Will the Americans with Disabilities Act tear a hole in Internet law? - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/will-the-americans-with-disabilities-act-tear-a-hole-in-internet-law/ <comment><USER2> Here's the thing: Netflix should have done this years ago, and it's a fucking crime that people are still making inaccessible websites. I'm not visually impaired or hard of hearing, but it irks me when I run into a site that is unusable by people. Especially when you're talking about a wildly popular site like Netflix.

Here's the other thing: the technology, and the data, have existed here for several decades. With the exception of old foreign movies where subtitles are burned in, or where subtitles tracks were never produced, they exist, and it's not an unreasonable thing for Netflix to require subtitle tracks be submitted with new content.

It's not just subtitles, though, there are also audio tracks to consider. Netflix has droves of anime fans as customers that don't use Netflix to watch anime, because about 95% of it is in English and because subtitles aren't available.

Netflix has made a number of really bad decisions around subtitling and audio selection, and frankly, I severely hope they comply with the ruling even as they appeal it.

Fixing these features in Netflix is not only about the ADA. In this instance, it will give them a better product.

<comment><USER3> "Netflix should have done this years ago"

Netflix _did_ do it years ago. As far as I know, all Netflix clients now fully support closed-captioning, and also multiple audio streams. (The XBox360 was a bit behind, but it supports it now.)

This isn't about Netflix supporting CC, it already does and has for a while. When they receive videos with CC, they make the CC available. This is about Netflix not being able to give videos without CC to anybody, and/or being required to put CC on videos that they were not provided with CC for and, as they say, actually can't CC without violating copyright law (though one imagines that if they are found to be required to add CC that their licensing contract will simply grow a new clause).

I mention this because I just read over all the comments as I post this, and nobody else seems to have mentioned this. The tech is there. If your Anime doesn't have the Japanese stream, it's because they weren't provided a Japanese audio stream, not a limitation on Netflix's side, and so on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Regulation stifles innovation. We are in an era of rapid & incremental deployment. This is an undue burden to place on developers.

This is the way this is supposed to work: Netflix designs a service. People who don't enjoy service give feedback to Netflix. Netflix then decides how (and how quickly) to improve their service. If people are happy with this, then everyone wins. If people aren't, then they go and build their own service. If they succeed, then shame on Netflix for missing an opportunity. If they fail, then why should government regulation be have to get involved when the market proved this to be a bad idea (keep in mind, this is a video streaming service, not something really related to the pursuit of life, liberty & happiness).

It is very possible that the thought to add closed captioning crossed Netflix's mind, but then maybe they found it to be too expensive & possible illegal to implement this feature that wouldn't be used by their target audience. Maybe this feature _is_ on their roadmap. There is also little precedence here. Not every screen on every movie is required to show closed captions. So why should Netflix be hamstrung by the government in this way?

<comment><USER5> This doesn't work in real life. Your scenario would apply just as well to not serving "blacks" and "coloreds". Well if they don't like it, they can complain to management and it will get fixed when they feel like it.

<comment><USER6> That's a bit of a straw man argument. Serving "blacks" and "coloreds" does not require any extra work. Serving people with various disabilities can take an extreme amount of extra work.

<comment><USER5> I think dasil003 made the point better than I did. My main problem with dfxm12's post is that the way he describes "This is the way this is supposed to work" does not work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I highly suspect the negativity of this article and the comments attached to it are unwarranted. The ADAs goal here (or at least, its original goal) is not to force Netflix to create captions for things that do not have them, but to maintain accessibility for a certain class of entertainment that is already required to be accessible when it's not on the Internet. This means tv shows and movies, things that already have captions offline -- this sort of entertainment should be required to maintain their accessibility when moved online.

If this sort of law is not put in place now, then the deaf will be increasingly pushed out of access to the entertainment for which they have already had to fight pretty hard.

<comment><USER4> _but to maintain accessibility for a certain class of entertainment that is already required to be accessible when it's not on the Internet._

This isn't the case. When was the last time you went into a movie theater and watched a movie that had closed captioning? I have a deaf friend and he complains about having to drive great lengths to find a specific theater playing a specific movie with closed captioning.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is going to be very tough to enforce, but I think it could have a positive effect on many websites. Forcing ADA requirements could lead to a better design in some places. Heck, just making sites readable on a screen reader could force huge improvements. Of course, the downside is that this is going to be a very costly change for most websites out there who have never even considered accessibility issues. That is, assuming this ruling is upheld.

Really, though, as a web developer/designer, you need to be considering accessibility from the very start. It's likely to come up as an issue at some point, especially if your software is going to be used by educational institutions or non-profits.

<comment><USER9> > you need to be considering accessibility from the very start

 _Should_ you be? Yes.

Do you _need_ to be? No.

I can't spend an extra 10% (or 5%... or even 1%) of development time for the 0.001% of my users who are disabled or using screen readers. The return on investment is just not favorable enough.

<comment><USER10> Everything you just said can also be said by Walmart or Applebees but they are required to build ramps, custom bathroom stalls, and special parking spots.

<comment><USER11> Ramps and stalls are standard on any construction nowadays, and there's nothing special about disabled parking spots - they're just the ones closest to the entrance with blue lines instead of yellow.

This on the other hand.. aiya.

<comment><USER10> > Ramps and stalls are standard on any construction nowadays, and there's > nothing special about disabled parking spots - they're just the ones closest > to the entrance with blue lines instead of yellow.

You just proved my point. Making it a law made it standard in the industry. Disabled parking spots cost more than regular because of the extra markings and signage. Ramps cost most than stairs. Even if the cost is just 1% - 5% more, that cost has to be absorbed by the business owner and over time, businesses have learnt to take that into consideration.

Other countries where ADA or equivalent laws do not exist, do not have ramps, special parking spots, or similar accommodations for the disabled. Ramps are not standard there. It is a challenge for my cousin's family in India to take him ANYWHERE because he is in a wheelchair. Some elevators are so small that even the smallest wheelchairs don't fit. Most parks, malls, and other public places usually have no ramps so his wheelchair has to be carried with him in it. ADA makes the lives of disabled individuals and their caretakers better.

The question is, does the Internet need an ADA? I myself am split on that. On one hand, I make software to help the disabled communicate but on the other, who wants to be regulated by the Government in their own field?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Every TV show in the US is required to have closed captioning (in English & Spanish, and no matter whether it comes via cable/satellite, broadcast, or web).

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_captioning#Legislative_d...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_captioning#Legislative_development_in_the_U.S).

I'm not sure this ruling is as wide as the article makes it out to be. Books aren't required to be printed in braille or published in audiobook form.

There will have to be a second ruling that puts 'video content on the internet' into the same category as television shows in order for this to apply.

<comment><USER4> That doesn't solve the problem that Netflix does not own the copyright to the video content it streams & might not be legally allowed to create/distribute derivative works like closed cpations.

Amazon got into trouble for this: [http://phillipsgivenslaw.blogspot.com/2009/03/new-kindle- aud...](http://phillipsgivenslaw.blogspot.com/2009/03/new-kindle-audio- feature-is-text-to.html)

<comment><USER13> Netflix has not claimed anything pertaining to that issue in its defense, so the court cannot rule on that issue.

Netflix's primary defense was, essentially, "We're a website and the ADA doesn't apply to websites." (It also claims that the CVAA exempts them, but I don't think the ruling on that issue is really what folks are worried about here.) The Court's decision primarily affirms that websites are not summarily exempted from the ADA. It does not imply that all websites are subject to ADA requirements, or that all content on all websites is subject to them, or any of the other breathless hand-wavy Chicken Little style speculation that the article engages in.

Netflix did make an argument pertaining tangentially to copyright, but as the ruling points out it was framed as a technical argument that was again intended to demonstrate that it exempted Netflix from the ADA on the grounds that they were a content distributor rather than a content provider. The Court ruled that this argument did not stand, but it also took time to specifically clarify that, because Netflix did not actually make the claim that they may not have had the right to generate closed captions under copyright law, that issue was not actually placed before the Court and therefore could not be addressed by the ruling. It did suggest, though, that it could be visited if a motion for summary judgment is filed. (p. 14)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It seems that we are over-hyping the impact. A quote from one of the comments on the article page: "In summary, the ADA has an "undue hardship" clause. This clause basically states that a private business does not have to provide an accommodation if it would present an undue hardship for the business. There are actually several examples that I can think of IRL, because my girlfriend uses a wheelchair. How many small businesses do you enter that do not have either (A) automatic doors or (B) a handicap door? I'd venture a guess at least few, more or less, depending on where you live. It probably seems relatively minor if you aren't using a wheelchair, but I challenge you to think of how you would get into the all the places of business you enter for a day or two and it may become easier. These small businesses, because they do not have the financial ability to make ADA compliant changes to their buildings, are exempt from compliance. "

So it seems that small businesses and start ups are not forced to comply unless they become sufficiently big enough such that they cannot assert as under "undue hahrdship" clause.

</comment><comment><USER15> Online spaces _are_ spaces of public accommodation. Companies should be taking reasonable steps to allow access by the disabled.

I'm not informed enough to comment on whether the particular ruling made sense in light of the law, but the "this is obviously a horrible decision!" vibe of the article is confusing, and leads me not to trust their conclusions about it.

<comment><USER16> Define "reasonable".

Because anything less doesn't translate down into actionable items that you can hand to designers/developers/IT/monkeys/nephews. We're also going to need some way to test it that doesn't break the bank.

This is going to be a mess. There are no established standards that one can point to in a court of law and everyone has a different opinion about what constitutes reasonable effort.

The only people that will clean up here will be lawyers and so-called consultants.

<comment><USER15> This is a fantastic argument against using my comment as law or judicial precedent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Web developers, welcome to the world DBAs live in, where the law has something to say about what you do!

Frequently asked questions:

Q: How's the government going to police this?

A: They won't. However, you will comply simply because not complying exposes you and your employer to financial liability if someone makes a complaint.

Q: What if this change puts my company out of business?

A: If your margins are too thin to achieve compliance, you'll go out of business; the law doesn't care how much it costs you to comply.

In practice, you will raise your prices to compensate, and if your competition are eating your lunch by not being compliant you'll tattle on them.

Q: Won't this make my job a lot harder for no good reason?

A: Yes it will, but you'll get to ask for a higher salary (see "financial liability").

<comment><USER8> For no good reason? I hardly think removing discrimination is not a good reason. You might mean that the financial benefits are outweighed by the financial cost.

Look at it this way: if you have an ADA from the start, there isn't going to be some segment of the population you exclude from using your product. That's a _good_ thing. Now, nailing on ADA compliance to something that had poor design decisions is going to be painful. In that case, the positive side is that you're going to be forced to get rid of that technical debt.

<comment><USER17> In the interest of humor I'm overstating the position.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I think this case highlights one of the fundamental problems with our legal system making policy decisions: all companies will be held to the same standard regardless of their individual characteristics.

Regulation is important, but it shouldn't be stifling. Laws ought to be dynamic and scalable so that the proverbial "two guys in a garage" don't have to sink their startup by investing time in energy in compliance issues.

Ideally, businesses would be subject to regulation based on some index of revenues/profit. This might range from simply paying taxes on the least profitable end, to having a dedicated team of government regulators for the largest corporations.

However, this runs afoul of numerous legal principles, so I'm not expecting change anytime soon.

</comment><comment><USER19> If it stands, this ruling is going to be a huge mess for a few years... but I actually think it will turn out to be a good thing overall. (Measured in society's terms, not web developers.)

As others have pointed out: the point of the ADA is that the disabled are a tiny, tiny market, and the cost-benefit analysis done by a for-profit business is rarely going to result in any accommodation for them. It is explicitly a government mandate that these people be accommodated because society is a better place when people who have been disabled are not also woefully under- served.

(You can disagree with that last statement, I suppose -- it's a question of values. But I agree, in general.)

What I think needs to happen is an adjustment in the ADA. I'd love to see exceptions made for very small businesses (so startups aren't choked by the requirements) and for user-generated content. Netflix is an edge case: the content is not theirs to close-caption, but it's not "user-generated" either. I could see either requiring that they only show close-captioned material, or imposing more requirements on the production side of streaming video.

But I really don't see any reason that large, profitable web companies like Google, Facebook, or Amazon should be exempt. "It will cost money" or "Making screen-reader-friendly sites is boring" are not good excuses.

<comment><USER13> > I'd love to see exceptions made for very small businesses . . . and for > user-generated content.

You mean like all those exceptions that are already provided for in the ADA's repeated use of the phrase, "readily achievable"?

In the US Code, "readily achievable" is a term of art that is specifically designed to account for the fact that different organizations might be more or less able to do certain things. For example, large companies have a whole lot more resources available than smaller ones. In other words, what you're advocating is already deeply embedded into the ADA.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> To see where this might lead, consider the UK, where this is already the case. The Equality Act 2012 [1] (which itself is a replacement for the Disabilities Discrimination Act which also applied to websites) requires:

      A person (a "service-provider") concerned with the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public (for payment or not) must not discriminate against a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service.

It applies to websites (Airline BMI Baby was sued by the National Institute for the Blind for failure to meet the as-then Disabilities Discrimination Act).

The typical paraphrasing I hear from developers is that it requires an organisation (but not necessarily the developer) to make "every reasonable effort to comply", for which there is a baseline of appropriate colour contrast and reviewing WCAG validation.

It does mean that developers for UK-based services are less disposed to Javascript-heavy applications/components and video content (because of the requirement for ARIA and transcripts/CC respectively).

[1] [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/3/crosshead...](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/3/crossheading/provision- of-services-etc?view=plain)

</comment><comment><USER21> One can only hope that the extent of litigation allowed against individual companies is appropriately limited and understood in the appropriate contexts. This certainly wasn't the case when the the ADA of 1990 was first passed. In those first years after the passage of the ADA we saw thousands of opportunistic lawsuits that made their filers instant millionaires.

Of course the Act has of course done immense public good. It was passed with the best of intentions, but I've known folks who _gloat_ over the amount of money they made settling out of court simply over suing small businesses who have a single step to get in their door off of the street.

</comment><comment> Digit-Al This doesn't make sense to me. Surely Netflix is, basically, a shop that sells access to other peoples content (ignoring the hosting, etc...) In that case, requiring them to close caption all of their content would be like requiring Amazon to close caption all of the DVD's they sell.

Also, they can't possibly have the right (as was alluded to in the article) to modify these films without permission.

Finally, can you imagine the resources required to do this. I do not know how many films and tv shows Netflix hosts, but surely it is in the thousands, or even tens of thousands. (More?)

<comment> Digit-Al I notice from a lot of the comments that there seems to be a certain amount of confusion about making a site accessible and making content accessible.

Yes, shops are required to be accessible (ramps, etc...) but they are not required to make sure that everything they sell is suitable for people with disabilities. A cinema will be accessible, but not all of the films they show will be sub-titled.

In the same way, commercial web sites should be accessible, but surely they can't be forced to try to make everything they sell suitable for those with disabilities.

If films are available with captions, then they should try to make them available with captions - but surely they can't be forced to add captions to films and TV shows that don't already have them. That responsibility should surely be shouldered by the producer of the media.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> [IANAL] But I deal with ADA Title III all the time.

A Barnes and Noble book store is a place of public accommodation and is required to be accessible. Why shouldn't their website be held to the same standard when they conduct substantially the same business transactions with the general public?

Keeping in mind that ADA is civil rights law designed to prevent discrimination on the basis of disability , the question may be put another way - why should Barnes and Noble be allowed to create physical barriers to the disabled on their website in a way that is illegal in their store?

<comment><USER23> Who is responsible to make sure every video on YouTube is closed captioned?

<comment><USER22> [IANAL]

I believe that Youtube would be exempt from the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010.

It's hard to imagine Google having it any other way without stories appearing on HN.

<http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr3101>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I live in a country that has closed captioning on all tv-content and on most content on national video streaming services. I don't see why this should be of any problem for company like Netflix.

</comment><comment><USER25> Next up: mute/deaf people with no fingers suing Apple over the App Store not having sufficient affordances for people no fingers and unable to converse with Siri.

</comment><comment><USER26> I would like to see more effort invested in potentially disruptive enabling technologies, like YouTube auto-captioning + translation, etc.</comment>


Adrian Holovaty talks about Soundslice - <AUTHOR> http://37signals.com/talks/soundslice

<comment><USER2> Let me know if you guys have any questions about the HTML5 / JavaScript stuff in here.</comment>


Tea is a National Disgrace - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/27/tea-national-disgrace-beverage-british

<comment><USER2> This writer does nothing but whine in every article I can find from him. Maybe he is the disgrace.</comment>


Show HN: Indie Hacker projects described in 50 characters or less - <AUTHOR> https://fifty.weekendprojects.xyz/ <comment><USER2> Even though it looks like 10words, still looks quite pretty :) I guess later on we will end up with 3 words, then 10 characters, then one picture :D

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Some time ago I asked the Indie Hackers community to describe their projects in fifty characters or less. The idea stemmed from one of the first questions on the YC application - asking you to describe your company in the same way.

I got a great response, and decided to build a way to showcase interesting Indie Hacker projects - and the result was Fifty.

Please check it out, and drop any feedback you have in the comments - I would love to hear it.

<comment><USER3> This looks like 10words.io - it's quite popular.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Maybe I'm just getting old, but I find the font on this site difficult to read (esp. the "all caps" name). I think it's because parts of the characters are very thin.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think you may be right - never noticed it, but I struggle reading the "all caps" too.</comment></comment>


When a Therapist Puts Buddhism into Practice - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/18/books/mark-epstein-advice-not-given.html <comment><USER2> I really sympathize with anyone who has looked into Buddhism and found it puzzling or even annoying. I felt the same way for many years -- if the Buddha had realized something really important, I'm listening, why not tell me what he realized in a straightforward way?

Well, he would have, if that would work, but it doesn't. Concepts fly easily between our minds but concepts don't seem to really change how our minds work. What _does_ change how our minds work is direct experience. We lead ourselves to the life-changing realizations by meditation.

Slowly, steadily, you train yourself to be calm, to be indistractable, to make your mind very still, much stiller than it ever is even in sleep. Focusing on the nature of experience itself, your mind directly experiences new information about its own workings. And when it does, it has no choice but to change itself, because it does not want to suffer. It causes itself to suffer only because it does not see how its actions lead to suffering. When it does see, it stops. It's freedom and peace by insight.

It starts making perfect sense to help others, to plant trees the shade of which you will never enjoy yourself, etc. You see that it doesn't make sense to fear death. It doesn't make sense to be angry at anyone. It's good stuff.

<comment><USER3> Good solid advice right here. For me, personally I feel meditation is about developing wisdom through concentration. The more wise you become, the more sense the Buddha's instructions make. The more insights you get.

<comment><USER4> I was raised firmly Protestant. I've since decided that prayer _is_ meditation:

\- You typically enumerate ways where you've strayed from your ethical goals. "I harmed so-and-so. I regret having done that."

\- You put yourself into the mindset of change. "I want to be a better person. Help me recognize when I'm about to do something I know I shouldn't so that I can steer away from it."

\- You open yourself to insight. "OK, I've said what I wanted to say. Now I'm going to sit back and listen for an answer."

Although meditation is secular and prayer is explicitly religious, in my experience they seem to follow identical processes. The main difference is whether you intend to send your thoughts outward or to deal with them yourself, but either way you're introspecting your own behavior and desires to seek insights on how to deal with them.

<comment><USER5> They don't feel the same to me at all. While meditating I try to keep my mind energized (not sleepy) while attempting to be aware of of the moment, my breath, and the stray thoughts which although I'm aware of I let them go. My mind is energized but quiet and without thoughts (if I'm successful, which I'm often not, that's ok), a state few in this world spend much time in.

In contrast when I pray I'm often judging the past and planning the future. The first 2 points you mentioned are specifically reinforcing these habits. Meditation gives me a time to practice not constantly dwelling on the past or the future, which if we're not careful we spend most of our lives doing; meditation is merely a time to practice breaking this thought habit.

Not to say one is better than the other though. I just wanted to express my opinion that meditation is much different than prayer according to my own understanding. Granted there are a variety of definitions and understandings of both words.

<comment><USER3> My understanding is that there are different definitions, where generally meditation is some sort of thought cultivation.

But the way I learned, you meditate in order to enter samadhi. Samadhi is a Sanskrit word that means right concentration/proper concentration, and it is what allows you to gain insight. It represents a class of meditative states that you enter and can last for short time or long time, typically when you leave samadhi you feel very good, very peaceful and blissful - you reduced your thinking process thus your afflictions too. The higher your samadhi, the better your concentration and wisdom. Without samadhi, meditation is just analytical thought process.

So, if any practice (prayer included) is to be meditative it has to enable you to enter samadhi IMHO. I believe that's why it has a different feel for you.

<comment><USER5> I know there are many ways to meditate and many differing thoughts about how and why we should meditate. I don't know any of the religious beliefs behind meditation. I believe what I've practiced is called mindfulness meditation. What is the type of meditation you described called?

<comment><USER3> Generally speaking, it is Buddhist meditation; Buddhist meditation texts talk about dhyana (or jhana in Pali; where most of mindfulness sources come from) which is another word for proper concentration. All Buddhist meditation is about entering/achieving dhyana as far as I can tell, although I believe the Chan meditation system puts more emphasis on this.

Of course, mindfulness meditation nowadays means many different things, but if you go to the Buddhist sources you will find information about this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> URL without the Google crap:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/18/books/mark-epstein- advice...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/18/books/mark-epstein-advice-not- given.html)

Can a mod that can fix this please?

<comment><USER7> Yes, please. I try not to go to NYT articles (I just try to avoid the paywall system) and this one fooled me.

<comment><USER8> I broke down recently and bought a subscription. They are the only news outlet I actually pay for. Their content is simply ubiquitous. I never thought it would happen, but there it is.

What's ironic about all this is that what I want is cable-like bundling of content. But while with news content I can be content with channel surfing, with television content I want to consume individual shows.

Curious as to why this is.

<comment><USER9> In addition to the _NY Times_ , I believe that _The Washington Post_ is worthy of a subscription. And while you are at it, sending some money to _The Guardian_ seems to make sense. We all complain about the poor quality of the news and the prevalence of fake news. If we want quality news with intelligent reporting, we have to ensure that the news media that provide it are adequately resourced and funded.

Of course, there are methods other than paywalls that could be used, but paywalls are what we have. It would be nice if several news organizations were to provide a single subscription with broad access. The current paywall strategy nickel and dimes voracious readers.

<comment><USER8> I may get there. Let's see what the next few years bring.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> A lot of therapy (esp CBT) is incorporating Buddhist concepts. The most established is Dialectical Behavioral Therapy (DBT), which is roughly Buddhism + CBT.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_behavior_therapy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_behavior_therapy)

And the concept of mindfulness is practically mainstream in therapy (as it is becoming in culture overall).

Good trends, IMHO.

<comment><USER11> Acceptance Commitment Therapy (ACT) is also largely a sort of secular subset of Bhuddism.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Frankly, I'm tired of this:

"Help Times journalists uncover the next big story. Get The Times from $9.99 a month."

As much as NYT might have interesting content, lately there is a high amount of these on HN.</comment>


A plane that will be able to fly anywhere in the world within 4 hours - <AUTHOR> http://www.sciencealert.com/this-plane-will-be-able-to-fly-anywhere-in-the-world-within-4-hours <comment><USER2> They talk over and over about their engine, when there are plenty other hard problems they do not have solutions for. For instance light enough cryogenic fuel tanks don't exist. This was part of the reason the Venture Star / X-33 never met their weight budget.

<comment><USER3> Came here to say the same thing. And note that you're "burning" 400MW of energy in the heat exchanger (transferring it to the helium) at some point you have to re-cool that helium back to liquid) if you outgas the helium you are a net loss because helium has a limited supply. Doing it with hydrogen doesn't get nearly the thermal mass. So it is a really really cool engine, but it remains to be seen how practical it can be.

The second thing, consider the experience from the SR-71. To stay light and still be able to withstand the frictional heating of the air at mach 5 requires some pretty exotic materials. And matching thermal properties for materials at mach 5 vs sub mach. Covering the whole thing in thermal tiles adds weight which comes out of the payload.

To me, adding on the possibility that it could be some sort of Mach 5 super airliner, suggests that the practicalities of it as an SSTO platform are perhaps not nearly so compelling as once thought. Fortunately they were not talking about the multi-gigawatt ground lasers to boil hydrogen. That idea, while nominally physically possible, is impractical to imagine the rest of the world being "ok" with.

<comment><USER4> _To me, adding on the possibility that it could be some sort of Mach 5 super airliner, suggests that the practicalities of it as an SSTO platform are perhaps not nearly so compelling as once thought_

Ding!

Yeah, that was my reaction. If SpaceX get the reusable first stage tech running on Falcon 9, then they shave $40M off the cost of each launch (the first stage fuel and oxidant costs $300,000; the stage itself, including nine motors, costs around $40M). Even if each flight costs a couple of mill to refurbish and can only fly 10 times, they'll still have cut the $40M price to around $6-7M.

Meanwhile, here's Skylon, a decade late off the starting blocks. With the Sabre engine running on liquid hydrogen, which is a beast to handle, with valuable He as a consumable.

Frankly, the airliner option looks silly to me. The only _real_ target market for a Mach 5 in-air vehicle is the military.

<comment><USER5> Not much of a target at that, otherwise they'd still be flying the SR-71, which doesn't need as many... unproven technologies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Honest question: Can someone explain why a Mach 5 air-breathing engine is important for reaching low-Earth orbit (~Mach 25)? I still don't understand after watching the video.

I recall from a video interview that Elon Musk is skeptical of the utility of air-breathing engines for economic access to LEO since, as he put it, the atmosphere is "thick as soup" and you basically want to get out of it ASAP before you get up to orbital velocity. Breathing air up to Mach 5 allows you to save some weight, but you have to bring enough liquid O2 for the rest of your acceleration from Mach 5 to Mach 25. So is the idea that this modest savings in weight is all that's needed for a single-stage to orbit?

<comment><USER7> Some background: This company's engine is based on its previous design, the SABRE engine. That engine is designed to reach an altitude at 28km, flying at Mach 5 (which works out to be about 1.5km/s at that altitude, ~15% of orbital velocity at LEO). After that the engine is designed to switch to a rocket mode, where it burns fuel and oxygen it brought, rather than taking it from the atmosphere.

Since the an air breathing engine is much more efficient (10x) than a traditional rocket engine, it allows the launch vehicle to conserve mass that would otherwise be used to overcome the high drag encountered in lower altitudes. You can roughly think of this as a rocket with all of its mass being launched at 28km, with a velocity of Mach 5 already.

"Getting out of the atmosphere" is a pretty vague statement. Atmospheric pressure and density is about 1-2% that of the ground. So drag at these altitudes will be less. However, some quick and dirty calculations by me makes this seem like a relatively small number compared to the amount of energy it takes to actually get to orbit. Quick search indicates the same as well[1].

However, a "thick" atmosphere is something that has to be dealt with. For example, rockets also need to overcome pressures that exists at lower altitudes. If you take a look at any rocket launch videos, you will notice that the exhaust at higher altitudes (typically about 2-3 minutes after launch) will expand outwards with respect to the rocket itself. This means that the flow out of the rocket engine is "underexpanded", making the engine less efficient than it would be otherwise. By starting your rocket engine at a higher altitude, you can improve the efficiencies by designing your rockets to lower atmospheric pressures (I don't know if this is done for the SABRE engine, but this is theoretically possible).

