papermill

Toyota, along with most Japanese car manufacturers, are betting big on hydrogen cars. They still invest in electric cars, but their main focus is on hydrogen-fueled cars. So I doubt they'll be buying TSLA.

Here is a good article on the direction of the japanese car industry.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/japan-bets-on-a-h...

So now Trump has both assange and manning in prison?

Funny how the entire media has been soft on Trump on this matter. You would think "journalists" at CNN, MSNBC, NYTimes, WaPo, etc would be going crazy over Trump's attack on free press, leakers and people holding power to account. Who has done more to try and hold power to account than assange and manning?

Wonder what the economist is going to write? After all he won their "New Media Award" in 2008 along with Amnesty International UK Media Awards and a few Free Speech awards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Honours_and_awa...

Let me guess what's going to happen next. The media is going to start pushing "sweden sex abuse" and anti-assange and anti-manning stories.

Why should anyone love their job? You should love your family and friends, not your job.

I guess it'll be ideal if you could enjoy your job, but it's insane to love it. Besides, most people have a job to survive and eventually retire ( not have job ).

I wonder when and where the idea of loving your job came about.

Why are you using the internet or living in the first world then? Instead of talking a good game, why not do something yourself? If you really believed the nonsense you are saying.

Ah, the "unavoidable collapse". I used to think like you because I consumed so bullshit from the news/media. I can't remember how many times "the world was ending". Super bacteria, acidic ocean, peak oil ( remember that one ), supervolcanoes, bees gone, butterflies gone, etc.

Listen, if things were truly getting as bad the propaganda claims, all the rich people's assets would be seized, nobody would be allowed to fly, own yachts and all global shipping would be stopped. If the fearmongering were true, but obviously it is not since the same people fearmongering about climate change are also pushing for more global trade, more consumption and more pollution/environmental destruction.

Do you know what is the biggest source of environmental carnage and climate change? Globalism. Do you know what the fearmongers want more of? Globalism. So maybe the world isn't going to end as they'd like you to believe. Maybe the fearmongering is about something else?

They are formidable platforms for sure, but you aren't claiming any territory with 1600 marines against a major country with millions of troops like china.

1600 marines could hold territory against a bunch of ill-equipped and unorganized terrorists or insurgents. But 1600 marines ain't holding territory against any major state military.

Just like congress likes pensions, government healthcare and yearly raises ( voted on by congress conveniently enough ) for themselves but not for ordinary folks.

It's strange how the elites want the best for themselves but not for the masses.

Money for me, none for thee. Rules for thee, none for me. It's good to be king.

As with everything, there will be winners and losers. If predictions hold, the northern hemisphere is going to be the big winner as the northern hemisphere ( primarily siberia, alaska and much of canada ) hold significant amount of inaccessible land that will become available. But just as importantly ( or even more importantly ), if the arctic passage along siberia and the northwest passage opens up, it will be an immense boon to the world economy and trade as it will shorten shipping by 30% or even more. And of course the resources ( oil, minerals, etc ) locked in the arctic will become accessible.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-09-04/who-controls-northwes...

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/10/21/russia-builds...

Don't believe the propaganda or hype online about the world ending. There will be disruption but there will also be opportunity. The media loves to hype "end of world" nonsense for clicks. In my relatively short period of time, I've lived through so many "end of world" media hypes that it is hard to take them seriously anymore.

Countries, banks, businesses, etc aren't planning for the end, they are fighting over new opportunities in the coming decades.

You have to look at it from a statistical point of view. The homosexual population is insignificantly small in a statistical sense. A small percentage increase in homosexuality in either sex isn't going to skew the data much. Also, even if there are more lesbians, it doesn't necessarily mean they are having more sex. "Lesbian bed death" exists for a reason. We know that lesbians don't have as much sex as other sexual groupings. And though more women are willing to try lesbianism than men are willing to be gay, it's also true that more lesbians leave lesbianism and marry men than gay men leave homosexuality and marry women. But in any case, the numbers of gay and lesbians are so small that it really doesn't affect the overall trend we are seeing.

