The Roland TR-808: the drum machine that revolutionised music - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/mar/06/roland-tr-808-drum-machine-revolutionised-music <comment><USER2> I've owned a TR-606/TB-303, 2 TR-808s and currently own a TR-8. I bought my first 808 in college in 1998 for 750 bucks. Being a broke college student I sold it to pay for school. After college I bought another TR-808 for 700 in 2003 and kept it for 2 years. I grew bored of the sound, and had taken a decent enough sample set of it to replace it for most uses. The second 808 I had I modded to extend the decay of the kick drum to the point of self oscillation. I also bought a new row of buttons for it. Lastly I added a midi- DIN sync box. I had considered adding a pitch pot on the kick drum but prices were rising to the point that I thought was an 808 bubble(a princely sum of 1600 dollars). Now I see tr-808s on ebay for 3000+ and kick myself.

For anyone interested, the TR-8 does a good job emulating the TR-808/909 for the most part. I find the 808 cymbal(and to a lesser degree the hi-hat) sound nowhere near as good as the original and far less adjustable. The snares don't quite have the snap I hear in my 808 samples. It should be noted though that there was quite a bit of variation from unit to unit in the TR-808. My first 808 had a nice long 2-3 second kick decay, while the second one I owned was about .5 seconds(which is why I did the mod) the hi hat and cymbals are a slightly different pitch as well.

I bought the 7x7-TR8 expansion and while somewhat useful(I like the 707 snare) the 707/727 sounds rarely get any use. The expansion did include some new takes on the 909 kick, snare and non specific clap and snap sounds. I really like to play with the new snap sounds, as it is a cool noise generator effect. I haven't seen any news around this, but it seems silly for them not to do a TR-606/DR-55 expansion pack for the TR-8. I would have bought that over the 7X7 expansion.

There is a TR-808 documentary coming out soon 808themovie.com that will have tons of artist interviews who made their name with the 808. This article did a decent job of naming music that really used an 808, as there was one a few months ago that suggested mostly 909 tracks or tracks that may have used 808 samples sporadically in them. I get a bit pedantic about that because to me, you aren't using an 808 if you loaded a drum sampler with 808 sounds. Beastie Boys licensed to ill is a great example of an album made mostly with an 808(but synced up with a sequential circuits drumtraks and possibly a linndrum on one or 2 tracks) By the late 80s, most rap was made on sp-12/1200s and akai MPCs.

<comment><USER3> What I don't understand is why bother owning the hardware these days, other than personal taste? Surely the reproduction of an ancient hardware drum sequencer in today's software should be perfect.

I'm not criticising your preference for using hardware, that's your call. Some people still like to use vinyl, and I guess that's pretty cool. And some people still like to use hardware synths. And so on... but at the end of the day, unless you're doing something on the hardware that is impossible to do with software (e.g. some kinds of scratching could be argued to be impossible to reproduce exactly without vinyls and turntables), it seems to me the only reason to use a hardware 808 is basically personal preference.

Happy to be explained why I'm wrong though. Are there any quantifiable differences between a physical 808 and a software one?

<comment><USER4> > I'm not criticising your preference for using hardware, that's your call. > Some people still like to use vinyl, and I guess that's pretty cool.

The sound is incredibly hard to get right in some cases. You can simulate vinyl remarkably well with a timecode record or DJ controller and special software, but: the plugins have extremely limited range compared to the real thing and the controllers require the same investment as a turntable and timecode still needs the turntable. Nearly every used record store and thrift store has a pile of nearly-free records which are ideal for sampling: obscure stuff no one has heard of, ancient stuff that is no longer recognized by today's audience or may have even been obscure in its day.

As for preferring hardware, in my opinion it's the responsible thing to do. Because:

* Say you want to play a show. Are you going to bring a laptop in there and pray it doesn't do something insane, say... auto-discover the wifi, start installing updates during your gig? Or just crash because it has an undiscovered cooling problem an it's hotter than your usual environment with all those bodies dancing around?

* Software tends to cost money too. There are free options, but chances are you will want _something_ in your software setup that isn't free.

* Idiosyncrasies. Just like your audience wants to hear that vinyl sound, producers often want those hardware quirks. A lot of this amounts to fetishism, but sometimes there are more objective reasons.

* Dedicated functionality. Portable instruments. Playable instruments. Jamming on a PC keyboard does not give you the same response as jamming on instrument keys or pads, or whatever the instrument has that is designed to be played. You could buy a controller, but then you're back to buying hardware.

* Workflow is king. Nearly everything software needs a mouse these days. Or a dedicated hardware controller. It's a workflow-killer.

I learned the hard way that I can't produce very well with software. A few years ago I went with a nice portable piece of kit that does a little bit of everything from sampling to synthesis and mixing. When I did that everything changed drastically. I thought about music differently and really started to get my hands on it.

Hardware isn't that costly unless you need to have the most badass kit or a large setup. When my wish-list is complete, mine will have cost me about $1500. A decent laptop + Ableton Live + midi controller would be cost at least that much. That will take you far, but it's not an argument against just buying the hardware instead. Some people work better with software, and that's cool, but for anyone who works better with hardware, the word "preference" only works in the sense that "I would prefer not to have my hand chopped off." It probably goes both ways, but I couldn't tell you about that. ;)

<comment><USER5> > When my wish-list is complete, mine will have cost me about $1500.

Mind me asking what you use? :)

(and while i agree with the gist of your post -- well said! -- a minor nitpick is that even truly poor college students will probably have at least some sort of computer which could produce sound, making it tempting not to shell out for hardware, even if for some people [me included] work better with touchy feely knobs and sliders)

<comment><USER4> > Mind me asking what you use? :)

I find gear lists distasteful so I won't go into much detail about most things, but I will give you an idea of what I have going on.

The thing I mentioned in the post is the OP-1: [https://www.teenageengineering.com/products/op-1](https://www.teenageengineering.com/products/op-1) (built-in synths, samplers, mic, radio, 4-track, sequencers...) It's my workhorse.

I like sampling, so there's a turntable and cassette deck. I like sampling a _lot_ , so I'm getting another sampler.

I also have a subsynth to cover the areas the OP-1 synths don't. (They're very good, but each is specialized and has only 4 or 8 parameters.)

I also use a cheap (but not noisy) DJ mixer since I only need to mix two channels, and doing cuts with the crossfader when sampling is handy. The rest of it is cables, speakers, headphones and a few things I never use.

<comment><USER5> OK, thanks for the info! That OP-1 looks super fun, actually. I'll have to start saving up :)

<comment><USER4> Sure, no prob. BTW, if you're interested, you might want to drop by [http://operator-1.com/](http://operator-1.com/) which hosts the (unofficial) forums. The Teenage Engineering staff are known to browse and even make posts once in a blue moon.

It's expensive but well worth it for the people who click with it. I would recommend trying one before you buy it, especially if you can spend a good amount of time with it. I felt a little let down during my first week or so with it, but then it clicked and became instantly essential. It doesn't go that way for everyone, but it seems most people end up loving it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm going to break ranks and say the 909 was the far more revolutionary work horse. The 808 has a very 80s hip-hop / electro sound which was limiting. OTOH, the 909 has a very generalized sound with a strong kick and snare that has supported the bulk of EDM for the last 20+ years.

<comment><USER7> The 808 bass drum dominates UK dance music as an pitched, melodic sound. Distort it through a cheap desk, sample it with a couple of layers and you're away. Drum and bass and dubstep are both built on a foundation of 808s, even if you cant necessarily pick them out.

Here's a video tutorial of some producers walking you through this technique, with a real 808 and an EMU 6400 ultra sampler:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yheX4yrOOQI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yheX4yrOOQI)

Here's _Truly One_ by Origin Unknown, which uses two 808 samples a semitone apart so that they beat against each other, another of the many many 808 techniques:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNNg6UYoDTI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNNg6UYoDTI)

(What a record. Feel the rush!)