So based on these, the main motivation for this is _probably_ for the mass savings and efficiency. Additionally, this engine presents itself with potentials for complete reusability, which is very attractive as most current launch cost is from the unrecoverable launch vehicle itself.

[1]: forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=9959.msg189860#msg189860

<comment><USER8> >So based on these, the main motivation for this is probably for the mass savings and efficiency.

They plan to invest all those savings into a single-stage-to-orbit launcher. It's appealing in a similar manner that SpaceX's stage-return strategy, but in a one-spacecraft package. High-mach aircraft will find other uses too besides orbital launchers.

As for saving a 'mere' 15% at launch that can be crucial from a payload perspective in the rocket equation.

<comment><USER9> Starting the rocket at 15% velocity is not the same as saving 15% of the energy though.

* you have slightly reduced gravity field

* you have a big win in reduced drag energy loss

* these wins have an exponential effect on your fuel requirements at sea level, since less weight in additional fuel again means less fuel to transport that fuel up there etc.

* On the other hand, energy is proportionate to velocity squared, so that gives you less than 15% savings if you assume no atmosphere.

Looking at the wiki[1] these SABRE engines (according to manufacturer specs) will have a 7-8 times higher fuel efficiency than typical rocket engines while in atmosphere (3500 seconds vs. 450 seconds specific impulse). Since this has been peer reviewed by ESA, I'm trusting these numbers. The ascend profile of these machines will look quite a bit different than rockets, so it's hard to compare the efficiencies, but the 'rocket starting at mach 5 horicontal velocity and out of atmosphere' comparison seems to be a good intuition to me, although we still have to reduce it by the amount of fuel that has been used in order to get to that point (which will not be insignificant, even though it's 7.7 lower). We also shouldn't forget that the hybrid system has a thrust- to-weight ratio of 14 compared to 150 of SpaceX' merlin engine, which means that it will take longer for such a system to reach the same speeds, reducing its efficiency gains. The reduced weight of the whole orbiter will make up some of that though, so unless we get more publicised informations on the whole ascend path along with simulated data it's hard to tell. All I know is: When using the simplified versions in KSP these hybrid engines make a lot of sense, i.e. it's the easiest way of getting an SSTO there ;-).

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SABRE_(rocket_engine)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SABRE_\(rocket_engine\))

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Cool. This [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_Engines_A2](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_Engines_A2) is six years old. What's the news?

<comment><USER11> There is no new information here. It looks like sciencealert.com got its information from businessinsider.com's Dec 11, 2014 article which references a "new video" as its source:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLD1TPsEi3E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLD1TPsEi3E)

but that "new" video is from 2012.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The article title refers to a "plane engine" not a "plane." There is a huge difference: the passenger plane airframes everyone knows and flies on are made by totally separate companies (Airbus, Boeing) from the engines (Rolls Royce, GE, Pratt & Whitney).

A great engine will get you nowhere without a great airframe, and when you start talking about supersonic passenger service, you have to add politicians as well. For example, the Concorde briefly flew between London and Singapore but was stopped partly due to complaints from the Malaysian government. And of course the Concorde is long since retired, despite no comparable replacement existing; this has nothing to do with its engines not being good enough.

<comment><USER13> Also important to mention why Concordes got cancelled: even with cheap oil, there wasn't much demand for the plane. After a certain point, not much changes between a 4 hour flight and an 8 hour flight, especially if you have red-eye flights. Unless we figure out a way to have fast planes be cheaper to run than current models, then markets seem to show lack of interest in a Concorde-like

<comment><USER14> Correct, especially with the added time of getting to, from and through the airports.

Some materials about a short-lived Hindenburg airship ([http://www.retronaut.com/2011/04/inside-the-hindenburg-in- co...](http://www.retronaut.com/2011/04/inside-the-hindenburg-in-colour/)) mention its travel time between Europe and North America to be 40+ hours. I wonder, if they were available today, would there be a demand for this type of travel? For me the choice between a seat in 8 hour flight or a comfortable cabin in 40 hour is often not in favour of speed.

<comment><USER15> There have been murmurs of this possibly having a renaissance. [1]

I read an article in a magazine sometime back as well, talking about the possibility of luxury flights like London -> New York, but boarding in a nice piece of park land instead of an airport. The flight would be much longer, but there would be essentially no jet lag, much nicer quarters to sleep in, five star restaurant food, etc. It certainly seemed to me there is potentially a niche market there somewhere.

EDIT - all I can find is a DailyMail(!) article - [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1357747/Airs...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1357747/Airships- Pioneering-Brits-heralding-dawn-new-Zeppelin-age.html)

EDIT 2 - seems to be this company - [http://www.hybridairship.net](http://www.hybridairship.net)

1 - [http://m.ibtimes.com/zeppelins-making-comeback-aeroscraft- ai...](http://m.ibtimes.com/zeppelins-making-comeback-aeroscraft-airship- future-air-transportation-says-california-company)

<comment><USER16> > boarding in a nice piece of park land instead of an airport.

I don't see this happening in the current climate of hysteria.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I think I've read this exact same story for the last 25 years. Will believe a Mach 5+ commercial jet when I see it.

<comment><USER18> It goes back longer than that; the HOTOL project started in 1982 -- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOTOL](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOTOL)

<comment><USER19> And even earlier: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_transport](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_transport)

I suspect this is one of those Big Challenges that keeps tempting aeronautical engineers, and they try to apply the pushing-the-envelope high tech of their era to it. The problem seems to be the economics. There aren't a lot of people who are willing to pay 10x prices (or whatever) for 3x reductions in travel time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> It's basically the Sears-Haack body with some engines bolted on: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sears%E2%80%93Haack_body](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sears%E2%80%93Haack_body)

</comment><comment><USER21> Ok, these guys claim to have invented a great engine, really just the pre- cooler. Why are they trying to build a plane instead of licensing it to others? That seems to be several orders of magnitude more difficult and increases the likelihood of failure.

<comment><USER22> Do you know any Mach 5 planes?

<comment><USER23> Does he know of anyone in the tightly-regulated airline industry who would be crazy enough to build a completely new airframe and engine around a currently- experimental precooler?

<comment><USER24> And using LH2 and LOX as fuel? With 3g acceleration? :-)

<comment><USER25> At that speed, I wonder what accidents will look like. I respect this technology as totally serious but in case of accident the NTSB may just delegate the investigation to a Darwin prize:

Is the plane sensitive to slight variations, like a few people walking in the alley? Since at Mach 5 we can expect a 5000K temperature for the dislocated parts [1], will the pieces completely burn and disintegrate before falling back to Mach 1, effectively acting as a MH370 at each accident, by design? Can we at least have a video of that on 9gag? Or will we have to search a 5,000-km radius if we have a 20minutes uncertainty for the accident window?

[1] [http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_entry#Shock_layer...](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_entry#Shock_layer_gas_physics)

<comment><USER26> With LH2 and LOx as fuel-oxidizer, whatever are the consequences of speed, they'll be over a completely pulverized ex-airplane, not over entire parts.

Also, with that to speed, I wonder how big a runway this thing would need. It would probably operate on a completely separated airport, faw away from cities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> This company has been in business since 1989, and has never produced anything. Here's their own statement of their own history:

[http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/about_history.html](http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/about_history.html)

That's not encouraging. They own a machine shop company and a sheet metal company. They should have built a working model of something by now.

<comment><USER28> That sort of sentiment is why we can't have nice things. These thing stake time.

Remember, this isn't a kick-starter campaign. They're not trying to dupe other people out of money on some hair-brained scheme. This work has been reviewed by the British Interplanetary Society and the ESA. It's real science, tackling a real problem.

I'll make a bet with you now. In 15 years, the Sabre Engine will be carrying more payloads into space than anyone else, and for less money than anyone else can offer.

<comment><USER29> [http://longbets.org/](http://longbets.org/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Bored Elon musk is already doing this in 3 hours.

[https://twitter.com/boredelonmusk](https://twitter.com/boredelonmusk)

<comment><USER31> I actually bet he reads through that Twitter account and rolls his eyes because he has already secretly invented half of it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> The cool part is that this plane will do US to Europe in 1-2 hours which is a game changer.

Given how fast it flies, how much would the tickets cost?

<comment><USER28> I get the impression that the passenger flight times are more marketing talk intended to frame the technical achievement in terms people can understand rather than an actual intended use case. Reaction Engines do have plans to use the engine on a passenger plane, but the Skylon is designed to take payloads up into space cheaply.

[http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/lapcat.html](http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/lapcat.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> It looks like a marriage between a SR-71 Blackbird and a Concorde.

At 1.1 billion each, it's about 10 times as expensive as a Concorde. I hope they will find a way to keep it profitable.

<comment><USER34> The A-380 costs about 414 million usd and can carry ~500 people. A flight from Europe to Sydney takes north of 22 hours (not counting stop-overs).

Off the top of my head, this new plane seems like a pretty good deal, doing Europe to Sydney in ~4 hours with 300+ passengers for a unit cost of 1.1 billion.

<comment><USER35> You cannot ignore fuel cost and investment to handle the new fuel. We'll see what happens, but the most compelling thing to me seems to be the fact that it burns hydrogen and not kerosene which seems to be more environmental friendly, but I'm no chemist.

<comment><USER36> Burning hydrogen releases water vapour, while burning fossil fuels release carbon dioxide and water vapour. So, you could call it indeed more environmental friendly if you consider carbon dioxide harmful.

However, hydrogen doesn't occur on Earth in a pure state (at least not in mineable quantities). There are no hydrogen wells.

Creating the hydrogen (for example, by electrolysis of water) is expensive and generally a net loss of energy. Maybe storing energy in hydrogen is feasible if it's generated with excess nuclear or solar electricity.

<comment><USER35> > burning fossil fuels release carbon dioxide and water vapour

Either I have completely misunderstood something, or fossil fuels release only CO2 and H2O under ideal conditions, which never happens. Add to the fact that any jet engine is unable to utilize any after treatment systems to remove harmful products. I am fully aware that hydrogen is rather expensive to produce, but I think it's possible that nuclear energy, or (as you mention) excess solar/wind power is several magnitudes cleaner than even the cleanest burning fossil fuel engine (including all the resources it takes to pump it up and refine it).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Odd that a picture of dead people (Palermo catacombs, I'm guessing) shows up beside this headline in my RSS reader (Feedly).

<comment><USER38> Not odd at all. If you scroll down there are links to other articles. The last one is a photo of the catacomb mummies. Your fead reader simply chose the wrong photo from those on the page.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Is it still 25 years away from being available to commercial airlines, like the wikipedia article mentions? Can't wait! :)

</comment><comment><USER40> So is the breakthrough just the pre-cooler, or the pre-cooler together with the scimitar engine?

It sounds like the innovation is the helium pre-cooler, but even at that it's hard for me to understand whether their advancements are in working with liquid helium for a coolant or in the airflow cooling (both)?

I don't do anything remotely like this in my day job.

</comment><comment><USER41> Title reminds me of this 30-minute delivery anywhere in the world (much older technology): [http://designobserver.com/feature/blast-door-art-cave- painti...](http://designobserver.com/feature/blast-door-art-cave-paintings-of- nuclear-era/6697/)

</comment><comment><USER42> Where does this liquid helium come from, and more importantly where does it go after it's been heated? Im guessing they release it into atmosphere, so is there enough helium to mine for this plane to go mainstream?

<comment><USER43> It says in the Wikipedia article that: "The key design feature for the Scimitar engines is the precooler, which is a heat exchanger that transfers the heat from the incoming air into the hydrogen fuel."

<comment><USER44> Hydrogen? How are they storing that efficiently?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Richard branson was talking about doing this:

[http://www.businessinsider.com/richard-branson-supersonic- pl...](http://www.businessinsider.com/richard-branson-supersonic-plane-2014-5)

</comment><comment><USER46> I couldn't help but hum the British national anthem while reading this.

<comment><USER47> I tried to join you but for some reason my brain decided to produce the Imperial Death March instead.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Seems like cool technology. I wonder if it'll actually get to fly.

</comment><comment><USER49> But, what about the carbon impact of this? It will only be available for one percenters, no?

<comment><USER50> A hydrogen/oxygen engine emits only water. You can choose to get the hydrogen from water using from a non-carbon energy source, for a completely carbon emission free system.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> I hope they dont make too many of these planes that breathe oxygen. We may need some for humans.

</comment><comment><USER52> Hopefully, they've learned a few lessons from the Concorde. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde)

</comment><comment><USER53> This is bullshit, -273°C is absolute zero so unless the plane is on fire, it can't cool down the air by more than 1000°C.

<comment><USER54> Rocket engines get extremely hot: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine#Cooling](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine#Cooling)

<comment><USER53> They pretend the air is precooled, not cooled after going through the engine.

<comment><USER55> Is this not the same concept as any intercooler?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Windows Command-Line: Unicode and UTF-8 Output Text Buffer - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/commandline/2018/11/15/windows-command-line-unicode-and-utf-8-output-text-buffer/ <comment><USER2> And remind me, which manufacturer of s/w is responsible for on-the-fly mis- encoding datastreams as latin1 and other misnomers (up-converting '...' strings to the more pretty versions which demands randomly converting code from 7 bit to 8 bit, but mussing up the encoding hints for instance, or doing the same in cut-buffers passing through Word/Excel) .. Redmond I'm looking at you...</comment>


Show HN: Singyeong, a metadata-oriented message bus - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/queer/singyeong <comment><AUTHOR> Hi HN :)

This has been a little side project of mine for a while, born out of an idea discussed with a friend of mine ~2 years ago. It's mainly made to solve my own wants / needs around message-sending without trying to hack them into RabbitMQ, Kafka, Redis PubSub, etc. It's still a little alpha-quality, but it's at the point where I feel confident showing it ^^</comment>


Uncommon date picker - <AUTHOR> http://laruiss.github.io/smart-date/ <comment><USER2> Date and time pickers seem to be the eternal struggle of UI.

There is so much about time that can be of interest.

Picking a time of the day, picking a day of the week, picking a date, a date with a time, a period, a Month, a Year... Often the whole widgets are so flexible, that it takes forever to get the right pick so you resort to short- cut buttons with pre-defined values, but you can't litter your screen estate with them either...

Anyway, I like your approach, but I would remove these slow-ass animations, they take away the speed this approach has to offer :)</comment>


When Iggy Pop can't live off his art, what chance do the rest have? - <AUTHOR> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/when-iggy-pop-cant-live-off-his-art-what-chance-do-the-rest-have/article21154663/

<comment><USER2>
      I'm a Very Important Person!
      I park as a V.I.P.
      And when I go to the bathroom...
      I go in the V.I.P toilet.
      And when I wanna change a lightbulb...
      I don't do it myself...
      Ohh no...
      I have a technician!

      'cause I'm a V.I.P.

      Now, as I began to become a V.I.P...
      I forgot what i've become a V.I.P for
      I began to grow accustomed to people saying:
      "Right this way sir...drinks are on the house..."
      Flight attendants on airplanes saying:
      "Please...
       Really, I don't wanna bother you sir,
       but it's such a pleasure to have you on board.
       May I have your autograph... for my... daughter?"

      "Yeah baby right after I go to the toilet.
       I'll give you a couple of 'em!
       'cause I'm a V.I.P!"

      Now, one thing about V.I.P is,
      they never seem to be alone.
      Oh no.
      The "true" V.I.P must travel with an entourage!
      People who say "Right on boss"
      'cause it's a V.I.P!

      Right on boss.

      As i began to realise that i had gained V.I.P status,
      worries began to creep in.
      What if one day, i woke up,
      and i was no longer a V.I.P ?
      No more good tables at the restaurants...
      No more strange women smiling and approaching me on the streets...
      No more top notch booty!
      No more entourage to say "Right on boss!"
      I began to have nightmares
      And in my nightmares, I was just a fucking nobody.
      Laying at the beach, imagining myself being a VIP!
      Just like i was before...
      Hearing the applause in my head
      Beautiful warm embraces of superior members of the female gender...

      Of course, when one becomes a V.I.P, one meets other V.I.Ps at social occasions...
      And one inevitably thinks:
      "How shallow and crass these people are!
       They're not down to earth and real like me...
       Ohh no! I'm a very special V.I.P"

      Another interesting phenomenon, associated with V.I.P celebrityhood,
      is the "V.I.P reflection effect", during which
      anyone associated with the V.I.P,
      becomes a sort of V.I.P in their own right.
      Such as:
      "son OF the V.I.P",
      "guitar player FOR the V.I.P",
      "girlfriend WITH the V.I.P",
      "accountants of the V.I.P"
      The maid, the dog, the music publisher...
      All enjoy a sort of 'reflected glory', as in:

      "Hi this is Nastea
       I work for Iggy
       And i'd like 6 tables tonight in the V.I.P section
       And he needs passes for everyone
       And free drinks of course in the V.I.P area"

      Right on boss.

      'cause i'm a V.I.P.

      It's also true that when one is a V.I.P, everybody's happy to see you...
      All the time !
      And there's an implicit rule that a V.I.P must never...
      NEVER
      Be on a bummer.
      'cause everybody expects YOU to make THEIR day
      And they'll all be on to you if you're in a bad mood.
      They will "tisk tisk tisk!" and "mur mur mur mur mur mur...",
      And you will find yourself with the WRONG kind of attention:
      A *DIFFICULT* V.I.P.
      Psychologists tell us that a sense of self-esteem is so necessary in today's world.
      As a V.I.P, I can guarantee you...
      You'll never be alone.

</comment><comment><USER3> I find it hard to believe Iggy Pop has not made enough money to live off, plus some.

I would believe he made large amounts in his heyday, blew it all and now is 'poor'.

But citation needed I guess. He does have a beach house in the Cayman Islands...

[http://metro.co.uk/2014/03/21/just-so-you-know-iggy-pop- says...](http://metro.co.uk/2014/03/21/just-so-you-know-iggy-pop-says-id- rather-be-eaten-by-a-shark-than-die-in-an-old-peoples-home-4672451/)

<comment><USER4> ...not to mention that Iggy Pop will never be a homeless dreg, or forced into a job at Seven Eleven or anything.

...and how many of us never have any hope of living off of "art", right?