Sex, food and shelter are necessary conditions for an "awesome life" for most people. You could argue they aren't sufficient and you need more ( like spirituality, community, etc ), but it's disingenuous to dismiss it as an unnecessary condition that you could distract yourself with hobbies.

Response to (sridca):

Yes, I'm well aware of the difference between need and desire.

But you can't have an "awesome life" if your major desires ( food, shelter and sex ) aren't met.

Also, I said sex is a necessary condition for most people to live an "awesome life", not all people. You misread that part. And by most people, I mean everyone barring the exceptional minority with physical or genetic ailments.

Can you live without sex? Sure. Can you live an "awesome life" without sex. I highly doubt it. But people are willing to rationalize anything I guess.

Food, sex and shelter are pretty much our biological imperatives. Not sure how you can live an "awesome life" without your basic natural desires being met.

But if you are happy living a sexless life, then all the best to you. This is a difference of opinion that we are just going to live with.

The UK does it and the media spins it as "penalizing social media for harmful online content". China does it and the same media spins it as "oppressing, tyrannizing and controlling the people".

Just like when germany passed censorship laws, the media praised it and russia copied the german censorship laws and the media spun it as "tyrant oppressing and controlling the russian people".

So is romeo and juliet going to be banned suicide because it "encourages" suicide? What about suicide/euthanasia documentaries which support doctor-assisted end of life programs?

What about books like ( bible, koran, mein kampf, etc ) that encourages violence? Is project gutenberg going to be shut down? What about all the media companies who supported wars in iraq, libya and the middle east? Are they going to be shut down? Are they going to be shut down for encouraging violence?

We have government agencies that spread fake news and disinformation. Is that going to be banned? What about PR firms whose business is spreading fake news and disinformation?

And what is children accessing inappropriate material? A christian or muslim parent thinks that lgbt material is inappropriate. Does that mean we have to scrub the internet of lgbt material? An atheist might be religious material as inappropriate for children. Do we ban religious material from the internet?

Whenever politicians use "children" as an excuse to justify more laws and regulations, it's rarely about protecting children. These people don't care about children. They care about power and control.

Once agin, the UK is at the forefront of censorship.

In the early 2000s, extreme violence was indexed on search engines. You just had to actively search for it.

The fact that you had to "deep dive" shows that you have to actively search for it so there goes your argument for more regulation.

Also, there is a difference between regulating and banning. Why are you conflating regulation with censorship? Those are two different things.

And why is showing real violence "far from healthy"? One of the reasons why I didn't join the military was seeing what actual violence. I think it is healthy to show what is really happening.

Maybe if we showed everyone the truth rather than PR packaged fake propaganda, we'd be less inclined to support wars ( territorial, drug, etc ).

If your logic is applied, then everything from porn to rap music to movies and literature needs to be banned.

Why do you and a few members of the british government decide what people can or cannot see based solely on your subjective opinions?

Jason Schreier has never worked as developer or in the gaming industry. It's insane how so many people give these people so much credence and attention. The guy literally doesn't know what he is a talking about. Also 3d artists and game testers/QA/etc are transferable skills just like programmers.

I thought everyone knew this already. And its been true for decades. When I was a CS major, everyone told me not to go into game development because you worked the most for the least amount of pay.

Not sure why why this is so high up here. I'd think that the HN community would already know this by now. If not, there are plenty of game developer testimony all over social media and the internet.

Welcome to NYC. There is construction every other block. And that's not even considering things like the 2nd Ave line construction which creates noise pollution for years on end. Is this news because wealthy people are affected?

I wonder how things would be if NYC allowed construction once every 3 years?

