Extend Drake ("Make for data") with a Simple Clojure Project - <AUTHOR> http://blog.factual.com/extend-drake-make-for-data-with-a-simple-clojure-project

<comment><USER2> Nice!</comment>


My Heart - <AUTHOR> http://blog.harjtaggar.com/6bPvinnp7uoZJQ6UASqy1lKC

<comment> grey-area _Am I missing other major downsides to taking a more proactive approach to managing my own health? Are there other things I should consider looking at to get a complete picture of my health?_

What makes you think that reducing these metrics would make any difference to your health? If they are sometimes correlated with high risk that doesn't mean they cause high risk, or that the risk is significantly altered if they are lowered. Doesn't your lack of medical training worry you when attempting a diagnosis?

It's certainly reassuring to feel you can do something, but beyond the general advice given to you to eat healthily and watch for symptoms, perhaps there is nothing you can do if you are genetically predisposed to problems?</comment>


Ask HN: Open accelerator program without the VC? - <AUTHOR> As a new bootstrapped business with an experienced team (read, older with families, mortgages and our own money), we are in a weird place when it comes to traditional accelerator programs.  We can self-fund, have solid track record and experience and know our target market well. It's always going to be a 7 digit/yr thing. We're not on a track interesting to VC at all.  We want to build a good business that grows.
What we lack, though, is the explosive boost in everything related to launching a new business that comes from being an accelerator program. We have thought of simulating it, but it's clear it's not the same.
Is there an open option that provides a similar framework for "the rest of us". If there isn't, why not? <comment><USER2> It's not an accelerator but rather a conference: you want Amy Hoy and Alex Hillman's BaconBiz conference in Philadelphia ([http://baconbiz.com/](http://baconbiz.com/)), or the Business of Software conference in Boston ([http://businessofsoftware.org](http://businessofsoftware.org)), or Rob Walling and Mike Taber's MicroConf in Las Vegas ([http://www.microconf.com/](http://www.microconf.com/)).

All three are for bootstrapped businesses. All three also have incredibly useful and non-fluffy videos of their past speakers online, well worth watching even if you can't attend the actual events.

And keep the faith -- the VC model has tremendous drawbacks for many people, especially those of us who are not willing to essentially become indentured servants. Bootstrapping is highly underrated.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I will definitely dig into these. I absolutely agree regarding VC. Even if for some reason you DID want VC calling the shots, it's still way too early. If you look at the company itself in terms of an MVP, why go selling it to a customer before its ready?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This isn't going to help you, but that's what we did locally (in Richmond, VA) for the Lighthouse Labs accelerator - no investment, just mentorship, space, and a demo day. 3 of the companies are growing considerably, but only 2 ended up raising funding - the other was always going to be bootstrapped. It worked out great! Our next class is going to get funding (same amount as YC) for 0% in equity to maintain the integrity of the program, with an option to take more and give up equity. We're really excited about it and I think someone with more prestige should do it nationally.

</comment><comment><USER4> I suppose you should consider what it is that an accelerator offers, and what it is that they cost, how an accelerator actually works and what you are looking for.

For example for some companies the VC seed funding that an accelerator provides may not be crucial, but the access to business advice, mentors and contacts could be. This generally costs equity - would this be something you'd be after? Are you after no costs, or less costs than the typical startup in an incubator? Why would an entrepreneur want to invest their time but not their money?

<comment><AUTHOR> The cost is definitely a fair point. We could definitely pay for it if it existed. We may not be looking aggressively for mentors' time, but more of a framework.

Or, to put it another way, is there a MOOC "course audit" form of YC?

<comment><USER5> In case it makes you feel any better, YC doesn't really offer a framework for business (at least in the traditional sense of the word "framework") - it's more about getting advice, the network, and demo day.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> My experience in trying to raise funding for a business model similar to yours had me asking the same questions. If you're not shooting for the moon in terms of business size, VCs (and thus accelerators) are just not interested. They claim that it takes just as much time to "administer" a large investment as a small one, and thus they are only interested in the companies that are swinging for the fences. There seems to be a financing gap for "mid-size" companies, ones that fall between small local businesses and companies seeking to be the next Google. There's probably a big opportunity in this niche.

</comment><comment><USER7> Most US States and Canadian Provinces have Self-employment programs (SEPs) that provide 8-12 weeks of extensive training using their framework followed by 6-12 months of one-on-one mentoring and guidance. They also hold networking events for you to network with past and present members of the program. These programs are primarily funded and supported by state and federal small business initiatives.

I went through a similar SEP program in Toronto. I am again considering similar program in WA state for my bootstrapped business. From my experience, these programs are better once you have already started your business and have gone past initial excitement and need some external insights and influence to develop business further.

Some of these resources may help you identify appropriate programs and mentoring: Small Business Administration [http://www.sba.gov/category/navigation-structure/starting- ma...](http://www.sba.gov/category/navigation-structure/starting-managing- business/starting-business), SCORE [http://www.score.org](http://www.score.org), Small Business Development Center [http://www.wsbdc.org](http://www.wsbdc.org) (if you are WA state, I am sure other states have similar program).

There are a few VC type funds who invest in businesses with potential for steady cash flow and not looking for moonshot. These funds typically expect regular distributions/dividend/return of principal from your business. I believe a few years ago, Andy Sack in Seattle was raising a similar fund. I am sure there may be some in your geographical area.

If your business is an established segment, you may be able to find someone who already started another business in same/similar segment who may be interested in mentoring and guiding you. Typically, these people tend to be older age, founders themselves, started from nothing and now want to help someone else do the same. Clicking with them and chemistry is much more important here. I have a friend who started an industrial equipment company who was taken under wing by a guy who was already very successful in industrial equipment space with his own group of companies. My friend took his company to $70 million in revenue with guidance from the guy.

</comment><comment><USER8> You might want to answer what you want from the accelerator - you seem to be hinting @ growth - you might want to qualify that further since you seem to be covered on market access and possibly money

<comment><AUTHOR> What we find most appealing is the rapid initial launch framework. The growth is really just growing into our pants. It's not startup growth, rather comfortable small business growth. A million or two a year in revenue if we execute right.

The VC path is not attractive for us or for them since there's probably no exit. That doesn't mean we don't see the strong benefits of the initial huge push and mindset that accelerators foster. Make sense?

<comment><USER9> What you need ask is, what good is the "boost" money, if there won't be 10-20 million in sales (or even more)?

by taking money on what-so-ever terms or SUPPOSE you magically find a lot of it somewhere, you are only fixing the supply side of things, not the demand.

If the demand is there, as you supposedly make it out to be, why can't in this day and time, you reach customers more rapidly then you are right now? (and is there a genuine short-cut? at all??) This is the question you should be asking yourself.

so in short, how can money help fix that?

In my opinion you are facing a few natural doubts, but the main problem is that there are two closely knit issues, instead of one. You have to treat the questions: WHAT MONEY? & HOW SPEND IT? separately.

Sorry, I know your question "seems" more about factual parts, but I believe that, from the way you put it, you have some intellectual parts as well that need to be sorted out.

<comment><AUTHOR> We are bootstrapping, so there's no interest in money or outside investment. That's not the spirit of the question -- more to do with the huge productivity and motivational effects around an accelerator-style launch.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Not quite what you're looking for, but recently, someone tried an online incubator idea called nreduce - [http://joshschwartzman.com/#/nreduce/](http://joshschwartzman.com/#/nreduce/)

I think they shut it down eventually. Find more in old discussions - [https://hn.algolia.com/?q=nreduce#!/story/forever/0/nreduce](https://hn.algolia.com/?q=nreduce#!/story/forever/0/nreduce)

</comment><comment><USER11> I am in a similar situation. Every time I think about accelerators I try to decide if it is a rational decision or one based on ego and desire for attention. I will probably not be recognized for what I am doing except for the people that I serve. My company is profitable and will continue growing. Could an accelerator or a bit of hype speed up my company such that is worth what I give up in return? Very few accelerators provide an explosive boost.

</comment><comment><USER12> May I ask what acceleration means? I always thought it's another word for money and some pro tips.

 _I, would be happy, if I could join an experienced and older team and start working on an interesting problem. Doing my M.Sc. in CompSci in Germany atm. and none of my friends has any entrepreneurial ambitions or skills, which is depressing and sad. All of them just want a job in the industry. Not really expecting payment._

</comment><comment><USER13> Check out SLP [http://www.startupleadership.com/](http://www.startupleadership.com/).

Also heard several good things from startups who were part of Microsoft Accelerator ( [https://www.microsoftventures.com/](https://www.microsoftventures.com/) )

</comment><comment><USER14> One Million By One Million is an accelerator that doesn't take equity: [http://1m1m.sramanamitra.com/](http://1m1m.sramanamitra.com/)

[http://www.quora.com/Sramana-Mitra-1](http://www.quora.com/Sramana-Mitra-1)

Disclosure: I have no affiliation with them.