Follow your dreams, and the money will just climb right into your pockets, because lollipops and sunshine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Artists these days take a long time between records, just compare discogs of John Lee Hooker [1] and The Beatles [2] versus U2 [3] or Iggy Pop [4]. The amount of creative output of the first two is astounding, i.e. in his first five years John Lee Hooker released 25 records; these days artists release just one record every five years.

[1] [http://www.discogs.com/artist/94557-John-Lee- Hooker?type=Rel...](http://www.discogs.com/artist/94557-John-Lee- Hooker?type=Releases&subtype=Albums)

[2] [http://www.discogs.com/artist/82730-Beatles- The?type=Release...](http://www.discogs.com/artist/82730-Beatles- The?type=Releases&subtype=Albums)

[3] [http://www.discogs.com/artist/6520-U2?type=Releases&subtype=...](http://www.discogs.com/artist/6520-U2?type=Releases&subtype=Albums)

[4] [http://www.discogs.com/artist/11073-Iggy- Pop?type=Releases&s...](http://www.discogs.com/artist/11073-Iggy- Pop?type=Releases&subtype=Albums)

<comment><USER6> Rhianna seems to churn out plenty of crap on a regular basis.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I love how we got this eternal argument pushed that music _must_ be art when this is a non secret most pop artist are fabricated by an _industry_.

</comment><comment> xkcd-sucks Getting rich off royalties is NOT PUNK. And if iggy's not punk he doesn't deserve wealth.

</comment><comment><USER8> How many great artists through history had day jobs? I'd wager it was the vast majority. If they were lucky it was a teaching job in their artistic field.

IF you have some track record and a good agent, it's possible to make a living writing tech books. But you would make perhaps five to ten times more by writing less and consulting more, using the books to support your consulting pricing.</comment>


Google disables SSL search at BT's request - <AUTHOR> http://blog.al4.co.nz/2014/09/google-commits-privacy-seppuku-at-bts-request/ <comment><USER2> At the moment, yes, no nosslsearch VIP will do this. However we're getting rid of it soon and replacing it with one that enables SafeSearch, but still over HTTPS: [https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/186669?hl=en](https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/186669?hl=en)

However, if you want an encrypted search option, [https://encrypted.google.com/](https://encrypted.google.com/) is always encrypted and isn't affected by these methods.

<comment><USER3> Ha, you're the guy behind Pond (hi!). As a security researcher, how does it feel to work for a company that (reportedly) (pro)actively collaborates with the NSA? Are you ever worried that the company might not be as ethical as it seems to the average Googler?

 _puts on tinfoil hat_

edit: Thank you for the downvote[s]!

edit2: I just remembered a relevant example. Reading "How Google works", I clicked in many ways with their vision about _smart creatives_ and how to run a company properly. However I then immediately realised that it's written by the same a-hole involved in the massive Google-Apple wage fixing scandal [0], and it made me question how much of what's in there is _real_.

0: [http://www.cnet.com/news/judge-rejects-324-5m-wage-fixing- se...](http://www.cnet.com/news/judge-rejects-324-5m-wage-fixing-settlement- struck-by-apple-google-others/)

<comment><USER4> agl is one of a handful of people who are moving the needle on HTTPS usage, pretty much through sheer force of will. So of all the people you could pick on, you made a really lousy choice.

<comment><USER3> My questions were genuine, I am honestly interested in his or HN's opinion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This might just be a use of the magic "nosslsearch" DNS record: [https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/websearch/1l2...](https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/websearch/1l2KMUfgyo4).

<comment><USER6> That page describes exactly what is happening:

 _The network administrator can adjust the DNS configuration for www.google.com to point to our NoSSLSearch end point. For regular http traffic, the user will see no difference._

 _We will not serve SSL search results for requests that we receive on this VIP. If we receive a search request over port 443, the certificate handshake will complete successfully, but we will then redirect the user to a non-SSL search experience. The first time a user is redirected, they will be shown a notice that SSL has been disabled by the network administrator._

Google provides an option for network administrators to disable SSL searching on their own networks. It doesn't involve paying Google. You can see in this thread that filter manufacturers and their clients (schools, etc.) were the motivation for this feature and they'd simply block services that didn't allow filtering if the feature didn't exist.

<comment><USER7> Wow, that is very disturbing. Talk about intentionally shooting yourself in the foot, security/privacy wise.

<comment><USER8> "how to steal from my employer"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I saw this behavior on a public wifi in london once. I think it also blocked "encrypted.google.com".

Apparently google has an option for network administrators to force a redirect to "nosslsearch.google.com". Oddly enough, the "learn more" page has removed the reference to this domain, but it's in the wayback machine: [http://web.archive.org/web/20140827203531/https://support.go...](http://web.archive.org/web/20140827203531/https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/186669?hl=en)

<comment><USER10> The Wayback page doesn't reference "forcesafesearch.google.com" as the current one does, so perhaps "nosslsearch.google.com" is deprecated as a means of blocking adult content.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Hm, reading the comments I get that it's always the same story: If you're not paying, you're the product.

BT is trying to make some cash selling data to third parties. Since google allows to specific network blocks (defined probably by IP address) to use non- SSL connections, BT installed public WiFi to offer internet access and gather data which could be sold to advertisers. Is it really a _goldmine_? I'm not sure, with Google and Facebok gathering much more personal data than BT ever will, I'm not sure if it's a Goldmine, depends on the quantity and accuracy I guess...

<comment><USER12> You already have to pay BT to use these hotspots.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm a BT customer and I immediately checked this out.

Using the latest Chrome/Firefox, searching for anything in the address bar is sent over https. Perhaps the author is being 'watched' as he is a surfing via BT's wifi pass?

<comment><USER14> Yes, this certainly only applies to BT public hotspots, not normal home internet.

<comment><USER12> Think this will just be on BT Openworld, which they resell from anyones BT router.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is set up at the carrier's level whereby they disable HTTP for Google search. To re-enable it, you can define your search to: [https://encrypted.google.com/#q=search](https://encrypted.google.com/#q=search)

<comment><USER16> No, it's set up at Google, whereby they disable the HTTP for Google search when asked to nicely (£££).

<comment><USER17> It costs nothing to make your DNS server point users to nosslsearch.google.com. I think you are letting your feelings toward Google cloud your perception of reality.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I work for a school district in the US and we have to have a gateway content filter to prevent students from accessing inappropriate web sites. We use an iboss content filter which can decrypt ssl and rencrypt on the fly. It can also force google safe search and such. I suspect this company uses something similar.

[http://www.iboss.com/web_security_suite/wss_content_manageme...](http://www.iboss.com/web_security_suite/wss_content_management.html)

<comment><USER19> >We use an iboss content filter which can decrypt ssl and rencrypt on the fly.

Is it safe to assume this is some sort of trusted MITM proxy?

I think this is really taking it too far. We use Lightspeed and they block SSL traffic during the handshake based on the domain its destined for. No need to decrypt anything.

<comment><USER18> It runs as a transparent proxy. We used to use Lightspeed but found it lacking in reporting. It can act as a MITM proxy if you turn the option on. We do however force safe search on search sites that the box works with.

<comment><USER20> THX for your efforts in bringing up the next generation of hackers and penetration testers!

<comment><USER21> (Perhaps you were being sarcastic) but these kids most probably won't be able to access a great many of the informative and educational websites that allow them to research and learn about how to properly secure computers and their online experience. Because (I've seen this) they are most likely dumped under the category of "hacking websites" ... even perfectly benign network tools.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I just noticed this for the first time in the AA lounge at Heathrow today. They use BT for their wifi and I got a notification that encrypted search had been disabled by my ISP. So it seems like it's all BT internet products that are doing it.

<comment><USER23> > "I got a notification that encrypted search had been disabled by my ISP"

How'd you set that up?

<comment><USER22> It popped up on the Google search results page as in the linked post

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> For anyone else wondering what the hell "BT" is, it's British Telecom, an ISP.

<comment><USER25> it hasn't been British Telecom since 1991.

these days they're into just about everything: landlines, tv, internet, mobiles, you name it.

they tend to have a notorious reputation for providing a bad service, with their internet service being the prime example... god help you if something goes wrong with your phoneline.

<comment><USER26> Would BT be the UK's version of Comcast?

<comment><USER27> More or less, except Britain is currently experiencing the aftershock of David "Think of the Children" Cameron and his band of privacy-hating merrymen. While Verizon was caught out recently tracking users and Comcast maybe does the same, at least they don't forcibly restrict you from using HTTPS.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> BT is the worst. Their Internet Hub or whatever they call their router does not allow changing DNS settings, because that would circumvent their crappy filtering. Would someone please stop thinking of the children!

<comment><USER29> In the UK there are lots of other ISPs to choose from though. This probably cuts down on more users being told by fraudsters to change their DNS settings than it makes complaints from users wishing to change them?

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I hit this back in August when I moved and had to wait 2 weeks for my new line to be installed correctly[0].

I didn't care enough to find out why, I always use a VPN when using WiFi and to be fair to BT they recommend the use of a VPN when using the BT WiFi service.

[0] It took BT 2 weeks to install the line correctly after cocking it up twice! Third times a charm. Great going BT! /s

<comment><USER31> Why did BT recommend using a VPN?

