Is it really worth running in the rain? (1987) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.fisica.uniud.it/~deangeli/rain.pdf <comment><USER2> "Science for more than a half-century has found ways to complicate the matter ..."

Peterson, T. C. and Wallis, T. W. R. (1997), Running in the rain. Weather, 52: 93–96. doi: 10.1002/j.1477-8696.1997.tb06281.x

[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.1477-8696.1997....](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.1477-8696.1997.tb06281.x/pdf)

      But all this is model and theory. What about reality? To predict the weather four
      days in advance you may want to use a model, but to truly determine whether a walker
      or a runner would get wetter in the rain one can simply conduct an experiment. ...
      we purchased two identical pairs of hats, sweat shirts and pants, ... Departing
      at the same time, Dr Wallis ran the lOOm at a velocity of 4.0ms-' while Dr Peterson
      walked the same distance at 1.4ms-'. The total water absorbed by the walker was
      0.217kg and by the runner 0.130 kg.
      Running, therefore, produced a decrease in wetting of 40 per cent.

<comment><USER3> This calls for follow-up research on how the absorption ratio varies with distance traveled. Please excuse me while I apply for some grant money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Mythbusters actually tested this ([http://mythresults.com/episode38](http://mythresults.com/episode38)), and LifeHacker showed a little video on it ([http://lifehacker.com/5970476/why- you-should-run-not-walk-in...](http://lifehacker.com/5970476/why-you-should- run-not-walk-in-the-rain)).

The real issue, for me, has always been shoes. Most clothing dries fairly well, but shoes and socks are a tough matter. Besides, if it's unpleasant to be in, you should run, and if it's pleasant to be in, take your time.

<comment><USER5> Also in episode 1:

\- [http://mythresults.com/episode1](http://mythresults.com/episode1)

Priorities are clear (;

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> "There is something to be learned from a rainstorm. When meeting with a sudden shower, you try not to get wet and run quickly along the road. But doing such things as passing under the eaves of houses, you still get wet. When you are resolved from the beginning, you will not be perplexed, though you still get the same soaking. This understanding extends to everything."

[https://youtu.be/8XQH-o_KYBI?t=86](https://youtu.be/8XQH-o_KYBI?t=86)

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0165798/quotes](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0165798/quotes)

<comment><USER7> from the Hagakure

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The main benefit of running is the fact that you reach your destination faster and have more time to dry. Specifically the thighs (if wearing say jeans) certainly benefit from the extra time. As pointed out by other posters the biggest risk at faster speeds is splashing and I'd add the risk of slipping as well.

The experiment also seems to assume that it'll rain a constant amount. That's reasonable but if it can be expected that the rain will increase (maybe it just started), running becomes even better. Conversely if you somehow know it is more likely to decrease, walking becomes better (as you might even hit a window where it doesn't rain at all that you'd simply miss by running).

I certainly enjoyed this sentence though:

""" 'optimal' solutions, cases in which the experimenter assumes strange angles with respect to the ground, are not considered, being awkward to obtain in reality. """

Personally, I find the question of "waiting it out" way more intriguing. Murphy seems to let the rain continue endlessly whenever I decide to seek shelter temporarily.

<comment><USER9> > The main benefit of running is the fact that you reach your destination > faster and have more time to dry

Bonus marks for considering ecological validity

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I love this work but the entire underlying premise is shaky! It assumes that a person's discomfort is proportional to the _quantity_ of wetness they experience rather than the total amount of _time_ spent in wet conditions.

<comment><USER11> In the abstract the author writes:

 _Is it worth running as fast as possible to get less wet?_

So the author is only trying to answer the question of whether you will get less wet if you run in the rain. He is not making any claims about comfort. The author's only premise is:

 _The purpose of this paper is to put an end to this kind of useless argument._

[edit:] clarity

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I would concur with the article's recommendation of a brisk walk, because when running in the rain you risk slipping and falling, which puts you contact with the wet ground, and prolongs the time you spend out in the rain.

<comment><USER13> OTOH, in lightning conditions it may be advantageous to move as fast as possible as a strike may result in significantly prolonged contact with wet ground.

<comment><USER14> Concerning thunderstorms, it is usually best to keep an eye on the conditions and get a decent headstart to outrun them, I think.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Somewhat off-topic but entertaining questions on Rain answered by Randall Monroe:

\- "What if a rainstorm dropped all of its water in a single giant drop?" [1]

\- "At what speed would you have to drive for rain to shatter your windshield?" [2]

[1] [https://what-if.xkcd.com/12/](https://what-if.xkcd.com/12/)

[2] [https://what-if.xkcd.com/93/](https://what-if.xkcd.com/93/)

</comment><comment><USER16> The title should clarify that this focuses on whether running vs walking _results in getting fewer raindrops on you_ :

It concludes:

"As suggested by common sense, when it is raining it is better to move fast. By running faster you get less wet. but the benefit that you get beyond the speed of a brisk walk does not justify the supplementary effort. "

Personally, I love running in a light rain just for comfort reasons and (presumably) the negative ions.

<comment><USER17> Jogging in the rain: that's what I thought the article was about before I clicked. I love to jog in the rain, as long as it's not too cold and not raining too hard. It's lovely.

<comment><USER18> Same. I also expected to see an interesting discussion in these comments about improvements in running shoe and clothing technology that make it more pleasant. The article describes sweatpants, for goodness sake! I can hardly imagine anything less comfortable to run in!

<comment><USER19> I think the best clothing technology for running in the rain has already been invented, and, in fact pre-dates both clothing and technology. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is obviously true - you pass through the same amount of water horizontally on the way to your destination, but there's less time for it to fall on you vertically. However, the main problem with running in the rain if you're not careful is that you will spray yourself with water from your shoes. That may or may not get you wetter, but it could also get your clothes dirty. I aim for a short of shuffle-jog. :P

</comment><comment><USER21> I made an interactive calculator of this a while ago, adapted from a BBC article. You can see it here (interactive equation at the bottom):

[https://alexkrolick.com/rain](https://alexkrolick.com/rain)

Note that it doesn't do oblique angles.

EDIT: I've been meaning to update this with a graph for a while -- the plot in the article really illustrates the tradeoff between wetness and velocity quite well.

</comment><comment><USER22> The article, at best, seems inconclusive...

I thru-hiked the Appalachian Trail years ago...admittedly, I was walking, with a pack, not running...

If I was within sight of shelter (a rarity) I sometimes trotted, and stayed a bit dryer...usually I just walked on, smiled, and tried to find things to enjoy...

One thing I learned was that it didn't matter one whit if I got wet when hypothermia was not a factor...the only important thing was whether or not, once I'd enjoyed the rain, I had dry clothes in my pack to change into while I cooked my supper...

I think we undervalue the good feeling rain falling on us offers...kids instinctively experience it as something special and dance around in it...imagine that...

We could re-learn things from them...rain's nothing to fear...

<comment><USER23> Good work at finding a way to work in how you thru-hiked the Appalachian Trial into a posting about rain!

You deserve a pat-on-the-back for the careful and tedious thought required to join such disparate topics, much like the constant struggle against the elements you had to face, step by step, and the invaluable rewards you must have received on your epic journey!

Brave, smart, enlightened... not to get off topic, but what other interesting qualities do you have, and the stories and wisdom to go with them, oh great "Outdoorsman"?

Edit: o why the downvote o great master? What thou request of thine?

<comment><USER24> You're getting downvoted because you're being snarky and condescending for no obvious reason. Outdoorsman's post was on-topic and I have no idea why you've taken offense to it.

<comment><USER23> He was obviously bragging about what he did. Normally I wouldn't mind. But trying to segue from a topic on how to avoid getting wet when going a short distance through rain to how he trekked the entire Appalachian Trail is just fucking ridiculous!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> When running, your body is oblique, reducing the surface area of the impinging rain. There are so many more factors than what this theoretical paper considers, but it is a good start. I don't feel the Mythbusters experiment was valid, since they used simulated rain, only did the experiment once, and tested only a very small distance. I also feel that making a good TV show gets in the way of the goal of making a good experiment.

</comment><comment><USER26> How has this paper not won an IgNoble prize?

</comment><comment><USER27> I use to run it order to quicker get some shelter. I did not know it had positive side effects.</comment>


Show HN: TimeQ, time tracking and invoicing software for freelancers - <AUTHOR> https://timeq.co <comment><USER2> My free time tracker for freelancers has been around for 21 years...

[https://lastviking.eu/whid_20th_anniversary_edition.html](https://lastviking.eu/whid_20th_anniversary_edition.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> I like the clean design. But web site is slow. I expected with this much less component it should be more snappier. Also I want to add, adding new task is tough. Maybe there should be an easier way, I need to click project -> then select it -> then tasks.

Thanks

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback! The website is getting slow because it's built with lambdas and as there are not many users right now, there are "guaranteed" cold starts. I'm not sure if the solution would be adding some ping script to keep functions warm for a while or just drop serverless.

You'll be able to add tasks "on the fly" from the timer dropdown soon!</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why haven't online auction/general-marketplace sites been disrupted yet? - <AUTHOR>

This question (title) is born out of frustration in trying to teach my mother how to use eBay on her iPad to do simple occasional buying/selling.
Needless to say, it hasn't gone smoothly. I can't believe the complete and utter disconjunction between the various areas of the site, let alone between the apps and website. It's barely usable.
And whilst I understand a lot of the headaches and hoops they force you to jump through are to cover their own backs in attempts to protect both buyers and sellers, it's still just a complete mine-field.
Is there any good reason that sites like eBay, Craigslist, Gumtree, etc haven't been pushed aside by a sleek, modern, UX-focused SV-startup yet?
I could easily see eBay being what MySpace was to the social-network space in 2007. <comment><USER2> Can the UX be a major disruption vector here? I don't think optimizing this model is a game changer, just an incremental improvement.

There's interesting startups on the seller side that let people instantly get money for their goods and take care of the whole process making it friction- less. I think what will eventually disrupt general marketplaces [eBay] is simply sellers fleeing to seller-specific services and buyers using retail- oriented sites (like amazon) with a better experience.

<comment><USER3> Interested in a 'seller-specific' service. Is that sellers grouped together or a service that caters to sellers?

<comment><USER2> I was thinking of services that help you sell stuff. I don't know who's currently in that space, but say usesold.com was an example of such a service. Amazon does a somewhat similar thing with used books I think.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Your question probably has an answer in the form of many companies past and present attempting to do exactly what you say "disrupt". As pgt mentions, the gamification is 1 of the biggest factors in play here. Buyers will go by ratings based on other buyers and sellers with massive amounts of positive ratings have little incentive to build rep again.

</comment><comment><USER5> Marketplaces with reputation-ranked user bases have strong network effects and are difficult to disrupt.

</comment><comment><USER6> Network effects. Sellers won't come without buyers, but buyers won't come without sellers. This vicious cycle is not easily disrupted.</comment>


Ask HN: Anyone using Azure VM's in Production - <AUTHOR>

I have a client that wants to place their core site and related services into Azure, would likely be 1-2 VM's to start with plus SQL as a service. Complexity of the app is moderate, VM is needed for some custom components and services that run background tasks.
First, can you share any examples of apps that are using Azure in Production (VM especially)?  I did some searches but only saw Microsoft solutions running production in Azure.
Second, I would appreciate any advice, guidance or suggestions based on your experience in Azure or knowledge of it.
BTW - I do have plenty of experience in AWS for production apps, and have tested apps in Azure.  I can't see how/why it would be a bad thing for this client, but I also want to be able to feel confident that I am not missing something with Azure specifically.  I recommended using AWS to them but being Microsoft centric they would prefer Azure. <comment><USER2> We have deployed to Azure, but I personally haven't been involved with it. And we aren't using VMs at this stage, but are considering it to complement features that aren't available in Azure. For example, Reporting Services was not available on Azure (it is now), so we hosted that on another provider which connected to a SQL Azure instance.

From what I hear, performance has been pretty good, as has uptime. Though, with targeting non-VM you do run against some limitations. Such as, as you mention, the non-ability to run background tasks.

You can in fact run background services on Azure (non-VM), and we have done so for a few of our deployed web apps. You'll need to look into Worker Roles: * [http://blogs.msdn.com/b/morebits/archive/2011/01/01/building...](http://blogs.msdn.com/b/morebits/archive/2011/01/01/building- windows-azure-service-part5-worker-role-background-tasks-handler.aspx) * <http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/ee336122.aspx>

<comment><AUTHOR> Awesome, thanks for the feedback, I will check out the Worker Roles too, not sure how I missed them.</comment></comment>


Some PDP-7 source code - <AUTHOR> http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/2016-February/006622.html <comment><AUTHOR> Warren Toomey from The Unix Heritage Society (TUHS) posts:

[http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/2016-February/006622.h...](http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/2016-February/006622.html)

With the link:

[http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/PDP-11/Distributions/research/Mc...](http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/PDP-11/Distributions/research/McIlroy_v0/)

From the Readme:

      The structure of the kernel source code is very similar to that of the 1st Edition Unix scan at

      http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/PDP-11/Distributions/research/Dennis_v1/PreliminaryUnixImplementationDocument_Jun72.pdf

      Here is what I can glean from the files:

      01-s1.pdf     contains the kernel source divided into sections S1 to S9
      02-hw.pdf     has hardware details of the PDP-7
      03-scope.pdf  has information about the PDP-7 scope
      04-cas.pdf    seems to be a user-mode program that uses the PDP-7 scope
      05-1-4.pdf    user-mode programs: adm, ald, apr, as
      06-5-12.pdf   user-mode programs: bl, bc, bi, cat, check, chown, chmod, cp, chrm
      07-13-19.pdf  user-mode programs: db, dmabs, ds, dsksav, dskres, dskio, dsw, init
      08-rest.pdf   user-mode programs: ed. Also at the beginning some B code (?)

