Recent submissions

Comment · 7 years ago
Worth noting that this is the blog's first post. I like the tone, the humor, and the sheer nerve of writing something like this. It's inspirational without being preachy.

It's also highly actionable. Here's how to apply it right now. Close your browser and all other applications. Open a text editor (or a can of paint or whatever). Reflect on something, anything. Then give yourself permission to make the worst possible version of something you like consuming. Write one sentence (or make one stroke), then another, and another. Eventually, rework the mess you've created.

Having forced myself to do this on several occasions, I can say it becomes addictive after a few days. And tiring. Which is why I also know it's easy to relapse on an off day. Finding a way to keep motivated independent of external praise is critical.

Comment · 7 years ago
Google pulled support for its search API long before wave, leaving developers who started to build on it high and dry.
Comment · 7 years ago
Wave was a perfect example of leading with technology rather than the problem to be solved. Nothing I ever saw or read about it spoke to a specific user problem. Sure, Google has problems in spades that can be solved by Wave (engaging users, crushing upstart social media companies to name two). But in terms of eliminating something costing large numbers of computer time or money, Wave brought absolutely nothing to the table.

I remember seeing the hyperventilating response to Wave by tech people at the time and wondering what they were actually experiencing. Because what I saw was yet another Google initiative that would be shut down and forgotten fairly quickly.

Comment · 7 years ago
> “What Elon Musk wants to produce is a lifestyle,” Zulkifli said Wednesday when asked about the entrepreneur’s comments. “We are not interested in a lifestyle. We are interested in proper solutions that will address climate problems.”

Electric cars are poor, even counterproductive stand-ins for long term solutions such as public transportation and the elimination of the suburban commuter lifestyle. They hide a multitude of externalities forced on the public and not paid for directly by owners or manufacturers.

Climate change aside, it's not hard to imagine a country as densely populated as Singapore opposing electric cars.

Comment · 7 years ago
> From the point of view of the USA, this must start with a new administration.

Not much happened under the old administration. Things got worse.

Comment · 7 years ago
> Personal choice matters little globally.

Is not the personal, voluntary choice to use Facebook a decision that matters globally? There is no compulsion or legislation there. At least not in the form that many might think.

Comment · 7 years ago
How is that incompatible with what I said?
Comment · 7 years ago
Given the dwindling space for burials:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bisnow/2017/11/03/urban-cemeter...

and the energy/greenhouse gas emission costs of cremation, I can see this taking off.

There's a picture and caption not discussed in the text:

> Katrina Spade, upper left, the founder and CEO of Recompose, a company that hopes to use composting as an alternative to burying or cremating human remains, looks on Tuesday, May 21, 2019, as Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, centre, signs a bill into law at the Capitol in Olympia, Wash., that allows licensed facilities to offer "natural organic reduction," which turns a body into soil in a span of several weeks. (Ted S. Warren/AP Photo)

Was Spade involved in bringing that legislation about?

Comment · 7 years ago
I'm sure the emotions are genuine, but articles like this leave me with a sense that those concerned are waiting for others (especially "leaders") to make something happen. They want electric cars to be mandated so they can continue their addiction to the automobile despite the severe environmental effects of car culture regardless of the fuel source. They want government to force companies to develop carbon neutral everything so that they can continue their lives of consumption uninterrupted.

We control our own actions. Our continued individual consumption leads to CO2 emissions. It's in our power to radically reduce our own carbon footprint by scaling back our lives. Not seeking out environmentally-friendly alternatives, but by curbing our out-of-control consumption urges which lie at the heart of this entire mess.

However, this requires painful, life-changing choices for many. Foregoing the house in the burbs for a walkable/rideable commute. Shunning unsustainable locations like Silicon Valley, even if that means reduction in income. Scaling way back on air travel. Avoiding foods grown in rainforest whose consumption encourages deforestation (e.g., coffee). Living far below our means, in other words.

Stop blaming Trump. Rejoining the Paris Accords won't solve the problem. Far more radical adjustments will be needed to prevent even the mildest effects now being predicted.

I want to see people voicing climate change concerns recommending the only thing that audience members can directly control - live a far simpler life and start doing it now. Stop complaining about how impractical this option is. This is what every "leader" is doing, from CEOs to presidents. Act - just like you are expecting others to do so.

Comment · 7 years ago
> This was the sharpest downward revision in jobs totals since 2009, when the economy was just starting to emerge from the Great Recession.

It's not clear what number the article is talking about. Assuming nonfarm payroll, the BLS has this data set of revisions going back to 1979:

https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesnaicsrev.htm

Assuming these figures report thousands, nothing really jumps out as being >500, expansion year or not - 2009 included.

Edit:

I suspect the article is reporting total jobs, not jobs change, but I'm not sure. The BLS link appears to be reporting change in nonfarm employment. Surprisingly poor labeling of data sets in both cases.

Comment · 7 years ago
For those wondering why anyone would buy such a thing, consider:

- Many financial institutions are required to hold a certain percent of portfolio in safe assets. German bunds are among the safest in the world.

- A holder of a bond earns a capital gain (bond goes up in price) when interest rates fall. In that sense, zero is no limit at all because there can always be a buyer willing to accept an even lower (more negative) yield.

- Bond investors are well-aware of the two points above. When they sense that interest rates and/or inflation are headed lower, they know they can profit by buying, regardless of yield.

- Anticipated rate of inflation matters a lot because investors seeking return through yield focus on real interest rates (nominal rate - inflation). Inflation can be negative as well (deflation). If inflation is lower (more negative) than the bond's nominal return, that's a real positive yield. And that positive yield is locked in for the term of the bond, which in the case of the story is 30 years.

- The European Central Bank has repeatedly signaled its belief that zero is no barrier and that negative yields will be tolerated indefinitely. The ECB stands ready for quantitative easing (QE), in which the central bank buys bonds with money it creates from thin air. Investors know this and this compounds the incentive to pile on and buy bonds to enjoy the capital gains (and real returns if the investor believes that deflation is inevitable).

It's likely that all these factors combine to create the current environment. How long all of this can continue is anybody's guess because the situation is without precedent.

It's as if the financial crisis of 2008 was never resolved - just papered over through massive central bank purchases of treasuries and stocks (Japan's central bank owns a major fraction of the value of the Japanese stock market at this point).

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton