Mars Explorers Wanted Posters - <AUTHOR> http://mars.nasa.gov/multimedia/resources/mars-posters-explorers-wanted/ <comment><USER2> Similar posters from SpaceX with a tourism theme:

[https://shop.spacex.com/accessories/mars-phobos-deimos- poste...](https://shop.spacex.com/accessories/mars-phobos-deimos-poster.html) [https://shop.spacex.com/accessories/mars-olympus-mons- poster...](https://shop.spacex.com/accessories/mars-olympus-mons-poster.html) [https://shop.spacex.com/accessories/mars-valles-marineris- po...](https://shop.spacex.com/accessories/mars-valles-marineris-poster.html)

<comment><USER3> To be fair NASA has those too: [http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/visions-of-the- future/](http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/visions-of-the-future/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you dig these posters, you'll like these from Chop Shop: [http://www.chopshopstore.com/collections/space- exploration-t...](http://www.chopshopstore.com/collections/space-exploration- themed)

They partnered with The Planetary Society a while ago to make retro-style posters for both historic and present day robotic spacecraft.

<comment><USER5> Obligatory link to _Wanderers_ with its Sagan voice over:

[https://vimeo.com/108650530](https://vimeo.com/108650530)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I really wish they'd hire an actual painter — the vectorized style emulates a painted style, but seems to lack the quality of what they're trying to reproduce.

The astronauts in these posters are really poorly rendered in general and quite muddy in some places (the we need you poster seems to be a different, somewhat superior art style).

Don't get me wrong, these are nice, originally had a smaller budget than wide reproduction/consumption — but in my opinion are about 80% of where they should be.

<comment><USER7> I like them. They're meant to evoke the sci-fi pulp fantasy spirit of the 1950s and 60s.

For some reason, they also remind me a bit of the art deco style that Dresden Codak tried to emulate: [http://dresdencodak.com/2011/12/16/dark- science-14/](http://dresdencodak.com/2011/12/16/dark-science-14/)

<comment><USER6> I like them in theory, and I agree with you — but original sci-fi pulp with real paintings has a much more authentic feeling to it. That's what I wish they did here.

[https://www.google.com/search?q=sci- fi+pulp+fantasy&source=l...](https://www.google.com/search?q=sci- fi+pulp+fantasy&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwix- PKVzenOAhUKWh4KHaaOBeIQ_AUICCgB&biw=1379&bih=1232)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is a beautiful thing. If I were a teacher, I'd hang these in my classroom ASAP. My office will have to do instead.

</comment><comment><USER8> Is there any similar pre-lunar landing artwork? The only one I can think of is this 1955 presentation by Wernher von Braun: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fautyLuuvo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fautyLuuvo)

<comment><USER9> Probably not what you're looking for, and only in a kind of similar vein, but the first thing that came to mind was the 1962 Mars Attacks trading cards. They provided a twisted version of what Mars might be like if it were inhabited by aliens who wanted to invade and feature soldiers fighting martians and (if I remember correctly) eventually people going to Mars to fight them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> God damn it. There is NO NEED to sell it to me. Tell me where to apply, NASA!

<comment><USER11> Put at least $500,000 together and wait for SpaceX to develop the MCT.

You have practically zero chance of being an astronaut with NASA because the cost of launch with something like SLS will make sending more than a handful of the best of the best unaffordable.

<comment><USER10> Well, true. But usually when one company finds a cheaper solution the others are pressured to do the same. NASA will be slower, but eventually they will provide the same service quality as SpaceX or will be replaced with something else.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> So naturally somebody has to link the Visions of the Future posters as well: [http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/visions-of-the- future/](http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/visions-of-the-future/)

I have a sweet huge Grand Tour on my wall. Thanks NASA.

<comment><USER13> I got the awesome Europa poster hanging in my room. Absolutely love these!

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> It would be thrilling if the current state of our space exploration was on a level suggested by these posters. Are we sending people to farm Martian soil or explore the Martian terrain anytime soon? Obviously not. So, honest question: what is the point of these posters?

<comment><USER15> Pretend you're a 5 year old kid and you get one of these posters. You go to school for 13 or so years wanting to be an astronaut. Then you join the Air Force or go to Caltech or something, all with the desire to one day be the first man on Mars. 10-15+ more years of training, and you're finally an astronaut. Still think it'll be unreasonable in 30 years?

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Instant phone wallpaper, right there.

</comment><comment><USER17> Pretty clear people would volunteer to do missions that assume no return and possible curtain death - yet NASA instead decides not to embrace this and instead created posters for a "mission" to Mars that increasingly appears will never be done by them directly.

</comment><comment><USER18> When I was young becoming an astronaut would have been a dream. In recent years, after discovering the world of online learning, I learned too much though to have any desire to go into space, not with current or even soon-to- be technology. Physiological stress and radiation are very big problems. You must be young and thinking about health never entered your mind to apply for the job (yes of course, risk assessment vs. benefits is highly subjective, here, I'll even help you, see below).

Anyway, if you are interested start here (free courses):

\- The Conquest of Space: Space Exploration and Rocket Science: [https://www.edx.org/course/conquest-space-space- exploration-...](https://www.edx.org/course/conquest-space-space-exploration- rocket-uc3mx-bia-1x)

\- Space Mission Design and Operations Learn the concepts: [https://www.edx.org/course/space-mission-design- operations-e...](https://www.edx.org/course/space-mission-design-operations- epflx-ee585x)

\- Human Spaceflight - An introduction: [https://www.edx.org/course/human- spaceflight-introduction-kt...](https://www.edx.org/course/human-spaceflight- introduction-kthx-sd2905-1x)

\- Introduction to Aerospace Engineering: Astronautics and Human Spaceflight: [https://www.edx.org/course/introduction-aerospace- engineerin...](https://www.edx.org/course/introduction-aerospace-engineering- mitx-16-00x-0)

and maybe even (the more "heavy-weight" and more theory-heavy course)

\- Introduction to Solar Systems Astronomy: [https://www.edx.org/course/introduction-solar-systems- astron...](https://www.edx.org/course/introduction-solar-systems-astronomy- asux-ast111x-2)

\- Talking about a journey to Mars, you just _must_ read "Packing for Mars" ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packing_for_Mars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packing_for_Mars)), Google Talk presentation by the author (40 minutes): [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0kaycVtvhU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0kaycVtvhU)

.

PS: For a first flight experience I recommend you look up and contact a flight school at a small airport near you. An introductory 1 hour lesson without any prior requirements can easily be booked, and it is "self-contained", meaning you don't need to feel you are taking advantage if you don't become a student, they get paid for that hour. But even getting your private pilot license is not all that hard. I got mine years ago :)

For those of you in the Bay Area: [http://www.wvfc.org/membership/introductory- flight](http://www.wvfc.org/membership/introductory-flight) (not the only address there, but the one where I went) As you can see it starts at $99 and is common enough to be made available in "packaged" form.

<comment><USER19> The juxtaposition of the "space is risky" with "go learn how to fly small planes" is weird to me. Small planes are pretty risky too, and you don't even get to go to space! (Don't believe the common refrain that the riskiest part of flying is the drive to the airport. That's true for airliners, but completely untrue for light aircraft.) By all means, be informed, but you certainly don't need to be ignoring your health to make that decision.

By the way, if you like flying but don't like being deafened by a big fan up front the whole time, consider a glider flight instead: [http://www.ssa.org/FAST](http://www.ssa.org/FAST)

<comment><USER18> There is a big difference between space risk and small aviation risk. You _always_ get health issues when you go to space _long-term_ (see the links I have in other replies) with current technology. That is not true for aviation, and you overstate the risks too. That's (rare) accidents vs. "simply doing it is bad for you". I repeat that I'm talking about long-term space flights, not something like a week-long space shuttle mission.

<comment><USER19> Where am I overstating the risks?

Flying as a hobby probably doesn't have much in the way of long-term health consequences, but doing it as a profession does. Radiation exposure at cruise altitude is significantly higher, but nobody seems to warn prospective pilots or flight attendants that they're risking their health for their job. At least with astronauts, you can be certain that they'll be taught just about everything there is to know about the health consequences of space travel before they're given the opportunity to go on a long-term space mission.

<comment><USER18>
        > Where am I overstating the risks?

2nd sentence

        >  long-term health consequences, but doing it as a profession does

Okay, you are just trolling, I didn't know that. My apologies. We were talking about a flight to Mars, it's obvious you are not serious. Sorry I missed your joke(s).

<comment><USER19> You go on and on about the risks of long-term space flight, but deny the risks of spending a lot of time at airliner cruising altitudes? How bizarre. Obviously, the ill effects aren't nearly as bad, since the radiation exposure is lower and there are no negative effects from zero g, but it's fairly well established that flight crews suffer greater incidences of certain diseases, like cataracts and some cancers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Nice retro-science-fiction look!

</comment><comment><USER21> So this is how programmers finally go remote. We need people to grow food, survey land, build things, but you can just code from Earth and transfer it to Mars. You'll need to be in an office on Earth though.

</comment><comment><USER22> That font size!

The characters are like half an inch high each on my iPad Pro. Auto-detecting mobile Safari and forcing a mobile view without any way to switch to something more reasonable perhaps wasn't the best design choice.

The posters are cool tho.

</comment><comment><USER23> so you have to walk around and grow vegetables wearing that space suit like a Ninja.

</comment><comment><USER24> Beam me up Scotty (to Mars) there is no intelligent life down here (on Earth).

<comment><USER25> I thought it was "Energize". [1]

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

</comment></comment><comment> Roark7-2521 So that's where we are? Idiotic wishful thinking instead of real space exploration? That's what became of yesterday's dreams?

<comment><USER26> I like to think that this things are made for the public opinion. More people are exited, easier is for NASA to find the money necessary

<comment><USER27> They tell you why they were made:

"NASA originally commissioned these posters for an exhibit at the Kennedy Space Center Visitor's Complex in 2009. As part of our Journey to Mars, these versions are now available to everyone online."

They're just freeing up the design of their decorations in case other people like them and want to use them.</comment></comment></comment>


Increase Your User Activity with Points, Badges and Status - <AUTHOR> http://sixrevisions.com/content-strategy/increase-your-user-activity-with-points-badges-and-status/

<comment><USER2> Hey it works. I had a gig at a subscription Q&A site. Some members put an insane amount of work into answering questions and writing articles to get points, badges, titles, tee shirts, and free access. User recognition paid off big in the contributions.</comment>


Wanderers - <AUTHOR> http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap141208.html

<comment><AUTHOR> I thought it'd be cheesy, but put on my headphones anyway. It's pretty cool, and very well done.</comment>


Why Can't We Find Planet Nine? - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-cant-we-find-planet-nine-20180703/ <comment><USER3> Mike Brown, Konstantin Batygin, and Surhud More just spent time at the Subaru telescope looking for Planet Nine. This thread summarizes their search and what they'll do if they don't find it: [https://twitter.com/plutokiller/status/1071978898458464256](https://twitter.com/plutokiller/status/1071978898458464256)

<comment><USER4> Very cool, thanks.

> I didn't expect to get so much data; need new disks drives

Anyone know how much data they'd get in 7 days, and what models they'll run on it to search for planet 9?

<comment><USER5> It isn't terribly complicated. They take images of a particular patch of sky on two different days, then xor them against each other to detect differences. Those differences are a moving object, something associated with our solar system rather than the (relatively) non-moving stars in the background. That gives you a detection and an angular speed, from which you can make assumptions about distance (stuff in orbit further away moves slower, really far away and it can seem to move in reverse).

Then you wait six months for earth to be on the other side of its orbit and take some more pics based on your previous guesses about the orbit. That lets you triangulate for a better distance estimate. Combine all the estimates and you can match it to a reasonable orbit. Do that over and over and you get an increasingly accurate estimate of the true orbit. And from distance+brightness+composition you get a size/mass.

<comment><USER4> Thanks! I was wondering if the devil is in the details--if the datasets are so large (petabytes+?) that there are millions of these "differences", most of which are false positives from factors like atmospheric noise or equipment issues, and what the computing challenges were sifting through it all...Or perhaps as you hint it is relatively straightforward after all.

<comment><USER5> With two images there are lots of false positives. But if you have three or more you can look for stuff moving in strait lines. That can be easily automated. Most near-earth object detection (bright, fast objects) is now totally automated. Hunting for planet X is about finding a little smudge of pixels moving a pixel or two to the right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's interesting how space research technology works, right now we can detect planets around distant stars many light years away but we are still unable to detect a planet several times larger than earth that is likely orbiting our own sun.

I wonder if it's possible to send a probe out beyond the orbit of Neptune and try and detect planet 9 using gravitational lensing the way we do with planets in other solar systems.

<comment><USER7> When surrounded by pitch dark the human eye is capable of spotting the light of a candle from tens, possibly hundreds miles away at a clear night, and yet under those conditions it would also be perfectly possible to hide an elephant a few meters away from someone

<comment><USER8> I call bullshit. The horizon is only about 3 miles away.

<comment><USER9> Elevation significantly increases visibility, such that the longest photographed distance on Earth is 443km :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Wasn't Pluto predicted before it was discovered? And wasn't the mass of Pluto less than what was predicted?

Plutos wikipedia page seems to support this (under mass estimates). [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto)

Ps when its discovered, can the planet start with a P so the rhymes still work?

<comment><USER11> After the demotion of Pluto, I rather liked this mnemonic:

My Very Educated Mother Just Served Us... Nothing!

<comment><USER12> I use the names of the planets to remember the mnemonic.

<comment><USER13> I recited the planet names to my kids as toddlers using the tune of Brahms' Lullaby. I think it helped them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> From Mike Brown's Twitter:

> My biggest fear, though, is the Milky Way galaxy. There are SO MANY stars > that we tend to avoid even looking there. But our predicted region goes > through the Milky Way. So we are going to have to deal. We're testing a > little of that this week, (Dec 9)

If it is indeed in that region it may be a long time before we detect P9. But I'm optimistic that they'll find it in their latest survey they did. Mike Brown is extremely experienced at finding objects in the outer solar system so if he's confident that they'll find it soon than so am I.

<comment><USER15> could it not be seen as an advantage? in reflection we have fourth power, but in obstruction its inverse square of the distant (group of) stars?

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I am an idiot who doesn't know anything about astronomy, and I always assumed that if you were looking for something like planet 9 you would attempt to deduce its position from the gravitational effects it might have on nearby known entities.

What am I missing in this context?

<comment><USER17> The article states that's exactly what they're doing. They believe there's a planet nine based on its effect on other objects, and have a theoretical orbital range modeled from those gravitational effects.

The problem is space is big, and space is dark, so its hard to find things that don't generate their own light.

<comment><USER16> Ah ok, I guess I just overestimated the level of precision they were working with.

<comment><USER18> Even if you could predict the exact orbit, you still don't know where on that orbit it is right now. So even best case that's a lot of space to search.

<comment><USER19> It seems like you could predict where it is based on the times the gravitational effects were recorded.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> My layman-scifi-loving hypothesis is that its not a planet that we are looking for but the remnants of the novae which birthed the solar system. this star core is likely mostly iron and other heavier elements, and as such is incredibly dense. It will probably be a super earth only a few times the Earth's radius but with mass over 10x that of earth. While detecting gas giants is easier due to their infrared signature, one such dense star core in (or beyond) the Oort cloud would be practically invisible to us in the infrared searches and using starlight occlusion (due to its much smaller size).

<comment><USER21> I'm afraid there are no 'wild star cores' in the Solar System backyard. A supernova remnant would either be a white dwarf, or a city-sized neutron star (possibly a black hole) with a mass larger than that of the Sun. The latter could go undetected, but can be safely excluded since in that case it would be the Solar System actually orbiting it (or anyway being affected by it - <USER2> minimum mass for a neutron star is ~1.4 Sol, and a black hole would be even larger), and we already know the Sun's path around the Milky Way to a certain extent. OTOH a white dwarf would likely take billions of years to cool off and we would be able to spot it - so no, only planetary bodies may still be lurking there undetected.

Edit - clarification.

<comment><USER22> > A supernova remnant would either be a white dwarf...

A small correction, white dwarfs are not produced by supernovae but by main sequence stars running out of fuel.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> They'll just find it, add it as a "planet", then discover dozens or hundred of others just like it that aren't on the same orbital plane as our first 8, and demote it again.

<comment><USER24> Unlikely. My understanding of the gravitational breadcrumbs we have seen indicate a much larger body (~10x Earth's mass, like a smaller ice giant similar to Uranus/Neptune), one that would almost certainly clear out the area around it through accretion. It would be very surprising to see something with that kind of mass still sharing an orbital neighborhood of other similar bodies.

<comment><USER25> It is in the Kuiper belt. It hasn't cleared it's neighborhood. (But then the definition of "planet" you are referencing is utterly uselesss and misapplied already anyway.)

<comment><USER26> It has to clear the Kuiper belt? That's a tall order!

<comment><USER25> Who knows. The definition is vague to the point of uselessness. Pluto, apparently, is not a planet because it hasn't cleared Neptune out of its orbit. But then by symmetry neither has Neptune cleared Pluto out of its orbit, so if we're to have any consistency then we can't call Neptune a planet either. Oops.

The reality is that the IAU definition of "planet" was a very poor decision made by people who aren't planetary scientists. The geophysical definition is much better: an object large enough to assume spherical shape from its own gravitational force acting on its constituent material, and too small to have initiated fusion and be a star.

So Pluto is a planet, as is Ceres, the Moon, and a thousand other known objects.

<comment><USER27> The definition isn't exactly "cleared its orbit", but rather "gravitationally dominates its orbit". Neptune fits these criteria, because while Pluto does cross its orbit it is locked in a resonant orbit with Neptune. Similarly, the Moon, as well as Cruithne and several other near-earth objects, are all locked in a resonant orbit with the Earth. However the asteroid belt is not resonant with Ceres.

<comment><USER28> what if the earth was not a moon of another planet but was in an orbital resonance with that larger planet. we'd still not be considered a planet. this planet definition seems pretty arbitrary to me. the astronomy world feels like it's self-defining something to justify pluto not being a planet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This is almost certainly an oversimplified question born out of ignorance, but I've always wondered why we have to rely on the light of the Sun to find distant, dark objects. Why would it not be possible to fashion an extremely powerful laser and sweep it across the sky in an area where gravitational clues indicate a dark object may reside? Unless the object was utterly black on its surface, I'd think we would be able to monitor wherever the beam traverses and look for tell-tale spectra coming back in our direction due to the laser being scattered by a solid object's surface.

Again, I know I am oversimplifying a complex problem, and I could speculate on factors that might render this impractical, such as atmospheric effects or the necessary power needed for a laser strong enough to travel to such a distant point (it might not be physically possible to create a laser large enough to exceed the light we would already see reflected back from the already formidable output of the Sun), but I don't have the requisite knowledge of physics to really make solid assumptions about such things.

<comment><USER29> Relative to planet #9 we're right next to a giant nuclear fusion powered light 700,000 km across. If it isn't lighting up the surface of planet #9 well enough for us to see it already, then we're not going to be able to construct some laser that makes a difference.

That's before you get to the problem that space is ridiculously big, and sweeping it across the entirety of the surface of the imaginary sphere that might contain planet #9 would probably take millions of years (citation needed).

<comment><USER30> Regarding those two points:

A very good laser has a beam divergence of tenths of milliradians, or 0.01 degrees. At the radius of planet 9, this is a very large beam, and we'd have a hard time putting out enough power to compete with the sun.

Furthermore, the sky has an area of 40,000 square degrees. Our little laser beam projects a circle with an area of 0.0000785 square degrees. You'd need to aim at 500 million spots to see the whole sky.

<comment><USER29> > You'd need to aim at 500 million spots to see the whole sky.

That's smaller than I expected. To convert that into human scale sqrt(500 million) = 22360, in millimeters that's around 22 meters (72 ft).

So if we had a square wall 22 meters by 22 meters we could paint a grid of 1 mm by 1 mm squares on it and end up with around 500 million squares.

Then we'd need to stand there in front of the wall with a laser pointer and shine the laser at each individual square and check the light bouncing back at us.

<comment><USER31> Don't forget - due to the speed of light it takes 5-10 hours to get feedback on if the square illuminated, but maybe more because you don't know exactly how long you'll need to wait.

And there's uncertainty in whether your measurement is accurate.

And there's a background of other illuminated squares that can interfere with your readings.

And you're spinning while this is going on.

And the target square is continually moving. You might have just missed it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I hope that there is a Planet Nine. I like space related news and I think it would be an amazing discovery

</comment><comment><USER33> Is there any possibility there's more than one one Planet 9? This is, in searching for a single unseen planet, the calculations, estimates and such will be wrong if there's actually two (or more?) extra planets.

</comment><comment><USER34> Relevant XKCD: [https://xkcd.com/1633/](https://xkcd.com/1633/)

<comment><USER23> Is Pluto the black circle with the question mark or is that "Planet Nine"?

Not marking Pluto on this would ruin it for me, even if it's in the "Dwarf Planet" box.

