Hacker News Reader

Oil basically powers the modern world. Everything from food production through material manufacturing to basic transport collapses without oil.

Food abundance, even if it's can be barely called that like corn syrup, is the most basic soma. No politician would even think risking it.

Meanwhile you could swap out Facebook for any other social network with barely any noticeable change in the economy and world. People can scroll through Twitter or Netflix instead. Big tech has very little leverage because they rely on network effects and censorship while being otherwise imminently replaceable.

That they're run by nerds doesn't help either.

> Everything from food production through material manufacturing to basic transport collapses without oil.

Sure - but that's also true of computers.

Oh, I'm not saying tech companies should be equal to oil companies. But today's tech companies don't seem to have even 5% the power of oil companies.

Oil powers tractors, but that can easily be electrically driven. Nitrogen Fertilizers, which is probably what you are referring to, are made using hydrogen, not oil. That hydrogen is usually produced using natural gas (again, usually not oil), but until the 1950s or so when steam reforming started to utter dominate, we tended to make it with hydropower electrolysis. There’s no fundamental reason you need oil for food abundance or transport. None whatsoever.

I think it's less that there are no viable alternatives and the very bleak consequences if food or power get screwed up. There's the saying "Nine meals between mankind and anarchy" that applies here. If you are messing with the food supply, you are playing with fire if things go sideways. People die, people starve, people riot.

So things have a strong incentive towards "if it aint broke don't fix it". You can argue a lot of it is in fact broken on some fundamental levels and the side effects of those two industries are massive but, at the moment, we have power and we have food (speaking for the US, not globally where that isn't the case).

The risk tolerance is very, very low. An unwillingness to accept any potential failure, regardless of impact, is frequently the single greatest problem for any change or reform.

The solution, then, is to build more supply. Energy austerity is never going to work. Clean energy abundance is the only possible way to a good future.

> easily

For for a couple of places yes. For the literal global economy it will take years to make the switch. I think renewable energy is great and we should definitely switch to it. But the sheer scale of the transition is enormous.

Right, and the only way to do it is to start. Action is the only thing that matters in the transition. But we should realize that it’s not at all hopeless. Post-WW2, our electricity production used to double about every decade or so, so we ARE capable of quickly scaling. We just have to BUILD.

I agree with you there, I don't agree with people that are against moving at all or even making it something important. I guess I just hear a lot of people act like the transition is trivial.

Also about the energy production doubling do you have a source?

Yeah, from the EIA, US electricity production increased by a factor of 5.56x from 1950 to 1973. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...

That’s 2.5 doublings in 23 years, or a bit better than one doubling per decade. Growth was still high after that, but doubling slowed a bit (we were running into limitations of gas and especially oil availability… we kind of stopped using oil for electricity after the 70s). Point being we absolutely can scale, particularly if we’re scaling something that is not as inherently limited as oil is. Solar in particular can scale out massively (as could nuclear if we got our act together).

What do we use to make the electricity for the electric tractor? What raw materials do we need in order to make all of the solar panels that would provide electricity for the entire world?

By the way, I see the value in electric vehicles, but we need to recognize that the electricity has to come from somewhere and that all these new vehicles and batteries require raw materials that have to come from somewhere.

Yes, we do have plenty of raw materials to make electricity for the whole world. For instance, over the lifetime of a solar panel, the amount of silicon needed to generate 1kWh of electricity is approximately 1/1000th that of the amount of coal, plus the silicon isn't burned up (but can be recycled). https://www.freeingenergy.com/do-we-have-enough-materials-to...

So in fact, it requires a whole lot less raw materials (even when you include the other materials needed in a solar panel and all the processing required) to provide human civilization with solar electricity (even with storage) than with coal.

I have worked a lot with lobbyists and part of the reason is that the tech companies dont work together. When the banks or oil companies go to capital hill their lobbyists are generally in alignment. The sense iv gotten from folks I talk to is that is not the case with the tech companies and instead they have competing opinions on things.

Another place you can see this illustrated is when the CEOs of these companies testify in front of congress. The bank CEOs all stay more or less on the same message. Comparatively on the tech side there is a lot more variance in message. Some of this is changing, you can clearly tell Zuck is getting much more coaching and Sundar Pichai is well prepped. Then you have Dorsey who is always a complete wild card.

I see the opposite, big tech is massively benefiting from the lack of regulation of whatever kind so their interest is to lobby politicians to sit on their ass instead. I mean there is a huge assymetry between the regulation of the press and the non-regulation of the digital press which disguises itself as communication media, or the lack of any kind of gig work regulation. It's like the law is lagging 20 years behind , which is like eons in the digital age.

And if they cared about the housing situation they 'd have turned the workers to remote long before covid. In fact i d wager many of the tech millionaires benefit from the high prices of their own real estate investments. Plus the high prices ensure a continuous churn of eager immigrant workers, concentrated in a small area.

My guess: Big Oil, Big Pharma, Monsanto, etc, are old money. Big Tech is new money.

I'd wager that this one difference is the root of all the discrepancies you noticed.

This comes across as an odd position - you don’t think big tech has the ear of the president? Aren’t there pictures of Obama dining with Silicon Valley “elite”?

You mention building houses. The answer is of course big tech can get that done - it’s just not a priority regardless of what they say

When I look at copyright laws, they don't seem like they're written by big tech - they seem like they're written by Disney and the RIAA, without Youtube getting any say.

When I look at patents I see a system almost everyone in tech thinks is a joke, doing nothing but enriching a few Texan lawyers and judges.

When I look at immigration laws like H1B visas, I see a bizarre system that works for a few places like WiPro who are willing to scam the system, but that's useless for most of the tech industry.

When I look at Ajit Pai being appointed head of the FCC, I see an appointment telephone companies love - but that everyone in tech thinks is a recipe for rent extraction.

The fact that the guy who was president before the guy who was the president before the guy who's currently president once had dinner with some tech bigwigs doesn't count for much in comparison.

You can't be serious? There have been congressional hearing on big tech monopolies and stopping "disinformation". The CEOs of the FAANGS were intimately involved in the presidential election last year.

If anything, tech weight far more power than any of the other industries you mentioned.

Maybe because most tech companies (especially those in SF) provide little value for society? We need oil and food in order to survive. Do we need Facebook, Google, Netflix, etc to survive?

yeah the right comparison would be with Hollywood. Hollywood might have lobbied for extending copyrights (they had no competitor back then), what else?

Has the tech industry been particularly pro-housing? It doesn’t seem to be where they’re focusing their lobbying efforts, despite some recent actions.

There hasn't been a ton of political activity with housing, but they have been one of the largest contributors to California YIMBY, which has been pushing forward a lot of the state level housing changes (ie the substantial ones):

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/us/california-today-strip...

They certainly ought to be - rising housing costs mean rising salary costs. And what expenses does a software company have except salary costs?

When you have legislators going to $35k/meal events while wearing ‘tax the rich’ clothing, you get the clear sense it’s all a nihilistic game.

Assuming you're referring to AOC going to the MET Gala, I feel you're implying she spent $35k of taxpayer money to get there, while she was in fact invited.

Calling it "nihilistic" is a bit strong considering the robe matches her policy positions and congress votes.

It’s well known she didn’t pay for that, but the optics are hilarious.

Only if your optics are so scoped in that you can't see the big picture.

what is the big picture? to me it looks like a politician wore an expensive dress to an expensive party and (apparently) didn't have to pay for either. I guess the way it relates to her positions is a tad hypocritical, but it's well within the realm of what I generally expect from a politician. I don't find the story particularly impressive or disappointing.

That is the way those things work. invite someone important so that everyone else will pay the price. In general when a politician goes to a expensive dinner like that I assume they are paid to be there.

It's all performative and a distraction from the fact that the Met Gala is literally an event for rich people to show off their incredibly expensive clothes that will only be worn once. Unmasked while the servant class is masked, helping them get ready, carrying their dresses and serving them food and drink.

Tax the rich is a fully coopted slogan and is in fashion among the ruling class. Wearing a dress that reflects their fashion is not storming the Bastille or making them uncomfortable at all. They loved it and it worked great, considering how many peasants are defending their largesse during a pandemic. Get back to me when Senators worth $50M and the attendees who paid $35,000 for a ticket are actually getting taxed.

https://youtu.be/Y4yq726SUpE?t=550

I don't understand this this sentiment. Surely, you can be well off while simultaneously support taxing the rich?

Taxing the rich and the rich paying taxes are two entirely separate concepts. It's easy for anyone to support taxes that they will not pay.

This has nothing to do with the tech industry's comparative lobbying power. From HN comment guidelines:

> Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.