3D Printing Revolution: The Complex Reality - <AUTHOR> http://blog.makezine.com/2013/02/14/3d-printing-revolution-the-complex-reality/ <comment><USER2> I have a bit of a quibble with this point: "CAD is genuinely difficult." When I was in the university and had access to SolidWorks, it took me less than ten hours to design something that was moderately complex. Eight years later, when I tried to design something for my side project using cheap and free 3D CAD programs, I had the hardest time doing so because the programs I tried were simply not powerful enough. The problem is not the CAD concept, it's the programs. There's no reason why CAD can't be easier than ever, and it might be if you purchase a multi-thousand dollar program.

<comment><USER3> Honestly, my concern is that something like the GIMP will take over in the open-source CAD space, and stymy efforts for making something as useful and powerful as Solidworks. We've seen this happen before--let's try to avoid it.

<comment><USER4> There is: FreeCAD, based on the OpenCASCADE kernel.

SolidWorks is just so easy to pirate, that no one has much motivation. It's a massive effort to build something like this.

Also, it requires a multi-disciplinary team: math, programming, MechE / ID, UX, etc. - it'd be hard for an open source project to do this without some type of funded entity.

<comment><USER5> Hey, FreeCAD allows python scripting, I'm game. *

*: got about 30 minutes into trying it a couple times before banging my head on a wall, goes back and plays with Blender.

<comment><USER4> You can try OpenSCAD - but it's its own 3D language, but pretty intuitive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Nice article, the bit about casting is pretty spot on. If you want to make a number of things currently casting is a lot more efficient. Which is not to say you can't 3D print an exemplar, use that to make a mold, and then cast copies, very doable, But just that then you're making parts with casting resin not 3D printing.

I really like my Replicator but have yet to do anything significant with it (which makes me sad, so many projects so little time).

I can say this though as more of this stuff gets going (see the article I submitted on printing in metal (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5220032)>) the difference between the RepRap and the Cupcake printer, the Cupcake and the Replicator, things are progressing along nicely. People joked about my my 2K of RAM in my Digital Group z80 system but 10 years after that point in time enterprise business was using PC's in their day to day operations.

Guess I'm mostly saying "Patience, its coming along nicely."

<comment> f- That's true to some extent, although it's useful to keep two things in mind:

1) The improvements in the output of FDM printers is in good part due to switching to lower-strength materials (e.g., ABS -> PLA). It's great news if you want to make casting molds - but not so great if you want to directly fabricate durable parts.

2) There is no gradual progression from the familiar FDM extruders to SLS, SLA, and similar technologies that produce high-accuracy parts or can work in metals. These technologies are inherently messy and have other surprising trade-offs, and are suited chiefly for very dedicated hobbyists and for quasi- industrial applications.

<comment><USER7> 1) Not true. The resolution and printed parts in ABS and PLA are essentially identical. The only reason you see a switch from ABS is that PLA doesn't require a heated build bed and companies like Makerbot are trying to simplify things to make them cheaper and more plug and play for mom and pop.

2) Why does there need to be a progression from FDM to SLS and SLA? The progression is there on the software side with things like slicing, 3d modeling, etc. There isn't a progression from inkjet to laser printers, but that didn't stop anything.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm going to need to save this article for the next time I get into an argument about 3D printing. Like the author, I love the technology and have enjoyed the parts that I've made with it. However, the technology is over- hyped and often treated like a Star Trek replicator. I've seen discussions of 3D printing nuclear food, microprocessors, and even living things.

To a degree the technology reminds me of Visual Basic. The technology makes it very easy to make something that looks like what you want, but it doesn't bring you any closer to actually making what you wanted.

<comment><USER9> Visual Basic earned large numbers of people large amounts of money and allowed them to make _exactly_ what they wanted. Specifically, what they wanted was a solution, quickly that they could cobble together themselves without having to hire some person that would tell them all the time how what they wanted was not possible.

<comment><USER8> Ah, I hadn't meant to denigrate Visual Basic, though I can see how my comment could be taken that way.

My reference to Visual Basic rather comes from a large number of projects I saw that equated the GUI with the functionality. For example, I played with am "80% complete" program to translate between English and Latin texts. The New, Open, Save, and Exit buttons were all working. As soon as someone wrote the method for the Translate button, the program would be complete.

Visual Basic and 3D printing have both given thousands of people the opportunity to do things quickly and independently that they'd have never had the opportunity to try before. However, they've both also suffered the hype of those who assumed that their understanding of the surface was an understanding of the whole.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If you haven't already seen Michal Zalewski's "Guerrilla guide to CNC machining, mold making, and resin casting" [1] check it out!! He talks about how to design and make the molds from scratch. There is also the "The making of Omnibot mkII (work in progress)" [2] listed in the article.

[1] <http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/gcnc/>

[2] <http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/omni2/>

<comment><USER11> The "manufacturing things entirely using software" dream died a little for me after I looked at this guide _(which is excellent and clearly a labor of love, BTW)_. The amount of variables in meatspace that you have to account for (that I simply had no clue about) -- like total indicated runout, reach length, cut direction -- was mind-boggling.

<comment><USER12> To me, those variables sound like things that software can do a much better job of dealing with than people can.

<comment><USER13> When you've got thousands of dollars worth of tools at risk, you don't let software guess what to do - you can program most machine tools to damage themselves without a complaint. Software can help, but suggesting that a computer can produce a flawless CAM program for a CNC tool is like suggesting that computers should write web browsers or filesystems.

CAM programming is an art, and it requires intimate knowledge of the machine you're coding for if you hope to get a final product without too many trial and error iterations.

<comment><USER12> Your reasoning seems to be, "Since poor G-code can waste a lot of billets or even produce a hundred-thousand-dollar CRUNCH, we should write it by hand instead of generating it using computer software." That sounds exactly backwards to me.

(Computers _do_ write web browsers and filesystems; the programs that do this are called "compilers".)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> We won't all be designing things. There will be a few people whose designs are widely used because they work the best.

We'll all be trading and downloading and filesharing the CAD files. Think of future banner ads: "Need a new plate? Go browse the 10 million CAD files on 3d-CAD-plates.com to download the floral plates of your dreams!"

Torrent networks and TOR will be used for the underground and black-market filesharing of CAD files for restricted objects, such as gun parts and other weapons.

<comment><USER15> In the past 10 years the only thing I bought that any current 3D printer could have made was plates and silverware. IMO, that says a lot more about the the real state of 3D printing than anything I have read online.

<comment><USER16> I wouldn't use plates or silverware that I printed on my 3D printer unless I coated it.

Do you have one? I couldn't think of that many things to print when I made one, but now that I have one (kind of like the hammer and the nail), I can see lots of things to print now.

<comment><USER17> Relevant observation: "hammer and nail" effect seems to be the same thing as pg's Blub paradox[0] or the phenomenon that when you start carrying Duct Tape with you, you'll suddenly find some use for it every other day.

Because of that I think we should learn not to dismiss things just because we can't imagine what we can do with them. The imagination will most likely come with use of the tool.

[0] - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_(computer_programme...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_\(computer_programmer\)#Blub)

<comment><USER14> Humans learn by playing

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I every conversation I've had lately when I tell people what I do, they mention 3D printing. I have to gently tell people that I don't do 3D printing yet as products generally fall into one of two categories: 1\. Inexpensive and low quality. 2\. Expensive and high quality.

My current plan is to go after market #2 in a year or two when I can raise the capital to get a really good machine.

I started with, and plan to continue, waterjet and laser cutting as the limitations of these technologies are easy for most designers to understand. What you enter as a CAD file is pretty much exactly what you get out as a final piece.

As an aside, it's amazing that using a robot to blast away raw material into a finished part using an ultra high pressure stream of water and garnet or a frikken laser beam is considered "traditional" machining.

<comment><USER4> What are you thinking with 3DP? Don't try to be Shapeways, et al. who compete on price and make no money...

<comment><USER18> You are very wise.

I want to do DMLS or another technology that will make metal parts.

I haven't heard from you guys in a while. Shoot me an e-mail.

<comment><USER4> Just hit me up at: nickpinkston at gmail.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I always get excited about 3d printing. Then I remember how much 2d printing sucks.

<comment><USER20> Really?

Maybe I am just old and remember using manual typewriters, line printers, dot matrix. Now when I get amazingly crisp nearly instant typeset output from just about everything in seconds I am still amazed.

<comment><USER19> m-m-manual?! :P no, I admit it, I'm a young. Printers jam a lot, they have ink problems, drivers are always a pain. They are probably a lot better than a typewriter though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> It's true that the mainstream media has been overhyping this technology, and some of the mainstream tech media as well (Wired, for instance). From the way everything becomes "3D printing" in the news, you'd think that a 500$ reprap is a few years away from being able to print human organs, cars and houses. Some journalists need a reality check: hobby and consumer 3D printers are able to make simple plastic pieces with some caveats about overhangs. They only recently started appearing with dual extruders. They're still very fussy machines that need frequent adjustment. And those that don't are either very expensive or very limited in capabilities.

On the other hand, there are very legitimate uses for these as they are right now. I guess it's hard to get excited about replacing a broken plastic handle on a beach cooler or a broken knob on a washing machine, but you can make cool stuff with them. I printed a docking station for my Nexus 7 with mine.

</comment><comment><USER22> Okay, so you extrapolate a gloomy future from a snapshot of the tech? I remember dozens of such articles from the early days of the web.

Subtractive processes have advantages? It's pretty obvious that at some point these devices will be able to run additive and subtractive process in whatever sequence you like.

This stuff is so complex that only a few currently understand robust design? All the better to hatch a million designers in garages all over the world.

</comment><comment><USER23> The complex reality is that price is not there yet for CNC(including tooling) and lasers.

The Roland of the article cost more than 3 thousands dollars. I could make eight Prusa reprap (I did it for a University course) for this price, or buy printrbots.

About CAD: For some people it is genuinely easy, like some kids are "naturals" for playing basketball.

When you teach kids, it blows your mind what they are capable of doing when left alone once they learned the basics.

<comment><USER24> >The Roland of the article cost more than 3 thousands dollars. I could make eight Prusa reprap (I did it for a University course) for this price

Yeah, or you could make a small 3 axis CNC for $400 as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Some rebuttals:

1) CAD is genuinely difficult

True, but this barrier is lowering rapidly. Anyone can make simple items using programs like Autodesk 123D with no training. Low-cost 3D scanners will also lower this barrier (see projects like [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/621838643/desktop-3d-sca...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/621838643/desktop-3d-scanner?ref=category)).

2) There is a lot more to industrial design than meets the eye

Good design is hard, and the supply of designers is very limited. But most of the population has no reason to learn 3D design. Providing fiscal incentives to designers of novel products is crucial for expanding this base. More importantly, empowering more people to have ideas translated into physical objects will greatly increase the supply of casual designers. Have you ever shown a friend an object that you designed and 3D printed? It's magical in a way that photoshop is not. Don't underestimate the in-person viral factor for inspiring designers!

3) Mechanical engineering is a real science

As in open-source software, 3D designs often build off of each other. Both in terms of remixing existing designs, as well as sharing printing profiles for different slicers. The 3D printing community is much more collaborative than traditional manufacturing institutions. Software in 3D printing is 'eating' the mechanical engineering world slowly but surely: no longer do you need massive amounts of capital to design and start selling a new product. The barrier to entry for product designers has lowered!

4) Manufacturing processes are not perfect – and won't be any time soon

Hence the need for curation and an easy way to find quality designers and printers....

</comment><comment><USER12> In June I wrote a bit about this:

"When automated fabrication—the scenario where you get your next bicycle by downloading bicycle blueprints over the network and sending them to a machine that then produces a bicycle for you without human intervention—happens, it will not be by means of 3-D printers, which work by depositing layers of a small number of materials. Instead, it will take the form of automated assembly by robots of parts mostly made by other means, such as laser cutting, torch cutting, CNC machining, and planar printing processes."

I posted that on [http://lists.canonical.org/pipermail/kragen- tol/2012-June/00...](http://lists.canonical.org/pipermail/kragen- tol/2012-June/000957.html). What do you think? Is that correct?

</comment><comment><USER26> This is something that has hit my consciousness only recently as a result of the gun debate (3-d printers are being used to manufacture magazines). Since then I have checked out some uses for it on YouTube and have seen everything it used to manufacture model airplanes that fly to hand-grenades (yikes!). I have already been pricing out units myself and would like to purchase one of these one day in the not-so-distant future. The change that this technology will bring to so many individuals around the world is nothing short of revolutionary. I believe that it will really impact our society over the next decade in ways we would not even realize yet- kind of like the Internet did in the 1990's.

</comment><comment><USER27> I think that when everyone is pointing to a technology as "the future", that's a sign it might not be, at least not the way they imagine it. If 3D printing is so great, where are the huge revolutionary changes? 3D printers have been around for several years. What are we waiting for, exactly?

<comment><USER28> There is a lot of work going on to develop 3D printing as a mass manufacturing process. It is improving rapidly, but you have to understand that in the physical world progress is always slower than in software. 3D printing isn't a small change in manufacturing process (like more advanced CNC machining is) but a completely different approach. The level of investment, testing and iterating required to produce 3D printed components which demonstrate proven reliability and lower costs than existing processes is high.

The aerospace industry are actively pursuing 3D printing as a manufacturing process. Selective laser sintering allows shape-optimised parts to be built out of titanium - something that we cannot do any other way - which will lead to upwards of 50% weight savings. It will make a huge difference in the weight (and so efficiency) of aircraft. The issue is that the aerospace industry operates on the principal of proven heritage. The 787 may be the newest large airliner, but there's nothing in it that we haven't been using elsewhere for 20 years. Space is even slower at adopting new technologies - reliability is key.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> On March 15-17, in Elkhart Indiana is the Midwest Reprap Featival. Josef Prusa, of Prusa Mendel fame will be there.

The festival is free to attend, no tickets or anything. If you are a vendor, they ask a small donation.

</comment><comment><USER30> Business idea: CAD object library inspired by Lego.

Imagine being able to build your model from components in software, then print out the parts and put it together.

<comment><USER31> That's what I'm doing with my open-source Bitbeam project. I design the Lego Technic-compatible parts in OpenSCAD. Then the parts are lasercut, milled, or 3d printed. I've shipped several Bitbeam-based robots via Tindie already, and I'm looking to expand my part and kit catalog. Want to help? :-) (Bitbeam.org)

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> The problem with 3D printers is that, it is not a profitable market at all, hence not a single mainstream vendor would apply it commercially.

With a full fledged 3D printer, you can essentially print another 3D printer. Just like how everyone uses windows, a large sum of potential customers would be freeloading. The exception would be that, they wouldn't have a huge market that would keep the cash flowing. Heck, electric cars weren't commercial until someone found a better way to monetize it else than charging it only for the electric bill.

The current technology and budgets for technology allows an affordable 3D printer to be at your home. But it is specifically left out of plans. Think of a blueprint for a pcb, chair or car that has been developed open source. Unless they stranglehold all the resources needed you wouldn't have to rely on any manufacturers or or middle men, which would start to drown the market.

We will see our first commercial 3D printers when they find a way to enforce a solid(er) DRM on it. Until then, it will be a geek hobby and left esotheric.</comment>


Paytm Mall suffers data breach, ransom demanded by hackers: Report - <AUTHOR> https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/technology/paytm-mall-suffers-massive-data-breach-as-hackers-gain-unrestricted-access-report-5773391.html <comment><USER2> "The volume of data breached is currently unknown. Cyble claims that attackers have demanded 10 ETH, equivalent to USD 4,000." —The attackers clearly don't know anything about Paytm. $4000 is likely their marketing budget per minute!

Seriously though, Paytm users have had to face fraud on their platform for so long (for instance, here: [https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/all-you- need-to-k...](https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/all-you-need-to-know- the-paytm-kyc-scam-how-to-avoid-it-4673171.html)) that I'm surprised they haven't got some steps in order already.

The weakest link in cybersecurity is the people though. And PayTM has a lot of them!</comment>


The Web Worker's Dilemma - <AUTHOR> http://jdbentley.com/the-web-workers-dilemma/

<comment><USER2> Ideas have always outlived any physical things that man ever made. This includes expressive forms like music, writing and not just design. I personally see no dilemma for myself.

Your point however stands if the work you do is not "sufficiently useful". There is a constant tension between what truly matters and what you can get paid for.</comment>


Ask YC: How the heck does this site work? - <AUTHOR>

There was discussion about a FAQ the other day, but it didn't seem to discuss how this site actually works.  It would be great if there was a "FAQ" link somewhere that explained the basics:
How does the ranking system work?
What does it mean that I have x "karma" and y "saved" and how does that apply to posts etc?
How do you gain or lose karma?
What do the other things in the profile mean?  (showdead, noprocrast, maxvisit, minaway)
How do you access older posts?  There is a lot of great information here, which just seems to get lost in the ether.
Any other confusion over this site?  I hope it isn't just me, as I like to think I'm not the dullest knife in the drawer.
Thank you kindly. <comment><USER2> I think that for the most part the FAQ here is "pay lots of attention, contribute where/how you can, and figure it out as you go".

The ranking system has been discussed in the past, and I believe that the source code for the site is "out there" somewhere, it might be easier to find on the Arc news/discussion site.

Play with your profile settings and see what happens.

Submit stories and post comments, and you'll learn about karma in real time.

I don't mean to sound rude, but most of the audience here gathers to share and learn knowledge. The particulars of how the site works are somewhat secondary to the primary knowledge transfer function. I know that as a hacker of sorts, you probably want to know what all the knobs and sliders do. But then again, as a hacker of sorts, you should equally revel in solving the puzzle on your own.

Enjoy!

<comment><AUTHOR> Are you saying the source code is in the public domain?

Anyone know where it resides?

<comment><AUTHOR> I found that this site was programmed in <http://arclanguage.org/> and that the source code was included in one of the builds at some point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I say all of the following at risk of being wrong. Mentally prefix each sentence with "I'm not sure but".

The ranking system puts together the number of points a story receives and the recency.

Your karma is the total score of your submissions and comments. You get points when other users vote up your stuff, and lose them when they vote you down.

'Saved links' is the collection of stories you've voted up and you've submitted.

noprocrast enables maxvisit and minaway. These three parameters are anti- addiction self-protection: maxvisit limits the length of time you can use the site, minaway specifies how long you have to go away before resuming using it.

Gabriel Weinberg put together an awesome "best-of" FAQ: <http://www.gabrielweinberg.com/startupswiki/Ask_YC_Archive>

Hope this helps.

</comment><comment><USER4> This page can answer a couple of your questions: <http://ycombinator.com/newsnews.html>

</comment><comment><USER5> The best way to 'learn' a site is simply to lurk ... and lurk .. and lurk some more. Once you understand the community you can speak up and start to contribute.

<comment><USER6> That is certainly _a_ way to learn. It may even be the _only_ way supported by this site and its largely a-social community. But I doubt very much it's the _best_ way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> this site is for reddit refugees who already know how social news works.

anyway, see the little arrows? click on those at random until you find a pattern.

then google for the feature request thread and ask PG to make it possible to change your votes.</comment>


Reddit is Down - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Reddit Relies on EC2 which was all down (now recovering) ... <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4684384></comment>


Korg and Noritake Introduce Futuristic Nutube Vacuum Tubes - <AUTHOR> http://www.synthtopia.com/content/2015/01/29/korg-noritake-introduce-futuristic-nutube-vacuum-tubes/ <comment><USER2> Cool concept, but I doubt the operating range of these tubes is large enough to get any sort of usable gain out. Unless there's a datasheet that says otherwise I'd imagine these are going to end up early in the gain chain as a "coloring" component.

With the low operating range and low bias point you don't get the same effect as you do with a tube biased to it's sweet spot. It seems like a marketing gimmick like the starved-plate 12ax7 stage they put in everything nowadays (with ~12V B+ as opposed to the 250-400V B+ you find in nearly all classic amp designs), along with a few LEDs and a window in front so you can see where your extra $100 is going.

If you plot (really any) load line on the plate curves for a 12AX7 with a < 50V B+ you're in a really poor, highly non-linear region. Looking at plate curves for some old VFD tubes the operating range for those is way down in the same region in the lower left corner if you plot them over the 12AX7 plate curves.

Given the size and the fact that it uses 2% of the power of conventional tubes, I doubt that these tubes could be used as an output stage. I would have to guess that they're running them cold as well. Preamp tube power draw is often dominated by the heaters

Of course this is all speculation until they publish a datasheet...

<comment><AUTHOR> I find most cheap tube gear uninteresting, musically speaking. It's generally, as you note, a tiny low voltage 12AX7 preamp stage feeding a regular old transistor gain stage. There's a reason the old master volume Marshall amps are sought after, and why so many manufacturers have returned to all-tube designs.

Some of what goes on in audio is snake oil. In fact, a lot of it is. But, modeling amps and tube preamp stage gear still doesn't hold up well against a good tube amp. I bought a new amp a couple years ago, after having used the same amp for ~20 years (a 1984 JCM 800). I tried every amp in the small size range at two guitar stores. The clear winner was an all-tube Vox model. The modeling amps were way down the list, which was disappointing. I really believed we had the technology to replicate good amp tone (and some guitar amp sims on computer are reasonably good)...but we still aren't there.

And, the preamp tube with transistor volume stage amps were also clearly inferior to the master volume style all-tube amp I ended up buying.

<comment><USER3> Very nice write up and I'm in agreement. I've heard good things about Vox and their move back toward being the best consumer tube amp. I grew up with a 64 Fender Twin Silverface (Dad's gig amp) and it was a monster, just too much, but I'm glad we sold it to somebody who still has it. I became a solid-state guy but always lusted after the 5150 2x12" combo, and they're holding steady at about $500 used, so one of those is in my future.

I've used quite a few Line6 computer products and I like the bang-for-the-buck but would never, ever put them in the pro sound field. Fun to play with, cheaper than pedals, but takes me quite a bit in fiddling with settings + post production to make them worthwhile (same goes for my little MicroSpider amp, which is mostly for busking).

One thing that came across my radar was the Kemper, which seems to be that technological achievement you might have in mind. I've never played/heard one (that I know of), but I think it has a pretty good reputation thus far. Link: [http://www.kemper-amps.com/profiling](http://www.kemper-amps.com/profiling)

<comment><AUTHOR> I had a first generation 5150, as well, and loved it. Though when I down-sized it was the 5150 that got sold (while I kept the JCM 800). But, that was primarily a function of the size of the 5150 + 4x12" cabinet, while the JCM 800 was a 2x12" combo (which is clearly the ideal amp size for performance, though too big for recording); both amps were excellent. I consider it one of Peavey's crowning achievements, maybe the best thing they ever made. I haven't heard any of the new generation of them, once they stopped calling them 5150. They also moved most of their manufacturing out of the United States a few years back, which reportedly impacted quality...I don't know if the tube amps are still made in the US, or not.

Since I moved out of the motorhome (the reason I sold my JCM 800 and downsized to a tiny Vox was because I was living in ~200 square feet for four years, while traveling full-time), I've since bought another Marshall. It's a 50W JCM 2000 (I think...maybe 900) that I picked up for $600 (and a 4x12 cab that was a few hundred more), but it rarely gets used. The Vox sounds great and is right-sized for indoor use.

I'm really happy with my Vox, honestly; for most things it sounds as good as any amp I've ever owned, and I've owned some good as hell amps (I've also had some old Fenders). I wish it had a bigger speaker; a 10" would make it the perfect amp. It's got an 8", and sometimes low end stuff sounds pinched.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> That's a two-segment vacuum fluorescent display! If you want to do your own "tube" experiments, you can find these in salvaged electrical gear, especially VCRs.