<comment><USER35> [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1633:_Possible_Un...](https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1633:_Possible_Undiscovered_Planets)

<comment><USER23> "Pluto, no longer considered a planet (it was the ninth until 2006), is not marked on the chart, but it would be below Neptune just outside the pink region (2,300 km diameter and 30-50 AU away)."

Yeah, that sucks.

<comment><USER36> Do not take this the wrong way, but I am always a little confused about people feeling about the whole planet-dwarf_planet thing so strongly.

Pluto is still out there, just as it was a hundred years ago, when nobody knew it existed. And just recently, NASA sent a probe Pluto's way, that managed to amaze _me_ , an outspoken Pluto-hater[0]: Turns out that Pluto is much more complex than people had anticipated.

Who cares what the IAU decides to call it? It is what it is. You could call a rose a turd, and it still would not smell as badly. ;-)

[0] Okay, I do not _hate_ Pluto. I just wish NASA, ESA or whoever would send a couple of probes to Uranus and Neptune. I feel very strongly about this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Since Pluto is _clearly_ Planet Nine, I'm assuming this was written before 1930.

(I'm only being a little facetious. According to [https://www.amazon.com/Chasing-New-Horizons-Inside- Mission-e...](https://www.amazon.com/Chasing-New-Horizons-Inside-Mission- ebook/dp/B076H7LK8Y/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1545245406&sr=8-1&keywords=new+horizons), plenty of scientists consider Pluto a planet still.)

<comment><USER38> Most definitions that make Pluto a planet would make it Planet _Ten_ , because Ceres would also be a planet.

<comment><USER39> In the 19th century, Ceres, Pallas, Juno and Vesta were all considered planets for a while. At some point the solar system had 12 planets. Until people realised it was nuts to consider all asteroids planets. Just like what happened with Pluto upon the discovery of more Kuiper Belt objects.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Were it to be confirmed, would "Planet 9" actually be classified as a Dwarf Planet?

<comment><USER41> It's estimated to have 10 times the mass of earth, putting it up in the Uranus and Neptune range: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_Nine#Size_and_compositi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_Nine#Size_and_composition) .

<comment><USER42> Size isn't sufficient though. It also needs to have cleared its orbit.

<comment><USER41> It's orbit is thought to range between 200 and 700 AU, which is well outside the Kuiper belt at 30-50 AU and well inside the Oort cloud at 2,000-200,000 AU. So barring the discovery of more stuff in that area it seems to qualify.

<comment><USER27> Would that explain why there's a gap between the outside of the Kuiper Belt and the inside of the Oort Cloud?

<comment><USER41> That would be well beyond my knowledge or ability to say.

It certainly seems plausible, it may even explain the existence of the Kuiper belt, being held in the balance between Neptune and this planet much like the inner belt is by Mars and Jupiter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Could "planet nine" actually just be dark matter?

<comment><USER44> If you define dark matter as matter whose gravitational influence we infer but whose nature is still mysterious, then sure it is right now!

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> TL;DR inverse square rule... it's super dark out there!

</comment><comment><USER46> What if planet nine doesn't want to be found

</comment><comment><USER47> Wouldn't it be great if instead of a planet, this was a black hole with the mass of a planet.

<comment><USER48> I am not a physicist and I don't know if that's possible, but seems unlikely, if I understand this statement correctly: "After collapse to the neutron star stage, stars with masses less than 2-3 solar masses should remain neutron stars, gradually radiating away their energy, because there is no known mechanism for further combination, and forces between neutrons prevent further collapse."[0]

Assuming Jupiter turning into a black hole, the radius of it's event horizon would be just 2.2 meters (and that's 8.7 millimeters for Earth and 3 kilometers for the Sun). [1]

That would take forever to _pinpoint_ an object with a radius of a few meters (apart from its existence as a black hole).

[0][http://hyperphysics.phy- astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/blkhol.html](http://hyperphysics.phy- astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/blkhol.html)

[1][http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/S/Schwarzschild+Radius](http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/S/Schwarzschild+Radius)

<comment><USER47> I'm actually surprised how negatively people are taking this.

>but seems unlikely

I'm sure it's unlikely, but how great would it be to have a small black hole in our backyard to potentially visit with a probe.

>After collapse to the neutron star stage, stars with masses less than 2-3 solar masses should remain neutron stars, gradually radiating away their energy, because there is no known mechanism for further combination, and forces between neutrons prevent further collapse."

We don't understand all the mechanisms that lead to black formation. Most likely that kind of black hole would not be a result of neutron star merger or supernova, but maybe it came about through another unknown mechanism (primordial black hole?). How great would that be to find out!

>That would take forever to pinpoint an object with a radius of a few meters (apart from its existence as a black hole).

Sure, but maybe we could detect it indirectly. Maybe this tiny black hole has moons or satellites that can be detected. Or maybe we can detect it during an asteroid or comet collision.

For a non-physicist, you sure have strong opinions about what is possible and not possible.

<comment><USER48> Yeah, I do. I'm so glad that you've realized that, I feel flattered.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I'm on my phone... Hope this link works. Around 9:30 there's a question about planet 9 and the NASA scientist says Pluto is Planet 9.

[https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=257826325089507&...](https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=257826325089507&id=79209882917&refsrc=https%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com%2F&_rdr)

<comment><USER49> OK the link works. The NASA scientist is Hal Weaver [https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/newhorizons/launch/weaver...](https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/newhorizons/launch/weaver- bio.html)

This in addition to Alan Stern's criticism of the IAU classification: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto#IAU_classification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto#IAU_classification)</comment></comment>


How an entrepreneur makes decisions to go camping - <AUTHOR> http://www.geekwire.com/2012/entrepreneur-decisions-camping/

<comment><USER2> Better than I expected it to be. Worth reading the whole thing, which I often don't do.</comment>


Trouble in the 99 Cent App Store - <AUTHOR> http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/12/10/trouble-in-the-99-cent-app-store/

<comment><USER2> There is no "trouble." The App Store solves a distribution problem, not a marketing problem.

What developers really want to do is stimulate demand. If you believe the App Store is your marketing channel then the only way to do that is to cut prices and try to get that top spot. That's what everyone is doing.

Instead developers should be looking for ways to market their app outside the App Store. They should be driving people to the store, rather than hoping the people already browsing will just happen to buy their app.

I wrote about this, here: <http://20bits.com/articles/the-099-app-store/>

<comment><USER3> I don't disagree with you at all, but...

I have a problem with Apple taking 30% because the store is far too polluted now. I feel it should be scaled back to 20% due to the amount of marketing and press expenses people (read: indie developers) must now incur. I have no problem engaging in marketing activities, it's just expensive.

Also, I just had a huge argument with Apple in which they did not budge to correct a massive bug that has ultimately affected our sales:

\- app was approved but would not go on sale till our bank contracts were approved. (+2 extra weeks)

\- once contracts were approved, app was listed as being 2 weeks old, rather than showing a release date that was true to it's availability on the store. it's first day on the store, it was listed near the end of page 1.

\- within a week, our app is now on the 2nd page. not normal for this section. should have had ~3 weeks of Page 1 exposure.

\- customer's impression of the app is now distorted, they think it's 3 weeks old with only a few comments and possible not worth the download... as oppose to a brand new app that's accurately dated.

For 4 months I've bootstrapped this company and our first (premium) app has now had it's sales potential chopped at the knees. Here's where I get real mad:

I talked with multiple representatives about this glaring problem with no luck. Nobody will fix the date. I'm sick of their lack of transparency and unclear requirements around their publishing system. I've sent in screenshots and plenty of proof where their system has failed, and they are in complete denial. Supposedly they'll pass my complaint...

I'm tempted to write a long blog about it because I'm that furious about their stubbornness over this issue. Give me my 10% back, and the 7 weeks you stalled processing my bank contracts...

Sorry, had to vent.

<comment><USER4> From your story, it seems you do disagree.

You're problem with Apple was that you saw your 'deal' with Apple beign: 'We make an app,' 'You promote & distribute it. If it sells, we split it 30/70.'

Now you feel conned because you didn't get the implied exposure. You didn't get a fair shot at grabbing a couple of those who 'happened to be browsing,' get the appropriate number of comments, etc.

You imply that your deal with Apple is: 'We do the product & price it. You do the promotion & distribution.'

BTW, I think you are correct & this is your deal with them. But I think this puts you on the same side as the letter writer & on the opposite side to jfarmer.

<comment><USER2> Good way to distill it.

I think the App Store is mostly about distribution, with the only marketing benefit being the usual ones that come with being a distributor, i.e., it's in the interests of the distributor to promote the products its distributing.

But in that framework everyone prices their apps according to the distributor's whims. In this case that means all prices tend to zero.

The only way to break out of this cycle, as I see it, is to take the marketing portion into your own hands and draw in people from outside the App Store.

<comment><USER4> I think is important to look at the macro question: If you are looking at the market as a whole (all the apps that get bought) will most of the discovery/purchase decision have taken place within the confines of the app store (where Apple rules) or outside of it (from word of mouth to TV ads).

I think you might agree that most (or at least a significant portion) of apps will get most of their 'promotion' within the confines of the app store. This is both because of the distribution monopoly & because of the market mindset. Consumers are often buying 'apps' not 'app X' or even 'app that does X.' There will continue to be a big number of App store browsers making decisions based only on the things they encounter in this environment. Therefore, the app store is the no. 1 promotional channel as well as the only distribution channel.

Since Apple is the main influence on this, the letter makes sense. If you think that this environment is problematic on the whole, Dear Steve is your answer.

I guess I agree with you from an individual perspective. I do not know enough about this market to have a real opinion. But it seems rational to say to developers: "Do not go after the main part of the market (let's keep calling it the ringtone app market). The way Apple has set up the market, there is a tendency towards the ringtone apps. If you do not want to sell them, you still have other options. Base your strategy on those option."

But I guess my point is that the advice you are giving is 'be unconventional' which is not something you can expect everyone to do. It's like telling online merchants not to base their e-commerce strategy on Adwords/SEO or telling a supermarket not to go after middle income families. That might be good advice, but it's niche advice.

<comment><USER2> More I think that the App Store is a tiny segment of a larger market, one in which price is what drives demand.

There are larger segments where other marketing techniques are more applicable, where nobody is playing.

So, go play there!

<comment><USER4> I'm not sure I understand. The app store is a tiny segment of the app market.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I read the blog post that was cited in this article yesterday.

I mean no offense (particularly if the author hangs out here on HN), but it sounded an awful lot like whining to me. Why does it come as any surprise that consumers are flocking to the cheaper alternatives? And of course, given that application developers are competing with one another, price is one of the key ways they are going to do that. This is classic supply and demand at work.

Maybe this is just because I look at it from the perspective of a web application developer, and think to myself, "If ONLY there was an easy way to charge people a low price like $0.99 to use my app instead of having to rely on Google Ads for revenue..."

All of this said, it does sound like Apple could make some changes to the iTunes app store experience to help application developers better showcase the experience of higher priced apps.

Another interesting idea would be for Apple to facilitate a way for application developers to create charges from within the app itself. So maybe you could download the app itself for free, but the app could charge you for premium features, or pennies for certain kinds of usage, etc.

<comment><USER2> The App Store is doing the right thing -- putting the apps that make them the most money in a place where they have the opportunity to make even more money.

That's fine and expected.

The mistake developers are making is relying on the App Store to solve their marketing problem, when it only really solves the distribution problem.

If you're trying to stimulate demand in that environment your only option is to lower your price (see, e.g., 3-for-2 sales at Borders). What developers should be doing is looking for marketing channels outside the App Store that drive people _to_ the App Store with the intent of buying their app.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The real problem with the App Store is not that apps are 99 cents. Its not that apps are sorted by price.

It is that the customer is fundamentally _APPLE'S CUSTOMER_ and not _YOUR CUSTOMER_. No matter what the exact arrangement is, only those vendors who catch a lucky break from Apple are going to do well.

This is the same lesson everyone should have learned from the casual game industry: the portals make out like bandits. A very few megahits make obscene amounts of money. Every other content producer gets shafted, because they are systematically tying themselves into a hit-driven, rapid-obsolescence, no- value-added business model.

This serves the portals great: churn and burn apps get them lots of repeated transactions and incentivize their best customers to come back every day to see whats new. This is _terrible_ for developers because you get like a two- week period to make back your development expenses and then, boom, residual sales asymptotically approach zero.

(Its sort of like being in the music business, incidentally, except the residuals die off even faster.)

Compare the sales graph for _any_ App Store app, I don't care what the quality is, to the sales graph for a software company with its own website. (Sorry for the self-preening but since most people don't publish them I don't know of any except my own: <http://www.bingocardcreator.com/stats/sales-by-month> ) Don't focus on the numbers, focus on the shape of a curve.

If your curve is "Peaks in 48 hours and then falls off a cliff", you'll have no revenues to sustain a post-launch marketing campaign or ongoing improvement to the app, which are major sources of revenue. You won't get the _gradual march upward_ , instead, you are immediately thrown back into the meatgrinder to make another churn and burn app.

An additional salutary benefit of the own-your-own-app-and-your-own-customers: you're not dependent on Apple's good graces and business fortunes to continue to make a living on their platform, and when you come out with version 2.0 or RelatedApp 1.0 you can use your existing customers as both a source of marginal revenue and a source of springboard marketing.

(Hypothetically assuming that my next app was also pitched to elementary schoolteachers, where exactly would one go about getting a list of 1,200 elementary schoolteachers with a demonstrable interest in software which helps them out? Oh, yeah... "select * from customers;". Any of you have blogs? Oh you do! How lovely.)

</comment><comment><USER7> It's good to hear mainstream covering this. I'd like to hear more back from Apple.

Where art thou App Store Evangelist at Apple?

<comment><AUTHOR> My wife -- who barely understands what HTML is -- found this on CNN and sent me the link. There's nothing like negative mainstream media coverage to get a company's attention...

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is only trouble from the point of view of _developers_. From a user's point of view, I would like all apps to be free! Why wouldn't the App Store gravitate to a model like the internet, where there is tons of cool stuff for free, and my software hardly ever nags me for a dollar. That might be too bad for developers hoping to make money with applications that aren't really groundbreaking, but it might be good for users. There's certainly no shortage of cool free games on the internet.