There are plenty of arguments against the "babies are less conscious than ravens" position. One of the most prominent being "Future like ours" and "thread of life" argument. A human baby may be less conscious than a raven, but he will eventually grow up to reach his adult potential which will easily outstrip that of ravens. There are plenty of other arguments which I'm sure you are familiar with if you majored in philosophy.

I agree with you on "subjective human judgement". I'd even suggest that morality is ultimately pure human selfishness. What we find "moral" and "immoral" changes as our interests change. Morality is what we feel relatively benefits us the most. It is selfish rationalization.

Americans agree politics is divisive. Americans agree news is divisive. Americans agree sports is divisive. But we all still consume it.

I don't get the point of the article. People are divisive. Water is wet and anything having to do with people is divisive.

How many of these "social media bad" articles are we really going to get from the news industry? It's getting to be annoying, boring and exhausting. If social media is so bad, why is the WSJ and the rest of the media trying to force their way onto social media platforms? If these journalists are right and social media is so bad, why are journalists so prominent on twitter and much of social media?

If you want divisive, go check out the WSJ and NYTimes comment sections. Yet a lot of people consume products from WSJ and NYTimes.

What's the answer? No media altogether or force people to think alike?

MacKenzie also the wealthiest novelist. Supplanting JK Rowling by more than $34 billion. Who need Harry Potter when you have a Jeff Bezos...

This story is at least 10 years late. E-Sports has been like this for a very long time.

E-Sport athletes have been training physically for a while now. Not sure why the nytimes is trying to play it off like it is a recent phenomenon.

This is simply not true. Everyone in the US knows about Harvard, Yale, MIT, etc. They are culturally significant institutions. So much so that people use "MIT" as a stand in for "excellence". "MIT of X".

"kind of like the M.I.T. [sic] for magic."

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

If your gf didn't think much of your school, maybe it's not as "elite" as you wish it were. Harvard, Yale, MIT, etc are as elite as you can get in the US ( and the world ).

That's interesting but I guess expected since a major component of success is access to power and capital. I remember reading something a while back that a significant portion of the post-war japanese and german economy, industry and government were controlled by the descendents of vanquished elites.

I wonder how the children of our politicians and business elites do compared to ordinary folks? In the US, we have been brainwashed with the propaganda about meritocracy that we blindly believe as an absolute truth as children. It's only when we get older we realize that success has a lot more to do with connections than hard work.

"Always look on the bright side of life..."

But my favorite scene is the "Romanes Eunt Domus" scene.

The Life of Brian should be mandatory viewing. Such a masterpiece.

It does sound comical. Maybe the chinese are getting desperate after the huawei exec got arrested? Or maybe it's just a "setup" to apply pressure on china before the next round of trade talks. Usually espionage/intel related events are kept secret. When it's publicized, it's usually for political/trade/etc reasons.

Just like how china magically found canadian "spies" in their country right after canada arrested one of their executives and used their propaganda apparatus to put pressure on canada.

If this was real serious espionage, I doubt the secret service, cia, etc would release the info so quickly to the media. Does this mean the trade negotiations are not going well? Does it mean it is going well? It'll be interesting to read about the inner workings of the trade negotiations a few decades from now and what historians make of this time. Things like can only be understood in hindsight and never in the moment because we, no more than the chinese people, get to see what is really happening behind the scenes. Everyone gets the massaged and curated "news".

Plenty of doping and cheating in soccer.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/feb/08/arsenal-ars...

The problem is that soccer/FIFA is so lucrative and corrupt that there is very little testing or it's simply ignored.

You could argue that the internet itself is the greatest library we've ever had and over the past decade, the internet has been slowly destroyed. The saddest part is that it isn't the luddites or religious fundamentalists behind the destruction of knowledge and the internet. It's politicians, journalists and CEOs behind the incredible push to "clean up" the internet. The internet went from an anonymous information sharing space to a pathetic censored version of facebook/twitter/google.

You should read up on some history. The most intelligent people ( newton, einstein, etc ) were far from being delightful people with delightful dispositions and far from being happy.