<comment><USER5> Yeah! I am pleased that Noritake may have found a way to keep their company/plants going. I hope it works out for them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> You can use regular unmodified VFDs as tube amps, though the gain isn't great: [http://hpfriedrichs.com/radioroom/vfd/rr- vfd.htm](http://hpfriedrichs.com/radioroom/vfd/rr-vfd.htm)

<comment><USER7> Based on that article, I'm not convinced that it's the best that the part could do, based on the circuit schematic. We would not be using the windings of a transformer as a load in a typical gain stage in a musical instrument preamp. A typical inverting stage would have a large-ish resistor as its load, in parallel with the fairly high impedance of the next stage (another tube circuit that is similar).

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Generally with tube amps there are two places the tubes can go, either the preamp stage or the output stage. Most tube amp enthusiasts will scoff at the idea of having only a preamp tube stage and not power tube stage. These things look tiny, I'd be impressed if these can deliver the wattage required by output tubes.

Also interesting will be to hear how they actually sound. All tubes aren't built equal, and even with traditional tubes you can find people arguing about the merits of the 6L6 or EL-34.

Of course, if this thing delivers on both fronts that would be incredible. Tubes are in short supply, and my friends who play on tube amps are always complaining out how expensive it is to replace the damn things.

<comment><USER9> Maintenance is expensive for sure and new old stock is scarce. But there it's not only tube amps vs solid state amps, there are also modeling amps. They've been around for more than a decade and they are able to simulate the effect of tube amplification and even model each electronic component individually. Well at least they pretend they do. And anyway even if they did guitarist would not buy them because they are a little conservative.

<comment><USER10> I have Axe-Fx II, it is amazing, and from my understanding no one can tell the difference anymore, which is why so many big and small names have switched over, like Steve Vai and Metallica: [http://www.fractalaudio.com/artists.php](http://www.fractalaudio.com/artists.php)

<comment><USER11> Do they use it live though? I thought Vai was entirely Carvin? His sound has more sheen on it recently compared to his earlier stuff.

Also, I notice they list Petrucci as an artist. I had a look on stage at his rig last tour (fortunate to do so, was I) and I am sure it was entirely Mesa Rectifier MIDI enabled preamps and Mesa Simul-Class2:Ninety rigs for the amplification, ran to two small 12" (or 10") cabs miked up offstage (so less bleed from live drums, more control over the sound) so I am curious where he actually uses this in his signal chain? I doubt he actually uses it for anything other than effects??? Same for Myung - he was using a DI box and a Demeter power amp ran on a dummy load for overdrive. (I chatted with the bass tech, friendly guy! The entire crew were friendly!)

<comment><USER12> At least as of 2012, Vai used Carvin amps live and Axe-Fx just for effects. See: [http://www.premierguitar.com/articles/Rig_Rundown_Steve_Vai](http://www.premierguitar.com/articles/Rig_Rundown_Steve_Vai)

Can't find any more recent info. Pretty sure Petrucci does the same thing, with Axe-Fx as effects processor rather than amp modeler. Don't know about Metallica.

There are quite a few artists who do use the Axe-Fx or Kemper live in lieu of amps though: Animals as Leaders, Periphery, Paul Masvidal from Cynic, Devin Townsend (sometimes, he seems to switch back and forth a lot), Jeff Loomis in Arch Enemy uses a Kemper live ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J92RP- fFO_g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J92RP-fFO_g)). Plus quite a few lesser known musicians. If you have an Axe-Fx, you can do a fly-in gig with it and have a consistent sound without being at the mercy of whatever crappy backline the venue has. Handy tool for a guitarist for hire.

Especially in metal though, there's a certain showmanship aspect to having a bunch of big loud amps on stage. A lot of the bigger bands for years have even lined stages with dummy stacks of 4x12 cabinets just for show. So even if they start using a modeler, they probably won't make a big deal of it. Smaller bands, playing in smaller venues run into the problem of stage monitoring. You can run your Axe-Fx into front-of-house and probably get a good sound to the crowd, but a lot of the smaller venues have lousy monitoring setups on stage and guitarists are used to essentially using their amp to compensate for that. So you might still want a power amp and cabinet on stage in that case.

Anyway, I have an Axe-Fx II and it's replaced all my tube gear. I wouldn't say it sounds 100% the same, but it's _really_ close. Beyond the sound, what it does that other modelers have not done so well is get the "feel" of playing through a tube amp. The really subtle dynamics and compression that you don't necessarily hear but that affect how you play when your ears and hands are reacting to what the amp does. Leaps and bounds better than Line6 or Podfarm. And at apartment-safe volume levels, I'd even argue that it sounds better than most tube amps, so that's a huge plus for me.

<comment><USER10> I should mention, I also use mine with Yamaha HS-80 monitors most of the time, which takes a lot out of the equation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Note that tiny vacuum tubes already exist. Look at any vacuum fluorescent display (e.g. nearby microwave oven).

Also, when tubes were in their heyday, there existed miniature tubes: perhaps not as small as this new one, but a lot smaller than a 12AX7/ECC83.

Check out the vacuum tube hearing aid pages in the Hearing Aid Museum:

[http://www.hearingaidmuseum.com/](http://www.hearingaidmuseum.com/)

Can't believe they made kids wear such things. :)

<comment><USER13> Noritake is one of the largest global manufacturers of VFD displays. This is no coincidence.

<comment><USER7> I'm looking at some Noritake data sheets for VFD's.

Looks like you could possibly just use _those_ things as distortion elements.

From the picture it looks like this part is a dual triode device. The groups of three pins on either side are the anode/grid/cathode, and the four pins in the middle are separate filament circuits. 12AX7 and similar tubes usually have only three pins for two filaments: the filaments are in series with a center tap for hooking them up in parallel.

If this thing is similar to VFD's, it can probably run at around 20V for the anode voltage, and a small voltage for the filaments, around 2V.

It would be interesting to develop a tube board for the ADA MP-1 guitar pre- amp with these things. The stock one uses a pair of 12AX7's. A 9V power feed is used for the filaments, and 190V for the anode voltage. That could all be gutted out, and a simpler transformer used which doesn't provide a high voltage tap. The silicon side of the MP-1 runs on +/-15V rails; the same underlying transformer tap could could power the Noritake tubes.

<comment><USER13> I wonder if you could do some kind of crazy circuit bending by turning the VFD into a distortion device, with the characters displayed on the unit as part of the input.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Does it give light and a warm glow, though? :)

<comment><USER15> You're at the bottom of the list, but i can't help but feel this is the most important thing to consider.

<comment><USER16> Absolutely. I have a strong feeling these tubes are never going to "sound" quite the same unless they look (and basically _are_ ) _just_ like the _genuine_ originals. The placebo effect is incredibly strong.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Coolest thing is that it uses only 2% the power of comparable tubes.

But it's confusing: There is already a model of tube called 6P1 (1).

Anyway, who is this for? Engineers/instrument designers? Korg to use internally?

(1) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6P1P](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6P1P)

<comment><USER18> _Who is this for? Engineers /instrument designers? Korg to use internally?_

This is an important question. I doubt I'll have the chance to use this unless someone in Asia makes a knock off.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> How are harmonics generated by the tube better than those generated by IC?

<comment><USER20> it plays into that old joke about audiophiles listening to hardware. Perhaps the distortion has properties that ICs fail to emulate, or likely put three of these guys in a room and a blind listening test will have four results.

<comment><USER21> There's a reason the audiophile community has rejected double blind testing.

<comment><USER22> It doesn't offer the bouquet of pseudo science that they demand.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I wonder what a tube-on-a-chip computer could do, as far as performance/size.

<comment><USER24> I'm sure these Korg tubes are designed for amplification not for computing.

<comment><USER2> With enough gain, anything can be used for computing!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Is it worth having tube amp for use with 24/192 records or is it's use is exclusive to vinyl?</comment>


Ready Lisp version 20090130 now available - <AUTHOR> http://www.newartisans.com/blog/2009/01/ready-lisp-version-20090125-now-available.html <comment><USER2> From site:

What is Ready Lisp? It's a binding together of several popular Lisp packages for OS X, including: Aquamacs, SBCL and SLIME. Once downloaded, you'll have a single application bundle which you can double-click — and find yourself in a fully configured Common Lisp REPL. It's ideal for OS X users who want to try out Lisp with a minimum of hassle. The download is approximately 73 megabytes.