</comment><comment> old-gregg Programmers and designers cost $150-200/hour? WTF is he talking about?

Is it so hard to make a point without exaggerating the hell out of your arguments?

<comment><USER2> They're referencing an O'Reilly blog post that cites those numbers: [http://blogs.oreilly.com/iphone/2008/11/turning-ideas- into-a...](http://blogs.oreilly.com/iphone/2008/11/turning-ideas-into- application.html)

They've gone from the realm of anecdote to Known Fact, unfortunately.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I was in the #iphonedev irc room last night, and before they told me to leave and buy a book because I was asking too many dumb questions, they were talking about pricing strategies. They seemed to think that anything above .99 is all the same so you might as well charge 4.99. This guy even provided "evidence": <http://bang2d.com/?p=47>

</comment><comment><USER10> The comments on that blog post are something else. "I would buy Starcraft on the iPhone for $9.99 in a heartbeat." Yeah I would too but it will never happen because starcraft for the computer is still over 10 dollars.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you securely share tax forms like 1099s with non-techies? - <AUTHOR>

I don't want to email my SSN. Curious to know how people on HN deal with this. <comment><USER2> US Post office...? Though maybe I'm showing my ignorance. I just assumed that you had to physically mail these out by the end of January.

With things "tax related", I mostly just go with the flow, get the numbers right, and move onto the next thing.

</comment><comment><USER3> Send them the form and call them with your SSN. Not the best, but certainly better than just emailing it.</comment>


Embracing REST with mind, body and soul (Rails and the new respond_with) - <AUTHOR> http://blog.plataformatec.com.br/2009/08/embracing-rest-with-mind-body-and-soul/

<comment><USER2> Do folks here buy into the REST == CRUD mapping the way it's basked into Rails?

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't know... do you want to elaborate a little more on that?

<comment><USER2> For example, the pairing of PUT with 'update' , with only POST allowed to create new resource, versus allowing clients to PUT a new resource (effectively creating them) when given the proper URL.

See, for example, [http://www.rgoarchitects.com/nblog/2009/06/23/CRUDIsBadForRE...](http://www.rgoarchitects.com/nblog/2009/06/23/CRUDIsBadForREST.aspx)

and in particular the idea that REST is about documents, not databases. "The data model is _not_ the resource model," as one comment there puts it.

Also, CRUD makes no allowance for HEAD and OPTIONS, as if they don't even exist.

I see too, in digging around for links, that this has been discussed on HN before (big surprise, no?): <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=629843></comment></comment></comment>


Romain Gary: The Greatest Literary Conman? - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20180619-romain-gary-the-greatest-literary-bad-boy-of-all <comment><USER2> > In the past decade, his reputation has shown signs of renewed vigour.

I haven't seen anything like this "renewed vigour" in France. There was a TV documentary and an exposition in Paris for the 30th anniversary of its death in 2010, but even that went quite unnoticed. Romain Gary is still known today mostly for his trickery as Émile Ajar, and because some of its books are sometimes studied in school.

For the first time this year, I met someone who placed Romain Gary in his personal Pantheon. But I suspect his fan base is very small, unlike contemporaneous authors like Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (who also had a heroic life) or Boris Vian (who also published under pseudonyms).

When I read "La vie devant soi" (The Life Before Us) as a late teenager, I thought it was a good but not great book, with lovable characters. A bit too lovable maybe, because it felt too nice and too sympathetic on all these marginal characters with a lack of anything deeper. But I think much worse of the three Romain Gary novels I've read since then. I feel he's always trying to be smart, to impress the reader. He can write a touching scene and break it for a witty word.

> In fact, when he was living in LA, he wrote in English, rebelling against > slyly anti-Semitic criticism that he used the French language improperly.

I've never read anything about this, I'd be interested in the source. Romain Gary wrote "Lady L." in English in 1958, but he soon translated it himself to French, so I fail to see any kind of rebellion against the French language in this.

The text isn't clear on who thought these criticisms were "slyly anti- Semitic". R.G. did arrive in France at 14, so any language mistake on his part would be logically related to this personal past more than his family religion. Moreover, I can't imagine any prominent criticism with anti-semitic subtitle in the late 50s in France.

<comment><USER3> "Moreover, I can't imagine any prominent criticism with anti-semitic subtitle in the late 50s in France."

france in the 50s still hadn't had a deep look in the in the atrocities of the collaboration, and as an example maurice papon was Paris chief of police under de gaulle. antisemitism wasn't the main focus and it was still very common for people to make horrible comments on jews out in the open ( ask any jew that studied in Paris in the 60s). France really took a strong stance against antisemitism and racism in everyday life much much later.

In the 50s and 60s the main concern was to rebuild the country and reach political stability. Racism and antisemitism were really not.

<comment><USER2> Of course antisemitism didn't magically disappear after the war, but I don't think that's relevant, because it had disappeared from the main media and the intellectual circles. Even when Poujade and Le Pen briefly gave antisemitism a new public voice at the end of the 50s, it was in the margins of politics, and it had no impact on the literary circles. An historian specialized on this, Tal Bruttmann, wrote that « après-guerre, l'antisémitisme n'avait pas bonne presse. »

Romain Gary was living in Los Angeles when he began writing in English. Being a diplomat, he had lived the five previous years mostly in New York and London. So if he really felt an antisemitic criticism of his works was widely shared in France, I think it could only come from the newspapers or from other writers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Adam Gopnik wrote about Romain Gary in the New Yorker six months ago. Gopnik's article is a nice companion piece to this one:

The Made-Up Man [https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/01/01/the-made-up- ma...](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/01/01/the-made-up-man) The writer Romain Gary was an inveterate fabulist. But his work is sustained by an authentic moral vision.

<comment><USER5> > The writer Romain Gary was an inveterate fabulist.

So he was writing up his life as well. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> On the subject of forgotten authors, during the eighties I read most of A.J.Cronin's books. He was one of my preferred authors. He was very famous when he was alive but now it seems he is almost entirely forgotten. Are there other people in this forum who read his books?</comment>


'Locate X' allows federal law enforcement to track phones without warrants - <AUTHOR> https://www.protocol.com/government-buying-location-data <comment><USER2> > Locate X must be "used for internal research purposes only," according to > terms of use distributed to agencies, and law enforcement authorities are > forbidden from using the technology as evidence — or mentioning it at all — > in legal proceedings.

So it's obviously useless to law enforcement, right? Since parallel construction and evidence laundering are illegal and not something that they would engage in…

<comment><USER3> The Bechtel of parallel construction.

<comment><USER4> "I'm a construction worker"

More seriously, I think real criminals will just leave their phone at home.

<comment><USER5> Criminals are unlikely to be better with computers than the general population. The general population is worse than most people on this site realise: [https://www.nngroup.com/articles/computer-skill- levels/](https://www.nngroup.com/articles/computer-skill-levels/)

<comment><USER6> There is strong selective pressure on criminals to become good at computers though, more so than the general population.

<comment><USER7> For some perhaps, but crime is hard work and criminals are lazy almost by definition.

<comment><USER8> Depends on the type, dealing drugs is like any other sales job, except way higher risk. Distributing cocaine is as complex as any other distribution job but you're not allowed to use established transportation methods and people might shoot at you. You've got to be a real self starter and creative thinker if you want to be good at it.

Then there's the contract negotiation where nothing is legally enforceable and personnel management where your employees could become addicted to stealing from you. It sounds way harder than my job.

<comment><USER7> I submit that is it lazy, because you are taking very high risks in order to achieve extraordinary margins. It's a shortcut taken by people who don't want to put the work into a dedicated career in legal sales. Obviously there are exceptions, but the majority of people who become drug dealers are doing it for quick cash.

<comment><USER9> More often it is because the person belongs to a community that is excluded from traditional carriers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> These law enforcement people are going against judges orders (i.e. the warrant requirement). The people in charge should lose their jobs.

</comment><comment><USER3> A couple older links on Babel Street from Vice and TWP (2017):

[https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/gv7g3m/meet-babel- street-...](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/gv7g3m/meet-babel-street-the- powerful-social-media-surveillance-used-by-police-secret-service-and-sports- stadiums)

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/for-this- com...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/for-this-company- online-surveillance-leads-to-profit-in-washingtons- suburbs/2017/09/08/6067c924-9409-11e7-89fa-bb822a46da5b_story.html)

Babel Street's first customer was the Pentagon, according to TWP. It appears to have since spread with virulence to nearly all branches of government.

I wonder how viable they'd be (in cellphone location tracking) if permissions actually meant something in Android. I missed any mention of iphones in the Protocol article, but would default to equal cynicism.

<comment><USER11> Even if permissions are enforced, there will be enough apps that most users will be willing to allow to track them, and those apps can participate in this program without being exactly explicit about it to the user. The apps' privacy policies will essentially be a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo amounting to "and you have no privacy", and users won't even bother to read that.

Just because an uninformed user granted some app permission to track them, which app implied it could share that with LEOs, doesn't mean that the courts will consider warrant-less tracking this way constitutional. I don't know and can't predict whether the courts will or won't, but they well might not. There will be interesting cases arising out of this technology eventually. The SCOTUS has already said that police can warrantlessly use surveillance technology that is widely available to the public, but I doubt this tech will so become.

<comment><USER3> I (further) wonder what percentage of Fdroid apps lend themselves to Locate-X. Certainly qualifies for the "Anti-features" honor.

Regarding that which might arise; very interesting for sure, and almost certainly for the worse. I'll never embrace it, but do accept it - it's here to stay along with endless other innovations, or so I fear.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I've started using my smartphone as a landline receiver. I keep it plugged into the same power outlet all the time, check the messages and answer them through the PC if possible. We've come full circle.

</comment><comment><USER13> In Soviet Russia, government tell phone network operator to spy on you.

In Capitalist America, phone network operator spy on you to tell government.

</comment><comment><USER14> I'm amazed any self-respecting criminal would carry a smartphone (or arguably even a dumb phone) while committing a crime. You might as well spray-paint "I'm a criminal, come and arrest me at [address]" on a bedsheet and hang it off a motorway bridge.

<comment><USER15> It's not criminals who need to be worried about this tech.

<comment><USER16> Citation needed.

<comment><USER17> History books supply ample citations and experience. Authorities need a regular check. This fact was established in all modern democracies. That these checks don't work for modern technology is because of lacking competency from people responsible. And the fact too many people trying to publish wrongdoing end up in solitary confinement or need to flee the country.

<comment><USER18> Case in point: Julian Assange and Snowden

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The US use of it isn't the concern, we can regulate it and I do not see a reason for many agencies to have the tool or its like. What people should understand is once this tool exists then oppressive governments can either get hold of it and create their own. So go pick your favorite country known for oppressing people and you can guarantee this or similar is in use.

So what this leads to is further work on not allowing information of any sort off a phone unless approved by the user and features that let them know which apps have sent data and how much. Kind of like how tracking is being defeated on the desktop.

Pretty much the end run is burner phones/prepaid but any organized individual or group of who does not want to be tracked would or should already have gone down that route. Of course that only works to a point, where a large number of them congregate can provide agencies a lot of information as well.

<comment><USER13> > We can regulate it

Oh yes, you've been very successful in regulating the US government not to spy on people without warrants. You might want to read Snowden's book about the extent of this great success.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Pretty unpleasant seeing the term open source applied like this.

<comment><USER21> This is why, despite the Stallman-type connotations, I have started exclusively using the term "free software" to call what I used to refer to as "open source".

Lesser reason: Lots of software is source-available, but isn't free-as-in- freedom in my view (including the AGPL!) and distinguishing that is very important for anyone involved in a business that uses software. The last thing an entrepreneur (who already deals with tons of existential risks) needs is an additional risk uncertainty. Free software is (in most cases, Oracle's fuckery excepted) a bright line there.

(Sorry for veering off of the direct topic of TFA.)

<comment><USER22> Ironic that you say "despite the Stallman-type connotations" when that's exactly why Stallman advocates the term. For guy who's right all the time he really gets some unfair press.

<comment><USER21> Nobody is "right all the time", least of all Richard Stallman. He's a creepy asshole who doesn't respect boundaries.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Hottest Indian Startups In 2012 - <AUTHOR> http://www.nextbigwhat.com/growth-stage-indian-startups-297/

<comment><USER2> Fusioncharts is 10 years old is it still considered a startup?

<comment><USER3> Add Komli and Visual Website Optimizer to the list.

<comment><USER4> Yep, it's hard to draw a line in the sand. We're 2.5 years old, profitable and happy. So don't know if we still qualify as a startup! :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Question for people in the Indian startup scene -

It looks to me like the "acquire users first, figure out how to make money later" mindset does not fly in India in general. Would I be right in saying that such companies are a relative minority? How do Indian VCs respond to this mindset which is acceptable in silicon valley?

<comment><USER6> Yes. Such startups are a minority in India. Barring a few exceptions, VC money in India is available only for companies whose money making model is absolutely clear. That's why the startups that don't focus on making money early on, die out pretty soon.

<comment><USER5> Thanks. Any recent examples for the exceptions?

PS: Looking forward to this book - <http://woodegg.com/in>

<comment><AUTHOR> Zomato, on that list, is a living example - <http://zomato.com>

<comment><USER7> Not necessarily - they've got branding deals going on, notably with CocaCola and distilleries. I'm sure restaurants also pay handsomely to be featured on the city homepages.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> There are many more that normally haven't taken a deep marketing track (and that remains a challenge).

For example check out colama - <http://www.colama.net> \- using VMs for college education; <http://www.emee.co.in/> (note - this is my employer's product) - gamification of enterprise workflows, and <http://www.kpoint.com/> \- which allows you to record videos and embed them in the website (and often used in many conferences, for internal company presentation).

</comment><comment><USER9> For people who can't access the website: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.nextbigwhat.com/growth- stage-indian-startups-297/)

</comment><comment><USER10> Companies, with diversity in the culture would always win in the long term. Simply because these companies would be able to hire the best, from larger pool of candidates.

</comment><comment><USER11> Great list of companies. IT is very heartening to see quality startups coming from India.

<comment><USER12> They are all useless startups. I just find Zomato and Ola as successful ones.

