesses to remove unsatisfactory reviews, which Yelp already does.

<comment><USER15> Do you have evidence? I've written a number of unsatisfactory reviews on Yelp and they seem like they're still there.

<comment><USER16> They play on the positions: [https://thenextweb.com/insider/2009/02/20/yelp- remove-bad-re...](https://thenextweb.com/insider/2009/02/20/yelp-remove-bad- reviewsfor-price/)

<comment><USER15> 2009?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It would be nice if they could incorporate some indication of respect for deposits as well. From personal experience, the current deposit protection schemes might be legally regulated and they aren't quite as unhelpful and sometimes shady as the private car parking enforcement firms, but they seem to be cut from the same cloth.

</comment><comment><USER18> The reason this is not going to be useful is that every story I've read or personal anecdote I've been told about landlords involves the person's building being sold to a new owner. Usually the rogue landlord buys a rent controlled building that is barely worth owning so the current owner wants out, and the rogue landlord then proceeds to make the place as unlivable as possible for the current tenants in order to convert the units to market rate when they move out. I don't think many landlords are trying to trick people to move into their buildings just to harass them and throw them out.

<comment><USER13> This is England. Rent control isn't a thing.

<comment><USER18> Interesting. So why isn't an activist outfit like Generation Rent (the group pushing for this law) working on getting rent control? In the US everyone on the left takes it as a given that rent control is a good thing.

<comment><USER19> Generation Rent is very much on the left and very much in favour of rent control.

They've already tried but this is a Tory government so they cannot completely destroy the private rented sector.

But be sure that if Corbyn/Labour get in power soon this will be implemented no matter the economics against it.

<comment><USER20> Anecdata: My brother is a small-C conservative who is very worried about Corbyn precisely because he is expecting Corbyn to introduce rent controls. However, he also recently said, and I quote: "The conservatives cannot be trusted with the economy". Given the current clown-car-on-fire-in-a-dumpster that is British politics right now, I would give 50% odds of the next election happening within one year and equally divided odds the largest party after that election being Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, or Brexit Party.

Not that this contradicts anything you've just said.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Landlords already have access to a database compiled from court records of tenants who have ever sued a landlord whether they won or not. At least in the US

<comment><USER21> Post seems unpopular for some reason so here's some proof:

[https://www.povertylaw.org/clearinghouse/article/blacklistin...](https://www.povertylaw.org/clearinghouse/article/blacklisting)

[https://www.brickunderground.com/blog/2014/05/tenant_blackli...](https://www.brickunderground.com/blog/2014/05/tenant_blacklist)

[https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/09/14/new-law-protects- cali...](https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/09/14/new-law-protects-california- tenants-from-blacklists/)

[https://www.apartmentguide.com/blog/do-property-managers- bla...](https://www.apartmentguide.com/blog/do-property-managers-blacklist- bad-tenants/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> And yet still, be unable to do anything about it. Because there is less limited supply.

</comment><comment><USER23> Why exactly is this story on HN? Read the article, and was like - so?... I guess there's a DB mentioned, although containing 10 entries sounds like a joke. So trying to find the "tech" angle and all.

<comment><USER24> I recommend that you read the site guidelines at [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

Specifically "On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity." and "Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it."

In general, if a story is in the front page it means that hackers found it interesting, so it can hardly be off-topic. But if you still think it's inappropriate for this forum, flag it rather than commenting.

I can speculate that this story is found interesting because many people in tech live in areas like San Francisco where rent prices are a hot topic. Therefore stories about how these kinds of places deal with the problem are relevant.</comment></comment>


Mind your slanguage: teenagers finding it hard to speak without slang. - <AUTHOR> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8388545.stm

<comment><USER2> The basic question of teaching students how to speak and write in appropriate registers has been an essential project of schooling for a very long time. Everything else in here is fluff or misinformation. The author of this article clearly had a paucity of material at his disposal, because he almost immediately flies wildly off the rails and just starts paragraphs about any form of non-standard language he can find. Slang, argot, jargon, foreign loanwords, accents, dialects: all of these disparate topics she lumps under the umbrella of 'slang', and solicits 'experts' to just provide some sound bite, any sound bite, about any of the above, so she can fill out space.

