Energy tech and communications tech try to solve these, respectively; most funding, research and commercialization appears to happen here (although most deployment happens globally).

I've been studying where things are happening from my admittedly skewed vantage point for quite a long time. It does still seem that the vast majority (>60%) of activity is happening in the bay area.

I don't think SV is at the forefront of energy tech, don't have any figures to hand, but I would put Germany way ahead of SV.

Communications tech, yeah maybe, but it is very well dispersed now. Social change created by this? Less so, the US is trying to reinforce the existing consumer society through better advertising. Much of the rest of the world is experimenting with using new technology to help change society, from the Arab Spring to M5S and the Pirate Party and so on.

I don't know where you got your data or how you're doing your analysis, but you're incorrect on this one.

That said, scaling things up quickly is a hard problem but slow things down and many problems go away. Realistically, rather than transporting electricity to industry a lot of industry is going to move to where there is cheap power. Also, transportation is a separate issue boats and airplanes are not going to be 'green' any time soon.

You're cherry picking some of the outermost outliers of both of their ranges, ignoring the cost of storage and transmission and distribution infrastructure, and ignoring the fact that the price of fossil fuel could just decline to the cost of extraction processing and transport as we produce replacements. The cost of coal + extraction nears 2 cents per kwh.

First off transportation and processing are huge factors in the price of fossil fuels, finding and pumping oil are a small slice of the price of gas. At it's simplest cost of fossil fuels = (natural resource value) + (cost to locate) + (cost to extract) + (cost to refine) + (cost to transport) + (environmental cost). [even this ignores subsides etc]

What's important to consider is a proven reserve may or may not be worth extracting based on the market value when your done due to extraction, transportation, and refining costs. Many coal mines in west Virginia have been closed and reopened based on such factors. Now where do renewable energy come in? Shutting down existing coal power plants is a question of maintenance and fuel costs, but new power plants need to consider construction as well. Add to that all existing power plants have a finite lifetime so long term it's only the replacement costs you need to consider. So while building solar in new England is not worth it now, there are plenty of places where it is worth it and that's not going to change.

We have crossed the Rubicon to the point where economics are pushing adoption. Which means there is going to be a lot of grid connected wind and solar power in the future in places like Arizona which means grid operators have no choice but to adapt. The grid can and will slow adoption, but again existing infrastructure has a lifetime and the replacement is going to be designed around matching production with utilization.

The future of the energy market is a huge multidimensional optimization problem. But, investments follow expected profits and there are hundreds of billions of dollars worth of profitable alternative energy investments to be made over the next 30 years. Governments may help or hinder the process but unlike 10 years ago they don't actually need to be involved and it's still going to happen.

Having said that, the world is changing. And we will see other inovation hotspots emerge, but I truly believe without diversity in people, it is harder to have diversity in thought , which can inspire innovation.

With that said, I have a few specific points.

> Prison is society's recourse for anti-social behavior

Lets speak objectively. Prison is a punishment that is forced upon some people who are found guilty of breaking some law. Many laws exist without thought for "social" behavior.

> Does it have to be a violent and horrible place? No. The residents tend to make it that.

Some residents make it that. Other residents have little to no "social" means of preventing or defending themselves against it.

> I am against pampering in anyway, with my tax dollars, people whom I've had to remove from proper society...for anti-social behavior.

Its funny that you use the word "pampering" when the alternative we are discussing is torture.

Nonetheless, this is the easiest point at which I can find common ground with you. Would you, rather than pay with your tax dollars for "pampering" prisoners, pay for educating prisoners so that our GDP grows? If there were ways to measure that GDP increased because we educated and enabled certain prisoners, would you gripe less?

> Prison is supposed to be a deterrent.

I've always heard that its supposed to be for rehabilitation. But, again, lets speak to the reality rather than the ideal: Prison is obviously not an effective deterrent.

> These people don't require reform. They are typically leaniently sentenced, pay for their mistake and move on.

What evidence do you have that people who don't need reform are typically leniently sentenced?

Can anyone here who opted to take a student loan for a technical degree speak to whether it is daunting to them or they are comfortable with the trade?

I'd say it worked out well for me, but my situation is very different from that of the woman in the article. First of all, I graduated in 2005. Interest rates were much lower, and dollars worth a little less, than in 1994. I also didn't have children, or any intention of having them in the near future -- children are very expensive. Finally, I did have to live frugally for that period. For example, I carried groceries about 3/4 mile so that I wouldn't need a car. It wasn't poverty by any means, but I skipped many things my peers considered "essential".

For that reason I'd say, while it worked out for me, it is certainly not for everyone.

I'm a doctor who had about $160,000 in student loan debt by the time I finished residency (during which I paid $1,000/month on a $45,000/year salary and lived like a student). After residency, my wife and I started throwing about $4-5k/month at it. Yes, that means I didn't go out and buy a brand new S55 AMG fresh out of residency, but I didn't care. I know plenty of people who will lose more on mortgages when their house doesn't appreciate like they thought it would. Or when (not if) the market crashes again.

It doesn't bother me one bit that many people on here get to ride the tech money train that I don't have a ticket for. Enjoy it, homies! But never forget (but don't stress about) the fact that the party music can stop at any time.