</comment><comment><USER15> Checkout Startup Weekend NEXT [http://www.swnext.co/](http://www.swnext.co/)

Unsure of if you are looking for a peer group to help you through the highs and lows or a PR plan (accelerator graduates rarely have a huge splash, it is all about habits formed and community support).

</comment><comment><USER16> I think this is basically what Kickstarter is. It gives you a defined set of goals and a deadline. You do a pitch and get money. But instead of that money buying equity, it buys your product or service, validates your idea, and hooks you into advice from the best advisors of all - your customers.

</comment><comment><USER17> You might like to check out NYU Incubators @ 137 Varick Street, DUMBO, and Urban Futures Lab at 15 Metrotech in BK. Independent accelerators and support systems attached inside, university support, NYC govt and private company backing.

</comment><comment><USER18> You don't need an accelerator. As far as I can tell from the data, it's unclear whether there is any net gain to being in an accelerator at all.

</comment><comment><USER19> co-working spaces</comment>


Our Electric Future - Andy Grove - <AUTHOR> http://www.american.com/archive/2008/july-august-magazine-contents/our-electric-future

<comment><USER2> Wow. Read this. Completely. This is exactly the kind of news I hope to pick up in this group... (the dot dot dot is indeed a reference to the watered down crap that has been posted here recently)

How refreshing is to to get a perspective from a former CEO of an enormous corporation. He writes for a large audience, beyond the easy geeks and enthusiasts.

He brought 'global warming', an issue that not everyone agrees with, out of the picture, and more into the 'free benfit' category, a necessary move for a national (i.e. midwestern) debate. He challenged the current and previous leaders of our free world as to why they have not even come close to upholding the degree of nixon. Brilliant.

We have a problem people should want to solve. This is a good step in letting people know exactly what will help their kids to be truly free.

(I'm sorry for saying the word 'crap' up above but seriously, only 1/4 of the posts here have to do with innovation, hacking, and making something from nothing. I really don't care about twitter's issue of the day. Let's do a weekly summary.)

ok. out of my system.

geekworld ignite!!

</comment><comment><USER3> If HN had a 'best submission of the year' award, this article would be a contender.

What an impressive, thoughtful analysis of a huge problem.

ps - I recommend reading his bio (Swimming Across: A Memoir.).

</comment><comment><USER4> Regarding battery technology, if I'm not mistaken, that's already a solved problem: Lithium-Ion batteries have great capacity and are quite light. Their only problem is "venting with flame" if you don't charge/discharge them within their limits, but electronic control can mostly eliminate that.

Now we just need a battery company to start making car-battery-sized Li-Ion's and sell them for a reasonable price. When that happens, I think you'll see some serious action.

</comment><comment><USER5> A really excellent analysis of our current dilemna.

We gotta get off the fossil fuel bandwagon and start using things that can be produced at home. Andy explains how to do that.

Great post.

</comment><comment><USER6> Electrification is critical, but this article fails to adequately explore the issue of where all this electricity will come from. North American natural gas will be in rapid depletion within 15 years, probably sooner. The high quality anthracite coal is pretty much gone. Claims of the US being the "Saudi Arabia of Coal" are unfounded and net energy from coal mining will probably start to decline within 20 years. Never mind that coal mining is extremely oil intensive. Talk of more electricity starting right now basically means nuclear, and some say the uranium situation isn't as simple as you might assume. You could also begin highly uncertain bets on solar and tidal technologies. He kind of understates the challenge.

This talk of electric cars is also a bit silly. Electrifying transport means RAIL. Don't open the issue with electric cars. Electric cars will probably only ever be good as short commuters due to the physics of battery energy storage density. That's just a small piece of the transportation challenge. Might as well just get people to drive much smaller, more efficient cars, and more mopeds and motorcycles; that's just as good a solution. There will probably never be electric trucks. There will never be electric passenger planes. As indicated above, our capability to substitute electricity watts for our current gasoline watts is not nearly as certain as he seems to assume. Rail is far more efficient and lessens this risk. The proposition of sinking massive amounts of capital into new experimental infrastructure for mass use of electric cars just as we're taking trillion dollar write-downs on gasoline and car related infrastructure is a also bit far fetched. There are no ifs or buts about rail. It's a simple, known quantity.

Anyone talking about electric cars and not rail deserves to be hit in the face with toy train.

<comment><USER7> Electric rail is completely orthogonal to electric cars. Gasoline, used almost only in personal vehicles and light trucks, was responsible for 9 million barrels per day in 2004:

[http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_public...](http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/dem_image_us_cons_prod.htm)

Electric cars are suitable to replace at least two-thirds of those vehicles, yielding a savings of 6 million barrels/day. I say this because the commute for 68% of people is under 30 miles round trip:

[http://www.bts.gov/publications/omnistats/volume_03_issue_04...](http://www.bts.gov/publications/omnistats/volume_03_issue_04/html/entire.html)

Even if trains were the only use for diesel fuel and you converted every single one to pure-electric, that is less than 3 million barrels per day (the transportation section of the "distillates" column).

YOU can convert your car today. See <http://www.evdl.org> and <http://www.evalbum.com> for help and examples.

However, I would love to have high-speed electric trains for cross-country travel instead of flight.

EDIT-I've heard it alleged rails are not electrified because the property tax increases, see

<http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2006-05a.htm>

<comment><USER6> I'm questioning your premise that it's possible to substitute electricity for gasoline on the scale you're indicating. The generation isn't there. Much smaller, much slower cars used a lot less are far more plausible than huge numbers of electric cars.

<comment><USER7> The electricity used to refine a gallon of gasoline can propel an automobile between 10 and 30 miles. I'm sorry I can't come up with a link at this moment, but see this one to notice a strong dependency of refiners on electricity:

[http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/special/california/june...](http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/special/california/june01article/caoutside.html)

In addition, electric cars are 10x more efficient from their "fuel", 3x more efficient if the source is dinosaur juice. 33kwh/gallon of gasoline, 30mpg is 3kwh/mile. Converted, that car would use 0.3kwh/mile of electricity.

<comment><USER7> Err, I b0rked the numbers:

36.8kwh/gallon of gasoline yields 1.2kwh/mile @ 30mpg, four times the electric version. If the energy comes from combined-cycle coal plant (50% efficient), then your advantage is two times. The comparison with nuclear, hydro, etc is difficult to make.

The best advantages are the ability to be energy-independent -- on a personal AND national level. An electric car will be zero-polluting for its entire life (no catalytic converter needed!) and, with fewer moving parts, can last longer.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Secret Government Rulebook For Labeling Someone a Terrorist - <AUTHOR> https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/07/23/blacklisted/ <comment><USER4> I suspect many onlookers are going to misunderstand the intent of the rules that fill rulebooks like these. I suspect this because of ChuckFrank's comment which identifies problems and proposes solutions, as all we hackertypes instinctively do.

The thing is, when they say:

> create a 'nomination', 'verification' and 'implementation' process with > their "originators," "nominators," "aggregators," "screeners," and > "encountering agencies."

And we all reel in horror at how bad this is procedurally, we must remember that they are not doing this to determine terrorists. They are doing this because if they do put people on lists and need to watch them (for whatever reason), and end up being very wrong, they need to diffuse the damage to organization level (which cannot be held accountable) instead of individuals.

In other words, its not about codifying who is a suspected and actual terrorist. It's about internal damage control so that no individual can be blamed when something goes wrong. I'm not sure the US Gov is _entirely_ at fault here, at least not in a actually-tring-to-be-sinister sense. I think that most large businesses end up with these same processes for the exact same reasons. The only difference here is the topic, which is creepy as hell. But I think its working as intended.

(Business example: General Motors deadly ignition switch recall[1]. Their processes are set up to shift blame, not to locate discrete problems that trace back to discrete decisions.)

This is why Khalid El-Masri (See qeorge's comment) can never face his accuser. He was accused by aggregate.

It's processes determination by firing squad.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_General_Motors_recall](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_General_Motors_recall)

<comment><USER5> Your point is excellent. It's not that this process is created in error. The process is created to 'diffuse the damage to an organizational level - <USER2> cannot be held accountable.'

Still I think that aside from gross incompetence or negligence, as a society we understand that people make mistakes such as prosecutorial error, and we have systems in place to deal with them (more or less).

And yes, the problem is that here, as with problems in the criminal justice system, it's not only creepy as hell, but it also undermines the optimal functioning of a system. Resources get mis-allocated, contributing members of society get impeded, justice is denied, power differentials are exacerbated, etc.

Transparency, equitability, justice those are all essential components to a great society, both in terms of functioning and in terms of ethics - and we should be doing the work to make it happen. Here's another opportunity to do so.

Great point though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Two things are very noteworthy in this:

Page 9 (concerning the definition of "terrorism"): > _1.14.1 involve Violent acts or acts dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure_

 _Property_? Tell me this is not a deliberately broad definition intended to be used against inconvenient persons.

Page 22: > _1.51 In determining whether an individual is a KNOWN or SUSPECTED TERRORIST, NCTC will rely on the designation of "KNOWN TERRORIST" provided by the NOMINATOR as presumptively valid._

 _Presumptively valid_. Let that sink in for a moment. It could not be put in clearer terms that a targeted person will be _assumed guilty until proven innocent_. This is a basic perversion, no, inversion, of due process and the justice system.

EDIT: The OCR'd version of the document and the original have significant textual differences. Updated.

<comment><USER7> Pulling individual sentences out of their context tends to be misleading. Editing the cherry-picked parts is virtually guaranteed to be misleading.

Here, you omitted the phrase 'known terrorist' from the middle of the sentence you quote on page 22. This totally changes the meaning of the quoted sentence. Also, you chose not to include the following sentence which described how such a presumption could be overcome if the investigative body in question had credible information to the contrary. Finally, you overlooked the fact that 'nominators' in this context refers to other government agencies, relying on existing procedures for designation of someone as a 'known terrorist', and that said procedures form the due process in question. The point of this is to avoid bureaucratic duplication and waste. If the FBI sends the NCTC someone's bio and states them to be a known terrorist (based on facts in said bio), then it's entirely reasonable for the NCTC to take the FBI's information at face value unless it receives information to the contrary.

Such designation is presumptively valid in that situation because the FBI itself is subject to law. If different agencies of the executive branch are required to reject each others' conclusions by default and investigate every assertion _de novo_ the outcome would be ontological paralysis. At such time as someone is detained and charged with terrorist the matter is handed over to the judicial branch, where a court serves the role of finder of fact. Essentially, you're demanding that trial precede investigation.

<comment><USER6> > Here, you omitted the phrase 'known terrorist' from the middle of the > sentence you quote on page 22. This totally changes the meaning of the > quoted sentence.

Ah, damn. The "text" version of the page which I tried to read does not contain that phrase at all. Bad OCR, I guess. :/ In any case, I do not see how it significantly alters my indignation at it; if some 3-letter agency decides to _wink, wink_ _nudge, nudge_ and label an inconvenient person as a known terrorist as per the aforementioned broad definitions of the word, that person is likely screwed.

> Also, you chose not to include the following sentence which described how > such a presumption could be overcome if the investigative body in question > had credible information to the contrary.

That subsequent sentence adds _absolutely nothing_ that is contrary to what I pointed out. It only says that the investigative agency has the power to judge someone as guilty, but also to later change it's mind if it finds evidence of non-guilt. It can blacklist me. It can remove me from the blacklist if it so chooses, but I don't care about that, I do care that it can blacklist me though. Therefore I do not see how not including that sentence changes the meaning in any way, let alone 'totally'.

> Finally, you overlooked the fact that 'nominators' in this context refers to > other government agencies, relying on existing procedures for designation of > someone as a 'known terrorist', and that said procedures form the due > process in question.

Procedures, procedures, procedures...

My purpose was to highlight that nowhere in this thing that you call "due process" is a judge or the target kept in the loop. Just the existence of a "process" does not mean that it is _due process_

> Such designation is presumptively valid in that situation because the FBI > itself is subject to law.

You seem to be assuming that if there is a process, it is due process. If an agency is officially subject to law, it will never act contrary to law.

> Essentially, you're demanding that trial precede investigation.

Not exactly... I'm demanding that they get a warrant. Getting a warrant != having a trial.

<comment><USER7> Please consider reading my response again, as I think you're misunderstood several of statements at a grammatical level.

 _My purpose was to highlight that nowhere in this thing that you call "due process" is a judge or the target kept in the loop. Just the existence of a "process" does not mean that it is due process_

But 'due process' does not just mean 'judicial process'. It includes administrative process, which is what the executive branch does. Indeed, it's not uncommon for courts to dismiss suits on the basis that a plaintiff has failed to exhaust his or her administrative remedies, ie has not run into a brick wall in dealing with the bureaucracy, resulting in a legal controversy.

Regarding the warrant vs. trial - reasonable enough, but the fact remains that warrants are only issued subject to probable cause,and probable cause can only be established by investigation. It seems to me that you're demanding that government agencies get a warrant in order to open an investigation at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Here is one example where sloppy watch list policies like these resulted in the prolonged torture of an innocent person:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El- Masri](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri)

<comment><USER9> Enhanced interrogation techniques, you mean. Everybody knows the us gov would never torture anybody. Just enhance them. With interrogation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Some ludicrous statistics: "In a recent court filing, the government disclosed that there were 468,749 KST nominations in 2013"

The government is saying that there are ~1,500 known or suspected terrorists per million population. Or in other words, the city of San Francisco is home to ~1,250 known or suspected terrorists. or to put it another way. That there are 1 known or suspected terrorists every 3 city blocks in San Francisco 468749/313.9e6 _837442 /(46.87/(636.5_581/5280 __2))

<comment><USER11> Technically, it's more like 167 terrorists per million. The TSDB is a global database that is a subset of TIDE plus domestic names. TIDE is probably about 1/3 again larger than TSDB, with news reports pegging TIDE's size at about 875,000 names. If we assume that terrorists (or, as the source document likes to term them, "TERRORISTS") are confined to persons over the age of 15 (only true in the general case, I'm sad to say), then the database contains .017% of the targeted world population.

An interesting question is whether TSDB and TIDE can even actually track the majority of militants worldwide -- for example, your average ISIS fighter or Donetsk militiaman, as opposed to terrorists seeking to carry out attacks in non-combat areas. The idea that there are 875K al-Qa'ida-style terrorists working worldwide wouldn't pass the laugh test with most analysts. Consider that ISIS, which is either a very large terrorist group or a very small conventional army, has a personnel list somewhere between 10K and 20K, and the Pakistani Taliban is thought to have between 5K-10K fighters. The size of the TSDB, even if it were a strict superset of _all_ actively anti-American terrorists and militants in the world, is likely an order of magnitude too large.

<comment><USER10> Good counter point. I assumed all KSTs were US citizens. As far as I'm aware, that probability isn't divulged.

<comment><USER11> According to news reports, about 5% of names in TSDB are AMCITS or LPRs, though it appears that share may be rising relative to the overall growth of the list.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I posted this a few days ago, but I will repost it here:

If they are terrorists (criminals) and the government is not prosecuting them, the government is breaking the law.

If they are innocent of wrongdoing (not terrorists) and the government is depriving them of rights afforded to others, the government is breaking the law.

<comment><USER13> That's the irony here. If they put you on the terrorist list, it's decisively because you are not actually a terrorist; the various travel restrictions would just instantly alert you to the fact that they found out about you.

So the real terrorists don't end up on the list.

<comment><USER7> Faulty logic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Please take a look at the actual history and contemporary use of government watchlists. This is not about terrorism. Its about suppressing dissent and consolidating power.

People don't want to believe it, they want to think their government is only motivated to help them. But the reality is that we absolutely must compare this situation to the one in East Germany with the Stasi.

</comment><comment><USER15> "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

\- Martin Niemöller

<comment><USER16> Godwin's law comes true alarmingly quickly on HN.

<comment><USER17> You know, I'm increasingly becoming very disenchanted with Godwin's law.

I think that Nazis are a great study and we should compare as many things as possible to them, as a cautionary tale.

I understand that "Nazi!" gets thrown around heedlessly, but I'm suspicious of any retorical device whose job is to tell you when to stop thinking.

<comment><USER18> But to be fair, most attempts to analogize Nazism and Hitler _are_ intended to stop you from thinking and stifle debate. Once someone claims that, for example, the US government is the modern analogue to the Nazis and _they 'll come for you soon, dear hacker, the way they came for the Jews_ then they're saying that, as far as they're concerned, anyone who would suffer further debate about the issue is defending an absolute and irredeemable evil.

Or they're just engaging in paranoid, thoughtless hyperbole. Either way, it isn't helpful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> >> Obama hoped that his response to the "underwear bomber" would be a turning point. In 2010, he gave increased powers and responsibilities to the agencies that nominate individuals to the lists, placing pressure on them to add names.

That part bothers me the most. By telling agencies to add names to the list, you don't automatically get more bad guys, you're just going to get more people on the list. A fair question would be "how much do we need to expand our scope to where we would have listed a certain person known to be a bad guy that slipped through?" And of course one data point isn't really terribly relevant, but the answer to the question may be enlightening - or not.

<comment><USER20> It's even more confusing that Obama would push for more names to be added when the article clearly states that the underwear bomber was already on the list:

>...after a Nigerian terrorist was able to board a passenger flight to Detroit and nearly detonated a bomb sewn into his underwear despite his name having been placed on the TIDE list...

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> > It also allows for dead people to be watchlisted.

That actually makes great sense as identity spoofs, or at least that's what I read in Kevin Mitnick's Ghost in the Wires, are most easily done under the name of deceased infants near your own year of birth.

<comment><USER22> Indeed. A deceased person flying should raise red flags everywhere.

<comment><USER23> I've heard before that people had problems getting on a plane because they had the same name as someone on the no-fly list. It would be really frustrating if they want to question everyone at the airport if they have the same name as a deceased person.

<comment><USER21> Yeah that's a confirmed thing to happen (as the article mentions, in 2004 a senator's name looked like a terrorist's and the senator noticed), but I'm not sure the name is the only thing that makes a deceased person deceased. I mean, they'd probably include the DoB and birthplace and such things, which makes it more unique. At least, I'd hope so.

<comment><USER24> Your hope is misplaced. For if they do include the DOB they certainly ignore it.

[http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10725741/ns/us_news- security/t/-ye...](http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10725741/ns/us_news- security/t/-year-old-turns-government-no-fly-list/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Link to the original pdf [http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1227228/2013-watchlist...](http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1227228/2013-watchlist- guidance.pdf)

<comment><USER26> Thanks for the direct link. It was pretty frustrating that they weren't making it easy to download.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> What is really interesting about this document is that they are trying to create the rule book for determining suspected and actual terrorists. This is not an easy task.

This is why they create a 'nomination', 'verification' and 'implementation' process with their "originators," "nominators," "aggregators," "screeners," and "encountering agencies."

But the problem comes down to the actual facts. This document does a terrible job of separating a process design - First a candidate gets originated by an originator, who passes that said candidate on to a nominator, etc - from the basic factual requirements needed to become listed as a suspected (or actual) terrorist. (Though the latter would seem easier to determine.)

What is really needed is a clear set of factually determined checks to show that someone is indeed a suspected terrorist. Not a process design that creates a structure towards watch list inclusion.

In design this is often a problem. It's a very common mistake. Teams, Companies, Professionals design a process, but not the necessary, required steps - and everything just gets lost in that process, especially when everything takes place according to the plan.

Here's what the watch list needs. A list that triggers inclusion.

If a appears to have done x, y or z, a get's "originated." If x, y, and z are verified, a gets nominated. At this point counter rationales for x, y and z must be presented to excuse the suggestion of terrorism when there is none. Etc.

What is important are the verifiable X, Y and Z actions. That's what a document of this type should present.

Now I know that the response is that if people are told how they get onto a watchlist, they will try to avoid those tasks while maintaining their terrorist agenda, thereby avoiding being categorized as a suspect.

But isn't that the point, don't we want people to not engage in pre-terrorist activity, like going to a training camp in Afghanistan, or sending money to organizations who have actively taken responsibility for civilian bombings. Isn't that the point?

Getting people to be classified as suspected terrorists is not what a watchlist should be about. A watchlist should be about commonly agreed upon actions that as a society we do not support, and we can change our minds about what we do and do not support over time.

Then the watchlist can be public, those on the watchlist can be public, their reason for being on the watchlist can be public and we can decide - together- who should and should not be on a watchlist.

We already do it with criminals. Why is this process any different?

Criminals can be just as deadly and corrupting to our society, but yet we've figured out a way (to some degree) to deal with them. We should be able to do the same with Terrorists.

A new process is possible, one that will in fact make us, and everyone safer. This method is not that process. Or at least that is my opinion.

<comment><USER7> There's an exhaustively detailed exploration of the standards for inclusion from page 33-49 which seems to me to be a set of lists (of activities, memberships in proscribed organizations, relationships with publicly sanctioned individuals etc. etc.) that trigger inclusion of the sort you are asking for.

There's also extensive guidance over who should _not_ be included and when people should be removed from such lists. I can't help feeling tat most of the commenters here are stating their assumptions about the document's content without giving it even a cursory reading.

 _Then the watchlist can be public, those on the watchlist can be public, their reason for being on the watchlist can be public and we can decide - together- who should and should not be on a watchlist. We already do it with criminals. Why is this process any different?_

We don't publish lists of suspected criminals. For many offenses requiring procedural steps prior to arrest and charge (eg presentment to a grand jury which returns an indictment), the process is _not_ public, mainly to preserve individuals' rights.

<comment><USER27> >There's an exhaustively detailed exploration of the standards for inclusion from page 33-49 which seems to me to be a set of lists (of activities, memberships in proscribed organizations, relationships with publicly sanctioned individuals etc. etc.) that trigger inclusion of the sort you are asking for.

Not really. pp. 47-49 contain examples, and prior to that, there is no specific behavior for "Reasonable Suspicion", which is probably the catchall for putting regular people on the watch list. The "Known Terrorist" and "Suspected Terrorist" sections contains specifics, but you don't have to be either of those to be put on the TSDB. You do have to have "Particularized Derogatory Information" which is specific information relating you to known terrorists or suspected terrorists. However this requirement is not expanded upon (that I can see).

The section that talks about how people should be removed from the list is short (less than a page), and basically says "we should look into it if someone complains". There is no mention of court procedures, there is a single point of contact (the DHS TRIP), and there are procedures that seem to basically amount to "look again". There is no requirement for disclosure of what put you on the list, and thus no means to effectively fight it.

I realize why you are complaining about people not doing a "cursory reading", but the fact is, a cursory reading can support as many false statements as just reading the article. It also gives a false sense of security in your beliefs. I can't be 100% sure of my statements above because I haven't read it fully, but I'm more sure of them than of your statements.

<comment><USER7> Maybe you should try looking at pages 37-42 which defines 13 different categories of suspected terrorists. I fail to see why you don't think this is relevant.

 _The section that talks about how people should be removed from the list is short (less than a page), and basically says "we should look into it if someone complains". There is no mention of court procedures [...]_

That's because this is _administrative_ guidance. The executive branch isn't part of the judicial branch. Agencies don't make rules about court procedure, the judiciary does. You're conflating two completely separate branches of government.

\--

Let me give you a super-quick civics lesson on US government, just so we're on the same page.

The _Legislative_ branch consists of the House & Senate, aka Congress. The main thing it does is produce _Statutory Law_.

The _Executive_ branch is headed by the President and includes all the various agencies of government. Agencies which are tasked by Congress with carrying out various tasks are required to promulgate rules and establish internal procedures (such as guidance in the implementation of the rules) for their own governance. These rules and procedures make up _Administrative Law_.

The _Judicial_ branch resolves controversies between other branches of government, between the states and the federal government, and so on. Court decisions can cite statutory law, administrative law (if the case involves the operations of a government agency), common law (loosely, a set of legal traditions), and precedent established by higher courts. New precedents are sometimes referred to as _judicial law_.

\--

Now, statutory law might define which matters fall within the purview of the courts, and there's a great deal of judicial law addressing how legal disputes should proceed through the courts, but I wouldn't expect to find such things discussed in an agency guidance document. Obviously I'm only describing the very tip of the legal iceberg here, but there seem to be some very basic misconceptions in this thread about how the government functions.

<comment><USER27> >Maybe you should try looking at pages 37-42 which defines 13 different categories of suspected terrorists. I fail to see why you don't think this is relevant.

Because you don't have to be a Suspected Terrorist to be put in the TSDB. Which means that there are a whole host of things that aren't on those lists that can land you in the TSDB.

>You're conflating two completely separate branches of government.

No, I'm really not. "court" is not unique to the judicial branch, for example, courts-marshal are conducted within the military and not under the judicial branch.

>That's because this is administrative guidance.

Yes, which means that there should be better policies in place to keep this out of the judicial courts.

<comment><USER7> There are things that are not on those lists. They're eithe ron other lists, or must meet defined criteria which are subject to administrative review.

 _> You're conflating two completely separate branches of government. No, I'm really not. "court" is not unique to the judicial branch, for example, courts- marshal are conducted within the military and not under the judicial branch._

Well, that's bullshit. Sometimes you just have to own your mistakes, my friend.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> From section 3.9:

"...some activities conducted by U.S Persons or activities taking place inside the United States, maybe an exercise of rights guaranteed by the First Amendment"

So you will be put on a punitive list even after the govt. itself clearly recognizes that you are only exercising your first amendment rights.

There is clearly something very wrong here...

<comment><USER7> The _very next sentence_ says 'Watchlisting an individual for engaging solely in constitutionally protected activities is prohibited.' The paragraph goes on to talk about the critical importance of considering information in its proper context, something you might want to work on yourself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> This is not the Terrorist Watch-list, but I found it interesting nonetheless. I found this while taking a training course for my large-corporate employer. It's a list of persons & organizations with whom my (or any) American employer is forbidden from doing business.

[http://www.treasury.gov/ofac/downloads/sdnlist.txt](http://www.treasury.gov/ofac/downloads/sdnlist.txt)

While reading,... [FTO] = Foreign Terrorist Organizations Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. part 597 --- [SDT] = Terrorism Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. part 595 --- [SDGT] = Global Terrorism Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. part 594 (full list of tags here [http://www.treasury.gov/resource- center/sanctions/SDN-List/P...](http://www.treasury.gov/resource- center/sanctions/SDN-List/Pages/program_tags.aspx))

</comment><comment><USER30> It's interesting reading the first few paragraphs and mentally swapping out the "terrorist" concept for something like "bad risk for auto insurance". You could describe insurance systems with so many of the same adjectives - <USER3> damning factor wouldn't be enough to label you a bad risk even if several small factors might. Why do we insist on a clear definition for who should or shouldn't be on a watch list when it might actually be a complicated question of probability with many different factors?

