HNHacker News
TopNewBestAskShowJobs

opo

1,413 karma · joined April 20, 2014

submissionscomments
opo··on Texas law gives grid operator power to disconnect data centers during crisis
>...in a libertarian state

I don't think any organization that considers themselves to be libertarian has ever called Texas a "libertarian state". For example:

>...Texas’ institutions and policies continue to bear something of an old statist legacy. In the Cato Institute’s Freedom in the 50 States study, Texas scores a mere 17th, behind even the southern states of Florida (#2), Tennessee (#6), Missouri (#8), Georgia (#9), and Virginia (#12).

https://www.cato.org/commentary/texas-really-future-freedom

Are there any Texas national or state politicians who are members of the Libertarian Party or even refer to themselves as Libertarian?

opo··on My ancestors fought in WWII. Hiroshima is plagued by shallow reading
>The bombs didn't cause Japan to surrender.

According to Togo they did:

>...Meanwhile in the afternoon of August 8, before the entry of the Soviet Union into the war or the bombing of Nagasaki, the emperor met with Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo. Shortly after the war, Togo affirmed that the emperor stated the war must end at this meeting. New evidence now confirms Togo’s account that it was the atomic bomb that moved the emperor to decide to end the war.

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/japans-surren...

opo··on My ancestors fought in WWII. Hiroshima is plagued by shallow reading
Your link says this:

>...Military historian Gian Gentile disputed this counterfactual, stating that testimony from Japanese leaders in USSBS interrogations supported the likelihood of Japan continuing the war beyond November and December 1945. Gentile stated that survey authors chose not to publish such evidence, as it challenged their conclusions.

The last major battle before the dropping of the atomic bombs was the battle for Okinawa and it was the bloodiest and fiercest battle fought against the Japanese. Absolutely no one who knew about that battle would have claimed that Japan was already defeated.

>...When the guns fell silent, more than 240,000 people had lost their lives in the campaign for Okinawa. The American loss rate was 35 percent of the force, totaling 49,151 casualties.

>...So close to the home islands, most Japanese soldiers refused to surrender and fought to the death. Their fanaticism contributed to a dreadful toll. Some 110,000 Japanese and conscripted Okinawan defenders were killed in action.

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/okinawa-costs...

Japan had every intention of defending the main islands just as strong, or stronger, starting with operation Ketsu-Go. One of the slogans in Japan in 1945 was "The sooner the Americans come, the better...One hundred million die proudly."

https://irp.fas.org/eprint/arens/chap4.htm

As user 542354234235 pointed out in an earlier message:

>...Every option (invasion, mass starvation via blockade, atomic bombing) was a horrific nightmare of death for the Japanese.

Unfortunately, I think that was situation the Allies found themselves in.

>...and in all likelihood was instead to ensure Japan surrendered to the US and not to Russia

This idea keeps getting repeated by revisionists, but is not credible. While the Soviets considered invading Hokkaido after Japan surrendered, very few people think they would have succeeded. The USA had given the Soviet Union some ships that could be used, but they would not have been nearly enough.

opo··on Exit Tax: Leave Germany before your business gets big
For those unaware, the original essay "I, Pencil" was written by Leonard Read:

https://fee.org/ebooks/i-pencil/

opo··on Hiroshima (1946)
Yes, they had no chance of winning and it should have been obvious long before Okinawa. Unfortunately, it doesn't mean they were ready to surrender.
opo··on Hiroshima (1946)
>..I rarely if ever hear them say that "we had to use nuclear bombs because we didn't want the USSR to invade Japan before they surrendered".

People rarely say that because there is little evidence for it - it was the USA that was pressuring Stalin to declare war on Japan. Little Boy was dropped on Aug 6, the Soviet Union finally declared war on Japan on Aug 9 as they agreed to at Yalta. (While the Soviets considered invading Hokkaido after Japan surrendered, very few people think they would have succeeded. The USA had given the Soviet Union some ships that could be used, but they would not have been nearly enough.)

opo··on Hiroshima (1946)
The Soviets could never have done a large invasion of Japan. They had a few ships that the USA had given them as part of Project Hula, but that is nothing compared to what would be needed for a full scale invasion of Japan.