</comment><comment><USER2> Looking at big pages of uncommented assembly like this really makes you understand why flowcharts and waterfall design were a thing.

<comment><AUTHOR> The code appears to be some of the most ancient Unix Kernel Source Code yet found. This is previous to the PDP-11 1st Edition. Still, many of the familiar bits are there (ed, cat, etc..) A pretty historically significant chunk of code!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Will this make its way to archive.org? I can't think of a better place for it.

<comment><USER4> I agree with you.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure archive.org has a clearly delineating way to make it easy to find source code. Many web pages embody some source code as well, but this isn't easy to find and decode.

And of course, there isn't really anything like git to manage the code.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I love seeing the handwritten notes...

</comment><comment><USER6> in 01-s1.pdf: jms halt " will not happen</comment>


Statistical Shortcomings in Standard Math Libraries (and How to Fix Them) - <AUTHOR> https://www.evanmiller.org/statistical-shortcomings-in-standard-math-libraries.html <comment><USER2> (2014)</comment>


Show HN: Corrello – Dashboards and Reports for Trello - <AUTHOR> http://getcorrello.com/

<comment><USER2> I'm no prude, and this probably won't bother many people, but "shit just got real" as a pricing level... not sure how that's gonna fly, when you're trying to get $2400/year from someone. I'm all for cheeky sales text, but this comes across as a step beyond professional. But, perhaps it'll attract more of the sort of paying customer you're looking to serve?

<comment><USER3> I was wondering more about the use case: are there really so many agencies that manage Trello content for other companies?

For Facebook-Pages, Twitter, google, Instagram,... i know it, but Trello?

<comment><AUTHOR> It's not really aimed at people managing other peoples Trello boards. It's for anyone managing multiple boards, that could be an agency with boards for each of their clients. But those aren't their clients boards, they are part of the agencies workflow and may be private from their clients.

<comment><USER2> There are other needs for things like this - I'd tried to build a system to get a dashboard view of multiple issue trackers, because as a consultant, I'm often having to deal with multiple client environments, and switching between multiple issue trackers is a pain. It was harder than I expected, and focusing just on value in Trello is a neat idea.

<comment><USER4> I'm also a consultant, and brought all my clients into Trello, at least for user acquisition projects (what I consult on). Having everything in one system makes life significantly easier. However, I still have to dig into each board to see what's happening, and even then there's no status dashboard; just an activity feed.

I can see the problem this is trying to solve.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hi folks,

I left a full time job at the end of last year and after spending a few weeks with my first child when she was born in January I've been looking to build my own products. After a conversation with a friend who runs a content marketing agency about some of the tech issues he was facing I came up with the idea for Corrello. A large number of his top issues were down to getting data out of Trello. For example he was losing upwards of 2 hours a week looking between each of their boards (one per client) making sure everything was on time, nothing had got stuck and no one had added a comment without @mentioning the person required to move the card on. I originally built a prototype to show him but since that first week I've had something live and I've been working with a few early customers to get the initial feature set right.

I think there is a lot of potential to build add-ons and plugins to Trello for any developers looking for a project out there.

I look forward to all your feedback and comments :)

<comment><USER5> Interesting idea and product - I'll definitely check it out. You probably have a much better idea of this than me, but your entitlements per level don't seem to connect with the way I see people using Trello. I don't see a lot of situations where someone has over 30 boards, or that there is a need for a dashboard for anybody but a handful of people within that org. But I recognize this is just my experience - good luck!

<comment><AUTHOR> I've seen people with close to 30 boards but not over that yet. How many boards people have does remain to be seen but I'm expecting people to sign up to the freelance and startup tiers mostly.

I'd agree that the number of people who need a dashboard will be fairly small in most orgs. That was why I decided to have the tiers based on number of boards rather than number of users logging into corrello.

<comment><USER6> I can see a situation where a developer might need to track 2 or 3 boards relating to the projects they're working on, but someone at Software Manager/CTO level wants to see all the projects.

With a Startup/Business subscription everyone in the company could have a dashboard that's as complex or simple as they need.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> How hard would it be for Trello to come up with their own dashboards feature? It seems risky to build a product like this, solely based on another product (that has a fantastic tech team behind it and can easily replicate this feature), no?

May be OP is planning to support multiple platforms in future, and not just Trello?

<comment><AUTHOR> It would not be hard at all I imagine. I built this as a solo founder so the team at Trello could no doubt replicate this if they desired. This is the risk with building anything on someone else's platform and I don't deny I am taking a risk.

However, I'm gambling that the benefits outweigh the impact of those risks in this situation. Building Corrello on Trello gave me access to a large user base (5M as of last autumn) and one which is growing. Check out google trends for asana, basecamp and Trello [https://www.google.co.uk/trends/explore#q=trello%2C%20baseca...](https://www.google.co.uk/trends/explore#q=trello%2C%20basecamp%2C%20asana&cmpt=q&tz=) Not directly linked to their user numbers but Trello looks to be increasing in terms of awareness. I believe there are a large amount of people out there who were previously managing projects in excel or on post it notes. Trello has pulled those projects into the cloud and put a decent API on them. That's a whole lot of projects which were previously stuck to peoples desktops (literally in some cases) which are now accessible via an API. I think it's worth the risk that Trello decides to replicate this functionality as there is a good opportunity there if they don't (or until they do)

<comment><USER7> Calculated risk - thank you for taking time to answer. Didn't mean to rain on your parade, was just genuinely curious :)

Good luck with Corrello - it looks great.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> We released a similar-ish product last year called Ollert ([https://ollertapp.com](https://ollertapp.com)), which we've since open- sourced ([https://github.com/sep/ollert](https://github.com/sep/ollert)). The support at Trello was able to help us out in a few cases and they even sent us some swag.

Anyway, this is really nice and professional-looking! Good luck!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I checked out Ollertap. It seemed to be focussed on stats for individual boards. Not a million miles away from Corrello but quite a different use case I think. Nice work though, especially for open sourcing it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Its quite generous with the board allotment, if it was me i would bump them all down a level and add an enterprise level.

e.g p=1, F=3, S=10, SB=30, E=150

<comment><AUTHOR> Good idea. I'll likely up the prices or drop the board allotments. I wanted to launch with something a bit more generous as it seems easier to put prices up. Then I can see how people are using it to get a feel for where the bands should be.