<comment><USER31> > Why do we insist on a clear definition for who should or shouldn't be on a > watch list when it might actually be a complicated question of probability > with many different factors?

Because insurance companies can't detain you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> > They also define as terrorism any act that is "dangerous" to property and > intended to influence government policy through intimidation.

By that logic our founding fathers are one of the most dangerous and evil terrorists. Acts that are dangerous to property? [check]. Trying to influence government policy [check]. They would be sent to Gitmo and watertortured 3 times per day.

<comment><USER33> Of course, the US government themselves would never hurt anyones property or try and influence government policy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Funny timing

How to get on the government watchlist? How to get followed on Twitter by @the_intercept?

there was a story about the latter posted on Hacker news earlier today [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8075384](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8075384) )

</comment><comment><USER9> So, if influencing government policy is terrorism... what does that make the government, and corporations, who by far and above "influence policy" more than any other group?

<comment><USER7> Except that influencing government policy isn't terrorism, unless it involves intimidation or coercion, or assassination/ kidnapping/ bombing....

<comment><USER9> Soooooo drones and illegal wars?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Maybe they should start using a whitelist? That would seem to be more productive.

</comment><comment><USER36> Misspelled information (informaiton) twice?

</comment><comment><USER37> Rule #1: Anyone reading this rulebook.

<comment><USER38> This is the chilling effect in action: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect_(law)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect_\(law\))

<comment><USER39> Rule #2, anyone reading about someone with the rulebook.

<comment><USER37> Rule #3: anyone reading about anyone reading about someone with the rulebo--. Screw it, a few more rules and we can approximate this whole mess by using the 'degrees of separation' theory:

EVERYONE'S A TERRORIST.

<comment><USER9> Anyone suspected of being suspected to having known someone suspected of being suspected of reading the rulebook, you mean. Don't be so restrictive. Once we're all designated terrorists, nobody's a terrorist.

Once you take everything from a man, that man is no longer in your power...

<comment><USER37> > Once we're all designated terrorists, nobody's a terrorist.

Nope, once we're all designated terrorists then prosecution becomes completely arbitrary and can be carried out with impunity and complete disregard for all rights "bcuz terrorist!".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> They start by labeling the entire potential populous "terrorists", and work backwards, never actually taking them off the list.

<comment><USER41> When you exaggerate a problem to such a ridiculous extreme, all the other party has to do is say "Oh no, we don't do that at all. Problem solved." This isn't productive. In fact, it's counter productive. Now all they have to say is "See the lies people tell about us? They're not interested in a rational debate at all. We're just going to carry on with business as usual."</comment></comment>


From Technologist to Philosopher - <AUTHOR> http://chronicle.com/article/From-Technologist-to/128231/

<comment><USER2> This is great</comment>


GM plans electric van for business users - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-electric-vans-exclusive/exclusive-gm-plans-electric-van-for-business-users-in-bid-to-pre-empt-tesla-idUSKBN23B1G1 <comment><USER2> Big auto companies plan a lot and send away press releases about electric concepts a lot too. It's been like that for the past decade, at least. They should start building and selling, then I will believe them again.

<comment><USER3> GM has a lot of experience with electric cars. We have had GM Bolts and Volts and have been very satisfied with them. I wouldn't discount their ability so fast.

<comment><USER4> A lot of experience has not translated well to their consumer offerings which have not really changed since the rushed the Bolt as a 2017 model. The EUV variant instead of advancing the technology of the Bolt is little more than a stretched variant with the same limited charging.

Yes they have experience but GM is operating from the concept of earning sufficient ZEV credits only. The dropped PHEV (Volt) right prior to the rest of the industry going that direction all because it wasn't worth the cost to ZEV points.

What I am interested in is seeing how invested Ford is, if the Mach E sales take off will they make enough to meet the need to artificially constrain production to just what they need to sale.

The real danger to EV transportation is the big manufacturers trying to keep maximum ranges below three hundred miles. Even luxury makers are barely going there with future products. By keeping ranges in that lower two hundred mile area they can continue to exploit range anxiety issues and consign EVs to local transportation only thereby not threatening their cash cows.

<comment><USER5> > The dropped PHEV (Volt) right prior to the rest of the industry going that > direction all because it wasn't worth the cost to ZEV points.

GM also stated that PHEV was a compromise/transition technology and BEVs have hit certain benchmarks (and so too have charging infrastructure) that the focus should be on BEVs now.

(As a 2012 Volt owner, I'm inclined to agree as one anecdotal owner. PHEV made a lot of sense in 2012, but the compromises needed in PHEV increasingly make less sense in 2020 and I doubt my next car will be anything but a full BEV.)

> What I am interested in is seeing how invested Ford is, if the Mach E sales > take off will they make enough to meet the need to artificially constrain > production to just what they need to sale.

Ford is playing catch up no matter what. The only hope the Mach E has to working well is how much Ford is paying to external collaborators for outside tech.

GM has pre-announced something like a half-dozen to a dozen new BEV models will be announced in the next year or so and heavily invested in BEV only facilities. Ford is still in the dipping the toes in the water stage of BEV production.

> The real danger to EV transportation is the big manufacturers trying to keep > maximum ranges below three hundred miles.

The real danger to EV transportation is thinking ~250 miles on a charge is "local transportation only". I understand Americans have a bloated sense of the miles they need to travel regularly, but range anxiety is overblown and 300 miles/charge is no more useful a magic number than 200 miles/charge in assuaging range anxiety. (Some Europeans were already happy with ~100 mile/charge Nissan Leafs for long distance continental travel half a decade ago.)

<comment><USER6> The problem with BEV vehicles is we can't make enough batteries. Right now we could probably make four or five times as many PHEVs which would have a bigger impact.

<comment><USER7> That's not how markets work and it's only a factor because car makers (other than Tesla) made it so.

If people wanted PHEV in great numbers, the car makers would make 5x more PHEVs. What the market is telling us is that people would rather buy a fully EV from Tesla (and a few others) than a PHEV. That's why sales of Tesla reached 370k last year when sales of Volt peaked at 24k in 2016. Volt won't sell 100k a year even if GM made that many.

If Ford and GM started building battery gigafactories in 2016, like Tesla, then they too would have 35+ GWh battery capacity today, enough for 300k+ cars per year.

Today's battery shortages are a direct result of lack of investment 5 years ago.

And Ford and GM will resolve them 5 years from now, if they start investing today. If they don't start investing today, Tesla and Volkswagen will be more than happy to take that marketshare.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Electric commercial vans are such an obvious use case with real benefits. I am amazed it took so long. Spoke to a UPS driver who complained about his truck having a ~150 mile range on propane. That's a crime. With regen braking in a stop and start job it's electric for the win. There might even be the possibility to extend the range a percent or two with solar on that big van roof. It's not much, but try extracting gasoline from the sky.

<comment><USER9> Regen braking isn't yet good enough for most "stop-start" applications. It turns out that unless you make big adapations to your driving style, typical braking generates too much energy too quickly to be able to charge the batteries.

We'd need a breakthrough in battery technology, or some improved supercapacitors, or productionization of flywheels, to be able to take advantage of that energy.

<comment><USER10> I believe that if people drove exactly the samemas before, they wouldn't get full benefit of regen, but I don't believe people will drive the same as before. I know I don't. Driving without ever using the brakes in my Model 3 is smoother and a bit of a fun mini game. One quickly learns not to accelerate quite as much when there's a visible red light ahead and how much the Regen brakes will slow the car down.

<comment><USER11> I find my experience to be exactly the same with the couple EVs I've owned. You very quickly adapt to learning exactly when you need to let off the accelerator, and even going from EV-to-EV where the regen curve is different, it only takes a couple tries to adapt to the new vehicle again.

<comment><USER12> The e-Pedal in the Nissan Leaf is wonderful, if you lift your foot off of the accelerator completely the car will apply optimal regen until the car stops.

Its really freeing not to have to look at the regen gauge at all, I just keep my foot over the brake pedal just in case I need to stop quicker than the regen braking.

<comment><USER13> What if you're going down a slight decline where you could normally coast and maintain your speed. Do you have to leave your foot on the pedal and waste battery?

<comment><USER14> It's not wasting battery if you have your pedal in the position where it's coasting, neither regenerating nor accelerating.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I've been wondering how far away Tesla is from a commercial van. The CyberTruck gets a lot of attention and it's been noted that it makes no sense outside of North America.

Except, vehicles with those dimensions and cargo capacity _are_ very widely used outside of NA, they're just covered and called vans. I don't think the CyberTruck could be converted to a van (the glass seems too sloped and the first row too far back), but it seems that when they complete the truck a van program could borrow very heavily.

Imagine they keep the battery capacity, stainless steel exoskeleton design, hauling and carrying capacity, but have a design that has the glass much more vertical, one row closer to the front and a very tall, boxy back. It would sell very well.

