danjayh

Also, for a throwaway account, you're pretty active here on HN :).

Reference:

http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/how_to_prolong_li...

> As per the GPL (under which the Linux kernel is licensed), the manufacturer had to have provided a written offer of sources. Needless to say that a random chinese company (SmartQ, currently owned by Huami) does not care even a little about this sort of thing. I checked theit site every which way I could, and found no sources. Emaling them produced no reply, of course. Of course, why would it? I tried to find some people on LinkedIn who might help, but I was told in no uncertain terms to go away.

With increasing amounts of SW development moving to low-cost countries, this sort of attitude may well eventually destroy the availability of the 'free' software that these manufacturers rely on (besides hurting the GPL + homebrew firmware communities).

If you want a decent article by a respectable pub, check out the Ars version (linked below). It has all of the technical info that Engadget missed, minus the comments on how 'fantastic' the device feels.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/02/lg-g5-hands-on-lg-may...

We have 4 cats, two horses, a goat, and a dog. All exhibit behavior that is inexplicable without emotion. I realize that all of these creatures are pretty close to one another in terms of classification, but it wouldn't surprise me a bit if these behaviors existed in creatures more distantly related to our cadre of quadrupeds.

Relevant link: https://docs.mbed.com/docs/arm-ipv66lowpan-stack/en/latest/1...

EDIT: I am specifically referring to the "Price to Income" chart in my comment below, not the one that shows up by default. Sorry for the confusion.

--

Uncheck everything but the 'US' graph. Different data sources give different ratios, but they all show that it's still well above historical norms & headed up. Some data sources say that it's already approximately back to where it was in the peak (see a link further down, that chart is up-to-date), others like this one only show it ~1/2 way there (note tat this chart is two years out of date), but either way we're above what has been stable in the past.

http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-curren...

Maintaining a near-zero interest rate creates artificial demand, and encourages investment of capital in inefficient enterprises. The thought process is "hey, I lose value with money in the bank. I'd be better off if I found something -- anything -- else to do with it!"

I think that once things take a turn, housing will also turn again, because in many areas the median house now costs enough that it's beyond the reach of the median person. That environment is unsustainable over a large time scale. Ultimately, we'll need a correction that sticks if we want to avoid repeating these events, and for that to happen we'd need a government willing to tolerate a politically unpalatable permanent reduction in asset prices.

(edit/note: I do find it odd that under a Democratic president, the major flows of borrowed cash (debt) have been directed to the big guys, while under a Republican president, they were directed to the little guys. Both were a terrible idea, but it seems backwards for what one would expect.)

As someone who has worked through paying down a large amount of student debt, I can tell you that student debt is very difficult to refinance. Our student debt balance was much higher than the median, but I believe that our experience with refinancing was very typical: we couldn't refinance our student debt at an interest rate that was even remotely attractive.

We reacted to the dearth of refinancing options by deciding to eliminate our debt as quickly as possible, and when we first got married we dumped about $35k into debt reduction. We chose to go after the high interest rate first, which was also the largest loan. Had we gone after the smallest loans first we could have paid off several of them instead of merely making a (significant) dent in the higher rate loans, and this is where the psychology comes in.

Dumping a ton of money into a debt without changing anything but your principle balance is discouraging. It was for us, and it is for nearly everyone else too. Personal finance counselors like Dave Ramsey actually instruct people to intentionally pursue the smallest debts first because the feeling of momentum helps most people to maintain dedication to getting out of debt, which in many cases will more than offset the difference in interest rates (paying down faster due to more resolve = less interest overall). We sold stuff and skimped like crazy people and we killed our debt, but it's a very common thing for people to run out of determination before they run out of debt. Since that's such a common problem, I'd say that it's not necessarily a bad thing that people pay debt in a financially non-optimal way if the method is at least psychologically optimized.

And the fact that you think my friends are living 'just above the breadline' is somewhat interesting to me; I would disagree. The own, not rent, a home. They have and cashflow a child (a very expensive thing these days, and considering the cost to society and the planet, it should be a privilege). Not only do they have food, but they never want for it (granted, they can't spend $15 on fast food for the family whenever they don't feel like cooking). They have a car. If that's 'on or slightly above the breadline', then we might not even be using a common vocabulary.

As an anecdotal example, I live in the midwest and have a couple of friends who have bottom-of-the-barrel jobs, making maybe $10/hr (which is what you get at McD's around here). That's enough that with careful management of their funds they were able to buy a very small house, eat modestly, drive a car, and cover the expenses for their child (we don't have smog laws here, so you can get a serviceable car for < $1k). They're not particularly motivated people, and haven't put any effort into getting better jobs, but they're also OK with living in the bad part of town in a postage stamp house. Nonetheless, their standard of living is dramatically higher than that of the vast majority of the rest of the world, and even though they're by far on the bottom end of the income scale, they're doing just fine.

We have fairly permissive zoning laws and building codes here, and people pop up houses like it's going out of style, so housing is very cheap compared to other parts of the country (the downside being that we have huge neighborhoods of small, cheaply built houses). Even though I don't particularly enjoy the look of these neighborhoods, they do serve a purpose, and I'm glad that we let people build them because they enable people like my friends to live on a very tight budget (and quite honestly, what somebody wants to build on their private property isn't anybody else's business, unless it's dangerous to people outside of the property in some way). True story: I needed a hay barn and I needed it to be extremely cheap, so I bought the ass-end of a cube van and plopped it on the back of my property. No flak from the township :). The chassis of the cube van is now living a happy life as a septic pumping truck.

... BS ...

There is nothing the same about taking a significant amount of money from one group and giving a significant amount of money to another group, even if you use a unified mechanism to accomplish it. Regardless of how you feel about the issue, let's at least keep the discourse honest.

I'll be honest: although most people around here are fans of basic income, negative income tax, etc., I am not for one simple reason: the second that more than 50% of the population is on the 'receiving' end of things and not on the 'paying' end, the motivation of society as a whole to enforce responsible governance and efficient use of government funds diminishes significantly. The pain of waste just doesn't sting so badly when it's not "your" money being wasted.

As a nation, we already pay a disgusting portion of our total income tax revenue toward interest (over 25% if you exclude FICA income). As painful as it may be, at some point our country is going to have to own up to the credit binge we've been on and either significantly raise taxes & keep spending the same, or keep taxes the same & significantly reduce spending to keep our debt problem from getting further out of control. Alternatively, the federal government could reclaim control of the money supply from the federal reserve and inflate its way out, but this is also really a form of tax; if the assets & income you had yesterday are worth less today because the government printed itself some funds ... you have been taxed, my friend.

All of these things, however, would be political suicide and I don't expect to see it happen any time soon.

Welcome to the future :(

"This is not work for white folks to lead"

"We need solidarity with our asian friends and colleagues"

"Some of the biggest barriers to progress are white women"

(...)