It did seem that most people using 3 or less boards didn't have much need for a dashboard which is why I pegged the free one to that. Something like Corrello was more of a nice to have to them it seemed.

<comment><USER10> At the least, I'm sure you're getting enough traffic these days to make it something you can easily test.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> How strongly are Corrello accounts tied to Trello organisations?

e.g. I'm a software developer working for Startup X, but I also have some personal Trello boards to keep track of family activities etc.

If Startup X signs up for Trello, can I create a dashboard that mixes my work and personal boards?

<comment><AUTHOR> You could but others could see those dashboards (although not your data). You'd probably be best off signing up for a personal account as well.

The way it works at the moment is that all dashboards are visible to everyone you invite to your Corrello account. However, they all get their own copy of each dashboard, which uses their Trello credentials to load the data for them. In this way you don't accidentally share data with people who shouldn't see it by creating a dashboard in Corrello. This was a bit more work for me to build and a little more complex to explain perhaps but felt like the correct behaviour.

<comment><USER6> OK - that makes sense.

A Corrello account has multiple logins, but the dashboards are linked to the account, not the login.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a better way of explaining it :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Great work so far, Robin. Really smart way to solve this business problem. I agree that maybe the # of Trello boards per price tier can be bumped downward; at the moment you're being really generous.

</comment><comment><USER11> Find it strange that Trello doesn't promote this kind of add-ons on their website.

<comment><AUTHOR> tell me about it :(

They're advertising for a Developer evangelist at the moment. Maybe they will sort that out.</comment></comment>


MyBalsamiq: remote, collaborative UX Design - <AUTHOR> https://www.mybalsamiq.com

<comment><USER2> I don't particularly like their video intro. I feel like they've tried to fit it under a specific time limit (which is great) by doing everything faster, speaking faster and weirdly skipping animation. For instance, they take 20secs to talk about drag and drop and pressing prev/next to show the next mockup. He said "You can click the previous arrow or the next arrow to go to the next mockup". It's not relevent in an intro video. I.e. if the interface is well made, I'll figure out how to go to the next mockup when in that page.

Better would be to stop saying every little actions and talk on the high level goal. For instance, don't say "I'm gonna select a color to put on the front- end of my project".

Also, seems like the website is really well designed but the balsamiq part is still with the old flash design. Is it from the same company? Did they chose to not change the old balsamiq because clients were already used to it? Or was that too complicated? Is there an html only version incoming?

</comment><comment><USER3> It would be nice if "Plans & Pricing" on <https://www.mybalsamiq.com/> actually took you to <http://balsamiq.com/buy?p=myb> rather than <http://balsamiq.com/products/mockups/mybalsamiq#pricingtable> and then having to click another "Plans and Pricing" link.

Looks cool though, will definitely have to check it out.

<comment><USER4> Fixed, sorry about that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've been using Balsamiq for a couple years, and I've been looking forward to the online product. I have a few project collaborators that cannot install software onto PCs they have to use at work; a webapp is a godsend.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'll surely give it a try at least. Just curious, are there any other "remote collaborative UX" tools recommended by HNers?

<comment><USER6> I found none that made me particularly happy.

I actually waited for what seemed like an eternity for Balsamiq's online product to come out (I really had zero interest in the desktop product). When it finally did I tried it and found it was _exactly_ what I was looking for. I am now a happy paying customer.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback, appreciated! I'll try it out. I'm doing more and more mockups tweaks for our coming SAAS product (see profile if interested); it could help us work more "asynchronously" with our designer when needed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I wish they would have integrated collaboration into the web app editor. Right now it feels like two web apps - the balsamiq editor and then a comment system. But they feel like separate apps and don't integrate with each other.

</comment><comment><USER8> The video does not explain why the product is great, and jumps straight into feature details. I think the video also assumes familiarity with the desktop product, which I don't have. I lost interest quickly.

</comment><comment><USER9> Does anyone have experience using Balsamiq for large, complex projects? Had success using it for client work?

My company is pushing for everyone to use Axure. I hate Axure.

<comment><USER5> I've used Balsamiq to sell business groups inside of very large corporations to sign off on project estimates. It's a fast, easy way to show them what they're getting for their money, and becomes v0.1 of the design as well, with enough fidelity to discover usability & flow without locking into many other design choices.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> What are your thoughts on the whole design by committee? This seems to foster that.

<comment><USER11> I think there's at least a slight difference between UX design by committee and creative design (for want of a better term) by committee.

UX design in groups makes more sense- there are a series of rules and guidelines you can follow to make a good UI. Everyone can co-operate on that, in the sense that they have a rule sheet, and can assess how the design fits those rules.

The more creative side of it (logos, colour schemes, etc) is far more subjective, so attempting to do it by committee always brings everything to an "offend no-one" median.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> chrome is giving a malware warning on this site...

<comment><USER4> Our ISP (WPEngine) did a full scan and couldn't find anything fishy, and we can't figure out how to reproduce the issue (none of us sees the warning). Can you please email me if you still see it? So sorry for the hassle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Nice UX!

</comment><comment><USER14> Watching the video was like - WTF, this UI needs a complete redesign, it's so fucking complex.

<comment><USER15> can you check out the collab features of <http://www.mockuptiger.com></comment></comment>


Safeguarding trans-Atlantic developer collaboration - <AUTHOR> https://github.blog/2020-07-23-safeguarding-trans-atlantic-developer-collaboration/ <comment><USER2> If you want to know more about the judgement and Standard Contract Clauses, the FAQ page on Schrems' site is a good start: [https://noyb.eu/en/next-steps- users-faqs](https://noyb.eu/en/next-steps-users-faqs)

While SCCs are not technically prohibited, any company handing over personal information (be it of customers or employees) in many cases can't in good faith enter in such an agreement.

Whether professional usage of Github and other SaaS services can be considered handing over personal information is left as an exercise to and headache of many European legal departments in the coming months.

</comment><comment><USER3> So stop allowing US-resident employees access to EU, UK & Swiss data.

</comment><comment><USER4> > In compliance with the new ruling, GitHub is now relying on SCCs to > establish necessary data protection for all

That means: "our last industry hack, Privacy Shield Framework, was shot down for the second time, making it dangerous for us. Now we use the even more dubious one, until it is shot down too"

more on SCCs gaps: [https://www.bclplaw.com/en-US/insights/gdpr-the-most- frequen...](https://www.bclplaw.com/en-US/insights/gdpr-the-most-frequently- asked-questions-are-the-standard.html)

<comment><USER5> Sounds more like GitHub is just "safeguarding" their own ass. What does "data protection" mean in this context? Protecting user data from the US Government? Strange article...

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I feel Europe is hugely winning this fight because they are out-innovating American legislation.

<comment><USER7> Yes, that's why there are so many unicorns coming out of europe right now.