<comment><USER16> Batteries are really HEAVY, Model 3 is heavier than your average Sedan. The trick is to perfect battery weight and its effect on range, in a certain use case.

Commercial vehicles would need 150+ kw batteries, with huge batteries comes huge weight and long charge times. Having said that TSLA is probably best positioned to do well and solve these trade-offs.

<comment><USER17> It is, but only by ~10-15%. The Camry for instance weighs ~3200-3500lbs, while the 3 weighs ~3500-4000lbs. That includes the dual motor 3 too, whereas Toyota doesn't have the equivalent Camry. The RWD versions of the 3 weigh ~3500-3800lbs.

edit - for using AWD instead of dual motor

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Less talking and more building, please.

Even if Tesla doesn't win the EV war, its legacy will always be getting us into it. Future generations will thank them.

<comment><USER19> Disclaimer: I work for GM, anything stated here is solely my own opinion.

I think competition is a great thing. There would be no Tesla without the EV1 (at least not as we know Tesla today). Likewise there would be no Volt PHEV without Tesla, no Bolt EV (My own opinion only).

My point is, the market reacts to what is put out there. There is almost no case where you can find a car without parallel from another company. You can certainly find better and worse, cheaper and more expensive, greater or fewer features, etc; but rarely does the market leave the field open for one player to run wild.

<comment><USER20> > There would be no Tesla without the EV1 (at least not as we know Tesla > today).

Can you elaborate on that? How did the EV1 influence Tesla?

<comment><USER21> The EV1 had a few industry leading features:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t22D4aUs0iw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t22D4aUs0iw)

[https://www.motortrend.com/news/general-motors- ev1/](https://www.motortrend.com/news/general-motors-ev1/)

For example, the EV1 had a heat-pump. Tesla only got around to that with the Model Y.

<comment><USER22> Using a heat-pump in a vehicle isn't a revolutionary idea, it was just unnecessary as most ICEV can scavenge waste heat from the ICE.

Limited adoption in EVs and PHEVs has largely been due to limited availability as there weren't any commercial adaptations for vehicles. Toyota and Nissan have been using heat-pumps for a while now though.

<comment><USER21> > _Using a heat-pump in a vehicle isn 't a revolutionary idea_

Ah, so it's even worse that Tesla didn't implement it earlier.

<comment><USER22> I'm not sure I would consider it worse. Consider some things:

1) GM chose to put resistive heating in the Spark, Volt, and Bolt.

2) Nissan put a heat-pump in the Leaf.

2) Tesla manages to make the most efficient EVs without using heat-pumps.

So perhaps the choice between a heat-pump or resistive heating goes beyond efficiency? Or maybe in terms of biggest bang for the buck, heat-pumps are low on the list.

Instead of trying to find fault in Tesla for what must surely be the biggest blunder in automotive history and will go down in the annuls of time as the defining moment where Tesla brought utter ruination upon us all, why not consider alternative theories?

Maybe there aren't any commercially available ODM heat-pumps? That would explain why GM didn't use one and why one is absent from the S and Y that are closer to traditional vehicles.

As for the Model 3, it's likely Tesla wanted to minimize space and maximize efficiency by integrating a custom thermal solution and a heat-pump just didn't make sense at the time.

Heat-pumps are more complex than resistive heating and the Model 3's revolutionary SuperBottle integrates all of the vehicles thermal management systems. Perhaps they were playing it safe, or didn't have the time/budget to do a heat-pump. Regardless, the Model Y comes with a heat-pump to feed the Octovalve, the evolution of the SuperBottle.

<comment><USER21> > _Tesla manages to make the most efficient EVs without using heat-pumps_

Not in lower temperatures without a heat-pump, which is when a heat-pump is at its most useful. Look how a heat-pump affects the range of the ID.3. There's worthwhile benefit even at 15 degrees Celsius:

[https://i.redd.it/mjcgffzui0c41.png](https://i.redd.it/mjcgffzui0c41.png)

[https://www.volkswagen.co.uk/electric/id/faq/electric-car- te...](https://www.volkswagen.co.uk/electric/id/faq/electric-car-technology- development/heat-pump)

> _why not consider alternative theories?_

There's no need for theories. The engineering is well understood. The EV1 got there first.

<comment><USER22> > Not in lower temperatures without a heat-pump, which is when a heat-pump is > at its most useful. Look how a heat-pump affects the range of the ID.3. > There's worthwhile benefit even at 15 degrees Celsius

I'm not sure what you're saying. You're disputing the overall efficiency of a Tesla based on the heat-pump performance of a car that has not yet shipped?

> There's no need for theories. The engineering is well understood. The EV1 > got there first.

No one is disputing that the EV1 had a heat-pump first or that heat-pumps are more efficient than resistive heaters.

You slighted Tesla for not having a heat-pump as if it were a serious fault. I am stating that the heating system isn't the most critical system in terms of overall vehicle efficiency.

<comment><USER21> > _I 'm not sure what you're saying._

Heat-pumps make the car more efficient. Look:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7wxGl7m2sw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7wxGl7m2sw)

Look at this road test:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH7V2tU3iFc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH7V2tU3iFc)

The two smallest cars in that test are the 64 kWh Kona and the Model 3 Long Range. The Kona has the smaller battery and worse aerodynamics. The Kona achieves 90% of its claimed WLTP range. The Tesla Model 3 Long Range only achieves 78% of its claimed WLTP range. The difference in those conditions is the heat pump. The Kona has one, the Model 3 doesn't.

> _You slighted Tesla_

Oh noes. Does Elon know? Please don't tell him.

<comment><USER22> Again... no one is disputing that heat pumps are more efficient.

Your "road test" video proves nothing. Not only is it not a cold weather driving test, but they test the Kia e-Niro and not the Hyundai Kona. The e-Niro and Kona share the same battery and motor but are not the same car.

The heat pump is optional equipment in the e-Niro and the "road test" video doesn't specify equipment configuration and more importantly isn't testing the climate control system.

If you really want an Apples-To-Apples comparison, why don't you find a comparison of a Canadian Kona to a US one since the US version doesn't come with a heat pump?

<comment><USER21> > _Not only is it not a cold weather driving test_

Heat pumps provide benefit even at 15c as I have shown you. They were at 7c.

> _The e-Niro and Kona share the same battery and motor but are not the same > car_

Same difference. New Soul EV too.

> _The heat pump is optional equipment in the e-Niro_

It's standard equipment in Europe. All trim levels have it.

> _If you really want an Apples-To-Apples comparison_

I don't want this boring brand loyalty from you. It's tedious. Remember where this started: the GM EV1 pioneered automotive use of heat pumps. As you say, "no one is disputing that heat pumps are more efficient". Teslas are less efficient without it. Accept it instead of making excuses for it.

<comment><USER22> > I don't want this boring brand loyalty from you.

You're just looking for any excuse to hate on Tesla. What's the opposite of a fanboi? You're a hatergurl?

<comment><USER21> No, I'm just realistic. Your brand loyalty makes it seem like hate to you.

<comment><USER22> You're going to great lengths to find fault in the only company fully committed to EVs and champion the companies brought kicking and screaming into the market.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> So this is an example of "Anxiety Driven Development", the current post on the top of the front page, right?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23415922](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23415922)

</comment><comment><USER24> The Deutsche Post founded a company which develops and also sells electric vans [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StreetScooter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StreetScooter)

<comment><USER25> Unfortunately they stopped producing StreetScooters this year and will only service the existing fleet in the future. What a pity.

<comment><USER26> I think they just shifted to using third-party electric vans. I see electric DHL vans around in Ireland, but they're made by Peugeot or someone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> It'd be neat if GM rebooted the Motorhome [0] as an EV, or maybe a plug-in hybrid.

Hell even if they just took the original FWD ICE platform adding a skateboard full of batteries with RWD electric, cover the roof with solar panels, it'd make an interesting plug-in electric hybrid.

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

<comment><USER28> Motorhomes are kind of interesting. If you look at the price of a new one it wouldn't be hard to hide the cost of a 150kwhr battery in the price tag. And likely you could run everything off solar panels on the roof.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Would be awesome to see one of these converted into a camper-van/RV, with solar array on roof to charge while parked for days. EV delivery trucks would be a great platform for this because of the space reclaimed from ICE. The same camper EV idea is behind VW's awesome looking "ID Buzz" concept, which alas, has been stuck in concept mode forever.

</comment><comment><USER30> Seems like Tesla is in for a whole host of trouble with this loss of the enterprise / business market.

</comment><comment><USER31> Should we tell them about the electric vans that we have in Europe for years? Like the Nissan e-ev200 and the Renault Kangoo ZE. Or the PSA vans planned for this year?

<comment><USER32> Nobody in America is going to buy an electric van with only ~100 miles of range that accelerates slower than a comparable gas van.