Just from the other day, "A study of ethicists finds they’re no more ethical than the rest of us".

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19529374

I think people are simply people, no matter how smart or educated they are. Prone to jealousy, pettiness and subject to all of human pitfalls. Of course the smarter and more educated you are, the more damage you can cause.

That's a good point. But a 2.5X increase in house sizes doesn't account for the 100X rise in house prices.

If a house cost $2000 in 1950, it probably costs $200K now. It can't all be due to increase in house size.

The biggest culprits probably are tax incentives for homeownership, increased population, zoning laws limiting housing development and international investment tied to citizenship attainment.

The congress of vienna didn't set up a world order. It was a european ( great powers ) "arrangement" at best localized to europe. Claiming that set up a world order is like saying the creation of the EU set up a world order. You could argue it created a european order, but it was in no way a world order. A world order maintained by whom? Which currency? Which legal system? Centered where? It was more of a peaceful disorder than order.

There was no world order after ww1. It was great powers building up to fight. How anyone could claim there was an international order between ww1 and ww2 is beyond me.

I've read the foreign affairs article before. It's propaganda junk like all foreign affairs articles. Foreign affairs is published by a think tank ( aka propagandists ).

Take one of it's central thesis : "The American grand strategy that emerged in this era—continental expansion and internal development combined with self-righteous aloofness from the world beyond the seas—suited a commercial republic deep in the global periphery. It could work, however, only because the United States was protected by geography and British naval supremacy. "

The idea that america was "aloof" in the 1800s is laughably false. And the idea that we depended on british naval supremacy is also patently false.

Nevermind that we fought and won against the "mighty" british in the early 1800s and essentially forced our will on them in the western hemisphere, we were also busy partaking in the opium wars in china, destroying the spanish empire in the US and abroad and forcing japan to open its ports ( something the "mighty" british couldn't get japan to do ). We became a world power in spite of the british naval supremacy, not because of it.

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

http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/japan_1750_perry.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adams%E2%80%93On%C3%ADs_Treaty

There was no international order before ww2. Besides, the US was easily the largest economy and arguably the greatest naval power ( matching the british empire ) for decades before ww2. The pre-ww2 era was an era of major powers ( US, british empire, russian/soviet empire, germany, japan, etc ). And even then, it was the US forcing them to accept our version of the "international order".

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

French is an offical language of the UN, but so is mandarin, arabic, russian, spanish, etc. Using your logic, the chinese, egypt, russia, etc ruled the world?

There has been one international world order. The american world order. The british empire never created one. Neither did the french, russians, chinese or arabs.

What basic principles and norms? The international world order, like all order, is ruled by the fist ( or might ). A lot of people had to die and will continue to die for "order". "Priniciples and norms" are just fluff we make up to distract from or justify the fist.

Lots of people would want to "upset the apple cart". Do you really think the chinese or the russians or even the germans or japanese or eventually the indians or any other major nation wouldn't want to be top dog?

The "international" world order isn't international. It's american. It's called the american world order ( or pax americana ). Of course we support the "international" world order more than china or russia. It was created by us to benefit us. I'm sure china, russia and every other major power would love to establish their own world order.

The talk about constitution, rule of law, etc doesn't matter ultimately. The constitution or the rule of law are just things we follow when it suits our interests. It's why we broke every treaty with native americans and committed heinous genocides against them. It's why we enslaved blacks and then treated them as second rate citizens after slavery. And how many illegal wars have we been engaged in?

All the intellectual niceties are meaningless. At the end of the day, nations act in the way that the elites ( or a sufficient number of the elites ) of the nation want them to act. Nations are created by the elites to benefit the elites.

Yeah, they say that every election cycle. Remember Ron Paul? Bernie Sanders? Remember the "small donors" for Obama? Nobody remembered them and neither did Obama. Super PACs are growing. Not sure where you got the idea that they are fading. Super PACs are only a few years old and they have tons of room to grow.