<comment><USER6> Interesting to see the 808 as the foundation of their final kick, but the final result is far from the natural 808 sound. (808 is still a sexy beast tho).

The 909 has been the standard kick for house, techno, et al for a long time with little need for modification.

In the hands of an expert, almost any drum machine can be amazing. For example, I never understood / liked old Alesis drum machines, but wow:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDkjNb7XKsI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDkjNb7XKsI)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The 808 has such a dominant sound in a mix that it almost ends up dictating the rest of the mix and sets such a powerful mood - it's no wonder that it formed the backbone of so many different dance genres. I always preferred the sound of the 909 growing up, but as I get older the 808 continues to stay relevant as a sound even after the 909 has started to sound a little stale. To this day I mentally catalog drum machines as "808-ish" or "909-ish".

The definitive 808 track for me has always been Polygon Window by The Dice Man off of the still absolutely amazing first Artificial Intelligence compilation album, one of the defining electronic music albums ever put together.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVp6NH59d3M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVp6NH59d3M)

<comment><USER9> Reminds me of the Aphex Twin "selected ambient recordings 1", was he rocking an 808? Hihats sound the same ...

<comment><USER10> If it helps, "The Dice Man" is really Aphex Twin. He later used "Polygon Window" as another alias for a couple albums.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The TR-808 is up there with samplers and the Amen Break in terms of defining modern music. If you have twenty minutes, there's a wonderful video explaining the Amen Break that I suggest everybody watch at least once:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SaFTm2bcac](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SaFTm2bcac)

<comment><USER12> IMO Amen was much more fleeting than the 808. Can't remember the last time I heard Amen in a mainstream track. Amen is super gritty and compressed which limits its style. 808 is an instrument, much more malleable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> If you're nostalgic for these kind of drum machines _and_ you're a fan of the old Nintendo Game'n'Watch, you need to check out the stuff Teenage Engineering is creating:

[https://www.teenageengineering.com/products/po](https://www.teenageengineering.com/products/po)

</comment><comment><USER14> There's a documentary about the 808 coming out this year: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIS-o_-- wqY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIS-o_--wqY)

Looks amazing.

<comment><USER15> Also a BBC radio story on it [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBvmnqeJWl4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBvmnqeJWl4)

No telling if it is any good though BBC is fairly reliable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> For what ever reason I never 'clicked' with the UX of the 808 or the 909. I ended up with the Alesis sr-16 and then later a drum sound module unit. For me, it wasn't until I could program it from my computer that I felt I could tap some of its expressiveness.

</comment><comment><USER17> There was/is a software version of said drum machine. Back in mac os8 days, it made me realize how odd it is to try and turn nobs with a mouse. It made me think the interface is hard to use on a computer, unless you had the original hardware and knew how to use it already. It seemed like there should be a better way.

But it was fun.

now touch version on ipad. I haven't tried it but I'm not convinced the knobs work better on touch than they would have on the computer.

[https://www.propellerheads.se/rebirth](https://www.propellerheads.se/rebirth)

<comment><USER6> Pros are using Tuna Knobs to add physical knobs to touch screens:

[http://www.djtechtools.com/2015/05/07/artist-gear-setup- jame...](http://www.djtechtools.com/2015/05/07/artist-gear-setup-james- zabiela/)

<comment><USER17> I had no idea those existed, That certainly would solve the problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I wrote about TR-808 when I did an article on drum machines in college newspaper a few years ago. ([http://iwarrior.uwaterloo.ca/2011/06/01/8761/legendary- drum-...](http://iwarrior.uwaterloo.ca/2011/06/01/8761/legendary-drum- machines/)) Hope you find it interesting.

</comment><comment><USER19> I found a TR808 in a garage sale 10 years ago. Nice memories! There is a cheaper alternative with a similar sound and programmation capabilities (althoughfar more cumbersome and no sound tweak possibilities) : the CR8000. All this gear is getting expensive these days, but maybe Roland will follow Korg's lead with the MS20 and rebuild TRs.

</comment><comment><USER20> It is still referenced frequently in rap music.

"That 808 bump makes you put your hands up." \- fly like a g6

<comment><USER2> D-Nice used to call himself the TR-808. I always thought that was weird since he never really used them in his music...

<comment><USER21> I was thinking the same. Ironically, their rivalry with Marley Marl and MC Shan was started with the song "The Bridge" which featured a prominent TR-808.

Here's Marley breaking down how he created the beat. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IxUXfhC8TI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IxUXfhC8TI)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I thought that was the machine behind some Prince tunes, but it's a Linn LM-1 not a TR808. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMad5DLHNOw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMad5DLHNOw).

Anyway good read.

</comment><comment><USER23> bass drum: 909 >>> 808 Not even close from techno perspective

<comment><USER2> I am definitely more of an 808 fan but on the surface I would agree that the 909 is a better machine in almost every way. The snare is great. The kick is nice and punchy, but while offering more knobs it's less adjustable. I think if the 909 offered the long kick the 808 has it would have a much larger place in more types of music. For me what kills the 909 is the cymbals and hi hats. They are definitely great for 120-140bpm music but if you slow the tempo to 80-90bpm the machine sounds disjointed and doesn't "flow". When the aria videos came out for the tr-8 the original engineer said that if he were building a new sampled drum machine today he would use the same hi hats and cymbal. I just happen to disagree with that decision. I wish they would have made the 909 100% analog or at least had an option for analog or samples. I think the 909 samples sound really bad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> That 808 tho

<comment><USER24> Blah blah blah...something HN worthy...blah blah blah</comment></comment>


Misfortune - <AUTHOR> https://www.tesla.com/blog/misfortune <comment><USER2> From Tesla's statement: _" contrasted against worldwide accident data, customers using Autopilot are statistically safer than those not using it at all"_

I think this is a foolish statement: fatal accidents in the US are 1.3 per 100M miles driven. Tesla reports autopilot has driven 100M miles. That's not enough data collected to draw this kind of conclusion.

There's a parallel here with software testing. I've seen bugs that happen 25% of the time, for example, and take 10 minutes to run a test. Our test guys have great intentions, but if they test 5 times and see no bug, they think the bug is gone. There is no instinctive understanding that they have insufficient data to draw a conclusion.

<comment><USER3> _I think this is a foolish statement: fatal accidents in the US are 1.3 per 100M miles driven. Tesla reports autopilot has driven 100M miles. That 's not enough data collected to draw this kind of conclusion._

Also, not all miles are equal. I'd hope that people are enabling Autopilot primarily while driving on straightish roads with good driving conditions -- in other words, at times when the rate of fatalities with a human driver is far less than 1.3 per 100M miles.

<comment><USER4> I thought most fatalities are on the highway during good driving conditions, where the road is so smooth and boring that humans lose attention, fall asleep or staring at their phones. Speed is much higher when driving on those roads and there is a bigger chance a car will rollover/bigger impact.

<comment><USER5> At least in Germany, driving on the Autobahn is about 3x to 4x safer than driving on other road types: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn#Safety](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn#Safety), not sure how it compares to the US, but "fast and boring roads" seem to be safer.

<comment><USER6> Germany is a unsuitable country for comparison, as they have many highways without speed limits. I would argue that this invalidates the boring part.

<comment><USER7> Seems you have never been to Germany ;-) No offense. Most highways have a speed limit only some have none.

And most of the highways that don't have a speed limit are quite narrow so while it is possible, no sane driver would do so.

If you look at highway A5 as an example. This highway has 8 lanes, which makes driving fast quite dull since you can not really feel the speed relative to the environment.