The BBC, sadly, is consistently wretched when it comes to reporting about language.

I have to say, though, I do appreciate the subcurrent of racist fearmongering that she could slip in there. Even though the article is allegedly about the dangers of slang and its overuse, she manages to wend around to let us know that our beloved English Cockney (a non-standard variety, of course) is itself under threat by some barbarous cocktail of foreign influences. Oh, and hoodies!

</comment><comment><USER3> I find it awfully hard to speak without slang, too. The bad news is that most of my slang is at least twenty years old, so teenagers might tend to look at me funny, the way I used to look at middle-aged people when I was a teenager.

The good news is that most of my slang is at least twenty years old, so it's a cherished and time-honored part of the traditional English language and is in all the dictionaries.

As you get older it becomes easier to notice how rapidly one can start an ancient tradition. It only takes a couple of decades. Your kids won't necessarily know the difference between venerable wisdom and some nonsense you invented back in college.

</comment><comment><USER4> I wonder if they intentionally put in the translation of "Sik - cool" in the sidebar to emphasise how ridiculous the opening contention of this article is. Or is "cool" no longer slang, daddy-o?

<comment><USER5> Perhaps they actually meant "sick"?

I do find it amusing that both moist AND dry can mean the same thing. "I'm ghost" is an awesome bit of slang though. I like that one very much.

Something funny that I've started seeing a bunch of people use with the recent release of Modern Warfare 2 is "Oscar Mike" because of its use within the game for "On Mission" or "On the Move".

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> So when this slang-using generation grows up and joins the real world they will become the real world, and slang will become acceptable there and everyone will understand it. I fail to see the problem.

<comment><AUTHOR> That might work if generations were discrete, but they're not. I've recently tried to hire a programmer, and while some of the candidates were excellent programmers, none could stand up and give any kind of explanation to a customer of anything. My customers are conservative (to say the least!) and none of the candidates could change their language style to match the listener.

In many industries getting a job early and having work experience is very important, and your employers and colleagues will all be older. Being able to communicate effectively outside your peer group is critical for many jobs. Those that have the skill will benefit. Those that don't could easily get left behind.

Inability to communicate effectively outside your peer group doesn't matter much if you just program and don't try to talk to VCs, bankers, customers or potential mentors.

<comment><USER7> VC chatter I have heard "let's see if the dog hunts" and "augered in" "he is making a crater" "flow me the document".

The author of the article seems to have a view of language that as subject to authority. This view fails to understand how language develops.

<comment><AUTHOR> There is a difference between slang and jargon. Jargon is specific to the domain of discourse, and uses words that are sometimes neologisms and sometimes ordinary words given particular technical meanings, the better to communicate quickly and accurately.

Slang is to use words that create "tribes" or sub-cultures, often to create bonds and connections with your peers, and often do not involve significantly new or specific ideas.

In each case, using your own dialect (slang or jargon) with your peers is one thing, but the ability to drop to a possibly less precise, possibly less efficient, but generally more widely understood common language is important.

That's what the article is about - the apparent inability of the target group (in this case teenagers) to use language appropriate to their listener.

Most half-way competent children of my generation used completely different language at school as compared with home. That's to be expected. What concerns me is the mono-linguality that seems to be emerging.

Yes, it is what it is, and probably nothing can be done about it, and maybe it's not a problem. But recognising that it's happening is at least linguistically interesting.

<comment><USER4> A recent study claimed that (at least in written text) youngsters were actually better than previous generations at writing for a particular audience and switching modes appropriately ( _kairos_ ).

I find it amusing, but unsurprising, that something that gets people all upset (txt messaging and email "slang") is actually shown to enhance kids skills. I really wouldn't be surprised to hear the same about spoken slang.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Bovril Morning, Squadron Leader.

Squadron Leader What-ho, Squiffy.

Bovril How was it?

Squadron Leader Top-hole. Bally Jerry, pranged his kite right in the how's your father. Hairy blighter, dicky-birdied, feathered back on his Sammy, took a waspy, flipped over on his Betty Harper's and caught his can in the Bertie.

Bovril Er, I'm afraid I don't quite follow you, Squadron Leader.

Squadron Leader It's perfectly ordinary banter, Squiffy. Bally Jerry...pranged his kite right in the how's yer father...hairy blighter, dicky-birdied, feathered back on his Sammy, took a waspy, flipped over on his Betty Harper's and caught his can in the Bertie.

Bovril No, I'm just not understanding banter at all well today. Give us it slower.

Squadron Leader Banter's not the same if you say it slower, Squiffy.

(<http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode42.htm#2>)

</comment><comment><USER9> "Appropriacy simply means using the right variety of language for the right context"

And what is wrong with the term "appropriate usage," which is much better attested in dictionaries, for that?

The article is somewhat confused, because it's not clear whether the concern is really teenagers using teen-specific slang, which they always do as part of participating in youth culture, or NOT using standard adult English. Maybe today's teens in today's schools in Britain don't read much classic literature and aren't exposed to worldwide adult usage of English. That would be an argument for improving the quality of the school lessons. But improving the school lessons, while producing graduates who can communicate with speakers of English of all ages from many places, might not reduce use of teen slang for teen-to-teen communication.

</comment><comment><USER8> From the article: "Appropriacy simply means using the right variety of language for the right context -

The OED disagrees, there is no such word as "Appropriacy". There is appropriate and appropriateness.

<comment><USER10> I'm not sure if it's in my nature or my Unix-tradition nurture, but I prefer shorter words, like "propriety."

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Who knew language could change?

I demand a meeting with the Board of Governance for the English Language.

</comment><comment><USER12> I love the side bar with the slang terms defined. It reminded me of an article in the NYT in 1992 about grunge slang in Seattle... which was made up on the spot during an interview:

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

</comment><comment><USER13> There isn't a problem with slang, until you work with those who do not speak English as their primary language. A lot of aid workers I've spoken to actually practice speaking without slang, as the life/death things they need to explain to others needs to be understood.

</comment><comment><USER14> I talk in slang like crazy, but I find it really easy to switch into different speaking modes. I think the issue could be that some kids aren't having enough experiences where they need to switch modes.

</comment><comment><USER15> Welcome to 1957. Or 1857.

</comment><comment><USER16> If you want kids to master English better, don't ban slang words. That would be hiding the symptom. Encourage them to read books instead.

</comment><comment><USER17> This article, or at least the headline, really belongs on the Onion.

</comment><comment><USER18> Yes but no but yes but; Sally is a slag 'cause she ain't even done nothin' or somethin.

<comment><USER8> Whereas: "Bumped into biffo in the rug the other day, didn't he fag for you at big school?" Would be perfectly acceptable.

<comment><USER18> I think some people around here haven't seen Little Britain.</comment></comment></comment>


Sometimes, Establishing Expertise Doesn't Pay Off - <AUTHOR> http://kylecordes.com/2010/expertise-doesnt-pay

<comment><USER2> Hello Mr.Cordes I just hope not every body thinks in terms of converting business to their passion.Business is important but there is always something called mental satisfaction for achieving something that would be helpful to a lot of people.Materialism is good for the growth of society in general but when balanced with compassion its divine.</comment>


PlusPy: Python Interpreter for TLA+ Specifications - <AUTHOR> http://discuss.tlapl.us/msg03588.html <comment><AUTHOR> Direct link to Github repo: [https://github.com/tlaplus/PlusPy](https://github.com/tlaplus/PlusPy)</comment>


FitDesk: Write Code and Burn Calories - <AUTHOR> http://www.amazon.com/FitDesk-FDX-Exercise-Massage-White/dp/B00CM9CBZY

<comment><AUTHOR> I just assembled mine last night, and am currently surfing HN while burning calories. Hopefully will stop wasting time soon and get back to writing code.</comment>


A two-button mechanical keyboard that types ASCII values, one bit at a time - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Chris-Johnston/BinaryKeyboard <comment><USER2> At least one of the screenshots[1] has him entering a value such as

       1001 1010

which isn't ASCII (the 8th bit, the MSB, is set; ASCII is composed of 7 bits).