In comparison, the proposed allied invasion was planned to have 42 aircraft carriers, 24 battleships, and 400 destroyers and destroyer escorts.

opo··on Hiroshima (1946)
I find it is important to be skeptical of people's descriptions of what they were supposedly thinking years earlier. Much better is to find contemporaneous accounts. For example:

>...my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary,

The last major battle before the dropping of the atomic bombs was the battle for Okinawa and it was the bloodiest and fiercest battle fought against the Japanese. Absolutely no one who knew about that battle would have claimed that Japan was already defeated.

>...When the guns fell silent, more than 240,000 people had lost their lives in the campaign for Okinawa. The American loss rate was 35 percent of the force, totaling 49,151 casualties.

>...So close to the home islands, most Japanese soldiers refused to surrender and fought to the death. Their fanaticism contributed to a dreadful toll. Some 110,000 Japanese and conscripted Okinawan defenders were killed in action.

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/okinawa-costs...

opo··on Employee – CEO pay gap historically wide
>Basically, in 1919, Henry Ford sought to reinvest the Ford Motor Company’s profits into raising employee wages

I don't actually see any reference in the wikipedia article that Ford was saying he wanted to use the dividend money to raise wages:

>...Henry Ford, sought to end special dividends for shareholders in favor of massive investments in new plants that would enable Ford to dramatically increase production, and the number of people employed at his plants, while continuing to cut the costs and prices of his cars.

And as usual in these cases, there are other unstated reasons that might actually be more important to the decision maker:

>...Ford was also motivated by a desire to squeeze out his minority shareholders, especially the Dodge brothers, whom he suspected (correctly) of using their Ford dividends to build a rival car company. By cutting off their dividends, Ford hoped to starve the Dodges of capital to fuel their growth

opo··on Facts don't change minds, structure does
I have always thought the lesson here is to be careful when insulting those with a great deal of power over you. Pope Urban VIII was originally a patron and supporter of Galileo:

>...Indeed, although Galileo states in the preface of his book that the character is named after a famous Aristotelian philosopher (Simplicius in Latin, Simplicio in Italian), the name "Simplicio" in Italian also had the connotation of "simpleton."[55] Authors Langford and Stillman Drake asserted that Simplicio was modeled on philosophers Lodovico delle Colombe and Cesare Cremonini. Pope Urban demanded that his own arguments be included in the book, which resulted in Galileo putting them in the mouth of Simplicio. Some months after the book's publication, Pope Urban VIII banned its sale and had its text submitted for examination by a special commission

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

opo··on People kept working, became healthier while on basic income: report (2020)
>The thing we’d be giving up is 2% of our economic output…

That 2% was for a payout of just $1,000 a month and the participants knew it was temporary. A more generous payout that was permanent might lead to a higher percentage.

>...and the thing we’d be getting is, I think, a massive improvement to people’s quality of life.

The general principle of most welfare systems is to provide for those who are unable to work. There isn't nearly as much support in the general public to provide for those who simply choose not to work. Hence the comment in the blog that "...if it’s confirmed that basic income discourages work and provides little long-term career benefits, I think interest in the idea will wane rapidly."

opo··on People kept working, became healthier while on basic income: report (2020)
>...2% sounds like a good trade to me.

What exactly is the trade here? In a trade, both sides are supposed to be better off.

As the link says:

>...But if it’s confirmed that basic income discourages work and provides little long-term career benefits, I think interest in the idea will wane rapidly.

opo··on People kept working, became healthier while on basic income: report (2020)
> Acting like this is UBI's fault is kind of weird.