<comment><USER8> So unicorns are the most important thing here? Not how we safeguard the privacy of citizens?</comment></comment></comment>


27 Indispensable Web Design and Development Firefox Extensions - <AUTHOR> http://speckyboy.com/2008/11/02/27-indispensable-web-design-and-development-firefox-extensions/ <comment><USER2> firebug +webdev embody the functionality of all but 3 of those. stick with those two to keep your browser lean.</comment>


Tehran's Promise: The revolution's midlife crisis and the nuclear deal - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/27/tehrans-promise

<comment><USER2> > The hostile rhetoric hasn't changed. At Friday prayers, as

> on previous visits, I heard thousands chanting "Death to

> America." This year, twenty times.

> ....

> " 'Death to America'? This is politics and not related to

> people's thinking,"

Or in other words Iran is a country where large portions of the population hold very different conflicting beliefs, like many other countries including the USA.

What I find interesting is that Kerry's willingness to gamble that the future generation/future ruling class will be pro-American (or become pro-America because of this deal).

<comment><USER3> > What I find interesting is that Kerry's willingness to gamble that the > future generation/future ruling class will be pro-American (or become pro- > America because of this deal).

It definitely is interesting, but not entirely surprising. If you look at what Iran has endured at the hands of the US, yet look at westernisation within Iran, the significant pockets of western-leaning young people, and an Iran which is militarily structured to fight defensive wars, it looks like Iran's anti-US rhetoric is just that, rhetoric, a political coping mechanism to unify the country through hard times, but not intrinsically the soul of a culture that's thousands of years old, that anti-US rhetoric could, then, start to dissipate when said hard times and foreign pressure would end. And this diplomatic deal is the first step on exactly that path.

I mean, look at it from Iran's perspective, let's reverse it. It's a bit silly but bear with me.

Imagine the UK had some business conflict over oil in the US. Iran then helped overthrow Harry Truman, and installed a pro-iranian dictator who spread Iranian culture in the US, to improve this business relationship. That alone would be insane and ample fuel for anti-Iranian rhetoric for decades to come.

The dictator's rule (a pretty shitty one) went on for decades until he was overthrown and a new leader emerged in the US, directly followed by Iran funding Canada and arming it, which attacks the US and starts a bloody war of almost 8 years, all during our lifetime. When Canada appears to lose Iran backs it even more, and when Canada uses chemical weapons killing an equivalence of more than half a million Americans, both military and civilians, Iran tells Canada exactly where US soldiers are located, and was later found indeed having shipped chemical and biological weapons to Canada. And when a civilian US airplane flies above US territory and gets shot down by an Iranian cruiser, killing 290 innocent people, Iran never apologises and there are zero consequences, as if it never happened, to give you a sense of the relations.

When the war eventually ends, Iran invades various countries neighbouring the US, like Canada and Mexico, that just years earlier had been allies. Not just that but under false pretences, deemed an illegal invasion by the United Nations and abhorred by virtually the entire world population. (makes the US wonder, if Iran attacks a former ally, resulting in the death of hundreds of thousands, tortures and a ruined, failed state, based on forged-evidence... there's perhaps only 1 thing that can deter Iran from attacking you. The ultimate deterrence, a Nuclear weapon, only ever used by Iran by the way, twice). Not just that but Iran keeps backing other countries like, China (read Saudi Arabia), who is a bit further away and who is a huge rival in the region. This is followed by Iranian politicians and media left and right calling to bomb the US, invade the country, hell even with a presidential nominee in Iran joking 'bomb, bomb, bomb, bom the US', referencing the Iranian Beach Boys classic Barbara US (this analogy is getting stretched pretttty thin by now, I know).

Followed by Iran leading the world into sanctioning the US (furthering existing sanctions that had been on the US for decades) which causes deep issues, and when someone from Iran finally wants a diplomatic solution, hawks in Iran invite the president of China over to give a speech about the US's danger to the world, a speech laden with lies contradicting China and Iran's own intelligence on the US.

But throughout all this, the US becomes more Iranian every day, anti-Iran hardliners in the US aren't representative of the larger country, the US doesn't invade or attack other countries and seeks diplomatic solutions, it structures its military to fight defensive, not offensive wars, and throughout it all Americans on the whole stay pretty sane and normal people.

It'd be no surprise then that someone in Kerry's position, Iran's state secretary, would think that easing up on all of the above could lead to a more pro-Iranian US. Now flip the whole story and it may make a lot of sense. Or you may have lost me in this silly comparison :) Of course it's a lot less black and white than this, but the notion that Iran's relationship with westernisation isn't zero (or close to zero) given their experiences with the west, sparks a lot of hope. And beyond that it's important to consider that while diplomacy isn't perfect, I can scarcely imagine the alternative, and haven't heard any sensible proposals either.

<comment><USER4> Thank you for that !

The sad part is US has been a force against democratic govt for the last 50 years.

India, Bangladesh ( my own people ), Iran, Nicaragua, Vietnam.

Meanwhile arming pakistan while it was military dictatorship, Saudi, etc.

The US is like any other country - its out for its own interest and securing resources for itself.

I cringe whenever americans take a high ground.

Its just a lot of propaganda, It took me a while to do my own research since no one directly provides the information. But its all there !

I find the fact that people in hacker news who consider themselves to be the more educated crowd do not keep tabs on it. What chance does the rest of the country have ?

The hardline Iranians were part of a generation that was deeply humiliated by the US. They are not the most educated bunch but they did what they had to do and everyone should respect them for it.

I think things would have been much worse by now if it wasn't for the rapid rise of china which went under the radar of american policy makers.

China hopefully provides the balance that is needed to prevent either America or China itself for doing terrible things to other countries.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The reactions to the Islamist Revolution and the resulting disillusionment are complex. Two interesting/random points of entry could be: (1) Foucoult's widely derided (in France, not many translated to English) writings, with strong Orientalist tendencies, strongly supporting the Revolution, based on his many visits to Iran and interviews with key players (e.g. see [http://newpol.org/content/revisiting-foucault-and-iranian- re...](http://newpol.org/content/revisiting-foucault-and-iranian-revolution) or [http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/F/bo3534884...](http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/F/bo3534884.html) for a book on the subject) and (2) _Persepolis_ ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persepolis_(comics)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persepolis_\(comics\))).

<comment> guard-of-terra From the outside it seems that the revolution is the ultimate end of habitability of Iran, end-of-world, barbarians-take-over-Rome quality.

Let's stop progress, abolish human rights and heed to words written thousand years ago and interpreted by corrupt barbarians.

Foucoult can write whatever nonsense sitting in warm Paris with all the freedoms and comfort readily available.

I'm more scared by "Iran - then and now" series of pictures.

<comment><USER6> "Iran - then and now" series are often misleading. They cherry-pick extreme examples from non-representative slices of the population.