<comment><USER14> They would recommend it because public wifi is unencrypted and open to sniffing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Looking at that transcript, the redirection from [https://www.google.co.uk/..](https://www.google.co.uk/..). to [http://www.google.co.uk/..](http://www.google.co.uk/..). does appear to be served by Google. It's over HTTPS so it's signed by a key only Google has.

<comment><USER33> Or by a CA that is trusted by your browser....

<comment><USER32> That would be a huge scandal. When fraudulently issued certs are discovered that's news, and if you did get one issued you wouldn't use it to redirect random BT customers to http.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Grab a DO instance for $5/month, install openvpn on it, set it to serve over tcp & port 443 if you have to and then shove your DNS and everything else through that. Yes it's sad this is necessary but it's easy to do, costs virtually nothing and lets you sidestep most ISP filtering policies with the added bonus of protecting your traffic from whatever random wifi network you happen to be using to access the internet that day. If that's too much like hard work, there are also hundreds of 'VPN as a service' providers out there that will do it all for you for less than $7/month.

Either way, it seems more and more quaint to me that anyone connecting via a mainstream ISP assumes they'll get an unadulterated feed to the internet. If you're an adult and want to decide for yourself how you'll use the internet, get a VPN in place and relegate your ISP to being a dumb bit pipe.

<comment><USER35> The point is that Joe User won't be able, shouldn't have to do this.

<comment><USER34> Definitely true neither they nor we should have to do it.

Fortunately, there are still some good ISPs left in the UK. I'm with Andrews & Arnold and they're staunch supporters of an uncensored net ([http://www.aa.net.uk/kb-broadband- realinternet.html](http://www.aa.net.uk/kb-broadband-realinternet.html)). They're also just generally awesome - dual homed static IPv4 and IPv6 addressing, a geek answers the phone if you ever have reason to call, you can choose your backhaul transit provider and lots of other nice things. You can even opt for billing that follows the lunar cycle :)

Regardless of ISP though, I think even Joe User should figure out how to install & use a managed VPN service for when they're out and about using random wifi networks (e.g. from privateinternetaccess.com or similar). Of course, that assumes these VPN services are trustworthy which I'm sure a lot aren't...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I was recently in the same situation as the author of this post. And as far as I can figure the reason HTTPS is disabled, is that the BT Wifi hotspots require you to login with username/password on a custom page before you can access the internet. Most people's default thing to do is google something, which then redirects them to the BT Wifi login page, but this only works if Google is being served up via HTTP, otherwise BT wouldn't be able to hijack the request and redirect you to the login page.

Hence it's probably not got much to do with privacy, and more to do with usability.

If +90% of users just got HTTPS/SSL security warnings from their browsers instead of a BT Wifi login page, they wouldn't be able to use BT Wifi unless they're of the minority who know and understand how HTTP/HTTPS connections work.

<comment><USER37> It's worth noting however that both recent Windows and Mac OSes at least detect captive portals automatically and show the login page themselves, making elaborate and insecure hacks like that unnecessary.

<comment><USER31> Isn't that a security hazard? The mechanism of these captive portals is literally a MITM attack, and I don't see how to distinguish a benevolent from a malevolent use of it.

<comment><USER38> There is an official http status code, but obviously no one uses it yet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Note: BT = British Telecom, a UK internet provider

<comment><USER40> That adds sooo much context that I was missing. I was like Bit torrent is asking Google to do what?

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> This anti-feature is in place to support censorship by schools which wish to prevent students from Googling certain words. It's not surprising that it gets used for more nefarious things.

</comment><comment><USER42> "this network has turned off SSL search"

Honestly, I assumed this meant that Google wasn't allowed to do it. And since they couldn't secure you, they wouldn't give you your account.

</comment><comment><USER43> My school (when I still went to it) did this, presumably to allow filtering of search terms. It stopped you using Google over HTTPS to avoid filtering. The solution was simple: DuckDuckGo.

</comment><comment> guard-of-terra What Google seems to have done voluntarily will be forced on it tomorrow by repressive regimes all around the world.

Google seems to have failed us once more.

<comment><USER44> Repressive regimes like the UK and the US, et cetera.

I don't think it's fair to blame Google if they are complying with the law of the land and the wishes of society as expressed through the democratic process.

<comment> guard-of-terra I think this is as bad as trying to comply with backseat driver directions, verbatim.

They are supposed to know how not to drive their product into the tree. Society doesn't. Their search is their product, and not "society's".

<comment><USER44> Their product does belong to "society" to the extent that it is bound by the laws of that society. And if we pass laws that require them to spy on their users for the government, we can hardly complain when they follow the law.

<comment> guard-of-terra They still have the choice of telling us "no". That's because our laws prohibit forced labor. They even said "no" before, in China, for example.

But now it will be increasingly hard for them given what they sell for money.

<comment><USER44> I don't think that's reasonable to expect. You're asking an entire company of thousands of people - people who also participate in society and vote in elections - to teach society a lesson or something by refusing to do work _you_ disagree with (and, for the record, _I_ disagree with too). Probably a lot of people at Google are okay with spying - many of them helped elect Diane Feinstein, after all.

I have a good idea where this is all headed, and probably within my lifetime people like you and me are going to be able to deal out some pretty damn bitter "I told you so's". In the meantime I will try to keep that from happening by trying to educate people, for as long as doing so doesn't get me killed. But expecting a group of people, many of whom don't agree with me anyway, to practice some mild civil disobedience on my behalf, would accomplish very little other than to drive me mad.

<comment> guard-of-terra The problem is not that they are pro- or against spying.

The problem is they undermine how secure internet and HTTPS works and how people perceive it.

They're heading us for the world where nobody will even be in control WRT how much info is collected and what it is about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Yep my high school (in the US) has been doing this for years. They even blocked Duckduckgo this year. Google really needs to ditch this "feature".

Edit: Just saw Agl's response, I'm glad Google is changing this.

</comment><comment><USER46> Dear Google: remember that "don't be evil" thing? This is evil.

<comment><USER29> Oh come on. This is a specific BT service that allows your home router to be used by the public (for a payment to BT, presumably the home owner gets a cheaper service or some return on the deal?). Should BT really enable the searching of non-SafeSearch material via such connections? Should Google really prevent BT from implementing this system?

What is it about extreme internet content that you think is so important that BT should support it being downloaded via their customers home routers without those customers knowledge? Or is it that schools use such a system to block extreme content - presumably you think that the dreggs of the internet are appropriate for schools to allow students to access easily?

Google's not stopping you searching for whatever extreme content you like they're just limiting their enablement of such searches in circumstances where those in control of the internet connection choose for it to be limited.

<comment><USER12> You get access to the wifi network on other routers. You don't get anything else in return - this is included in the cost of the bill. You can phone them and get them to disable it on your router.

Their routers seem to have no QOS - one computer doing an update will kill internet for others in the house, presumable this is the same if other users are on the 'BT Openworld' wifi it shares.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Ew. What happens if you use a normal https proxy server based e.g. in Germany?

</comment><comment><USER48> I might get downvoted for this but I have two meta-questions:

I assume BT is a European (or British) ISP?

Is "seppuku" a common analogy people use? I just looked it up and was a bit surprised at the result.

<comment><USER17> 1\. Yes.

2\. "Suicide" is a common metaphor, and "seppuku" (a Japanese form of ritual suicide) is sometimes substituted as a more colorful synonym for this usage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> We changed the title because the original is baity. If anyone can suggest a better (i.e. more accurate and neutral) title, we'll change it again.

</comment><comment><USER50> Sounds like you should run a VPN

</comment><comment><USER51> We are Google's product, not Google's customer. Keep this in mind, and use Google sparingly.

<comment><USER52> I just discovered that DuckDuckGo has some stuff in place to make it easy to add DuckDuckGo as your primary search engine in Chrome. Took me about three seconds.

I am going to give it a try for a solid week at home and see if I can live with its results. I have no idea if they're as good, but I hope so.

<comment><USER53> A tip about migrating to duckduckgo, if you break down with the results and need to go back to google, just add !g to the query and it'll route you forward to google with a redirect. Just be aware, even if you are using DuckDuckGo via the Chrome Omni bar for searching, those results _still_ end up in your Search History on Google (see [https://history.google.com/history/](https://history.google.com/history/) )

As a result I'm on DDG + Firefox at this point

<comment><USER52> Do they manage to collect all that if I never sign-in to Chrome and I never sign in to anything google-related unless it's in a privacy tab? I can't imagine how they would be able to do so given that I'm never signed in, but it wouldn't surprise me if they did somehow.

<comment><USER31> Sure they can track the searches done by your IP + other information from your browser.

<comment><USER54> I am almost never logged in to Amazon, but I've been noticing for awhile that they still recommend things to me, and they say up front "based on something or other to do with your Amazon activity." The only thing they don't do is call me by name when I'm not logged in. But they obviously know it's me.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Verizon Math - <AUTHOR> http://verizonmath.blogspot.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Listen to this recording. These people are outrageous

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MShv_74FNWU&feature=youtu.be](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MShv_74FNWU&feature=youtu.be)</comment>


Tell HN: In 1 week Filepicker forces paid signup or lose S3 & image conversion - <AUTHOR>

I've used filepicker pretty liberally for clients, since I knew they only wanted to upload 1 to 5 images a month. For one client I even just set it up on my own filepicker account, since I was sure that they would never use much of my S3 bucket. It's pretty annoying to either bill me 100 bucks a year per install or have to talk to past clients and either get them to transition away or sign up for a paying account, all within the week. <comment><USER2> I think Filepicker have a good service that is worth paying for, but I have two problems with the change of their model:

1\. At one week's notice projects that are using S3 storage out in the field will break and need recoding. If any of them are for example built by freelancers where clients have little knowledge of what's going on, the service will be the scapegoat.