It seems to give him Ü, which is that bit pattern in at least CP 850[2] (the character encoding used by DOS by computers sold in America / western Europe). Which every time I look up that Wikipedia article brings back the nostalgia of seeing [3] on the screen, and playing games like Hack[4].

[1]: [https://camo.githubusercontent.com/3b29cbd1b405af4a2991e1955...](https://camo.githubusercontent.com/3b29cbd1b405af4a2991e19553f7c38a0863f5f9/68747470733a2f2f7468756d62732e6766796361742e636f6d2f466169746866756c54686f736543726f737362696c6c2d73697a655f726573747269637465642e676966)

[2]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_page_850](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_page_850)

[3]: [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Codepage...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Codepage-850.png)

[4]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hack_(video_game)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hack_\(video_game\))

<comment><USER3> I assume that's because he types the least-significant bit first? That would make ASCII code 89 for capital Y...

<comment><USER4> >types LSB first

That's pretty disturbing.

<comment><USER5> For someone who works with hardware a lot, it's probably trivial to switch endianness mentally.

From the description:

"Each byte can either be typed from most significant bit to least significant bit (left to right), or least significant bit to most significant bit (right to left)."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is such a cool hack. I love it. I want to make one, too. This guy is a true hacker.

Now it's time to nitpick. It doesn't seem that there's any way to generate key-codes.

Entering text is nice, of course, but that's not all that a keyboard does. How about cursor control (arrow keys, PageUp, etc.), function keys, or scroll lock?

One can make control-key combinations, but that limits one to what's available in ASCII. For instance, there's no way to distinguish Ctrl-j from the Return key.

That last point brings up something related. In ASCII, the Control key modifies the bit representation of the key pressed. That's why Emacs in terminal mode can't tell the difference between Ctrl-j, Ctrl-J, and Return. In modern user interfaces, the Control and Alt keys are specialized shift keys that let the OS and applications tell the difference.

Of course, one could do the same workarounds that terminal emulators perform, like using escape sequences and such. Then, while using this device, one would have to know the proper sequences for xterm, or vt420, or, or, or…

Still, nice hack.

EDIT: By the way. Some poor lost soul should be forced to use Emacs with this keyboard. Any suggestions on who should be condemned?

<comment><USER7> _> Entering text is nice, of course, but that's not all that a keyboard does. How about cursor control (arrow keys, PageUp, etc.), function keys, or scroll lock?_

That's easy to add.

In BinaryKeyboard.ino, the SendVal function [1] uses keyboard.write to send the keys. You can see a list of special keys you can send at [https://www.arduino.cc/en/Reference/KeyboardModifiers](https://www.arduino.cc/en/Reference/KeyboardModifiers) but you'll need to use keyboard.press to hold down two keys at once. See [https://www.arduino.cc/en/Reference/KeyboardPress](https://www.arduino.cc/en/Reference/KeyboardPress) which even has some example code.

[1] [https://github.com/Chris- Johnston/BinaryKeyboard/blob/master...](https://github.com/Chris- Johnston/BinaryKeyboard/blob/master/BinaryKeyboard.ino#L169)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Related: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chorded_keyboard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chorded_keyboard)

<comment><USER9> Also Plover for a modern implementation.

[http://plover.stenoknight.com](http://plover.stenoknight.com)

<comment><USER10> I'd heard about stenography keyboards, but I hadn't seen any good demonstrations of them at high speed, so I went looking. This is a really great side-by-side comparison of QWERTY versus a steno keyboard, playing 'Steno Arcade', a game where you have to type lyrics as they're being sung:

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

Steno Arcade itself:

[http://store.steampowered.com/app/449000/](http://store.steampowered.com/app/449000/)

<comment><USER9> And this folks is a compelling argument for Creative Commons music to exist.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This would probably be more efficient: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegraph_key#Iambic_.28dual-l...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegraph_key#Iambic_.28dual- lever.29_Paddles)

<comment><USER12> Yeah, I was thinking the same thing - a morse code speed key would be better.