<comment><USER31> These vans don't sell to people doing road trips while sleeping inside. They are for municipalities, local companies, and post deliveries. I don't think it's a lot different in America but I may be wrong.

<comment><USER33> It's the same in the US. We've had custom low volume hybrid electric busses and delivery vehicles for at least a decade.

Many municipalities buy electric golf cart things for road and part maintenance, electric traffic enforcement trikes, and electric police motorcycles.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> GM should just attempt a merger with Tesla. Not possible now, but in a year or two it might.

<comment><USER35> The question required to justify a merger instead of partnership: Why would merging make things greater than the sum of the parts? If it doesn't, partner.

I dont see any reason why a GM-Tesla merger makes any sense. But would be happy to hear some.

<comment><USER36> I thing sgt is alluding to the fact that if Tesla hits an internal economic crisis, its stock price could fall far enough that one of the established automakers could acquire it or merge. And that this would be in their best interest, as Tesla now obviously has a significant lead in EV development and deployment.

But this is contingent on Tesla losing its current trajectory. There would be no incentive for Tesla shareholders to do such a merger the way things look today.</comment></comment></comment>


An A from Nabokov - <AUTHOR> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/apr/04/a-from-nabokov/

<comment><USER2> Great story. Makes me wonder how Nabokov, a literary critic himself and also pseudonym user ("Vladimir Sirin") to hide from critics[1], would feel about Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes. Many content creators regard critics with disdain, until it comes to valuing their own time!

And Nabokov is at least partially right[2] about not needing context if the literature is good. You can pick up Lolita, open to _any page_ and begin reading and I guarantee a smile will flash across your face within three pages.

<comment>

[1] Nabokov: "Occasionally I used the little silk mask of an additional pen name in order to deceive this or that captious critic—with most gratifying results ("At last a great writer!" cried my favorite Zoilus in 1939)."

[2] There are huge bodies of work that, if you have context, you will get a LOT more out of, especially older works. Just as TV shows like Family Guy are a series of culturally-dependent in-jokes, so was a lot of the humor in Shakespeare, Chaucer, etc. And reading Li Bai and Du Fu's poetry is not the same unless you know the details of the An Lushan Rebellion they lived through, which had one of the highest death tolls (5.5%–15.3% of entire world population) of any event in history.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is a great story! By the way, I do not think the author of the article (Epstein) got away with anything. I am pretty sure Nabokov knew very well that he had not read the book. It is not a coincidence that Nabokov gave him a job reviewing movies afterwards. I think Nabokov read his essay, knew he was describing the movie, but nevertheless liked his writing and thought that Epstein was especially good at describing movies.

So Nabokov either thought that he would use Epstein for his own amusement or (more likely) he would try to secretly develop Epstein's talent without telling him that he likes his writing as too much self confidence can be disastrous for a young writer.

It seems that Epstein was luckier than he imagined. Although, it also seems that Nabokov gave up on him eventually.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, there is just no way anybody who answers "they are both Russian" to Nabokov can beat him at this game. Even by accident.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Many themes recur in Nabokov's work. One of the most frequent is the use of fallible narrators and layered levels of implicit plot.

This article is decidedly Nabokov-esque: the author feigns ignorance of the connection between describing a movie in perfect detail to Nabokov and then being hired to review movies. It's not a million miles away from the sort of gaff Charles Kinbote might make [1].

Incidentally, I think _Pale Fire_ might appeal to much of the HN crowd. It's frequently read as a dense, finely-wrought mechanical puzzle that might appeal to the coder mindset.

Like Nabokov, I'm also a big fan of writing under pseudonyms. It's a very freeing experience.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Fire>

Edit: if you like puzzles, it might be better not to spoil the fun by reading the wikipedia article (or indeed any review, or the dust jacket of the book). It would be better to buy the book, start with the foreword by C. Kinbote and read through to the end of the index.

<comment><USER6> Pale Fire is my favorite book of all time. I have a braingasm every time I read it. I first read it as part of a class back in my university days, and it's definitely hard to grasp the incredible intricacy, detail, and even humor in every page without having someone to help guide you in your first reading. A lot of my friends I recommended it too were put off by Kinbote's (seemingly) random meanderings.

Having said that though, I highly recommend it to anyone here with even a passing interest in literature. There's a huge corpus of analysis of Pale Fire online, and if you plan to read the novel I highly recommend you simultaneously read one of them. Don't worry too much about spoilers, the beauty of the book is mostly outside of the plot and I think having a guide to help is a benefit to sacrifice for.

It's also perfect for e-readers, because you can just use hyperlinks instead of flipping back and forth between footnotes.

If anyone wants help with it drop me a line :)

<comment><USER7> E-reader? Psh, just buy two copies. ;)

Have you read any of Brian Boyd's work? I think you'd really like this: [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691089574/ref=as_li_ss_tl?...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691089574/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0691089574&linkCode=as2&tag=a01f63-20)

<comment><USER8> i kept one copy open on my monitor while i read the other on my kindle. far nicer than flipping.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> anton-107 Nice story. Pushkin, the author of "The Queen of Spades" actually gave an initial idea of "Dead Souls" to Gogol. Without knowing that (which the author didn't know) it is really very interesting how the first story reminded of another novel. The only thing they have in common is an author of the ideas for their plots. So no surprise Nabokov got really curious at first and then disappointed with the answer.

</comment><comment><USER9> Wow. Lit with Nabokov is like taking Algorithms with Knuth. I was filled with jealousy reading that article.

</comment><comment><USER10> This reminded me of a favorite story of mine about Nabokov and Thomas Pynchon: Pynchon was a student of Nabokov's when he was at Cornell. Years later when Pynchon himself became famous, Nabokov told interviewers that he had no memory of Pynchon as a student. But Vera remembered Pynchon's handwriting. She really was the "course assistant" as this article mentions: she must have done the grading too.

<comment><AUTHOR> There's also a great story about Pynchon as a student of M.H. Abrams at Cornell: <http://www.ottosell.de/pynchon/abrams.htm>

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I enjoyed thinking about what Nabokov was assigning to his students:

"Leo Tolstoy, Nikolai Gogol, Marcel Proust, James Joyce, Jane Austen, Franz Kafka, Gustave Flaubert, and Robert Louis Stevenson"

Looks like I'll be reading Metamorphosis( <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Metamorphosis>) tonight!

<comment><AUTHOR> Nabokov's lectures on all those writers were published as a book, and it's very good.

<comment><USER12> What is it called?

<comment><AUTHOR> I forgot that they were split into two: _Lectures on Literature_ and _Lectures on Russian Literature_. They're all terribly entertaining.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> grey-area If you found this story amusing, but are a little bit daunted by the loquacity or infamy of his novels, I'd strongly recommend trying Nabokov's _Lectures in Literature_ , which expands on lectures given at Cornell, and give you a wonderful introduction to his world, and introduces the writers he considered canon. I always remember this passage from the end of the book, addressing his students, because of the outrageous metaphor:

 _Now the course comes to a close. The work with this group has been a particularly pleasant association between the fountain of my voice and a garden of ears – some open, others closed, many very receptive, a few merely ornamental, but all of them human and divine._

I did like the way the story paid a sneaky homage to Nabokov (as lenazegher mentions below, or soon to be above), in capturing the dry humour and sly wit which pervade his writing. A lovely little epitaph for a charming writer.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Here's another gem - Nabokov and Lionel Trilling on an almost comedically highbrow TV show shortly after _Lolita_ was published:

[http://dangerousminds.net/comments/a_baboon_of_genius_naboko...](http://dangerousminds.net/comments/a_baboon_of_genius_nabokov_talks_lolita_on_fifties_tv)

Nabokov's manner on 1950s American TV is delightful, even if he is reading from index cards. "I leave the field of ideas to Dr. Schweitzer and, uh, Dr. Zhivago."

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> By coincidence, Epstein posted on HN a few days ago:

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5414757>

</comment><comment><USER13> He gave really good lectures on literature. I recommend the one on Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde - I think you can find it on Google Books.</comment>


IPhone app aims to program your dreams ('Inception' anyone?) - <AUTHOR> http://whatsnext.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/17/iphone-app-aims-to-program-your-dreams-inception-anyone/?hpt=hp_c3 <comment><USER2> how does this compare to [http://designtaxi.com/news/352186/App-To-Control- Your-Dreams...](http://designtaxi.com/news/352186/App-To-Control-Your-Dreams- Now-Available-In-English/) ?

what is better for dreaming, soundscapes or words?</comment>


Amazon can't yet completely delete Alexa voice transcriptions - <AUTHOR> https://www.zdnet.com/article/amazon-cant-yet-completely-delete-alexa-voice-transcriptions/ <comment><USER3>
      s/can't/doesn't/

It's a company with the time, resources, and customer awareness to do this. They _can_. They have chosen not to.

</comment><comment><USER4> Why people are acting surprised about this? To me it has been always more than obvious that whatever you say to any of the internet connected "assistants" will be stored and kept as long as the assistant owning company likes.