We've all seen photos of the stylish, 1970s Iranian 1%, but not of pervasive poverty and disenfranchisement that their brand of progress perpetuated on the other 99%. The Shah's elite may have looked American but this doesn't mean that they presided over progress or gave much thought to human rights.

<comment><USER7> The Muslim world has never known how to do democracy right because of a number of reasons including tribalism, nepotism, elitism. They have never understood what it means to be a liberal democracy. Add to that the colonials wanting to continue this tradition because corruption is easier to exploit and we have the precarious situation in the Middle East which has now deteriorated to an unfixable point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> One can hope, but remember the Arab Spring and its collapse.

Iran is a theocracy, and theocracies can't lighten up too much or they lose first their reason for being, then their power.

</comment><comment><USER9> What makes me sad is just what complete disarray the GOP is in. I'm sure at some point the GOP actually stood for something. Now? It just seems to have been completely co-opted by religious conservatives. Presidential candidates are cut from that cloth or, worse, they're just puppets for particular private interests (eg Scott Walker is nothing more than an empty vessel for the Koch brothers).

Compounding this is the huge political power that Israel has in US politics. Whatever your opinion about Israel, I think it's fair to say that Israel has been disastrous for US foreign policy in the Middle East for every country's relationship to the US other than Israel.

Earlier this week I was reading that the Obama administration may hasten the release of Israeli spy Jonathon Pollard in an effort to appease Israel. Israel has found unlikely allies in the Jewish lobby (who tend to lean left) and religious conservatives.

Iran is a problem the US made by repeatedly and disastrously screwing with the region. The support of the Shah fomenting the Iranian Revolution, using Saddam Hussein as a proxy to fight Iran (killing hundreds of thousands on both sides) and invading Iraq a decade ago.

The invasion in particular was the last straw. The lesson the "axis of evil" could take away from this was that having nuclear weapons (like North Korea) was the only guarantee of survival. So of course Iran wants the bomb. Whose fault is that?

Yet the GOP in particular seems ready to sacrifice everything for a policy that isn't working just to appease Israel. Well, Israel is just going to have to learn to live in that region because someone there getting nuclear weapons is a question of if not when.

We've come a long way since Eisenhower could (and did) tell Israel to get out of Sinai. The fact that Obama is even trying to stand up to Israel is amazing to me. I honestly hope he succeeds because I think engagement with Iran is the only sustainable course forward.

<comment><USER10> I'm not sure why you think the GOP is in disarray. The Republicans don't trust Iran not to build a bomb. To think the Iranians _won 't_ is naive to a childish degree. We went down this road with the North Koreans. Are memories that short?

And what happened with Democrats and anti-Semitism? When did it become okay to see Evil Jews behind every problem?

<comment><USER11> Comparing Iran to North Korea is quite a stretch, and frankly doing so reveals that you are severely misinformed about the Iranian people, culture, government, and history. It's OK, majority of people are, and I would be more than happy to clear up any questions you might have regarding the matter.

<comment><USER10> It's not a stretch at all when it comes to nuclear weapons. The Iranians are doing _exactly_ what the North Koreans did. The "people, culture, government, and history" are relevant only to the extent to which they played into the government's decision to acquire nuclear weapons.

<comment><USER12> For me a big difference between North Korea and Iran is the balance of soft vs hard power in those countries. In Iran the ordinary people tend to push back in a lot of ways and the government gives ground if grudgingly and slowly. And there is a lot of politics going on between factions with real power.

Given that I'm willing to be very patient. Seriously, the generals of the Red Army ran the soviet union for 35 years after Stalin died and then they passed on. So too will the Iranian revolutionaries.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Iran's problem is a completely US manufactured crisis.

I do not understand how people are so myopic to history.

FACT:

# Iran had a democratic secular government in 1950.

# However this govt was not friendly to a British oil company ( BP ).

# The British requested american help to protect the interest of British multinationals.

# The grandson of Theodore Roosevelt personally helped overthrow this democratically legitimate government.

# The hated shan was put in power whom the iranian people really did not like. The shan went back to trading oil for weapons with the Americans/UK.

# From the perceptive of an iranian it must suck to know that your government was overthrown by some foreign entity just for the sake of a oil company. The iranian/persian who are among the oldest of civilizations ( 5,000 years ).

# Of-course this leads to a revolution and a anti-american ayatollah is put in power.

# Americans are nothing but vindictive when it comes to geo-politics and arm Saddam to his teeth giving him chemical weapons.

# Saddam Invades Iraq just while the Iranian are recovering from a revolution to now have to face against a terrible dictator who wants to invade their country.

# Iran had to indure a 8 year war in the 1980s, a war that took a huge toll. The battles fought looked like something out of WW2.

# Next america invades the country to their left and their right and puts a huge amount of ground troops in the south and allies with all of Iran's neighbour. Most of whom hate the Iranians just because they are not the SAME wahhabi muslims as them.

# Iran ofcourse wants a nuclear weapon to stabilize the huge power imbalance they face. They never interfered or invaded a neighbour for 1000s of years and now suddenly they are treated like the scum of the earth.

# The biggest loser in all of this has been the Iranian and poor sunnis civilians who are having to deal with the blunt of ISIS and the likes.

<comment><USER13> > They never interfered or invaded a neighbour for 1000s of years

No, instead Iran has used proxies like Hezbollah to do their interfering. They use a cowardly approach because they know their actions are despicable, it provides deniability. They want something to occur, but they don't want to take responsibility for it, which tells you all you need to know about the actions in question.

And before you say: well but America has done x y z - that's already understood. We're talking about Iran. Iran doesn't get excused from its misdeeds because America has done something bad too.

<comment><USER4> Hezbollah was not a aggressive militia group. It was an resistance to illegal Isreali Occupation In Lebanon.

If you consider this to be a cowardly act, then its no more different than the cowardly act of the French resistance against the Nazis.

If the Iranian are cowards then so are the Americans, Pakistanis, Russians, Israeli, Chinese and British.

This is why the Iranian are more than well justified to own a nuclear weapon - since everyone tries to covertly try to overthrow their government, and they do not have a useful deterrent against superpower nations.

<comment><USER14> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyWFa5xbHKg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyWFa5xbHKg)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: forming a company and setting online payment processing in EU - advice? - <AUTHOR>

So, being from Europe, but not an EU member, I'm looking for the best option to form an LLC (or similar) and be able to setup an online payment with the newly created company. Something like an EU version of the Delaware corp plus Stripe (or similar).
Have any HN members did this in EU and would you be so kind to share your experience and recommendation?
Thanks a lot! <comment><USER2> I'm afraid you won't find anything like a Delaware LLC in Europe. Our laws are just too diverse. In the US you have state laws and federal laws, but in Europe every country has their own laws. Especially things like consumer protection differ fromcountry to country, and can be a PITA.