<comment><USER13> Have you even checked them out? I find Fusionchart and interviewstreet really good at what they do!

<comment><USER12> Fusionchart is not a startup. Interview Street on the other hand is really good. Forgot to mention that!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> the site's consistently down, good thing there's Google cache

<comment><USER15> It's working now. Awesome list btw.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Dude you can hardly call companies like Komli and Visual Website Optimizer startups.

<comment><USER7> Can't speak for Komli, but VWO is certainly a startup. They grew from a single digit headcount very recently and didn't exist too long before.</comment></comment>


The annual CTF competition at CCC starts tomorrow - <AUTHOR> https://34c3ctf.ccc.ac/announcements/ <comment><AUTHOR> Also look at [https://ctftime.org/event/544](https://ctftime.org/event/544)</comment>


We Had The Perfect Product Launch Planned, And Then It All Went Splat - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/perfect-launch-gone-wrong-2013-4

<comment><USER2> Much better in the original post <http://philosophically.com/dont-launch-your- product> than a re-tread article.

</comment><comment><USER3> Im curious if you have a critical mass eqaution involved what would be the author or hn community in generl thinking on this type of strategy</comment>


The humans.txt generator tool - <AUTHOR> http://thehive.beewits.com/ladies-and-gents-the-humans-txt-generator-because-we-are-people-not-machines/

<comment><USER2> Pretty interesting. Good work!</comment>


Tesla solar panels in 7 Walmart stores catch fire - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/20/walmart-sues-tesla-over-solar-panel-fires-at-seven-stores.html <comment><AUTHOR> > In the suit, they also alleged that Tesla failed to ground its solar and > electrical systems properly,

I see the word "alleged", but am wondering how it passed inspection?</comment>


Serverless Database CRUD Example - <AUTHOR> https://nordschool.com/build-a-serverless-database-using-faunadb-and-netlify-functions <comment><AUTHOR> Hey folks,

I wrote a tutorial about how to create a serverless database crud example. The basic idea is to show how to create a simple serverless database and CRUD APIs using Netlify Functions & FaunaDB.

The tutorial project structure looks like this:

├── README.md

├── configs

│ └── webpack.functions.js

├── lambda

│ ├── create.js

│ ├── customers.js

│ ├── delete.js

│ ├── hello.js

│ ├── read-all.js

│ ├── read.js

│ └── update.js

├── netlify.toml

├── package.json

├── src

│ ├── customers

│ │ ├── create.js

│ │ ├── delete.js

│ │ ├── read-all.js

│ │ ├── read.js

│ │ └── update.js

│ ├── customers.js

│ └── hello.js

└── yarn.lock

Any feedback is appreciated, cheers!

<comment><USER2> Tyler from Fauna here.

Thanks for this...seeing folk use what we are working on is always compelling and detailed tutorials like this make getting started heaps more accessible.

You can probably guess my email (or can find me in the Fauna Slack) feel free to shout if you want to share more about your experiences or have more feedback.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I can relate to that, always feels nice when someone find your work helpful/interesting.

As a developer/entrepreneur I'm excited about this whole SaaS/FaaS movement! It is such an enabler for me to be productive quickly and focus on the core problems I am solving!

Next time I am writing a FaunaDB tutorial I will keep you in mind, some proof- reading is always appreciated! :D</comment></comment></comment>


You're good. Way too good to be on UpWork - <AUTHOR> http://dalsass.mobi/blog/your-good-upwork/ <comment><USER3> I've been working for 2 years solely through upwork and I am really happy with it. I get a normal freelancing rate for my country (Australia) and sustain my family with it. I was sceptical at first seeing the low rates but decided to give it a fair try and was happy and surprised with the result. Most often it lead to move the work to outside the platform since their 10% fee can get to big numbers pretty quickly.

Also I'd like to add that some of the companies that I work for have found some great talent through the platform.

</comment><comment><USER4> I totally agree with the author. I've had similar experiences with Elance/UpWork. I'm a Senior Software Developer from Europe and I can't really compete with developers who offer their services for $20/h. But still, it's not impossible to get a job. I worked on a few projects that were mostly already started projects from cheap software firms that couldn't complete the job for whatever reasons. The clients I met were usually frustrated, burnt a lot of money, didn't have any experience about software development and/or management and were hoping to save the project by hiring a more experienced developer to fix the project. The codebases I've seen were awful. For example, no git repository, just a plain ZIP file, unstructured PHP code with 300 warnings, duplicate code... I'm sure there are all different kinds of projects on UpWork, also good ones. But these are hard to find and I doubt UpWork is the right place for experienced Software Developers with higher rates.

<comment><USER5> Just ignore developers with lower rates. Good employers often understand what is adequate rate and they realize they can hire somebody cheap and teach them, or hire professional and learn from them. So with higher rate you will attract better employers. Even more: employers check profiles of most expensive developers first :) Though sometimes they just completely ignore your rate and just "want to discuss" \- people are different.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I can echo your experiences. I did manage to find a project management gig on oDesk, but after that have applied to many with no luck. The barrier to entry is too low, by allowing jobs that are $50 or even $500 for what amounts to a lot of work, everybody is usually driving towards the bottom dollar, versus having real companies/people looking for serious work.

I've also heard from the person that did hire me that they had been burned several times by developers that would give them poorly-built products, but because they weren't familiar with the details of how it was built, only found out weeks/months later when things started to break down.

</comment><comment><USER7> I had heard the theory about the market for lemons before, but none of the discussions of it seemed to be able to come up with a better example than the classic partial one about used cars. This looks like the case study the theory predicted.

<comment><USER8> Here the wikipedia link to the famous text "The Market for Lemons: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism" by George Akerlof:

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

And here the text:

> > [https://www.iei.liu.se/nek/730g83/artiklar/1.328833/AkerlofM...](https://www.iei.liu.se/nek/730g83/artiklar/1.328833/AkerlofMarketforLemons.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I know one guy who is making 140k/year on Upwork.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm sure it can be done. This was just my experience... how long did it take for his first job?

<comment><USER9> Based on the link in his HN profile, I think he's referring to himself: $110/hr, 5,337 hours worked. Those are impressive numbers.

<comment><AUTHOR> They are impressive. Congrats to him.

I'm curious what he did to get to that level.

I notice that most projects he's actually billing around $50-60/hour - <USER2> is not that impressive for the US (probably much better where he lives). Maybe he stands out because his advertised rate is relatively high, and he cuts them a special deal each time?

The other thing is, why stay on UpWork after the connection is made, why not just build the client base and use UpWork as a lead source?

Maybe he starts with non-Upwork clients and then brings them "into" UpWork, getting 5 stars every time?

<comment><USER5> About a year. I started from $30/hour, then switched to $60 and current rate is for consulting because I don't have free time for full-time projects (I'm working full-time already and I love my work so don't want to switch).

2 strict rules: 1) never negotiate rate, 2) don't work too hard (I prefer to work 40 hours per week).

<comment><AUTHOR> I see. So it took 1 year to get your first job and this happened when you raised rates?

<comment><USER5> It took 2 days to select $30/hour job (a lot of proposals), and then I just realized I worth more and spent 2 weeks to find $60 job.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>