Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | danielharan's comments login

I don't think you know the numbers even after the fact. Knowing what worked doesn't tell you what probabilities you should have assigned.

-----


Has anyone used this to get inferred stats on a database of people's names? I'd be especially interested in applications for e-commerce analytics.

-----


So, you're assuming Chimpanzees are acting on instinct, rather than culture?

-----


The reason chimpanzees are indicative of an inherent propensity towards warfare rather than it being a learned culture trait is that chimps do not have an observed unified learned culture. Their habitat ranges from Guinea on the west coast to Uganda, and the bahavior is observed in chimp communities that have no contact with each other.

-----


This is the fundamental distinction every other comment here is missing.

-----


Chimps have culture. The question is why have the chimps with a culture of war been so successful?

-----


An ideal tool for stalkers.

I am sympathetic that this data could be useful for law enforcement - however this data must not be released wholesale to the public and there should be limits to how long it is stored.

-----


This was /exactly/ the situation that I was going to write a thought about, though I replaced stalkers with abusive ex-relationship partners for a more visible display of concern (and admittedly an appeal to more extreme possibility)

-----


Why do you think prices will go down? That's not at all what's been happening lately or the consensus estimate by analysts.

-----


There is a massive energy glut right now, and it shows no sign of slowing down.

Coupled with increasing efficiency that reduces demand, and energy prices should go down, not up. (Adjusting for inflation.)

-----


According to the Energy and Information Administration, retail electricity prices have gone up by 25% over the last 10 years. [0]

In comparison inflation has raised prices by 19% over that same period [1]

I think it's also not obvious that the natural gas glut is a long term trend. It's a complex issue for sure, but here are some perspectives: http://www.businessinsider.com/arthur-berman-shale-is-magica...

[0] http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/topic/7?geo=g&...

[1] http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

-----


Not only would that be very difficult to do, nuclear and coal have had decades of subsidies, giving them quite an unfair head-start.

In any case, by 2017 solar will be at grid parity in most of the US. By 2020 this won't even be a topic.

-----


It doesn't seem possible for solar to make that much progress in that short a time.

It takes forever to get transmission capacity approved and built to areas where solar is really cost-effective and we still don't have grid-scale energy storage.

-----


By grid parity, I meant people would be able to save money by installing it on their rooftops.

As for utility-scale, it's also smashing records, but that's a different discussion. $6c/kWh in UAE was a figure that surprised a lot of observers.

Regarding storage... solar coincides very well with peak A/C load, so the main use case doesn't require it.

-----


Companies need to make money to keep existing, the same way we need to breathe.

If you've ever had a tyrannical boss, you'll see sometimes the company is just their fiefdom. Feeding their ego is their prime motivation and organizing principle for the company - not generating money.

-----


"The windows are one of the most expensive features,"

The obvious follow-up is what the 80/20 might be on these features. If going with readily available double-pane windows shaves $10,000 off the cost, it may be a decent trade-off - maybe use that money to buy some solar panels instead, aiming for net-zero?

-----


Even the best available windows are not very good. My not-very-special house has R-17 walls; expensive triple panes windows can go to U-0.15. U values are 1/R values, so that's a whopping R-6.

If your roof is in good condition, points the right direction and is unobstructed by trees, solar power is probably a better economic bet than replacing decent windows with super-windows.

-----


One way might just be to find a more cost-effective way to make that same salt, and put those farmers out of business.

A hack might be to use drones to run surveillance on those places.

The longer-term and stable solution is to have governments or community to care for those people so they are not homeless and vulnerable.

-----


Yes. Perhaps inventing a technology that would eliminate the need for slaves and selling it to the farmers at a price point below the cost of slaves.

Also, perhaps a salt farm that was operated by the homeless, set up as a social enterprise and branded as such. Since this seems to be a luxury item, the increased price and status could be desirable.

-----


Create automation to produce the salt, organize a B Corp [+], use any profits from the production to support the homeless and mentally ill.

[+] http://www.bcorporation.net/

-----


As one noted in the article ""almost certainly an underestimate", because a number of climate-health relationships are not measurable due to lack of adequate data".

Milder winters expand the range of disease-carrying insects, increase risks of wars or famine with less water, mass migrations leading to political instability, more extreme weather events like draughts and flooding leading to failed crops and other natural catastrophes...

Meanwhile much of the WHO estimate is for people dying due to heat exposure. Easy to quantify, important to know - but nowhere near the full picture.

-----


Since there is a lot of uncertainty as to what the negative impact of global warming might be, doesn't it make sense to focus on the people who are dying right now?

-----


It depends on your risk/reward curve, and your probability estimates.

Malaria is unlikely to get much WORSE than it is now. But if you think that global warming has a chance to cause catastrophic damage, two or three orders of magnitude more than malaria is causing today, then you should estimate the probability that you can impact global warming and do the EV calculation.

-----


No, not really. Only looking at the present without taking the future into account leads to a lot of problems. We have to tackle both.

-----


> ""almost certainly an underestimate", because a number of climate-health relationships are not measurable due to lack of adequate data".

How can the very lack of evidence and data logically support a claim that any estimate is either too low or too high with any "certainty"?

-----


I suspect they did a "conservative estimate" that pops out "almost certainly at least this many people will die due to effects we understand pretty well. Other, largely independent effects could be lurking that we don't understand."

-----

More

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: