Is YCombinator astroturfing now? - <AUTHOR> Is it new that news.ycombinator is including what seem to be paid adverts like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10678405 that allow no ability to comment etc. without distinguishing them from content being submitted via the normal process? Have I just not being paying enough attention to spot the astroturfing? Anyone know why these adverts aren't being flagged as such? <comment><USER2> You have not been paying enough attention.

Y Combinator startups have been allowed to post job listings for years.

Granted, the ones for stealth startups are annoying.

<comment><AUTHOR> And people can't comment on them etc? TBH I'd be fine with it if they were flagged as the adverts they are.</comment></comment>


Cognitive Networks: Brains, Internet, and Civilizations (2017) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/342d/672ba656102fd5a98df2c882723ef3022efe.pdf <comment><USER2> I've got quite the "rabbit hole" going over at [https://twitter.com/cdbattags/status/1016430657550077952](https://twitter.com/cdbattags/status/1016430657550077952) but to summarize: I think this concept is the next "relativity theory" that we're on the verge of cracking

> so how many of y'all ever worked with protobuf or the concept of > (de)serialization? let's think of the human brain as a payload of protobuf > who's containing `.proto` schema only ever exists inside of the payload > itself the same way that AI can mutate it's "rule-set"

\---

other recommended reading: [https://waitbutwhy.com/2017/04/neuralink.html](https://waitbutwhy.com/2017/04/neuralink.html)</comment>


If you don't getted banned by HN at least once, you aren't trying hard enough - <AUTHOR> My main HN account just got banned. I was just reloading the new page too frequently to gauge the rate of new submissions (to see if it was a good time to post). The way I see it, entrepreneurship is all about experimentation and learning how to properly utilize the HN community is just another step in this game. Bummed that my high karma account doesn't work anymore, but oh well. To all others who have been banned in pursuit of success, I salute you. <comment><USER2> In the future, you can just use the timestamps on the new submission page to gauge the rate of submission.

The "n minutes ago" of the last page on "new" is a reasonable moving average of the current submission rate.

How fast were you reloading the page?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, good call. I probably clicked refresh once a second for 10 seconds. I guess they thought I was DDOS'ing the site.

<comment><USER3> You would get an IP ban in that case, not an account ban.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The ban filter is getting very wonky.

I cannot even submit the wordpress 3.6 annoucement from wordpress.org, apparently any url with wordpress in it is considered spam?

Still hoping to get back my _ck_ account someday.

</comment><comment><USER5> I have a hard time taking this post seriously. The author over estimates the importance of Hacker News in building a business. If Skype kicked you off their service because they found out you were cold calling potential customers for 8 hours a day you can write a similar post.

</comment><comment><USER6> This might be of interest: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4761102>

<comment><USER3> Sounds like his account got banned not his IP. Which means it was most likely not due to his refreshing but his content submission (spamming).

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> You can write a SHORT email to pg asking for your account to be unbanned.

Someone wrote a 'best time to post' post, I'll see if I can find it.

</comment><comment><USER8> I said the title of this topic in my head in a German accent IDK why

<comment><USER9> Weil es ein bisschen lustiger ist. :)</comment></comment>


MySpace: Better than Porn? - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2007/04/20/myspace-porn/ <comment><USER2> mashable.com is censored here in Thailand. Do have an alternative source?</comment>


Private Island Lab Exercise One: I2C Slave Analysis with FPGA Hardware Debugger - <AUTHOR> https://mindchasers.com/dev/pi-lab-1 <comment><USER2> What is this and why might it be interesting to HN readers?

<comment><USER3> I can make a guess. I have an impression, that everybody here likes open source and FPGAs very much. Author of this post is implementing "Private Island: Open Source FPGA-Based Network Processor for Privacy, Security, IoT, and Control" as described in [https://mindchasers.com/dev/private- island](https://mindchasers.com/dev/private-island)

This might be a hot topic, but I can't say exactly since this isn't my domain. I know 2 startups working on this. One uses MAX10 FPGA, the other one is internal big Corp startup trying with their own RISC-V ASIC and secure operating system. They both do not have good product/market fit.

Regarding this exact post it's weird, that I2C is used for debugging. One needs to actively poll the registers. I am using UART for this in my designs. It's easier, because I do not need additional hardware to receive my debug data. It comes to my terminal in windows with no effort.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Value Investing Courses - <AUTHOR> Are there any good courses to learn Value Investing that are practical and updated? <comment><USER2> Just read valueable book by Roger Montgomery, check out validea or alphaarchitect, good luck</comment>


Esperanto - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto <comment><USER2> I completed the Duolingo course in Esperanto this year, and found it enormous fun. I don't know if I'll keep it up, but the thing I most appreciate about it is that it feels like a ticket to a kinder world... even if just for vacation.

I'd love to build enough proficiency to attend the world congress and be able to converse with folks there. I imagine you'd meet some remarkable people.

Lastly, I wish I were living in the multiverse in which there is a Star Trek series filmed in Esperanto. If I were a bored billionaire, I'd totally fund a fan series a la "Star Trek Continues" in Esperanto. Maybe we can get George Soros (native Esperanto speaker) and Paul Allen (sci-fi ultra aficionado) to talk.</comment>


Has Japan designed the world's best bike shed? - <AUTHOR> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2009/nov/05/japan-best-bike-shed <comment><USER2> There is no way the world's best bike shed could have _that_ color.

<comment><USER3> Ha, read up on <http://bikeshed.com/> if you don't get this joke.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> No. Not the world's best bike shed, for some people.

These garages hold the bicycle in place by the wheels. Since the bicycle can not stand upright, the bike leans. This puts pressure on the spoke. I have a heavy electric assist bicycle with bendy normal spokes. I didn't realize this until after I parked in these garages and out came my now wobbly tired bicycle. :(

I can't imagine being able to put road racing bicycles in these things either. Also the small wheeled city bicycles are becoming popular in Tokyo and these too would not be compatible.

So this garage would service the majority utility bicycles but would piss off the enthusiasts. Sigh. I have no solution.

<comment><USER5> Wouldn't this be a simple incremental improvement--hold it by the seat post, for example? Every bike has one of those, and they are pretty much in the same place. You'd also need a pair of 'arms' to keep the front wheel from falling to the side, but they would only need to provide guidance, not support.

<comment><USER4> Hanging the bike by the seat post or better yet, any part of the frame would be great. The front wheel could be secured using a Velcro strap. With bicycle floating, maybe a better oppurtunity for higher density.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> They also have those for cars in Japan. You drive your car into what looks like a lift/elevator and they then move it up a multistory building. You can get your car back later by typing in the position it's stored at.

[http://japanesenostalgiccar.com/blog/wp- content/uploads/2009...](http://japanesenostalgiccar.com/blog/wp- content/uploads/2009/03/car_elevator_parking-333x443.jpg)

or

[http://misspentlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/car- park....](http://misspentlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/car-park.jpg)

<comment><USER7> Similar systems are also used a car factories to store finished cars. This is how it looks like at Volkswagen: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Autoturm_von_Innen.jpg>

<comment><USER6> Very cool.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Since when Japan is a designer? Japan designs nothing, japanese people do. It would be better to credit the creator of the thing instead of his country. Would'nt it?

<comment><USER9> It's just a metonymy, like "Wall Street", "Silicon Valley", etc. A bit stretched, maybe, but it's not misleading so who cares?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> It seems like the technology could be improved upon drastically. From what I saw in the video, the storage density was pretty low. Bikes are hard to store, though.

</comment><comment><USER11> You have to have a _serious_ bicycle problem before you can justify this level of investment.

It probably works pretty well, since there's similar car-parking technology (exception: see jac_no_k's experience).