<comment><USER8> The figure I've seen is 50% of Autobahn is without speed limit, 25% with permanent limits (due to noise control, permanently high traffic volume or intersections) and 25% with temporary limits (depending on buildings works, weather, congestion). Of course the perception is probably worse because more people use the congested parts with speed limits, and due to the limits they spend more time on those parts...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I didn't really have a problem with Tesla or Autopilot's latest issues until I re-read this sentence:

>Autopilot was not operating as designed and as described to users: specifically, as a driver assistance system that maintains a vehicle's position in lane and adjusts the vehicle's speed to match surrounding traffic.

My problem is with Autopilot's branding - it's called AUTOPILOT.

The name isn't "Maintain Lane Position" or "Cruise Distance" or something boring that describes it better - it has AUTO in the name.

Typical drivers aren't airline pilots who complete thousands of hours in flight training and have heavily regulated schedules. We're just people who are busy and looking for solutions to our problems.

If Tesla doesn't want people to think Autopilot functions as crash avoidance/smart vehicle control/better than humans in all situations or blame Tesla for accidents (whether human or machine is at fault) it should come up with a less sexy name.

<comment><USER10> Isn't the plane's auto-pilot pretty much a pilot assistance system designed to keep the plane at the specified altitude and follow a straight line (heading bug on older systems, GPS coordinates in the flight plan on modern ones)?

It's not designed for collision avoidance, runway taxiing, emergency situations, short/soft field landings or departures. It's occasionally used for normal landings (according to [https://www.quora.com/How-often-are- commercial-flights-lande...](https://www.quora.com/How-often-are-commercial- flights-landed-using-autopilot)) but it doesn't seem prevalent.

<comment><USER11> _" The Avionic Flight Control System (AFCS) provides manual or automatic modes of control throughout the total flight envelope from take-off to landing."_

Lockheed L1011, 1972. Flight trials led to demonstration of a fully automated trans-continental flight, from rest to rest. Pilots did not touch the controls.

Incidentally also the only airliner which was certified for operational Cat IIIC autoland, with _zero_ visibility. Frequently used at London-heathrow but needed a ground-control radar to guide the pilots to the gate once the aircraft had stopped itself on the runway.

Aircraft autopilots are technically capable of completely controlling the flight but are restricted from doing so by technical provision ( e.g. lack of rearward-facing ILS / MLS for departure ) or regulatory caution ( e.g. not executing TCAS collision-resolution automatically, even though every FBW Airbus can do this ).

<comment><USER12> The technology exists, but there's reluctance to give it too much authority. That's changing, especially in the military.

Full-authority automated ground collision avoidance is now on many F-16 fighters. It's a retrofit, and 440 aircraft had been retrofitted by 2015. First avoided crash was in 2015.[1] Here's a test where the pilot goes into a hard turn and releases the controls, and the automated GCAS, at the last second, flips the plane upright and goes into a steep climb.[2] Because this is for fighters, it doesn't take over until it absolutely has to. The pilot can still fly low and zoom through mountain passes. The first users of this system, the Swedish air force, said "you can't fly any lower". It's a development of Lockheed's Skunk Works.

This technology is supposed to go into the F-35, but it's not in yet.

This may eventually filter down to commercial airliners, but they'd need more capable radars that can profile the ground. This is not GPS and map based; it's looking at the real world.

[1] [http://aviationweek.com/defense/ground-collision- avoidance-s...](http://aviationweek.com/defense/ground-collision-avoidance- system-saves-first-f-16-syria) [2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPr2LWctwYQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPr2LWctwYQ)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I haven't found US figures, but for the UK, motorway driving has a far lower fatality rate than non-motorway driving. "Although motorways carry around 21 per cent of traffic, they only account for 6 per cent of fatalities and 5 per cent of injured casualties. In 2015, the number of fatalities on motorways rose from 96 deaths to 110."[1] Since Tesla's "autopilot" is only rated for motorway (freeway) driving, it should be compared against motorway fatality rates, which are about a third of general driving rates. So a realistic estimate of the fatal accident rate for human freeway driving is maybe 0.3 per 100 million miles driven. Tesla is doing much worse than that.

To rate an automatic driving system, you want to look at accident rates, not fatality rates. Accident rates reflect how well the control system works. Fatality rates reflect crash survivability. Tesla needs to publish their crash data. That's going to be disclosed, because the NHTSA ordered Tesla to submit that information.

[1] [http://www.racfoundation.org/motoring- faqs/safety#a5](http://www.racfoundation.org/motoring-faqs/safety#a5)

<comment><USER13> I don't think it's fair to compare Uk and US figures. In the UK you actually have to make an effort to get a driver's license.

<comment><USER12> I've found New York State figures.[1] But they don't have a breakdown by fatal/nonfatal. Like the UK data, they show much lower accident rates on divided, limited access highways.

California has a fatality rate of 0.94 per 100 million miles traveled.[2] That's lower than the US average. But it's not broken down by freeway/non freeway. (You can request a login to query the database directly and download data, and it might be possible to compute freeway accident rates.)

[1] [https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/osss/highway- repo...](https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/osss/highway- repository/Table2_2014.pdf) [2] [https://www.chp.ca.gov/programs- services/services-informatio...](https://www.chp.ca.gov/programs- services/services-information/switrs-internet-statewide-integrated-traffic- records-system/switrs-2013-report)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I don't get why people are so eager to defend Tesla autopilot. We've had Andrew Ng call it irresponsible[1] and Li Fei Fei say she wouldn't let it drive with her family in the car[2]. These aren't anti-tech luddites, but people with a very good understanding of the current state of the art.

I love Tesla, but they are SO weak at taking criticism or realising when they make a mistake.

[1] [http://electrek.co/2016/05/30/google-deep-learning-andrew- ng...](http://electrek.co/2016/05/30/google-deep-learning-andrew-ng-tesla- autopilot-irresponsible/)

[2] [http://a16z.com/2016/06/29/feifei-li-a16z-professor-in- resid...](http://a16z.com/2016/06/29/feifei-li-a16z-professor-in-residence/) (you'll need to listen to the podcast though)

<comment><USER15> > I don't get why people are so eager to defend Tesla autopilot.

I think there's a strong recognition that self-driving vehicles, when they can be made to happen generally, will be a significant social good. And that it's tricky to get there unless society is willing to put _something_ out onto the streets.

It's taken fifty or more years of popular human-driven vehicles to get to the stage that most of our cars are pretty safe, and quite a lot of effort in improving road design too.

Eventually, though, I suspect it won't be solved until we redesign the roads. A significant part of rail safety is that the signalling system can sense whether there is a train on a stretch of line. (via the rather simple technique that the axles form an electrical connection between the two rails) Right now, it's as if we're trying to do autonomous traffic by an ant colony model -- independent agents that know nothing about each other except what they can sense. Which is always going to be harder than if the road can help them out too.

<comment><USER16> Rail safety and autonomy were designed without the use of advanced machine learning/computer vision that we have today. Also, redesigning highways seems like a rather expensive proposition: the US is already not investing enough in its existing infrastructure.

<comment><USER15> Tarmac / asphalt only has a service life of 26 years. (And resurfacing after 13 years.) So within the sort of timeframes governments are already used to for infrastructure construction (eg, HS2 is due for completion in 2033), almost all the road surfaces will already have been replaced anyway.

The trick is to do it economically. Do some of the major trucking routes first, as well as common city roads. ie, automate trucks and busses first. Especially as to begin with you'd probably want to exclude bicycles, horses, etc, so that means not doing every road.

But that's just speculation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is from July 6th BTW. There has since been a fair amount of back-and- forth on this between Musk and Stephen from Fortune. This episode has also granted us this particularly delightful AMA on reddit, wherein Stephen roundly ignores comments calling out the questionable links between recent Fortune coverage and the Koch's ongoing crusade against renewable energy: [https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/4rqa6q/hey_i_am_steph...](https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/4rqa6q/hey_i_am_stephen_gandel_a_senior_editor_at/)

<comment><USER14> I don't see why the Koch's campaign against electric cars and renewables is particularly relevant. Driverless cars can be powered by fossil fuels too.

The problem here is Tesla's Autodrive implementation. I think it is fair that questions are asked.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> "That Tesla Autopilot had been safely used in over 100 million miles [...] That contrasted against worldwide accident data, customers using Autopilot are statistically safer than those not using it at all."

That is such a weak statistical claim, that it border the disingenuous.

Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12082893](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12082893)

</comment><comment><USER19> Belligerent as usual. I wonder if Musk writes these himself.

edit: I'm being downvoted for this, but I wasn't using "belligerent" negatively here; I was wondering aloud whether Tesla's characteristically aggressive approach to damage control is the result of direct involvement from Musk. Doesn't seem that crazy to imagine that it is.

</comment><comment><USER20> Previous discussion here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12046444](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12046444)

</comment><comment><USER21> I don't get Tesla. What is so special about them? Why does everyone want one? If the demand for electric vehicles is so high, why hasn't all the big makers already started offering electric versions of their little hot hatches? That way you get an electric vehicle AND a build quality based on decades and decades of quality control engineering. Autopilot seems to be a curio rather than a drawcard, but again, surely the big makers, with access to billions of metric readouts from existing cars would be best place to develop AI to control them. Is it the Elon Musk factor? Seems to be a strange reason to buy a car. The fan factor might be justified for an Apple car...but I just don't get the buzz and hype around Tesla.

<comment><USER22> Have you ever driven one? They are nice cars that don't burn fossil fuels. The super-car level acceleration is a huge draw for some. The range is also more or less unmatched, as far as I know. Their software upgrade policy makes it feel like the car is always up-to-date with the latest stuff—something that I can't ever picture other car makers ever doing. Also you don't have to deal with car dealerships (and almost every encounter I've had with a car dealership has been negative).

Are they perfect cars? No. But the company operates in a fundamentally different manner than the rest of the auto industry, and that is exciting to some.

<comment><USER23> They are nice cars that burn fossil fuels somewhere else, preferably places where rich people and SV types do not live. As their PR spin after the recent "autopilot" fatality shows, they are just another car company with much better marketing.

<comment><USER24> Power plants are vastly more efficient than car engines.

<comment><USER23> I never said they were less efficient, but they do pollute. As to the ones that do not use fossil fuels, they are few and far between at the moment. The bulk of our electicity production is still gas a coal. Toronto may get a lot of green electricity from Quebec hydro, but please do not claim that this is anything but an outlier at the moment.

Electric cars are more efficient than ICE vehicles and they pollute less, but they are not powered by rainbows and dreams of utopia. Zero emmisions at the tailpipe is nice, but don't try to make the claim that these cars are not following that grand SV tradition of moving the negative externalities somewhere else so that someone else can pay the cost.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I think their points here are valid, but I must admit that it's starting to shake my confidence the way that, every time something bad happens, they instantly respond with such strident defensiveness.

</comment><comment><USER26> This is from 10 days ago. Why am I finding it at the top of HN _now_ ?

<comment><USER27> Because HN loves to bash on Tesla and since nothing negative has come out in the last ten days they felt the need to re-discuss a two week old article

<comment><USER28> every comment section on HN about tesla and musk in general was always extremely positive until they started to cover up their mistakes. seriously, these mistakes can result in governments outlawing autonomous driving outright.

<comment><USER26> "Cover up their mistakes"? Which part of the fact that fewer accidents occur with autopilot on, than when it's off, is arguable for you?

<comment><USER29> Tesla has not shown that that is the case, despite proclaiming so. I've commented enough in this thread already, but see [http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1478.html](http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1478.html)

I really would like to hear Tesla's response to this criticism of their apparently flawed statistical analysis.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Is there such a thing as the universally acknowledged definition of "car safety"? When you start combining the word "statistically" and "safe", I feel that the statement loses its scientific rigor. To me "safe" is a very vague term and it's mostly used in a subjective context. It makes me wonder if their assumption was really valid when they were testing this feature.

<comment><USER31> > Is there such a thing as the universally acknowledged definition of "car > safety"

you might try the "deaths per passenger mile" metric, or "deaths per million passenger-miles".

On that metric, long-distance air travel is very safe, as one trip transports hundreds of people a very long way, and motorcycles are at the other end of the scale.

See:

[http://www.bustle.com/articles/83287-are-trains-safer- than-p...](http://www.bustle.com/articles/83287-are-trains-safer-than-planes- statistics-are-clear-about-which-mode-of-transportation-is-safest)

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Labeling this a "statistical inevitability" obscures the issue. It seems clear from numerous demos posted to YouTube that some autopilot users are very comfortable taking their hands off the wheel. That's an outright violation of the TOS. Yet, lots of people do it. Some erroneously refer to it as "hands free" mode.[1] Some even _observe the fact that they 're not supposed to do it_ while doing it.[2]

The human factors here are tough. But safe design needs to account for human factors. The enthusiast community seems especially prone to over-trusting the autopilot, and that's something Tesla should be examining in their safeguards.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2geQ4hvvkNA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2geQ4hvvkNA)

[2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H1qUhpjE5M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H1qUhpjE5M)

</comment><comment><USER33> Once again this confirms Aaron Swartz was right about the news - [http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews](http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hatethenews)

</comment><comment><USER34> > there is no evidence to suggest that Autopilot was not operating as designed

Obviously, a dead man wouldn't be available to testify.

> That Tesla Autopilot had been safely used in over 100 million miles of > driving by tens of thousands of customers worldwide, with zero confirmed > fatalities and a wealth of internal data demonstrating safer, more > predictable vehicle control performance when the system is properly used.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statist...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics)

</comment><comment><USER35> > We self-insure against the risk of product liability claims, meaning that > any product liability claims will have to be paid from company funds, not by > insurance.

Why do they do this? I can understand it when government property is not insured, e.g. UK Civil Service, as the enterprise is so vast and general taxation can fill the gaps. I can also understand that some things can`t be insured, e.g. nuclear power plants, but why does Tesla `vertically integrate` insurance, particularly given that the product is statistically likely to kill someone in due course?

<comment><USER36> Many large corporations self-insure. If you have the assets to pay out expected claims, it makes sense to avoid paying premiums.

<comment><USER37> And even if you don't have the assets, you can self-insure the first few million USD, and use reinsurance for the rest.

That's what insurance companies do for risks with a long tail.

Think of it as buying car insurance with a very high excess. Those can be very cheap.

<comment><USER38> I have always wished that I could as an individual could reinsure my long tail risk. I am happy to take on the risk that I can afford to lose and just let me pass on the risk I can't.

<comment><USER39> If you chat with the right insurance agent, that might be possible. While it wouldn't go by the name 'reinsurance', look for a policy with a large deductible and a large maximum payout.

<comment><USER40> I recently did for a sports club. It wasn't an option.

Thing is, insurers live by the law of large numbers ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers)).

Cutting away the high risk, low payout parts of the insurance decreases the number of payouts significantly. That does mean variance in payouts goes up.

So, insurers will either need to find lots of new customers to get N up again, or relatively high amounts of capital to survive those high payouts.

If they think they cannot find those customers, they need more capital. To finance that, they need more income, which means charging you more, which means fewer customers, which means charging you even more, etc.

I'm sure you get that insurance through Lloyd's, but it wouldn't be cheap.

<comment><USER36> I'm fairly certain there are policies designed for high net worth individuals who can cover the first million in losses themselves but don't want to be exposed to long tail risk. I've definitely heard people talking about it, particularly for real estate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> It could end up in a legal historical litigation.

You Know the story with the microwave and the cat inside. The old ma that just wanted a Quick solution to dry its beloved pet.

That's the same thing with the guy driving in its Tesla with the Autopilot on. He just believed in the marketing campaing

</comment><comment><USER42> Tesla success depends on [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densit...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densities_of_common_energy_storage_materials)

</comment><comment><USER43> Of course, I sympathize with any casualties. However, this seems to be a question of responsibility in my eyes.

If you're not aware that potential dangers still exist when you step into a car, you shouldn't be driving the car (which is a shame as it's a fantastic car).

Sorry. Tesla is not at fault here - however much people want to call it that way.

The Model S is not some magical car designed by aliens. It's a machine. Problems may occur. We are not at autonomous-vehicle stage yet. However Autopilot is a damned comfortable upgrade compared to the old cruise control.

I can't believe people are blaming Mr Musk or the marketing department for people not taking responsibility or being careful when they get into a car. As they should in any car. Especially any car with autopilot like capabilities.

</comment><comment><USER44> While I agree that Tesla's article is not perfectly logical and its marketing campaign is not impeccable, I would like to demonstrate that people at Tesla Motors have a point.

1\. "STATISTICALLY SAFER" CUSTOMERS. Yes, this statement makes no sense. One fatal crash is not a large enough sample size to make such conclusion. However, this article was aimed not at Hacker News readers, but at average buyers. Most of them do not have a firm grasp of high school math, so for them "statistically safer" means just "don't worry." And indeed there are reasons for them to worry, given that independent news agencies continually publish hysterical things (It is a "a wake-up call!" "Reassess" self-driving cars! The crash "is raising safety concerns for everyone in Florida!" [1]). Tesla's response was nothing but a necessary defence. Or did you expect them to say, "You know, there are not enough data yet, so let's wait until 10 or so more people die, and then we will draw conclusions." This is much more logical, but I feel that customers wouldn't like it.

2\. WHY IT IS CALLED "AUTOPILOT." This is just marketing. They couldn't sell it under the name "The Beta Version Of The System That Keeps Your Vehicle In Lane As Long As You Keep Your Hands On The Steering Wheel And Are Ready To Regain Control At Any Moment™." And honestly, I do not think that even relatively stupid customers will just press the button and hope for the best without reading what the Autopilot is all about in advance.

In my opinion, it is now a difficult time for Tesla, and we should not criticise it for trying to stay afloat.

[1] [http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/07/how-the-media- screwed...](http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/07/how-the-media-screwed-up- the-fatal-tesla-accident)

EDIT: You might think that the phrase "trying to stay afloat" is unnecessary pathos, since a single crash, even coupled with a bunch of nonsense news articles, cannot lead to anything serious. However, the history shows it can. In 2000, Concorde crashed during takeoff, killing all people on board [2]. The event was caused by metal debris on the runway, not by some problem with the plane itself. Nevertheless, Concorde lost it reputation of one of the safest planes in the world. The passenger numbers plummeted, and Concorde retired three years later. That crash is the number one reason why it now takes 12 hours to get from Europe to America.

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590)

</comment><comment><USER45> Sue them for libel then?

</comment><comment><USER27> This is two weeks old and is on front page of HN for the first time on a sat night...a little late to the discussion</comment>


Trolling the Entire Internet - <AUTHOR> https://codeword.xyz/2017/03/15/that-time-i-trolled-the-entire-internet/ <comment><USER2> Easily 9.9 out of 10 people won't get sardonicism. My contribution was the Evil of Pippi Longstocking site, which aimed to prove that Pippi Longstocking is the devil. (Anybody remember the '90s?)

The Daily Show, which thought I was serious, invited me to do an interview with Mo Rocca. (They were disappointed to learn the site was a joke.)

I earned a headline in Sweden, and in the story Astrid Lindgren lamented being misunderstood (ha!).

The hate mail (and some fan mail) from Sweden was precious. I later added a section on the site called "Swedemail." You'd think that would tip people off, but nope.

Anyhoo, AOL took it down eventually. But it's still on archive.org, thankfully. Here's a later snapshot with the Swedemail section (complete with Barnes & Noble affiliate ads!) if anyone's interested. [http://web.archive.org/web/20021017095408/http://members.aol...](http://web.archive.org/web/20021017095408/http://members.aol.com/rtvdave/pippi.html)

<comment> nommm-nommm [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law)

>Poe's law is an Internet adage that states that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers or viewers as a sincere expression of the parodied views

Similar, there was also the Bert is Evil website from 1997, which attempted to "prove" the Seasame Street character Bert was evil. It contained a photo of Bert photoshopped with Osama Bin Laden which actually appeared on a sign at a pro-Bin Laden rally in Bangladesh. The sign holder simply printed out a picture they found on the web, unaware of who the character was or that the photo was a parody.

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

>After this photo was released on the news wires, the owners of Sesame Street, Sesame Workshop, raised the possibility of pursuing legal action against Ignacio. In response, he took down the "Bert is Evil" section of his website,[10]:736 also stating that he did not want to undermine the character in the eyes of children who watched Sesame Street. "I am doing this because I feel this has gotten too close to reality", he said.[11] Since the original Bert/Osama picture had been posted to Dennis Pozniak's mirror, he too was bombarded by the international media seeking interviews. As a result of all the attention Pozniak also closed his mirror.[12]

<comment><USER3> Back in the late nineties, I and a few coworkers called Gene Ray, the Time Cube guy. We were sure his site was parody. After a few minutes conversation, we concluded he was sincere. Therein lies the danger of extreme parody -- there are enough oddballs out there that you can't immediately discount something as parody.

<comment> nommm-nommm I want to believe the Flat Earth Society is parody... but I know a Flat Earther and he's totality serious. :-/

<comment><USER4> I wintered over in Antarctica last year, and regularly had people DM'ing me on Instagram (probably searched for the #antarctica hashtag) and asking if it was actually real, if it was really an ice wall, if there were "secret military blackout zones" etc. It was pretty funny. I always took time out to answer them, but often I'd have to block them once it became apparent they were never going to be convinced.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Fun read. The article mentions:

> _"e /n" sites (which was what blogs were sometimes called before the term > "blog" had gained wider adoption)_

Does 'e/n' stand for something? This 1999 post [0] calls it 'Everything and Nothing', but I can't find anything else on it, is that right? It says:

> _This was probably influenced by the number of EBG-like sites popping up > with the words "everything" or "nothing" in their name._

EBG?

I remember unabbreviated 'weblog' that seems all but gone now, but I've never come across 'e/n site' before.

Also, spoiler alert: the domain in question now redirects to a new Github repo with the original site's source. [1]

[0] - [http://www.hearye.org/1999/05/whats-an-en- site/](http://www.hearye.org/1999/05/whats-an-en-site/)

[1] - [https://github.com/rudism/NetAuthority](https://github.com/rudism/NetAuthority)

<comment><USER6> I got my start (in programming) building my first e/n site (god has it really been 18 years...). My personal understanding was that "e/n" stood for "everything/nothing". In my case, this was exactly correct.

It was a place for my friends to post stupid stuff, a place for me to experiment with css and php, build new "features" just for fun. It was an open playground in a new world. It was a lot of fun. I also just remembered how it was hosted. I became known as the neighborhood kid who collected old computers, so I ended up with a bunch of weird hardware. The site was originally hosted on a 75mhz intel something or another sitting behind a 133mhz linux frankenstein gateway in my bedroom. I remember getting mad at my internet provider when they claimed I had used up "all 10 gb of data", when I clearly had the bandwidth logs that showed it wasnt possible!

