Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | Epa095's commentslogin

"Many people have asked us why we didn’t build a four-wheeled cart that wouldn’t need to be balanced. However, four wheels would double the rolling resistance and thus the effort required to push the cart. Furthermore, a four-wheeled cart is less maneuverable and more difficult to drive on uneven terrain. You also need to get two extra wheels, and you need to build a steering mechanism. "

I would have asked them why they didn't make a 3 wheeled version. Keep the two big wheels on the side, add a smaller freely rotating one in the front, like a lot of strollers have. They could make it just a tiny bit too low, so it's easy to roll it with both 2 or 3 wheels.


It is my impression that when drinking age restrictions are introduced, drinking among the (now) underage population goes down. Not disappear, but goes down.

My personal experience is also that 17 year olds in countries where the legal drinking age is 16 drink more than 17 year olds where the drinking age is 18, but I don't have numbers on it.


Renewables is the only realistic path to energy independence. Today's global situation should show the absolute necessity of that, even if you dont give a sh*t about the environment.

Had we done more 10 years ago we would have been better of. The second best time to start is now.


I mean nuclear provides that too.

(We used to build it at a fraction of the cost and less than half of the time that we do with our modern fuckups and fuel can come from just about anywhere if need be. It might be a lot more expensive than the stuff kazachstan and still be a fraction of the cost.)

I think ideally we would've done both to press the cost of nuclear down and given the fact that the renewables rollout turned out to be a lot lot more expensive than proponents claimed it would be whilst still tying us up into gass to cover winter.


Yes, we should definitely optimise for the most expensive form of electricity: https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/bjorn-lomborg-solar-wind-p...

When reading an article written by Bjorn Lomborg, you should also do the effort to read the cited sources. This is not an ad hominem attack, just an observation. Do it and you will see.

Europe still has coal, lots of it, not using it is a political choice and a self-inflicted wound.

It does not. That is not economically mined. Last big hard coal producer in EU - Poland, has extraction cost x2 or x3 of the mountain top removal mining in US. This sector is shrinking rapidly. Poland coal production came back to ~1915 levels (taking into account current PL territory). This sector would be closed already if not for massive subsidies.

Last year, China's coal use decreased, while China installed 300x more renewables than nuclear. Coal and nuclear aren't cost competitive with renewables, either in a free market or a technocratic top-down economy. Coal and gas still maintain a valid niche of firming intermittency. But that niche is temporary and shrinking.

Of all the coal consumed per year, China uses half of it. They are not a green economy.

They are greening fast, and enabling greening of others through cost competitive supplies.

> either in a free market o

Then why all the anti-coal mining diktats coming down from Brussels?


Large Combustion Plant Directive: coal incompatible with both traditional air quality measurements and CO2 emissions.

Renewables deployment is happening fast. Grid upgrades are not. Batteries .. it depends.

Even nuclear darling France has set solar records: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2026/04/15/france-germany-set-da...


The free market installs a tiny amount of coal, and a lot of renewable energy. Whether you believe this means "coal is/isn't cost competitive with renewables in a free market" is a debate about word definitions that I'm not terribly interested in.

Brussels is trying to reduce "tiny" to zero, because of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

China, like Brussels, is trying to reduce coal for similar reasons. They don't like the air pollution health hazard (fully believable), and they say they don't like global warming (somewhat believable).


I guess you think this high marginal tax rate would hold for unrealized capital gains? Otherwise your conclusion don't really hold.

Personally I prefer a wealth tax.


How is the ToS relevant when the company is already bankrupt (IANAL)? Slack can cancel the customer-relationship with the bankrupt company, but that's it, no?

The world is large. There is still infinite room left on earth closer than space.

The reason the DC want to be placed in proximity to people is to get access to the infrastructure, electricity grid and roads. I think the next natural step is to just put the DC further away from existing infrastructure and pay for the connect, not move to space.


The concern isn't at all about physical space, DCs are compact, it's about limitations of the infrastructure you're talking about. Turbines currently have a multi-year backlog. The interconnection queue for new generation is an even longer backlog in many grid regions. And there's a general populist backlash against them.

Funny story is that a very important reason why Norway ended up with the oil policies it did is a Iraq-born immigrant named Farouk Al-Kasim.

He was a geologist with a Norwegian wife, moving to Norwegy since their kid had cerebral palsy. In a testament to how desperate Norway was for competence in petroleum, he could pretty much just walk in to the ministry of industry and get a job, and ended up writing the nation’s blueprint for how it would organise its fledgling oil industry. Without him things could have gone very very different, and he has been awarded Royal Norwegian Order of Saint Olav Knight 1st Class for his importance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farouk_Al-Kasim

https://web.archive.org/web/20100123225932/http://www.ft.com...


Note that it's usual that companies gets tax on surplus, not income. So we are already 'punishing' the efficient ones, we are just doing it in a relatively neutral way.

In systems with progressive income tax, the total tax income from a company with 1 employee making X$ is more than if the company had 2 employees making X/2$, so essentially 'punishing' using highly skilled labour over more less skilled ones.

There are no perfect taxes, and current tax systems have adapted from a lot of practical concerns. Some of those is that's it's easier to tax money as they are moving around vs when they are sitting still (wealth or property tax), and it's easier to tax people than abstract entities like companies, since people have a harder time moving. And for the same reason, it's easier to tax the middle class than the owner class, since the richer you are the easier it is to move yourself and those you care about to wherever taxes are low these days.

All these practical concerns have made it such one of the most common ways for the state to get a share of the productivity of its society, is from income tax. But this is not a 'economic law' that if must be like that. If more and more of the productivity and wealth creation in society is produced such that there is little employment income involved, we will have to find other ways to tax it.


Both of which unfortunately only supports open repos :-/


Because he is the elected vice president, he answers to the people, not the president.


Some say he answers to Pete Thiel


Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: