If someone downvote, can you point out what is incorrect? It feels like saying anything negative about Tesla/EVs on HN is just downvoted without regard for merit.
Good lord that is a long-winded post. Not just in scope, but the writing style rambles and opines endlessly.
For the record, I'm excited for the Model 3, and would buy a Model S if I could afford it.
That said, the claim in that reference is problematic for many reasons, which I didn't notice were addressed:
1) Thermal efficiency in a vehicle is converted directly to mechanical energy. A power plant must convert thermal energy into electrical energy (losses involved), transmit it long distances across an energy grid (more losses involved), store it in a battery (more losses), and convert it back to mechanical energy (even more losses).
2) EVs like the Model S lug around as much as >1,000s of lbs of batteries. That's monstrously inefficient when specifically compared to the energy density of gasoline.
3) Some power generators may emit more pollution than modern cars-1
From a public policy perspective, the low-hanging fruits in the fight for cleaner emissions are to get people in gas guzzlers into Civics and Accords, not to get people in Civics and Accords in to EVs. That, and public transportation, bicycling infrastructure, and raising the price of carbon to align with the public cost of it.
The public value of the anti-authoritarian sentiment as an externality of psychedelic use could be quite high, depending on what it could prevent in our future.
Germany has been criticized by many for their questionable free speech. Snowden is one famous person to do this.
The right to offend is also considered by many to be an important part of free speech-1.
In fact, I'm not so sure why the person responding to me is not at all worried. Even if the law is dropped, and this particular prosecution dropped, the fact remains: "a political artist was prosecuted for a poem insulting a politician."
If his point is simply Germany has better free speech than other countries, naming Thailand; then OK, I agree, but they're still getting close to treading a dangerous line.
Just a different perspective to answer this (and I am open to being wrong): competition b/w societies is decreasing. We live in an increasingly bureaucratic, interconnected, globalized world, and I think it is an undiscussed reason for this.
The incentives and disincentives to care for your neighbour or not, or to care for your group, decreased, and it will keep decreasing if this trend continues.
By that criteria, everything from schoolyard insults to poems insulting Trump could be made illegal.
I know you don't want to be insulted, or let other people be insulted, but it's a dangerous responisbility to give to government to make them arbiter of what speech is acceptable.
The point was that both are unintended consequences of things which generally help people. If we could have free speech, or roads, with no bad side effects we'd have them.
Once you eliminate speech just because you disagree with it, you begin the process of allowing the most powerful to determine that criteria for their own benefit.
The test to outlaw something should not be because it hurts someone. Just because you know some people will drive, or drive drunk, and this will kill people, does not mean you should ban driving, or alcohol.
Another example is democracy. Just because you support someone's right to vote for, and you know a few people will go vote for fascists, it does not mean you support fascism as a human right.
>where you think free speech was too limited in Europe and where this limitation led to a poor outcome for society?
The test for what values we uphold should not always be what has proven to be a good outcome for ourselves or for society.
Your same argument could be used against many human rights. What about torture: can you give me a concrete example of how US torture was bad for society?
Extending your argument from society to individuals, we make the worst tragedies possible. It is an important lesson from the history of Germany itself, in the quote: 'When they came for them, I did not speak, because I was not them. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak for me."
There is value in upholding human rights on principle.
Once you eliminate free speech in cases where it is convenient, you no longer have a free speech principle.
In Germany the thought police has brought people to court for things such as Facebook groups for people who don't like refugees. Maybe that seems fair to you, but then again a comedian also faced prosecution for a poem about Erdogan. Now imagine prosecution for a poem belittling Trump. It's the possibility of that outcome that we want to stay as far away from as possible.
Besides, it seems difficult to believe a legitimate role of government is to protect you from words, and words alone.
Same reason why street crime is a real problem in NZ when it shouldn't be because it goes relatively unenforced, while they run arguably one of the highest War on Drugs cost/GDP per capita in the world. Makes no sense for the dignity of the average NZ citizen.
>"We have not, to date, accepted that freedom of expression requires the facilitation of the unlawful sale of goods."
That precise argument may be well-intentioned, but it threatens free speech because it sets a precedent placing a burden of acceptable effects and results of free speech.
In other words, should Tiamen Square be de-indexed globally because free speech in China does not require it. Should torrent trackers be de-indexed--free speech does not require illegal file sharing, after all? What about bit torrent clients? Tor browser?
This site may or may not be rightfully de-indexed, but it is not because of some limitations of free speech.
I don't think he is nitpicking at all. The US has too many conflicts, incl wars. 26,000 bombs dropped last year. Extremist fighters funded by the US Gov't (Syria, Iran Contra, and who knows what else has yet to be proven). We have 7 cities with higher murder rates than any country in Africa or the Middle East, including Afghanistan. Largest prison population, a publicly known torture camp... I could go on. But I think a lot on HN are obviously absorbed in their comfortable occupations--they're challenging, interesting and demanding, and also rewarding. It's easy to get lost in this and forget what less fortunate are dealing with.
Just to address the above poster: vanilla banking could still be guaranteed. By contrast, in essence the Fed is guaranteeing the banks' risky investments.
Schwartz said verbatim the Fed should be eliminated. Sanders has said much negative on the Fed, specifically that it's 'socialism for the rich, and rugged individualism for everyone else,' and variations along the lines of 'fix the Fed,' but Schwartz is who said to completely end it.
However while you may not agree the Fed is a problem, unfortunately the Fed and central banking has an aura of group think around it that is usually only available for religious groups. I mean the fundamental concept of the fed's mandate: price stability and employment targeting--yea they sound great, but at what point do you question the ability to create value out of thin air just by playing with money. It is by definition financial alchemy.
And yes, I'm already familiar with Keynes' arguments in his General Theory, which is the historical work that set the precedent for this.
>Does it seem to anyone else that the finance industry is increasingly distracted from actually matching up capital to fundamentally productive companies, especially new companies?
This is somewhat controversial to posit, but I believe the corruption in the financial industry is extraordinarily entrenched because of the Fed. Before you call me a lunatic, smart and good people from Aaron Schwartz to Sanders have said things like this: that it should be eliminated, or that it is nothing more than socialism for the rich while hurting the poor.
The most obvious problem with it is that it creates astronomical moral hazard by protecting and guaranteeing the big banks.
After the Fin Crisis Krugman was talking a lot about making banking boring again, and run like utility companies. You can still have VCs, hedge funds, or whatever you want--but it's not funded by and guaranteed with anything other than the money you put in it, and it's separated from vanilla banking, ie Glass Steagall.
But then we had Dodd Frank and sometime after Krugman never went back to talking about that again.
Unfortunately, the dogma about the Fed is so entrenched in mainstream economics--so much so that speaking against it is immediately written-off.
Nearly 1.5 centuries ago, all the banks were actually betting against Lincoln to lose his war. So he used the constitutionally-granted right to print the nation's own currency, and won the war with it. The point is, there's no reason we can't do this if we really wanted to (and if you care about poor and working class, and eliminating cronyism from the world, you should want to).