The other cool thing was connecting with other e/n site owners who were also doing their thing. Sometimes you'd collaborate or ping each other's APIs, other times participate in their own experiments. Thousands of little web sites with micro communities built on spaghetti code, almost all have certainly faded away through the various ways that tiny sites die: a web host gets sold, an upstream system upgrade botched but not addressed, a missed payment, an unpatched vulnerability. Maybe today the owner still maintains the domain name out of nostalgia. Shoutout to gyrate.org and sejje.net; Rest in peace, frikk.tk

<comment><USER7> > I remember getting mad at my internet provider when they claimed I had used > up "all 10 gb of data

Lots of data accounting systems 'back in the day' counted every packet as 1500 bytes. So if you send 1 million packets it was

         1,500 * 1,000,000 = 1.5GB

In reality the average packet size in 98 or so was much smaller

         600 * 350,000 = 210 MB
         1,500 * 650,000 = 975 MB
         Total = 1.185GB (a difference of 315MB)

[https://www.caida.org/research/traffic- analysis/pkt_size_dis...](https://www.caida.org/research/traffic- analysis/pkt_size_distribution/graphs.xml)

Depending on your packet profile you may have seen anywhere from a 20 to 50% overhead.

<comment><USER8> Which is ridiculous. I worked at an ISP in '99, and even back then it was just Apache log parsing with Perl (whether that be a custom script or some open source project written in Perl). Colocation usage was done by logging byte counters on switch ports.

This was a small independent ISP with maybe 3-4 sysadmins/network operations people. Not doing at least that much seems pretty rinky-dink to me. It was trivial to do that much.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> My favorite bit of trolling, from 2004, was the "I don't usually link to blonde jokes, because they are sexist, but this one was really funny..." Such a very clever bit of trolling.

A few bloggers (most of a feminist mindset) agreed to launch it together, and they linked to each other. Then several dozen other prominent bloggers joined in, linking to each other with text, which varied but basically stayed with the same theme: "Blonde jokes are sexist, so I don't usually promote them, but this one was really funny..."

So a person reading the first blog would click the link, and go to a second link where the text was again "I know, I know, I should not promote blonde jokes, they are sexist, but this one really made me laugh..." and you click again and again you read "This is the funniest blonde joke that I have ever read" and you click again and again you read "I hate blonde jokes, but this one made me laugh out loud..." and you click again...

How many times did you click, before you realized the joke was on you? The joke was pretty much a test of your social intelligence.

That joke really only worked in the blogosphere of 2000-2006, the era when the blogosphere was at its peak. I am not sure how anyone could recreate that joke now.

<comment> nommm-nommm That's what all the click bait advertisements you see at the bottom of articles do.

<comment><USER9> Not exactly. Those ads are functional. They eventually link to something, typically something they want to sell to you. And they don't go in a circle. Instead, the clickbait ads want to get you to go to a specific website. In the original "I don't usually link to blonde jokes, because they are sexist" if you clicked enough times you eventually came back to the website where you started. If you were very, very stupid, then that is when you realized that there was no blonde joke. The joke was on you. But I would guess that most people realized there was no blonde joke after they had clicked on maybe a dozen links or so.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Reminds me of the time when I was running a dating site (before dating sites were really a thing)

I released some untested code and wound up emailing every user with a huge email which was essentially a concatenation of every user's email content, personal information et al.

Much anger was unleashed.

<comment><USER11> Probably what, 15 misplaced characters?

Back in these days, dating sites and tested code both weren't things yet, IIRC.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Wow, ton of memories being dredged up by this post and the comments ... good times :)

I often think back to that time period. He mentions that there was no concept of social networks back then, but IMO he's totally wrong. I mean, obviously there weren't any social networks as they exist today, but between the message board communities, and the massively interlinked personal e/n blogs ... there very much was a social network. And it was decentralized. For a short time, it was turning out to be a beautiful thing, especially once RSS started gaining popularity.

I understand why myspace and facebook took all of that marketshare; it wasn't easy enough for the average person to put up their own site, and by the time things like wordpress became popular, every instance was so generic looking (despite templates) that it was tough to get anyone reading your stuff. There was a glimmer of hope with things like google's RSS reader, and Google's social graph API ([https://developers.google.com/social- graph/](https://developers.google.com/social-graph/)) ... the future could have been awesome, but alas

<comment><USER13> I think the Internet hasn't significantly changed since those days. I think the difference is that now it's on the publisher to get things in lots of places, vs before it was on the reader to aggregate all the sources that they cared about. You still have decentralized publishing, and you still have lots of disparate reading applications. News Aggregators like Something Awful, Slashdot and Fark have been superseded (for me) by Reddit and HN. IRC has been somewhat replaced by Slack, Gitter, Discord. AIM/MSN/ICQ has been replaced by a dozen other non-interoperable IM systems. BBS systems running on phpBB and other similar self-hosted tools are still massively popular. Email still chugs on, almost completely unchanged. I feel like Facebook solves the issue of a single, curated application platform that a user isn't expected to leave - what AOL/Prodigy/CompuServe used to do.

I agree, I preferred some of the old technologies, as they seemed more open with a lower barrier to entry, but I don't think the future is particularly bleak.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> > my massively inflated sense of self-importance from all of the blog posts, > links, phone calls, and emails that continued to pour in clouded my > judgement

This is brilliant insight. I appreciate this site contributed to better understanding what a reality without trust would look like.

</comment><comment><USER15> The code snipped at the end had me cracking up

<comment><USER16> I was mostly incredibly happy to see ancient perl code that didn't use prototypes or fail 'use strict'.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> It was so easy to register weird domain names back then. Our contribution was satan.com. The guy who owned the domain name eventually sold it and it goes nowhere now. For a few years in the late 90's the entire site was just a badly drawn MS Paint image:

[http://web.archive.org/web/19980625181403/http://www.satan.c...](http://web.archive.org/web/19980625181403/http://www.satan.com/)

Clicking on that was a mailto: link that sent mail to an internal mailing list that we had. Got some good laughs from it but we could never figure out what to do with it. The archives are still floating around somewhere...

</comment><comment><USER18> The internet was nothing if not hyper free speech back then.

So ironic that this shows up now, during the internet's "let's scrub out the fake news" phase.

</comment><comment><USER19> It was bittersweet to see Lester haines' name on that Register link. Lester passed away last summer -- he was an inspired writer and a jewel of the 21st century incarnation of The Register. The link must have been one of his early pieces and not up to his eventual standards.

</comment><comment><USER20> I love that Joe Rogan took the time to email you about this but didn't catch on that it was a joke

</comment><comment><USER21> [http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html](http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html)

"Should I be concerned about Dihydrogen Monoxide?"

classic

</comment><comment><USER22> This was a really fun read, thanks. I first made it onto the web in 1999, those were the days!

</comment><comment><USER23> I will respect HN when a site making similar fun of Islam hits the front page

</comment><comment><USER24> Wow..... Just went to the site he mentioned (rotten.com). I nearly threw up. I thought I had a decent stomach for stuff but that is fucked up. Sorry for the click bait sounding comment but I am disturbed after a few of the pics. I have no words.

<comment> nommm-nommm Wow, I'm surprised rotten.com is still up; it was the web's original shock site (that and goatse). I remember it being pretty viral around 1996. Well, as viral as a website could get in 1996.

I am going to go ahead and assume that there's much more terrible shit on the web nowadays. 1996's Rotten.com is probably pretty tame by today's standards.

Back on the original topic, I remember another early satire site that was taken seriously and created very real outrage, Bonsai Kitten.

<comment><USER25> >Wow, I'm surprised rotten.com is still up

Really? I'm sure the domain alone is a cash machine.

<comment> nommm-nommm Yes, I am surprised; the majority of the early web outside of major companies has either link rotted or turned into major companies. Especially those for niche topics.

Look at the top websites from before the turn of the century:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- intersect/wp/2014/12...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- intersect/wp/2014/12/15/from-lycos-to-ask-jeeves-to-facebook-tracking- the-20-most-popular-web-sites-every-year-since-1996/)

I doubt CompuServe.com or geocities.com is a cash machine.

That being said, rotten.com might actually be owned by a bigger parent company for all I know.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Well that site DEFINITELY falls foul of the Net Authority guidelines. Suggesting that NA isn't real, smh.</comment>


Print me a phone: new 3D printing techniques to embed electronics into products - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/node/21559593

<comment><USER2> What gets me excited about this, and surprisingly is not mentioned in the article, is that this is a step closer to 'true' self-replicating machines. A step beyond the current model of replicating the mechanical parts and putting in the electrical parts by hand.

Of course this still depends on this special pellet ink, and semiconductors are probably a long way off too, but maybe not as far as we think?

<comment><USER3> I agree. I'm of the opinion that the effects of low-cost additive manufacturing (or however you like to refer to it) is going to take a lot of people of surprise and happen much sooner than people think.

We're right at the beginning of this technology curve (low-cost, personal 3D printing). There doesn't seem to be any theoretical limits to stop people creating any consumer object at home for low cost whether it's food, medicine, clothes, electronics, vehicles or more 3D printers.

Personally I think this technology will revolutionize society like no other has before and I think it will totally cannibalize our producer/consumer based economy. We won't need to visit stores to obtain the goods we need. We therefore won't need the pyramid of other goods and services that support them.

So while the technology will lay waste to the jobs that employ most of the world's population making them cash poor, at the same time people will paradoxically be materially wealthy. All that is needed is enough land to provide the materials to feed these machines and their owners.

Forgive my soaring, breathless extrapolations but I currently can't see how these things won't come to pass. Hold on to your butts, this one's a real doozy.

<comment><USER4> Agreed. It will be as disruptive or more than the Information revolution.

 _> Personally I think this technology will revolutionize society like no other has before and I think it will totally cannibalize our producer/consumer based economy. We won't need to visit stores to obtain the goods we need. We therefore won't need the pyramid of other goods and services that support them._

Yes, supply chains will basically simplify into supplying the raw materials alone, and people keep stockpiles, and download designs from the Internet, make their own designs, or scan an already existing item into a virtual design.

My big fear is the IP industry will attempt to own most of the designs. Imagine by contrast what a fully free, open source world would look like, where people just buy the raw material and freely share their designs online. The progress would be more than exponential. But if Big IP tries to lock it all up under patent and copyright laws, then who knows...

<comment><USER3> Yeah I worry about that too. I think it might play out in a similar fashion to the entertainment industry where the legitimate companies are restricted, sued and legislated against while the illegal file sharers/manufacturers essentially continue unabated.

From the outside file sharing has a real image problem, where it is considered as only a self serving activity. That it's only teenage youths illegally ripping off copyrighted work and where any societal benefits are dismissed out of hand.

Hopefully 3D printing will have more popular support from society at large, and legislators will find it more difficult to pass laws that only favour the IP hounds. Fingers crossed.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is it ever worth working with recruiters? - <AUTHOR> Just having a scout around various job sites and 80% of jobs advertised are from recruiting companies (as you'd expect).
A lot of people's personal websites that act or contain their CV/resume will often state 'no recruiters'. Why is this?
I understand that with a lot of recruiters (even seemingly tech-oriented ones), there is a serious lack of understanding of the technology/skills required for a lot of roles just by the way their job ads are written, is that the reason? That, alongside not being able to do your own due-diligence on whichever company they're planning to hire you for?
Obviously applying to companies directly is preferable, but it's tricky to manually go out and find all suitable roles - and as I was saying, job sites are packed full of recruiters masking the company. Obviously there is SO Careers, the monthly HN hiring threads, etc.
Is it worth continuing the manual search or should I give in and work with some recruiters? <comment><USER2> Your mileage may massively vary, but it was a very beneficial path for me. The recruiter I choose to work with (exclusively) understands my boundaries and how I like to be represented.

While numbers are only part of the equation, they were the primary reason I partnered with a recruiter: the percentage increases per-role he has secured me over the last 3 placements are: 52%, 28%, 33%.

The recruiter is happy because they get a nice cut every time I move. I'm happy because they're very motivated to secure a high salary which often attracts a better title. The companies I work with have been pleased with the work I produce. With each role and each step up in responsibilities, I grow a strong CV too. It's been a good choice for me so far.

None of these "promotions" would have happened without the recruiter. They're an enigmatic salesman for my skill set. I've got imposter syndrome and am not assertive at all in negotiations. The recruiter was the missing part of the equation.

<comment><USER3> What about the company you move from ?

Are those happy to ?

Why did you decide to move ?

<comment><USER2> > What about the company you move from ? Are those happy to ?

I have worked (until my current role) solely in SMBs, 10 employees at most, where I would be the technical lead or authority. I've always left on good terms and hired + trained an appropriate replacement. Because these SMBs were often startups, I'd build the proof of concept / prototype, get bored when the "problem" was solved, then pass it off to someone who could build the full product better than I could. I proved business models and ideas so they could secure funding - that's really fun.

> Why did you decide to move ?

New challenges, better pay, different area of work - it's good to be diverse.

<comment><USER3> Wonderful reply, thanks :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I found my job through a recruiter. The reason was that I was looking for small companies, which were hard to find on Google. I searched through all the known channels (linkedin, job posting boards, forums, stackoverflow) but I could only find some ads from big companies. I contacted a recruiter that seemed decent, and they had a much bigger list of companies, including fun small companies!

The important thing is that you pick the right recruiter. Ignore all the recruiters that send you irrelevant spam, pick a recruiter that really cares and who doesn't send you unsollicited spam.

They set me up with a handful of interviews, they played them out against each other (so I could get a higher wage), they managed the contact with all the companies, and I ended up with a much higher salary than I ever expected, at a fun company!

</comment><comment><USER5> I place "No Recruiters" on my personal posting of my resume. This is because some less than scrupulous recruiting companies use bots and/or Google to find potential candidates. Remember: a recruiter gets paid when the position is filled, so they see cold calling and emailing people as advertising.

I have been placed in my jobs by recruiters nine out of the last ten positions (30 years). If you work with a recruiter it will become very apparent very quickly whether they understand your skill set and which positions match those skills. If you feel they aren't sending you on good interviews, dump them. There are many, many recruiting firms out there.

<comment><USER6> I feel this warrants a bit more explanation.

I like that you add "No recruiters" to your rèsumè, but do you then accept pitches from really high quality ones regardless (and use that line as a filter) _or_ do you seek out well-known and well-regarded recruiting firms to place you?

And if you find good recruiters, where do you find them?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's a big field. I'd recommend staying away from "outside" recruiters (those recruiting firms who have only an affiliate relationship with the company who is hiring). "Internal" or "embedded" recruiters, on the other hand, might be the way a company prefers to be contacted. They, in some cases, are the defacto HR department for the company.

Generally, as a rule of thumb: If a recruiter reaches out to you and masks the company's name, then they are likely an outsider who is trying to protect their potential commissions (and trying to force you to work with them instead of circumventing them). These guys (and gals) are pretty much worthless bottom feeders, and have nothing of value to offer you. In fact, they might do damage by blasting your resume to every company in silicon valley without your permission! Run away!! On the other hand, if a recruiter reaches out with the company name, and encourages you to interact with the founders directly or come to an event, etc then they might be legitimate. This latter group can open doors or fast-track you through the HR process and might give you an advantage over applying directly.

In general, I like to ask "what benefit do I receive by working with you instead of applying directly?" If they say something along the lines of "Well, I can get you a lunch with the CTO this week." then that recruiter might be worth dealing with. It's all about the value-proposition. If they don't offer you one, then don't waste your time.

<comment><USER6> I'll second this.

1\. Company ("internal") recruiters tend to be much more adept at assessing technical ability _and_ whether there is a mutually beneficial match for both the company and candidate.

2\. They also tend to be extremely helpful and available. They serve as your advocate through the entire process, and will try to get you the highest salary they can[1], and will negotiate on your behalf.

3\. They are motivated by incentives that align with yours, instead of e.g. the recruiters who spam you on LinkedIn, disguise their company and bottleneck the process.

Good recruiters fast track you where they can, are very frank and helpful about the company, continually make themselves available, explain everything in the process and are advocates for you.