But I'm reminded of France's expensive investment in public bicycle rentals ($3500 each!!) which is not going perfectly: [http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/11/velib-bike- sharing-t...](http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/11/velib-bike-sharing- thieves-vandals.php)

<comment><USER4> It is a problem in the metro areas of Tokyo. The utility bicycles are unsightly and does block the sidewalk and entrances at times. I wish I had a photo handy to show what it's like near the stations. Think 100 feet of parked bicycles on the sidewalk and no way to navigate through.

There's a very large population of bicyclists in Tokyo. Keep in mind for people living in the city, the bicycle is a utility, not something ridden for sport or enjoyment. I do however enjoy passing cars on the bicycle and instigating races from bicycle road racers during my commute.

<comment><USER12> _Keep in mind for people living in the city, the bicycle is a utility, not something ridden for sport or enjoyment. I do however enjoy passing cars on the bicycle and instigating races from bicycle road racers during my commute._

Your second sentence contradicts your first. How do you encounter road racers if the bicycle is "not something ridden for sport or enjoyment".

I live in a city and it is all three for me. All my trips to the grocery store are on bike, but I also enjoy the occasional leisurely ride to nowhere, and a regular "sport" ride.

But I do agree that most people don't think of a bike as a tool, they think of it as a toy. I think of cars like that, though, so I guess it is just a matter of perspective and experience.

<comment><USER9> _How do you encounter road racers if the bicycle is "not something ridden for sport or enjoyment"._

Road racers are a very small minority of the cycling population in Tokyo. However, almost everyone (non road racers) rides on the sidewalk. On the street there are relatively more road racers and hybrids.

<comment><USER12> Yeah, I have noticed that. Is there some rule against riding bicycles on the road in Tokyo, or do people just prefer the sidewalk. (It is illegal to ride on the sidewalk in Chicago, for example, but people do it anyway for some reason.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is an adaptation which makes a lot of sense in a few areas in Japan because footprint is so expensive that volume is cheap by comparison.

In my home town, it is much more economical to just buy three giant expanses of land by the train station (even though it is the most pricey real estate in town) and let people park their bikes there.

<comment><USER14> I don't know your home town, but is the train station the only place a lot of people would want to store their bikes?

Because at least where I live the center of the city is packed with bikes during the warm part of the year and some of the places have four times as many bikes as there are spaces in the bike rack.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Brett Glass here.... Frankly, I am not that surprised by the Japanese bike storage system (it's not that much different than the ones used by dry cleaners!) but am truly amazed that Poul-Henning's ancient message is still being circulated. Being flamed by PHK appears to be somewhat of a rite of passage in the FreeBSD community, by the way, so at the time I saw his remark as a backhanded compliment.

</comment><comment><USER16> Too much trouble. I prefer <http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/16892414.jpg> with a heavy chain.

</comment><comment><USER17> What I was impressed with were the bike ramp and escalator alongside the stairs. They are such simple and elegant solutions to the bikes-and-stairs problem. Dig it.

</comment><comment><USER18> _your bike becomes theft-proof_

No. It just means your bike thieves need to be more technically astute. (nothing can be completely secure)

<comment><USER19> You seem completely secure in your quibbling.

<comment><USER18> Im confused :) It was just a comment that sprung out at me

The fact remains the bikes are only as secure as the system used to storing them :) no reason hacks wont spring up. I was surprised no one else here commented on it.

(no need to be vicious)

<comment><USER19> I disavow myself of any unintended vicioun, I simply wished to point out that 'nothing is completely secure' is a bit of an irrelevant nitpick.

:)

<comment><USER18> Heh, yeh sorry - a comouter was aggravating me and I took it out here.

It might be nit picking... but it's worth pointing out. It's like marketing a hack-proof computer; there would be an outcry :) (and rightly too).

But mostly it was just a throw away observation ;)

<comment><USER9> In Japan, it's as good as theft-proof.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Brilliant ,technology to actually solve a "real" problem, we could do with one of those in high-density Cities like London.

</comment><comment><USER21> Those stairs that allow you to roll your bike is very useful and creative too.

</comment><comment><USER22> Bike shedding?

Where is Brett Glass when you need him?

[http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=506636+517178+/u...](http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=506636+517178+/usr/local/www/db/text/1999/freebsd- hackers/19991003.freebsd-hackers)

</comment><comment><USER23> OK, does anyone get reminded of Minority Report when watching how the bikes get stored after entering the door?

Maybe my memory of Minority Report is rusty, but it reminded me of how people were stored after being frozen.

Pretty cool.

<comment><USER24> This is also how cars were stored in the Will Smith iRobot movie.

Oh yeah, and there's a real one managed by Unitronics Hoboken New Jersey. It's notorious for breakdowns: [http://www.nj.com/hobokennow/index.ssf/2009/05/another_dropp...](http://www.nj.com/hobokennow/index.ssf/2009/05/another_dropped_car_at_hoboken.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Is it safe? What if you get caught in the bike or the machinery while it's carting the bike off? One mangled customer would put them out of business.

And what happens when they lose power or their computer malfunctions?

<comment><USER26> Is fork safe? What if you poke your eyes while eating?

I don't think Japan has the culture where the customer's stupidity will lead to either them getting sued or everyone else getting scared to death because of constant media circle-jerking on a single accident/event.

I am not from Japan, so I could be wrong.

<comment><USER25> Millions of our non-ancestors stuck themselves in the eye with a sharp stick (or analogous operation). We have literally _evolved_ to avoid poking our eyes with a fork while eating! We have eyelid closure reflexes, withdrawal reflexes, avoidance reflexes: the system is as redundant as hell and all to protect your vision so you can pass your genes along. Those systems are always alert, even when you sit down to eat with a fork.

But an unattended machine that picks up bicycles and stores them is likely _not_ something that our genes will so easily protect us from. Of course our reflexes will do the best they can but one only need look at the history of man-machine accidents, indeed, to look around at the maimed among us to see what usually happens.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> This is fantastic.

However can you even imagine a "too many bikes" problem in the USA? My town has many bike lanes but bikes have disappeared from even the college campus at an alarming rate as students come in as freshmen with daddy's SUV instead.

<comment><USER9> Grass is always greener...

There are lots of bikes but streets are narrow and bike lanes are nowhere to be found (I was amazed when I visited Amsterdam)

Most people ride on the sidewalk; some ride on the street but on the wrong side (contrary to the traffic!).

Most drivers don't seem to be aware of bikes. For instance, you have to take a lot of care of drivers coming from the opposite direction and turning (on their) right in front of you.

Also, most Japanese university students don't own cars and would probably envy you Americans. :-)

<comment><USER28> My favorite part about Amsterdam (and most of Europe for that matter) is that no one wears a helmet.</comment></comment></comment>


Camtweet Does Justin.tv Live On Twitter  - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/10/camtweet-does-justintv-live-on-twitter/ <comment><USER2> In the sage words of Samantha Bee:

"My Stalker just Grunted on my Twitter!"

(For context, try this video: [http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=219519...](http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=219519&title=twitter- frenzy) )</comment>


Review My App: In That Box for iOS -- Organize your storage containers - <AUTHOR> http://inthatbox.com

<comment><USER2> Great idea, but I suspect too painful to type in contents. How about this...let me take multiple photos while filling the box, integrate it with your website, then later I can inventory items I want to by viewing the pictures for each box. Or if not, i can quickly skim through boxes and just look at the pics if i'm looking for something.

Typing on a regular keyboard is a must. Website integration is a must. I'd use an online app like that for lots of things, especially if it bad a nice iPhone app. I've been unable to find my travel router twice in the last 6 months, even though I swore I wouldn't forget where I put it each time!!

How long until RFID tags are cheap enough that we can just attach one to every new thing we purchase?

<comment><AUTHOR> I've been planning to integrate a web-based version, but I hadn't considered the photos first, title later idea. I'll have to think about how it would in to the existing interface, but that certainly seems like it has potential. Thanks for the suggestion!