<comment><USER5> There's a difference between "it's obvious that they're doing it" (which is only true for people above a certain paranoia line) and "here, look at this proof that they're doing it." There are plenty of things that are obvious to me based on my idea of people's motivations and past behavior, but if I talk to someone lower down on the paranoia spectrum they don't believe me - <USER2> I can point to evidence that they're actually doing it. (A fair thing to ask for, after all.)

<comment><USER6> It seems like you're talking the difference between suspicion and proof? Saying "it's obvious they're doing it" when you mean you suspect they're doing it is just going to start an argument.

<comment><USER5> I was using it in the sense of the parent comment, I.E. if you put $100 in a room unsupervised with a career thief it's "obvious" that he'll walk out with it. Another way of phrasing it would be, "anyone who isn't suspicious appears negligent."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> So like probably the majority of useful text boxes everyone types into on the internet. Great news, thanks for the info

</comment><comment><USER8> This is why we are building 100% offline and private-by-design Voice AI at [https://snips.ai](https://snips.ai), it is free for makers and works in english, french, german, japanese, spanish, italian, and more coming!

<comment><USER9> I don't see any guarantee that if the platform gets popular and the company acquired, privacy would stay the same. I have seen the same pattern too many times...

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Thanks to the sacrifice of these clueless users (or at least a good part of them are) the era of offline assistants is near looking at what Google has shown recently.

<comment><USER11> > Thanks to the sacrifice of these clueless users (or at least a good part of > them are) the era of offline assistants is near looking at what Google has > shown recently.

I think _I 'm_ being clueless, but I can't figure out what this sentence means. Is there a typo in it?

<comment><USER10> I was referring, in a convolute way, to the fact that all the data collected have been/will be used to train the models that will allow offline voice recognition (like the one google has shown at i/o last week).

<comment><USER12> I might be mistaken, but the reason we don't see offline recognition (amongst other things) is hardware limitations, not the lack of training data. The small onboard chip doesn't have that much compute power, so they offload to more powerful Amazon/Google servers that can run the inference.

<comment><USER11> > amongst other things

I think that this is an important point. Obviously there's more computing power available in Apple/Google/whoever's data centres than on my device, and I'm sure that is, or at least was, a concern; but I also don't believe that they are indifferent to the utility of sitting on such a huge volume of user- submitted, real-world data.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Which internet company isn't perma-storing any and all 'valuable' bits that happen to be routed through their network?

<comment><USER14> In theory DuckDuckGo. Just because someone can, does not make it good/right.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> is there a law regarding whether the presence of these bugs should be disclosed when you are a guest in a business premises or someone's home ?

</comment><comment><USER16> I can't believe that people actually pay for these things... Alexa has always seemed like a gimmick to me. I have an Ecobee smart thermostat that has integrated Alexa, which I promptly disabled after installation.

<comment><USER17> What's wrong with gimmicks? Voice control itself is not a bad idea, the interface to control your technology is something you are born with :)

<comment><USER18> Gimmicks are short-lived for fundamental reasons. I'm going to sound like a broken record but, as someone who has owned multiple Alexa devices and quit their job to start a voice-UI business(didn't pan out), the current generation of "smart speakers" are a joke when it comes to doing anything serious besides asking for the weather or toggling light switches. I have no doubt that they are useful to people in very limited ways, but they are still sold as being a lot smarter than they really are. For what they provide, the privacy trade-off is too great for me.

Alexa is a gimmick because it's a speech-to-text _command line_ , and it's sold as being smart even though it's not. Since before I was a kid in the 90s, there have been many attempts to revolutionize computing with speech-to-text technology. Because speaking comes so naturally to us, it's easy to assume that voice-activated anything is better than pushing buttons. In reality, without intelligence and autonomy, lots of interfaces are made slightly _worse_ with voice activation. For those who aren't visually impaired, the ability to use voice to turn off lights barely even makes sense. Alexa frequently gets things wrong and activates from sounds that aren't even close to the wake-word. The ability to create lists is barely practical because it so often can't understand a word, in which case the user has to go to the Alexa app and manually punch in the item.

Voice control would be great if it were revolutionized, but it's hardly in a different state than it was decades ago. The only two things that have changed are improved speech synthesis and ample _cloud computing_. Because of this, most people I know who own one barely use them beyond a select number of features that are hard to get wrong like "Alexa, what's the weather?" or "Alexa, what time is it?". My parents still sometimes use it to play music(which I gave up on as a music fan), but it gets requests hilariously wrong 1/5 times.

<comment><USER19> "Besides [a bunch of useful stuff], Alexa is useless! Therefore it's a gimmick."

I have an Echo Dot which I use almost exclusively for a few static purposes: the weather, setting alarms, turning my lights on and off, and asking what time it is.

I also ask it basic questions like whether various sports teams won or what time they're playing, which it also answers well.

Not sure why you think it is useless just because it's not a magical general AI that can do everything.

I find it extremely useful.

> For those who aren't visually impaired, the ability to use voice to turn off > lights barely even makes sense

I'm not visually impaired and I use this feature all the time. It allows me to turn off the light when reading in bed without having to get up and walk to the light switch.

> most people I know who own one barely use them beyond a select number of > features that are hard to get wrong

Yeah, exactly. How does this make it useless?

<comment><USER20> I fairness to your bed time reading example, it's very common for people to have bed side lights - even if they're just little lamps that rest on a table. At least this is the norm in the UK. So for a great many of us, turning our reading light out would just be an extension of our arm.

My wife tends to prefer using the TV as her reading light. I find that rather bizarre but she likes the background noise. In any case, TVs have remote controls and sleep timers so that mitigates the need for voice control.

To be honest, I couldn't think of a place I'd less want an Echo than the bedroom. Even the bathroom seems less inappropriate (eg you might want music when in the shower / bath).

<comment><USER20> Why am I getting downvoted? Do people disagree that it's common for bedrooms to have lamps? A little context would be appreciated because my comment is 100% accurate in terms my own experiences yet several people seem to disagree. Genuinely interested to know why.

<comment><USER21> I didn't downvote, but just to answer- yes, I have a nightstand light, like most bedrooms here in the US. However, I also use a CPAP machine, and it is a genuine convenience to be able to put it on with the lights on, then use words to shut the lights off instead of reaching over to the side and having to deal with a slightly-too-short hose length. And frankly it's nice to not have to leave one's blanket cocoon for light/dark, not even it a little.

A small thing? Sure. But it is a genuine comfort that I enjoy.

<comment><USER20> To be honest I'd lump you into the same as the caveat made earlier about people with physical disabilities because even though you're (presumably) able bodied, at night time your movement is restricted.

I can totally see the benefit for people in circumstances like your own (and those with greater concerns too). But for the average Joe? That's another matter. Like any accessibility tool, I agree they are fantastic for those who depend upon it. However I wouldn't advocate everyone gets a blind dog, hearing aid or wheelchair unless they actually needed it. Similarly would you actually want an Echo device in your bedroom if you didn't have the accessibility concern that your CPAP machine creates?

Ultimately it's harder to justify that privacy vs convenience trade off when accessibility isn't an issue. But I accept that's a decision which will be as divided as it will be personal. Myself; I have an Echo in the kitchen but I have no interest in allowing them to migrate upstairs.

Also thanks for the response. I do appreciate reading someone else's perspective:)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This is, while sad and even maddening, obvious.

<comment><USER23> It's obvious to anyone who spends a moment thinking about it that some portion of what you say remains.

What's less obvious is that they store everything and most definitely index it so it can be used later against you (all it takes is one legal action - separation, police, you name it).

What's further disappointing is that Amazon stores the transcribed text. Which may be incorrect but deemed "truth".

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I told alexa to go away. It did not. It just persists on nagging me to say things other than alexa go away

</comment><comment><USER25> Well color me surprised.

</comment><comment><USER26> In the EU this is a violation of GDPR if true.

<comment><USER27> Not sure why you're being downvoted. Is it not a GDPR violation?

<comment><USER28> Agreed, I was about to say the same thing. If it's their data (i.e. data the customer generated and stored on the service), and there's a way to validate that it's theirs (as it exists in the data store) based on information the customer provided, I'm pretty sure the GDPR requires deletion on request.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> ZDNet's article [https://www.zdnet.com/article/amazon-cant-yet-completely- del...](https://www.zdnet.com/article/amazon-cant-yet-completely-delete-alexa- voice-transcriptions/)

<comment><USER30> Thanks! We'll change to that from [https://www.zdnet.com/video/amazon-cant- yet-completely-delet...](https://www.zdnet.com/video/amazon-cant-yet- completely-delete-alexa-voice-transcriptions/), which is a video.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Needs [video]

<comment><USER32> Thanks! Updated.

<comment><USER28> Cache issue? I still don't see [video] in the title.

<comment><USER31> The url was changed to a text article.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> interested to know how much amazon is spending to store hundreds of recordings of me saying, "HDMI1"

<comment><USER34> According to this video they're only keeping text transcripts, so... maybe a penny over your entire lifetime.</comment></comment>