It is wise to keep in contact with a recruiter if you get a no just because they can help you interview and get into a company a second time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> 90+% of recruiters are stupendous bozos.

The good percentage are _gold_.

Most of my best jobs have come via a recruiter.

YMMV.

<comment><USER9> Speaking as a former recruiter, the great majority of headhunters don't understand your profession or your skill set. They are set up in "boiler room" type environments where they are motivated by commission. That being said, like it or not, these people sometimes have access to openings that aren't public and established relationships with HR. Additionally, you may consider, that their job is to find you a position. If you think about it, working to find a new position can be a tremendous task. Why not outsource all that work to a competent professional. I think all recruiters should be judged on a case by case basis regardless if it's a third party agency or an internal recruiter. In other words, don't stereotype and discount an industry based on a bad experience. There is a reason that recruiting is a multibillion dollar industry. Find a good recruiter and work closely with them to make sure they understand your interests, abilities, boundries etc. Think of them like an employee that you guide to understand your best interests and develop a mutually beneficial relationship. They may help you find your dream job.

<comment><USER8> > They are set up in "boiler room" type environments where they are motivated > by commission.

I must say, my opinion promptly plummets when I can hear that they're clearly working from a _call centre_.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I have had some good experiences with recruiters, but I give time and preference to the ones that bring me the best opportunities while still considering my career objectives. If I don't like dealing with the recruiter on a personal level, then I don't give them priority.

I currently work with a recruiter who used to do programming. He understands what we do and provides some level of mentoring, however self-serving. I also found him to be incredibly understanding when I turned down several offers. Other recruiters in the past nearly ripped my head off for doing the same thing.

So, like anything else, when dealing with people you will get different results. I wouldn't close off a whole channel because of general anti- recruiter sentiment. Also, when an ad states "no recruiters", it could mean that they are not willing to pay the recruiter fees or that they want to have control over the candidates they see.

</comment><comment><USER11> > should I give in and work with some recruiters?

What's your current job-search bandwidth like? How effective are you at self- promotion? Are you able to directly connect with senior hiring executives?

If you have the time and basic sales ability, you may not need a headhunters help. But networking with the right the people is always a smart play. See if you can identify the few 'good' recruiters who truly understand your space.

*Pro-tip-- these guys are inundated by needy job seekers. Flip the script, ask them what positions they're looking to fill? How can you help them? Do they need any candidate referrals?

</comment><comment><USER3> I was in a similar situation a while ago, I hated it.

Anyway I am trying to fix part of the issue here: [http://siscia.github.io/open-hire/](http://siscia.github.io/open-hire/)

If you are interested feel free to write me :)

</comment><comment><USER12> The current comments cover this well, if you need more, I _strongly_ suggest [http://www.asktheheadhunter.com/](http://www.asktheheadhunter.com/) and in general there's a lot of great stuff on his site, like the related "Death by Lethal Reputation" ([http://www.asktheheadhunter.com/halethalrep.htm](http://www.asktheheadhunter.com/halethalrep.htm) about a company).

I'd also take a cue from his general advice about finding a new job: only work with recruiters you've specifically selected. Likely only the top in your area, e.g. in the '90s there were only 2 worth dealing with for normal jobs in the D.C. area.</comment>


YC Health Care - <AUTHOR>

In the land of the free, what prohibits YC or similar organizations from providing health care?<p>Is it not cost-effective?  Legal issues? <comment><USER2> There's no one to sell it to us. All the cos selling health insurance assume their customers are companies buying it for their employees.

</comment><comment><USER3> cost and overhead entanglement for short-term incubation, i'd guess.

<comment><AUTHOR> But what if it wasn't short-term. What if YC alumni decided to band together for health care?

A group of independent contractors is maybe simpler to think about than YC and the companies it produces.

It may be that health care being tied to employment is the real problem. The customer of the insurance companies are corporations, not people. That leaves two options: become a corporation or create an alternative means to get health care.

For the startup crowd, becoming a corporation is the obvious path. Founders may go without health care during the early days, but the ones really out of luck are independent contractors.

<comment><USER3> well, as an individual, you can buy healthcare. for example, ehealthinsurance.com. or you could join a group that helps negotiate cheaper healthcare, like the freelancers union.

there are definitely options, you don't need to be in a large company to have health insurance. its just standard for a company to help pay part or all of your insurance costs. its a perk for working at a big company that you don't get working freelance or at a small business.

<comment><AUTHOR> Individual rates can be ridiculous, organizations like the Freelancers Union may fix that.

Beyond the difference in cost per individual, when health care is tied to an employer it can be a deterrent from changing employers. For instance, an employee undergoing cancer treatment would be forced to stay with the current employer and insurance policy even if they received a better job offer.

There are some federal requirements for covering pre-existing conditions, but they do allow for a period of time where no coverage for those conditions is provided. Some states require immediate coverage of pre-existing conditions.

The original intent of this post wasn't to seek out risk-reduction in startups but to spark a discussion on how health care in the U.S. could be improved.

<comment><USER3> ah, well, you didn't word the post to line up with the intent :)

my personal healthcare improvement idea is this: make basic, universally necessary healthcare/tests/procedures/etc standardized, efficient, cheap to execute, and consequently free to all americans. this would create a standard, cheap, accessible, low-grade universal healthcare. i'm modeling this idea off of the army - their doctors are like robots with the commonplace procedures. they're done quickly, efficiently, and researched and standardized so they're cheap as hell to perform.

i'd like to think that this would make insurance substantially cheaper, since you wouldn't be tapping it for the mundane doctors visits -- only for the relative emergencies. the average healthy american wouldn't use their insurance except for once in a few years, making the premiums drop.

other than that, have the system work the same way. it would require a government investment, but so would any change to the system.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Where's purple? Or, how to plot colours properly on a computer screen - <AUTHOR> http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/colour/rainbow.html

<comment><USER2> Is this different from how the human mind "invents" the color magenta?

<comment><USER3> Yes, it's a different problem. Magenta requires at least two wavelengths of light, no matter what. Purple, on the other hand can _either_ be red + blue _or_ a single shorter-than-blue wavelength. Computer monitors only have the option of showing purple as red + blue, because there is no "purple" subpixel on a standard RGB display. This article is about how to mix the 3 RGB channels to stimulate your chromophores to simulate the effects of a single-wavelength color.

<comment><USER3> Edit: I meant "photoreceptors" not "chromophores".</comment></comment></comment>


Electronically signable contract that lives in a single PHP file - <AUTHOR> http://vileworks.com/contract/generator/ <comment><USER2> That's pretty cool. It would be even cooler if it weren't PHP, though.</comment>


(node and native binaries and Docker and ECS) with a single build command - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/khalidx/origin <comment><AUTHOR> "origin" is a starter boilerplate for building APIs, CLIs, or UIs.

It generates: \- a node module \- native binaries for win/mac/linux \- a docker image \- and optionally an ECS cluster ...from a simple Node TypeScript project, with a single build command.

The origin project just contains a boilerplate express app, that compiles to native binaries as well as a Docker image. The boilerplate contains an infrastructure as code config as well to get you deployed to an ECS cluster fast.

Supports running locally and deploying a production ready HTTPS containerized service rather quickly.

Can also be easily ported to target any cloud, or Lambda and other serverless runtimes.

This has greatly increased my productivity while building "microservices" or whatever they are called these days ;). Hope you can benefit and enjoy as well!

Thanks for reading.</comment>


David Allen – The Art of Getting Things Done (GTD) - <AUTHOR> https://tim.blog/2019/09/03/david-allen-getting-things-done/ <comment><USER2> It's my current read. Came here to find out what HN thinks of GTD.This older thread seems good to start with [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8628605](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8628605)

I've been using evernote and always thought its a powerful tool for personal organization but I didn't really know how to use it effectively. GTD was the missing link.</comment>