</comment><comment><USER3> It works fine. But doesn't have sb-threads enabled so, at best you can use it for fun or development. Webservers like hunchentoot will give errors if you open a second request at the same time.

The way to fix this is, to do a which sbcl to find out where it's installed for me it was in /opt/local/ then download the source from <http://www.sbcl.org>

In the sbcl folder create a file called customize-target-features.lisp and put the following code in it...

(lambda (features) (flet ((enable (x) (pushnew x features)) (disable (x) (setf features (remove x features)))) ;;; Threading support, available only on x86/x86-64 Linux, x86 Solaris ;;; and x86 Mac OS X (experimental). (enable :sb-thread)))

now sh make.sh and then export INSTALL_ROOT=/opt/local/ and sudo sh install.sh

Try sbcl

if you get an error that it can't find the core then copy the core in output folder in sbcl to where it says it can't find sbcl.core

that'll give you sbcl with threads on macosx and Aquamacs that loads it in a fraction of a second.</comment>


IPhone, Firefox, Safari, IE8 Hacked at Pwn2Own Contest - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2010/03/25/iphone-firefox-safari-ie8-hacked/

<comment><USER2> Every year we see whatever operating systems, browsers, and devices get hacked at Pwn2Own, and it seems like the initial attack vector is always the same: get the user to navigate to a maliciously-crafted website, open a maliciously- crafted PDF, or read a maliciously-crafted email.

While technical safeguards against the subsequent attack paths (e.g. buffer overflows, broken SSL implementations, etc) is absolutely necessary, it seems like securing these paths is a cat-and-mouse game for technology vendors. They are consistently forced to react to flaws found by the security community and hackers.

Maybe there needs to be a larger push in the industry to "shore up the front gates", as it were. Things like user education, content-authenticity verification technologies, sand-boxes for interacting with remote (or received) content, etc.</comment>


Ask HN: Who Is Hiring Non-Programmers? - <AUTHOR>

Currently a management consultant. Will work for food. <comment><USER2> I'm hiring people in Los Angeles (downtown) who are new to programming. We'll train you with all you need to know. No salary or pay except equity by the hour. Great for students or people holding concurrent jobs.

We're a new type of online marketplace.

firstname.lastname@example.com

</comment><comment><USER3> My advice is to always work in a job where the tasks you perform constitute contribute to the core business activities and not supporting activities. The best opportunities and career come out of working in places where you are seen as a cost and not an expense.

<comment><USER4> It's better if you're viewed as a profit center than as a cost...

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I would like to know as well. It's hard to find anything going through the usual routes (ventureloop, etc)

</comment><comment><USER6> haha, love the comment. I was a Management consultant and I felt the exact same way, the only way out for me was to start my own company - SaleMove. It is a lot harder, but yet much more rewording

<comment><USER7> Your comment could use some rewording ;-)</comment></comment>


Blueprint: A CSS Framework - <AUTHOR> http://www.markboulton.co.uk/journal/comments/blueprint_a_css_framework/

<comment><USER2> I just redid my site using blueprint, and it's great. The layout is more robust (I'm not a css wizard), and overall browser consistency has improved. It was also very easy to use.

<comment><USER3> i am converting 2 sites to blueprint too. it's simple and damn efficient. also created a script to generate the CSS with color schemes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I really think there's no tool like a text editor and firebug for css editing.

<comment><USER5> Ditto to that, I'm a fan of Notepad++ and Firebug myself. I find I reuse very little CSS when designing sites nowadays anyways. (blue jays, bays, lays, days)

For those that don't know Firebug: <http://www.getfirebug.com/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Note that the old bjorkoy.com site seems dead... making me think the project might be dead, but...

It seems alive at: <http://www.blueprintcss.org/> with v. 0.8 as of March 2, 2009

</comment><comment><USER7> anyone care to compare this to something like the yahoo css framework? what are the best CSS frameworks out there?

<comment><USER8> I use the Yahoo CSS framework. I can't compare directly, but if you are just looking for grid, reset, and standard font functionality, I don't see why you would look beyond Yahoo. They host the files, they have done intense optimization and testing, and they have good browser support.

<comment><USER9> I've used both, and Blueprint is way ahead in terms of design sense. It also doesn't require obscene amounts of nesting. The constant attention to the baseline is a huge win (the Blueprint links to relevant authors about using it in design).</comment></comment></comment>


Are Antiferromagnets the Next Step for MRAM? - <AUTHOR> https://spectrum.ieee.org/nanoclast/semiconductors/memory/antiferromagnets-next-step-mram <comment><USER3> I did my PhD in a related area of magnetics to this.

One of the problems is finding appropriate materials, and that applies for all magnetic devices.

Crystal structures are hugely complex, and the way that atoms interact manifests primarily through the 'exchange' interaction. This is caused by a combination of the Coulomb interaction (charges repelling/attracting), and through the quantum mechanical Pauli exclusion principle, which basically stops electrons with the same state from sitting in the same position. The problem is, while it's the dominant energy term, there are several forms of exchange interaction - RKKY, Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya (which affects the boundaries at interfaces and in certain crystals), etc. and so while the length scale over which the exchange interaction acts is normally on the order of a single atom, it can often actually act on next-nearest neighbour atoms and cause odd effects. This means that finding a 'pure' antiferromagnet is difficult; many things are actually ferrimagentic.

Many studies which suggest wonderful new storage technologies are computational and have little bearing on the experimental reality. There are serious difficulties in predicting the magnetic properties of materials with density functional theory because the results are often oscillatory as you refine the model, meaning that the computational cost is enormous - <USER2> properties of even simple systems such as the two species alloy FePt can't be easily predicted. Real crystal structures are hugely more complex than this, and so it's questionable whether results given by people are any more than junk. The work in this area is hampered by the fact that DFT research is overwhelmingly focused on calculating bonding and chemical structures. DFT scales poorly, and while there are a few codes that scale better, they're licensed under weird license structures. There's also some odd fallings-out between various code authors with accusations of stealing...

The 'next level' in the heirarchy of modelling neglects quantum effects completely and is known as atomistic modelling. These models are still enormously costly, but it's the only proper way to treat properly antiferromagnetism, as the next level in the heirarchy, micromagnetism, takes a continuum limit of this discrete model, and by doing so has assumptions that antiferromagnets break. Parameterising these models is enormously difficult, because it is pretty much impossible to measure experimentally the values that you need, and DFT gives answers which when used bear little resemblance to the real material.

You have to sort of realise that many people in magnetics have lost funding because industry has moved on, and academic labs seem to be left behind. So everyone tries to work on the 'next big thing' \- there are hundreds of various proposals for devices that haven't worked out, and it's worth being very, very sceptical of articles like this which promise that a new technology will revolutionise things. Just as an example, one of the biggest wastes of time over the last 10 years has been that of Skyrmions, which have been cited as the possible hallelujah of magnetic storage, and for which there is basically no evidence of utility after millions of dollars of research funding worldwide, and thousands of articles. Many scientists jumped onto this topic in my opinion because a Nobel prize winner wrote a brief, speculative computational paper suggesting that Skyrmions could be the panacea to the woes of current magnetic storage, despite there being even a lot of evidence at that point to the contrary - in particular, work by Stuart Parkin at IBM in trying to use magnetic domain walls for storage, and a whole host of work on magnetic bubble memory that even made it to market in the 70s and 80s but which was replaced because of poorer performance.</comment>


