

California - mqt
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/10/05.html

======
geebee
I've noticed "Made In California" as well, and it's an interesting choice of
words for Apple.

It brings to mind PG's counter-example of the iPod to the "Squalor of the man-
made bits of America" (in his Made In USA essay). When I lived in Europe, I
noticed that general stereotypes of the "USA" differed dramatically from
impressions of "LA", "San Francisco", "New York", "California".

When you say "USA", people around the world often think of an economic and
military juggernaut. If you say "California", they often think "surfers,
technology, Ahnold, the Golden Gate Bridge," and so forth. Various cities in
the US also have their own international reputations.

It's pretty clear that the rest of the world has very negative _and_ very
positive impressions of the United States, and these can be triggered by how
you present yourself. Perhaps Apple is trying to grab a more positive reaction
by claiming California rather than the USA? When Bush refused to ratify the
Kyoto treaty, there was some talk in England about boycotting US products
(pretty hopeless idea there, but it shows the anger). California did raise its
international brand by bucking that trend.

I expect the US will regain some of its stature once the current
administration is gone, but even if/when it does, I'd expect more local
branding. Cities compete with each other more than countries do. What does it
even mean to say it was "Made in the USA" anymore? If it's made in Seattle,
Sydney, or Barcelona, it isn't made in San Francisco. We may be moving toward
a world economy where that's the only thing that actually matters.

~~~
anamax
> When Bush refused to ratify the Kyoto treaty, there was some talk in England
> about boycotting US products (pretty hopeless idea there, but it shows the
> anger).

Actually, it shows ignorance. The US president doesn't ratify treaties, the
Senate does. And, the Senate voted Kyoto down 95-0 during the Clinton years.

You got played by Clinton, but you can't object too much because you didn't
bother to comply either.

~~~
geebee
You're absolutely right: that my use of the word "ratify" was incorrect. The
senate does indeed ratify treaties. And the senate did reject Kyoto (which may
have needed some work), as you have said.

But one debating tactic I've noticed in people with a weak argument: they go
quickly to detail, identify flaws in phrasing, redefine words, argue over
procedural details. Sometimes this is referred to as a "strawman argument",
where you take your opponent's argument in its weakest form, and knock it
down. I'd like to invite you to take the argument in its strongest form, and
actually say something substantive.

So instead of "refused to ratify the Kyoto treaty," let's instead say
"actively undermined efforts to take meaningful action against global
warming." That would be taking the argument in a stronger form, and would give
you an opportunity to explain how the Bush administration does not deserve a
reputation for undermining efforts to combat global warming.

So... would you claim that George Bush has nothing to do with the America's
rejection of the Kyoto treaty, or America's remarkable inaction on global
warming in general? And would you disagree that his administration has
repeatedly tried to undermine California's efforts to do something about it?

Before we start arguing about votes and procedures, I'd like to hear your big
picture view on this issue.

~~~
anamax
Bush treats Kyoto as Clinton did. If Clinton made you feel better about that,
well, they don't call him Slick Willy for nothing.

I'd argue that Bush is actually irrelevant to the US and the climate
arguments. Since their rejection predates him, it's hard to argue that he's a
cause. And, since no one else bothered, it's hard to argue that the US is
especially wrong on this point. (Then again, since the best-case benefits of
Kyoto are within the margin of error...)

And no, what I did is not a strawman. I took what you wrote at face value.

~~~
geebee
The strawman is Clinton. There's no reference whatsoever to Clinton in my
original post. You claim that I'm elevating Clinton and the Senate to some
high position, and then knock it down, when my post is about California's
legislation.

My claim is that that _California_ has made efforts that the United States
have not made, and I _do_ claim that the Bush administration has been actively
undermining these efforts - both nationally and in California.

(edit - oh wait, I get it - I should have said "when the US failed to ratify
Kyoto, rather than "when the Bush administration failed to ratify kyoto". I
think Bush had a lot to do with it, but he wasn't the only one. If that's your
position, fair enough).

~~~
anamax
The claim was that Euros were angry at Bush because of Kyoto. Since they
weren't angry at Clinton and Clinton did the same things wrt Kyoto, the
"because" is either wrong or shows that the Euros are ignorant.

And then there's the small matter that the Euros have done much the same wrt
Kyoto and the fact that Kyoto doesn't do anything towards the stated goals and
....

~~~
geebee
I agree, the Europeans to some extent are piling on America, and Americans are
piling on Bush, as a convenient way of blaming someone else without doing
anything themselves.

That said, the Europeans were irritated with Clinton/Gore about this, and I
thought it was somewhat unfair back then as well. When the Kyoto treaty failed
the first time, it almost seemed that the Europeans had deliberately
constructed a flawed treaty so they could blame us for failing to ratify it.

All the same, I think that Gore would have worked to overcome the negatives of
this treaty and get a good agreement through. Whereas I think Bush used it to
snuff out _any_ action on Global warming.

California's actions can actually be used to refute some of this international
criticism: California was willing to go against its own national government to
get global warming legislation through - surely Australia, France, and
Germancy can find a way to act without US leadership (or in spite of US
opposition).

But my very first post was really about branding - that California may have a
better international brand than the US does, partly because of this type of
legislation. I really didn't want to spin off a long debate about global
warming.

~~~
anamax
> Australia, France, and Germancy can find a way to act without US leadership
> (or in spite of US opposition)

Opposition? How is the US forcing anyone to burn hydrocarbons? (France is
going nuke in a big way so Germany may end up dependent.)

Euros are constantly saying how they're the economic equal of the US. If
that's true, "US leadership" isn't all that relevant. Moreover, if the claims
about a carbon free economy are true, doing so would be incredibly lucrative.

When someone insists that something is incredibly profitable but they're not
trying to get as much of that profit as possible, their actions refute their
words.

California and the US are both brands whose impression, like many brands,
often has nothing to do with reality. Suggesting otherwise, especially with
bogus arguments, is foolish.