And, now that I think of it, a huffman code would help too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> That reminds me of this fake ultimate apple ad. It's not exactly the following video, but maybe it helps remembering it: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BnLbv6QYcA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BnLbv6QYcA)

<comment><USER14> Is this what you were thinking of?

[https://youtu.be/BGGOn-H7s3Q](https://youtu.be/BGGOn-H7s3Q)

<comment><USER13> Nope, but I also like it!

</comment></comment></comment><comment> King-Aaron Very slick, though brings this to mind for me: [http://gunshowcomic.com/comics/20120227-robotthatscreams.png](http://gunshowcomic.com/comics/20120227-robotthatscreams.png)

</comment><comment><USER15> Pretty slick! Though half the keys (and many keystrokes) could be removed if Morse code were used.

<comment><USER16> Is Morse Code nore efficient than ASCII?

<comment><USER17> Yes, if you consider there are codes for commen phrases i.e 73 for "best regards".

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_code_abbreviations#Tab...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_code_abbreviations#Table_of_Selected_Morse_Code_Abbreviations)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> So… a telegraph?

</comment><comment><USER19> Reminds me of this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KhZKNZO8mQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KhZKNZO8mQ)

</comment><comment><USER20> Death to CW. Long live CW!

</comment><comment><USER21> Point being? I think I missed something

<comment><USER22> Well given the current trends, this will be the only input device offered in about 2 years.

<comment><USER23> It has too much buttons for an apple device though.

<comment><USER24> No you have to think courageously, innovatively, out of the box: a _touchscreen_ that has exactly two _software_ buttons.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


FDA: Emergency authorization of Hydroxychloroquine for Covid-19 treatment - <AUTHOR> https://www.fda.gov/media/136534/download <comment><AUTHOR> additional info

[https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2020/03/29/hhs-accepts- donati...](https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2020/03/29/hhs-accepts-donations-of- medicine-to-strategic-national-stockpile-as-possible-treatments-for- covid-19-patients.html)

[https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/29/fda-emergency- autho...](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/29/fda-emergency- authorization-anti-malaria-drug-155095)

<comment><USER2> Politico continues to throw shade on the treatment, for obvious political reasons. Meanwhile it is the only approved treatment in India, it has been in use for some time in Malaysia, and it is now the standard treatment in Italy. Trials all over the world are showing great results.

Some of that info and more:

[https://www.trustnodes.com/2020/03/29/italy-finally- starts-m...](https://www.trustnodes.com/2020/03/29/italy-finally-starts-mass- treatment-with-hydroxychloroquine)

<comment><USER3> How extreme does the Trump hatred have to be that people would discriminate against a cure for COVID-19 because Trump recommended it? Bizarre.</comment></comment></comment>


Converse: The wah wah shoe - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jR0GECjyKtk

<comment><USER2> a solution in search of a problem, but its fun (+1)</comment>


Ask HN: What stages of disillusionment have you been through in your life? - <AUTHOR> I know this is a very broad question but this is a very broad and interesting bunch. I lurk here a lot and learn a lot from a lot of you.
I'm 28 and feel like the last 8 years of my life have been a gradual disillusionment.
I used to want to be 'someone' but now that everyone is 'special', I just want to be ordinary.
I admire a few people in history from cultures I resonate with, I don't want to be any of them though.
I don't care for being rich or famous, just building something that solves a practical problem affecting a lot of people at a fair price.
I used to want to 'change the world' or even 'save it', then I realized that the Cosmos is much older and grander than I can imagine, that we can't stop the sun from shining or the earth from spinning, we can disrupt things a little bit for an epoch at most but not forever. It's actually a bit arrogant to think we are that powerful or important, it's liberating to realize how free a person can be when they really, really look at the Cosmic Calendar.
I could go into religion, politics, social movements, family structures, probably everything but I won't, these are all easy targets and most everyone has already heard enough about all these. Even science, as much as I love it, has it's limits while many of it's biggest 'celebrity scientists' are famous for their views than their work.
I may sound morbidly depressed or cynical but I feel very human and honest right now. Like a person who has just had enough, who just wants to be free. <comment><USER2> At 47 I have realised that many of life's frustrations are the result of misguided expectations.