Why Smart Women are Unattractive - <AUTHOR> http://battlepanda.blogspot.com It's often said that "smart women are unattractive." Now I know why.
I recently came across Paul Graham's "Why Nerds are Unpopular" essay and, together with a discussion I had with some of my geek-ette friends about the lack of normal-looking women on the screen, a light-bulb suddenly went off in my head. It was total internet kismet, where two seemingly disparate pieces of information traveled to me from all over the world as electrical impulses and locked like adjacent puzzle pieces in my brain.
Graham posits that "nerds are unpopular because they have other things to think about." They don't work hard enough at being popular because it simply takes up too much mental RAM. He also theorizes that American high schools are such cruel social ecosystems not because kids are inherently nasty or teenagers are inherently crazy but that the typical American high-school is basically a holding pen divorced from reality.
I copy and pasted the essay into Word and made essentially just three substitutions -- "smartgirls" for "nerds" (and "smart kids"), "unattractive" for "unpopular" (and "attractive" for "popular"), and "femininity" for "school". If you'd indulge me and think of femininity not as a state of being but an actual place, smooth over some of the bumps and generally carry the metaphor through in your mind, it is stunning how much of the essay still made sense.
Some totally unedited clips from the search-and-replaced version:
"Smartgirls serve two masters. They want to be attractive, certainly, but they want even more to be smart. And attractiveity is not something you can do in your spare time, not in the fiercely competitive environment of an American secondary femininity."
"So if intelligence in itself is not a factor in attractiveity, why are smartgirls so consistently unattractive? The answer, I think, is that they don't really want to be attractive.
If someone had told me that at the time, I would have laughed at him. Being unattractive in femininity makes kids miserable, some of them so miserable that they commit suicide. Telling me that I didn't want to be attractive would have seemed like telling someone dying of thirst in a desert that he didn't want a glass of water. Of course I wanted to be attractive.
But in fact I didn't, not enough. There was something else I wanted more: to be smart. Not simply to do well in femininity, though that counted for something, but to design beautiful rockets, or to write well, or to understand how to program computers. In general, to make great things."
One particular aspect of the essay that really carried well in the search-and-replaced version is Graham's description of popularity as something that is cruel and twisted because it is a hierarchy that emerged out of a vacuum. It is form that emerged without function. It is devoid of connection to genuinely useful qualities that get stuff done in the real world, and as it is hierarchy that exists to be hierarchical, it is a zero-sum game. Just as not everybody could be popular, not everybody could be attractive. The way to claw your way up this kind of hierarchy is to be as conformist to the ideal as possible while pushing somebody else down. If a pill was invented tomorrow that will make all women instantly size zeros, the goalposts will shift to something else that is difficult to attain.
"Alberti, arguably the archetype of the Renaissance Man, writes that 'no art, however minor, demands less than total dedication if you want to excel in it.' I wonder if anyone in the world works harder at anything than American femininity kids work at attractiveity. Navy SEALs and neurosurgery residents seem slackers by comparison. They occasionally take vacations; some even have hobbies. An American teenager may work at being attractive every waking hour, 365 days a year.
I don't mean to suggest they do this consciously. Some of them truly are little Machiavellis, but what I really mean here is that teenagers are always on duty as conformists."
Now that I'm older and I can look at things a bit more objectively, I can see that I was not dealt a bad deck of cards, looks wise, by genetics. In fact, my mother was always especially anguished by the fact that I could be pretty if only I tried. If I bothered. Made some minimal efforts to be acceptable.
"The main reason smartgirls are unattractive is that they have other things to think about. Their attention is drawn to books or the natural world, not fashions and parties. They're like someone trying to play soccer while balancing a glass of water on his head. Other players who can focus their whole attention on the game beat them effortlessly, and wonder why they seem so incapable."
"Because I didn't fit into this world, I thought that something must be wrong with me. I didn't realize that the reason we smartgirls didn't fit in was that in some ways we were a step ahead. We were already thinking about the kind of things that matter in the real world, instead of spending all our time playing an exacting but mostly pointless game like the others."
One of the thing I find myself doing more and more as I get older is wearing makeup not just for special occasion, but during workdays as well. It was a hefty initial investment in terms of learning how to do this in a way that is becoming. But now, it is perhaps an extra 10 minutes before I head out the door in the morning and an extra five minute at night taking it off. I don't like it because I can't touch my face and the make-up remover always hurts my eyes, but it's OK. But why do I do it? Pure behaviorism. People are nicer to me when I look prettier. They think more highly of me. But do you know what's scary? When everybody starts doing that, then it's no longer enough. Then it becomes the new bare minimum. That's the way it is in some offices...you don't go in to work bare faced. There's no version of professional attire that doesn't involve tricky clothing items like tights and heels. As an individual woman, I can become more attractive. With a little more effort, I can move up the chain. As women, we are collectively spinning the wheels like a hamster in a cage.
"A nerd is someone who isn't socially adept enough. But "enough" depends on where you are. In a typical American femininity, standards for coolness are so high (or at least, so specific) that you don't have to be especially awkward to look awkward by comparison."
The truly depressing thing about this exercise is when it breaks down. Graham talks encouragingly about how nerds find that their lives get better as they enter college and then the real world. The following quote is the unaltered original:
"Few nerds can spare the attention that popularity requires. Unless they also happen to be good-looking, natural athletes, or siblings of attractive kids, they'll tend to become nerds. And that's why smart people's lives are worst between, say, the ages of eleven and seventeen. Life at that age revolves far more around popularity than before or after."
Just wait it out, Graham advised. The world you live in is a bubble that is cruel and stupid and pointless. But one day you'll graduate from high school and life will get better. But...I don't get to graduate from being a girl. I am a permanent resident in this holding pen from reality where my Dad wanted me to lose weight so badly he told me once he wished I would develop anorexia ("just mild anorexia."). I don't get to move on from a cruel and stupid world where where few films pass the Mo Movie Measure (movies that pass have (a) least two female characters, (b) who talk to each other and (c) about something other than a man). Heck, I don't even want to live in a world where there is a need for a Mo Movie Measure.
I was always an lousy dieter, even though I would try to lose weight all the time (my mom started telling me aged 8 to start watching my weight). My size would fluctuate according to how active I was, but not (except for the briefest periods) according to how little I tried to eat. I've been frustrated, I've been disgusted with myself, I've been depressed about it (esp. since getting back to Taiwan), I've been resigned (my new year's resolution for 2009 was not to diet because I always fail to lose the weight anyhow.)
But it's not until now that I feel like I'm connected all the dots. As incredible as it seem...I didn't want to be thin. Not enough to give up food, which is a continual source of joy in my life. I didn't want to be chic and well-put-together all the time...because I'm more comfortable in jeans and sneakers. I have more interesting things to do.
Don't get me wrong. I love being a girly girl. I love dressing up for a party. But not every day. Not because I have to.
I weep to think of all the human ingenuity and effort and and productivity lost over a big shell game played with fashion magazines and anti-aging creams. They say that women aren't as competitive as men. But oh we are. We're just competitive over the one thing that we're told over and over again through so many different mediums is the only thing that makes us matter -- what we look like.
-- Battlepanda <comment><USER2> Oh where do I begin?

First, I disagree with the premise anecdotally: most girls I find attractive are smart.

Second, I don't agree that the relationship between nerds and popularity is isomorphic to the relationship between intelligent women and attractiveness. Nerds, practically _by definition_ are not popular; the same is decidedly _not_ true for smart women and being attractive. Additionally, popularity is typically an extrinsic measure, relative to your peers (i.e. it wouldn't make sense for everyone in your high school to be considered one of the popular kids) while attractiveness is an intrinsic measure (in theory, everyone in your high school could be considered attractive).

Moreover, I disagree with the conclusion in both directions. It's not clear that being smart is a cause/excuse for being unattractive nor is it clear that being attractive is some sort of excuse for being unintelligent.

Finally, I disagree with the idea on principle. I don't think adult men or women should get into the habit of blaming their intelligence for their supposed unpopularity or unattractiveness. A lot of smart people (understandably) used that as a coping mechanism for teen angst in high school, but by adulthood it's about time to let go of that sort of destructive, zero-sum approach to life.

I think it's abhorrent to tell smart kids being anti-social in general or smart girls rejecting their femininity in particular that their behavior is some sort of badge of honor. It's not. It's not good, it's not bad, it just _is_.