~~~
geebee
We've hijacked this thread enough by now. Time for us to make our closing
arguments and move on. This will be my last post, though I'll read whatever
you post in response.

Your last post seemed scattershot to me, but I do want to respond to what I
think was a very peculiar argument in your first sentence.

The US isn't forcing anyone to burn hydrocarbons, of course. But a treaty is
still important, because many smaller nations will conclude that if the huge
emitters aren't going to change, there's no real point in sacrificing
themselves (to some extent, this was Australia's rational for rejecting
Kyoto).

There's an article in this week's economist about applying prisoner's dilemna
to global warming action - where it pays to defect (let other people do the
heavy lifting on reducing emissions). If the rest of the world gets it
together on global warming, then you'll get a free ride. If the rest of the
world doesn't - well then we're all going to hell in a bucket anyway, so why
bother with sacrifices? But if everyone acts this way, we'll all be much worse
off than if we had cooperated.

The economist article also points out that while defections pay off in single-
run games, they don't necessarily pay in repeat games, where subsequent
punishment for previous defections may cost more than the benefit of the
original defection. In this context, the community of nations who _do_
cooperate may be able to punish defectors severely enough that they prefer to
come on board.

I suspect that California is trying to signal to the world that it is
cooperating, not defecting, on global warming - by making a very big and
public break with national policy. This, along with other policies, is part of
the california "brand." While California needs to do more (and an editorial in
the SF Chronicle comparing California's policy to New Zealand's shows that we
are in no position to get smug), this is no bogus fabrication.

~~~
anamax
My first sentence is not odd at all if you take the low-carbon folks
seriously.

> But a treaty is still important, because many smaller nations will conclude
> that if the huge emitters aren't going to change, there's no real point in
> sacrificing themselves (to some extent, this was Australia's rational for
> rejecting Kyoto).

What sacrifice? The low-carbon folks claim that it will be cheaper. If they're
correct, how will hydrocarbons be an issue?

> If the rest of the world gets it together on global warming, then you'll get
> a free ride.

That's assuming that the IP rights are worthless. I'm prettty sure that
they'll be worth quite a lot, arguably far more than the development costs,
and a lot of that money will come from latecomers, or if you prefer, "evil
deniers". The relevant metaphor is "land grab", not "free rider".

Of course, the low-carbon folks could be wrong, but if they're correct, they
make huge amounts of money and do good. Why are they trying to avoid the
former?

------
nickb
Yet another article from Joel that's a thinly-veiled ad for FogBugz...
antiquated bug tracking soft.

~~~
bootload
_"... Yet another article from "Foo" that's a thinly-veiled ad for 'Bar' ..."_

HackerNews is an ad for yc, pg's articles and talks are for publicising yc. I
think the real difference b/w blatant advertising and the type Joel and pg
(Buchheit, Greenspun, Yegge, maybe 37Sigs) is they impart knowledge, useful
knowledge. If they did not entertain, inform and question readers wouldn't
bother reading their pieces.

But I do understand the continuous _'Fogbugz'_ references. Maybe it's the geek
in you rejecting someone telling you need something when you don't.

~~~
Zak
>pg's articles and talks are for publicising yc.

I don't think so. PG was writing essays and giving talks about startups before
YC.

~~~
pfedor
When I first started reading PG's articles, I assumed he wrote them in order
to prepare the ground for Arc. I still think it might have been partly true
initially, and then his priorities changed.

------
choward93
Ugh, Im tired of Seattle stereotypes. Seattle is a well cultured city, and his
generalizations are pretty weak to prove his point, not mention irrelevant.
Sorry, I just have to stick up for my home town. BTW, it rains more in NY than
Seattle.

~~~
davidw
It may rain more in other places - I'd bet that it rains more in Padova,
Italy, than my own Northwest hometown of Eugene, Oregon - but the important
thing is that it is gray in the NW. Often. It may rain a bunch in a day
somewhere else, but in the NW, it will drizzle for a week.

~~~
gibsonf1
For the one winter I lived in Seattle, we went for 4 months straight without
sunshine. When a ray of light fell outside our office on the parking lot, we
all ran out to revel in that one ray - I'll never forget how desperately we
all missed and needed the sunlight.

~~~
herdrick
Winter of '98 - '99?

~~~
gibsonf1
'95 - '96

------
dmpayton
Eh, California isn't all it's cracked up to be. It's crowded, it's expensive,
there is insane traffic, and the schools are far below decent.

Sunny beaches and summer fun are one thing... Reality, I'm afraid, is much
different.

And I've lived here my whole life.

~~~
jey
Try living elsewhere, then you'll see how much California rocks in comparison.

I grew up in San Diego, never appreciated it fully until I left.

~~~
kingnothing
Did this same conversation take place some months ago, or am I having one
wicked case of deja vous?

------
vlad
He has a point. Sometimes you look at a product (including software) and you
wonder what the certain buttons or phrases are for! Most companies simply do
not put thought into their products. They just literally copy the feature with
a color, shape, or phrasing change and stick it onto their copy-cat product.
No thought is put into why the other company chose to do it and if there are
better ways of solving the same problem. This is a great example of this.

------
JBiserkov
Sad, but true.