As Noah Smith wrote:

>...Now, increased leisure time isn’t zero benefit — obviously it’s nice to be able to sit around and do nothing and live off of government cash for a little while. But it represents a steep tradeoff — programs like this are already very expensive in fiscal terms, and if they make people work less, that only adds to the total economic cost. If leisure time is all we’re getting for all of that money and lost output, it’s highly questionable whether the intervention is worth it.

opo··on People kept working, became healthier while on basic income: report (2020)
>The report shows nearly three-quarters of respondents who were working when the pilot project began kept at it despite receiving basic income.

1/4 of the people stopped working?? That is a huge effect, particularly since it was a short duration experiment. Unfortunately this is also seen in other experiments with basic income. The economist Noah Smith blogged about a large randomized basic income study done in the US where participants received about $1,000 a month for three years:

>...Just $1000 a month made 2% of people stop working! That’s a very large negative effect. It contradicts the results of earlier studies showing little or no effect of unconditional cash benefits on employment. And worst of all, the basic income recipients didn’t seem to transfer to better jobs or go back to school — two of the most powerful arguments for basic income. Instead, people just sat around at home.

https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/at-least-five-interesting-thin...

opo··on Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
I would disagree with your characterization of the two approaches to increasing taxes but like you said this is a forum comment.

>...Of the two, I think only the second offers any real hope of deficit reduction. The middle and lower classes are already tapped out, metaphorically speaking.

Many people point to the high government spending in some of the OECD countries, but what they fail to recognize is that the US has one of the most progressive tax systems in the OECD. The difference is that in those other OECD countries, the middle class pays a higher share of the taxes and there is more money available because there are a lot more middle class tax payers than high income payers.

>If the goal really is to reduce the deficit through increasing revenue, I think it’s likely that revenue must come from the upper classes in one way or another.

The tax to GDP ratio has remained fairly stable for decades: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S

The effective tax rates paid by the high income earners is fairly close to the highest it has ever been.

Your original point was:

>The faction that currently runs the Democratic party is the centrist, deficit-reducing, foreign-intervention-when-necessary party of Reagan/Bush.

Again, I have a hard time considering a party that increases spending so much that debt will be increased by $4.7 trillion to be one that can be called "deficit-reducing". (Nor can the R party be called that either of course.) Just because the D party talks about raising revenue doesn't really mean anything.

opo··on Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
>The faction that currently runs the Democratic party is the centrist, deficit-reducing, foreign-intervention-when-necessary party of Reagan/Bush.

How are you defining "deficit-reducing"?

>Over the four years of President Biden’s term – from January 2021 through January 2025 – we estimate that he approved $4.7 trillion in new ten-year debt through legislation and executive actions.

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-did-president-biden-add-...

That rate of debt increase is neither responsible or sustainable - though such irresponsible behavior has now been adopted by both parties. Both parties seem to have become radicalized and are catering to their worst instincts.

opo··on The Prime Reasons to Avoid Amazon
If it ships from Amazon, you can still run the risk that you get a counterfeit item since Amazon will co-mingle the inventory. Safer to only buy from the seller and is shipped by the seller.
opo··on Rolling the ladder up behind us
The 79 oil crisis and rationing was caused by the disruption of oil from the Iran, but the US suffered much more from the disruption of the oil from Iran than other countries that also relied on this oil. It would be wrong to ignore the role the government played in making this oil disruption significantly worse.

From "The U.S. Petroleum Crisis of 1979", PHILIP K. VERLEGER, JR. Here are some examples of problems that were identified:

>...On February 28, 1979, DOE published the following notice in the Federal Register: "It is essential that refiners enter the spring driving season with adequate gasoline stocks to meet seasonal demand requirements. We recognize that gasoline stocks are currently at adequate levels for this time of year, which is usually a period of low demand. Recent industry data indicate that total stocks are now in excess of 265 million barrels, which is less than last year's record high levels during the same period but above the average levels of previous years. Our concern is that these stocks not be drawn down precipitously as soon as the impacts of the Iranian shortfall are felt by refiners. Refiners are urged to keep stocks high enough to meet expected demand during the 1979 summer driving season, even if it is necessary to restrict somewhat the amount of surplus gasoline that is made available to purchasers currently" The implementation of these instructions had the effect of restricting the volume of gasoline available to service stations to between 80 and 90 percent of 1978 levels. This reduction was greater than the reduction in total gasoline supplies.

>...In April 1979, DOE ordered the fifteen largest refiners to sell 7.8 million barrels of crude oil to smaller firms that were unable to obtain supplies on the world market at competitive prices. …These transfers probably reduced the volume of gasoline produced in the second quarter because the refineries that purchased the crude oil had only a limited capacity to produce gasoline, while the refineries that sold it could have produced more. ...In addition to reducing the supply of gasoline, the buy/sell program appears to have affected the geographic distribution of crude oil and gasoline. This is because the primary recipients of the crude oil were refineries in the Midwest and the gulf coast areas, while the sellers were companies that were marketing throughout the nation.

>...…In April, DOE turned its attention to the low stock of distillate fuel oil … Two impacts were observed on domestic markets. First, excessive stocks of heating oil were accumulated. Second, companies may have been influenced to increase gasoline stocks in anticipation of the mandator yield controls that DOE threatened to impose.

>...Price controls on gasoline may have also created an incentive to withhold gasoline from the market when the prices of crude oil were rising rapidly. …In summary, the refiners had the capacity and the knowledge to take advantage of this opportunity. Ironically, the instructions from DOE to the companies were to do precisely what was most profitable.

>...In addition to encouraging the buildup of stocks, DOE may have added to the shortages by creating an incentive to reduce the output of crude oil. Although it is difficult to estimate what domestic supplies of crude oil might have been in the absence of any restriction, a DOE announcement in November that control levels of the base period were to be reviewed may have constrained production in the first half of 1979.

opo··on Medieval Africans had a unique process for purifying gold with glass (2019)
As your wikipedia link states:

>...While online articles in the 21st century have claimed that Mansa Musa was the richest person of all time,[91] historians such as Hadrien Collet have argued that Musa's wealth is impossible to calculate accurately.

We don't know the exact wealth of Manda Musa and there really isn't a good way to compare wealth between different eras. Even in the same general timeframe, wouldn't the khanates of the mongol empire be considered more wealthy?

opo··on European Investment Bank to inject €70B in European tech
You bring up some interesting ideas, though I wonder about this:

>Europe has 3X the population density (and subsequent urbanization) as the US.

Are you sure about that?

>...The population density in Europe is 34 per Km² (87 people per mi²).

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/europe-popula...

>...The population density in the United States is 38 per Km² (98 people per mi²).

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population...

opo··on What do wealthy people buy, that ordinary people know nothing about? (2015)
> The only meaningful way to get the money circulating back through the economy is taxation.

Scrooge McDuck is a fictional character. Rich people don't have all their money hoarded in a pool of gold coins - excess money is invested back into the economy.

opo··on Anatomy of a $70M Auction Flop
>This is why John Stewart Mill and Adam Smith advocated for steeply progressive taxes beyond a floor.

That is not correct.

>...Smith's first maxim of taxation, from Wealth of Nations, is that the "subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

>Taxation in proportion to revenue is not progressive taxation. It is proportional taxation—in modern terminology, a flat tax.

https://reason.com/2023/06/04/adam-smith-wasnt-a-progressive...

In terms of Mill, I think he advocated for inheritance taxes, but in terms of "steeply progressive taxes" he wrote:

>...To tax the larger incomes at a higher percentage than the smaller is to lay a tax on industry and economy; to impose a penalty on people for having worked harder and saved more than their neighbours.

https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/mill-principles-of-politi...

opo··on Amazon's Vulcan Robots Now Stow Items Faster Than Humans
>Henry Ford famously wanted his workers to be able to afford his cars.