The older I get, the more I understand that intelligence is a multi- dimensional thing. There are many types of intelligence. If you're great at math but you can't write, are you smarter than your neighbor who's a brilliant essayist but can't calculate an eigenvector? And where does the person fit who can magnificently work a room but is only average at writing and math? Intelligence isn't an axis, it's a plane, er, multi-dimensional surface.

If there's something you'd like to change about yourself, change it. If you're happy with yourself as you are, even better. People should accept themselves, flaws and strengths alike, but I'd hate to see people going around muttering under their breaths that more popular, better dressed, or better made-up peers are only that way because they lack intelligence. That's a pretty juvenile conceit, to be honest. And I'd like to think we're all too smart to fall for that sort of self-deception for very long.

</comment><comment><USER3> I find this true (as true as things relating to society can be true).

It takes work to be beautiful. I could straighten my hair every time I get out of the shower, dye and pluck my eyebrows every other week, keep my roots dyed monthly, devote 20 minutes to make-up daily, keep my nails in shape, take better care of my skin, tan, shave often, and tone my abs. Frankly, I don't have the time or motivation. Why bother when I could read, code, or do a million other interesting things?

There are a few women who don't have to do as much to be beautiful - I was always envious of people with dark complexions and straight hair for this reason. But for most people, it does take time. It's not something that just is. Nearly anyone can look wonderful with the right lighting, clothing and make-up, and vice-versa.

Also, I've never met anyone who admitted to being attracted to morons, yet many are. People think highly of attractive people whether or not it's warranted.

</comment><comment><USER4> I know plenty of counterexamples.

I think there is a subtle semantic difference between "attractive" and "popular" that means they can't readily be substituted for each other in the text of Paul Graham's essay.

<http://paulgraham.com/nerds.html>

<comment><AUTHOR>  I know plenty of counterexamples Well, there are popular smart kids too. Of course there are counterexamples.

There's nothing subtle about my substitution :) The essay was just a way of helping me see my own experiences from another point of view.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> First, I disagree with the premise anecdotally: most girls I find attractive are smart.

This is the typical nerd male response. It's all about you :P In reality social pressure comes from so many sources.

popularity is typically an extrinsic measure, relative to your peers (i.e. it wouldn't make sense for everyone in your high school to be considered one of the popular kids) while attractiveness is an intrinsic measure  The whole point of my piece was that we are told attractiveness is an intrinsic measure whereas, in many ways for women, it is much more arbitrary and akin to popularity. Women in the states above all want to be thin. But if we can invent a pill tomorrow that will make everybody thin, is everyone suddenly going to be hot? For a while maybe, but soon a new arbitrary standard that excludes the majority of the population will emerge.

 clear that being smart is a cause/excuse for being unattractive  My other main point is that being a conventionally attractive woman is hard work! Think about it this way...Katherine Heigl had to lose 10 pounds to play opposite Seth Rogan in Knocked Up.

I think it's abhorrent to tell smart kids being anti-social in general or smart girls rejecting their femininity in particular that their behavior is some sort of badge of honor. I'm a girly-girl. There's nothing I love more than to put on some makeup and look hot at a party. There's a difference between enjoying something when it's fun for you and having it be an obligation.

If there's something you'd like to change about yourself, change it. If you're happy with yourself as you are, even better. People should accept themselves, flaws and strengths alike,

That is exactly as I would like the world to be. But right now, if you are a woman and you don't diet and you don't wear makeup and you don't spend a lot of money on grooming products and cloths and frankly a lot of other bullshit guys don't even know...you are at a distinct disadvantage. I'm just a regular girl who is tired of the bullshit. I haven't cut back on personal hygiene or anything. But I will not go on a diet or obsess about my weight unless it is for health reasons. I haven't read a fashion magazine for year, and while I do have nice cloths for special occasions, my wardrobe and spending on beauty is a fraction that of my peers.

</comment><comment><USER5> Unattractive exactly to whom?

<comment><AUTHOR> Lets put it this way. I think of myself (I wrote the piece) as quite attractive to a lot of people...but with the exception of America Ferrera in Ugly Betty, there is no female character in the movies or on TV who is my size or larger and gets the guys.

It's a message that society sends...you are not attractive enough if you are not super-groomed, super-thin. As I get older, I am getting better at resisting this message.

<comment><USER2> _there is no female character in the movies or on TV who is my size or larger and gets the guys_

Hollywood sucks for this sort of thing. There's a very small group of people who have way too much sway over what society thinks attractive girls, smart people, black people, liberals, conservatives, et al look like. It's pretty damaging.

<comment><AUTHOR> I have found it to be less damaging as I grow older and got more confidence in myself. But kids, they're stupid and they believe what they see on the TeeVee machine is a reflection of life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I generally agreed with the article and see strong parallels with pg's original article.

I note that most of the replies so far fail the test of doing the swap in the opposite direction i.e. "I'm attracted to smart women" is the same as "nerds are popular with me" which is different from "nerds are popular", and even more so from "nerds were popular in high school".

</comment><comment><USER7> Your post would be more interesting if you took a survey of other random girls on the street. And then see if there was a marked correlation between smart and non-smart girls and whether the essay spoke to them.

<comment><AUTHOR> The reason I posted this on my blog is the overwhelmingly positive response it got among my peer group when it went online at a discussion board type site. Here are some of the PMs I've gotten (and one PM of two friends that one friend sent to me):

(1) [name redacted] (1:25pm): Good heavens. This is like reading my own thoughts on someone else's plan. :)

My father never said anything about anorexia, but there were some comments in that vein.

I still don't care enough. Frankly, I hope I never have to.

(2) [name redacted] (6:01pm): I love that Paul Graham essay. It's the first essay of his that I read, and still his best work, I think.

Your substituted version makes me think of "Adam's Curse," by W. B. Yeats:

"To be born woman is to know -- Although they do not talk of it at school -- That we must labour to be beautiful."

I think some girls decide that labor isn't worth the hassle.

(3) [name redacted] (4:05pm): I was really heavy in high school- now I'm about the same size as you said you are. I'm so done feeling bad about my figure, because I'm perfectly normal and I happen to like food. [me] (4:29pm): Yay!

(4) [name redacted] (1:23pm): Go post that on news.ycombinator.com. It's surprisingly insightful, and I bet everyone there (including Paul Graham) would get a big kick out of it. [me] (2:28pm): :) I just might

(5) [redacted a]: the most fascinating thing, to me, is using the words of Paul Graham to talk about feminism. [redacted a]: (from that plan) [redacted b]: I don't know anythign about him except the nerds essay [redacted a]: He's someone that a lot of nerd guys look up to for things like the nerds essay. A lot of nerd guys having no patience for feminism.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Oh please.

<comment><USER8> Okay, let me rephrase that:

ASSUMPTION A1: There are no smart women who are attractive

OBSERVATION O1: Tina Fey

Assumption A1 has been disproven by observation O1, and thus it follows that assumption A1 cannot hold, thus disproving your claim.

Or: Oh Please.

<comment><AUTHOR> Note that the title of my essay is "Why smart women are unattractive"...it is taken in parallel with Paul Graham's essay "Why nerds are unpopular." Of course there are exceptions, just like there are smart kids who are also popular.</comment></comment></comment>


Netflix bets on Japanese anime to battle Disney and Apple in streaming wars - <AUTHOR> https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/11/07/business/corporate-business/netflix-bets-on-anime-to-battle-disney-apple/ <comment><USER2> Important point missed by this article is that if Netflix really wants to compete with anime they need to massively improve their subtitles. Every subtitled show I've seen on Netflix has been awful to watch because of basic errors.

I feel like fans will really be put off by this unless they up their game considerably.

<comment><USER3> Long ago, when "Attack on Titan" was _the_ anime series everyone was excited about, Netflix had the last two episodes out of order. It was pretty bad. Episode 25 is supposed to end with a big twist that Episode 26 begins to explore as it closes out the season.

I was so confused while watching. Eventually I figured out it was the wrong episode, but the twist was completely spoiled. The thing that made me really disappointed, though, was discovering a Reddit thread from several months earlier about the problem.

