Courtney Love does the math (2000) - <AUTHOR> http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/singleton/

<comment><AUTHOR> For those turned off by the title TL;DR musician Courtney Love eloquently walks through the math of the recording industry for an artist, details some serious pain and problems in the system, calls out the RIAA for blatant theft of copyright and laws passed in the middle of the night, and explains why she's stepping out of major labels.

<comment><USER2> ...and plagiarizes Steve Albini:

<http://www.negativland.com/albini.html>

<comment><USER3> I don't see it. Can you point out similar passages?

<comment><USER2> Well, for one, compare Love's entire first section to the table at the end of Albini's essay.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> My main issue with the maths as outlined here is the costs. I don't dispute that bands spend $500,000 recording an album or making a video but I do dispute that they should.

I have a friend who is a producer / musician who has been in a successful (top 10 singles) band. He'll tell tales of spending a day in the studio sampling a snare drum sound. One day, one snare drum sound. Given the cost of studio time that's just obscene.

Now maybe that's what the highest production standards demand, but I think we need to view the $500,000 album and the $500,000 video as a luxury, not the norm. If those costs come down (and that's perfectly realistic) then the maths potentially looks very different.

The issue here is (surprise surprise) most likely with the record company. After all the better the production the more likely the record is to sell (arguable but it's probably not going to hurt) and the record company don't care whether the money goes to the band or to the studio / producer.

But bands do need to take some responsibility for how THEIR money is spent. In the scenario outlined there is meant to be a scramble for this band. If that's the case then bands need to argue for more control rather than just more money as money seems to be pointless without it.

Makes me think about the contract the Wedding Present signed when they moved to a major label. They gave up a load of cash to have complete control over studio, producer, artwork and so on and if the label didn't like the resulting record, to be able to take it to someone else. More bands need to think in those terms.

<comment><USER5> My indie band's self-produced CD cost us only $16K in 2001 (we were signed to a small label), but to be completely candid, we cut corners all over the place: 1) We dropped two tracks because the live lay down (which we used as the base for all overdubs and re-tracking) just didn't click. We recorded live over three days and we just got burnt out. If we had been signed to a major, I would have appreciated the ability to spend a whole day on each track until the vibe felt right. 2) Overdubs and re-tracking were done quickly and efficiently, but again, felt rushed in order to save money. 3) Multi-tracked vocals, guitars and percussion were sparse. We had played these songs for years (true for most "debut" albums) and it was hard to experiment in the studio without feeling we were going broke. Add a jangly 12 string playing double stops ping-ponging in stereo over the changes? Sounds great we'd tell the engineer, but we can't afford it. 4) Mixing (which took 50% of the total studio time) was painful. The permutations -- even considering the sparse tracks we had -- all begin to sound the same after a while. Ideally I'd like at least a week to mix each song: producing variations that we could collectively listen, get used to, and then debate.

So, although 500K sounds like a lot, I think the studio wants to rightfully allow the artist enough freedom to track, experiment, and mix without worrying about hitting their budget ceiling.

Oh, shameless link to our CD: <http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/future- perfect/id4478315>

<comment><USER4> The studio and the band can want that but the numbers seem to suggest that it's unsustainable even at music buying's peak. I'd also ask that given that by and large it's not the studio's money (as it comes out of the advance) so is their view that significant?

I'm not saying that bands have to produce an album in three days but you could have had maybe six times the time you spent (which I'm guessing would have removed plenty of pressure and allowed a little time to experiment) and still be coming in at under a quarter of half million dollar figure which seems to be seen as reasonable. I'm guessing that If someone had said to you your budget is $100,000 you'd have been absolutely convinced you could do something that did the music justice.

The question isn't about what would be nice, we're talking about commercial realities so it's about it's about what is feasible. From the band's perspective (and it's ultimately them paying) the figures Albini and Love put forward suggest that $500,000 is a long way from it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Steve Albini said it in the early 90s. <http://www.negativland.com/albini.html>

</comment><comment><USER7> This article is from 12 years ago. A lot of the math doesn't apply anymore.

Labels will rarely front that much money for recording costs unless justified by past success. The days of million dollar videos are over (in just the last 5 years), and the 360 deal racket is the last great hope of recorded music labels.

The biggest problem with recorded music isn't the label, its the corporate parent. Labels are trying to make good on the promise of 360 by staffing for 360. They can't do so because of resource constraints and resource consolidation at the very top.

Also, blaming labels is one easy thing for artists to do. They should also blame themselves and their managers and lawyers for signing crappy deals to begin with.

I've been at many contract signings (in fact, one artist did the photo-op in my office because of the computer screens), and I never saw a gun held to a hand as they signed what I think everyone knows was an inevitable small disaster, and the small potential for success.

As for Ms. Love: the last 12 years she's been bailed out a lot by people that played in the system she abhors. I personally like Courtney. I've met her many times, and we share common friends, but a 12 year old article does little to comment on today's climate, and in situ it wasn't even that great either.

I'd much rather see what Troy Carter, Scooter Braun, Ken Hertz, Peter Mensch, etc, or producers like Dr. Luke would write about recorded music as a business today. It'd be a lot more interesting.

A few other points:

The RIAA should not be a metonym for recorded music.

Labels are rarely to blame for the problems they are blamed for, their corporate parents usually are.

Artists have the power as a creator which is much stronger than a representative body in 2012. Use it.

</comment><comment><USER8> Courtney Love my have done some math but it adds up to an empty argument. She conveniently leaves out the fact that most records, major and otherwise, sell virtually nothing and leave the label holding the bag on costs. So they structure the contracts to get the bulk of the revenue so they cover the cost the money losing releases. This objective reality, it's just how the business (has) to work. Really there are few viable alternative music business models.

As an indie musician this is frustrating. I've actually produced a pretty good record. It's available as a free download on my site:

<http://sunshinefortheblind.com>

Like many musicians I'm driven by love, if I could figure out how to make money with it that would be swell; as it is I just want people to listen:)

I would guess similar tensions must exist in the tech/VC space where a few hits got to cover the costs of the losers for the VCs. I would expect a similar disproportion in the way the individual deals would appear weighted in favor of VC against the companies they invest in. Im not familiar with how the investments are structured though.

<comment><USER4> Doesn't that just make it more absurd? If I were the record company I'd be slapping down $500,000 recording costs.

If you can record an album yourself and afford to give it away free, it would seem to suggest that it's possible to do it cheaper than half a million dollars (though what do I know, you could be a .com millionaire...).

<comment><USER8> They are slapping down recording costs, and they definitely less than in the nineties. However the marketing costs remain very high. I'm a full time music producer and have my own studio. That cut some of my out of pocket costs but the true cost of my album (it's eight songs) is probably $30-40k which I experience as opportunity cost (i.e. I'm not working on paying projects) and I stretched it over a couple of years. It's not a rational use of resource for me by any measure, I'm just obsessed. The cost of production can categorized in different ways; time, money, talent, effort. At a certain point one seems to reach a limit that can't be breached. Music is organized information, it takes a lot of fighting against entropy just to make it competent, never mind good. It's like some kind of law of information entropy dynamics! Seriously, if you compare any commercial release against the ocean of self produced music (like you find on MySpace)the amature stuff is not listenable and the commercial releases are, and they cost a lot.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I strongly believe that the following excerpt from the article directly applies to any line of work including software development:

"I don't know if an artist can last by meeting the current public taste, the taste from the last quarterly report. I don't think you can last by following demographics and carefully meeting expectations. I don't know many lasting works of art that are condescending or deliberately stupid or were created as content.

Don't tell me I'm a brand. I'm famous and people recognize me, but I can't look in the mirror and see my brand identity.

Keep talking about brands and you know what you'll get? Bad clothes. Bad hair. Bad books. Bad movies. And bad records. And bankrupt businesses. Rides that were fun for a year with no employee loyalty but everyone got rich fucking you. Who wants that? The answer is purity. We can afford it. Let's go find it again while we can."

</comment><comment><USER10> Reminds me of the Darth Vader that was never compensated because every year Star Wars showed a loss. Anyone have a link?

<comment><USER11> [http://www.slashfilm.com/lucasfilm-tells-darth-vader-that- re...](http://www.slashfilm.com/lucasfilm-tells-darth-vader-that-return-of- the-jedi-hasnt-made-a-profit/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> These are exciting times. We are in the midst of a technological revolution and recording companies should stop wasting their efforts in trying to cripple the internet and fight change in a scramble of keeping their money. They should find that being able to download music over the internet allows the spotlight back on the artist and allows them to gain more fans and exposure. It allows a more personal connection with their audience which is good because consumers buy a record because of the artist not because of the record company producing it.

"Why aren't record companies embracing this great opportunity? Why aren't they trying to talk to the kids passing compilations around to learn what they like? Why is the RIAA suing the companies that are stimulating this new demand? What's the point of going after people swapping cruddy-sounding MP3s? Cash! Cash they have no intention of passing onto us, the writers of their profits."

Even those recording companies with selfish motivations should be able to recognize the amount of profit that could be gained from this change so that they are able to prepare and adapt to this new environment if they want a good chance in becoming forerunners in their market.

Scratch your old business models and start doing market research.

</comment><comment><USER13> I found the article on Neal Stephenson to be more interesting. A link to it appears in the second last para.

<http://www.salon.com/1999/05/19/stephenson/>

<comment><USER14> Neal is one life's greatest hackers. Not technology, but life in general.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Excellent article to bring up with recent events. This rant happens time and time again, the record companies double dip and screw over the artists and their customers repeatedly. When is enough going to be enough?

To whomever can revolutionize the music/media industry with stewardship for the arts you deserve these profits for your work.

</comment><comment><USER16> Last time I read this article, I remember my perspective of Courtney Love shifted from "Possible Murder Suspect Courtney" to "Underdog Courtney" in only a few minutes. I found the psychology of it pretty fascinating.

At the time of writing, Napster was still very much in consciousness, so, if you've become famous for something negative, get known for something people care about. She should have hammered at this drum a little louder and for a lot longer.

</comment><comment><USER17> Long, but awesome. Love her tone.

</comment><comment><USER18> Wouldn't it be wonderful if a huge artist like Adele ditched her current label and just went with a Humble Bundle style one? Imagine paying what you want for an album and allocating the money between artist, hosting, and the artist's favourite charities. It would be a lovely way to cut out these dinosauric middlemen.

</comment><comment><USER19> Thanks for posting this; it's a good and timely read.

Could you put a [2000] in the title, please?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep sorry, fixing

<comment><USER20> Great post!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Great line from the article that pertains to today.

"It's piracy when the RIAA lobbies to change the bankruptcy law to make it more difficult for musicians to declare bankruptcy."

</comment><comment><USER22> Is this also true for startups & VCs?

<comment><USER23> The person putting up the money will always assume that they deserve more than they do. Wave 8 figures at any young founder and they can't help but say yes, regardless of how ridiculous the terms are. Look what happened to Eduardo Saverin, and he's someone that by all means should've known better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I had no idea Courtney Love was so articulate. Great article!

</comment><comment><USER25> 12 years ago, and more meaningful today than ever.

Fortunately musicians are starting to (finally) get a few more options to escape The Cartel.

Much like Universal attacked MegaUpload regarding their self produced YouTube video, I have to wonder how much effort would be directed at killing new independent digital publishing venues via bogus claims using SOPA / PIPA style laws. The answer is probably: a lot.

<comment><USER17> What's great is that the cartel is so late to the digital game. They've fucked themselves, and the only thing left to do is do what they've always done...lobby.

But it's too late. It's game over for these jerks. Whether it takes 5 or 15 years, they're on the downward slope in terms of control.</comment></comment>


Mozilla Discontinues Security Updates For Firefox 4 - <AUTHOR> http://digitizor.com/2011/06/23/no-security-updates-firefox-4/

<comment><USER2> I would like to whinge about this aggressive expiration policy leaving PowerPC users like myself in the dust (since they gave up support for the PowerPC architecture in Firefox 4.0), but I can't really; they just released Firefox 3.6.18 yesterday, which I found an impressively long-term support period.

(For folks like me who have trouble hunting it down—the Firefox landing page just says "Unfortunately, the latest version of Firefox isn't compatible with your operating system"—it's at the misleadingly named <https://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all-older.html.>)

P.S. If you're stalking me, then you may wonder how to reconcile this post with yesterday's about upgrading to Firefox 5.0 (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2680536>). That was on my work computer. :-)

<comment><USER3> FYI there is a fork of Firefox 5 for PPC here <http://www.floodgap.com/software/tenfourfox/> .

<comment><USER4> Yeah, I just discovered this today, and it's _great_. YouTube videos actually play smoothly on my 1.5GHz G4, for the first time in at least 3 years. Everything else feels smooth and snappy again. Whatever this guy is doing, he's doing it better than the Mozilla team has in a long time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> At first I thought:

 _"Why would they go with such an aggressive release schedule before getting the auto update to work? People like my parents will never upgrade."_

But then I realized that if they won't upgrade from 4->5 then they probably won't upgrade from 4->4.1 anyway. Either way, they're exposed to bugs and security holes. It's mainly tech geeks like me that think there's a major difference between 4.1 and 5 and postpone upgrading to major releases. Perhaps my parents think _"An upgrade is an upgrade. Who cares what the version number is?"_.

I'll have to ask them.

</comment><comment><USER6> Well, this is bizarre. I was planning on upgrading my 3.6 to 4.0 shortly. I guess I won't. Better stick with 3.6 until the dust settles (?).

Can anyone point me to a concise-but-thorough explanation of just what I can expect from the new FF release plan?

I take it they're moving to something like the Ubuntu normal vs. LTS normal distinction. The thing is, Ubuntu explicitly labels some releases as LTS ("10.04 LTS" vs. "10.10"). FF doesn't even put version numbers in their press releases anymore. (What's the logic behind that?)

<comment><USER7> 4 and above will work like Chrome's release process: New stable release every 6-12 weeks. Releasing version N means N-1 is EOL and gets no further updates. No version numbers in press releases (they are meaningless, except as a convenient identifier for bug reports and such). Nightly, Autora (alpha, basically) and Beta channels to test unstable versions.

There is talk about having an LTS version, just like Ubuntu, yeah. I think it's a good idea. Don't know if it will happen, though, but I am guessing it or something similar to it will.

<comment><USER6> Thanks for the info.

> No version numbers in press releases (they are meaningless, except as a > convenient identifier for bug reports and such).

Meaningless? Maybe. That depends on how automatic updates are handled. I have 3.6. Updating to 3.6.x is done without asking me. Updating to 4.0.x asks (and so far I've always said no). There is a difference between these two: same- version updates that I get automatically, and next-version updates that ask for permission first. The difference is traditionally expressed using version numbers. If we get rid of version numbers, then it still needs to be expressed _somehow_.

One solution is to make _all_ updates automatic. Perhaps that is what they are doing? Is an update from 4.0 to 5.0 done without asking for permission? If so, then installing 4.0 really means installing the latest version forever.

But if not, then how is the difference going to be explained to a nontechnical user? "A new Firefox is available, and has been installed for you" vs. "A new Firefox is available; do you want to install it?" does not, IMHO, explain things well enough.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The downside I see:

Crap companies that used to develop for IE exclusively had just started to throw in FF 3.6 support, and now FF has moved onto distant pastures leaving 'the enterprise' back in 'this version and this version only' land.

So, as a tech-support wage slave... actually we're not allowed to complain.

</comment><comment><USER9> So they are still supporting Firefox 3.X but not 4? I find that terribly confusing for users, like my mum.

<comment><USER7> It's confusing, yeah. The reason is that the release schedule is completely changing between 3.X and 4.

4 and above will work like Chrome: When version N is released, N-1 is EOL and will not get further updates. There is no simple way to make the transition from 3.X to that, so it ends up being confusing.

<comment><USER10> Does Firefox support autoupdating? I feel like Chrome's aggressive update and EOL cycles only work because it updates in the background, so users never have to worry about what version they're running.

<comment><USER7> The goal is to autoupdate silently like Chrome. This is being implemented in stages, it isn't all there yet, but updates are already simpler than before.

<comment><USER4> I think Mozilla has seriously mis-predicted what this is going to do to their adoption in the very large user base of people who were convinced to move from IE to Firefox by some well-meaning computer tech.

Considering that the majority of our clients _really_ dislike it when software changes without their specifically asking it to, we can no longer recommend Firefox to our clients. ...which is unfortunate, because AB+ made a really nice first line of defense against malicious ads on websites.

<comment><USER11> "Considering that the majority of our clients really dislike it when software changes without their specifically asking it to" - I suspect that's going to change, it's unclear to me why your clients they they are more sophisticated than Google/Firefox's release engineers when it comes to determining when to upgrade their browser - software _should_ automatically eliminate security flaws and update bugs.

I'm not saying your clients don't have dislikes right now - I'm saying they'll need to be educated to stop having them.

<comment><USER4> This is pretty much the most common response from the tech literate: "everybody should be tech literate".

My little company has had insane year-over-year growth for the last three years, almost entirely on word-of-mouth referrals, in a largely stagnant industry (IT support for SMB & individuals), in part because I think that most of our clients have better things to do than spend their time being educated on how they should appreciate frequent software updates.

It seems to be a nearly impossible challenge to convince software developers and others on the leading edge of tech that tech is _not_ the most important thing in most peoples' lives.

There is probably at least one thing in your life that you are only sorta- kinda OK at. For me, it's cooking. Actually, I'm worse than sorta-kinda OK, but I try sometimes. So, I try to keep in mind just how much it would infuriate me if, every single time I went into the cupboard and pulled out a frying pan, the frying pan came with an entirely new set of instructions versus the last time I used it.

People who have used computers for long enough have developed a skill that they don't even realize they have: they can glance at a screen and take in everything on the screen, and sort out what's important and what's pertinent and what's relevant and what's not, on a subconscious level.

For infrequent computer users -- by far the bulk of our market -- that skill doesn't exist. They have to _consciously read every single word on the screen_ to find what they're looking for.

So when things change _even in the slightest_ , it is _extremely_ disorienting to them, and the fact that things never stop changing is a source of extreme, frequent, and serious frustration for them.

What may be, for you, a UI change that is so minor that you don't even notice it -- a change in the background color of an alert box, say -- is a change that makes the software into something completely new for our clients.

I think it is tremendously arrogant to leap to the conclusion that users don't want security updates because "they [think] they are more sophisticated than Google/Firefox's release engineers". No, they _want_ security updates. They _love_ security updates -- when security updates _only_ fix bugs, patch holes, and don't cause any other problems or incompatibilities whatsoever.

No, the problem is that Google & Firefox's release engineers don't distinguish between UI and behavioral updates, and security updates, and then think that software updates are a matter of sophistication -- and not simply a matter of serious annoyance for a very large number of people.

I argue these points frequently. It almost always fails to have an impact on the person I'm talking to, even though I'm merely communicating with the voice of many very frustrated computer users. I am beginning to think that the only way to get this point across will be to lead a mob of everyday computer users to the offices of various software companies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Firefox 5 _is_ the security update for Firefox 4.

Don't get too attached to version numbers. Firefox is a work in progress with rapid release cycles. Before you know it you will be updated to Firefox 7.0.

<comment><USER13> I hate the new version scheme -- for Firefox, version numbers still meant something; the numbers gave you some indication of how much stuff had changed and how painful (or not) the upgrade was going to be.

Why go from a scheme that gave out _some_ information about the level of change expected to a scheme that gives little to no information at all?

<comment><USER14> I suspect that's because they're attempting to move to a scheme like Chrome's: all you need to know is you're on the latest, most secure, most capable version and there's extremely little pain from having upgraded.

<comment><USER13> The sort of assumes that Firefox is exactly like Chrome and historically that hasn't been true. For example, Firefox 4 has a very different UI from Firefox 3. Extensions are much more involved in Firefox than in Chrome and major versions tend to be indications of whether or not they'll break (which is an important consideration for upgrading). Extension compatibility is checked by version number, and it seems the greatest problem in moving to Firefox 5 has been that extensions don't think they're compatible (even if they are).

They're trying to copy what Chrome is doing without considering how they're different from Chrome and without having a completed auto-update scheme.

If version numbers are meaningless, does it even matter what scheme they're using. If they're merely counting upwards isn't 4.1 just as valid of choice as 5?

<comment><USER14> It does assume that Firefox will become more like Chrome. In fact, the Mozilla foundation has explicitly said they want features that are very similar to what Chrome offers today. They're working towards a transparent auto-update mechanism, they just shipped a new add-on mechanism in FF5 ([http://blog.mozilla.com/addons/2011/06/21/add-on_sdk- builder...](http://blog.mozilla.com/addons/2011/06/21/add-on_sdk-builder- _beta/)) that is much like Chrome's and is thus less likely to break on major upgrades, and they have explicitly stated they plan to release major new versions every three months. Just as with Chrome, they're de-emphasizing the major version number.

Expect FF6 soon and FF7 before the year's end. Expect the version number to become less meaningful.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Quantum Thermodynamics Revolution (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-quantum-thermodynamics-revolution-20170502/ <comment><USER2> The article states:

"A central pillar of quantum theory is that the information — the probabilistic 1s and 0s representing particles' states — is never lost. (The present state of the universe preserves all information about the past.)"

What if the current state of the universe could have been arrived at by two different historical paths? That would imply that neither one could be a preferred history, that we would have to consider the present state to be -- arrived at through both histories?

Do photons have their probability distributions with interference patterns on screens to resolve a some sort of preferential history information storage? Like there is not enough bits available to say which screen the photons went through so they must say both?

<comment><USER3> In order for us to meaningfully assert that two things are different, there must be some information difference between them. If the same universe results from two paths, then they are the same path. Ultimately because your brain is in that universe, and it's _current state_ is the thing responsible for distinguishing histories.

What you suppose is logically inconsistent with that fact, and the whole idea is going to be unfalsifiable. The human brains' ability to distinguish possibilities is contingent upon the presence of information.

>Do photons have their probability distributions with interference patterns on screens to resolve a some sort of preferential history information storage? Like there is not enough bits available to say which screen the photons went through so they must say both?

Yes, photons are said to go through both slits because there does not exist any information which would distinguish the paths. As soon as you arrange an experiment which provides such information, the chosen path becomes clear.

<comment><USER4> > Yes, photons are said to go through both slits because there does not exist > any information which would distinguish the paths. As soon as you arrange an > experiment which provides such information, the chosen path becomes clear.

This isn't correct. Photons are said to go through both slits because they travel like waves and actually go through both slits. How would your interpretation account for the fact that a single photon at a time fired through a double slit still produces an interference pattern?

<comment><USER5> > _How would your interpretation account for the fact..._

Thing is, an interpretation cannot account for anything, it is a _theory_ that does...

<comment><USER6> The parent that said it's all subjective applies here, too. You still have to interpret the theory.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> d--b As cool as it sounds, this is way beyond intelligibility for non-physics people. I don't understand the need for trying to vulgarizing anything quantum related.

I understand the Maxwell demon, and Bennet's argument, but everything after that is simply too hard.

</comment><comment><USER7> Both papers published simultaneously... How does that happen? But the probability of that happening seems to be more since the last 100 years ;)

And no, I don't have any research papers or statistics to back up my statements. Just saying from observing this pattern on reading upon many of the stories about inventions/discoveries etc.

BTW, what is the probability of others feeling the same about this "observation"?

<comment><USER8> Its because new ideas are built from old ideas. And old ideas travel around the world from mind to mind. When it is time for a new idea to be born, the ideas from which it is constructed are readily available. That is to say: When the last piece of a new idea is distributed rapidly, lots of minds can simultaniously arrive at the same insight. The same new idea. That is why in the modern age, as information travels faster and further, people are having the same idea at the same time, more often.</comment></comment>


Voting/rating system without logins? - <AUTHOR>

User registration is obviously a big hurdle which people like Posterous have done well avoiding.
For my site (BuyersVote.com) I let people do some things (like starting a new category) without registering, but to actually vote/rate items - I still haven't figured out a way to prevent abuse without people registering.
Has anyone been able to successfully do voting without logins? <comment><USER2> Add the prefix "Ask HN:" to your question, otherwise it will not get the visibility and attention you want.

\</comment><comment></comment><comment>----

Here are my two cents on the issue:

Imagine the country going to vote without Identity/SSN verification (registration) and only asked to put down address (IP), how many times a fraudulent person would vote? once?

Even online registration is not fool proof 'coz one can register many times using many emails, but it does create a filter to keep the spam low.

By looking at your site's name 'BuyersVote' I was reminded about a controversy associated with ebay once (not sure of now), some of the the sellers were creating bogus buyer accounts on ebay and creating fraudulent positive feedback for themselves and this was a 'with-registration' system.

So I guess voting systems today are open to abuse, registration just creates a filter and keep the abuse rate low. This will remain the status-quo till the web gets a universal, neutral online identity provider. (OpenID is there but doesn't seem to be catching enough attention and is not an ideal system in my opinion)

<comment><AUTHOR> Cool, thanks for the tip on using "Ask HN:".

Yep OpenID offers a step in the right direction, but not a complete solution. I actually offer this now so people can login with an account they already have (Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Twitter, etc - this uses rpxnow.com). This reduces the hurdle slightly since they can often login with just a few clicks instead of a full registration process, but it's still a hurdle. Thanks!

<comment><USER2> You're welcome!!</comment></comment></comment>


Facebook's ad metric problem is becoming Zuckerberg's headache - <AUTHOR> http://nypost.com/2016/11/17/facebooks-ad-metric-problem-is-becoming-zuckerbergs-headache/ <comment><USER2> FB audited a bunch of metrics and found issues with 4 out of 220. The narrative being pushed here is that all of them nefariously favored FB. The only problem with that is that it's not true.

> """Elsewhere, Facebook admitted to exaggerating the number of full views > that video ads received"""

You can tell they didn't do any homework, since the issue was that full views were _under_ reported when the audio and video tracks were not the exact same length. The result is that full views were actually roughly 35% greater than what page managers saw reported.

[http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2016/11/an-update-on-metrics- and...](http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2016/11/an-update-on-metrics-and- reporting/) goes into the details of what the issues with each metric calculation is. You can draw your own conclusions as to whether each was (a) important and (b) favored FB. That link also goes into FB's plans for next steps in making metrics externally audited and more transparent.

<comment><USER3> "FB investigated FB and found FB not guilty"

<comment><USER4> A valid point, but it's ludicrous to report it as "FB found guilty".

<comment><USER3> Well, yes, it was just a paraphrase, maybe a bit exaggerated in this context.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is not new, and I've spoken about this here before. Facebook used fraudulent methods to artificially inflate their view counts, and pedelled those fake and grossly exagerrated #s for "eyeballs" to the unsuspecting advertizers.

"How Facebook is Stealing Billions of Views" \- Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell exposed this with detailed analysis and evidence. Watch it here => [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7tA3NNKF0Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7tA3NNKF0Q)

I contracted with their Ad team for a few months, and can't say more for NDA reasons, hence I am pointing you to publicly available media / expose.

<comment><USER6> I watched the video you linked to, which is mostly about people who rip content from YouTube and upload it to Facebook.

The people who view the pirated content are still viewing content on FB. That isn't "artificially inflat[ing] their view counts." Those are real views, which is what advertisers are paying for, even if what they are viewing is stolen.

The point about counting 3 seconds of auto-play as a view is problematic, unless advertisers know that is what they are paying for. Maybe 3 seconds is enough for someone to glance at it and at least read the brand name in their mind, which does seem to count as an "impression".

<comment><USER7> I'm guessing he meant to link to this one about paid promotions leading to mostly fake likes and views from click farms: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVfHeWTKjag](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVfHeWTKjag)

> When I paid to promote my page I gained 80,000 followers in developing > countries who didn't care about Veritasium (but I wasn't aware of this at > the time). They drove my reach and engagement numbers down, basically > rendering the page useless.

> I thought I would demonstrate that the same thing is still happening now by > creating Virtual Cat > ([http://www.facebook.com/MyVirtualCat](http://www.facebook.com/MyVirtualCat)). > I was surprised to discover something worse - false likes are coming from > everywhere, including Canada, the US, the UK, and Australia. So even those > carefully targeting their campaigns are likely being duped into spending > real money on fake followers. Then when they try to reach their followers > they have to pay again.

<comment><USER5> > I'm guessing he meant to link to this one about paid promotions > [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVfHeWTKjag](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVfHeWTKjag)

Yes, this one also. If anyone thinks this is a 'Conspiracy theory', you can confirm or refute it yourself for less than 50$, the way I did and the way the BBC reporter in this above video did.

After I left the Ad Team, and horrified at what I saw as widespread fraud, I registered a throwaway domain, put some viral videos from youtube, injected google analytics on the site / blog, bought a pre-paid visa card for 50$ (so facebook doesn't keep auto charging my card) and 'promoted' my blog posts shared on a Facebook page I set up.

Just like the BBC author, I noticed most of my 'Likes' on the FB page were from Indonesia, Pakistan, and many from Vietnam. And I checked some of the profiles, and they either appeared down right fake (i.e. no activity other than liking a 1000+ FB pages, or they weren't active since like 2011 or 12.

Worse still, for the pages I did promote - i.e. blog posts shared on FB wall for 5$ / day, I barely got 10 click-throughs to the actual post, but the Ad analytics said I "reached 600 / 700 something" viewers.

WTF does that mean??? ( I know what it means, that they "displayed" it in their feed) But how does this help any one, think small businesses, grow their brand or business??)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Facebook Scam: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVfHeWTKjag](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVfHeWTKjag)

Most of views, if not all, are from click farms. Stop wasting your money.

<comment><USER9> Assuming that click fraud is pervasive across all advertisers, the fact that it exists should have no bearing on your ROI as an advertiser.

FBX is a RTB ad exchange. If only 10% of clicks are real, you simply bid 10% less than you would otherwise. You'll get the same ROI.

<comment><USER10> This is true. However, Facebook & Google deal mainly with 'dumb money', eg, ad money not analyzed or checked. Fraud doesn't affect people that know how to calculate ROI from a CPC campaign -- fraud affects "Coke" trying to run a large spend near the end of the quarter. Thus when these large companies ignore fraud or view inflation -- it does steal from ad companies that could have offered a real ROI and it steals from the client.

<comment><USER11> And as long as there are dumb clients out there spending vast sums of money indiscriminately without demanding to see results, there will be very little motivation to fix anything. Those clients are mentally still stuck in the TV age, where measuring results is hard and hoping for the best is the mindset.

<comment><USER12> Lol what? Facebook and Google promised to solve the measurement problem and uhh... they haven't.

As far as I can tell the entire ad industry is just all the various parties either fudging numbers or blatantly lying to each other. So long as no one calls anyone else out, they all walk away with a happy sum.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Is there any way for advertisers to independently verify FB's reported numbers at will? Or do they all rely on FB being honest? If FB's self-reporting is all that advertisers rely on, that seems like it would be an obvious problem, and the same goes for any other platform. The problem seems so obvious there must be checks in place, so I'm curious what they are.

<comment><USER10> Yes. If you see reports of sdks proliferation in the top apps you will see strange sdks like "mobileapptracking" from has offers. They are independent firms that can check ids from clicks and perform auditing. These firms are under assault by Apple & fb by means of removing traceable ids (uuid is gone, mac is gone, idfa is now resetable). Larger firms rely on dumb money and their audits can be crushing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm pretty sure its just an accident. Any false news suggesting else will be filtered from people's newsfeeds for their own safety.

<comment><USER15> "Against our terms of service"

Now if you want to post a lynching or ads for ISIS feel free to do so

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've spent millions on FBX. Unless I'm missing something, Facebook has nothing to gain and a lot to lose from "artificially inflating" views.

FBX is an ad EXCHANGE where inventory gets sold to the highest bidder. If FB over-reports views by a factor of 2X to advertisers, the average CPM that advertisers are willing to pay will simply fall by 50%. Sure, there may be a short time period before bids equilibrate, but FB is liquid enough that this would happen extremely quickly.

The same principle applies to people up in arms concerning "click fraud" on Facebook and/or Google's ad networks. As an advertiser, you really should not CARE if there is click fraud. So long as it impacts all advertisers equally, we're all bidding for the same quality inventory.

It's useful to keep in mind that the vast majority of advertisers on any liquid ad network will not be successful. It's easy to rationalize that the reason you aren't able to make the channel work is that the network "rips off" its advertisers. In reality, there is no incentive for them to do so.

<comment><USER16> This assumes an even distribution of click fraud and wrong measurement along all advertisers and the ability to perfectly measure the ROI of your Facebook ads which is as strong (and in my opinion wrong) assumption to make...

<comment><USER9> That's fair. It's not fair if advertisers are impacted differently. But, my main point is Facebook has a lot more to lose than gain by inflating clicks/views, so it's very likely to be an honest mistake.

<comment><USER5> > so it's very likely to be an honest mistake.

So naive. Inflating clicks / views let's them charge more to advertizers (who falsely think that advertising on facebook is more ROI than on Google or elsewhere). And what Facebook gains is increases in share price every time they declare their earnings.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> FB ads are complete scam. I tried to run few ad campaigns on fb for my pet project, and the got hundred likes from absolutely irrelevant people, with zero engagement.

<comment><USER18> Yeah, we can get tons of cheap clicks that do absolutely nothing for us. Lame.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Good. Regardless of the details in this particular disclosure, the sooner these huge online companies are properly accountable for the money they take and the results they provide, the better it will be for everyone using them.

But remember kids, there are only two metrics that truly matter here: how much did you spend on Facebook ads, and how much revenue did you bring in as a result? Everything else, all the other metrics, all the different forms of advertising and different relationships Facebook invents in their world, these things are merely tools to optimise the ratio of the two metrics that count and they have value only to the extent that they do so.

</comment><comment><USER20> Facebook advertising ROI is horrible. Not worth the effort. Sure, it works our for some but most end up learning the hard way that FB is a great way to burn cash, fast.

<comment><USER21> Not trolling but genuinely curious what kind of things you are trying to advertise. I have read elsewhere exactly the opposite that Facebook ROI is very good due to the precise targeting. I am just a back-end developer!

<comment><USER20> A variety of consumer products by our customers. Google has better ROI and pretty decent targeting.

One of the most blatant issues with FB is what they did with their pages. You spend tons of money and effort building an audience and they don't let you reach it unless you pay. And pay through your teeth you must, every time you want to reach your followers.

In other words, you never own your audience. This is a huge business mistake. You want to own your audience. Your list is worth gold. Here's where email marketing (to a vetted list) still beats FB.

If you use FB to drive traffic to a site, have people hop-on to your email list and then market directly, sure, yeah, that works. You can do that with Google just as well.

<comment><USER22> Someone hit a 'like' for your post or your page is not a follower. I see this assumption in people who think that convincing people to hit the like button on whatever click-bait they throw out there is somehow building an audience. I, and just about everyone else, is quite happy that FB forces you to pay a toll to spam my page as it cuts down on the marketing BS I have to wade through every day.

I truly hope everyone follows your advice to drive traffic over to an email list, being able to dump your marketing into my spam folder takes fewer clicks than marking your follow-up posts as something I never want to see again in my FB news feed.

<comment><USER20> I was over-simplifying the "like" thing. Of course, you are right. It takes a lot more than clicking a "like" button for someone to truly engage with your business.

And this is exactly one of the problems with FB. So many people pay good money for what effectively translates to nothing. I have personally watched a campaign delivered 400 visitors per minute (peak) to a site and produced exactly zero sales in three days. Not blaming FB 100% for this, of course. But, if you measure it, they do tend to produce a lot of useless clicks.

Here's the difference between FB advertising and AdWords. It's simple.

People to to FB to chit-chat with friends and family. Not to buy.

People go to Google because their are looking for something and, yes, they are far more likely to be in a buying mindset. Particularly when compared to FB.

When was the last time anyone said: "I need to buy a rug. Let's go check them out on Facebook". Never. It's Google or Amazon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Is there any surprise here? A platform whose existence is based on clickbait and other worthless content was not careful in tracking ad success metrics?

This is why we don't pay programmers to find bugs, but from the opposite perspective.

</comment><comment><USER24> I take Facebook video view numbers about as seriously as the Google+ numbers from a few years ago. Remember that monster growth in users month after month that didn't really exist? Feels like the same thing.

</comment><comment><USER25> If you're generating metrics to benefit _yourself_ , chances are that those would be broken. If those are broken in ways obvious to the users (advertisers in this case), it'd cause headache too.

Potential causes would include greed.

</comment><comment><USER26> The article is wrong on a few things :

"It's not difficult to measure engagement." => with video ads it's doable but it's always approximations when it comes to ad viewability (and for example, even if I can see an ad, it does not mean I'm watching it)

"Online advertising has a history of opaque reporting" => compare this to TV or radio

It's clearly an article against Facebook Ads, even if they are miscalculating things, it seems too biased to be taken seriously.

</comment><comment><USER27> Weren't the advertisers paying for the results by proxy -- clearly they saw that the results were worth the payment made. And they continued paying what they felt was a fair price for the results they saw.

So while the numbers measured may be different, the advertisers weren't naive enough to use that as the only metric to plan ads.

<comment><USER28> I get the impression a lot of Facebook/Google advertisers aren't making any money on their campaigns, I know from my own experience it was a lot of work to get a positive result from them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> The only anecdote I can give where I know for a fact Facebook ads have a real and clear ROI is people who build pages and groups to sell stuff exclusively on Facebook. The 3 or so people I've asked tell me the ads work. Of course Facebook fully determines the "doesn't work" outcome as well, so...

</comment><comment><USER30> but can you code the DAG in 30 minutes?</comment>


Ask HN: Downvotes? - <AUTHOR> Before I start, I need to say, I am very new to HN. So after a few days of using HN, I thought my karma was off to a good start. But then after commenting on an article, I got lots of downvotes. That was a 30 percent blow to my karma.
My comment said nothing uncivilized that's against HN's terms. So why am I getting downvotes for saying something different? Will I ever get more than 501 karma!?! <comment><USER2> Reading your comment history, as a general recommendation try to avoid oneliners. Add more information, or explain your ideas more thoughtfully. Sometimes oneliners are too similar to "I agree" or "I disagree" that has too few information. Try to find a link that support your position.

</comment><comment><USER3> I wouldn't worry about it. HN karma is effectively useless, and you can get downvoted for all sorts of silly reasons... ranging from "person was actually trying to upvote you but misclicked" to "you said something that goes against the prevailing collective wisdom and people downvoted you to express disagreement" to "you actually did something that's against the site terms", and everything in between.

Your karma is going to fluctuate over time... don't take it personally.

</comment><comment><USER4> It takes a while to adjust yourself to the collective narrative on this platform. I think for the most part, comments are for discussion and encouraging alternating views. If you write, "this is nice", there's not a lot of substance that others can extract from it. So, with that said, focus on threads where you have an interesting perspective or thought to add. Much easier to get your 500 karma points that way.

<comment><USER5> > comments are for discussion and encouraging alternating views

Interesting, this hasn't been my experience at all. Non-mainstream views, even if explained and written in a friendly manner, quickly get downvoted, mainstream views, even the most mundane ("bad things are bad") and with the least amount of effort, usually are not.

Jokes apparently don't land well, either.

<comment><USER4> Yes, this happens a lot on HN. It's pretty common to present a firsthand perspective only to be downvoted without anyone commenting on why they downvoted.

I think that largely, this has to do with the fact that a lot of the site users are heavily invested in their lives (identities?) and aren't looking to be told otherwise.

 _"Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves." ― Carl Gustav Jung_</comment></comment></comment>


Jessica Livingston: How to Build the Future - <AUTHOR> http://www.ycombinator.com/future/jessica/ <comment><USER3> This is how you do great content marketing and branding.

This entire video series is about inspiring people with a side benefit of illustrating what makes YC special.

Compare this to content by other accelerators (of which there are many). It's not a lecture nor a recital of advice. It's a series of relatable and personable stories with a consistent theme. Start with "Why" you do something, not how or what.

<comment><USER4> Thanks! That's what we aimed for.

Feel free to shoot me any suggestions of content you'd find useful via email. We're always looking for more ways to make valuable and interesting content more accessible to everyone.

<comment><USER5> Hey Steven, Could you enable download for the interviews on Soundcloud?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think there needs to be a moratorium on that AirBnB political cereal box story. "The most important thing to do is to focus on your business, but also it's cool if you spend time on a random side business," is a big mixed message.

<comment><USER7> I hope people remember that AirBnB spammed Craigslist to grow their user base. Not a great example of ethical behavior, IMHO.

<comment><USER8> The takeaway lesson being perhaps that ethical violations are often good for business?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Great interview, I think Jessica was the secret sauce that made YC so good.

<comment><USER10> One of her co-founders agree [http://paulgraham.com/jessica.html](http://paulgraham.com/jessica.html) :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> It was a great interview. The story about how Airbnb started is interesting. I'd have laughed at renting air beds during conferences, too. I'd see potential in it but not billions. The pivot and cereal gimmicks were excellent examples of her advice that determination is most important. Also, remember that most politicians or Fortune 100 CEO's didn't get there by being the smartest. They also got there with a combo of understanding people, focus and determination. Ruthlessly so in many cases.

So, the goal was increasing innovation across the board rather than making money. Hmm. I've previously brought up that I'm anti-VC innovation because many just get acquired by big companies that shelve it, esp if patents are involved. I also know they're interested in exporting or improving Y Combinator. I think it would be interesting if they modified the model so the software had to be GPL, the business had anti-lockin tooling like data importers, and/or patent suit immunity for non-profits or free software doing compatible offerings. These kept true even after an IPO or acquisition by legal means. A combo of techniques like these would allow continuous stream of competition while preserving most of worth of company due to its brand and first-mover advantage.

What you all think about that or another modification of YC model to discourage monopolistic practices, lock-in or shelving post-acquisition?

<comment><USER12> > Also, remember that most politicians or Fortune 100 CEO's didn't get there > by being the smartest. They also got there with a combo of understanding > people, focus and determination.

Huh, and here I thought it was access to family money and Ivy League elite connections. Who knew?

<comment><USER11> "Huh, and here I thought it was access to family money and Ivy League elite connections. Who knew?"

That, too. There's many more who have access to those than who run Fortune 100 companies or the U.S. government. Additional traits factored in to filter the ones that made it. My reading on many of them led me to think a few were important. So, connections and starting point _plus_ those traits.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Maybe slightly off topic, but I'm subscribed to YC on Soundcloud and had a notification pop up last night to tell me that this interview was available. Hit "play" on the driveway this morning while still connected to wifi and started my commute. 5 minutes later and it cuts out - mobile data dropped out (I live in a rural area).

Does the Soundcloud app not support buffering at all? I'd have thought that 20 minutes of speech would be a couple of MB at most. I see I can "upgrade" to allow offline listening for £9.99 per month, which seems pointless as this is all I'd use the service for.

I suppose I'll have to go down the route of using a legally dubious third party service to download the interview like I did for the Zuckerberg one a few weeks back. Shame they don't offer a more convenient way to listen, as this is shaping up to be a really interesting series.

<comment><USER5> I had similar issues with the Soundcloud app on iOS cutting out mid-track. Nothing seemed to fix it aside from totally restarting the app and finding my play head position again. It's kind of surprising because their desktop experience is so so good.

It's definitely possible to download on Soundcloud (ex. see "Download" button here [https://soundcloud.com/travisscott-2/uber- everywhere](https://soundcloud.com/travisscott-2/uber-everywhere)). I think whoever runs the YC Soundcloud account has not enabled it. I agree it would be nice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Jessica Livingston sounds very authentic. Even listening to her inspires me to work more.

</comment><comment><USER15> The way she looks at Sam is the way a mother would look at their child. Jessica seems very endearing.

<comment><USER16> As long as we accept that "endearing" and "politically radical" are attributes that can and have been held by many, but equally are often not found in the same person. Afterall, the world will change whether or not YC exists.

For both PG and JL, a big requirement is surely avoiding any of the possible and unappealing permutations of the phrase "if I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution". This is obviously really tough to do once you start tangling with big capital. Motherhood and apple pie is terrific but boy is it associated with social normativity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> So...this page has a YouTube embed, a SoundCloud embed and then also a Scribd embed. I got lazy with the timings / formatting of the transcript, but would be people rather a single link to something like this? [https://presentio.us/t/610902](https://presentio.us/t/610902)

Note: You can click the text in the first few paragraphs to jump to the correct part of the video.

Thoughts?

<comment><USER5> The concept has appeal.

That app seems to break in Safari. Clicking many of the links seems to start the video over if it hasn't fully loaded yet, which is a confusing experience.

It's unclear on the page that there's no visual indication (within sight) that clicking in the text is doing something.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The best I have read from her so far is this- [http://www.foundersatwork.com/1/post/2012/10/what-goes- wrong...](http://www.foundersatwork.com/1/post/2012/10/what-goes-wrong.html)

</comment><comment><USER19> What Jessica has done in YC is an amazing example of how to build great culture in a Startup (and YC was and still is, in several ways, a startup!).

It's a challenge, but I believe YC can be an organization that can outlive its founders by the force of its strong, enduring culture. As a YC founder I didn't have the pleasure to meet Jessica (or Paul) yet (they are in a Sabbatical in London). But just spending those 3 months in YC and all the amazing people they put there made me feel as if I had.

<comment><USER20> What's being at YC like? And, any advice you can share on the application and how to get in?

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I believe [http://qz.com/696377/y-combinator-is-running-a-basic- income-...](http://qz.com/696377/y-combinator-is-running-a-basic-income- experiment-with-100-oakland-families/) is the future;

</comment><comment><USER5> "Every unicorn has come out of Y Combinator"*

That's kind of insane when you think about it.

*marginally paraphrased only because I can't find it in the transcript

</comment><comment><USER22> But how did they have the money to even invest in startups?

<comment><USER19> Paul Graham (and Trevor and Robert) founded a company, Viaweb, that was sold to Yahoo for close to $50M in 1998. Like Jessica said, they invested $12k per company in the first batches of YC.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> AirBnB is an evil company and YC should be ashamed to be apart of it.

AirBnB has the official policy that it's okay to lie about where listings are. I booked one that turned out to about about half a kilometer away from where is was marked on the map. I would never have rented it had it been correctly marked. When I complained I was told it's their policy. It's buried in their privacy policy in a paragraph aimed at hosts, not guests. Also, the law appears to say burying stuff in a policy is not a defense excusing deceptive practices.

I can list more AirBnB deceptive practices. I don't think the idea of AirBnB is bad but YC should not be associated with the kind of management that thinks deceptive practices are ok.

<comment><USER11> I was tempted not to reply given the topic but she mentioned them exemplary enough that it was worth checking. Plus, I added "ruthless" to her recommendation that determination trumps all other traits for success. Made me curious. So, I looked at their policy pages to find something about location listings. Here's my first find:

"Misrepresenting your spaces You should not provide inaccurate location information, have incorrect availability, mislead people about the type, nature, or details of your listing, substitute one listing for another, set up fake or fraudulent listings, leave fraudulent reviews, engage in deceptive pricing, or fail to disclose hazards and habitability issues."

From here:

[https://www.airbnb.com/standards](https://www.airbnb.com/standards)

In the privacy policy here...

[https://www.airbnb.com/terms/privacy_policy](https://www.airbnb.com/terms/privacy_policy)

...I noticed they had permission to display location-related stuff, which should be affected by other policy, in your profile with an "approximate location" on a map. There could be problems if approximation was wrong due to crappy, mapping service but good ones are usually pretty good.

Which policy link and quotes do you have that lets them lie about what has to be honest in the above sections? Or another I haven't seen?

<comment><USER23> Yes it's that second part they quoted to me in email from their customer service

" The Platform may also display the Accommodation's approximate geographic location on a map, such that a user can see the general area of the Accommodation"

First off its ridiculous to claim that part of the privacy policy is something clear and obvious to guests and that they will therefore understand that listing are not representative of the actual locations.

Second, while I can except they might choose to have such a policy to protect hosts it is a arguably deceptive practice. If it's their policy that locations on the map may not by accurate that should be on the map page itself in a hard to miss representation. Not buried in section 5.B of their privacy policy in a section that starts with "Your public listing page..." making it clearly directed at hosts not guests.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I have to agree with you there.

I'm in Europe and I just polled a whole bunch of friends, anyone using these companies and got a resounding NOPE.

I just polled a bunch of US friends too and they say the same. Sure, purely anecdotal.

But for me, none of these have changed the world.

Maybe if you worship at the alter of YC or a wannabe Paul/Jessica groupie or liberal/progressive fantasist then I guess you totally buy into that.

Transformed is really a total stretch.

I'm still laughing after listening to that interview.

Waiting for the down-votes and I'm sure this will be flagged as it will upset some thin-skinned people who live in a (tech) bubble.

<comment><USER25> I down voted this comment because it is based on counterfactual anecdotes (those companies do have popular and well-liked products), and builds on those anecdotes to insult people who believe those statistics, and then tries to inoculate itself against criticism by accusing downvoters and flaggers of responding irrationally. The attempt to frame a predictable response as an unreasonable one hurts the discussion without offering anything in return.

I do agree that world-changing is a term used in contexts such as disease eradication. Certainly disease eradication changes the world more than avoiding a stay in a hotel. However, world-changing as a term is not restricted to the most impactful change to which it has been previously attached. For a typical programmer, making something that lets millions of people have an easier workday, vacation or home life should count as changing the world, even if it is a bit mundane.

<comment><USER26> What's interesting is how we now view what is 'mundane'. Pretty much my entire 'normal' life in 2016 - in which pretty much everything is mundane - is beyond what many fiction writers were capable of thinking of just 30 years ago. Instant/live audio/video communication with people around the planet - <USER2> essentially free (24/7!) - is now taken as 'mundane'.

I know most of us 'know' this at one level - well, many do, anyway - but given the infrastructure we build on, most of what we end up building is somewhat 'mundane' by comparison.

Lastly, I'm of an 'older' generation. Those younger than me do not remember a time when what's 'mundane' now was ever exciting/new/revolutionary. Much like having grown up with color TV, telephones and refrigeration and not being able to imagine a world without those, my younger family really can not imagine a world without near-free 24/7 access to info/communication.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> scribd is such a piece of shit

</comment><comment><USER28> Jessica is awesome. That said, this part near the beginning, where Sam says...

>>Sometimes they create a small success, and sometimes they create these companies that really transform the world, and YC has been very fortunate to be involved in a lot of these, Airbnb, Dropbox, Stripe, the list goes on.

I mean... really? OK, I'll grant you Airbnb, but Dropbox "transformed" the world?

<comment><USER29> Stripe has transformed the world. In 1999, I was asked to look into how to setup credit card processing for our company. I contacted Authorize.net for technical help. They just asked me to fax some information to them. Two months later my boss receives a bill for $3,000 claiming we had signed a contract agreeing to that fee. I think Stripe has made CC processing a lot easier for everyone.

<comment><USER26> lot of time passed between 199 and stripe. a little thing called paypal had a pretty huge impact on opening up credit card payments for folks too.

<comment><USER26> (obviously 1999, not 199!)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> "Y Combinator has funded 1,500 startups"

Really?

      http://www.ycombinator.com/press/ quotes 1297 startups
      http://www.seed-db.com/accelerators/view?acceleratorid=1011 has 1069 companies (+ ~100 from the S16 class) for ~1200 in total

Where do the extra companies come from?

<comment><USER31> Would you have been as mad with 1703? How many were in the most recent batch? I have no idea, but 1500 seems close enough to me for a non-specific number.

<comment><USER19> There's close to 110 companies in the current batch, that just had demo day last week.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: An etcd client library for Rust - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/jimmycuadra/rust-etcd

<comment><AUTHOR> There's still more to be done, but all the key space operations are done so I thought it was a good time to share!

API endpoints left to implement:

* Remaining statistics endpoints * Cluster management * Authn/authz, new but experimental in etcd 2.1

In addition, it could stand to be smarter about retrying calls in various failure scenarios.</comment>


Pessimists Guide to 2028 (2018) - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/pessimists-guide-to-2018/ <comment><USER2> any alternatives to [https://outline.com](https://outline.com) to watch paywall articles like this?

<comment><AUTHOR> You could try loading the link in an incognito window. That is how I am able to get past the block. It is a shame that it is not easily accessible.

When I first saw this article last year, it was very jarring. As events unfolded in 2019, we are already seeing a significant deviation to the predictions presented in this link. Was hoping to get some discussion going regarding the change in outcomes. I feel a lot more hopeful that the future will have some sort of middle ground that is better than the predictions presented here.</comment></comment>


EpiPen Tycoon puts you in the shoes of the most hated woman in pharma - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/insider/2016/09/02/epipen-tycoon-puts-you-in-the-shoes-of-the-most-hated-woman-in-pharma/ <comment><USER2> They oughta get the guy behind Yandere Simulator to develop it.</comment>


Instantly view semantic image data with a cloud-based media library - <AUTHOR> http://cloudinary.com/blog/instantly_view_semantic_image_data_with_a_cloud_based_media_library

<comment><AUTHOR> Semantic image data now available through Cloudinary's Media Library UI. Details include the image's respective Exif, IPTC, and XMP metadata as well as color data, that is automatically extracted. The Media Library UI now also automatically indicates face coordinates, where a single face or multiple faces are automatically detected.</comment>


Ask HN: What are your favorite podcasts? - <AUTHOR> I have recently got into the world of podcasting, it turns out to be really cool. Can you recommend me some interesting stuff to listen to?<p>I love tech, writing and comedy, but I'm looking for anything awesome, intelligent, and interesting. <comment><USER2> I do a podcast with two friends on tech, writing...and the comedy is just our ability to find new procrastination techniques, instead of writing: www.typehammer.com or on the iTunes TypeHammer

Other pods on writing and tech I like are: 3 Guys with Beards and Dead Robot Society

and on the old school tech of writing: pedaddict

</comment><comment><USER3> Here's some of my 'must listen' list.

Daily Tech News Show with Tom Merritt; I'm a Co Executive Producer (Patreon) Security Now with Steve Gibson Freakonomics Radio</comment>


Ask HN: What are the biggest limitations of HTML5? - <AUTHOR>

Ubuntu's and Firefox's mobile OS'es are coming soon, and Google's Chrome OS is on the rise (the Chromebook was Amazon's #1 selling laptop). It seems like we should start taking "web apps", or whatever you want to call them, more seriously.<p>BUT, there are undeniably some serious limitations. I think it's time we start openly discussing these problems, and how they can be addressed. <comment><USER3> Here are some of the biggest challenges HTML5 faces:

\- Security e.g. users shouldn't trust a client based HTML5 with any serious data collection.

\- Local Data - Storage is limited & it can be manipulated

\- Syncing offline apps - Determining which is the latest version etc

\- If the browser vendors won't implement something, it won't get implemented. This has also lead to

\- Format Incompatibilities e.g. try audio/video tags across the major browsers

<comment><AUTHOR> _Security e.g. users shouldn't trust a client based HTML5 with any serious data collection._

\- I'm not sure why you say that. I do online banking all the time. It is possible to code something secure and tight, but I'll admit it's not easy. I think security will always be an issue, even with native apps.

 _Local Data - Storage is limited & it can be manipulated_

\- True, storage needs to be unlimited. As for manipulating it, this is also true of native apps. Without jailbreaking, I can manipulate a save file for almost any iPhone game. The security issue (again) depends on the developer, and how they protect the data.

 _Syncing offline apps - Determining which is the latest version etc_

\- Yup, that's a challenge too. But also a challenge native apps face. When I make a note on an offline iPhone in the notes app, and then edit the same note on my Mac, it creates a duplicate when the iPhone is back online. It should probably be up to the developer how to handle this, whether the app is native or HTML5.

 _If the browser vendors won't implement something, it won't get implemented. This has also lead to_

\- Yes, this I think is one of the biggest challenges. People buy a computer, it comes with a browser default, and they never change or update it. It's hard enough to get the W3C to add new features, let alone browsers to implement them, and even harder still to get users to update their browsers.

 _Format Incompatibilities e.g. try audio/video tags across the major browsers_

\- Yup, similar issue.

<comment><USER3> Regarding your Security point, the fundamental problem with HTML5 and the way online banks use their security is that with HTML5 ultimately the user has control over the code which is running on their machine. Browsers come with decent debugging tools making it easier to abuse (and there are even better ones as plugins).

Using the browsers debugger (or your one of choice) you can simply go to a website running on HTML5 and insert a few breakpoints and watch what happens. All someone would have to do is edit the variable(s) which hold the data to anything they'd desire.

You can argue there are limits to these potential exploitations but some of the tools are as complicated as the complier itself - and when companies are trying to push out a feature as quickly as possible, security issues are often overlooked. For example have a look (if you haven't already) at <http://plaintextoffenders.com/> which shows websites which store passwords in plain text. Sure my example relates to a different issue but if websites are prepared to store passwords in plain text then inevitably, they will overlook other potential security issues.

When money is involved, any minor potential exploitation is taken advantage to the fullest extent. Hence I still believe HTML5 apps shouldn't be trusted with any serious data collection.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm no expert (yet?) but my understanding is that unless you are in a web-app (in the OS sense, ie: not in a browser strictly speaking) you loose access to features like real sockets and such. WebRTC looks awesome but the fact that we still can't built a true P2P system in HTML5 is a big failure from my point of view... Still, I think this is the way to go for now, not strictly of course... :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting idea. So instead of browsers forcing everything over HTTP(s), allow all kinds of transmission?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> "Real sockets" you mean you don't count web sockets as real sockets? I think it will get there, eventually, just needs more time. Browsers have evolved a lot over the years, but it all comes down to the fact that the organizations in charge of creating the standards (W3C) move a little too slow.

<comment><AUTHOR> True, which is another problem web apps face - waiting for the W3C to adopt something new. Native apps run on OSes that change several times a year, introducing new features. New HTML5 features seem to take two years - <USER2> worse still, every user must update their browser to get them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Biggest limitations of HTML5:

\- security causes a lot of limits for users and developers

\- unhealthy competition between browser vendors, example: WebGL@InternetExplorer

\- its limited to 3 languages: HTML, CSS, JS (and its derivatives)

<comment><AUTHOR> _security causes a lot of limits for users and developers_ \- Security will probably always be an issue, even with native apps. Anything specific you think could be changed to make web apps safer?

 _unhealthy competition between browser vendors, example: WebGL@InternetExplorer_ \- Agreed. Especially when one browser stays from what's supposed to be "standard", yet rarely is.

 _its limited to 3 languages: HTML, CSS, JS (and its derivatives)_ \- Agreed. Google's working on a compiled web language, but it will only work in chrome. They're attempting to make it a standard, but I'm not sure if any other browsers would put the effort into supporting it. And a whole new system like this would take years to implement. But still possible....</comment></comment>


The Natural Beauty of Rwanda – National Geographic - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul_qA7Vz1-Y <comment><USER2> I roast my own coffee from green beans. Been doing it for about 6 years now as a hobby. I've always stuck with beans coming from South America, I've always had meh results from other countries. On a whim, I liked the flavor profile description of a batch from Rwanda so bought 10lbs. It was some of the best coffee I've had in awhile with a nice clove undertone in the taste. My wife and I went through it in a couple of months and I promptly ordered another 10lbs.</comment>


Show HN: Play Final Fantasy On Facebook Live - <AUTHOR> https://www.facebook.com/finalfantasylive/videos/1345449772214122/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hey all! Built this over the weekend with hshoebridge and mswofford for Ludum Dare.

Source code is over at [https://github.com/zachlatta/final-fantasy- live](https://github.com/zachlatta/final-fantasy-live).

There's around a 10 second delay on Facebook's end for any live video. Sorry for the lag :-(.

Would love to hear any thoughts / comments / criticism.

\- - -

Quick update: Facebook took our main stream offline. Have a new one online at [https://www.facebook.com/crynix/videos/1151445734967464/](https://www.facebook.com/crynix/videos/1151445734967464/), but will only be available for the next 4 hours.

<comment><USER2> Why did they take it offline?

<comment><AUTHOR> Not sure, wasn't given a reason :-/. Just got a notification saying that it was taken down.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is amazing!

</comment><comment><USER4> Wow, Facebook sure has gotten worse with the login nagging over the years. Several layers of prompts are trying to break through my ad blocker. It didn't use to be this bad.

<comment><USER5> Would you please stop creating bulk accounts like this? Throwaways are legit when there's a specific reason for them but doing it routinely undermines the community and isn't allowed.

[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20community%20identity...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20community%20identity&sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment)</comment></comment>


Google Evolves Code.Google.Com - <AUTHOR> http://www.linuxpromagazine.com/Online/News/Google-Evolves-Code.Google.Com

<comment><USER2> Oh, so I can finally use the WTFPL on Google Code.

Still not going to use GCode, though. There's nothing about it I like better than GitHub, aside from perhaps the issue tracker.</comment>


Realm on Node.js - <AUTHOR> https://realm.io/news/realm-javascript-node-js-windows <comment><USER2> So the big news is that the Realm Node.js module is now available for Windows. Does this work in Electron apps?</comment>


Ask HN: Family startups - <AUTHOR> Despite many people will say its a bad idea, i would love to start a company / side project with my partner. I am a contractor and can easily sustain both of us, while having enough time to to work on our own project.<p>Are there any success stories about that, or ideas where to start ? <comment><USER2> Around 2010 I became acquainted with a married couple in their mid to late 60s who were serial entrepreneurs together. They had built and grown a library management software company in the 1980-2000 era. When they sold that company off they could have retired but at some point they started a company that combined web scraping and semantic enhancement sold enhanced organized data to various companies to incorporate into their own corporate and customer databases.

They were two of the smartest people that I have met in my business ventures. What I loved is that they each recognized and honored their partner's strengths. Peter was very strong technically and Kate was the business strategist, sales, marketing and deal maker. And, to my eyes they seemed deeply in love and still enjoyed spending time together.

We almost found a way to do business together but they were at a different phase in life. They were getting ready to sell their second business and were psychologically getting ready to move money into more stable investments rather than another start-up.

As Peter and Kate demonstrated it can work wonderfully to mix business and personal relationships. However, most people find that the combination is just too stressful. I love my wife but have no sense that we could be a Peter and Kate.

My advice is that if you do work together you need to make sure that each partner brings something to the business that is vital, is in their competency zone and that they enjoy doing.

</comment><comment><USER3> Plenty of husbands and wives are in business together. If you have a good relationship with family and/or friends, than that is a good start, but just be sure define each other's roles in the startup are and everyone is contributing equally.</comment>


Mycroft: An Open Source Artificial Intelligence for Everyone - <AUTHOR> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/aiforeveryone/mycroft-an-open-source-artificial-intelligence-for <comment><AUTHOR> My biggest problem is this:

> _Our team of experienced entrepreneurs is aware that $99,000 isn 't enough > funding to manufacture molds, purchase components, assemble the units, > complete software development and deploy our cloud infrastructure. The goal > during this Kickstarter isn't to fully fund our effort._

> _Rather, we 're asking you to prove that there is a community that wants to > see an open source artificial intelligence solution._

How exactly am I going to get my early bird dev kit if my $250 isn't actually going towards building the damned thing?</comment>


The Geography of High-Paying Jobs in the US - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/08/the-geography-of-high-paying-jobs/60918/ <comment><USER2> Fun to see these kind of maps, but they are pretty useless without a discussion of purchasing power in those areas. The Bay Area and Bos-Wash all have above average cost of living too...

<comment><USER3> Agreed. I'd be more interested in seeing average salary by region contrasted with the average cost of living for those same regions, which would identify the most economical places to live in the US.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed as well, ratios would work well, even though there are fixed costs that are virtually identical across the country. Because of such expenses, a higher income in an expensive place may still have an edge over a lower income in a cheap place, if the ratio for the former is only slightly less than the ratio for the latter.

<comment><USER4> Hm, (Income - Cost of Living) / Purchasing Power?

<comment><USER5> I vote for:

(average income - average COL) / average COL = relative purchasing power

<comment><USER4> I don't think so. That would be

      p=(i-c)/c

or just

      p=i/c-1

which would mean that purchasing power is directly proportional to cost of living.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Since the wage data is publicly available, does anyone know how I would go about replicating these maps? I know I could use Google's charting API's for County/US state level, but how would I go about mapping data at the US county level?

Just always wondered how that would work :)

<comment><USER7> You can download the bounds of each US county (and many other political subdivisions) as shapefiles from the Census TIGER/Line repository. <http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> It would be interesting to see how this correlates to population density. Also, college density.

<comment><USER9> Population density: <http://www.mapofusa.net/us-population-density-map.htm>

There is obviously some correlation. I find it hard to tell just by looking how much of the variance that explains.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> It would be my instinct to group health care and education jobs in the service category rather than the creative class category.

</comment><comment><USER11> So the answer is SF, DC, and NY. Call me shocked.</comment>


Ask HN: What's your IQ? - <AUTHOR>

Many here assume inhabitantans of this particular little part of cyberspace have extremely high IQ.<p>How about some help ballparking it? <comment><USER2> The highest I ever got on an IQ test is 134, and the lowest is 86.

I got a couple of others around 120.

So, take your pick.

</comment><comment><USER3> Do you want that in metric or Imperial intelligence units?

</comment><comment><USER4> Like many others here, I don't put much stock in IQ values. It's a trainable skill, and it depends a lot on what kind of test you do. IQ tests have also been proven to be strongly culture-related.

But for what it's worth, when I was young, I scored 136 in a test from some booklet that I didn't finish, and much later I scored 139 on the test from "The National IQ Test" on Dutch TV (which had 140 or 142 as a maximum score). I've never really done a "proper" IQ test, or if I have, my parents didn't share the results.

I guess it's safe to say I'm fairly smart, but I don't think I'm noticeably smarter than my friends or family. Maybe they also score in the 130-140 range.

</comment><comment><USER5> 163 using whatever test Mensa used in the UK in the early '90s. I have always assumed they were incentivized to ensure as many people as possible got high scores. I'm not particularly smart and only took the test as I was feeling intellectually insecure at the time.

<comment><USER6> >I'm not particularly smart and only took the test as I was feeling intellectually insecure at the time.

How did you deal with this? I've been very insecure about my intelligence over the last year or so, even though everyone tells me I'm very smart and I do happen to pick things up quite quickly. I just can't see myself as the person they say I am in relation to where I am in my life, I feel like I should be doing something important if I am truly intelligent.

It's starting to affect my relations with people and my relationship with myself as I overcompensate more and more and have become far more competitive.

<comment><USER7> As always, talk to your Doctor (or psychatrist).

Some general hints for almost all mood and mind problems: are you getting the right amount of sleep? Are you exercising? How about your diet? (Are you getting laid enough?)

Getting those things right doesn't help directly, but they make it so much easier to cope with whatever life throws at you.

Also, forget about intelligence, and start creating.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> That question is not very helpful without specifying which test you took, and in which country. (And whether you practiced..)