Amazing how that bit of PR is still being quoted over 100 years later. In reality, Ford had huge turnover problems with his workers - one estimate is over 370% annual turnover. One way to help prevent turnover is to pay more, and it solved the problem. (Even so, the base pay was still actually $2.30 and to get the extra $2.70 you had to abstain from alcohol, keep your home clean, etc.)

https://www.cbsnews.com/detroit/news/henry-ford-implements-5...

opo··on My new deadline: 20 years to give away virtually all my wealth
>Too many well-intentioned organizations wind up milquetoast tax-exempt hedge funds aimed primarily at self-preservation because the received wisdom is that they should focus on building endowments and keep their withdrawal rates below 4% in order to achieve immortality.

Which charities are giving away less than 4% a year? Charitable foundations in the US are required to give away at least 5% of their endowment a year:

https://www.ncfp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/The-Five-Per...

opo··on Google to back three new nuclear projects
In most places home rooftop solar systems are heavily subsidized by everyone else. Also, in almost all cases, the home installation doesn’t have enough battery power to actually last through inclement weather and so is free riding on the reliability provided by the grid, putting more costs on the less well off. The whole thing is sort of a reverse Robin Hood scheme. One might argue that we should be subsidizing solar energy, but then the subsidies should go to utility grade solar. Money is limited and is fungible - a dollar spent subsidizing utility solar will go much, much further than a dollar spent subsidizing rooftop residential solar.

As the statista.com report says >...Rooftop solar photovoltaic installations on residential buildings and nuclear power have the highest unsubsidized levelized costs of energy generation in the United States. If it wasn't for federal and state subsidies, rooftop solar PV would come with a price tag between 122 and 284 U.S. dollars per megawatt-hour.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/493797/estimated-leveliz...

opo··on Retailers will soon have only about 7 weeks of full inventories left
>"Pass laws quickly" is, depending on who you ask, either not the right thing you want to optimize for, or the exact opposite of what you want.

Opinions on the filibuster are often also time dependent. If the person's preferred party has a majority in the Senate, then the filibuster is called an evil relic of the past that should be removed. If the other party has a majority, the filibuster is a sacred part of democracy and must not be touched.

opo··on Reports of the death of California High-Speed Rail have been greatly exaggerated
There hasn't been that much inflation.

>The construction of the Interstate Highway System cost approximately $114 billion (equivalent to $618 billion in 2023).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System#:~:t...

opo··on Trump temporarily drops tariffs to 10% for most countries
>I remember how Jimmy Carter had to sell the family farm because it was viewed as a potential conflict of interest ...

Are you sure you remember that? Jimmy Carter put his farm in a blind trust, he didn't sell it.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/02/24/fac...

opo··on Rickover's Lessons
> implemented the new all-volunteer military

The USA switched to a volunteer force 3 years before Carter was elected. What he did do, was re-establish draft registration. Not something one should brag about.

opo··on France plots tax on super-rich to rearm – and Britain could be next
>...All western nations used to have far higher top marginal rates for income and inheritance taxes. Far less loopholes, and yet here we are.

When western nations had far higher top marginal rates for income there were far MORE loopholes, not less. Those high rates did not bring in much revenue. For example:

>...Of the $517 billion the Treasury collected in 1980, only $3 billion to $5 billion came from the 70 percent bracket — less than 1 percent of total tax revenue.

https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2019/02/05/democrats-7...

(This is one reason that democrats suggested lowering the top rate in 1981.)

Those high marginal rates encouraged all kinds of unproductive investments to take advantage of loopholes built into the law. Where people couldn't get around such high rates, there were deadweight losses from economic activity that didn't occur. Even if someone thinks it is morally ok to take that much of someone's income, those kinds of high rates simply hurt the economy.

← PreviousPage 4 of 28Next →