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hi HNers,

In That Box is a side project I've been working on, partially as a way to learn more about iOS development.

Last week I released the latest version which adds a number of new features and brings it past MVP status. I'd love to hear what you think about the app. I've included some promo codes below -- if you like the app I'd really appreciate a review on the app store.

Thanks, Matt

 _Please comment when you use a code so people know which are used!_

Promo codes (US only):

      3EANWPMAEFJ6
      RK69X6HHY9MH
      FY9JLX9PR6H6
      YLRTHM6337AR
      W7LFWTH4TK79
      6E673PM3NTAH
      P4JY73X996ME
      X7NALYPM4ENN

</comment><comment><USER3> Used RK69X6HHY9MH. Been looking for something like this for a while. Will write a review after using it for a couple of days.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hope you find it useful. Thanks for checking it out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Used FY9JLX9PR6H6. Thanks. I take it you've read Makers by Cory Doctorow?

<comment><AUTHOR> I never have read it, but I will definitely check it out. Looks like it's even available for free online.

<comment><USER4> Ya Doctorow writes everything under creative commons or some such license. I mentioned it because there's a fictional technology very similar to your app in it

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> used 3EANWPMAEFJ6.

Seems good so far. Will have to play around a bit more. will leave a review on app store after using it for longer.

<comment><AUTHOR> Okay, thank you for checking it out.</comment></comment>


Thank You for Calling Equifax. Your Business Is Not Important to Us - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-09-14/thank-you-for-calling-equifax-your-business-is-not-important-to-us <comment><USER2> The headline does not match the article that I admittedly skimmed. The headline assumes that you, the reader, are Equifax's customer ("your business"). That's not true, and the article even says so:

 _" Credit reporting businesses have been built primarily to serve banks and credit card companies, not the consumers they monitor."_

So, yeah, big shocker that they haven't beefed up their phone staffing for individual consumers.

</comment><comment><USER3> Credit freeze should be ON by default and shouldn't be prohibitive to enable. How did it get to be anti-common sense?</comment>


Ask HN: is buying an old site, very dependent on SEO, a good idea? - <AUTHOR>

im thinking about purchasing a site that relies on  SEO for almost all of its traffic (not too many returning visitors).  im a web developer but not really experienced in alot of SEO.
id prefer not to mention the domain, since the sale is pending, but here are some more figures:
Price: $100k Domain Age: 8 years
Monthly Stats: Uniques: 100k SEMRush rank: 55k Google SE Traffic: 30k SE Traffic price: $17k Revenue: ~$3k
i know initially, the thought of spending $100k on a site that makes 3k a month isn't the smartest idea, but the potential for the site seems pretty big.
it ranks #1 in google for alot of general keywords, has a community on the site that can be revitalized, a 20k email list, along with the possibility of injecting alot of social media features.
my main concern is, if i purchase the site, and try to revamp it, would this kill the traffic built up over the years?  what if i still keep the urls the same?
or would i be able to change them, and do a 301 to maintain rankings?
is it even worth messing with the dinosaur content, or just keep the domain and build a new app with a subdomain beta?
any sort of suggestions would be greatly appreciated, even if its related to scrapping the idea in purchasing the site at all - thanks! <comment><USER2> Domain age counts for something, as does the rich mat of links that a long- existing site has.

On the other hand, the price looks high for a site that gets that much traffic. I can pretty consistently create SEO-oriented sites that get that much traffic & revenue in 1-2 yrs with an investment of my time that's more like $10-15k. (Working pretty intensely for a month, and mostly waiting for the link network to mature)

(Of course, I've gotten tired of that and now I'm trying to break into making sites that are 10-100x bigger than that)

Changing a successful site is always risky. There are two risks. (1) is that you might go from something that works to something that doesn't work, and (2) in theory the ideal way to drive up your traffic would be to make small incremental improvements, watch your results, then make more changes. Google's very happy for you to do that if you're using AdWords, but they don't like you doing that in SEO, so there are things built into the system that can (sometimes) zap your ratings if you try to revamp an old site.

Personally I can think of better things to do if I had $100k sitting around, but if you like this site you should think about trying to negotiate the price down. I think a multiple of 8 times earnings is fair, so something like $25k more like it.

Of course, his operating costs are low, so like your average domainer, he can probably sit around a long time to find the guy who'll pay too much.

<comment><AUTHOR> i know what you mean about making cash in other ways faster than inheriting a 100k site - i did some affiliate marketing and was able to generate that kind of cash pretty quick.

the thing that still makes this site worth looking into is the fact that they were able to even generate 3k without really knowing how to monetize the site. it seems like they just went on with the site, skimping over alot of things.

i think they could have done alot more with adding more social features, more frequent content (since they rank so well on google), sending out newsletters with occasional related cpa offers, etc etc.

most ppl here are probably capable of building a site very quick and testing the market. id say im technically capable also, but this site already has the traffic going for it and could be scaled alot more.

i also noticed, when you hear about any acquisition of a site, its either the big startups (in the multiple millions), or tiny ones that you can find on flippa, etc.

i dont hear alot about people turning around sites in the 6 figure range as often.

nonetheless, 100k does some like a pretty big evaluation for it

<comment><AUTHOR> forgot to mention also, it makes 3k a month, so roughly 30k a year. your evaluation of 8 times is based off the monthly right

<comment><USER2> If it makes $30k of revenue a year and you don't think that revenue stream is about to stop, this is a good investment. Do it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I've heard that Google will sometimes "reset" link value for domains that change ownership; however, I don't know of any specific examples of this happening. There are plenty of sites that get sold for their SEO value and seem to avoid this problem. SEO traffic can disappear at any moment—especially if you're not a major brand—so I'd be nervous about making an investment that takes 3 years to recoup.

I'm not sure if it's the right move to buy, but if you do I'd keep the site stable for at least a month or two. Then start making changes gradually. You don't want to end up in a situation where you make a dozen changes and your rankings tank. You won't know what caused it.

You absolutely need to maintain your URL structure, or use 301 redirects to maintain your link equity.

The "dinosaur content" is what's bringing in the traffic. Don't ever get rid of it, even if you end up deemphasizing it long term.

My take (from your questions) is that you're not ready to make a purchase like this. You should start working on your own project where mistakes won't cost you tens of thousands of dollars. Once you get a hang of things, then you can start buying sites.

One site that I love is <http://selfmademinds.com/>

It's the blog of two guys who buy/sell/lease/flip domains and sites. Lots to learn from them.

</comment><comment><USER4> How did you find the site? Did he come to you to solicited the sale? Was it in a market place like flippa?

<comment><AUTHOR> yeah its from a place similar to flippa - im not worried about whether or not the posting is credible

<comment><USER4> I ask b/c I want to know about his willingness to sell. If you contacted him out of the blue he may have gave you a high number b/c he does not really want to sell. If it is on a marketplace, you know he wants to sell; you have more negotiating power.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Bottom line, you could build a network of sites which could bring in 3K / month for way less than $100K.</comment>


Ask HN: Best Ruby On Rails resources for experienced developer? - <AUTHOR>

Overwhelming number of "learn RoR" resources out there. Hoping some of the experts on HN can recommend good resources for an experienced C/C++/Java developer to learn Ruby on Rails. Paid is fine if the value is there. Thanks! <comment><USER2> When beginning learning RoR, look through Rails for Zombies (<http://railsforzombies.org>) and Try Ruby (<http://tryruby.org/levels/1/challenges/0>) to get a feel of the new language. It's quite different from C/C++/Java.

You'll get better working out and experimenting with things on your own, but Hartl's book serves as a great beginner's guide (while being comprehensive).

I think "The Rails Way" by Obie Fernandez works as a good reference book after you get more experienced as well.

[http://www.amazon.com/The-Rails-Way-Obie- Fernandez/dp/032144...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Rails-Way-Obie- Fernandez/dp/0321445619)

That's bout all(:

</comment><comment><USER3> The canonical resource is the Ruby on Rails Tutorial by Michael Hartl: <http://ruby.railstutorial.org/ruby-on-rails-tutorial-book>. It's aimed primarily at programmers, and it's free online.

<comment><USER4> The other place to look for books is Pragmatic Programmers ( <http://pragprog.com/titles> ) who do the Agile Web Development with Rails book which is usually fairly up to date, along with some other in depth titles.

A subscription to Railscasts pro ( <http://railscasts.com/> ) is also well worth the cost.

<comment><USER5> I completely agree with the Railscasts mention -- I use it and asciicasts (<http://asciicasts.com/>) which is the text version quite often.

The pro membership pays for itself back right away as you have access to the whole collection of pro and revised episodes he has released to this point.

The docs for ruby and rails both are really helpful too. <http://corelib.rubyonrails.org/> <http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-1.9.3/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't have a specific resource to add, but I want to point out that Rails has a rather steep learning curve. Once you get over the "aha!" hump, though, it's _really_ productive.

Edit: Nevermind, here's a resource you should bookmark (even if it is obvious): <http://guides.rubyonrails.org/>

I still reference pieces of it, and I've been using Rails for six years or so now.

<comment><USER7> > Rails has a rather steep learning curve.

I can't agree more. I came in thinking it was going to be fairly easy to pick up, but it seems like I spend most of my time just looking up how to do things "the Rails way" (not that that's a bad thing persay, but you definitely feel like you're doing nothing sometimes).

Anyways, I found Agile Web Development with Rails (4th Edition):

[http://pragprog.com/book/rails4/agile-web-development- with-r...](http://pragprog.com/book/rails4/agile-web-development-with-rails)

to be fairly useful if you don't mind buying a book. Plus, the ebook gets updated fairly frequently with erratas and stuff, as per usual with the PragProg team.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Railscasts.com

Railstutorial.org

The Rails 3 Way

Rails 3 Antipatterns

guides.rubyonrails.org

It's probably best to start with the absolute basics, just to make sure you don't miss anything. Even if you just skim through them.

</comment><comment><USER9> Good question; I'm very interested in RoR, but coming from a more static language/framework like CakePHP and ASP.Net MVC3, I'm confused on how to use it correctly.

Let's so someone enlightens us. :)</comment>


Show HN: A/B Testing Backend Using AWS Lambda and Redis HyperLogLog - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Alephbet/gimel <comment><AUTHOR> Very keen to get some feedback since it's the first time I'm using Lambda and Redis HyperLogLog, and might have missed something.

It's still quite raw, but I hope it has good potential. I wrote a bit more about the architecture, motivation etc on my blog[0]

[0] [http://blog.gingerlime.com/2016/a-scaleable-ab-testing- backe...](http://blog.gingerlime.com/2016/a-scaleable-ab-testing-backend- in-100-lines-of-code-and-for-free/)

<comment><USER2> Looks like your blog is down at the moment

<comment><USER3> Yeah, it still seems down.

<comment><USER3> Correction, it says: Site not configured

<comment><AUTHOR> that sounds like a webfaction error (where I host the blog), but it usually happens when the domain name doesn't match what they know they're hosting...

Are you using https anywhere or some other type of plugin that might change the URL or proxy your access somehow? (anything that might mess with the Host header somehow).

EDIT: I think I have an idea (could be the webfaction cname + IPv6 - I'll look into it...). Should work now! Sorry about that. Thanks for letting me know!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I personally like AWS Lambdas very much and am always looking for interesting use-cases, like this one. I don't quite get what your code is supposed to do yet, but I have some initial comments about the implementation, hope it's ok.

There are two things that glare at me immediately, a) the vendoring of the redis code (including pyc files) and b) the need to define static credentials in the code itself.

There are two little tools I would like to point your attention to, that may ease this pain.

Here is a pybuilder plugin to make deploying lambdas much easier, it can generate a lambda-zip for you (including all dependencies) and upload it to S3 so that you can use it in a CFN template:

[https://github.com/ImmobilienScout24/pybuilder_aws_plugin](https://github.com/ImmobilienScout24/pybuilder_aws_plugin)

The second is a tool to configure lambdas, by placing "things" (e.g. redis creds) in the description field of the lambda. This way, you can speparate code and configuration cleanly:

[https://github.com/ImmobilienScout24/aws-lambda- configurer](https://github.com/ImmobilienScout24/aws-lambda-configurer)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks a lot! I was looking for ways to separate configuration from code, but couldn't find anything. Similarly "packaging" this so it's easy to share and for other people to use, I couldn't really find any common solution. I'll take a look at your suggestion! Much appreciated.

<comment><USER3> You are most welcome, our code is still really fresh so if you do hit any snags we'd love to hear from you! Any and all feedback is welcome!</comment></comment></comment>


Sleep++ 2.0 Proves That There's Still a Market for Apple Watch Apps - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/11/sleep-2-0-proves-that-theres-still-a-market-for-apple-watch-apps/ <comment><USER2> I've liked this app since I first saw it on product hunt... I wish it was able to monitor audio but I understand that would decimate the battery.</comment>


What if ET is an AI? - <AUTHOR> https://aeon.co/essays/first-contact-what-if-we-find-not-organic-life-but-ets-ai <comment><USER2> If it's possible for us to coexist with our own super-intelligent AI, it might make sense for them to act as intermediaries when communicating with other intelligent beings out there. It might mitigate some of the risk to ourselves by keeping our true nature a secret as well as signalling our capability to deter them from getting funny ideas. That is, unless our AI is given its own agency which we allow to supersede us or if we "merge" with it, whatever that means.</comment>


Show HN: LAPM (Local Admin Password Maintainer) - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/ryanries/LAPM

<comment><AUTHOR> Microsoft's LAPS (Local Admin Password Solution) is getting a lot of attention lately, so I figured I'd open source my version, that I released via my blog three months earlier.</comment>


And everyone gets a robot pony - <AUTHOR> http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/07/14/and-everyone-gets-a-robot-pony/ <comment><USER2> I like this part of the OP:

 _"If singularitarians were 19th century engineers, they'd be the ones talking about our glorious future of transportation by proposing to hack up horses and replace their muscles with hydraulics. Yes, that's the future: steam-powered robot horses. And if we shovel more coal into their bellies, they'll go faster!"_

This is very true. Having been peripherally involved in a project to slice up and image just a cubic millimeter of ferret brain, I think I can safely say that we are not going to be able to accomplish anything remotely like reading out the state of a human brain anytime in the foreseeable future. Just reconstructing the 3D geometry of the neurons and synapses in that 1 mm cube turns out to be a gargantuan feat, much less recording all the other stuff that you would need to record.

Sure, things like this are fun to think about, and I have nothing against fun. But any thoughts of being able to actually do this, fall into the realm of Science Fiction. There's no point in putting any serious effort into figuring out how we might accomplish this goal now, as by the time we are able to actually do it, as the OP pointed out, our knowledge will be much different. And any ideas that we have now--like dated Science Fiction--are just going to be thought of as having been terribly quaint.

</comment><comment><USER3> In addition to his confusion over the clock frequency speedup argument (as pointed out by cultureulterior), PZ Myers doesn't seem to argue from a concrete idea of how detailed a scan will have to be to capture the important brain functions. The feasibility of brain scans is strongly sensitive to the (currently disputed) necessary level of detail. It doesn't make sense for him to say

> We can't even record the complete state of a single cell;

unless he's just using it as a general statement about out technology. It's completely possible that recording the state of a cell with molecular resolution remains beyond our control even when we can scan brains to the resolution necessary to simulate human cognition.

Also, when I heard that

> With the most elaborate and careful procedures, they report excellent > fixation within 5 microns of the surface, and disruption of the tissue by > ice crystal formation within 20 microns.

my estimate of brain scan feasibility went _up_. Of _course_ it's true that we don't yet "have a method to lock down the state of a 3kg brain"; we're discussing the far future!

Pre-WWII, I think someone could have made very similar arguments about computers by pointing out how fast they would have to be to do something crazy like a 3D simulation. By golly, they'd need _billions_ of transistors. Yes, computers are different than brain scanning, so the scalability of one need not imply the scalability of the other. But the point is that you can't just argue "look how hard this is _now_ ; it will continue to be hard in the future". You have to argue about why _progress_ in brain scanning will be slow (compared to computers).

<comment><USER4> I think what the article is pointing out is that:

1) People who have never tried to scan a brain say "oh it's totally doable, why haven't we done this with simple organisms?"

2) People who are actually trying to scan brains say "Um, have you even read any of our papers, we know it would be useful, but it's hard"

<comment><USER3> > People who have never tried to scan a brain say "oh it's totally doable, why > haven't we done this with simple organisms?"

Who are these people? Certainly not Chris Hallquist in the post linked by Myers.

And where does Myers say this? I don't see him attributing to anyone the claim that the scanning of simple organisms should already have happened.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Below is some background reading on whole brain emulation from the Future of Humanity Insititute. It isn't hard to come to a better understanding of the present state of research and plausible future goals than is demonstrated by the author of this piece.

<http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/Reports/2008-3.pdf>

"As this review shows, WBE on the neuronal/synaptic level requires relatively modest increases in microscopy resolution, a less trivial development of automation for scanning and image processing, a research push at the problem of inferring functional properties of neurons and synapses, and relatively business‐as‐usual development of computational neuroscience models and computer hardware.

"This assumes that this is the appropriate level of description of the brain, and that we find ways of accurately simulating the subsystems that occurs on this level. Conversely, pursuing this research agenda will also help detect whether there are low‐level effects that have significant influence on higher level systems, requiring an increase in simulation and scanning resolution.

"There do not appear to exist any obstacles to attempting to emulate an invertebrate organism today. We are still largely ignorant of the networks that make up the brains of even modestly complex organisms. Obtaining detailed anatomical information of a small brain appears entirely feasible and useful to neuroscience, and would be a critical first step towards WBE. Such a project would serve as both a proof of concept and test bed for further development.

"If WBE is pursued successfully, at present it looks like the need for raw computing power for real‐time simulation and funding for building large‐scale automated scanning/processing facilities are the factors most likely to hold back large‐scale simulations."

\---

And some further, easier background reading:

[http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2012/06/mind-uploading- at...](http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2012/06/mind-uploading-at-the- international-journal-of-machine-consciousness.php)

[http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2009/02/the-age-of- artifi...](http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2009/02/the-age-of-artificial- brains.php)

<comment><USER6> On a more flippant level, isn't it pretty obvious that robot ponies are going to be a thing that is possible to have some time in the next century or two? We've already got something that's kind of moving in that direction, and this was a few years ago: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww>

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Recently I've been thinking this kind of thing is more likely to be a gradual process, and not likely to take the literal form that's been discussed.

But as we use systems that expand our awareness, are adaptive to us as individuals, and interface with us more tightly, we'll slowly become a sort hybrid consciousness. And over time, we'll become more and more "online", until some day, the machine portion of that consciousness will persist in a meaningful way after the biological part has come to an end.

In other words, we might well come to a point where we "upload" by shaping the systems we interact with over time. But it won't be the same as the bio version of our consciousness, it will be something else.

Whether we will come to a point where that distinction doesn't matter to our consciousnesses or not is an open topic.

<comment><USER8> I'd guess what one could try realistically with the current technologies is linking two mice [via Ed Boyden like devices] and observing, if that could produce an effect of extended awareness between these mice [like pain stimuli, etc].

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This problem is hard. Extremely hard. But that does not mean that it is not theoretically possible (if very, very, very unlikely).

A lot of the brain uploading people seem to look at this through destructive brain scanning (correct me if I'm wrong). That sounds like a terrible idea - why does it have to be all in one go and not reversible.

What if - for example (I'm spitballing) - you move into the brain slowly replacing each live neuron with an artificial neuron (far fetched I know - nanotech is ridiculously hard/difficult), instead of going slice by slice on a frozen brain.

There is no reason that this slow "viral" method couldn't be done (or reversed - replace artificial neuron with neuron). This is akin to how we deploy distributed systems - create a compiled slug and push it out node by node via bittorrent. The change is tested on each node, and slowly moves out. If anything goes wrong - just roll back to previous slug.

Once you have full conversion - upload away (as I presume getting states of artificial neurons is relatively easy vs. organic cells). Have no doubts about it - this is a super hard problem. But it is not impossible.

</comment><comment><USER10> LW discussion: [http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/dm3/pz_meyers_on_the_in...](http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/dm3/pz_meyers_on_the_infeasibility_of_whole_brain/)

</comment><comment><USER11> He completely misunderstands the clock frequency speedup argument.

<comment><USER3> Just so it's clear to everyone, he says

> And then going on to make more ludicrous statements…

> > _Axons carry spike signals at 75 meters per second or less (Kandel et al. > 2000). That speed is a fixed consequence of our physiology. In contrast, > software minds could be ported to faster hardware, and could therefore > process information more rapidly._

> You're just going to increase the speed of the computations — how are you > going to do that without disrupting the interactions between all of the > subunits? You've assumed you've got this gigantic database of every cell and > synapse in the brain, and you're going to just tweak the clock speed…how? > You've got varying length constants in different axons, different kinds of > processing, different kinds of synaptic outputs and receptor responses, and > you're just going to wave your hand and say, "Make them go faster!" Jebus. > As if timing and hysteresis and fatigue and timing-based potentiation don't > play any role in brain function; as if sensory processing wasn't dependent > on timing. We've got cells that respond to phase differences in the activity > of inputs, and oh, yeah, we just have a dial that we'll turn up to 11 to > make it go faster.

The only explanation I can think of is that he thinks the proposal is to scan this brain so that it can be duplicated and run as another fleshy brain. But obviously, the idea is to simulate the entire brain on a computer, so that simulating the brain faster than real life is just a matter of having a fast computer. If he missed this, it makes me a bit skeptical of his other criticisms.

<comment><USER12> I think what he means is that the brain is multi-threaded with optimistic locking and hardcoded timing constants.

Try running old MS-DOS games inside an emulator. Many of them will act quite funny when you turn up the clock-speed.

<comment><USER13> That's not exactly turning up the speed, that's emulating a faster CPU.

Try taking a game boy emulator and putting it on fast forward. Works perfectly. If you have full emulation of a system you can go arbitrarily fast.

<comment><USER12> Yes, it was a flawed analogy (aren't they all...).

However, these DOS-games usually fail in sped up emulations because they make assumptions about external inputs such as the Real Time Clock.

I think the point of OP was that we can't reasonably speed up the "RTC" in a brain emulation if you want it to interact with the real world, because that would break all sorts of hardwired assumptions.

For a simple example, if you ran your brain at 4x speed then it would perceive everything in super-slow-motion. At that speed it would already have difficulties to understand when you speak to it (at the least it will have to be a very patient brain).

At higher speeds pretty much all cognitive functions would probably break down - unless you feed it recorded inputs that have been accelerated to match the brain-speed.

<comment><USER13> That is an issue, but there is a huge difference between having to slow the brain back down in certain situations and being unable to speed it up at all.

I don't expect to play an entire game on fast forward, after all.

Edit: new line about breakdown: I just assumed that whatever input was given would be sped up too. That part of the project seems far less complicated than the brain simulation itself.