<comment><USER3> "And whether you practiced"

My oldest sister (17 years older than me) did psychology at University and specialized in child psychology and education at post-grad level. Guess who was experimental subject #1 for her?

By my teens I had seen every possible "intelligence" test you could imagine and could do them in my sleep. Fortunately nobody (other than members of Mensa) seems to take IQ tests very seriously in the UK....

<comment><USER7> And UK's mensa is kind-of a joke, if I remember right. The German mensa is somewhat more worth joining.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'd say high 800s. I'm sure someone could back me up on this.

<comment><USER9> can vouch, my IQ is around -1600ºC

<comment><USER10> How much is that in football fields?

<comment><USER3> What kind of football though?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Never taken actual IQ test, did one on the Mensa's website once and all it said was that I should consider taking the actual test, but I'm pretty sure that's just marketing thing.

The truth is that I'm too lazy and cheap to take part in actual IQ test. Plus I'm kind a afraid that I'd find out that I'm just an average Joe or maybe below the average intelligence as that's the only positive trait I (appear to) have. Maybe if I started to take care of my body and got fit I could muster the courage to find out just how dumb I am when I at least was healthy otherwise...

Just my random thoughts.

<comment><USER7> Checkout [http://reddit.com/r/fitness](http://reddit.com/r/fitness)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> 136 - Cattell III B - UK - No practice, at age 15.

</comment><comment><USER13> I've never taken a standard test like that of Mensa, but the ones I've taken over the last 5-6 years have scores in the range 138 to 145, but I don't think it's a good indicator of overall brain capacity. Maybe just a level of your Logical ability.

</comment><comment><USER14> Probably better as an anonymous poll. Lots of people with high-IQs are rather shy about it.

<comment><USER15> Mine's not even that high and I'd rather not blurt it out in public, so I completely agree.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> We just fake it by being negative about everything.

</comment><comment><USER17> I'd really like to see interviews with people who've been grouped by IQ.

The interviews would all use the same questions.

</comment><comment><USER18> Idk/idc.

I always thought that IQ tests are silly.

</comment><comment><USER19> 135, Stanford Binet, USA, 12 years old.

</comment><comment><USER20> I can urinate much higher than you can.

<comment><USER21> My dad is bigger than your dad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Helicopter.

</comment><comment><USER23> somewhere around 850g.

</comment><comment><USER24> 25cm</comment>


Get Things Done Like a Zen Master - <AUTHOR> http://howtogetfocused.com/chapters/how-to-get-things-done-like-a-zen-master/ <comment><USER2> Could there be a more laughable distortion of a thing into its opposite than Zen as tips-and-tricks for the achieving self?

<comment><USER3> Insightful comments like the above are one of the reasons I love HN.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> You forgot the next step: why do you need to get anything done in the first place ?

<comment><USER5> I came here to say this.

Most people's problem isn't that they have too much to do and therefore need to find out how to get it all done, it's that many of the things they have to do aren't ultimately worth doing in the first place.

And then Zen, as I understand it, isn't about doing, it's about being. Activity in Zen is an effortless extension of being, of acceptance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> similar advice from Marc Andreessen: [http://pmarca-archive.posterous.com/the- pmarca-guide-to-pers...](http://pmarca-archive.posterous.com/the-pmarca-guide- to-personal-productivity)

<comment><AUTHOR> Floodfx -- Amazing article. Thanks. I've never seen that, but I am a big fan of GTD (who he mentions).

Thanks a lot. Bookmarked.

<comment><USER4> Marc is not a big fan of GTD, which is the point of the article.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've been using a similar system for awhile now. The offline approach is extremely effective, however, I find it even more effective when combined with ideas from The Pomodoro Technique.

I have the same type of weekly planner (the author calls it a To-do planner) and a sticky note on my desk for the day that lists 3 to-do items. I draw a series of squares beneath each item.

The Pomodoro Technique simply recommends focusing on a single for 25 minutes, followed by a 5 minute break. The squares I draw below my to-do items represent the number of 25 minute intervals I anticipate the task to take. I cross them off each time my timer rings. If I underestimate the intervals of a task, I add a circle for each unexpected interval. This allows me to see patterns in my planning and works as a mechanic to finish things as scheduled.

Once the day is over, I remove the sticky note from my desk and "archive" it by re-sticking it on that day in my planner.

</comment><comment><USER8> The two main reasons why I prefer to stick with an online tool:

I don't have to carry an extra notepad+pen with me. I can easily copy and paste long urls and click on them

When I am not in front of the computer, I use my iphone to write down ideas and tasks and I update my online tool when I am back on the computer.

For those who want to stick to paper and stay minimalist: <http://www.pocketmod.com/>

For those who want an online weekly planner: <http://weekplan.net> (my own tool based on the 7 habits)

</comment><comment><USER9> I like the idea of writing three things down on a post-it note before you go to your computer. If you don't open up your laptop with a few goals in mind first, you're fucked.

</comment><comment><USER10> tl;dr have a to-do list and always carry a pen or pencil.

(Pen seems better since there's less chance of putting holes in clothing or stabbing oneself.)

Not that I would recommend it. If I'm truly into my work then I'll have sufficient integrity and memory to operate intuitively, from a rapidly evolving _mental_ to-do list.

If I want to achieve, better would be to have a _to-don't_ list. It might include things like don't drink too much, eat too much, consume too much entertainment, porn, etc. This is what focus means: to gently _exclude_ stuff.

That way vitality and creativity will flow into my work. Any other approach is implicitly enacting the theory that work/learning is painful. Which is false. Nobody is taking my cookies away; I'm switching to a different flavour. (They say a Zen master can see and feel the beauty in everything. That must include creative work.)

It seems to me that alcoholics, the obese, etc, have a certain thing in common with brilliant, creative achievers -- they know that the fun has to be _here and now_. We say to addicts who promise to quit soon that "tomorrow never comes". Why don't we say it to people who show us lists of goals? In reality the concepts of procrastination, time management, memory management, rewards, rule-based living, etc, aren't very helpful.

</comment><comment><USER11> I just bought the Focuslist program referenced in the blog as I thought it was a good idea and since my OmniFocus list is choked. Just a warning though, the Focuslist program requires Adobe Air to run. That is a major drag and for my part I'm with Steve Jobs w/r to anything flash and I do not want to install that just to run a window with 3 checkboxes.

</comment><comment><USER12> He is still making it too complicated.

I use Notepad. I edit a file called todo.txt. I've been editing this same file for many years.

</comment><comment><USER13> Org-mode is my zen master.

</comment><comment><USER14> Especially useful around tax season.</comment>


Using GCC with TI Stellaris Launchpad – A more in depth look - <AUTHOR> http://eehusky.wordpress.com/2012/12/04/using-gcc-with-ti-stellaris-launchpad-a-more-in-depth-look/

<comment><USER2> Context: the stellaris launchpad is a Cortex-M4 based development board which TI were selling at 2 for $5. If you don't know what that means it's basically an ARM arduino.

Like everyone else I ordered the limit of 2 boards and six months later I received them, having forgotten the plans I originally had for their use, so this article is a welcome kick up the arse to actually use some of the toys in my drawer.

<comment><USER3> Thats exactly what the Recursive Labs post did for me and what prompted me to start writing everything down. This post is kind of dry (I didn't expect this kind of traffic), but the next two have a lot more interesting stuff in them so be sure to check back!

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey, thanks for writing up that post, eehusky. I look forward to the future posts. Just as you were inspired by the Recursive Labs post, so to has yours inspired me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> One of the coolest parts about this device is that it can be a USB input device (mouse & keyb at least) with the right drivers. I've thought about storing passwords on one instead of in a password manager. A couple of wires, a button, and ~30 lines of code is all that's needed.

Any word on Energia progress? It works so well with my MSP430.

<comment><USER5> They recently merged in the Launchpad support to master</comment></comment>


Listable: create and share lists with JSON, SQL, and plaintext output - <AUTHOR> http://www.listable.org/ <comment><USER2> In the words of Crocodile Dundee.

"That's not a knife... that's a knife [http://www.trailbehind.com/park_index/0/"](http://www.trailbehind.com/park_index/0/)

Here's a big list that does something... allow Google to index my 3000 park maps :)

<comment><USER3> The second part is actually " _This_ is a knife!" Because he's holding it. Sorry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've had an idea to build a list app for a while, but the devil is in the details.

My mental list (ahem!) of features went like this:

\- It needs to hold lists of key/value pairs of any size (bit like memcached, or a list of dicts in python)

\- It needs to have RPC access to add/insert/delete/update keys and values

\- There needs to be pub/sub access to the RPC interface, replication needs to be instant, and it needs to be able to advise you if the replication is degraded. Some sort of MQ service.

\- It needs to have client libraries in a few languages, and some example apps

\- It needs to have a web front-end for inspecting and managing lists and permissions

Imagine the possibilities!

\- you could have a desktop/web and iphone app that monitored stock prices, your server status, or other arbitrary figures

\- you and your wife could have the ultimate shopping list (delete butter on one and it's instantly gone and deleted on all devices - fantastically useful)

\- you could re-invent irc

\- you could make hypertwitter 2.0

\- you could make a message queue service

\- you could build a CDN or cache on it.

Has this been done? I know Google Spreadsheets is about 5% of the way there.

</comment><comment><USER5> the MYSQL escaping seems broken:

<http://www.listable.org/mysql/random-stuff>

</comment><comment><USER6> Pretty cool concept as bprater pointed out. I would like to see a special split character or something so you could generate comma separated lists and thus, multi-column SQL Tables and more complex JSON objects.

</comment><comment><USER7> Great concept, I hope it grows teeth.

I'm curious if they are going to allow general web applications to draw data continually.

<comment><USER8> I can't see why not. It seems incredibly straightforward to cache effectively.</comment></comment>