2\. It probably is not, but this sounds like a desperate search for sudden revenue. If this does not work out and the company abandons the product, then will all my Filepicker URLs and all my code stop working? In this case I would pay for the service, but right away migrate away from them.

</comment><comment><USER3> Before making the switch you might consider [https://uploadcare.com](https://uploadcare.com)

Benefits of UploadCare:

\- Free Tier includes cropping and S3 storage

\- Better UI

\- Better API (cropping doesn't require a query string which breaks cacheing on some proxies)

Disclaimer: I haven't used UploadCare nor am I affiliated with them

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Got an email from them saying that they didn't mean to trick us, and that they had sent a different email giving 30 days warning, which some users may not have got (and which is far more fair).

<comment><USER4> Yes, this is the email I got from them on October 25th:

Hi, Thanks for supporting Filepicker. We recently changed our pricing plans, and wanted to let you know directly.

Today, we support over 30,000 developers and serve over 200 million files per month. As we grow, we continue to invest in our infrastructure & engineering so that we can continue to deliver a superior experience. Therefore we are changing the pricing plans.

Changes: We are reducing the free tier to 500 file uploads per month & the max file size is revised to 20MB. Image conversion, uploading files directly to S3, analytics, adding logo & custom CSS are no longer offered on the free plan. The paid plans start at $ 19/month for the Starter Plan and are available at: [https://www.inkfilepicker.com/pricing/](https://www.inkfilepicker.com/pricing/)

What does it mean for your account: We are grateful for your support over the last year. As an early supporter of the product, we are offering you an opportunity to upgrade to the Enhanced Start plan for just $9/month, 50% off the Start Plan. And, the Enhanced Start plan gives you more benefits than the Start plan: • Up to 5000 files uploaded per month • Max file size of 100 MB • Up to 150000 files converted per month • Upload files directly into your Amazon S3 bucket • Analytics into how your users are uploading files • Add your logo and custom CSS to the dialog

Further, we are offering you a 30-day window to upgrade (till Nov 25th). If you decide not to upgrade, at the end of 30 days, we will work with you to migrate you to the regular Start plan.</comment></comment>


The future of product roadmaps: Valuemaps - <AUTHOR> https://www.slideshare.net/raxevsky/the-future-of-product-roadmaps-valuemaps <comment><USER2> Interesting concept. I feel like I agree with the concept. But I don't know if I really got it as the presentation does not go into detail on how to build a value map.</comment>


Here's the Poster Child for Silicon Valley Excess - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-06-01/domo-is-the-poster-child-of-silicon-valley-excess <comment><USER2> >Domo also paid about $200,000 more than a year ago for furnishings from an interior design company that was part-owned by James and at which a different brother is an executive.

This is a classic embezzlement technique, where the main company rents something from a co-owned company at incredibly inflated prices. It appears legitimate on the balance sheets, allows the main company to go bankrupt and collapse without disrupting the secondary company, and insures no debtors can take the assets of the bankrupt company to pay off debts as everything is owned by the secondary company</comment>


Clojure, Websockets, and More at LA Hacker News this Saturday - <AUTHOR> http://www.meetup.com/Los-Angeles-Hacker-News/events/18942281/

<comment><USER2> See you there.</comment>


Secrets of Russian Meteorite revealed - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/11/secrets-revealed-of-the-dash-cam-meteorite-that-rocked-russia/

<comment><AUTHOR> Surprised no one else has submitted this yet. The interesting bits are that the size of a 'dangerous' meteorite is being made much smaller (this will affect programs designed to defend against them) and we have some real data on what the 'blow by' effects are of near misses.

My personal interest in this came from a talk at the SETI institute where they were discussing extinction events and I asked if an asteroid could cause an extinction without actually hitting the planet. It hypothetically possible but not well understood. We've got some more data now :-).</comment>


Where should I move to be close to Investors and free from cars? - <AUTHOR>

Hi everyone. I'm moving to the Bay Area in May to make my fortune with the rest of you. I don't know much about the region, and I'm hoping some of you can help me familiarize myself with it.
Ideally, I would like to live somewhere that's close to capital, has a vibrant hacker community, access to high quality, organic, local food, seems big on environmental protection, and features transit oriented development. I would like to avoid owning a car if possible, being that, in principle at least, they are waste of money and liability.
Looking at the Wikipedia articles of the primary cities in the region, it doesn't seem likely to find such a place, but I'll ask anyway. I'd also be interested in hearing about the mechanics of finding/contacting/meeting investors in the Bay Area.
Thanks in advance for your help and advice. <comment><USER2> Here are a few broad generalizations:

The "tech gradient" progresses from component/hardware manufacturers in San Jose to data centers in Santa Clara to software developers around Palo Alto, to designers in San Francisco (or "The City," as SF hipsters, often call it). Of course, there are many exceptions to this rule of thumb.

Many big-name venture capitalist firms are located on Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park, situated in the middle of the Peninsula. With a BMW (also known as Basic Marin Wheels, after Marin County, to the north of The City), Sand Hill is easily accessed from 280, the quicker of the two Peninsula freeways. Some of the more interesting VC firms are actually located elsewhere: downtown SF, Oakland, warehouses in San Bruno, by SFO, Mountain View (in the case of Y Combinator)... Then again, given that you're posting this on Hacker News, vulture capitalists may not be your primary concern.

More and more pedestrian pockets can be found outside of SF. A few that come quickly to my mind are: \- downtown Mountain View (Castro St., with an Asian market) \- California Ave. in Palo Alto (with a co-op) \- downtown San Jose (actually getting kinda lively) \- downtown San Mateo (with a great Japanese grocery store)

All of these places happen to be on the Caltrain line, which runs from SF to San Jose (and points further south). Find a Caltrain stop and you'll find a cluster of start-ups and condos and cafes.

Much as I try to bike and walk everywhere, I've had a number of around-the-bay days, that begin in an office in Mountain View, progress to a meeting with designers in the East Bay, and conclude with an investor pitch in The City. With demo computers to schlep and a schedule to keep, unfortunately, I just gotta go with a car. But perhaps that's what Zipcar is for.

Finally, let me put in a pitch for Berkeley, where I live now. It's a little apart from the SiliValley action, which can actually be a benefit in the personal sanity dept. Easy biking, good food, nice sailing, lively city, a world-class university...

Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER3> As others have mentioned, you will fit right in to the Berkeley "scene". You are going to be taking BART and CalTrain a lot, since Berkeley has little in the way of venture capital and not a huge hacker community outside of the university. If you were willing to compromise on your principles somewhat then a zipcar membership and a place in Mountain View would probably serve your long-term goals a lot better. Caltrain is close, you are at the confluence of highways 101, 280, & 85 and you are sitting in the metaphorical heart of silicon valley. The weekly farmers market is year-round, you can bike to whole foods and some nice asian groceries, castro street has nice coffeeshops and a bit of a nightlife, you could probably walk to the hacker dojo, and an occasional car trip will get you everything else you need. The only thing it really lacks is a good bookstore, but you can train/bike to either the university bookstore on stanford campus or digitalguru in sunnyvale.

</comment><comment><USER4> Judging you based on how you wrote the post, you seem like you would fit in really well in Berkeley. If you really are only worried about getting to see investors, you can make the trip by taking BART to Caltrain which then stops near most of them.

The city (don't let drewda fool you, most people call it that) has a few spots you could be both car-free and happy... but they are all a long bus ride from caltrain (as long as BART will take to ride from the east bay, and less predictable).

Try to avoid finding a spot where your commute will be a sf muni and then a caltrain trip - the sf muni busses and light rail have very fickle schedules so often you're going to miss your caltrain connection, then have to wait a while for the next one.

Oh and BART/Caltrain are very bike friendly.

<comment><USER2> Don't worry, I won't scoff at anyone who calls it The City. Otherwise I'd be laughing all day long at the San Francisco Comical--excuse me, the San Francisco Chronicle.

Now if you call it Frisco...

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> You'll probably get better answers, but I'll start since no one has who's actually living car free has chimed in.

I think San Francisco proper and Berkeley are probably the only places where living without a car is a respected choice. There are certainly people who do so elsewhere around the Bay, but I get the sense that they aren't as thrilled about it. I'm inland in the East Bay, and most here would consider a car a necessity.

Overall, judging by the standards of major cities in other countries, the public transportation isn't great. It exists, it's much better than the heartland of the US, and for certain routes is very convenient, but it won't get you everywhere you want when you want it. You'll probably also want a bicycle, friends with cars, or even a Zipcar membership.

It would help to know where you are moving from, as that might affect your expectations considerably.</comment>


BBC Radio 4 Analysis – Silicon Valley Values - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07dknlv <comment><AUTHOR> Includes an interview with YC's Qasar Younis.</comment>