<comment><USER12> My knowledge of brains is limited, but I'd think the issue remains the same even if you cut off all external inputs.

Basics like memory decay are also tied to the system clock. So if you run your brain at 1000x speed then it would probably simply forget everything almost immediately.

And if you make a "simple" patch that prevents it from ever forgetting anything then it would be overwhelmed because it is only wired to deal with a certain amount of memories at a time.

In terms of the DOS-Game analogy: We may be able to patch a game that originally ran in 256kb of Ram to run in 2GB and actually fill that up (because we disabled the garbage collector). But the game probably uses algorithms that break down when faced with such a large dataset.

At this point we're down to having to actually understand the game (or brain) in detail, in order to make the changes required for running at higher capacity.

<comment><USER13> Actually having a higher capacity will be tricky, yes. But at least there won't be cell decay in the scientists working 4000 hour weeks to figure it out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Kurzweil's next book is supposed to be about the advancing state of brain imaging. His last books seemed to reduce the brain to its computational capacity, and he kind of does some hand-waving about how our brain scanning technology is getting better at accelerating rates.

Will he address the complexity of the cell and the brain, or will this fall into the category of stuff that we'll of course understand in the future?

</comment><comment><USER15> The article is pretty funny, but it's all true: the complexity of our brain is just beyond our imagination at the moment.

Saying that we could preserve the brain or make a copy of it is like saying that rockets are just open ended combustion engines and aliens have been visiting us for a long time.

No, there's a reason why the former is called "rocket science" and the latter is impossible because the speed of light doesn't allow it (it's been proven time and time again that it's constant and there's nothing faster).

The Sun is the most powerful energy source we know of, and it's "just" a result of billions of years of gases and particles coming together and somehow successfully starting a chain reaction.

Then again, without the kind of optimism that Sci-Fi fans have we would not have most of the technology we enjoy today...

</comment><comment><USER16> Hacker news talked about this problem recently <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3987660>. Unique hardware is always difficult to emulate, and that's why you cut corners. Cutting corers in this field has gotten us quite far [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=graphic- sci...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=graphic-science-ibm- simulates-4-percent-human-brain-all-of-cat-brain).

But the OP of the article is ignoring the philosophical problem at hand: would a perfectly simulated brain bring about sentience? To me the answer is no. A machine can fake it, but its the complex noise of nature that gives us our qualia.

<comment><USER17> As another person who's spent some time thinking about this: I disagree. Why couldn't a machine simulate the noise as well?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> And yet, very few people would have thought this possible 30 years ago: [http://singularityhub.com/2010/06/12/monkey-controls- robot-a...](http://singularityhub.com/2010/06/12/monkey-controls-robot-arm- with-7-degrees-of-freedom-video/)

</comment><comment><USER19> Totally unfair of PZ since Hallquist did say "surprised ... if it took only a couple of decades". 20 years of computational/biological advances should give us quite a lot.

</comment><comment><USER20> Obligatory self-promotion:

<http://guscost.com/2011/04/12/science-analog-confabulation/>

</comment><comment><USER21> THANK YOU! Very few technologies develop at exponential rates like computer science has. In general, the learning curve is steep and the progress is slow.

</comment><comment><USER22> Do we really need to scan the brain? One of the greatest tech companies out there, Google, makes almost all it's money figuring out the right ads to put in front of people. They pay their employees the most for working in that area too. Eventually these ad companies like Google will be able to model people based on their life data. :) Of course it will be to figure out which ads to show them and make more money, not to run the model and give it life. But maybe they'll let the model act as your concierge for a fee.

<comment><USER23> The culmination of these billions of dollars and research and engineering will be a real life manifestation of 'clippy'.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I have a question regarding this brain scanning and uploading idea:

Won't Heisenberg's principle make this impossible?

<comment><USER10> No. Why would it?

<comment><USER24> Well, to me it seems that fine grained brain scanning would need something like Laplace's demon:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%27s_demon>

<comment><USER25> Fortunately, neurons are still orders of magnitude above atoms in terms of volumetric density. So it is not that bad. Simulating all of the atoms in the volume of a brain individually might be a pain.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> He doesn't take the point about robot horses very far, but that's where the conversation will go in time.

Maybe flight is a better example. We always knew it was possible to fly because we saw birds doing it. Birds fly by flapping their wings. We tried to make flying machines that flap their wings. They didn't fly.

Birds evolved to flap their wings because it exploited the technology available to evolution. Birds are made out of the same stuff as other animals, just tweaked a bit to be lighter. Flapping is a lot like running or swimming physiologically -- swinging a limb back and forth in a certain pattern. Evolution can do a lot with warm-blooded animals with limbs.

When we figured out how to make artificial flying machines, the solution exploited the advantages of _our_ technology. Planes are made out of the same stuff as cars, just tweaked a bit to be lighter. Spinning a propeller is a lot like spinning a wheel. We can do a lot with combustion engines that spin things.

The missing pieces were the principles of aerodynamics, some technology (IC engine, construction materials), and some engineering specific to the problem of flight. Since we figured it out, we're able to make machines that fly faster and higher than anything in nature. _Vastly_ faster and higher.

Right now we're trying to build machines that think -- not just compute. We know that thinking is possible because we see brains doing it. Brains do it with neurons and synapses. We tried to make thinking machines out of neurons and synapses. They didn't think.

Brains are made of neurons because that's what evolution had available. Neurons are a lot like other cells in the body -- blood cells, skin cells, muscle cells. Evolution is good at specializing cells to do all kinds of jobs.

When we figure out how to make thinking machines, the solution will exploit the advantages of the technology of the day. It will look like something we already have, but tweaked. We're good with transistors and silicon. We're good at computer networks.

We definitely have missing pieces. We don't know much about the principles of intelligence. We understand logic, but how do you get intelligence from logic? And maybe we're still missing some key technology to make it work. (Memristors? Graphene?) And once we have the principles and the technology, it'll take some engineering to make it work, but we'll make it work. We'll building thinking machines that are _vastly_ smarter, wiser, and more clever than nature ever did.

The point is that if we ever upload a brain, it will be like building a mechanical horse -- an over-engineered gimmick, a parlor trick. We'll already have done much better at AI by approaching the problem from a different direction.

It doesn't bode well for humanity though, in the long term. Just about the only jobs left are _thinking_ jobs. What happens when it's a waste of time for a human to think, just like it's a waste of time for a horse to pull a plow? We didn't declare war on horses, Terminator-style. We just didn't keep very many around.</comment>


Most startups are spending money too fast.  Slow it down. - <AUTHOR> http://www.humbledmba.com/most-startups-are-spending-money-too-fast-you <comment><USER2> There are so many dynamics at work when it comes to burn rate. At previous startups in which I was involved, we were expected to increase spending by the investors. While we wanted to walk it slowly, they wanted us to spend more (on headcount.) As was expected, the lesson of ten-women-cannot-make-a-baby-in-a- month was relearned.

<comment><USER3> Nine women.

<comment><USER4> The original poster is correct: human gestation is about 10 months (from conception). Most women would be aware of their pregnancy for only nine of those months.

<comment><USER5> Human gestation is estimated as 40 weeks counting from the last menstruation. Conception is 2 weeks after that on average, so the actual time is about 38 * 7 = 266 days.

Dividing by 30, you get 266 / 30 = 8,866666666667 months (almost nine).

<comment><USER6> Oh sweet Jesus, you guys are missing the point in style.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The real problem is startups raise money too early. In my mind there should be two main reasons to raise money: 1) You have figured out a way to make $1 while spend less, and your data tells you you can do this x times over, 2) You cannot afford to pay for your servers or dev time due to customer growth. Can you think of more reasons?