The truth is you want to be famous and are trying to resign yourself to the fact this isn't happening. This may happen but probably won't.

This is what I have grown to expect. My wife and kids to be by my side. One or two close friends to be there for me. To work hard and not get too caught up conparing my life to other people's lives.

Get these things in place or you won't like your 40s :-)

This is a bible passage which shaped my thinking, [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes%20...](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes%205:18-20&version=NIV)

</comment><comment><USER3> Things I thought would happen for me when I was younger, but over time I found out they are pretty unlikely (at least for me):

1\. Having a wide circle of friends.

2\. Finding a "love of my life".

3\. Finding enjoyment in software engineering career.

<comment><USER2> I'd go for two or three close friends rather than a wide circle. I would describe close as those you spend time with and the contact is mutual i.e. you are not the one always initiating the get togethers.

<comment><USER3> I ended up with one really close friend (we live close by, and talk almost daily). As long as that friend is genuinely a great person, that's enough for me. I don't know if I would have bandwidth for another friend.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The system has values that aren't very fulfilling (wealth, power, consumerism). I think a lot of people feel like you do.

No advice really. It's totally true. You are on the one hand a dynamic individual with much to offer the world. Yet at the same time you are one of six billion, floating on a spec of dust in one corner of an infinite universe. Somewhere in the middle is the fulfillment your looking for. ;)

<comment><AUTHOR> > Somewhere in the middle is the fulfillment your looking for. ;)

Funny you say that, I'm actually very much into this train of thought right now. I see the unity in the duality. The Tao instead of yin-yang. The balance of feminine and masculine in each of us. Ancient and modern. Eastern and Western. Red and blue. Capitalism and socialism. APOLLO AND DIONYSUS!

One thing I am looking for is more people on this train of thought. Where could I meet them?

<comment><USER4> Lol. I find many of them work in tech in New York and San Francisco.

Go to burning man and see if that's your tribe.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm working on getting there. I don't think I can this year but I'm gonna put the intention out into the Universe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Plenty (at age 48). But you probably know this, the literal meaning of disillusionment is "being freed from false beliefs or illusions". And that makes life simpler and "truer", so I wish you many more.

</comment><comment><USER6> Thinking I was a special snow flake but realizing I'm just average. A large part of me hopes that's not the case but it's going to take more than hoping to change that.

</comment><comment><USER7> "building something that solves a practical problem affecting a lot of people at a fair price" sounds like an excellent goal! Reminds me of this song: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_zKjSIPd6U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_zKjSIPd6U) And... reality tends to hit pretty hard in late 20s, in my experience! Just hang in there and try to keep doing things that feel fulfilling and productive.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the song, I like it. Family, travel, music, food, film make me happy. Becoming a better designer, developer, copywriter, marketer too.

I think what I'm really experiencing is finding out how much mental illness there is in the world and how much chaos there is as a result of it for every other living thing. How does that make any sense if 'God loves us and wants to be free'? I went through a major dive into Buddhism but it really is a religion too, cult-like at times. There is truth in all of it but freedom is beyond all ideologies and -isms, is it not?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm 25 and thought the woman I'd been married to for 5 years was the love of my life. She was my whole life. I realize now that I had been falling for a game she had been playing since we met.

The illusion wears a bit more each day. Things change. People change. Ideas change. You're forced to adapt and leave behind what you thought was reality.