As far as online payments go, you're stuck to either PayPal or the recently launched rocket internet stripe-clone called paymill. Haven't tried that out yet, though.

<comment><AUTHOR> Is it possible at all for someone to form an EU company, without residing in EU? Looking for an easy online user experience in doing it.

<comment><USER3> Not really sure if it works for non-EU residents, but you might give it a go.

[http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/infoAndGuide/companyRegistr...](http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/infoAndGuide/companyRegistration.shtml)

PS: Haven't used it personally, but I know some people that used it to form companies in the UK. (people being from outside the UK, but in EU member countries).</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Create Professional Invoices on Mac - <AUTHOR> http://www.quotleapp.com <comment><USER2> I can't find much info on the specifics of this on the site.

I guess it will be iOS and macOS ? Does it sync via iCloud or is another server involved? If so, whose server?

Does it support multiple currencies? Custom templates? Receipts?</comment>


Whitman: One Write-Off Too Far - <AUTHOR> http://www.mondaynote.com/2012/12/16/whitman-one-write-off-too-far/

<comment><USER2> _"With Autonomy, Meg Whitman may have gone one write-off too far. Mike Lynch is a Larry Ellison-grade adversary: intelligent, articulate, aggressively entrepreneurial, with a willingness to create a reality distortion field around his company and an unwillingness to back down."_

This was a very entertaining read. Curious to see what Whitman's next move will be and how she is going to respond to Mike Lynch.

</comment><comment><USER3> My favorite part:

Turnaround Artist Manual – Chapter 1: Walk in with a frown; blame your predecessor; slash projects, budgets, people; lower expectations, loudly; and write off assets.</comment>


Galapagos finches caught in act of becoming new species - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42103058 <comment><USER3> For those who are scientifically minded but not biologists, I highly recommend the Grant's "How and Why Species Multiply" [0]. It's very well written. If you're much more into population dynamics, you could give their book "Ecology and Evolution of Darwin's Finches" [1] a look. It's much more technical, being aimed at maybe upper level undergrads (in evolutionary bio) or so. They have another book, "40 Years of Evolution: Darwin's Finches on Daphne Major Island", but I haven't read that one yet. Guess I should put it on my amazon wishlist!

[0] [https://www.amazon.com/How-Why-Species-Multiply- Evolutionary...](https://www.amazon.com/How-Why-Species-Multiply- Evolutionary/dp/0691149992/ref=sr_1_1)

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Ecology-Evolution-Darwins-Finches- Pet...](https://www.amazon.com/Ecology-Evolution-Darwins-Finches- Peter/dp/0691048665/ref=asap_bc)

</comment><comment><USER4> Most interesting part for me:

"And in this paper, new genetic evidence shows that after two generations, there was complete reproductive isolation from the native birds. As a result, they are now reproductively - and genetically - isolated. So they have been breeding exclusively with each other over the years."

</comment><comment><USER5> If you have never read "The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time" [1], do yourself a favor and get a copy asap. Not only is it a realy good read on the work of the Grants and their team, it is one of the very best pop-science books I have ever read. [1] [https://www.amazon.com/Beak-Finch- Story-Evolution-Time/dp/06...](https://www.amazon.com/Beak-Finch-Story- Evolution-Time/dp/067973337X)

</comment><comment><USER6> I was gobsmacked when I asked as a postdoc: "How do new species evolve" and was told: "something something physical seperation between breeding populations leading to breeding incompatibilities, but we don't really know something something"

<comment><USER7> Exactly. The biggest real example I know of is ring species. Everything else seems to be total handwaving. In fact "evolution" is just an umbrella term for many different theories about how speciation happens.

I have no problem with the theory of common ancestry. That has a lot of proof. But the idea that speciation happens EXCLUSIVELY by random mutation and "natural selection" is just handwaving theorizing. It's super hard to prove and we haven't even begun to get close to what constitutes as a proof. It's on the level of ancient people thinking the ONLY way to get fire is by rubbing some sticks together.

And yet I see the latter ("natural selection") being used by many in the scientific community to suppress other theories even though it is completely handwavy and vague. That _is_ bullying.

Basically common descent can be rigorously defined and shown. The PROCESS by which speciation happens is poorly understood and has been a subject of much posturing by the scientific community (including popularizers like Dawkins) for decades.

(PS: if you're going to knee jerk downvote this because it criticizes "evolution", at least address it with substance.)

<comment><USER8> What is your specific objection?

Their is plenty of examples where even short term separation results in population drift: EX: Skin tone among native Americans is unique even with only ~1,000 generations separating the land bridge from modern times.

In the short term this may be adaptation to a new envornment but eventually random mutation takes over.

Their is evidence that closely related members may have difficulty breading with anything from 1% reductions in fertility to 99%. Which arguably makes them the same species as they can still in theory breed.

However, adaptation can make it's own issues. Grizzly's + Polar bears is a solid example where offspring is fertile but poorly adapted to either of their parents environment.

So, now you have examples of drops in fertility and reductions in reproductive success as populations are separated. Nothing is going to stop this process from hitting zero net fertility and thus a new species.

<comment><USER7> My objection is just that: genetic drift != speciation. They are still completely interfertile with Europeans after 1000 generstions! Yet here we have a breathless article reporting noting more than an existing male from a "separate species", which is in fact interfertile and had viable offspring, as being proof of "evolution"!

We don't know how speciation happens, and many people including scientists use a lot of unscientific "just so" stories.

To claim we know that every instance of speciation happens through 1. _random_ mutation and 2. "natural selection", a catch-all term which is not well- defined and signifies very little, is not very scientific. But worse than that, it is then conflated with the theory of common descent, and the emergent sociological result is that many scientists and non-scientists constantly co- opt the word "evolution" to say "evolution is true and creationism is therefore false" or whatever. There have been different theories such as punctuated equilibria but we don't actually KNOW how speciation happens. It's all posturing and catch-all terms.

<comment><USER8> 1,000 generations is an incredibly short period ed: genetically. Dinosaurs to people is ~20,000,000 generations depending on changes in reproductive cycles likely significantly more than that.

The shocking thing is how many differences showed up not that we are still mostly though again not 100% comparable. Remember, fertility treatments among young people are a thing and incompatibility first shows up as an increase in the natural abortion (miscarriage) rate ~(30% to 50%). You can find set's of people such that A/B and C/D are more fertile than A/D or C/B.

<comment><USER7> Right, but how do you get from that, say, to cats and dogs? Or the evolution of wings?

In the former, you need to have some sort of event that separates the populations for millions of generations or they'd constantly be interbreeding. But allopatric speciation examples are few and far between. OR, you know, there could be ANOTHER mechanism besides random mutation and "natural selection" (handwavy term) that causes speciation.

In the latter, how a morphological feature came to evolve when the intermediate steps would have most likely been valleys in the fitness function is an interesting question. Proto-wings do not seem to confer any evolutionary advantage other than the speculative one trotted out by people who _must_ have the development of morphological features proceed ONLY by random mutation and natural selection.