<comment><USER8> Since it takes a while to raise money, and since running low on cash can lead to a crisis, much fundraising is in anticipation of 1 or 2. But you're right, a lot of status do seem to raise money simply because it's what everyone else is doing.

<comment><USER9> In case #1, it doesn't take a lot of time to raise money. Collateralizing a bank loan against future revenue is a fairly pretty straightforward process, and the only "pitch" you need is (possibly audited) documentation of your free cash flow.

<comment><USER10> a) Bank loan is not an _investment_ , not even a convertible debt.

b) Raising Money takes longer time than one imagine at first, especially at start when every available second is used for the development. All of a sudden, in the middle of the code server development, you have to stop your hacking works and author a 15-18 slides deck for an investor, that alone can take about a week.

You know, working on the figures, facts, and backing up your thesis. Sending it over to get reviews, meeting, waiting for answer.

It takes time, and it takes the most expensive time of yours.

You are suddenly stop working for the startup and start working for the investor(s).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Sometimes it is more risky to be less aggressive.

This is a lesson I learned from Vinod Khosla - who by most metrics knows what he is doing. In nascent markets user acquisition costs rise quickly. In network effect businesses, switching costs are high.

So should you lower your burn? Not necessarily. Ask yourself just as often "should I increase my burn."

<comment><USER12> Another way to look at it is "Am I burning effectively?". If you're being honest, the answer is usually no. Unless your money is free, a lot can be achieved with no new burn. I like to keep tinder (cash) dry until we've found a way to be effective and then invest in it heavily.

Put another way, it doesn't matter what your burn is if you've got your rockets pointed in the wrong directions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> _Funded_ startups tend to spend money too fast (from what I've seen).

Maybe another reason to bootstrap/self-fund with consulting (what I'm doing right now).

</comment><comment><USER14> "There is no liquidity reason that explains why there's plenty of money available to seed concepts and not enough money available to A rounds."

Is this true? I'd have assumed that most seed funding is provided by smaller investors who are investing personal funds while venture capital is using institutional capital.

We're now year three+ after the general market downturn, which means deleveraging, wealth destruction and a preference for liquid asset classes (i.e. look at Treasury yields) shrinking the availability of institutional capital available for VC funds. And isn't this exactly what we are supposed to see in this situation? Smaller and knowledgeable investors pump up the bottom end of the market because it offers a much better return than sticking cash in anything else?

</comment><comment><USER15> Thanks for posting this. I'm not too knowledgable about the burn rate of others, but I know that we've kept ours very low. Much of this was motivated by the fact that we have a serious hardware play, and lots of our seed capital is allocated towards that.

Regardless, when the problems are interesting and hard enough, we find that our clamp on spending is a really great recruiting filter. The people that join the team are truly passionate about our product and technology. It's painful at times, but spoiled grapes don't taste very good either.

</comment><comment><USER16> Testing unproven hypotheses requires, among other things, money.

Pivoting requires, among other things, money.

<comment><USER7> No, they require time.

<comment><USER17> But time is money.

And I am not trying to be cute here. It is properly the single most common tradeoff here - you sell your hours for pay at a company, then buy a frozen pizza because you don't want to make it at home, then clean your own house because a maid is too expensive but outsource your taxes because they are so complex and would take you ten times longer to do, you drive a car because commuting by bike is too slow and the buses don't come by that often.

Time can be brought (heck that is kinda what you are doing with your start-up because a successful start-up can mean you don't have to work at a job again, ever).

<comment><USER7> The difference between time and money is that you have time by default. I assume most entrepreneurs started to work on their business in their spare time before having the money to quit and work on it full time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Good Times RIP never did happen. Within a few months of that presentation people started wondering whether or not we were in a startup bubble.

</comment><comment><USER19> What's the incentive to slow the burn rate? If the startup blows up, you just start another one.

<comment><USER20> Isn't "the startup might not blow up" the incentive?</comment></comment>


Negotiating our acquisition of Jarvis for $15k - <AUTHOR> http://needwant.com/p/negotiating-our-acquisition-of-jarvis/

<comment><USER2> Wait, it was making 6K a month and they sold it for 30K? That is crazy low.

<comment><USER3> 6k revenue (+maybe some percentage here and there), and paying for two employees.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> How to take advantage of people. Like Peter Thiel says. How to take advantage of dumb engineers who only know how to work hard.

</comment><comment><USER5> if the source code is relevant and useful, that could be worth the price in itself... like Google/Facebook buying companies just to get the employees.</comment>


A Letter to Entrepreneurs: Don't Pay to Pitch - <AUTHOR> http://broderick.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/a-letter-to-entrepreneurs/

<comment><USER2> It gets even better. If someone was interested in investing in a startup then they wouldn't have to be paid to listen to pitches.

So essentially you're buying access to people who aren't looking to invest.

</comment><comment><USER3> Someone should start a black list of funding groups that ask entrepreneurs to pay to pitch, and we should give it a bit of press here on HN. This is absolutely absurd.

</comment><comment><USER4> I would have thought this was a no-brainer. Anyone out there know specific firms doing this?

<comment><USER5> The Keiretsu Forum are famous for this after Jason Calacanis found out about them: [http://calacanis.com/2009/10/05/jason-jihad-keiretsu- forum-m...](http://calacanis.com/2009/10/05/jason-jihad-keiretsu-forum-must- be-stopped/)

<comment><USER6> Open Angel Forum will destroy all chapters of Keiretsu Forum in the next 12 months. We are coming to EVERY city they are in and shutting them down one by one.

We shut down Boulder and we will have Los Angeles shut down shortly.

We are replacing them with a better model for angels and entrepreneurs.... and worse for the owner of the forum (i.e. me and their founder). I heard the founder of Keiretsu forum was taking home $1m in profits personally from the Forum... all on the backs of $6k presentation fees they pulled out of startups.

We are OAF We are legion We will not stop</comment></comment></comment>


Age and Great Invention - <AUTHOR> http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/jones-ben/htm/AgeAndGreatInvention.pdf

<comment><USER2> Direct free link to the paper from the author's site:

[http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/jones- ben/htm/Ag...](http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/jones- ben/htm/AgeAndGreatInvention.pdf)

<comment><USER3> Hey thanks for the free link, I wasn't going to pay $5 to read it, but now that I have, it would have been worth it.

It is definitely an interesting analysis and the author has taken some pains to isolate confounding variables. The one thing I would have liked to see is some cross-cultural data. For example his theory is that the interval available for innovation is being reduced due to upward pressure at the low end (people take longer to get academically qualified to start "real" work) but no corresponding expansion of the upper end (just because people are starting 8 years later than they used to does not mean they keep being innovative 8 years after they used to stop). He attributes some of this to the extended training period, which means PhDs don't really get going until 31 whereas a century ago they started research at 23.

But their is a large cultural diffence in this value right now. Back when I was getting my academic training, the typical age of a US PhD was 30, whereas in the UK it seemed to be 24-25 [I do not know whether this is still the case]. So if his point is that the squeeze in "fertile years" is linked with a social drop in scientific innovation, he should be able to show that in countries were the academic qualifications happen faster, those countries are more scientifically productive.

But without looking up his secondary references, I have to admit to being very surprised at the thought that R&D is less productive now than it used to be (per person involved, I guess). If anybody can figure out how they measure that and in what areas of endeavour and can explain it in a few words, please do so.</comment></comment>


Snaptalent relaunches - completely changes business model (YC W08) - <AUTHOR> http://snaptalent.com/ <comment><USER2> Cool, this actually looks like something I could use... Could you guys add a way to sign up without an .edu address? My university uses @mail.mcgill.ca.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is probably pretty superficial compared to the other feedback so far, but I just wanted to say I don't like the photo of someone doing a star jump on the front page. Maybe I'm more jaded than average but it really screams "generic stock photo" to me. I mean come on, is someone really going to be SO happy using your service that they just spontaeneously start jumping?