It left a terrible impression. They just didn't seem to care.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> great, expect the same socjus drivel that's right now killing hollywood's legacy IP, dressed up for a new medium with prettier art but the exact same sorry excuses for storytellers. It'll last just long enough to suck in the industry's best and brightest and push the current crop of cash-strapped studios off a fiscal cliff, only to leave everybody high and dry when the number-crunchers finally realize that the core audience - nerdy young men - would rather gouge their eyes out with a spoon than watch this shit, while the diversity pushers clamoring for it _never planned to watch it in the first place_.

<comment><USER5> The level of concern in this post about something that would be a minor nuisance to almost everyone else, is remarkable.

It reminds me of a classmate in my political science class (now more than a decade ago) who emailed everyone a passionate blog post about how the Captain America cartoon show turned a generation of Americans against economic progress.

<comment><USER6> yes, shocking that someone might feel strongly about their interests and subculture

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think Netflix would see better returns if they invested in something more mainstream and kid friendly like Nick Parks work (e.g. Shaun the sheep).

Either way, I'm pretty sure Walt Disneys greed will in the end bite them in the ass since big companies like Netflix now have a reason to invest in small studios.</comment>


What colleges have startup mentality? - <AUTHOR>

I'm a junior in high school, looking at colleges. I know Stanford would be #1 in startup mentality, but I'm looking for some more. I'd rather look at a list of colleges with top startup mentality than the USNews College rankings.<p>Note: By startup mentality, I mean colleges where the school and a decent amount of the student body is accepting of the entrepreneurial mindset and fosters the Silicon Valley culture (even if it isn't in Silicon Valley). <comment><USER2> I can't speak for other schools, but the University of Maryland is working hard to become a "startup school." A few examples:

At least five professors in our electrical engineering department have companies.

The business school has successful entrepreneurs that can meet with students (in any major) trying to start companies.

There's a whole institute at the university called MTECH which has successful entrepreneurs and investors who help startups get off the ground. They have office hours once a month so if you impress them they can help introduce you to the right people.

<comment><USER3> I'm going into UMD, majoring in Computer Science, in the Entrepreneurship and Innovation Honors College next year. Any recommendations for someone interested in getting into the startup scene at Maryland? I'm probably going to apply for Hinman CEOs for junior/senior year, and I've been researching MTech and the Tech Entrepreneurship minor.

<comment><USER2> My advice would be to network with other students interested in startups, and build stuff with them. Twice a semester, there is a business pitch competition called "Pitch Dingman," and there's an annual business plan competition through MTECH. Make it a goal to enter them at some point with friends you make! You'll learn a lot in the process and meet other aspiring entrepreneurs. The Pitch Dingman events are open to the public, so I'd encourage you to check them out and see what UMD entrepreneurs are up to.

<comment><AUTHOR> That sounds pretty awesome!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> No one has mentioned Canada yet, so I'll attempt to cover that.

I attend Brock University in Southern Ontario. There's not much startup mentality here but it's increasing. A business incubator was recently founded [1]. From the tech side, I'm usually the one encouraging the startup mentality (with a few friends). For example, we organized the school's first hackathon last semester. Some of our graduates have created startups, but I'm not aware of any tech startups. Sometimes startups do recruiting here but not often.

Some of the schools I would recommend in Canada are University of Waterloo and University of Toronto. Both of those have a strong startup mentality. Incubators at both schools, lots of successful tech startups from both, and their locations are great for recruiting talent.

[1]: <http://www.busu.net/blueprint>

</comment><comment><USER5> Babson and Olin are two schools in Boston with a big focus on entrepreneurship. Babson is more business-focused, Olin more engineering- focused.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babson_College>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olin_College>

I also see a lot of students from Northeastern University at startup events here, and hear nothing but good things about their Co-Op program, where internships with companies (including startups) are part of your degree program:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeastern_University>

</comment><comment><USER6> The University of Michigan has a strong startup mentality which gets stronger and stronger by the day. Michigan has had a Center for Entrepreneurship for I believe roughly 8 years now. They've just partnered with the business school to start a Masters in Entrepreneurship in addition to the certificate program they currently have. They also have many other services such as a mentor network for people working on or looking to start a startup as well as TechArb which provide student startups with office space. And all these services are of course free as a student. I'd definitive encourage you to check them out.

</comment><comment><USER7> As painful as it is for me to say this, the University of Miami isn't very startupy. We have a really great office on campus called the launchpad to help students start companies, but I haven't seen a single tech company come out of there. Most of our CS department is very theoretical and research oriented. However our ACM is pretty cool and we just had our first hackathon a few weeks ago. It was sponsored by twillio, microsoft, mongoDB, sendgrid, and a few other companies.

</comment><comment><USER8> University of Utah is very close to MIT in the number of tech startups spun off of university research, and surpassed them in 2009:

[http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110301/how-the-university- of-u...](http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110301/how-the-university-of-utah- launches-tech-start-ups.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> I was surprised by this one! But I looked into it and it seems legit. Do you know anything about the computer science program? I checked out the courses and they seemed interesting, although many of the neat ones were for graduate students only :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> You could go to the University of San Francisco - they have an Entrepreneurship program (essentially a BA with startup-related requirements). The great thing is that you'll be a short bus ride from a ton of startup stuff if you're willing to seek it out. That's why I chose here and don't regret it at all.

</comment><comment><USER10> Berkeley for sure! And it has a vibrant open source community too.

<comment><USER11> I can second this as a Cal student. We've got a lot of talented engineers working on startups all the time.

<comment><AUTHOR> Any you can share? :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Absolutely not Cabrini College (Radnor, PA)

</comment><comment><USER13> As a guess, any of the universities associated with a National Lab would likely be startup friendly. This might be part of what makes Berkeley startup friendly. National Labs develop a lot of tech which then gets used to start new businesses. They also do internships, or did at one time. I applied and got as far as the initial interview. Last I checked, I had the impression they still do internships but the name of the program had changed.

<comment><USER14> Couldn't disagree more, but this is probably because of my exposure to different national labs. Proximity to LBL or LLNL may be a help, but the real help comes from the larger community and the schools themselves. Most of the other national labs don't have the startup-friendly communities to back them up.

National labs are great at coming up with new technologies. They are absolutely horrid at commercializing them, which is caused mostly by heavy- handed government policies.

<comment><USER13> Please elaborate on your exposure to different labs for the benefit of the OP.

Thanks.

<comment><USER14> No problem. My experience has been mostly with SNL, LANL, and ORNL. These labs are richly stocked with extremely bright people working on solving some very important problems.

Some of these problems have commercial applications, some are strictly of value to the government, and some are so far out there that no one's really sure where they'll end up (how again was ARPAnet supposed to be used for defense?).

Two different points:

The problem with commercializing government technology is that you need an entrepreneur to push it. The labs do make overtures to allow their well-paid and securely-employed scientists to leave the nest, but the scientists seldom want to stop being scientists, give up a comfortable and tenured six-figure income, to network and sell when if they wanted to network and sell they wouldn't have gone for the Ph.D. in the first place.

If I'm in a metro area where I can, without moving, find a job making a comfortable living doing what I like after my startup fails, I'm much more likely to take that plunge. In "company towns" like Los Alamos or Oak Ridge, there really isn't any chance of that.

This leaves a relay baton drop between scientists who don't sell and would-be entrepreneurs with nothing worth selling.

No problem, the labs can license their stuff out. Problem, the terms of these licenses usually carve out a pretty generous chunk for the lab that spawned the technology, and the implicit terms include delays and risk of expropriation.

The terms of the lab carveout are often pre-ordained, based on revenues instead of margins, and don't take into account whether or not a business model can support them (because it has to be fair and defensible, and how do you know ahead of time what's fair?).

This leaves a would-be licensor to choose between many worthy projects, and as you want to be close both to your inventor and possible funding sources, this creates a bias toward licensing big-city lab technologies like those found at ANL, LLNL, LBL, NREL, and SNL-Livermore.</comment></comment></comment></comment>