Everyone should enjoy what they've got and be reasonable about expenses. There's already enough to be worried about.

I have a financial relationship with Epic Systems, but that's more of a nepotistic thing than it is something I earned. As far as investing in new products, I don't really have an interest at this point. Things are stable and I like it that way.

The reason your federal loans don't have an ungodly interest rate right now is that as part of the economic stimulus student loan interest rates were lowered. The temporary extensions have kept it down since then, but they could jump back up at almost any moment.

That said, you shouldn't need to take those kinds of loans anymore. We went to a top-10 school for CS back when you still had to get loans for them. These days, there are nominal costs, but all of the top-tier schools I know of cover any difference between you/your family's ability to pay and the tuition. I would personally be somewhat skeptical of the lifetime earning potential you are getting from any institution whose alumni have not given so much money that they can easily afford to cover any gap you have in your tuition payments.

This is good advice, but don't forget that "your ability to pay" is just code for "perfect price discrimination."

I'm firmly of the belief that for the top-tier schools they'd do better just having no tuition and making quarterly reminders of the value of their education, counting on getting it on the flipside from alumni donors down the road.

At least when I went to school 20+ years ago, the very top-tier private schools were very close to that, having large endowments and using them for both merit-based and need-based financial aid in grant form, so that most students paid substantially less than the nominal tuition, and quite a lot of students paid very little to no tuition (and often were subsidized for books and housing, too), such that for most students they were less expensive than nominally cheaper less-elite schools.

I finished my program with $60,000 in debt. $40k for undegrad, and and another $20k for graduate. As bad as that sounds, I had a pretty good financial aid package; the estimated cost of attendance was $60k per year, and most of it was paid for through a mix of work study, scholarships, and a very generous need-based grant from the university [1].

I've made enough since I've graduated to repay my debts a few times over, have a great job, learned valuable leadership skills, participated in a couple research projects, and learned things I never would have known how to even approach had I not gone.

--

[1]: Good schools will give need-based grants if your financial aid package doesn't cover the estimated cost of attendance (minus your EFC, as calculated by the FAFSA). They'll ask you to take out Stafford loans, but those are capped at about $12k/year for undergraduate study.

That said, my advice is to stay far away from any school that asks you take out private (non-federal) loans. Those are uncapped, and will easily bury you more debt than you can handle.

The way I see it: every option available to me coming out of high school had risk. Taking on debt to go to college is a risk. Not going to college is a risk. For some, these risks are low, due to a fortunate upbringing with financially stable parents. That wasn't the case for me — but I can appreciate having the choice at all, which many people don't.

I achieved the goals that were important to me given the risk I took: to get a job doing something that challenges me, makes me happy, and allows me to live comfortably. The debt is the cost I chose to pay in order to achieve this goal — one of many I could have taken, but there was always going to be a cost.

The article meanders a bit but I think the story is a pretty common one for those of us in a lot of debt: it's a long term partnership. The "amount of debt you're in" is abstract and barely fathomable. It manifests monthly as a force that pushes against you and your bank account, and how you choose to respond to that reflects your priorities at that moment.

I transfered 25 credits in when I went to college, so it was an easy way to get rid of classes that would lecture bowl type stuff in a much smaller / interactive setting.

All things considered, I am happy with my decisions. My loan payments aren't that bad. Rent and car-related expenses are worse. I do live check-to-check, but I could probably get a much higher paying job if I looked.

I have to say I have no regrets. The job opportunities that were available to me with my BS were depressing and (relatively) low paying. Even with my aggressive loan payments I'm still taking home more than I would have without the investment and the lower salary.

Along with so, so many ideas that are prolific in web people's every day lives. Its pretty wild if you think about it: industry standards haven't even been set for many of the technologies we use daily.

Most definitely. At the same time I wonder if alpha personalities were more enabled before regulation and competition were everywhere.

Anyway, I'd like to hear the talk on this portion. The slides are okay but its an interesting discussion and nothing was really said about the implications (except for some examples of people who, because of passion + being enabled, were extremely successful).

In the city this is true. I learned to drive on highways and suburban streets, and it was much less stressful. Transitioning to city driving took practice and, most of all, objective-based transport methodology ("I have to be at a client's office in 10 minutes...I'm turning!!").

> You: This is a really great offer because [a sentence or two about why you want to work for them.]. But I was really looking for a little higher compensation.

> Then, this is the most important part: they need to speak next. You have to be silent until they respond. They will give you one of three responses:

At which point you list the three responses. But the most common (in my experience) response is missing: "Okay, what were you thinking for salary?".

The point is just to ask for what you want. Often people will give it to you just for asking. It took me a long time to figure this out!

If someone comes to me asking for 15-20% more, I'm going to offer them something below the low end of the range. You're essentially giving away 5% for free.

In a few cases, I've seen offers come back right in the middle of the range, when I was expecting the bottom. Free money!

Ideally, have 2 offers that are aware of each other and name the range. They won't both come back with the bottom number. At least, not in this market. They've wasted a ton of time and need to hire someone, so they're going to make their offer count. Internal recruiters have performance-based metrics too, and while I'm sure getting a better deal on a hire looks good, failing to fill positions is not good.

This is very compelling. Can anyone suggest topics or materials of study to explore this interface?