I suggest a slideshow of handshake closeups or something instead. Never underestimate how impressed non-HN readers are by slideshows.

<comment><USER4> Handshake closeups, women with glasses wearing headsets talking to 'customers' on the phone, and cute, racially ambiguous twenty-something women sitting in grass being happy.

Yes, it's the office of the future and an ad for PMS medication all rolled into one.

Honestly I'm not sure where this comment is supposed to be going. I just wanted to agree about how stupid stock photography is in certain contexts.

edit: Unnaturally happy-looking couples smiling at each other on a couch. Old couples in bath tubs on the beach. You know what I'm talking about....

<comment><USER5> _Handshake closeups, women with glasses wearing headsets talking to 'customers' on the phone, and cute, racially ambiguous twenty-something women sitting in grass being happy._

This is the visual equivalent of How To X, 10 Ways to Y, and The Secret That Z Doesn't Want You To Know in the field of copywriting. They're used because they work, in many circumstances. Ridiculously well, as a matter of fact. Cosmo has forgotten more about to write headlines than you or I will ever know, and they keep using 10 Ways to Y despite the fact that every time I see one I want to burn all paper in the vicinity.

I so wanted to make a mini-site devoted only to girl-in-a-headset photos, because I thought a) good for a laugh and b) there are some easy affiliate commissions to make there, and the [girl in a headset] SERP can't be that tough. But I held off because, eh, not quite enough ha-ha in that joke to motivate me to do it.

Then somebody _actually did it_.

<http://www.headsethotties.com/>

<comment><USER6> I think this is a business variation of the infamous rule 34: namely, no matter what kind of pure internet business idea you've thought of, someone, somewhere has already tried it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Hey Guys, this is actually an early prerelease, so a little premature to announce a relaunch :)

We're doing some interesting things inside and out and will let Hacker News members of what's up sometime soon.

In between email me on Sumon [at] Snaptalent [dot] com

<comment><USER8> It's good you posted this here. I was about to slam on you for not letting me sign up and post my jobs online without contacting sales reps (I'm hiring, so if the price wasn't insane I was going to give it a shot.)

<comment><USER7> If you want to be one of the first companies to use it email me sumon [at] snaptalent [dot] com

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> How is this different from the other gazillion job boards?

<comment><USER10> Snaptalent feels more personal. (That's just the first thing I thought of.)

<comment><USER11> I would say that Google felt a little cuter, but the fact is it had better search results. I'm not really going to pay for something because it's more personal necessarily (although it helps). I still don't understand how this is differentiated?

<comment><USER7> Hey, thanks for the comment. We've identified a huge pain point, and have decided to go and build a deep solution, with a minimum first feature set. Expect the obvious differentiation with snaptalent flair to appear over subsequent iterations - homepage doesn't say anything yet

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> There is something not quite right with your form handling in the signup process. I had to refresh a few times to get through it. And the _next_ button should stand out more.

But, otherwise, very well done guys. The presentation is beautiful and the economics of the business are mouthwatering.

I have been toying with a (presumably) very similar plan, but I have been busy with other things and other schemes. Maybe I'll see you on the field. Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER13> Great idea. Appealing to employers who want to hire was more relevant 1 year ago. Now they are appealing to job seekers. The best part is that when the tide turns again, they can simply re-launch their original idea!

<comment><USER14> its probably still bad throughout. Why hire some fresh college kid who you have to teach everything, when for the same money you can get someone with experience who is desperate to find a job and will take a paycut?

<comment><USER13> That problem (or lack thereof) is not what they are addressing now. Companies who are hiring have little to complain about right now, because there are tons of candidates and little competition. Who does have stuff to complain about? Candidates. Who is going to be complaining the most? Recent college grads.

By shifting their focus, they are once again addressing a pain.

<comment><USER7> Spot on. You made some good points. Def email me on sumon [at] snaptalent [dot] com would love to catch up

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I thought their old idea had merit...what went wrong?

<comment><USER15> I think the last quote I got from them on it was, really roughly, "good idea; bad business."

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> The "Online College Career Fair" is brilliant. It tells you exactly what the site does in four words.

The only thing I don't like is that there isn't a screenshot gallery. I'm not going to make an account on a site like that unless I can see screenshots of what each company's page looks like, what my resume looks like, etc.

I want to know that A) The site is useful B) The site is trustworthy. Without being able to see what the interaction looks like I can't do that, so I'm not going to sign up. If you want me to put out, buy me a drink first; asking for all my information right away is too much too fast. I need to know more about what I get out of it.

<comment><USER7> Hey Alex, thanks for feedback. For sure - we didn't anticipate anyone seeing that page. So look out for iterations over the next few weeks. Hard to optimize when you didn't anticipate being "hacker newsed!"

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Checked out the site briefly today but still not sure how I feel about posting my whole resume online - I suppose that's the way technology is heading though. Would be cool if it was like Pandora or something and you could give recommended companies a thumbs up/down and then the site got better at finding companies you're interested in.

<comment><USER7> good feedback - working on it. Thanks

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I like the idea, but there are quite a few errors.

I had to try 3 times to add my degree to my profile. Furthermore, I keep getting internal server errors when browsing companies (happens whenever I look at a page other than 1).

</comment><comment><USER19> would be great to hear your story of why you decided to change model...?

<comment><USER20> I hope to write a post on this sometime in the near future. I'll be sure to post it here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> This hits home pretty well - I'm a recent grad looking for a job.

Just wondering, why did you guys decide to relaunch it with a different model? The original idea seemed good too.

</comment><comment><USER22> I try to enter my college as "LeTourneau University" but it defaults to Lasell college. WTF?

Also, firstname.lastname@example.com is bouncing back.

<comment><USER20> Sorry about that Drew, we'll look into it. We may have an incomplete list of schools. Like Sumon said earlier in the thread we didn't expect this to gain too much early attention.

I just created the email@example.com email so you should have no problem with that anymore. If there are any other issues feel free to email me directly - jamie at snaptalent

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Good stuff Sumon and the crew. Being able to change and adapt is key and seems like you guys got it down.

Go get 'em

</comment><comment><USER24> Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Please be the Google for Resumes.

</comment><comment><USER25> An an employer, I'm stumped. What do I do? Call?

</comment><comment><USER26> Looks very cool! Can you add hyperisland.se ?

</comment><comment><USER27> Well done guys!</comment>


How to break into making software for businesses? - <AUTHOR> Hey so if I'm a startup with a few great coders working together to make a business-internal communication platform for budding businesses, how can I market my software?  Door-to-door?  Just some general notions would be helpful.  I recently realized that a project I've had in mind for years would be a great fit for companies to communicate internally in a nice way via computer/mobile/screen.<p>Thanks, feel free to ask questions of clarification.  Your expertise and attention are appreciated. <comment><USER2> Find the kind of businesses that you want to help, and offer a free trial and coaching for 30 days. The early customers are there for you to learn from so you shouldn't expect them to pay you (yet.)

Building a lead database of the kinds of businesses you want to sell to is your first big sales challenge! There are databases out there, but it may be better to select a few great targets early on through simple market research (based on meetup or web presence or whatever) and cultivate personal connections.

Btw: The value proposition of your tool sounds like Slack. (Or, perhaps, Confluence, if you're more about document collaboration.) Step #1 is to understand and articulate how/why you're 10x better than the competition for the companies you target. Just by articulating that, you may come up with a good approach or inroad.

</comment><comment><USER3> As Slack/Skype and many others already exist you would need to find a compelling reason for businesses to adopt your offering instead and why it is worth the price. Then start by having a good website and use SEO so that the keywords of the problem you are solving mean people end up at your site. Give people a sign up form and then contact them to discuss what they are trying to do and how it might fit what you offer. Initial feedback should help you decide on your product viability and future changes.</comment>