No one is disputing those two things take place. The question is whether they explain ALL SPECIATION.

<comment><USER8> Many kinds of protowings are useful and currently exist.

Feathers for example provide great insulation.

Flying squirrels demonstrate another example. Important to note with flying squirrel vs bats is being even slightly better at flying is useful for squirrels. From their being slightly better at falling to flight is a steady improvement. Even normal squirrels splay their hips sideways to catch air and glide somewhat: [http://feedingnature.com/how-high-can-a-squirrel-jump-off- th...](http://feedingnature.com/how-high-can-a-squirrel-jump-off-the-ground/) Even their tails get into the act.

Flying fish similarly benefit from jumping out of the water, as part of a continuum of other fish that jump slightly further than normal out of the water etc.

Even seemingly useless stubby wings provide for threat displays like a Cobra's hood. Aka, I can make my self look bigger without needing to grow big.

Evolution is often just as much about removing things as adding. So, intermediate form may look clunky and then get cleaned up at a local optimum.

PS: Insects provide some great examples of wings with various amounts of utility.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> So these "new" birds are distinct from all the other birds on the island that they form a separate breeding group. But how distinct are they from the outsider that started it all? Would they breed with birds from that birds home island? If so, I'd say they're not really a new species but a displaced species that survived one generation of interbreeding with the locals.

While certainly interesting, I wouldn't say this is a great example of speciation. One might even argue that it's an invasive species.

<comment><USER10> Whether or not the speciation is "complete" is not really the point - <USER2> title of the article says they are "...caught in the act of becoming new species" \- in fact the article highlights the difficulty in stating what determines something to be a separate species.

<comment><USER9> I'm just saying they may well be an outside species as opposed to a new one. There is certainly no new genetic material or variation that arose.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I learned in high school that species are distinct when group B can no longer produce viable offspring with group A.

Is it more complex than that?

<comment><USER12> Yes very much so. And in fact you could already tell that that was not going to be the right answer, because also in high school, you learned that some species don't reproduce sexually.

In fact even within sexual species there are a whole range of reproductive incompatabilities: from anatomical incompatibility, to impossible fertilisation, developmental dead-ends, through to live but infertile offspring, and seemingly viable offspring with dramatically lower environmental fitness. Species are an organising model, very useful in a lot of biological reasoning, but they are not a biological absolute.

In general, whenever you were taught something black-and-white with hard boundaries in high school science, they were probably oversimplifying.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> So deniers of evolution will finally stop?

<comment><USER14> No, there are still plenty of people who sincerely believe in a flat Earth, that vaccines are a conspiracy, and that homeopathic "treatments" make them better. Best to move on and not worry about people who chose not to have evidence-based beliefs.

<comment><USER15> Homeopathic treatments help lots of people. The trick would be to demonstrate that they help people more than a placebo.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo#How_the_Placebo_effect...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo#How_the_Placebo_effect_works)

<comment><USER16> The placebo effect is to a large extent due to regression to the mean, i.e. a statistical glitch that has nothing to do with health outcomes.

[1][http://www.dcscience.net/2015/12/11/placebo-effects-are- weak...](http://www.dcscience.net/2015/12/11/placebo-effects-are-weak- regression-to-the-mean-is-the-main-reason-ineffective-treatments-appear-to- work/)

[2][https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6369471](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6369471)

<comment><USER17> <spock>Tricorder readings report fascinating regressions.</spock>

"Statistical regression to the mean predicts that patients selected for abnormalcy will, on the average, tend to improve. We argue that most improvements attributed to the placebo effect are actually instances of statistical regression."

<bones>I'm a doctor, not a faith healer!</bones>

"Thus, we urge caution in interpreting patient improvements as causal effects of our actions and should avoid the conceit of assuming that our personal presence has strong healing powers."

<kirk>You're a healer, there's a patient. That's an order.</kirk>

<scott>Now, you're an engineer!</scott>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> So hybridization is now the canonical mechanism through which new species arise?

I thought it was autonomous mutation plus natural selection.

<comment><USER19> Maybe we have to face the fact that there's multiple ways to reach a solution and no single canonical mechanism. (essentially the point of the article)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> One point is super confusing in this article, and also gives massive fodder to critics of evolution:

 _" We tend not to argue about what defines a species anymore, because that doesn't get you anywhere," said Prof Butlin. What he says is more interesting is understanding the role that hybridisation can have in the process of creating new species, which is why this observation of Galapagos finches is so important._

If you can't define what a species is, how can you talk about the process of creating new ones?

It seems they should be talking about the rate of gene flow between groups. "Genetically distinct" means very little because phenotypes can vary widely and still interbreed. Look at dogs, for example.

I would like to see more examples of allopatric speciation or other speciation. What they have here so far is reduced gene flow to a group of finches. Proving that none of them CAN interbreed with females is not so easy, as anecdotal evidence of females not recognizing songs of males doesn't cut it.

It's a bit like proving that an animal species has truly homosexual individuals. None of them do (except possibly for domesticated sheep) -- in fact the theory of evolution would predict that homosexuality would greatly reduce fitness, but there COULD be some members that are lifelong homosexuals, same as beta wolves etc. However to PROVE that an organism is exclusively homosexual they would need to carefuly watch it and all its pairings, however brief, its whole life.

Now, with species, you have to watch EVERY male with EVERY female around it, and vice versa. That is a huge undertaking and I doubt they did it here.

All they observed is phenotypical differences. And they haven't really explained how this is different from eg dogs, except to say that the females THEY SAW did not prefer the males' songs. Certainly this shows reduced gene flow due to preferences but not that they aren't interfertile. This is much different than a cat and a dog for example.

What I am ultimately trying to say is, I am quite skeptical that we have discovered ALL the means by which speciation occurs.

You can be a creationist or whatever else you'd like to be at this point. We barely understand how speciation really takes place, in the end we still only have theories.

I have read Lee Spetner's book "Not by Chance" which goes into the mathematics of speciation occurring exclusively by random mutation and natural selection. And it is astronomically improbable on its own terms.

This there HAVE to be forcing processes from the outside which we don't know about yet. We only guess into what they could be.

And on a related note, using evolution to explain behaviors and traits is like a religion, full of "just so" stories, in fields such as evolutionary psychology but also to explain pretty much ANY trait in a genetic fitness framework.

These "just so" stories are so pervasive yet smack of a notoriously unscientific practice and framework. All one has to do is concoct a _possible_ way by which a trait (proto-wings, homosexuality, men becoming sleepy after an orgasm -- anything really) _might_ confer some advantage. And the other way, such "just so" stories are used to "explain" the presence of certain traits as "the evolution of those traits" via totally untestable stories about the past.</comment>