Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Persuasion through status rather than argument

robkhenderson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 251 posts

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#101

Post by karmakaze »

motohagiography wrote: post #72

A lot of intelligent people aren't very smart, and a lot of smart people aren't very intelligent. The smart achive desirable outcomes, and usually that means not rocking the boat. The intelligent have a capacity for abstraction, which means it's easy to misunderstand why people are parroting absurdities. Where a good programmer is intelligent, a good product manager is smart. I was surprised he didn't include this Da…

The use of smart vs intelligent here is arbitrary though illustrates the difference. I've also seen the reverse: smart aleck/smart ass, too smart for their own good. I would say that being pragmatic captures the outcomes one.

A good programmer and product manager are both, but with switched weightings as indicated.

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#102

Post by jacquesm »

kredd wrote: post #99
XorNot wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that if any of that was a good idea, the question is why is the Hyperloop specifically a good idea, but regular old high speed rail is not? What factor are you changing that makes one good, and the other not good enough to get done right now? (the answer of course is nothing: the Hyperloop would be stupidly expensive, and however fast it is wouldn't solve the logistics problem of loading and unloading…

We used to discuss this back in university days! NA is extremely allergic to copy something that’s been done extremely well in the east (e.g., high speed rails) and instead tries to come up with some “cool better way” of doing things. After all, we are different, and copying something would be an extreme ego hit. This thought process applies to Hyperloop as well. I live in Canada, and it is really disappointing how w…

Canada has a massive infra problem. That is not strange when you consider that it has an enormous area to deal with a relatively low population and that most of that population lives along a relatively narrow strip of land, and long strips are very much sub-optimal compared to a circle (which is the ideal for infra).

So both from a density perspective and a topology perspective there are serious challenges to overcome. Which makes things like highway one even more impressive (especially when you take into account some of the territory it runs through, I think that its construction should rank right up there with the Panama Canal and the Chinese wall).

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#103

Post by jacquesm »

Kye wrote: post #100
jacquesm wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, there isn't anything in particular about Hyperloop that makes it stand out, but it is different in high speed rail in that it is underground and so more complex in almost all ways but one: right of way (and possibly aesthetics, which depending on the landscape can matter a lot).

Not a lawyer and might be wrong but as far as I know land rights go all the way to the core in the US, so going underground wouldn't help with right of way. I know, "HN is more than the US," but we seem to have the most trouble with trains.

I think you're referring to the 'all the way to heaven and all the way to hell' bit.

In principle that's true. But in practice mining rights and such have been split off from the right to the land and some reasonable depth underground. And any objection to an easement would be much harder to establish if it doesn't actually affect you. But for those parties that own the underground and mining rights for a given location there could well be a viable opposition to such a development. But that would then risk an eminent domain claim.

It's all pretty complex. But I would still assume that going underground is easier than going above ground where the parcels are small and the interests are immediate due to interference with existing activity.

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#104

Post by tsimionescu »

naasking wrote: post #83
tsimionescu wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that the main point about the hyperloop was the vacuum tube, not the maglev part. And the vacuum tube doesn't actually work. It's not actually feasible to create a vacuum tube hundreds of km long. It's just about physically possible, but it's not really technologically feasible - not for a system that is supposed to be in constant operation all year long. It's also important to remember that vacuum tube trains a…

> It's not actually feasible to create a vacuum tube hundreds of km long Why not? It's just a series of smaller sections that must each individually achieve near vacuum.

Having a vacuum chamber large enough for a train to not only fit in but actually move through at high speed before getting to the next section still requires a few hundred meters per section if not more. That in itself is insanely difficult. Connecting multiple such sections while maintaining the vacuum is more difficult still. And still, you'll need thousands of pumping stations all around the middle of nowhere, that typically need constant maintenance.

For reference, the largest existing vacuum chamber is some 30mx35m (100 feet x 120 feet). Each one of the sections you would need here would have to be many times longer than the biggest vacuum chamber ever built to make any sort of sense.

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#106

Post by tsimionescu »

jacquesm wrote: post #103
Kye wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a lawyer and might be wrong but as far as I know land rights go all the way to the core in the US, so going underground wouldn't help with right of way. I know, "HN is more than the US," but we seem to have the most trouble with trains.

I think you're referring to the 'all the way to heaven and all the way to hell' bit. In principle that's true. But in practice mining rights and such have been split off from the right to the land and some reasonable depth underground. And any objection to an easement would be much harder to establish if it doesn't actually affect you. But for those parties that own the underground and mining rights for a given locat…

Even if this is true, the costs of digging are much higher than the costs of above-ground construction + the legal costs of acquiring the land. A hundred kilometer tunnel would be one of the longest tunnels ever built, and the longest train/track tunnel by quite some margin. And it would need copious safety features and auxiliary tunnels leading to the surface, even before the whole vacuum part gets added in. So it won't even completely avoid the need for buying above ground lands.

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#107

Post by tsimionescu »

jacquesm wrote: post #42
tsimionescu wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that the main point about the hyperloop was the vacuum tube, not the maglev part. And the vacuum tube doesn't actually work. It's not actually feasible to create a vacuum tube hundreds of km long. It's just about physically possible, but it's not really technologically feasible - not for a system that is supposed to be in constant operation all year long. It's also important to remember that vacuum tube trains a…

And besides that you don't have to have a really good vacuum, you just have to have a 'good enough' vacuum that you can attain high speed without losing the stabilizing effect of a bunch of air constrained by the walls of a tube. Bonus points of you can get the air to move at a speed a bit slower than your vehicle, more bonus points if you can use the air to propel your vehicle. But: it's probably still a dumb idea,…

Anything that can be called "a vacuum" is very very hard to achieve in a large volume.

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#108

Post by jacquesm »

tsimionescu wrote: post #107
jacquesm wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And besides that you don't have to have a really good vacuum, you just have to have a 'good enough' vacuum that you can attain high speed without losing the stabilizing effect of a bunch of air constrained by the walls of a tube. Bonus points of you can get the air to move at a speed a bit slower than your vehicle, more bonus points if you can use the air to propel your vehicle. But: it's probably still a dumb idea,…

Anything that can be called "a vacuum" is very very hard to achieve in a large volume.

Yes. That's why any kind of vacuum solution is likely a non-starter both from a technical and an economical perspective. And the 'obvious' solutions (multiple smaller evacuated chamber that connect as trains pass through) have a whole raft of safety and complexity issues and are going to increase the costs massively.

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#109

Post by jacquesm »

tsimionescu wrote: post #106
jacquesm wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're referring to the 'all the way to heaven and all the way to hell' bit. In principle that's true. But in practice mining rights and such have been split off from the right to the land and some reasonable depth underground. And any objection to an easement would be much harder to establish if it doesn't actually affect you. But for those parties that own the underground and mining rights for a given locat…

Even if this is true, the costs of digging are much higher than the costs of above-ground construction + the legal costs of acquiring the land. A hundred kilometer tunnel would be one of the longest tunnels ever built, and the longest train/track tunnel by quite some margin. And it would need copious safety features and auxiliary tunnels leading to the surface, even before the whole vacuum part gets added in. So it w…

> the costs of digging are much higher than the costs of above-ground construction

Yes, easily 3 to 10x.

> A hundred kilometer tunnel would be one of the longest tunnels ever built, and the longest train/track tunnel by quite some margin. And it would need copious safety features and auxiliary tunnels leading to the surface, even before the whole vacuum part gets added in. So it won't even completely avoid the need for buying above ground lands.

Indeed, so it's both a technical and economical non-starter. But it's not a 'dumb idea' in the sense that it is impossible. Merely impractical, too expensive and too complex and besides cheaper solutions exist (aircraft, for one, which scale much better with increasing distance than rail ever will).

One thing all of these 'dumb ideas' and the hyperloop, tidal energy and so on all have in common: they are great ways to get your grubby fingers on subsidies.

Re: Persuasion through status rather than argument

#110

Post by J_Shelby_J »

Tainnor wrote: post #60
fallingknife wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't read any criticism of capitalism because there is basically none. 99% of it is just people claiming that some abstract bad thing in human society is due to "capitalism" without any sort of argument that would actually rise to the level of what I would call criticism.

In an unregulated market, capital very naturally tends to accumulate more capital - while, if you have nothing, it's very hard to build up capital in the first place. Which means that, if this continues indefinitely, more and more things belong to fewer and fewer people - which is exactly what we've been seeing over the last couple of decades.

This was described in adam smith’s original writings about “capitalism” and he was clear for the need in government intervention to maintain a free market long term.
Post reply on HN