"You already know what I been on, you know where I be at...men lie, women lie, numbers don't, I see that" -Logic</comment>


Campus protests should stop at the door of the classroom - <AUTHOR> https://aeon.co/ideas/campus-protests-should-stop-at-the-door-of-the-classroom <comment><USER2> The article says: "Of late, student activists have found themselves provoked by disagreements with guest speakers whom faculty members have invited to speak to classes"

This is not something new. Here's a description of students at Columbia who wanted to keep the war criminal Kissinger from teaching there: [https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1977/5/10/keeping- kissing...](https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1977/5/10/keeping-kissinger- out-of-columbias-classrooms/)

The article says: "What universities must insist on, however, is that student protests be compatible with the larger functioning of the university; they should not hinder the ability of anyone on campus to pursue their own activities or the central mission of the university in advancing and disseminating knowledge."

That link I gave to The Crimson suggests otherwise, saying (emphasis mine):

> If the 1960s have any lesson for us, it is that the university serves the > state and that academic freedom, when raised by them, _is merely an attempt > to obfuscate the issues_. In any event, academic freedom is a myth. The > universities are free and open--the source of their funds, the social and > ecnomic position of the trustees, and the manner in which they are run, all > indicate that the university is responsive to the needs and requirements of > the powers that be in Washington and Wall Street. The opening of former > Columbia President Grayson Kirk's files in 1968 confirmed this.

The article says: "By disrupting professors from teaching their courses as they think best, and preventing other students from participating in such courses as they wish, activists assert their own superior authority to dictate the limits of academic freedom and to demarcate the boundaries of acceptable intellectual enquiry on campus."

Sometimes, you know, the students are right. As a hypothetical, if a teacher decides that using irrelevant sexually charged materials is the right way to teach a group theory course, then the students _should_ protest.</comment>


Shadow Banking: Goldman's derivative exposure 25K% of assets in '08, 33K% in '09 - <AUTHOR> http://www.levy.org/pubs/wp_587.pdf

<comment><USER2> OK. This statistic refers to notional value. Adding up notional values makes as much sense as adding apples, oranges, yen and dollars. Actually it makes less sense than that. You cannot understand a bank's book without access to the individual line items.

If you have the line items, you have everything. Without that you have to rely on high level financial statements and the opinions of bank examiners or other regulators. And as Lehman, Madoff, Enron and other cases show, it means you have nothing.

It is time for banks, who operate a public trust, to offer continuous (lagged) line item disclosure to enable crowdsourcing of risk analysis. The markets are running on the informational equivalent of fumes. No wonder they sputter.

I call this Real Transparency. It is no more intrusive than the fact that I can find out how much you paid for your house and how much you borrowed to buy it. Information like this is necessary for the functioning of a proper market and price system. These are worth preserving more than the privileges of banks.

Real Transparency is the kind of regulatory reform that would make a difference. Not the kind which gives power hungry regulators more information to ignore.

<comment><USER3> > It is time for banks, who operate a public trust, to offer continuous > (lagged) line item disclosure to enable crowdsourcing of risk analysis.

I read (probably in the Economist) that a regime like this is already in operation in New Zealand or Australia (if memory serves me right).

<comment><USER2> I believe that you are referring to monetary policy in NZ. This is not the same thing. Essentially I am suggesting that banks have about the same amount of financial privacy that you and I do. They do a lot more transactions, so there is much more for them to tell.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> the derivative exposure could be risk-reducing, fwiw.

<comment><USER3> It could. Though the netting out only works when your counter-parties turn up to play their part.

<comment><USER4> True... However it seems to me that singling out a specific type of transaction (such as derivatives) because it faces this kind of risk (the risk of the instrument * the risk of the counter-party) is a bit silly.

Much of what we finance is based on a mental model the future that might not be true. Consider a mortgage. If your house burns down then you still owe the payment.

So the financial industry invented "fire insurance" for the counter-party risk of derivatives, called CDOs. But they too are blamed for the crisis.

The fact is, any set of financial products/buyers/sellers will converge upon a non-worst-case view of the future, and the price of risk will adjust accordingly. Any line you draw in the sand (such as for capital adequacy requirements) is simply an estimate about how risky the future is... and notably it's still a gamble that the future will occur at or above some point in a probability distribution.

<comment><USER3> I agree. Just for the record: I also love short-sellers.

<comment><USER2> Short sellers got rough treatment during the crisis, much of it undeserved. But we should not lump all short sellers together.

Fear mongers do exist, but they only thrive in a low information environment, such as a panic. If banks and other companies provided, or were compelled to provide better ongoing information, they wouldn't be exposed to rumors in the first place. They probably wouldn't see their stocks overinflated either, due to the actions of legitimate short sellers.

<comment><USER4> I would argue that the "parasitic" short sellers who are information poor should not be viewed differently than "long sellers" who are information poor... and are generally considered perfectly acceptable.

A "panic" is just the price decreasing version of a bubble...

<comment><USER2> I agree. Ever notice how the media always treat a stock market rally like a sunny day? Too many sunny days bring a drought, which in this case means no chance to buy value at a good price. Short sellers are like rain.

My main complaint is that investors are information-starved and our public policy is to blame. All this outrage about people gaming the system is a distraction. We need to fix the system, starting with the banks.

<comment><USER4> I'm curious what your proposed solutions would be... mine are:

\- remove capital adequacy requirements as they (like a paper seatbelt) create a false sense of security. Firms should compete on the basis of soundness as well as other characteristics.

\- pass a law outlawing bank bailouts.

\- remove restrictions on non-accredited investors, short-selling, derivatives/options trading.

\- Increase disclosure requirements for financial institutions.

\- Create a new financial statement called "Statement of Risk Exposure" which is a list of the firms' assets in terms of risk. If an asset is on a debt owed by another firm, then that firm's risk statement could be copied and inserted inline, recursively.

<comment><USER2> You can see my suggestions about transparency above. I won't repeat them here. It provides the teeth to your disclosure requirement. I would suggest that instead of asking for line items by risk, we simply open the banks' books and get an electronic term sheet for everything listed. I don't want to know their risk numbers. They calculated them.

Your other measures are interesting. I would keep capital adequacy but seize the bank before capital went to zero. That would improve incentives a bit.

The key thing is to claw back the economic rents that bankers have been handed. Most of these rents are connected to information that bankers have and we don't. This can be changed, but not with the help of today's regulators who are still in thrall to the banking industry despite their statements to the contrary.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> People (not economists) always blame the crisis on bad lending. That's like saying the guy who had full-blown AIDS died of pneumonia. It's true in a literal sense, but it's not meaningful in that you're blaming the symptom rather than the disease.

</comment><comment><USER6> Uh, it's 25 and 32 THOUSAND % each!

<comment><AUTHOR> Had to shorten the title and missed inserting the K back in. My bad, sorry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Summing notional values is not an intelligent or accurate way to determine a firm's derivative exposure.

Please don't use the terms interchangeably.</comment>


Ask HN: a MMORPG for old people? - <AUTHOR>

As discussed here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1819766 - I think loneliness is a huge problem for old people. Personally, I expect that at least I will be able to pass time with the 2062 equivalent of World of Warcraft when/should I ever get 90 years old. But would todays old people in general get/enjoy the concept? I seriously thought about introducing my granny to WoW...<p>Or maybe I should just try farmville? Any other games that might work? What could work for the generation that is old today? <comment><USER2> I wouldn't want to play an MMO when I get old. Seems like such a waste of time when one's already short on time. Factor in that every MMO will have it's fair share of abusers... that's not something my grandparents would've enjoyed.

If one wants to play and relax, MMO is the wrong kind of game, in my experience.

What games one prefers largely depends on the person. My grandparents wouldn't have played any computer game, because they preferred poking around in their garden, or doing something productive.

Knowing my father, he'll play something like farmville. Knowing myself, I'll play nethack.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well my grandma is 90 and has troubles walking. Gardening is not an option anymore. Not that she wouldn't want to do something productive. Maybe internet could make that possible, too - ideas?

<comment><USER2> Perhaps, but definitely not MMOs. There's a lot to read on the internet, for example.

There's also a lot of forums (bible forums, if she's religious, for example) where one can participate..</comment></comment></comment>